Changing the face of MMORPG - was Who sells gold the cheap..

Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

I've read lots of posts recently on the rights and wrongs of buying in-game
items/money etc. I've played EQ for 4 years and EQ2 from Beta and more
recently WoW for a month or so, in each of these games there has always been
the rule - if you buy outside of the game then you're cheating and you will
be banned if you're found out.

I feel the age old question on buying=cheating has been answered with the
announcement that Sony (some will argue the 'daddy' of MMORPG)
http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/ has started their own
'items/accounts/money-for-cash'

Would you want to see this happening in WoW?...personally I wouldn't, I've
seen what over inflated prices do to a servers economy, those with the
ability to buy lots will raise the prices for those who play for fun and for
the reward of 'completing that quest for the extra 20 silver'.

Take away the feeling of accomplishing anything and ask yourself what's the
point of playing when you can legitimately buy your way there.

Nice 'Cash-Cow' for Sony though - probably!

Rompa
30 Orc Hunter
Ragnoras
59 answers Last reply
More about changing face mmorpg sells gold cheap
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    NEVER.. plz never implement such a system...
    1st reason: the ones with much (RL) money can lvl faster etc (wouldnt
    be fair)
    2nd: u dont need really... as a lvl 60 u can save (nearly) all money
    cause better equip u only get by drops that r BOP so no buyin in AH..
    there will be a time when u dont know what to do with all ur money...
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    That's one of the reasons why I liked City of Heroes so much... no
    inventory and 'phat lewt' to worry about. Your character performed as
    well as you did (and it wasn't a 'twitch' game). The smarter you
    played, the better your character was.
    I'm telling you, after playing many MMORPGs I'm really tired of the
    same old 'camp/get better loot so you can camp bigger stuff/goto step
    1' thing
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Never had a decent dagger for your Rogue?

    Quest rewards for finishing Razor Fen Downs is a very nice sword
    (Vanquisher's Sword), and at that level you've completed Scarlet
    Monastery and gotten the very nice dagger (Black Menace) or opted for
    another sword if you're not the ambushing type (Sword of Serenity).

    Vanquisher's is held in either hand. (Stealthed I've got Black Menace
    in main hand, Vanquisher's in off-hand, un-stealthed Vanquisher's moves
    to main hand and Black Menace to off-hand.) Neither is a random drop
    you have to compete for.

    I did both instances with pick-up groups.

    Are these weapons not good enough for a level 45 Rogue?

    I'm constantly scanning the AH for something better than these for my
    42 Rogue and nothing's coming up, not dagger or one-handed sword wise.
    At least I'm not willing to pay 30g for a couple additional dps.

    At 45 you have had options. What exactly are you wanting to buy with a
    credit card?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    >
    > I'd like to take away the feeling that I'll NEVER be able to have a decent
    > dagger for my lvl 45 Rogue.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > Well a few reasons.
    >
    > 1. I only play 2 hrs per day. Not enough time to get group / enter dungeon
    > repeatedly until my dagger drops and I win the roll.

    thats definitiv wrong. (beside ur on a shitty server). On my server (EU
    Kor'gall) its no problem to do SM or Maraudon in 2 hours (including
    finding group). A RL Friend of mine needed to do the killing princess
    in Maraudon and it took less then 1 and a half hour. He asked me (ok,
    im lvl 60) to join and i saw 1 other lvl 60 shammy, a lvl 54 warrior
    and a lvl46 hunter in his (45 rogue) team... it was very easy to do
    this instance.

    >
    > 2. Can't buy one for love nor money on the AH, Too many Rogues and not
    > enough dagger drops means huge inflated prices only 10hrs/day people can
    > hope to pay.

    I dont know the name of the dagger i mean (heartsearcher or so) that is
    in our AH 2-4 times / week with a 20 gold buyout (f.e.). 20 Gold is
    grinded fast as a rougue.

    > 3. No other way of getting a good dagger as Vendors don't sell them. This is
    > a massive lack of imagination on Blizzards part TBH.

    i dont think so... I lvled to lvl 50 without doin any instance (beside
    WC) and have always good stuff - u could choose Blacksmithing as ur
    profession and make ur own dagger.... My weapon f.e. was the Staff
    from WC that i used till lvl 50!!! (ok, im a caster, so weapon isnt
    that important)

    >
    > 4. Quests that give items usually involve dungeons - see point 1 for this
    > flawed method of getting equipment.

    Thats true as long as u speak from blue items... u get mass greens from
    normal quests and drops

    > So yes, as a hard working bloke who can afford it I have no problems
    > whatsoever of Blizzard selling nice items to people like myself (with
    > disposable income) - who otherwise would not be able to get them.

    as written above, u can....

    > I pay the same money as you for the game and I'm prepared to pay
    > more to Blizzard to keep me interested, and so I don't have to spend half an
    > hour each day of my precious 2 hours in the AH desparately looking for a
    > dagger to replace my old one.

    as written above u dont need... btw im playin 2 hours / day in week
    too. on weekends i do instances... and not to forget.. 1 week vacation
    is much if u prio WOW... i started WOW on the day it starts (because my
    beta chars r deleted. hehe) and now i have a lvl60 druid and a lvl 30
    warlock. thats not much...

    Perhaps u play on "my" server? just /w me if u r horde and i help ya
    getting the maraudon dagger...(and many other highlvl will do!!!).
    I did the orgrimmar instance (forgot the name) with a lvl 60 shammy in
    30 minutes just by yelling in orgrimmar! and i did WC with 2 lvl 50s in
    about same time. (its annoying to do instances u know). no one of these
    highlvl know me i just asked per /y
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    thats it... there is no problem if someone need 1 month to lvl up 10
    lvl and another one so this in 1 week. cause both have to spend same
    time in game.
    But btw: as long as u can "only" buy gold and no items / exp u wont lvl
    much faster...i gave 20 gold from my lvl 60 to my lvl 1 (when i
    started) bacause i thought he would lvl easier... until today (lvl30)
    he never had less then 20 gold and now he has about 40 gold so there
    was no need to gave him the money.. (he just has it to buy items my
    lvl60 need if there r any...)
  6. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Would this idea be more palatable if they made it obvious that the item
    was purchased and not earned in game?

    For example, you want the Heartseeker dagger. Blizzard offers a buying
    website and sells the a dagger with the same specs but has a different
    name. So, when you see someone running around with the Cheatseeker
    dagger equipped, you know they bought it.

    Though I think the biggest problem is the children. MY GOD, THINK
    ABOUT THE CHILDREN!
  7. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    maxnews01@web.de wrote:
    > NEVER.. plz never implement such a system...
    > 1st reason: the ones with much (RL) money can lvl faster etc (wouldnt
    > be fair)

    And, currently, those who don't work 60-80 hours a week can level faster.
    Is that any more fair?

    There are many reasons not to go to a pay for cash system. This is not one
    of them.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > I've read lots of posts recently on the rights and wrongs of buying
    > in-game
    > items/money etc. I've played EQ for 4 years and EQ2 from Beta and more
    > recently WoW for a month or so, in each of these games there has always
    > been
    > the rule - if you buy outside of the game then you're cheating and you
    > will
    > be banned if you're found out.
    >
    > I feel the age old question on buying=cheating has been answered with the
    > announcement that Sony (some will argue the 'daddy' of MMORPG)
    > http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/ has started their own
    > 'items/accounts/money-for-cash'
    >
    > Would you want to see this happening in WoW?...personally I wouldn't, I've
    > seen what over inflated prices do to a servers economy, those with the
    > ability to buy lots will raise the prices for those who play for fun and
    > for
    > the reward of 'completing that quest for the extra 20 silver'.
    >
    > Take away the feeling of accomplishing anything and ask yourself what's
    > the
    > point of playing when you can legitimately buy your way there.
    >
    > Nice 'Cash-Cow' for Sony though - probably!
    >
    > Rompa
    > 30 Orc Hunter
    > Ragnoras

    May as well sell fully epiced Lvl 60 characters. I can't see how this could
    fail to damage the game, devalue the accomplishment of those who actually
    play, and screw up the economy.

    It's a terrible greed-driven idea. Typically Sony. If it happens on normal
    WoW servers I would not continue to play.

    What I don't really understand is that people are paying to skip vast
    portions of the game they shelled out cash for in the first place. Strange.

