[Seraphina]

This sort of speculation is really difficult to nail down. The pay to play muds are bringing more visitors many of whom may never have been exposed to free muds. There is not much point in free advertising if few people see it.

[Maggie]

I think that was the point; if you're pushed back a page or two, few people will see it.  There are some people who come only to promote their own MU*, but many do come looking for one to play.  The p2p games may bring a lot of people, but how many are going to be willing to leave their old game to go to a free one?  My guess is that there will be many more who haven't played p2p before but will decide to try.

I know it's been that way with the game I play; we've gained several new players since coming here, and I haven't heard of one person who quit to play a free MU*.  Whether it's right or wrong for p2p games to be here, I think the people who were here first do have a right to complain.  The 5 new players that a big game gets may seem like nothing to them, but it could be the death of the one they might have chosen if it could have been seen as easily.

[Jazuela]

I quit a P2P for a free game. I was told about it by someone who had read reviews and the "info" stuff on TMS, who also quit a P2P game for the free game. There are at least half a dozen people playing the free game I'm playing now, who came from one of the two P2P games I used to play.

And I wouldn't have played the free game if I hadn't come to this website and checked the reviews, the Info thing, or clicked *from here* to their official website.

We all have our own reasons for playing whatever game we play...and for not playing whatever game we don't play. I find it presumptuous, arrogant, and rude of anyone who comes here claiming "oh people don't play these games because" this and that.

The primary reason I'm playing a free game, as opposed to any particular pay-2-play, is because I'm no longer in a financial position to shell out a monthly fee. It's a luxury I simply can't afford. The primary reason I left the P2P game I played has to do with an issue I have with their admin and a couple of staff members. A semi-personal issue, that has little to do with their capabilities to run their game successfully.

Not one of you knows whether I'm representative of the majority, the minority, or just some lone freak who wandered through the cracks. A poll won't change that, no matter how many people vote. People lie, misunderstand, click the wrong thing in error, or otherwise manipulate this sort of thing to skew the results. Hell I could be lying about my reasons right here in this thread, for that matter!

So all y'all just take your theories, your postulations, assumptions, and hypothetical examples and have a blast with them. Just don't believe for a second that they have any significant meaning.

Okay, I don't think my points were addressed/disproved so no need to blubber on those.

On the above however...

I am fairly familiar with programming (though admittedly no where near the realm of most of you), but have studied enough philosophy to comprehend how an if/then statement works.

Suppose you were to make some sort of nifty program that had a set of buttons that followed the question "Do you see things as the wise Orion Elder does?", with simple 'Yes' and 'No' labels.  If the person pushed the 'Yes' button he would receive a pre-programmed response of "You must be worth talking to because you are wise yourself".  If a different person pushed the 'No' button he would receive a pre-programmed "You are not worth talking to because you are silly to not agree with the wise Orion Elder! (Did you not see the 'wise' put before his name?)" response.  This is somewhat what you are talking about with the whole programming if/then thing, right?

So I follow the "if" of the statement (as you pointed out , "if you don't see that"), and I can accept part of your "then" statement - where YOU see no need to continue arguing with me.  But, and forgive my ignorance, I fail to see where you have

_A N Y_

right to call me thickheaded for not agreeing with you.  Stubborn, perhaps.  Unyielding.  Determined.  Self-righteous.  Any of these I could see, possibly agree with- but "thickheaded".  Not hardly.

I admit it is a very cleverly veiled insult.  Very cunning, indeed, youngling!  But considering I noted it was tailored to me for originally not agreeing with you- I was quick witted enough to see through the veil for what it was.  

From Merriam-Websters... ()
Main Entry: thick·head·ed
Pronunciation: -"he-d&d
Function: adjective
Date: 1707
1 : having a thick head
2 : sluggish and obtuse of mind

If (you think those who have opinions different from yours are thickheaded), then (you should consider the pot calling the kettle black) for not seeing _MY_ opinion.

I mean, I find it difficult to believe you could possibly see one factor of a MU* being so much more drastically important than others that it needs to be segregated on the main page to the exclusion of others.  As if listing people's races in voting polls would be any more important than listing their incomes, religious affiliation, education level, age - or what not.  Maybe to some it would - but possibly not to all.

