Does it become unfair at some point, is the real question. Everyone can see waiting for a week. It seems like being really spoiled if you'[re going to complain about waiting a week to catch up with everyone else in the game.
What if it's one week, versus 7 weeks?
What if it's one month versus 7 months?
There's nothing unfair with one player having more time than another to get through a game's content.
All that really matters to players is whether the content itself is engaging and fun.
If a game isn't fun, it doesn't matter if the total time required is 10 years or 10 minutes -- players aren't gonna have a good time. Likewise if a game is fun, players will continue playing for as long as the gameplay remains interesting.
Maybe it's due to not visiting the "Time played = Unfair" thread a few weeks back, but I've never heard anyone feel that time spent playing a game was unfair -- unless it was specifically a PVP-related discussion.
Being able to invest in a character to make them grow stronger is actually one of the main traits of RPGs as a genre, and is intentionally designed to create a game where player skill isn't the primary determiner in combat; reducing the twitch skill demand in favor of other factors the player still has control over (such as investing more time into the game, or strategically choosing different talents, gear, and so on.)
This was the main argument by supporters of RMT versus P2P games. Basically, P2P is unfair because those with more time will level or gain skill levels faster than those with less time.
Therefore, RMT makes the game more fair, because you can adjust for this time difference with money.
You can play the game 8 hours a day, because you don't have a life, etc., etc. However, I can buy xp potions in an RMT game, or an item that makes me regenrate mana faster, or a pet, etc. so I can play 1 hour a day and keep up with you. That's the RMT argument as I understand it from previous RMT threads.
The RMT supporters argued that indeed, the content was not fun. Basically, I don't want to kill 500 mobs to reach level 4, it's to repetitive. I should be able to adjust the rate so that I like it. I can buy items or xp potions, and maybe kill 200 mobs if that's the amount I think would be fun to reach level 4, etc.
Or, maybe I will kill the 500 mobs, but I dont' want to take 4 hours to do it. I'll buy items that help me do it faster so I can do it in 2 hours, etc.
The flaw here is that Joe and Bob both reach the same level with the same amount of playtime. That is fair. That Bob completed his play time in 1 day and Joe took a week is totally external to the game, and thus should not be an issue for the game to resolve. RMT doesn't compare because Joe may never have the money Bob has so there is no chance at parity and more importantly, the unlevel playing field in the case of RMT is actually promoted by the game itself.
This question of fair/unfair has to focus on whether the fairness/unfairness comes from within the game (the dev's fault) and should be addressed by the dev, or from outside the game in which case its no one's problem, especially since the only unfairness is an unreal expectation in the mind of some players.
They way I see it, if an MMO, that is a multiplayer game has enough content for a player to solo to level cap, they've been as fair as can be. As I've said before, It's like asking sports game to put in a flight simulator into the game because you don't like sports but you like flying and you think its unfair to have to play a sports game.
MMORPGs should be like a sports game, or as near as we can make them. The subscription based P2P model does not do a bad job of making them fair.
The difference in hardcore verses casual rarely is so great that all the casual get one shoted. The difference is there but it is not huge. Players should be rewarded for the areas they put more time in. If they put an effort into getting the best PvP gear, then it is fair that they are better at PvP. If they buy that gear, it is not fair. If they put an effort into being the best crafter then it is fair they craft better than others. Simple as that.
This question of fair/unfair has to focus on whether the fairness/unfairness comes from within the game (the dev's fault) and should be addressed by the dev, or from outside the game in which case its no one's problem, especially since the only unfairness is an unreal expectation in the mind of some players.
That's a good point, and although it may have been brought up in earlier discussions abotu RMT, I don't recall seeing it mentioned.
Either it's in the game, or it has no bearing on fairness. Makes sense to me. How much time you spend on gaming because of your real life situation, has nothing to do with how the rules work inside the game in a P2P model.
levels are a stupid thing. if you are not having fun playing, not even in 8 sessions, maybe the game is not good. playing to achieve endgame, on games where only the endgame is fun could be good for powergamers, but I think is a bad deal for casuals. so get a better game.
