Tell me why RMT is any different from...

[Slayerik]

I can speak no further on this issue due to risk of Rasix.

[CharlieMopps]

There are games in which RMT is allowed.
There are games in which they have RMT servers and NON-RMT servers.
Yet you do not play those games or on those servers? RMT is still huge in EQ2 despite the exchange servers... Why?

Because, RMT is cheating. It's the same reason there isn't a "Steroid" league in baseball. The cheaters don't want to play against other cheaters. They want an unfair advantage against non-cheaters. Simple as that.

It's just sad that people can convince themselves otherwise.

[Wershlak]

There are games in which RMT is allowed.
There are games in which they have RMT servers and NON-RMT servers.
Yet you do not play those games or on those servers? RMT is still huge in EQ2 despite the exchange servers... Why?

Because, RMT is cheating. It's the same reason there isn't a "Steroid" league in baseball. The cheaters don't want to play against other cheaters. They want an unfair advantage against non-cheaters. Simple as that.

It's just sad that people can convince themselves otherwise.

I tried out EQ2 again last year on a PvP server with some friends. PvP there has a level range and we were getting destroyed by level locked twinks. We bought gold and were able to even the odds somewhat. I know we cheated and I didn't really relish in doing it but It definately made the game fun as we were getting stomped before.

The original question in the thread is "Why is RMT different..". In this case the twinks were gaining an unfair advantage. If we had max level characters we could have evened the odds by sending eq/money. If we had friends or joined a guild they could have helped us out. I think this is what Darniaq was getting at as the end effect on gameplay for my character and those competing against me in a PvP game is the same.

[Margalis]

PVE MMOs are mostly a very passive-aggressive form of competition. This should be beyond obvious to anyone who either plays them or reads forums.

What an incredibly sad commentary on the state of the genre...

It may be sad but it's also the truth. Recognizing reality is important.

Edit: Now with better spelling.

[Arthur_Parker]

Because, RMT is cheating.

How's it cheating exactly?  If I find grinding mobs boring, why do you care if pay someone else to do it or macro it?

[qedetc]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

[Jayce]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

Is harassing someone "cheating"?  Using a copyrighted name for your character?  Those are against the TOS too.

I don't think your Merriam Webster definition is as black and white as you seem to think.  Those things are forbidden but not covered by the term "cheating".

[Venkman]

Please. It's cheating. It just isn't easily traceable. Doesn't make it legal.

Now say that the encounter which drops this popular item is permacamped and farmed by RMT operators. THey control the supply of that item so they can charge what they like for it.

That's Farming. RMTing is just one way to grease the wheels of commerce. The core issue here is one of design (it can be Farmed so it is Farmed). El Gallo made a good point a page back about how RMTing can change the motivation of Farmers, amp up their efforts, all that. But in the end, regardless of the motivating factor, the design itself is an enabler.

• Remove the ability to permacamp something (rotate drops/mobs/events),
• Diminishing rewards from Farming the same mob type in the same area (separate because farming can just be for cash).
• Popular items cannot be traded. They can be deconstructed for resources (ala WoW Enchanting), but only if your game uses that type of system.

We can't patch all the broken windows in the real world. But these minor virtual-world problems don't require anywhere near the same type nor amount of resources to fix and keep fixed.

I'd say that these games are pretty immoral actually.

Explain?

I actually took this question seriously, just because I'm in that sorta mood

Mob genocide, for one. We're mercenaries, killing for money. We don't think about it that way so don't really care all that much about it. But grab someone off the street who's not a gamer (and which would still make up the majority of the world's population) and watch their reaction to you roaming the virtual countryside killing everything in your path for nothing more than personal gain.

[Ratman_tf]

• Remove the ability to permacamp something (rotate drops/mobs/events),

One thing I liked about Ascheron's Call (not enough to keep me playing tho) is the random loot drops. It was (AFAIK) impossible to camp Purple Schnazoo for his Golden Accordian because the mechanics didn't support it.

