Top Mud Sites Forum

Top Mud Sites Forum (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tavern of the Blue Hand (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Iron Realms sucks! (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1341)

the_logos 03-15-2006 10:45 PM

This is for that fringe minority who spends most of their time on the boards flaming people, and specifically Iron Realms. Instead of taking so many threads off-topic by turning them into flamefests, go ahead and vent your vitriol here. You'll probably sleep better at night and won't be so grumpy when awake.

--matt

Sacac 03-15-2006 11:50 PM

Some of them are scared that 10% ruin it for the rest of them. They seem to think Iron Realms is that so called 10%.

WarHound 03-16-2006 12:23 AM


DonathinFrye 03-16-2006 12:26 AM

If you don't like our criticism of your topics, choose your phraseologies more carefully, Matt. And anyone who thinks that Iron Realms is anywhere close to the majority of the community here... well, I am very very sorry for you. : p

Back to posting on other threads, though.

Zion-Altari 03-16-2006 05:06 AM

I'm just going to put in my 2 cents here, and see what happens...

First of all, I'm not a great fan of IRE, but then again, i'm a picky mudder... I've played pretty much every mud thats made it up to the top 20 in the last year or so, and havn't liked many of them at all. But in my mind at least, any mud that constantly makes the top 5 every month running for who knows how long must have something going for it at least.

Now, as for all this free versus paying debate... I'm going to stand with Matt on this one, all IRE muds are FREE TO PLAY. No where in the muds is there a point at all which you MUST pay money. His topic about new payment options was purely an optional service provide faster advancement for player skills, by buying credits. Nowhere does it say that a player MUST purchase these credits to play the mud, thus making it a FREE TO PLAY mud.

Now, I don't know anything about these aleged threats or anything, but for the moment, for all i don't particularly like Iron Realms Entertainmets muds myself, my support is behind Matt for this.

Farewell,

Midnight Zion, Eternal Shadow

Aarn 03-16-2006 09:03 AM

So to recap, in IREs model you can log on for free but will be facing people who have paid money to get ahead, and will be solicited for such a payment yourself.

In the model for a game like Carrion Fields, you can log on for free and never even have the option to pay anything, anywhere, nor will you ever be up against anyone who has gotten ahead by means of their wallet.

How would you suggest aknowledging this distinct difference between the two models, if both are allowed to simply call themselves "free"? Recognizing that there is limited space in an advertisement, so drawn-out explanations aren't practical.

Traveler 03-16-2006 09:23 AM

As has been stated by Matt's own admins in the forums of his games he likes to argue. I suspect this thread serves no purpose other then to provide Matt a bit of entertainment.

lovechiefs 03-16-2006 10:16 AM

As a IRE customer,playing all four of their MUDs(especially Achaea),I would like to say that all of their MUDs are free to play.If a player chooses to spend money for credits,that is his choice.
Personnaly I bought credits only once(for achaea) and I would do it again if I had the money(I am a college student).But this is besides the point.
My point is that IRE games are great and free to play.
As far as the flaming,let me also add my two cents to it.
I haven't been a member of the TMC for very long,however everytime IRE is posting a news or something,there is always a guy from Carrion Fields that starts to attack IRE.
And to be completely honest,I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THAT!!!
And as I see Carrion Fields to be the culprit as far as flaming goes,I am done even remotely trying to play Carrion Fields
GO IRE!!!!!

Lisaera 03-16-2006 10:39 AM


The_Disciple 03-16-2006 11:07 AM

I dunno, I'm not sure pointing out that a free MUD has extra payment options is really an attack. It's just one of those funny things, like jumbo shrimp or fighting for peace.

Spoke 03-16-2006 11:18 AM

In your webpage, it is specifically said that

Now, this is clearly different from MUDs that are trully 100% free to play and do not contain any solicitation for money from the staff, is not it?

Further down your site's page we find

,

which could be read as, eventhough every bit helps, you should donate larger amounts of money to us. (I guess this is a valid way to read, as much as free-to-play can be read as free-to-obtain-everything-that-everybody-else-gets-even-if-they-bought-things -with-rl-money).

At the end, comercial and non-comercial ventures require money to be run. There are different models for both and it has been said before that the problem is not with labeling two different models differently, but with doing so in an inaccurate way that would harm either of the two ends. The problem is that if you want to be accurate, you cannot do it with simply the addition of a couple check-boxes, furthermore, only the MUDs in the first page (if even those) will be policed for accurateness of their description, which would mean much more annoyance to the list owner. I believe Matt has said a couple of times that he would be willing to add a full description of their economical model, but he was behemently against new labels that would send the wrong message to the potential players of his MUDs.

On top of this, if it is true that the great majority of the comunity does not really care about MUDs where you can pay to advance or get perks, then it would make much more sense that this same comunity had discussions on Role-playing, H&S design, combat styles, etc. The reality is that except for a couple of people (not more than a handful), like Brody and now and then KaViR, nothing is discussed about any of these, much more important, subjects. So, what we have here is just a concern for having someone else using my words, in a way that is accepted by most people (not the posters of these threads though) in everyday life (Go to a Publix supermarket if you live in the US and check how many 'Buy-One-get-One-free' you find).

Lastly, I believe someone had mentioned that Matt had only supporters among his staff or players. I am none of those, and I believe I even have had priv-messages exchanged before with the person making this claim, explaining this was so. This is not only a poor way to try to undermine arguments but a clear way to show that even with knowledge of a fact people choose to hide it if it would serve their purposes to attack someone else.

