Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Muirdach · 08-02-2007, 07:36 AM

I know the feeling, whether I wrote the area or someone long gone did. I think that your response is pretty indicative - if it shocks you and jumps out at you that the area is clearly sub-par compared to your newer work, then I'd say that looking at it more closely and possibly re-writing it (or just getting rid of it should it no longer serve a real purpose) is a good idea. I know that I've done this to a whole bunch of areas. I think that it's a good thing to periodically check up on areas, and have someone else do the same, if possible, not just to see whether they are good areas, but areas that have a purpose (which speaks more to the balance part).

Like you said, this does take up a lot of time, but I feel that it is time well spent, and necessary to spend. I have found that people in general look more at the bad than at the good: you can build 20 excellent areas, but if a player is shocked at your one area that isn't as good, that can leave a big negative impression - "Why didn't the admin correct this? Don't they care?" - etc. I think consistency is probably the most important thing as far as MUDs go, because you can really throw away a lot of effort spent on the good stuff, by clouding the waters with substandard or inconsistent material. The way I try to look at it is that the whole package of areas needs to be good, and if one area drags this down, the time spent fixing it isn't just spent on that area, but is time spent making the whole package better - which sounds much more worthwhile.

As for the "it was good enough at the time so clearly I'm just being overcritical" argument, I think that it possibly holds true for a game such as yours where you have always had your hand in whatever goes on, but not for other games that tend to have a head builder (who changes) and several other builders (who also change). Different people have different tastes, and different skill levels. It may be that the people who built some areas were just not very good builders, and the head builder at the time was not very good at vetting/correcting/overseeing them. Especially for games where the staff change regularly, I think one of the admin's most important tasks is re-evaluating the areas already in place, and making sure that they all fit together and there are no obvious shortfalls.

08-02-2007, 07:36 AM	#2
Muirdach Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Home MUD: Karinth Posts: 64	Re: What to do about old content? I know the feeling, whether I wrote the area or someone long gone did. I think that your response is pretty indicative - if it shocks you and jumps out at you that the area is clearly sub-par compared to your newer work, then I'd say that looking at it more closely and possibly re-writing it (or just getting rid of it should it no longer serve a real purpose) is a good idea. I know that I've done this to a whole bunch of areas. I think that it's a good thing to periodically check up on areas, and have someone else do the same, if possible, not just to see whether they are good areas, but areas that have a purpose (which speaks more to the balance part). Like you said, this does take up a lot of time, but I feel that it is time well spent, and necessary to spend. I have found that people in general look more at the bad than at the good: you can build 20 excellent areas, but if a player is shocked at your one area that isn't as good, that can leave a big negative impression - "Why didn't the admin correct this? Don't they care?" - etc. I think consistency is probably the most important thing as far as MUDs go, because you can really throw away a lot of effort spent on the good stuff, by clouding the waters with substandard or inconsistent material. The way I try to look at it is that the whole package of areas needs to be good, and if one area drags this down, the time spent fixing it isn't just spent on that area, but is time spent making the whole package better - which sounds much more worthwhile. As for the "it was good enough at the time so clearly I'm just being overcritical" argument, I think that it possibly holds true for a game such as yours where you have always had your hand in whatever goes on, but not for other games that tend to have a head builder (who changes) and several other builders (who also change). Different people have different tastes, and different skill levels. It may be that the people who built some areas were just not very good builders, and the head builder at the time was not very good at vetting/correcting/overseeing them. Especially for games where the staff change regularly, I think one of the admin's most important tasks is re-evaluating the areas already in place, and making sure that they all fit together and there are no obvious shortfalls.