Named mobs with named drops directly leads to item farming. It can even become the sole game mechanic. (WoW endgame raiding)'

I find that kind of mechanic boring in the extreme.

[tmp]

Mob genocide, for one. We're mercenaries, killing for money. We don't think about it that way so don't really care all that much about it. But grab someone off the street who's not a gamer (and which would still make up the majority of the world's population) and watch their reaction to you roaming the virtual countryside killing everything in your path for nothing more than personal gain.

The next moneyhats MMO will have player run around countryside and entertain virtual denizens with Guitar Hero performances. The better you play, the better the loot and increase of fame bars with different splinters of the world population.

Depressing part is it could actually be fun for real...

[stray]

Shit, that would be great. Not depressing at all. I've always wanted to play a bard.... And actually do bard stuff.

[Wershlak]

Or play a real healer and not have to spend hours slaughtering people in order to be a more powerful healer.

[qedetc]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

Is harassing someone "cheating"?  Using a copyrighted name for your character?  Those are against the TOS too.

I don't think your Merriam Webster definition is as black and white as you seem to think.  Those things are forbidden but not covered by the term "cheating".

cheat (various sources, selected for relevance.  i encourage you to do your own research)
verb. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
noun. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds
verb. To violate rules deliberately, as in a game
noun. A computer application, password, or disallowed technique used to advance to a higher skill level in a computer video game.

I think, given the generally accepted connotations and definition of the word "cheat", especially in the setting of a game, that any reasonable person would consider a breach of agreed rules to be "cheating".  In the specific instances where breaking rules leads to profit to the rule-breaker, i'd assume that people would be especially likely to call it "cheating".

[tmp]

Shit, that would be great. Not depressing at all. I've always wanted to play a bard.... And actually do bard stuff.

Yeah i said depressing because half way through what sparked as green text realized something like this could be merged with most mechanics of typical MMO so easily it's unreal, and not only i'd like to play it, but it'd possibly wind up as more fun than current average whack the foozle stuff. Which i guess tells something about the appeal of MMO combat and/or actual importance of it as part of the game.

Just need a hopeful investor to shell out for Aeron chairs, now.  

[Kiste]

...except in EVE, where every ship lost is a bite taken out of their profit margins.

They sell ISK. Ships cost ISK to buy and fit. Insurance, at best, covers somewhere in the region of 2/3rds of the total cost of a ship (including fittings). Every ship lost is 1/3rd of that ship's price of ISK gone that they could have otherwise sold.

It's not that easy. Killing farmers in EVE is actually counterproductive because insurance payouts are one huge money faucet.

A farmer buys a Raven for 90 mio ISK, insures it, equips it and goes ratting. The Raven and the equipment was produced from materials that were gathered by miners. Nanoganker_01 pops the farmer's Raven, the farmer gets a 70 mio ISK insurance payout. So while the farmer has lost stuff worth something like 150 mio ISK, no ISK has left the economy because it took no ISK to produce that stuff in the first place. Instead, the insurance mechanic has added another 70 mio ISK into economy. And that's more ISK than the farmer would have pumped into the economy in the time that he lost from getting killed and having to buy and equip a new ship.

So while you're harming the individual farmer, you're harming the economy as well. The farmer won't be impressed... the time and ISK loss associated with getting killed is simply part of the cost of doing business. And professional farming operations likely have production facilities for Ravens and mining barges and such, so all it takes them to recoup their losses is a minor cut from the minerals they auto-macroed with their 1000 mining bots.

It's even worse when killing macro-miners. Unlike ratters and mission runners, they don't add ISK to the economy at all... but when you kill them, ISK is added to the system via insurance payouts. Killing farmers just doesn't seem particularly helpful... the economic impact of doing so is probably every bit as bad as just letting them be. So why be mean to little yellow people if it doesn't solve the problem?

[IainC]

...except in EVE, where every ship lost is a bite taken out of their profit margins.

