[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ Dec. 29 2005,16:22) And KaVir again reflects my feelings on the difference between a 'good' MUD and a 'popular MUD'. In order to appeal to the masses, there is a certain amount of your creative energies which have to be suppressed and/or used for the appealing itself, and not for cutting-edge and original/exciting gameplay. This is very rarely untrue, from my long time of having played a large, wide variety of MUDs.

The fallacy there is equating "original" (can't say I almost ever see anything original on any MUD though) with "good." WoW is an excellent (in the minds of many people) popular game. It's also about as unoriginal as they come. The Sims is an excellent (in the minds of many people) and popular game. The Sims was also reasonably innovative.

'Good' is in the eye of the beholder. What you have to do to create a popular MUD is create a MUD that will be viewed as good by a reasonable number of people.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Originally Posted by The fallacy there is equating "original" (can't say I almost ever see anything original on any MUD though) with "good." WoW is an excellent (in the minds of many people) popular game. It's also about as unoriginal as they come. The Sims is an excellent (in the minds of many people) and popular game. The Sims was also reasonably innovative. 'Good' is in the eye of the beholder. What you have to do to create a popular MUD is create a MUD that will be viewed as good by a reasonable number of people.

Call me slightly snobby, but the attitude that caring what the vast majority of players look for in their opinion of a 'good' typical online mmorpg would support games like EverQuest/etc being considered good. While they might be addictive and popular, I've always preferred MUDing because I felt that it was on a higher gameplay/creative plane than popular Graphical MMORPGs. And the people who swear up and down by EverQuest/etc being the greatest game ever, I attitribute to the addictive qualities of the game that require you to pump enormous amounts of time into monster bashing/mundane questing.

I consider a good MUD to not embrace these qualities, but find more exciting and less repetative ways to entertain players. That's all - some large MUDs pull off what I would call a successful attempt at a 'good' game, others I find myself staying away from for more-or-less the same reasons I do EverQuest.

But, yes - to a certain extent, 'good' is in the eye of the beholder. But that generalization can be taken to any form of media. And no matter howmany platinums they sold, nobody will convince me that N'Sync is a good band, or that the new Chronicles of Narnia movie is anything more than a mass-media spoon-feeding sham. But again, maybe I'm just being annoying and snobby.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ Dec. 29 2005,18:15) Call me slightly snobby, but the attitude that caring what the vast majority of players look forin their opinion of a 'good' typical online mmorpg would support games like EverQuest/etc being considered good. While they might be addictive and popular, I've always preferred MUDing because I felt that it was on a higher gameplay/creative plane than popular Graphical MMORPGs. And the people who swear up and down by EverQuest/etc being the greatest game ever, I attitribute to the addictive qualities of the game that require you to pump enormous amounts of time into monster bashing/mundane questing. I consider a good MUD to not embrace these qualities, but find more exciting and less repetative ways to entertain players. That's all - some large MUDs pull off what I would call a success attempt at a 'good' game, others I find myself staying away from for more-or-less the same reasons I do EverQuest.

In other words, in your view Everquest isn't a good game, but in other peoples' view it is.

--matt

[DonathinFrye]

Yeah, we can agree there.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Rathik @ Dec. 29 2005,04:37) Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 28 2005,12:05) Isn't that a rather circular argument?  It's a good mud because it has lots of players, and it has lots of players because it's a good mud? A circular argument? And? What is there not to understand about it?

A circular argument is a fallacy, related to 'petitio principii' ("begging the question").

Originally Posted by Simply, a mud has to be "good" to hundreds players for hundreds players to play it.

No, it just has to be "good enough". Because the definition of "good" is in the eye of the beholder, no mud is going to appeal to everyone. In order to be as popular as possible, a mud would therefore need to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

As most mud creators will tell you, when designing and developing a mud, many features will force you to choose between "improving the overall game" and "being popular with the majority of the playerbase".

From time to time you'll see muds claiming that their every design decision is based entirely on the wishes of the playerbase (a pure 'popularity'-based approach), and such muds usually end up unplayable rarely last long - much like those which completely ignore the views of the playerbase.

Thus most muds will draw a middle ground between the two - even commercial muds which rely on large playerbases tend to have a strong vision of the direction they want their mud to go. For example, at least three of the commercial mud companies have taken the approach of offering multiple muds to appeal to a wider audience rather than trying to create a single mud that appeals to the lowest common denominator.

