Top Mud Sites Forum

Top Mud Sites Forum (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/index.php)
-   Tavern of the Blue Hand (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Top 20 muds (http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1154)

thelenian 01-17-2003 08:39 AM

That can be answered fairly easily, without any survey.

A new listing does not affect TMS's generation of wealth in any manner whatsoever, therefore the question of whether or not a new MUD making a net gain from a TMS listing negatively impacts the rest of the members of the list is easily answered by a simple yes. A new listing only affects the reallocation of existing resources, and/or the allocation of new wealth generated by TMS.

Players that come to TMS from a mud on the listing and end up playing another are a net zero change in wealth. Only players new to MUDding, and/or come from outside the list represent a net gain. As those players by definition do not come from listed members, whether or not a given MUD is on the list has no effect on the wealth generated by TMS.

Yui Unifex 01-17-2003 09:36 AM

I addressed this in my previous post ;). There would be a net gain if that player allocated time that was previously unallocated for mudding to a new mud found on the list.

Threshold 01-17-2003 10:47 AM

That is the case for EVERY mud.

It always makes me chuckle when people trot out this argument, as if to say "our mud is MORE FUN that the muds ranked higher than us, because the players of those muds are only voting because they have so much free time due to their mud not being as much fun."

Considering the fact that voting takes about 5 seconds, I find it difficult to believe that any game of any type could be so incredibly amazing that one just couldn't bear to rip themself away for 5 seconds to vote.

SimuBubba 01-17-2003 01:23 PM

Uhm...It's already January 17...

So do you mean January 20?


Or did you mean Monday, February 18?

imported_Synozeer 01-17-2003 01:38 PM

Sorry, I accidently plugged in today's date. The correct date is January 20th.

-Synozeer

shadowfyr 01-17-2003 03:22 PM


thelenian 01-17-2003 05:28 PM

True, but I strongly suspect, based on statistics for MMORPGs, that show that players will spend around 75% of their time playing a single character*, that such a gain would be marginal at best.

*Note: 75% on a single character, when you have multiple characters in the same game. I suspect that the ratio of primary char time/secondary chars times is even higher when spread across multiple games, but, of course, that is just a plausible extrapolation based on anecdotal evidence.

Alajha 01-31-2003 07:00 PM

I can't honestly say I enjoyed any of the top 50 MU*'s, much less the top 20. I agree with whoever said that most of them cheat. I really don't care that they cheat, however, and they are not bad MU*s (well, some aren't), but mainly, they just failed to catch my interest.

Loremaster 02-01-2003 03:17 AM

Its been awhile since I have had the opportunity to visit. I am both amused and saddened to find the same issue being tossed about.

What amuses me is that I read so many of Achaea's justifications for their reward system and assumed that its owner's arguments were opinions not contrary to facts. I admit my chagrin upon actually reading TMS rules and seeing this:

Apparently, Synozeer has no desire to enforce the rules he has put in place; I understand the tediousness of policing all the muds wishing to advertise here and it is, after all, his site.

Achaea has some very interesting features that are not standard; for this, I salute them. I will not mention what I feel are weaknesses in the mud and the way it promotes itself as there are plenty of posts on that subject.

imported_Synozeer 02-01-2003 12:12 PM

It's simple. If you see a mud cheating by offering rewards for votes, report it to me with all the facts and I'll look right into it. I'm not going to log into every mud on a regular basis and hope to catch a reward emote.

-Synozeer

Alajha 02-01-2003 01:27 PM

Furthermore, who are you to tell other people how to run their muds?
Anyways, if you know a MU* rewards it's players for advertising, or voting, like every single MU* in existence has done and will do, then it's time that most of you learned to act like an adult. This does not mean repeatedly posting threads about the same problem; it means learning from your experience, and more importantly, shutting your #### mouths about it already. Move on; it's such a petty, pathetic topic. Don't downplay the MU*.

KaVir 02-01-2003 01:43 PM

Synozeer?  He's the person that runs this site.  He can't tell people how to run their mud, but he can certainly refuse to list those who don't follow the TMS guidelines - just as a mud owner can refuse to let people play if they don't follow the rules.

