[KaVir]

The four options are not misleading. They are crystal clear and not open to (mis)interpretation. If you disagree, then give me an example of a mud which isn't clearly covered by the four choice solution.

The text area, however, could easily be used for technically true yet misleading information. That is why I was against using the text area on its own. When used in combination with the four options, however, it provides what I consider to be the best compromise.

When looking for a game, I would prefer one in which you cannot purchase in-game benefits. I do not care if you can buy out-of-game benefits such as mugs and t-shirts, nor if you can donate and get nothing in return. Under the four option solution I could click the last two boxes and it would bring up the majority of muds. Under your proposal, I would have to manually go through every listing.

That is not helpful for players. There is absolutely no reason to leave out unambigious search options for things that directly impact the player.

[Zhiroc]

Same here, though strangely enough, I might also search for pure pay-required games as well. I have nothing against paying for a good product if I like the value for my money, and the payment scheme is fair and open (i.e., one-time or recurring, with the only modification being discounts for volume).

So yes, I've decided I like the 4 over the 2.

I'm far more worried about unfair treatment over some OOC forum posting, or some OOC guild playteam than I would be over *any* prejudice due to out-of-game donations/purchases.

[Valg]

I tend to agree-- I've played games that are free, and games where a flat fee gets you 'everything', but I'm personally very wary of models where the more you spend the more you get, largely due to arms races. However, the pay-for-perks model is successful in the market, so not everyone agrees with you and I. That said, a KaVir-esque system would be very useful if I was searching, and equally useful to a different player who was specifically looking for a pay-for-perks game.

[Valg]

I don't think Lasher's finalized any decisions, but I think everyone's been in agreement that an optional box for refinement is an improvement.

I disagree, simply because TMS presently has about 1750 MUDs listed, and "No money accepted" applies to very few MUDs-- CircleMUDs being the prominent exception, and that's only about 3%. The vast majority of MUDs won't return a voluntary check to help pay fo rthe server, for example.

A system like Kavir's provides a lot more information-- if you only want MUDs that won't accept money in any form, you check only that box and you only get those games. The two-box system is essentially a crippled version of a system like the one KaVir has mentioned, or a multiple binary-choice system like:

[y/n] One-time or recurring fee required
[y/n] In-game rewards available for purchase
[y/n] Payment and/or donations accepted

A Circle MUD would answer n/n/n, IRE would answer n/y/y, we would answer n/n/y, DragonRealms would answer y/y/y, etc. Anyone could elaborate as needed in the text box.

The two-box system lumps nearly all games into one category, which is useless for searching unless you only want the "n/n/n" games.

[Lurker94]

Great discussion folks!

I'd be satisfied with the four payment option of:

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

Providing an additional text field where the game owner could elaborate on how much their game truly costs or what type of rewards are received for donations would save me time in having to seek that information from their website.

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but would it be feasible to have the search engine allow someone to select more than one option when searching for MUDs?

[Newworlds]

Just to clarify, New Worlds is not a Circle code mud. Check the link for more info.

As for the affording, it is very expensive but NW costs are covered by a sponsoring company and luckily enough none of this reflects over to the players. Without the sponsor though, I can tell you it could not be afforded. Which brings up a strange argument: is NW really free since the sponsor is virtually paying for all the players to play?

[Molly]

I disagree, even though my own Mud belongs to the small category No money accepted in any form, which presumably would benefit from a 2-box system.

Having a search option that puts over 80% of all Muds in the same category is not helpful for a player in search of a new Mud, even with the additional text box. It is just as useless as the present situation where most commercial Muds represent themselves as 'Free to play'.

The 4 options are very precise and explicit, and will help narrow down the searches. Adding a Textbox to that, gives the Mudowner a chance to further describe their system, and covers all bases.

EDIT:
Doing a search myself, I'd go for either the first option Payment required to play?, the second Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game, or the last one No Payment / Donations accepted, period.. I am not against paying for a good product. What I dislike is the concept of paying to get advantages over other players. To me a Mud is a skill game.

However, the pay-for-perks system is obviously a very popular one, which means that a lot of people would choose that option instead.

[Molly]

That is really a strange argument.

Our coder is paying for the server out of his own pocket. Does that make 4D less free since he is virtually paying for all the players to play?

[Hephos]

Are these so accurate?

Lets look at it...

What if i have a mud that accept donations that are NOT money. And we reward this with perks in-game.

Or we reward players in-game from clicking on advertisement links on our website (possibly buying things from other sites to get rewarded). That it is a payforperks thing that people may dislike and may want to filter away.

To me, it just smells that people want to "hide" information. I can understand why some commercial games really argue this to "hide" their payment model in the search engines. They would loose some traffic UNDOUBTLY from having to list their game as a particular type of payment model and not just as a "bunched together" money involved listing. (Doesn't matter if they show their model in their game on the very first page... they still would loose that first impression from a possible customer).

The more options to search for, the better it is and the bigger chance a mud has to configure its listing to suit it the best. And a possible player have a much greater chance to find a mud that suits his/her preferences, which is what this site is all about i hope.

[Molly]

Oops, I just noticed a fallacy both in Detah's calculations and in my post a bit above, where I just 'inherited' her figures.

The fact that CIRCLE has a more strict license than the other DIKU derived codebases, doesn't mean that all of those other MUDS accept donations. The DIKU license only states that you cannot give in-game rewards for donations, making it perfectly legit to sell mousepads and other stuff from the website.

And even so I don't think that the majority of the DIKU based Muds rely on donations at all. In fact I believe that the majority of them don't.

