Okay, this is my first time posting a poll, so I'm hoping it comes out alright.

We've seen the debate, let's see some numbers.

If you would, how would YOU like to see pay2play MU*s differentiated from free MU*s?

This is inapplicable, and is solely designed to make the vocal minority's complaint about this appear as if they are the majority.

I do not vote in polls. I know many that are for the $'s being added do not vote in polls. And, furthermore, these options are irrelevant. Only three, possibly four, are even truly relevant - and it ignores several options that have been brought up, and are superior to the ones on this poll.

-D

I can see the validity in having a MUD have to choose the payment category into which they fall. I appreciate the inclusion of a couple delineations of options: "required" "voluntary" and something that references being able to play to a certain level or in certain areas, but beyond that pay. I play a p2p myself, but do understand it's a very real concern for many folks out there. By making the MUD choose something in a specific category, it helps prevent MUDers from getting involved in a MUD they enjoy, only to find out they will have to budget for it later down the line.

Gwynderlaine

Sorry, I had just flipped thru the current debate thread and thought I covered several of the ideas suggested. If you point out some that I have perhaps missed that can not be applied to one of the above listings I'd be open to hear them and point out where I thought that might be categorized. Or, if I am so off base I would be willing to ask a moderator to have this thread removed.

There was no "design[ed] to make the vocal minority's complaint about this appear as if they are the majority" intended. Frankly, I just posted it to see some numbers. I see various opinions being tossed about both FOR and AGAINST certain ways of doing it.

In fact, if my interpreation of the 'vocal' complaint is correct, I'd say the vocal folks are FOR putting $$ on the Ranking Page, which is diametrically opposed to the view I had debated in the debate thread of the same-themed poll.

How many people don't voice their opinion's in debates? If indeed, there is the "vocal minority", then the silent majority who don't feel like debating could just give a simple click.

And if there are people who don't vote in polls, thats fine. I'm from America - its in most of our nature to take for granted our right to vote. Heck knows I don't. Besides, there is no necessary "need" to vote. Syn might look through it, he might not. He might be another to vote "he doesn't care". The information might be interesting to him, it might not. He might value the people's opinions who don't poll more than he values polls as a whole. Heck, if moderators of his Forums were people who didn't Poll, then I'd probably feel the same way. A person's right to be heard, or not be heard, to vote or not to vote is there own. With any right, you take the good with the bad.

And for the record, I started the vote with an "I really don't care". The TG in my name stands for the MU* in which I Admin. Its the only one I play. Its one I don't advertise in a signature. Its not p2p and its not in the top 20. I have no "hidden agenda" other than seeing this topic somewhat resolved so people can move on with their lives. Besides, its always interesting how people interpret 'design', whether it is within a game structure or outside of one.

But bluthering aside, I'd be interesting in seeing some other choices I could have added. I do [almost] apologize for the Cockroaches choice. Its a reference to an old Cyberpunk RPG choice that, for some reason, I feel compelled to offer as a choice when asking anyone's opinion. Even when asking their mat color selection on a piece of art work - though it is usually under my breath.

And how could you possibly know what is the minority and what is the majority, besides just childishly assuming everybody agrees with you? I think I've seen less than 15 people post saying they want to classify MUDs this way. Last time I asked Adam, this site had over 50,000 unique visitors a month.

Get over yourself, you don't represent anyone but yourself.

--matt

This is actually the only poll I've found worthwhile.

I'm also assuming the 2nd choice (list of icons at bottom of frontpage listing) would be inclusive of the $$$ icon choice.)  Other people did make a valid point that codebase, RP and pk can seriously affect one's choice of muds.  And a single line of pertinent icons would not be intrusive, and would simply shorten browse time.  I personally always check out the reviews and info page anyway, but eliminating muds with definite "not interested" traits would be nice.
I mean, if i'm looking for enforced RP (actor mask icon) and see a bloody dagger icon (PK?) I would pass.  Granted, a Mask with a Dagger (Enforced RP with PK) would be intriguing enough to take a 2nd look at.
These icons will result in the same decisions being made for the most part, but they may also intrigue some people enough to look at combos they wouldn't normally consider.

QS

An entry on the info page that gave a bit more information than simply whether or not a game was pay-to-play would be fine as long as it was open-ended enough to provide for all the possible payment configurations that would be found on commercial muds. I think putting an icon on the banner list is pointless and is nothing more than catering to the laziest common denominator. I mean, really, you have to click to the info page to at least get the mud's address anyways (unless you go straight to the web page in which case it will probably take you even longer to find all the information you're looking for).

Am I the only one that is vastly amused by the great amount of irony within Mihaly's post? Especially considering he insists that there is no "MUD Community"?

-snicker-

-D

That's typical of your posts Dulan. Insults and no attempt at reasoning. If you can point me to these masses of MUDers that you represent, I'd be gratified.

--matt

"Masses"?

Again, Mihaly, you bring the thread off-topic, and litter it with disinformation, as well as take posts out of context.

Point me to where I claim to represent masses. I never once did.

In the context of my posts, if you bother to read what my posts say, and not what you want them to say, I imply that the majority of the people who care about this subject are for PTP MUDs, such as Achaea, identifying themselves properly.

Now, does anyone here have an objection to PTP MUDs identifying themselves _someplace_ on TMS? That's what this argument is largely coming down to - PTP MUDs should identify themselves. But, WHERE should they identify themselves, and HOW should they be identified?