The words "gross overgeneralisation" spring to mind.  A small handful of muds cheating is not the same as "every single mud in existence" cheating, nor is "they do it, so why can't we" a valid excuse for not following the guidelines.

Tavish 02-01-2003 02:23 PM

It's amusing to see that some people enjoy adding to threads that have taken no interest at all in reading.  You assumed correctly that the owner of Achaea's opinion ( and my own as well) were not contrary to the facts, in that there was no rule you could not give incentives for votes.  I *HAVE* read the thread and nowhere do I see that mud claiming any type of justification after the rule was introduced.

Apparently you have some type of information he is not privy to then.  I'm sure he would be quite happy if you were to share it with him.  I'm sure many other forum members would be quite happy to hear about it as well, nothing quite like some good dirt about other muds.

crymerci 02-01-2003 07:12 PM


Loremaster 02-02-2003 01:08 AM


Mason 02-02-2003 11:45 AM

It seems to me they have fewer votes than before. Further, the first voting session after the rule change is not indicative of anything, as players are still used to voting. The real test will be 6-8 weeks from now. Until then, it is too early to tell.

Petrarch 02-02-2003 12:52 PM

When Merentha started to be listed on this site in 2001 we were consitantly #1 or #2, and on the rare weeks #3 on the list.  Then, because I personally feel any advertisments on your MUD's webite is somewhat rude and should only be done if it somehow rewards your mud (maybe you need $ to run it).  So anyways I took our main ads for TMS off, and concequently fell from #2 in the lsit to about #80.

This is what I found:
1 - our web stats halved, we started getting only 1/2 the visitors
2 - our playerbase and the number of new players we were getting did not change

Conclusions: having your mud on the top 20 page is a nice little ego boost, but it does nothing for your playerbase.  The growth of Merentha over the last 6 months is comparable to the previous 6 months when we were listed either #1 or #2.

Alajha 02-02-2003 02:14 PM

Who said I was addressing Synozeer? All of you act like it's some right you have to personally judge other MUDs. Does it matter if they cheat? Not really. Does it matter if they reward players for not voting? No. Does anyone care if they do? Yes, because it gives people some petty, unimportant thing to nitpick to death.
<Mass stupidity='crymerci'>
</stupidity>

Enzo 02-02-2003 03:28 PM

The problem I have with the Top 20 muds thingofmuhbob is that people don't vote for their MUD. The Pattern's End (TPE), the MUD that I play, is probably ranked like 83 if we're lucky. That's because nobody votes. If all the players who play there everyday voted once a day, we would be higher, but we don't.

Also, I've heard that some MUDs make sure that their players vote every 3 hours or whatever the limit is so that there is like 4 votes from the same person. Personally, I think that is wrong. I think you should have to register to Top Mud Sites (like for the message boards) and only have one vote per user name. That also has its flaws, but it would work out others.

*shrug* Some of those MUDs prolly deserve it, I dunno.

Enola_Phoenix 08-19-2004 11:01 PM

Achaea beware, I shall single handedly one vote myself to the top your reign of terror has come to an end, IRON REALMS SHALL TREMBLE BENEATH ME..... ok well maybe not, but I love the dramatism, didn't you, I hear Emmy, maybe I can get Brad Pitt to play me and Sean Connery to play the evil Matt Mihaly, what do you guys think?

Oh yeah top 20, well they deserve to be there, all except I do believe the pay for ones, should be contet with their big A#s# banners at the top of the page, you guys oh sukie sukie. We know you're good, how about actually turning off votes for like a month just to allow pure homegrowners to play?? No thats on a serious note, just to have a pure FREE to play mud let us battle it out *I'll one vote myself to the top MWAHAHAH*

But seriously p2p guys, consider doing that, letting us battle it out for heck maybe just one voting period (the 15 days) would be kinda neat to see.

Let me know what everyone thinks of that Idea.

Heck Acheaa I'll label a Discussion Thread ACHAEA ranked #1 and keep it at the top bumped up...come on Matt, come on, you can do it, I have a twinkie in my pocket.........