Consequently all those would click the No Donations/Payment of any kind button too, giving a considerably higher figure.

[Gore]

How would this work with MUDs that occasionally do accept donations? Would there be a "freeze time" during which the setting cannot be changed? If a MUD collects donations for a new server (either for in-game perks or for no perks) today, what should it be classified 1 year from now, if it has not accepted any money since?

[KaVir]

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[X] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

TEXT BOX: Donations only accepted during the Oktoberfest. Rewarded with a beer glass avatar on your website forum account.

Assuming that collecting the donations is a one-off thing, then it'd be handled like any other listing update. If you previously had a stock world but then replaced it with an original one, you'd change the listing. If you were previously running a RP encouraged mud, but then made roleplaying mandatory, you'd change the listing. If you were previously running an unrestricted PK mud but then added restrictions, you'd change the listing. And if you were previously accepting donations, but then stopped, you'd change the listing.

Thus the listing would initially state:

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[X] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

TEXT BOX: Only accepting donations until we've enough for a new server.

And once you'd stopped collecting donations (assuming you really WERE stopping):

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[X] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

If you were planning to collect more donations in the future, you'd instead update the listing to:

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[X] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

TEXT BOX: Donations occasionally accepted, when server updates are required


As I mentioned earlier though, this isn't a problem specific to the payment model. Imagine the following:

[ ] Unrestricted playerkilling.
[X] Restricted playerkilling.
[ ] No playerkilling.

TEXT BOX: Normally non-PK, but every Sunday is a free-for-all unrestricted deathmatch.

[scandum]

What is best for a mud isn't always the best for the people using TMS to search for muds.

[Zhiroc]

It might sound strange, but there are actually ways I could envision it not being "free":To me, these are examples of "payment in kind" (or real payments in the first case). Once you start requiring a user to do something that supports the sponsor, then it starts crossing the line.

And, I'm talking about using the very charged term "free" here.

But sponsorship itself is not a problem, nor is passive advertising.

An interesting question is ads in-game... Not sure about that one. Probably not... (because I could gag them perhaps) but it would be real annoying

[Jazuela]

I really REALLY think this whole thing with the mousepads and website merchandise sales is ridiculous and shouldn't be considered in the options. It just tosses a lot of muck into it. If you are REQUIRED to buy a mousepad in order to play the game, then you are required to .. BUY .. to PLAY. It doesn't matter that it's a mousepad, or an in-game token - it's the "required" and "buy" which are the operative words here.

Anyone can go to cafe press. You aren't required to be a game player, in order to buy a particular game's mousepad.

The notion that you have to pay -something- in order to make use of the -game- and all its benefits, is what matters. Cafe press, t-shirts, mousepads, field trips to the zoo, are not MUDs. They are not bits of code on computers, they have nothing to do with game play. The only time they matter *at all* is when their purchase is required in exchange for some game benefit; in which case, the "payment required for benefits" applies. If a game is completely and totally free to play, and they don't accept donations to help the server costs, BUT they DO allow you to buy a t-shirt on their website, then yes - the game is 100% free to play, with no donations accepted. Merchandise sales are merchandise sales, they're not game sales. Merchandise != MUD

[Gore]

Thanks for clarifying this, atleast I know now how to list our MUD.

Lasher - If this gets implemented, would it be possible to post some statistics (say 3 months or 6 months from now) about what kind of search criteria people have been using? That way, we would have more realistic data whether the typical TMS user really finds these "payment/free" options worthwhile.
Something along the line with: Of the queries for the past 3 months, 35% of the searches were based on category, 25.8% of searches were based on Rolepaying, and 20.3% of searches were based on payment options.

-- Gore @ BatMUD

P.s. Kudos to KaVir for mentioning Oktoberfest. I already have a table booked there

[KaVir]

It's already covered by the existing proposal - the "Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game" option, and people can use the text area to clarify if they wish.

It's what matters to you, and what matters to me. But some people want to know whether any money is involved at all, the implication being that if the players are giving money to the mud owner for any reason, it may indirectly influence players within the game.

Having it as two options means that people like you and I can search as follows:

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[X] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[X] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

While those who want to avoid games where any money changes hands can search as follows:

[ ] Payment required to play?
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment / Donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[X] No Payment / Donations accepted, period.

Same here, in the Fischer-Vroni tent. They serve the best beer - Augustiner. Lecker.

[Newworlds]

Yes, silly argument.

[Threshold]

Considering the fact that merchandise is a very common business model for many forms of online entertainment, I don't think you can say that whatsoever. A MUD that sells merchandise may use all manner of enticements and encouragements to pressure or "suggest" that people buy merchandise.

Once money changes hands between player and admin, it changes the relationship significantly. It becomes a business relationship, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

Furthermore, the issue of "rewarded in game" has *STILL* not been resolved. There are still a zillion different interpretations for "rewarded in game", and having that in the options is just begging for flame wars in the future. Doing something on purpose, in advance, that we KNOW will cause flame wars is not wise.

There is only one distinction that can be made clearly and accurately: does money ever change hands between players and admins.

The more I read this thread, the less it sounds like trying to educate players with valuable information and the more it sounds like specific MUDS with specific payment models jockeying for changes that will show THEIR MUD in the best light. That is definitely not a good reason to make a change to the search options.

We are better off with no changes, and just letting MUDs describe themselves in their own words than adding inaccurate, vague search options that were designed in a biased manner to benefit 5-10 people who yelled the loudest.

But if there MUST be options added, then only add options that are factual, accurate, and verifiable and do not have vague, subjective terms.

[Newworlds]

I have to agree fully with that sentiment.