[Newworlds]

Did you miss my whole post on the breakdown I gave on why the four option system doesn't work? It's post #310 if you are curious, so I don't have to site the whole thing.

[Atyreus]

I read your post, which is effectively a nine-/ten-/whathaveyou-option approach. I would have no problem with more finely delineated options if they were clear and meaningfully distinct. The implementation you propose doesn't yet meet that criteria, particularly since it is possible to select more than one choice from among some mutually exclusive choices.

Some other issues include:
What's the distinction between these two categories? If a donation is required, doesn't it, by definition, become a subscription/registration fee?

What constitutes encouraged? Trying to distinguish between donations which are encouraged vs. those which are merely requested would be even more vague than trying to distinguish between in-game rewards which influence competition and those which are supposedly only cosmetic.

Again, what's the meaningful distinction between these categories? Is there supposed to be some criteria which distinguishes between voluntary payments which are registration fees and voluntary payments which are donations?

[Threshold]

No, they are different but not fundamentally different. The fundamental difference is between games that absolutely never accept money in any form, and those who do. Beyond that, the differences are relatively minor.


First, your example is an exaggeration. Second, that difference might be important to some players, but it is nowhere near as important as the more significant difference between taking money in some form or not taking money in any form.


Actually, it lets merchandise sellers get away with saying they don't accept payments, and that is just false.

Furthermore, it is deceptive by making it sound like there is ANY time when money changing hands does not result in "rewards" or "an effect in game" or anything like that. Once money changes hands, the relationship is dramatically changed forever. It is deceptive and naive to claim otherwise.

The participation of what, 10 people? That is hardly a grass roots movement.

The ugly truth finally comes out. You want this change because you want a marketing advantage over Threshold and other games that are free but have pay-for-perks or other optional things. I have been saying this was the motive all along, and people criticized me for making such an accusation. Now we know it was true from the beginning.

Frankly, I don't think games that sell merchandise are any different than games that sell perks. I also don't think buying merchandise never affects gameplay. I am certain that someone in power knows who buys what, and there are times when that affects their decisions or their priorities. It would be hopelessly naive to claim otherwise.

Now that we know the true motive, I think that kills this idea. Now we know that the motive behind this is not educating players, but a handful of mud operators trying to unbalance the marketing playing field in their favor. There couldn't be a WORSE reason for changing something than that.

[Xerihae]

Naive? I'd say idealistic perhaps, but not everyone is so jaded as to believe that there's no such thing as an instance where such a transaction would not affect gameplay. To use MMO's as an example, do you believe that a bunch of fans buying their favourite MMO t-shirt/baseball cap/mug would affect the way they're treated in-game in any way? Or is your objection solely applicable to MUDs because the player-base tends to be smaller and there is more chance of interactivity between staff and players?

[Newworlds]

I really don't think you can compare 10's of thousands of players on a Graphical multi-million dollar game to the significantly less in text muds. Yes, I think very strongly that when a person buys something they are viewed as a supporter of the game/system and treated accordingly.

[shadowfyr]

Argh! Ok, I just want to comment on one issue in this thread. Someone brought up "merchandise" as a form of payment. My only question is, "Does this effect game play?" If the answer is, "No, buying our T-Shirt doesn't have any effect at all on the game world, other than to help us keep the servers going.", then its the ****same**** thing as donations, basically. You don't "have to" buy it to get anything in the game. If you want to get bloody picky about this kind of BS, then change the options to say something like, "Donations accepted (or merchandise perchases, where applicable)." And I agree with people's assesments of the situation. Some people don't want anyone to be able to look for a mud based on rational criteria, since that would lend itself to people skipping their muds, which means they can't hook them like a fish, then get them to buy ingame incentives. I haven't seen this much nonsense over a simple issue since the last time I read anything from the Disco Institute in support of ID in schools, or since Bill Clinton tried to insist that his entire guilt rested on which definition of "is" one used.

As for the issue of people buying things getting perks from buying something. If the mud is honest, then it doesn't matter. If they are not, then we **will hear about it**. I came up with the slogan for the T-Shirt sold from Ages of Despair, to help defray their costs. I got a free one from them for it. So far, no one, including me, has gotten anything at all for buying one, other than my initial *out of game* reward for winning the contest. That is an honest mud. Some other mud wants to give people freebies for it, someone is going to talk, someone will notice, and someone will post about it, leaving the mud in question with a serious problem, if they want to keep their "status" in any such list. If someone here is suggesting the changes for that reason, they are **going** to be the people looked at the hardest, dissected if it appears they did cheat, and the first to pay the price for intentionally cheating the system. I would think that would be a big fracking, "Duh!"

