An offshoot from the anti-twinking thread... Any thoughts about economics in games? The most obvious candidates are MMORPGs, though, as I recall, the Elite series also had a modelled economy... Personally, I feel one of the biggest threats to the economies of MMORPGs is the global accumulation of wealth caused by the failure of items to degrade, coupled with unlimited supplies (otherwise once all the PUSDs are handed out, what''s the point of tackling the Ultimate Quest). Of course, this is countered to some extent by requirements for consumption of things like food, but if everyone gets a PUSD (Platinum Uber-Sword of Doom) then the economic value of any sort of melee weapon becomes zero overnight. Either that or the game developers have to throw in a PUSD-2... at which point the entire cycle repeats until the computer runs out of numbers large enough... Anything related to economics is fair game (try and link it to game design somehow though )

Well, I''m designing an single-player game (well, it can be used in a multiplayer way, but never mind that..), and I think I''ve found a way to balance money quite easily..

(it''s somewhat sci-fi, about 20-30 years in the future or so)
Basically, everything has a more or less realistic value; guns, jewelry etc are worth A LOT of money because they shouldn''t be THAT common, and stuff like food (not that food will be in the game, but for an example) will cost basically what you pay for it today...


The way it''s balanced is how much it costs to be trained in a skill.

Skills have 5 ranks, or so. From "Beginner" to "Master", or something like that. When you use a skill, you slowly become closer to the next rank. When you go to a trainer to increase your skill, it''ll cost, say 10000 gold pieces (to use a classic currency) to go from Beginner to Novice.

But if you''ve used that skill a lot, you won''t have to spend as much time learning all the new stuff that comes with the next rank, which means that you''ll have to pay less money, and spend less time with the trainer.

So, in order to balance money, I don''t have to change the value of anything, just how expensive it is to train in skills.


(Also, the player won''t be carrying 50000 gold pieces; he''ll have something like a VISA card that''s tied to his money...)

This is because the standard D&D style RPG model that most MMORPGs are based on doesn''t work with a real economy (for the reasons you stated.) In Starwars Galaxies everything degrades and needs to be maintained. If you do things this way then you should be able to support a more realistic economy.

Other ways to do things would be to make certain objects obsolete after a certain amount of time. This would work out well if players can create their own items (instead of developers designing everything.) First a player with a high weapon creation skill creates the PSUD, but after a certain amount of time a player with a high magic skill creates an anti-PSUD amulete. This makes the PSUD obsolete, and the player with the high weapon skill needs to work on a new sword (Doom Katana or something) that is immune to this new defense.

If it takes long enough for a weapon design to be completed\researched, then you have a constant cycle, with weapons going in and out of fashion and degrading. This is pretty much how any kind of technology based industry works (weapons, electronics, software, cars, etc.) Plus it makes it nice to be a weapon\armor\magic\technology creator because it could make you very rich.

Things like potions and enchanments are only usable once, so they aren''t as big of a problem as weapons. Other things that are purely cosmetic (clothing, different armor designs, tatoos, decorations for your house) can go in and out of fashion (as new things are introduced) and can degrade also, even though their usefulness remains the same.

The only commodity of real value in an MMORPG is experience, which cannot be bought or sold. This leads to a seriously warped economy and society, in which the wealthiest and most powerful are distinguished not by their life of luxury and leisure but by their dedication to ever more difficult and dangerous work, the calcification of the social order, and the perverse halting of the heroic cycle.

The classic heroic cycle begins the hero as a person of low standing but great ambition, determination, and personal prowess. Seeking to better himself and those like him, he stands against the wealthy and powerful whose place at the top of the social order was gained through ancestral or former ability. These powerful individuals do not stand against him personally but use their wealth to hire and equip forces under their direction. Meanwhile, the hero attracts similar skillful individuals through his dedication to his cause. The hero''s smaller force uses its superior skill and tactics to defeat much larger forces, and captures their wealth and equipment to aid their cause. Eventually, the hero''s force equals that of his enemies in wealth and numbers, and the hired forces are either crushed or abandon their contracts to stand with him against their former employers. The hero and his allies now form a new class of wealthy and powerful rulers. Although they may initially hold to their convictions and treat the common classes fairly, they or their descendants eventually fall into the same exploitative patterns as their onetime enemies and the cycle begins anew.

