Dulan, I use examples because that is the only way I know how of getting my ideas across. I am sorry I did go somewhat off topic but I felt the "ease of entry" point was significant.

Just because one expresses a positive experience with a game it does not follow that it is advertising.

Even though I wanted to try a free mud in the end it was too frustrating. For that reason I ended up at an in between site. A place where I can play for free even though it is commercial accepting cash for in game benefits. Not the perfect solution but it serves my needs. Had it been designated the same as p2p sites, which you are suggesting it should be, I wouldn't have even glanced at the info. I would have been mislead into thinking one must pay to play which isn't the case.

My expressing the apparent direct correlation between financial gain and ease of entry, (free-hardest), (optional purchase of extra benefits, easier), (p2p, easiest) was an observation intended to clarify why a player might choose to pay a p2p or an inbetween game rather than a free one other than pricing, or advertising, or where they stand on the list.

I agree with devising some sort of designation system. I don't think we should have to search websites to figure out if a mud that looks free actually is.

This "ease of entry" you keep talkin' about... All the free MUDs that i've looked thru here (I'm not sayin' "all in general" cuz i know there's a bunch that i haven't seen) have a host name and port number listed which you can connect to instantly. Weither it's p2p or not, you can do this on most MUDs. Price really has nothing to do with it.

And if you don't wanna use telenet (who does?), you can even use the WizardFE that you're so accustomed to.

I'm just not following your train of thought here. What is your point exactly?

I've tried several of the free MUDs here, and have played a few p2p;  I haven't noticed that either group is easier to access than the other.  The one area that I think a p2p does have an advantage is in the acquisition of hardware, bandwidth, etc.

I think that's the biggest reason why most free games have smaller populations.  They can't really depend on their players to buy new servers when the old one can't handle the workload; they have to pay for (and usually perform) their own repairs, which sometimes causes a longer down time; they are less likely to have someone available 24 hours a day in case of an emergency; they can't always afford to buy more bandwidth if the player base does increase quickly.  

I don't think any of those things makes the p2p game inherently better, but it can make it more convenmient at times.  I've played some great free MUDs, and would never judge the worth of a game by the cost of it.

I don’t always agree with Dulan, but in this matter I do.
Blatant and lengthy advertising has no place in a discussion thread.

In fact I’d go as far as to suggest, that posts like that one from Seraphina are partly the reason for the sense of ‘hostility’ that some of the new p2p muds may have experienced from the more established community on these boards. Personally I detest having a TV show interrupted by commercials, and I get equally irritated when a discussion thread is interrupted by lengthy advertising. Call me picky, but I believe I share this feeling with quite a few people.

However, as Seraphina herself points out, she is just a player on DragonRealms, not part of the Admin, so her posts should in no way reflect negatively on Simutronics. (In fact I found most posts from the Simutronics people both measured and sensible). It shouldn’t even reflect negatively on Achea, were it not for the fact that this mud has managed to get quite a reputation for unethical behaviour on this and other mud sites. Once a reputation like this is established, it sort of lays you open for suspicion

As for the issue of the discussion, I generally have no problem with Pay-to-play, as long as it is not in breach of the Diku licence, and as long as it is up-front and not disguised in different cheesy ways, designed to trick the prospective customer and ‘rope them in’, before they find out.

I do however have a particular problem with the form ‘pay-for-in-game-advantages. Why? Because to me mudding is a skill game. Your success in the game should be determined by your personal skills, whether they are about game mechanics, PK, Roleplaying, or social skills. It should NOT be determined by the size of your wallet, or, worse even, the size of your parent’s wallet. That just breeds lazy, spoilt and demanding players, and God knows, there are enough of those around already.

But then again, this is just my opinion, I guess everybody is entitled to theirs.

I can understand your point of view, and in some ways I agree with it - but look it at like this:

Scenario 1: Bubba wants the UberSword of Doom, but he is too lazy to find it himself, so he pays Boffo $10 for it. The result: Bubba now has the UberSword of Doom, and Boffo has $10, which he spends on some beer.

Scenario 2: Bubba wants the UberSword of Doom, but he is too lazy to find it himself, so he pays the mud owner $10 for it. The result: Bubba now has the UberSword of Doom, and the mud owner has $10 to put towards advertising for the mud.

The problem is that Scenario 1 is very difficult to prevent - and if players are going to do this anyway, wouldn't it be better to pump the money into improving the mud, rather than some random player's pocket (assuming it doesn't go against any licenses of course)?

Here's a rather different example:

Bubba creates graphical artwork for a living. He generously spends about 10 hours putting together some fantastic banners and artwork for my website - for free - so in return I give him something in the game that would have taken him about 10 hours to earn, had he been playing instead of working on something for the mud. The result? He is no better off that he would have been if he'd been playing, but the mud now has a much better website.

In the above scenario, Bubba has been rewarded even though he hasn't actually put time and effort into playing the mud - however he has put time and effort into improving the mud. He's no better off than he would have been if he'd been improving his character instead of the mud, so the only person really benefitting overall is the mud owner.

Take a look at another example:

Boffo owns a popular mud-related website, and kindly allows me to put up a banner advert on his site for free. In return, I set up a system whereby players can earn a +5% exp blessing by clicking on a link to his site, once per day.

