[Gore]

Originally Posted by Threshold The more I read this thread, the less it sounds like trying to educate players with valuable information and the more it sounds like specific MUDS with specific payment models jockeying for changes that will show THEIR MUD in the best light. That is definitely not a good reason to make a change to the search options. We are better off with no changes, and just letting MUDs describe themselves in their own words than adding inaccurate, vague search options that were designed in a biased manner to benefit 5-10 people who yelled the loudest.

I think we are turning this into a too big of a deal. I asked Lasher if he could produce us with some statistics after this has been implemented. That way we will know 3 months or 6 months from now whether the actual enduser found this kind of ranking relevant at all, and I am sure that this decision can then be revisited. In the meantime, why not give it the benefit of doubt and see what happens?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Threshold We are better off with no changes

I think most of us realise that that has been your stance all along. However almost every other poster on this thread has recognised the limitations of the current approach and is looking for something that provides more information for the players, while also allowing the mud owners to more clearly label their payment model.

Originally Posted by Threshold But if there MUST be options added, then only add options that are factual, accurate, and verifiable and do not have vague, subjective terms.

Lasher's proposal is exactly that:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] Neither Payment nor donations accepted.

Combined with the text box idea, it's a win-win situation for everyone. The players have more information for their search criteria, and the mud owners can clarify exactly what sort of payment model they're using.

[Valg]

Originally Posted by Threshold We are better off with no changes, and just letting MUDs describe themselves in their own words than adding inaccurate, vague search options that were designed in a biased manner to benefit 5-10 people who yelled the loudest.

1) It's rude to categorize the people advocating the multiple-category system as simply "yelling the loudest". Address the argument, instead of consistently trying to marginalize its supporters.

2) No one has shown an example of a game which was not trivial to categorize by KaVir's suggestions. Every MUD proposed has been rapidly marked in the four-category system without controversy. That suggests the model is using criteria that are neither inaccurate nor vague. Most importantly, it uses criteria that players certainly do care about-- whether or not you acknowledge a difference between mandatory-fee, pay-for-perks, and selling T-shirts on a website, the people using the search function certainly do.

3) In contrast, you haven't addressed the fact that a search function that returns 95%+ of TMS's MUDs in one category is not useful to searchers. Equating a MUD that wouldn't refuse a voluntary donation to DragonRealms ($50-$75/month plus optional perks) is ridiculous-- I'd care about that difference, and I'm relatively wealthy by US standards. Most high school or college students would care, as would a lot of adults who don't have a lot to spare for entertainment. You might as well be suggesting "MUDs with vowels in their name" as a criterion. That would be very factual, easily verifiable.... and completely useless.

[Atyreus]

I prefer the four options:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[ ] Neither Payment nor donations accepted.

The only option that is ever likely to create problems is the third one. In fact, I have little doubt that if this method were adopted we would start seeing "Mud X claims that donations are NOT rewarded in-game but players who buy their coffee mugs and t-shirts get special treatment!!!!!!!!!!!!!" threads.

While I agree that the two-option method is more easily verifiable, it isn't particularly useful. The four-option method gives a player the same information (whether or not money is accepted in some form and could thus affect gameplay whether or not it is supposed to), and further allows the player to determine whether a payment/subscription is required and, if not, whether or not the game is ostensibly designed to provide in-game benefits in exchange for payments/donations. The benefits of this added information outweigh whatever disadvantages the four-option method may have in allowing some bad actors to portray their games as "payment/donation accepted but not rewarded in-game" while playing favorites to their biggest donors.

In this case, what the mud presents as its model with the four-option method is going to be more informative than the limited but more easily verifiable two-option method. Using the two-option model, one could also argue that the number of players online field should be limited to two choices:

[ ] Game is multiplayer
[ ] Game is not multiplayer

This method is, after all, very easily verifiable and leaves no wiggle room, whereas a mud owner could always doctor a who list, populate a mud with bots, and/or ask certain trusted players to keep 6-7 characters logged in at a time.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Atyreus I prefer the four options: [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game. [ ] Neither Payment nor donations accepted. The only option that is ever likely to create problems is the third one. In fact, I have little doubt that if this method were adopted we would start seeing "Mud X claims that donations are NOT rewarded in-game but players who buy their coffee mugs and t-shirts get special treatment!!!!!!!!!!!!!" threads.

