[KaVir]

If I had a cookie for every time I'd heard a stock mud use that defence, I'd open a cookie shop...

Yes, I know, you think you're special. Well, so does every mud - nobody likes to think they're offering the same features as everyone else, and even fewer like to admit it. But it's readily apparent to anyone who's read your feature list (and is at least vaguely familiar with what most muds offer) that you don't offer anything new.

That's really not even something worth debating as far as I'm concerned - it's as blatantly obvious as your Diku heritage. My interest at this point is purely in relation to the value of advertising, and how big an impact it can make to the population of a mud.

I think it's interesting to see how effectively an otherwise mostly-stock mud is able to attract players, and compare it with the more original muds. I've heard that some of the higher quality games (such as Gemstone and DragonRealms) have actually been losing players, and would be interested to hear the views of players from such muds - have these games not been advertising as aggressively? If not, perhaps it might imply that their payment model is losing popularity among many players.

[Aeran]

If you look at many of the graphical mmrpgs they are pretty much the same as most MUDs. Why would people want to use a text only interface, when there are so great 3D versions with the same(or close to) feature set avaible? 3D offers a lot of possibilities that MUDs just aren't capable of. You can always throw text into 3D, but you can't easily throw 3D into a text MUD.

My guess is that the reason Gemstone/DragonRealms are losing subscribers is that people are becoming hesitant about supporting non 3D games. Then there are also a lot of people who aren't leaving the text MUD community but still haven't entered it. A lot of people I have talked to in 3D mmrpgs I have tried don't even know about MUDs.

So it is possible there's a lot of people that would be interested in trying another kind of "mmrpgs" but just don't know where to look.

Edit: If you ask people what MUD clients they use, a lot of people will answer that they use "free" clients with the motivation similar to "Why would I pay to play such old games?".

[the_logos]

Kavir wrote:
I suspect if you went through Medievia feature by feature, and room by room, it is almost entirely original content and their own interpretation of systems by now, though that's just a guess.

What I think you also miss that is MUDs are both products and services, and there is no such thing as "stock service." A MUD is as much a service as it is a product, and the service (including the pace of expansion, how players are treated, how the admins interact with players, etc) is just as important as the product.

You realize that Medievia's advertising budget is quite small, right? You keep going on about their advertising, but as far as I can tell, they spend very little on advertising. I'm guessing they spend less than 25k/year on advertising, though that's purely a guess.

Simutronics' big text MUDs have been declining in size since 1997 or so, but that's really more a function of the fact that it's around then that the firehose of newbies that AOL had been giving them went away (Simutronics split from AOL when AOL went from hourly to flat-rate, because Simu refused to re-negotiate its contract with AOL.)

--matt

[the_logos]

This "Budweiser" analogy is being mis-applied. The Budweiser/McDonalds/WalMart of MUDs is World of Warcraft. All text MUDs are micro-brews. Some are commercial micro-brews (like the ones that your beer connoisseur friends drink), and most are home-brew operations made to just drink with friends, though some a few of those home-brew operations (Aardwolf, Batmud, etc) have a heck of a lot of friends.

Comparing Medievia, which MIGHT have two full-time employees, to Budweiser, is pretty silly. Even the smallest microbrews you can find in the store are bigger operations than Medievia and reach more people.

--matt

[Soleil]

Good guess. We really don't spend that much on advertising. Right now the only thing we are paying for are the zMUD icon, Google adwords, and banners at a handful of game and MUD sites. We have neither the personnel nor the resources for a larger advertising scheme. As Matt stated before, our biggest contributor to getting players to the game and keeping them there is word of mouth.

[Fifi]

So, what became of the OP? Does s/he still play medevia? Did s/he move on to something else? Does s/he like that something else more or less if s/he did move on?

[KaVir]

"Small" is a relative term. A $15500 full page ad in PCGamer magazine might be pretty small for a commercial company, but there's no way a completely free hobbyest mud could justify that sort of expenditure. Start tacking on $1100 Dragon magazine adverts and smaller monthly adverts in various other printed magazines, and you're talking about a considerable amount of promotion to an otherwise mostly non-mudding audience.