Boffo gets extra traffic, the mud gets extra traffic, and the players all get a bonus if they're willing to help out.

Now take a look at a more contraversial example:

Biffo earns lots of money, but doesn't have a great deal of time to play the mud - to him, time is more valuable than money. Buffo is a poor student with lots of time on her hands - to her, money is more valuable than time. Biffo spends some of his money so that he can develop his character faster than Buffy - but balanced according to how much time he spends playing. If Bilbo (who has lots of time and money) comes along then he gains little advantage from paying money AND playing a lot.

Thus Biffo and Buffy are able to compete in equal footing. This is rather comparable to my first example, except that instead of directly contributing something to the mud, Biffo is giving me money, which I can then use to improve the mud.

What I do personally disagree with, however, is selling things which the players cannot also earn through time and effort.

Achaea is not pay to play. You don't have to pay to play, and you don't have to pay to advance. Thus, it's not pay to play.

Given that the majority of our players never pay, it's hard to argue that you need to play. Perhaps the subtleties of language are beyond you, but "pay to pl ay" seems quite obvious to me. It's not the same as "pay-to-purchase-virtual-currency."

--matt

Just like Medthievia isn't PTP and, thus, isn't violating the Diku license, huh Mihaly?

-D

I don't think you're aware of what you're talking about, though apparently I was misinformed about the Rolling Stone bit.

Currently, Simutronics has a marketing deal with CGW where one is able to get 12 issues of CGW for subscribing. As for the Renn Faire stuff, I'd suggest you look at Simutronic's own website:

No idea if that deal is still active. As for the Zone, if you don't call that advertising or at least marketing, I'm not sure what you'd call it. It most certainly falls under marketing in any sense of the word I've ever heard it at least. Actually, Simutronics' site says that they've got or had distribution (which in this case goes hand-in-hand with marketing) with many other companies like Lycos, AT&T Worldnet, etc.

I'm not sure why some of you seem invested in "proving" that Simutronics doesn't do marketing. It is odd. They obviously do, as that's how you get to their size. Nothing at all wrong with it, though SimuBubba sure seems touchy at the mere mention of it.

--matt

Molly,

On most MUDs that are oriented around bashing monsters (and that's most MUDs), skills has almost nothing to do with success. Time does. If you have no life outside the MUD and spend all your time going out and killing monsters, you 'win'. That's not skill, that's just rewarding teenagers and college students who have lots of time on their hands. I certainly remember skipping plenty of classes in college to get that next level. Skill had nothing to do with getting that level though. Persistence did.

In most MUDs (keeping in mind that most MUDs are nothing but barely altered downloads of a codebase), combat seems to proceed along the lines of, "Kill <so-and-so>." That's it. That's certainly not skill.

Achaea is FAR more skill-based than most MUDs I've played. You cannot buy your way to success in politics, and you can only buy tools to help you incrementally in combat. It's like golf: If you have no skill at golfing, buying great golf clubs isn't going to make you a great golfer. Finally of course, you can't buy the ability to roleplay, and you certainly can't purchase the respect of your fellow players, in Achaea, or in any game. (Actually, people tend to look down on those who buy a lot of stuff from us and then still can't fight properly, for instance. Tends to make you look kind of foolish.)

--matt

Having never played Medievia, I couldn't say. Unless they're charging to play, they're not pay-to-play though. Seems fairly obvious.

--matt

Just asked for some clarifacation. As you may note, i asked, "is that what you're talking about?" As I have been a player for 2 years and have heard about neither of these things.

I know it's advertising. I even said it was "effective" advertising, so i don't know where you're coming up with this idea that i think it's not.

I seem "invested"? Why? because i ask questions? I'm simply making inquires so you're a little less VAGUE about your claims of Simutronics. And some of your info is just incorrect. Sorry ta inform you, but when you are vague and say things that are not true (ie. Rolling Stone), people are gonna ask questions. Don't misinterpret questions as an obsession over the topic.

Oh and Melissa stated they Simutonics does do a good amount of marketing and advertising. And i'm certainly not going to argue with her. I can only say that i don't see much of their marketing/advertising. And Mr. the_logos, i think you should let Simu tell the facts about their own company. They don't need you to do it for them. Not to be harsh in any way, but it'll help stop all this misunderstanding.

I'm not really sure that this discussion is going anywhere.

Those MUDs which are pay-to-play are comfortable with telling people that we are pay-to-play.  (It would be silly to try to "fool" people about such a thing.)

Those MUDs where pay-to-play is an option but not required have no problem in telling people that.  (Once again, it would be silly to hide that fact, they'd never get donations.)

So what's the issue here?

Melissa Meyer
Producer, GemStone III

Really? It's right on the front of their webpage () , though I can see where you'd head straight to the web page for the particular game you play of theirs.


I wasn't referring to you actually. As for the Rolling Stone thing, I was just passing along what I had been told (I did make sure to distinguish between that and the other marketing deals that I could personally confirm, in my post) by an ex-player of theirs. Either he was wrong, or I was mis-remembering what he had told me.


