[MUD-Dev] [News] Virtual goods--Oh, the controversy!

[J C Lawrence]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 10:46:20 -0400 
Jeff Fuller <jeff at originmail.com> wrote:
> Amanda Walker said:

>> As opposed to the current near unlimited advantage to the unemployed
>> and students?  I'm not sure this is a strong argument.

> Why must every game be a race to level "ubber"? 

Because the industry has spent 25 years training and habituating players
into that mindset?

>> Grinding is not a skill.  Very few commercial offerings involve
>> skill.

> Once again it's about getting to level "ubber".  And I would beg to
> differ on the requirements of skill. You don't get to the top level
> because you 'ground it ou't. You need to understand your character and
> how to play it, to get that far.

I like to differentiate among the skill types required into "machine"
and "human".  Machine decisions are those that can be automated, or at
least reduced to a set of known machine-like behaviours, where the
decision pattern can be learned once and the only remaining task is
applying that macro at the appropriate time in suitable sequences.  They
are the decisions which are to some degree rote.  Human decisions are
those the require actual intellectual participation of the human player:
the human must problem solve, possibly with problem sets that he's
familiar with, but the critical aspect is that it must be in ways where
the live evaluative involvement of the player is necessary.

At a more simple level human decisions (potentially) have a longer
half-life, and a greater level of player involvement (some are merely
repetitious over a random field).  Machine decision patterns conversely
lower involvement (and by reflection, player detachment) and thus can be
seen as encouraging disaffection and ultimately lower player retention.

Of course the two are merely members of a scale with the various
decision instances falling at various points along the way.  At the far
end of machine skills players complain about "make work", complain "its
boring!" and cry for automation.  At the far end of human decisions the
entire game and fate of the known universe rests on the player's next
decision: will it be door #1 or door #2?

While strongly in a board gaming context, the following articles on the
area at The Games Journal isn't bad:

  http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/GameTheory3.shtml

(If you want explanation of the game context or why of the decisions
Jonathan discusses, please contact me off-list)

> Selling players the very best armor/weapons/spells with real life cash
> is basically buying the "Win".

Is it?  Or is it more a question of social status relationships among
players?  There's certainly a model of fairness and expectation
involved, as well as a self-preserving instinct for social status.

--
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
claw at kanga.nu               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.

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