Achaea is P2P - unquestionably. Just because it loosely skirts around the definition by some freakish balance, it does not skirt around my definition.

By forcing someone to pay money in order to do something, whether it be in any remotely sane amount of time or at all, that is P2P. Whether that something is play, or to get as strong as the average player, the meaning still applies. I'm going to expect a counter-argument that completely ignores my point here soon.

Furthermore, I support the '$$' sign at the least. If not an entirely different listing for P2P MUDs.

-D

Another idea might be to have p2p* muds actually pay for their listing. Sounds unfair? Not at all, remember these muds are there to make money so they can and are very able to pay for a commision fee, unlike most of the muds which involves one person paying hosting costs with no money made on his/her mud whatsoever. Businesses pay for advertising IRL, businesses pay for advertising online as well. I fail to see why businesses dealing with muds should be an exception to this rule.

That, coupled with a very clear indication (dollar signs idea sounded good) to indicate p2p muds both seem like decent ideas to me imho. True, this keeps advertisement a major factor, but people will be able to recognize p2p muds without effort now and the money made on em could be very well put to use to pay for the hosting of this site, community events and hiring a webdesigner. (I swear, TMS looks like it's stuck in 1992 with it's current front page layout. A nice redo with stunning graphics, dynamic content and more easy of use wouldn't hurt. And I'll maim the first person who mentions Flash.)


* = Pay to play, not peer to peer. Peer to peer muds would be a rather silly thing. Then again, so are pay to play muds because all you're doing is typing text and paying money. Like doing my essays and paying me for it. Any takers?

I'd like to second* the $$ idea - if nothing else, when browsing for muds, it's very nice to know right off the bat whether it's p2p or not.  A lot of the actual muds' websites avoid mentioning the issue at all, of course, and that can be quite frustrating when you've gotten intrigued by a mud but aren't willing to pay for whatever reason.

*Edit: Great, by the time I hit post I was thirding it.

The problem with adding a "$$" sign is that then you have to define what, exactly, is "pay to play". I agree that places like Achaea and Threshold are "pay to play", but I would not place them in quite the same category as GemstoneIII or DragonRealms. You basically have:

Category 1) You cannot play the mud unless you pay money.

Category 2) You can play the mud in a limited way (with restricted options) for free, but are required to pay in order to play properly.

Category 3) You can play the game fully for free, but you'll never be able to compete with those who pay.

Category 4) You can play the game fully for free, but you'll have to put in much more time and effort if you wish to compete with those who pay.

Category 5) The game is free. Donations, if any, give no extra benefit within the game.

Well, Mason, if you were correct, I'd almost have to agree with you.  Unfortunately, you're making a lot of assumptions, and incorrect ones at that.

First and foremost, historically speaking, our company doesn't advertise very much.  We generally rely on word of mouth.

A few weeks ago, some of our players started a thread on our message boards pointing this out to us and asking us WHY we don't have ads in magazines or banners on lots of websites.  Several pointed out TMS to me and said "Hey, we entered DR here!" so I came over to check it out (you can see that our TMS entry was made by Cemm, one of our players if you want to check).  

I contacted Adam to find out just what the rules were about getting our game into the voting list instead of just in the database.

We set up the link to vote and, in light of the traffic that ultimately played a part in TMS crashing the other day, I'm now working with Adam to get some advertising money sent his way on a regular basis to compensate for the extra bandwidth and strain we're causing.

We're not here to "cheapen" TMS.  We're not here to "attack" any of the MUDs that are doing QUITE well without charging any sort of fee, even ones that are selling "credits" and items in game to cover their costs.  We're not here to suck the blood of the MUDding community and stomp on everyone else.  We don't want to be "number one at all costs!" and I'm actively encouraging our players not to "cheat" or otherwise do anything to influence the actual numbers.  (Actually, I sort of like the idea of hiding the actual votes and randomly rotating the top 10 or 20 MUDs on the home page.)

