[KaVir]

Originally Posted by You are saying that buying a super-character is okay

I'm not quite sure how you managed to come to that conclusion, after I just specifically said "I am firmly against rich morons who purchase super characters yet have no clue to play".

My opinion is this:

1. You should HAVE to put in time and effort in order to advance within the mud.

2. Money should NEVER be able to get you something that time and effort cannot.

3. As long as it doesn't violate any licenses, and as long as you are up-front about it, there is nothing wrong with allowing people to make up for lost playing hours through making contributions to the mud.

4. A "contribution" is something which helps the mud, or can be used to help the mud, and (as well as money) includes such things as writing help files, building areas, reporting bugs, running quests, writing articles, providing advertising, etc.

5. Different people are good at different things. If one person is a skilled builder then they can write you an area - but a bartering system like that is hardly fair on those who cannot build, and is why money was invented in the first place.

[Nevynral]

Guess it's just a matter of opinion, but to me using out of game resources (like money) to enhance your position in a MUD isn't much different than using out of game resources (like a computer) to enhance your rating in an online chess club or something. There are folks willing to engage in such activities, but what's the point?

I can see why a game may wish to sell advantages to it's players... they could probably use the money. But what I don't really understand is why the player would ever want to buy them. So your purchased data string has bigger numbers than the other player's data strings ... so what? I find it very difficult to understand what satisfaction folks can get from engaging in such practices.

[Dulan]

Based on your third point, KaVir, and to a lesser extent, your first and second points, I take it that you are against Achaea's.....shady business practices, then?

-D

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Even though they are working on the mud, not flipping burgars, it is still OOC work for IC benefits.

Well, you see, Seraphina, my mud isn't Roleplay enforced, even though some of our players roleplay by their own choice, so IC or OOC matters don't really count much here. My mud is mainly what is known as a hack'n'slash mud, although we try to promote the good and 'smart' players rather than the 'power-players'.

With the exception of some strictly 100% RP muds, where you roleplay out even a fight by using emotes, most muds have some sort of system for advancing, and most players have as their main goal to improve their char and make it as powerful as possible. This is done by gaining different skills, but usually also by getting armour and weapons that improve your stats. A fully trained, fully equipped top level player is usually hundreds of times more powerful than the naked and inexperienced newbie.

In most muds you advance by killing stuff, either other players, or 'monsters', or both. For this you gain exp points and/or levels, which give you more power. Some muds have disposed of the exp and levels and work solely with skills, others have disposed of the equipment with additional stats, but the time element is mostly an important factor in any case, because the skills take time to learn. Most muds by definition are somewhat repetitive.

So in most muds the main ways of getting powerful are:
- by spending a lot of time, repeatedly killing monsters
- or by spending a lot of time repeatedly practizing your skills (and in the extreme cases players use scripts or 'bots' to do both these things, while being AFK themselves, which is why many muds expressively forbid the use of 'bots' ).

In some muds (like mine) you can also advance by using different trades (farming, gardening, lumberjacking, mining, forging etc.) or by doing Quests (= solving more or less difficult problems/puzzles. Simply put, you get rewarded for RESCUING the prisoner in the dungeon, instead of killing him).

There are of course ways of speeding the advancing process up, for instance:

1.  by gradually getting the best possible equipment and/or weapon for your level, to allow you to attack stronger mobs/players thus making the killing easier and quicker (the basic, traditional way)
2. by simply being a 'good player' (meaning that you know your way around the mud, where the best equipment can be found, where your limits are at each stage to avoid unnecessary dying, what facilities to use (for instance mounts, vehicles, pets), which mobs to attack and your chances of succeeding in each case, what things to look for when looking for hidden exits or other secrets in a zone etc.)
3. by cooperating with other players and forming groups for each task (requires 'social' certain skills, at least up to a point)
4. by BUYING the good stuff for mud money/currency (still requires time spent on getting together the mud money)
5. by getting some other, more powerful player to 'tank' for you or give you some good stuff for free (generally known as power-levelling) - (this still needs some social or roleplaying skills, because most experienced players detest newbies that demand to be powerlevelled or given equip)
6. by BUYING the good stuff for RL money from another player (cheesy, but it occurs)
7. by BUYING the good stuff for RL money from the Mud owner (the subject of this particular discussion)
8. by cheating (for instance by abusing bugs or getting some unscrupolous imm friend of yours to load you some excessively good stuff, or even create it specially for you)

Of these 8 methods, the first three in my opinion are good and recommendable, number 4 is a bit dubious, but still acceptable, after that they get increasingly cheesy.