In closing....

If (you cannot see past a personal opinion on a topic) and (you think your opinion is so much more important than everyone elses) then (perhaps you should consider how that contradicts what a mediator is supposed to do).

"Thickheaded".

[Orion Elder]

In the context I used it, you can see (understand, notice, etc) someone's point without agreeing with it. If you can't see that point, and the one before, then yes... you're thickheaded. If you want to take that as an insult, that is your choice.

On the subject of your points, I did address those. Particularly the one about MUDs that actually need players, versus MUDs that don't need players. You see, those free MUDs, eventually, may contribute to our MUDding community through the release of areas, code, and ideas that may eventually help the MUDding community as a whole. To date, I do not know of a SINGLE p2p (p2p is defined as a MUD where payment is mandatory, or can be used to advance ones character(s)) MUD that has given out some of their code, areas, or shared their ideas on a level other than "we do this... it's really cool, come try it out." Note the lack of explanation or suggestions on HOW to do it. But, let's conveniently skip over that... it gives a good reason to add the markers, which you seem to not want.

Again, how you take it is your choice... but, on the subject of people being egotistical... well, I think the above speaks for itself, Mr. Quickwit.

Other factors don't affect my real life. Cost does. I'm sorry you can't understand that. If you can't, then that is what makes you thickheaded. If you can understand that, then you're just stubborn and oblivious.

As for my age, if we're to believe YOUR profile, you're a 30 year old with a severe glandular disorder.

But, as I said. I think it'd be better to take this to PMs if you're so interested in continuing it, because now we're pretty much entirely off the topic of this thread now. And since I'm the 'youngling' here, I don't have to be the mature one. *smirk*

[Molly]

It would be rather unreasonable to expect a P2P mud to share parts of their code, wouldn't it? After all, they make money on their concept, so why give it out for free? That would be like expecting a big drug company to publish the exact recipe for the latest product that they just spent X years and Y $ to develop and are now planning to finally make a profit from.

However, this does not mean that they cannot add to the 'community' in different ways, by taking part in the Board discussions and sharing their experiences. Many of the P2P administrators that post here strike me as mature and vocal persons, who often have interesting angles to different subjects. After all, they do run a successful business, and there are several experiences in this process that they could share with the rest of us, without exposing any trade secrets.

For example, one topic, where I'd like some input from the P2Ps is the subject 'problem players'. We all get them, and I suspect the P2P muds get them to an even larger extent, since most Twinks seem to be attracted by high numbers. So, how do you treat those players when they actually have paid a fee to populate your mud, and are not just undesirable houseguests that can be evicted at the host's free will?

And there are other subjects, many having to do with handling large playerbases, large staffs etc., that would be interesting from an Admin point of view, and where the P2P admins most likely can add new angles to the discussions.

And another thing, there's nothing to stop you from drawing inspiration from their 'cool' features either, you just need to figure out how to code them yourself. I freely admit that some of the features in my own muds are based on things in a couple of P2P muds that I tested out to see what they were like. I saw the feature, thought, 'Hey, that IS cool!' and went right back and introduced it in my own mud. In both cases it took 5 minutes to add, so it wasn't all that hard... *snicker*

[Jazuela]

[Orion Elder]

Jazuela:
I didn't say players from p2p MUDs don't contribute. I said the p2p MUDs specifically do not contribute. The most I've seen, as I mentioned, was people who talked about ideas... and even then it was very scarce. You said it yourself, you switched to a free game. Once a part of a free game, then you contributed (and then, it was only to one MUD, but let's overlook that). Before that, what'd you contribute? Anything?

Molly:
That's my point specifically, Molly. They're in it to make money... I release my code, in an effort to help the community, as do many others. These p2p MUDs get free advertising here, and can garner potential players... thus more money. Yet, they don't help the community. They help their pockets. It would not kill them by any means to be upfront and honest about their game, on the rankings list. By doing so they may lose a few players. Darn. They still have plenty, and have a reason to stay open. By not doing so, they can 'kill' a free MUD that actually needs players. By 'killing' those free MUDs, they're eliminating people who might have contributed to the MUDding community at large... which, as you mentioned, they are unlikely to do. Someone who might have created the next evolution in MUDding may disappear, feeling they've wasted their time. Then again, they may have just caused a MUD to shut down that would have been a license violator.

