Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Seraphina · 09-25-2002, 03:27 PM

I prefer open discussion to email because through discussion others can point out factors I had not thought of that either support implementation or indicate why it wouldn't work out. This section is entited "bugs and suggestions" so it seems as though public suggestions are welcome.

I am not sure who is or isn't opposed to a sign. I am a player at a p2p mud. I don't think p2p muds are necessarily "better" in an inherent sort of way. They have both strengths and weaknesses. I was reading a thread on how many players online people prefer. The numbers are so low that most players in DR would consider it a problem but perhaps that is because our world is so enormous. 100 characters would maybe be enough to loosely populate the main entry city. We are more accustomed to complaining about under-populated areas, in a game that regularly has 1000 players on line.

On the other hand the smaller muds have greater control over the world in the sense of greater gm participation. Not being a business enterprise also allows for higher requirements for membership and a more controlled membership. The creator can more easily impose stricter roleplaying guidelines. Individual players are more able to make an impact in smaller games. Business muds can invest more resources in creating more advanced combat and experience systems. They are better able to support a wider variety of player styles as like-minded players gravitate to one another.

I don't see the two gendres as really being in direct competion. Some players might like both gendres others may strongly prefer one over the other.

I know that p2p in any form is a hot topic and that paying to play and particularly paying for ingame advantages contravenes traditional roleplaying ideals. I don't believe anything about paying is inherently immoral or unfair but I do believe that potential players should know up front how payment affects their in game status.

I don't know if the reference to having to pay 30$ was directed at Dragonrealms or GemstoneIII but both do have higher priced alternatives. I want to underline that in these cases basic membership covers everything needed to advance to the highest levels available. I played on a basic account for five years and my character's advancement was never hindered by not purchasing extras.

Of course extra cost items have to hold some appeal or no one would choose them however the basic game is so huge and offers so many different alternatives there is no "need" to buy into more.

I have heard that in some p2p games rather than a "trial membership" they offer full membership free, but then require players to buy in order to advance beyond X level or obtain special items that heavily impact a character's ability to function. Personally I don't like that kind of system at all. Other games are completely free. I do think those games are better able to set strict standards for participation.

I agree with the poster that this is key information for people looking to explore a variety of muds. I absolutely love Dragonrealms and encourage anyone interested in muds to check it out even if they don't intend on playing it longterm just to see what kind of game it is. It is a different kind of gaming experience. That is why I feel that it would be helpful to add a small designator differenciating between free games and games with some form of charging. Because they are different styles of RPGs, not because one approach is inherently better than another in a global sense.

09-25-2002, 03:27 PM	#27
Seraphina Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 49	I prefer open discussion to email because through discussion others can point out factors I had not thought of that either support implementation or indicate why it wouldn't work out. This section is entited "bugs and suggestions" so it seems as though public suggestions are welcome. I am not sure who is or isn't opposed to a sign. I am a player at a p2p mud. I don't think p2p muds are necessarily "better" in an inherent sort of way. They have both strengths and weaknesses. I was reading a thread on how many players online people prefer. The numbers are so low that most players in DR would consider it a problem but perhaps that is because our world is so enormous. 100 characters would maybe be enough to loosely populate the main entry city. We are more accustomed to complaining about under-populated areas, in a game that regularly has 1000 players on line. On the other hand the smaller muds have greater control over the world in the sense of greater gm participation. Not being a business enterprise also allows for higher requirements for membership and a more controlled membership. The creator can more easily impose stricter roleplaying guidelines. Individual players are more able to make an impact in smaller games. Business muds can invest more resources in creating more advanced combat and experience systems. They are better able to support a wider variety of player styles as like-minded players gravitate to one another. I don't see the two gendres as really being in direct competion. Some players might like both gendres others may strongly prefer one over the other. I know that p2p in any form is a hot topic and that paying to play and particularly paying for ingame advantages contravenes traditional roleplaying ideals. I don't believe anything about paying is inherently immoral or unfair but I do believe that potential players should know up front how payment affects their in game status. I don't know if the reference to having to pay 30$ was directed at Dragonrealms or GemstoneIII but both do have higher priced alternatives. I want to underline that in these cases basic membership covers everything needed to advance to the highest levels available. I played on a basic account for five years and my character's advancement was never hindered by not purchasing extras. Of course extra cost items have to hold some appeal or no one would choose them however the basic game is so huge and offers so many different alternatives there is no "need" to buy into more. I have heard that in some p2p games rather than a "trial membership" they offer full membership free, but then require players to buy in order to advance beyond X level or obtain special items that heavily impact a character's ability to function. Personally I don't like that kind of system at all. Other games are completely free. I do think those games are better able to set strict standards for participation. I agree with the poster that this is key information for people looking to explore a variety of muds. I absolutely love Dragonrealms and encourage anyone interested in muds to check it out even if they don't intend on playing it longterm just to see what kind of game it is. It is a different kind of gaming experience. That is why I feel that it would be helpful to add a small designator differenciating between free games and games with some form of charging. Because they are different styles of RPGs, not because one approach is inherently better than another in a global sense.