I think it should be pretty obvious to most, that being able to buy the 'extra' stuff for RL life money gives you a vast - and in my opinion unfair - advantage over the players that haven't the same economical means, or just regard the game in the traditional way, as a skill game, where your skills as a player is what matters, not the size of your wallet. Some P2P muds even take this to the extreme. There are muds where you cannot even learn certain skills, cannot use simple commands like 'rest' or 'sleep' to regain movement, mana and hp points faster, or cannot join certain guilds with access to particularly good equipment, without paying real money to the mud owner.

Sure, you can argue, like KaVir does, that it's 'unfair' that the college student or unemployed person 'without a real life' can spend a lot more time into the mud than the person with a full time job, improving his char in different ways, and getting powerful. But that is the nature of a mud as well as most on-line games, the time spent does - and SHOULD - count, and if you don't like that fact, perhaps you simply should choose another pastime.

I just don't think that buying the advantages for RL money is a good solution, and nothing anybody says will convince me otherwise. It seems from the way this discussion has gone, that I won't be able to convince KaVir otherwise either, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's obvious that several players think like him (regrettably many of these are bad/lazy players, but what the hell, 1000 bluebottle flies cannot be wrong...). It's also obvious that he has Mihaily in his corner, which is kinda amusing, in a way...

I've had my say in this, so I'll end the discussion here from my side, since I think little can be gained by repeating the same arguments or offering more examples.

Finally, to return to our Builders, we do reward them for the time spent on building, and I believe most muds do the same, in one way or another. But what we use to reward them is 'mud currency', not fancy equipment or extra skills or commands. The currency can be used to buy some things, mainly roleplay related, but also things like crash-proof houses, if you get enough of it together. But the Builder, even with his currency, still has to put some time and effort into the game to advance his char, find the good equipment and become powerful. (Mainly this isn't a big problem, because most players make a choice; if they are really into building they generally dump their mortal char, because there simply isn't time enough to do both. Building is a very time-consuming job).

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Nevynral wrote: Guess it's just a matter of opinion, but to me using out of game resources (like money) to enhance your position in a MUD isn't much different than using out of game resources (like a computer) to enhance your rating in an online chess club or something. There are folks willing to engage in such activities, but what's the point?

Well, supposing you've got a player who is really creative. However instead of spending 50 hours playing the mud, they spend half of that time writing a really fanatastic area for your mud. Great! Now your mud has grown. Unfortunately they realise that they're falling behind the other players who are spending all their time playing, so they don't write anything else for your mud.

However, supposing that you gave them something as a thanks - something which would have taken them around 25 hours to have earned on their own (or perhaps even a little longer) - and stick their name in the credits. They're not really any (or much) better off than they would have been if they'd put that time into the mud - but now they're more likely to build some more areas for you, because they don't feel they are losing out. Other players might see this and decide to do the same. The result is that your mud develops a lot faster, because the players are helping out (rather than just playing).

Dulan, I'm not quite sure what Achaea's payment system is, but I certainly disagree with their advertising strategy, and think they should be listed as at least "optional pay-to-play" (or something similar) on the listings here.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Molly wrote: Sure, you can argue, like KaVir does, that it's 'unfair' that the college student or unemployed person 'without a real life' can spend a lot more time into the mud than the person with a full time job, improving his char in different ways, and getting powerful. But that is the nature of a mud as well as most on-line games, the time spent does - and SHOULD - count, and if you don't like that fact, perhaps you simply should choose another pastime.

I've never said that time and effort shouldn't count. What I've said is that it doesn't have to be the only factor. Someone who works full time can never compete with an unemployed person who spends all of their time on the mud. I think that as long you put some time and effort into the mud, there is nothing wrong with argumenting your development in return for things which help the mud.

