[Shao_Long]

not sure how it will be after a year.. or two.. or whatever.. but for now - any mud which is not called Realms of Despair - is bad mud

[CSmith_Fan]

I think also..if you check out (like here and maybe at TMC) the player reviews for the MUD and, for example, out of the 10 reviews, ONE is an actual players and the rest are all Staff..red flags go up. I mean, if a MUD has more staff reviews than player reviews, then the players (current and former) obviously know of some bad stuff we dont know about. It'd be like me going "C'mon Enzo..swallow this crushed glass..it's good for you" and 5 other wierdoes saying the same thing but everyone else going "no way"...Enzo would run away (or kick my butt then stroll off..and sorry for using you as an example..it was the first name to pop to mind). Maybe have restrictions as to how many staff reviews can be placed because there is already a small review (in a sense) in the MUD's listings.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by I mean, if a MUD has more staff reviews than player reviews, then the players (current and former) obviously know of some bad stuff we dont know about.

And just how do you propose to tell which ones are written by players or by the staff? They all sound like the same blatant advertising to me.

[Lovelorn]

Originally Posted by (Jazuela @ Sep. 05 2002,10:13 am) Things that turn me off about games: 1) Autocombat. I want every single hit I deliver (if any) to be due to my own typing (or lack thereof). 2) OOC/chat channels. If I want to chat, I'll get an AOL account and join a chat room. 3) Room descriptions that indicate there are interesting things there, but when you try to "look" at those things, it turns out they don't exist. Especially annoying in MOOs - OBJECT oriented - I want objects dangit! 4) Roleplay "encouraged." I don't need to roll up a fantasy character in a medieval world in ordered to be myself. I go to these games to roleplay, and I expect everyone else to follow suit in the game I choose to play. 5) Staff members with ego problems. Dood - you're NOT god. Not even in the RP world. You're the representative of this fictional world, and I am your customer. Treat me as one, or I'll find another place to go. 6) Players who go to extremes when dealing with newbies. Meaning - being so overly helpful that the newbie has no opportunity to learn things for themselves, or people who are so overly protective that the newbie no longer has any interest in wading through the manual to figure out why "look desk" returns "You can't do that." 7) If the only two options for colors are those the MUD provides, or none at all, no matter which front end you're using. I want to use the color scheme *I* like to use, which is why I have a front end that allows me to create the scheme in the first place. ANSI ON should let me set whatever background color I want (a very pale gray), whatever text I want (courier 10 font, black for normal text), and whatever highlighted things I want (triggers to allow the word "You" to always be a bold red). 8) Games where the only option for skills is hunting. I have no problem with levels, or "ranks" of skills. But if advancement is part of the system, I don't want to have to hunt in ordered to advance. Hunting should be an option, not a requirement. 9) RP games that have NO skill systems at all - meaning, everything is roleplayed. I LIKE having a variety of systems that include skill checks. The only thing that truly differentiates a "pure" RP game from a chatroom is moving through rooms. I consider that amazingly boring. Well now that I've posted my pet peeves - and since my tagline shows that I'm currently mudless.. anyone got any ideas of a game I can play? You're probably thinking "man she wants it ALL." Well yeah, I do. So if that means there exists no such game, then I'll go back to being a TV Troll.

Ditto! She hit every nail on every head for what turns me off in a Mud.

[Fifi]

For me, more than anything, theme. I only want to play rpis. If it's not an RPI I don't want to play. If it is I'm willing to put up with most of the other issues mentioned.

[parrotslave]

When I walk into an outdoor room and try to look at the ground and get told there is no ground. What am I standing on? Or try to look at the sky and get told there is no sky.

Or in an indoor room and try to look at the floor and get told there is no floor. Again, what am I standing on? Or try to look at the walls or ceiling and get told they don't exist.

Plus anything mentioned in the room description should be able to be examined. It is especially bothersome if it mentions a person or animal in the room yet when you try to look at them you get told they aren't there.

