11 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
All it takes for me is Vassago's quest system. God I hate that thing.
12 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, but that's optional. All you have to do is not quest with it.

The prompt thing is a bit harder to get around on most of them.
12 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Actually, every time I've seen Vassago's quest system implemented, it's been pretty much the MUD's only content. And, much like credits on one of IRE's games, you can't compete if you don't make use of it.
12 Jun, 2006, Darmond wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
*shivers* eww i hate it when a mud forces you do do one thing or another without other options open EG forced PK or forced RP
12 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
> rules
1) Don't suck. That is all.

How about being forced to not suck?
12 Jun, 2006, Darmond wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
ROFL lol mmm i dont know why but that just brought up several muds im sure can not be mentioned here
12 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
What? It's a good rule! -kicks his 'rules' helpfile under the bed-
13 Jun, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
About the "reviews for MUD listing", I see where you're all coming from. But I still stick with my opinion. As far as continuing to discuss this, kinda pointless until there is actually going to be a MUD listing or not. :P
14 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Well, it'd certainly become pointless if there's not going to be a mud listings section anyway, at this point it's rather speculative, but then we were asked for our opinions about whether or not there should be a mud listings sections and what features we'd like to see, so speculation is the order of the day until we're told otherwise, no?
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
but then we were asked for our opinions about whether or not there should be a mud listings sections and what features we'd like to see, so speculation is the order of the day until we're told otherwise, no?


I'd have to agree.
14 Jun, 2006, Davion wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Keep the suggestions coming, you might just convince us ;). It'd be nice to know the response an expansion to the site like that would receive :) So keep them coming.
14 Jun, 2006, Zeno wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Well back on the general topic then.

I think it'd be nice to see just a MUD list. None of that voting stuff. Obviously with a search function, and it should be fine. Just because a MUD is bigger doesn't mean it's better. Voting doesn't really work.
14 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
See, and I kinda like the voting stuff because, even if it's not reliable, it gives a way outside of the mud itself to cultivate pride in the playerbase and get them further hooked, so to speak. But even without voting, having an extra place to list our muds would be nice, especially since it's becoming clear that eventually none of us will remain listed on mud magic…
14 Jun, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
I might have to agree with you on that one Zeno… Just have a listing and not voting, where people could just search and find a mud. Maybe have the list seperated by codebase type for the list to just look through them?
14 Jun, 2006, Conner wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
Dragona said:
I might have to agree with you on that one Zeno… Just have a listing and not voting, where people could just search and find a mud. Maybe have the list seperated by codebase type for the list to just look through them?

Or at least have it searchable by codebase anyway. Yes, I agree with that aspect. Make sure folks can narrow the search by codebase.. ideally other factors too. For that TMC does have the right idea in their search criteria.
14 Jun, 2006, Justice wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Most voting sites use a "click-through" method, similar to online advertising. It seems that the most successful muds on these sites have either a medium to large playerbase… and generally a few "people" either admins or players… who harrass the playerbase into voting regularly. I don't think that this would be in keeping with the ideas behind mudbytes.

However, I do think that some sort of ranking system would be good, despite the inaccuracy. Simple fact being that they encourage people to visit the site, and as Conner mentioned… are good for encouraging pride in the playerbase.

Possibly a user system would work. Each user selects their preferred mud(s?). A script could then tally up the votes of users active in the past week. This would encourage "voters" to visit the site regularly, but also restrict how well harrassment works.

It would still favor muds with larger playerbases however, but the script could also select a series of random muds for the day to offset this tendency (allowing the small guys to get on the rankings page).
14 Jun, 2006, Dragona wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
So have it pick a couple of muds to list each day? And have those change out daily? That might work that way everyone's MUD sees the listing for the day every couple of days.
14 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
The way I see it… the MUDs normally with the highest rankings are votes are the ones with enough players already.

Those of us with smaller playerbases trying to gain more players are at a severe disadvantage in this way… if all the players keep going toward the MUDs with bigger playerbases and staying away from our's because no one's around… Well… how is anyone going to be around if no one sticks around, you know?

It just seems to be like giving tax breaks to the rich, in my opinion… It's keeping the bigger MUDs big and the smaller MUDs small.

This could possibly lead to some people LYING on their listing, but if we were to have an "average number of players" thing on the listings, I would think it awesome if everyday there could be a "Featured Small MUD of the Day" type of thing where it encourages people to check out a smaller MUD to help generate more players for it. Afterall, if the bigger MUDs already have a bunch of players, I don't really see too many of them being against such an idea, as I think it would benefit the entire community.

I understand and see where the idea may not be popular, but I think it would be good.
14 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Possibly a user system would work. Each user selects their preferred mud(s?). A script could then tally up the votes of users active in the past week. This would encourage "voters" to visit the site regularly, but also restrict how well harrassment works.


That does sound like a much better alternative to voting, and it certainly would appease those who want some form of ranking system in place. Another thing I'd like to see is a form to report inaccuracies other than dead MUDs, such as lying about average players online, or license violations.
14 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
This could possibly lead to some people LYING on their listing, but if we were to have an "average number of players" thing on the listings, I would think it awesome if everyday there could be a "Featured Small MUD of the Day" type of thing where it encourages people to check out a smaller MUD to help generate more players for it. Afterall, if the bigger MUDs already have a bunch of players, I don't really see too many of them being against such an idea, as I think it would benefit the entire community.


Another good idea, if you ask me. Picking a smaller MUD specifically each day in addition to the others would definitely make getting a new MUD off the ground a bit easier.
Random Picks
20.0/143