Originally Posted by Finally, to return to our Builders, we do reward them for the time spent on building, and I believe most muds do the same, in one way or another. But what we use to reward them is 'mud currency', not fancy equipment or extra skills or commands

Then you believe the same as me. The only difference between our views is that you think mud owners should use a bartering system and only exchange in-game benefits in return for something that the player has personally made specifically for the mud. My view differs in that I think any trade which is of value to the mud should be worth consideration. I consider that "fairer" than your system, which discriminates against those who are not capable builders. It would be a bit like a baker who refused to sell his bread - instead he would only exchange it for fish which the other person had caught themself.

[Seraphina]

Originally Posted by Sure, you can argue, like KaVir does, that it's 'unfair' that the college student or unemployed person 'without a real life' can spend a lot more time into the mud than the person with a full time job, improving his char in different ways, and getting powerful. But that is the nature of a mud as well as most on-line games, the time spent does - and SHOULD - count, and if you don't like that fact, perhaps you simply should choose another pastime.

Wow. What is wrong with designing a variety of muds with set-ups that appeal to different types of players? "Choose another pastime" implies that no set up other than the kind you approve of should exist.

I recently read a comment from someone who played a tabletop where everyone agreed to start their characters at level 10 or the equivalent because they were bored playing weak characters.

I know of people who have traded characters of equal strength with one another. From a roleplaying perspective that is awful but from a gaming perspective I can see why people might decide to do that.

I think awarding experience for roleplaying is a great idea but some people think it is awful because it is so subjective and why should people gain experience if they haven't worked the skill?

My point is that there is no option that is automatically unethical in some way. It depends on the set-up of the particular game. Different strokes for different folks.

[GenmaC]

Originally Posted by (Molly O'Hara @ Oct. 11 2002,03:55 am) It's interesting, that among all the P2P muds, you seem to be about the only one that denies charging money, although you obviously do. It's also interesting that you seem to be about the only one of the P2P muds that is vocally against adding a $ icon to the listing. All the others say thay have nothing against it. But then again, the others don't use cheesy tricks to disguise the fact that they are P2P.

...

I play Achaea when I play MUDs nowdays (which is rare, since I have other things to do most of the time), and I've yet to pay for anything, and most of the people I'm familiar with on Achaea don't feel particularly pressured to pay either.

As the owner of one free MUD, and imm on another, I also am against adding a little $ sign.

I like the "cheesy tricks" bit - I guess allowing you to play for free is a "cheesy trick."

[Dulan]

Ah, yes.

GenmaC, your credibility is...shaky at best on these boards, from certain postings of yours prior to this.

Shoo, shoo, go along back to your free MUDs and such.

Why?

You've managed to ignore this entire thread in your post. Achaea is merely the catalyst of this movement. It's been waiting to happen, and the subject came up several times as far back as with Eternal City's P2Pishness.

Achaea has only served to fuel the need for either a seperate listing for P2P MUDs and free MUDs, or to give the P2P MUDs a definite 'moniker', vs the Free MUDs.

And, the MUD community is hardly ready to give Achaea the benefit of the doubt about not being a P2P. Not with the stuff they've pulled with their advertisements - RPGplanet.net ring a bell? A post on the forums? Somehow meaning something? And let's not bring up the other advertisement quotes.

-D

[GenmaC]

Originally Posted by (Dulan @ Oct. 11 2002,10:21 pm) You've managed to ignore this entire thread in your post. Achaea is merely the catalyst of this movement. It's been waiting to happen, and the subject came up several times as far back as with Eternal City's P2Pishness.

No, I've just noticed that whenever the subject of p2p comes up, certain worthless individuals use it to bash Achaea for their own reasons - probably just jealousy, but it's still worth pointing out.

I've already responded here or elsewhere with my opinion on the $ in the listing. Just thought I'd point out blatant bashing without a reason.

Pretending that I have no credibility seriously damages yours, but I doubt you had a whole lot to start with.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by Wow. What is wrong with designing a variety of muds with set-ups that appeal to different types of players? "Choose another pastime" implies that no set up other than the kind you approve of should exist.

Seraphina, I think you still don’t get my point.

I have nothing against variety. In fact I think that’s one of the great things about muds, that there are so many different styles, that just about anybody should be able to find something that suits their taste.