Well, possibly so, but I was just going along with the mores of the community, which seem to dictate that it's ok to talk about games that aren't yours. I see other people doing it all the time. If this isn't ok in this community, that's fine, but please don't jump on just me for doing it. I've seen a couple people give out info about Achaea, both false and true.

--matt

Sorry, KaVir, with one exception I don’t buy any of your examples. (Another viewpoint to this is, that quite a few of the muds that accept ‘donations’ in return for gaming advantages do it to conceal the fact that they are really breaking the Diku licence).

Your example 1 and 2 are both equally cheesy. The fact that the mud owner gets the money in example 2, does not make it the least bit less cheesy, actually more so, since it makes it seem like the mud owner not only accepts but encourages that type of bad gaming behaviour. If we expect some fair play and moral from our players, we should start by setting up an example ourselves.

The second example, about the web designer, is where I agree. If someone spends a lot of time and efforts working to actually improve the mud, they should get some reward for this. That’s why we pay our builders a gold token for each 50 room zone they complete, a currency that can be used to buy certain features within the mud, like personalised equipment or crash-proof houses. I believe most muds have a similar system of reward.

The example where players earn a 5% exp bonus by clicking on a link, might sound harmless in theory. In praxis however, since not all muds can or want to do the same, it disrupts the numbers of a voting list, and is consequently unfair to those that don’t practice the same system. (On a side note, I think the entire idea about voting for ‘the best mud’ is a dumb one, since the vote numbers have little to do with the actual quality, and it also seems to lead to all sorts of cheating and unethical behaviour, but that’s another story).

As for the last example with the poor student Buffo and the rich jerk Biffo, I am all on Buffo’s side. If you want to be good at something you usually have to invest time. Buffo probably knows that, because you cannot get a college degree either, without investing time. So why should some rich jerk be able to just sail in and buy the advantages? Do you REALLY think that is fair?

Let’s take another example: Occasionally I get some junk mail, which offers me University Diplomas if I pay some money. No studies or exams required. Just pay some money into some unscrupulous person’s pocket, and they’ll set me up with something bogus, that apparently looks good enough to fool the world. Would you think that was okey too? And I wonder what Buffo, the poor College student struggling with her exams would think about it…

Molly, the only way it would be "unfair" to other listings, would be if there was some inherent value of being #1 on the list.

There isn't. And therefore the fairness of it is irrelevent.

So the mud owner should not be able to profit from their own work, but the players should?

But they've not earned their bonuses within the game - they've earned them through putting time and effort into something outside of the game. That time and effort has benefitted the game, certainly - but how is that any different from someone putting their time and effort into earning money at work, then giving that money to the mud owner for advertising? We have:

Scenario 1: Mr X spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (creating some webpage stuff for the mud) which helps promote the mud (the website looks better) and thus gets an in-game reward for it, and:

Scenario 2: Mr Y spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (flipping burgers) which helps promote the mud (he gives the money he earns to the mud owner who spends it on advertising banners) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

What it is that makes scenario 1 okay, but scenario 2 cheesy?

I'm not talking about a voting system, just about pure website hits. The players give the mud-related website hits, and the banner on the mud-related website directs potential new players to the mud.

I know some people who have built their own (real life) homes, but most people buy them. Do you think that is fair? I know some people who pay large amounts of money to study at expensive language schools, and thus learn faster than those who try to learn from watching TV and the like - do you think that is fair? I know many people who build their own computers from parts, despite the fact that most people pay extra to have them pre-built and pre-installed - do you think that is fair? Money and time are both commodities, and they have different value to different people. You think it's unfair that some "rich jerk" can just come in any buy the advantages - but there are other people who think it's unfair that some "slack student" or "unemployed bum" can shoot ahead just because they can spend all their free time playing the mud. I don't like the idea of having to pay in order to compete with other players - but equally, I don't like the idea of having to have no social life in order to compete with other players.

I'm not talking about giving you a University Diploma - I'm talking about letting you pay extra for a better (and faster) education. Or do you think it's unfair that rich people can go to private school?

On muds, however, this usually plays out the way promotions in fast food restaurants do. You walk into your average burger joint, and the person wearing the "Assistant Manager" pin isn't necessarily the smartest, most skilled, most dedicated, most managerial person behind the counter. He or she is simply the only one who's stuck the job out for month after month while others have moved on (many on to more meaningful work in all likelihood). I see no reason why it should be considered inherently any more unfair for someone who has the money to spend on a piece of gear or some experience to do so, than to simply reward those people who have zero life outside of the game. Investing time in a mud is not like investing time in, say, law school. On most muds, particularly those where gear and levels amount to anything, any moron can become the uberchar simply by virtue of blowing off homework/family life/job and powergaming 24/7. In such games, why not allow those who have lives and who attend to their responsibilities to be able to compensate monetarily for what they lack in time?

Well, there is an advantage to being #1: You get the most traffic, generally speaking. But then, you sent the most traffic here, so it all seems fair.

--matt

IF the mudowner coded his mud from scratch and didn't just change the code a bit to conceal the fact that he is violating the Diku Licence, sure he should be able to profit from his own work. But then he could do it in an upfront way, charging everybody to play, which would make it a fair game for all that could afford it. (Most likely that would rule out the poor college student with no life, that you all worry so much about too, because he gets too successful at the game).