    -Fallout
  9. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Fallout wrote:
    > "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    > news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

    > May as well sell fully epiced Lvl 60 characters. I can't see how this
    > could fail to damage the game, devalue the accomplishment of those
    > who actually play, and screw up the economy.
    >
    > It's a terrible greed-driven idea. Typically Sony. If it happens on
    > normal WoW servers I would not continue to play.
    >
    > What I don't really understand is that people are paying to skip vast
    > portions of the game they shelled out cash for in the first place.
    > Strange.

    Once again, you are thinking of the game as a homogenous thing. Do you ever
    say "I like this game, but I don't like this aspect."? Did you ever take
    the warp pots in Super Mario Brothers, or did you play straight through?
    Clearly, not all parts of a game are made equal. Some people like WoW, but
    not the grind. Get over it.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > I've read lots of posts recently on the rights and wrongs of buying
    > in-game
    > items/money etc. I've played EQ for 4 years and EQ2 from Beta and more
    > recently WoW for a month or so, in each of these games there has always
    > been
    > the rule - if you buy outside of the game then you're cheating and you
    > will
    > be banned if you're found out.
    >
    > I feel the age old question on buying=cheating has been answered with the
    > announcement that Sony (some will argue the 'daddy' of MMORPG)
    > http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/ has started their own
    > 'items/accounts/money-for-cash'
    >
    > Would you want to see this happening in WoW?...personally I wouldn't, I've
    > seen what over inflated prices do to a servers economy, those with the
    > ability to buy lots will raise the prices for those who play for fun and
    > for
    > the reward of 'completing that quest for the extra 20 silver'.
    >
    > Take away the feeling of accomplishing anything and ask yourself what's
    > the
    > point of playing when you can legitimately buy your way there.
    >
    > Nice 'Cash-Cow' for Sony though - probably!
    >
    > Rompa
    > 30 Orc Hunter
    > Ragnoras
    >
    >


    I'd like to take away the feeling that I'll NEVER be able to have a decent
    dagger for my lvl 45 Rogue.

    Why?

    Well a few reasons.

    1. I only play 2 hrs per day. Not enough time to get group / enter dungeon
    repeatedly until my dagger drops and I win the roll.

    2. Can't buy one for love nor money on the AH, Too many Rogues and not
    enough dagger drops means huge inflated prices only 10hrs/day people can
    hope to pay.

    3. No other way of getting a good dagger as Vendors don't sell them. This is
    a massive lack of imagination on Blizzards part TBH.

    4. Quests that give items usually involve dungeons - see point 1 for this
    flawed method of getting equipment.

    So yes, as a hard working bloke who can afford it I have no problems
    whatsoever of Blizzard selling nice items to people like myself (with
    disposable income) - who otherwise would not be able to get them.

    Those people who whinge about "but they don't deserve it" - why? why
    exactly? I pay the same money as you for the game and I'm prepared to pay
    more to Blizzard to keep me interested, and so I don't have to spend half an
    hour each day of my precious 2 hours in the AH desparately looking for a
    dagger to replace my old one.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    news:%bMCe.64863$R21.23431@lakeread06...
    > Fallout wrote:
    >> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >
    Get over it.
    >

    Nope, as I said I would quit. If you don't like it get over it yourself.

    -Fallout
  12. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Fallout" <a@d.c> wrote in message
    news:1121685471.51594.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
    >
    > "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    > news:%bMCe.64863$R21.23431@lakeread06...
    >> Fallout wrote:
    >>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>
    > Get over it.
    >>
    >
    > Nope, as I said I would quit. If you don't like it get over it yourself.
    >
    > -Fallout
    >

    Why on earth wouldn't he like it if *you* quit?
  13. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Fallout wrote:
    > "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    > news:%bMCe.64863$R21.23431@lakeread06...
    >> Fallout wrote:
    >>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>
    > Get over it.
    >>
    >
    > Nope, as I said I would quit. If you don't like it get over it
    > yourself.

    Good riddance, I guess.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 2005-07-18 12:48:43 +0200, "Fallout" <a@d.c> said:

    > It's a terrible greed-driven idea. Typically Sony. If it happens on
    > normal WoW servers I would not continue to play.

    Agreed, it's a typical example of "You cant beat'em, join'em". Why let
    IGE take all the money when you can have it yourself? A typical SOE to
    do...
    --
    http://www.new-roots.com/
    Nerghal - Undead Warlock lvl 59 - Bloodscalp EU
    Gwar - Orcish Warrior lvl 10 - Bloodscalp EU
    Chasey - Undead Priest lvl 19 - Bloodscalp EU
  15. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Kav" <bo@gya.net> wrote in message
    news:QJMCe.72180$G8.6572@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >
    > "Fallout" <a@d.c> wrote in message
    > news:1121685471.51594.0@doris.uk.clara.net...
    >>
    >> "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote in message
    >> news:%bMCe.64863$R21.23431@lakeread06...
    >>> Fallout wrote:
    >>>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>>
    >> Get over it.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Nope, as I said I would quit. If you don't like it get over it yourself.
    >>
    >> -Fallout
    >>
    >
    > Why on earth wouldn't he like it if *you* quit?
    >

    Bad punctuation on my part.

    I don't feel obliged to 'get over' anything. If this (purely hypothetical)
    change took place, I would not have to accept it. I can exercise my right to
    withdraw my custom, and rather than play a game that had become an after
    sales marketing operation, I would do just that.

    -Fallout.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:
    > Fallout wrote:
    >> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >
    >> May as well sell fully epiced Lvl 60 characters. I can't see how this
    >> could fail to damage the game, devalue the accomplishment of those
    >> who actually play, and screw up the economy.
    >>
    >> It's a terrible greed-driven idea. Typically Sony. If it happens on
    >> normal WoW servers I would not continue to play.
    >>
    >> What I don't really understand is that people are paying to skip vast
    >> portions of the game they shelled out cash for in the first place.
    >> Strange.
    >
    > Once again, you are thinking of the game as a homogenous thing. Do you ever
    > say "I like this game, but I don't like this aspect."? Did you ever take
    > the warp pots in Super Mario Brothers, or did you play straight through?
    > Clearly, not all parts of a game are made equal. Some people like WoW, but
    > not the grind. Get over it.

    I wouldn't get over it. It's like this: I want to play the game without
    cheating (I hope we don't have to discuss whether buying money is
    cheating or not). You want to play the game and skip boring parts by
    ebaying money (where "you" doesn't mean "you", but the circle of people
    who are doing it). Now it's a conflict of interests: I don't want you
    to buy money, because it devaluates the currency and weakens my gaming
    experience (again, I don't hope we have to discuss whether ebaying
    money is bad for the economy or not). You want to buy money because you
    don't want to spend time in organising cash. No matter whether you buy
    money with RL cash or not, one of us will profit while the other one
    will get his game experience weakened. And until now, nobody was able
    to explain why I (the fair playing one) have to step back so the other
    (the cheating) one can profit.

    Chris

    --
    [WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (56) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
  17. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Kav" <bo@gya.net> wrote:

    > So yes, as a hard working bloke who can afford it I have no problems
    > whatsoever of Blizzard selling nice items to people like myself (with
    > disposable income) - who otherwise would not be able to get them.
    >
    > Those people who whinge about "but they don't deserve it" - why? why
    > exactly? I pay the same money as you for the game and I'm prepared to pay
    > more to Blizzard to keep me interested, and so I don't have to spend half an
    > hour each day of my precious 2 hours in the AH desparately looking for a
    > dagger to replace my old one.

    First: If you want to spend 5$ for the "Mighty dagger of pwning", go on. As
    long as this uberitem is available through legal gameplay too, I have no
    problems with that. You shouldn't walk in front of me with a too proud grin,
    because I'll laugh at you if you did, but all in all, it's fine.

    BUT: If you buy gold, that's a completely different story: You can't whine
    about how hard it is to buy decent gear to justify your money buying,
    because you're just MAKING IT EVEN HARDER for the people to buy their gear.

    Just in case you didn't get it yet: If you buy money, you increase all the
    prices in the AH (and no, I don't want to discuss that 1 person has no
    effect on the economy). So all your fellas, who all had the same problem
    as you (lack of cash to buy their gear), are now even more screwed,
    because the 20g in their pouches have even less value now.

    Chris

    --
    [WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (56) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
  18. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 10:28:44 +0100, "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com>
    wrote:

    >Would you want to see this happening in WoW?...personally I wouldn't, I've
    >seen what over inflated prices do to a servers economy, those with the
    >ability to buy lots will raise the prices for those who play for fun and for
    >the reward of 'completing that quest for the extra 20 silver'.