In summary, the point I am trying to make is that "good" is subjective and no feature is universally popular. The more people you try to appeal to, the more features you'll need to avoid, and this can impact the overall quality and individuality of your game.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Dec. 30 2005,03:57) In summary, the point I am trying to make is that "good" is subjective and no feature is universally popular.  The more people you try to appeal to, the more features you'll need to avoid, and this can impact the overall quality and individuality of your game.

At the same time, some features are only enabled as possibilities once you've achieved a large audience. For instance, things like players-governing-players doesn't become at all interesting until there's at least a couple dozen players, and player nations vs. player nations looks pretty silly until there are quite a few more players than that so that each nation has a minimally-sized citizenry of players. Raids that require large number of players are also not possible on MUDs with a small number of players (you can't have a 50 person raid on a MUD that doesn't even hit 50 simultaneous).

In other words, failing to appeal to a lot of players can also impact the overall quality and individuality of your game. I'm not trying to be snarky, but the point is that there are, equally, things that cannot be achieved by small MUDs that can be achieved by large MUDs.

--matt

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Dec. 30 2005,10:17) At the same time, some features are only enabled as possibilities once you've achieved a large audience.

True - but on the flip side, some features can also become infeasible once the audience grows too large. For example, in a very roleplaying-oriented mud a larger playerbase is going to result in less attention per player from the staff, and will also result in a "less personal" feel to the mud, whereby the player feels that they're just another insignificant face among thousands rather than someone who can actually make a difference within the game world. Equally, a particularly large playerbase is going to require more machine resources, which might become overly expensive for a mud which wouldn't or couldn't take money from the playerbase.

By its very definition a MUD is a multiplayer environment, and it's unlikely to ever be as much fun without player interaction. The ideal number of players is, like anything else, going to be a matter of opinion (and also depend upon the style of mud). But IMO this is still a separate issue from the mud itself; if a mud doesn't have enough players - or has too many players - for the style of game it promotes, then it's not going to be as much fun as it could be. But that doesn't mean the game itself is bad (or good, for that matter), only that it isn't operating at its full potential.

In an earlier post, DonathinFrye listed the number of players on various muds. One of your IRE muds had over three times the current playerbase of another of the IRE muds - but I'm sure you'd agree that that doesn't mean the former is three times as "good" as the latter, nor even that it's necessarily "better" at all.

[Anitra]

DonathinFrye:: Dec. 29 2005,16:22    

Originally Posted by -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have I been living on another planet, or doesn't TMC only require you to enter a matching letter code in to vote? I just logged onto their website and voted for a MUD just now - the prompt showed me a typical anti-bot letter code that I had to match, and I did so, then clicking on "cast my vote".

I think what they are referring to is that on TMC you can cast 3 different votes. There is of course no need to adopt that part of their system, but the letter code seems to be a rather good way of making the list more secure from abuse.

This thread has provided some good input, and I really hope that the list Admin is following it.

Jazuela's suggestion of making separate lists for commercial and non-commecial muds is an excellent idea, that would be welcomed by a large part of the mud community.

There seems to be some sort of consencus that different people judge quality in a mud from different factors, and that a large player base isn't necessarily a factor, although it does have a positive effect when it comes tp PvP options.

This site should be about promoting the best muds, not just 'getting the most traffic to the site'.

A safer voting system would result in a fairer outcome of the listing.

Separate lists would give the high quality smaller muds, which are almost always non-commercial, a better chance of exposure, and consequently in the long run a better chance of  attracting more players.

I don't see how anyone could be against either of those suggestions.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by Separate lists would give the high quality smaller muds, which are almost always non-commercial, a better chance of exposure, and consequently in the long run a better chance of attracting more players. I don't see how anyone could be against either of those suggestions.

It's quite easy to be against those suggestions. Why should MUDs that contribute relatively little get screen space in favor of MUDs that contribute much more to TMS? This site is effectively a traffic exchange, and it's not fair to ask the MUDs that contribute a lot to subsidize the MUDs that don't. It lessens the value of TMS overall by reducing the impetus for the MUDs that support the site to send traffic here. Keep in mind that the top 10 MUDs send more traffic than MUDs 11-100 combined.

This discussion is a bit moot anyway. The site's not going to be changed and if you want to use a voting site that implements suggestions like the letter code, use TMC. Of course, they get far less traffic on their voting list, for a reason. Same with Mudmagic.