Obviously if you gave a text-based mud the advertising budget of World of Warcraft or EverQuest it would gather even more attention, but I doubt that even a highly successful commercial mud could gather enough players to make that sort of advertising campaign pay off.

However it still provides some interesting food for thought, in my opinion. If a few thousand dollars of well-placed advertising can make generic gameplay, repetitive grind and stock features look so tempting, it paints a brighter future for those who are developing high quality original games.

[Spoke]

Although already a bit off-topic, I believe this is not necesarilly true. You speak about repetitive grind and stock features with a despective tone, but this also means that these features are familiar to people who have played elsewhere, and the repetitive grind allows for an easy mechanism to advance (though repetitive you feel like you are advancing in levels etc).

What you, as a developer (and probably as a player, if you actually play MUDs) find boring and as a down-side, others (and I would argue that this is a bigger group) might find as an advantage. Better systems with more features and options often mean that you have a steeped learning curve, if you wish to excel you need to spend more time activelly engaged in the game learning and toning skills down so you can master the system. In a more simplistic game, with somewhat familiar-looking features, the learning process is shorter, you can go ahead and start making levels while you simultaneously explore the alternative activities sniped-in/created-for the game, effectibly increasing the number of available options in your hands for when you get bored of the grinding part. More options, all put together, different goals to fulfill (levels, gold in hand, equipment, other random stats you come up with, RP competitions, etc...) means a player will have something to do in this rather simple game whenever they chose to be playing.

Now, you have an easy game, with a short learning curve that has a bunch of options since early on, and you can go ahead and interact with dozens of people without regard of OOC/IC issues. TADDA! you now have the "community" feeling many people long to have when they go on the net (it is not a secret that people have increasingly more "relationships" with virtual individuals to real ones compared to 10 years ago).

So, even if you have a lot of money to advertise, a very good game with nothing custom but a too steep learning curve, with player-interaction restrictions, could end up as barren as an stock diku with a poor admin and a couple of snipets added to it.

[Rathik]

I've never played Medievia, but to me it seems very obvious what makes Medievia successful. First off, they advertise intelligently-- that is, by getting fresh new players who have never mudded previously. These players have absolutely no preferences when it comes to muds...they make those after they've been playing for a month or so. Hardly any of these new mudders will say "these colors are blinding!" or "only 4 classes??" Medievia has a seemingly desperate set up to encourage their existing players to spread the word to anyone they know, via word of mouth, flyers, business cards, reviews, voting, forums, etc. They even provide tips on sharing Medievia and they will provide the flyers and business cards. So.....do any of your muds do that? Probably not.

Second, from what I read on this topic and their website, they are newbie friendly. Of course. They attract newbies, so they have a website that is helpful to new mudders. I have not tried Medievia, but I am willing to bet that they have a very good helping/mud school system (called avatars I think?) They also have a detailed step-by-step guide on their website on how to get started, something that many, many mud websites lack. It also doesn't hurt to have a pretty simple setup (no races, 4 classes, automated combat, I believe...) I wouldn't be surprised if well over 50% of new mudders actually stick around.

Third, and just important as the first two items, from what I gather, they seem to be constantly working on the game and bringing in new features (new to Medievia at least.) I think some of the more "high quality" muds don't realize that they need to be constantly improving their mud-- otherwise it is like reading the same book over and over, and you can quickly get bored of it.

Also, I noticed that although they have a link to leave a review on TMS, they don't have a voting link. Whether this is intentional or they were banned, I don't know, but it seems like a good idea to keep their players in the dark about the DIKU license stuff since voting brings players to this site and there is a fair amount of Medievia bashing always going on.

While there's no doubt in my mind that Medievia is not nearly as advanced, high quality, or original as most other established muds, it doesn't matter to them. They know how to get players and most of you don't.

I am curious about one thing though...is Medievia considered a commercial mud?

[The_Disciple]

I disagree.

