Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

10-11-2002, 11:28 PM

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. But given contemporary theory on how addiction is defined, I couldn't debate it correctly either. So I'll concede this one with little regret. :)
Simple? Heh.

Logistically, based solely on the criteria on MU* cost, I would _think_ free MU*s would generally be more popular than p2p ones. That would seem a simple conclusion to me. Given the high-player base of some of these p2p games, I would think...
1) they must offer something above and beyond that which is currently considered "good" on a free MU*.
2) their playerbase is unfamiliar with the fact that there are free MU*s.

Frankly, I think, logistically, free MU*s SHOULD be able to benefit more than p2p's with p2p's advertising here or sending their pbase here to vote/forum. Why? Because if a player from a p2p MU* finds an equally entertaining free MU* on Top Sites and is not against "free MU*s", there is more of a chance that player will switch than if a player from a free MU* found an equally entertaining p2p MU* on Top Mud Sites and is not against "p2p MU*s". And when I say equal, I mean EQUAL in terms of area quality, code, theme taste, etc, etc (friends on the playerbase and loyalty to the first MU* not considered).

I can't possibly see a good, free MU* dying from lack of support. If you mean support in terms of financial support, then the fault is there own, and a free-playing playerbase could, obviously, do little to save that without donations. If by lack of support you mean a small player-base, then again, the fault is their own by being too ego-driven. I've seen more than my share of mornings alone on my MU*, whilst I build. I think my MU*s pretty decent and hope one day it will catch a fairly decent playerbase (imo, btn 30-50 at peak). We've had our periods of growth, we've had our periods of decline - every MU* has them. If a MU* ever dies it is because the drive to see it succeed has died out in those running it. If it is because of lack of a player base, I'd consider that ego driven. A person running their MU* for the sake of garnering and catering to many players with no true design of their own would probably give up their MU* quicker than someone who carefully crafted their world out of their own desire to express their creativity, if all their players went to another MU*. Would you rather have a woman who does everything you say, gives you everything she has, and has no life/opinion of her own - or a woman who is her own and you want to be with because you enjoy that spirit? My personal opinion is that a "good" MU* is crafted for the sake of bringing a world to life, as opposed to one that offers anything it needs to in order to satisfy its people. Perhaps would be good to akin it to taking pride in yourself for who you are versus taking pride in the acclaim others give you.
*smirk*

My official vote is not to put any sort of markings on the ranking page and do nothing to change how things are currently done.

Seeing how that does not seem to be the popular opinion, I am attempting to see things and listen to the opinions of others.

So I am attempting to separate myself from my "feelings" on the situation, and debate down to where the issue lies.

I do not believe that constitutes being "thickheaded". While I appreciate you containing anything else you wished to call me that might seem more ....flaming, I would think my debating issues on a side I do not necessarily agree with (to offer up something I feel to be a bad idea in order to prevent something I feel would be worse) would qualify me as something on the other side of the fence from "thickheaded". Also, as a designated leader within another forum, I am suprised you resorting to common name-calling within a debate forum. I would think moderators to be better than that.
Yes, indeed. A cost factor _may_ cost you money. No arguments there. I am in whole agreement with that.
And to YOU that may be an incredibly viable thing that separates X MU* from Y MU*. Many people may agree with you. Nations may rally behind it.
But that is something important to YOU.
Cost may not be the all-important to others. It is not important to ME.
To ME, a MU*'s rp/pk ratio is the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
To JFK, a MU*'s codebase may be the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU*.
My opinions and JFK's opinions may differ from most everyone else's out there. It makes our opinions on what is the most deciding factor in a MU* we choose to swear off no less legit than yours.

I am looking beyond my opinion of "we shouldn't change the current layout because if people want more in-depth knowledge of a MU* they should research beyond the ranking page" and hearing people say "make p2p MU*s declare their misbegotten ways on the ranking page" and interpretting it as "this MU* has a difference that _I_ find important enough that it should be posted on the ranking page". Again, not very thickheaded. If you cannot look beyond what you are saying and seeing how it relates to the concept design of the site as a whole, then there probably is no further need to debate this. I do not wish to step down further and isolate MU*s on a single difference they have and you do not wish to step up from your view that a single difference is an all-encompassing and so important an attribute that it transcends all others and needs its own distinguishing marker on the ranking page as opposed to the info page.

And thats what makes us all unique, no?
Okay, past that. Most of them seem to have posted it under features as it is listed to post. Thats the current standard, thats where most of 'em are listing. Little seem to have any problem with it. *yay*
:)
Well, thats the 2nd time you've left on a "this topic isn't worth my time" sort of note. Cheers to me to catching, I suppose you'll say. Still, if it is not important to you or you feel debating it is not productive, then why even debate it?

As for the_logos...
Page 2.
Errrrr. I was hoping someone would miss that :p Not to open it for debate here, but my current opinion is I would look more towards not classifying Achaea as p2p if I had only "free" and "p2p" to choose from. KaVir is posting some very relevant points on how people who donate time/money/etc to the betterment of the MU* should be rewarded that I agree with (hence my quietness on the topic over there). If it _were_ needed to be qualified in some sort of "Cost" field in Info, I'd probably suggest it in a spot between 'Free' and 'Pay to Play' called 'Donation Enhanced" or some such.