I'm here to make sure that people know there are other games around that they might not have tried out.  I'm here to try to support the community that still knows deep down that the "book" is better than the "movie".  I'm also here to show our players that there are a lot of other games out there and if they don't like something about DR, there are plenty of other places to spend their time.

I know there are plenty of people who think that any games that have a subscription cost are "evil" and "ruin the community".  You're welcome to have that opinion.  However, I still have yet to see how simply saying "Hi, we're here and we think we're a pretty good game and we'd love to see what you think." is "a bad thing" and destructive to the community that we ARE a part of (and have been for 14+ years), like it or not.

In closing, I'd be more than happy to put a $$ marker on our entry if that's what Adam decides to do.

I'm not sure breaking the ranking lists into multiple lists would be a good idea.  Instead, I think revamping the options available during the game-adding process is in order.  

Adding an option that shows whether a game is pay-to-play or not and perhaps even making that option break into multiple categories akin to Kavir's suggestion of five varieties would definitely be a good thing.

Expanding the 'average players online' option to account for larger playerbases would be good as well.  DragonRealms and Gemstone III both average around 1000 players online, for instance.  

Also, I'd remove the option for any game to dissallow reviews.  Or possibly exclude any game that dissallows reviews here from the rankings list.  

Perhaps some secondary system for also showing a positive/neutral/negative tally of reviews on the main listing could be added to the ranking system?  Players could click on a button that declares their review a positive, neutral, or negative one.  I'm not sure that couldn't be abused by unethical admins and thier bought-off players too though.

My perspective is that if a game is proven to be making false or intentionally misleading statements and claims about itself, or has to go to such lengths to 'advertise' that it ends up skewing the results of a ranking list to the point that it is being made a mockery of, then it should be warned first (so that they can change their description and operate honestly) and then banned if it fails to do so in a reasonable amount of time.

Cemm

Quite right. I should point out that actually, Achaea reminds you no more than once per day, unless the system is broken, and that further, you are rewarded for clicking on a link on the home page, not for actually voting. It's possibly a small detail, but at least some of Achaea's players seem to be aware that they don't have to actually vote to get the blessing.

--matt

Perhaps I take a too simplistic view to all this, but to me this seems much ado about nothing. To me, TMS is a list of MU*s that people like enough to vote for, the ones at the top of the list just have more people that like them. Some MU*s will never reach the top of the list because they don't have the large player base. This doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good MU*, it could just be that the admin of that particular game prefers a smaller player base. Basic rule of thumb, if you like MU*s with lots of players browse through the top of list, for MU*s with smaller player bases, start further down the list. In the end, the decision by a potential player to stay or leave a MU* will have nothing to do with what position the MU* is on the TMS list, it will be whether they like the MU* or not.

As for so-called "cheating", I don't think anything done by Achaea could be called cheating, it has been said time and time again that there is no rule against it. So they have encouraged players to vote, anyone on the list has done a similar thing, even if only by way of having the voting button on their web site. The way I see it, if the system Achaea uses annoys their players too much, the players will leave and then they wouldn't have the large player base to get the large number of votes. In the end it is the player's decision to vote or not, if they like the game they will continue to play and vote, if they don't like the game they will leave regardless of what position the MU* is on the TMS list.

On pay-to-play MU*s in whatever form the service provided for payment takes, if these games are so evil, why do so many people play them? Again, it is the player's choice as to whether they are prepared to pay a fee to get what they want, nobody is forcing them to play. I like the idea of having the $ symbol to indicate pay-to-play MU*s, not to single them out, but as a service to people visiting the list, some people are just not willing or able to pay to play an MU*. To identify what is pay-to-play and what is not, I suggest any MU*s that offers something in return for a fee is pay-to-play in some form or another. I also find it difficult to understand how anyone could say these MU*s are not part of the community, with such a large number of people playing them they can be and most likely are a valuable source of ideas for others in the community.

$$$ = Must Pay to play
$$ = Free to play, pay for extras
$ = donations accepted.

