Not exactly sure which forum to go with, hopefully this is close enough.

As many know this is not the first time this topic has popped up, but I figured due to the recent influx of complaints now would be as good of a time as any to start it up again.  Of course it is impossible to come up with a "best mud list" so it could well be that the current system is the best solution.  No harm throwing a few more out there.

Now on the suggestions that have popped up recently (sorry if I missed any).

1)  Seperate the pay-to-play sites from those not either through a seperate listing or a visible marking such as $$.
Downside would be it doesnt solve the problem of "buying" votes.

2)  Account system where the voting is tied to a player account.
Downside being people can create vote-only accounts and spam away at the system, perhaps moreso than they can now.

3) Hiding the vote totals from the public and showing the top 10 muds in a random order.
Downside is it would probably result in few hits to the website being that the competition basically stops once you are in the top 10.  Also creates the problem that there is no "top mud" on Top Mud Sites.

4)  Put my mud at the top and the rest of you can bugger off.

:shrug:  not a complete list I'm sure but should be good enough to start with.  Take one and run with it, come up with something new or tell me to shut the hell up because what is there now is fine.

And 5) Seperate the P2P and free MUDs into seperate listings.

I personally support this one. Obviously, it has all the advantages of the other systems, and definite advantages of its own.

-D

If it's not broken, why fix it? The "list" itself is not the only way to generate publicity for your game. The #100 game on the list, if its owner so chose, could be on the front page, either on a rotating basis or on a regular fixed basis by getting an ad from Top MUD Sites.

My game used to regularly be in the top 10. These days, we're lucky to stay in the top 20. But I haven't seen a big decrease in traffic, because I also invest in banner ads. It doesn't cost all that much, it's worthwhile, and it shows some support for Top MUD Sites that goes beyond demanding that the guy who runs it find a way to change it so it makes everybody happy, which is impossible.

1) I think that is a good idea to put a money sign of some kind to symbolize it is a pay-to-play MUD. Seperating them would not be fair for those MUDs though. It's "Top Mud Sites", not Top MUD Sites (Free) and Top Mud Sites (Costs Moolah).

What's buying votes?

2)Not a good idea in my opinion. Possibly make it so they have to show there are a dedicated member before they can vote? I don't really know.

3) Don't like it. Top Mud Sites again... Not top 10 random muds...

4) But.. But... But...

I agree that pay-to-play MUDs should at the very least have a $ next to their name just so that it is visible to those looking at a glance who the top PTP and top free MUDs are.

No seperation, no little money signs. It's Top Mud Sites. It's immediately obvious when you join a MUD if you are going to have to pay for it. If you don't like paying, well, you just wasted a whole 15 seconds. I think the world can live with that.

I like the idea of money signs. If this place is to give information about muds, isn't the fact that it costs money to play a particular mud a valuable piece of information? Furthermore, it lets someone looking at the list know immediately what muds they may want to check out if, for instance, they don't have the money, or the inclination, to pay for a mud.

Since not all muds have the same pay scheme, maybe something like the following could be implemented.

$$$ = must pay to play
$$ = free to play, extras costs money
$ = donations accepted

or

$$ = pay to play
$ = extras cost money
(cent sign) = donations accepted

Thoughts?

The above sounds good to me. It offers a bit of extra information. The companies that charge do have greater resources which impacts the quality of the game and some players only want to try games that are absolutely free.

I do think that the management of this site should make a call on whether or not it is acceptable to offer incentives to players to vote.

From the perspective of getting as much traffic to this site as possible I think allowing incentives would probably generate the most traffic. I think it does skew the voting so it is a call management should make. If it is clearly acceptable then all games can go ahead and offer some sort of incentive to players. If not then those games who are found to do so can be condemned for doing so.

As things stand it appears to be a grey area that some games would not feel comfortable implementing such a system without a clear indication that it is an acceptable norm.

Idealistically I would prefer that incentives be barred but realistically they do increase the level of traffic. It is neither inherently fair nor unfair but rather a function of making an open decision to accept it or not.

