Bugs and Suggestions

10-10-2002, 05:19 PM

Orion,

First, to make sure there are no misunderstandings - I am not staff on any game. I am not a staff member of a PtP. I have been staff on free games and enjoyed the game and players in the past. I now play both free games and one PtP with investments into the characters and player bases of both types of games. With that information known (and with it, any biases I might have laid out)....

I do not want to see $$$ in front of game listings on the actual ranking page. I would never have gone to the game I have ended up spending most of my time at for nearly a year if it had a $$$ in front of the name. Not because I refuse to pay, but because I would have skipped right by its website and looked for a free game. After all, why pay if you can find what you want for free, right? And chances are, I would have found a free game I enjoyed well enough. But instead, I clicked on the website of a PtP.

The game I play has a very impressive website with amazing background and a detailed manual. I clicked the website button, I found a great site that completely drew me in, despite the fact I knew it was PtP within a few moments of hanging out at the site. I made the decision to pay for that game. But had I seen the dollar sign from the get go, I probably would have kept cruising the list looking for something free and missed ever seeing the excellent site.

Having or not having a dollar sign isn’t just about folks who CAN’T pay or REFUSE to pay. It also will draw away folks who aren’t really partial one way or the other, but out of habit will head to the free stuff first. If $$$ is added, it should be only one of many things that are told on the rankings page, among them: level of rp enforcement, years the game has been around, level of pk, class or classless style game, general theme, codebase, etc. There are a lot of details that draw folks to and from games.

(For those of you who want to notice, all of those things listed, including whether it is PtP, are variable. It would be quite difficult to create one simple set of icons to tell us if a game is any of the above. How many coders who have a heavily modified ROM game would want the generic ROM icon? How about a PK mud that puts everyone into the system, but has all sorts of checks and balances? Would they want the hardcore pk icon or would they want the “limited” pk icon that doesn’t represent what they have?)

Sapphar

10-10-2002, 05:43 PM

10-10-2002, 06:04 PM

What I think would be difficult isn't creating cute icons, but rather making a reasonable number of them that would fit into a user-friendly little key at the bottom of the rankings page. If you have 5 options for pk, 5 for rp, 10 for codebase, 5 for types of commercial... well, keep going and you've got one hell of a big key to scan through while you try to figure all the cute little icons out.

10-10-2002, 06:20 PM

*shrug*

So don't flip through icons. Pulling up the "modify records" option on MU*listing allows you to choose how you detail your MU* in its profile _mostly_ (but admittedly not all, a high [75%+] percent) by drop-down windows or check boxes. Theoretically I can't see it being difficult to keep the same system (with a few modifications) when modifying your MU*'s profile and allowing the system to interpret the icons.

Ie, I pull down and choose my current PK type, the site has a pre-set icon for it. I don't see the icon til later. As for defining p2p options, a number of different theories were discussed in other threads on how to define them. I can't see it being terribly difficult to do.

I still am all for not needing to post any of the info ($$$+) on the ranks page, but if deemed necessary I stand behind the icon theory.

Proper design can overcome.

10-10-2002, 06:23 PM

Orion Elder · 10-10-2002, 07:42 PM

Sapphar is a prime example of why I think the '$' icon, or some other p2p icon would be good. Sapphar plainly admitted to falling into the example I provided.

So, had you noticed the '$' symbols, you would more than likely still have the money you used on this p2p MUD AND you'd be playing a MUD out there that, first, probably needs more players, and second, you enjoyed just as much if not more. THIS is why the '$' symbol is needed.

Ok, I get it now. It's better to lure them to your site to try to get them interested BEFORE they find out it's a pay site. Good idea... that way they can be disappointed that they were tricked into thinking it was probably free. OOOoOOOoo... that's so... crafty! Good thinking! Sorry, but if these MUDs are as good as they, and others, claim them to be, the fact that they're UPFRONT and HONEST about their MUD having a potential cost wouldn't hurt them. God, I feel like I'm dealing with a car salesman.