[Daedroth]

Originally Posted by (parrotslave @ Oct. 11 2005,12:12) When I walk into an outdoor room and try to look at the ground and get told there is no ground.  What am I standing on?  Or try to look at the sky and get told there is no sky. Or in an indoor room and try to look at the floor and get told there is no floor.  Again, what am I standing on?  Or try to look at the walls or ceiling and get told they don't exist. Plus anything mentioned in the room description should be able to be examined.  It is especially bothersome if it mentions a person or animal in the room yet when you try to look at them you get told they aren't there.

Uhh? Ive never cared to look at the floor or ceilings of rooms before... Unless theres some sort of secret to be found there, its pretty much pointless to have the floors be considered an object in every room of the game. 0_o

Anyways, my pet peeves... For the most part I like muds that enforce rp. Where there is only ooc over private conversations/channels.

I also prefer non-automated combat. I like to have my character do what I want him to do in combat... Not just do the same slash over and over again, sometimes COMPL373LY EVISCERATING HIM DUDE!!!1 once in awhile...

I hate logging on to a mud and being forced to look away or be blinded by every word being bright.

I also dislike cliques... or muds that are made for only ten people to enjoy, and screw everyone else.

[Graeblyn]

Top things that make me want to play a mud:

If not roleplay enforced, it should at LEAST be IC only.
It should have good Newbie areas/newbie friendliness
Playing the game as a permanent lowbie should be a viable option, without compromising the potential for fun
There is no permadeath, or if there it is, it's not based on mobs or exploring some instadeath room, but rather on PKs
Use of color is limited, but not nonexistent
There is limited OOC communication between players, but there IS ooc communications, just nothing relating to IC events

THat's all that I can come up with off the top of my head, but I will add more later, if I think of it

[Legali]

I will leave a mud with IMMs that have characters on the mud that are oddly INSANELY stronger than everyone else, have so many more assets than everyone else somehow.. (I will not leave just because of suspicion of imm cheating though, I will have to see it first hand or have solid proof.)

I will leave\not play a mud if I get pked the moment I step somewhere.

I will leave\not play a mud that has no rp:P or VERY poor rp.

I will leave\not play a mud if it is not for ages sixteen and up, at least. heh

I will not play\leave a mud that has what I feel are completely unrealistic rules.

Ugh I could go on and on

[Almondine War]

When I log into a MUD, I'll usually log right back out if:

1. I see WAY too many colors. The point of color is to highly important items and to enhance an experience, not to cause someone to go into eptileptic shock.

2. I see WAY too much spam. If I can't enter a MUD without having to press the ENTER key 15 times, or I can't keep up with what's going on (Bobo and Jubjub keep 'goto'ing or recalling into my room, walking three spaces west, and recalling again, or that damn NPC feels the need to cast healing spells every 2 seconds), there's no point in sticking around. I'll get PK'd and won't realize it for the next 10 minutes.

3. I see that the channels are filled with bigotry and cursing. I don't want to be a real pansy or anything, but if you can't keep your channels under control to a certain acceptable level, you can't keep your MUD under control.


But the biggest reason that will drive me off a MUD, is when the staffing is terrible. I can make do with a small playerbase (its often homely), and bugs, and poor uptime. However, I will not tolerate when the immortals show their asses, make god-characters, or show favoritism that puts other MUDders to a disadvantage.

[Maraz]

Some of my personal dislikes may be somewhat controversial. Obviously we are all different and I aknowledge that some of my likes and dislikes are minority views.

One thing which I personally find annoying is where realism takes precedent over game play. Best example of this is having to eat and drink to live. I wouldn't have a problem if the MUD was designed such that survival in itself was part of the game, but to put it in for sakes of realism seems pointless to me. Another thing like this is coming into a world naked or MUDs where you cannot put clothing in your description. Again if it made sense to the game I might not be bothered, but I don't really understand these kind of things.

Another thing which I don't like is long room descriptions. Anything over 6 lines I would be unlikely to read, unless it was perhaps a very important room. I would rather have 4 lines of concise description than 10 lines of brilliant writing. I do however like for the detail to be available by looking at or examining individual features in the room.