This is pretty silly.  We have a few hundred people voting as many times as is allowed by this ranking list to maintain an experience bonus granted by Achaea's staff for doing so.  

When faced with either choosing to have an experience bonus or not, the vast majority of players will choose the experience bonus and go ahead and vote.  They'll vote again and again to maintain it.

So we have 250 people from one MUD voting multiple times a day so they can stay ahead of a MUD with a 1000 people who occasionally vote on a rankings list.  Sure, the smaller playerbase put in a position where they must vote to maintain their bonus will continue to beat out the larger playerbase who isn't in the same situation.

Yeah, if Simutronics staff decided to offer an experience bonus then DragonRealms and Gemstone III would have 20,000+ votes each tomorrow and likely end up crashing this website again.  But really, what would that prove?

Since Simutronics won't stoop to that level, and neither will most of the rest of the MUDs here, Achaea is able to skew the votes and put themselves in a ranking they don't belong at.  This ultimately makes a mockery of the rankings.  

If you don't believe that this is the case, I challenge you to put an end to the bonus-for-votes and see what happens in the rankings over the next couple of months.  Heck, I challenge you to advertise based on your games own merits without fudging or twisting around the truth at all.

What do I mean by twisting around the truth?  The RPGPlanet claim is a great example of intentionally misleading statements.  No member of RPGPlanet staff ever said that any MUD was 'the only MUD worth playing anymore'.  There isn't even any mention anywhere on RPGPlanet of Achaea, much less that statement.  Joining a forum and then making a statement about a game and then announcing, based on that post, that RPGPlanet says something...is fudging it a bit eh'?  

Is the staff of this MUD just afraid that their game won't stand up to scrutiny on its own merits?  Is the intentional running up of ranking votes, twisting of the truth where outrageous claims are concerned, and hiding from the potential reviews of its own playerbase really required?  Are these the types of aspects that define 'the #1 MUD on the net'?

Well, if that's the case, then I couldn't be happier having been a customer of #2 and #3 for going on nine years now.

Cemm

Cemm, you do remember that Simultronics gave a *double* experience bonus during the week long period when they went from being attached to AOL to going to the web.

In my opinion, there's no difference.  Simultronics gave a huge OOC bonus to get people to come over with their product from AOL, Achaea gives an ongoing bonus to maintain it's top spot on this list to encourage people to come to it.

Course, with the current Simultronics players bad mouthing Achaea left and right, the biggest difference I see is the level of hypocrisy over it.

It has to be said that if the issue has caused so many people to speak up, it must be doing something right? Achaea is number 1, everyone is talking about them and they are busy taking over the world as we speak!

Seriously though, this site is obviously well-watched by players and imms alike and it makes sense to try and be top in such an environment. Who can blame them? And I wouldn't imagine that giving a bonus to those who vote would affect any of the people here who do not play Achaea. In response, I expect you should all go and encourage your friends on your own MUD's to vote like crazy for them in the hope of overtaking them.

It wouldn't seem so slimy if you had done it first. If your users were as dedicated as Achaea's they'd rush over to vote for you as well.

Achaea has been listed here for a while, and hasn't done particularly well in terms of votes. A bribery system was set in place, and now Achaea is hundreds of votes ahead of everyone else. What do you think that tells you about the "dedication" of the players?

This one, for example, had never heard of this site before that happened. I am sure I'm not the only one. They asked for votes without a bribe first and went from not listed to #3 in a week. The Xp bonus is a thanks,not a bribe.

You know, I don't play DR, Achaeaea, or Gemstone, so... uhh... yah... anyways...

This is the natural order of things. When TMS was first around, my mud was generally in the top 10 regularly. Why? Our players showed support for us, simply because they were loyal. As larger muds showed up, it becomes harder and harder to maintain such positions, which reflects things rightly.

