[Daedroth]

I wonder where in my post i said that IRE was evil...? hrm, I guess NOWHERE! I just simply stated that they do, in fact, whether you believe it or not, want to make money. And I'm not your queen, I'm your God...

[Valg]

Actually, I address it quite explicitly. The players in the pay-for-perks MUD also have time invested. As pointed, out, there is a time.money exchange rate. There is, however, one additional resource in play, and as a new player you have 0 of that resource invested when you first log in. Other players have more than 0 of that resource. Therefore, it's an additional category in which you are behind. A repost of your chart, correcting for this glaring omission:

Established 'free' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<
Established 'perk' mud player: eq/skills/knowhow/etc + perks bought + >>> TIME INVESTED <<<

[Valg]

Well, I understand why IRE uses deceptive advertising of the kind you mention. (However, you imply it's guilt by omission, where I think the word "Free" is a mislabel.) I just think you either have to go that route, or go on and on about how pay-for-perks is a wonderful tool that helps players level the playing field.

[Valg]

I really don't mean any offense by this, but I'm going to trust my own opinion, gathered from my own research, over the "But I said so!" claim of someone who makes his income from a pay-for-perks scheme.

[KaVir]

I've just noticed that does exactly that:

Will I remain competitive if I do not buy the chapters? Will I be able to compete with and against others if I have only some of the Guild Wars chapters?

Yes. Purchasing the newer chapters of Guild Wars will not make you strictly more powerful. You will have access to many more strategic options, due to the expanding nature of the skills, abilities, items and professions that you enjoy with each chapter. It would be similar to building a deck in Magic: The Gathering™: The more cards you own, the greater the number of different playing decks you can choose to play. When you buy the chapters of Guild Wars, you will acquire a larger collection of skills and abilities from which to build your skill set, but you will not gain more power. So if you purchase a chapter and your friend does not, you will still be able to play competitively against and with one another.

No monthly charge, and those who do pay are no more powerful than those who don't - now that's a pay-for-perks model I could live with.

[Spoke]

KaViR et all.

Maybe, just maybe, you are not reading the full posts of people before writting a reply. While in the past there have been instances where Mr. Logos' replies could have been misunderstood, I see his replies to this specific thread crystal clear.

It is obvious that there is an inherent difference between the chess game example and whatever play-per-<fill the blank> scheme IRE uses. I played a couple of their games for a while, I know people who has played their games for much longer time, and in both cases I have not been asked (neither have the people I know) to pay for the game or access to anything.

The fact that there ARE SOME pay-for-perks muds that fullfil Valg's example does not imply the pay-per-perks scheme is faulty, or that all muds with a pay-per-perks muds are faulty in a deep way or that they are not to be considered free.

Your statement at this point of the "discussion" just makes it clear that you are just jumping in the middle without trying to address any of the things being discussed. Just plainly attack the ppp scheme and no more.

From what can be recollected, Mr. Logos is trying to say that in HIS muds, the ppp scheme is such that it offers a clear option for those who want to spend money in their games, while leaving the option for those who have a lot of time and no desire to spend a penny to compete and enjoy their game in full.

Now, going back to the discussion at hand, I think the points by the_logos are valid, time is a resource more important to many people, and if there are people who mud and want to be competitive and do not mind to spend money in their characters, the option must be there (in a comercial enterprize), for implementation, in a ppp system, what is important I think is to gauge how bigger a person who invests money can get with respect to someone who does not. For example, if you can get a special weapon by doing quests and it will take you around 10 hrs playing if you did not spend money, and this weapon is good for about 20 hrs play time after you acquire it and then you can "sell" it for half that price you paid, how much rl-money should access to this weapon cost? $20? $40?. I think that is what you must try to balance, how much in-game time should equate this much rl-money, and how fast can you use this money-bought benefits. For example, if in a game you can pay for 10 of the above mentioned weapons at once, well, it wont really make you 10 times as powerful as anybody else, since you can only use two weapons at a time, true, you will have more variety and choices, and one of the weapons in your pool might give you a small edge at any given time, but you are not significantly stronger after you have two of the said weapons, no matter how much more money you pay.