I have nothing against pay-to-play, as long as it is up-front and not in breach of any licence.

I have nothing against enforced roleplay, even if it isn’t exactly my own cup of tea. I quite agree with you that if there is an advancement system in a RP mud, you should also be rewarded for good roleplaying. (There is of course a rather big problem to decide who earns this reward and who doesn’t, mainly because of the different Time zones. I’ve never even met some of the players in my own mud, so how could I decide who is a good roleplayer and who isn’t? There is also the well known problem with all sports that are based on more or less subjective judging, that the question of favouritism, bias and sheer bribery could come into play (some recent scandal concerning figure-skating comes to mind…) But then again, that’s quite a different problem, perhaps worthy of a thread of its own.

I don’t have any problem with your example where 10 players of a tabletop game decide together to start at a somewhat higher level. What I WOULD have a problem with, is if only ONE of these ten players got to start at the higher level because he paid the Gamemaster 100$.

Get the difference? I just want everybody to compete on equal terms. And that’s why I am against muds that trade in game advantages for real money. That is also what I meant with my remark 'why play at all'.

If you are going to cheat or buy advantages in a skill based game, why play at all? You wouldn’t enter a chess Tournament if some of the players could get your Queen removed, by paying the Tournament leaders 1000 bucks, would you?

Originally Posted by No, I've just noticed that whenever the subject of p2p comes up, certain worthless individuals use it to bash Achaea for their own reasons - probably just jealousy, but it's still worth pointing out.

GenmaC, if by any chance your rather offensive remark was directed to me, let me tell you this:

I am not generally in the habit of ‘mud-bashing’, but there are some phenomena in the mud world that truthfully irk me. People who earn money by preying on the work of others and breaking licences, like Medievia, is one of those. And people who earn money through deception, half-truths, ridiculous exaggerations, blatant lies, and other unethical methods is another. If people choose to do things like that, they sort of lay themselves open to ridicule and criticism.

Now, my opinions of Mihaily and Achaea was mainly formed by the extremely sleezy advertisement campaign he ran on the MudConnector some time ago. And this opinion is not improved much by the fact that he uses a form of pay-to-play that I find extremely cheesy, namely selling game advantages for real money, while at the same time stating that the mud is ‘totally free to play’.

Since I never played Achaea, I don’t know the exact nature of the advantages you can buy there. Neither do you, if your statement is true that you never paid a penny yourself. There also seems to be somewhat differing opinions among the players, whether the ‘advantages’ are really ‘advantages’ and not only ‘cosmetics’.

But Mihaily does not strike me as a person who would do something just out of the goodness of his heart. He also does not strike me as a very truthful person, an opinion based on the aforementioned advertisements and several posts from him on these boards. He would hardly have shelled out money for that ridiculous and sleezy campaign, if it hadn’t given him a number of new players. And he would hardly have this option of buying stuff for real money, unless he actually expected to make some money from it.

So answer me this: If the things that you can buy in Achaea are as worthless as you and Mihaily claim – why on earth would anyone pay real money to get them?

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Molly wrote: I don’t have any problem with your example where 10 players of a tabletop game decide together to start at a somewhat higher level. What I WOULD have a problem with, is if only ONE of these ten players got to start at the higher level because he paid the Gamemaster 100$.

Tabletop roleplaying isn't really such a good analogy, but I can work with it.

Imagine the tabletop game where 7 of the 10 players played every week, and eventually reached level 10. The other 3 players weren't able to play as often because on real-life commitments (work, exams, or whatever) and so they had only reached level 5 (we'll assume linear advancement).

Player 1 makes a deal with the GM whereby he writes an ongoing journal of the parties exploits (using his own notes, and those written by the other players when he's not there) along with some ideas and suggestions to improve the storyline. In return for that, the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Player 2 makes a deal with the GM whereby he purchases new modules and rulebooks for the gaming group, and in return the GM allows him to earn enough extra exp to put him up to level 10 with the rest of the party. He cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Player 3 makes a deal whereby he donates money to the gaming group, which everyone can then decide how to spend. Perhaps it'll allow them to rent a larger place to play in (rather than squeezing all 10 players into someone's bedroom). Perhaps they'll use the money to purchase snacks for everyone to eat during the game. Perhaps they'll use it to purchase accessories such as dice, pens, paper, etc. Whatever they choose, the money will go towards improving the game for everyone. Player 3 cannot overtake the rest of the party though, only catch up with them.

