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.
|