14 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I've seen some discussion regarding the mechanics of typical 'quit' commands, and how it pertains to combat and rent systems. I found myself bristling slightly over the mention of rent systems, and figured I'd spin off yet another thread to see if I can be convinced to see some merit in them.

My thoughts:
  • Rent systems are negative in that they "force" casual players to play more frequently to keep their gear. This can lead to a sort of hostage scenario where the player may feel like playing at any given moment, but has to connect to grind for a while to "pay the bills."

  • I feel that rent systems are a really crappy bandaid meant to quick fix a deeper problem in a game's design. With proper game design, rent systems are a completely unnecessary annoyance.

  • Some players (myself included) who are more casual won't bother playing games with equipment rent. This is of course entirely subjective, but let's consider that the MUD "crowd" is aging (as a whole). Many of us now have families and careers, and time is a little more scarce for us these days.

I guess I just can't see many redeeming qualities in rent systems. Can someone else set me straight?
14 Jan, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
Some of the advantages I've mentioned before include:

  • It prevents newbies from being twinked out with overpowered equipment. Of course level restrictions do the same thing, but both solutions have their pros and cons.


  • It allows you to have rare/limited items that remain in circulation among the active players. Compare this with most Merc derivatives (which use level restrictions), where the players usually end up with exactly the same equipment as each other.


  • It provides a cash sink - characters earn gold, so you need something for them to spend it on. To address this, some Merc derivatives actually ended up reintroducing a variant of rent; equipment gets damaged and eventually destroyed, unless you regularly pay to repair it.
  • 14 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 3rd comment:
    Votes: 0
    Quote
    It allows you to have rare/limited items that remain in circulation among the active players.


    Could you explain? I do not get what mecanism in rent prevent that. Is it because it is too expensive for casual players to maintain ?
    14 Jan, 2013, Telgar wrote in the 4th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Rarva.Riendf said:
    Quote
    It allows you to have rare/limited items that remain in circulation among the active players.


    Could you explain? I do not get what mecanism in rent prevent that. Is it because it is too expensive for casual players to maintain ?


    I think KaVir is talking about flagging items as non-rentable, which means players have to share the items or pass them amongst each other. This makes for a fun bit of competitive game-play - who got the Freedom sword today?
    14 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 5th comment:
    Votes: 0
    KaVir said:
  • It prevents newbies from being twinked out with overpowered equipment. Of course level restrictions do the same thing, but both solutions have their pros and cons.

  • "Solving" this problem with rent seems like a bandaid to me. I've seen some games that address this in a number of different ways that seem more natural to me. For example, if a player doesn't have the necessary experience/skill to use a weapon, they can still use it, but with diminished effectiveness. Some games, as you've mentioned, disallow non-qualified players to use equipment they aren't ready for yet altogether. Other games put people on relatively even footing, stat-wise, with the more experienced players having more flexibility and a greater bag of tricks to pull from.
    KaVir said:
  • It allows you to have rare/limited items that remain in circulation among the active players. Compare this with most Merc derivatives (which use level restrictions), where the players usually end up with exactly the same equipment as each other.

  • Seems like this could be done without rent, though.
    KaVir said:
  • It provides a cash sink - characters earn gold, so you need something for them to spend it on. To address this, some Merc derivatives actually ended up reintroducing a variant of rent; equipment gets damaged and eventually destroyed, unless you regularly pay to repair it.

  • The big difference between renting and repairing is that repairing doesn't disproportionally "punish" casual players. A casual player can leave the game for a few weeks, come back, and find everything as it was. There are a lot of different ways to do this, be it a cash for repairs, or a Fallout-like combine to partially repair type deal.

    I'm sure others disagree, but these rent systems just seem like really bad bandaids. Because there's a precedent set, is this still *good* game design in most cases?
    14 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 6th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Telgar said:
    I think KaVir is talking about flagging items as non-rentable, which means players have to share the items or pass them amongst each other. This makes for a fun bit of competitive game-play - who got the Freedom sword today?


    Oh, I have item like those as well, you don't need a rental system to do it.
    14 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 7th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Rarva.Riendf said:
    Telgar said:
    I think KaVir is talking about flagging items as non-rentable, which means players have to share the items or pass them amongst each other. This makes for a fun bit of competitive game-play - who got the Freedom sword today?


    Oh, I have item like those as well, you don't need a rental system to do it.

    This is kind of silly, but we used to have a one-of-a-kind item in a game I used to play, the "Happy Fun Ball". Once you got it, you could hang on to it for X amount of time before you either had to choose someone else to throw it to, or it'd automatically whiz off and find someone else. It didn't really do anything, and this isn't really a good idea for any cases where the item does something other than look funny, but yeah, fun stuff.
    14 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 8th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Quote
    It didn't really do anything, and this isn't really a good idea for any cases where the item does something other than look funny, but yeah, fun stuff.


