Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Molly · 10-01-2003, 12:18 PM

Malaclypse wrote:
Yes, it’s pretty obvious that we are never going to agree about this

Especially since we apparently are talking about two different things. I am not ‘railing against’ the evil of Capitalism here, and you cannot ward me off by trying to paint me out as some sort of Communist. I live in a capitalist society, I am fairly well off myself, and even though Capitalism may have its flaws, all history shows it to be a darned sight better system than Communism. But that is not the issue here.

What I am talking about is the quality of the Gameplay.

Pharron summed it all up in an admirable way, and I suggest y’all read his post carefully. I’ll just add one example to it. (And note that this example is just to illustrate the point further, I am in no way implying that any of the posters on this list are indulging in deplorable habits like this).

That said; here’s the example:

There is a certain type of Twink Mud, which I am pretty sure all serious Admin – (including Malaclypse and the_logos) would agree is a particularly bad sort. It’s the Mud with cheating Imms/Imps. You know, the type where the Staff members create ‘special’ weapons and equipment for their own mortal and those of their friends, leaving everybody else at a permanent disadvantage.

Now compare this Twink Mud to the practical effects of selling in-game benefits for RL money. To the players that go without, it doesn’t really matter whether the other party got their advantages from cheating imms or by paying $ for it – it still leaves them at a disadvantage. So, to them both systems are equally negative, (even though one is a bit more detrimental from the ethical point of view). Both will lead to exactly the same feelings of frustration and irritation among the players who prefer to play the game in what should be the ‘normal’ way – by achieving these things solely based on their own efforts and skills.

No matter what the purchased item or ability is, it always has a negative side effect. If what you buy is an unusually good weapon, equipment, certain skills/spells or even the ability to rest/sleep (as I’ve seen in another Mud that uses a similar system) it obviously gives the purchaser advantages in a combat situation. If it is a political or social position in the Mud, it’s negative for the Roleplayers. No matter how skilled a fighter you are, the Twink with the extra ‘feature’ will always have an advantage. No matter how good a Roleplayer you are, you’ll never reach the peak of your career, if someone already BOUGHT the top position – or the ability to appoint someone to it.

So, with this system, you cater for the masses, not the good players. And since for every really good player there are 10-50 Twinks who’d gladly pay $ for shortcuts, I don’t doubt that the pay-for-advantages system is popular among the majority of the players. But it is popular at the expense of the really good players, who will most likely leave in frustration sooner or later.

This is of course not necessarily a bad thing, if you have already made the choice of catering to the masses. If the main object of the Mud is for the owner to make as much money as possible, it wouldn’t mean much if a single player leaves, as long as there will always be 10 new Twinks ready to take his place. It probably doesn’t even matter to the owner, if the one that leaves is the potentially best player in the game, since happy Twinks are much less likely to criticize the game or make any demands of improvements than skilled players - and also much more likely to shell out some more $ for new features.

But don’t try to sell me the idea that paying $ for in-game advantages in any way makes for a better Game Quality, whether the main theme of the Mud is Hack’n’slash, Pkill, Exploring, Questing or Roleplaying.

This is actually one of the few advantages ‘Free’ Muds still have over the P2P. We don’t have to worry about profit. It doesn’t really matter to us if we have 20 players or 500 at peak time, so we can stay true to our vision. So if ‘making muds that lots of players like’ is the goal of a commercial Mud owner, ‘making a quality game that attracts good players’ might be one of the goals for a free Mud owner.

10-01-2003, 12:18 PM	#60
Molly Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Sweden Home MUD: 4 Dimensions Posts: 574	Malaclypse wrote: Yes, it’s pretty obvious that we are never going to agree about this Especially since we apparently are talking about two different things. I am not ‘railing against’ the evil of Capitalism here, and you cannot ward me off by trying to paint me out as some sort of Communist. I live in a capitalist society, I am fairly well off myself, and even though Capitalism may have its flaws, all history shows it to be a darned sight better system than Communism. But that is not the issue here. What I am talking about is the quality of the Gameplay. Pharron summed it all up in an admirable way, and I suggest y’all read his post carefully. I’ll just add one example to it. (And note that this example is just to illustrate the point further, I am in no way implying that any of the posters on this list are indulging in deplorable habits like this). That said; here’s the example: There is a certain type of Twink Mud, which I am pretty sure all serious Admin – (including Malaclypse and the_logos) would agree is a particularly bad sort. It’s the Mud with cheating Imms/Imps. You know, the type where the Staff members create ‘special’ weapons and equipment for their own mortal and those of their friends, leaving everybody else at a permanent disadvantage. Now compare this Twink Mud to the practical effects of selling in-game benefits for RL money. To the players that go without, it doesn’t really matter whether the other party got their advantages from cheating imms or by paying $ for it – it still leaves them at a disadvantage. So, to them both systems are equally negative, (even though one is a bit more detrimental from the ethical point of view). Both will lead to exactly the same feelings of frustration and irritation among the players who prefer to play the game in what should be the ‘normal’ way – by achieving these things solely based on their own efforts and skills. No matter what the purchased item or ability is, it always has a negative side effect. If what you buy is an unusually good weapon, equipment, certain skills/spells or even the ability to rest/sleep (as I’ve seen in another Mud that uses a similar system) it obviously gives the purchaser advantages in a combat situation. If it is a political or social position in the Mud, it’s negative for the Roleplayers. No matter how skilled a fighter you are, the Twink with the extra ‘feature’ will always have an advantage. No matter how good a Roleplayer you are, you’ll never reach the peak of your career, if someone already BOUGHT the top position – or the ability to appoint someone to it. So, with this system, you cater for the masses, not the good players. And since for every really good player there are 10-50 Twinks who’d gladly pay $ for shortcuts, I don’t doubt that the pay-for-advantages system is popular among the majority of the players. But it is popular at the expense of the really good players, who will most likely leave in frustration sooner or later. This is of course not necessarily a bad thing, if you have already made the choice of catering to the masses. If the main object of the Mud is for the owner to make as much money as possible, it wouldn’t mean much if a single player leaves, as long as there will always be 10 new Twinks ready to take his place. It probably doesn’t even matter to the owner, if the one that leaves is the potentially best player in the game, since happy Twinks are much less likely to criticize the game or make any demands of improvements than skilled players - and also much more likely to shell out some more $ for new features. But don’t try to sell me the idea that paying $ for in-game advantages in any way makes for a better Game Quality, whether the main theme of the Mud is Hack’n’slash, Pkill, Exploring, Questing or Roleplaying. This is actually one of the few advantages ‘Free’ Muds still have over the P2P. We don’t have to worry about profit. It doesn’t really matter to us if we have 20 players or 500 at peak time, so we can stay true to our vision. So if ‘making muds that lots of players like’ is the goal of a commercial Mud owner, ‘making a quality game that attracts good players’ might be one of the goals for a free Mud owner.