I prefer it this way, Mason.
$ = Pay to play, including "Extras cost cash" or however you want to say it.
No $ = Not pay to play.

Far easier to understand _and enforce_ than your system.

-D

Keep it the same. If games value their spot on TopMudSites, they should fight for it!

Yes, keep it simple.

Adding a $ to indicate that it is a p2p mud does nothing to affect muds fighting for a spot they value. It merely provides more information to those who wish to check out other muds.

Dulan:
Any of the three proposed systems is fine with me. I just thought the others provided a bit more information. But, I also understand the rationale for keeping it simple.

I don't think anyone is demanding anything, its why the topic is labeled as a discussion.  Since there was such a major outcry about the current system, I figured at the least we could get a decent discussion out of it.  In the least it would give people something more tangible to talk about. I dont have any real qualms with the current system, but it can't hurt to throw new ideas out (wether they are truly new or not).

That reminded me (hate to cross-post, but hell thats what this entire thread is anyways) a suggestion I read from you on enforcement of a voting policy.  Correct me if I screw it up.

Players from mud A can report mud A breaking TMS policy to a panel that will follow up.  Should the mud be breaking policy th would be penalties(??), should the claim be false the any further accusations by that player would be ignored.  Seems like a decent idea (throws it out to the wolves).

Yes, but how? Consistency is required for balance. If one game offers incentives to players in the form of experience bonuses, items, or discounts, then to be on an even footing other games would have to do the same in a manner that suits their environment.

It does take time to come here and vote. Not long but to do so daily or every twelve hours is a lot even for a player that adores the game they are voting for. How long is anyone really going to keep that up? Offering an incentive to players definitely makes a difference.

Each gaming environment would have to select a "thanks" they considered managable and appropriate to their particular set up. I can't imagine Dragonrealms giving experience bonuses but I am sure the very creative GMs could come up with something that would not impact game balance yet would reward those who take the time to come here and vote for them.

I am voting because I would like to see Dragonrealms and the many volunteer gamemasters get the recognition for what they have created and continue to expand on. I would also like to encourage more people to swing by Dragonrealms and give it a try.

There is no doubt in my mind that even with a small incentive GemstoneIII would be in first position and Dragonrealms in second, both by a large lead, even though Dragonrealms should be in first position. That would encourage more players to give us a whirl.

Now this is exactly what I thought this caper was about all along. Basically its saying, "I'm voting because I like the game and the way it is run."

In the end I believe people will play and vote for a game because they like the game, where the game sits on the TMS list will have nothing to with it. If they didn't like the game they wouldn't stay long enough to worry about incentives to vote. In other words, regardless of what incentive is given, the real reason a particular game is getting a lot of votes is because people like the game enough to stay and play and then in turn vote.

When one person posts about the possibility of change, it doesn't necessarily need to be read as a "demand," I agree. But when multiple people post about it, and begin tossing about specifics (such as how certain MUDs should be labeled and quantified), it absolutely implies that the demand exists for such change.

I repeat my suggestion: Want to stand out above the other MUDs on the list? Advertise. This isn't a new complaint. It comes up at least once every six months or so. I've even been among those who tried to find ideas to "change" Synozeer's TMS project so it might be more beneficial to "the little guys." But, you know what? It's not my listing. It's Synozeer's. I wouldn't want anyone coming to my game and having debates on public boards about how I should run it - how presumptuous is that? He offers us a place to advertise, and people complain when the free advertising becomes so precious.

If you have legitimate concerns and suggestions, rather than posturing in a public debate, why not just e-mail Synozeer? I've always found him to be quite responsive. If he likes ideas, he'll implement them. If he doesn't, he won't. It's that simple. But, were I him, I'd be getting plenty aggravated right now at the gnashing of teeth going on from game operators who are carrying on about the diminished value of their free advertising when they could boost their visibility by purchasing banner ads.

I don't think the ideas being tossed around constitute "carrying on". I hope that Synozeer doesn't feel aggravated but rather sees the discussion as a bit of harmless brainstorming on the part of people who appreciate the site enough to put some thought into it.