Well you're always going to encounter the occasional claims of "special treatment", regardless of whether or not cash is involved (the imms help their friends, the owner helps his girlfriend, the admin boost their own characters, etc), but for listing categorises I think it's important to stick to the unambigious verifiable facts - and the four-choice solution does exactly that.

The advantage of separating the last two options (not accepted vs not rewarded) is that the player is kept aware of whether or not money is involved. The third option is effectively saying "The official stance of this mud is that payments and donations have no effect within the game - but they do accept payment and/or donations, and there's no way to verify what unofficial impact it may have on the relationship between players and staff".

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Valg 2) No one has shown an example of a game which was not trivial to categorize by KaVir's suggestions.

<Snip snip: Please refrain from personal attacks against other members - Xerihae>

But I have read tons of examples in this thread alone of situations where the 4 choice options failed miserably to address a situation accurately.

Merchandise, subscriptions, pay-for-perks, etc. are functionally the same. They all create a business relationship between player and admin. That is the most critical difference between a truly free mud and a non-free mud.

It is also incredibly naive to claim there is no effect on the way people are treated once they have sent money into a game (for whatever reason). That's just completely bogus. I think we would be doing players a grave disservice by making them think there WAS a difference, when there just isn't.

Furthermore, there is absolutely NOTHING clear or accurate about the hopelessly vague "rewarded in game" concept.

[Threshold]

Originally Posted by Atyreus In fact, I have little doubt that if this method were adopted we would start seeing "Mud X claims that donations are NOT rewarded in-game but players who buy their coffee mugs and t-shirts get special treatment!!!!!!!!!!!!!" threads.

Exactly. And that is why it would be a titantic mistake to *CREATE* flame fodder.

Everyone here who makes games knows this implicitly. You do not release into your game things that you KNOW IN ADVANCE will be abused, misused, and will create chaos. It just doesn't make sense.

As a player, I'd be pretty annoyed when I searched for games where payments were not "rewarded in game" and then found out that people who buy merchandise get faster customer service or get the "admin's ear" more easily. And honestly, there is no way you can guarantee that such things don't happen.

The 4 option list creates an implicit guarantee to the player using the search options that the information is correct. That makes it infinitely worse than the obvious marketing blurb being something other than what a player expected.

The status quo is better than deliberately creating something that is completely ambiguous, vague, and frankly, deceptive.

[Zhiroc]

Originally Posted by Threshold Merchandise, subscriptions, pay-for-perks, etc. are functionally the same. They all create a business relationship between player and admin. That is the most critical difference between a truly free mud and a non-free mud.

That may be how you view it. But I can tell you, that I will never, ever play a pay-for-perks game again.

I will, however, play without agonizing over it, a required-pay OR a donation/merchandising/anything that is out-of-game game. So, for me at least, they are not functionally the same.

And you know how I feel about the word "free"

[KaVir]

<Snippy: Removed reference to snipped post - Xerihae>

Originally Posted by Threshold But I have read tons of examples in this thread alone of situations where the 4 choice options failed miserably to address a situation accurately.

No, you haven't. In fact I specifically asked if anyone could come up with any situations that didn't fit the four-option system, and nobody has.

Originally Posted by Threshold Merchandise, subscriptions, pay-for-perks, etc. are functionally the same.

You're saying that the following are functionally the same?

1. Everything in the game is free, but you can buy t-shirts from the website.
2. It costs $10 per month to play.
3. Play for free, but costs $1000 perks to create a full strength character.

Don't you think there might be a difference from the perspective of the player who's looking for a new mud to play?

Originally Posted by Threshold It is also incredibly naive to claim there is no effect on the way people are treated once they have sent money into a game (for whatever reason). That's just completely bogus. I think we would be doing players a grave disservice by making them think there WAS a difference, when there just isn't.