Anyway, to something more important... like being bashed in the face with a shovel. There are people who become addicted to MUDding. I don't know where the hell you've been living, the_logos, but look around you some time.

Definition 2a of 'addiction' from :
So, yes, it can be a psychological or physical, or even both, compulsive 'need' for something. People have, or have come close, to RUINING THEIR LIVES over MUDs. To say you can't be addicted to these games trivializes the problems those people face(d). I've seen people who've done this. They were my friends. I've seen them give up more than any person ever should. So do not EVER say you can't become addicted to online games. It can and DOES happen.

10-11-2002, 01:29 AM

Speaking as someone who's first attempt at a bachelor's degree back in 1990 was foiled by mudding.... Had nothing to do with my lack of willpower tho. I take no responsibility for my actions... It wasn't my fault I couldn't stand up to my weakness. Right.

Back to the topic at hand....

The rest of Sapphar's quote, to me, made this sound more like a point about a fortunate mistake than a complaint.

If Sapphar enjoyed the game, what does it matter if they could've gone to a game that needs more players? Sapphar enjoyed it enough to stay, and isn't that the point of a MU*, p2p -or- free, to a player? As for your second point, you can say that with any MU* search you do. I can swing by TPE and be completely satisfied with it, never realizing that Inferno is ACTUALLY much more to my liking.

Actually, since most this hub-bubs come up, bub, most the admins I've seen of these p2p's have tried to be more open with the fact that its p2p as opposed to free. Mostly I site the forums posts and the MU*'s profiles (which is the only place that has p2p as an option where one is prompted to define).

To say they are not being upfront and honest about their postings because it does _not_ say it in the ranking list that they are _not_ a free MU* is like accusing Dragon's Den of not being honest for not putting they are _not_ a WoT MU* in the ranking list. You come to this site hopefully for the forums, to show love for your favorite MU*, and to see what else is out there - no matter how diverse it is. As far as I've seen, there is no "standard MU*" which defines how everyone should differentiate their's. This is not just a FREE MU* site or a theme-oriented MU* site - it's just a MU* site. And until Syn offers it up as otherwise, there should be as much differentation and segregation between a free vs p2p MU*s as there should be as against Custom v GodWars MU*s.

Another thing, I would think if I were running a p2p MU* for over a decade and I decided to advertise on a site called topmudsites.com I probably wouldn't think about the need to "offer up" the fact that I was p2p as opposed to if the site was called topfreemudsites.com. If I were posting my MU* on wotmudlisting.com I probably would be a little suprised when the current community browsing the forums got all irate because I didn't post that I didn't allow elves.

I'm sorry Orion, your posts (to me) seem more directed at just shooting down p2p muds specifically than actually trying help figure out a better way to inform the public about certain restrictions muds have.

From what I've been able to gather..top 10 p2p Mu*s...
Dragon Realms (listed p2p Info)
Gemstone III (listed p2p Info)
Threshold RPG (listed p2p Info)
Eternal City (not listed as p2p)
Herc & Xena (listed p2p Info)
Dragon's Gate (Info not connecting)

The 'newcomers' admins have put forth an effort to adopt to the ranking/profile/advertising written and unwritten rules put forth by this site. In fact, its seems to be everyone BUT them clamboring for additional scrutiny because of it. From what I've seen and read, they've tried to be somewhat accomodating given the unwelcome greeting they've been shown. In fact, I'd say they've acted rather

professional

about it.

*looks at the crowd bearing pitchforks, torches, and axes gathering around him*
Yeah... I think I've said more than my piece.
*ducks for cover*

Dulan · 10-11-2002, 01:35 AM

You forgot Achaea on that listing, TG_Nek.

-D

Orion Elder · 10-11-2002, 02:00 AM

Being addicted to something has nothing to do with will power. Being able to break that addiction has to do with will power. Note the difference.

As for me slamming P2P MUDs, I have nothing against them. I personally wouldn't play them, because, as I mentioned, I have better things to do with my money... like giving it to someone who likes to set it on fire... but what other people do with their money is of course their choice, and that's great.

As for my point about MUDs that need more players, it's this simple. MUDs that charge more than likely have plenty of players. They don't NEED more. Free MUDs... good ones... die on a regular basis because they receive a lack of support.

You're trying to compare codebase to cost. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The codebase they have isn't going to cost me any money... a cost factor on the other hand, would. Getting people interested is one thing. Getting them interested on an assumption that a MUD is more than likely free is another entirely. If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded.

But, fighting AGAINST having an upfront listing, as the_logos has done so hard, is the same as trying to deceive someone. Putting it in an information listing is all good and well... but putting it on the ranking list is a good step to follow, in my opinion.

But, either way, good day to you. I'm going to go do something more productive now... like play with a bar of soap, or something.

Seraphina · 10-11-2002, 05:08 AM

If good free muds are failing I think they need to look for reasons other than the existence of commercial muds. Free is a very strong draw. It might be helpful for admins of free muds to check out the p2p's from the perspective of novices and see how they differ.

As non-mudding friends to spend an evening trying both, a good free, and a p2p, and ask them for their opinions on why they might choose one over the other.

Kyrie_S · 10-11-2002, 08:28 AM

Heh, i was reading over this board and mused at all this interesting input that is suddenly coming in from the influx of p2p muds. I really only have 3 things to say.

1) People are generally raised on the term, "You get what you pay for"

2) Sadly, they also are raised on the term "The best things in life are free"

3) P.T. Barnum said it best when he uttered "There's a sucker born every minute"

So now ill leave it to the cockroaches

10-11-2002, 08:51 AM

Reason · 10-11-2002, 10:07 AM

I feel like a traitor saying this since I mainly play a p2p, but I see one big problem with this whole thing. Because of it, I really wish there could be two separate lists, one for free and one for p2p. If that isn't possible, I think people should be able to just do a search and get only a list of free games.

I've always seen this place as a chance for small, free MUDs to get some exposure and maybe find new players. It's turning into just free advertising for the p2p games instead. Add to that people like Seraphina posting insults about the little guys and how they don't have players because they aren't good enough and I think a lot of people are going to be leaving.

I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not but it's the one that comes to my head. I think of it like a community theater, with room for 10 plays to be held at the same time. Who gets to use the stage depends on how many people want to see the show. Even though the theater itself gets no money for the plays, it does advertise for all of those that are showing each week.

In the beginning a few small groups write and direct their own plays and everybody has a chance to be the star for the week. Things would change totally if a Broadway play decided to compete there with well known stars and directors and expensive sets. Since the theater doesn't charge these people could give a discount on tickets and still make the same amount they would at a larger theater in addition to having the free advertising.

Most of the people who pay to see these plays would be paying anyway, but it still hurts the little guys. Fewer of the free plays would get to be onstage and those who do may have to resort to getting a few better known actors and paying them or spending money in other ways to compete better which would mean having to charge for their own plays.

It also hurts the people who go to watch the plays. There might be some great actors, some potential hit plays and even some very talented directors who never get the chance to be seen because they didn't get the votes. More and more people would start going to the commercial plays because they assume they're better even when that's not the case. Eventually the theater would be nothing but an Off Broadway theater who gives free advertising and gets nothing in return, leaving the original groups to hold their plays in a shed behind the main building.

I know it isn't quite that bad - yet, but I do see it as a potential problem.

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. :)

Dulan · 10-11-2002, 11:47 PM

If you use that line of reasoning, TG_Nek, then Simultronics runs no pay to play MUDs.

It is simple. If you have to pay money for benefits - whether that be access to the game, or for uber-cool item of the month - it is a P2P. Using that definition, we avoid the maneuvering of Vryce/Mihaly.

-D

Seraphina · 10-12-2002, 12:55 AM

Simtronics is pay to play and is very up front about it. You MUST pay. They do offer a 30 day free trial but if you don't pay after that point then your account is closed.

