23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I've wondered for a while myself as to whether in code repositories like mud listing sites if fewer quality options is sometimes better than a larger number of options some of which may not be smart options.

Two examples:

Example A:
Codebase A: Latest SmaugFUSS
Codebase B: SMAUG 1.4

Example B:
Codebase A: tbaMUD -3.57
Codebase B: CircleMUD 3.1


In both examples I believe Codebase B is the better known codebase and because of that often the more heavily downloaded one to this day. I also strongly believe anyone opting to use Codebase B is doing themselves a disservice. I'm not saying MUDs that opened before Codebase A options existed are dumb for not porting to Codebase B so much as I see no reason why someone would intentionally opt to choose Codebase B for a new project if given the details of Codebase A and B and were asked to choose one over the other. This essentially leads to the dilemma of is listing old codebases which are arguably very poor choices to use for new projects alongside the "better" newer codebase actually harmful and counter-productive? I would never suggest removing them but I wonder if maybe there should be more Historic subdirectories which are captioned specifically that they are intended for reference only and not actually to generally be used for new projects.
23 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I happen to prefer the current setup that repositories like Mudbytes employ. That is, they are unbiased. Trying to assert across the board whether or not codebase Y is better than codebase X to someone is always dangerous considering how subjective the idea even is. What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers; nor their perceptions of what is or isn't quality or useful. That isn't to say I'm against people promoting particular codebases; I'm not. Rather, I think such promotion should be done by word of mouth (as it is currently) than forced upon people by a biased repository/listing.
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers

I fail to see any logical reason as to why someone would prefer stock Smaug over FUSS or stock Circle over tba.
23 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
Quote
What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers

I fail to see any logical reason as to why someone would prefer stock Smaug over FUSS or stock Circle over tba.

Your reaction is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.
23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Zeno said:
Quote
What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers

I fail to see any logical reason as to why someone would prefer stock Smaug over FUSS or stock Circle over tba.

Your reaction is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.


I think the difference is it's not 'really' so much about bias. I'm not suggesting we advertise SMAUG over ROM, but I am suggesting we advertise ROM 2.4b over ROM 1.0. One is an advancement upon the other, they're not each aimed at different goals their simply continuations.

tbaMUD is aimed at the people that used CircleMUD, FUSS is aimed at people that would have used SMAUG. CWG and AFKMUD, those are a whole other can of worms. CWG is a heavily modified Circle codebase, AFKMUD is a heavily modified SMAUG codebase. tbaMUD on the other hand is to Circle 3.1 as ROM 2.4b is to ROM 1.0 more or less, different developers, but still continuing the idea of CircleMUD without branching off or customizing so much as simply updating, mush like FUSS is a SMAUG with numerous bug-fixes, not one with numerous features added to it.
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Zeno said:
Quote
What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers

I fail to see any logical reason as to why someone would prefer stock Smaug over FUSS or stock Circle over tba.

Your reaction is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.



Because you think I'm biased? I've never even used tba.
23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Zeno said:
Lobotomy said:
Zeno said:
Quote
What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers

I fail to see any logical reason as to why someone would prefer stock Smaug over FUSS or stock Circle over tba.

Your reaction is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.



Because you think I'm biased? I've never even used tba.


No, but you did accept my payment to…oh wait that never happened…..*blushes*
23 Sep, 2008, Lobotomy wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Fizban said:
I think the difference is it's not 'really' so much about bias. I'm not suggesting we advertise SMAUG over ROM, but I am suggesting we advertise ROM 2.4b over ROM 1.0. One is an advancement upon the other, they're not each aimed at different goals their simply continuations.

tbaMUD is aimed at the people that used CircleMUD, FUSS is aimed at people that would have used SMAUG. CWG and AFKMUD, those are a whole other can of worms. CWG is a heavily modified Circle codebase, AFKMUD is a heavily modified SMAUG codebase. tbaMUD on the other hand is to Circle 3.1 as ROM 2.4b is to ROM 1.0 more or less, different developers, but still continuing the idea of CircleMUD without branching off or customizing so much as simply updating, mush like FUSS is a SMAUG with numerous bug-fixes, not one with numerous features added to it.

I see. Although, are SmaugFUSS and tbaMUD actual official continuations of Smaug and CircleMUD respectively? If not, it then strikes me as being deceptive for either one to be purported as the continuations of such projects; whether it be in conversation, by organization within the repository, or both.

Zeno said:
Because you think I'm biased? I've never even used tba.