The four-option system also takes into account whether or not money changes hands.

Originally Posted by Threshold Furthermore, there is absolutely NOTHING clear or accurate about the hopelessly vague "rewarded in game" concept.

The concept is both clear and accurate, and has already been explained. No examples have yet been provided which aren't clearly and easily identified as being rewarded in game or not.

Originally Posted by Threshold As a player, I'd be pretty annoyed when I searched for games where payments were not "rewarded in game" and then found out that people who buy merchandise get faster customer service or get the "admin's ear" more easily.

You'd be clicking on the wrong search box. If you want a game where people can't even buy merchandise, you should have clicked only the last box:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
[X] Neither Payment nor donations accepted.

Originally Posted by Threshold The 4 option list creates an implicit guarantee to the player using the search options that the information is correct.

No listing option does that. There's no way to guarantee that a mud has been truthful about its creation date, or that an LPMud doesn't list itself as "Custom". If you dismiss the value of options that people could potentially lie about, you'll end up with no search options at all.

But the four-option system is about as clear and unambigious as you can get, and while nobody is likely to find out about the player who slips the mud owner $50 for a secret in-game bonus, neither would your own two-option system.

Is anyone other than the Thresholds actually still arguing in favour of a two-option system?

[Newworlds]

Originally Posted by Atyreus I prefer the four options: [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game. [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game. [ ] Neither Payment nor donations accepted.

It looks like this argument will never end, but I still do not like this module because of the failure to properly categorize. I'll explain here:

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
This is all well and good but as I've stated before few will check this box as it stands mainly because "required" is ambiquous. There is not a Text mud out there that requires you to PAY immediately before you can log on. Many require you to "register" a valid email, but not send money. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong here.

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game.
Nicely worded, but as we've seen in this thread, rewarded in game is ambiquous and I'm not trying to be Clintonesque. Rewarded in game can be easily circumvented by what you believe a reward is.

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
This will likely be 95% of the checks of muds here. Again a ruination of the reason for the options.

[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game.
Like the above, very few will check this giving a lack of broad range for the player that is seeking a "free" game, but wants some options, more than just getting 5 responses to the query, four of which are MUSHES when they are seeking a MUD.

I have to again promote the 2 Selections with multiple options under the first selection as the best answer. The main reason is that you could gain a multitude of responses based solely on your preferences for the check options as shown:
---------------------------------------------------


[ ] This mud has some donation, registration, and/or payment features.

(Sub options, click as many as apply)

{ } Paying registration is required to play.

{ } Paying registration is required at certain levels.

{ } Donations are required at certain levels.

{ } Donations are encouraged but not required.

{ } Rewards are part of donations/registrations/payments.

{ } Rewards are not part of donations/registrations/payments.

{ } All rewards in this game can be received without paying registration.

{ } All rewards in this game can be received without donations.

(There could be several more option boxes but I think you get the picture)

[ ] This mud does not accept money (donations/registrations/credits) in any form.
---------------------------------------------------

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Newworlds [ ] Payment and/or donations required to play. This is all well and good but as I've stated before few will check this box as it stands mainly because "required" is ambiquous. There is not a Text mud out there that requires you to PAY immediately before you can log on. Many require you to "register" a valid email, but not send money. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong here.

The option is "Payment and/or donations required to play", not "Payment and/or donations required to log on". On the front page of TMS click the "Click here for advanced search" link, go down to "Pay to play Mud?:" and click "Yes". There are 31 muds listed, and all of these would use the above option.

Originally Posted by Newworlds [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, rewarded in-game. Nicely worded, but as we've seen in this thread, rewarded in game is ambiquous and I'm not trying to be Clintonesque. Rewarded in game can be easily circumvented by what you believe a reward is.

The intent is clear - payments and/or donations result in some form of recompense within the game. I think the wording is also clear, but it could be changed to something else, or there could be some sort of help text beside the listing to make it clear to the mud owners which option they should select.