    There's nothing much you can do about it. If people find out that
    they can make real money by selling game currency, they will do it. If
    you lived in rural China and had to work in the fields for 12 hours to
    earn $1 and had the chance to earn five times that farming money in
    WoW, what would you do?

    The real problem would come if people begin to dupe uber items. That
    would have the effect of reducing the value of these items but it is
    potentially much more profitable. If you're able to dupe a legandary
    item in a few minutes and sell it for $20 or $30 that's a lot better
    than farming gold all day.

    Duping totally ruined the D2 LOD economy. I hope it never happens to
    WoW. Even worse is the possibility of bugged items that have mods
    that were never intended to be part of the game.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 18 Jul 2005 03:47:48 -0700, maxnews01@web.de wrote:

    >2nd: u dont need really... as a lvl 60 u can save (nearly) all money
    >cause better equip u only get by drops that r BOP so no buyin in AH..
    >there will be a time when u dont know what to do with all ur money...

    You can give it to your other characters.
  20. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    > Whats the point of me being rich in RL if I can't have a better
    > character, with a bigger sword, and more money, than the great
    > unwashed?

    That's exactly the point, isn't it? You're not rich in the game if you
    are rich in RL. RL and the game have nothing to do with each other.

    Are you able to walk through Duskwood forests, all gloomy and stuff,
    wolves biting your butt, a cloak hanging over your shoulders and a
    sword in your hand that you paid for with money that you earned _at the
    office_?

    That would be the same as talking about your new videocard in /s - it
    would ruin the game experience. I have a sword that I have quested for;
    I feel like a hero (with al the 2635 other heroes currently running
    around in Duskwood, but hey) and I would feel like Dilbert (you know
    the guy) knowing I paid for it with grinding code at the office instead
    of grinding monsters as an assignement from a little gnome in town.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Ninja wrote:
    > I've read lots of posts recently on the rights and wrongs of buying in-game
    > items/money etc. I've played EQ for 4 years and EQ2 from Beta and more
    > recently WoW for a month or so, in each of these games there has always been
    > the rule - if you buy outside of the game then you're cheating and you will
    > be banned if you're found out.
    >
    > I feel the age old question on buying=cheating has been answered with the
    > announcement that Sony (some will argue the 'daddy' of MMORPG)
    > http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/ has started their own
    > 'items/accounts/money-for-cash'
    >
    > Would you want to see this happening in WoW?...personally I wouldn't, I've
    > seen what over inflated prices do to a servers economy, those with the
    > ability to buy lots will raise the prices for those who play for fun and for
    > the reward of 'completing that quest for the extra 20 silver'.
    >
    > Take away the feeling of accomplishing anything and ask yourself what's the
    > point of playing when you can legitimately buy your way there.
    >
    > Nice 'Cash-Cow' for Sony though - probably!
    >
    > Rompa
    > 30 Orc Hunter
    > Ragnoras
    >
    >

    It would cease to be a role-playing game IMO.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

    >"sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:
    >> Fallout wrote:
    >>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >>
    >>> May as well sell fully epiced Lvl 60 characters. I can't see how this
    >>> could fail to damage the game, devalue the accomplishment of those
    >>> who actually play, and screw up the economy.
    >>>
    >>> It's a terrible greed-driven idea. Typically Sony. If it happens on
    >>> normal WoW servers I would not continue to play.
    >>>
    >>> What I don't really understand is that people are paying to skip vast
    >>> portions of the game they shelled out cash for in the first place.
    >>> Strange.
    >>
    >> Once again, you are thinking of the game as a homogenous thing. Do you ever
    >> say "I like this game, but I don't like this aspect."? Did you ever take
    >> the warp pots in Super Mario Brothers, or did you play straight through?
    >> Clearly, not all parts of a game are made equal. Some people like WoW, but
    >> not the grind. Get over it.
    >
    >I wouldn't get over it. It's like this: I want to play the game without
    >cheating (I hope we don't have to discuss whether buying money is
    >cheating or not).

    Why would we skip this part?

    If the company marketing the game say it is not cheating, then it
    won't be cheating.

    Just as EQ and UO have allowed the characters they provide, to be
    modified for a price. It should come as no great surprise that gold
    may be provided from the game company. Again, at a price.

    If it sells, they will sell it, unless it is detrimental to the
    overall profit. Obviously 'detrimental' in this regard, would include
    disgruntled customers cancelling their accounts because of rule
    changes, or added 'features'.

    > You want to play the game and skip boring parts by
    >ebaying money (where "you" doesn't mean "you", but the circle of people
    >who are doing it). Now it's a conflict of interests: I don't want you
    >to buy money, because it devaluates the currency and weakens my gaming
    >experience (again, I don't hope we have to discuss whether ebaying
    >money is bad for the economy or not).

    I don't have enough information about WoW's economy to categorically
    state that buying gold does devalue the currency, although it seems
    intuitive that it would. Nevertheless, economies, even ones as
    [relatively] unsophisticated as WoW's, can sometimes work in a
    counter-intuitive way.

    The real question might be whether you would put up with gold being
    bought legally from the company, if they could ensure it had a totally
    neutral effect on the economy?

    If they could prove to you that being able to buy gold would not
    weaken your game experience

    Would it then be ok?

    If not, why not?

    > You want to buy money because you
    >don't want to spend time in organising cash. No matter whether you buy
    >money with RL cash or not, one of us will profit while the other one
    >will get his game experience weakened. And until now, nobody was able
    >to explain why I (the fair playing one) have to step back so the other
    >(the cheating) one can profit.

    Again, the only arbiter of who, and who is not a cheat is Blizzard.
    And they could change their mind at any time.

    The progression seems inevitable.

    Whats the point of me being rich in RL if I can't have a better
    character, with a bigger sword, and more money, than the great
    unwashed?

    A sort of BMW character, as opposed to a Kia character.


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  23. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Taras Bulba" <no-one@blophead.com> wrote:

    > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    > <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >
    >> You want to play the game and skip boring parts by
    >>ebaying money (where "you" doesn't mean "you", but the circle of people
    >>who are doing it). Now it's a conflict of interests: I don't want you
    >>to buy money, because it devaluates the currency and weakens my gaming
    >>experience (again, I don't hope we have to discuss whether ebaying
    >>money is bad for the economy or not).
    >
    > I don't have enough information about WoW's economy to categorically
    > state that buying gold does devalue the currency, although it seems
    > intuitive that it would. Nevertheless, economies, even ones as
    > [relatively] unsophisticated as WoW's, can sometimes work in a
    > counter-intuitive way.

    More money = less value of one unit of this money. What's to discuss
    about this topic?

    > The real question might be whether you would put up with gold being
    > bought legally from the company, if they could ensure it had a totally
    > neutral effect on the economy?

    I wouldn't care.

    > If they could prove to you that being able to buy gold would not
    > weaken your game experience
    >
    > Would it then be ok?

    As long as:
    - I can achieve the same thing by spending time ingame
    - It doesn't raise prices or affect me in any other way
    I'd say let people spend their RL cash for items/cash/whatever.
    I wouldn't want to play with people who bought all their gear
    with RL money, but that's just me. If the above points are
    fulfilled, it would be no problem for me.

    > Whats the point of me being rich in RL if I can't have a better
    > character, with a bigger sword, and more money, than the great
    > unwashed?

    What's the point of me being a PvE freak and instance addict,
    when every rich old fart can spend some $ to achieve the same?
    Again, as long as I'm not directly affected by people buying
    gear/cash with RL money, let them do it. But you'll have to
    life with the fact that people like me would prefer to play
    endgame stuff with relatively weak geared players who know
    what they do, than with someone who spent 200$ to pimp his
    level 60 to the extremes for whatever reasons.

    > A sort of BMW character, as opposed to a Kia character.

    Nice analogy: Just as I'd prefer to play my drood with less-
    than-optimal gear than buying ubergear with RL cash if I
    can't get it by playing, I'd rather buy a Kia than
    lease/rent a BMW if I didn't have the money for buying a BMW.
    (But I'm happy with my Impreza, and my KTM is a bigger source
    of fun than anything with 4 wheels, but that's completely OT
    now).

