Mapping out an area won't give them all the mobprogs, mob stats and object stats; that would be a fair amount of work to replicate for an interesting area (the kind you would care about being stolen in the first place).

If the code is stock, and the areas were all written by someone else, then I don't think there's too much risk of the game distinguishing itself anyway :smirk:


True, although that would only apply if they created the area within the mud, as opposed to submitting a completed area.

As someone else suggested on MudBytes recently (I forget exactly where), muds that use their own file formats and/or support custom area building options would also result in area files that can't be simply copy&pasted into other muds.

Another tactic is to design your own extensive backstory, copyrighted to you and licenced to your builders, and require areas to be tied in with it in such a way that they become derivative works. While your builders would still own their areas, they'd be forced to modify them (to remove all references to your theme) before using them elsewhere, much like (for example) Gemstone had to do when they lost their licence to ICE's Shadow World setting.

You don't have to strip a builder of their legal rights just to prevent your areas being cloned elsewhere.

That doesn't make much sense… what is it that you're trying to say? Are you saying that a game is worthless if the areas were written by people other than the owner?


I wasn't talking about the builder, but rather lnewlfe's note that another MUD can always steal the area by mapping it.


I didn't say you had to. I just said that it's not completely unreasonable in some situations to ask for exclusivity.

Then read it in a way in which it does make sense.

Thanks for a wonderfully helpful and enlightening comment, Tyche. Your wisdom is as always very appreciated. :rolleyes:
(Maybe I should try reading your comment in a way in which it is actually helpful, too.)

You are welcome.

Yes.

David, David, David…. Do you really expect us to believe you can't parse an English sentence?

I can only but repeat my question to you, but I already asked it so I would suggest you just read it again and either answer it (i.e., did I interpret the statement correctly) or clarify it (i.e., did I misinterpret the statement).

Here's an extra bit of help for you, Sandi, since several times you haven't well read what I posted and have even occasionally egregiously misunderstood. My question was: "Are you saying that a game is worthless if the areas were written by people other than the owner?" What I am asking, in other words, is if KaVir is claiming that areas alone are not sufficient to make an interesting game, when added to a codebase that is otherwise freely downloadable. Note that there are many relatively complex codebases out there that provide an awful lot of flexibility via non-core "programming", so "stock codebase" is not necessarily something simple and stupid.

So Sandi, Sandi, Sandi… Do you really think I am asking stupid questions, without having at all thought about the issue at hand?

For what it's worth, depending on the code base being used, I would generally rather play a MUD running stock code with a large, well-written collection of areas than a MUD that has been modified to include a lot of new features and cool things but contains only the stock areas or areas that are of very poor quality.

No, I'm saying exactly what I wrote - that a mud is unlikely to distinguish itself from other muds if the code is stock and the areas were all written by someone else. Perhaps there are some exceptions, but I don't recall seeing any muds that really stood out from the competition in which the owner didn't pull out their finger and actually contribute something themselves.





I never claimed otherwise. I was just making a general point within the context of the thread. Did I just run over your dog or something?

"Someone else" compared to whom, the person running the MUD, the team of people running the MUD, or…? You say just "the owner" – surely you are not excluding the possibility of a team coming together, some people having expertise in one area (say, coding) and others elsewhere (say, building)?

I guess I'm not sure why you think that having an owner who is not the primary builder, or even not a builder at all, is some indication of a bad MUD.

By the way, my original statement wasn't that every single area was written by people other than the owner (even assuming for the sake of the argument that it matters). It was merely that if your code is stock, then your distinguishing features are your areas, and I can tack on that how you run the game matters too. (Speaking of, that is a fine example of how an owner or even an entire team can contribute without doing large-scale building work.)

Those other words are very different words.


No.

I think you give it a lot of thought. :wink:


Seriously, I'm not sure what to think. What I know is that once you've put your foot in it, you go to any lengths to proclaim your innocence and try to prove you were right in the first place (and that's rather painful to watch), and in the process of making these remarks you ruffle a number of feathers.
Perhaps you are posting without thinking, perhaps you think you're being clever, perhaps you are just not very good at expressing yourself, but I would ask that you put a bit more work into the quality of your posts, rather than the quantity.

QFT.

