Tell me why RMT is any different from...

[Rendakor]

What Kirth said. Plus craftable epics (the master-macesmith hammer was best in game for a while in BC iirc), enchants, and BoE world drops.

[Jayce]

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.

To me, buying arena points for gold smacks more of cheating than buying gold.  It's the primary/secondary thing.  Arena points ARE the measure by which you "win" a certain part of the game.  People compare arena rankings.  No one compares gold amounts (that I'm aware of).

Buying gold is still secondary, because you have to buy the gold then IN TURN buy the arena points, BOE purples, whatever.  And BOE purples are a means to an end in themselves, actually, determining what you can take on PvE wise.  So buying gold is two steps removed.

[IainC]

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.

To me, buying arena points for gold smacks more of cheating than buying gold.  It's the primary/secondary thing.  Arena points ARE the measure by which you "win" a certain part of the game.  People compare arena rankings.  No one compares gold amounts (that I'm aware of).

Buying gold is still secondary, because you have to buy the gold then IN TURN buy the arena points, BOE purples, whatever.  And BOE purples are a means to an end in themselves, actually, determining what you can take on PvE wise.  So buying gold is two steps removed.

So by that measure taking steroids in baseball isn't that big a deal because your team doesn't get ranked by muscle mass.

[Venkman]

Ok, I'll need some edumacation here. how does one buy Arena points? Do they pay their opponents to lose? Or is there a mechanism for transferring the point?

On raid drops, yea there's those who rent slots to tag-alongs who want the BoP drops. But you shouldn't bother with cash on the BoE stuff. And for those that do either or both, well, that's right back at he other half of this "problem": there being buyers for he stuff.

But neither transaction do I see as harmful to others per se. People get cut out of teams and raids all the time, for many reasons. This probably is not am epidemic. And I think it important to note the impact of these events individually and collectively. Right now I see a bunch of isolated events that only alienate players slightly differently than the core game mechanics do by default.

[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.

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.

I'm not really sure I approve of criminals such as yourself throwing around insults such as "cheating".  Sure, you can say anyone that breaks the code of conduct or license agreement for a game is a cheater, but it's not that black and white.  Just as I could choose to refer to anyone who has ever broken a law such as littering, jaywalking or speeding as a criminal, but I obviously wouldn't..... as that would be retarded.

Dropping a bit of litter as a six year old, "criminal"?  I'd have to go with a no.  Multiple homicide and arson, "criminal"?  I'd be more by tempted with a yes there.

Exploiting a dupe bug a few hundred times and selling the gold for RL cash, sure I'm happy with "cheating" there.  Buying the WoW boxed set from a colleague at work, changing the cc details and logging in a level 70 Pally, "cheating", I'd go with a no there. 

Playing a game and calling your character "Cupid Stunt", is that "cheating?, I'd say no, but it didn't stop Cupid getting perma banned.  Did anyone playing UO not macro, even if only attended macroing.  If I'm attended macroing while watching tv, am I more of cheater if I replace my 19" tv with a 22"?

[Jayce]

To me, buying arena points for gold smacks more of cheating than buying gold.  It's the primary/secondary thing.  Arena points ARE the measure by which you "win" a certain part of the game.  People compare arena rankings.  No one compares gold amounts (that I'm aware of).

Buying gold is still secondary, because you have to buy the gold then IN TURN buy the arena points, BOE purples, whatever.  And BOE purples are a means to an end in themselves, actually, determining what you can take on PvE wise.  So buying gold is two steps removed.

So by that measure taking steroids in baseball isn't that big a deal because your team doesn't get ranked by muscle mass.

I can't help but agree with that.  By the definition I'm thinking of, steroids isn't directly cheating at any particular match. It is, of course, against the rules just like buying gold in those non RMT games.

I feel like it's tied a little closer to its primary cause, since you can hardly help but hit the ball harder with steroid-built muscles.  One leads inexorably to the other.  Not so with buying gold.  You can use it to get a better PvP weapon, thus - you could argue - cheating at PvP, but you could also just buy an epic mount, or on repairs, which aren't a competition.


edit: I should mention, for full disclosure, since I'm arguing this side of the issue: I've never bought gold in any game.  I'm sort of on the fence as to whether I care.

