[shevegen]

Some points I agree with, some others I don't.

For instance, 2) I don't think it is the job of the MUD to babysit your character. And if you don't want to make any effort at all to find out whether the MUD is playable or not, then I don't think it is a loss to lose such a player either.

(1) I agree with.

(3) It depends. In my experience it was often said by some players who use other communications (like ICQ) who suddenly start the clique-metagaming on their own. It is often over-exaggerated. And if the underlying MUD code base is to one's liking, cliques won't be able to affect much (But I somewhat agree with you in a larger note, insofar that some players may purposely want to drive other players away. This is something that did not really exist ~20 years ago in the extent that I see it today. I think people got more aggressive on the WWW, at least some. )

(5) No idea about Levels because I don't play any MUDs with "levels". Levels are not a concept behind a virtual character. It seems to fit more into a hack and slay environment, where level 50 guys beat up level 30 guys. Is this any fun to you? To me it is not.
However the theme about taking time to become stronger exists in many games. You can't remove this easily, because that way you make your loyal players "stronger" and thus more interested in the game.


(6.) No one greets me.

Greets you where or how exactly? IC or OOCly?
Playerbase - it is a problem. Some players are just the type of "play to maximize all, then leave" style. You cant really have a MUD with such player types.

I think what is more interesting is which MUDs you found interesting (if you were to name not more than three).