Anyway. Thats been an hour + of fun. I think I'll go grab a bar of soap and do something practical with it too. :)

10-11-2002, 11:28 PM	#34
TG_Nek Posts: n/a	I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. But given contemporary theory on how addiction is defined, I couldn't debate it correctly either. So I'll concede this one with little regret. :) Simple? Heh. Logistically, based solely on the criteria on MU* cost, I would _think_ free MUs would generally be more popular than p2p ones. That would seem a simple conclusion to me. Given the high-player base of some of these p2p games, I would think... 1) they must offer something above and beyond that which is currently considered "good" on a free MU. 2) their playerbase is unfamiliar with the fact that there are free MUs. Frankly, I think, logistically, free MUs SHOULD be able to benefit more than p2p's with p2p's advertising here or sending their pbase here to vote/forum. Why? Because if a player from a p2p MU* finds an equally entertaining free MU* on Top Sites and is not against "free MUs", there is more of a chance that player will switch than if a player from a free MU found an equally entertaining p2p MU* on Top Mud Sites and is not against "p2p MUs". And when I say equal, I mean EQUAL in terms of area quality, code, theme taste, etc, etc (friends on the playerbase and loyalty to the first MU not considered). I can't possibly see a good, free MU* dying from lack of support. If you mean support in terms of financial support, then the fault is there own, and a free-playing playerbase could, obviously, do little to save that without donations. If by lack of support you mean a small player-base, then again, the fault is their own by being too ego-driven. I've seen more than my share of mornings alone on my MU, whilst I build. I think my MUs pretty decent and hope one day it will catch a fairly decent playerbase (imo, btn 30-50 at peak). We've had our periods of growth, we've had our periods of decline - every MU* has them. If a MU* ever dies it is because the drive to see it succeed has died out in those running it. If it is because of lack of a player base, I'd consider that ego driven. A person running their MU* for the sake of garnering and catering to many players with no true design of their own would probably give up their MU* quicker than someone who carefully crafted their world out of their own desire to express their creativity, if all their players went to another MU. Would you rather have a woman who does everything you say, gives you everything she has, and has no life/opinion of her own - or a woman who is her own and you want to be with because you enjoy that spirit? My personal opinion is that a "good" MU is crafted for the sake of bringing a world to life, as opposed to one that offers anything it needs to in order to satisfy its people. Perhaps would be good to akin it to taking pride in yourself for who you are versus taking pride in the acclaim others give you. smirk My official vote is not to put any sort of markings on the ranking page and do nothing to change how things are currently done. Seeing how that does not seem to be the popular opinion, I am attempting to see things and listen to the opinions of others. So I am attempting to separate myself from my "feelings" on the situation, and debate down to where the issue lies. I do not believe that constitutes being "thickheaded". While I appreciate you containing anything else you wished to call me that might seem more ....flaming, I would think my debating issues on a side I do not necessarily agree with (to offer up something I feel to be a bad idea in order to prevent something I feel would be worse) would qualify me as something on the other side of the fence from "thickheaded". Also, as a designated leader within another forum, I am suprised you resorting to common name-calling within a debate forum. I would think moderators to be better than that. Yes, indeed. A cost factor _may_ cost you money. No arguments there. I am in whole agreement with that. And to YOU that may be an incredibly viable thing that separates X MU* from Y MU. Many people may agree with you. Nations may rally behind it. But that is something important to YOU. Cost may not be the all-important to others. It is not important to ME. To ME, a MU's rp/pk ratio is the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU. To JFK, a MU's codebase may be the most viable difference btn X MU* and Y MU. My opinions and JFK's opinions may differ from most everyone else's out there. It makes our opinions on what is the most deciding factor in a MU we choose to swear off no less legit than yours. I am looking beyond my opinion of "we shouldn't change the current layout because if people want more in-depth knowledge of a MU* they should research beyond the ranking page" and hearing people say "make p2p MUs declare their misbegotten ways on the ranking page" and interpretting it as "this MU has a difference that _I_ find important enough that it should be posted on the ranking page". Again, not very thickheaded. If you cannot look beyond what you are saying and seeing how it relates to the concept design of the site as a whole, then there probably is no further need to debate this. I do not wish to step down further and isolate MUs on a single difference they have and you do not wish to step up from your view that a single difference is an all-encompassing and so important an attribute that it transcends all others and needs its own distinguishing marker on the ranking page as opposed to the info page. And thats what makes us all unique, no? Okay, past that. Most of them seem to have posted it under features as it is listed to post. Thats the current standard, thats where most of 'em are listing. Little seem to have any problem with it. yay* :) Well, thats the 2nd time you've left on a "this topic isn't worth my time" sort of note. Cheers to me to catching, I suppose you'll say. Still, if it is not important to you or you feel debating it is not productive, then why even debate it? As for the_logos... Page 2. Errrrr. I was hoping someone would miss that :p Not to open it for debate here, but my current opinion is I would look more towards not classifying Achaea as p2p if I had only "free" and "p2p" to choose from. KaVir is posting some very relevant points on how people who donate time/money/etc to the betterment of the MU* should be rewarded that I agree with (hence my quietness on the topic over there). If it _were_ needed to be qualified in some sort of "Cost" field in Info, I'd probably suggest it in a spot between 'Free' and 'Pay to Play' called 'Donation Enhanced" or some such. Anyway. Thats been an hour + of fun. I think I'll go grab a bar of soap and do something practical with it too. :)