You do not HAVE to pay to play Achaea because you do not HAVE to get the extras offered and your account is not closed because you refrain from buying extras. You can therefore pay Achaea for free.

It can be argued either way therefore it would be up to the mud owner to define how to classify it. Better to offer sufficient choices to be accurate leaving the potential player to draw whatever line is to be drawn themselves.

I do think it is misleading to place payment options in areas a player won't see right away. But it would be equally misleading to call a game pay to play if it can be played for free. One approach is no better than the other because it conceals information.

Lanthum · 10-12-2002, 01:45 AM

Dulan · 10-12-2002, 01:45 AM

Seraphina, that subject has been covered on TMC too many times to count. Especially in flames about Achaea's administration.

Care to be able to ignore the rules? Pay!
Care for a super-character in next to no time? Pay!
Care for a character that takes 6 months to build and takes someone that pays 6 days to build? Don't pay!

I know TMC has more information there.

Lanthum....Adventurer's Inn? Same person that logged onto a MUD I coded for, spammed the MUD with tells to come play it?

Furthermore, I know it - because I've talked with those people. People voted at first because it was 'amusing'. Now, the glamour of the vote has worn off, and it's unamusing now. Some people have voted that would otherwise not vote, as the vote counts make it obvious, but nonetheless...

-D

Orion Elder · 10-12-2002, 02:24 AM

First, I will address the point about players. Most people who PAY for a shell account are doing so because they enjoy providing an entertainment for others. I like to entertain people. That's not, however, why I make a MUD. My MUD is hosted on my own machine, and isn't open for players. See the difference? People who pay for a shell, usually, are doing so because they like to entertain. If they can't find people to give them feedback on what they do, they feel as though they have wasted their time. I say this from experience, as I can list five MUDs, right now that I played that died for this reason. That's not even counting the MUDs I have worked for, or have helped with.

So, while that whole 'free' should be enough of a pull... it's not. The average MUDder, in my experience, judges the quality of a MUD not by the quality, but by how many players it has. Lot of players? Good MUD. Not a lot? Gotta suck. I speak, again, from experience. From the MUDs I've played, to the MUDs I've worked on, and to the MUDs I've run. People log in, they don't see people, most of the time they won't even give the MUD a chance.

You log into a p2p, the common human bias already tells you two things... if they're charging, they must have SOMETHING good going... and if they have players, they must be doing something RIGHT. Is this true? Not on your life. They MIGHT be doing something right, and they MIGHT have something good.

Further more, you speak of the logical reasoning. How often have you known of people to be logical? Especially when it comes to entertainment. "Professional Wrestling," anyone?

You may, or may not, see the problem here. I don't know, and honestly I don't really care. I do, however, have an overwhelming need to give my opinion, whether wanted or not, in a thread which, as you pointed out, I feel has dragged on far too long, and in turn is not worth the time. But, it gives me something to do, and I'm bored at the moment.

As for me insulting you, I did no such thing. I said:
Now, that's an 'if' statement. Not sure if you're familiar with programming, but basically, if (variable == true) then (this). So, if (you don't see that) then (I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded). So, basically, you said you don't see that and thus it became an insult to you. So, I would thank you to not make me out to have been insulting you when you confirmed the statement to be true. If, however, you understood my point, then that did not apply to you, anyway. But, that's enough for a sidepoint.

Anybody got some bubble gum they'd like to share? Bah, probably not. Damn conspiracies.

But, before I deviate the topic too much, I'm going to head on out. If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to PM me. *wave*

Brody · 10-12-2002, 02:43 AM

You know, not so long ago, I posted that we should all just sort of grin and bear it as the big pay-to-play games sidle into the rankings here. But Reason's post hits the nail right on the head. Pay-to-play games, if they're doing something right and successfully, have the budget to PAY for advertising. The smaller free games don't. So, when the pay-to-play games dominate the TMS rankings, they're getting what amounts to a free ride.

Perhaps a second list would be best, but ultimately this rests with Synozeer. It's his site; his rules.