Thus instead of having a group in which 3 of the players are unable to compete with each other (which isn't fun, I can tell you) , the game now has a group of characters on equal footing. It also has the advantage of having lots of new gaming material, which improves the enjoyment for everyone.

I would not run my game like that, but equally I wouldn't have a problem with someone who did - as long as they were up-front about it. I wouldn't consider it "unfair", because it's allowing all of the characters to compete on equal terms, even though the characters got to the position they are through different means (100% in-game time/effort, 50% in-game time/effort and 50% out-of-game time/effort, or 50% in-game time/effort and 50% money).

Originally Posted by I just want everybody to compete on equal terms.

Absolutely - I couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by If you are going to cheat or buy advantages in a skill based game, why play at all? You wouldn’t enter a chess Tournament if some of the players could get your Queen removed, by paying the Tournament leaders 1000 bucks, would you?

You're implying using money to create uneven terms. I'm implying the opposite. Would you play a chess tournament if you weren't allowed to use your "queen" piece because you had purchased it, rather than crafted it yourself?

Originally Posted by I am not generally in the habit of ‘mud-bashing’, but there are some phenomena in the mud world that truthfully irk me. People who earn money by preying on the work of others and breaking licences, like Medievia, is one of those. And people who earn money through deception, half-truths, ridiculous exaggerations, blatant lies, and other unethical methods is another. If people choose to do things like that, they sort of lay themselves open to ridicule and criticism.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Jazuela]

I guess I've just never played any of the text games in which competing against other players needed "equal terms" in ordered to be enjoyable.

I have issues against paying cash for in-game benefits because I prefer a more intensive roleplaying atmosphere, and if, in ordered to enjoy the RP of your character, you need some "thing" as a tool that can only be purchased for cash, it would lower your enjoyment.

I don't give a hoot about equal terms. In fact, I think the concept is hogwash. Your three tabletop players can compete against each other. What rule in tabletop requires that they compete against the entire group? In fact, what rule requires that they compete against each other at all?

But enough with the analogies. None of them apply to online multiplayer text games anyway and all it does is derail the initial thread.

I think adding a dollar symbol is a good idea, for any game that requires cash for any portion of in-game enjoyment. Whether it's a commercial game, or whether the cash only goes to pay the coder and maintain the server and database, or anything inbetween.

I don't think it's necessary to have special symbols to differentiate the *types* of pay-to-play games, only to signify whether or not some sort of coin is required for some sort of in-game enjoyment. If the game owner wants, they can explain right there in the Info thing what type of P2P it is.

[truthfulthomas]

Originally Posted by I just want everybody to compete on equal terms.

In a game where it is known that you can purchase in-game goodies for real world cash, isn't it just assumed that the players playing there, even the ones who don't contribute monetarily, accept this as a fair arrangement?  And if there are some who don't, don't they really only have themselves to blame for not moving on to a game where the advancement/acquisition arrangements are more palatable?

Allowing for players to choose other means of bettering themselves aside from logging in 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, does not make one game any more cheesy, underhanded or unfair than another.  Rather it just makes for a game that will have more appeal for some different types of players (particularly players with more money and less time to spend on online games).  A player who feels that a sick level of devotion to a mud should be the primary factor in determining who is top dog would do well to stick with muds where time in-game is the leading indicator of who's hot and who's not. Likewise, a player who might only be able to give a game 10-15 hours a week is better off looking for a game where either a) character improvement is handled primarily by social means so that they aren't having to compete with 10-hour-a-day power levelers, or b) character improvement is attainable by multiple means, including perhaps the ability to pay for some things that time constraints might otherwise not allow you to achieve.  For some players it will be far more important to them not whether a game charges for play or for extra/accelerated features or not, but whether the amount of time spent online in order to acheive anything in the game is such that only students and slackers really have any reasonable chance at success (and there are quite a few muds where this is the case).