--matt

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by True - but on the flip side, some features can also become infeasible once the audience grows too large. For example, in a very roleplaying-oriented mud a larger playerbase is going to result in less attention per player from the staff, and will also result in a "less personal" feel to the mud, whereby the player feels that they're just another insignificant face among thousands rather than someone who can actually make a difference within the game world. Equally, a particularly large playerbase is going to require more machine resources, which might become overly expensive for a mud which wouldn't or couldn't take money from the playerbase.

Sure, of course. There are advantages and disadvantages to almost any feature.

Originally Posted by By its very definition a MUD is a multiplayer environment, and it's unlikely to ever be as much fun without player interaction. The ideal number of players is, like anything else, going to be a matter of opinion (and also depend upon the style of mud). But IMO this is still a separate issue from the mud itself; if a mud doesn't have enough players - or has too many players - for the style of game it promotes, then it's not going to be as much fun as it could be. But that doesn't mean the game itself is bad (or good, for that matter), only that it isn't operating at its full potential.

Well, I don't entirely agree here. Insofar as MUDs are both products and services, I don't believe one can judge a MUD purely on a product basis (the code and the content). Other players and the player community are part of the service side and are always taken into account by potential and existing players in their judgements of a MUD.

As for objective 'bad' or 'good', well, I don't care. It's in the eye of the beholder. My personal opinion (and it doesn't matter to me if other people share it or not) is that a large MUD is, ipso facto, good insofar as it's managed to attract a lot of players that view it as good, while a small MUD is more nebulous. One can't really say it's bad, but, again, for me, small MUDs are simply indeterminate. They haven't, as you say, lived up to their potential, and it's far from certain the potential is there at all. Again, that's for me, and it's probably because my main interests in MUDs require larger player populations to work. No doubt others disagree, demonstrating the subjective nature of quality assessment.

Originally Posted by In an earlier post, DonathinFrye listed the number of players on various muds. One of your IRE muds had over three times the current playerbase of another of the IRE muds - but I'm sure you'd agree that that doesn't mean the former is three times as "good" as the latter, nor even that it's necessarily "better" at all.

No, I wouldn't, though I would say that the larger ones are more successful, given that I define success as achieving ones goals, and our goals are to create MUDs that will attract as many players as possible.

--matt

[Sacac]

In response to the_logos’ post

“Why should MUDs that contribute relatively little get screen space in favor of MUDs that contribute much more to TMS? This site is effectively a traffic exchange, and it's not fair to ask the MUDs that contribute a lot to subsidize the MUDs that don't. It lessens the value of TMS overall by reducing the impetus for the MUDs that support the site to send traffic here. Keep in mind that the top 10 MUDs send more traffic than MUDs 11-100 combined.”



“As most mud creators will tell you, when designing and developing a mud, many features will force you to choose between "improving the overall game" and "being popular with the majority of the player base".”

As Kavir told us before, and the_logos brought to mind, the two ideas, Should we “Improve the overall game(I mean the website in this post)” and “Be popular with the majority of the player base?” I would go with the second thought, but doesn’t every mud pay the same amount of money to be listed? If that is so, everyone should get equal exposure. Just common sense, or make people pay different prices, which is just as unfair.

Two lists would accomplish this, IMHO. Why? It would separate the two biggest groups from each other, PtP and Free. I actually propose three lists though, P2P, free, and a combined list. That way, if you care, you can pick P2P or free. We can have the site automagickally load with a combined list, with the clickable words, Free and Commercial, on either side of the title. When you click them they show you the same page with a new list.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Sacac @ Dec. 30 2005,21:36) doesn’t every mud pay the same amount of money to be listed? If that is so, everyone should get equal exposure. Just common sense, or make people pay different prices, which is just as unfair.

You do not pay money to be listed here. You pay in traffic.

TMS is a traffic exchange site. I honestly do not understand why so many people refuse to understand and accept this.

So payment is in the form of the traffic you send.

The popular games send the overwhelming majority of the traffic to the site. Why should games that "pay" virtually nothing to be listed here (they send very little traffic) get a special list where they appear more prominently? That doesn't sound fair by any stretch of the imagination.

MUDs that send little traffic (and get less votes, and are lower in the rankings) already benefit inordinately. They send almost no traffic, but they benefit from the fact that every person who visits the site might see their game, or might go looking for a new game simply by being exposed to the list.

The example Matt gave earlier about WoW helps illustrate this. Would anyone here really care if WoW seized the top spot with 90 gazillion votes, bumping everyone down one notch? Think of all those players they'd be sending here to TMS to at least SEE that there are other games out there, and possibly give one of them a shot. Personally, I'd be THRILLED if WoW would join the list and send their millions of players here to vote. I played WoW, and I know there are a lot of people there are who only marginally satisfied, and would jump at the chance to try something new- something that might actually fit their tastes better.