    I call them artifact, they are very powerful items. They are meant to be clan controlled (because if you want to keep it you have to pass it along people you know; so need to always have someone you can trust online)
    Of course you need lots of players to make them useful :)

    So it is definitely not tied to a renting system.
    14 Jan, 2013, Telgar wrote in the 9th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Kelvin, correct me if I am wrong, but it sound like your gripe is with real-time based rent systems. I agree this completely sucks, as you have to grind regularly or lose your gear.

    This isn't the only way to compute rent. You can just charge a fixed (or level-based, or equipment based) fee every time a player rents. Since it is not real-time based, it doesn't dis-incentivize casual players by forcing them to grind while they are taking a break.
    14 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 10th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Telgar said:
    You can just charge a fixed (or level-based, or equipment based) fee every time a player rents. Since it is not real-time based, it doesn't dis-incentivize casual players by forcing them to grind while they are taking a break.


    How would that work, somebody staying connected all day would pay the same thing that someone logging and quitting many times a day when he decides to quit?
    Or would you make a system that is '24 hours play from the moment you log = xxxx gold if you want to keep your stuff'
    I cannot see a way to make rent without the need to grind more for casual players than for regulars. (ratio actual play for fun/grinding)
    14 Jan, 2013, Splork wrote in the 11th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Sloth handles rent much in the same way Plamzi addresses theirs at Bedlam. Reading his post, I felt like I was describing my game, thats how similar our designs are in regards to rent.

    Its really sad to see so many players biased towards good games simply because they use a rent system. I can see why, as the original design was horribly done and did indeed penalize players and cause several of the issues which Kelvin addressed in his original post. However, many of us have so greatly altered this system, that very little if any of those pertain to our MUDs.
    14 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 12th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Telgar said:
    Kelvin, correct me if I am wrong, but it sound like your gripe is with real-time based rent systems. I agree this completely sucks, as you have to grind regularly or lose your gear.

    This isn't the only way to compute rent. You can just charge a fixed (or level-based, or equipment based) fee every time a player rents. Since it is not real-time based, it doesn't dis-incentivize casual players by forcing them to grind while they are taking a break.

    I'm just not sure this is really any better. It doesn't feel like this is just a nasty bandage over some other problem to you? I'd hate to dread levelling or re-gearing my character. It seems like we'd do best to encourage both.
    14 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 13th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Splork said:
    Sloth handles rent much in the same way Plamzi addresses theirs at Bedlam. Reading his post, I felt like I was describing my game, thats how similar our designs are in regards to rent.

    Its really sad to see so many players biased towards good games simply because they use a rent system. I can see why, as the original design was horribly done and did indeed penalize players and cause several of the issues which Kelvin addressed in his original post. However, many of us have so greatly altered this system, that very little if any of those pertain to our MUDs.

    Fair enough, but on the flipside, do you really feel your rent system is a necessity? Is there no more elegant way to achieve whatever it is that you're trying to do?
    15 Jan, 2013, Tyche wrote in the 14th comment:
    Votes: 0
    I'm considering implementing a jobs system which would likely include rent. We often do this at the beginning of game sessions in our role-playing campaign depending on how much time has elapsed and where we left off.
    These are random events based on what characters have been doing on their time off adventuring. They would be interactive and present choices upon logging in after a week or so of not playing.
    15 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 15th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Plamzi system is interesting, but notice one thing:his rent system is not to remove eq from you.

    Quote
    To this I'll add that I never erase people's saved eq, so no-one risks losing gear by not playing for a while (way I see it, how you chose to prune player save files has nothing to do with whether you charge rent).


    From what I understood, his rent system if more for renting external storage and houses, so stuff to extend your character with niceties you do not need to compete, not to reduce it.
    15 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 16th comment:
    Votes: 0
    I guess I should have been more specific in my original thread. The rent systems I am bemoaning are the ones that you pay into at X intervals, and you lose everything if you run out of money.

    I'm not a big fan of the "you must quit in X location" stuff, either, but I can agree to disagree and understand that this may be desirable for certain kinds of games. That's probably another issue and another discussion entirely.
    15 Jan, 2013, Splork wrote in the 17th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Quote
    Fair enough, but on the flipside, do you really feel your rent system is a necessity? Is there no more elegant way to achieve whatever it is that you're trying to do?