However a game goes about it, as long as the game's character improvement arrangements are known to all involved, the players, by virtue of choosing to continue playing the game, are acknowledging that the system is fair. It's quite different than if, say, I were to secretly slip the admin at some mud $200 and they powered me up and gave me a cool magic sword. This would be cheesy, underhanded and unfair because everyone involved (the playerbase) is not in on the arrangement and not able to base their decision on whether or not to continue playing said game in the light of this arrangement.

[Seraphina]

Molly, Kavir, Jazuela, and TruthfulThomas, I am really impressed by your eloquent comments. Some of you are clearly more familiar with the background of some participants than I am which colors your views though not necessarily inaccurately. I agree with one major issue. That is the dishonesty of leaving the monetary options unclear or placing that information in a "fine print" area leaving new players in the dark until after they have invested time in creating a character. It is not enough to say, well, they could have found the information if they clicked on every link on the site. As a consumer I am highly offended by such tactics no matter what the product is. It's misleading. If a company has to try to trick me into using their product it doesn't say much for the product or the company.

The existence of such entities on this site does reflect on it's integrity. I realize that TMS's cannot possibly supervise or impose standards on all the MUDs registering here. A disclaimer is sufficient to make that aspect clear. You can't be sure any MUD is being honest about any aspect of their game. You can still set standards that will disqualify a MUD from participation *if discovered* participating in activites barred by the site. If potential players end up in MUDs and invest time before discovering there is a monetary component some will feel suckered and some will think TMS is a feed site for internet scemes. Bad for the site and bad for MUDs in general be they p2p or free.

The flood of sites "with an angle" aimed at children and adults alike makes it difficult to find anything really free. Those sites that do offer useful free activities or information without either charging or bombarding you with advertising get buried in the avalanche. They are getting harder and harder to find. One of the concerns expressed is that by being pushed down on the list they risk being skipped over, or rather, not even seen. Putting a bold FREE in their description won't be enough if other sites say the same and end up having some form of payment structure. It casts doubt on everyone listing here that does not proclaim themselves p2p upfront. Even if they put "absolutely truely free not shareware or anything else" people will still suspect it is just another pitch.

The problem the free muds seem to be facing is echoed on the net in general. I think the presence of commercial muds on this site is still a good thing, but there should be a clear and obligatory designator to let people know which muds are really free. It can really be discouraging nowadays to try to find genuinely free content on the net. So many commercial enterprises use the word "free" as a sales hook that it is very difficult to get away from commercial sites when searching for non-commercial content.

If would be a shame for completey free non-commercial muds to become extinct due to difficulty in finding them except by those already in the know. That they exist on this site isn't much use if they aren't clearly designated as such at a glance.

[GenmaC]

Originally Posted by GenmaC, if by any chance your rather offensive remark was directed to me, let me tell you this:

It was aimed at Dulan, but I notice that other people tend to obsess about it as well.

Originally Posted by I am not generally in the habit of ‘mud-bashing’, but there are some phenomena in the mud world that truthfully irk me. People who earn money by preying on the work of others and breaking licences, like Medievia, is one of those. And people who earn money through deception, half-truths, ridiculous exaggerations, blatant lies, and other unethical methods is another. If people choose to do things like that, they sort of lay themselves open to ridicule and criticism.

OH LOOKS A TOPIC ABOUT P2P I KNOW ABOUT P2P OMFG ACHAEA SUCKZ!!!!1

Originally Posted by Now, my opinions of Mihaily and Achaea was mainly formed by the extremely sleezy advertisement campaign he ran on the MudConnector some time ago. And this opinion is not improved much by the fact that he uses a form of pay-to-play that I find extremely cheesy, namely selling game advantages for real money, while at the same time stating that the mud is ‘totally free to play’.

I'm not aware of the sleezy (sleazy) campaign you are talking about, but I am aware that Achaea IS completely free to play.  Go play it for as long as you want.  It IS completely free to play.

Originally Posted by Since I never played Achaea, I don’t know the exact nature of the advantages you can buy there. Neither do you, if your statement is true that you never paid a penny yourself. There also seems to be somewhat differing opinions among the players, whether the ‘advantages’ are really ‘advantages’ and not only ‘cosmetics’.

Having read their website, I've somehow managed to discover the secret of their advantages.  They sell credits.  These can be traded in game to other players, or for things like a house, a pet, or lessons to improve your skills with (you still have to play the lessons themselves, so it's not an automatic gain).  You can't buy uber-items or experience points, sorry.