    Chris

    --
    [WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (57) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (15) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jazrah - Brutal Troll (16) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
    Jivarr - Charming Troll (12) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
  24. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > Kav wrote:
    >>
    >> Those people who whinge about "but they don't deserve it" - why? why
    >> exactly? I pay the same money as you for the game and I'm prepared to
    >> pay more to Blizzard to keep me interested, and so I don't have to
    >> spend half an hour each day of my precious 2 hours in the AH
    >> desparately looking for a dagger to replace my old one.
    >
    > Why? Because then the playing field is not level, that's why. When
    > someone cheats at Mario, they're only affecting themselves. But in a
    > MMO game, everything needs to be equal for everyone.
    >
    > The time argument does not work. It takes you about the same time as
    > anyone else to get to level 10, 20, 30, whatever. It's just that
    > some people squeeze all that time into fewer days than you. That's
    > not unfair, though, the way a pay system would be.

    You're setting your own criteria. What if I decided that a more important
    factor would be how many days of RL time it took? After all, why should
    someone level faster than me, simply because they have fewer
    responsibilities or less demanding lives? Don't I pay just like they do? A
    pay system would allow me to use a little of the extra time I spent at work
    to balance out and level faster to compensate for the inability to spend as
    much time playing.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:
    >>
    >> You're setting your own criteria. What if I decided that a more
    >> important factor would be how many days of RL time it took? After
    >> all, why should someone level faster than me, simply because they
    >> have fewer responsibilities or less demanding lives? Don't I pay
    >> just like they do?
    >
    > Honestly, that's just life. It has nothing to do with Blizzard's
    > implementation of the game. Time is a valuable commodity to everyone.

    And I could also say that it's just life that some people have more money
    than others, and that they should not be restricted from making whatever
    trades they wish.

    As far as Blizzard's implementation, that is not what we are discussing.
    This is an issue of whether buying in-game property is good or bad. I say
    it's bad, but not for the same reasons you do.

    >> A pay system would allow me to use a little of
    >> the extra time I spent at work to balance out and level faster to
    >> compensate for the inability to spend as much time playing.
    >
    > But it would cheapen the game by seeing to it that some players didn't
    > actually earn their accomplishments. I think that's worse than the
    > benefit it would provide.

    But they did earn it through accomplishment. Just not in-game.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:50:55 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

    >"Taras Bulba" <no-one@blophead.com> wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:

    >> I don't have enough information about WoW's economy to categorically
    >> state that buying gold does devalue the currency, although it seems
    >> intuitive that it would. Nevertheless, economies, even ones as
    >> [relatively] unsophisticated as WoW's, can sometimes work in a
    >> counter-intuitive way.
    >
    >More money = less value of one unit of this money. What's to discuss
    >about this topic?

    Lots.

    How is it more money?

    The money has to exist in order to be able to sell it. It is in the
    economy long before they sell it.

    And, if someone buys 900 gold, or whatever it takes to buy an epic
    mount, and then buys that mount, isn't that taking gold out of the
    economy?

    >> The real question might be whether you would put up with gold being
    >> bought legally from the company, if they could ensure it had a totally
    >> neutral effect on the economy?
    >
    >I wouldn't care.

    So, for example, if Blizzard decided to put in a gold buying service,
    you would be happy as long as it didn't exceed what is being sold
    illegally now?

    >> If they could prove to you that being able to buy gold would not
    >> weaken your game experience
    >>
    >> Would it then be ok?
    >
    >As long as:
    >- I can achieve the same thing by spending time ingame

    You can do that now. In fact you can get BoP gear which no amount of
    gold buying will get you.

    >- It doesn't raise prices or affect me in any other way

    "Affect me in any other way" covers a multitude of sins.

    Any rule change will affect you.

    >I'd say let people spend their RL cash for items/cash/whatever.
    >I wouldn't want to play with people who bought all their gear
    >with RL money, but that's just me.

    It's not just you. I'm sure there are plenty of people who feel the
    same way.

    What is interesting is why they still feel that way, even if it were
    to have no effect whatsoever, on their game.

    > If the above points are
    >fulfilled, it would be no problem for me.

    As you can see, it is not possible to fulfil all of the points.

    This is because the points have not been specified. They have simply
    been left to the vagaries of "affect me in any other way".

    >> Whats the point of me being rich in RL if I can't have a better
    >> character, with a bigger sword, and more money, than the great
    >> unwashed?
    >
    >What's the point of me being a PvE freak and instance addict,
    >when every rich old fart can spend some $ to achieve the same?

    They haven't achieved the same. They haven't had the same experiences
    and maybe they haven't achieved the same level of skill.

    All they have done is buy their character already equipped.

    Wouldn't you argue that you have had a much more rewarding experience
    than them?

    >Again, as long as I'm not directly affected by people buying
    >gear/cash with RL money, let them do it. But you'll have to
    >life with the fact that people like me would prefer to play
    >endgame stuff with relatively weak geared players who know
    >what they do, than with someone who spent 200$ to pimp his
    >level 60 to the extremes for whatever reasons.

    The main criterion for me grouping with someone would be that they
    knew what they were doing, not where they got there gear from.

    I wouldn't boot a bought character who knew what to do, in favour of
    an inept fool who had stumbled his way through 60 levels of dungeon
    wipes.

    That's just me though.

    I'm neutral on the idea of buying characters, gold, items and levels.
    I do think it is inevitable though.

    >> A sort of BMW character, as opposed to a Kia character.
    >
    >Nice analogy: Just as I'd prefer to play my drood with less-
    >than-optimal gear than buying ubergear with RL cash if I
    >can't get it by playing, I'd rather buy a Kia than
    >lease/rent a BMW if I didn't have the money for buying a BMW.

    Well, its your money. You have the right to purchase whatever you want
    with it, don't you?

    >(But I'm happy with my Impreza, and my KTM is a bigger source
    >of fun than anything with 4 wheels, but that's completely OT
    >now).

    I'm souping up my Matiz. Which, as you say, is a nice analogy with my
    shaman.


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  27. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Taras Bulba wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:50:55 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    > <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >
    >> "Taras Bulba" <no-one@blophead.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >>> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >
    >>> I don't have enough information about WoW's economy to categorically
    >>> state that buying gold does devalue the currency, although it seems
    >>> intuitive that it would. Nevertheless, economies, even ones as
    >>> [relatively] unsophisticated as WoW's, can sometimes work in a
    >>> counter-intuitive way.
    >>
    >> More money = less value of one unit of this money. What's to discuss
    >> about this topic?
    >
    > Lots.
    >
    > How is it more money?

    Farmers working to sell money are going to do everything possible to
    maximize gold per hour. They will likely generate a very disproportionate
    amount of in-game money over time. They also will concentrate this money in
    the hands of people who now have far more buying power than their levels
    warrent. So, not only does it increase the absolute money supply in the
    game, but increases the supply available at different stages of the game.

    > The money has to exist in order to be able to sell it. It is in the
    > economy long before they sell it.

    It spawns. If the mobs that carry it are killed faster, and mobs that
    wouldn't be killed are, just as part of a clean sweep, then the money is
    spawning faster. And, as I mentioned above, that money is being sold to
    people for whom it is an insane amount for that level, and will throw off
    the economy, level by level.

    > And, if someone buys 900 gold, or whatever it takes to buy an epic
    > mount, and then buys that mount, isn't that taking gold out of the
    > economy?

    If it's 900g that was created, sold, then used to buy the epic mount, vice
    900g that was earned, then no it's not. It's bypassing an installed
    money-sink.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:59:31 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    wrote:

    >Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:
    >>>> Fallout wrote:
    >>>>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

    >>> I wouldn't get over it. It's like this: I want to play the game
    >>> without cheating (I hope we don't have to discuss whether buying
    >>> money is cheating or not).
    >>
    >> Why would we skip this part?
    >>
    >> If the company marketing the game say it is not cheating, then it
    >> won't be cheating.
    >
    >We skip this part because we're talking about Blizzard's game, not any other
    >game, and Blizzard says it's cheating, which puts a complete end to the
    >discussion on that particular point. Even on Usenet. ;)

    Fortunately, for the rest of Usenet, you only get to choose whether
    *you* choose to participate or not. Others will decide for themselves.

    You are right, Blizzard say it is cheating, but that may change, and
    possible rule changes are, and have been, pertinent and perennial
    subjects for discussion.

    >Subsequent comments on other companies and their games are irrelevant in
    >this case.