Other than Vrycie, at least.

-D

It's not that you openly claim to represent the masses. It's that you automatically seem to assume, based on a handful of posts by a handful of people, that the thousands of users of this site have X position. Keep in mind that the posters to these forums represent a tiny fraction of the users of the site, and have no claim to representing the views of anyone but themselves. Not only can we posters here not validly claim to represent the views of others, but one can't even truthfully claim that the posters here are a statistically valid sample of the rest of the posters, as a valid sample requires a minimum of self-selection, and the posters here are entirely self-selected. It's why polls like the ones here are absolutely and utterly meaningless (something we may actually seem to agree upon, believe it or not). To run a poll that can provide useful information, you need to either survey the entire population (or quite close), or survey a randomly selected sub-segment of that population. The polls here do neither, which isn't a slam on them, but is an indictment of their usefulness for anything other than entertainment.

I have no problem at all with a labeling of "commercial" (though I think any MUD that takes donations should also be labeled that way unless they can prove that every dollar they've taken in has been spent solely on hosting), but the fact is, we're not pay-to-play. You -never- have to pay to play Achaea. Ever. There's just no way to quibble with that fact. It's like saying that a grocery store is pay-to-browse. It's not. You go in, you stay pretty much as long as you want (they might kick you out for loitering, but we're much nicer than that, even though it costs us money for every minute you spend there), and, IF you choose, you purchase things.

Now, you want a commercial (or pay-to-play, though again, we're not pay-to-play) indicator because you think that's the piece of info people care most about. I'm just saying, "Show me these people." There are a lot of site visitors, and there doesn't seem to be any big cry for this extra info. Just a few people posting they'd like it. Similarly, I'd like to see a PK indicator, and a codebase indicator. I generally don't play non-custom MUDs, and never MUDs without PK. The cost doesn't matter to me. A few other people have posted that they too find other information more useful than pay-to-play. Now, let's say for the sake of argument that 20 people post they want the commercial indicator and 10 post saying they want a PK indicator. What's that mean? Nothing really. It's an almost meaningless segment of the userbase of the site, because, as I explained earlier, there's no way the attitudes of the users of this site generally with the miniscule minority that frequents these forums.

I really have no objection to it. It just seems like it's a really arbitrary piece of info to put up there.
--matt

If this poll is inapplicable and the options are irrelevant, why are you getting so bitter and twisted about it?

I think the main theme of the poll is, "Do you think P2P muds should be identified as such in some way?" Just one person asking the question, it's Adam's choice as to whether he takes any notice of it. From what I can gather, Adam likes feedback and this is just one way of doing it.

Dulan loves everyone else, but has it out for me, is all.

[editted to add a wink, to show attempt at humor]

*wink*

Although I agree that sites should be identified as pay to play, I voted for the added sort options, I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't see the point in attracting customers that prefer free MUDs. They will not become addicted before they understand the payment plans. It is better to attract customers that are willing to pay if the value is there.

In retrospect I want to change my vote to icons indicating major points about muds. That is, roleplaying required, PkP, etc. as well as payment status.

Bitter and twisted? I'm not bitter or twisted about it. I'm just pointing out it's total lack of validity as a representative sample of the users of this site. I spent lots of time studying polling techniques during my poly sci degree (possibly the single most boring thing I've ever studied), and was just happy to have an opportunity to apply some of it. =)

--matt

Well, first of all, calling the habit of playing MUDs a lot an 'addiction' trivializes real addictions like alcoholism or heroin addiction. They are not comparable. You will not go into convulsions because you stop playing a MUD.

But anyway, I agree. People who are not willing to pay for products aren't people we would actively look to attract, as all they do is cost us bandwidth, and the rather large amounts we pay monthly in bandwidth is plenty.

Similarly though, we're not looking to attract people who want to play a DIKU codebase, who want a MUD without any PK, or who want a MUD where bashing monsters is the primary activity.

--matt

Sorry about that Jaewyn. I just realized you were talking to Dulan, not me. This illustrates the dangers of posting before morning coffee.

--matt

Orion,

First, to make sure there are no misunderstandings - I am not staff on any game. I am not a staff member of a PtP. I have been staff on free games and enjoyed the game and players in the past. I now play both free games and one PtP with investments into the characters and player bases of both types of games. With that information known (and with it, any biases I might have laid out)....

I do not want to see $$$ in front of game listings on the actual ranking page. I would never have gone to the game I have ended up spending most of my time at for nearly a year if it had a $$$ in front of the name. Not because I refuse to pay, but because I would have skipped right by its website and looked for a free game. After all, why pay if you can find what you want for free, right? And chances are, I would have found a free game I enjoyed well enough. But instead, I clicked on the website of a PtP.

The game I play has a very impressive website with amazing background and a detailed manual. I clicked the website button, I found a great site that completely drew me in, despite the fact I knew it was PtP within a few moments of hanging out at the site. I made the decision to pay for that game. But had I seen the dollar sign from the get go, I probably would have kept cruising the list looking for something free and missed ever seeing the excellent site.