Again, I have no problem with P2P as long at it is clearly stated, and as long as it gives everybody equal chances. What I do have a problem with is paying for extra benefits, and for two reasons:
1. It's simply not fair play.
2. It's a trick that some unscrupolous mud owners use to disguise the fact that they are P2P and that way
a) lure more players into their game
b) conceal that they are actually breaking the Diku licence by charging money for their game.

I am talking about ethics and moral and fair play here, is that really so hard to understand? Since some people obviously don't get my point, let me try two very simple examples:

Scenario 1:
Boffo spends 3 years training hard to become a good 100 meters runner.
Biffo does not have the time and inclination to do this, because he has a 'real life'.
But Biffo has a rich father, and the owner of the sports-ground needs money to repair the boys' locker room. So Biffo's father donates 10000 $ to this very worthy cause.

In return the owner of the sportsground gives Biffo a head start of 10 m on Boffo in all 100 m races.

Do you think THAT is fair?

Scenario 2:
The manager of a TV store finds out that some of the employees steal the goods and sell it for a very good price to a fencer. Instead of reporting them to the police, he decides to do the same thing, to put some nice tax-free money into his own pocket, whilst also pocketing the insurance money.

Do you think THAT is fair?

----
As for the players selling top equip to each other, there are some ways of dealing with that problem, but that's another story.

It means that you'd have to have money, and have no life, in order to compete with the other players. People with no money, and people without lots of free time, would both lose out.

Why is it "not fair"? If Bubba has no life while Boffo works long hours, is it "fair" that Bubba can advance five times as quickly?

Imagine a system whereby the mud stores how many hours you've played (and how much exp you've earned) at the end of each week. Assuming you have played at least 5 hours in the previous week, you are able to "purchase" additional hours at the rate of 1 mud credit per hour, up to a maximum of 20 - and each such hour purchased grants you the average exp earned over the time you have played. Alternatively, perhaps the credit allows you to earn double exp for one hour in the current week.

Either way, you couldn't simply "buy" yourself a powerful character - you'd still have to put time and effort into it. You still wouldn't be quite on par with those who had lots of time to spend, because you could never pump yourself beyond the equivilent of 20 hours, but it would be a reasonable compromise. It would also mean that those who put more time into the mud would not lose out, and someone who had both time and money would not have any particular advantage. In short, money would allow you to compensate for time, but you'd still have to demonstrate just as much skill and ability in order to get anywhere.

Why would that be "unfair"?

Obviously it should be done up front, and it should not go against any licenses - that goes without saying, and I've never implied otherwise.

Your analogies do not address the matter at hand. You've also failed to point out what the difference is between the scenarios I mentioned earlier. You've said that this is okay:

Mr X spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (creating some webpage stuff for the mud) which helps promote the mud (the website looks better) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

But that this is unethical:

Mr Y spends 10 hours of his time working outside of the mud (flipping burgers) which helps promote the mud (he gives the money he earns to the mud owner who spends it on advertising banners) and thus gets an in-game reward for it.

I'm still waiting to hear why you think that.

I wonder if all businesses should work that way.  My son works for 3M and gets an hourly wage.  If he works in a department outside his own, they still give him his regular pay; however, they don't pay him if he skips work and takes friends shopping - even if they buy a lot of 3M products which helps the company out.

Does it seem fair for him to receive the same benefits for giving money in that way as those who actually work for the company?

Your son has time but wants money. The company he works for has money but wants time (man hours). If your son gives the company time, the company will give him money. If he doesn't give them time, they won't give him money. In other words, time and money are both commodities which different parties assign different values to. So yes, it works the same way in business.

*sigh*
I am getting rather tired of this discussion, since it doesn't look like you are even trying to grasp what i am saying. But I'll have one more try at explaining.

The difference between your two scenarios should be rather obvious. Mr X spends 10 hours working ACTIVELY on the mud and IMPROVING it (not promoting it), even if it is formally outside the game Port. Mr Y spends the same time doing something totally unrelated. That's where I draw the line, whether the time is spent on the mud or not.

I don't really care if Mr Y spends the time flipping burgers or playing golf or having sex with his girlfriend, what matters in this case is that he does NOT spend it on the mud. And I don't care if he earns the money he uses for the donation flipping burgers or working as a brain surgeon or just got it from his pa. I still don't think that buying in-game benefits for RL money is a good idea.

But if it makes you happier, I don't really like the scenario with Mr X either, it's on the borderline of what's acceptable. In our mud we 'pay' our Builders with either a gold token (= questpoints) or an imm char, for completing a 100 room zone. Building a 100 room zone, with the quality standards we have, means at least 100 hours active work, and that time is spent within the mud. So far we haven't 'paid' anybody either for designing the website, or updating it. So I guess that in our case the requisition is 100 hours of work spent WITHIN the mud.

And, I want to stress, what we 'pay' is still not really game advantages, it just allows you to get a few things that add to your 'status', and possibly make life a bit easier, but which are far from necessary to reach a top spot on the mud. The exact same things can also be achieved in several different ways within the mud.

And now that I hopefully cleared up this point, perhaps you'd grace the community with your opinion about my scenario with the two 100 m runners, which I think EXACTLY addresses the matter at hand: Should you be able to buy game advantages for money?

