[the_logos]

Well, I'm not really sure what you're asking, since from early last week until today, we just broadcast global messages every 3 hours while we waited for Adam to decide what he wanted the rules to be.

Now that he's decided, we'll be creating a more sophisticated system.

[Hajamin]

That was my misunderstanding, I didn't realize it changed to go out every 3 hours and just never notice it myself as I log in and out constantly all day. Sorry for the confusion there.

[tehScarecrow]

[Galleus]

Well, I shall have to see to it that that does not happen, then.

*crackwhip*

[Richter]

[Gorgulu]

From Lusternia.

ANNOUNCE NEWS #492
Date: 12/24/2005 at 1:11
From: Roark Libertas
To  : Everyone
Subj: Config Voting

You can now use CONFIG VOTING to set reminders on voting for Lusternia
at TopMudsSite.com. By default it is off. You can opt-in with CONFIG
VOTING ON or CONFIG VOTING PROMPT. The first option will send you
periodic reminders until you register a vote on the site, and then the
reminders will end for about 13 hours. (TMS only registers duplicate
votes every 12 hours.) It will also show you where Lusternia is in the
MUD rankings and how many more votes until we reach the next level. The
second option, "PROMPT", will put the voting in your command prompt
rather than using periodic messages.

Exposure on the TMS site is very important for Lusternia. It is a great
tool for attracting new players to the realm, giving you new people to
interact with and growing the game. So if you appreciate Lusternia,
please turn on one of these reminder options and vote for your favorite
MUD!

(See HELP VOTING for a full explanation on TMS voting and what it means
for Lusternia.)

Penned by My hand on the 15th of Urlachmar, in the year 136 CE.

[prof1515]

I still believe the "Top MUD" list should be broken up into more-regulated categories because ultimately, it's useless to potential players for finding quality (most of the "top MUDs" are of the same type, and most of the MUDs listed blatantly lie about their nature).  Instead, it's just a listing of popularity based upon how pathetically fanatical the playerbase is or how creatively unethical or ahead-of-the-rules some of the MUDs out there can be.

I realize that the traffic is the incentive for TMS's format, but it really is a useless feature for introducing people to MUDs that probably does more to hurt the MUDding community than help it since it doesn't reward quality, something that would go a lot further in helping every MUD (ok, the total crap out there is probably beyond hope, but if you make it easier for quality to compete with quantity, you cause/inspire both to improve).

Make one of the categories, "most fanatical playerbase" if you like.  That'll probably preserve the Top 20 as they are now.  But it'd be nice if there was something a bit useful about the TMS page too.

Take care,

Jason

[the_logos]

It's useless to players trying to find a new MUD? Weird. If that were the case, one would think that we'd have no players from TMS, instead of the literally thousands of players we have that came to us because of TMS.

Some people consistently seem to want to attribute something to TMS that it isn't. They want to turn the top lists into some sort of subjective rating system, or whatever. TMS works great: You send traffic, you get traffic back.

--matt

[prof1515]

It's not useless if you're a player from a MUD looking for a new MUD, just less useful for finding a good MUD.  It's also useless if you're new to MUDding altogether, since those potential players aren't being exposed to the best, and may not be aware how the rankings are determined.  As there's no front-page explanation, they might actually think the list is objective....

Correction, some of us would like to see it turned into an objective rating system.  As it is right now, it's not objective.  It's dominated by the Viagra MUDs, themselves filled with players who have an invested monetary interest rather than those who appreciate quality.  Additionally, it's primarily dominated by MUDs that have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the welfare of the community, ethics, etc.  Not surprisingly, these are primarily one of two kinds:  utter crap or commercial MUDs (sometimes both apply).  I've tried all of the Viagra MUDs a couple times.  They're all inferior in quality to one or more free-to-play MUDs offering the same features but which do not get as much publicity or players.  Sure a few quality MUDs manage to make it into the front page, but most don't.