Probably though those things wouldn't stop me playing a MUD if I liked it. What would however is if there were not good oppertunities for roleplay. This could occur because of roleplay cliques, very few players around or because players do not stay IC. I can apreciate people who like roleplay to be enforced, I personally would prefer that staying IC was a matter of good ettiquette than rigorously enforced, but very few MUDs seem to opperate on that policy - perhaps because it is very difficult.

[illusoryneptune]

Things that make me NOT want to play a MUD? Well, that's easy. The biggest turn off for me is a petty and unprofessional staff. Ideally, staff members should have absolutely no contact with players except through forums and official email channels. I think the reason "Why?" is obvious so I won't get into that. The last MUD I played over the last four years(Unwritten Legends) was just about the complete opposite of this ideal. I started to discover this after I decided to try and be a bit more social and start chatting with other players in my 9 months there.

I discovered that staff members and the owner would regularly have group chats over AIM with only certain players. Staff members would individually chat with players over AIM( I know this because I actually chatted with them over AIM to ask them why they were doing this). Incidentally, no staff contact in rule number one over there and that rule is ignored. I also discovered that staff members would berate certain players, delete posts and come up with ways to shut you up if you're criticisms hit too close to home by fabricating "3 strikes Warning systems" and telling you that you were on your last strike when you didn't even know you had two in the first place.

These are just examples of the sort of behaviour that forces me to quit a MUD. The players, the RP and the game itself may be wonderful but weak and unethical leadership has a way of ruining the whole experience.

illusory neptune

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (illusoryneptune @ Nov. 03 2005,15:34) Ideally, staff members should have absolutely no contact with players except through forums and official email channels. I think the reason "Why?" is obvious so I won't get into that.

I've been running muds for over a decade, and I've no idea "why" that would be bad idea, let alone an obvious one. I talk with my players every day, letting them know what's going on, listening to their ideas and feedback, explaining to them why I've made or am making certain changes (or why I won't make other changes). The only drawback I've found is that it takes time away from developing the mud - is that what you were referring to?

[illusoryneptune]

I should have been more clear. I apologize. One, yes, idle chatter over AIM takes from the time available to develop the game, and two, I think it sets a bad example. Say a player learns that so-and-so staff member has private AIM chats with a select group of players. And then the player sees this group of players get "benefits" in game. Of course, there might be nothing at all sinister about a private group chat but it may seem to people on the outside that favortism exists. Frankly, it creates a conflict of interest when staffers become OOC friends with players and I think it's better to avoid the entire problem by banning AIM communication with staff members. It's natural to want to help out your friends in game. Some staffers can remain professional about it, others can't.

Surely, you can inform players of new developments, receive feedback and suggestions, ect. through an official forum. If an individual player has concerns that he does not want to post, he can send them through the website email.

[KaVir]

I'm not talking about AIM, I'm talking about communication within the mud itself - chats, tells, etc. Sure, I'll answer responses on the forums as well, but many issues are simply caused by the player not understanding something in the game. Ignoring all such requests strikes me as being not only unprofessional, but also very rude.

Having said that...

Originally Posted by Frankly, it creates a conflict of interest when staffers become OOC friends with players and I think it's better to avoid the entire problem by banning AIM communication with staff members.

What if a staff member invites a friend to play the mud? Are you saying they should cut off all contact with them outside of official emails? Or should staff be discouraged from using word-of-mouth advertising completely?

Your suggestion is simply not practical, and seems to approach staff recruitment from the perspective of staff members being untrustworthy. If your can't even trust your staff that much then I'd say the problem isn't with communication, but with your method of recruitment.

[illusoryneptune]

Communication within the MUD over global channels is acceptable. Any other in game OOC contact between staff and players should be recorded and reviewed.

My views may seem extreme but coming from a game where I have seen so much nonsense with my own eyes in a relatively short period of time, I feel that these measures are necessary. The constant bickering over favortism, RP hoarding, fame/exp awards...This doesn't happen spontaeneously and without reason.