So, I think it is important in this kind of implementation, that the goods you can access with money cannot be stacked forever, like say, "a small extra % protection from fire" such that a player can keep getting more and more protection from fire in a linear way making it so that if player A has spent 10 times more money than player B in fire resistance, player A's bonuses are 10 times bigger, you can make a curve making further progress more expensive ($1 1st bonus, $2 2nd bonus, etc) making progress slower (or more expensive) and then making the gap to be broaden at a smaller rate OR just make the goods you can access such that they cannot be stacked on each other infinitely (like weapons, or other equipment) so that having 2/3 or more of the same wont mean a bigger advantage necesarily.

It is unavoidable that old players/players who have spent more money, will have an advantage, but as has been said before, if a newbie is willing to spend a summer playing 24/7 a game or $500 in money to start in the same game they will necesarily be stronger, faster, than anybody trying to start said game the "free-all-by-myself-while-keeping-an-active-rl" way.

Another important thing you have to have, if you want people who pay and people who play for free, in the same place, and such that the money invested is not THAT important, is to have a very well built game that appeals to many people so that your player base will be big enough so that there is enough people who do not pay who can compete between themselves and still enjoy the game, there is enough people with insane amount of time so that they can compete with those who invest some/a lot of money in a way that not only those who spent large quantities of real life resources are the elite.

As for the big wallet/no life player, this is a big question mark. I do not thing there is a way to fix?/solve this problem. A player with insane amount of spare time, and at the same time, large wallet will throw off ANY balance you attempt to imprint in your ppp system, since they will have the best of both worlds, thankfully (for those with ppp systems) these people are scarce enough to not represent a huge problem, and seldom someone who loves to play all the time and buy their way up will stick to a single game for too long, since they can buy their way up to any* game (* any as in any that allows it), they probably would just do that, play the game until they "finish" or "top" it, and then move along.

This has been long enough.

Have a good day all of you,

Spoke.

[the_logos]

So, which MUDs are you talking about, where money replaces skill in a way that time does not? Certainly not ours, of course, but I'm curious where all these MUDs are that you object to so much.

--matt

[the_logos]

Similarly, I understand why Carrion Fields uses deceptive advertising by claiming its classes are 'balanced' when they are only balanced in a certain sense. For instance, I discovered that not every class is balanced for the use of fire-based spells. I was horrified at the mislabeling and I think that there needs to be a new option for the mud listing that says, "Balanced classes....except when it comes to fire-based spells."


--matt

[The_Disciple]

There's arguing your point, and then there's just being asinine.

I hate to say it, but you're well into category #2 right now, man. Come back to the light.

[Valg]

If that's the best you can do, it's a pretty good sign we deliver what we advertise.

None of which answers the question that has been dodged: In this thread, you claim that in a free game "most things are only available to those willing to spend inordinate amounts of time" (*). Given that you claim a can-pay-for-perks (**)model "gives a player more options" (*) and that "consumers want it, and thus it is worth providing to them" (***), why fight a label that accurately describes the financial model underlying the game? Shouldn't you be lobbying for such a label?

Either that, or someone's talking out of both sides of their mouth.

(*): The_logos, (for both)

(**): Probably more accurate than just "pay-for-perks", since you can choose not to if you are willing to accept a slower rate of development relative to those who do.

(***): The_logos,

[the_logos]

I think you missed the point of my post then.

We are free. Free, clearly, has different interpretations. To me, free means that you don't have to pay for something to use it, which perfectly describes our games.

Carrion Field classes are balanced. Balanced, clearly, has different interpretations. You can be balanced for 1 vs. 1 combat, 3 vs. 3 combat, sneaking, fire-based spells, etc. Carrion Fields feels it's informative enough to just put "balanced" rather than include more information. That's how we feel about free. Both are accurate, neither give complete pictures of the game, as that would be impossible in 255 characters.