Enzo 08-20-2004 06:02 PM

I personally feel that people shouldn't be able to vote every 3 hours, or whatever the specified time is for being to vote again. I feel that only one IP address should be allowed to vote once. I definately know there are MUDs out there that could have 30 people there saying its the best, but they have 90 votes? I don't think that's right. You don't see people getting to vote everyday during elections and what not. It isn't fair to the muds where people vote once, and then don't remember to vote everyday or whatever. I know if this happened, my mud's number of votes would probably drop, since I do this too.

dragon master 08-21-2004 01:25 AM

This would bring the top 20 list even closer to a list of muds with big pbases. As it is now, players of muds that they highly enjoy will take the time to vote for their mud more often then those who don't like it that much. Having each person only vote once would just be a measurement of the size of the pbase.

aardfrith 08-21-2004 04:20 AM

Under the current system, players who like the mud will vote for it. Under a "one player one vote" system, players who like the mud will vote for it.

The only difference I can see is that people with fixed IPs would count the same as people with dynamic IPs.

Isn't this a good thing?

Threshold 08-21-2004 12:11 PM

Changing the timer to 3 hours would be a nightmare. If anything should be changed, it should be increased to 24 hours, not decreased.

Voting is a nice way for players to show their loyalty towards their favorite game. If players felt the need to remember to vote every 3 hours it would be a stressful and annoying process which in the long run would result in less traffic to TMS.

gth 08-22-2004 06:56 AM


Threshold 08-22-2004 10:26 AM

I'd mind.

No mud should get special treatment just because its free. Furthermore, your idea would result in all the arguments about what constitutes free. Some people do not even consider a mud to be free if they accept donations.

The point of the voting system is simple: in exchange for having your mud displayed high on the list, you send a lot of traffic to the site. The ranking is a direct reward for the amount of traffic you send to TMS.

Rewarding people for NOT sending a lot of traffic to the site is not beneficial for the site or for the games listed here as a whole. In the long run, more traffic benefits everyone.

Dulan 08-22-2004 07:10 PM

Threshold: I'm finding 'free' excessively easy to define.

The check for 'free'? Is money accepted for -any- in-game benefit, whether that benefit be playing or training sessions?

If no, then it is free.
If yes, then it is not.

It makes deciding what is free and is non-free for auditing purposes excessively easy.

Enola_Phoenix 08-22-2004 07:29 PM


Traithe 08-22-2004 08:02 PM


Dulan 08-22-2004 09:53 PM

Eh.

Doesn't bother me that much with pay to play MUDs on the listings - however, if you note, the major pay to play MUDs that everyone kicks up a fuss about are all owned by the same company.

Splitting up pay to play and free MUDs makes a lot of sense, and with that definition of free, it's easy to discern between a pay to play and a free MUD.

Furthermore, I'm noting that certain MUDs have usurped the definition of 'free' after looking at the listings. But considering some of the manufactured/generated quotes used for advertising in the past, I'm not surprised in the least.

Valg 08-22-2004 10:09 PM

Dulan wrote:
Threshold: I'm finding 'free' excessively easy to define as a TMC auditor. The check for 'free'? Is money accepted for -any- in-game benefit, whether that benefit be playing or training sessions?

If no, then it is free. If yes, then it is not.

It makes deciding what is free and is non-free for auditing purposes excessively easy.


This seems like a sensible and objective way to clean up some of the mislabeling around here. I would love to see the pages here reflect the same standard TMC is apparently using.

the_logos 08-22-2004 10:47 PM

That's your interpretation of 'free'. I, and numberous other TMS members, would no doubt disagree with it.

TMC does not use that standard. TMC doesn't even mention whether muds are free or not, only whether they are pay-to-play. And to forestall the next inevitable objection, go to their 'search' feature and click only on 'not' next to 'pay to play' and then do a search. The first three muds that come up are Achaea, Aetolia, and Imperian. It's probably because they're not, but that might be too simple an explanation for a couple posters to accept.

--matt

the_logos 08-22-2004 10:56 PM

Ahh, Dulan. Perhaps Kimberly mailed you and asked you to start bashing us again? No need to mess around being subtle about it though! We all get a bigger kick out of being flamed by those with a less-than-solid grip when you sound more like Kimberly.

--matt

Dulan 08-22-2004 11:23 PM

Who said I was talking about you, the_logos?

I see no mention of your name in any of my posts.

Now, might I ask why you are paranoid of that particular point?