My beef would be the misrepresentation portion. Why? I had an advertizement post here quoting Bill Gates and some other Microsoft execs on how they had to beef up the specs of the X-Box to compete with my mud's server, since the X-Box and all it's super graphics capabilities just couldn't spit out text as well. I had some fun, full of misrepresentations, and the thread got yanked :P I didn't mind, I knew I was lying.

So, if say in a forum, or even a review, I state that my mud is the best mud ever, God himself handed me the codebase, and all the chinese are stomping on the earth to put it of orbit unless I give them access to my code, not to mention that in a world-wide poll, my mud was voted as the real key to world peace... uhh... then I went about making claims to such things and purporting them as factual information... doesn't it seem a bit silly and dumb?

I surely do.

The xp-voting thing: other people bribe people to vote. Some don't. If Synozeer says it's okay, then it's okay. I haven't seen a post from him saying not to. Sure, it skews the votes since DR and Gemstone are technically larger, but apparently Acheaea has this need, desire, to be number 1 along with some shady claims. Maybe not, just my take on it.

What I really liked was the idea that you take away the actual votes on the page (just from the viewers, maybe the mud administrators could view such things against others), and randomly load the top 20, perhaps 4-5 at a time, at the intro page. It gives people incentive to still crack the top 20, without amassing 200,923 votes, and I dunno, seems interesting.

The $$ idea seemed alright, but I highly doubt it'd affect much. Maybe it's time I started a mud forum for muds with 100 players or less *laugh* There's no way I can compete with these games, and that's fine.

I kind of likes the idea of Pay to Play muds having to pay for advertizing here too, but that's not my call. Sounds like a good idea though.

It may well be a "thanks" - but it is also, by definition, a bribe.

A by definition bribe which by definition "works." You're right, of course. But all the complaints seem like sour grapes.

Considering you just joined the forum, by my estimation, yesterday, you have a lot of nerve coming on here and telling an established board where certain people have been posting for years, what should and should not be allowed.

You need to get your facts straight. Exactly one message, at maximum, is sent every 24 hours, the first time you gain xp in that 24 hours. Man, do some research before going off. Is it tacky? Maybe, but I really don't care. I read the topmudsites rules, and if any of you can point out which rule we're breaking, I'd be gratified. Otherwise, you're just wasting your breath as I'm only interested in the rules, not your opinion on what the rules should be.

And go ahead and offer an in-game incentive to vote. I, and I'm sure Adam, would be overjoyed at the extra traffic you'd bring to topmudsites, and as I'm sure some of the players you drove there would start playing Achaea and the other MUDs in the top 20, it benefits everybody. That's really what most of you seem to be missing. Topmudsites is a banner exchange, without the banner. The more traffic everybody drives to it, the more everybody wins.

You people need to ditch the ego issues you have, and look at what topmudsites actually is, not what you want it to be. It's nothing to do with which is the best MUD, and everything to do with giving the most exposure to the MUD that gives topmudsites.com the most exposure. It's really not a complicated concept.

In summary, bring on the competition, which will just send more customers our way.

--matt

Once again, I will just say that I and anyone else for whom the rankings are not an ego thing, would welcome DragonRealms and Simutronics doing that. All it does is give the other MUDs on the list exposure to your entire, massive playerbase. You guys have great games, but it's inevitable that some of your players would find MUDs they want to play more. Similarly, some of our players will no doubt start playing your games upon seeing them on topmudsites.

The formula here is very simple, and I am sure you don't have any problem understanding it, which makes your objections a bit baffling. You bring Adam traffic which he can sell ads based on, Adam gives your MUD exposure. You bring Adam the most traffic, Adam gives you the most exposure. How can anyone possibly have a problem with that? It's utterly fair, and it makes utter sense from all points of view, and it's been going on for ages in the form of banner exchanges. This site is basically a form of centralized banner exchange.