--matt

[the_logos]

No. Free is a more powerful way to advertise. How difficult is that to understand?

Look, you're the one doing the lobbying, and if you're so concerned about distinguishing yourself from other free games, go ahead and invent your own term. I'm done with this. We are free. We are labeled free. We shall stay labeled free. End of discussion.

--matt

[Valg]

Not in the least. We know the word "free" is a powerful draw, because we run a free game. (As in, RL money doesn't get your character anything.) I'm pretty sure every ad I've written for Carrion Fields mentions the word "Free".

It becomes our concern when games that have schemes to leverage money out of their players use that label to describe their own, different financial system (*), thus diluting a powerful way for us to advertise.

(*) Not better, not worse. But it is fundamentally different, and should be disclosed as such.

[The_Disciple]

The key difference, and it's an important one, is that a sane person could see 'free' and not get the interpretation you're giving it (and I suspect many would not), but there isn't enough crazy and/or psychadelic drugs in the world to give 'balanced' the implication in your counterexample.

I've done volunteer work with retarded children. They'd understand the difference between these two scenarios. That you're seeming not to strikes me as disingenous, the sort of theatrical stupidity put upon to try to make a point. It's not exactly working.

[Aeyr]

You're not comparing apples to apples here (neither of you are, if you're defending this argument). The assumption is that your average player has some ratio of time:money which is constant (obviously there's always going to be special cases where people have both more time and money than your average player. That's just life).

However, if we wanted to get all mathematical about it, we can do this:

That equation from before:
[code]
Established 'free' mud player; eq/skills/knowhow/etc + a * (time) + b * (money/perks)
Established 'perk' mud player; eq/skills/knowhow/etc + a * (time) + b * (money/perks)
Where a + b = k (some constant)

Let's just set k to 1 (because we're saying average players)
Established 'free' mud player; a = 1.0, b = 0.0
Established 'perk' mud player; a=ehhh 0.3, b=0.7 (whatever, it's flexible)
[/quote]

The point is, in a free (or subscription) mud, you're forced to have that second term be non-existent.

Now, that's, as I said, with the assumption that the average player a + b = some constant (in this case,  1.0). For your rich kid on summer break, that constant ISN'T a constant. So let's see that:

[code]
Free/Subscription model;
Me; a=1.0, b=0.0 (k=1.0)
Rich kid; a=2.0, b=0.0 (k=2.0)

Perk Model;
Me; a=0.3, b=0.7 (k=1.0)
Rich kid; a=2.0, b=1.5 (k=3.5, the bastard)
[/quote]

I lose in both, but I expect to. Where's the point you're trying to make?
At least in the perk model I have the freedom to choose which resource I want to spend, time AND/OR money.

First, for most games I've played, the actual amount of skill involved is pretty miniscule. It's mostly about the eq/levels/etc that you can gain to make you better. (IRE games being a pretty #### good example of an exception to this btw.)

Second, it's a subjective comparison at best anyway. I enjoy pitting my 'skill' against other people in Halo 2 (a free/subscription model), but I still feel a bit like an underdog because I just don't have the reflexes of a 14 year old anymore. I don't get upset and feel that the 14 year olds have some advantage I don't. I just deal with it and feel that much better when I can beat them.

[KaVir]

I am, but apparently you're not.  This thread is not about IRE - it's about Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance payment models (a big giveaway being the fact that the thread is entitled "Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance").  IRE is one example of pay-to-advance (aka pay-for-perks), but it is far from the only one.  If you read the thread you'll see many different types of pay-for-perks have been discussed, including one that even I find fair.

But the chess game is very much like certain other pay-for-perks muds.

The fact that I specifically cited an example of something I considered a decent pay-for-perks mud should make it clear that I'm not attacking all forms of pay-for-perk.  Go back further in the thread and you'll see me describe a variety of possible pay-for-perks models, with my opinions of each.  Once again I suggest you take your own advice and actually read the thread before posting.