Having or not having a dollar sign isn’t just about folks who CAN’T pay or REFUSE to pay. It also will draw away folks who aren’t really partial one way or the other, but out of habit will head to the free stuff first. If $$$ is added, it should be only one of many things that are told on the rankings page, among them: level of rp enforcement, years the game has been around, level of pk, class or classless style game, general theme, codebase, etc. There are a lot of details that draw folks to and from games.

(For those of you who want to notice, all of those things listed, including whether it is PtP, are variable. It would be quite difficult to create one simple set of icons to tell us if a game is any of the above. How many coders who have a heavily modified ROM game would want the generic ROM icon? How about a PK mud that puts everyone into the system, but has all sorts of checks and balances? Would they want the hardcore pk icon or would they want the “limited” pk icon that doesn’t represent what they have?)

Sapphar

What I think would be difficult isn't creating cute icons, but rather making a reasonable number of them that would fit into a user-friendly little key at the bottom of the rankings page. If you have 5 options for pk, 5 for rp, 10 for codebase, 5 for types of commercial... well, keep going and you've got one hell of a big key to scan through while you try to figure all the cute little icons out.

*shrug*

So don't flip through icons.  Pulling up the "modify records" option on MU*listing allows you to choose how you detail your MU* in its profile _mostly_ (but admittedly not all, a high [75%+] percent) by drop-down windows or check boxes.  Theoretically I can't see it being difficult to keep the same system (with a few modifications) when modifying your MU*'s profile and allowing the system to interpret the icons.

Ie, I pull down and choose my current PK type, the site has a pre-set icon for it.  I don't see the icon til later.  As for defining p2p options, a number of different theories were discussed in other threads on how to define them.  I can't see it being terribly difficult to do.

I still am all for not needing to post any of the info ($$$+) on the ranks page, but if deemed necessary I stand behind the icon theory.  

Proper design can overcome.

Sapphar is a prime example of why I think the '$' icon, or some other p2p icon would be good. Sapphar plainly admitted to falling into the example I provided.

So, had you noticed the '$' symbols, you would more than likely still have the money you used on this p2p MUD AND you'd be playing a MUD out there that, first, probably needs more players, and second, you enjoyed just as much if not more. THIS is why the '$' symbol is needed.

Ok, I get it now. It's better to lure them to your site to try to get them interested BEFORE they find out it's a pay site. Good idea... that way they can be disappointed that they were tricked into thinking it was probably free. OOOoOOOoo... that's so... crafty! Good thinking! Sorry, but if these MUDs are as good as they, and others, claim them to be, the fact that they're UPFRONT and HONEST about their MUD having a potential cost wouldn't hurt them. God, I feel like I'm dealing with a car salesman.

Anyway, to something more important... like being bashed in the face with a shovel. There are people who become addicted to MUDding. I don't know where the hell you've been living, the_logos, but look around you some time.

Definition 2a of 'addiction' from :
So, yes, it can be a psychological or physical, or even both, compulsive 'need' for something. People have, or have come close, to RUINING THEIR LIVES over MUDs. To say you can't be addicted to these games trivializes the problems those people face(d). I've seen people who've done this. They were my friends. I've seen them give up more than any person ever should. So do not EVER say you can't become addicted to online games. It can and DOES happen.

Speaking as someone who's first attempt at a bachelor's degree back in 1990 was foiled by mudding....  Had nothing to do with my lack of willpower tho.  I take no responsibility for my actions... It wasn't my fault I couldn't stand up to my weakness.  Right.

Back to the topic at hand....


The rest of Sapphar's quote, to me, made this sound more like a point about a fortunate mistake than a complaint.

If Sapphar enjoyed the game, what does it matter if they could've gone to a game that needs more players?  Sapphar enjoyed it enough to stay, and isn't that the point of a MU*, p2p -or- free, to a player?  As for your second point, you can say that with any MU* search you do.  I can swing by TPE and be completely satisfied with it, never realizing that Inferno is ACTUALLY much more to my liking.


Actually, since most this hub-bubs come up, bub, most the admins I've seen of these p2p's have tried to be more open with the fact that its p2p as opposed to free.  Mostly I site the forums posts and the MU*'s profiles (which is the only place that has p2p as an option where one is prompted to define).

To say they are not being upfront and honest about their postings because it does _not_ say it in the ranking list that they are _not_ a free MU* is like accusing Dragon's Den of not being honest for not putting they are _not_ a WoT MU* in the ranking list.  You come to this site hopefully for the forums, to show love for your favorite MU*, and to see what else is out there - no matter how diverse it is.  As far as I've seen, there is no "standard MU*" which defines how everyone should differentiate their's.  This is not just a FREE MU* site or a theme-oriented MU* site - it's just a MU* site.  And until Syn offers it up as otherwise, there should be as much differentation and segregation between a free vs p2p MU*s as there should be as against Custom v GodWars MU*s.

Another thing, I would think if I were running a p2p MU* for over a decade and I decided to advertise on a site called topmudsites.com I probably wouldn't think about the need to "offer up" the fact that I was p2p as opposed to if the site was called topfreemudsites.com.  If I were posting my MU* on wotmudlisting.com I probably would be a little suprised when the current community browsing the forums got all irate because I didn't post that I didn't allow elves.

I'm sorry Orion, your posts (to me) seem more directed at just shooting down p2p muds specifically than actually trying help figure out a better way to inform the public about certain restrictions muds have.