When you understand and accept that the TMS list/front page is a traffic exchange, you can easily and quickly see why separate lists, or annoyances like typing in letter codes are not things that promote TRAFFIC. A traffic exchange that does not promote traffic is not doing its job.

[Sacac]

Well threshold, those that do contribute so much will still be at the top of 2 out of 3 lists. While making the lists more convienant for people. Instead of forcing them to dig through pages of free muds so they can look at the P2P that is sprinkled within their territory.

[DonathinFrye]

Perhaps I just mistakenly assumed that the purpose of a site like this was to promote the improvement of the MUDing community as a whole, centered around a repeating theme of Top-MUDs, which would infer holding itself to a standard of excellence and accuracy in voting - howmuch traffic would we really lose from having to add 15-20 seconds to a vote for a letter-code? I would venture to say that 98% of the traffic lost would be bots, and I'm not sure how great of payment bot-hits are anyways.

And in response to the smaller MUDs benefitting - you can see that the ratio of votes-in to clicks-out for the smaller webs does not really improve until the number of votes-in are so small that statistical data is no longer accurate for those MUDs.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by (Sacac @ Dec. 30 2005,22:29) Well threshold, those that do contribute so much will still be at the top of 2 out of 3 lists. While making the lists more convienant for people. Instead of forcing them to dig through pages of free muds so they can look at the P2P that is sprinkled within their territory.

Sacac, seriously, can you please understand and accept that this is a traffic exchange? It is unfair to sites who send very little traffic to get their own list where they are shown more prominently. They aren't the sites that BRING the traffic. Why should they get special treatment. It doesn't matter if its 1 out of 3 lists, 2 out of 3, or 3 out of 3. It still goes against the nature of a traffic exchange.

As for "forcing someone to dig through pages of muds", come on. That's cake. You can easily select genres or other 20 MUD blocks right at the top, and that alone narrows things down so much that you get muds with very few votes on the front page. Anyone looking for a new mud has absolutely NO DIFFICULTY finding variety.

The truth of the matter, if you'd be willing to admit it, is that you (and many others) want to figure out some way- any way- to get less popular muds a more prominent location for where their mud gets listed. Such people want a mud that has not EARNED the prominence, by sending traffic, to get the prominent spot anyway.

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ Dec. 31 2005,00:22) how much traffic would we really lose from having to add 15-20 seconds to a vote for a letter-code?

Let me put it this way. *I* wouldn't even bother voting for my own mud every day if I had to enter some annoying code. I find having to do that sort of thing just more trouble than its worth. That's why I don't bother voting for my own MUD on TMC. It isn't that it takes a huge amount of time or anything. It is just that the value of a single vote is pretty small, compared with the annoyance factor of reading one of those obfuscated graphics and then typing in the letters.

It is just like the concept behind coupons. Companies that give coupons do so for two main reasons: the first is marketing, but the second is more interesting. They know that some people are willing to pay more for the exact same product. But they also know they can't have two prices for the same product, or else the people who pay the higher price will feel cheated. Thus, they give out coupons in newspapers, coupon books, etc. How does this work? The people who value their time more, and think it isn't worth their time to bother with clipping coupons, storing them, organizing them, remembering to bring them, etc. pay a higher price. People who value their time less, do all the things necessary to use coupons, and pay less. Voila! The seller just sold the product for 2 different prices, depending on how much the customer values his or her time.

I think any sort of obfuscated graphic with a letter code would dramatically reduce the amount of traffic to TMS. Not just bot traffic, but real traffic. That is antithetical to the goals of a traffic exchange site. You do not do things that REDUCE traffic. That would be Bad ™.

Originally Posted by (DonathinFrye @ Dec. 31 2005,00:22) And in response to the smaller MUDs benefitting - you can see that the ratio of votes-in to clicks-out for the smaller webs does not really improve until the number of votes-in are so small that statistical data is no longer accurate for those MUDs.

Then why don't these muds just remove themselves from the list entirely, if they aren't benefitting?

The fact is, smaller games benefit a lot more, by percentage, than larger games with more players. The more popular games are risking their own players every time they encourage people to come here to vote. They are willingly exposing their players to lots of other games. The reward is higher placement on the list, which they hope will attract at least as many NEW players to replace those they lose by showing them all the other games that exist out there.

Why should small games get artificial, preferential placement when they haven't sent the traffic or risked the players that all the other games have?