They sell ISK. Ships cost ISK to buy and fit. Insurance, at best, covers somewhere in the region of 2/3rds of the total cost of a ship (including fittings). Every ship lost is 1/3rd of that ship's price of ISK gone that they could have otherwise sold.

It's not that easy. Killing farmers in EVE is actually counterproductive because insurance payouts are one huge money faucet.

A farmer buys a Raven for 90 mio ISK, insures it, equips it and goes ratting. The Raven and the equipment was produced from materials that were gathered by miners. Nanoganker_01 pops the farmer's Raven, the farmer gets a 70 mio ISK insurance payout. So while the farmer has lost stuff worth something like 150 mio ISK, no ISK has left the economy because it took no ISK to produce that stuff in the first place. Instead, the insurance mechanic has added another 70 mio ISK into economy. And that's more ISK than the farmer would have pumped into the economy in the time that he lost from getting killed and having to buy and equip a new ship.

So while you're harming the individual farmer, you're harming the economy as well. The farmer won't be impressed... the time and ISK loss associated with getting killed is simply part of the cost of doing business. And professional farming operations likely have production facilities for Ravens and mining barges and such, so all it takes them to recoup their losses is a minor cut from the minerals they auto-macroed with their 1000 mining bots.

It's even worse when killing macro-miners. Unlike ratters and mission runners, they don't add ISK to the economy at all... but when you kill them, ISK is added to the system via insurance payouts. Killing farmers just doesn't seem particularly helpful... the economic impact of doing so is probably every bit as bad as just letting them be. So why be mean to little yellow people if it doesn't solve the problem?

Umm. Not really.
Firstly the insurance payout even for platinum levels is less than the materials cost of the hull plus the cost of insuring. Otherwise it would be possible to become very rich by committing serial insurance fraud and the economy would implode. Secondly the insurance payout doesn't include the cost of any modules or rigs fitted, nor the cost of the pilot's clone. So the farmer gets 70m (or whatever) Isk as a direct result of you pwning his Covetor, then has to take >70m Isk worth of farmed ore, insurance and fittings to get back to where he was before Battlefleet Billy turned up. If you leave him alone 100% of his output gets turned into Isk and sold on. If you don't then 100% of his payout minus the differential between the insurance payouts and his losses gets turned over. I fail to see how he's better off in the secons scenario.

[bhodi]

Plus, he's out the hour or more worth of farming that it takes for him to get re-equipped and back out there; since we're talking ~7-30mil ISK per hour per farmer (7 in hisec, 30 in 0.0) , that's some additional cash lost.

[Kiste]

Umm. Not really.
Firstly the insurance payout even for platinum levels is less than the materials cost of the hull plus the cost of insuring. Otherwise it would be possible to become very rich by committing serial insurance fraud and the economy would implode. Secondly the insurance payout doesn't include the cost of any modules or rigs fitted, nor the cost of the pilot's clone. So the farmer gets 70m (or whatever) Isk as a direct result of you pwning his Covetor, then has to take >70m Isk worth of farmed ore, insurance and fittings to get back to where he was before Battlefleet Billy turned up. If you leave him alone 100% of his output gets turned into Isk and sold on. If you don't then 100% of his payout minus the differential between the insurance payouts and his losses gets turned over. I fail to see how he's better off in the secons scenario.

Read my posting again, please. I'm talking about the amount of ISK in circulation. No ISK is needed to build a Raven, hence no ISK is removed by destroying it but ISK is added into circulation from the insurance payout. I'm talking about the macro-economic effect here, not about the individual farmers wallet. Every time there is an insurance payout, the amount of ISK in circulation is increased because destroying a ship does not remove ISK from the economy, only the minerals that were transformed into the ship.

Let me make it clear.

