Nek is not thick-headed, he is "wool-headed".

If this thread keeps continuing, I am going to pop a seam from laughing so hard.

Personally, I could wish for whatever I want, but have no realistic expectations of getting it. I could wish that p2p MUDs had to report with an icon or whatever what their payment status is, but then there is the whole debate of how each level of p2p would be defined, and there are millions of possible flames and arguments there (some are already discussed in this thread). If wishes were money, I would be richer than Bill Gates, but we should consider the PRACTICAL use of this poll to those who deem its possible value: the admin of TMS decide that some points in this thread are valid or not valid and apply them however they wish, OR someone reading this thread believes they could make their OWN voting website and try to streamline it in such a way to please more visitors than TMS does.

I doubt anyone has the true knowledge to know for sure whether an icon would have much effect, but this poll is designed to represent the opinions of those interested in the topic.

Truthfulthomas: Ah, but there's a difference between "worthwhile traffic" and just "traffic", t-thomas.

Look at Achaea. They offer incentives to come here. Their pbase is 1/3rd, at best, of a MUDs like Dragonrealms. They manage to keep ahead of DR in votes by the skin of their teeth.

Do you think any players from Achaea will look at other MUDs after voting and getting their bonus for voting? I don't. Thus, it's not "worthwhile traffic". It's just "traffic".

There's a difference. "Worthwhile traffic" does what you described - but, there is also traffic that unethical MUDs generate, traffic that offers none of the benefits you, or others, have outlined.

TG_Hammer: That's why I offered my simple definition of what 'P2P' is. If you accept money for _any_ sort of in-game benefit - whether that benefit is playing the MUD or getting physical bonuses in the game proper - it is a P2P. If you only accept donations, and give nothing in-game in return, you aren't P2P. (Note that I said in-game. Offering t-shirts and such for donators would NOT be P2P under that definition.)

Furthermore, this definition makes it extremely easy to define and deal with P2P and non-P2P MUDs. It creates a VERY firm line between them - something that a MUD would be extremely hard-pressed to create a logical and sensible argument against.

-D

[Edited to clean up a couple of typos --tt]
Any visitors to this site who do something more than just vote for their MUD and leave are potentially worthwhile to any of the MUDs who advertise or have themselves listed in the database here. It's a basic of advertising, pretty much all exposure is good exposure.

Based on what? Your own personal opinions of Achaea? I have no idea what percentage of visitors to this site do anything more than vote and leave, but if it is even a relatively small percentage, that will still result in a respectable level of free advertising for all the MUDs listed on this site. And I don't really know any reason why someone coming here because they were offered and incentive to do so would be less likely to browse around than someone coming because their MUD admin said, "Hey, two more votes and we'll be number 12!" In fact, if, as has been argued elsewhere, such incentives skew results because it leads players to vote for a MUD they might not otherwise feel that strongly about, then it could be argued that such visitors are, if anything, more likely to be in the mood to browse around for another MUD.

I'm not sure what the logic is behind your assumptions here. By unethical MUDs, I assume you mean MUDs with unethical administrators. How exactly does that reflect on the players that come here to vote for said MUD? How does that reflect on their likelihood to check out and perhaps begin playing someone else's MUD?

Like most such "simple" definitions, however, this one is arbitrary to the point of being useless. There is a significant difference, from the perspective of the potential customer at least, between a commercial MUD which has a business model built around monthly fees and one which has a model built around only paying for extras.  There is a significant difference between a MUD where you can pay for extras that can only be had by paying and a MUD where you can pay for extras but those extras can also be earned without paying for them.  Different schemes will appeal to different players.  For example, I don't have much time to play MUDs these days, so I would be very unlikely to ever play a MUD with a monthly fee simply because I don't feel I would get my money's worth out of it.  I would, however, be willing to give MUDs with one-time fees or pay-for-extras plans a chance.  If the site is going to provide any information on the pay status of the MUDs listed here, I'd rather it actually be something useful.

