[MUD-Dev] MUD Wimping
rkoster at austin.rr.com
Wed Aug 2 22:59:39 New Zealand Standard Time 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Patrick Dughi
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 1:23 PM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: RE: [MUD-Dev] MUD Wimping
> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Raph Koster wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu
> > > [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> > > Dan Shiovitz
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 12:58 AM
> > > To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> > > Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] MUD Wimping
> > >
> > > Anyone have an example of a player base taking a largish
> code change well,
> > > and saying "man, that was a good change even if it hurt
> in the short
> > > term"?
> > Always add, never take away.
> > In other words, you can get away with all sorts of sweeping
> changes as long
> > as you always extend the capabilities of players, not
> reduce them. But if
> > you reduce them, then you're in trouble.
> > For smaller things, the "always add, never take away" rule
> works quite well.
> > There've been many examples of such in countless muds, it's
> a tactic known
> > to every mud admin I've ever discussed the topic with.
> That's not true. It works just as poorly as removing something,
> because they're both changes. Some players, somewhere will always
> complain about changes, no matter how good or bad they seem
> to you.
Again, I define "getting away with it" as "did it cost me continued growth?"
:) That means I can actually afford to lose people as long as the change
migth also bring in more than I lost.
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev