quote: Original post by Dak Lozar
While doing some preliminary design work on our MMORPG I stumbled across this very article. It was a welcome read... mostly because it supported our design of the economics engine.

Our design had ''pools'' of objects and ''pools'' of money that would be used for the spawn of new mobs or would be repopulated with the loss or destruction of objects within the game.

And you''re proud of this? Basically the Ultima economy model has failed every time they tried to balance it.

Dark Age of Camelot has an interesting idea for keeping inflation down. Basicly, all items degrade with use. With proper tweaking, you have a system where you only keep a weapon long enough to get the maximum benefit from it, then you sell/trash it for a new one. Along with their level-based system for items, you end up with a way to make sure that a +5 Sword of Uberness is a treasure that isn''t carelessly abused and then tossed, while also keeping twinking down to a minimum (using a weapon that''s a higher level than you causes it to degrade faster).

I think the most important thing in an MMORPG economy is to make sure that items do leave the world. Without a scarcity of resources, you have a high level player camping some critter to get the cool item everyone wants and selling it for outrageous amounts of money simply because the ones that WANT said item can''t get it because it''s being camped (in other words, EverQuest : ). If there is no unlimited number of ANYTHING, then keeping a stable economy should be easier, IMO.

I am in appreciation of the Dark Age of Camelot method, I think that immortal items are a severe hindrance to economy models.

This illustrates very well the motion that with infinite rescources an economy can be perfect. Because if rescources can be collected, but once possessed never devalue or dissapear, the system is essentially in a state of constant inflation (doomed to become inbalanced in favour of the players vs. the environment).

Diablo II comes very close to housing this flaw. I suspect the reason it escapes this trap is that players have a very limited capacity to hoard items that they have found regardless of character level. Nevertheless it is a close call and I suspect that this is something to look out for.

So I would say that as develop[ers we should avoid giving characters items that do not devalue, or those items that are immortal should be very rare.

George D. Filiotis
Are you in support of the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide? You should be!

well the economy in eq is pretty much supply and demand and based on how many people have such and such item and are u willing to pay such and such price for that item.

AAAh a MMORPG economy. Thats almost as bad as a real life economy. I remember writing over a page about this in another forum a while back but a database error caused it to be erased.

The problem with MMORPG economies are that two factors are unlimited and that do not degrade as opposed to a real economy with limited supplies that are not everlasting. These two factors are money and items.

These are my personal theories on both:

-Item degration is not very fun, so the goal is to create a stable economy without it.


1. Either set a limit on individual player's held cash based on that player's level, a wealth skill, or by having cash take up inventory slots (i.e. 1000 gold for a slot). I would prefer the last of those. This is to take care of the cash hoarding problem. This will also make it much easier for a game designer to set fixed item prices.

2. Second, you must have a fixed price for every item that exists depending on their strengths. This fixed price will be determined by the number of players who have spent a minimum number of hours online for the past month or so, or another method would be to base it on the average server population for the past month or so.

3. Now, unlike most mmorpgs that I have seen to this day, items sold to NPCs should only cost the same then when they are bought from NPCs. This will help eliminate the problem of item inflation by creating an item sink.


Ok now lets explore what the above does:


-Price inflation will be kept in check by the encumbrance aspect of cash, this will not allow inflation to get out of control.

-Item inflation will be kept in check by same selling and buying prices. Players trying to sell slightly inflated items will sell to npc vendors instead of other players. This will occur until the item deflates to a level of equilibrium. If an item is rarer then it should be (This will most likely occur when the game is first launched)or simply deflated, players will sell to one another at inflated prices until the item reaches its equilibrium level.


What the above essentially does is give the game designers much greater control over the economy.

Umm ok there I go writing yet another page on this...maybe I should be an economics major =P



If anyone sees faults in this please let me know...thanks =)



Edited by - hapaboy on December 14, 2001 7:22:00 AM

quote: hapaboy:
These are my personal theories on both:

-Item degration is not very fun, so the goal is to create a stable economy without it.

You are correct in saying that Item degradation is not a very fun aspect of playing a game yet it is crucial to keeping an economy in check. I personaly feel that you can have item degradation - but you need to provide some mechanism that allows a player to ''deal'' with it. For example, lets say that we have a player that uses a long sword and over time and usage the swords blade loses it edge or the metal itself becomed fatiqued. Allowing the player to set limits or the ammount that he wants to sink into an ''auto-repair'' function of the game would create a money-sink that helps to move the economy along...

quote:
1. Either set a limit on individual player''s held cash based on that player''s level, a wealth skill, or by having cash take up inventory slots (i.e. 1000 gold for a slot). I would prefer the last of those. This is to take care of the cash hoarding problem. This will also make it much easier for a game designer to set fixed item prices.

Fixed item prices are a no-no. At least in my mind. But, I do like your thoughts on cash/money/gold requiring inventory slots or having some sort of weight value. Noone would be able to cart around what I have walked around with in UO over 10,000 gold would weight well, I don''t know how much it would actually weigh but I know that I would not be able to carry it. *GRIN*

quote:
2. Second, you must have a fixed price for every item that exists depending on their strengths. This fixed price will be determined by the number of players who have spent a minimum number of hours online for the past month or so, or another method would be to base it on the average server population for the past month or so.

