As strongly as I believe that Multi-User is the cornerstone of the gaming community, I have spent many late-night hours alone or nearly alone killing away in HnS "prime time" (everything is alive and MIIINE! ;> )

However: many people consider my MUD to be 'dying' based on it's Pbase numbers, rather than on the strength of the game itself. Others consider the lack of daily or weekly development a sign of 'dying.'

I talk to my admin, and they assure me that the Game itself will be up and running for a loooong time to come, even if nobody logs in.

How important is Pbase? How key is constant development? Can a MU* be 'alive' if nobody logs in?

I say yes, but then, I talk to the Game itself sometimes, just because I can. The Game, the Play... has a personality, has its own qualities to me. It lives beyond its code. To me, as a player, it is more than files. It is a world, and it "lives" so long as the possibility to connect is there. To me, everything that is living...is also dying.

What say you? When does a MU* truly die? What criteria do you use when you say, "This is a Dying MUD"? Is the Game as it stands ever as important as how many people are active on it?

For me it is.Without a large player base,there are no interactions,no rp or pk

I'd say that a mud dies when nobody cares about it any more.

It might still be up and running, the occasional stray player might log on at times, but without a caring staff and at least a small steady pbase it would be virtually dead.

That doesn't mean that a mud with a small pbase is dead or dying, however. There is a distinctive difference in atmosphere between big and small muds, and which you prefer is a matter of personal preference.

I play both kinds, but personally I prefer smaller muds, because they get more personal, and you get to know almost all the players and imms. But playing a totally empty mud is no fun in the long run, even though it sometimes feels good to level alone in the wee small hours of the morning, away from spam and competition.

In short, without players a mud is dead. Without caring imms it's not likely to even be up and running, since someone has to pay for the server.

I'd agree with that, however:

Does that mean that every mud starts off 'dead'?

And does that mean a mud where the players all come from one time zone 'dies' every night?

I think this is often true. I personally wouldn't mind adding another 20-30 people to CFs average player count, but we're not willing to dumb it down to increase the size. We as imms have not hesitated in the past to tell a player that we think they should go play a different MUD, when they've consistently prooven themselves far below our standards.

Sometimes it's not necessarily even "lower quality" players. They may just not be suited to our style of gameplay - maybe they really need to be at a MUD that allows them to go OOC when they want to, or has a gossip channel. We will always tell them they should go look for a MUD like that, rather then consider accomodating them on ours. Anyway, there are other means of growth besides allowing "lower-quality" players to the mix, but they tend to be a much slower route.

I think a MUD dies when its player base is *declining* to levels far below what it once was. I emphasize declining because that's the key. If the MUD has always had a peak of 17 players, then those players are used to that, the world is designed around that, and that's what everyone likes. If the MUD used to have a peak of 80 and now it has a peak of 17, that says to me that it's hemmorging players, and likely staff, and is all but dead. If a MUD is brand new and has just reached a peak of 17 players, then it's a growing MUD, not a dying MUD. In other words, it's relative.

The pbase may be dying, but as long as you can connect I wouldn't call it dead. As long as bugs aren't driving the users away, I'd say there is hope.