The "thousands of players" you've gotten from TMS probably didn't go beyond the Top 20 before settling on playing one of  your MUDs.  Some of course have no interest in doing so, since the MUDs offered allow them to use money to advance.  Others, they think that the higher the rating, the better the MUD.  Had they explored a bit more, they'd have found better games, less popular but better, in the lower ranks.  And that's why the service if flawed.  Why bother to even rank beyond 20 since the majority of players seem to stop before they've gotten past page 1?  Just show the top 5 of various categories.  If a Viagra MUD can't make the top 5, it's doing something wrong since it's got legions ("thousands of players") that have an interest, beyond quality, in promoting their MUD.  If they don't vote enough to make the top 5, what's that say about those MUDs?

Would I and others like to see TMS do something more?  Yes.  Why?  Because it'd be better for the MUDding community as a whole.  It'd be nice to see Top MUD Sites be more objective but it's not an easy (or probably even possible) proposition.  But at least it could offer more to those looking for something other than Viagra MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

[Nexty]

You can not say the top 20 are not the best MUDs for a specific player. What makes a MUD "the best" is a personal thing and therefor fully subjective.

Or they may think it is subjective. Do you have any real data to suggest that a strong majority of people who come to this site view the MUD rankings as anything more then subjective?

For what purpose? How would you even go about doing such a thing? What makes "the best" MUD? There is no way to create an objective way to say one MUD is overall better then another or that one feature is better then another or one MUDs way or doing something is better then another MUDs way of doing something.

Because those who invest money into a game can't appreciate quality? Personally I don't think I'd invest any money into a game that didn't have qualities I enjoyed. And yes, the fact that one could spend money to advance could be a quality that I value over other things and that's just as valid as any other reason to play any particular MUD.

How does an interest in the welfare of the MUD community have anything to do with how well the MUD is in and of itself?

Do you fully understand the difference between a subjective and a objective observation? The objective observation is when you see the exact same(or similar enough) feature on both a pay and free MUD. The subjective observation is saying a pay MUD is inferior to the free MUD.

Which is not nessisarly untrue. A high rating MUD may very well be better for that specific player as what is a better MUD for a player is a subjective thing.

The service works exactly as intended as far as I can tell. The service ranks MUDs based on player votes. The more players vote for a MUD the higher that MUDs ranking is. The only thing the rankings do is tell a perspective player that a particular MUD seems to have players that vote. The flaw would be reading into the rankings any more then that.

Any solid evidence to suggest that most potential players stop at page 1? And if they are doesn't that suggest that they have found a MUD they enjoy within those first 20?

[Rathik]

A person's concept of quality is based on their preference. I think popularity is a very good indicator of how good a mud is. It's been stated a million times on these forums... everyone has different preferences of what they look for in a mud. If a mud has a lot of votes, generally they have a lot of players. And if you have a lot of players, then a lot more people like that mud, and the chances of new mudders or experienced mudders liking that mud are a lot higher, if you follow me.

Every mud will claim to be the best; it's a shame they all can't fit on page 1. TMS might as well show a random 20 each week on page 1.

I'm not against an objective rating system; however, I do consider it to be impossible and pointless to argue for it.

[prof1515]

I agree completely that it'd be incredibly hard to implement a fully-objective rating format. But the present format is completely subjective and MUD-player demographics heavily favor some types of MUDs over others. For example, it's amazing that two of the three RPIs in existance are on the front page, yet I doubt there's any way all three could consistently hold Top 20 spots. There probably aren't enough RPI players in existance to do this if even 20% of the players of other types of MUDs voted. A shame really since the three RPIs are all of some of the highest quality available out there (and in my personal opinion, ranked in the exact opposite order of quality, a reflection no doubt of the lesser emphasis on role-play on the most popular one and a greater emphasis on role-play in the least popular one which allows the former to appeal to a broader range of player than just role-players but less-so to those specifically seeking RPI-niche traits).