Is the scenario fair? Unfair? Motivations?

The only issue is disclosure.

The host of a MUD has the right to structure it as they please. They should disclose any policies that grant in game awards for outside activities.

Funny, that's -exactly- how Achaea works. You pay to get things that make your life easier, but none are necessary to reach a top spot, whether that top spot be a guildmaster, head of a religious order, leader of a city-state, top person in terms of xp, top explorer, etc.

Every single thing you can purchase with real money in Achaea can be gotten via other methods, without exception, and spending real-life money can't really help you at all with the stuff that we view as most important in the game: the politics.

--matt

Excuse me, but that is NOT -exactly- how Achaea works. I guess you must have missed my main point. This discussion was about paying real MONEY, $, for those extras, and that is something I am very much against. Notice the little '  ' around the word 'pay' in my post? And notice the words 'purchase with real money' in your own? Get the difference?

But then again, I don't think you actually missed that. You just saw an opportunity for another of your ... shall we call it 'inventive'? ...  advertisements.

I'd thank you not to twist my words into something that suits your purposes, but is very far from the intentions with my post. I take offense to the implication that my mud has anything in common with a mud that uses some of the most unethical means of advertising that I've yet come across on the net.

It's muds like yours that give the P2P a bad name.

Currency is simply a way to represent value that is convenient and almost universally accepted. Everything in your MUD that a player wants has real-world value, just like currency. You're paying people with things that have real value, just like if I gave you a stereo for doing something instead of actual cash. Further, time is worth money (at least the time of everyone I know is), and there exists an exchange rate such that they are equivalent (it's called a wage in employment markets).

You make your people pay for things with real value with their time, which also has real value. I don't see a fundamental difference.

--matt

....

I....

I....

Back, many many moons ago, when I used to play Diablo 2...

I once bought Griswold's Heart on Ebay. I paid $3 for it. I was working 2 jobs, full-time and half-time, a girlfriend, and going to school full-time.

It's not something I'm very proud of, but I was weak.

I'm sorry everyone, but I really needed the triple socket for my Paladin.

....

*shew* I'm glad I got that of my chest.


[No mockery intended, just trying to lighten the mood a little bit since I don't see anyone shaking their hands and "agreeing to disagree" on interpretation.]

Mihaily, I guess, even if you yourself are unable to see how ridiculous the above statements are, everybody else will.

Time is money only when you work for wages or a fee, not when you lie on the beach or play Monopoly - or play a mud. (Unless of course if the mud is pay-to-play and charging per minute, then time becomes money in a negative way of speaking).

Monopoly money or mud currency does not in any way equal RL money, as I am sure you'll find out, if you try to use it in a RL shop.

There is a vast difference between rewarding people for their work on the mud with mud currency, and charging RL life money for certain items or features within the mud.

I guess that twisted reasoning like yours is only what was to be expected from a person who could launch something as ridiculous and unethical at that advertising campaign some time ago on the Mud Connector.

I am also starting to think that the bad welcome the P2P newcomers got on this site might be due to people like you. Perhaps the community wrongly assumed that all P2P administrators act as unethically as you - which is obviously not the fact.

It's interesting, that among all the P2P muds, you seem to be about the only one that denies charging money, although you obviously do. It's also interesting that you seem to be about the only one of the P2P muds that is vocally against adding a $ icon to the listing. All the others say thay have nothing against it. But then again, the others don't use cheesy tricks to disguise the fact that they are P2P.

As I understand purist roleplaying philosophy nothing outside of the game world itself is supposed to affect the characters in the game. The game doesn't exist to them, it is a real world. This principle is at the root of objections to people being able to alter the condition of their character through real life money.

You justify giving builders in game benefits in exchange for the time they spend working on the mud instead of playing the mud. That seems fair to me, but it does contravene the principle of having to earn in game benefits in game. Even though they are working on the mud, not flipping burgars, it is still OOC work for IC benefits.

Money is just an extra step in bartering. Instead of my trading buttons for a pot, I sell my buttons to someone who wants them, then use the money to buy a pot.

That you don't give builders money, and accept money in exchange for in game benefits, doesn't change the fact that you are exchanging in game benefits for labor.

I am sure you "pay" them far less than minimum wage and that it is more of a token thank you than anything resembling being paid for their time but the principle is still breached.

The entire basis of our economic system was to facilitate exactly what you are doing, trading one thing for another.

I do agree that commercial muds should be very upfront about what payment structure they offer. I am very agravated by all commercial companies that make it difficult for me to find out how much they charge and for what. So much so that if the competition offers a similar product, even if they charge a bit more, I go to the competition on principle.

Mr X wasn't working on the mud, he was working on the website. The website exists outside of the mud, for the purpose of promoting the mud. Both Mr X and Mr Y put 10 hours of effort into something which helped promote the mud, and both of them received a reward for it. What you appear to disagree with is the fact that Mr Y used a middle-man (money) in the bartering system, while Mr X created the thing he bartered with.