[tmp]

I can't help but agree with that.  By the definition I'm thinking of, steroids isn't directly cheating at any particular match. It is, of course, against the rules just like buying gold in those non RMT games.

But if the rules are set up to prevent artificial enhancement of player's inherent abilities, then if one participates in competition while under influence of such enhancement... they are in fact cheating: because cheating is 'an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition' and they are lying they're clean by very act of entering the competition in such state (as being clean is  pre-requisite to compete, defined by the rules)

[Jayce]

I can't help but agree with that.  By the definition I'm thinking of, steroids isn't directly cheating at any particular match. It is, of course, against the rules just like buying gold in those non RMT games.

But if the rules are set up to prevent artificial enhancement of player's inherent abilities, then if one participates in competition while under influence of such enhancement... they are in fact cheating: because cheating is 'an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition' and they are lying they're clean by very act of entering the competition in such state (as being clean is  pre-requisite to compete, defined by the rules)

But see, this is an example of the very dilution of terminology I'm arguing against.  That would expand the term to lying about nearly anything game-related (your raid experience in another guild for example).  And what about someone who is forthright with the fact that they bought gold.  Are they now no longer cheating?

[Kirth]

Ok, I'll need some edumacation here. how does one buy Arena points? Do they pay their opponents to lose? Or is there a mechanism for transferring the point?

On raid drops, yea there's those who rent slots to tag-alongs who want the BoP drops. But you shouldn't bother with cash on the BoE stuff. And for those that do either or both, well, that's right back at he other half of this "problem": there being buyers for he stuff.

But neither transaction do I see as harmful to others per se. People get cut out of teams and raids all the time, for many reasons. This probably is not am epidemic. And I think it important to note the impact of these events individually and collectively. Right now I see a bunch of isolated events that only alienate players slightly differently than the core game mechanics do by default.

you only have to play a % of games to get the payout every week. so good pvpers will rent there services out where they will get a team rating to a certain level, invite people to the team to play whatever % they need to get points and collect.

[tmp]

But see, this is an example of the very dilution of terminology I'm arguing against.  That would expand the term to lying about nearly anything game-related (your raid experience in another guild for example).

I think this act of expansion is done to purposefully dilute the terminology, actually. Since there can be quite distinct line drawn easily between lying about being compliant with defined game rules, and lying about something not related to that specific act (like guild experience in your example)

And what about someone who is forthright with the fact that they bought gold.  Are they now no longer cheating?

It's pretty much impossible to be forthright about breaking the game rules in MMO environment where people who don't know you (including the game staff) would have to presume you are complying with the rules like everyone else until told otherwise. Short of maybe outright stating "I bought the gold" every couple minutes on all chat channels and in CS tickets, to avoid situation where someone might remain unaware of it. And once it's known you are breaking the game rules you're likely to be banned for it, so "being forthright" is either being dumb if it's done in such manner, or it's being dishonest about this whole 'being forthright' thing when one is only being forthright about it only with selected people, to avoid the punishment/ban that they know would otherwise happen.

[MahrinSkel]

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).

I made lots of ISK off players who thought like you.  *Everything* is ISK, at either a discount or premium depending on location.  I'd find stuff that was priced under the salvage value, and behind it was always somebody who thought minerals were free because they'd mined them themselves.  Sacrificing BS's for the insurance payout sometimes made sense in deep 0.0 (where the risks of bulk haulage to empire markets discounted them way under the default values).  But they'd do this in 0.5+ systems.

--Dave

[Jayce]

And once it's known you are breaking the game rules you're likely to be banned for it, so "being forthright" is either being dumb if it's done in such manner, or it's being dishonest about this whole 'being forthright' thing when one is only being forthright about it only with selected people, to avoid the punishment/ban that they know would otherwise happen.

You still didn't address my issue.  Dumb or not, you could be forthright about it and you'd be just as wrong, IMO, as if you had bought it and never told a soul.  In fact, you just introduced a paradox, because if the dishonesty is the issue, then ratting yourself out clears you of the charges. 

