Institutionalizing human behavior (was RE: [MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items)

[Jon Leonard]

On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 11:36:51AM -0700, Sellers, Michael wrote:
> Ola wrote:
> > "Sellers, Michael" wrote:
> > > In the current example, consider for example how a simple change like
> > > randomized spawn points would change the nature of farming items.
> Combine
> > > this with player-run stores (ala UO) and the ability for people to
> transfer
> > > either gold or dollars as they choose, and you have the beginnings of a
> > > robust and subtle solution that embraces the former problem.  And not
> > > incidentally, strengthens the game and the players' devotion to it.
> > 
> > What would the ethics of research be if one could just pay, rather than
> > work, to get good grades and recognition? As some other people have
> > pointed out, the problem is that dollars make the unfairness that you
> > usually are forced to accept painfully clear when a newbie can buy
> > himself a high position. (Perhaps more pronounced in a small community
> > than in a big one?). For MUDs that try to distance themselves from the
> > realities of the physical world, that is no good...
> 
> People have been chewing on this since Magic: The Gathering came out.  It
> turns out that buying all the cards (or in this case, all the way cool
> items) doesn't make you a better *player*.  There are also a variety of
> in-game designs that you could use to ensure that you can't twink your way
> to having the most powerful character in the game.  It does not follow that
> just because you *can* trade items for other items or for cash, that the
> person with the most items or cash wins.  Unless, that is, your design is
> awfully limited.  

This analogy puts me firmly (and unexpectedly) in the sell items camp.

I agree that at high levels of play, it's player skill that divides the best
from the not-quite-best.  That's not the only concern, though.

Magic game strength seems to be composed of:

1) Card access (which is more or less just money)
2) Deck construction skills (which can be copied)
3) Player skill (what's mostly visible, since 1 & 2 usually similar at the top)

But in the circles I played in, money was the dominant factor, because we
were at fairly similar skill levels, and also because some of the 'building
block' cards were expensive.

There's a problem in any game like this if two players of fairly similar skill
have a large difference in game effectiveness.  The problem may not be
visible a the top, but only for novices or intermediate players.

The problem was perhaps worse in Magic, because it is fairly easy to build
an expensive deck that in the hands of a moderately-skilled player would
beat any all-commons deck in the hands of a master...  Card cost is a big
factor.  (Or at least it was when I sold my collection.)

I think it's fairly clear that games of this sort (pay MUDs, Magic-like games,
etc.) are more interesting when money is less of a factor.  Ideally this
involves a good game design, where a skilled player can do well with limited
resources.

Failing that, there should be some means of limiting the extent to which
money becomes a driving force.  In the case of Magic, I think the game would
be improved if WOTC had a "reprint any card for $10" policy.  That would put
the 'building block' cards within the reach of any moderately serious
player, and also eliminate much of the incentives for forgeries, etc.

In the case of EQ, maybe they should sell fishbone earrings, if only to
destroy the secondary market (and game side effects!) that they oppose.
There might even be some middle price range where it isn't worth harvesting
the items for sale, but where most players would prefer to acquire it in-game.

Jon Leonard



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev