[the_logos]

Originally Posted by (pwyll @ May 27 2005,03:46) Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 26 2005,14:19) I, for instance, quit playing Worlds of Warcraft precisely because of this. I don't look at monster bashing games as a competitive enterprise (what does it matter to me what level someone else is?), but I objected to playing a game that was clearly designed to be oriented towards people with large amounts of free time. No job, no family, no friends? Great! You get to progress faster. I had read an  article on Slate that said that Wow had come up with a scheme to level the playing field for people who couldn't spend as much time as others on the game. Essentially, you get a boost of experience gain if you have been logged off for a period of time. Do they not have this feature or is it a sincere, but ultimately vain attempt to level things a little?

Typical ignorant, sloppy games journalism. What is it about games that makes writers feel like they can write about them without having a clue.

Yes, WoW has that kind of system, as Brody pointed out. But is it particularly effective? Not really. Does it "level the playing field?" I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm thinking not. The bonus you get is nice, but you really have to play infrequently to get that bonus, and there's no way that said bonus would actually allow you to have a prayer of keeping up with your frequently-playing friends.

[Brody]

I've found that the WoW experience bonus (which accrues during the time a specific character is left unplayed and kept in a tavern or large city) actually encourages and, in some ways, rewards people to keep on playing more - particularly with alts. I know that's what I've done. I have two or three characters. I cycle between them and usually have one that's got at least a full level of double-XP waiting to be earned.

You still have to spend time either questing or grinding to level. But, in this way, you're still able to benefit from having a lot of time to invest in the game without suffering any real penalty. WoW doesn't really reward you for *not* playing.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by A more comparable example would be going to your local amusement park, going in, and then being charged for individual rides.

No, that's not comparible. Amusement park rides are not competitive activities. A mud with strong gameplay aspects (particularly those of a PvP nature) are competitive activities. Some people might not care about those competitive aspects, but the same is also true of running a race or earning martial arts grades - some people just do them for fun, but for many others it's a competitive activity, and allowing people to buy their progress will reduce the value of skill.

Originally Posted by How about Valentino Rossi (best motorcycle racer ever)? His team spends tens of millions trying to eek out an extra half a horsepower for his bike. Is that unfair?

If he raced against people who had no budget, yes, that would be unfair. If he entered races where all the other contestants were hobby motorcycle racers, do you think the other contestants would consider his races fairly won through skill? Or do you think they'd feel that his tens-of-millions-budget had bought him an advantage they couldn't compete against?

Originally Posted by Besides, unless you completely eliminate all asymmetrical item trading, you cannot stop people from obtaining things using out-of-game resources, like friends.

You can stop them obtaining most things though, and there are many ways to restrict players from taking advantage of overpowered items that they've received from friends - plus, such equipment is always going to be something that is available to other players as well, while I was specifically referring to muds where "money is the only realistic way to earn certain competitive edges" (in other words, equipment which only money can buy). However a mud which cannot stop people from becoming overly powerful through shared equipment has a serious design flaw - and even if they want to sell super-equipment, a flaw like this is going to make a hole in their profits, as players can simply get nearly as good gear from their powerful friends.

But internal character advancement (as opposed to things like equipment) is another thing entirely. I don't know of any muds which allow players to give their friends levels, exp or skill-boosts - yet many pay-for-perks muds allow precisely these sort of things. It is one thing to argue that players with insufficient time should be able to compensate for it with money, but when players can purchase advancement outright like this you're also allowing money to replace playing skill.

I've no plans to run any sort of payment model in God Wars II, but I am working on a number of completely player-skill-based advancement options. Much like the typical pay-for-perks approach, except that money is replaced with skill, this 'play-for-perks' model allows skilled players to progress faster than grinders, and also unlocks options for skilled players which no amount of pure grinding can achieve. If someone has something you can't get, you can't blame it on them having more time or money than you, only on being a better player.

[Xorith]

The last few posts have sort of missed the point I think.

To say that someone who pays for a perk in a game has an advantage over other players isn't really true. Each player has the option to also pay for the same perks. The issue comes in with how much can a player afford, and if a player wants to pay or not. I really can't help it if a player doesn't want to pay for any perks, especially if they go into the MUD knowing it's got a pay-for-perk scheme. For me, that's one thing I'm going to make known right at the start. Even so, it boils down to "why play?" if you're unhappy with how the game is run.

