[Rathik]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by (Rathik @ Dec. 26 2005,04:45) Originally Posted by 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. 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.

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)

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

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]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Dec. 26 2005,07:48) 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.

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.

Originally Posted by and it would allow the Non-Commercial muds to compete on somewhat equal terms.

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Rathik @ Dec. 26 2005,10:45) I think popularity is a very good indicator of how good a mud is.

McDonalds and Burger King are popular. Do you think that's a good indicator of how good their food is?

Originally Posted by If a mud has a lot of votes, generally they have a lot of players.

No, the number of votes they have is nothing more than an indication of how many votes they have. It may also imply more voters, although that's not something you can be sure of.

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, a lot of people like McDonalds as well.

[Fern]

Point taken, the_logos.

We send very few to TMS, and receive very little traffic from TMS. But I don't see desiring a higher position as being ego-driven. Of course it feels great to have the visibility, but the majority of our new traffic comes from reviews and word of mouth.

The first page is what voters see after casting their votes.  Folks who just voted hunt for the game they just voted for.  If they find it, great. If they have to keep looking through pages until they find it, that's fine too.  But no matter what the intention of the listing is, they will remember how far they had to look before they find it.

I was not continuing the thread to bring forth objections to the current system or its participants, merely to point out that there are other methods and measures.

[Rathik]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 26 2005,08:00) No, the number of votes they have is nothing more than an indication of how many votes they have. It may also imply more voters, although that's not something you can be sure of.

Uhh.. there's no direct relationship formula for it, but like I said, if they have a lot of votes, generally they have a lot of players. If you don't believe me, try it. For the most part each of the muds in the top 5 have more players than 6-10 which have more than 10-20, etc.

Originally Posted by Yes, a lot of people like McDonalds as well.

That's my point. And there are many, many, many players who care more about having players to play with in addition to having newer features, decent areas, and over all, just having fun than they do about playing in a "quality" mud with "original" features with complex stories or text clouds. There are also many players who do prefer quality written areas, quality deep stories, and maybe even clouds, but most of these players play a different mud (there are 100s of such muds) from each other because everyone's perception of quality is different from the next.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Rathik @ Dec. 26 2005,21:53) I think popularity is a very good indicator of how good a mud is. Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 26 2005,08:00) Yes, a lot of people like McDonalds as well. That's my point. And there are many, many, many players who care more about having players to play with in addition to having newer features, decent areas, and over all, just having fun than they do about playing in a "quality" mud with "original" features with complex stories or text clouds.

So let me get this straight. You believe that "how good a mud is" is based on how many players it has rather than...how good the mud is?

Does that mean that if someone opened up a stock Diku and it had ten thousand players online at all times, you would consider it to be the 'best' mud around?

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by So let me get this straight. You believe that "how good a mud is" is based on how many players it has rather than...how good the mud is? Does that mean that if someone opened up a stock Diku and it had ten thousand players online at all times, you would consider it to be the 'best' mud around?

KaVir, I thought we already had one of those. <3M

---

And in response to reading this thread, I'll shoot my support to KaVir on this one. There are many MUDs out there that lack the funds, the amazing web-design, or other general flashiness that can sometimes attract lots of players (much in the same way Graphical MMORPGs do); many of those MUDs have quality staff, decent-sized playerbases, and code/gameplay that doesn't crawl, is unique and fun, and does things that no other MUDs do.

I won't go as far as to say that large MUDs can't reach the same level, because that's obviously been proven not true - however, I have played many places, and I do believe most large player-based MUDs sacrifice some of their creative energies on the flashiness and community aspects of their game. That does tend to attract many more players, true - however, it is not necessarily a direct reflection on the quality of their gameplay itself. The most innovative and creative MUDs I have ever played, nearly all probably had lower playerbases than 100 avg(which for most MUD owners, would still probably be a dream.)

Back to the subject of the post; I do not find it wrong to encourage players to vote, but I do not think it should be hard-coded into the game to remind players that it is their duty, or the sort. A simple attachment to whatever equivalent of a "Message of the Day Board" saying 'You can vote for us at xxx!' is as automated as I would ever feel personally comfortable with.

[Rathik]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 26 2005,11:59) So let me get this straight. You believe that "how good a mud is" is based on how many players it has rather than...how good the mud is?

Yes, I do. I believe it takes a good mud, to get and to keep players. And having players makes it better, at least for me, because I don't like to mud in a dark corner of cyberspace with only a couple of players. Of course you don't agree with me. That's fine. What do you think makes up a "good" mud?

Originally Posted by Does that mean that if someone opened up a stock Diku and it had ten thousand players online at all times, you would consider it to be the 'best' mud around?

Diku stock would obviously never reach ten thousands, and not even ten, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.