MUD Ratings

[jlsysinc.ix.netcom.com at ix.netcom.com]

I thought I'd cross this to the list.  I thought Nathan's analysis 
outline was rather interesting.  Is there any interest here
in forming some sort of review panel?  

Some ideas:
1) Perhaps some sort of rotating pool of volunteers could be established.

2) 3(?) volunteers would independently evaluate a mud and
the results would be averaged according to Nathan's categories.

3) The mud implementor would be the one submitting their mud for
review.

4) Results could be posted to some web enabled database somehwere
that would advertise it's purpose in rgma and in web search engines.

Any thoughts?

On 5 Mar 1998 20:54:38 GMT, Nathan Yospe spaketh...
>
>Richard Woolcock, is it true that on Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:02:01 -0800, you
>posted to rec.games.mud.admin:
>
>: Holly Sommer wrote:
>
>: > This is a continuation of the "Where are all the good MUDs" thread.
>
>: > How about this:
>
>: > Let's assemble a list of proposed qualities which are measurable
>: > (tangible), and those which are not measurable (intangible) which
>: > can be used to "rate" how good a MUD is.
>
>: > Tangible
>: > ========
>: > % of new areas (built on/for the MUD in question)
>
>: I'd rather call it 'originality and quality of the game world'.  This
>: could take into account not only the % of new areas, but also how well
>: they fit within the theme of the mud, how well balanced they are, how
>: interesting they are to look at, how accurate (can you actually climb
>: the tree in the room description?), and how well layed out (is the
>: desert next to a snow-covered plain?).
>
>How about this:
>
>I   ] Uniqueness of theme
> a.    in muds (has this book/movie/idea been done elsewhere?)
> b.    universally (has this idea been done as a book/movie?)
> c.    analysis of theme (just an objective analysis, not a critique,
>       eg: Fantasy theme with no underlying consistant design; cultures
>       represented are a mix of popular fictional fantasy, including an
>       offering from tolkein, three from dragonlance, and one from the
>       smurfs.;
>       or: Dark fantasy theme with an obviously celtic bent; incorporates
>       several elements of classical celtic mythology in a world modeled
>       after the real world northern ireland of the early tenth century.
> d.    Adherence to theme
>II  ] Uniqueness of areas/zones/regions/whatever
> a.    in actuality (have these areas appeared elsewhere? What percentage?)
> b.    in style (do these areas resemble other areas in layout? In
>       presentation? I have seen midgaard rewritten but otherwise
>       unchanged.)
> c.    in theme (might not really be valid, as this is covered above, but)
> d.    in challenge (can you do things in these areas that you can't do in
>       some other area on some other mud, eg solve a crime or build a
>       business)
>III ] Size of world
> a.    How vast is the world? (time to explore by foot, given max level)
> b.    How varied is the world? (do new areas feel exactly the same?)
> c.    How complex is the world? (level of detail locally)
> d.    How engrossing is the world? (subjective)
>IV  ] Literary content
> a.    Spelling
> b.    Grammar
> c.    Descriptiveness (A sword is here vs Silvery light draws the eyes to
>       a pure and flawless blade lying upon the grass. - dynamic
>       descriptions do count here, I would think.)
> d.    Literary quality (semi-subjective)
>V   ] Code originality
> a.    Does it feel like other muds?
> b.    Interface analysis
> c.    Flexibility of code as demonstrated by this mud (does it do things
>       that reflect a capable code base? Analysis, not rating.)
>VI  ] Administrative quality
> a.    Helpfulness
> b.    Professionality
> c.    Presence
>VII ] Player quality
> a.    Numbers
> b.    Communicativeness
> c.    Role playing, goal oriented, and social players makeup
> d.    Maturity (semi-subjective)
>VIII] Game style
> a.    Role playing analysis
> b.    Competition playing analysis
> c.    Socialization analysis
> d.    Goal playing analysis
> e.    Puzzle solving analysis
> f.    World crafting analysis
> g.    Social crafting analysis
> e.    Coding capacity analysis
> f.    Persistance of world
> g.    User affect on world
>IX  ] Other
> a.    license conformity
> b.    age
> c.    history
> d.    lineage
> e.    connectivity (reliability, speed)
> f.    stability
> g.    help system quality
>
>: > % of new code (built on/for the MUD in question)
>
>: % doesn't really mean that much, other than to show how much you have
>: added - in which case it might be better to list lines of code added.
>: More important would be how well the mud is coded from a players point
>: of view, including help files, rebustness of the mud, originality, etc.
>
>: > Intangible
>: > ==========
>: > Player satisfaction
>
>: In general, yes - but you have to remember that you'll never find a mud
>: where every player is happy.
>
>True. Some people prefer to be dissatisfied.
>
>: > Theme
>
>: I'm not sure if this would be intangible, as it should affect all aspects
>: of the mud, including the characters, mobs, equipment and the world itself.
>
>VERY tangible.
>
>: > Immortal responsiveness
>
>: In most cases yes.
>
>Also often tangible
>
>: > Things like Codebase and version are, of course important, and should
>: > be part of the overall information on a MUD given, but really shouldn't
>: > have anything to do with the quality of the MUD, I don't think.
>
>: Agreed, but they WILL affect who wants to play there.
>
>And ought to be listed.
>
>: > I'm sure everyone else has things which seem meritous to rating a MUD.
>: > Let's get some feedback here, and then perhaps an ad hoc committe can
>: > form, which will assign relative values to the various qualities, and
>: > we can come up with some kind of metrics to be applied to MUDs :)
>
>: > (yeah, call me ambitious ;)
>
>: Not at all :)  It shouldn't be very difficult to put together a list
>: of general features for specific muds.  I can think of a number of
>: anti-stockists out there who can be counted on to give pretty unbiased 
>: opinions.  I won't mention names, but if this 'good mud list' becomes
>: plausable then I will start contacting some of the people whom I'm in
>: regular email contact with (you know who you are ;)
>
>We do? Oh, yeah, we do. ;)
>-- 
>
>Nathan F. Yospe - Aimed High, Crashed Hard, In the Hanger, Back Flying Soon
>Jr Software Engineer, Textron Systems Division (On loan to Rocketdyne Tech)
>(Temporarily on Hold) Student, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Physics Dept.
>yospe#hawaii.edu nyospe#premier.mhpcc.af.mil http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe/
>

--
--
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Email:jlsysinc at nospam.ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\   "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato   /*\--