Perhaps the best thing that could be done, as I said before, would be a greater monitoring/regulation of the way in which MUDs on the list advertise themselves. We're already seeing numerous attempts by MUDs to skirt around voting rules and false advertising is so blatant that it makes one want to puke. Holding MUDs to a greater standard of honesty would be a good thing. I can't tell you how many times I've run searchs on "level-less" MUDs only to find that more than half of them have levels. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've run searches on "historical" MUDs only to find that half the list have no historical tie-in whatsoever (my favorites in this example are MUDs with futuristic original worlds that turn up on "historical" searchs). Greater regulation of how MUDs classify themselves, a wider array of "Top 5" lists (Commercial, PK, RPI, H&S, science-fiction, fantasy, etc), plus a "Top 5 Most-Popular" to satisfy the top beneficiaries of the present system would make TMS a greater resource to all MUDders rather than just a resource to those MUDs which can lie, cheat, bribe, or just sit back and enjoy the fact that most people don't really understand how the present system works.

Take care,

Jason

[Jazuela]

I'd love to see the voting split into two segments: Commercial and Non-Commercial.

Note, I did not say "for profit" and "non profit," nor did I say "free vs. pay to play."

Commercial = if they accept real money in exchange for ANYTHING other than (perhaps) a credits page on their website thanking people for donating. Whether it's a monthly fee, a donation system, a pay for perks system, whichever. If they take money and give something in return *within the game itself* then it could be considered commercial as far as this mudlistings site is concerned. It wouldn't apply to accepting donations in exchange for out-of-game perks, such as coffee mugs and mousepads.

Non-Commercial = if they do not accept any money in exchange for any in-game perks, whether it's a monthly fee to play, game coins, credits, levels, armor, RP points, etc. etc. etc.

And then...

Allow everyone to cast one vote, per month, in each of the two categories. At the end of the month the list is reset. So by the end of the month you can get a -general- idea of which commercial game people are willing to use their ONE vote for, and which non-commercial game people are willing to use their ONE vote for.

If a month is too long, make it 2 weeks. Make it a weekly system. Or a daily system. It doesn't matter really, as long as it's clarified at the top of the page which is being used and when the site is scheduled for reset.

[Almondine War]

To be perfectly honest, I used to visit this site daily (if not more) back when I bothered to vote for my favorite MUDs. Unfortunately, my favorite MUDs were the "free" ones, and were (and still are) continually shoved further and further down the list by commercial games. By now, I've lost almost all interest, except returning to read the occassional post.

While there is nothing inherently evil with commercial games, they are a different breed, and I strongly support segregating them from "free" MUDs. They are simply a different calibre of game. You wouldn't put a boxer and a sumo wrestler into the same ring with one another.

I am perplexed as to why this idea would receive so much resistance, by either the community here or the 'Giant Head' that controls everything with its psionic powers of moderation and deletion. It would actually, in my opinion, be a step towards friendlier public relations, since it may do a little (very little) to appease the bad karma that rose up out of the diku-license mess and a lot to help MUDs who are owned by people raking out their own cash for the sole sake of entertaining others.

[Anitra]

Jazuela wrote (Posted on Dec. 26 2005,07:48)
So would a lot of us.

It has been suggested many times before, and it always ends up rejected, probably because the big commercial muds that pay for banners on the site so vehemently oppose it. One has to wonder why they are so afraid of the idea.

My personal opinion is that that the first Mud List that shows the integrity to set up these parallell lists would really do the Mud community a good turn,  because it would provide a service that many are looking for,  and it would allow the Non-Commercial muds to compete on somewhat equal terms.

[the_logos]

Once per month makes no sense in that it would reduce traffic to TMS to the point of it being useless. Being ranked highly is only worth something because of the amount of traffic you get back. Just being ranked is meaningless unless there's traffic going back out at you.

What you want is people to vote often, not rarely.

