|
It's a factor, yes, but one which can be replaced by money to a greater or lesser extent. Each advantage a player buys is something they didn't need skill to earn, and each advantage that can't also be earned through playing is something that gives them yet another edge over those relying on skill.
My mud places an extremely high emphasis on player skill, yet most players would get torn apart by an iron golem - despite the fact that its 'tactics' consist of nothing more than throwing one clumsy punch after another. Why would they lose? Because it's so strong and tough that it can win through brute force.
Taken to the extreme, a pay-for-perks model could end up like that - a player with practically no skill who can mow their way through most other players using brute force to overcome their skill.
Some pay-for-perks muds use automated combat systems (which primarily uses character skill) combined with powerful equipment that can only be purchased with money. At this point, money becomes more important than skill, and players who don't pay simply cannot compete with those who do.
But if they have mana which is boosted through purchased items which a non-paying player cannot have, then they don't need to be as skilled at making use of their spells - and will also be better than someone of the same skill level who doesn't have perks.
You seem to be pretty keen on the pay-for-perks method, but you still need to decide how much value you want skill to have in relation to money. If players can buy advantages outright then they're also going to bypass some of the need for skill - and if those advantages are things which can only be purchased, then they're going to be buying themselves an edge over those who rely on skill.
As you can see from this thread, there are some people who like to be able to compensate for their lack of skill, and others who prefer a level playing field. You can't please both though.
|