Originally Posted by But Mihaily does not strike me as a person who would do something just out of the goodness of his heart. He also does not strike me as a very truthful person, an opinion based on the aforementioned advertisements and several posts from him on these boards. He would hardly have shelled out money for that ridiculous and sleezy campaign, if it hadn’t given him a number of new players. And he would hardly have this option of buying stuff for real money, unless he actually expected to make some money from it.

As a businessman myself, I'm appalled that you think there is something wrong with wanting to make money.  While shady may be dubious in some people's minds, if you are making money, and your players are happy (I have YET to see one complaint about Achaea itself while playing), where's the harm?

Frankly, it sounds like a whole bunch of whining to me.  I can understand that in the Achaea topic, but in every single post about P2P MUDs?  I've played on MUDs for what may be a short 8 years to some of you, but in all that time, I've yet to find a MUD with a codebase that rivals P2P MUDs.  Not to say that some MUDs aren't just as fun or satisfying, but when I think well though out, well put together, well coded, with in-depth quests and so forth, I think P2P.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Jazuela wrote: I guess I've just never played any of the text games in which competing against other players needed "equal terms" in ordered to be enjoyable.

Competition is an important part of most muds.

Originally Posted by I have issues against paying cash for in-game benefits because I prefer a more intensive roleplaying atmosphere, and if, in ordered to enjoy the RP of your character, you need some "thing" as a tool that can only be purchased for cash, it would lower your enjoyment.

Fine - that's up to you. I know a lot of the serious roleplaying muds feel that any sort of in-game benefit for any sort of out-of-game activity "spoils" the feel of the game. After all there is (usually) no logical reason why creating an area within the mud should make your character tougher. However many of these roleplaying muds like the concept of rewarding players for good roleplaying - and I'm sure you'd agree that such a concept would not suit many muds.

Originally Posted by I don't give a hoot about equal terms. In fact, I think the concept is hogwash. Your three tabletop players can compete against each other. What rule in tabletop requires that they compete against the entire group? In fact, what rule requires that they compete against each other at all?

If you ever try playing a roleplaying game in which some of the characters are much stronger than the others, you'll find that the stronger ones tend to dominate the game. This spoils much of the fun for the other players, as they are never really needed - they become the equivilent of supporting cast, and take a back-seat throughout most of the game. If you have good roleplayers you can get around much of this, but only if the stronger players are willing to hold back so as to make the weaker characters feel equally important.

[Jazuela]

Agreed KaVir, to some extent. In a plotline-driven game atmosphere though (whether it's RPI or only encouraged), it's the guy who finds the clue who saves the day. Skills (other than perception if it happens to be a skill) are almost irrelevant. A level 1 newbie jeweler can be the hero just as easily as the level 150 necromancer nobility vampire, in such an atmopshere.

It all depends on the type of game, which is why I don't think making a blanket statement regarding "fairness" holds any weight at all.

In a PvP game, sure - y'all need to start out with the same opportunity, and working your way up could mean your character's quick demise.

But in an RPI, working your way up is the whole point.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by Agreed KaVir, to some extent. In a plotline-driven game atmosphere though (whether it's RPI or only encouraged), it's the guy who finds the clue who saves the day. Skills (other than perception if it happens to be a skill) are almost irrelevant. A level 1 newbie jeweler can be the hero just as easily as the level 150 necromancer nobility vampire, in such an atmopshere.

In that case I don't see how it matters whether one person played twice as long as the other, who in turn compensated for that with money.

Originally Posted by It all depends on the type of game, which is why I don't think making a blanket statement regarding "fairness" holds any weight at all.

All I've done is point out that using money to progress, rather than other out-of-game compensation, does not automatically result in an "unfair advantage".

Originally Posted by (KaVir @ Oct. 13 2002,1:22 pm) All I've done is point out that using money to progress, rather than other out-of-game compensation, does not automatically result in an "unfair advantage".