Anyway, this is turning into a fairly stupid side discussion, so I'll drop it.  All I'm saying is that you can be in the wrong without it constituting the ordinary connotation of "cheating".

[Rendakor]

And what about someone who is forthright with the fact that they bought gold.  Are they now no longer cheating?

To be forthright about buying gold, you'd have to not log in, since logging in is implying you agree to the EULA which says you will not buy gold. Many MMOs require you to often reagree to this, either when patching or every time you login.

[tmp]

You still didn't address my issue.  Dumb or not, you could be forthright about it and you'd be just as wrong, IMO, as if you had bought it and never told a soul.  In fact, you just introduced a paradox, because if the dishonesty is the issue, then ratting yourself out clears you of the charges. 

Aye, i thought of adding that in the edit but it didn't seem worthwile to make the message longer it already was since the situation is extremely theoretical so to speak... but in any case yes, if there was a way to make everyone else aware you're playing in way not compliant with game rules then since that moment there's no "cheating" to speak of, but "just" a case of breaking the rules of game which should then be handled by game staff.

I don't think it's really a paradox, not any more than in any other questionable activity --RL or virtual-- where in practice it's not the activity itself that one is being punished for, but rather they're punished for being stupid enough to get caught    Or in another way, i'd agree when you say if one bought the gold and didn't tell anyone, they'd still be wrong about it... because the act of breaking the defined rules is considered 'wrong' itself. The "cheating" part is just an extra layer on top of that, adding dishonesty to the whole deal. And when people address this they don't bother to split hair between the rule breaking part and the dishonesty part, and just call the whole package "cheating" or whatever.

In any case yeah, doesn't seem to be much point into digging further into this, so dropping it as well.

[Kiste]

I made lots of ISK off players who thought like you.  *Everything* is ISK, at either a discount or premium depending on location.  I'd find stuff that was priced under the salvage value, and behind it was always somebody who thought minerals were free because they'd mined them themselves.  Sacrificing BS's for the insurance payout sometimes made sense in deep 0.0 (where the risks of bulk haulage to empire markets discounted them way under the default values).  But they'd do this in 0.5+ systems.

I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about monetary supply and inflation in EVE's synthetic economy and how insurance payouts add to that, which leads to the paradoxical situation that killing farmers because they hurt the economy is actually every bit as hurtful (if not even more so) than letting them do their thing.

I'm not sure how often I have to explain the concept for you guys to understand. Yes, the farmer might lose stuff that takes him 150 mio ISK to replace. But these 150 mio ISK aren't removed from the economy, they simply change hands to the producer of the new ship and equipment. The insurance payout, though, poofs 70 mio ISK into existence that didn't exist before.

Yes, the farmer took a loss, but at the same time, the economy as a whole just suffered from the creation of an additional 70 mio ISK that didn't exist before and which amounts to more than the farmer could have pumped into the economy within the time span it took him to replace the ship. Killing farmers means removing minerals from the economy (i.e. ships and crap) while adding ISK. Less minerals and more ISK in the system lead to inflation. Killing farmers, especially macro-miners, is extremely counter-productive with regard to the economic health of the in-game economy and doesn't do jack shit to reduce the Chinaman farmer scourge (hint: they won't go away as long as there is money to be made).

I'm not talking about anyone's individual ability to make or lose virtual money. Never did I claim that minerals are "free". I said they aren't ISK. Removing minerals from the game by destroying ships doesn't decrease monetary supply within the economy. Why? Because minerals aren't frigging ISK. 

[IainC]

I think you misunderstand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about monetary supply and inflation in EVE's synthetic economy and how insurance payouts add to that, which leads to the paradoxical situation that killing farmers because they hurt the economy is actually every bit as hurtful (if not even more so) than letting them do their thing.

No it isn't.

I'm not sure how often I have to explain the concept for you guys to understand. Yes, the farmer might lose stuff that takes him 150 mio ISK to replace. But these 150 mio ISK aren't removed from the economy, they simply change hands to the producer of the new ship and equipment. The insurance payout, though, poofs 70 mio ISK into existence that didn't exist before.

Yes, the farmer took a loss, but at the same time, the economy as a whole just suffered from the creation of an additional 70 mio ISK that didn't exist before and which amounts to more than the farmer could have pumped into the economy within the time span it took him to replace the ship. Killing farmers means removing minerals from the economy (i.e. ships and crap) while adding ISK. Less minerals and more ISK in the system lead to inflation. Killing farmers, especially macro-miners, is extremely counter-productive with regard to the economic health of the in-game economy and doesn't do jack shit to reduce the Chinaman farmer scourge (hint: they won't go away as long as there is money to be made).

Firstly less than 70m isk is going to be added to the economy as a net effect of blowing up a ship with a 70m insurance payout. A decent portion of that is going to leave the system completely as I explained before.

Secondly, cash is added to the system all the time through various mechanisms. Taking the line that you shouldn't blow up ships you don't like because it will negatively impact the game economy is ludicrous. Eve's economy is pretty well balanced and has enough drains that it can stand constant injection of new Isk. I'm pretty sure it's not static but it's not galloping off at an uncontrollable rate either. The economy is also very large to the point where even a major alliance probably couldn't damage it in a meaningful way. Even if you waged a genocidal campaign and popped scores of macrominers a day, the overall impact on the economy is going to be tiny. Think of all the ships that get blown up daily and it's fairly clear that insurance payouts aren't destroying the economy.

[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?

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....

Delayed posting this because I had to shorten it from about 17 pages.

Here's the thing, there are three camps involved in RMT, farmers, customers and you devs.  Everyone else is a bystander and most certainly not part of whatever "problem" you think exists.

Of the three groups the only one with any real power are the devs.  They control the demand for RMT services through game design, determine the range of actions available to the farmers in-game and they determine if RMT is actually legal.  In short the whole "problem" is of your own making and if we face the truth, your whole attitude against "cheaters" is, generally, directly affected by how much money is going into someone else's pocket.  As with Blizzard, you might ban farming accounts for publicity stunts but you won't make it impossible for farmers to buy new accounts. 

If we are discussing who the "enemy" is, lets first discuss game companies who are more than happy to let players pay each month for a service they never use.  I don't see any of you guys dropping emails that say "Hey you haven't logged in for 6 months, you might want to cancel your recurring payment plan".  Let's not even talk about the players that buy the box, give you their credit card details and then never log in, free money right?  So which is worse again, the company taking payment for a service or the company just taking payment?

[Tebonas]

This completely useless discussion at Christmas? Really?

It doesn't matter one iota if you are for or against it. For the simple fact that the maker of the games provide the rules, and if they say no to it you can either accept that or don't play the game.

Really, they should ban the people using such services illegally, if only for the simple fact that they show they can't be trusted following the rules provided by the developer of the game. Who knows what rules the might break next for sake of their own convenience.

[Koyasha]

Ok, I'll need some edumacation here. how does one buy Arena points? Do they pay their opponents to lose? Or is there a mechanism for transferring the point?

On raid drops, yea there's those who rent slots to tag-alongs who want the BoP drops. But you shouldn't bother with cash on the BoE stuff. And for those that do either or both, well, that's right back at he other half of this "problem": there being buyers for he stuff.

But neither transaction do I see as harmful to others per se. People get cut out of teams and raids all the time, for many reasons. This probably is not am epidemic. And I think it important to note the impact of these events individually and collectively. Right now I see a bunch of isolated events that only alienate players slightly differently than the core game mechanics do by default.

This is a tangent to the RMT subject, but I'll explain somewhat.  The arena points issue absolutely is directly harmful to others.

Typically, in order to buy your way up to a high rating, what happens is this...you form an arena team with high-ranked players.  A lot of 2200+ ranked players do this.  These people are decked out in full arena gear, along with you, the scrub.  They start out at 1500, and start plowing their way through anyone that stands in their path until they reach about 2000.  If you want to increase your personal rating, they include you in the team, but since they're so far above anyone that should be in that range of rating, even 4 (or 2, in 3vs3, and sometimes 1 in 2vs2) can destroy any honest teams they come across.  Everyone that does not play this way basically runs the risk of running into one of these groups and getting handed a guaranteed loss, since there's no way to beat a team of players who all have better tactics than those new to the arena, and outgear you by 4000 or so hit points and 300 resilience or more.  That's the most direct harm it does to others.  Indirectly it skews the entire arena competition, since it is, after all, a ranked competition.  Since we've got so many baseball references...it's like hiring the Yankees to play the entire season with your little league team while the kids take turns playing outfield.

[Kiste]

No it isn't.

Is too. If more money is added to the system by killing the farmer than is added by the farmer doing his farming, then it is. It's really binary like that.

Firstly less than 70m isk is going to be added to the economy as a net effect of blowing up a ship with a 70m insurance payout. A decent portion of that is going to leave the system completely as I explained before.

The insurance payout for a Raven is 108 mio ISK. The biggest money sink associated with a new ship is insurance (32 mio ISK). A new clone, market transaction fees and such are pocket change. So yes, 70 mio ISK is a realistic number.

Secondly, cash is added to the system all the time through various mechanisms. Taking the line that you shouldn't blow up ships you don't like because it will negatively impact the game economy is ludicrous. Eve's economy is pretty well balanced and has enough drains that it can stand constant injection of new Isk. I'm pretty sure it's not static but it's not galloping off at an uncontrollable rate either. The economy is also very large to the point where even a major alliance probably couldn't damage it in a meaningful way. Even if you waged a genocidal campaign and popped scores of macrominers a day, the overall impact on the economy is going to be tiny. Think of all the ships that get blown up daily and it's fairly clear that insurance payouts aren't destroying the economy.

Currently, the ongoing galaxy wide war is a huge cash faucet because of insurance payouts. According the the Quarterly Economic Report, the net amount of ISK added to the system per day has risen from 130 bil ISK to 200 bil ISK (June -> September), significantly outpacing EVE's alt-driven population growth. I'd say that insurance payouts from a large number of ships getting blown up every day in the course of the war consititute a large chunk of that increase in monetary supply.

The economy isn't so stable because it is so well balanced, it's stable because of a number of factors. First of all, the increase in monetary supply hasn't driven up prices so far mainly because the devs keep making changes that reduce market prices by increasing competition and lowering costs (invention, seeding new BPOs) and because macro miners keep depressing mineral prices. Once these effects have fully played out, we will see much higher inflation.

Back to the farmers... I haven't said that murdering Chinamen will destroy the economy. That's not my point at all. The economic impact of doing so won't be huge, true. Taking the currently widened money faucet out of the picture and going back to the more "normal" increase of monetary supply of 130 bil ISK, popping just one hundred Chinafarmers in Ravens per day would add 5% to that. That's not a lot in relation to the total amount of money in circulation. But that's not the question, now is it?

The question is whether killing the Chinafarmers remedies the RMT problem and the problems farmers cause for the economy. With regard to the latter, the answer is no, killing them won't help at all. By trying to keep the Chinamen from pumping ISK into the economy, you're ending up pumping even more ISK into the economy. While the overall impact won't "destroy the economy" (when did I say that?) and is probably barely even measurable, you simply won't get any positive results from killing them. But will targeting farmers maybe drive them out of the game? Bloody unlikely. It's their job. They'll simply go somewhere else, or retreat to empire space. That might drive up ISK prices on eBay a few cents but that's it.

And that has been my point all along - killing farmers in EVE is not a solution, in fact, it doesn't achieve anything at all.

[Slayerik]

The only thing I can say here, you act as minerals do not have a monetary worth until the moment they are made into a ship. Bullshit. They have value, just because they weren't sold to some guy that runs lvl 4 missions all day (once again, isk going into the system). Im willing to bet more money is put into the economy by mission runners than by insurance payouts. So are missions the problem??? :P

Killing a farmer hurts his production, period. Does it solve anything? Of course not. Does it feel good and give you a laugh? Of course.