Not empirically, no. My point is that people have varying preferences/logics at work in deciding on a codebase and that it doesn't always match or agree with that of others. Your statement of not understanding the logic of why someone would choose Smaug over FUSS or CircleMUD over tbaMud is an example of that disparity.
23 Sep, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Why would somebody choose stock SMAUG over the FUSS version? That's a serious question. I'm tempted to say that the reason would be either ignorance or victim of FUD, but I've never heard somebody defend stock over FUSS after having been acquainted with both. I have no opinion on CircleMUD vs. tbaMud because I'm not familiar enough with them.
23 Sep, 2008, Zeno wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Although, are SmaugFUSS and tbaMUD actual official continuations of Smaug and CircleMUD respectively?

SmaugFUSS is not maintained by the official Smaug team, but FUSS does contain contributions of the official Smaug team. But what does it matter? Smaug was officially released open-source to the public, aside from 10 year gap between releases there is nothing "official" being released. Smaug didn't fix their bugs/exploits in the last release, why are people going to prefer that?

Quote
Not empirically, no. My point is that people have varying preferences/logics at work in deciding on a codebase and that it doesn't always match or agree with that of others. Your statement of not understanding the logic of why someone would choose Smaug over FUSS or CircleMUD over tbaMud is an example of that disparity.

Quote
Why would somebody choose stock SMAUG over the FUSS version? That's a serious question.

This.
23 Sep, 2008, Hades_Kane wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
I think perhaps a guide or reference for people who might be starting their own MUD might be useful, with opinions in the guide or reference offered as to what codebase for which branch might be in their best interest, or at least what differences they offer.

If not that, then within the section for the codebase, maybe have a star or a "recommended" or something to that nature to denote that one codebase is generally accepted as having fewer bugs or being a more advanced version.

I can see this being a slippery slope, though, because once you start giving preferential treatment to anything over another, you start having allegations like TMC has over them giving preferential treatment to the MUDs that pay for it.

I can see the point that Fizban and others are making by trying to help people get a "better" version of a codebase, but I certainly see where Lobotomy is coming from in where that can create problems.
23 Sep, 2008, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I agree that the more general problem is complicated and needs careful treatment. But in the specific case of SMAUG vs. FUSS, what merits are there for stock? Again, a serious question because I'm earnestly curious.

For the general problem, I think a rather simple criterion that can help is active development. FUSS, for example, has a more publicly active and transparent development process whereas stock does not. In that sense it is the more actively developed codebase, and surely that deserves mention one way or another (if perhaps not a total obsolescence of stock).
23 Sep, 2008, Kayle wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
There already is a "Featured Code" in the repository. The Smaug Directory currently has SmaugFUSS 1.8 set as the Featured code. Although I think that needs updated to have 1.9 as the featured code. Since 1.8 isn't the latest release, but whatever. :P
23 Sep, 2008, quixadhal wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
What I would find useful when looking at various MUD codebases, is the date of the most recently edited source file in the codebase, rather than the date it was submitted to the archive. If the last time a human touched the code was 1996, that says quite a bit more than the fact that it was added to the archive in 2006.

Beyond that though, there are so many variables that people will use to like or dislike a given base, you couldn't possibly enumerate them all. I might well dislike a codebase because it uses too much ANSI color, even though the meat of the code is very clever. Usually, you browse quite a few bases, and set aside a few that gave a good impression. Then you dig into those and see if they suit your needs and fit your style. If not, you poke around more.
23 Sep, 2008, Sandi wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
I happen to prefer the current setup that repositories like Mudbytes employ. That is, they are unbiased. Trying to assert across the board whether or not codebase Y is better than codebase X to someone is always dangerous considering how subjective the idea even is. What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers; nor their perceptions of what is or isn't quality or useful. That isn't to say I'm against people promoting particular codebases; I'm not. Rather, I think such promotion should be done by word of mouth (as it is currently) than forced upon people by a biased repository/listing.

I agree with this in principle. In practice, I think it's doubly important.

However, except for a whacko like me that doesn't want OLC, there's no sane reason for a newbie to use Rom 2.4b6 over QuickMUD, and using ROM 2.4b4 or earlier would be a mistake as the differences are only bugfixes.

In MUSHes, a newbie's likely not to notice the differences between any of the patch releases in the last ten years. Me, I have specific reasons for using PennMUSH prior to 1.6, the original MUX, and Tiny 2.2.
23 Sep, 2008, Fizban wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
Lobotomy said:
I happen to prefer the current setup that repositories like Mudbytes employ. That is, they are unbiased. Trying to assert across the board whether or not codebase Y is better than codebase X to someone is always dangerous considering how subjective the idea even is. What a person prefers in a codebase will not always match up with what anyone else prefers; nor their perceptions of what is or isn't quality or useful. That isn't to say I'm against people promoting particular codebases; I'm not. Rather, I think such promotion should be done by word of mouth (as it is currently) than forced upon people by a biased repository/listing.