No one has an obligation to provide a free MUD. The only restraints on you are with code licenses, and with any agreements you have with your host. Now when talking about the intention of making a system that's somewhat fair all around, as it's been said several times in this thread - that's just not going to happen. Someone isn't going to like it no matter what you do. I also think the predictions are right - that this sort of pay-for-stuff view on online games is going to be the hottest thing on the market, if it isn't already.

Anywho, back to being fair, and all the sports analogies...

If the athletes all had the same spending cap, then honestly it would be fair. Especially in a sports example, because an athlete's skill is what lands them sponsers, and sponsers help increase the budget toward making the athlete better. At some point, it all boils down to sheer skill. I also point out that there's skill in getting the most out of the money one can spend, and that the best gear doesn't make you the best. Put my grandmother in a NASCAR stock car and she's not going to win the Daytona 500. She's probably not even going to drive over 50mph, if that. Why? Because she's not a skilled racecar driver.

As I said before, it doesn't matter how many levels you get, what kind of gear you have, or anything. Eventually it'll come down to skill, and those who have not evenly paid and played won't have any. At that point, who is at the advantage? The person who slugged it out for longer to reach the top level and get the good gear, or the person who just started the game a week ago, and is a thousand dollars poorer?

[Hajamin]

Ok... lets try this again. Hopefully firefox won't crash before I submit it this time.

I personally prefer the PFP system over PTP. I've been a long time IRE player, and now code for Lusternia. Over the years I have made characters on 3 out of 4 of their games, and some I spent money on, some I haven't. Regardless of the money, I enjoyed all of them, and all of them raised to about the same level. My last mortal actually rose in levels and skills(just looking at the things you could buy, not RP related things) farther than any other, and I spent FAR less RL money on that one than on any other.

Another advantage I see, mainly from a business side, is someone(like I did) may play for months and not want to spent money(or have it). Months later, they may decide to spent some, but if you were on a PTP mud they may have left after the free time period was up, and you as a business never would have gotten that sale.

On a side note, Lusternia's highest level character, and has almost all her skills maxed out, has done it all IG without spending RL money. For players, expecially younger ones who can't afford to pay, seeing things like that really makes them want to continue playing. As I stated above, those people may later decide to spend money, which is ofcourse the goal for commercial muds.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by To say that someone who pays for a perk in a game has an advantage over other players isn't really true.

Of course it is - otherwise there would be no reason for them to buy the perks.

Originally Posted by Each player has the option to also pay for the same 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.

Originally Posted by The issue comes in with how much can a player afford, and if a player wants to pay or not. I really can't help it if a player doesn't want to pay for any perks, especially if they go into the MUD knowing it's got a pay-for-perk scheme. For me, that's one thing I'm going to make known right at the start. Even so, it boils down to "why play?" if you're unhappy with how the game is run.

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.

Originally Posted by If the athletes all had the same spending cap, then honestly it would be fair.

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.

Originally Posted by Put my grandmother in a NASCAR stock car and she's not going to win the Daytona 500.

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?

Originally Posted by Eventually it'll come down to skill, and those who have not evenly paid and played won't have any.

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?

[Xorith]

I suppose what I'm trying to go for here is like pay-for-perk, but not really. What I mean is, in a pay-to-play, if you don't pay for a month, you don't play for the month. You could say that this is just like pay-for-perk, seeing as the player who didn't pay that month is going to be left behind by about a month. I'm trying to figure a system that's like this, but instead of not being able to play for a month, you're just not going to be able to take full advantage of certain things for that month. This way, you're far less behind than if you didn't play at all.

That's where I'm going. I totally agree that MUDs who claim to be free, and then have a pay-for-perk system with little restraint on how much someone can buy, leads to an unfair game where the wallet eventually out-weighs skill. However, what would a system be called if it was based on what I said above? Pay for Perky Play?

Any thoughts on this? I mean, I'd consider a MUD where you could pay up to $12.95/mo and get some sort of in-game thing that represents your payment. That "thing" could be applied toward what you want it to be applied to. You could choose to boost a few skills, to better some stats, buy a piece of gear, or maybe convert it to in-game money. Maybe even enable a "perk", like the exp-bonus that was explained here. Once you've spent it all, that's it. There's some skill in deciding where to put those things, but I admit that's a weak argument. I suppose what I'm doing is just taking a different view though. It still seems like a PFP system, only twisted around to seem more fair, though I guess it just depends on the way you run your MUD and the way you hold it in perspective.