And you know, I'm a little sick of the childish insults I'm seeing from you guys. I've refrained from saying anything back publically until now, because I have a lot of respect for David Whatley, Neil Harris, and Elonka Dunin, and your company generally, but you are the pot calling the kettle black here, friend. "Simutronics, the leader in online games since 1989." Leader in what way? You're a drop in the bucket compared to, say, NCSoft or Sony Online, Real Arcade, Yahoo games, Gamehouse, and so on. I wouldn't even mention it, because it's just advertising, except that you seem so willing to attack others.

And finally, are you seriously daring me? What is this, the playground? Give me a break. You obviously don't think much of me, but Achaea would not be the success it is if we altered our strategies based on some random person daring us to do something in a web forum.

--matt

We reward people for clicking on a link on our site.
Topmudsites rewards MUDs for sending visitors to its site.

You claim people wouldn't vote as much if we didn't reward them.
I claim most ranked MUDs wouldn't send as many visitors (or any) here if topmudsites didn't reward them with exposure.

If we're engaged in bribery, then this entire site is, and every MUD listed on it is participating in bribing topmudsites to give them exposure.

In the end, you can call this entire site rewarding, or bribing. It doesn't really matter, as neither changes what it actually does. It's also worth pointing out that rewarding/bribing people to obtain actions desirable to you is what most economies are based on. I'm quite sure almost no one would show up at work without being bribed by a salary, for instance.

--matt

Come now, Mason.  Attacking someone because of the little number next to their name?

I'm sure you were new at some point, too.  Can someone not express an opinion or make a statement until they get 100 posts under their belt?  How should they go about getting those posts, then?

Yeah, I'm seriously challenging you to continue your 'success' without making outrageous claims in other establshed people's names and abusing the mechanics of a ranking site to place your game in a position it doesn't belong.

A few hundred people voting over and over again to maintain their bonus in your game does not a lot of extra exposure for Adam make. All you're doing is skewing the results. It's unethical and cheap and childish (who has an ego here?), if not against any hard and fast rule.

Simutronics IS a good and strong company with an established record of excellence in their genre, and they've been recognized for that very real success in multiple places across the internet community. They didn't have to fudge anything either. These are actual reviews and accolades they've received from gaming sites and magazines that I'm referring to. If you'd like, I'm sure I could wander off and gather the links to twenty or so for your review.

They have been and remain the world leader in text-based multiplayer gaming for over a decade now. Can you name a single other text-based environment that even comes close to challenging their playerbase numbers, pay-to-play and free included?

I've never compared any text-based environment with graphical environments like Everquest and similar. They're apples and oranges. Oddly enough, when Simutronics recently decided to upgrade their subscription rates...guess who followed suit soon afterward?

The formula here IS very simple. As you've proven, it is also very simple to skew almost entirely out of whack. As I said before, having the same people vote over and over again does not a load of new exposure for Adam make. All it does, is make a mockery of this list. My perception is that that will ultimate HURT this list and its ability to advertise as people catch on and roll their eyes.

Finally, after reading several reviews of your game on our boards from players who have already made the leap over, I'm not even a little bit concerned about losing any of our playerbase to your MUD inparticular.

Cemm

You offer a carrot for voting.

I said you offer a carrot for voting.

I also said if we offered a carrot, did any daily reminders, or more frequent (and thus annoying) reminders, we'd have lots more votes. We're not going to do that, however, because it's not in the spirit of the rules, in our opinion.

My facts are straight. ::shrug::

Again, we're not here to ruin anyone's game or anything like that. We're here to enjoy some exposure and open our game to other gamers.

In closing, I'm not here to rant and rave and have grumpy people whining about things. We have that on our own boards. I'll gladly participate in constructive conversations and dialogue, but this is just getting silly.

There is a difference between offering an opinion and telling people how a board should be run. This would be akin to me coming to your game and two days later, telling you how your game should be run. If you're telling me that you would give my opinion the same weight as someone who had played your game for five years, then your credibility is shot.

In looking back over yig's three posts in this thread, I see no point where he's telling anyone how to do anything.


And now we're even farther off the original topic.