If you were alive 10 thousand years ago, you would be the person saying "Sorry Mr Y, but you didn't bake that bread yourself - you traded for it. If you want to trade bread for this this basket I weaved, you'll have to bake the bread yourself". Some people are not very good at baking, so they do something they ARE good at, and then trade for it (usually through the newer invention of money). This is good, as it allows us to create a commodity that everyone wants, and thus prevents discrimination against (for example) someone who knows how to flip burgers, but doesn't know how to design nifty mud websites.

Your scenario does not address the matter at hand. The concept of a 100m race is to see who can run 100m the fastest. If you reduce the length of the race, then it is no longer a 100m race. If the concept of your mud is that people should compete purely based on time and effort put into playing the mud, then it would be equally inappropriate for you to give bonuses for time/effort put into something else (eg, giving people quest tokens for writing areas). Conversely, if the concept of your mud is that people should compete based purely on the amount of money they put into the mud, then it would be inappropriate for them to gain any bonuses through playing - they should have to purchase every advantage gained. However these are specific cases, and do not apply to the concept of mudding as a whole, which can (and usually does) consist of something in between the two extremes.

The appropriate question to ask is, should you be able to purchase better running shoes than the other runners, simply because you have the money to do so? Should you be able to purchase expensive training equipment, even though other runners cannot affort it? Should you be able to hire a personal trainer, even though nobody else is able to?

Should you be able to use a bicycle if you aren't able to run as fast?

The concept of the 100 metre race is that you run 100 metres on foot.

If you have lots of time, you can get yourself into better shape by dedicating that time to extra training.

If you have lots of money, you can get yourself into better shape by hiring a good trainer or purchasing good quality fitness-training equipment.

However once you start the race, it's still your skill being matched against that of your opponents, even if each of you earned those skills through different means.


The concept of a combat-oriented mud is that you go around killing monsters and other players.

If you have lots of time, you can get your character into better shape by dedicating to extra "training" for your character.

If you have lots of money, and the mud allows it, you can get your character into better shape by purchasing stat training.

However once you start the game, it's still your skill being matched against that of your opponents, even if each of you earned those skills through different means.

The concept of a 100 metre race is that you run 100 metres on foot, and the concept of building a powerful character is that you work on the needed skills until you have the power.

I don't see any difference between skipping over the difficult training to go directly to having the powerful character and skipping over the race course to be put closer to the finish line.

I don't see any problem with allowing the sale of equipment, roleplay items or some kind of status symbol if extra money is needed, but I think that buying stats and experience is as close to cheating as you can get.  Of course if the rules of the race are that you can pay someone to give you a ride then it's no longer cheating, so I guess it's really up to the admins how they want to do it.

That's because you're looking at character development as being the race, and "a powerful character" as being the finishing line. I'm looking at character development as being the pre-race training, and having "a powerful character" as being the starting line. The latter is more appropriate to a competitive mud such as a PK mud, because you'll only start competing with other players (ie "racing against them") once you've got your character to the appropriate point of training/development. You don't start running a race until you're in shape, after all.

Curious, as I feel the opposite. Purchasing stats and experience outright is bad, I agree, but allowing people to pay to develop faster (as per my original example) means that they still have to put in time and effort into playing the mud and earning power. Allowing people to purchase equipment, however, is the equivilent of letting them purchase a bicycle in the 100m race (unless the equipment is something they could also earn). You're not accelerating their training - you're giving them something.

KaVir....by definition, allowing people to purchase stats and experience is allowing them to develop more quickly. And by purchasing super-powerful equipment, it allows them to develop more quickly.

I hate to say it, bud, but I don't think you've got a firm argument/firm idea of what you are arguing this time around - you've got a few weaknesses in several of your statements that I've only seen from you one or two times in the years I've been reading your posts.

-D

Not all MU*'s put the effectiveness into the equipment. The equipment can enhance the skill and be configured such that the enhancement requires a certain skill level to be effective.

Yes it is, and I'm not disputing that.  What I'm saying is that money and time are both commodities which different people have in differing amounts.  Most muds favour those with lots of time, but I don't see what is "unfair" about those which allow you to compensate for a lack of time by using money.  To go back to the example I gave previously:

Imagine a system whereby the mud stores how many hours you've played (and how much exp you've earned) at the end of each week.  Assuming you have played at least 5 hours in the previous week, you are able to "purchase" additional hours at the rate of 1 mud credit per hour, up to a maximum of 20 - and each such hour purchased grants you the average exp earned over the time you have played.  Alternatively, perhaps the credit allows you to earn double exp for one hour in the current week.

Now imagine that those mud credits could be either purchased, or earned through making contributions to the mud.  If you played 20+ hours per week, you'd be no worse off than someone who had lots of money - and if you played less than 5 hours per week, you wouldn't be able to spend any credits anyway.  The result is that you could compete with the more "serious" players, even if you weren't able to play as often as them - and the mud would be improved in the process.

I dislike the idea of selling "super items" that are better than anything you can earn.  I dislike the idea of being able to "buy" a super character without putting in any time or effort.  But (assuming no license violations occur) I am not against the idea of allowing people who don't have much time using other means (such as money, writing articles, providing help files, creating areas, etc) to make up for that - particularly when all such contributions go towards improving the mud.

I am firmly against rich morons who purchase super characters yet have no clue to play.  However I am also against lazy unemployed morons who nobody can compete with, simply because they are able to play all day.