$ Info, le Poll - Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Daedalus Project info	the_logos	MUD Administration	0	10-20-2005 01:41 PM
MUD-Con I Info	Orion Elder	MUD Announcements	1	10-15-2002 03:14 AM
Mud Info : Add $ or no $ ?	hoop	Bugs and Suggestions	113	10-14-2002 04:57 AM
Poll	Feyona	Tavern of the Blue Hand	18	09-14-2002 07:29 PM
The people or the info ?	Shao_Long	Tavern of the Blue Hand	7	05-14-2002 12:57 PM

10-10-2002, 05:19 PM	#21
Sapphar Posts: n/a	Orion, First, to make sure there are no misunderstandings - I am not staff on any game. I am not a staff member of a PtP. I have been staff on free games and enjoyed the game and players in the past. I now play both free games and one PtP with investments into the characters and player bases of both types of games. With that information known (and with it, any biases I might have laid out).... I do not want to see $$$ in front of game listings on the actual ranking page. I would never have gone to the game I have ended up spending most of my time at for nearly a year if it had a $$$ in front of the name. Not because I refuse to pay, but because I would have skipped right by its website and looked for a free game. After all, why pay if you can find what you want for free, right? And chances are, I would have found a free game I enjoyed well enough. But instead, I clicked on the website of a PtP. The game I play has a very impressive website with amazing background and a detailed manual. I clicked the website button, I found a great site that completely drew me in, despite the fact I knew it was PtP within a few moments of hanging out at the site. I made the decision to pay for that game. But had I seen the dollar sign from the get go, I probably would have kept cruising the list looking for something free and missed ever seeing the excellent site. Having or not having a dollar sign isn’t just about folks who CAN’T pay or REFUSE to pay. It also will draw away folks who aren’t really partial one way or the other, but out of habit will head to the free stuff first. If $$$ is added, it should be only one of many things that are told on the rankings page, among them: level of rp enforcement, years the game has been around, level of pk, class or classless style game, general theme, codebase, etc. There are a lot of details that draw folks to and from games. (For those of you who want to notice, all of those things listed, including whether it is PtP, are variable. It would be quite difficult to create one simple set of icons to tell us if a game is any of the above. How many coders who have a heavily modified ROM game would want the generic ROM icon? How about a PK mud that puts everyone into the system, but has all sorts of checks and balances? Would they want the hardcore pk icon or would they want the “limited” pk icon that doesn’t represent what they have?) Sapphar

10-10-2002, 06:04 PM	#23
Sapphar Posts: n/a	What I think would be difficult isn't creating cute icons, but rather making a reasonable number of them that would fit into a user-friendly little key at the bottom of the rankings page. If you have 5 options for pk, 5 for rp, 10 for codebase, 5 for types of commercial... well, keep going and you've got one hell of a big key to scan through while you try to figure all the cute little icons out.

10-10-2002, 06:20 PM	#24
TG_Nek Posts: n/a	shrug So don't flip through icons. Pulling up the "modify records" option on MUlisting allows you to choose how you detail your MU in its profile _mostly_ (but admittedly not all, a high [75%+] percent) by drop-down windows or check boxes. Theoretically I can't see it being difficult to keep the same system (with a few modifications) when modifying your MU*'s profile and allowing the system to interpret the icons. Ie, I pull down and choose my current PK type, the site has a pre-set icon for it. I don't see the icon til later. As for defining p2p options, a number of different theories were discussed in other threads on how to define them. I can't see it being terribly difficult to do. I still am all for not needing to post any of the info ($$$+) on the ranks page, but if deemed necessary I stand behind the icon theory. Proper design can overcome.