You do have a point. However, I would then suggest applying a '$' symbol to all non-free MUDs, and then, within the MUD's Profile/Info, list a further derivation of the pay-style. If it's pay for extras, list it as such within the info. If it's monthly payments, list it as such. It's 'only' a click or two, to take a page from the P2P-advocates books.

-D

Actually while I was still GMing at Inferno, I contributed as an IMM in two games, building 2 areas and suggesting code changes to allow for easier "tools" their staff could use. I also contributed on this forum, and I've been a moderator on 3 other forums (and I'm still a moderator on one, and an Admin on another).

I also work with players of free games to help set up their custom descriptions (for those games that require/offer them), and assist in editing room descriptions for a couple of staff members of other free games.

That's just me, as I posted previously. It's not a brag, I'm pretty sure there are plenty of other people who spend a lot of time helping and contributing to free games in their own way.

Jazuela, while your points are valid, they have been acknowledged prior to your post. And have been deemed 'irrelevant' to the argument.

We speak of MUDs, not of specific members within P2P MUDs.

-insert derisive comment about not reading the two threads, or ignoring specific points within the threads to advance ones own wants-

-D

Like you suggested?

Lanthum, three people told me that someone with some sort of 'L' name logged on - the specific name I've managed to forget - and spammed the MUD with tells about coming to play Adventurer's Inn.

One wouldn't dare lie. One's first MUD was that specific MUD, and would have had no idea about Adventurer's Inn. And, finally, the third would have been either Unifex or Scwop - forget which. If it was Unifex, I'd fail to see why he'd lie to me. Scwop...Very likely not. If you want to flame Unifex on the subject, feel free. He can defend himself on these boards far better than I can.

Now, care to repeat those statements?

My credibility can't be shot by some newbie with 2 posts. Especially considering two things: First, the newbie would have a significant incentive to lie about his actions. Secondly, I do not lie. That fact has been documented multiple times across these, and other, boards. While it's entirely possible to get me to say something I believe is the truth when it's not - and that has happened before - I do not lie if I know it is an untruth. And, as soon as I receive the correct information, I tend to do a complete 180.

Drives people like you crazy, as has been documented multiple times in the past on various forums.

Now, if you wish to continue this conversation, take it to PMs. We're deviating from the topic at hand -nods towards the PTP $ topic-

-D

If you will note, Lanthum, I've noted that I was wrong by my silence in responding to that subject.

While I disagree with the methods used - a poll? My complaints there were MORE than legitimate - I was wrong to get my panties in a bunch over something so quickly.

And, there's another option that I've covered and now highly enthusiastic about - Make an icon. Place the icon on all MUDs that accept any form of payment in trade for any in game benefit. Then, let all MUDs further define what they are within their 'info' link.

That way, Achaea can have their precious 'Only pay if you want!' classification. And Simultronics games can have their 'Monthly payment' classification.

It gives the benefits of both worlds. It addresses Mihaly's complaints about classifying all MUDs in one lump bunch. And it addresses the various complaints people have had about P2P's having a "free lunch" representing themselves as free MUDs. And, best of all, it requires almost no attention on Synozeer's part to enforce - It's an extremely simple system.

There is probably a few problems inherent in my suggested system, but, it manages to address the majority's issues in the best way I have heard personally so far. I honestly haven't heard of, or thought of any downsides, but I'd love to hear them.

-D

I got a little bent at your original reply as well, as it did read to myself as a flame.

I didn't post this as a poll to say "hey, let's bring this to Syn as a petition for what we want", I did so to see how the non-vocal people were thinking on the subject. Polls are nice to see how the people who wish to remain somewhat anonymous are thinking. Perhaps I should have posted it in another forum. Sorry. Admittedly, I'm not as well versed in the forum's ettiquette as most. You might have noticed I'm not generally rabid on discussions by the limited number of posts I have chalked up under my name - which has probably tripled from what it was due to this topic.