I personally have no interest in playing a game where I pay for additional extras along the way.  I would like to earn, in game, those credits for a house and have others do the same.  However, that said - I agree Kavir, it is not necessarily unfair.  Some people get their kicks out of "stuff", be it characters with a ton of skills, neat houses, pretty items, etc.  And my guess is that a game that sells "stuff" is catering to those folks.  I would rather a game where personality, history, behaviors, and rp choices are driving factors, both in terms of your characters success and in terms of what most of the players are interested seeing when they log in.

To each their own.  If folks are willing to pay for extras or willing to play for free while others pay for extras and aren't upset about it, let them.  Doesn't hurt the rest of us, afterall.  

Anyway, "fair" isn't really nearly as black and white of a term as it is being bandied around as.  What seems fair to folks on the PfS (pay for stuff) may not seem fair to those on free or PtPs.  Fair: Consistent with rules, logic, or ethics.  Not everyone has the same ethics, rules, or logic.

Sapphar

[Jazuela]

If the game supports sales of things, ain't no thang. Folks who are willing to pay, can pay. Folks who aren't willing to pay, won't pay, or will find a game where sales of things (for real life money I mean) aren't supported by the game.

There's games where characters are bought and sold on E-bay..I used to play one of them. But because I outgrew vying for "power" in terms of skills and ranks, and moved toward a more roleplay intensive environment, I can't return to that old way of things anymore.

It just is wierd for my character to be best buddies with someone one day, only for that character to declare herself a mortal enemy the next, without any IC explanation, simply because that character was sold to a player who doesn't like me, personally.

THAT is what I consider "unfair." It's unfair because it denigrates the integrity of a game that advertises itself as a RPG.

[cronel]

This is a post to the MudDev list by Mihaly, dated June 99.

Originally Posted by First, I run a pay mud, not a free mud. It doesn't charge (yet) for on-line time, but to advance the strenght and variety of your abilities very far upwards takes money. Players buy credits to raise their skills

And in the rest of the message Mihaly rather strongly implies that his game is in the 'pay mud' category several times more. See it for yourselves.

Three possibilities:
1 - Mihaly's game has changed in the last two years. It was a pay mud and now it's free.
2 - Mihaly's idea of what a pay mud is has changed in the last two years.
3 - Mihaly has two standards for what a pay mud is, one for serious MudDev discussion, the other for advertising purposes.

I predict Mihaly will say it's number two. I also predict I won't be very convinced.

[Molly]

Originally Posted by As a businessman myself, I'm appalled that you think there is something wrong with wanting to make money. While shady may be dubious in some people's minds, if you are making money, and your players are happy (I have YET to see one complaint about Achaea itself while playing), where's the harm?

I have no problem with people wanting to make money, Genmac. It’s the business methods - which you yourself refer to as ‘shady’ - that I object to.

Originally Posted by I'm not aware of the sleezy (sleazy) campaign you are talking about, but I am aware that Achaea IS completely free to play.

Thanks for correcting my typo. In return I’ll help you with an example of ‘inventive’ quotes in Achaea’s campaign that I find sleazy. (It’s right on top on the Achaea main page, so it shouldn’t be hard to find).
It states:

Originally Posted by “The only text MUD that still matters” – RPGplanet.com

Of course a quote like this raises a number of questions, at least in my mind:
1. What kind of site is RPGplanet.com, and who is the Administrator?
2. Did the Admin of that site actually make that statement?
3. If so, in what context?
4. If so, what was the statistical basic for the statement – i.e. how many and which other text MUDS did they compare Achaea to?
And so on…

I took a look at RPGplanet.com, but couldn’t find anything about Achaea on it, even when I did a search there. But then again, I didn’t check every single link there.
I assume that it isn't concealed under some heading labelled ‘Credits’.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by cronel wrote: And in the rest of the message Mihaly rather strongly implies that his game is in the 'pay mud' category several times more. See it for yourselves.

He's always said that, though - just not here. For example:

Quote: "Achaea is one of the bigger text MUDs out there, despite being commercial and fairly expensive"

And:

Quote: "I really don't feel like we get any more whining than equivalently-sized free text MUDs I've been on."

Both of which were written less than a year ago. Now those are quotes I'd like to see him use in his advertising campaign Of course he's unlikely to do so, when his current "strategy" works so well:

http://www.kanga.nu/archives/MUD-Dev...3/msg00637.php