Goldfarming

[Draco_Argentum]

Sphere you lose. People like trading stuff for other stuff. Its an expected part of the game just like being able to loot corpses is in PnP rpgs.

People have cheated at every single game ever invented. Its an industry for several (performance enhancing drugs for example). The only difference here is that anyone can gold farm. This allows lots of poor people to do it instead of people with druglabs and the skills to run one.

[Koumei]

Speaking as someone who has bought an Action Replay DS in the last week, and has been enjoying the various games more as a result, you're always going to get people who don't want to play the game the way you made it. Chances are it's because you made a shit game, or at the very least, you made a game with huge boring slabs of grind time in them. One day I'm going to get a new PC, and then my ex will want me to install WoW to play with her, and when that happens I'll probably find a way to start at 20-ish.

By the time that happens, I might very well have finished the Uni course I intend on starting next year (hooray for extended lifespans! Three cheers for medical science! No sarcasm there), and working as a fully licensed pharmacist. Due to raking the money in, I would, if possible, just pay for the benefit of starting the game at a higher point.

And really, I could totally justify that as "Helping out some poor people in China by providing them with much-needed money". As opposed to simply not enjoying the game as much, and not supporting them financially and helping their work.

I really don't see a problem with people wanting to find a way around various restrictions, gaming the system (in a game), and letting money buy the answer, even though I don't at the moment actually have the money. It's a lot better than the various ways money changes things in the real world, after all.

The only problem I see is that goldfarming is better than their other options - it's sad that they're in a situation where that kind of work, for that kind of money, is seriously looking like a good choice. The fact that people are willing to pay money to get where they want to be merely means that it's an option at all.

[Crissa]

If there is:

No trading - there's no economy. You lose all players who like to trade.
No collecting things in the game. You lose all players who like to collect.
No method to upgrade your character. ...Do you even have an MMOG?

There's no trading in City of Heroes. You only get upgrades by having your account for longer. So... People sell accounts. People trade characters to skip sections of the game.

At what point have you taken things out of the game to the point that nothing is left?

... For WoW, why would you want to skip to level 2/7th of the trainer game? All of the trainer game? How much of it should you skip? What do you gain by skipping?

-Crissa

[SphereOfFeetMan]

This is stupid. Why would everyone specifically make games with no possibility of an economy at all, when a great many people like this aspect of the game?

You are effectively suggesting that an effective business strategy that is actually in demand from the consumers be universally scrapped, not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with it, but because some people somewhere might corrupt it down the line. Think about that for a minute, now think about the world we live in and the general failings of the human race. Getting some perspective now?

It is not a game design problem; it is a humanity problem.

By that logic, nothing is inherently damaging, there are only weaknesses in people. That is a stupid worldview. Outside factors affect peoples decisions. Accept that.

---

If there is:

No trading - there's no economy. You lose all players who like to trade.
No collecting things in the game. You lose all players who like to collect.
No method to upgrade your character. ...Do you even have an MMOG?

Trading: If there is trading you lose all players who want an even playing ground. You lose players that don't want to reward wasteful time grinding in the game with an advantage. You lose players that can't play with their friends because they fall behind in level and equipment.
Collecting: You can still collect things which don't give you an advantage over other players.
MMOG: Of course I don't fucking have an MMO.

At what point have you taken things out of the game to the point that nothing is left?

To the point where the only thing you have left is GAMEPLAY and player interaction, and not needless grinding and goldfarming.

[Crissa]

If there are no accomplishments, and nothing is accrued... Then what is it? A movie in which you sometimes win, you sometimes lose, but it never matters in the end?

Half as many people play Halo 3 than do World of Warcraft.

Probably just as many cheat.

How is that somehow better or worse?

-Crissa

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Then you have Second Life. People play traditional MMORPGs because they LIKE repetitive grinding and goldfarming. You can't take that out.

That being said, if you're using a leveling service or buying gold, then you shouldn't be playing that type of game, you should find one that doesn't requiring grinding or goldfarming. That's like me playing Tetris and entering a code to only get the 4 square long lines. Sure, I could rack up the score, but that's about as useful as jerking off and a lot less fun.

[Koumei]

if you're using a leveling service or buying gold, then you shouldn't be playing that type of game, you should find one that doesn't requiring grinding or goldfarming.

Well, yes, I think the competitive Pokemon scene is the ideal model: you create a character at "maximum level" (note: the game doesn't have levels in this ideal scenario. A 1-day-old character has all the options of a 10-year-character), and the tactics used in-game and the optimisation used to make the character, along with a little chance, are what matter. Not simply a case of "Well, I played longer so I'm a higher level than you. Eat shit and die."

Unfortunately, if such an MMO even exists, then it doesn't happen to be what the entire world is playing and my ex is bugging me to play with her. But I'm well aware that I won't be playing my ideal game.

Still, as long as you have the money, throwing money at problems until they go away seems to be the answer.

Crissa: Simply put, getting beaten up by spiders and murlocks got boring pretty quickly. If I'm going to be playing it, I may as well be fighting demons and dragons, and for that matter summoning a few demons of my own. This is why I'd want to skip X amount of the grindfest. That and it's nice to finally get some choices for the character, which for no apparent reason only starts happening at level 10.

[Falgund]

If there is trading you lose all players who want an even playing ground.

Trading does not cause losing the even ground. Only trading perversion does.

You lose players that don't want to reward wasteful time grinding in the game with an advantage.

One can imagine an economy where there is trading but no grinding, only acquisition of resources during 'normal play'.

You lose players that can't play with their friends because they fall behind in level and equipment.

If there is trading, you can gift your friends equipment, so they *don't* fall behind. If there is no trading, they *do* fall behind.
(Level is another thing, but as an example in WoW you can give your lower level friends triple experience on everything while they play with you if they refered your account, so they catch up easily. But this has no link with trading.)

[SphereOfFeetMan]

If there are no accomplishments, and nothing is accrued... Then what is it? A movie in which you sometimes win, you sometimes lose, but it never matters in the end?

No accomplishments =/= no accruement of wealth. And nothing matters in MMO's like WOW, so that point is moot.

Half as many people play Halo 3 than do World of Warcraft.

Probably just as many cheat.

How is that somehow better or worse?

Halo 3* is fundamentally better than WoW for the following reasons:
1) No grinding/goldfarming means everyone is on a level playing field.
2) People don't have to waste their time grinding when they don't want to.
3) People can access the parts of the game they want to play without having to spend time on parts they don't want to play.
4) People aren't induced to pay real money for numbers in an online game.
5) People can play with their friends because they are all the same level.
6) Poorly skilled players are not rewarded for time-sinks over skilled players.

*(Assuming there is no grinding/goldfarming in Halo 3, I don’t play it).

---

Then you have Second Life. People play traditional MMORPGs because they LIKE repetitive grinding and goldfarming. You can't take that out.

People “like” it because the gamemakers are tapping into the hoarding and OCD areas of people’s personalities, by conflating grinding with good gameplay. That is not to be admired. Regardless of that, if there were other non-grinding/goldfarming MMO alternatives, there would be millions of people wanting to play that. People like myself, ckafrica, and Koumei in just this thread are good examples. Also, CatharzGodfoot, Manxome, and Randomcasualty2 have expressed contempt for this grinding/goldfarming trend.

So, lets look at the number of people in this thread, and their opinions:

Number of people that have contempt for grinding/goldfarming and might want to play a nongrinding/goldfarming game: 6 (myself, ckafrica, Koumei, CatharzGodfoot, Manxome, and Randomcasualty2)

Number of people who like grinding/goldfarming: 3 (Crissa, Caliborn, Draco)

Number of people without an expressed opinion: 5 (Ice9, FrankTrollman, Tzor, Boolean, and Falgund)

[Judging__Eagle]

A game with no economy.

Now there's a challenge. Monsters don't drop items, ever.

Oh, it would be something like Spore. You accrue points based on how much you've eaten, how good you are at hunting/surviving or your cultures production capabilities.

Then spend them on upgrades or items, or design new ones.

I wish that WoW had an item crafting system similar to Spore. That would be awesome.

[Manxome]

Well, yes, I think the competitive Pokemon scene is the ideal model: you create a character at "maximum level" (note: the game doesn't have levels in this ideal scenario. A 1-day-old character has all the options of a 10-year-character), and the tactics used in-game and the optimisation used to make the character, along with a little chance, are what matter. Not simply a case of "Well, I played longer so I'm a higher level than you. Eat shit and die."

Unfortunately, if such an MMO even exists, then it doesn't happen to be what the entire world is playing and my ex is bugging me to play with her. But I'm well aware that I won't be playing my ideal game.

You might want to consider Guild Wars, if you haven't. You can create max-level PvP-only characters at will, and give them any combination of skills and equipment you've "unlocked" on your account. You can unlock things by PvE adventuring, by accruing points from PvP, or by purchasing unlock packs. I personally feel that things take longer to unlock than they should, but it's fast compared to lots of other MMOs, and unlocking tons of stuff theoretically just gives you more options, not more power (can't use them all at once), and I think the system's pretty good.

Though I also think that healing isn't well balanced and that the pace of battle is too fast. Still, there's a lot of good things to be said about the game. One of which is that there's no subscription fee.

A game with no economy.

Now there's a challenge. Monsters don't drop items, ever.

That is in no way a requirement. An economy implies that you're trading stuff, not just accumulating it. Typical single-player RPGs could be said to have no economy; in Final Fantasy, you can get items from drops and chests and stores and so forth, but nothing in the world (other than you) actually interacts with the item subsystem--shops are effectively places where you can convert one item (e.g. currency) into another (e.g. potions), because supplies are unlimited and prices are fixed.

It's true that lots of people like economic stuff in games, but it is also true that the people interested in economics usually hate the actual economies that exist in typical games, because they are pretty silly and not even vaguely like real life. Each participant has a limit to the benefit they can get from money (once you've got the best gear, it's usually just frivolities), there is usually no entropy (or only token entropy), and game balance requires weird constraints on the economics (you have to make sure that people can get level-appropriate gear).

Thus, the economy kind of works when people first start playing the game, then you end up with a bunch of max-level characters with the greatest ability to generate wealth and (once they've got the best gear) the least need of it, so rampant inflation results. Plus, you can't really hold anyone accountable for fraud and other dishonest activities (there's typically no way for players to enforce traditional punishments like fines, imprisonment, or execution on others, because the worst thing you can usually do to someone is make them respawn).

Thus, the economy tends to become degenerate and biased against new players pretty quickly. I don't think I've met any players that actually like that specific outcome.

[Calibron]

Claiming that I like grinding and goldfarming on the grounds that I think it's a horrible idea for no games to ever have even the possibility of an economy is putting words into my mouth well beyond the level of anything even PhoneLobster has done. You appear to be off your fucking nut.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Claiming that I like grinding and goldfarming on the grounds that I think it's a horrible idea for no games to ever have even the possibility of an economy is putting words into my mouth well beyond the level of anything even PhoneLobster has done. You appear to be off your fucking nut.

My apologies. When you stated "Why would everyone specifically make games with no possibility of an economy at all, when a great many people like this aspect of the game?" I inferred you meant that you were one of the people who like this aspect of the game.

What an economy can mean might be up for debate, although it is hard to imagine one which wouldn't create a grinding/goldfarming system.

---

In any case, I can then put you in the against grinding/goldfarming column Caliborn? If so, it is 7 against, 2 for.

[CatharzGodfoot]

You could have an economy that includes resources which characters accrue 'offscreen'.

[Draco_Argentum]

Sphere, let us know when you decide to stop being Bill O'Reilly. You are right down at his level of deliberate insertion of opinions into other people's mouths right now.

[ckafrica]

Yeah, while I find games that grind pointless (and I have never played WoW because of it), I quite soundly stated that I had no problem with the existence of goldfarming nor do I think ill of people who would use their services and would PERHAPS use it myself if I was gonna play WOW with my friends at 70 and didn't want to wait till I had leveled up.

I really don't see how it affects your game unless your PvPing at low levels. I mean, I don't get upset when a new player levels a PC to join in campaign so they can effectively play with us. From what I can tell most people playing many of these games are doing it coopperatively so what the problem if some guy who wants to play with you has shelled out some money to make sure he was leveled and kitted up appropriately so that he could actually play with you.

In truth I don't want to play WoW or any of the MMO games I've seen or heard about so far. But intellectually I don't get the big deal your making Sphere

[Murtak]

you end up with a bunch of max-level characters with the greatest ability to generate wealth and (once they've got the best gear) the least need of it

That is different from the real world, how?

Plus, you can't really hold anyone accountable for fraud and other dishonest activities (there's typically no way for players to enforce traditional punishments like fines, imprisonment, or execution on others, because the worst thing you can usually do to someone is make them respawn).

Reputation. (In Everquest) even moving servers does not help, your bad reputation will follow you forever. If you are at all interested in getting a decent group ever again better make a new character.

Thus, the economy tends to become degenerate and biased against new players pretty quickly.

Again, only speaking for Everquest: what you can get in the player-driven economy by
a) basically doing the legwork for higher level characters
b) buying surplus items from higher level characters
far outstrips what you can buy from the planned NPC merchant economy. As the community develops some items go up in price, some go down and maybe currency actually deprecates so rapidly that the newbies can not buy anything for gold, but they can still, say, sell bone chips to necromancers who don't want to get their own and use that money to buy items.

In short: From what I have personally seen and experienced you are utterly wrong. Everquest's economy at least has gotten much much much more newbie friendly since it started. Degenerate I can see - but it is actually helping the newbies.

[Optimator]

The Anarchy Online comment reminded me of SOJs.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Sphere, let us know when you decide to stop being Bill O'Reilly. You are right down at his level of deliberate insertion of opinions into other people's mouths right now.

It is not a difficult distinction. There are two concepts you can choose from:

Either:
1) You support the mechanics in the game which create grinding/goldfarming (Econcomy and trading).
Or
2) You don't support the mechanics in the game which create grinding/goldfarming (Econcomy and trading) .

You stated:

Sphere you lose. People like trading stuff for other stuff. Its an expected part of the game just like being able to loot corpses is in PnP rpgs.

People have cheated at every single game ever invented. Its an industry for several (performance enhancing drugs for example). The only difference here is that anyone can gold farm. This allows lots of poor people to do it instead of people with druglabs and the skills to run one.

So you are arguing that people want grinding/goldfarming. Would you not place yourself in that group?

[JonSetanta]

Playbourers?

Not a bad job, really. Wish I could have been paid to do that shit back in high school. Any income would have been better than working a godsdamned pizza 'booth' in the back of a seafood restaurant with aging douchebag middle management and 17 year old management-wannabes.

[Orion]

No, Sphere, there's more than one choice

Caliborn clearly expressed a third option:

"I have no interest in perosnally playing a grinding game, and agree that it would be a good thing if non-grindy alternatives existed, but am not offended by the mere existence of grind-games, as they seem to be a successful product which many people enjoy"

[Draco_Argentum]

More importantly Sphere is conflating the existence of tradeable items with the existence of grinding. That is clearly not true. Grinding refers to a specific subset of play, namely repetition of rote learned static content. If the items aren't coming from that then grinding is out of the picture.

Sphere, you are channeling Bill still. You are claiming that someone who supports the Olympics by necessity also supports the use of performance enhancing drugs.



The real reason for gold buying is not the existence of grinding. Grinding exists in many single player games and noone buys gold or power leveling in those. The actual difference between single player and MMO is not grinding, its control. In an MMO you can't edit your save file to give yourself more gold, the time honoured method of doing it in solo games.

The root cause is still people's willingness to cheat at every game ever, its just that MMOs don't allow people to cheat for free with an editor they got from the net.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what grinding is. I am defining grinding as: Repetitive gameplay that you don't want to do, in order to attain something in the game (xp/gold/etc) which could lead to buying (xp/gold/etc) from 'goldfarmers' in MMO's.