The point of the analogy is not that Medievia is a huge corporation crushing its rivals. The point is that it (by design, I would argue) appeals to a wide variety of players, rather than being the perfect game for a much smaller group of players. Thus, the disconnect when a player/admin playing a smaller game encounters Med and can't figure out why anyone would want to play it -- they're instead used to a specialized product designed to appeal to the taste of people like them. I'm sure it's not necessarily as engineered as that -- a guy like KaVir probably sits down and makes what would be a great game for his tastes, the kind of game he'd like to play. I think that instead of trying to be perfect for a few people, Med strives to be pretty good for a lot of people.

At this point, yes, WoW would be the homogenized taste of the masses. If all MUDs, text and graphical, magically came into existance simultaneously today, it would make perfect sense to say that, no, Med is itself crafted to a very narrow taste -- but that's not how it happened. Ten years ago games like WoW or even Ultima Online were not yet a reality, and it's in that climate (further back, actually) that Med was born, grew, and grew its playerbase. That it's no longer a populist choice in the face of more popular options isn't as important as the climate that made it what it was and makes it different from other Dikumuds.

[the_logos]

The_Disciple wrote:
OK, so if you're not talking about the number of players they appeal to (which is, judging by their player base, very small, like all text MUDs), then what are you talking about? You say it appeals to a a "wide variety" of players. What do you mean by variety? Do you mean that the Medievia playerbase is more diverse than smaller MUDs? I seriously doubt that's true. I'd imagine its playerbase is composed of the same kind of people that play small 40-player-simultaneous MUDs: white, black, hispanic, asian, rich, poor, from a variety of English-speaking countries, educated, not educated, etc etc etc.


--matt

[The_Disciple]

It's playerbase size in part. It's large-ish for a text game.

Again, there was no WoW, UO, EQ, etc. etc. etc. in the early-mid 90's. The character/style/direction of Med was well established long before graphical MUDs came onto the scene.

Basically, like other populist/mainstream choices such as McDonalds, vanilla ice cream, or pop music, it is designed to be preferred by (or at least, tolerable by) the widest variety of player tastes.

For example, a MUD can be (basically, yes there are shades of gray) RP or not RP. Which of those two choices appeals to a larger number of people? Not RP. A lot of people won't care a lot either way, but I'm willing to bet there are more people who are unwilling to play an enforced-RP game than are unwilling to play a no-RP game -- after all, even people who enjoy RP probably play other kinds of games, even if they're not MUDs, that don't involve it.

How about keeping the same character forever vs. some form of permadeath? Again, people have preferences, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot more people who won't play a permadeath MUD than there are people who won't play a non-permadeath MUD. Uncoincidentally, Med is a non-permadeath game.

It's harder to balance a game with many genuinely different character customization choices than one in which the basic character builds are few in number. We've all seen players quit games in a huff over the perception that their particular character build was in some way not viable. There, Med has few choices and the two most different heroes are probably more alike than the two closest builds on many other games. No player alienation there.

What about PK? If we took a poll, I'm guessing the most popular choice would either be no PK, or only opt-in PK with no real loss to your character. That's pretty much what Med offers. (Yes, I understand you can choose to expose your character to the possibility of losing a level and some equipment, but ask, say, an Armageddon player if that's real risk.) Or, if not most popular, let's say the choice that would be a deal-breaker for the smallest number of potential players.

There, basically, is the "mass" (yes, I know, text mud = small) appeal of a game like Med. It tries to offer its players as many features as it can without introducing any that would turn a player off the game. And therein the social X factor can happen; you might play a game to play with your friends, but not if you totally hate the game. The craft of Med is to produce nothing a player will totally hate.

[Ilkidarios]

Well, the majority of people who are actually MUD players will probably prefer an RP-enforced game.  I don't think it matters about how many people in THE WHOLE would rather play non-RP or RP, I think the only thing that matters is the amount of individuals in the MUD community who would rather play an RP game, and the majority of popular MUDs out there, at least by my observations, are RP MUDs.

