[MUD-Dev] code base inquiry

David Bennett ddt at discworld.imaginary.com
Tue Feb 15 21:57:11 CET 2000

On 2/15/00, at 8:40 PM, MichelleThompson wrote: 

>Simply put:  stock muds are a good place to begin.  It is all well and
fine to
>say that there are too many of them about, and that they are not any good,
>but people have to start somewhere.  My husband and I both had our first
>on muds derived from stock (different muds).  Since then we have started
>developing an original code base (non-commercial).  We could not have
>there without having had our roots in stock muds.   I will not begrudge
>existence of another 200 stock muds that did nothing more than make a
>mud while my husband and I were on our separate muds learning.   Heck, it
>not begrudge the existence of 3000 stock muds.  Because of the stock
>phenomenon, we are where we are now.  Now that we are not planning on
running a
>stock mud again, I will not turn around and say that all stock muds suck
>that there are too many of them. 

There is an article on this line in Imaginary Realities:

It takes a slightly different take, saying that it is quite possible to
make a nice unique world from almost purely stock areas if you spend a bit
of time laying things out.

I also believe that stock muds are not nessessarily bad.  A stock Diku is
actually pretty good, until you compare it with a more unique driver...
When I first started playing on Boiling Mud (at Melbourne uni in Australia)
it was no where near as sophisticated as todays stock muds...  That mud was
considered good and unique at the time.  Bits of the code from there were
released in the 2.4.5 (or previous one I forget which) mudlib.

I think mud technology has moved so far and we have seen so much that we
look at stock muds and see them as boring and unoriginal, we forget what it
would be like to play their for the first time.

Good luck!

MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu

More information about the mud-dev-archive mailing list