From what I've been able to gather..top 10 p2p Mu*s...
Dragon Realms (listed p2p Info)
Gemstone III (listed p2p Info)
Threshold RPG (listed p2p Info)
Eternal City (not listed as p2p)
Herc & Xena (listed p2p Info)
Dragon's Gate (Info not connecting)

The 'newcomers' admins have put forth an effort to adopt to the ranking/profile/advertising written and unwritten rules put forth by this site.  In fact, its seems to be everyone BUT them clamboring for additional scrutiny because of it.  From what I've seen and read, they've tried to be somewhat accomodating given the unwelcome greeting they've been shown.  In fact, I'd say they've acted rather

professional

about it.


*looks at the crowd bearing pitchforks, torches, and axes gathering around him*  
Yeah... I think I've said more than my piece.  
*ducks for cover*

You forgot Achaea on that listing, TG_Nek.

-D

Being addicted to something has nothing to do with will power. Being able to break that addiction has to do with will power. Note the difference.

As for me slamming P2P MUDs, I have nothing against them. I personally wouldn't play them, because, as I mentioned, I have better things to do with my money... like giving it to someone who likes to set it on fire... but what other people do with their money is of course their choice, and that's great.

As for my point about MUDs that need more players, it's this simple. MUDs that charge more than likely have plenty of players. They don't NEED more. Free MUDs... good ones... die on a regular basis because they receive a lack of support.

You're trying to compare codebase to cost. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The codebase they have isn't going to cost me any money... a cost factor on the other hand, would. Getting people interested is one thing. Getting them interested on an assumption that a MUD is more than likely free is another entirely. If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded.

But, fighting AGAINST having an upfront listing, as the_logos has done so hard, is the same as trying to deceive someone. Putting it in an information listing is all good and well... but putting it on the ranking list is a good step to follow, in my opinion.

But, either way, good day to you. I'm going to go do something more productive now... like play with a bar of soap, or something.

If good free muds are failing I think they need to look for reasons other than the existence of commercial muds. Free is a very strong draw. It might be helpful for admins of free muds to check out the p2p's from the perspective of novices and see how they differ.

As non-mudding friends to spend an evening trying both, a good free, and a p2p, and ask them for their opinions on why they might choose one over the other.

Heh, i was reading over this board and mused at all this interesting input that is suddenly coming in from the influx of p2p muds. I really only have 3 things to say.

1) People are generally raised on the term, "You get what you pay for"

2) Sadly, they also are raised on the term "The best things in life are free"

3) P.T. Barnum said it best when he uttered "There's a sucker born every minute"

So now ill leave it to the cockroaches;)

I feel like a traitor saying this since I mainly play a p2p, but I see one big problem with this whole thing.  Because of it, I really wish there could be two separate lists, one for free and one for p2p.  If that isn't possible, I think people should be able to just do a search and get only a list of free games.

I've always seen this place as a chance for small, free MUDs to get some exposure and maybe find new players. It's turning into just free advertising for the p2p games instead.  Add to that people like Seraphina posting insults about the little guys and how they don't have players because they aren't good enough and I think a lot of people are going to be leaving.

I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not but it's the one that comes to my head.  I think of it like a community theater, with room for 10 plays to be held at the same time.  Who gets to use the stage depends on how many people want to see the show.  Even though the theater itself gets no money for the plays, it does advertise for all of those that are showing each week.

In the beginning a few small groups write and direct their own plays and everybody has a chance to be the star for the week.  Things would change totally if a Broadway play decided to compete there with well known stars and directors and expensive sets.  Since the theater doesn't charge these people could give a discount on tickets and still make the same amount they would at a larger theater in addition to having the free advertising.

Most of the people who pay to see these plays would be paying anyway, but it still hurts the little guys.  Fewer of the free plays would get to be onstage and those who do may have to resort to getting a few better known actors and paying them or spending money in other ways to compete better which would mean having to charge for their own plays.  

It also hurts the people who go to watch the plays.  There might be some great actors, some potential hit plays and even some very talented directors who never get the chance to be seen because they didn't get the votes.  More and more people would start going to the commercial plays because they assume they're better even when that's not the case.  Eventually the theater would be nothing but an Off Broadway theater who gives free advertising and gets nothing in return, leaving the original groups to hold their plays in a shed behind the main building.

I know it isn't quite that bad - yet, but I do see it as a potential problem.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that.  But given contemporary theory on how addiction is defined, I couldn't debate it correctly either.  So I'll concede this one with little regret. :)
Simple?  Heh.

Logistically, based solely on the criteria on MU* cost, I would _think_ free MU*s would generally be more popular than p2p ones.  That would seem a simple conclusion to me.  Given the high-player base of some of these p2p games, I would think...
1) they must offer something above and beyond that which is currently considered "good" on a free MU*.
2) their playerbase is unfamiliar with the fact that there are free MU*s.

Frankly, I think, logistically, free MU*s SHOULD be able to benefit more than p2p's with p2p's advertising here or sending their pbase here to vote/forum.  Why?  Because if a player from a p2p MU* finds an equally entertaining free MU* on Top Sites and is not against "free MU*s", there is more of a chance that player will switch than if a player from a free MU* found an equally entertaining p2p MU* on Top Mud Sites and is not against "p2p MU*s".   And when I say equal, I mean EQUAL in terms of area quality, code, theme taste, etc, etc (friends on the playerbase and loyalty to the first MU* not considered).