    I think that the progression of other MMORPG's are highly relevant in
    this case.

    What reason is there to think that as Blizzard's product ages, it
    won't follow the same path, or go even further, than some of its
    forebears?


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  29. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On 2005-07-19 09:19:15 +0200, Taras Bulba <no-one@blophead.com> said:

    > The real question might be whether you would put up with gold being
    > bought legally from the company, if they could ensure it had a totally
    > neutral effect on the economy?
    >
    > If they could prove to you that being able to buy gold would not
    > weaken your game experience
    >
    > Would it then be ok?
    >
    > If not, why not?

    Because it becomes a different game, values and goals change. I'm
    perfectly okay with the concept if the game is designed with that
    aspect in mind. E.g. Project Entropia.

    However, a game that changes its policy regarding this after launch is
    changing one of the basic design concepts of this game. I, for one,
    will never play a game if I know in advance that real life money in
    involved if you wanna reach something (not talking about the fixed
    amount of a monthly fee here). Because for me, at that time it stops
    being a game.
    --
    http://www.new-roots.com/
    Nerghal - Undead Warlock lvl 59 - Bloodscalp EU
    Gwar - Orcish Warrior lvl 10 - Bloodscalp EU
    Chasey - Undead Priest lvl 19 - Bloodscalp EU
  30. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:04:39 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    wrote:

    >Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:50:55 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Taras Bulba" <no-one@blophead.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >>>> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> I don't have enough information about WoW's economy to categorically
    >>>> state that buying gold does devalue the currency, although it seems
    >>>> intuitive that it would. Nevertheless, economies, even ones as
    >>>> [relatively] unsophisticated as WoW's, can sometimes work in a
    >>>> counter-intuitive way.
    >>>
    >>> More money = less value of one unit of this money. What's to discuss
    >>> about this topic?
    >>
    >> Lots.
    >>
    >> How is it more money?
    >
    >Farmers working to sell money are going to do everything possible to
    >maximize gold per hour. They will likely generate a very disproportionate
    >amount of in-game money over time.They also will concentrate this money in
    >the hands of people who now have far more buying power than their levels
    >warrent. So, not only does it increase the absolute money supply in the
    >game, but increases the supply available at different stages of the game

    It would be nice to see some empirical evidence of exactly what does
    happen to the economy when gold selling is rife, and when it isn't.

    There may be some effects that haven't been anticipated and others
    that may be exaggerated.

    What exactly do gold-buyers spend their money on?
    Does any of this affect someone who never uses the AH?
    What happens to lvl 60 money?
    Does twinking have the same effect?

    I must admit I wrote the previous posts before I read that article on
    the Asian gold-farming corporations.

    The scale on which it is being done does change the perspective a
    little.

    I wonder how Blizzard will deal with this. (How have other games
    dealt with this?) I don't think it can be stopped, but it might be
    controlled if they were to compete in the same market. Of course,
    entering that market and legitimising the selling of gold, may make
    the cure worse than the disease.

    >> And, if someone buys 900 gold, or whatever it takes to buy an epic
    >> mount, and then buys that mount, isn't that taking gold out of the
    >> economy?
    >
    >If it's 900g that was created, sold, then used to buy the epic mount, vice
    >900g that was earned, then no it's not. It's bypassing an installed
    >money-sink.

    Time-sink, not money-sink.

    The money still goes out of the economy, no matter who farmed the
    gold, and no matter the rate at which it was farmed.

    All that has happened is that the person buying the mount has passed
    on the time taken to farm gold, to the gold seller.

    The gold hasn't been created ex nihilo, but simply post haste.


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  31. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:00:45 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    wrote:

    >Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:59:31 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 16:08:27 +0200, "Christian Stauffer"
    >>>> <wildcard666@bluewin.ch> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com> wrote:
    >>>>>> Fallout wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Ninja" <here@back.of.beyond.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:42db766c$0$6112$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...


    >You can participate in a moot point if you want to.

    Yes, I can, can't I?

    Or any other point that may take my fancy.

    > Have fun.

    Your blessing will no doubt enhance my fun by a factor of many.

    >> You are right, Blizzard say it is cheating, but that may change, and
    >> possible rule changes are, and have been, pertinent and perennial
    >> subjects for discussion.
    >
    >It won't change. Trust me on this.

    Of course I trust you. I trust everyone I meet on Usenet.

    >> I think that the progression of other MMORPG's are highly relevant in
    >> this case.
    >>
    >> What reason is there to think that as Blizzard's product ages, it
    >> won't follow the same path, or go even further, than some of its
    >> forebears?
    >
    >Because it's the genre-leader, not a follower.

    How so?

    Is there nothing in WoW that has been taken from any other game that
    preceded it?

    > Blizzard enjoys their
    >independence, and not following the crowd has played a big part in getting
    >them to where they are today.

    Blizzard certainly is a company that has been innovative in some
    respects. It will be interesting to see what methods they employ to
    counter the problems of gold-selling by third parties, that is, if
    they regard it as a problem at all.

    As I said in another post, I hadn't realised the sheer scale on which
    it is being done.

    What do you think can be done, and what do you think Blizzard will do
    about it?

    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  32. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Taras Bulba wrote:
    > On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:04:39 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    > wrote:

    >>> How is it more money?
    >>
    >> Farmers working to sell money are going to do everything possible to
    >> maximize gold per hour. They will likely generate a very
    >> disproportionate
    >> amount of in-game money over time.They also will concentrate this
    >> money in
    >> the hands of people who now have far more buying power than their
    >> levels
    >> warrent. So, not only does it increase the absolute money supply in
    >> the
    >> game, but increases the supply available at different stages of the
    >> game
    >
    > It would be nice to see some empirical evidence of exactly what does
    > happen to the economy when gold selling is rife, and when it isn't.

    Same thing that happens to every economy when money supply is artificially
    increased. It happened in Rome when Ceaser brought back spoils of war. It
    happened in Spain when the conquistadores brought back american gold. It
    happens when the Fed softens monetary policy. When desired goods and
    services are limited, increasing money supply increases prices. It's basic
    economics.

    > There may be some effects that haven't been anticipated and others
    > that may be exaggerated.
    >
    > What exactly do gold-buyers spend their money on?

    Doesn't matter. To the degree that they have a disproportionate amount of
    gold for their level and make their way to the auction house, they will
    distort the value of goods. If enough of them do it, they shift the selling
    price to the detriment of those who don't buy gold.

    > Does any of this affect someone who never uses the AH?

    Probably not, but player economy is a significat part of a MMORPG.

    > What happens to lvl 60 money?

    Level 60 isn't all there is to the game.

    > Does twinking have the same effect?

    To a reduced degree, yes. Giving a character a disproportionate supply of
    gold for his level is sitll creates an upward pressure on goods at the level
    which they are likely to be bought. 10 gold isn't much for a level 60, when
    we get to the point where it's common for a level 5 to be carrying around 10
    gold via twinkage, there will be no downward pressure on prices, and players
    who don't buy gold or don't get twinked will be unable to compete.

    <snip>

    >> If it's 900g that was created, sold, then used to buy the epic
    >> mount, vice 900g that was earned, then no it's not. It's bypassing
    >> an installed
    >> money-sink.
    >
    > Time-sink, not money-sink.

    No, time sink.

    > The money still goes out of the economy, no matter who farmed the
    > gold, and no matter the rate at which it was farmed.

    If everyone buys the gold for their epic mount, then they gold they have and
    earn stays in the economy, and this "fool's gold" is all that's spent. Epic
    mounts were meant to take money out of the economy. This is kind of like
    using a DoT to counteract a regen.

    > All that has happened is that the person buying the mount has passed
    > on the time taken to farm gold, to the gold seller.

    Who farms more efficiently. There's also alot of people who don't farm, who
    would buy the mount if it's available.

    > The gold hasn't been created ex nihilo, but simply post haste.

    Effectively the same thing, as it impacts the economoy.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:

    >> And I could also say that it's just life that some people have more
    >> money than others, and that they should not be restricted from making
    >> whatever trades they wish.
    >
    > But you're comparing apples and oranges. Ultimately, we all have
    > exactly the same amount of time. It's up to us how we choose to

    Oh? I've noticed that some have far less time alotted to them than others.
    But, disregarding questions of lifespans, we also do not have the same
    amount of free time. If I choose to use a bit of the money I traded my time
    for in order to equalize the effect it has on the game, then why shouldn't
    I?