• Lets say there is 100 trillion ISK in circulation.
• Producer A builds a Raven from minerals. There is still 100 trillion ISK in circulation.
• Farmer B buy the Raven from Producer A. 90 mio ISK has changed hands but there is still only 100 trillion ISK in circulation.
• Nanoganker_01 destroys Farmer B's Raven. There is still only 100 tillion ISK in circulation.
• Farmer B gets a 70 mio insurance payout. Lo and behold, now there's 100 trillion plus 70 million ISK in circulation
• Farmer B buys a new Raven for another 90 million ISK. Guess what? There is 100 trillion plus 70 million ISK in circulation
• Nanoganker_05 destroys the Raven.... Farmer B get's another insurance payout... yadda yadda... now 100 trillion plus 140 million ISK in circulation... rinse... repeat

It's not that hard to understand and, by the way, I doubt some Chinaman can pull 80 million ISK per hour and account.

[IainC]

Read my posting again, please. I'm talking about the amount of ISK in circulation. No ISK is needed to build a Raven, hence no ISK is removed by destroying it but ISK is added into circulation from the insurance payout. I'm talking about the macro-economic effect here, not about the individual farmers wallet. Every time there is an insurance payout, the amount of ISK in circulation is increased because destroying a ship does not remove ISK from the economy, only the minerals that were transformed into the ship.

But those minerals are the same as ISK and they have been removed from the economy. Some Isk has been added, somewhat more potential Isk has been removed. Net result is that the economy has not grown, it only grows when 'free' money is added from mining, looting, ratting or missions. Insurance money isn't free cash, it's been paid for already.

[Kiste]

But those minerals are the same as ISK and they have been removed from the economy. Some Isk has been added, somewhat more potential Isk has been removed. Net result is that the economy has not grown, it only grows when 'free' money is added from mining, looting, ratting or missions. Insurance money isn't free cash, it's been paid for already.

No, it's not the same as ISK. Minerals aren't "potential" ISK since they cannot be transformed into ISK. They can be transformed into ships and guns and warp disruptors that can be sold to other players for ISK but there is a difference between money changing hands and money entering the economy.

Edit:
When you're adding ISK to the system while removing goods (like minerals), you're getting an inflationary pressure. More money + less goods = higher prices.

Not increasing the monetary supply (by not killing the macro miner and causing ISK to poof into existence via insurance payouts) while adding more goods to the economy (by letting the macro miner live to sell his stuff) results in lower prices, which directly translates into increased real income for everyone participating in the economy. Like in real life, lower prices = good. Especially since the drawbacks of deflation shouldn't be a problem in synthetic economies in which goods leave the economy like they do in EVE (and unlike EQ back in 1999/2000).

[IainC]

But those minerals are the same as ISK and they have been removed from the economy. Some Isk has been added, somewhat more potential Isk has been removed. Net result is that the economy has not grown, it only grows when 'free' money is added from mining, looting, ratting or missions. Insurance money isn't free cash, it's been paid for already.

No, it's not the same as ISK. Minerals aren't "potential" ISK since they cannot be transformed into ISK. They can be transformed into ships and guns and warp disruptors that can be sold to other players for ISK but there is a difference between money changing hands and money entering the economy.

Anytime the game gives you something that you haven't paid for, the economy grows. If you mine materials, then the economy grows, those minerals didn't exist before and you can swap them for an amount of Isk or items. Essentially then they are Isk and they are free to you, the miner. The Isk that players pay you for them was already in circulation and doesn't magically pop into existence when you sell those materials but adding those materials to the market grows the economy. When you're talking about fluid assets like minerals, ships, modules etc (pretty much anything can be considered fluid as long as there is any kind of demand for it) then stuff=money. Additionally as a result of blowing up the ship, Isk leaves the system in the form of destroyed modules/ammo/cargo, clone payments, insurance costs and any discrepancy between the payout and the cost of building a new ship.

[Kiste]

Anytime the game gives you something that you haven't paid for, the economy grows. If you mine materials, then the economy grows, those minerals didn't exist before and you can swap them for an amount of Isk or items. Essentially then they are Isk and they are free to you, the miner. The Isk that players pay you for them was already in circulation and doesn't magically pop into existence when you sell those materials but adding those materials to the market grows the economy. When you're talking about fluid assets like minerals, ships, modules etc (pretty much anything can be considered fluid as long as there is any kind of demand for it) then stuff=money. Additionally as a result of blowing up the ship, Isk leaves the system in the form of destroyed modules/ammo/cargo, clone payments, insurance costs and any discrepancy between the payout and the cost of building a new ship.

I added something to my previous post.

Anyway. What's the problem with economic growth? There is no problem! The problem is monetary supply increasing faster than the amount of available goods. That's inflation and inflation is the problem in these currency faucet/drain economies because the faucet > the drain by design (the economy is designed to be fun, after all) and everything that widens the faucet is bad. On the other hand, adding more minerals and ships and bogomips and whatnot to the economy doesn't cause inflation, it causes lower prices, which is higher real income for everyone (you get more utility for your money).

Again, minerals are NOT ISK, not practically, not essentially, not ever. They cannot be transformed into ISK. The monetary supply doesn't increase by mining, it doesn't increase by turning minerals into ships, it doesn't increase by trading the ship. The only way how minerals could be transformed into ISK would be a NPC market for minerals with the NPCs creating new money every time they buy minerals (which is how NPCs work in MMOs). This isn't possible in EVE, since the market is almost entirely player driven without these price floor/ceiling shenanigans you find in other MMOs and their simplicistic, badly designed synthetic economies (or more apporpriately: trading sub-games... EVE is about the only MMO with anything resembling an economy).

Therefor, the amount of ISK in circulation will not decrease by removing minerals or objects built from minerals from the economy. Your claim that "Isk leaves the system in the form of destroyed modules/ammo/cargo, clone payments, insurance costs and any discrepancy between the payout and the cost of building a new ship" is simply wrong, with the exception of the insurance costs, clone payments and market transaction taxes - these are the money sinks but they are far less than the fiat money pumped into the economy via the insurance payouts. The other stuff isn't ISK leaving the system, it's essentially minerals leaving the system.

[lamaros]

This thread is even stupider than the Top 10 MMOs one.

[Arthur_Parker]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

Again, why do you care?

[Typhon]

[cheaters and their cheating cheatyness]

Again, why do you care?

In the ultra-narrow context of you paying someone so you wont have to grind mobs... no, no one gives a shit.  If you want to pay someone else to play the game, have at it. 

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues beyond that ultr-narrow context of you, your hatred of mob grinding and your love of games that encorporate mob grinding as a large portion of their gameplay.

Now that you've caught up with the thread, I encourage you to read some of the other fine posts in this thread on the topic of RMT.

[qedetc]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

Again, why do you care?

How's it cheating exactly?  If I find grinding mobs boring, why do you care if pay someone else to do it or macro it?

I don't care.  You asked two questions, I answered the first one, and the second was N/A.

[CharlieMopps]

Because, RMT is cheating.

How's it cheating exactly?  If I find grinding mobs boring, why do you care if pay someone else to do it or macro it?

It's hilarious that the losers that do all this cheating try and turn it around and complain that we're the ones not being cool because we shouldn't care what they do.

[Arthur_Parker]

The playing field has never been equal and never can be.  Terms like"cheaters" & "losers" suit the same type of person who demands class x is nerfed and hates school kids because they have more time to play.

Never paid for leveling, items or in-game money myself but I have zero problems with those who do.

[IainC]

its cheating because the license agreement says not to do it.

i.e. its cheating because its against the rules and increases your advantage in the game.  it can be a completely arbitrary and useless rule, but when you break it to get better, you're cheating.

if you have any other questions, ask merriam or webster.

Again, why do you care?

To expand a little on what Typhon said, it's not so much 'you' in the singular, personal sense but the wider ramifications of that becoming a widespread and accepted practice. 'You' are becoming part of the problem in a small and likely unquantifiable way, but you aren't, in yourself, The Enemy. It's like the difference between saying 'Why do you care if I happen to keep ebola cultures?' and ebola cultures being available to all and sundry*. It's looking beyond the personal impact and looking at the larger issues that it presents to the game dynamics and the community.


