[Neranz Laverani]

I have been pondering this question after reading the discussion in the Tavern of the Blue Hand.

If someone develops a codebase, is it better to include a stock world, just a couple of rooms, or somewhere in between?

Pros of a stock world:
1.)  Some players feel comfortable in stock areas.
2.)  It allows administrators to get a mud up more quickly.

Cons:
1.)  It is difficult to remove areas without upsetting players.  Terraforming plans are met with resistance.
2.)  Stock areas are usally poorly written.
3.)  A mud using stock areas looks just like another mud using stock areas.

Do codebase creators help administrators by offering a premade world?  Would it be better to offer just enough of a world to illustrate the capabilities of the codebase?

Right now I am undecided, but I am leaning towards just providing samples.

Originally Posted by If you give a man a fish, you feed him for today, and if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for life.

This would force mud administrators to make their own world though.  I am not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.

Thank you,
Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

[Brianna]

hmmm..... perhaps offer two versions of the codebase, one with a stock world and one with only the minimal rooms to allow more experienced admins set up an original world.

Being as we are undergoing changes of this nature where I am head builder, I would like to hear coders opinions on this.

Would one or the other be better or is it easily done to provide one with a stock world and one without?

[Neranz Laverani]

I don't think there would be any point of offering two versions (if not distributing a world is a good thing). If the stock world is available, it will be used by the same people.

Offering a stock world and making it so that the mud doesn't crash if you rip it out would make more sense (if distributing a world is a good thing).

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

[Orion Elder]

I can only give you my perspective on this subject... from the point of view of a newbie admin and a player, stock can be good. It gives familiarity.

My personal opinion, however, is that giving them the minimal amount of areas is a good thing. If they truly want stock areas they can go find them. But, it will limit on how many out of the box MUDs show up.

The easiest way to get a codebase disliked is to make it easy enough to throw up another out of the box, not a single change made, ready to run, newbie MUD.

But, as I said. Just my opinion.

[Crystal]

I really don't mind a codebase coming with or without stock areas personally. If it comes with, then it could be a starting point for a MUD. And it's not hard to take them out, which is what we did on our MUD. I really don't know why people like keeping stock areas in personally.

If a codebase doesn't come with but the necessities, then I'm indifferent. A little less work, but not by much.

I'm not sure how possible it is, but what would you think of having a codebase with or without a stock world, and then having the ability to download OTHER premade areas? It's not something I'd do but it's at least a thought.

[Tavish]

From the admin perspective I would say that at least a few stock areas, no matter how poorly written description wise, should be included. If the codebase differs from whats out there already in terms of mechanics by a good stretch, giving the admins a set of prebalanced mobs, items things of that nature would be extremely benefical.
Documentation goes a long way, but being able to sit down, engage in a couple fights, test out some of the more unique features is very handy.

[Dre]

Heya,

I don't really get the question. Seeing it from a newbie-admin point of view it's handy to have stock areas. They show examples of how you can build etc. They offer soom playing room for testers and people who want to play already.

For more experienced admins, they offer testing space and places for people to play in. If that's not how you want your mud to look like, you just take them out and write your own areas.

Greetings Dre

[Neranz Laverani]

I keep reading that in some codebases, you cannot just rip them out. Of course, the answer to that is to make sure that the mud is not dependent on the area's existance and to not include mobiles and objects from one area in another. Problems could arise if an administrator yanks the area supplying the mobs and objects.

One of the advantages of not supplying large amount of stock areas is keeping muds with the same codebase from looking exactly alike. Whether tons of muds with the same codebase look alike may or may not be an issue with administrators who want to start a mud. However, if you put a lot of time into developing a codebase, do you want people to log onto your mud and so "oh its just another XYZ mud?" I think this would sting some especially when you put in the original effort that the other XYZ muds reply upon.

One possible answer is to create stock areas that are different from the areas you are using for your implementation of the mud. That means developing a codebase, building a world, and building a second world though. That is what I am trying to decide, whether to build a second world to distribute, or just enough to show balance and examples.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

[Burr]

Stock muds are the commodities of the mudding industry. Tell me, would you rather own a generic pickle company or Vlasic?

[Orion Elder]

Speaking as a MUD codebase creator... I don't want to see stock copies of my codebase popping up everywhere on the net. When I release my code, it will have the BARE minimum as far as areas go. This means more than likely a newbie school, an examples area, a main town, and the newbie acceptance area.

But, again, that's just my opinion.

[Neranz Laverani]

Edit - removed my text because it had absolutely no value.