    > spend it, and it doesn't prevent the playing field from being level. It is
    > also a resource everyone has, unlike money. A working guy like

    Money is simply that which we trade our time for, and that which we use to
    obtain what we desire. In other words, money is a reflection of how we
    spend our time.

    > me takes many more days to level than kids with no jobs, but we all
    > take about the same amount of time.

    Why is that a good thing?

    > Money, on the other hand, is a resource that not everyone has, and
    > allowing it to play a part in shaping the game would be patently

    Free time is also a resource that people have unequally. As is intellect,
    eyesight, patience, and a social network with which to group. Yet they all
    affect our play.

    > unfair to disadvantaged players. No one is at a disadvantage over
    > time, but many players would be at a serious disadvantage over money.

    Of course people are at a serious disadvantage over time. If I don't have
    the time to keep up with someone who joined at the same time I did, then he
    will be stronger than I will, with respect to time passed. Though I will
    likely be stronger with respect to time played (due to rested bonus).

    > Anyway, may as well put this one to rest. I'm against the idea, and
    > there's really nothing you can say that will change my mind. Also,
    > it's purely academic, as Blizzard will never consider this anyway.

    Sounds like someone trying to retreat with honor.

    >> As far as Blizzard's implementation, that is not what we are
    >> discussing. This is an issue of whether buying in-game property is
    >> good or bad. I say it's bad, but not for the same reasons you do.
    >
    > Then I have no idea why you're arguing with me. Seems we'd be on the
    > same side.

    Because, I don't like for my side to have the facts and concepts wrong. To
    me, right answer for the wrong reason is no better than having the wrong
    answer.

    >>>> A pay system would allow me to use a little of
    >>>> the extra time I spent at work to balance out and level faster to
    >>>> compensate for the inability to spend as much time playing.
    >>>
    >>> But it would cheapen the game by seeing to it that some players
    >>> didn't actually earn their accomplishments. I think that's worse
    >>> than the benefit it would provide.
    >>
    >> But they did earn it through accomplishment. Just not in-game.
    >
    > Don't be semantic. ;) Obviously, I'm referring only to in-game
    > accomplishment. IRL accomplishment is irrelevant to the game.

    Hardly. RL decisions affect game play. Especially ones that affect free
    time available to grind and farm. The game is a construct we apply to our
    lives, not our lives being a construct we apply to the game.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:
    >> Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>> sanjian wrote:
    >>
    >>>> And I could also say that it's just life that some people have more
    >>>> money than others, and that they should not be restricted from
    >>>> making whatever trades they wish.
    >>>
    >>> But you're comparing apples and oranges. Ultimately, we all have
    >>> exactly the same amount of time. It's up to us how we choose to
    >>
    >> Oh? I've noticed that some have far less time alotted to them than
    >> others. But, disregarding questions of lifespans, we also do not have
    >> the same amount of free time. If I choose to use a bit of the money
    >> I traded my time for in order to equalize the effect it has on the
    >> game, then why shouldn't I?
    >
    > I think I've already explained this, and I can't help that you refuse
    > to see it. It seems intentional on your part, so forgive my terse
    > response.

    Ahh, you're one of -those- types. Sorry - you can think you explained it
    all you want, but if you're dead wrong, no amount of explaination is going
    to convince me. It's a tiny mind who thinks his own incorrectness is other
    peoples' refusal to see. A rational person does not give up on discussion
    because the other person refutes his points. If you think my refutation is
    inadequate, then explain. Otherwise, it simply looks like you're pouting
    because the inadequacy of your argument has been shown.

    >>> Anyway, may as well put this one to rest. I'm against the idea, and
    >>> there's really nothing you can say that will change my mind. Also,
    >>> it's purely academic, as Blizzard will never consider this anyway.
    >>
    >> Sounds like someone trying to retreat with honor.
    >
    > Retreat from what? There's no point in talking about this, our minds
    > are made up. My time *is* limited, and I'd rather do other things
    > with it than pointlessly noodle over this topic.

    Your mind may already be made up. However, given sufficent, -good- reason,
    I'm always willing to reconsider my views. Which position is likely to lead
    to a more accurate position?

    >>> Then I have no idea why you're arguing with me. Seems we'd be on
    >>> the same side.
    >>
    >> Because, I don't like for my side to have the facts and concepts
    >> wrong. To me, right answer for the wrong reason is no better than
    >> having the wrong answer.
    >
    > You should consider minding your own business then.

    Non-sequiter, anyone? Mike is giving them away free. Get yours while
    supplies last.

    Just a hint. This is usenet. Anything that goes on here is -everyone's-
    business.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:
    >>
    >> Ahh, you're one of -those- types. Sorry - you can think you
    >> explained it all you want, but if you're dead wrong, no amount of
    >> explaination is going to convince me.
    >
    > I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps that's where
    > you've gone wrong here.

    No wonder you think discussion is useless, then.

    >> Just a hint. This is usenet. Anything that goes on here is
    >> -everyone's- business.
    >
    > Ah, how about some common courtesy then? I'm done with this
    > discussion, the last word is all yours.

    If you think you're entitled to courtesy, then you're mistaken.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:
    >
    >>Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>
    >>>sanjian wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Ahh, you're one of -those- types. Sorry - you can think you
    >>>>explained it all you want, but if you're dead wrong, no amount of
    >>>>explaination is going to convince me.
    >>>
    >>>I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Perhaps that's where
    >>>you've gone wrong here.
    >>
    >>No wonder you think discussion is useless, then.
    >
    >
    > Well, what else is there to say? I said what I had to say, and you said
    > what you had to say. We disagree, neither of us bought the other's points,
    > and that's that. What else were you expecting? Why go over it again and
    > again and again?

    Well, they might be expecting reasoned discussion. I don't mean to imply
    that the only reason you don't want to discuss further is that you
    dilike reasoned discussion or are incapable of it or something; you
    might just not feel like it.

    But my economist friends hardly ever say things like "it's basic
    economics", and especially don;t seem to expect such an utterance to end
    a reasoned discussion. Actual economies (including the ones in games)
    are full of surprises.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:42:06 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    wrote:

    >Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:04:39 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    >> wrote:

    >> It would be nice to see some empirical evidence of exactly what does
    >> happen to the economy when gold selling is rife, and when it isn't.
    >
    >Same thing that happens to every economy when money supply is artificially
    >increased.

    All different sorts of things might happen. The problem is that we
    don't have a norm to compare it to. Gold-selling presumably increases
    with the age and population of the server. You can guess, but even an
    informed guess is just that, a guess.

    > It happened in Rome when Ceaser brought back spoils of war.
    > It happened in Spain when the conquistadores brought back american gold.
    > It happens when the Fed softens monetary policy. When desired goods and
    >services are limited, increasing money supply increases prices.

    I don't think you can take a simplistic view of what you believe
    happened in those eras, overlay it on to the economic model in WoW,
    and expect to see an accurate picture.

    > It's basic economics.

    If you don't know what the money supply is, or should be, then you
    can't tell if it is inflated.

    You can presume it is inflated, and you might be right, but you have
    no idea by how much.

    And, even if you were to correlate an increase in prices with an
    increase in the amount of gold-selling, such a correlation does not
    necessarily imply anything causative.

    It's basic statistics. You need accurate data.

    >> There may be some effects that haven't been anticipated and others
    >> that may be exaggerated.
    >>
    >> What exactly do gold-buyers spend their money on?
    >
    >Doesn't matter.

    Why not?

    If, for example, they spend it on fireworks from vendors then
    wouldn't this have a different effect on the economy than if they
    spent it in the auction house?

    Or, if they respec their talents every week.

    Or, if they change their mount regularly.

    Or if they don't play as much..etc,etc.

    > To the degree that they have a disproportionate amount of
    >gold for their level and make their way to the auction house, they will
    >distort the value of goods.

    The auction house is not the only place to dispose of gold.

    > If enough of them do it, they shift the selling
    >price to the detriment of those who don't buy gold.
    >
    >> Does any of this affect someone who never uses the AH?
    >
    >Probably not, but player economy is a significat part of a MMORPG.

    Are you making a distinction between 'player' economy and that part of
    the economy that goes through vendors?

    >> What happens to lvl 60 money?
    >
    >Level 60 isn't all there is to the game.

    No-one is claiming that it is.

    What does a lvl 60 who has his epic mount spend his cash on?

