|
Untrue - you could call working a 'choice' if eating was 'a choice' too. It happens to be a pretty vital activity though. By the same token, you have the 'choice' of robbing a bank to generate money.
And not everyone possesses the same amount of time either. That's a fact.
Credits are used to buy items and skills which aren't available through any other currency. Meaning, credits don't generate much of anything that you would normally have to compete for to achieve. You can however buy credits for gold in the game.
The rats are always abundant. And yes, it took me the time to do the quest. Funny, but that's exactly the same way it works in any other MUD out there - the difference is that somebody can invest money that they've spent time making. If you think killing rats is somehow a more 'balanced' and 'fair' way of spending your time to advance in a MUD, I'm going to have to leave you alone in that reasoning.
I tend to think they both mean the exact same thing. If it wasn't clear, I'll do my best to simplify: player skill>character stats
Every MUD worth playing, as in, every MUD that would be worth spending time on to get things. If a MUD is worth spending time on(to get things), it's worth spending money on(to get things). Some players pay other players to spend THEIR time and deliver the goods to the paying players. If you really find this notion to be new or foreign then I'm going to have to question YOUR experience.
You seem to disregard the fact that the people who pay money are actually investing something in the game that I am not. It's natural that they would have an advantage, isn't it? Just in the exact same way that in the MUDs people say are 'more free' players have an advantage when investing more time.
It's not worth it trying to claim that money and time are somehow not comparable investments - that's simply torturing logic. You should know if you've ever accepted money for devoting your time.
I've posted how I got to where I did. Check my previous post.
1) To play competatively, you need credits and:
2) getting credits for in-game gold is a very reliable way to acquire them.
Perhaps you didn't read the entirety of my post then? I specifically pointed out MUDs that accept donations - a direct monetary cost to players.
Untrue, you're allowing them to invest in order to acquire an advantage over those who haven't invested. It isn't an assured win by any standard. Skill isn't substituted with credits. Credits matter less and less the more you spend, actually.
And money doesn't have a meaning to ALL people either. That doesn't mean the majority isn't concerned with it.You have to invest time or money - it's an investment either way. If a student's time is worth less than the money he'd need to get credits, the student is free to make do with that. What you're seeking to prove is that a student is somehow more justified in having an advantage than a businessman is and oddly enough you do it with the reasoning that there are more students that play these games.
There's a base line that isn't that difficult to reach. Anything beyond that is an extra advantage. Something that enhances your ability instead of making up the majority of it. And you can obtain credits without paying money.
No combat system is perfectly balanced, a good combat system is the one that lets you make up for disadvantages with skill and from my experience - IRE games have precisely such a system.
As for a list of MUDs, I'd ask you to go ahead and post it if it was somehow significant to the discussion.
I'm afraid you misunderstood me - I didn't say they weren't free MUDs - the ones worth playing that is. I merely pointed that if a game was worth spending large amounts of time on - it was worth spending a comparable amount of money on. De facto non-pay-for-perks MUDs are subject to money-vs-time transactions, even if not sanctioned by the administration.
And I would agree with you, but that's not the case. If MUDs are 100% free, as you put it, implicitly then a MUD advertising itself as 'Free to play' would imply that there's something about it that isn't 'free' in the sense you describe. It's a perfect heads up to anyone who doesn't want to play a MUD where spending money gets you something. The information that there's something to buy with money in IRE games is made completely obvious in the very intro to the game - you can't really miss it. The reason you don't see ', but buying credits is done with money' in the advertisement is the same reason you wouldn't put 'We don't give out free beer' in the ad for your MUD. You advertise with the things that are attractive - that's very basic common sense.
The problem with your example is that chess doesn't have rules in it that could possibly apply this sort of model. You aren't playing chess if you can buy pieces back. Otherwise the comparison is fairly apt. The conclusion I can't agree with though - do you think that the money people invest in credits are somehow magicked into the wallets of the buyers? Money has worth, it doesn't appear spontaneously in the pockets of lucky people. They work for it. Money is an investment just as viable as time. As for why they don't advertize as pay for perks, I addressed that just above. They've never hid the fact that they're pay-for-perks mind you, they just don't advertise with it, which is merely common sense.
If a store only has 20 loafs of bread in storage, that doesn't mean that it'll only supply 20 people with bread. The credit market is constantly fueled and there are always new credits avaialable.
And that average number isn't actually broken, it's actually a nice feature telling you the average price at which credits have been bought (not the average of the price they're currently being sold at). They should probably clarify that somewhere, I know.
|