I can't possibly see a good, free MU* dying from lack of support.  If you mean support in terms of financial support, then the fault is there own, and a free-playing playerbase could, obviously, do little to save that without donations.  If by lack of support you mean a small player-base, then again, the fault is their own by being too ego-driven.  I've seen more than my share of mornings alone on my MU*, whilst I build.  I think my MU*s pretty decent and hope one day it will catch a fairly decent playerbase (imo, btn 30-50 at peak).  We've had our periods of growth, we've had our periods of decline - every MU* has them.  If a MU* ever dies it is because the drive to see it succeed has died out in those running it.  If it is because of lack of a player base, I'd consider that ego driven.  A person running their MU* for the sake of garnering and catering to many players with no true design of their own would probably give up their MU* quicker than someone who carefully crafted their world out of their own desire to express their creativity,  if all their players went to another MU*.  Would you rather have a woman who does everything you say, gives you everything she has, and has no life/opinion of her own - or a woman who is her own and you want to be with because you enjoy that spirit?  My personal opinion is that a "good" MU* is crafted for the sake of bringing a world to life, as opposed to one that offers anything it needs to in order to satisfy its people.  Perhaps would be good to akin it to taking pride in yourself for who you are versus taking pride in the acclaim others give you.
*smirk*

My official vote is not to put any sort of markings on the ranking page and do nothing to change how things are currently done.

Seeing how that does not seem to be the popular opinion, I am attempting to see things and listen to the opinions of others.  

So I am attempting to separate myself from my "feelings" on the situation, and debate down to where the issue lies.

I do not believe that constitutes being "thickheaded".  While I appreciate you containing anything else you wished to call me that might seem more ....flaming, I would think my debating issues on a side I do not necessarily agree with (to offer up something I feel to be a bad idea in order to prevent something I feel would be worse) would qualify me as something on the other side of the fence from "thickheaded".  Also, as a designated leader within another forum, I am suprised you resorting to common name-calling within a debate forum.  I would think moderators to be better than that.
Yes, indeed. A cost factor _may_ cost you money.  No arguments there.  I am in whole agreement with that.  
And to YOU that may be an incredibly viable thing that separates X MU* from Y MU*.  Many people may agree with you.  Nations may rally behind it.
But that is something important to YOU.
Cost may not be the all-important to others.  It is not important to ME.
To ME, a MU*'s rp/pk ratio is the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
To JFK, a MU*'s codebase may be the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
My opinions and JFK's opinions may differ from most everyone else's out there.  It makes our opinions on what is the most deciding factor in a MU* we choose to swear off no less legit than yours.

I am looking beyond my opinion of "we shouldn't change the current layout because if people want more in-depth knowledge of a MU* they should research beyond the ranking page" and hearing people say "make p2p MU*s declare their misbegotten ways on the ranking page" and interpretting it as "this MU* has a difference that _I_ find important enough that it should be posted on the ranking page".  Again, not very thickheaded.  If you cannot look beyond what you are saying and seeing how it relates to the concept design of the site as a whole, then there probably is no further need to debate this.  I do not wish to step down further and isolate MU*s on a single difference they have and you do not wish to step up from your view that a single difference is an all-encompassing and so important an attribute that it transcends all others and needs its own distinguishing marker on the ranking page as opposed to the info page.

And thats what makes us all unique, no?
Okay, past that.  Most of them seem to have posted it under features as it is listed to post.  Thats the current standard, thats where most of 'em are listing.  Little seem to have any problem with it.  *yay*
:)
Well, thats the 2nd time you've left on a "this topic isn't worth my time" sort of note.  Cheers to me to catching, I suppose you'll say.  Still, if it is not important to you or you feel debating it is not productive, then why even debate it?

As for the_logos...
Page 2.
Errrrr.  I was hoping someone would miss that :p  Not to open it for debate here, but my current opinion is I would look more towards not classifying Achaea as p2p if I had only "free" and "p2p" to choose from.  KaVir is posting some very relevant points on how people who donate time/money/etc to the betterment of the MU* should be rewarded that I agree with (hence my quietness on the topic over there).  If it _were_ needed to be qualified in some sort of "Cost" field in Info, I'd probably suggest it in a spot between 'Free' and 'Pay to Play' called 'Donation Enhanced" or some such.

Anyway.  Thats been an hour + of fun.  I think I'll go grab a bar of soap and do something practical with it too.  :)

If you use that line of reasoning, TG_Nek, then Simultronics runs no pay to play MUDs.

It is simple. If you have to pay money for benefits - whether that be access to the game, or for uber-cool item of the month - it is a P2P. Using that definition, we avoid the maneuvering of Vryce/Mihaly.

-D

Simtronics is pay to play and is very up front about it. You MUST pay. They do offer a 30 day free trial but if you don't pay after that point then your account is closed.

You do not HAVE to pay to play Achaea because you do not HAVE to get the extras offered and your account is not closed because you refrain from buying extras. You can therefore pay Achaea for free.

It can be argued either way therefore it would be up to the mud owner to define how to classify it. Better to offer sufficient choices to be accurate leaving the potential player to draw whatever line is to be drawn themselves.

I do think it is misleading to place payment options in areas a player won't see right away. But it would be equally misleading to call a game pay to play if it can be played for free. One approach is no better than the other because it conceals information.