*For the hard of reading, I am not in anyway suggesting that buying gold is akin to deliberately spreading ebola....

[qedetc]

The playing field has never been equal and never can be.  Terms like"cheaters" & "losers" suit the same type of person who demands class x is nerfed and hates school kids because they have more time to play.

Never paid for leveling, items or in-game money myself but I have zero problems with those who do.

your or anyone else's opinion on it has nothing to do with the fact that it is, in fact, cheating.  Seriously, I love people who RMT, and I've worked with chinese farmer bosses, but it's pretty damn retarded to try to say it's not cheating.  I'm not sure why I'm even responding to you again.

[Hellinar]

Again, why do you care?

Part of the construct of a “game”, as I see it, is a goal to strive for, and rules that frustrate your arrival at that goal. In a well designed game, arriving at the goal while staying within the rules is fun. In a badly designed game, the rules are simply frustrating.

In a multi-player game, a big part of the fun is sharing the same goal and rule set with a bunch of other players on the same field. People who cheat reduce this communal aspect. If you only ask yourself “Am I having fun?”, then you shouldn’t care about cheating. If you are the type to enjoy the game more when everyone is having fun, then you should care about cheating.

[Jayce]

I nailed down what's bothering me about this term.

The thing is, when I hear the term "cheating", I think of a direct, primary effect of gaining an advantage over another player.  Things like buying gold can give you (as a secondary effect) an advantage, but it's not an advantage in itself, unless the point of the game is to collect the most gold.

To me it's like if you played a football match wearing a uniform that doesn't match either team.  It's clearly against the rules, but wouldn't be called "cheating" because it doesn't directly give you a direct advantage.  It gives you a potential or tactical advantage by potentially deceiving the opposing team, but BY ITSELF is not an advantage like going offsides might be.

Either way, I acknowledge this is only about semantics - buying gold is definitely breaking the rules.  I just object to the term because it sounds like you're buying you way to victory, but victory is defined too loosely in an MMOG to warrant that.

[Rendakor]

Having more money isnt a direct advantage?  It's like playing a football match after using steroids. You're not tricking your opponents or anything, you're better geared. In a game where gear wasn't tradeable, and the only thing you could buy was cosmetic changes, mounts, flights, etc and all gear was BoP, your arguement would hold up. Most MMOs are not like this.

It's cheating just like stealing money from the bank in Monopoly is cheating, or bribing your DM in D&D.

[Venkman]

Most MMOs are not like this.

Yes, but the biggest one is, accounting for a big percentage of the market. WoW is only one game, but it arguably represents 70-75% or more of all Western MMO players ("arguably" because there's only reported sub numbers to go by).

The only thing $200 worth of gold is going to buy you at the endgame is the Epic Flying skill. Otherwise, the only gear upgrades, either from PvE or PvP, are BoP drops, or BoPs purchased with different currency you can't buy (Honor Points, various Marks, Arena Points). These are all anti-RMT tactics (some of which also appear in other games, including earlier ones).

[Kirth]

Most MMOs are not like this.

Yes, but the biggest one is, accounting for a big percentage of the market. WoW is only one game, but it arguably represents 70-75% or more of all Western MMO players ("arguably" because there's only reported sub numbers to go by).

The only thing $200 worth of gold is going to buy you at the endgame is the Epic Flying skill. Otherwise, the only gear upgrades, either from PvE or PvP, are BoP drops, or BoPs purchased with different currency you can't buy (Honor Points, various Marks, Arena Points). These are all anti-RMT tactics (some of which also appear in other games, including earlier ones).

Except you can very well buy Arena points, Also a fair number of 'high-end' guilds will offer to sell various drops from bosses they continue to farm weekly. So your $200 worth of gold can go alot further then you think.