[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (Sinuhe @ July 05 2005,10:58) GuruPlayer mentioned another factor; pay-for-perks. Obviously this system attracts a lot of people, because it offers a way to become powerful without having to be a skilled player. But the system also mainly attracts the type of players that are most likely to become a problem; the ones that cannot tend for themselves and want everything handed down to them the easy way. And if the ones that write bad reviews are the disgruntled ones, there is of course more to be dissatisfied with in that type of Mud. Either they are upset because they don't think they are getting their money's worth, or they are upset because other players pay a lot more and get ahead of them. This type of disgruntled players  doesn't exist in the muds that don't use pay-for-perks system.

Really? It sounds like you must have a lot of experience with pay-for-perks muds to so generalize about their playerbases. I assume you have some sort of statistical data to back up these assumptions, or are you just making things up wholesale? I'm betting it's the latter, but then, don't let a total lack of experience and data in the area stop you!
--matt

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Sinuhe:Personally I'd be equally suspicious against games that have scores of one-eyed, fan-boy blurbs with nothing but praise for the mud, as I am against those that disallow all reviews. My theory about the first category is that the owners reward their players for writing those useless 'reviews'. Which of course is just as lame as rewarding them to click the vote button.

Be careful about generalizing. We just had our 50th review posted, and we've never handed out rewards for any of them. (Unless you count a 'thank you' email from me!) We do encourage our players to speak up, but there's no incentive system to do it.

Originally Posted by Sinuhe: If I was looking for a new mud to play, I'd look for one with few, but balanced review, where both good and bad sides were discussed, and where the owners were confident enough about the standard of their game to not feel compelled to block out any hint of criticism. The best kind would of course be where the owners take the criticism to heart, and try to do something about the problems.

I'd disagree with "few"- more reviews means you could invest extra time into sampling a wider array of opinions. Other than that, this is exactly what I've been trying to communicate in my other posts-- our target audience can see through both "fanboi" and "troll" reviews, and thus those reviews don't worry us much. They certainly don't worry us enough that we're going to silence our (more numerous) players who just want to give their opinions. That's just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Davairus]

Originally Posted by If I was looking for a new mud to play, I'd look for one with few, but balanced review, where both good and bad sides were discussed, and where the owners were confident enough about the standard of their game to not feel compelled to block out any hint of criticism.

If you visit and read the mudconnector reviews AR has, what you'll find is exactly what you've described here. We're not stopping you from posting your review there, since its moderated and we can also make a (moderated) reply.

AR gets a LOT of infantile criticism from anonymous people at TMS, and I believe its mostly because we squish asshat cheaters, not because there's much wrong with the game. That's the usual time they show up. The same sort of thing simply doesn't occur over at TMC.

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (Davairus @ July 05 2005) If you visit and read the mudconnector reviews AR has, what you'll find is exactly what you've described here.  We're not stopping you from posting your review there, since its moderated and we can also make a (moderated) reply. AR gets a LOT of infantile criticism from anonymous people at TMS, and I believe its mostly because we squish asshat cheaters, not because there's much wrong with the game.  That's the usual time they show up.  The same sort of thing simply doesn't occur over at TMC.

Every MUD deals with cheaters of some type, so I highly doubt that's a specific problem for your MUD.  In fact, in the case of the review which prompted this discussion, the poster in question was not a cheater, simply someone who was disappointed by the experience of your game.  Your decision to post a reply here and to suspend reviews seems far more motivated by your unwillingness to admit to the failings of your MUD and your desire to spin any realistic assessment of those failings in another direction.

As for posting reviews on TMC, that just suggests that you want to be able to spin every review.  If this is such a problem, I'd wager the issue lies in your game, not in the people that review it.  I've seen this problem before.

Years ago, I posted a review of a MUD on TMC, and the staff of that MUD responded that the problems I spoke of "were true at one time but that was a long time ago" yet I had witnessed them only days before posting.  It was a lie on their part (because I'd also pointed it out on numerous occasions to their staff within a period of months prior) and a conscious effort to spin my observation in a positive light when it was a serious problem with the game (which was otherwise a fantastic MUD).  That seems to be the case here as well.

You don't seem to have an issue with reviews, you have an issue with insightful ones.  It doesn't appear, and again I cite the review that prompted this discussion, you have the problem of trolls and cheaters (posting); you have the problem of disappointed and/or dissatisfied players.  Disappointed/dissatisfied players are usually the result of one of two things:  either the MUD itself is deficient in some basic way or the way in which you've advertised your MUD is not altogether factual.  Those lead to disappointment and dissatisfaction.  There lies your problem and only by correcting this will you likely be able to solve your issues.  But simply responding to reviews just perpetuates the problem.