10-10-2002, 07:42 PM	#26
Orion Elder Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 346	Sapphar is a prime example of why I think the '$' icon, or some other p2p icon would be good. Sapphar plainly admitted to falling into the example I provided. So, had you noticed the '$' symbols, you would more than likely still have the money you used on this p2p MUD AND you'd be playing a MUD out there that, first, probably needs more players, and second, you enjoyed just as much if not more. THIS is why the '$' symbol is needed. Ok, I get it now. It's better to lure them to your site to try to get them interested BEFORE they find out it's a pay site. Good idea... that way they can be disappointed that they were tricked into thinking it was probably free. OOOoOOOoo... that's so... crafty! Good thinking! Sorry, but if these MUDs are as good as they, and others, claim them to be, the fact that they're UPFRONT and HONEST about their MUD having a potential cost wouldn't hurt them. God, I feel like I'm dealing with a car salesman. Anyway, to something more important... like being bashed in the face with a shovel. There are people who become addicted to MUDding. I don't know where the hell you've been living, the_logos, but look around you some time. Definition 2a of 'addiction' from : So, yes, it can be a psychological or physical, or even both, compulsive 'need' for something. People have, or have come close, to RUINING THEIR LIVES over MUDs. To say you can't be addicted to these games trivializes the problems those people face(d). I've seen people who've done this. They were my friends. I've seen them give up more than any person ever should. So do not EVER say you can't become addicted to online games. It can and DOES happen.

10-11-2002, 01:29 AM	#27
TG_Nek Posts: n/a	Speaking as someone who's first attempt at a bachelor's degree back in 1990 was foiled by mudding.... Had nothing to do with my lack of willpower tho. I take no responsibility for my actions... It wasn't my fault I couldn't stand up to my weakness. Right. Back to the topic at hand.... The rest of Sapphar's quote, to me, made this sound more like a point about a fortunate mistake than a complaint. If Sapphar enjoyed the game, what does it matter if they could've gone to a game that needs more players? Sapphar enjoyed it enough to stay, and isn't that the point of a MU, p2p -or- free, to a player? As for your second point, you can say that with any MU search you do. I can swing by TPE and be completely satisfied with it, never realizing that Inferno is ACTUALLY much more to my liking. Actually, since most this hub-bubs come up, bub, most the admins I've seen of these p2p's have tried to be more open with the fact that its p2p as opposed to free. Mostly I site the forums posts and the MU's profiles (which is the only place that has p2p as an option where one is prompted to define). To say they are not being upfront and honest about their postings because it does _not_ say it in the ranking list that they are _not_ a free MU is like accusing Dragon's Den of not being honest for not putting they are _not_ a WoT MU* in the ranking list. You come to this site hopefully for the forums, to show love for your favorite MU, and to see what else is out there - no matter how diverse it is. As far as I've seen, there is no "standard MU" which defines how everyone should differentiate their's. This is not just a FREE MU* site or a theme-oriented MU* site - it's just a MU* site. And until Syn offers it up as otherwise, there should be as much differentation and segregation between a free vs p2p MUs as there should be as against Custom v GodWars MUs. Another thing, I would think if I were running a p2p MU* for over a decade and I decided to advertise on a site called topmudsites.com I probably wouldn't think about the need to "offer up" the fact that I was p2p as opposed to if the site was called topfreemudsites.com. If I were posting my MU* on wotmudlisting.com I probably would be a little suprised when the current community browsing the forums got all irate because I didn't post that I didn't allow elves. I'm sorry Orion, your posts (to me) seem more directed at just shooting down p2p muds specifically than actually trying help figure out a better way to inform the public about certain restrictions muds have. From what I've been able to gather..top 10 p2p Mus... Dragon Realms (listed p2p Info) Gemstone III (listed p2p Info) Threshold RPG (listed p2p Info) Eternal City (not listed as p2p) Herc & Xena (listed p2p Info) Dragon's Gate (Info not connecting) The 'newcomers' admins have put forth an effort to adopt to the ranking/profile/advertising written and unwritten rules put forth by this site. In fact, its seems to be everyone BUT them clamboring for additional scrutiny because of it. From what I've seen and read, they've tried to be somewhat accomodating given the unwelcome greeting they've been shown. In fact, I'd say they've acted rather professional about it. looks at the crowd bearing pitchforks, torches, and axes gathering around him* Yeah... I think I've said more than my piece. ducks for cover

