[PinkFloyd]

Medievia was simply removed from the voting list because it went against the rules Adam put up. They are however still listed on TMS.

I do not see how people are using this site deceptively. There was a while back when Merentha had a voting script that allowed it be placed in the top 5 on the voting list, but that was dealt with.

The "just traffic" theory here is still valid. That's the biggest use this site has, as a traffic exchange. A place where people can come and find out what text games are out there. Forums have been added for communication between those in the MUD world, but they are of secondary importance really.

[DonathinFrye]

This website calls itself a "One-Stop MUDing Resource", not "A HUB for MUD Traffic".

[The_Disciple]

If that's so, then you're being purposefully obtuse and obstinate. I wouldn't exactly be proud of that. Frankly, people would prefer to have discussions with the blind idiot.

One of my best friends is a guy who makes a lot of money but doesn't have a lot of free time. When he plays a game, he prefers to buy his way to be competitive with the top players in terms of equipment or what have you. He'd rather spend the money and get right to the top tier of the game than grind or screw around. He prefers to play games where you can do that (either because it's explicitly integrated or because a marketplace of some kind has grown up around the game.)

Conversely, I have another friend who is an PvP game nut. He can't stand the idea that someone might have an advantage on him, player versus player, because of spending money. The last time he tried a pay-for-perks game and found out two days into play, I had to listen to him bitch about it for a week.

What possible reason could there be for a site like this to not want to help each of these guys find the kind of game they prefer more easily?

[Zhiroc]

I'll try to keep this short...

1) Let's say I start a MUD that I advertise as free-to-play, but also say that "people who subscribe at $15/month get 10x the XP and loot rewards". Is this still F2P? I'd say no, but if others think yes, then we might as well stop arguing about IRE because we have radically different mindsets on the concept of free. (And I'm not trying to say which is correct, which would be pointless discussion.)

2) Cany anyone point me to an IRE web page, help file, or official resource that documents how many lessons it takes to learn a skill. This is my major sticking point. Without it, a player can't just figure it out themselves.

They have to actually play the game, and even then, since the scale is non-linear (you'd have to trans one skill to tell, but see below), and since the game doesn't keep track of it neatly and nicely (you can't tell *ever* how many lessons you've spent without keeping track yourself, and you can't even tell how many lessons it will take to get to the next level (without a lot of hassle and calculation).

3) The major source of credits available to a player without spending money is the in-game credit market. There are 309 on sale right now (337 yesterday, if I remember). Is there enough of a market to support having multiple players doing this?

An interesting test would be to have 5 players start and try to play the game "for free" by trying to amass gold and buy credits, and watch the effect on the credit market. I'm somewhat reticent on trying this however, because I think it would really screw up the market for long time players, and I personally don't have the time to do the grind.

[Letrus Abbot]

Well, how specific should we get with color coding?

Kavir and Donathinfrye have both agreed that a "pay for perks" is substantially different given the focus of the game. Following the logic through, they are significantly different and would thus deserve their own seperate colors in order to not confuse poor, easily befuddled players and to not cast the evil light of one onto the other.

We can have one color for 'pay for perks' that don't really affect gameplay directly, another color for pay for perks that affect gameplay directly in pvp but not in other aspects, another color to represent pay for perks which significantly affect all aspects of the game, another color for donations optional and donation equipement, another option for donations with no equipment but without which the game would not be able to continue to run and you get a mention in the credits, another color for donations required for which not even credit listing is given, another color for subscription games for which an option for further perk-buying is possible, another option for subsciption games with no further perk buying, another color for games for which the admin shoulders all the costs and does not ask for any donations whatsoever, another color for games with both "basic" and "premium" accounts in which the premiums have significant direct IG bonuses, another color for games which have basic and premium accounts in which the premiums have only cosmetic benefits in actual gameplay....ad infinitum.

Or, of course, we could forget about the problems presented by nitpicking the minor details of the business model of the MU* and all the problems presented therein.


I'm sure we won't have any trouble finding the volunteers to police every game on the list in order to ensure they are colored correctly, right? We wouldn't want any errors, or for players to have to depend on their own ability to process information.

[TapDancer]

This illustrates my biggest concern about such a feature being added. The profiles for the MUDS listed on this site are ALREADY filled with inaccuracies, whether intentional or not, and so clearly the administration and "community" cannot even begin to police the promotion already in place. I believe adding ANOTHER place for various MUDS to incorrectly clasify themselves would just further erode the value of the listing at all.

This is ESPECIALLY true for something as subjective as whether a game is free, pay to play, or pay for perks.

[The_Disciple]

Jonathan Swift called. He wants his nearly 300-year-old idea of suggesting something obviously retarded in an effort to make a point back.

(Aside: No, you did not make a point.)

[DonathinFrye]

Just as this resource does not find it necessary in the MUD Info section to differentiate between "PvP Allowed" and "PvP Encouraged" and "PvP Required", etc - it would not be necessary to get as nit-picky as you are saying poses a problem. If a player prefers pay-for-perk systems, and sees a bunch of(let's say) RED color-coded lines representing pay-for-perk MUDs - all of the sudden, he has a narrowed list of which MUDs he may enjoy more, and then can look into the ones of those that seem most appealing. Likewise, a poor college kid who doesn't enjoy some factors of pay-for-perks game sees BLUE color-coded lines representing 100% Free - now he knows better which games he'd be interested in playing.

It would be a useful guide - neither myself, nor Kavir are attempting to say that all information about each MUD should be nit-picked to as ridiculously specific as it can possibly be. However, it would seem that many players in this forum do not consider 'what level of free' a MUD is to be nit-picky.

