Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

truthfulthomas · 10-12-2002, 10:10 AM

In a game where it is known that you can purchase in-game goodies for real world cash, isn't it just assumed that the players playing there, even the ones who don't contribute monetarily, accept this as a fair arrangement? And if there are some who don't, don't they really only have themselves to blame for not moving on to a game where the advancement/acquisition arrangements are more palatable?

Allowing for players to choose other means of bettering themselves aside from logging in 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, does not make one game any more cheesy, underhanded or unfair than another. Rather it just makes for a game that will have more appeal for some different types of players (particularly players with more money and less time to spend on online games). A player who feels that a sick level of devotion to a mud should be the primary factor in determining who is top dog would do well to stick with muds where time in-game is the leading indicator of who's hot and who's not. Likewise, a player who might only be able to give a game 10-15 hours a week is better off looking for a game where either a) character improvement is handled primarily by social means so that they aren't having to compete with 10-hour-a-day power levelers, or b) character improvement is attainable by multiple means, including perhaps the ability to pay for some things that time constraints might otherwise not allow you to achieve. For some players it will be far more important to them not whether a game charges for play or for extra/accelerated features or not, but whether the amount of time spent online in order to acheive anything in the game is such that only students and slackers really have any reasonable chance at success (and there are quite a few muds where this is the case).

However a game goes about it, as long as the game's character improvement arrangements are known to all involved, the players, by virtue of choosing to continue playing the game, are acknowledging that the system is fair. It's quite different than if, say, I were to secretly slip the admin at some mud $200 and they powered me up and gave me a cool magic sword. This would be cheesy, underhanded and unfair because everyone involved (the playerbase) is not in on the arrangement and not able to base their decision on whether or not to continue playing said game in the light of this arrangement.

10-12-2002, 10:10 AM	#104
truthfulthomas New Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 11	In a game where it is known that you can purchase in-game goodies for real world cash, isn't it just assumed that the players playing there, even the ones who don't contribute monetarily, accept this as a fair arrangement? And if there are some who don't, don't they really only have themselves to blame for not moving on to a game where the advancement/acquisition arrangements are more palatable? Allowing for players to choose other means of bettering themselves aside from logging in 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, does not make one game any more cheesy, underhanded or unfair than another. Rather it just makes for a game that will have more appeal for some different types of players (particularly players with more money and less time to spend on online games). A player who feels that a sick level of devotion to a mud should be the primary factor in determining who is top dog would do well to stick with muds where time in-game is the leading indicator of who's hot and who's not. Likewise, a player who might only be able to give a game 10-15 hours a week is better off looking for a game where either a) character improvement is handled primarily by social means so that they aren't having to compete with 10-hour-a-day power levelers, or b) character improvement is attainable by multiple means, including perhaps the ability to pay for some things that time constraints might otherwise not allow you to achieve. For some players it will be far more important to them not whether a game charges for play or for extra/accelerated features or not, but whether the amount of time spent online in order to acheive anything in the game is such that only students and slackers really have any reasonable chance at success (and there are quite a few muds where this is the case). However a game goes about it, as long as the game's character improvement arrangements are known to all involved, the players, by virtue of choosing to continue playing the game, are acknowledging that the system is fair. It's quite different than if, say, I were to secretly slip the admin at some mud $200 and they powered me up and gave me a cool magic sword. This would be cheesy, underhanded and unfair because everyone involved (the playerbase) is not in on the arrangement and not able to base their decision on whether or not to continue playing said game in the light of this arrangement.