[shiznitz]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that quasi-developer sponsored RMT has come to all EQ2 servers via the Legends of Norrath (LoN) digital card game.  Card booster packs are available for sale at $2.99 each. Each booster pack purchased offers a small chance at a EQ1 or EQ2 (player's choice) special loot item.  These loot items are arguably not game breaking, but they are not worthless fluff either:

1) once a day potion that basically complete heals your character. Useable in combat with a 2 second interruptible cast time.
2) a stein that provides an extra bind point to any barkeep in the game, currently the only way for non-casters to port to RoK.
3) a cloak that provides safefall and turns you into a box, making you non-aggro to everything.
4) a item that makes your character's eyes glow various colors.

Every LoN player has the potion at this point. This item saves me from one death a play session and is clearly valuable for raiding.  I "bought" the stein from a player this weekend by going to the LoN trading interface and trading 4 booster packs for it (for which I paid $11.96 immdiately prior.) The cloak and eye-glowy can similarly be "bought" via the LoN trading interface. The interface works much the same as the EQ2 broker system: put up what you have and what you want for it and anyone can come along and hit your bid.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

[DarkSign]

I'd love to get that glowy eyes thing for my inquisitor...is it like CoH where it has a smokey trail off in particular colors or what?

[shiznitz]

I'd love to get that glowy eyes thing for my inquisitor...is it like CoH where it has a smokey trail off in particular colors or what?

Just a glow. I haven't noticed particles.

[Righ]

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.

If you consider the point that Margalis neatly summarized earlier, that achievement MMOGs are essentially a passive-aggressive form of competition (which is necessarily a simplification, but reasonably accurate for most competitive behaviour in WoW PvE settings) then buying gold and spending it is about the most significant direct advantage one can have. It would be pretty disingenuous to say "oh, but its only the spending of the bought gold that is cheating then, not buying it". When the rules of the game say "don't buy gold" and when a sizable proportion of the player population finds people who buy gold to be undermining their achievements, then its fair to say that buying gold is cheating. Simply because you and I find that such achievers are fucking imbeciles who need to grow up and achieve something outside the damned game doesn't make it reasonable to argue that it isn't cheating.

[Venkman]

This is a tangent to the RMT subject, but I'll explain somewhat.  The arena points issue absolutely is directly harmful to others.

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense. But here again we're back to a core design issue in general and not something specifically related to RMT (which you noted as this being a tangent). There's some bartering that goes on at all for a service. That could be anything, including but not specifically exclusive to, RMT.

[CharlieMopps]

SOE would love, absolutely drool over the ability to flat out sell us items. They have tried everything they could to make that happen and the have nearly lost their entire playerbase over it. Allowing some untalented, unskilled noob to run around in epic armor on top of a flying mount of doom with a flaming sword just because he paid $11.99 trivializes their worth.

In EQ1, I played a Mage. When I saw another mage with his Epic Pet, I thought "Wow, that guy worked really hard for that. Camping hours and hours, killing all those raid mobs." I was truly impressed with his efforts. It made me want to play... more... and better.

If he could have simply bought the item for $50... it would devalue not only the item but the effort as well. It would make me not want to play the game because I would have no goals.

[Sky]

Allowing some untalented, unskilled noob to run around in epic armor on top of a flying mount of doom with a flaming sword just because he paid $11.99 trivializes their worth.

In EQ1, I played a Mage. When I saw another mage with his Epic Pet, I thought "Wow, that guy worked really hard for that. Camping hours and hours, killing all those raid mobs." I was truly impressed with his efforts. It made me want to play... more... and better.

If he could have simply bought the item for $50... it would devalue not only the item but the effort as well. It would make me not want to play the game because I would have no goals.

You, sir, are what's wrong with mmo.

[Slayerik]

So because I wanted to get "Lord" in UO after I got my first grandmaster would that put me under the same category?