If players knew that the staff was dedicated to maintaing the highest level of professionalism and fairness, it would increase their trust in the staff. I know that I would be impressed if I saw cheaters being kicked off the game without any excuses being made and staffers being censured for unfairly aiding their friends.

Maybe I am being negative when it comes to staffers, but I like to think I am being realistic. The internet and MUDS are virtual places. It's easier to do things like cheat because you never have to face the people you've wronged in real life. Which is why every potential staffer should be carefully screened to be sure they are trustworthy.

[Angie]

Originally Posted by (illusoryneptune @ Nov. 04 2005,03:25) Communication within the MUD over global channels is acceptable. Any other in game OOC contact between staff and players should be recorded and reviewed.

Reviewed by whom? Digging through logs is a rather poor way to spend one's free time. If you cannot trust your staff, you're better off firing them or closing down the mud. Unless you fancy spending the rest of your days playing the Big Brother.

[Spazmatic]

Originally Posted by Maybe I am being negative when it comes to staffers, but I like to think I am being realistic. The internet and MUDS are virtual places. It's easier to do things like cheat because you never have to face the people you've wronged in real life. Which is why every potential staffer should be carefully screened to be sure they are trustworthy.

You don't need more regulations, you just need to play a mud with a half-decent owner who fires a**hats. See, I have plenty of OOC communication with players when I'm a staff member. Doesn't mean I show favoritism... I'll punish or reward them just the same, and I don't even own any of the muds I'm a staff member on. If you're playing on a mud with childish admins and an owner who doesn't have an interest in keeping the playing field even, that's a product of a BAD MUD AND BAD STAFF, not bad policies.

Because honestly, communication with players is key, and restricting it to public channels is silly. Reviewing tons of private communiques is silly. If there's a major problem (as in more than an admin hinting at a question solution or something), an open-minded owner will find out. At that point, it's up to them to decide what to do.

On a good mud, you'll come to love the staff, and they'll come to at least "tolerate" you (staffers are bitter, dontchaknow). I have several strong friendships that developed along the player-staff arc that have lasted long past the mud's survival, that never involved anything in the game except suggestions or idea generation, and that tell me that it's not worth my time developing or staffing a mud that won't even let me talk to the players.

If I saw a mud with that policy, I'd quit. Right. Then. And. There.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ Nov. 03 2005,20:59) Reviewed by whom? Digging through logs is a rather poor way to spend one's free time. If you cannot trust your staff, you're better off firing them or closing down the mud. Unless you fancy spending the rest of your days playing the Big Brother.

It is absolutely, perfectly reasonable to log and monitor your staff, and is accepted practice. I doubt too many of them (if any) pro-actively comb through the logs, but having the logs available in case of a complaint against said staff member is critical, or it's the staff member's word against a player's.

If you choose good staff members and make them work their way up from few privileges to greater privileges, you should rarely have to look at logs. When I was still running Achaea, I might have cause to look at the logs of volunteers no more than a handful of times per year.

--matt

[Angie]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Nov. 04 2005,04:48) It is absolutely, perfectly reasonable to log and monitor your staff, and is accepted practice. I doubt too many of them (if any) pro-actively comb through the logs, but having the logs available in case of a complaint against said staff member is critical, or it's the staff member's word against a player's.

I am aware that logging immortal commands is common practice (logging personal conversation less so, but if some mud wants to do it or if an admin has specific reasons for doing it, it's their prerogative). My point was that no sane person can be expected to spy on their staff, or "review" their communication with players, on a regular basis.

[Galleus]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ Nov. 04 2005,04:54) I am aware that logging immortal commands is common practice (logging personal conversation less so, but if some mud wants to do it or if an admin has specific reasons for doing it, it's their prerogative). My point was that no sane person can be expected to spy on their staff, or "review" their communication with players, on a regular basis.