Seraphina, that subject has been covered on TMC too many times to count. Especially in flames about Achaea's administration.

Care to be able to ignore the rules? Pay!
Care for a super-character in next to no time? Pay!
Care for a character that takes 6 months to build and takes someone that pays 6 days to build? Don't pay!

I know TMC has more information there.

Lanthum....Adventurer's Inn? Same person that logged onto a MUD I coded for, spammed the MUD with tells to come play it?

Furthermore, I know it - because I've talked with those people. People voted at first because it was 'amusing'. Now, the glamour of the vote has worn off, and it's unamusing now. Some people have voted that would otherwise not vote, as the vote counts make it obvious, but nonetheless...

-D

First, I will address the point about players. Most people who PAY for a shell account are doing so because they enjoy providing an entertainment for others. I like to entertain people. That's not, however, why I make a MUD. My MUD is hosted on my own machine, and isn't open for players. See the difference? People who pay for a shell, usually, are doing so because they like to entertain. If they can't find people to give them feedback on what they do, they feel as though they have wasted their time. I say this from experience, as I can list five MUDs, right now that I played that died for this reason. That's not even counting the MUDs I have worked for, or have helped with.

So, while that whole 'free' should be enough of a pull... it's not. The average MUDder, in my experience, judges the quality of a MUD not by the quality, but by how many players it has. Lot of players? Good MUD. Not a lot? Gotta suck. I speak, again, from experience. From the MUDs I've played, to the MUDs I've worked on, and to the MUDs I've run. People log in, they don't see people, most of the time they won't even give the MUD a chance.

You log into a p2p, the common human bias already tells you two things... if they're charging, they must have SOMETHING good going... and if they have players, they must be doing something RIGHT. Is this true? Not on your life. They MIGHT be doing something right, and they MIGHT have something good.

Further more, you speak of the logical reasoning. How often have you known of people to be logical? Especially when it comes to entertainment. "Professional Wrestling," anyone?

You may, or may not, see the problem here. I don't know, and honestly I don't really care. I do, however, have an overwhelming need to give my opinion, whether wanted or not, in a thread which, as you pointed out, I feel has dragged on far too long, and in turn is not worth the time. But, it gives me something to do, and I'm bored at the moment.

As for me insulting you, I did no such thing. I said:
Now, that's an 'if' statement. Not sure if you're familiar with programming, but basically, if (variable == true) then (this). So, if (you don't see that) then (I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded). So, basically, you said you don't see that and thus it became an insult to you. So, I would thank you to not make me out to have been insulting you when you confirmed the statement to be true. If, however, you understood my point, then that did not apply to you, anyway. But, that's enough for a sidepoint.

Anybody got some bubble gum they'd like to share? Bah, probably not. Damn conspiracies.

But, before I deviate the topic too much, I'm going to head on out. If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to PM me. *wave*

You know, not so long ago, I posted that we should all just sort of grin and bear it as the big pay-to-play games sidle into the rankings here. But Reason's post hits the nail right on the head. Pay-to-play games, if they're doing something right and successfully, have the budget to PAY for advertising. The smaller free games don't. So, when the pay-to-play games dominate the TMS rankings, they're getting what amounts to a free ride.

Perhaps a second list would be best, but ultimately this rests with Synozeer. It's his site; his rules.

This sort of speculation is really difficult to nail down. The pay to play muds are bringing more visitors many of whom may never have been exposed to free muds. There is not much point in free advertising if few people see it.

I think that was the point; if you're pushed back a page or two, few people will see it.  There are some people who come only to promote their own MU*, but many do come looking for one to play.  The p2p games may bring a lot of people, but how many are going to be willing to leave their old game to go to a free one?  My guess is that there will be many more who haven't played p2p before but will decide to try.

I know it's been that way with the game I play; we've gained several new players since coming here, and I haven't heard of one person who quit to play a free MU*.  Whether it's right or wrong for p2p games to be here, I think the people who were here first do have a right to complain.  The 5 new players that a big game gets may seem like nothing to them, but it could be the death of the one they might have chosen if it could have been seen as easily.

I quit a P2P for a free game. I was told about it by someone who had read reviews and the "info" stuff on TMS, who also quit a P2P game for the free game. There are at least half a dozen people playing the free game I'm playing now, who came from one of the two P2P games I used to play.

And I wouldn't have played the free game if I hadn't come to this website and checked the reviews, the Info thing, or clicked *from here* to their official website.

We all have our own reasons for playing whatever game we play...and for not playing whatever game we don't play. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and rude of anyone who comes here claiming "oh people don't play these games because" this and that.

The primary reason I'm playing a free game, as opposed to any particular pay-2-play, is because I'm no longer in a financial position to shell out a monthly fee. It's a luxury I simply can't afford. The primary reason I left the P2P game I played has to do with an issue I have with their admin and a couple of staff members. A semi-personal issue, that has little to do with their capabilities to run their game successfully.

Not one of you knows whether I'm representative of the majority, the minority, or just some lone freak who wandered through the cracks. A poll won't change that, no matter how many people vote. People lie, misunderstand, click the wrong thing in error, or otherwise manipulate this sort of thing to skew the results. Hell I could be lying about my reasons right here in this thread, for that matter!

So all y'all just take your theories, your postulations, assumptions, and hypothetical examples and have a blast with them. Just don't believe for a second that they have any significant meaning.

