|
Of course it is - otherwise there would be no reason for them to buy the perks.
Only if they have the money. And the point is that only by paying can they alleviate that advantage. This could start a form of arms race which could become far more expensive than any pay-to-play mud.
Well fair enough, as long as the players know in advance what they're letting themselves in for I don't think anyone would complain.
However you started this thread asking what people thought of pay-to-play vs pay-for-perks, and it's from that perspective that I'm explaining my opinion. Of course you can run your mud any way you please, but personally I wouldn't play a mud that allowed people to overcome my skill with their wallet.
Indeed it would, and that would be the equivilent of a pay-to-play mud which had a fixed cost. However what I'm talking about here is the pay-for-perks model, where the more you spend the better you become.
No, but put her against a marathon runner who's on foot and she's going to win. Do you think the athlete would enjoy competing against her? Do you think he'd congratulate her on her skill?
You're mixing up money with playing skill - they're not related. With most pay-for-perks models money provides an extra boost against those relying on skill, but it's not an indicator of skill in its own right. Someone who relies almost entirely on money is obviously going to be far less skilled than the person who relies purely on skill, but that money is going to allow them to offset or overcome that lack of skill (just like your grandmother when drives past the professional runner in her car).
As I said before, you need to decide what role you want skill to play. I'm not judging you, just giving the suggestions you asked for - what sort of role do you want money to play in relation to time and skill? Should money be the primary factor, allowing newbies to overcome even the most skilled of players if they pay enough? Or should money and playing skill be of approximately equal value? Or should money just give a small edge, only allowing you to defeat those who are slightly more skilled than you? Or should money not affect skill at all, only allowing people to compensate for time?
|