Nor should they need to, if they have good hiring policies. But Matt's point is simply that the standards are there to protect the integrity of the MUD in those rare instances where it's necessary. As always, when the option is available, it's preferable to be safe than sorry, and accurate records of staff behavior can absolutely provide the necessary means by which to keep your staff honest, and punish them without controversy otherwise.

[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Angie @ Nov. 04 2005,04:54) I am aware that logging immortal commands is common practice (logging personal conversation less so, but if some mud wants to do it or if an admin has specific reasons for doing it, it's their prerogative). My point was that no sane person can be expected to spy on their staff, or "review" their communication with players, on a regular basis.

Actually, I can see a point in randomly reviewing staff logs pro-actively if you're big enough and if your staff members don't really have a personal relationship with you. I suspect you wouldn't start running into situations that justify that kind of pro-active enforcement until you have quite a few more users than, say, Achaea has (say, 5-10x as many).

This is no different from a company reviewing the email and website visit employees make from work. Rarely (ever?) will a company actually check everything every employee does, but if you know you MIGHT be checked, that's often good enough to discourage naughty behavior. Same principle airports use with flagging only one out of every X traveler for extra searching.

--matt

[Spazmatic]

Summary:

Logs = good.
Random checks on unreliable staff members = good.
Checking all logs = impossible.
Outlawing all communication between staff and players = bad.

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement here, actually.

[illusoryneptune]

Originally Posted by Posted on Nov. 04 2005,14:16Summary: Logs = good. Random checks on unreliable staff members = good. Checking all logs = impossible. Outlawing all communication between staff and players = bad. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement here, actually.

Agreed.

[Valg]

Re: Angie's comments:

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ Nov. 03 2005,21:48) It is absolutely, perfectly reasonable to log and monitor your staff, and is accepted practice. I doubt too many of them (if any) pro-actively comb through the logs, but having the logs available in case of a complaint against said staff member is critical, or it's the staff member's word against a player's.

Completely agreed.  We let staff members know up front that if it's important, it's getting logged in a bigass file somewhere, only accessible to the owners.  I certainly have better things to do than idly peruse all the stuff we log, but it's invaluable in evaluating staff and handling complaints.

[Angie]

Well, yes, duh. As Spazmatic pointed out, we were not really in any disagreement, except with whoever started this part of the discussion by suggesting admins should monitor all off-channel communication between players and the staff.

[mikosevaar]

One possible vote option is missing:
"posts by people here"

After reading the posts of some people here and on some other mudforums, I feel that I would never want to try out their muds. Some of these people are, I guess what some would call, the "leaders" of the mud community. Some of them just give me a feeling of them thinking like "whatever I do and say is right", an unpalpable feeling of supremacy. So I would never log on to their muds.

I would rather try out a mud by a newcomer.

[jackal59]

Well, to get back to the original post (even though it was ressurected), here's what has driven me off MU*s in my latest round of searching for a single place to play. (Disclaimers - I play only RP-enforced MU*s.)

- Nonsensical RP, as in all PCs you meet are exquisitly beautiful elf maidens spilling out of the tops of their bodices who call everone "m'lord" and "m'lady" while firing off superspells and crying and pouting about their lovelife.

- Established players forcing spellups or "coin-ups" on new players.

- Time too fast - 10:1 MU*:real time ratio with hunger and thirst code firing and taking HP/CON after only 15 minutes of real time.

- Players who don't seem to recognize pose/emote as part of character interaction or who themselves use it to bypass code.

The third of those things is arguable - admins may have good reason for implementing code in that way. The others, though, indicate to me that admins and top players are failing to direct the world toward consistency or, worse, have no clear conception of the gameworld. Lack of consistency kills RP MU*s. Why bother with character development - challenge, striving, failure - if everything is wish-fulfilliment?

Oh, yeah, and candy-colored MU*s with lots of channel spam. But that's something that very appropriate some places and probably even adds to the enjoyment of some. Having briefly played what I'd guess is one of the largest HnS MU*s, I can see that all the colors and activity whizzing by is part of the experience. Probably quite a hoot for those who like it.