And Dulan, you do seem to fly off the handle rather easily. I'm sorry. And yes, I know I'm one to talk with my reaction to being called "thickheaded". I look back on that and wish I could editdelete the whole acknowledgement of the *sigh* "interpretted" insult.

But on to topic, I'm still failing to see why some people's opinion on one almighty thing (p2p) is so much more important than any other factor differentiating MU*s that it needs to be iconed on the ranking page to the exclusion of all other factors.

Now, the "why" in the question is mostly rhetorical. I think that is a point many people are missing. I have read all the reasons folks have pointed forward, but those all seem more for a debate on "why p2p MU*s are evil incarnate and shouldn't be allowed here". For whatever reasons, not all people agree with that and have other things they think are important and would like to take precedence.

Want a real fun solution? Put a bar at the bottom of every MU* on the ranking list that you can have list all the icons of things everyone votes are important and make it that in your Control Panel you can CONFIGURE what shows up! Huh, huh? So for some only $$ will appear, for others daggers or masks appear.
Syn, got an extra year?

Why shouldn't _just_ a $ be put on the rankings list? Because if you don't really care that a MU* is p2p (moi), it just looks tacky as hell.

And I don't think it is because I'm thickheaded.

Ah. Here's why, TG_Nek.

PK, RPI, or even hack and Slash MUDs aren't affected by RL. P2P's are.

If you lack the cash that month to pay the monthly fee, you can't play, and your character is removed. I know at least one person so far on TMS has admitted that, due to RL circumstances, they can't play on a P2P because of that.

This also applies towards MUDs like Medthievia and Achaea as well. It has been documented many times that it takes an order of magnitude more work, at best, in order to reach the same place someone who has paid has reached. Achaea argues that this is not true, however, it is in Achaea's best interests to argue exactly that - that is why I dismiss Achaea's arguments so quickly. Self-interest and obviously biased statements. Relatively unbiased statements by players in the game proper and players who have left it for various reasons seem to reiterate that statement with Achaea.

To reiterate, the reasoning behind the P2P icon is because it is really the only icon that can really affect you significantly (in a physical way) IRL. The rest can't, to my knowledge. Money is a physical thing. RP isn't. PK isn't. Hack and slash isn't. You can even argue hack and slash or PK to be RP if you want - but it is not a physical thing. Money is. The reasoning for giving all MUDs that offer any sort of in-game benefit for cash an icon is to alert players that it may have a 'RL' affect on them - then, we give MUDs a further slot to define themselves within their 'Info' link. In Achaea's case, pay for credits. In Dragonrealms, pay to play. You get the idea, neh?

-D

I see that money is an important factor to many people. Yes.

I wish you'd see money is not an important factor to all of us.

TG_Nek....

That is only part of what I am implying.

By giving someone money, I am also removing the shroud of anonymity the internet provides.

We can get into privacy issues if you want. And several other potential issues. But....Why?

The issue here is not that it matters to you, but that it affects you tangibly IRL.

If it affects you tangibly IRL....shouldn't it be displayed as such?

-D

I'm not going to vote on this topic since I feel that none of the available answers adequately reflect my position; in fact, I feel that the entire poll is very heavily biased. Consider that, for the question "should pay-for-play muds be segregated in some way (i.e: a $ symbol)", five of the seven responses are "yes", one is "I don't care" and the other is just stupid.

My vote is a simple "no".

On average, I spend between £30 and £60 ($50-$100?) on games per month, on a wide variety of subjects - god games, FPSs, strategy, etc. Why? Because I want to be entertained and I understand, as a fellow software-type-person, that entertaining someone costs money. If something is entertaining, I'm more than willing to pay for it.

So when we come to muds, whether or not something is pay-for-play is just simply not important - whether it is entertaining is paramount.

Kas.

Unless I'm seriously misreading the poll, only the first 2 suggest that the rankings should be segregated or annotated in any way. The next 3 refer only to the profile which is displayed when you bring up the information on the mud listing (and the last one of those suggests leaving things the way they currently are, with "pay to play" as a boolean option).