Unfortunately, I can't respond to that, KaVir.

If I did, it'd quickly degenerate into a flame.

However, I can say this much without risking a flame: You are saying that buying a super-character is okay. But only if it fulfills certain conditions.

Isn't that contradictory to what you claim to be saying?

-D

I'm not quite sure how you managed to come to that conclusion, after I just specifically said "I am firmly against rich morons who purchase super characters yet have no clue to play".

My opinion is this:

1. You should HAVE to put in time and effort in order to advance within the mud.

2. Money should NEVER be able to get you something that time and effort cannot.

3. As long as it doesn't violate any licenses, and as long as you are up-front about it, there is nothing wrong with allowing people to make up for lost playing hours through making contributions to the mud.

4. A "contribution" is something which helps the mud, or can be used to help the mud, and (as well as money) includes such things as writing help files, building areas, reporting bugs, running quests, writing articles, providing advertising, etc.

5. Different people are good at different things. If one person is a skilled builder then they can write you an area - but a bartering system like that is hardly fair on those who cannot build, and is why money was invented in the first place.

Guess it's just a matter of opinion, but to me using out of game resources (like money) to enhance your position in a MUD isn't much different than using out of game resources (like a computer) to enhance your rating in an online chess club or something. There are folks willing to engage in such activities, but what's the point?

I can see why a game may wish to sell advantages to it's players... they could probably use the money. But what I don't really understand is why the player would ever want to buy them. So your purchased data string has bigger numbers than the other player's data strings ... so what? I find it very difficult to understand what satisfaction folks can get from engaging in such practices.

Based on your third point, KaVir, and to a lesser extent, your first and second points, I take it that you are against Achaea's.....shady business practices, then?

-D

Well, you see, Seraphina, my mud isn't Roleplay enforced, even though some of our players roleplay by their own choice, so IC or OOC matters don't really count much here. My mud is mainly what is known as a hack'n'slash mud, although we try to promote the good and 'smart' players rather than the 'power-players'.

With the exception of some strictly 100% RP muds, where you roleplay out even a fight by using emotes, most muds have some sort of system for advancing, and most players have as their main goal to improve their char and make it as powerful as possible. This is done by gaining different skills, but usually also by getting armour and weapons that improve your stats. A fully trained, fully equipped top level player is usually hundreds of times more powerful than the naked and inexperienced newbie.

In most muds you advance by killing stuff, either other players, or 'monsters', or both. For this you gain exp points and/or levels, which give you more power. Some muds have disposed of the exp and levels and work solely with skills, others have disposed of the equipment with additional stats, but the time element is mostly an important factor in any case, because the skills take time to learn. Most muds by definition are somewhat repetitive.

So in most muds the main ways of getting powerful are:
- by spending a lot of time, repeatedly killing monsters
- or by spending a lot of time repeatedly practizing your skills (and in the extreme cases players use scripts or 'bots' to do both these things, while being AFK themselves, which is why many muds expressively forbid the use of 'bots' ).

In some muds (like mine) you can also advance by using different trades (farming, gardening, lumberjacking, mining, forging etc.) or by doing Quests (= solving more or less difficult problems/puzzles. Simply put, you get rewarded for RESCUING the prisoner in the dungeon, instead of killing him).

There are of course ways of speeding the advancing process up, for instance:

1.  by gradually getting the best possible equipment and/or weapon for your level, to allow you to attack stronger mobs/players thus making the killing easier and quicker (the basic, traditional way)
2. by simply being a 'good player' (meaning that you know your way around the mud, where the best equipment can be found, where your limits are at each stage to avoid unnecessary dying, what facilities to use (for instance mounts, vehicles, pets), which mobs to attack and your chances of succeeding in each case, what things to look for when looking for hidden exits or other secrets in a zone etc.)
3. by cooperating with other players and forming groups for each task (requires 'social' certain skills, at least up to a point)
4. by BUYING the good stuff for mud money/currency (still requires time spent on getting together the mud money)
5. by getting some other, more powerful player to 'tank' for you or give you some good stuff for free (generally known as power-levelling) - (this still needs some social or roleplaying skills, because most experienced players detest newbies that demand to be powerlevelled or given equip)
6. by BUYING the good stuff for RL money from another player (cheesy, but it occurs)
7. by BUYING the good stuff for RL money from the Mud owner (the subject of this particular discussion)
8. by cheating (for instance by abusing bugs or getting some unscrupolous imm friend of yours to load you some excessively good stuff, or even create it specially for you)

Of these 8 methods, the first three in my opinion are good and recommendable, number 4 is a bit dubious, but still acceptable, after that they get increasingly cheesy.

I think it should be pretty obvious to most, that being able to buy the 'extra' stuff for RL life money gives you a vast - and in my opinion unfair - advantage over the players that haven't the same economical means, or just regard the game in the traditional way, as a skill game, where your skills as a player is what matters, not the size of your wallet. Some P2P muds even take this to the extreme. There are muds where you cannot even learn certain skills, cannot use simple commands like 'rest' or 'sleep' to regain movement, mana and hp points faster, or cannot join certain guilds with access to particularly good equipment, without paying real money to the mud owner.

