The poll choices are a difficult decision Ostoles, as almost all of the above are very important if you like a dynamic building environment.

I enjoy the use of our modified Rom 2.4b OLC, with extended Mob/Obj/Roomprograms.  Of course, the best choice is an environment where the builders may work closely with the coders.  I would go insane if I didn't have the modifications our coder has installed into the OLC.  And the adaption of the  M/O/Rprogs for our own purposes has made our options even better.
If a mud has the capability of fulfilling a builder's imagination, and the builder has the stamina to create it, then the mud is a good environment. And if they are lucky enough to have a good relationship with the rest of the staff, and the coders, then the best of both worlds may result: The coders develop code which expands the builders choices and inspires them to greater things. And the builders discuss their ideas which may inspire the coders to implement new concepts based off the ideas of the builders.
Ease of use and, most importantly, access to accurate information on the rooms, mobs and objs and progs used and their possible variations also greatly enhances the building process.  Once again, a good relationship betwen coder and builder can facilitate this.
More than once, we have discussed an idea for a mob and ended up with a new class or skill system, or had a new concept coded in which inspired innovative areas based around the new code.
And then there are the players who throw out ideas or even make jokes, and discover that their quip about exploding squirrels has added new surprises to the world at large.
In many ways I feel blessed to work with the people who create our world.

Seriously difficult poll to honestly respond to. You pick aspects that I can't judge as one better than another.

I want an OLC that is user friendly, I want a coder that understands MY terminology as a builder from experience and I will try and learn his. I want the ability to challenge the coders with adding new bitvectors and other codes beyond the stock. I want a handy ability to view what exists as well as the flaws and bugs in the world. I want the ability to monitor the techno-mudders as they attempt to abuse the triggers or mprogs for what I've created. I want the world I make to duplicate the real world as much as I can get with a few magical additives.

That's not really a big request, is it?

An owner that listens and a coder that tries is an awesome combination for a competent builder to have. I would suggest filtering the requests through a head builder or team leader though. If you can find this, you are in a good place to stay.

Iluvatar

Well I have to be honest all are very good ideas and would encourage them all but for the OLC I prefer 1.8. Most muds that I have seen with 1.8 haven't had major problems, I haven't seen the rot/rom olc 2.4a or b yet. Mprogies, Oprogies and Rprogies are always great as long as the builder knows how to use them. The one thing I would have to really say is a manual if you have something other than 101 levels for mortals. Or something called autoset for the mobs, that is something that would help out alot I think. Mainly what I would say I like in a mud is when you communicate with eactother, why because if you don't communicate it will fail.

my 2 cents

My other tends to conform to room/obj and mob progs, olc 1.81, suport from the coders, and the ability to suggest things that would make building easier, and have them listened to.

The ability to see what resets are where, or to set all rooms within a specified range to the same name, sector, etc would be nice. Most of all though I want it to be stable, since buggy OLC doesn't do much for me.

Without players, everything else is for nothing.  Without the mentioned features, how can you expect to attract players?

I prefer the room/mob/obj progs.  OLC is a necessity in my opinion, but the progs are the glitter that make OLC really shine.  So many muds don't have rprogs and oprogs (in my experience... I tend to avoid large muds), they really catch my attention as a builder.

Coder support... I read that and think of a lack of coder support.  I don't build on muds where there is a seperation between the coders and the builders, other than specifically what they do.  All staff should be One, a whole team, not two teams supporting each other.  Marines all, not Marines helping the Air Force.

Ey,
Well that I've noticed on too many LP muds in the lack of variety in inherits. Inheritables are supposed to provide some common ground and linearity througout the mud so quality control and balance staves can more easily peruse and approve code. The key element to making a good mud is theme and options (extra features). On Seasons of Almadyn, we offer hundreds of optional properties and code features within objects, mobs, etc so builders can take advantage of them. The greyter the variety of properties (MudOS), the larger the difference between two similar objects using the same inheritable. I find that both builders, quality staves, and players enjoy variation in the game and especially, those objects which often shift per reboot. That's my 8 cents.
~Grey (forever)

as for me,OLC is cool. Support from coders - great. But without players - its all is nothing.

What I would look for as a builder if I were looking to work for someone:

**OLC and Off-line editing
I like to create off-line and do touch ups on-line. The offline editor should have the capability to do a walk-through.

**Coding support
Very often ideas are not supported by the capability of the mud. Builders can provide good ideas for supplimenting the area definitations and capabilities because they work with them. Of course, builders also have to realize that things cannot always be implemented exactly as requested. Codewise, pretty much anything can be done, but there are a whole host of things that should not be done for code reasons. Doing these things could effect many things including the performance of the game. In these instances, I think receiving as some explanation as opposed to a simple no would be nice.

**An approachable administration
If I have a question or idea, I like to feel that I can talk to the people in charge and they will at least listen. I do not expect that everything would be implemented.

**A fair administration
I don't like muds where specific people are allowed the cheat over and over.

**Thorough documentation of the muds editing tools
This is so very important when you are first learning to build for an mud.

**Sample areas
These areas help to learn how to balance mobs and objects for different levels of players on the mud. They also introduce what the administration expects for area quality.

**A building manual
Something that details the mud's building standards. It is easier to try and apply the standards as you build then to have to retrofit them, especially if they end up being very different from what you expected. It could be like building the same area twice.

**Room, mob, and object scripts
These help give areas the appearance of being dynamic. I don't consider any area complete without them.

What I recommend having as an administrator:
A tool that checks the mobs and objects and spits out a report on their statistics.

Neranz Laverani, Seeker of Knowledge

Edit - replaced bold with asterisks and paragraphs.

I put in my vote as 'support from coders' but if there was a 'competent admin' category, I would surely vote that.

Now, perhaps the word "competent" is an exaggeration, so let me explain. I would want a set of guidelines that wouldnt restrict creative building, I would want to be able to work freely, I would want the admin to be there if I needed help. For all of the things a builder needs to be given to him in order to build, the admin running the site would have to be "competent".

Short of that, there would be no pleasurable building experience for me.

Yay to whoever put this thread up in the first place; anyone who knows a moron coder too uppity to talk to builders, make him read this. I started out building when I was 14, and in the last 4-5 years have started developing some skill at coding as well. I have yet to find any builders who are really worth listening to most of the time, because their ideas center around...well, they're all 13 years old. End of statement.

It's nice to finally get a good idea of what builders want in a mud. When I was still building avidly, you could sit me down with OLC and an imm, and I'd be lost for days coming up with some insane 700-room maze/gauntlet designed to cause players heart attacks and strokes. But that was just me.

Thanks for the info, will keep this in mind when I get to the point where builders can actually work on my mud - I'm thinking this is the start of a beautiful new relationship...

-Visko