Okay, I don't think my points were addressed/disproved so no need to blubber on those.

On the above however...

I am fairly familiar with programming (though admittedly no where near the realm of most of you), but have studied enough philosophy to comprehend how an if/then statement works.

Suppose you were to make some sort of nifty program that had a set of buttons that followed the question "Do you see things as the wise Orion Elder does?", with simple 'Yes' and 'No' labels.  If the person pushed the 'Yes' button he would receive a pre-programmed response of "You must be worth talking to because you are wise yourself".  If a different person pushed the 'No' button he would receive a pre-programmed "You are not worth talking to because you are silly to not agree with the wise Orion Elder! (Did you not see the 'wise' put before his name?)" response.  This is somewhat what you are talking about with the whole programming if/then thing, right?

So I follow the "if" of the statement (as you pointed out , "if you don't see that"), and I can accept part of your "then" statement - where YOU see no need to continue arguing with me.  But, and forgive my ignorance, I fail to see where you have

_A N Y_

right to call me thickheaded for not agreeing with you.  Stubborn, perhaps.  Unyielding.  Determined.  Self-righteous.  Any of these I could see, possibly agree with- but "thickheaded".  Not hardly.

I admit it is a very cleverly veiled insult.  Very cunning, indeed, youngling!  But considering I noted it was tailored to me for originally not agreeing with you- I was quick witted enough to see through the veil for what it was.  

From Merriam-Websters... ()
Main Entry: thick·head·ed
Pronunciation: -"he-d&d
Function: adjective
Date: 1707
1 : having a thick head
2 : sluggish and obtuse of mind

If (you think those who have opinions different from yours are thickheaded), then (you should consider the pot calling the kettle black) for not seeing _MY_ opinion.

I mean, I find it difficult to believe you could possibly see one factor of a MU* being so much more drastically important than others that it needs to be segregated on the main page to the exclusion of others.  As if listing people's races in voting polls would be any more important than listing their incomes, religious affiliation, education level, age - or what not.  Maybe to some it would - but possibly not to all.

In closing....

If (you cannot see past a personal opinion on a topic) and (you think your opinion is so much more important than everyone elses) then (perhaps you should consider how that contradicts what a mediator is supposed to do).

"Thickheaded".

In the context I used it, you can see (understand, notice, etc) someone's point without agreeing with it. If you can't see that point, and the one before, then yes... you're thickheaded. If you want to take that as an insult, that is your choice.

On the subject of your points, I did address those. Particularly the one about MUDs that actually need players, versus MUDs that don't need players. You see, those free MUDs, eventually, may contribute to our MUDding community through the release of areas, code, and ideas that may eventually help the MUDding community as a whole. To date, I do not know of a SINGLE p2p (p2p is defined as a MUD where payment is mandatory, or can be used to advance ones character(s)) MUD that has given out some of their code, areas, or shared their ideas on a level other than "we do this... it's really cool, come try it out." Note the lack of explanation or suggestions on HOW to do it. But, let's conveniently skip over that... it gives a good reason to add the markers, which you seem to not want.

Again, how you take it is your choice... but, on the subject of people being egotistical... well, I think the above speaks for itself, Mr. Quickwit.

Other factors don't affect my real life. Cost does. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you can't, then that is what makes you thickheaded. If you can understand that, then you're just stubborn and oblivious.

As for my age, if we're to believe YOUR profile, you're a 30 year old with a severe glandular disorder.

But, as I said. I think it'd be better to take this to PMs if you're so interested in continuing it, because now we're pretty much entirely off the topic of this thread now. And since I'm the 'youngling' here, I don't have to be the mature one. *smirk*

It would be rather unreasonable to expect a P2P mud to share parts of their code, wouldn't it? After all, they make money on their concept, so why give it out for free? That would be like expecting a big drug company to publish the exact recipe for the latest product that they just spent X years and Y $ to develop and are now planning to finally make a profit from.

However, this does not mean that they cannot add to the 'community' in different ways, by taking part in the Board discussions and sharing their experiences. Many of the P2P administrators that post here strike me as mature and vocal persons, who often have interesting angles to different subjects. After all, they do run a successful business, and there are several experiences in this process that they could share with the rest of us, without exposing any trade secrets.

For example, one topic, where I'd like some input from the P2Ps is the subject 'problem players'. We all get them, and I suspect the P2P muds get them to an even larger extent, since most Twinks seem to be attracted by high numbers. So, how do you treat those players when they actually have paid a fee to populate your mud, and are not just undesirable houseguests that can be evicted at the host's free will?

And there are other subjects, many having to do with handling large playerbases, large staffs etc., that would be interesting from an Admin point of view, and where the P2P admins most likely can add new angles to the discussions.

And another thing, there's nothing to stop you from drawing inspiration from their 'cool' features either, you just need to figure out how to code them yourself. I freely admit that some of the features in my own muds are based on things in a couple of P2P muds that I tested out to see what they were like. I saw the feature, thought, 'Hey, that IS cool!' and went right back and introduced it in my own mud. In both cases it took 5 minutes to add, so it wasn't all that hard... *snicker*

Jazuela:
I didn't say players from p2p MUDs don't contribute. I said the p2p MUDs specifically do not contribute. The most I've seen, as I mentioned, was people who talked about ideas... and even then it was very scarce. You said it yourself, you switched to a free game. Once a part of a free game, then you contributed (and then, it was only to one MUD, but let's overlook that). Before that, what'd you contribute? Anything?