I understand how IRE is defending its own tooth and nail, here. They are protecting their desire for ambiguity. We're countering by saying that IRE's desire for ambiguity should not overshadow what would be improvement to a resource designed for players looking for a new MUD.

I would be far more interested in hearing from Synozeer, than IRE's staff/players though. I'd sort of like to know what he thinks, after this discussion continues to thrive after [29] pages.

[Letrus Abbot]

So are you saying you volunteer for the job then, Disciple?(and if you really believe that satire and reductio ad absurdum is only 300 years old, be very angry at your literature or philosophy prof.)

Clearly there are many different forms of donation, pay for perks, subscription and mixtures as business models. Enough that merely two colors (or columns) wouldn't do justice. The point is clearly either make all the necessary differentiations and police them for accuracy or (the more reasonable option in my mind) accept that players may well be capable of figuring this stuff out themselves.

[PinkFloyd]

That is what TopMudSites is precisely at the moment. You got a bunch of MUD's on some list, there's your resource. No need to make any changes, like creating separate lists or adding labels to commercial MUD's. It works perfectly fine as is.

[Valg]

I'll propose three categories:

Free: No purchase is available to change the game experience.
Perks: Optional purchases can change the game experience.
Pay-to-Play: Mandatory purchases are required to access the game on a continuing basis.

Is there a game which doesn't fit neatly into one of those three boxes? Examples:

Free: Aardwolf, WotMUD, Discworld, Armageddon, Carrion Fields, Icesus.
Perks: Achaea, Lusternia, Aetolia, Imperian.
Pay-to-Play: Threshold, DragonRealms, Gemstone.

[Zhiroc]

Actually, I think IRE doesn't fit neatly at all:

Pay vs. Free: you can buy credits, but there are methods (good or not) for getting them free.

Perk vs. Play: skill advancement beyond a novice level requires credits--is advancement just a perk?

[Letrus Abbot]

They do seem a bit broad.

"Perks" as you've defined it can include everything from someone who gets a t-shirt for their character for donating $5 for the upkeep costs to laying out 1K or more to get 'the perfect pvp fighting machine'

The proposed categories also fail to address 'combination' models (e.g subscription costs+option to purchase special items via cash) or alternative models (Threshold's one-time required donation with options for more is really neither really a required purchase on a continuing basis nor is it 'optional' for that first payment past a certain point)

If the categories are too broad they really aren't very useful and lump together too many dissimilar models, if the categories address that problem by becoming more specific they become too numerous to be useful.

[Jazuela]

Actually, PinkFloyd, Inferno ended up being a pay-optional game before it shut down several months ago. You could maintain a subscription and everything that went with it, or you could go for a free subscription without access to guilds. But as I said, it shut down several months ago for good. And they -never- advertised themselves as a "free" game. They did let people know that playing free was an option but were very clear that free play came with reduced benefits.

[KaVir]

Why would I "agree" with something which plainly goes against the very statement you quoted me saying?

If there are no costs for the players, then it should be advertised to the players as "free".

If it costs over a thousand dollars to max out your character, then no, it's not "free".

[KaVir]

Can you please read my posts before trying to put words in my mouth?

For starters, try reading the post where I stated "I'd rather see the TMS database simply avoid mention of payment method entirely rather than providing misleading information."

[Letrus Abbot]

Agreement is reached.

[Valg]

What I posted:
Free: No purchase is available to change the game experience.
Perks: Optional purchases can change the game experience.
Pay-to-Play: Mandatory purchases are required to access the game on a continuing basis.

If the T-shirt was an in-game T-shirt, that's a perk, and the game is pay-for-perks.

A subscription plus the ability to buy perks is pay-to-play, if the subscription is mandatory.

Threshold is pay-to-play, as they require one or more fees up front to play the game.

I don't get what's confusing here. At most, I could see a game with both mandatory payments and perks (Threshold) as getting both icons next to their name. Or a fourth color denoting "both".

It all comes down to:
(y/n): Are perks available within the game?
(y/n): Are there mandatory fees for playing the game?

I don't think that's very confusing, and I do think it's valuable information for a player using this MUD resource.

[prof1515]

Valg, you're talking to morons who aren't thinking, they're regurgitating what they've been led to believe without taking the time to analyze exactly what it is you're saying or those they're defending are saying.  They don't understand your point because the results of your system don't agree with the uninformed, preconceived opinions they already possess and have been fed.

I do find it funny to see the number of low-post names that have suddenly appeared in this discusssion supporting IRE now that Matt fled crying because his bull**** propaganda was being drowned out by logical alternatives to make this site more useful to the MUDding community instead of turning it into a brothel for the Viagra MUDs.  It says another thing about the ethics of those games which use false advertising to attract victims...er...suckers...er...customers...er..."va lued players".

As for those making some of the stupidest arguments I've seen in a long time:  Reality check, everyone!  Where do you play?  I bet I could guess the vast majority of you do based on your posts in this discussion.  So, here's a thought for you.  If you happen to play an IRE or other Viagra-MUD, stop and actually think about things instead of just blindly defending your MUD's format as something other than what it is.  You may be surprised at what it is you're defending and how ridiculous your claims are.

For Christ's sake, start thinking instead of just acting like puppets for your MUD.  You'll be more respected, you won't sound so damned stupid, and your ass will hurt so much less without your MUD admin's arm up it.

Take care,

Jason

[PinkFloyd]

Ahh that's interesting. However, I remember the days I played that the game required a $20/month subscription to play. They then brought a pk server that charged $10/month. But I'm not surprised to hear that it went out of business.