It is of no small interest to myself, considering that you imply I have a "less than solid grip" when I make a comment about a generic MUD - with no name given - and you begin the insults.

Interesting, isn't it? So, the_logos, why are you so paranoid about those posts to respond in such a vehement manner? I didn't name you, or any MUD in particular if I am reading my own posts correctly.

Dulan 08-22-2004 11:33 PM

It's the only objective method I have found to define 'free' vs 'non-free' MUDs.

Any other definition has too many shades of grey. This is the -only- black and white definition I have ever found for a particular MUD.

Unfortunately, this always ends up starting a flame war. People who have vested interests in making their MUD perceived as a "free" MUD when it is not always jump all over the definition.

I'm more then willing to talk about it with -anyone- to refine it. As it is, it's "rough". But, unfortunately, one side always flames the crap out of it with no real reasoning behind their flames, and the other side always says, "Great idea!".

I suppose that does say -something- about that definition of 'free', as it is an objective way of defining free, and no holes can easily be poked in it. MUDs that accept donations with no benefits still fall under free, MUDs that try to get cash from players don't.

the_logos 08-22-2004 11:53 PM

I'm quite sure -all- regular readers of this forum are well aware of who you were speaking of. You weren't very subtle about it.

--matt

Enola_Phoenix 08-23-2004 12:42 AM

I'm blonde, maybe thats why I thought he was speaking in general, and I'm a regular reader. Just because this flame war started with you logos doesn't mean its still about you. Its the great contraversy of free or not to be free.

Free is to put a price or request a price on an item.

Donations do not fall under that, you are not requesting people to pay you are accepting their contributions. But Pay2play muds request peopls money for items/artifacts/hours to play.

Come on really, how can we honestly have a debate on something as easily misconstrude as the word free. It's simple it can have a hundred meanings.

Achaea - not free
Threshold- Free

Why, one you can pay (Pay meaning recieve services or items) the other you can't
Hrmm seems simple.

p.s. what was this debate out?

Dulan 08-23-2004 04:06 AM

-sigh-

Except for one problem, the_logos.

Who is Kimberly?

Looking carefully at my posts, I did not mention you nor any MUD you run. Furthermore, you then promptly attacked me rather viciously, and accused me of being in consort with this 'Kimberly'. In a single post, that's what...3, 4 seperate logical fallacies? More? Jeebus, dude. I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole.


Anyways! Back to the topic at hand.

Enola: Depends. I'm not familiar with Threshold's stance on money, but yes. Free can -easily- be misconstrued, which is why I suggested that particular definition of 'free'.

Constructive criticism would be appreciated on the definition, if you could critique it by any chance?

Molly 08-23-2004 04:50 AM

I think most posters on the list would agree that this is a good definition of *FREE*. Pesonally I would also have added 'spells, weapons and equipment' to it. Or just used this simpler definition:

***
A mud is FREE if you cannot buy - ANY - in-game benefits for real money.
***

I also think that certain muds putting a *FREE* next to their name in the voting list, when they obviously are NOT free according to this definition, irritates a lot of people on the list. In fact I think I can safely say that it irritates everybody on the list, except of course the ones that misuse the word in that way, and their followers.

Consequently I'd like to make a formal request to Synozeer to install a new rule, that no mud is allowed to use the world *FREE* in their advertising, unless it actually IS free according to the above definition.

Hopefully this would get rid of some of the flame threads that spam the boards now, which would be a good thing for everyone.

the_logos 08-23-2004 05:01 AM

I vaguely recall someone (Traithe perhaps?) pointing out, in some detail, that you have no idea what 'logical fallacy' means. It seems that's still the case.

Of course, if we're going to be childish and stand behind Mommy and giggle that, "No, I wasn't giving you the finger! I was giving the tree behind you the finger!" then I'd ask you to point out where I insulted you in my post. If we're to be ridiculous, I'd ask you why you're so paranoid as to feel that "those with a less-than-solid grip" refers to you? I would, but I'm not going to, as it's a stupid question, just like your "oh-im-so-innocent" stance is a silly, transparent stance.

Misconstrued assumes that you're right in your interpretation of the word 'free.' If you walk into a movie theatre and aren't charged to watch a movie, that movie is free, regardless of whether they give you the option of buying popcorn or not.