Certainly the games that charge even a modest amount can afford to advertise and I hope that this site can generate some income for the work that Synozeer has put into it. It would be great if it generated enough for Synozeer to organize more reviews by players experienced in multiple worlds.

Everyone is free to go out and create other sites on a different model but this seems to be a solid one. I think it is better to try to help Synozeer build on a strong foundation than it is to try to copy what he is doing with different twists.

I would like to see a small indicator letting me know which games charge (be it for extras or for the core game) at first glance rather than having to visit each game to check. The most popular game that is competely free works within more limited resources. It's not fair to judge them against a p2p game and it seems likely that they will attract a different population.

It's significant information for those looking to try out new games. For example, my daughter (13) doesn't play yet and I would like to introduce her to rping. She is very busy with school and other activities and I can't afford to pay for a second account for her to develop a character on. I would want to try some of the free muds myself to see what they are like.

This seems like a really good site to find out about the various options available. Maintaining popularity, continuing to increase traffic over the years, requires innovation. Generalized ranting and flaming is never helpful but constructive criticism and brainstorming ideas can be.

Taken out of context, no, they don't. Put in context with the 13+-page thread of flames that spawned this discussion, they do.

Notice, I'm not saying it's a bad idea at all to have some kind of indication on these listings about whether a game costs money to play or not. Frankly, I think it's fine. At the same time, I agree with the poster who indicated that it doesn't take that long to check out a game and learn it costs money to play. If money is an object, you move on.

My primary point is simply this: If you care about the list and how it's presented, just drop Synozeer an e-mail or a private message. Second-guessing him in a public forum, or trying to tell him how to run his site, is, simply put, rude. You wouldn't like him coming to your game and rallying people to say change how you do things, so why is it any better for you to do that to him here? On my game, I often get suggestions via @mail or private pages from people who have ideas for improving or altering how we do things. I also implement some of those ideas, but not all of them. It's much easier to accept and take seriously such suggestions when they aren't challenging the status quo in a public venue.

Your suggestions and concerns are valid, and they even make sense. I reiterate my support of some kind of marker for pay-to-play games. But I also support the low-key approach when it comes to suggesting significant changes to how things are done on someone else's site.

What's the problem with a free debate? This is a Discussion Forum, right, so why wouldn't we discuss things? Should certain topics be banned from the Forum? And who's to say which topics are allowed and which aren't?

Actually I think an open discussion is good, much better than e-mailing. It shows if the general opinion is leaning in one direction or another. It also provides some input to ideas tossed out by one person, that you wouldn't get in an e-mail dialogue.

Also, I think Synozeer is mature enough to handle the discussion in the same spirit that it began, as a suggestion to how the boards could possibly be improved. (And if I were him, I'd much prefer the open debate to being spammed by e-mails. But then again, I am not him. Nor are you, Brody. So let's not make assumptions about what he thinks, when the only assumption we really CAN make is how we would prefer to handle the situation ourselves).

As to the topic of the discussion, I am all for showing which muds are pay-to-play in the list - or better still make two different lists, one for free muds and one for commercial ones. After all, this IS the big dividing line between muds, (for better and for worse).

The pay-to-play muds have a big advantage when it comes to advertising, since they actually make money on their game. I, (and lots of other implementors of 'free' muds), put a lot of unpaid work into the mud, because it is a hobby and we love creating a world and see it grow and interact with players. But I draw the line at paying for banners, I just don't have that kind of funds.

Adding this type of info to the list would add a very valuable information for most players, while at the same time helping the free muds to even out that difference, at least to a minor extent. And regardless of what someone stated further down in the thread, it is not always obvious that a mud is pay-to-play immediately when you log on. In fact, many of the pay-to-play muds, especially those that offer 'donation equipment', use very devious tactics to snare new players. Far from giving clear and simple information about it on the log-in screen, they offer a free 'trial period', up to level 20 or so, in the hope of the new player getting hooked before then. There are also those that CLAIM to be 'no charge', but where your chances of advancing are very limited, unless you pay or 'donate' to get the extra features, like certain commands or pieces of good equipment.