(Note that this is not the only heroic story which has been or can be told; it''s just a common and well-tested archetype.)

However, most MMORPGs seek to externalize the "enemy": they create the "monster race" who spring from the earth fully formed, highly wealthy, well-equipped, and intent on destruction without reason. Through "experience" systems they also make personal prowess and wealth both directly liked to the constant persecution of "monsters". As in the heroic cycle, the new player starts out poor and ill-equipped, but unlike in the heroic cycle he also starts out vastly weaker than the wealthy and powerful. Furthermore, the wealthy never retire to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but endlessly accumulate wealth and power through the slaughter of ever more lucrative "monsters". The same social inequities and abuses of power occur in this system as in the classic one, but without the balancing factor of the inverse relationship between wealth and survival skill, there is no chance of the hero rising from the masses to challenge these inequities.

To remedy this, one solution would be to make monsters truly dangerous and not rewarding to kill in and of themselves. The wealthy would protect themselves from monsters through hiring the poor to kill them; the surviving poor (the heroes), thus toughened through endless combat, could rise to overthrow the rich, who abstain from combat against the dangerous monsters and thus lose their prowess.

Just a thought.
-STC

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

"What does a Eye of the Beholder need with gold pieces anyway? And everytime I kill one, I find between 33 and 64 gold pieces in it''s possesion..."

- words overheard at "Ye Old Ale Shoppe" late one night.

quote: Original post by MSW
"What does a Eye of the Beholder need with gold pieces anyway? And everytime I kill one, I find between 33 and 64 gold pieces in it''s possesion..."

- words overheard at "Ye Old Ale Shoppe" late one night.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-12-06&res=l
:D

If you want some interesting economics, check out www.project-entropia.com , it''s a MMORPG where you can actually invest real money in the game.

------------
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
"It''s all part of the conspiracy of conspirators conspiring to conspire their own conspiracies..."

quote: Original post by SpittingTrashcan
The only commodity of real value in an MMORPG is experience, which cannot be bought or sold. This leads to a seriously warped economy and society, in which the wealthiest and most powerful are distinguished not by their life of luxury and leisure but by their dedication to ever more difficult and dangerous work, the calcification of the social order, and the perverse halting of the heroic cycle.

that sounds to me more like politics than economics. let''s not forget that there is no economy if there is no trade, and one of the most important aspect for a working economy is law - that assumes political stability. economies evaporate when the social-political structure of societies are unstable. introducing a tight cycle of instability is absolutely not, imo, a foundation of a healthy economy.

beware that the rest of the post are sort of ot.

quote: The hero''s smaller force uses its superior skill and tactics to defeat much larger forces, and captures their wealth and equipment to aid their cause.

i cannot agree with this. you''re essentually saying virtue leads to superior skills. you defined hero as virtuous and skilled, but that does not necessarily traslated "superior" skills - it''s a new supposition added to the original definition. it is problematic because it relies on what i''d called "victor''s history," in that just because he/she won and now he/she is commemorated as a hero with all his/her attributes celebrated.

quote: (Note that this is not the only heroic story which has been or can be told; it''s just a common and well-tested archetype.)

the truth is you can''t be a hero if you lose. just in case, if anyone wonders, martyrs are heros and martyrs are winners. hero as a concept is actually quite impersonal - just ask yourself these questions: is it the case that all deeds of hero are heroic? or is it the case that all hero do heroic deeds? the two are very different.

quote: Furthermore, the wealthy never retire to enjoy the fruits of their labor, but endlessly accumulate wealth and power through the slaughter of ever more lucrative "monsters".

the possibility of the rise of a hero you mentioned earlier relies on the failure of this little fact - that the rich not only didn''t slow down but speed up with the advantage they already have. i mean, must there be no joy in advancing with the aid of ones riches? and can we justly deny their riches as the fruits of their own labour? the table has turned, but this is still victor''s history. the only difference is that this time, the rich is victorious.

quote: The same social inequities and abuses of power occur in this system as in the classic one, but without the balancing factor of the inverse relationship between wealth and survival skill, there is no chance of the hero rising from the masses to challenge these inequities.

i''m not sure i can readily agree with the inverse relationship. i''m not quite sure i can agree that poverty leads to better survival skills. one might learn to perserve oneself better in a harsh environment, but it does not then lead to longevity. living in a jungle is different from living in an urban jungle, different skills are required and not all can be considered relevant. as mentioned earlier though, since the rich actually gain more power with their riches, i''ll have to conclude that your supposed inverse relationship is really an ad hoc correlation.

quote: To remedy this, one solution would be to make monsters truly dangerous and not rewarding to kill in and of themselves. The wealthy would protect themselves from monsters through hiring the poor to kill them; the surviving poor (the heroes), thus toughened through endless combat, could rise to overthrow the rich, who abstain from combat against the dangerous monsters and thus lose their prowess.

imagine, if you kill a rich prince none other than because you have the phycial power to do so, do you think you''d be viewed as a thief or a hero?

quote: Original post by LockePick
If you want some interesting economics, check out www.project-entropia.com , it''s a MMORPG where you can actually invest real money in the game.

it''s not an interesting economic issue but an interesting ethical issue related to real money. in terms of economics, there''s nothing new there.

Investing RL money into the game is a horrible idea... That ranks up there with purchasing your characters off Ebay. This rewards those with RL money and punishes those with game time.

I thing degradation is a prime area for economy balancing. If things (items AND skills) can degrade then a service industry will open. If players can learn to fix or repair these things, it becomes a player focused service industry. I mean think about it... If that PUSD gets dull and you never bothered to learn smithing - your hosed unless you can find someone to sharpen or retemper it. And if that ability is NOT available from any NPC''s, even better.

This is one of the larger problems with the economy in Everquest. Monster and vendor loot is easier to aquire and usually vastly superior to player-made goods. This is poor planning and skews the economy very badly. Also - vendors have infinite money. This leads to an economy where you can just farm junk all day long and then pawn it all. Vandors should have a finite amount of cash. Maybe a slowly regenerating pool of money?


God was my co-pilot but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him...

tanikaze,

You are right in that I was off topic. But what I was discussing was not economics or politics, but mythology. I wasn''t speaking of historical events as they actually occur. You are right that legends are history as written by the victors, but it is those legends which we seek to tell in games, and not historical fact. The problem is that without some assistance on the part of the developer, the legend of the revolutionary hero doesn''t work very well in the indefinitely-extended case.

Single player RPGs are very good at telling the first part of the story: the story of the man of superior talent who from his humble origins rises to overthrow an evil empire. The vast amount of growth he undergoes in this quest can be seen as a numerical representation of his rise to legendary status. Once the empire is defeated, the curtain closes and the credits roll. It''s very tidy.

However, single player RPGs are telling only a single arc of what is in fact a cyclical story. The rest of the story also needs to be told for the cycle to turn over indefinite time (necessary, because MMOGs have indefinite timeframes). This story is of how a good ruler presides over a golden age, which then begins to decline as less worthy advisors, successors, and courtiers use sovereign power for their own benefit. Eventually, the empire is once again evil and the stage is set for another hero.

I''d like to reemphasize that this is a legend and not the way things go in history. I''d also like to note that perhaps it will be necessary for designers to step back from this legend and move closer to a historical model in the case of MMOGs.

There, that''s all my OT stuff.
-STC

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".