Even if not RP-enforced, they're still RP-encouraged, which, while not as strict, you will most likely suffer penalties for not RPing, so I believe it still classifies as RP.

For instance, Matt's games have a large playerbase, and they are RP games.  From what little I've experienced, the majority of players on his games are RPers.

[cratylus]

Ilkidarios:

I think that given my personal experience, I also would
suggest that "no-RP || RP-optional" is the norm, and
Medievia's aim-for-the-center can be fairly judged
in that context.

But it's the aim-for-the-norm that was the point, I think, not
a declaration that RP'ers are a minority, and I think it
was an excellent point, well made.

-Crat

[marzzbar]

[The_Disciple]

God no.

I'd say the truth for most of us is probably something like: it's a game that's seen more work than many, but it's not made to our taste.

Granted, yes, it definitely draws a lot more criticism and scrutiny because of the license controversy, and the greater problem it's a symptom of, that being that Vryce is a jackass.

(I have no idea if it would be fair to say that now, but 10-15 years ago the guy made a lot of enemies in the community with his antics, and that kind of bad press has a kind of inertia and life all its own.)

Without the controversy, for most people in the community, I imagine it would be just another popular game that isn't to their taste and that they choose not to play.

It depends on the kind of game. Med is the kind of game where many players start one character and play just that character for as long as they play the game. For a lot of games, that isn't the case, and character variation/customization becomes a much bigger issue, since it's one way to offer players a very different experience with each successive character up to a point.

They're either not true, or they require a very contrived and biased set of metrics to be "true." For example, to compare Med with a game wherein there are thousands of customization options on a player character and even be in the running, you'd need to decide that each of that game's unique classes, races, specialization choices, skills, etc. is really not a feature. I assume most sane people not working for Med would consider them features.

[Jeena]

For myself, RP once held such an appeal that I played MUshes. However, I found the very tight restrictions on ic/ooc to be tiresome and eventually after a couple of storylines played out, the game become repetitive.  The one or two RP MuDs I played just seemed pale in comparison. The ic/ooc enforcement didn't make sense in the context of leveling (like killing bunnies to xp) or other npc interaction. Of course, admitted, it's been some years since I played an RP mud, so maybe it has changed.
In Medievia, the real interaction is with other players, either as cooperative groups, or as rivals and enemies. There is no need for RP, as rivalries and competition between groups (clans/towns) can become incredibly intense, as well as the teamwork developed between players.
The interesting thing about the Newbie system in place is that the further along you go, the more becomes available to you.  This is true in most games, where you must gain strength, ability,  and knowledge in order to succeed. I'm sure there may be some appeal to having equipment, stats, and everything else handed to you from the first day you log in, however, in a game where team play counts for a lot, development is an important part of the game.
There was a comment about 4 classes and only one race. This is done specifically to get a handle on balance issues. Balancing one race versus balancing 5, 6, or 8 is easier. Balancing 4 classes, versus any more is also easier. It allows the game to focus on new equipment and the means to aqcuire it with less (but still vital) concern for balance. Every class has advantages and disadvantages. The one you wind up with as a Hero, will determine your role in group activities, your ability to pk, and to do other things in the game, either solo or as a form.
While I don't knock the great many choices of class and race that I've seen on other muds for balance Medievia is very successful, and continually tweaking equipment to ensure that balance is maintained.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Medievia is different. Love it or hate it, many people play it, many more have tried it, and many more will try it in the future.
The key for any mud to be successful (in my mind anyway) is service to the player, a well-thought out newbie system, a large enough player base to keep the game from becoming boring, constant growth, change, and finally balance.
I'm sure that anyone out there who is running any sizeable mud will agree.

[cratylus]

WEll, I need to own up to something.

Really I seem to be the guy with the biggest beef about
the number of classes and races. And I fully admit and
agree that this is strictly a preference thing.

Ok? That's a judgment call on my part, and I'm not trying
to pass it off as "fact" that they're wrong for keeping the
stock/limited race and class selection. It's their mud, and totally
their right.

