Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Zhiroc · 01-08-2006, 01:38 PM

I thought I'd stay out of the discussion to not prolong it unnecessarily, but as it seems to be going on its own... I also warn you that this is a long post as it provides an analysis of the game to support my position.

As I've said, my issue is disclosure. I do not debate the pay model chosen.

I've just taken a fresh look at Aetolia, which I played extensively for about 3 or 4 months starting about a year ago. OK, maybe that's not long...

First, I will presume that everyone agrees that Aetolia is a "credit-to-succeed" game. You can't gain any but the most basic of skills without gaining credits to convert to lessons. It isn't necessary to consider other aspects of the credit system which could in fact be considered just perks, like artifacts.

So the first question is: does the game even try to document this fact?

If you look at TMS, the only clue about the pay model is the "Free to play!" tag on the ranking description. If you go to , the only reference to spending money is through the Credits link on the sidebar. It says:
Well, the word "extra" while perhaps accurate, tends to connote "optional" to most people, and it is not, unless advancement is considered optional. Unfortunately, the online help system has been broken for a number of days, so you can't inquire further from the web site.

Using the in-game help, "help credits" will tell you only about the credit-to-lesson conversion factor. "Help Skills" only tells you how important skills are. In "Help lessons" you will be told:
That's it. No mention of how many lessons it takes to learn a skill (1767, or 294.5 in credits, if my guild's reference doc is right). Without this information, you can't discern just how paltry the 10 lessons/level you get is, and how much you require the credits. Nor, of course, do you get an idea of how many credits you'll need over your lifetime.

So, I fault the game for not documenting the credit-for-success system at all.

Next, the question is: is Aetolia a pay-for-credit system?

Obviously, the most straightforward way to obtain them is by paying RL money to IRE.

Next, there is the credit market, where you can buy and sell credits for in-game gold. By the way, the only reference to the credit market that I saw was the "See also" reference to "Help creditmarket" in the "Help credits" help. While the text mentions buying and selling to others, it doesn't really mention that there is an open market for it.

If I look at the credit market, there are currently 337 credits for sale. The average price is over 3000 gold per credit. (I'll note that the game tells me the avg price is 2779, but that is lower than the lowest listed price, so something is broken.) If this is to be considered a viable way for a player to play the game, there would need to be enough credits available at a price that is attainable.

The amount of credits currently available are only sufficient to max out 1.15 skills for one player. This brings into question how many players could be supported through this mechanism. The cost is around 800K gold for the 294.5 credits one needs to max a skill. That is probably doable if you work at it. (Someone familiar with cash accrual might be able to say how long it takes to do this.) However, if more players went this route and dried up the market, where would the prices go, and would there be any credits available at any price? (Though higher prices might produce more credits for sale--but one wonders how many would turn their RL cash into game cash.)

From a wider perspective, the credit market might still be considered a "pay-for-credit" system as it still requires the playerbase as a whole to be funding the game with RL money, even though it may be that an individual player need not do so. This depends on your perspective.

Methods like winning contests, events, or lotteries, can't really be considered as general credit mechanisms, due to the uncertain nature of it, at least to my mind.

Credits earned by doing work for the game as a builder or a coder cannot be considered general enough as well, as it is both "sweat equity" as well as requiring a player to basically apply for the job.

It has been said that being a guide can pay in credits. Can anyone apply and be accepted? And what is the rate of pay? This one is hard for me to evaluate at this moment.

From the above, my conclusion is that the general game mechanism is pay-for-credit, and therefore, the game is "pay-for-success".

For those who defend the "free-to-play" label, I ask this: you obviously have no problem with this credit model (and like I've said, neither do I from the mechanics point of view). So what is the harm in explicitly laying the above out on the web site (including the so-called "free" ways of gaining credits)? If the answer is that this would hurt recruitment of new players, are you saying that new players would consider this to not be play-for-free?

01-08-2006, 01:38 PM	#229
Zhiroc Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 92	I thought I'd stay out of the discussion to not prolong it unnecessarily, but as it seems to be going on its own... I also warn you that this is a long post as it provides an analysis of the game to support my position. As I've said, my issue is disclosure. I do not debate the pay model chosen. I've just taken a fresh look at Aetolia, which I played extensively for about 3 or 4 months starting about a year ago. OK, maybe that's not long... First, I will presume that everyone agrees that Aetolia is a "credit-to-succeed" game. You can't gain any but the most basic of skills without gaining credits to convert to lessons. It isn't necessary to consider other aspects of the credit system which could in fact be considered just perks, like artifacts. So the first question is: does the game even try to document this fact? If you look at TMS, the only clue about the pay model is the "Free to play!" tag on the ranking description. If you go to , the only reference to spending money is through the Credits link on the sidebar. It says: Well, the word "extra" while perhaps accurate, tends to connote "optional" to most people, and it is not, unless advancement is considered optional. Unfortunately, the online help system has been broken for a number of days, so you can't inquire further from the web site. Using the in-game help, "help credits" will tell you only about the credit-to-lesson conversion factor. "Help Skills" only tells you how important skills are. In "Help lessons" you will be told: That's it. No mention of how many lessons it takes to learn a skill (1767, or 294.5 in credits, if my guild's reference doc is right). Without this information, you can't discern just how paltry the 10 lessons/level you get is, and how much you require the credits. Nor, of course, do you get an idea of how many credits you'll need over your lifetime. So, I fault the game for not documenting the credit-for-success system at all. Next, the question is: is Aetolia a pay-for-credit system? Obviously, the most straightforward way to obtain them is by paying RL money to IRE. Next, there is the credit market, where you can buy and sell credits for in-game gold. By the way, the only reference to the credit market that I saw was the "See also" reference to "Help creditmarket" in the "Help credits" help. While the text mentions buying and selling to others, it doesn't really mention that there is an open market for it. If I look at the credit market, there are currently 337 credits for sale. The average price is over 3000 gold per credit. (I'll note that the game tells me the avg price is 2779, but that is lower than the lowest listed price, so something is broken.) If this is to be considered a viable way for a player to play the game, there would need to be enough credits available at a price that is attainable. The amount of credits currently available are only sufficient to max out 1.15 skills for one player. This brings into question how many players could be supported through this mechanism. The cost is around 800K gold for the 294.5 credits one needs to max a skill. That is probably doable if you work at it. (Someone familiar with cash accrual might be able to say how long it takes to do this.) However, if more players went this route and dried up the market, where would the prices go, and would there be any credits available at any price? (Though higher prices might produce more credits for sale--but one wonders how many would turn their RL cash into game cash.) From a wider perspective, the credit market might still be considered a "pay-for-credit" system as it still requires the playerbase as a whole to be funding the game with RL money, even though it may be that an individual player need not do so. This depends on your perspective. Methods like winning contests, events, or lotteries, can't really be considered as general credit mechanisms, due to the uncertain nature of it, at least to my mind. Credits earned by doing work for the game as a builder or a coder cannot be considered general enough as well, as it is both "sweat equity" as well as requiring a player to basically apply for the job. It has been said that being a guide can pay in credits. Can anyone apply and be accepted? And what is the rate of pay? This one is hard for me to evaluate at this moment. From the above, my conclusion is that the general game mechanism is pay-for-credit, and therefore, the game is "pay-for-success". For those who defend the "free-to-play" label, I ask this: you obviously have no problem with this credit model (and like I've said, neither do I from the mechanics point of view). So what is the harm in explicitly laying the above out on the web site (including the so-called "free" ways of gaining credits)? If the answer is that this would hurt recruitment of new players, are you saying that new players would consider this to not be play-for-free?