I listen to everyone who posts an opinion on our boards until they cause me to do otherwise.  Lots of "newbies" have excellent opinions and ideas, just as lots of "old timers" who feel the need to preface every post with "I've been here for 6 years" have silly ones.

I don't automatically discount ANYONE'S opinions, just as I don't automatically give anyone else's more weight.

Well, you might be seriously daring me, but I grew out of that years ago, my friend. My responsibility is to my investors and partners, my players, and my employees, in that order. It would certainly be nothing but horribly irresponsible of me to actually respond to a dare from you.

I also notice your quote doesn't say, "World leader in text-based multplayer gaming." It says, "leader in online games" which is blatantly false.

And as for losing players to us, you might ask some of your ex-GMs who play Achaea now.

--matt

Apparently you might want to consider consulting your lawyers again.  If, as has been alleged, you attributed a quote to RPGPlanet that does not exist, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit charging you with (1) false implied endorsement, (2) right of publicity violation, and (3) trademark violation.  Now maybe you and RPGPlanet are best buddies and you have nothing to worry about.  On the other hand, you may wish to rethink your insert on TMS.

Something I forgot to add to my last post that I intended to:

Outside of being a longtime member of the Simutronics playerbase, I don't represent Simutronics here by any means. That is SimuBubba's position. My perspectives and opinions are my own.

I also don't want to ruin anyone's game or hinder any gamer's experience of this community. Not at all. I'm really excited to see Simutronic's games and players becoming more involved here.

My opinion is that Achaea's business practices are bunk. That is my perspective and that is what I've had to say here.

Cemm

Matt,

I wasn't daring you. I was challenging you. There is a difference. A dare is a child's game. Adults challenge each other to be better than they are.

I'm challenging you to be better than the average bottom-feeding used car salesman who has to lie, cheat, and steal to sell his lemons to unsuspecting consumers.

As Mason suggested, you might want to also re-evaluate the legality of some of your claims (RPGPlanet, for one) as well.

Cemm

Hey, has anyone ever noticed how every time someone on a forum says "Okay, this is getting out of hand, we should stop now," everything gets much, much worse?

Somebody should write a thesis on that. Or something.

Are you accusing us of lying, cheating, and stealing? I really hope not.

Dare, challenge, whatever. You used the words, "I dare you" but you could replace them with "I challenge you" and it means the same thing. Our success speaks for itself, and as you aren't one of my partners, one of my players, or one of my employees, your opinion on the matter isn't likely to affect my decisions. I'm not that irresponsible.

--matt

I didn't know that I wasn't allowed an opinion for a certain number of years. How do I request the admin to email me to alert me when I am allowed to do so? Or is that an automatic thing?

If you had read my response to bubba, you would have understood my point. Instead of getting indignant and sarcastic, you could have intelligently responded to my point. Instead, and unfortunately, your comment is merely another demonstration of your inability to understand the community of which you profess to be a part of.

Regarding whether Simutronics issued IG messaging to vote for their site...  Yes.  ONCE.  It was right after they put the Voting Button up on the site, and it is my belief that it was done just to make us initially aware of the site, and our ability to vote for DR if we so desired.  However, once was enough for many of the gaming population there to object.  They did not object to them making us aware of it, but rather that it was issued as a gamewide announcement, as opposed to a News article.  No experience or any other incentive was used to obtain votes.  Simutronics has also allowed for Player Reviews.  Anyone who has read them will notice that there are both positive and negative reviews.  To me, that speaks much louder...  Personally, I would find any MUD that is listed here on this site that did NOT allow for Player Reviews as suspect. I have tried out a few of the other games on this site since discovering it (Thanks Simu) and I purposely chose NOT to check out Achaea (which I would have since it was listed as Number 1) due to what I have read regarding their attempt to stack the votes by offering IG incentives.

Regarding pay for play... Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that some of them at one time were smaller, free MUDs? Its an honest question. I would think that would be the goal eventually for any MUD.