Anyway, we're a commercial enterprise. If you're so certain we're committing fraud in advertising, there are no doubt a plethora of legal/official avenues available to you. Why not avail yourself of them? I encourage you to spend your time tilting at the windmills you've created in your mind.

--matt

Enola_Phoenix 08-23-2004 10:19 AM

I loved the analogy of movie and popcorn.

1) The popcorn will not affect the ending, beginning or overall showing of the movie.

buying a token for a weapon on a mud, however will. So therefore that analogy wont work.

2) As for the legal issues. I can see, that you covered your "false advertising" avenue with those simple words "Free to Play". True its free to play, but not to its full extent.

So come on, your mud isn't free to play, its free to try for however long you wish, but to play with all the venues open you must pay.

So how about stating free lifetime trial membership......

Cyre 08-23-2004 10:37 AM

I buy popcorn when I go to the movies because it makes the experience better. I like to be able to sit down and snack while I catch a flick, and I appreciate that option. Some people prefer to wait til after the movie and spend their money elsewhere, but they still get to experience the movie. I just happen to experience it without taking the extra time to eat somewhere else later, and that option is open to anyone to do the same.

This statement is false. Anything that can be acquired through the purchase of in-world perks can be acquired with sufficiently invested time within the worlds themselves. Anything. Furthermore, there exist a vast array of "venues" that can ONLY be attained and experienced through sufficiently invested time, and purchases alone just won't get you there, no matter how much you pay.

That would be lying to the customers. For shame that you would advocate such artifice.

KaVir 08-23-2004 11:17 AM

Personally I'd rather see more categories of "pay-to-play" in the listings.  Or perhaps we could request an additional category called "pay-for-perks"?

Failing that, your definition is probably about as fair as you can get IMO.

But if they charge you $10 for the seat and $5 for the 3D glasses (assuming it's a 3D movie) you're not going to be able to enjoy the movie as much if you don't pay.  If I was going to a cinema like that, I would rather that the "Top Cinema Sites" website informed me before I spent all that time travelling there and queuing up to get in.

Of course your analogy also fails to address the point that most people assume they'll have to pay to enter the cinema, while the reverse is typically true of muds (particularly when there's a "pay" option in the listing and it hasn't been checked). It's also a rather poor analogy because watching movies isn't a competitive hobby.

Perhaps a better comparison would be paintball. I enjoy playing paintball from time to time, but what I particularly dislike is when a handful of people turn up who have spent a small fortune on top-of-the-range gear, while I'm stuck with a standard gun that can't even shoot straight and has half their range.

Cyre 08-23-2004 11:29 AM

Your extension of the analogy breaks down based on the differences in the medium. It works at the original level because not a whole lot was suggested by it, other than seeing a movie for free makes the movie free, regardless of what else one might buy alongside. Your extension, however, would only be applicable if I could then earn those $5 3D glasses by going to see free movies 5 times a week. The investment of time provides access to the same opportunities as the investment of money. If you want to carry it further and make the analogy even more appropriate, we can imagine that by going those 5 times a week, not only do you get the free 3D glasses, you get a special Spiderman™ keychain that you wouldn't otherwise be able to purchase through the theater. The same is true of things in the realm that are available only through the investment of time, and not money.

My response would be that you probably need to play paintball more often if this is the case. Trump their monetary advantage by investing more time into your practice. I play paintball quite often, and unless I am in a tournament, I use my worst gun. Its range and accuracy are far worse than the higher end models I own, but in getting better with that weapon I improve leaps and bounds with the higher end models during tournament play. This situation, of course, assumes that I have both enough time to play often and enough money to get high-end products. But it's just as possible that I could have won those higher end products through tournaments in which I used my low end gear, and in some cases this is absolutely true.

KaVir 08-23-2004 12:10 PM

But I'm not interested in trying to prove that I'm better than them despite being at a huge disadvantage - I want to play a game of skill, knowing that if I win it's because I'm better at it, not because I bought a custom-made chaingun that can fire 10 paintballs per second at a range of up to half a mile.

And the same applies to muds. You don't care about other people buying their way ahead? That's fine - it's a perfectly viable business model. But myself and many other people do care, because don't want to pay to have to compete fairly. So the question is, why are you so opposed to us having the chance to see that information in the mud listing?

Cyre 08-23-2004 01:04 PM

Where does it end, then? This information is readily available with a cursory examination of the websites. There's a ton of information I wish I could see in a mud listing, but it would be impractical to request that things be changed to accomodate. There's no real reason why certain games should have to list whether they allow both time and money to be used as tools of advancement, other than to assuage those few who seem to bring this topic up on the forum whenever the opportunity presents itself, as opposed to other games having to list whether their gameplay is optimized for use with zMUD over Telnet. It's as much of a disadvantage to someone who is a telnet user to play the bulk of games for whom zMUD and other MUDding clients allow a wealth of scripting opportunities as it is to you and others who don't want to invest time to make up for what you can't spend in cash. There are a million situations out there like this and a million potential topics of outrage for the boards to address, but its ultimately not worth the time. There are a wide range of outlets to express your opinions on different games and the way that they portray themselves, but asking for one thing to be given special treatment over another is just opening Pandora's Box to a flood of useless banter on what should or should not be said in MUD promotions.

Enola_Phoenix 08-23-2004 02:14 PM

The information is readily available on the website. Hrmm I visited the website, and read all about the pay perks, I saw salads, and dragons steaks and all neat stuff for all those nifty points. But I didn't see what could be bought or used with them.

And even though the popcorn enhanced your experience of watching the movie it didn't affec the movie. the popcorn to the movie is zmd to mudding.

And the venues to gaining the buyable items through gameplay....well maybe so, but thats a really big disadvantage, lets see I play 5 hours a week and have the highest eq money can buy, while Joe Smoe played 130 hours a week for the same eq. That's not really fair, it should state pay-for-perk next to free to play, let people know they can buy or play their way to the top.

Dulan 08-23-2004 03:47 PM



Wrong. This is a logical fallacy in and of itself. Not only is it , but it is that is invalid in this context. Furthermore, it is a blatant lie, as all Traithe did was point out the logical fallacies that I was using. I began using them as you refused to stop with the logical fallacies, and you were losing badly in the argument. Traithe stepped in and pointed out my fallacies, but did not bother to point out your own. (Which there were pages of, if memory serves.)

Now, let's point out in detail just what parts of that post were logical fallacies.






There's more, too. However, the_logos, I have never seen you bother to actually enter a discussion. All of your arguments consist nearly entirely of logical fallacies when you argue, and quite often all that saves you is a horde of rabid fans. Tell me, the_logos, can you honestly enter a discussion, only by yourself, against one other person, and not resort to your hordes or logical fallacies?

Honestly? I know I've tried to discuss something with you civilly in a thread before, but you refused completely. And I also can't believe how many logical fallacies you succeeded in including in, what, TWO SENTENCES?

Finally, this isn't a threatre the_logos. That is actually a logical fallacy in and of itself - specifically, a fallacy of definition in that it is too A theatre is irrelevant in this case. There is no equal circumstances which can be equated currently - after all, buying popcorn is not equivalent to buying, say, a better seat. You could argue that this is equivalent to offering free seats in a theatre, but the only seats worth having are the ones that are paid for. That is closer to an analogy that could be drawn. Furthermore, I believe there is a fallacy of analogy (False analogy, perhaps?), but I have forgotten that particular one. Popcorn is closest to the client, not the pay for benefits.

Now, back to the discussion. And please stop trying to derail the discussion at hand, the_logos. It's a fairly benign discussion about just what -is- free, if you'd bother to read the posts. Why do you feel so threatened about a discussion about what is/is not free?

KaVir 08-23-2004 04:44 PM

The purpose of the listings is to provide information that people are interested in when looking for a mud to play. As this topic keeps coming up again and again, I think it's fairly safe to assume that people are interested in it. Indeed, I believe it would help cut down a lot of the flame wars about the exact definition of "pay-to-play" should such an entry be added.

the_logos 08-23-2004 05:12 PM

Why not actually get your facts straight first? This is blatantly incorrect. There is -no- avenue of the game that is not available free of monetary charge.

--matt


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Top Mud Sites.com 2022