May 25, 2016, 10:50 PM

@Kestrel

I was mentioning you so that you, and others, would know what a Moo is. Also, you lamented the lack of secrets in Mushes in the other thread. As as I was going down the history of the Modern Mush, it felt relevant.

Why try to improve on something so unwieldy when its audience and function could be fulfilled by something better and more user-friendly?

So, my recent Mud experience was me asking why some exits were hilited and some weren't. "The hilites were for certain rooms at the other end," I was told. I replied asking why I, in the information/newbie nexus, couldn't go through them. "Because they're not for you," I was told, "they're for experts." Well then they shouldn't be hilited, I said, because that's confusing. At that point I started getting talk-back like I was a problem player, tho what I was doing was engaging in a little UX discussion to make it more user-friendly.

So the answer is: Preach it, Sister. If only Muds were more user-friendly, I might play more of them.

Wait, are you talking about the code? Oh, momentum mostly. Evennia is the closest thing to a Mush replacement we have these days, and even it has a development barrier too high to just pick it up and run with it.

I think 'a successful MU*' would be a MU* that isn't a MU* at all.

Which is funny, because most of what you said you would do or that your friend would do has been done before. Play By Post integration: RP over a Jobs system (mostly complained about). Dynamic grid: Part of what we gave up years ago (still used in spaceship games). Web-Interface: Evennia and any Muck coded by Nuku. Auto-logging features: Every client ever. Player/Character profiles: Wiki and, in-game, finger.

We're already there.

Mind you, I have to ask: How would these things make it successful? What is 'successful' here?