--matt

[the_logos]

Nobody's afraid of that happening, but on the other hand, it reduces the value of TMS by allowing MUDs who do less for the site to benefit equally to those who do more for the site.

What does it matter whether a MUD is commercial or non-commercial? Pk or No-pk? Bashing or social? What TMS does is reward a MUD for sending traffic here. From that point of view, can you understand why it makes little sense to give up valuable screen/promotional space for a MUD that does less for the site vs. a MUD that does more for the site? It makes little sense to use -any- metric besides "How much does the MUD help TMS by sending traffic here?"

I mean, fundamentally, when you send traffic here, what you're doing is exposing your players to other MUDs. There is no point in doing that unless you're getting something reasonably commensurate in value back. Those (like a certain poster) who claim that sites below the top 20 don't get traffic are pretty clueless. All one has to do is look at the list beyond the top 20 and you can clearly see that the ratio of 'out' to 'in' is not substantially different from the top 20. In fact, although I haven't run any sort of analysis, from just looking at them now, I think the MUDs below the top 20 may actually enjoy a BETTER ratio of 'out' to 'in' than the muds in the top 20.


You're placing all this value on being in the top 20 per se, but the value is in the traffic that is sent back to you. If a MUD doesn't send much traffic to TMS, why should it get much traffic back?

--matt

[Sacac]

Then we should enforce what muds actually call them selves and get rid of a lot of those tags that mud owners give to themselves, even though they don't have.

Then, when a person logs onto the site, they can pick which traits they want, and the site can show them a top 10 list of those sites with qualities they like.

[Fern]

The idea of seeing the list split into two categories is appealing, especially to those of us who used to regularly make it onto the first page and are now lucky to make it to the fourth.  Please note:  I do not begrudge the success of those who are now "always on the front page", not by any means.  The profile of the marketplace has changed, and that's just a sign of healthy competition and market share.

I can also see why there might be resistance to change to a split system.  Where does TMS get the staff, time, funds, energy to police and patrol the split, make the necessary changes to the entire place, write the new webpages, write the code, and arbitrate the predictable gripes about who goes on what list and why?  

Without opening the usual can of worms by mentioning specific names and fueling yet another flamewar... from all I have heard, the instant a ROM/Diku MUD were to place itself on the Commercial list, they essentially wave a red flag at the license police: <span style='color:cyan'>Here I iz, folks, taking money for boon!  </span> Something tells me the Commercial list will be occupied by a small list of games jostling with each other for top slot each day/week/month/whatever cycle is chosen. And that's ok too.. until the namecalling starts.

Almondine War:We've seen similar dropoff in voting at TMS and some months consider ourselves lucky to get enough to make it onto the fifth page.  Ironically, we are almost always able to get onto the Top Ten at MudMagic early in the month and hold a good position consistently, which would invite a comparision between the two voting systems, if we had all day to address that.  I prefer their method which allows the game admin to choose which vote method into which their game falls.

The MudMagic system has its downsides as well: a person must be registered before he can vote, and crossvoting (voting down the competition with a very low score) is countered by banning at the domain level.

[the_logos]

But this is meaningless. Whether you're on the first page or the 100th page isn't what matters, unless this is an ego trip for someone, in which case I'd say "grow up" to that person. What matters is how much traffic back to your MUD you get relative to how much you send to TMS. Has that ratio changed?


It's easy to get into the top ten on mudmagic because there's not much traffic to the voting list. Few of the biggest MUDs send traffic there.

Look, to emphasize how irrelevant what page you're on is, I would HAPPILY back a system whereby we somehow got all the big graphical MUDs (WoW, Runescape, etc) to join TMS. Not a single text MUD would be on the front page. On the other hand, the amount of traffic coming in if Blizzard decided to ask their players to vote on TMS would be enormous. With that much traffic coming in, being #25 would be worth more than being #1 is today.

Again, being on the front page or on top isn't important. Getting traffic back to your MUD is.

--matt