"No" there shouldn't be any distinction between pay-to-play and free muds in the front-page mud rankings themselves, "no" there shouldn't be any pay-to-play option listed anywhere (ie it should be removed from the profile completely), or "no" the existing approach shouldn't be changed?

There is already a "pay to play" option in the mud profiles, as I mentioned before. At the moment, those muds on which you don't HAVE to pay are misrepresented - some of them specify "pay to play" and some do not, but neither option is entire accurate. I personally think it would benefit all parties if the entry could be more specific. This doesn't mean the front-page rankings have to be modified in any way - but it does mean that players can check out in advance whether or not it's going to cost them anything (just as they can check out in advance what codebase it is, what features it has, how many regular players there are, and so on).

Even when purchasing a regular computer game, I'm sure you'd rather know in advance whether or not it had a monthly charge, and what other expenses (eg additional software or hardware upgrades) it might require - just as you'd want to know whether it supported multiplayer over the internet, whether it was real-time or turn-based, whether it was based upon an existing engine (and if so, which), etc.

Some people agree with having a "$" icon and some people disagree with it - but is there actually anyone who objects to having more options listed in the mud profiles than just "pay to play" or "free"? If so, I'd be interested to hear why.

Sorry Kas I didn't think of the option of "Not at all, get rid of the p2p field in Features"

Like I posted soon after, if anyone had any other selection choices I would've re-posted after asking a Mod to take it down.  Dulan said he had a slew of superior ones, but never made any post of them, so I figured "what the heck".  There was no bias at all in this from my perspective.  As repeatedly stated, I personally don't care or see any reason to change things.  But if other people are going to push for it, I'd rather see a change done right then wrong.
And the "stupid choice".  Hey, pardon me.

KaVir: *shew*  *wipes forehead*

TG_Nek: I've proposed at least one alternative option so far in this thread.

In the other thread, I know I've proposed one or two more additional ones, and other members have done the same.

Just because you are too lazy to read the other thread, or even _this_ thread for that matter...-shakes head-

-D

The simple act of paying does not make something innately any more or less entertaining, I agree - however most successful commercial muds are run very differently to most free muds (they are businesses, after all). This is considered an advantage by some players, and a disadvantage by others, but either way it is a factor that will influence the decision of most potential players.

The mud profile lists the name of the MUD, the date it opened, the telnet address, the administrator's name, the administrator's email address, the geographical location of the mud, the primary language spoken within the mud, the codebase upon which the mud is based, the category of mud, the theme of the mud, the status (open/testing/etc) of the mud, the originality of the world, the size of the world, the average number of players online, whether it has PK, how much RP there is, what game features exist, and a short description of the mud.

Most of those features have little bearing on whether the mud is entertaining or not, but they do provide clues. The only deciding factor for me is that a I wouldn't find a mud entertaining unless English (or maybe German) was the primary language. Other than that, it's a matter of making assumptions.

For example, I tend to prefer the feel of some codebases over others. Of course if the mud had undergone major changes than that might no longer apply. Equally, I know that a mud which isn't officially open to the public is unlikely to be as fun as one which is. I also know that an older mud is more likely to have more work put into it than a younger one. I know that certain themes are unlikely to create an entertaining atmosphere for me. I know that a larger and more original world is likely to provide more entertainment than a smaller and more stock one. I know which features appeal to me in general and which do not. I also know that a mud with lots of players provides more PC interaction - and is obviously found entertaining by other people as well (but equally that it is probably more mainstream).

Equally, I cannot judge how entertaining a mud is based upon whether or not it is pay-to-play - but logic dictates that a very boring commercial mud would not last long (and combined with a large playerbase, it proves that the entertainment is sufficient that people are willing to pay for it). It also tells me that the mud is catering more to the masses, and I know that my own taste in muds tends to run to the obscure. However I know other people who prefer "pay to play", because they can generally be sure of a good all-round game with reasonably professional staff.

