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

[John Bertoglio]

> Jon Leonard
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 8:22 PM
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2000 at 11:36:51AM -0700, Sellers, Michael wrote:

<no Magic The G stuff cut>
> >
> > 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)

4) Luck

My son (now 14) has played MTG for years. He has a very modest
allowance which he has used to build his collection. When he started
in the game he was very young, had wimpy decks and lost a lot. But
sometimes he won. Usually it was because he was lucky but a win is a
win. Now, he is competitive with anyone including adults with (by Magic
standards) unlimited amounts of money to spend. Now, we are talking
about local, small town hobby shop level gaming. At a tournament level
the comments above are much more likely to be true.

>
> 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.)
>

This is less true today because the huge variety of cards which have come
out provide an almost infinite set of possibilities. Early in Magic, a few
cards (most of which are now banned from play) were so powerful that
having them in your deck was a huge advantage.

Now, you get into a kind of "rock/paper/scissors" thing where an odd deck
of commons can beat the right kind of ultra powerful deck.

The analogy for online gaming is to create as many paths to
"victory" as you can.

> 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.

Less of a factor, yes. But money is the method by which a society
measures value. A good design will allow multiple ways to reach a goal.
People with money have advantages. They can use money to buy short cuts
to their goals. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, the low
income player should benefit from the general health of the game caused
by the revenue produce by affluent players. But a good design will allow
people to obtain most goals by methods other than money. It may take 40
hours of herb collection to get enough in-game money to by cool item
which is available for $40 in RL money. You decide. A working adult
says, take the money. A kid picks herbs. But in the end, they get the cool
item. Even better would be a policy which rewarded volunteer in-game
guides and mentors with in-game cash or other perks.

>
> 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.

Now, this is a great idea. I suspect the revenue generated would make
up for lost sales due to fewer people speculating on getting rare cards by
buying cases of cards. Putting a cap on the aftermarket would still
allow for active trading but would indeed take the fun out of fraud.
The same method would work for any online game as well.

>
> 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.

Exactly.

John A. Bertoglio
PulsePoll.com <http://www.pulsepoll.com/>
| 503.781.3563
| jb at pulsepoll.com

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




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