Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

Atyreus · 10-01-2003, 01:30 PM

[quote=Molly O'Hara,Oct. 01 2003,12:18]:
That's not a very apt comparison. Players go into commercial muds with a fairly good sense of what it is their money will buy them, whether it is simply the right to play the game, or whether it is the ability to purchase various in-game perks. Such players shouldn't really feel put out when other players purchase such perks, as they've made the choice to play a mud built around a model that allows this to be done. Players on a twink mud, however, usually have every right to be aggreived because twink muds are usually not in the habit of advertising the fact that they hand out perks to their favored players, nor do many even choose to admit that they do so when they are called out for it.

What is it about a player spending some money to acquire skills/gear a bit more easily or quickly that makes it any worse than a player with no life being able to acquire more skills/gear in a shorter time than those of us with jobs and families? After all, on most muds, players with oodles of time on their hands will generally have a significant advantage over those with little time on their hands, regardless of these players' respective playing skills. If you play 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and I only play 15 hours a week, it won't matter how good my playing ability is -- on most muds I won't be able to keep up with you in any meaningful way (at least as far as skills and gear and other likely purchaseable perks would go).

Well, it wouldn't make much sense to pay money for something that decreased your combat abilities. I don't really see how this is a negative. Whether players opt to purchase some advantages or not, they know what the deal is. If they don't like it, then that mud isn't for them and they should probably go somewhere else. If they don't mind it, there's not a problem.

But, it would seem to mostly be the commercial muds with straight subscription schemes (Gemstone, et al) that really cater to the masses. And, while I am certain that a game like Achaea would like to bring in as many players as possible, it still seems to be a rather exemplary mud (and, no, I am not a player there) that doesn't appear to be cutting corners on quality and imagination just to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm not really sure what qualifies as a 'good player', but it would seem odd that such a definition would exclude players solely on the basis that they might choose to spend a little more money and a little less time on improving their characters in some way.

Absolutely. And not having to worry about profits will be liberating to some mud owners and will allow them to pursue their hobby in potentially rewarding ways that they might not have considered had they been more concerned about the bottom line (then again, people who sacrifice vision for preconceived notions of what sells, probably shouldn't be trying to make money on creative endeavors anyways). On the other hand, it also creates its own set of worries. A free mud may not have to worry about profits, but it still has to worry about costs. It has to worry about finding coders and builders who are creative and mature and able to set aside sufficient time for something which isn't going to put any food on the table (that's the real bitch about hobbies -- when you have the time for them, you usually don't have the money; once you get to the point where you have the money, you generally no longer have the time.)

Edited to fix a bunged-up quote.

10-01-2003, 01:30 PM	#62
Atyreus Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Home MUD: The Dreaming City Posts: 60	[quote=Molly O'Hara,Oct. 01 2003,12:18]: That's not a very apt comparison. Players go into commercial muds with a fairly good sense of what it is their money will buy them, whether it is simply the right to play the game, or whether it is the ability to purchase various in-game perks. Such players shouldn't really feel put out when other players purchase such perks, as they've made the choice to play a mud built around a model that allows this to be done. Players on a twink mud, however, usually have every right to be aggreived because twink muds are usually not in the habit of advertising the fact that they hand out perks to their favored players, nor do many even choose to admit that they do so when they are called out for it. What is it about a player spending some money to acquire skills/gear a bit more easily or quickly that makes it any worse than a player with no life being able to acquire more skills/gear in a shorter time than those of us with jobs and families? After all, on most muds, players with oodles of time on their hands will generally have a significant advantage over those with little time on their hands, regardless of these players' respective playing skills. If you play 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and I only play 15 hours a week, it won't matter how good my playing ability is -- on most muds I won't be able to keep up with you in any meaningful way (at least as far as skills and gear and other likely purchaseable perks would go). Well, it wouldn't make much sense to pay money for something that decreased your combat abilities. I don't really see how this is a negative. Whether players opt to purchase some advantages or not, they know what the deal is. If they don't like it, then that mud isn't for them and they should probably go somewhere else. If they don't mind it, there's not a problem. But, it would seem to mostly be the commercial muds with straight subscription schemes (Gemstone, et al) that really cater to the masses. And, while I am certain that a game like Achaea would like to bring in as many players as possible, it still seems to be a rather exemplary mud (and, no, I am not a player there) that doesn't appear to be cutting corners on quality and imagination just to cater to the lowest common denominator. I'm not really sure what qualifies as a 'good player', but it would seem odd that such a definition would exclude players solely on the basis that they might choose to spend a little more money and a little less time on improving their characters in some way. Absolutely. And not having to worry about profits will be liberating to some mud owners and will allow them to pursue their hobby in potentially rewarding ways that they might not have considered had they been more concerned about the bottom line (then again, people who sacrifice vision for preconceived notions of what sells, probably shouldn't be trying to make money on creative endeavors anyways). On the other hand, it also creates its own set of worries. A free mud may not have to worry about profits, but it still has to worry about costs. It has to worry about finding coders and builders who are creative and mature and able to set aside sufficient time for something which isn't going to put any food on the table (that's the real bitch about hobbies -- when you have the time for them, you usually don't have the money; once you get to the point where you have the money, you generally no longer have the time.) Edited to fix a bunged-up quote.