Original areas make a far greater impression on me than original coding. Or rather they did when I actually played these things. However it became fairly clear to me after running Alsherok that most players prefer boring stock area clones over original work, as our originality was cited by everyone we managed to be able to ask as a reason for why they decided to leave - usually phrased as "it's not familiar enough".

Those are probably the same people that complained our areas "were not original enough". :rolleyes:

Yes, I wouldn't doubt that one bit. Then they all ran off to WoW and nobody's heard from them since. I think the Orc ate them.

A builder is just as capable as writing a license as a MUD owner….

But all of this is moot. Unless you're going to be silly enough to bring a lawyer to bear (which you won't), then it has to be taken on good will.



And I'm not entirely sure why this conversation crossed from a perfectly on-topic thread to this, where it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever. The fact that the in-game currency of Second Life is as valuable as real currency and brings the legal ramifications of such into play doesn't have much to do with MUD builders and owners who work in completely different conditions.

If your in-game items have a standard RL-equivalent and are freely interchangeable, which isn't something I've actually seen in a MUD, then it's relevant.

You seem to be the main person understanding my post, so, err, yeah. :smile: KaVir in particular understood exactly what I was asking him, which was after all the desired outcome – when asking him a question, I hope to obtain a useful answer to continue dialogue, which is precisely what happened. You, instead, for some reason seem to always assume I either (a) mean the stupidest possible thing or (b) have some evil, nefarious trolling agenda. Contrary to what you seem to expect (perhaps your experiences are sufficiently different from mine), sometimes when somebody asks for a clarification, they're actually earnestly asking for a clarification. Your use of words like "innocence" suggest that you believe I have some kind of vast conspiracy going on here and that every post ("quantity") is somehow moving towards advancing that.

For what it's worth, I don't think my later words are saying something terribly different (if different at all) than my previous words. You seem to have some kind of David-filter going on that takes things I say and does something loopy to them. I guess Crat is right about that much.

Personally, I find it kind of interesting that several people have chimed up in support of my original claim, despite it somehow being interpreted as something completely nutty by yourself (including calling into question my ability to parse English sentences, or my willingness to have some evil, dastardly intent in somehow incorrectly parsing them).

Now, unless you intend to drag this out over another thread, could we please try to move future posts to PMs; if you think I am somehow being deliberately obtuse I am sure that the moderators would be happy to hear your complaints over PMs, and if you would rather speak to me I would be more than happy to clarify things in PMs as well. For somebody who seems to be so opposed to condescension etc., I'm sure you will understand my request to move future such posts away from the "main channel".

I don't, and have never suggested otherwise. What I said is that if the owners don't do any coding or building, it's unlikely they'll distinguish themselves from other muds. That view is based what I've observed - every mud I've seen that really stands out from the competition has owners who lead by example.

However this is really not worth arguing about. So I will withdraw my earlier statement and concede the possibility that there may be hundreds of highly original and innovative stock muds out there, on which the owners sit on their collective backsides, eating chips and watching the pretty text flow past. Perhaps they're just really well hidden away, because the owners haven't gotten around to advertising yet.

I agree whole heartidly on this. I've not experienced a MUD yet where the Owner/s do no coding or building at all, but the staff beneath them do. To add to "owners that lead by example", I believe that the involvement the Owner/s have in their game sets the tone for the rest of the staff. I know personally I am not going to offer my free time to someone who does little for their own game, it gives me the impression they don't really care that much and that they are more interested in the title and power. That's just my experience though.

Well, ok. We were talking specifically about builders, so it sounded like you were making a claim about the discussion in the context we were having it. Thanks for clearing that up.

The MUD I code for is a fairly good example of a counterclaim, at least it was back in its day. The owner didn't do a whole lot other than administrate things; the head builder and head coder did most of the "real work". But that's sort of what my point is: coders will tend to be highly biased in thinking that the only "real work" is code, and then they'll think about building; all the rest tends to get left by the wayside. The MUD with the best code in the world and with stupendous areas will not necessarily succeed unless there is a coherent management of some kind or another. Just look at professional games: the "real work" of coding and building is only just the beginning when it comes to running the game.

Note that I'm not actually disagreeing that it is better when the owner actually does something. I just disagree that the only "something" to be done is to write code or build areas. Going back to the original evil & nefarious claim that started this, the point I was trying to make is that areas can be quite important to a game, enough so that they are the main distinguishing factor, making it at least not entirely unreasonable to want to protect them with exclusivity.