My concerns for the future of SL...

First of all, I want to commend the Lindens for doing all they can to make SL as enjoyable as possible. However, judging from my personal experience with SL for the past two months, I think there are still some fundemental problems with the basic economic structure of SL that will cause many players to lose interest in SL over the long haul, myself included. I will go through some of these problems and possible solutions:

1. Ratings - Some folks are raising a ruckus about "rate miners," people who rate as many people as possible to get their own ratings up. I feel that I have to do this, because if I don't, my own ratings would represent an ever-decreasing portion of the rating bonus pool, which would mean that I would eventually have to tear down the builds that I have been able to afford up until now. Frankly, however, I'm tired of having to go around all the time looking for people to rate, and I think it's a shame to have to do this just to tread water in this game.

Solution: Cap the 3-part rating scale at 100 points for each, and have each rating expire (go back to neutral, this would apply to both pos and neg) after 30 days. This way, you still have the incentive to go out and meet people, and when your older ratings do expire, you have a choice to hit it up with that person again, or find someone new to rate. But with this limitation in place, you won't have the eventual untenable situation of the "top ten" people having ratings in the 1000's, claiming a majority of the bonus pool, while the *paying* newbs are forced to rate, rate, and rate some more just to stay on the playing field. If this problem is not rectified, many people will simply call it a day and cancel their subscription, which of course, would be devastating to Linden Lab's bottom line.

2. The "fixed" economic pool. As it stands now, the total amount of resources in the whole world is fixed at x amount, which means that extra wealth must come at the expense of the poor. This is simple arithmetic, folks. If there is 2 million $L in the world at this point in time (just an example), and the top 20 people have an average of $50k each, that means the rest of the population will only have a million divided up between them, which means they will only be able to do a tiny fraction of the things that the upper-echelon folks get to do. While this principle may be fine in beta, this simply will not fly for the vast numbers of paying customers...after all, Joe Blow paying his $15 a month will feel he should get to do at least a reasonable proportion of the things that the established old-timers get to do, otherwise, it's "Adios" to SL. That's just basic economic fact...if I pay the same price in r/l as my fellow customer to do something, I expect to at least get a similar level of enjoyment out of it as that person does...it's only fair, right?

Solution: Instead of placing caps on wealth, which would drive away the most successful people in SL, I porpose that sometime before go-live time, that the economic pool be increased by a factor of 5...which means every newb would get $15,000 to start, and the base stipend is set at $5000. This will allow virtually anyone to build pretty much what they'd like and at least compete with the wealthy, established players in a reasonable fashion. There's really no reason why anyone should be constantly be broke in this game, which I hear all the time from players...if people do spend down their cash in a hurry, the weekly stipend should be large enough to put them back on track in short order. Granted, this solution will require 5x the amount of servers that Linden Labs have now, but with 1000's of paying subscribers bringing in the r/l cash, I don't see this as a problem.

3. Intense competition: Granted, competition is what makes this game fun, and indeed, every possible measure should be taken to allow players to compete with each other in a meaningful fashion. But as it stands now, the level of overall competition in SL now is getting a bit too intense for me, and for many others as well. When you constantly have to rate people to maintain your builds, constantly searching for a place to put a voting booth to augment your income, participating in a multitude of contests and events just for the cash - I think this is tiring over the long haul, and distracts from the overall environment of SL, which, to me, is a place to hang out with people and just chill, as will as building and doing stuff just for the fun of it, not to mention expressing one's creativity.

Solution: the solutions to Problem Nos. 1 and 2 will be a big help, but I propose another solution as well: Reward people just for playing SL. Provided a player puts in, let's say a min of 15 or 20 *active* (not "sleep time" playing hours in a 30-day period, they should get an extra cash bonus for that month. If someone pays their subscription for a full year, and meets the min hourly requirement for the whole time, I think they should get a big, fat bonus, something like $50,000...which would be a huge incentive for people to stick with their subscription for the long haul. This is how the theme parks in Orlando stay in business - they have to constantly add more rides and attractions to lure people back, otherwise what's the point of going back for a repeat visit? Newer, bigger, better, more exciting - this is how the real world works, and this is how Second Life must operate in order to survive. If I don't get "more" out of SL the longer I play, the chances are I'll just call it quits and find something else to do, just as I do in r/l.


I could say more, but I'll leave at this for now. I must admit that I've been faced with a series of disappointments the last few weeks which have dampened my initial heady enthusiasm for SL...but if I was a paying customer right now, and was faced with the same level of disappointment I am experiecing now, I'd be seriously considering canceling my subscription right about now, as I wouldn't see the sense of paying r/l cash just to be dissappointed. See where I'm coming from with this?....

J

the idea that ratings would expire seems bad, it seems like it would get very annoying. I find when I rate people they rate me. I dont like rating people over and over again and have recently stopped and usualy dont do it unless they rate me first and I like them or there building ect

If having the ratings expire after 30 days is a bit much, what about every 60 or 90 days? I just think if you have a rating for someone, it should be renewed every once in a while, especially the total number of ratings would be limited to begin with.

Even if there is no time limit on ratings, I firmly believe there should be a cap on the total number of ratings no matter what, as this rate-mining thing is getting a bit old for a lot of us...

J

i think that ratings should be treated more like the money pool, were there is a maximum number of ratings per avatar per catagory. that way you "spend" your ratings more carefully, since by adding one person, you have to withdraw your rating from another.

this thread contains some of the same ideas, it is worth a look.

edit-heh i just noticed, rereading it that you have posted to it, which means you read it, so the link is for all the people who haven't

I agree that the rating system doesn't do what it is meant to do, and that there has to be something to make your ratings more valuable to "give" and hence deter people from rate mining or whatever you call it. However, I have not had the experience that I need to constantly get rated in order to enjoy the game. I have never rate mined, and yet I am able to afford to do what I want to. Granted, there have been some rough spots where I lose $7k in a week, but the economy gets fixed, and I climb back. I think your solution of having to renew ratings every 30 days, while well intended, would only increase the need to rate mine in order to "tread water." People will have to pay close attention to how they have been rated, and when the month, or 60, or 90 days is up, they will need to go out and "renew their ratings. You are correct that this would encourage social activity, but the current system does that now - I have to say that the "rate-miners" out there have struck me as friendly folks, who do a good job in welcoming new players (even if the motivation is lacking).

On the increase of the economic pool - The available funds are tied in directly with the system resources. There is a finite amount of objects/scripts/etc. that the servers can handle, and the economy is in place to make sure no one can take more resources than they deserve. Increasing the amount of money given to a player would mean increasing the costs - if a newb got 15k, each primitive would have to cost $50. This would also lead to in-play inflation, all in all meaning that it would all be the same as it is now. The two ways to bring more money into the economy is to increase the ratio of sims/players (which is happening - 5 new Sims, and inactive accounts are being culled) and an increase in technology that means the system has more resources. A week or so ago, we saw a lot of trouble with the economy - every one was losing a lot of money. However, it was not long before a fix was implemented. The economy is gradually being balanced to be fair to everyone, and there have been and will be some rough spots. Believe me, I have lost more than almost anyone due to taxes during the rough spots.

On competition - to tell you the truth, i hadn't felt this. I don't have a vote booth at 5/8 properties, I don't rate mine, and I don't participate in events. Yet somehow I more than keep my head over the water, and can have a good time doing what I want to, within reason. Now, I think you have a higher rating then me, so I have trouble with the idea that the econ is really hurting you (well, except for that slump I was talking about, but that hurt everyone).

I'm sorry SL has lost some luster, but I say stick with it, I've been here for a while now, and its pretty amazing to watch it grow. It will be good and fun for everyone thanks to the fact we are having conversations like this.

BBC

This is a really good point. Given that the only way to loose a rating point is for the person that gave it to you to widthdraw it, how could a new person hope to compete with someone who has been playing for (say) two years?

Having ratings expire over a period is something I think is a good idea. This gives you a chance to be freed of negatives. I have (I think?) 3 Ive gotten for no real reason from players who Ive never seen since.

Problem I see is how would you know whos expired so you know who to "hit up" for renewal? How would I know, without clicking on everyone every day, who to re-rate? Sounds like a pain.

I would suggest a message to the person who rated that their rating for so-n-so expired, do you wish to re-rate(?).

The rating system is definitely not one that represents what it is meant to. I like Nada's suggestion. Another idea is to give players a numerical rating. I mean like 0-100 instead of just positive and negative. Then a person's rating could be their average and it would be capped by %100. This would limit the amount of money they could get simply from their rating.

That's a great suggestion, Ope....or perhaps a simpler scale where you rate somone on a scale of 1-10, which would result in an average rating of x-percent, from which the bonuses would be based on. This way, you would cut down on the rampant rate-mining, but still have the incentive to be nice and friendly to people, and the old-timers wouldn't have the huge advantage over the newbs as far as the bonus pool is concerned.

Misnomer, I agree with you if the ratings do expire, you should get a pop-up box that tells you that your rating of so-and-so is about to expire, do you wish to re-rate? If you no longer associate with that person, you could just let it go if you want, and have the "room" to rate someone new.

But I could deal with the earlier suggestions of a rating limit per account...basically I would support *anything* that would remove the tremendous advantage that old-timers have over the new incomers...otherwise, I really don't think they would want to bother with it at all...

J