Molly:
That's my point specifically, Molly. They're in it to make money... I release my code, in an effort to help the community, as do many others. These p2p MUDs get free advertising here, and can garner potential players... thus more money. Yet, they don't help the community. They help their pockets. It would not kill them by any means to be upfront and honest about their game, on the rankings list. By doing so they may lose a few players. Darn. They still have plenty, and have a reason to stay open. By not doing so, they can 'kill' a free MUD that actually needs players. By 'killing' those free MUDs, they're eliminating people who might have contributed to the MUDding community at large... which, as you mentioned, they are unlikely to do. Someone who might have created the next evolution in MUDding may disappear, feeling they've wasted their time. Then again, they may have just caused a MUD to shut down that would have been a license violator.

By not making it clear in the most prominent place (the main ranking page) that they take payments, be it mandatory or not (this is not the same as donations... donations don't benefit the players directly, other than by keeping the MUD up and running and the server decent), they could potentially take players from MUDs that need those players as a reason to keep their MUD up. Yes, to an extent it does have to do with ego... people like to see a return for their efforts. The players enjoying the work created can be seen as a return on the creators work.

But, that's just my opinion.

Okay, perhaps the analogy I posted above wasn't clear enough.

I was discussing the actual demographics rl pollers use for such things as political debate.  Not here, per se.  So when I referred to "...listing people's..." in the above quote, I was hoping to metaphor that to "...listing MU*s...".  With my examples of race, religious affiliation, education level, etc as being comparable to (but not directly corresponding to) cost, rp/pk preference, codebase, theme, etc.

I'm sorry if you couldn't see that because I didn't clarify it enough for you.

[Edit: Deleted something off-topic and non-pertinent 3 seconds after I posted it]

As for not seeing things in your post, I keep re-reading it and I think I understand every point you're trying to make...  To simplify, in regards to the poll addressed...




You: You feel p2p MU*s should be up-front and honest about their cost on the rankings page.  This is important because
<insert possible viable reason 1>
<insert possible viable reason 2>
<insert possible viable reason 3>

Me: Yes, I can see how those reasonings are important to you.  And granted, many of the points you made are valid.  They, however, are not as important to me.  I think other aspects of the MU* are more important to drawing me to/away from it.  Such as its rp/pk ratio.

You: But rp/pk ratio doesn't cost money!  Thats the deciding factor.  Hogwash!

Me: To YOU that is a deciding factor.  If we are going to put defining icons on the front page, why not tailor them to the communities needs (ie, your wants [$$$], my wants [rp/pk], JFK's wants [codebase], Mary's wants [theme]).

You: Because they don't cost money!  




Remember, there is always this theory: the rankings page is for giving a brief blurb description of your MU* to try and attract the interest of the players to research it more.  $/RP-PK/Codebase/etc on the ranking page doesn't fit that, leave it to Info.

Oh, and if you want to discuss this via PM, by all means, take it there.  Judging by how the voting is currently progressing I think many people share your view and I am somewhat addressing them as well.



To Dulan: about Achaea, I'm not going to debate this because as far as I have seen (and told by Syn), the very definition of 'pay-to-play' has not been set in steel and is currently subjective.  Since the term has no set definition, it would be impossible to debate whether it applies to a specific MU* which dances on the gray area of it.  I would think rather than debate Achaea's status of being p2p or not, it would be wiser for everyone to come up with a working definition (at least on this site) by which we could all agree to debate by.  If this has been done before and I missed it, I apologize.  I have checked on-line through a few search engines and asked around, but no one has been able to point me in the direction of "the absolutely, universally accepted" definition of p2p.  
And yes, I had seen Achaea's TMC advertisement and thought it was offensive and in incredibly poor taste.  While shady practices there may be, I'm focusing on one topic at a time.  Sometimes a lot of little changes to the foundation of the way a person thinks or acts can have a greater impact on them than if you try to change the way they think about everything all at once.

In terms of code and areas, free MUDs do not contribute to the "MUDding community," but rather to a much more narrowly defined community that consists almost entirely of operators of DIKU derived MUDs. That said, I think the value of such "contribution" is questionable. Do players (as opposed to lazy imps and builders) really benefit from yet another implementation of MySuckMud with X, Y, and Z snippets and the same area packages that almost every other MySuckMud employs?

The better commercial MUDs contribute to gaming in the same way that the better free MUDs do: by putting out an exceptional product -- one that, in the case of commercial MUDs, a number of players are apparantly willing to pay for despite the availability of similar products for free. MUDding isn't kept alive by the distribution of trivial snippets and the exchange of what will effectively become stock areas. It's kept alive by the small percentage of MUDs that offer enjoyable and perhaps even somewhat original diversion for their players.

The commercial MUDs are clearly bringing a lot of traffic to this site. That's a huge boon for every MUD listed here, even if only a relatively small percentage of the site's visitors do anything more than just vote for their MUD and leave. Still, the majority of free MUDs are going to squander the opportunity, either by not taking advantage of a forum that allows for free advertising or by wasting bandwidth with inarticulate, poorly-written advertisements for players and staff or by failing to offer a product that looks significantly different from 95% of the product that is already being offered here.