Originally Posted by Newworlds [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game. This will likely be 95% of the checks of muds here. Again a ruination of the reason for the options.

I suspect it'll be the most popular, but I'd be surprised if more than half the muds checked that box. Even if they did, it'd still be an improvement over the current system, and the text area would allow the muds to further elaborate on what sort of form the payments or donations take.

Originally Posted by Newworlds [ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, not rewarded in-game. Like the above, very few will check this giving a lack of broad range for the player that is seeking a "free" game, but wants some options, more than just getting 5 responses to the query, four of which are MUSHES when they are seeking a MUD.

I suspect quite a lot of muds would click this option as well, but it'll be hard to know for sure without seeing it in action. Either way, it's a distinction that's clear and verifiable, and which at least some people feel strongly about, therefore I don't see any harm in including it (and I note your own suggestion includes it as one of the two main categories).

While I like the idea of more options, those listed in your proposal are far too ambigious and open to (mis)interpretation. Something similar was discussed and dismissed back at the start of the thread, and the reasons for doing so are still valid.

We've had 11 pages mostly discussing a four-option approach, and still can't reach a full consensus, so for the sake of practicality (and sanity) I think the best solution would be to go with what we've mostly agreed on (the four choices with a text box). I know the Thresholds want the system to stay the way it is, but as far as I'm aware you're the only other person who's actively against it - and that's because you want more options. But if you want more information, surely you'd prefer the four-option approach to the current "pay-to-play vs free-to-play"? Perhaps it'd be better to do this one step at a time - add the four-option solution, see how it works out, and if you still think it falls short propose another refinement.

[Milawe]

I honestly find New World's system to be the most useful. Is there money involved in the transaction or not? Yes? How is it involved? You've answered the basic question that people want to know, and you've added the details they need to know. It's an expansion of the two choice system that I like VERY much. I find it to be more accurate as well as more helpful to players.

I know that if I want to play a free game, then I want no money to be involved at all. That way, there's no sneaky ways that money come into play that can't be gauged otherwise.

I think it's easy to see why many people want the four option system. Most of them do fall into one category, but that category also has a TON of wiggle room and is impossible to enforce. Until you can get rid of the word "rewarded", we'll just keep having the "free" discussion every few months, and people will keep flaming each other over it every few months.

[chaosprime]

[ ] Payment and/or donations required to play.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, has results in-game.
[ ] Payment and/or donations accepted, no results in-game.
[ ] Neither payment nor donations accepted.

[Jazuela]

I like chaosprime's minor wording change best out of all the options so far.

As for suggestions of adding more types of options to the options - remember, this has to be something that someone searching for a mud will search for. If I'm looking for a mud, I'm not going to spend 15 minutes trying to decide which of the 150 different click boxes I need to check off. As a player, here's my personal list of things I'm looking for:

RPI
ONLY voluntary Donations accepted as any monetary exchange, and with no in-game returns at all, of any kind.
English language

and - if filters were added, I would filter out mushes so they didn't show up on the list.

Then - once I had the list of whatever shows up, I'd be able to check each game with a name that sounds intriguing to me, for all the OTHER criteria I'd look for in a game - such as a stable server, a game that's been around awhile and is "gold" (not in testing phase), a fully-functioning website complete with game documentation and helpfiles, and I'd also see to make sure the game is basic telnet-compatible and doesn't require a browser to access, and doesn't force colors as a default, and allows the player to use their own color scheme - or none at all if they prefer.

But I wouldn't look for all that stuff in a search engine. I'd only look to see if it's free, if it's an RPI, and if it's in English. If I could choose the "type" of free, the only "type" I'd need to know about, is if it allows people to donate, but doesn't give anything in-game in return for the donation. If it has a cafe-press link, I'll find it AFTER I've determined that I don't have to pay for anything AND I don't have to compete with people who do pay something. The four options are just enough - not too few, not too many, to keep my interest.

Not unlike all my clear, concise, brief (heh) , and perfectly proportioned posts.