Don't care if I get banned, I'm saying it because it needs to be said.

[Desertman]

This was you coming into this thread:



This is me after GETTING YOU AGAIN SUCKERS!!!



That's right. It's time to vote you bunch of drama-loving slackers.

DO EHT!!!


If I got you, you must vote. Those are the rules of Vote Club.

[Malken]

[Desertman]

I was just Putin you on. 

[ibusoe]

well played, Sir.

voted

[Ath]

Well played is right... and I'm putting this in here... because I can.  (and I really like it)

[AdamBlue]

STEALTH-VOTING WAS A HUGE SUCCESS. BAH GAWD, WE'RE RANK TEN

[Malken]

Shit, I forgot to vote while I was at University as well.

Oh well, that's 3 possible votes out of 4 from me today. LIVE WITH IT

[Nyr]

fyi, today's votes moved us to #10 (in the top ten, at least) on TMS.  That's how small the gap was between 16 and 10!

[Zoan]

I came into this thread fully knowing what was happening.

I was like, 'whiny drama thread title? Let's check who posted it and yeeep it's D-man, suckering us to vote.'

[Majikal]

TMC: 2
Top Mud Sites: 10

Not too shabby.. I think we deserve top 3 in both though.

[Zoan]

I REFUSE TO VOTE UNTIL ADMINS ADD CONTROLLER SUPPORT TO THIS GAME

I MEAN JESUS CHRIST IT'S BEEN LIKE 30 YEARS AND YOU CAN'T EVEN DO ONE THING!?

[Narf]

I REFUSE TO VOTE UNTIL ADMINS ADD CONTROLLER SUPPORT TO THIS GAME

I MEAN JESUS CHRIST IT'S BEEN LIKE 30 YEARS AND YOU CAN'T EVEN DO ONE THING!?

This was added in years ago.

Been playing arm on my old atari controllers since '96. What model you using?

[AdamBlue]

Literally one vote away from the number 9 position.

[Narf]

Literally one vote away from the number 9 position.

Tied now. Just need onnnnneeeeee more.

[ghostymudy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JuK1Yr35Io

[Majikal]

9th place now, almost 8th. Keep it up.

[Riev]

Query: A couple years ago the voting on our end was getting so good that we were almost consistently seeing Top 10 no matter what, and occasionally breaking into Top 5. Does anyone have any Gimfy stats on whether we were able to retain a higher percentage of players?

[Nyr]

Query: A couple years ago the voting on our end was getting so good that we were almost consistently seeing Top 10 no matter what, and occasionally breaking into Top 5. Does anyone have any Gimfy stats on whether we were able to retain a higher percentage of players?

Yes, we collected that at the time.  What do you want to compare exactly?  Able to retain a higher percentage of players compared to ____?

[Riev]

Query: A couple years ago the voting on our end was getting so good that we were almost consistently seeing Top 10 no matter what, and occasionally breaking into Top 5. Does anyone have any Gimfy stats on whether we were able to retain a higher percentage of players?

Yes, we collected that at the time.  What do you want to compare exactly?  Able to retain a higher percentage of players compared to ____?

During periods of being at, say, position 4-8 on TMS, were we able to retain more players than when we were at higher positions?

Basically, while I know that a lot of new accounts tend to come from high position rankings, I want to know if the retention rate is the same. To power more questions later!

[Lizzie]

In any successful marketing campaign, the typical return is 1%. So you might see 5 more players retained than you do now, if next week we had tons more people voting. But that 5 more players would still be around 1% of the total (increased) output.

That 1% fluctuates but that's basically the baseline expectation of any marketing manager, and the goal is to exceed 1%.

[Nyr]

Query: A couple years ago the voting on our end was getting so good that we were almost consistently seeing Top 10 no matter what, and occasionally breaking into Top 5. Does anyone have any Gimfy stats on whether we were able to retain a higher percentage of players?

Yes, we collected that at the time.  What do you want to compare exactly?  Able to retain a higher percentage of players compared to ____?

During periods of being at, say, position 4-8 on TMS, were we able to retain more players than when we were at higher positions?

Basically, while I know that a lot of new accounts tend to come from high position rankings, I want to know if the retention rate is the same. To power more questions later!

Link for 2013 review here is here:
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,46890.0.html

Honestly, it says everything it probably needs to, but I can pick out a few points.  2013 was a year in which we stayed not just in positions 4-8 on TMS, but positions 2-5, the majority of the year.  First few days we'd slug it out for #1 and then inevitably lose to a game that has 400 players logged in off-peak (whether active or idle, that's a large amount of people that could potentially vote).

The above stat for that game, btw, is always overshadowed by the fact that we typically are always able to beat them on TMC--where you have to create accounts.

So given the above, was retention higher when we had more voting?  Yes.

By one measure (calculating who had X amount of playtime and was still logging in by at LEAST the following month), the increase was dramatic:

Old month to month total for 2013:  68
Old month to month total for 2012: 34
Old month to month total for 2011: 27
Old month to month total for 2010: 34

By another measure (less generous), the increase was still quite noticable:

2013 retained:  54
2012 retained:  16
2011 retained:  14
2010 retained:  26

I'll run numbers on 2014.  We made changes to the app process in 2014 as well, so I am curious to see if we can notice any difference (for instance, first PCs must point to a big city, and after earlier this year in the summer, only Allanak for first PCs).