When I express shock and surprise it's about not just my
personal dislike of such limited options, though.

It's also that it seems to me to stand in direct contradiction
to the bombastic promotional statements about Medievia I've
heard. I too have heard stuff about how earth-shatteringly
huge and amazing Medievia is...so when I hear "4 classes,
1 race", I go ".......?"

Listen, I don't know how many times I have to say that I agree
it's their right to run however they want. But they're describing
their mud as biggest/largest game in the world
for features and size, and something about the most
detailed in, and I quote, "all of human history".

With those kinds of statements, I think it's wholly appropriate
and fair to ask about the severe limitations on detail and
features of the "most detailed game ever made in all of human history", which is the "largest game in the world
when it comes to features", when your player choices are limited
to 4 classes.

I think it's a fair question.

And the answers I've heard thus far are just flat weird. Unless
I'm mistaken, these are the basic arguments:

1) It's Medievia's right to run that way, so leave it alone.
2) Their players like it, so mind your business.
3) It's hard to balance a mud, this makes it easier.

The thing is, none of these arguments address the
real question.

How can Medievia be the most blah blah blah, when it has
fewer player options than the stock LP mud I used to play
in 1994?

Jeena, I think I understand your point that you like Medievia
and it suits you well. I think that's great, and hope you
continue to enjoy it.

My point is that there appears to be a disconnect between
Medievia's claims and their actual technical merit. You're
choosing to disregard that, perhaps because you feel a need
to defend your favorite mud, but what you're talking about
isn't speaking to the issues raised.

You say it's hard to balance a mud. I agree, and I suspect
many mud admins also would agree. It's hard to do a lot
of things. But if you're going to try to sell something as
the most featured and detailed ever, you're going to have
to explain why new players have *fewer* choices than the
average LP mud of 12 years ago.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position for me to take.

-Crat

[KaVir]

No, it's generally considered pretty mediocre, except by its staff and players. The reason most discussions concern its licence violations are partially because there's not really anything else noteworth to say about it, except perhaps for pioneering the pay-for-virtual-items trend in muds (at least, I don't know of any other muds which were doing it earlier).

The comment wasn't so much in reference to the fact that it has 4 classes and races, but rather the fact that the class and (lack of) race selection are unchanged from the stock Merc code that Medievia started with back in February 1993, despite the numerous advances most other muds have made since then.

Specifically designing your mud around 4 classes and no races is one thing. Leaving them because they're what you got with your stock codebase is something else, particularly for a mud which claims things like being the "most detailed game ever made in all of human history".

[prof1515]

Having played Medievia many years ago when I first started MUDding, I was semi-impressed by them.  However, design-wise, I found them severely lacking, especially in comparison to the H&S I played at the time (which hadn't been around near as long). The more exposed I became to MUDs, the less and less impressed I was by Medievia. When I learned of their unethical behavior, it wasn't a big leap to my present opinion of them: worthless.

It's far from the largest game when it comes to features.  In fact, given how long it's been around, it's well-behind MUDs that have been up and running for only a few years.

Original areas to explore is a loaded term when they're poorly-made and cliched.  As for an actual room-count, I would have to look up the figures (provided they're not exaggerated) and see if that claim even has some legitimacy or not.  There are some large worlds out there in MUDs.

In regard to detail, it's as shallow as a puddle.  In fact, I'd wager there have been dozens of MUDs which have had more detail put into them in the last year than Medievia has in all its years of operation.

As for Vryce, he wasn't just an ass years ago.  He's proven recently that he's still an ass.  That's not even taking into account that he's a liar and a thief.  He gives creedance to the old saying, "Once a horse's ass, always a horse's ass".

Ultimately, the reasons for Medievia's popularity are primarily ignorance and deceit.  The former afflicts a sizeable portion of their playerbase and most of their new players while the latter is their official policy in regard to pretty much everything.

My rating of them:

Code:  * (1 out of 4)
World:  1/2* (0.5 out of 4)
Staff:  No stars
Overall:  1/2* (0.5 out of 4)