I think there is nothing wrong with what he said. There can be a sense of earning things in these games. Would it be as bad if instead of the Epic mount thing he said his UO house covered in the remains of his victims. Him walking into someone else house and seeing that would make him go...Damn, he killed a lot of peeps just like me. Its all about if it is valuable to you or not. You can choose not to walk around in WoW inspecting gear. If you don't care, don't look.

Reading back, I'm not sure if I disagree with you or not Sky...but I'm pretty sure whats wrong with MMO is more than some people being hardcore...thats going to happen regardless.

[Ratman_tf]

You, sir, are what's wrong with mmo.

What is a game without goals? What good is baseball if you're just going to sit in the dugout and drink beer all day? What good is chess if you're just moving your knight back and forth all game?

I see nothing wrong with having long term goals in MMORPGs. I do not like having some of these asstastic lewt and level goals that Everquest has fostered onto the genere.

One meta-goal in Sims 2 is the generation challenge, where you bring up 10 generations of Sims, and try to max out their life goals and everything. If you're having fun doing it, I see no problems.

If you're doing it just to epeen... yeah. Stab-stabbity.

[shiznitz]

Maybe the best way to handle equipment "earned" vs bought is to have them as separate tracks. I think the two can live happily side by side but the guy who "earned" Item X doesn't want player Y to just buy it. So, make them different but the same. I always return to the reason RMT ever tempted me: mounts and housing. It would be a small thing to have mounts bought in game through adventuring look different than mounts bought at the Station Store. If players want to discriminate based on this, then so be it.

In EQ2 specific terms, how much would it really hurt the game if players could buy Master spells from SOE? How could SOE differentiate between dropped and bought version of spells? Color, probably.

What if I could buy the full set of Tier 7 berserker fabled for $200 and it was a different color than the dropped set? It wouldn't make sense for SOE to make the RMT version available on day one that EoF was live, but what about once RoK goes live? Or 3 months after that?

There are ways to build in RMT that let's players identify who is doing it and who isn't. I am sure that there would be people who would refuse to invite a character into their group but there would be plenty who didn't care. I would even argue that one would want a player who had bought all the best equipment from SOE in the group/raid because he/she is not going to roll on anything that drops.

[Sky]

No. That he saw that someone had camped for hours and hours killing mobs over and over and it inspired him. That's mental illness. Mmogtarded. I remember being inspired by the line at the DMV. Hey, you waited TWO HOURS for your registration. That really means something.

I'm against RMT for the most part, but I'm also against the game design where it makes sense. The more I see shit camped out or unavailable because I need to dick around putting together a group, the more I'm inclined to move all my characters to the bazaar. Then I could've played on Sunday rather than logging off because everything I wanted to do was camped to fuck and back. Solo players can't compete in the contested resource world against large guilds or higher level players, and I'm in no rush to bypass all the content.

[DarkSign]

I agree with what you're saying for the most part. Leveling itself should be fun. From level 1 to level 105. The gameplay should be the reward itself. But humans have status symbols wired into our social nature. A woman feels like a big, pretty house with candles and pillows gives her status. A man feels like a hot bimbo and a cool car gives him status (over generalizations of course), but it will always be with us. And to a certain extent there are achievements worthy of saying...wow that guy did something cool / great / amazing - but of course we're talking videogames.

There's no answer to the merry-go-round of RMT. People will always differ.

[KallDrexx]

Hrm.  A bit off topic, I vaugly remember SOE releasing some information about the success of their EQ2 RMT service a few months after they launched it.  Did they ever write up a new one?

[Jayce]

No. That he saw that someone had camped for hours and hours killing mobs over and over and it inspired him. That's mental illness. Mmogtarded.

I guess I'm MMOGtarded too then.  I remember being impressed by people with pet dragons at the Britain bank when I first played UO.  I've never been super excited by gear in WoW, but certain things have inspired me. I don't think there is anything wrong with being inspired to set a goal and go after it.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part. Leveling itself should be fun. From level 1 to level 105.

I think for the most part gaining levels is fun - very dependent on which game - but people only see the last level and want to plow through everything in between.  THAT is human nature.  It obscures whether the game is really fun at lower levels because the conventional wisdom is that it sucks to be a noob.