    I know one who gave another 300g to help him get his mount. If this
    was a widespread practice, what effect would this have on the economy?

    >> Does twinking have the same effect?
    >
    >To a reduced degree, yes.

    How do you know it is a 'reduced' degree?

    And, if you are right, how do you know whether it is reduced by a
    significant degree?

    What effect does the age and population of the server have on this
    'reduced degree'?

    > Giving a character a disproportionate supply of
    >gold for his level is sitll creates an upward pressure on goods at the level
    >which they are likely to be bought. 10 gold isn't much for a level 60, when
    >we get to the point where it's common for a level 5 to be carrying around 10
    >gold via twinkage, there will be no downward pressure on prices, and players
    >who don't buy gold or don't get twinked will be unable to compete.

    >>> If it's 900g that was created, sold, then used to buy the epic
    >>> mount, vice 900g that was earned, then no it's not. It's bypassing
    >>> an installed
    >>> money-sink.
    >>
    >> Time-sink, not money-sink.
    >
    >No, time sink.

    ?

    Are we in agreement here?

    >> The money still goes out of the economy, no matter who farmed the
    >> gold, and no matter the rate at which it was farmed.
    >
    >If everyone buys the gold for their epic mount, then they gold they have and
    >earn stays in the economy, and this "fool's gold" is all that's spent.

    Perhaps.

    But perhaps once they buy that mount, they no longer farm gold at the
    rate they would have, had they not had the mount.

    > Epic
    >mounts were meant to take money out of the economy. This is kind of like
    >using a DoT to counteract a regen.
    >
    >> All that has happened is that the person buying the mount has passed
    >> on the time taken to farm gold, to the gold seller.
    >
    >Who farms more efficiently. There's also alot of people who don't farm, who
    >would buy the mount if it's available.

    How would they get this gold, if they neither bought it or farmed it?

    >> The gold hasn't been created ex nihilo, but simply post haste.
    >
    >Effectively the same thing, as it impacts the economoy.

    Just about everything impacts the economy. The question is to what
    degree.

    Perhaps gold-sellers simply speed up the natural aging process of a
    server. A sort of cyber-amphetamine, which might account for the
    incessant babble sometimes seen on /1 General.

    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  38. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:43 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    wrote:

    >sanjian wrote:
    >> Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>> sanjian wrote:

    >>> Anyway, may as well put this one to rest. I'm against the idea, and
    >>> there's really nothing you can say that will change my mind.

    Do you believe this to be a rational stance?

    >>> Also, it's purely academic, as Blizzard will never consider this anyway.

    ``They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist--``
    General John Sedgewick.

    >> Sounds like someone trying to retreat with honor.
    >
    >Retreat from what? There's no point in talking about this, our minds are
    >made up. My time *is* limited, and I'd rather do other things with it than
    >pointlessly noodle over this topic.

    It isn't always about 'you'.

    If you wish to put forward an idea on Usenet, then you can reasonably
    expect that you might have to defend that idea, (sometimes, quite
    robustly), if you wish to retain credibility. Hundreds, perhaps
    thousands, of people might read what you have to say. Replies don't
    always have to be read by the original poster to have some use.

    In fact, sometimes what people don't say, or refuse to say, can tell
    people far more about that person and his ideas, than what they do
    say.

    >>> Then I have no idea why you're arguing with me. Seems we'd be on the
    >>> same side.
    >>
    >> Because, I don't like for my side to have the facts and concepts
    >> wrong. To me, right answer for the wrong reason is no better than
    >> having the wrong answer.
    >
    >You should consider minding your own business then.

    Which would be anything posted on a public forum, wouldn't it?


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  39. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:03:21 +0930, Taras Bulba <no-one@blophead.com>
    scribed into the ether:

    >On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:42:06 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 22:04:39 -0400, "sanjian" <sanjian@widomaker.com>
    >>> wrote:
    >
    >>> It would be nice to see some empirical evidence of exactly what does
    >>> happen to the economy when gold selling is rife, and when it isn't.
    >>
    >>Same thing that happens to every economy when money supply is artificially
    >>increased.
    >
    >All different sorts of things might happen. The problem is that we
    >don't have a norm to compare it to. Gold-selling presumably increases
    >with the age and population of the server. You can guess, but even an
    >informed guess is just that, a guess.

    Because it's never happened on any other MMOG before...

    Anyone who even remotely followed the bazaar in Everquest saw how prices on
    even basic items inflated past all reason over time, and ebayers were a big
    part of it.

    >> It happened in Rome when Ceaser brought back spoils of war.
    >> It happened in Spain when the conquistadores brought back american gold.
    >> It happens when the Fed softens monetary policy. When desired goods and
    >>services are limited, increasing money supply increases prices.
    >
    >I don't think you can take a simplistic view of what you believe
    >happened in those eras, overlay it on to the economic model in WoW,
    >and expect to see an accurate picture.
    >
    >> It's basic economics.
    >
    >If you don't know what the money supply is, or should be, then you
    >can't tell if it is inflated.

    Infinite supply. The problems in WoW or other games are thereby infinitely
    worse than the real world, where the amount of money in the system can be
    controlled with far greater ease.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:24:47 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    wrote:

    >Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:43 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >> wrote:

    >You missed my point. I'm not really that interested in the discussion, nor
    >in "defending my idea".

    Then why bother posting anything at all if you have no interest in the
    discussion?

    And, if you are not interested, why should anyone give credence to
    what you say?

    > I said what I had to say, you disagree with it and
    >stated your own case (as did Sanjian), and so there we are. Why spend a
    >hundred posts going over it and over it and over it again,

    As I said before, it is not always for your benefit. Sometimes faulty
    reasoning, faulty logic and fallacious arguments need to be pointed
    out and stepped on.

    > especially considering the chances of one of us actually capitulating?

    I did change my view, on coming across new (to me) evidence about the
    scale of gold-farming.

    Neither is it the first time time I have changed my mind in the light
    of fresh evidence or reasoned argument.

    > It'll just be
    >the classic Usenet stalemate, where we repeat our positions a hundred
    >different ways to no avail, wasting a lot of time and bandwidth in the
    >process.

    That hasn't always been my experience.

    I wonder why it always seems to be yours.

    > I've done that enough on Usenet, now I often prefer to "agree to
    >disagree" after a couple of posts back and forth.

    So why bother to let people know you disagree at all?

    > We disagree, and I'm ok
    >with that. Are you?

    I understand that some people are more comfortable with having their
    views reinforced rather than having them challenged.

    I like having mine challenged and I modify them accordingly.


    TB


    ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
    ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  41. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:
    > Taras Bulba wrote:
    >> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:24:47 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:43 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>
    >>> You missed my point. I'm not really that interested in the
    >>> discussion, nor in "defending my idea".
    >>
    >> Then why bother posting anything at all if you have no interest in
    >> the discussion?
    >
    > Because I had a thing or two to say, at a time I was interested. I
    > didn't think I was going to be stalked over it.

    You're not being stalked, you're being challenged. Drop the victimhood
    terminology.
  42. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Mike Kohary wrote:

    > sanjian wrote:
    >
    >>Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>
    >>>Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:24:47 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:43 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>You missed my point. I'm not really that interested in the
    >>>>>discussion, nor in "defending my idea".
    >>>>
    >>>>Then why bother posting anything at all if you have no interest in
    >>>>the discussion?
    >>>
    >>>Because I had a thing or two to say, at a time I was interested. I
    >>>didn't think I was going to be stalked over it.
    >>
    >>You're not being stalked, you're being challenged. Drop the
    >>victimhood terminology.
    >
    >
    > Fine. You've had your fun, now let's move along, shall we?
    >

    Have you considered joining a PVE newsgroup? ;)
  43. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    In article <42e096ed$0$25046$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr>,
    Babe Bridou <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > Have you considered joining a PVE newsgroup? ;)

    I thought all news servers were PvP. :-)

    --
    Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
    indianajoe3@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
  44. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:48:47 +0200, Babe Bridou <babebridou@hotmail.com>
    scribed into the ether:

    >Mike Kohary wrote:
    >
    >> sanjian wrote:
    >>
    >>>Mike Kohary wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:24:47 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Taras Bulba wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:28:43 -0700, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    >>>>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>You missed my point. I'm not really that interested in the
    >>>>>>discussion, nor in "defending my idea".
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Then why bother posting anything at all if you have no interest in
    >>>>>the discussion?
    >>>>
    >>>>Because I had a thing or two to say, at a time I was interested. I
    >>>>didn't think I was going to be stalked over it.
    >>>
    >>>You're not being stalked, you're being challenged. Drop the
    >>>victimhood terminology.
    >>
    >>
    >> Fine. You've had your fun, now let's move along, shall we?
    >>
    >
    >Have you considered joining a PVE newsgroup? ;)

    *.moderated groups are boring though.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    sanjian wrote:
    > Mike Kohary wrote:

    >>But it would cheapen the game by seeing to it that some players didn't
    >>actually earn their accomplishments. I think that's worse than the
    >>benefit it would provide.

