Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

prof1515 · 12-25-2005, 06:59 PM

It's not useless if you're a player from a MUD looking for a new MUD, just less useful for finding a good MUD. It's also useless if you're new to MUDding altogether, since those potential players aren't being exposed to the best, and may not be aware how the rankings are determined. As there's no front-page explanation, they might actually think the list is objective....

Correction, some of us would like to see it turned into an objective rating system. As it is right now, it's not objective. It's dominated by the Viagra MUDs, themselves filled with players who have an invested monetary interest rather than those who appreciate quality. Additionally, it's primarily dominated by MUDs that have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the welfare of the community, ethics, etc. Not surprisingly, these are primarily one of two kinds: utter crap or commercial MUDs (sometimes both apply). I've tried all of the Viagra MUDs a couple times. They're all inferior in quality to one or more free-to-play MUDs offering the same features but which do not get as much publicity or players. Sure a few quality MUDs manage to make it into the front page, but most don't.

The "thousands of players" you've gotten from TMS probably didn't go beyond the Top 20 before settling on playing one of your MUDs. Some of course have no interest in doing so, since the MUDs offered allow them to use money to advance. Others, they think that the higher the rating, the better the MUD. Had they explored a bit more, they'd have found better games, less popular but better, in the lower ranks. And that's why the service if flawed. Why bother to even rank beyond 20 since the majority of players seem to stop before they've gotten past page 1? Just show the top 5 of various categories. If a Viagra MUD can't make the top 5, it's doing something wrong since it's got legions ("thousands of players") that have an interest, beyond quality, in promoting their MUD. If they don't vote enough to make the top 5, what's that say about those MUDs?

Would I and others like to see TMS do something more? Yes. Why? Because it'd be better for the MUDding community as a whole. It'd be nice to see Top MUD Sites be more objective but it's not an easy (or probably even possible) proposition. But at least it could offer more to those looking for something other than Viagra MUDs.

Take care,

Jason

12-25-2005, 06:59 PM	#29
prof1515 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Illinois Posts: 791	It's not useless if you're a player from a MUD looking for a new MUD, just less useful for finding a good MUD. It's also useless if you're new to MUDding altogether, since those potential players aren't being exposed to the best, and may not be aware how the rankings are determined. As there's no front-page explanation, they might actually think the list is objective.... Correction, some of us would like to see it turned into an objective rating system. As it is right now, it's not objective. It's dominated by the Viagra MUDs, themselves filled with players who have an invested monetary interest rather than those who appreciate quality. Additionally, it's primarily dominated by MUDs that have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't interested in the welfare of the community, ethics, etc. Not surprisingly, these are primarily one of two kinds: utter crap or commercial MUDs (sometimes both apply). I've tried all of the Viagra MUDs a couple times. They're all inferior in quality to one or more free-to-play MUDs offering the same features but which do not get as much publicity or players. Sure a few quality MUDs manage to make it into the front page, but most don't. The "thousands of players" you've gotten from TMS probably didn't go beyond the Top 20 before settling on playing one of your MUDs. Some of course have no interest in doing so, since the MUDs offered allow them to use money to advance. Others, they think that the higher the rating, the better the MUD. Had they explored a bit more, they'd have found better games, less popular but better, in the lower ranks. And that's why the service if flawed. Why bother to even rank beyond 20 since the majority of players seem to stop before they've gotten past page 1? Just show the top 5 of various categories. If a Viagra MUD can't make the top 5, it's doing something wrong since it's got legions ("thousands of players") that have an interest, beyond quality, in promoting their MUD. If they don't vote enough to make the top 5, what's that say about those MUDs? Would I and others like to see TMS do something more? Yes. Why? Because it'd be better for the MUDding community as a whole. It'd be nice to see Top MUD Sites be more objective but it's not an easy (or probably even possible) proposition. But at least it could offer more to those looking for something other than Viagra MUDs. Take care, Jason