Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

KaVir · 10-15-2002, 12:09 PM

The simple act of paying does not make something innately any more or less entertaining, I agree - however most successful commercial muds are run very differently to most free muds (they are businesses, after all). This is considered an advantage by some players, and a disadvantage by others, but either way it is a factor that will influence the decision of most potential players.

The mud profile lists the name of the MUD, the date it opened, the telnet address, the administrator's name, the administrator's email address, the geographical location of the mud, the primary language spoken within the mud, the codebase upon which the mud is based, the category of mud, the theme of the mud, the status (open/testing/etc) of the mud, the originality of the world, the size of the world, the average number of players online, whether it has PK, how much RP there is, what game features exist, and a short description of the mud.

Most of those features have little bearing on whether the mud is entertaining or not, but they do provide clues. The only deciding factor for me is that a I wouldn't find a mud entertaining unless English (or maybe German) was the primary language. Other than that, it's a matter of making assumptions.

For example, I tend to prefer the feel of some codebases over others. Of course if the mud had undergone major changes than that might no longer apply. Equally, I know that a mud which isn't officially open to the public is unlikely to be as fun as one which is. I also know that an older mud is more likely to have more work put into it than a younger one. I know that certain themes are unlikely to create an entertaining atmosphere for me. I know that a larger and more original world is likely to provide more entertainment than a smaller and more stock one. I know which features appeal to me in general and which do not. I also know that a mud with lots of players provides more PC interaction - and is obviously found entertaining by other people as well (but equally that it is probably more mainstream).

Equally, I cannot judge how entertaining a mud is based upon whether or not it is pay-to-play - but logic dictates that a very boring commercial mud would not last long (and combined with a large playerbase, it proves that the entertainment is sufficient that people are willing to pay for it). It also tells me that the mud is catering more to the masses, and I know that my own taste in muds tends to run to the obscure. However I know other people who prefer "pay to play", because they can generally be sure of a good all-round game with reasonably professional staff.

So while "pay to play" isn't a deciding factor on it's own, it's certainly an important clue as to what you might expect - just as much so as some of the other features, and considerable more so than others; I cannot even begin to guess how entertaining a mud is based on it's geographical location.

10-15-2002, 12:09 PM	#70
KaVir Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Name: Richard Home MUD: God Wars II Posts: 2,052	The simple act of paying does not make something innately any more or less entertaining, I agree - however most successful commercial muds are run very differently to most free muds (they are businesses, after all). This is considered an advantage by some players, and a disadvantage by others, but either way it is a factor that will influence the decision of most potential players. The mud profile lists the name of the MUD, the date it opened, the telnet address, the administrator's name, the administrator's email address, the geographical location of the mud, the primary language spoken within the mud, the codebase upon which the mud is based, the category of mud, the theme of the mud, the status (open/testing/etc) of the mud, the originality of the world, the size of the world, the average number of players online, whether it has PK, how much RP there is, what game features exist, and a short description of the mud. Most of those features have little bearing on whether the mud is entertaining or not, but they do provide clues. The only deciding factor for me is that a I wouldn't find a mud entertaining unless English (or maybe German) was the primary language. Other than that, it's a matter of making assumptions. For example, I tend to prefer the feel of some codebases over others. Of course if the mud had undergone major changes than that might no longer apply. Equally, I know that a mud which isn't officially open to the public is unlikely to be as fun as one which is. I also know that an older mud is more likely to have more work put into it than a younger one. I know that certain themes are unlikely to create an entertaining atmosphere for me. I know that a larger and more original world is likely to provide more entertainment than a smaller and more stock one. I know which features appeal to me in general and which do not. I also know that a mud with lots of players provides more PC interaction - and is obviously found entertaining by other people as well (but equally that it is probably more mainstream). Equally, I cannot judge how entertaining a mud is based upon whether or not it is pay-to-play - but logic dictates that a very boring commercial mud would not last long (and combined with a large playerbase, it proves that the entertainment is sufficient that people are willing to pay for it). It also tells me that the mud is catering more to the masses, and I know that my own taste in muds tends to run to the obscure. However I know other people who prefer "pay to play", because they can generally be sure of a good all-round game with reasonably professional staff. So while "pay to play" isn't a deciding factor on it's own, it's certainly an important clue as to what you might expect - just as much so as some of the other features, and considerable more so than others; I cannot even begin to guess how entertaining a mud is based on it's geographical location.