Neranz Lavernani, Seeker of Knowledge

Considering that I'm a coder by nature, I think that a packaged MUD with stock areas is a double edged sword.  Some good points were made by all, some of which I agree with, some of which I don't.

Originally Posted by 1.)  It is difficult to remove areas without upsetting players.  Terraforming plans are met with resistance.

I think that it depends on the area.  Some stock areas are fairly well written.  Others are garbage.  I don't think that too many players would be all heartbroken over removing the poorly written areas.  On the other hand, some players might protest about having their favorite half decent stock area stripped.

Originally Posted by The easiest way to get a codebase disliked is to make it easy enough to throw up another out of the box, not a single change made, ready to run, newbie MUD.

Excellent point.  My preferred code base is RoT, but for that very reason, I look down on most RoT MUDs.  I own a RoT, and am trying to strip as much stock out as possible.  Considering I much prefer to code than build, it's proving quite a challenge  

Now, I don't think that the overall package is a bad thing, as long as the administration of the MUD puts some time and effort into the world.  Stock areas, when revamped/updated with some eye pleasing color, fixed links/resets, balanced mobs/eq, etc. are as good as, or better than custom built areas.  I had a builder back in the day that fixed up a few of my stock areas, and I intend to keep those, because he did a great job, and the areas look good.

Originally Posted by Speaking as a MUD codebase creator... I don't want to see stock copies of my codebase popping up everywhere on the net.

I couldn't agree more.  Part of the reason many RoT MUDs are looked down upon is because they're all stock with owners/administrators that have no clue how to code or build.  A MUD that doesn't change will eventually lose players.  A MUD that never changed from stock will never get players to lose.

>>>Tamarkus<<<

[smadronia]

My fiancee and I were talking about this today. Our eventual goal is to create our own codebase, one that could be released to the public as a working mud.

When we were talking today, we decided that if we were to release our mud project once it's done, we're going to release it with a small, strictly themed world. There will be a newbie area, a home town, and a few additional areas, but the total probably won't be over 1000 rooms. It'll be enough for people to have a place to wander around and level a little, but not enough to actually make a decent world. We're going to try and put everything that's required at boot in one area file, so people can strip out everything else right off the bat, and then work through the code to be able to remove the final area.

My fiancee and I are tired of out of the box muds that go up one week and a week later are open to the public with little changes and no new areas. We both know areas and code development take time, but we're tired of seeing My KeWL Muds springing up all over. They're always going to be there, but we really don't want to contribute to them if we can help it.

[OnyxFlame]

Quite frankly, I think stock areas suck. Well-written or not, they're exactly the same as stock areas on gazillions of other muds. The only usefulness they have, in my opinion, is to show you how to code your own stuff. I don't get why anyone in their right mind would get a mud with a bunch of stock areas and open it to the public right away with no changes. I mean come on, if you do that it's not even YOUR work, it's probably not very playable, and why would anyone want to play it if they can play the exact same mud in 100 other locations, unless you know them personally?

I think codebases should have good enough documentation that a total newbie can easily figure out how to make their own cool stuff. If they do that, they don't even really need any areas, maybe just a bunch of really long examples that are commented out so they don't actually do anything. I definitely don't think that taking out the stock areas should crash the mud, that doesn't contribute to the whole newbie friendly idea.

I briefly had my own mud, for purposes of fiddling around and learning code and such. I had a few friends who'd hang out and learn along with me. Well, I don't remember what I was using except it was some lpc thing which had been modified at several points by several different people and except for the original layer of code nothing was documented. There were functions in there I had no idea what they were for, and nothing told me except fiddling with stuff and seeing what broke and then trying to fix it again. I managed to make a few objects (much easier when you can just edit the file directly instead of having to go through the editor ), figured out how to get cans of pop to autoload in my workroom, etc. One of my friends coded a rather wacky social which I won't describe due to the presence of people who probably don't really wanna know. Anyway my point is, this is the last time I let my friend send me a ready-made mud that's all compiled and everything so I don't hafta figure out how to do it on my own.

Bottom line: Whether it's stock areas or really good documentation and helpfiles, a codebase *needs* to be newbie-friendly, otherwise people might never figure out how it works and they'll either open it up to players when it's exactly the same as everything else, or never bother messing with it at all.

[Neranz Laverani]

My comments on terraforming being met with resistance are from first hand experience.  Some players do get quite upset when administrators change the world on them by taking out areas, whether the area is poorly written or not.

While I dislike stock areas myself and am inclined not to include them in distribution, some players do like the familiar surroundings that stock provides.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge