Talk:Mudflation
Untitled
[edit]"The mounts or other forms of faster travel cost large amounts of money but have a bonus only in convenience thus acting as a dynamic money sink only taking money away from the people who have an excess of it."
I don't necessarily agree with this statement. In acquiring a faster mount, there's less downtime between gold making activities. It directly effects your ability to farm tradeskill materials. Zarcath (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Mudflation should not be merged with Gold Sink. The two topics have no relation. Gold Sinks are an economic tool to combat virtual inflation. Mudflation is Virtual Inflation. At best, Gold Sinks should be a sub-topic within Mudflation.
Alby 21:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Alby
- I agree, it would be silly to merge this with Gold-Sink. Not least of which because, for one, Money Sink is a better descriptor than Gold sink - many games use "Gil", "GP", or other terms such as eve's "isk". Will 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The examples of dynamic money sinks are incorrect. The fact that item-repairing or mounts increase in cost as they increase in level isn't a dynamic money sink, as the costs do not increase over time (they are not dynamic) to compensate for the inflation. Besides, why take world of warcraft as an example several times for a feature that has been in nearly every MMO since Ultima Online, except to give WoW free advertising on wikipedia? quintal78.115.221.98 (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Second Life as an example for Mudflation
[edit]Second Life cannot be an example for mudflation, because:
- you can sell the virtual currency back to Linden Labs (for real money)
- there is no game mechanic implemented
- avatars have no levels or skills (no game mechanic implemented) - so there is no "might" you can gain
- in SL you pay not for a good weapon but for file uploads, server capacity or virtual goods created by users
Thus using SL as an example for mudflation is wrong.