[Nyr]

Total number of new accounts created in 2014:  2905 (-28% from 2013)
referencing TMS:  124 (4.2%; this number is -78% from 2013 and the proportion is lower as well)
referencing TMC:   741 (25.5%; this number is -44% from 2013 and the proportion is lower as well)
from friends/word of mouth: 223 (7.7%;  this number is -36% from 2013, but the proportion is actually pretty close)
search/google (really, could go to TMS or TMC, but even if you give it all to either category it doesn't come close to scratching 2013 numbers):  314

Created an account and actually logged in:   715 (24.6% of total)

The account creation/log in numbers here are surprising considering all of the rest.  2013 numbers were 763, though that's missing a couple months of data that got wiped.  Let's say it's accurate and be generous here.  One could argue that even with lower votes, lower representation, and less interest due to all of those factors...we still got close to the same amount of players to actually log in, so why does voting matter at all?

This would be why:

Account created in 2014 and meets these requirements:

• logged in as recently as within the past month (past 30 days)
• not a duplicate account or staff account

22 retained players, and this is significantly lower than 2013 (though arguably better than 2011 and 2012).

Throughout most of 2014, we were struggling to stay in the top 10 on TMS, and also struggling to stay #1 on TMC (sometimes we were #2).  That goes just as much for 2015, if not moreso; the amount of new accounts is on track to be about 28% lower than 2014.

New accounts created do not automatically mean new retained players.   However, the data does seem to support that voting gets more players in the door.  A player may not even say they relied on TMC or TMS to find the game because they talked to a friend.  If a friend recommends that I try a game, I google it first.  If I google this game and find that the voting sites don't have it near the top, why should I bother to try it--even "voters" don't seem to care for it that much?

[Nyr]

Also, worth pointing out that the most accurate measure would have been measured at the beginning of 2015, not 10 months into 2015.  The farther back you look, the more those numbers can fluctuate.

[Ender]

If a friend recommends that I try a game, I google it first.  If I google this game and find that the voting sites don't have it near the top, why should I bother to try it--even "voters" don't seem to care for it that much?

With that in mind, I highly recommend changing any occurrence of the name "Armageddon" on the GDB to "Armageddon MUD" in the <title> tag, <description> tag, any header tags, etc.

That will avoid confusion where if someone searches for Armageddon Mud and they see what they think is the official forum:



Also, the information on the right hand side of the search can be better controlled if a google plus page were set up and maintained.  The "People also search for" section is Google's way of threatening you to get a Google Plus page.  They're essentially saying "Oh you don't want to play ball?  We'll make this for you, but we'll also suggest people searching for you to go to your competitors."

[nauta]

Also a suggestion, perhaps those who are interested can put out more reviews like ShaLeah's.  It addresses the 'bad perception' concern head on -- not by denying it, but by explaining it.  I think a lot of people who are interested in sticking around in an RPI, or going through the chargen process itself, are also interested in the current climate of the game, that is, whether it is positive, encourages player stories, and character development, etc., or negative -- I'll leave it to your imaginations to fill in what I mean by 'negative' there, but it should be relatively obvious.

I remember when I was hunting around for an RPI a year and a half ago, I tried out a few, read some reviews, and so on.  I can't remember if I read this one, however.

I also agree with Ender -- I think that other board was up and running, and I was so confused about the 'board' aspect of muds -- I didn't realize the gdb was part of the game until about three months into it.   So it certainly wouldn't hurt to try to make the gdb and www.armageddon.org come up on top in the search results at least!

Here's the review (she's obviously addressing something specific, and I'm not even sure what it was, but the general point sort of stands, I hope):

I specifically want to address this comment from the original reviewer: 'If you get sideways with staff, give up, or switch IP addresses and make a new account.' As a long time player I have had more than my share of friction with staff. More than my share. You should take a look at my account notes. They vary. Everything ranging from misunderstandings, cattiness (which of course wasn't said) to differences of opinion on what a helpfile means. Through the years what I have to say is, -very- much to the credit of the current staff, that they are -fair-. More than fair. I treat this relationship with respect. I give them respect for their hard work, their unpaid hours, their knowledge, their dedication to our game. Our game. Players and staff together are the history of this place. In turn I am treated with respect as a player. My complaints are dealt with in a timely manner, their disagreements with my methods have never ended in a ban or so much as a warning. You can't please everyone, after all. You just have to play by the rules. The rules are there for everyone's enjoyment. I don't know what the OP means by 'in crowd' but I'm -sure- I'm not one of them. I have five karma, I've had karma taken away twice too. Karma is a measure of trust. Trust that you won't abuse the game mechanics, not trust that you can play a role. Those trusted have earned it, doesn't mean that they too, won't mess up or anger the staff. As a matter of fact, not so long ago one of the reviewers was very open about his opinion about staff... and now he's playing sponsored roles and has plenty of karma.
– MudConnector.Com Review by ShaLeah on May 30, 2013

I found it here.