By not making it clear in the most prominent place (the main ranking page) that they take payments, be it mandatory or not (this is not the same as donations... donations don't benefit the players directly, other than by keeping the MUD up and running and the server decent), they could potentially take players from MUDs that need those players as a reason to keep their MUD up. Yes, to an extent it does have to do with ego... people like to see a return for their efforts. The players enjoying the work created can be seen as a return on the creators work.

But, that's just my opinion.

Okay, perhaps the analogy I posted above wasn't clear enough.

I was discussing the actual demographics rl pollers use for such things as political debate.  Not here, per se.  So when I referred to "...listing people's..." in the above quote, I was hoping to metaphor that to "...listing MU*s...".  With my examples of race, religious affiliation, education level, etc as being comparable to (but not directly corresponding to) cost, rp/pk preference, codebase, theme, etc.

I'm sorry if you couldn't see that because I didn't clarify it enough for you.

[Edit: Deleted something off-topic and non-pertinent 3 seconds after I posted it]

As for not seeing things in your post, I keep re-reading it and I think I understand every point you're trying to make...  To simplify, in regards to the poll addressed...




You: You feel p2p MU*s should be up-front and honest about their cost on the rankings page.  This is important because
<insert possible viable reason 1>
<insert possible viable reason 2>
<insert possible viable reason 3>

Me: Yes, I can see how those reasonings are important to you.  And granted, many of the points you made are valid.  They, however, are not as important to me.  I think other aspects of the MU* are more important to drawing me to/away from it.  Such as its rp/pk ratio.

You: But rp/pk ratio doesn't cost money!  Thats the deciding factor.  Hogwash!

Me: To YOU that is a deciding factor.  If we are going to put defining icons on the front page, why not tailor them to the communities needs (ie, your wants [$$$], my wants [rp/pk], JFK's wants [codebase], Mary's wants [theme]).

You: Because they don't cost money!  




Remember, there is always this theory: the rankings page is for giving a brief blurb description of your MU* to try and attract the interest of the players to research it more.  $/RP-PK/Codebase/etc on the ranking page doesn't fit that, leave it to Info.

Oh, and if you want to discuss this via PM, by all means, take it there.  Judging by how the voting is currently progressing I think many people share your view and I am somewhat addressing them as well.



To Dulan: about Achaea, I'm not going to debate this because as far as I have seen (and told by Syn), the very definition of 'pay-to-play' has not been set in steel and is currently subjective.  Since the term has no set definition, it would be impossible to debate whether it applies to a specific MU* which dances on the gray area of it.  I would think rather than debate Achaea's status of being p2p or not, it would be wiser for everyone to come up with a working definition (at least on this site) by which we could all agree to debate by.  If this has been done before and I missed it, I apologize.  I have checked on-line through a few search engines and asked around, but no one has been able to point me in the direction of "the absolutely, universally accepted" definition of p2p.  
And yes, I had seen Achaea's TMC advertisement and thought it was offensive and in incredibly poor taste.  While shady practices there may be, I'm focusing on one topic at a time.  Sometimes a lot of little changes to the foundation of the way a person thinks or acts can have a greater impact on them than if you try to change the way they think about everything all at once.

[truthfulthomas]

In terms of code and areas, free MUDs do not contribute to the "MUDding community," but rather to a much more narrowly defined community that consists almost entirely of operators of DIKU derived MUDs. That said, I think the value of such "contribution" is questionable. Do players (as opposed to lazy imps and builders) really benefit from yet another implementation of MySuckMud with X, Y, and Z snippets and the same area packages that almost every other MySuckMud employs?