Have a good day

* bold-italic added by me.
** bold-italic text added by me.

Maelgrim 03-16-2006 11:25 AM


tehScarecrow 03-16-2006 12:32 PM


FenringThalion 03-16-2006 01:20 PM

Been playing Aetolia for a little over 3 years now. I'm not one of the movers and shakers in the realm, but I enjoy a small measure of recognition in the world. Guess that puts me on the pro-IRE side.

I greatly enjoy IRE games, and I can't see how anyone would say that they "suck", honestly, as even if you dislike them it's quite obvious they're head and shoulders above most other mp roleplaying games out there, including graphical MMOs.

Not to say I think Rapture is holy or that I have a shrine to Matt at my house or anything. Honestly if I was to write a MUD engine I'd do things quite different from the way Rapture is, in particular I've always been rather irritated at how the combat is almost entirely based upon the affliction -> cure system, I find it a pain to deal with and easily turned to the benefit of people who concentrate more on game mechanics than on actual roleplay. Mob bashing is quite dismal in my opinion as well.

Of a much lower irritation factor to me is the fact that I would really like to see a really top-notch sci-fi MUD, all the other choices out there are simply dreadful. IRE should be the company to blow the lid off SF MUDding, but they're continually putting out medieval-fantasy type games.

Having noted all these things that irritate me, I will note that I do intend to continue to play Aetolia and that overall I find that IRE is a notch above the other choices out there. Before I found Aetolia I couldn't find a MUD that would hold my attention for any length of time. That's saying something there.

DonathinFrye 03-16-2006 02:01 PM


prof1515 03-16-2006 04:51 PM

I'm not one of Carrion Fields' staff nor do I play it (though, like the IRE games, I've tried it). And I myself find Matt's description of his games as deceitful.  I also find Matt's tone toward other MUDs to be disrespectful and conceited and having tried his MUDs, he doesn't have any grounds to be conceited.  I've played over 850 MUDs and while the IRE games probably end up ranked in the top 10% of them, that's only because the bar is so low.  Compared to the best MUDs I've found, IRE's games aren't that impressive.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is the dishonest way in which they advertise their games (kudos to Lusternia for not advertising itself as "free to play" like the other three do) and the way in which Matt attacks anyone that he feels threatens his little business.

I was first drawn to read the forums when a Matt started his attack on other MUDs over "IP theft" using Shadows of Isildur as his example.  While he claimed righteous motives, I suspected from the tone of his posts as well as his targets that he was more motivated by the fact that a new (and genuinely free) Tolkien-based MUD was doing quite well in the rankings at a time when interest in Tolkien was high due to the cinematic release of the LOTR films.  This was something IRE games couldn't do:  use a theme like LOTR because a commercial company, as opposed to a free game created out of love of the theme and the medium, IRE'd have to pay for the use of the name/theme.  Matt knew lots of MUDs do it and never had a problem with it.  But suddenly, IP theft became an issue for Matt and his attacks began.  He felt both jealous and threatened, the latter of which he's displayed repeatedly since then toward anything he perceives as hurting his selfish attempts at manipulation of TMS.

All the while, he continues to pretend he's somehow a representative of the community and a "professional" while those he attacks are "hobbyists" and thus not equals or important.  And when he fears that those who actually think about the MUD community above their own interests make suggestions for changes that he perceives might harm his own selfish interests, he lashes out at them as "hobbyists", "the minority", and threatens to use economic leverage against the site admins.  He'll take his ball and go home if everyone can't play by his rules.  And that's why I don't like him.  He's a lying, selfish, conceited, no-talent ass.

And maybe he should take his ball and go home.  So I'll make the offer right  now.  How much does IRE pay in advertising to this site per year?  I'll match it if honesty in advertising is required (ie, Viagra MUDs have to be honest about what they are:  pay-to-succeed) in the listings.  If Matt throws a hissy-fit and pulls IRE's advertising dollars from TMS, it's no big loss for the site (and certainly not for the MUDding community) as they'll still get their money (even though my MUD won't be anywhere near ready for years).  But maybe it's just time to call his bluff.

Take care,

Jason

the_logos 03-16-2006 05:10 PM

So in other words, you'd like to bribe Adam in order to make changes to the site that fit your own desires, right?

Funny. That's just what I'm being accused of, albeit without any evidence. Oh, the irony.

--matt

DonathinFrye 03-16-2006 05:14 PM

Yes, Spoke; I sometimes make silly generalizations and leave out a word or two, but I've explained in PMs the point - which still stands. Many people, from many MUDs, with different goals/economic models/etc for their games argue against the way IRE handles things. The number of non-IRE players/admins who defend Matt's side is very, very small in comparison. There is a reason for that; and that fact is brought into light by me to negate Matt's ridiculous claims that those that are actively against some of his shaky ethical decisions are some sort of "fringe minority". I will try to remind myself to be very specific in the future when countering his ridiculous claim, so that we don't get into this portion of the debate.

prof1515 03-16-2006 05:24 PM

No, it's not a bribe, it's eliminating your ability to threaten. I'm not getting anything out of the deal as I have no MUD to advertise and won't for at least two years.

However, the fact that bribery is the first thought that occurs to you says something about your character. But we already knew that anyway.

Take care,

Jason

the_logos 03-16-2006 05:28 PM

From dictionary.com

Bribe: Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

That's what you are offering to do with Adam: Pay him money so that he will change his views or conduct.

The fact that you're not getting anything out of it just makes it an even more blatant bribe since there's no exchange of money for anything but that change of view or conduct.

--matt


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022