|
My non-automated combat system that you keep making fun of requires players to learn to simultaneously control four separate body locations, utilising over five thousand combat techniques divided among dozens of fighting styles, weapons, skills and talents. Due to the object-oriented nature of the mud, every object in the game is a potential weapon with its own individual commands and techniques (which by extension means you could kill a rat by smashing it against the wall of a building).
On your mud, players type "attack" to initiate the same, tired, automated combat system that has been around for the last 15+ years.
My game world is approximately four times the circumference of the earth, using a true coordinate-based movement system which measures distances to the nearest foot and calculates each player's movement speed based on their attributes. The world supports weather patterns, seasons, rivers that flow from springs out to the ocean, tides that rise and fall, and reasonably accurate line-of-sight. Descriptions are fully dynamic and generated on-the-fly, the world supports multiple planes (which will eventually allow for four-dimensional movement). The same system also allows each player to design their own small world.
Your mud uses the same tired room-based model with static descriptions that has been around for decades.
I could go on, but I think you get my point; your mud is an archaic piece of junk with less innovation than many stock muds. And despite what you keep claiming, I don't feel 'personal glee' at your lack of innovation, only pity, and a certain amount of amazement that you would even consider throwing stones in your little glass house. I guess that's what happens when a law-school drop-out tries to make a living by building a game on someone else's work.
|