What former simu GMs now play Achaea? I've been friends with most of the former Dragonrealm and Gemstone GMs, and for the most part I know what games they play and/or work on now... This is the first I've ever heard any mention of any of them playing Achaea.

If your going to make such claims as many former simu gms play your game, please be ready to name names.

Btw, that still doesn't mean jack squat. I can tell you with absolute certainty that Sanya of Mythic plays not only DAoC, but also plays everquest, ultima online, asheron's call, and plans on playing shadowbane and swg when they are released. Why? What better way to know your competition then to play their game?

Also, if Achaea trully is the better game, why has BOTH Dragonrealms AND Gemstone both leapt from not even being on the list to suddenly being listed number 2 and 3 with ZERO rewards or incentive for voting. And only mentioning the voting in ONE of their games and only doing it ONCE ever?

Funny you mention this in just a few days... Simutronics managed to go from not having either of their top 2 muds on the list, to having both of them threatening to knock Archaea off the top list... Personally, Archaea is going to have to offer alot more "incentive" if they don't want to be bumped down to number 3. How many times has Achaea crashed the TMS site? Simu was asked to remove their button from their site so TMS could reconfigure their server to handle the strain... Has Achaea ever generated such a respons?

Not at all.  For a large group of muds out there this is just a hobby.  Something they enjoy to put out (usually) at their own expense.  In some ways it could be compared to writing memoirs, some people do it because they plan on publishing them at some point, other just to get ideas out of the mind and onto paper.  

Along the same lines there are people who enjoy playing the smaller more secluded games as opposed to the highly populated ones.  Not always a question of what's best, but instead what's best for you.

Welcome to the system. The muds they have jumped over to reach 2 and 3 pale in comparison with these numbers. I'm not exactly sure on the numbers ( but sure someone will correct me if I am far off) but probably the largest mud they jumped over hits AT PEAK 400 or so players. A great deal more average 20 - 50 and a large amount fewer than that.

Shrug, no idea what their names are. I don't really care one way or another to be honest, and it's not a reflection on Simutronics one way or another. Lots of our ex-players play other games now I'm sure. Hell, the guy that put together Everquest's original 800 person volunteer force is now one of our full-time employees. Does that have any meaning aside from meaning that he now works for us? No.

I'm also not sure why you're equating quality with position on the rankings list. All the rankings list measures is how much unique traffic a MUD is sending to topmudsites. We're sending more than Dragonrealms or Gemstone III right now. Quality is subjective, and no doubt most of our players think Achaea is a far better game, and most of DR and Gemstone's players think those games are far better games.

--matt

Wow.  That has so ~not~ been my experience.  Most of the free MUD's I've played have lacked significantly in development, diversity, and design.

For me to pay 10 to 20 dollars a month for my entertainment, is next to nothing for the amount of enjoyment I get from it.  Simu has been getting my money for years, and I will say that my money is just as good for another MUD, if only I could find one like Simu to spend it on.

First, I want to make it clear that I'm not an employee of Simu, just a longtime player of their games.

Now onto that quote...

Part 1: Why do I equate quality with position on the rankings list?

Because based on your mud writeup and the so called quotes from gaming sites on your game, being ranked #1 is all that matters as far as quality goes.


Also, you were over 1000 votes before DR and Gemstone hit the list... how exactly are you sending more votes per day if DR and GS in just a span of a few days have managed to catch up to you in number of votes that took you weeks to get?

Quality is subjective your right. And based on the ways Simu and Achaea have gone about getting votes, I'd say Simu was the higher quality game hands down. Not because they offer an incentive to vote, but because the players feel so strongly about the game they choose to vote with no incentive at all.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

--matt

Oh really? I happen to be a law student getting my certification in Intellectual Property from one of the leading programs in the country. My trademark professor is one of the leading scholars in the country in this area.

Try reading section 43 of the Langham Act.

Know who you're talking to before you tell people they have no idea what they are talking about.