So while "pay to play" isn't a deciding factor on it's own, it's certainly an important clue as to what you might expect - just as much so as some of the other features, and considerable more so than others; I cannot even begin to guess how entertaining a mud is based on it's geographical location.

Intelligence, eloquence, amount of free-time, reflexes, the ability to speak and write a specific language, etc etc. These are all real-life factors, and at least some of them play into every single MUD I've ever played. The only way it's possible for real-life things -not- to have an effect is if the game simply played itself. Requiring any input from a real-person means it's affected by real-life things.

--matt

I applaud you, Mihaly.

You even manage to take those and change the context AND content of my posts.

If I had photoshop on this comp or I wasn't sick and lazy today, I'd PS you up a trophy for it. But, instead, I'll just place you up there mentally with the likes of Grem.

-D

I quoted your post accurately. I'm sorry if you're unable to accept that without throwing insults around, but I don't think anyone on this site expects much more from you at this point.

You said that PtP MUDs are affected by real-life things (in this case money) and that other types of MUDs are not. That is simply false, as I pointed out. Every MUD that isn't simply full of NPCs is predicated upon the actions of real people. Whether those actions involve paying money, writing a news post, running an election campaign, participating in roleplaying, or more, they all involve the input of real people, and they all carry with them the ability for real people to gain an advantage due to some out-of-game superior ability or asset (time, intelligence, money, eloquence, etc.)

A valid argument dictates that you make a point, not simply tear other people down because you're unable to counter it.

--matt

Again, Mihaly, you take my posts out of their intended context.

But, by the same token, I'm not surprised that you are fighting so hard against Achaea having anything to do with P2P. After all, it absolutely, positively, cannot be a P2P at all, isn't that right? But, by the same token, you seem unable to realize that all of those (PK, H&S, RP, etc.) are already listed under TMS info. But, any sort of P2P slot isn't.

-snort-

Trash.

-D

I'm still waiting to hear why you don't believe most MUDs are affected by the real world.

As for being labeled pay-to-play, yes, I object to that. I have no problem with being labeled commercial. It's pertinent information, along with all the other sorts of information listed. What I'd do, if it were up to me, is provide a set of 'commerical' options in the info that broke it down by:

1. Commercial. Must pay to play and must pay for other options (DragonRealms, Gemstone III, etc.)

2. Commercial. Must pay to play. (Any commercial MUD with an access fee that doesn't also sell other things.)

3. Commercial. Free to play, but have the option of purchasing things (houses, abilities, etc.) that may or may not be obtained without spending real money. (Achaea, Cardea, Aetolia, etc. Everything in both can be gotten without spending any money, but I don't think enough MUDs fall under this category to make it worthwhile breaking down.)

4. Hobbyist. Free to play, but rewards donations of real money with in-game or out-of-game rewards.

5. Hobbyist. Accepts donations, but gives no rewards besides being given credit for helping the game.

6. Hobbyist. Does not accept money, period.

If you'd just chill out on the witchhunt, you'd realize I've never implied or stated that I have any problem with TMS adding those options to the info process. Seems like a smart thing to do to me. I have a problem with adding it to the rankings, because I don't think it's any more pertinent than a whole range of other pieces of information, and I don't think it's practical to include the myriad pieces of reasonably pertinent info there. It would make the rankings quite ugly and cluttered.

--matt, who wonders how long it will be before you realize that flaming just degrades the person doing it.

You don't think it is pertinent because it WILL cost you money. We think it is for the same reason.

Furthermore, yes... other real-life factors affect the MUD. Those factors, however, don't affect my real-life. A cost, of any kind, does. It's that simple. BTW, before you go and try to say 'well, time affects your real life, too' let me go ahead and cut you off and point out that anyone with half a brain knows immediately that to do something, they will be giving up time. Not everything costs money. Not everything is free. Notification of that is simply being forthcoming with your status. But, as mentioned above, you don't want to do that because it WILL cost you money.

