|
Obviously it depends on your perspective; different strokes for different folks. My personal view is that the mud is a game, and advancement should reflect your efforts within that game, much like in any other contest or test of ability.
Allowing players to purchase their advancement is, for me, comparible with a martial arts club that allows people to buy sashes instead of earning them, or a University that allows students to buy reference books that can be used during the exam, or a marathon where people are allowed to buy taxi-rides along the way. True, someone who works full-time isn't going to be able to spend as much time learning kung-fu as someone who is unemployed, nor will they have as much time to study as a full-time student, or as much time to keep fit as a professional runner. But for me, it undermines the whole purpose of those exercises. Of course I'm sure there are people who would be more than happy to buy a degree or a black-sash, but as I said, different strokes for different folks.
IMO the worst form of pay-for-perks is the one in which money is the only realistic way to earn certain competitive edges. At this extreme, cash becomes more valuable than time, and the more cash you spend the better you're going to be.
Somewhat less offensive would be a pay-for-perks where time is just as valuable as money. This breaks down if it doesn't handle players who have both, of course, but you could get around that (for example, only allowing the players to purchase the equivilent of X hours playing time each day, where X is the difference between how much time they actually played and how much time a 'serious' player could put in).
The least offensive pay-for-perks model in my eyes would be a method where cash could be used to compensate for lost time. For example, a 'super-exp mode' which allowed you to earn double exp for X hours (once again where X is the difference between how much time you'd actually played and how much time a 'serious' player could have put in). This method would prevent people from simply 'buying' their advancement, as they'd still have to earn exp just like everyone else, but it would still allow them to catch up with those who had put in a lot more hours.
You've mentioned time and money, but there is also a third major factor (unless the game is poorly designed), and that's player skill. The first pay-for-perks model I outlined makes money more valuable than skill, and I think that's the part I really dislike the most. The second pay-for-perks model I outlined allows you to progress without the need for skill. But the third model only replaces time - you still need exactly the same amount of skill to play, it just lets you get there faster.
So rather than just talking about money vs time, I think you also need to decide what sort of role player skill is going to take.
|