    Its a feature which works well with many of our other features, which is exactly why we have kept it. Your feelings and issues with rent have never been an issue on our game, at least that I have seen. I can count on one hand how many people have had to buy back items from the innkeeper and I have never, in 21 years, heard of someone quitting the game because of it. Has the concept of rent caused people to stay away from our game, absolutely. Unnecessarily so in my mind, as our system causes very little to none of the problems kelvin has mentioned. Players can save( well we auto save every few seconds ) and cut link anywhere they want or they can find an innkeeper or their own personal house and rent. Its such a non issue with us, I sometimes wonder why there is such hatred in regards to the concept.

    The above question actually makes very little sense to me. I don't see it as being inelegant. Rent plays a major role in our game, from economy to the control of equipment and everything in between. Plamzi's post was a beautiful summary of what can be done with what most think is a worthless and annoying feature. But I think this can be said about any feature, there are some well done and there are some which are crap…
    15 Jan, 2013, KaVir wrote in the 18th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Rarva.Riendf said:
    Quote
    It allows you to have rare/limited items that remain in circulation among the active players.


    Could you explain? I do not get what mecanism in rent prevent that. Is it because it is too expensive for casual players to maintain ?

    Some items are limited in number, so that not everyone can have one. The rent ensures that if someone stops playing, any limited items they've got will be circulated back into the game. And of course while they are playing, there's always the chance of death stripping the gear from them. There's no way they can put the gear into hibernation, like would happen with an inactivate character in a Merc derivative.

    Kelvin said:
    I'm sure others disagree, but these rent systems just seem like really bad bandaids. Because there's a precedent set, is this still *good* game design in most cases?

    I've made it clear on numerous occasions that I strongly dislike rent. However I don't believe in dismissing an established design concept out of hand without first weighing up its pros and cons. You asked if there were any redeeming qualities, so I listed what I perceive to be some of its advantages.

    Yes, you can achieve similar results with other solutions, but each approach has its own pros and cons. I don't consider rent a "bandaid", but neither is it something I would ever use in my own designs.

    Telgar said:
    You can just charge a fixed (or level-based, or equipment based) fee every time a player rents. Since it is not real-time based, it doesn't dis-incentivize casual players by forcing them to grind while they are taking a break.

    It's not uncommon for players to log on "just for a few minutes" and end up staying a lot longer - and a traditional rent system actually encourages such behaviour, giving players a strong incentive to log on as often as possible and earn more gold.

    On the other hand, a fixed rent fee would actually discourage players from logging on - because the rent is fixed, and equipment doesn't vanish, rent effectively turns into a "toll" that you have to pay every time you want to log on. You've only got a few minutes before your movie starts? Better not log on then. A fixed rent fee would also reduce the few benefits of a rent system.
    15 Jan, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 19th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Quote
    Some items are limited in number, so that not everyone can have one. The rent ensures that if someone stops playing, any limited items they've got will be circulated back into the game. And of course while they are playing, there's always the chance of death stripping the gear from them.


    Ok. I guess I have what is called "free rent" + "no rent" flagged objects. I only come with this to have the mean of having truely unique objects (and I also have another mecanism that allow unique item to be saved, then blocking any loading of them(for a while at least, as I can strip an object even from an offlined char))
    15 Jan, 2013, Kelvin wrote in the 20th comment:
    Votes: 0
    Splork said:
    Quote
    Fair enough, but on the flipside, do you really feel your rent system is a necessity? Is there no more elegant way to achieve whatever it is that you're trying to do?


    Its a feature which works well with many of our other features, which is exactly why we have kept it. Your feelings and issues with rent have never been an issue on our game, at least that I have seen. I can count on one hand how many people have had to buy back items from the innkeeper and I have never, in 21 years, heard of someone quitting the game because of it. Has the concept of rent caused people to stay away from our game, absolutely. Unnecessarily so in my mind, as our system causes very little to none of the problems kelvin has mentioned. Players can save( well we auto save every few seconds ) and cut link anywhere they want or they can find an innkeeper or their own personal house and rent. Its such a non issue with us, I sometimes wonder why there is such hatred in regards to the concept.

    The above question actually makes very little sense to me. I don't see it as being inelegant. Rent plays a major role in our game, from economy to the control of equipment and everything in between. Plamzi's post was a beautiful summary of what can be done with what most think is a worthless and annoying feature. But I think this can be said about any feature, there are some well done and there are some which are crap…

    Here's another question for you, then: What is the purpose/intent of your rent system? I think the previous question makes sense, in that every feature that exists must have a purpose. Re-phrased, what purpose does your rent system fill?

    For the sake of clarity, I'm not picking on you or any "pro-renter", I need help understanding what it does that couldn't be done more elegantly through other mechanics (because I think it's a pretty bad one).
    0.0/34