The better commercial MUDs contribute to gaming in the same way that the better free MUDs do: by putting out an exceptional product -- one that, in the case of commercial MUDs, a number of players are apparantly willing to pay for despite the availability of similar products for free. MUDding isn't kept alive by the distribution of trivial snippets and the exchange of what will effectively become stock areas. It's kept alive by the small percentage of MUDs that offer enjoyable and perhaps even somewhat original diversion for their players.

The commercial MUDs are clearly bringing a lot of traffic to this site. That's a huge boon for every MUD listed here, even if only a relatively small percentage of the site's visitors do anything more than just vote for their MUD and leave. Still, the majority of free MUDs are going to squander the opportunity, either by not taking advantage of a forum that allows for free advertising or by wasting bandwidth with inarticulate, poorly-written advertisements for players and staff or by failing to offer a product that looks significantly different from 95% of the product that is already being offered here.

[TG_Hammar]

Nek is not thick-headed, he is "wool-headed".

If this thread keeps continuing, I am going to pop a seam from laughing so hard.

Personally, I could wish for whatever I want, but have no realistic expectations of getting it. I could wish that p2p MUDs had to report with an icon or whatever what their payment status is, but then there is the whole debate of how each level of p2p would be defined, and there are millions of possible flames and arguments there (some are already discussed in this thread). If wishes were money, I would be richer than Bill Gates, but we should consider the PRACTICAL use of this poll to those who deem its possible value: the admin of TMS decide that some points in this thread are valid or not valid and apply them however they wish, OR someone reading this thread believes they could make their OWN voting website and try to streamline it in such a way to please more visitors than TMS does.

I doubt anyone has the true knowledge to know for sure whether an icon would have much effect, but this poll is designed to represent the opinions of those interested in the topic.

[Dulan]

Truthfulthomas: Ah, but there's a difference between "worthwhile traffic" and just "traffic", t-thomas.

Look at Achaea. They offer incentives to come here. Their pbase is 1/3rd, at best, of a MUDs like Dragonrealms. They manage to keep ahead of DR in votes by the skin of their teeth.

Do you think any players from Achaea will look at other MUDs after voting and getting their bonus for voting? I don't. Thus, it's not "worthwhile traffic". It's just "traffic".

There's a difference. "Worthwhile traffic" does what you described - but, there is also traffic that unethical MUDs generate, traffic that offers none of the benefits you, or others, have outlined.

TG_Hammer: That's why I offered my simple definition of what 'P2P' is. If you accept money for _any_ sort of in-game benefit - whether that benefit is playing the MUD or getting physical bonuses in the game proper - it is a P2P. If you only accept donations, and give nothing in-game in return, you aren't P2P. (Note that I said in-game. Offering t-shirts and such for donators would NOT be P2P under that definition.)

Furthermore, this definition makes it extremely easy to define and deal with P2P and non-P2P MUDs. It creates a VERY firm line between them - something that a MUD would be extremely hard-pressed to create a logical and sensible argument against.

-D

[truthfulthomas]

[Edited to clean up a couple of typos --tt]
Any visitors to this site who do something more than just vote for their MUD and leave are potentially worthwhile to any of the MUDs who advertise or have themselves listed in the database here. It's a basic of advertising, pretty much all exposure is good exposure.

Based on what? Your own personal opinions of Achaea? I have no idea what percentage of visitors to this site do anything more than vote and leave, but if it is even a relatively small percentage, that will still result in a respectable level of free advertising for all the MUDs listed on this site. And I don't really know any reason why someone coming here because they were offered and incentive to do so would be less likely to browse around than someone coming because their MUD admin said, "Hey, two more votes and we'll be number 12!" In fact, if, as has been argued elsewhere, such incentives skew results because it leads players to vote for a MUD they might not otherwise feel that strongly about, then it could be argued that such visitors are, if anything, more likely to be in the mood to browse around for another MUD.

I'm not sure what the logic is behind your assumptions here. By unethical MUDs, I assume you mean MUDs with unethical administrators. How exactly does that reflect on the players that come here to vote for said MUD? How does that reflect on their likelihood to check out and perhaps begin playing someone else's MUD?