    > But they did earn it through accomplishment. Just not in-game.

    Some people seem to think the game as a seamless extension of their real
    life. "I went to Pizza Hut today, then I came home, then I went to the
    dungeon and got bitten by a giant rat." "I hope you went to hospital
    after that." "No, there are no hospitals in the game." "But are there
    pizza restaurants then in the game?"

    If I say that "it's a game", I'm not implying a "who cares" anarchistic
    attitude. I'd say "it's a game" because people have agreed on common
    rules before playing. And before paying anything for the game in the
    first place.

    Problems appear when the same game has two sets of rules. One set of
    rules for those that honestly do not buy in-game items with RL money,
    and different (self-made) rules for those that buy Ebay gold against the
    current (official) rules.

    If RL social skills are a disadvantage to someone in the game, then
    let's start a server for socially disadvantaged, with a tailored ruleset
    for leveling the playing field.

    Or let's wait until Sony starts their "online role-playing game for rich
    kids." The point is, there all the rich kids can agree beforehand that
    he, whose father has the fattest wallet, wins in the game.

    Or let's have a real world economy in the game, with banks, taxes,
    loans, inflation, savings, money exchanges and foreign currencies.

    Or a server where everyone can spend maximum two hours a day.

    Or a rule that is about a "profession" or a "day job" for the characters
    that slowly and steadily generates money when the player is offline, so
    being 10 hours/day online is not a so big advantage anymore. Then we'd
    need "job markets" and hear talk about the salary of a lvl 40 rogue...

    -Kimmo S.
    --
    The best computer manufacturers recommend the GNU/linux operating system
  46. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Kimmo Sundqvist wrote:
    > sanjian wrote:
    >> Mike Kohary wrote:
    >
    >>> But it would cheapen the game by seeing to it that some players
    >>> didn't actually earn their accomplishments. I think that's worse
    >>> than the benefit it would provide.
    >
    >> But they did earn it through accomplishment. Just not in-game.
    >
    > Some people seem to think the game as a seamless extension of their
    > real life. "I went to Pizza Hut today, then I came home, then I went
    > to the dungeon and got bitten by a giant rat." "I hope you went to
    > hospital after that." "No, there are no hospitals in the game."
    > "But are there pizza restaurants then in the game?"

    You either

    a) Completely missed the context of the entire conversation that lead up to
    this, or
    b) Don't care and just want to use this for some of your own
    grand-standing.

    Either way, you're of little use to me. Five days is old enough to be
    considered thread necromancy in my book, at least on usenet.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Doppleganger wrote:
    > In article <dbjtba$om2$0@pita.alt.net>, "Mike Kohary" <sorry@no.spam>
    > wrote:

    > I'm an artist. When I was in college, I was very strapped for cash. In
    > my classes, I had to scrape by on minimal amounts of supplies and
    > materials, and I saw kids spending hundreds of dollars on the best
    > supplies for the classes we shared - and many of them would drop out
    > halfway through the course.

    Please tell me you were smart enough to try to "inherit" the gear they left
    behind.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    Christian Stauffer wrote:
    > "Doppleganger" <Doppleganger@earthlink.net> wrote:
    >
    > > How exactly would it "cheapen" the experience for you personally?
    > >
    > > If you go to see a movie, and the guy two seats away snuck in, does that
    > > "cheapen" the movie for you? Do you enjoy it less?
    >
    > Not at all. The problem comes when my life gets cheapened because some
    > rich dudes decides to book all theatres for a month.
    > That's what happens when I can't buy a certain item anymore, because it's
    > listed for 1000g, for the simple fact that there are people who have this
    > amount of money because they bought it.
    >

    If that's the case, quick, run out and farm yourselves a stack of
    whatever that certain item is, and undercut the guy. That will be the
    easiet and quickest money generate thing to do.

    But there are solutions around that problem...

    .... you can barter with your guildsmate (aren't you part of Cracked
    Sash Incorporated? don't tell me everyone there only skin & mine)
    .... you can barter with people on your friend list (you do have a list
    of friends even if majority of them belong to the above mention guild,
    right?)
    .... you can make them yourselves (especially for those who had
    signature that boasted an army of one)

    Now, if you talked about getting those blue, purple, or hot-pink items
    then you ought to farm them yourselves, right? Everytime I've run past
    AH at IF or Ogirmmar, there are people LFM for those high level
    instances runs. So there is definitely no shortage of people who want
    to do these high level instances.


    However, if you are the person who only played 2 hours a day, have 1
    alt that acted as a mule, and who thinks grouping with just one other
    player is crowding their space then, yes, this may be a problem.

    I agreed with Doppleganger on subject of gold farming. Though the
    problem of dupe/crashing server is valid, it is up to Blizzard to
    release patches to close these cheats/exploits.
  49. Archived from groups: alt.games.warcraft (More info?)

    "Rene" <invalid@email.addr> wrote in message
    news:20050725040116.359$qP@newsreader.com...

    <Snip>

    >
    > Every game has people searching for exploits and cheats. That is normal,
    > has always been so and will ever be so. However, if you can make money
    > with
    > a good exploit, then this draws (more) people to actively looking for ways
    > to cheat, exploit, dupe, etc. And if you ever played Diablo 2, you will
    > know that the economy there was completely destroyed by those people that
    > duped everything of value. "SOJ" is a well known term for the destroyed
    > economy that was Diablo 2. It was still fun to get items yourself but you
    > couldn't sell anything or whatever you got in return was always tainted
    > with the feeling that it was a cheap dupe anyhow.
    >
    >

    <Snip

    > CU
    >
    > René

    Whatever one thinks of gold farming, this very common line of argument seems
    considerably overstated. I'm sure it's correct that people with an interest
    in selling virtual items will look for and actively exploit cheats, etc. but
    anyone who played D2 knows that people like this were vastly outnumbered in
    the cheating / hacking stakes by the single users intent on securing some
    item / advantage over others. If there's a causal mechanism at work here,
    these individuals are at the root of it. Cheats and hacks flourish in a
    gaming environment for exactly the same reason that gold farming does -
    there's a demand for these things among the general gaming population.
    Whether you think this is a good or a bad thing it is always going to be a
    fixed fact about these environments.

    In the same spirit (i.e. without taking a position on the underlying
    argument here), talk of "destroying the game" in these threads is ambiguous
    and, more often than not, beside the point.

    What is this thing called "the game" that people are destroying or seeking
    to preserve? "The game" is one thing for some people and quite another thing
    for others. If someone usually plays solo and doesn't trade much, gold
    buying / selling simply doesn't affect their game. If someone favors trading
    or pvp play (in which uber equipment may make a crucial difference) then it
    does (but, and lets not forget this caveat, only once it has reached the
    point where it becomes endemic - like all economies, gaming economies can
    tolerate a certain amount of abuse without collapse or significant
    distortion).

    The fact is that there are many different "games" here, some are enhanced by
    gold purchase - the player who just wants a mount because they are sick of
    walking (which was the reason I contemplated buying 100gold), others will be
    adversely affected in the longer term by these practices. I would certainly
    agree that people should generally refrain from actions that will
    significantly adversely affect the gaming experience of others, but there is
    no simple and straight line from this to an absolute moral prohibition on
    gold purchasing.

    Perhaps the people making this argument mean that these practices undermine
    "the game" as Blizzard conceived it but why should this matter? Because I
    "agreed" to the TOS? Like 99.9% of the people playing, I never even read the
    TOS and certainly don't regard myself morally bound by its terms.
    Personally, I think it is likely that Blizzard conceives of the game
    primarily as an ongoing money-making enterprise and will make changes to it
    with this version of "the game" in mind, this hardly makes these changes
    ones that I should value and seek to preserve.

    Magnie
Ask a new question

Read More

Mmorpg Games World Of Warcraft Video Games