10-11-2002, 01:35 AM	#28
Dulan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 354	You forgot Achaea on that listing, TG_Nek. -D

10-11-2002, 02:00 AM	#29
Orion Elder Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 346	Being addicted to something has nothing to do with will power. Being able to break that addiction has to do with will power. Note the difference. As for me slamming P2P MUDs, I have nothing against them. I personally wouldn't play them, because, as I mentioned, I have better things to do with my money... like giving it to someone who likes to set it on fire... but what other people do with their money is of course their choice, and that's great. As for my point about MUDs that need more players, it's this simple. MUDs that charge more than likely have plenty of players. They don't NEED more. Free MUDs... good ones... die on a regular basis because they receive a lack of support. You're trying to compare codebase to cost. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. The codebase they have isn't going to cost me any money... a cost factor on the other hand, would. Getting people interested is one thing. Getting them interested on an assumption that a MUD is more than likely free is another entirely. If you don't see that, I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded. But, fighting AGAINST having an upfront listing, as the_logos has done so hard, is the same as trying to deceive someone. Putting it in an information listing is all good and well... but putting it on the ranking list is a good step to follow, in my opinion. But, either way, good day to you. I'm going to go do something more productive now... like play with a bar of soap, or something.

10-11-2002, 05:08 AM	#30
Seraphina Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 49	If good free muds are failing I think they need to look for reasons other than the existence of commercial muds. Free is a very strong draw. It might be helpful for admins of free muds to check out the p2p's from the perspective of novices and see how they differ. As non-mudding friends to spend an evening trying both, a good free, and a p2p, and ask them for their opinions on why they might choose one over the other.

10-11-2002, 08:28 AM	#31
Kyrie_S New Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 4	Heh, i was reading over this board and mused at all this interesting input that is suddenly coming in from the influx of p2p muds. I really only have 3 things to say. 1) People are generally raised on the term, "You get what you pay for" 2) Sadly, they also are raised on the term "The best things in life are free" 3) P.T. Barnum said it best when he uttered "There's a sucker born every minute" So now ill leave it to the cockroaches

10-11-2002, 10:07 AM	#33
Reason New Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8	I feel like a traitor saying this since I mainly play a p2p, but I see one big problem with this whole thing. Because of it, I really wish there could be two separate lists, one for free and one for p2p. If that isn't possible, I think people should be able to just do a search and get only a list of free games. I've always seen this place as a chance for small, free MUDs to get some exposure and maybe find new players. It's turning into just free advertising for the p2p games instead. Add to that people like Seraphina posting insults about the little guys and how they don't have players because they aren't good enough and I think a lot of people are going to be leaving. I'm not sure if this is a good comparison or not but it's the one that comes to my head. I think of it like a community theater, with room for 10 plays to be held at the same time. Who gets to use the stage depends on how many people want to see the show. Even though the theater itself gets no money for the plays, it does advertise for all of those that are showing each week. In the beginning a few small groups write and direct their own plays and everybody has a chance to be the star for the week. Things would change totally if a Broadway play decided to compete there with well known stars and directors and expensive sets. Since the theater doesn't charge these people could give a discount on tickets and still make the same amount they would at a larger theater in addition to having the free advertising. Most of the people who pay to see these plays would be paying anyway, but it still hurts the little guys. Fewer of the free plays would get to be onstage and those who do may have to resort to getting a few better known actors and paying them or spending money in other ways to compete better which would mean having to charge for their own plays. It also hurts the people who go to watch the plays. There might be some great actors, some potential hit plays and even some very talented directors who never get the chance to be seen because they didn't get the votes. More and more people would start going to the commercial plays because they assume they're better even when that's not the case. Eventually the theater would be nothing but an Off Broadway theater who gives free advertising and gets nothing in return, leaving the original groups to hold their plays in a shed behind the main building. I know it isn't quite that bad - yet, but I do see it as a potential problem.