[Hardestadt]

I think I missed where anything in the world is fair, personally. You get out of things what you put into them.

The comparison between payment models and kung fu for me would be similar to being plugged into the matrix and having the skill 'uploaded'. Someone who has trained it up slowly and is more used to it will definately be better, thats for sure.

I know kung fu... whoa..

Another bonus of pay for perks systems is that there is hardly ever a level playing field in muds unless you are a founding player of the mud. Everyone who has been there before you has more experience, more time to gain items and levels, more political power, etc. This is another thing that I personally find frustrating, mainly as being someone who is more than a 9-5er I cannot compete with the oft unemployed hardcore mudders of any non pay-for-perks realm I want to play.

Even if I do get on on day one, I'm doomed to fall behind in fairly short order.

-H

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I'm trying to figure a system that's like this, but instead of not being able to play for a month, you're just not going to be able to take full advantage of certain things for that month ... Any thoughts on this?

Similar to the approach Traithe is taking for his new game then? That could work, although as I've said before, my personal reference (as it's opinions you're asking for) would be something that didn't replace (or remove the need for) player skill. Examples might include unlocking extra character options (giving pay-to-play people more variety rather than more power), out-of-game bonuses (email forwarding, additional character slots, custom client, etc), or even allowing them to advance faster (requiring less playing time, but just as much playing skill).

[Burr]

While I wish only success for Traithe and others who hope to positively modify the pay-for-play systems, I'm not sure how any implementation where payment affects access to any subsystem of the game or metagame can effectively solve the fundamental disadvantages of PFP.

If you give a player access to a race other than human, then that means they have access to any power that makes the race distinguishable from humans. You might as well allow them to purchase a weapon they could not otherwise obtain. If there is no advantage to playing that race over playing a human, then the system is unfortunately more pay-for-cognitive-dissonance than pay-for-play.

There may be an even greater impact on gameplay if players must pay to access a particular zone of the game, unless there is no way to transfer the rewards of that zone back to the free areas. If the latter is true, then once more the net value added is zero -- or less, since the paying player will feel they've been wasting their time.

Suppose you only offered one service: players can store an extra description of their character that only they can view, and only when offline. The only thing that makes this service worth paying for is that it takes slightly less time to store the description there then putting it on a person website or saving it as a Word document. How can this possibly affect the gameplay of other players? Well, as the logos said, time is a resource, and one that we all know has an affect on gameplay. Even one second taken out of your day is one second less to plan out one's gameplay actions, whether you do that planning in the game or out of the game.

There is little point in trying to distinguish between game and metagame. If they can be effectively separated, then at least one of them is not worth considering in the first place.

[Traithe]

Originally Posted by (Burr @ May 29 2005,19:38) While I wish only success for Traithe and others who hope to positively modify the pay-for-play systems, I'm not sure how any implementation where payment affects access to any subsystem of the game or metagame can effectively solve the fundamental disadvantages of PFP.

Well, remember; the thing that distinguishes my conceptual model from most PFP applications is its binary nature.

Either you pay monthly and have access to all of the extended content, or you don't. It isn't a matter of paying and receiving an X increase in power, where each player can pay and receive these increases as many times as desired.

So, in a sense, it lowers the monetary barrier to effective competition, since in this model you only need to pay the monthly fee, whereas in the more liberalized PFP model you need to pay as much as other players (some with a great deal more disposable income than others, I imagine) are paying in order to effectively compete with them.

It's a given that paying members will in some ways have advantages that non-paying members don't; the moment you allow non-paying members to play in however limited a scope, this will happen, unless, as you said, you make your fee-required content not worth paying for.

The primary difference between the two models to my mind lies in the difficulty of surmounting the barrier of effective competition between paying customers noted above.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by (Burr @ May 30 2005,01:38) If you give a player access to a race other than human, then that means they have access to any power that makes the race distinguishable from humans.  You might as well allow them to purchase a weapon they could not otherwise obtain.

There were two major factors in the system I suggested on Traithe's forums which would result in a more balanced playing field than the typical play-for-perks model:

1) Payment is boolean - either you're paying, or you're not - thus getting away from the arms-race mentality of "the more you pay, the better you become".