Sure, you can argue, like KaVir does, that it's 'unfair' that the college student or unemployed person 'without a real life' can spend a lot more time into the mud than the person with a full time job, improving his char in different ways, and getting powerful. But that is the nature of a mud as well as most on-line games, the time spent does - and SHOULD - count, and if you don't like that fact, perhaps you simply should choose another pastime.

I just don't think that buying the advantages for RL money is a good solution, and nothing anybody says will convince me otherwise. It seems from the way this discussion has gone, that I won't be able to convince KaVir otherwise either, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's obvious that several players think like him (regrettably many of these are bad/lazy players, but what the hell, 1000 bluebottle flies cannot be wrong...). It's also obvious that he has Mihaily in his corner, which is kinda amusing, in a way...

I've had my say in this, so I'll end the discussion here from my side, since I think little can be gained by repeating the same arguments or offering more examples.

Finally, to return to our Builders, we do reward them for the time spent on building, and I believe most muds do the same, in one way or another. But what we use to reward them is 'mud currency', not fancy equipment or extra skills or commands. The currency can be used to buy some things, mainly roleplay related, but also things like crash-proof houses, if you get enough of it together. But the Builder, even with his currency, still has to put some time and effort into the game to advance his char, find the good equipment and become powerful. (Mainly this isn't a big problem, because most players make a choice; if they are really into building they generally dump their mortal char, because there simply isn't time enough to do both. Building is a very time-consuming job).

Well, supposing you've got a player who is really creative. However instead of spending 50 hours playing the mud, they spend half of that time writing a really fanatastic area for your mud. Great! Now your mud has grown. Unfortunately they realise that they're falling behind the other players who are spending all their time playing, so they don't write anything else for your mud.

However, supposing that you gave them something as a thanks - something which would have taken them around 25 hours to have earned on their own (or perhaps even a little longer) - and stick their name in the credits. They're not really any (or much) better off than they would have been if they'd put that time into the mud - but now they're more likely to build some more areas for you, because they don't feel they are losing out. Other players might see this and decide to do the same. The result is that your mud develops a lot faster, because the players are helping out (rather than just playing).

Dulan, I'm not quite sure what Achaea's payment system is, but I certainly disagree with their advertising strategy, and think they should be listed as at least "optional pay-to-play" (or something similar) on the listings here.

I've never said that time and effort shouldn't count. What I've said is that it doesn't have to be the only factor. Someone who works full time can never compete with an unemployed person who spends all of their time on the mud. I think that as long you put some time and effort into the mud, there is nothing wrong with argumenting your development in return for things which help the mud.

Then you believe the same as me. The only difference between our views is that you think mud owners should use a bartering system and only exchange in-game benefits in return for something that the player has personally made specifically for the mud. My view differs in that I think any trade which is of value to the mud should be worth consideration. I consider that "fairer" than your system, which discriminates against those who are not capable builders. It would be a bit like a baker who refused to sell his bread - instead he would only exchange it for fish which the other person had caught themself.

Wow. What is wrong with designing a variety of muds with set-ups that appeal to different types of players? "Choose another pastime" implies that no set up other than the kind you approve of should exist.

I recently read a comment from someone who played a tabletop where everyone agreed to start their characters at level 10 or the equivalent because they were bored playing weak characters.

I know of people who have traded characters of equal strength with one another. From a roleplaying perspective that is awful but from a gaming perspective I can see why people might decide to do that.

I think awarding experience for roleplaying is a great idea but some people think it is awful because it is so subjective and why should people gain experience if they haven't worked the skill?

My point is that there is no option that is automatically unethical in some way. It depends on the set-up of the particular game. Different strokes for different folks.

...

I play Achaea when I play MUDs nowdays (which is rare, since I have other things to do most of the time), and I've yet to pay for anything, and most of the people I'm familiar with on Achaea don't feel particularly pressured to pay either.

As the owner of one free MUD, and imm on another, I also am against adding a little $ sign.

I like the "cheesy tricks" bit - I guess allowing you to play for free is a "cheesy trick."

Ah, yes.

GenmaC, your credibility is...shaky at best on these boards, from certain postings of yours prior to this.

Shoo, shoo, go along back to your free MUDs and such.

Why?

You've managed to ignore this entire thread in your post. Achaea is merely the catalyst of this movement. It's been waiting to happen, and the subject came up several times as far back as with Eternal City's P2Pishness.

Achaea has only served to fuel the need for either a seperate listing for P2P MUDs and free MUDs, or to give the P2P MUDs a definite 'moniker', vs the Free MUDs.

And, the MUD community is hardly ready to give Achaea the benefit of the doubt about not being a P2P. Not with the stuff they've pulled with their advertisements - RPGplanet.net ring a bell? A post on the forums? Somehow meaning something? And let's not bring up the other advertisement quotes.

-D

No, I've just noticed that whenever the subject of p2p comes up, certain worthless individuals use it to bash Achaea for their own reasons - probably just jealousy, but it's still worth pointing out.

I've already responded here or elsewhere with my opinion on the $ in the listing. Just thought I'd point out blatant bashing without a reason.

Pretending that I have no credibility seriously damages yours, but I doubt you had a whole lot to start with.