[tricky]

I think that the points have been made and everyone is now just "flogging a dead horse." Anything more would just be a re-hash of what has already been discussed.

There has been several threads that have been spawned off of this thread, one member banned, a clarification of the rules and moderation activities and a re-jig of the search parameters (so maybe something good did come out of it).

Free was such a simple term before the internet caught the public's eye.

Tricky

[KaVir]

As far as I'm aware, there are now only three people objecting to the four-choice option:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game.
[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

Mina's objection was to the use of the word "rewarded" - but chaosprime's suggestion has changed the wording and thus removed the cause of the objection.

Newworlds wants even more options - but four options are at least an improvement over the current two, so I'm hoping he'll view it as at least a step in the right direction.

Threshold doesn't want any changes at all, as he likes listing his mud as "free". I don't think there's any way to reach a compromise in this case, it's going to have to be a case of either pleasing Threshold, or pleasing everyone else.

[Milawe]

My objection still applies with this new wording. It's not the actual WORD I have a problem with, which I thought I've been really clear in expressing. It's the ambiguity that can be found in the whole proposal. What do you mean by "result"? If there's a person who has a badge in game that says nothing more than "I'm a donator", is that an in-game result or not? "Result" is NO BETTER and potentially WORSE than "reward". Please don't state my opinions for me. I'm more than capable of stating them for myself.

It's kind of easy to be the majority voice when your (again, general you) muds follow the same general payment schemes, and you'd like to get a leg up on muds that advertise in a way in which you disapprove though are actually accurate. Also, the number of "free/donation" mud vastly outnumbers the number of "commercial" muds.

Besides, there are games that still wouldn't fit accurately under your 4 payment system. Take Threshold's old payment system. You paid a MANDATORY $50 registration fee for a lifetime membership of Threshold. You pay that ONCE, and you do get "perks" with it. You can cram it under payment/donations required to play, but it's VERY different from the $15/month fee that you pay to play a number of other games. But would you care about that since it's a COMMERCIAL mud? You guys care if people lump donation in with pay-for-perks, and let's seriously not even begin to delve in the million of ways that "donation" can be abused.

I'm beginning to feel that this whole discussion smacks of a police state mentality when people are continually forced to succumb to big brother and what they decide is "best". Seriously, how is this any different than if Wal-Mart went and harassed the town newspaper because they objected to K-mart's buy-one-get-one free advertisement by claiming it's a scam? Don't try to fool anyone into thinking it's for the benefit of the player because players are simply not as stupid as this thread keeps trying to make them out to be here. If you really want to help players, then you wouldn't object to New World's improvised Two-Choice system, and players who care about whether or not a game is free or not would still be able to find free games easily where NO MONEY changes hands.

This discussion exists for the benefit of mud administrators that object to the fact that you CAN play IRE games for free (free means you pay absolutely no money to play), you CAN play Nodeka for free, and you CAN play Threshold for free, but they feel that this somehow impedes their own mud's advertising. Take the pretty icing off and discuss the real issue. Don't try to sugar coat it and pretend that it's something altruistic. At least Valg has the integrity to state the real issue:

Let's stop trying to pretend this is about the players because it's really not.

[chaosprime]

These forced-choice logical fallacies destroy the credibility of everyone I see using them. Interestingly, those people have all been proponents of the two-choice system.

First mincing words about what "reward" means, then not changing argument in any way when "reward" is changed to "result"... not really impressing me either.

Right. So is it my imagination, or did the only player to chime in on this thread express approval of the four-choice + text-box option?

I'm eagerly awaiting seeing a player say, oh, yeah, I don't want to be able to search based on whether a game is pay-to-play, pay-for-perks, or no-money-accepted.

Because, y'know, sock puppet shows are funny.

[Milawe]

Why should I change my argument when the results of the "word change" are exactly the same? The ambiguity did not go away just because you casually reworded it. The problem has always been in the possible abuse and how different people define "in-game result/reward", causing the same problem we're having now with the word "free". How is result any better than reward? Seriously, just because you managed to change a word doesn't mean that you actually "fixed" the problem, and don't worry, I wasn't setting out to impress you or anyone else.

Nice straw man. I don't believe that ANYONE arguing this has said this. I, for one, don't have a problem with the idea of searching for money-accepted or no-money-accepted. I don't think I've made my posts unclear about this, so perhaps you are mistaking my opinion about the search with someone else's.

As it is, *I* am a player of MU*s and all manner of online games. My opinion does not become less worthy simply because I have a differing opinion of what is actually useful than others in this forum.

