I have played and still playing many MMORPGs and I wasn't surprised about the credits.I actually was expecting something like that.
Also to note is that players can purchase credits from other players in exchange of game money(that way no real money is spent)

Yes, that's how anyone can attain maximum potential in his games. However, it is a slow tedious process, where it is cheaper and more efficient for the player to have a job essentially.

I've gotten about $600 worth of credits in a couple months back when I played around in Lusternia, spending my normal couple hours a day playing. Far more than I would be willing to spend out of my paycheck. But you're right, the idea is that it should take more time to max out if you don't have the money to spend.

So what kind of stuff do you trade other players for these in-game credits?

That is correct
You trade in game money(gold) for credits

Well, I took the time to read it all.

First off, Matt pays money for advertisement. You can see what he's gotten out of it by looking at the homepage. People see his stuff, hear about the features, and try it out. He gets more players, and a percentage of those may go on to become customers. That's it. That doesn't mean there's some shadowy conspiracy, a dark hand holding TMS in its 'Iron' grip.

Yeah, it might be a bit of a blow if Matt pulled away his advertising. But you're insulting Synozeer if you think that's enough to make him curl up in a ball and die over it. It's business, and people can actually conduct it without getting some mafioso, pusher-addict relationship going.

Do I like IRE muds? As a matter of fact, no, no I don't. I don't care for them, I don't like playing them, they're not what I look for in a mud.

Slinging insults back and forth won't get much done; I know that, as thick as I am. If anything, it's just weakening the arguments for new labeling and letting Adam know that he doesn't need to take you seriously.

Prof1515, you're obnoxious. And that's not to say Matt didn't get down there in the trenches with you, but he at least had some actual points to make. You're not doing Valg any favors; everytime I'm half-convinced by one of his arguments, you chime in and I'm disgusted with it all over again. If you are interested in Valg's purpose and not just arguing with Matt, you need to reconsider your style a bit, and not take things so personally. You're acting like an angry ex-girlfriend.

Yeah, sure is nice to have people around that don't sling insults.  Really makes this forum a better place.

This entire subject is silly and not progressive - the subject name alone probably keeps Syno(the only real person here who has the ability to make Matt act accountable for his attitude/actions/manipulations) look right past this thread and at other threads.

I'm sure the campaign to make all MUDs and MUD resource sites be accountable for their affect on the community will continue. As a favorite graphic novel of mine constantly reflects, "With great Power comes great Responsibility." Large, innovative, influential MUDs should throw their weight to make themselves role-models for the entire community. All Matt's attitude and IRE's approach(besides Lusternia, which takes responsibility for what it is enough in my opinion) shows the community is that underhanded manipulation, public derisiveness, egocentricism, and greed are good ways to create a successful MUD. IRE's not alone in this, granted, several other MUDs(such as Midievia) also support this observation.

Personally, having done just about everything one can do in this community within the past 14 years, I find Valg/Carrion Fields and Kavir/GodwarsII to be a far better role models - showing the community that underdogs can not only compete and out-innovate commercial MUDs, but can also act progressively and ethically within the community, without backing down from bullies.

I fully agree that this subject is silly and not progressive. While I agree with Matt on some of his points, I really don't see the need to start this topic (I guess some people get a kick out of flame threads).

But that aside, I have also been meddling in the world of MUDs for the past 14 years or so. It's disappointing to see that while the world of commercial graphical MMORPG's have progressed tremendously, the world of MUDs hasn't. There's many reasons for this, but one of them is the constant infighting among MUD admins and activists. If you guys would spend as much time and effort on actually developing the games, as you do on flaming Iron Realms, maybe you'd have a chance to compete with them.

Claiming that Iron Realms is blackmailing the owners of TMS or Mudconnector is in my view silly. Should Iron Realms withdraw their financial support over something as petty as a "pay for perks" flag in a mudlisting, I'm sure other MUDs (us included) would be willing to fill that gap. Not all MUDs have the financial means of Iron Realms, but with a small cooperation some of us would have. And not all of the bigger MUDs are opposed to a "pay for perks" flag.

As for the definition of competing with commercial MUDs, I guess that depends on your definition of competition. Is it tied to the playercount? The amount of time spent per player?

Large, innovative MUDs should definetly try to be rolemodels, but we also need to be a bit realistic here. Very few games operate for free, and most admins do not want to carry all expenses of their game after the N:th year of operation. Not to mention that to really become a large MUD, unless you have horribly good existing ties, you need something of a marketing budget.

