I wrote this bit over on /r/mud and got some decent feedback and was wondering what a bigger MUD community thought of it.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MUD/comments/157...

I don't see where you find a paradigm difference, muds are exactlty like mmo on the points you mention.
Some are poorly designed, some are greatly designed.

What MMO have you played that has such wholly heterogeneous content as 99% of MUDs. It's the heart of how most MUDs work that they have volunteer builders working in vacuums from each other build areas that get, for the most part, just stack next to each other in no certain order. It's a problem of designing first or building first and I've played maybe a handful of MUDs over the years that actually had a goal, a flow, a progression to their area, item, and skill layout instead of just constantly tacking onto the end.

I think the concept of percentage-based skill progression on the whole is outmoded, I think "practices" are outmoded. I can think of two MMOs that currently use %-based progression: Runescape and Fallen Earth, and Runescape started as a MUD.

Still this is not a paradigm, mud could work exactly like a mmo on those points if they had the ressources to do it. Some actually have coherent worlds and are built from scratch, so your points are moot.

And what you think about practice % is enterily your opinion and nothing else.
Again a lot of muds use totally differents skill system or skills tree etc …just a matter of gameplay choice. You don't like them ok, but there are as many differences between a mud and a mmo than there are between two mmo or two muds.
So not a paradigm either.

Basically your points are entirely based of the hundred basic muds that use a unmodified merc/rom/diku whatever engine and a patchwork of areas snippet. Yes those sucks..you don't say ?

Very many games have an "autoset" feature that allows a builder to set a level on an item, type in the command, and based on the level, set the stats on the item. End of Time uses that, and we've made allowances for other aspects of the items too, including wear slot, weapon type, and even material. Our autoset feature has been expanded to account for class archetypes, rarity of the item (quest/shop/normal mob drop) etc. The game stays consistent throughout based on this, along with material having a general tie in with level too (no silver swords that are worse than a wooden one). With a high ranking Admin to oversee things like this in a game, there's no reason why a game wouldn't have consistent and sensible equipment.


Same as above. Plenty of games do this.


That's completely a matter of opinion as another posted stated. This skill model is rather common, but plenty of games have completely different or even unique bends to this model. We, for example, have skill trees, combination skills, and plenty of other things like that, where mastering skills leads to unlocking of new skills, and in many instances, mastering two skills may unlock a new skill that is combination or an interesting combination of them. We also the ability to stack the use of skills to create new combinations as well.


Many players like to see the rate of their dodging. Likewise, many games have different "spam level" filters that determine how much of the non-essential information they see. We are planning such a filter. But again, this is a matter of personal preference. As a player, I don't mind seeing a wall of parry/dodge/shield block if I've spent significant time working to improve those skills. Likewise, different scenarios (spell ups, equipment, etc) may affect the rate of this, and it's easier to track if you can actually see how well you are doing.


Plenty of games do this as well. Many of the skills on our game, even the "stock" ones of bash, trip, kick, have all been rewritten to have a combination of different stats they base off of and secondary affects that are unique to the skill. This isn't just true of my game, but many others as well.


That's what I play D&D for :p I really wouldn't be interested in a game where basic things like that had to have skills associated with it. This boils down to a matter of preference as well.


It honestly seems like to me that the category of MUDs that you speak of here are more specifically a reference to stock games, or poorly made games. End of Time is a completely hobby/volunteer type of game, but even in such a setting, there's no reason for a lack of consistency in areas. Even if you have a team of a dozen builders (one can dream!), one person overseeing and coordinating the building efforts (and checking for area consistency before linking of an area) is all it takes to have a consistent, cohesive, and sensible work. We plan out entire chunks of the world (even if sometimes it's as vague as "a dungeon type of area, maybe a cave or something" or "a pass through forest type of area"). And along with world and area consistency with regards to placement, a natural progression of level and difficulty are also built into the way the world is mapped out. Those games that just have people build anything and throw it just anywhere aren't a good representation of the hobby overall.

These may be some things to consider, anyhow.

Like I've always said to the MMOG developers I've worked with over the years, MUD's were way ahead of their time. They have done and can do anything. I like to emphasize the "have done" a lot to game developers who think they are being inventive as opposed to innovative. :devil:

You appear to be describing the difference between hobbyist projects that evolve over time with different creators coming and going and professional games that are developed by teams working to a planned design.

It's got nothing to do with MMOs vs MUDs.