I agree with this in principle. In practice, I think it's doubly important.

However, except for a whacko like me that doesn't want OLC, there's no sane reason for a newbie to use Rom 2.4b6 over QuickMUD, and using ROM 2.4b4 or earlier would be a mistake as the differences are only bugfixes.

In MUSHes, a newbie's likely not to notice the differences between any of the patch releases in the last ten years. Me, I have specific reasons for using PennMUSH prior to 1.6, the original MUX, and Tiny 2.2.


Circle 3.0 has no OLC as well whereas tbaMUD does, which is the main reason in the Circle branch I feel many people who might not be disappointed with tbaMUD if they tried it would be disappointed with Circle.
23 Sep, 2008, Kline wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
If someone had the time (or would it be dedication?) it would be useful to have a table of features to compare against, out of the box. Ansi? OLC (command or menu based?)? Multi-classing? Etc. Given a chart that lays more general terms for specific features and compares them side by side would give new folks a good place of where to start based on their initial design goals or experience level. "Well I'd love a multi-class MUD but I don't know how to comfortably code that well…Are there any games that support it already I can just work off of?" etc
24 Sep, 2008, The_Fury wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Funny discussion especially seeing that when i submitted my code, in the descriptions i have tried to steer people away from earlier versions that are less stable or complete.

Quote
EldhaMUD V1.1

Description:
This was the first release of the EldhaMUD codebase. Uploaded for historic reasons. If considering using the EldhaMUD 1 series, 1.4 is the most stable and complete of them all.

EldhaMUD V1.4

Description:
This is the 4th and final release of the EldhaMUD 1 series codebase. This is the most complete and playable of all the releases. This release comes complete with all the areas, classes and races that were used in the game. Game features included:


I think people are generally smart enough to understand that latter versions of code are generally better than earlier version, its not like we see many people using say Rom1 but rather Rom2.4.6b. I think the confusion that leads some people to use Smaug over Fuss or Circle over TBA, or Rom2.4 over Quickmud is that they relate to the words Smaug, Circle, Rom and not understand that Fuss, TBA and Quickmud are more or less the same product with bug fixes. So that this is ultimately a branding issue, where some choose the name brand because that is all they are aware of.

One thing i think we can do is rather than point people towards using a codebase that they feel comfortable with or have played, would be to encourage them to design a game first then look for the best tools for the job.
24 Sep, 2008, Conner wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Why would somebody choose stock SMAUG over the FUSS version? That's a serious question. I'm tempted to say that the reason would be either ignorance or victim of FUD, but I've never heard somebody defend stock over FUSS after having been acquainted with both. I have no opinion on CircleMUD vs. tbaMud because I'm not familiar enough with them.

Oddly enough, I've encountered this a few times in the past when I tried to point a newbie coder/admin to FUSS and was told that they'd rather go through all the individual fixes manually so they could learn the code better. *shrug* Go figure.
24 Sep, 2008, Guest wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
The_Fury said:
I think people are generally smart enough to understand that latter versions of code are generally better than earlier version, its not like we see many people using say Rom1 but rather Rom2.4.6b. I think the confusion that leads some people to use Smaug over Fuss or Circle over TBA, or Rom2.4 over Quickmud is that they relate to the words Smaug, Circle, Rom and not understand that Fuss, TBA and Quickmud are more or less the same product with bug fixes. So that this is ultimately a branding issue, where some choose the name brand because that is all they are aware of.


Well at least in the case of SmaugFUSS, we have TRIED to keep the name intact by calling it SmaugFUSS. But getting people to retain the full name isn't as easy as it seems, and that's pretty obvious when lots of people shorthand it as just "FUSS" which isn't strictly a label for the Smaug code. The "FUSS" label applies to all 3 main branches the project maintains, but the Smaug portion gets a lot more attention than the two star wars branches.

Conner said:
DavidHaley said:
Why would somebody choose stock SMAUG over the FUSS version? That's a serious question. I'm tempted to say that the reason would be either ignorance or victim of FUD, but I've never heard somebody defend stock over FUSS after having been acquainted with both. I have no opinion on CircleMUD vs. tbaMud because I'm not familiar enough with them.

Oddly enough, I've encountered this a few times in the past when I tried to point a newbie coder/admin to FUSS and was told that they'd rather go through all the individual fixes manually so they could learn the code better. *shrug* Go figure.


Yep. That'd be the only reason I could see for someone to deliberately choose the old 1.4 over SmaugFUSS. They want to learn how things work. Applying bugfixes is a good way to go about that if you've had no other exposure to the code. But for most average people this is just a large waste of time that could be invested in other ways.
0.0/42