Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance

Spoke · 06-03-2005, 11:53 AM

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.

06-03-2005, 11:53 AM	#106
Spoke Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 101	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.