No, it is not unavoidable, and I've already posted the link (and description) for a pay-for-perks model which avoids this pitfall.  Yet again I urge you to please read the thread before posting.

[KaVir]

So - just to clarify - you're saying that everything a player can achieve in your mud with credits can also be achieved without? Every single item, skill, class, artifact, pet, etc, can also be gained without requiring any credits?

For example, supposing I wanted to get a tailoring permit - what would I have to do in order to get one without spending any credits? Or what if I wanted a house, but didn't have any credits - how would I go about getting one? Or lets say I wanted Bracers of Frost, or a Stygian pendant - how could I get one of those without credits?

Note that I'm specifically interested in how these things could be achieved without credits - or if that's not possible, I'd like you to explain what systematic way can be used to earn credits without paying for them. "Buying them from other people" doesn't count - that would be like claiming WoW is free on the basis that you can wash your parents car in return for them paying for it, thus costing you nothing.

[Aeyr]

[Daedroth]

In response to Spoke and his post, credits are not just swords you get to use for a few days. The credits you buy are with you until you use them. The lessons you gain from them are there until you use them. The artifacts you buy with credits are there, either forever or until they decay.

There are ways to get ahold of credits not spending a rl dime, as said. However, in comparison with buying credits with rl money, its a joke. I don't even know of a way to describe it, its so unbalanced... All I can say is this, the only way to compare with people buying credits in IRE games, is to either become a demigod at level 100, or be a lvl 99 titan with a few years worth of rl time (actually in the game playing) under your belt buying credits with ic gold. People who buy credits? about level 50 or higher, able to own anyone who hasnt bought credits unless they meet above requirements....

Then again, there IS the skill factor, which does change a little. On some occasions, the newb will get owned simply because he doesnt know the full extent of his easily gotten powers yet. sometimes, all those skills gotten in a day or so kinda overwhelm them and they cant check it all out that fast. Once again, however, since they have already spent money in the game, they will continue to play, and once they realize what they have, they are able to easily sell their extra creds to those who slaved for days for ic gold... that will get them all the equipment they need... Then they go out and own some more powerful mobs than theyre supposed to be fighting, gain level 50 faster than anyone who hasnt bought, and then start owning people.

Ok, now, we have all checked out the pay to play vrs pay for perk from an rl perspective, now lets look at it from an ic perspective.... Johnny here, has spent 30 years in this strange realm, learning the ways of his guild. He has learned quite a bit, or so he thought. The other day, he met this 18 year old, with giant flexing muscles and the knowledge of the skills a grand master in his guild would have... Yet the 18 year old didnt know where the entrance was to the food stall, or how to buy the food he needed. He was also naked, and didnt know where to buy some clothes. What an odd experience...

*Whew* Im done.

[KaVir]

So there are many different things which can only be achieved with credits, and the only way to systematically bring those credits into circulation is with real-life money (either spending RL money yourself, or getting the credits from someone else who has spent RL money).

You're arguing that such an approach is free because players can get credits from other players - but somewhere, someone had to have bought those credits to start with. I can go into my local pub and quite often a friend will offer to buy me a beer - and I've seen people get completely drunk without spending a cent - but that doesn't mean the beer is free! If all muds used that definition of 'free', then they'd all list themselves as free. I could play Gemstone IV without spending a cent, for example, if my gf offered to foot the bill.

Now you could argue that some parts of IRE (such as the basic game) is free, and in that I would agree - but it's not true to say the full game is free. In order to access the full range of features you need to have credits, and the only way to systematically earn credits is with real-life money (even if you're getting another player to buy them).

And now that I think about it, it seems that Valg's original chess analogy fits IRE as well, with just a minor addition: You can play for free without bishops, pay $20 to play with bishops - or get someone else to pay $20 for you, so that you can play with bishops. Although having read Daedroth's posts, perhaps it might be better to say you can play for free with a king and 8 pawns, and pay (or get someone else to pay) for all of the other extra pieces...