For most of the commercial muds money and large player numbers are the big issues, the more players they can get, the more money gets into the pockets of the owner. Which perhaps explains, if not excuses, some of the slightly shady business policies you occasionally encounter.

And speaking about that, I also find it slightly disgusting that some mud owners apparently are prepared to stoop to any depths to inflate the votes for their mud, (as is currently being discussed in another endless thread). It may not be illegal, it may not be breaking the rules of the List, but I think most posters would agree that it is morally and ethically dubious. If people are prepared to tamper with ip addresses to be able to multiple vote, or to hassle or bribe their players to vote, that's just cheesy. One would think most potential players should be able to draw their own conclusions from it, but apparently that isn't so. Maybe the world wants to be ripped off?

Disclaimer: I am not trying to tell anyone what to do.

Yes, Adam makes money of this site and it is his site to do with as he pleases.  At the same time, he makes money by providing a valuable service to, in essence, the consumers of the product he provides.  As such, it seems quite appropriate that the consumers be able to offer feedback in a public forum about what they would like to see in the product to which they subscribe.  Moreover, I would think that, as the administrator of this forum, he would not only be interested in, but appreciate, the willingness of people to express how they feel the site can be changed for the better - whether he agrees with them or not.

In my own opinion, I think there is no need for two separate lists.  I have no problem competing against the p2p muds.  I just think it appropriate they be designated as such.

Finally, it seems that most of the opposition to incorporating a $ sign on the rankings list comes from the p2p muds.  If the product is as good as you say it is because you have better resources and offer a better product - supposedly proven by the fact that people pay to play when there are free muds available - then why are you so opposed to the sign?  Are you so afraid you'll lose business?  If people can find out on the info that you are p2p, why not let them find out immediately.  Why must they scan through 20 muds to find out which ones are p2p and which ones are free?  Why not let them find out immediately?

Muds are so anxious to provide information in their abstract on the rankings list about being the #1 mud in the world, or being the oldest, or the biggest, or the number of players online.  You don't make people go to the info page to find that information out!  Why should they, then, have to do so to find out about the fact some charge over $30/month to get the full benefits?

MUDs aren't required in their abstract to post the average number of players online, or whether they are RP enforced, playerkill restricted, or are capable of handling ANSI colors, or anything else for that matter. Most will just post whatever they think will attract someone to take a closer look. Any reasonably smart person is going to click the info button and make sure the MUD has at least some of the features they are looking for before they check that MUD out. At the same time, there is nothing keeping free MUDs from noting this in the information that appears in the abstract (and some already do). Pressing the info button based on four or five lines of hard sell only to find that a MUD is pay-to-play is hardly an imposition.

Some of it, I guess, is just a matter of priorities. For some people, whether or not a MUD charges to play might be important. But for others it won't be. I'm far more interested in whether a MUD is RP enforced, allows playerkilling, and saves equipment at logoff than I am in whether they charge money to play. It would get pretty cumbersome to create a whole system of silly little icons for all of us who just can't wait for the info page to load to see if MySuckMUD has the features we want or not.

I don't think it is appropriate to to compare this thread with the other. It seems quite clear that people are attempting to engage in a reasonable, though disagreeble, discussion regarding this matter. In fact, this appears to be the reason this thread was started - to engage in a real debate as opposed to getting lost in the flame war.

To propose that no suggestions be brought up simply because they might turn into a flame war is to support the proposition that NO threads should ever be started because they might end up in a flame war.

I think my previous post explained quite well why these debates should take place on an open forum.

I prefer open discussion to email because through discussion others can point out factors I had not thought of that either support implementation or indicate why it wouldn't work out. This section is entited "bugs and suggestions" so it seems as though public suggestions are welcome.

I am not sure who is or isn't opposed to a sign. I am a player at a p2p mud. I don't think p2p muds are necessarily "better" in an inherent sort of way. They have both strengths and weaknesses. I was reading a thread on how many players online people prefer. The numbers are so low that most players in DR would consider it a problem but perhaps that is because our world is so enormous. 100 characters would maybe be enough to loosely populate the main entry city. We are more accustomed to complaining about under-populated areas, in a game that regularly has 1000 players on line.