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. :)

10-11-2002, 11:47 PM	#35
Dulan Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 354	If you use that line of reasoning, TG_Nek, then Simultronics runs no pay to play MUDs. It is simple. If you have to pay money for benefits - whether that be access to the game, or for uber-cool item of the month - it is a P2P. Using that definition, we avoid the maneuvering of Vryce/Mihaly. -D

10-12-2002, 12:55 AM	#36
Seraphina Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 49	Simtronics is pay to play and is very up front about it. You MUST pay. They do offer a 30 day free trial but if you don't pay after that point then your account is closed. You do not HAVE to pay to play Achaea because you do not HAVE to get the extras offered and your account is not closed because you refrain from buying extras. You can therefore pay Achaea for free. It can be argued either way therefore it would be up to the mud owner to define how to classify it. Better to offer sufficient choices to be accurate leaving the potential player to draw whatever line is to be drawn themselves. I do think it is misleading to place payment options in areas a player won't see right away. But it would be equally misleading to call a game pay to play if it can be played for free. One approach is no better than the other because it conceals information.

10-12-2002, 01:45 AM	#37
Lanthum Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Suburbs of Chicago Posts: 138

10-12-2002, 02:24 AM	#39
Orion Elder Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 346	First, I will address the point about players. Most people who PAY for a shell account are doing so because they enjoy providing an entertainment for others. I like to entertain people. That's not, however, why I make a MUD. My MUD is hosted on my own machine, and isn't open for players. See the difference? People who pay for a shell, usually, are doing so because they like to entertain. If they can't find people to give them feedback on what they do, they feel as though they have wasted their time. I say this from experience, as I can list five MUDs, right now that I played that died for this reason. That's not even counting the MUDs I have worked for, or have helped with. So, while that whole 'free' should be enough of a pull... it's not. The average MUDder, in my experience, judges the quality of a MUD not by the quality, but by how many players it has. Lot of players? Good MUD. Not a lot? Gotta suck. I speak, again, from experience. From the MUDs I've played, to the MUDs I've worked on, and to the MUDs I've run. People log in, they don't see people, most of the time they won't even give the MUD a chance. You log into a p2p, the common human bias already tells you two things... if they're charging, they must have SOMETHING good going... and if they have players, they must be doing something RIGHT. Is this true? Not on your life. They MIGHT be doing something right, and they MIGHT have something good. Further more, you speak of the logical reasoning. How often have you known of people to be logical? Especially when it comes to entertainment. "Professional Wrestling," anyone? You may, or may not, see the problem here. I don't know, and honestly I don't really care. I do, however, have an overwhelming need to give my opinion, whether wanted or not, in a thread which, as you pointed out, I feel has dragged on far too long, and in turn is not worth the time. But, it gives me something to do, and I'm bored at the moment. As for me insulting you, I did no such thing. I said: Now, that's an 'if' statement. Not sure if you're familiar with programming, but basically, if (variable == true) then (this). So, if (you don't see that) then (I see no point in continuing to argue the point with you, because you're obviously thickheaded). So, basically, you said you don't see that and thus it became an insult to you. So, I would thank you to not make me out to have been insulting you when you confirmed the statement to be true. If, however, you understood my point, then that did not apply to you, anyway. But, that's enough for a sidepoint. Anybody got some bubble gum they'd like to share? Bah, probably not. Damn conspiracies. But, before I deviate the topic too much, I'm going to head on out. If you want to continue this discussion in private, feel free to PM me. wave

10-12-2002, 02:43 AM	#40
Brody Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: North Carolina Home MUD: OtherSpace Posts: 1,599	You know, not so long ago, I posted that we should all just sort of grin and bear it as the big pay-to-play games sidle into the rankings here. But Reason's post hits the nail right on the head. Pay-to-play games, if they're doing something right and successfully, have the budget to PAY for advertising. The smaller free games don't. So, when the pay-to-play games dominate the TMS rankings, they're getting what amounts to a free ride. Perhaps a second list would be best, but ultimately this rests with Synozeer. It's his site; his rules.

Bugs and Suggestions

$ Info, le Poll