Finally: just looking at the quality of the posts here on TMS, I find it very hard to see any here as a decent rolemodel for the MUD community. The decent rolemodel for the MUD community is one who spends his time making good games, not one who feels it's his duty in life to flame other admins.

Regards,
Gore (admin of BatMUD)

I agree with nhl.
Stop infighting and help the muds compete with the graphics MMORPGs

I think it is just that I wish you could see the difference between some's "flaming" and others' activating. I am fair - period. I am not flaming IRE, or being unfair to it in any way whatsoever. Infact, Matt does plenty of flaming to MUDs he deems less successful, and that is the primary reason why I speak out at all.

Some of us do put our energies towards developing innovative games and simultaneously being vocal role-models in the community. Some of us work co-operatively with other MUDs in the community, and want nothing more than the community to be as helpful as it can be. Those of us that do, also are the ones that tend to not like the negative affect MUDs like Midievia and Achaea(or specifically, Matt/IRE) have on the community without giving back in return.

It is important for you, the poster, to understand the difference between a true "flame" and something that has more positive intentions. It's very possible that you are players of IRE, though, and will defend your games no matter what I write here - which, while understandable/acceptable, does make it difficult for us to make any real headway.

I'm not daft enough not to see a difference between a flame and a regular conversation. I questioned the motives why this thread was even started. Nonetheless, some of you really have swallowed the bait.

I have no affiliation with IRE whatsoever - I don't play their games. I still think it's silly that you have spent years fighting over their definition of free. It's true that all MUDs like to advertise being free (it's an advantage compared to games which force you to pay a monthly fee), but let's face it - the world has changed since the 1990s. The "de facto" standard meaning of "free" seems to be that it's limited in scope, or has a catch. "Free cell phone with 36 month subscription", "Free email (if you watch our ads)", you name it...

As Matt has pointed out, the FTC agrees with the usage of "free" as in allowing someone to play (free of charge) even if there is a commercial revenue model behind it (pay for advantages). It may be misleading and understandably somewhat annoying for MUDs in which the admins pay everything out of their own pockets, but it's legal and accepted nonetheless. Except on this forum...

Gore (admin of BatMUD)

It is accepted - we just want this resource site to have a means for the user/MUD-seeker to be able to differentiate between MUDs that have no hidden charges, and MUDs that do.

Just because the rest of the world has begun to grey the lines between commercial/free, does not mean that we cannot(at least on some level, on a resource site) expect more from our own community.

I don't think anyone is asking IRE to change their advertising. People are asking Synozeer/TMS to label games as "Free", "May-Pay-for-Perks", or "Pay-To-Play" vis-a-vis the current system of only "Free" or "Pay-to-Play".

The issue is not about what one can legally get away with, but instead about how this site should function as a MUD resource.

It's downright unfair that a MUD that works damn hard and doesn't have ANY income of ANY kind - gets lumped into the same category as those who not only accept donations and sell paraphenalia, but also gain income from payments for in-game benefits. That's just a bit too 'different' than the splitting hairs rubbish that the_logos and his ilk defend their stance with.

Debate the marginal differences between the various income-MUD models later - you can mark the 100% FREE muds as exactly that right now without a single ounce of confusion.

So flame (or even better, ask nicely) the owner of this site and mudconnector to add such a feature. Seems to me like you are flaming the wrong person here.

Yes yes, I read the argument about how Matt uses their financial power to "manipulate the policies". And I already countered that especially for mudconnector, should they lose Iron Realms due to them changing the policy to include a "pay for perks" option, that there will be other MUDs (including BatMUD) that will sponsor it instead.

On a technical detail, it shouldn't be too hard for either site to have both a "Free to play" (versus "Fee-based subscription") and a "Non-commercial (versus "Pay for perks") flag for the mud entries, to avoid this ambiguous interpretation of the term.

Flaming Matt or Iron Realms for TMS or Mudconnector lacking a feature is about as pointless as flaming him over a feature that your MUD lacks.

Regards,
 Gore (admin of BatMUD)

We aren't flaming Matt, and will not flame Syno - your definition of what flaming is seems askew. Also, we aren't specifically attempting to instigate change on Mudconnector on this, the TMS forum. We're attempting to incite TMS to change. The truth is that TMS' advertising depends very heavily on IRE currently, and Matt has already shown himself willing to threaten pulling advertising if he doesn't get his way.

None of this means, however, that we will stop our reasonable and dedicated attempts to educate forum readers on these matters, and to request that Syno add extra listing features. It has nothing to do with flaming Matt, Syno, or anyone else. At least not for myself and I suspect, most key others.