Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

The_Disciple · 08-02-2004, 09:07 AM

the_logos wrote:
"Yep. That's all true. Just as true as it is to say that in nearly all muds,the guy with more free time is going to "win." Free time and money are both currencies possessed in varying amounts by different people. Most muds reward solely those with lots of free time. We choose to do both and you can attain absolutely anything in the game with exclusively free time, though many things cannot be obtained exclusively with rl money."

Threshold wrote:
"So the person with no life and no job who plays the game 20 hours a day is on a balanced playing field with the guy with a family and a job who can only play 2-4 hours a day?"

You both seem to be making the same argument: That since success in a mud is typically based purely on time, it is a virtue for such a game to accept money in lieu of time.

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I believe this to be a straw man argument. You'll forgive me if I misuse the terminology slightly; it's been a long time since my university logic classes.

I don't believe that saying many other muds do something in a way you find abhorrent or lacking (time = advancement) is a valid justification for doing things the way you do (time or money = advancement). I'm certain there are countless muds out there with horribly stupid features (or lack thereof) that you wouldn't implement in your own muds in a thousand years. They really don't justify this either.

The truth is that you accept money for advancement in your games simply because you like money. Perhaps you see a need for it, either to pay the expenses of your mud or purchase yourself costly housewares. This is certainly no crime; you would hardly be the first people in the history of civilization to attempt to exchange a quality good or service for the money of others, and surely civilization has benefitted from many such exchanges. No one rational would blame you for doing so.

But let's not kid ourselves. If you were motivated solely by the benefit to your players and in being able to have a diverse player base, you would simply design a game in which large amounts of catass time are not a requisite to play or enjoy the game, rather than trying to tack on an exchange of currencies as an alternate to catass. (Perhaps we could coin a term for circumventing catass through payment, such as catbuy or assbarter.)

You can build a game that doesn't fall along the traditional achiever molds and will provide equal enjoyment to the hardcore gamer and casual gamer. From the numbers of people who play your existing games, it seems likely that you have good enough design abilities as they relate to the mudding world to take a good stab at this. I'd like to challenge you to do so.

08-02-2004, 09:07 AM	#51
The_Disciple Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 113	the_logos wrote: "Yep. That's all true. Just as true as it is to say that in nearly all muds,the guy with more free time is going to "win." Free time and money are both currencies possessed in varying amounts by different people. Most muds reward solely those with lots of free time. We choose to do both and you can attain absolutely anything in the game with exclusively free time, though many things cannot be obtained exclusively with rl money." Threshold wrote: "So the person with no life and no job who plays the game 20 hours a day is on a balanced playing field with the guy with a family and a job who can only play 2-4 hours a day?" You both seem to be making the same argument: That since success in a mud is typically based purely on time, it is a virtue for such a game to accept money in lieu of time. I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I believe this to be a straw man argument. You'll forgive me if I misuse the terminology slightly; it's been a long time since my university logic classes. I don't believe that saying many other muds do something in a way you find abhorrent or lacking (time = advancement) is a valid justification for doing things the way you do (time or money = advancement). I'm certain there are countless muds out there with horribly stupid features (or lack thereof) that you wouldn't implement in your own muds in a thousand years. They really don't justify this either. The truth is that you accept money for advancement in your games simply because you like money. Perhaps you see a need for it, either to pay the expenses of your mud or purchase yourself costly housewares. This is certainly no crime; you would hardly be the first people in the history of civilization to attempt to exchange a quality good or service for the money of others, and surely civilization has benefitted from many such exchanges. No one rational would blame you for doing so. But let's not kid ourselves. If you were motivated solely by the benefit to your players and in being able to have a diverse player base, you would simply design a game in which large amounts of catass time are not a requisite to play or enjoy the game, rather than trying to tack on an exchange of currencies as an alternate to catass. (Perhaps we could coin a term for circumventing catass through payment, such as catbuy or assbarter.) You can build a game that doesn't fall along the traditional achiever molds and will provide equal enjoyment to the hardcore gamer and casual gamer. From the numbers of people who play your existing games, it seems likely that you have good enough design abilities as they relate to the mudding world to take a good stab at this. I'd like to challenge you to do so.