No, Sphere, there's more than one choice

Caliborn clearly expressed a third option:

"I have no interest in perosnally playing a grinding game, and agree that it would be a good thing if non-grindy alternatives existed, but am not offended by the mere existence of grind-games, as they seem to be a successful product which many people enjoy"

I did not include nonsensical options. There is obviously something wrong with such a response to the question: Do you personally like grinding/goldfarming?

1) You expressed your personal distaste for grinding, thus answering the question.
2) It is irrelevant what other people like, as you are not being asked to speak for them.
3) You really believe that other people would choose to grind if they had the option not to?

---

More importantly Sphere is conflating the existence of tradeable items with the existence of grinding. That is clearly not true. Grinding refers to a specific subset of play, namely repetition of rote learned static content. If the items aren't coming from that then grinding is out of the picture.

Incorrect. I merely made the argumentative items/grinding assumption in order to prove a point to Crissa. Specifically, that a non grinding game could exist.

The real reason for gold buying is not the existence of grinding. Grinding exists in many single player games and noone buys gold or power leveling in those. The actual difference between single player and MMO is not grinding, its control. In an MMO you can't edit your save file to give yourself more gold, the time honoured method of doing it in solo games.

The root cause is still people's willingness to cheat at every game ever, its just that MMOs don't allow people to cheat for free with an editor they got from the net.

You are missing the point completely. The reason grinding exists is because people are forced to in order to attain xp/gp/etc.

The actual difference between grinding in single player games and MMO's is the motivation of the gamemakers. In single player games, the gamemakers simply want to make the best game possible (In order to sell the game). So the existence of grinding in single player games can stem from 2 reasons:

1) The gamemakers didn't intend for there to be grinding, and they don't think their game has grinding points, but any particular gamer might disagree.
2) The gamemakers did intend grinding points to pad the length of their game. (This is not to be admired).

Grinding in MMO's serves a fundamentally different purpose. MMO's generate money from a monthly subscription. So to maximize profits, and therefore the number of months the game is played, the gamemakers include as much grinding as possible. In other words, they are directly paid more money the more time players spend grinding to get more xp/gold/etc. As a result, they put so much grinding in the game that some players aren't willing to do it. This is where goldfarming comes from.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Grinding in MMO's serves a fundamentally different purpose. MMO's generate money from a monthly subscription.

Except for the ones that don't. Some MassMOGs get their money from people doing the equivalent of pumping quarters into a slot machine trying to get better gear. Some MassMOGs get their money from people paying to make their characters prettier than other people's.

So to maximize profits, and therefore the number of months the game is played, the gamemakers include as much grinding as possible. In other words, they are directly paid more money the more time players spend grinding to get more xp/gold/etc. As a result, they put so much grinding in the game that some players aren't willing to do it. This is where goldfarming comes from.

Grind often exists anyway, for a number of other reasons. Goldfarming is similarly orthoganal. I never played City of Heroes, but AFAIK it was 90% grind, and I don't think it had any tradable items.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Grinding in MMO's serves a fundamentally different purpose. MMO's generate money from a monthly subscription.

Except for the ones that don't. Some MassMOGs get their money from people doing the equivalent of pumping quarters into a slot machine trying to get better gear. Some MassMOGs get their money from people paying to make their characters prettier than other people's.

Sure. I think it was pretty obvious I wasn't adressing those MMO's. In any case, would you agree with the sentiment that such business practices are destructive?

So to maximize profits, and therefore the number of months the game is played, the gamemakers include as much grinding as possible. In other words, they are directly paid more money the more time players spend grinding to get more xp/gold/etc. As a result, they put so much grinding in the game that some players aren't willing to do it. This is where goldfarming comes from.

Grind often exists anyway, for a number of other reasons. Goldfarming is similarly orthoganal. I never played City of Heroes, but AFAIK it was 90% grind, and I don't think it had any tradable items.

It doesn't matter if a specific game has tradable items or not. The questions for that game are: Does this game, which is 90% grind, lengthen the number of hours played so that the number of months played will raise the revenue of the game company? Does 'goldfarming' exist in the form of characters bought that have more xp? (Or some other rubric of measured power?)