2) Pay-to-play options would expand your options outwards rather than upwards (i.e., you'd gain more options rather than more power).

To compare it to the weapon purchasing example you gave, it would be like saying that anyone can use swords, shields and crossbows, but only paying customers can use the other weapons - while at the same time stressing that all weapons are designed to be equally balanced against each other. The paying player would have the advantage of variety and flexibility, but would be no more powerful than the non-paying player.

[Daedroth]

Originally Posted by (the_logos @ May 27 2005,15:18) Originally Posted by KaVir,May 27 2005,07:25 Allowing players to purchase their advancement is, for me, comparible with a martial arts club that allows people to buy sashes instead of earning them, or a University that allows students to buy reference books that can be used during the exam, or a marathon where people are allowed to buy taxi-rides along the way.  True, someone who works full-time isn't going to be able to spend as much time learning kung-fu as someone who is unemployed, nor will they have as much time to study as a full-time student, or as much time to keep fit as a professional runner. Originally Posted by Allowing players to purchase their advancement is, for me, comparible with a martial arts club that allows people to buy sashes instead of earning them, or a University that allows students to buy reference books that can be used during the exam, or a marathon where people are allowed to buy taxi-rides along the way. A more comparable example would be going to your local amusement park, going in, and then being charged for individual rides. Is that somehow "unfair?" You seem to be looking at MUDs as inherently competitive experiences. They are competitive for some people. They are not competitive for others. These are entertainment experiences for most people, not a way to validate yourself . In terms of competitive activities, what about all the money Lance Armstrong spends trying to gain an edge via superior equipment. Is that unfair? Does that diminish his achievement? How about Valentino Rossi (best motorcycle racer ever)? His team spends tens of millions trying to eek out an extra half a horsepower for his bike. Is that unfair? How about pro sports? Why do you think the Yankees do so well? It's cause they can and do spend more money than small market teams. Now, you might argue that none of the above is fair. That's fine. I'd argue that people generally don't care. In nearly EVERY professional competitive endeavour, people buy advantages, and hundreds of millions of fans the world around tune in with bated breath anyway. That, to me, says that this mythical 'fairness' is a chimera, which I believe is only of concern to a narrow segment of the population. --matt

Well, in actuallity, all the teams spend money regardless. so thats essentially pay to play, not pay for perks... and also, what does rl friendships have to do with the difference between pay to play and pay for perks? im also adding more to this than originally planned... I am an avid player of most IRE games, and i dont approve of the pay for perks route. While i would not pay to play those games, the way they use their credit system is outrageous! while they limit the amount of credits convertible per day, it is completely unbalanced vs paying your time. on lusternia right now, i believe it costs 4k ic gold to buy ONE credit, which doesnt help much, while 4k takes a little bit to acquire. meanwhile, you may pay around 70$ US to net you a good 200 credits. that would make you have more might than an average player. making a complete newbie, AKA a grandma in a nascar able to easily beat a marathon runner. i rest my case...

[Xorith]

Good discussions

I see what you're saying KaVir, but I firmly believe that player skill is a factor regardless. The only way it isn't is if the perks give so much that you don't even need to know how to play your character. If a cleric doesn't know how to make use of his or her heal spells in a mana-efficient way, they are going to let people get killed, and more than likely build a bad reputation for being a complete and total high-level newbie. I fully believe that pay-for-perks doesn't work in a game where there is no need for game play tactics, and tactics aren't something you can simply buy. Remove that element, and yes, you're right. The perk becomes mightier than the skill.

One other thing I wanted to address was the complaint about the credit system of another game.

Given your numbers, 1 credit costs approximately $2.86. I'm not sure how easily gold is to come by, but if you can get 4,000 gold within 8 hours of game time, then you can say that someone else is able to pay $2.86 to your 8 hours of free time. If you have 8 hours of time you can put into a game, and this other person doesn't, then I can't see anything wrong with that. Yes, the problem is when people do have the money to put in more than just the 8 hours of difference, however there is a limit, as you said.

[KaVir]

Originally Posted by I see what you're saying KaVir, but I firmly believe that player skill is a factor regardless.

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.

Originally Posted by If a cleric doesn't know how to make use of his or her heal spells in a mana-efficient way, they are going to let people get killed

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.