Like most such "simple" definitions, however, this one is arbitrary to the point of being useless. There is a significant difference, from the perspective of the potential customer at least, between a commercial MUD which has a business model built around monthly fees and one which has a model built around only paying for extras.  There is a significant difference between a MUD where you can pay for extras that can only be had by paying and a MUD where you can pay for extras but those extras can also be earned without paying for them.  Different schemes will appeal to different players.  For example, I don't have much time to play MUDs these days, so I would be very unlikely to ever play a MUD with a monthly fee simply because I don't feel I would get my money's worth out of it.  I would, however, be willing to give MUDs with one-time fees or pay-for-extras plans a chance.  If the site is going to provide any information on the pay status of the MUDs listed here, I'd rather it actually be something useful.

[Dulan]

You do have a point. However, I would then suggest applying a '$' symbol to all non-free MUDs, and then, within the MUD's Profile/Info, list a further derivation of the pay-style. If it's pay for extras, list it as such within the info. If it's monthly payments, list it as such. It's 'only' a click or two, to take a page from the P2P-advocates books.

-D

[Jazuela]

Actually while I was still GMing at Inferno, I contributed as an IMM in two games, building 2 areas and suggesting code changes to allow for easier "tools" their staff could use. I also contributed on this forum, and I've been a moderator on 3 other forums (and I'm still a moderator on one, and an Admin on another).

I also work with players of free games to help set up their custom descriptions (for those games that require/offer them), and assist in editing room descriptions for a couple of staff members of other free games.

That's just me, as I posted previously. It's not a brag, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other people who spend a lot of time helping and contributing to free games in their own way.

[Dulan]

Jazuela, while your points are valid, they have been acknowledged prior to your post. And have been deemed 'irrelevant' to the argument.

We speak of MUDs, not of specific members within P2P MUDs.

-insert derisive comment about not reading the two threads, or ignoring specific points within the threads to advance ones own wants-

-D

[Lanthum]

[Dulan]

Like you suggested?

Lanthum, three people told me that someone with some sort of 'L' name logged on - the specific name I've managed to forget - and spammed the MUD with tells about coming to play Adventurer's Inn.

One wouldn't dare lie. One's first MUD was that specific MUD, and would have had no idea about Adventurer's Inn. And, finally, the third would have been either Unifex or Scwop - forget which. If it was Unifex, I'd fail to see why he'd lie to me. Scwop...Very likely not. If you want to flame Unifex on the subject, feel free. He can defend himself on these boards far better than I can.

Now, care to repeat those statements?

My credibility can't be shot by some newbie with 2 posts. Especially considering two things: First, the newbie would have a significant incentive to lie about his actions. Secondly, I do not lie. That fact has been documented multiple times across these, and other, boards. While it's entirely possible to get me to say something I believe is the truth when it's not - and that has happened before - I do not lie if I know it is an untruth. And, as soon as I receive the correct information, I tend to do a complete 180.

Drives people like you crazy, as has been documented multiple times in the past on various forums.

Now, if you wish to continue this conversation, take it to PMs. We're deviating from the topic at hand -nods towards the PTP $ topic-

-D

[Lanthum]

[Dulan]

If you will note, Lanthum, I've noted that I was wrong by my silence in responding to that subject.

While I disagree with the methods used - a poll? My complaints there were MORE than legitimate - I was wrong to get my panties in a bunch over something so quickly.

And, there's another option that I've covered and now highly enthusiastic about - Make an icon. Place the icon on all MUDs that accept any form of payment in trade for any in game benefit. Then, let all MUDs further define what they are within their 'info' link.

That way, Achaea can have their precious 'Only pay if you want!' classification. And Simultronics games can have their 'Monthly payment' classification.

It gives the benefits of both worlds. It addresses Mihaly's complaints about classifying all MUDs in one lump bunch. And it addresses the various complaints people have had about P2P's having a "free lunch" representing themselves as free MUDs. And, best of all, it requires almost no attention on Synozeer's part to enforce - It's an extremely simple system.

There is probably a few problems inherent in my suggested system, but, it manages to address the majority's issues in the best way I have heard personally so far. I honestly haven't heard of, or thought of any downsides, but I'd love to hear them.

-D