[Spazmatic]

Originally Posted by But that's something that very appropriate some places and probably even adds to the enjoyment of some.

Mmhmm. I don't much like color schemes. However, intelligent but gaudy color does seem to add to the "excitement" of many muds. I would say, though, that unintelligent AND gaudy color definitely turns off almost all players (with a few notable exceptions who I think may be color blind).

Originally Posted by Some of them just give me a feeling of them thinking like "whatever I do and say is right", an unpalpable feeling of supremacy... I would rather try out a mud by a newcomer.

Some people have strong opinions. Some of them are vocal about it. Some of them also insist on having discussions with evidence thrown back and forth, aparently because it improves everyone involved.

So, perhaps a more appropriate litmus test would be, do the people in question accept the opinions of others as valuable, even if they are very vocal about their own? That, it would seem, is the hallmark of a rational man or woman.

Yes. I wax philosophic today.

[Disillusionist]

Jumping in kind of late in the thread, but sometimes you just want an outlet for frustration...

1. Unprofessional Staff.
This means different things to different people, but to me, it's staff that can be demonstrably found in chronic violation of their own rules. The idea here being that the first line you read when logging in is an outright lie, you have a fair idea of what you're in for. I don't think anyone suggests that player-staff communication is bad, but when you have authorized channels of communication, email, forums, IC bulletins, or whatever, the notion that some players receive private communications is a red light. Moreso when you delve a little deeper.

2. Discourteous or Untrustworthy Staff
See above. Mature gamers expect mature admins. In games that do not expect to ever make a dime, there will be a community standard, and a newer player will of course have to lay low, sense out the nature of a particular community, and fit in. If the MUD expects to be paid for its service, my preference is for service providers to have a higher standard of politeness, such as can be measured by any real-world professional service provider. If your admins are ruder than a New York hooker, you've lost my business, and the business of anyone I tell about my experience.
If you're seeing this behavior: rudeness, dishonesty, clear favorites, name-calling, incessant spamming for topmudsites votes, overt censorship of negative reviews, all from the owner of the company on down, coupled with dwindling staff and playerbase, "Here's Yer Sign."

3. Favoritism
In all MUDs, it exists. Admins are human. If a character's or player's antics tickle a funny bone, the response is favorable. Likewise in the reverse. It happens, and in professionally run games, it usually sees a balance pretty quickly. When it's systemic, and clear-cut, and whistleblowers get targeted, you can almost hear the toilet flushing on my cred-o-meter.

4. Typos
AMEN! It's a literary medium. If you can't spell G.E.D. properly, there are lots of graphics games out there.

5. Sphincter Police on Roleplay
Disclaimer: I whole-heartedly believe in roleplay immersion. I believe in reading the history and lore docs, adhering to them, and getting into character (and staying there). I figure it's owed to the environment to be part of the environment established by a lot of hard-working writers. I don't believe it's owed to the environment to endure self-appointed elitist micro-critiquers who wish to 'RP-enforce' their interpretation of roleplay on others. At times, I've noticed that many of these RP stormtroopers are some of the worst offenders of OOCisms. It just engenders that cringe reflex to immersion.

6. Realism Over Gameplay
This point is pretty subjective, as most players have some sliding scale on how much immersion they want, versus how smoothly they wish their character's life to unfold, or their avatar to advance. If I'm mashing the enter key repeatedly, hundreds of times in a day, so that my Uber-teef can get enough reps for that precious additional skill rank, the game becomes a part-time job. This topic becomes even more unappealing when one finds such regimented realism in direct odds with some highly unrealistic results, scenarios, or plots.

Those are my top six, and it's not hard to guess, I'm looking for a decent roleplaying game. Or several. There are perhaps five or six others with me who are doing more than looking for a game that ISN'T like the abovementioned.

We like our Swords & Sorcery. We like our RP enforced. We like a live and let live atmosphere with staff and players. We also have no objection putting in some behind-the-scenes work to help out a developing game.

Suggestions?