If you haven't noticed, most of the arguments and proponents of this are all mud administrators, and this post was started because of how other muds advertise themselves. New World's expanded two-choice system actually gives more options to administrators than the proposed four-choice ambiguous system. In the end, it lists muds as accurately as the expanded two-choice system, so why are we arguing against it? It is LESS ambiguous and has FAR less room for abuse.

[Milawe]

After my last post, I realize that there's really no point in hashing this out again and again. It's possible that no matter WHAT system is put in place, this discussion will continue to crop up again and again. If I truly believe that players will choose a game based on its gameplay and not what payment system someone else can dictate to me, then there's absolutely no point in discussing this further. Is there anything really new to be said?

All that is left now is for people to criticize each other for having a different opinion, and that's hardly constructive.

So, to whomever I may have offended, I apologize. I ultimately think that all administrators try to do what is best for their game and should be commended for that. To all those who shared their opinion, whether it was popular or unpopular, I thank you for the great read.

Toodles, and I'll see you in other threads.

[Arabis]

I am a MU* player. I do not advertise a MU* on this or any other site because I do not own one. I have played MU*s in one form or another for the past 11-12 years.

As a MU* player, here are my opinions on the subject:

The two-options are too general and, while they would lessen the results of my searches, would still have me hunting through these results to find what I was searching for.

The two-options with sub-options are far too convoluted and I feel most of the options have distinction problems.

The four-options would narrow down my search results to exactly what I was searching for. As a player, I feel this would be the best option.

I am reluctant to post this because of the general attitude that I have witnessed over the past week or so since discovering this site. This thread alone has made me feel that maybe MU* developers have forgotten that players are people as well and are not of some sub-standard intelligence. I have no difficulty in reading comprehension and also realize that entries are capable of being falsified.

For the record, I have no problems with commercial MU*s in any form or fashion; be it donations, required payments, or pay-for-perks. I am not here to push my MU* into a more favorable market position, because I do not market a MU*. This is only my opinion as a player.

Arabis

[Newworlds]

Chaos' change in the wording is silly. Whether it is reward or results it is the same, come now, let's be realistic here.

The only reason for options was to give the player searching options to narrow the search in a realistic fashion. The four options as stated earlier do nothing but give someone two realistic options. C or D.

As for further arguments. I think it is redundant. Those who want four options will forever want them for their own personal reasons. Those who want two options will forever want them for their personal reasons.

Arabis, just curious what MUD do you play now, if I might ask. I ask because you don't post a home mud as a member.

[Arabis]

Currently I do not have a home MUD. I found this site in my search for one to play and have been bouncing from MUD to MUD trying to find one to my liking.

Arabis

[chaosprime]

Well! I never.

Actually, I agree completely. We all bloody well know that in-game results, that is, anything at freaking all that's actually in the game, are the same as in-game rewards. It was a way of addressing an argument that was just contrived anyway.

Wha hunh? Utter nonsense. Those of us with more money than time, and I know I'm not the only one of those, would certainly want to be able to search for pay-for-perks MUDs, item B, and people who are willing to pay but don't want the potential escalation nonsense of incremental pay-for-perks will search for item A.

[Newworlds]

Well, now I can't remember what the four options were, hang on a sec, I'll look them up...
(copied them for my own edification)

a. [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
b. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewards in game.
c. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no rewards in game.
d. [ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

Okay, if this gets installed, I'd like the admin after a month or so to post a list like:
Number of muds with A checked: 25%
Number of muds with B checked: 25%
Number of muds with C checked: 25%
Number of muds with D checked: 25%

Here is my guess at the results: A: 0.1%, B:2.9%, C:95%, D:2%.

Answer: Worthless change.

[Jazuela]

Arabis for president. And whoever gets the privilege of having such a well-written forum member as their newest player in their game, should give him/her a cookie.

Lastly, I agree, and for the same reasons, as a player, not a mud admin/owner.

And furthermore, Arabis looks like Aramis, a men's cologne which I really don't like. I hope you don't smell like that, because then I would have to change my opinion of you.

Love and kisses,
Jaz

[ScourgeX]

What are you basing this on? I would have guessed the results would be a lot different, especially C and D. Of course I don't have anything to base it on either, I'm not sure anyone knows unless we try.

[Newworlds]

It is my guess based on researching many of the muds listed in the top 40. I actually never found a mud that would check box A, but figured one was out there. I saw a few that would check box B, but because of interpretation I thought several of those would opt to go with C instead. Option C was plentiful. Option D was rare, I'm assuming because most muds I found would not refuse some form of donation.

It is this reason that I think the breakdown of exactly what you get when you pay is so important. Many, I guess do not feel this way.