Greed. Pure and simple.

Mihaly....

That's exactly what I've been arguing for. Just...fewer definitions. Note that I'm NOT arguing about whether or not Achaea is a P2P. I'm arguing that if money is involved, it should be listed up front. Just as stuff like how much RP there is, etc. is in the listings. A one-size fits all label for P2P MUDs is all that exists right now. However, every other thing that people have brought up that is important - such as PK, RP, etc. - has multiple options.

"Monthly Fee"
"Pay for Bonuses"
"Donations Accepted"
"Free"

My suggested list. Can someone think of anything else?

-D

One mentioned by KaVir, I think it was:

"Advertisement Supported"

I forgot, but does TMS allow the selection of multiple options in cases like that? Some MUDs would need to check both monthly fee and pay for bonuses, for instance (Simutronics games, and likely some others that I'm not familiar with.)
--matt

Odd. I said, in my post, that it's pertinent information. Used those exact words in fact. I'm not sure where you're getting the above from.

That is as nonsensical as saying that real-life doesn't affect a MUD. PK, for instance, is quite traumatizing to many people, and many people will not play a MUD with PK for precisely that reason: because it affects their real-life in a way they don't wish it to.

As for making money, TMS customers have generated about $1500 in the last month and a half for us. If you seriously think I'd spend time arguing over $1500, you don't understand our business. In any case, the last kind of player we do want is someone totally opposed to paying MUDs for things. All they do is cost us money by using up our bandwidth.

My objections are purely practical. As an avid MUD player for 11 years now, whether I have to pay for a great experience or not isn't relevant to me. I'm far more concerned with knowing things like, "How original is this MUD?" "Does it have PK?" "What level of customer/player service can I expect?" "Are people allowed to speak in kiddie hacker speak? (l33t and that sort of nonsense)."

Am I greedy? Damn right I am, for which I make no apologies, as there's nothing wrong with it at all. The nature of running a business involves being greedy for revenue. But on the hand, I don't see a $ symbol or whatnot next to the commercial MUDs as hurting the commerical MUDs. Most likely it would cement the perception that commercial MUDs are better than free MUDs, because, after all, one could see with a glance that all the "top muds" are commercial. (Note that I'm not willing to make some blanket statement that all commercial MUDs are better than free MUDs. I don't care who is 'better', as it's irrelevant and subjective. I'm just speaking to the likely perception of a new visitor to the site, upon seeing a rankings list clearly dominated by commercial MUDs.)

--matt

That is a thinly veiled attempt at contradicting yourself to appease the population. "I don't think it's any more pertinent than [blah blah]" and "pieces of reasonably pertinent info." The former tries to downplay the importance of the information, where as the second calls it 'reasonably pertinent.' Anyway, enough explaining why I made my statement.

On to the issue of money. Anyone traumatized by an online game is an idiot, it is a piece of entertainment. It is also a hobby to most of us. I have been MUDding for around 13-14 years now, and while people making money off of MUDding is not bad... it IS bad when they are not up front in the first thing a person sees. I wouldn't mind the lack of a '$' symbol, if it were mentioned in the descriptions of the MUD, clearly, that the MUD is not FREE.

DragonRealms has no problem doing it. You, on the other hand, make claims about your MUD that I have never seen backed up.

I have seen people ask, several times, where they can find this quote at RPGPlanet.com. I went and looked. I did a search for your MUD's name. It's not there. So, please, provide us with th enlightening information that validates said claim.

Also, there is no mention of ANY cost in that listing. You fight against listing it on the main page, but you don't even have the common decency to be honest enough to list it in the INFO page.

I'm done with this argument. While arguing is usually fun, it isn't very much fun when the opposition shows the intelligence, morality, and common sense of a brick. As to whether I'm talking about myself, or you... well, I'll leave that up to you to decide.