On the other hand the smaller muds have greater control over the world in the sense of greater gm participation. Not being a business enterprise also allows for higher requirements for membership and a more controlled membership. The creator can more easily impose stricter roleplaying guidelines. Individual players are more able to make an impact in smaller games. Business muds can invest more resources in creating more advanced combat and experience systems. They are better able to support a wider variety of player styles as like-minded players gravitate to one another.

I don't see the two gendres as really being in direct competion. Some players might like both gendres others may strongly prefer one over the other.

I know that p2p in any form is a hot topic and that paying to play and particularly paying for ingame advantages contravenes traditional roleplaying ideals. I don't believe anything about paying is inherently immoral or unfair but I do believe that potential players should know up front how payment affects their in game status.

I don't know if the reference to having to pay 30$ was directed at Dragonrealms or GemstoneIII but both do have higher priced alternatives. I want to underline that in these cases basic membership covers everything needed to advance to the highest levels available. I played on a basic account for five years and my character's advancement was never hindered by not purchasing extras.

Of course extra cost items have to hold some appeal or no one would choose them however the basic game is so huge and offers so many different alternatives there is no "need" to buy into more.

I have heard that in some p2p games rather than a "trial membership" they offer full membership free, but then require players to buy in order to advance beyond X level or obtain special items that heavily impact a character's ability to function. Personally I don't like that kind of system at all. Other games are completely free. I do think those games are better able to set strict standards for participation.

I agree with the poster that this is key information for people looking to explore a variety of muds. I absolutely love Dragonrealms and encourage anyone interested in muds to check it out even if they don't intend on playing it longterm just to see what kind of game it is. It is a different kind of gaming experience. That is why I feel that it would be helpful to add a small designator differenciating between free games and games with some form of charging. Because they are different styles of RPGs, not because one approach is inherently better than another in a global sense.

Jazuela, this discussion area is entitled "Bugs and SUGGESTIONS" which led me to believe this is the place to make and discuss suggestions. I am not therefore being presumptuous or stepping out of place. It has nothing to do with whether or not Synozeer is "a big boy". I certainly mean no disrespect to him in discussing the issues that have come up. I am sure you mean well but these are the kinds of comments that generate flame posts. That is, expressing opinions about the posters or their right to comment rather than sticking to the subject at hand.

Hello, I’m fairly new to the TMS forums and I when I read this particular topic I was pleasantly surprised.  I was going to suggest something along the lines of some of the previous posters.  What I was thinking was to add a new field to the each muds information.  Along with the fields such as “Codebase”, “Category”, “Theme”, etc..  add “Commercial”.  This would distinguish which games are a ‘pay to play’ and which are ‘free’.  To do this the corresponding field for each mud would either put a YES or a NO depending.  A YES would indicate that that game either required a subscription that was needed, or in some way offered some kind of benefit for players that paid them a fee.  A NO would indicate that they game was completely free of charge and that all players were treated the same (in the sense that nobody was given a purchased bonus).

I realize that it does not put to ease the concerns of previous posters as to alert people browsing the initial rankings page, but what this would do is inform any visitor about the particular game that they are looking at (IE: when they select that game’s information icon).  It would give a straight forward yes -or- no.  A potential player would know up front what to expect and could inquire further as to what is involved.  

Any thoughts?

I agree that information about potential MUDs to play is a good thing, but there's no reason to prefer listing pay-to-play vs. free than there is to prefer PK vs. non-PK. You can classify a MUD by an almost infinite number of categories, and I just don't see a reason to place more importance on whether you pay or not than whether or not it's a stock code-base. Personally, as I'm willing to pay for MUDs, I'd much rather see a sign for stock vs. custom. Whether it's free or costs money is irrelevant to me. I just want to play MUDs with original systems and content. To other people, paying vs. free is important. To still others, Pk vs. no-PK is important.

My point is just that you can draw a line between MUDs wherever you want, and any of them are just as valid as free vs. pay, so why treat that distinction as something special?

--matt