Take care,

Jason

[prof1515]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ July 05 2005) Yeah, that they are. Pay-for-perks is quite a popular system with many MUDers. --matt

Of course Viagra MUDs are popular, but not for their quality so much as their ability to allow even the most insecure and impotent to feel that they're something as long as they've got a valid credit card.

But that's a discussion for elsewhere.

What GuruPlayer is refering to is the fact that 5 of the 7 MUDs which you refered to are commercial MUDs, which have an invested interest in preventing their flaws from coming to light.  Any review that doesn't correspond with the image of the MUD that their propaganda suggests is a danger to the bottom line.  So turning off reviews doesn't mean that doing so is a sound advertising scheme or that it is a path to success.  Rather, it means that turning off reviews are a good way to counter anything which runs contrary to the image you're trying to project, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate that image may be.

Take care,

Jason

[Sinuhe]

Valg wrote; July 05 2005,15:11

Originally Posted by Be careful about generalizing.  We just had our 50th review posted, and we've never handed out rewards for any of them.  (Unless you count a 'thank you' email from me!  We do encourage our players to speak up, but there's no incentive system to do it.

Maybe I expressed myself badly. I wasn't referring to Muds that have a large number of balanced reviews spread over a long time period. Especially not when those reviews show several aspects of the game, and are not just a bunch of 4-line promotion blurbs. This seems to be the case with your game.

What I was referring to was the phenomenon that certain Muds suddenly get 5-10 short but over-enthusiastic 'reviews' in a couple of days' time. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that either the owners themselves write them, or that some form of in-game reward is involved. The latest example of this deplorable practice was Medievia (right before they disabled all reviews) but there are lots of others. A quick look at the date of the reviews can be very enlightening.

And again; the people who have any intelligence take all reviews with a big grain of salt and would be perfectly able to sort out both the fan-boy crap and the trolls.  In addition to this the List Admin will remove any blatant and unfounded attacks on the request of the game owner. So that is really no valid reason for disabling reviews. There must be other reasons for this, and most of us can use the same intelligence guess what they are.

[Davairus]

In total AR has 41 reviews.
- 30 of them are positive.
- 1 of them is so-so. (He states 5/10)
- 8 of them are negative.
- 1 is just an imm responding to a negative one because it was a cheater.
- 1 is flaming other muds (boggle)

I particularly enjoyed reading these again:
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin....um=3936
http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin....um=5528

My reason for disabling reviews is that we are not allowed to reply to them. (We being the players and immortals of this MUD.) Since we are not allowed to reply then we will not allow them to be posted here. If this situation changes, I'd definitely want to turn them back on. Some form of approval before actual posting would also woo me back. Until then.. so long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ July 06 2005,03:28) Originally Posted by (the_logos @ July 05 2005) Yeah, that they are. Pay-for-perks is quite a popular system with many MUDers. --matt Of course Viagra MUDs are popular, but not for their quality so much as their ability to allow even the most insecure and impotent to feel that they're something as long as they've got a valid credit card.

Hee hee. ViagraMUDs. Good stuff, Mr. Prof.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by (prof1515 @ July 06 2005,02:45) Originally Posted by (Davairus @ July 05 2005) AR gets a LOT of infantile criticism from anonymous people at TMS, and I believe its mostly because we squish asshat cheaters, not because there's much wrong with the game.  That's the usual time they show up.  The same sort of thing simply doesn't occur over at TMC. Every MUD deals with cheaters of some type, so I highly doubt that's a specific problem for your MUD.  In fact, in the case of the review which prompted this discussion, the poster in question was not a cheater, simply someone who was disappointed by the experience of your game.  Your decision to post a reply here and to suspend reviews seems far more motivated by your unwillingness to admit to the failings of your MUD and your desire to spin any realistic assessment of those failings in another direction.

Davairus,

I have very little experience on AR, but if you're getting a LOT" of infantile criticism, I'd suspect two causes that haven't been addressed elsewhere:

1) Your game draws a younger playerbase. I got that sense while checking AR out, and while young players can be very talented, they also tend to be more volatile. I don't know what to suggest here.

2) It might also be how you deal with cheating. You use the word "squish" in your post, and some of your posts have come off as a little 'cowboy' with respect to how you handle cheaters. (I was a delightful little rule-abiding citizen when I tried your game, so I have no experience here.) You can take a firm stance on cheating (we certainly do) without attacking the cheater or escalating a confrontation, regardless of your level of contempt for what they did. I have some learned-by-doing tips here, and when I have time later I'll try to start a discussion on it.

[Davairus]

At TMC we have a mere six reviews, but all of them led to game changes for the better.
- 4 are good
- 2 are bad (both have comments left)

Here's a TMC player review of how the rules are enforced on newbies, so you don't have to take my word for it or try to guess from just my "cowboy" TMS post style:
http://www.mudconnect.com/mud-bin/pr....cgi?rid=18826