Thats not the point hes trying to make, hes saying that there should be more balance between casual and hardcore players
Comments
manipulation of the mind.
There's nothing unfair with one player having more time than another to get through a game's content.
All that really matters to players is whether the content itself is engaging and fun.
If a game isn't fun, it doesn't matter if the total time required is 10 years or 10 minutes -- players aren't gonna have a good time. Likewise if a game is fun, players will continue playing for as long as the gameplay remains interesting.
Maybe it's due to not visiting the "Time played = Unfair" thread a few weeks back, but I've never heard anyone feel that time spent playing a game was unfair -- unless it was specifically a PVP-related discussion.
Being able to invest in a character to make them grow stronger is actually one of the main traits of RPGs as a genre, and is intentionally designed to create a game where player skill isn't the primary determiner in combat; reducing the twitch skill demand in favor of other factors the player still has control over (such as investing more time into the game, or strategically choosing different talents, gear, and so on.)
This was the main argument by supporters of RMT versus P2P games. Basically, P2P is unfair because those with more time will level or gain skill levels faster than those with less time.
Therefore, RMT makes the game more fair, because you can adjust for this time difference with money.
You can play the game 8 hours a day, because you don't have a life, etc., etc. However, I can buy xp potions in an RMT game, or an item that makes me regenrate mana faster, or a pet, etc. so I can play 1 hour a day and keep up with you. That's the RMT argument as I understand it from previous RMT threads.
The RMT supporters argued that indeed, the content was not fun. Basically, I don't want to kill 500 mobs to reach level 4, it's to repetitive. I should be able to adjust the rate so that I like it. I can buy items or xp potions, and maybe kill 200 mobs if that's the amount I think would be fun to reach level 4, etc.
Or, maybe I will kill the 500 mobs, but I dont' want to take 4 hours to do it. I'll buy items that help me do it faster so I can do it in 2 hours, etc.
The flaw here is that Joe and Bob both reach the same level with the same amount of playtime. That is fair. That Bob completed his play time in 1 day and Joe took a week is totally external to the game, and thus should not be an issue for the game to resolve. RMT doesn't compare because Joe may never have the money Bob has so there is no chance at parity and more importantly, the unlevel playing field in the case of RMT is actually promoted by the game itself.
This question of fair/unfair has to focus on whether the fairness/unfairness comes from within the game (the dev's fault) and should be addressed by the dev, or from outside the game in which case its no one's problem, especially since the only unfairness is an unreal expectation in the mind of some players.
They way I see it, if an MMO, that is a multiplayer game has enough content for a player to solo to level cap, they've been as fair as can be. As I've said before, It's like asking sports game to put in a flight simulator into the game because you don't like sports but you like flying and you think its unfair to have to play a sports game.
MMORPGs should be like a sports game, or as near as we can make them. The subscription based P2P model does not do a bad job of making them fair.
The difference in hardcore verses casual rarely is so great that all the casual get one shoted. The difference is there but it is not huge. Players should be rewarded for the areas they put more time in. If they put an effort into getting the best PvP gear, then it is fair that they are better at PvP. If they buy that gear, it is not fair. If they put an effort into being the best crafter then it is fair they craft better than others. Simple as that.
That's a good point, and although it may have been brought up in earlier discussions abotu RMT, I don't recall seeing it mentioned.
Either it's in the game, or it has no bearing on fairness. Makes sense to me. How much time you spend on gaming because of your real life situation, has nothing to do with how the rules work inside the game in a P2P model.
No, it's not fair to either of them because they payed for a game with only 7 hours of gameplay.
____________________________________________
im to lazy too use grammar or punctuation good
Thats not the point hes trying to make, hes saying that there should be more balance between casual and hardcore players