ACK! Fixed prices might solve the problem with online game world economies but - where is the fun in that? Part of the fun in MMORPGs is looking for the cheapest price for a given item. Or, if you create a certain item, setting it''s price at a value that brings people in to make the purchase. Fixed prices just aren''t the way to go. If prices are fixed... the worries are gone but then so is your economy.

quote:
3. Now, unlike most mmorpgs that I have seen to this day, items sold to NPCs should only cost the same then when they are bought from NPCs. This will help eliminate the problem of item inflation by creating an item sink.

I think you need to go a little further than that. Basically, I see the NPC having a little more knowledge of what the supply and demand in the world. If an NPC is a merchant than it stands to reason that he would have some understanding of what is in demand. So, if I come to a merchant with a thimble, he''s going to laugh at me when I say I want 50 gold pieces for it

And that last bit brings me to this:

I think that merchant NPCs should have knowledge of the supply and demand in the world. If NPCs were given this knowledge then you could change the way in which selling and buying work within the game to something a bit more normal for a game set in the 13th-16th century world.

Bartering.

I invision a player coming up to an NPC merchant and asking him to look at his wares. When the player finds something he likes he would click on the item and a bartering screen would be presented. The player can choose how much he is willing to give to the merchant for the item. Now this requires the player to have some understanding of cost of goods in the world but this is a good thing... right? When the players offer meets the requirment of the merchant NPC he will be allowed to purchase the item.

Not only gold but other items in the players pack can be used in the barter. Take the same scenario... The player sees something he wants. The player selects barter and gives the merchant NPC the ability to see what he is carrying. If the merchant NPC sees somethign that he wants from the players pack, he could suggest to the player that he would trade item A for his item B. Make sense?

I suppose you could set it up so the player could just click buy and pay the price the NPC ask for the item as an optional way of conducting business. I think that most players would opt for the bartering in certain situations...



Dak Lozar
Elysian Productions, Inc.

quote: Original post by Torn Space
I never place "economy" at the forefront of any game design. My theory is that if players wanted to care much about economy, they would be at work instead of playing my game.

This was my number 1 bitch with Ultima Online. How is making chairs for an hour fun? I want to kill demons!

Make the game fun, then make the economy support the game.


Edited by - Torn Space on December 11, 2001 2:57:47 PM

A simple problem exists when you do not make the Economy a central point(not the only central point though). If it ever breaks down, then much of the fun that you talk about will go with it. Every player is dependant upon the availability of goods to equip their characters with. A well simulated economy is like an umpire in a baseball game, absolutely needed and only heard about when something goes wrong.

Kressilac

Sure having an economy is important, especially in an mmorpg... Of course in mine it isnt, because any items that are in production are weaker than the person, but that is another matter. I play a game where the ''pool'' idea is in effect. It doesn''t work for what you guys are thinking of. I have so much money it is pathetic, sort of. In that game you stop buying items at level 10-15 as far as equipment goes, the rest comes from enemies and it hardly anything is rare as far as common equipment goes. There are rare things that do amazing things, but with how the combat system goes they are not needed. It really wouldn''t even effect a battle if someone was equiped with a bunch of raries and another was just a common guy... the ecomony there is still nice, but like a guy said earlier, it all depends on what you need.

Fact 1: As a player, I will do my best to attain as much money as possible, as long as it is worth it to have money.

Fact 2: As long as I can hoard unlimited amounts of cash(theorectically), I will.

Fact 3: Personally speaking, If I can kill someone repeatily by camping next to something that has an item I want... guess what I''m gonna do?

Fact 4: Randomizing what gets what is a great way to stop campers from camping. Just make sure its a group of things that are random, a large group, all around the same level.

Fact 5: You have read 4 facts by now... congrats...

Relatively speaking though, I wouldn''t like a barter system... they always say, "Oh you have a magic Pen of blue ink+3, that is the only thing I want to trade for" No matter what else you have, stupid computer...If people wanna ruin the economy themselves by selling stuff to other players at a high price, let them, just make sure that that item isnt so rare that no other player will see it in his lifetime, I myself don''t see a problem with everyone eventually getting a magic pen+3. It makes the top people keep on edge, until they have a nervous breakdown.

P.S. Someone is begging to die if they give someone the most powerful weapon in the world on a 1 in a 100000000000 chance, and then let it break. I tend to run on if there aren''t any direct questions to answer in a post... ask away.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"

Don''t any of you keep up with Shadowbane?

I think they have a good idea, which you understand in more detail, in the 17meg E3 avi movie they have. Basically, you hire invible NPC''s to do the work for you, such as making a sword, selling the sword, asking for monthly check to continue working, etc. It allows the PLAYER to PLAY, and the NPC to do the WORK. So why your out havin fun, that damn npc is doing your craft making!!

I find the NPC hiring idea perfect, it sovles the mundane "I dont wanna make a chair, I wanna kill demons!!!" problem. Side effect: no crafting. So, you can start with this model and somehow include the crafting skills if you need them....somehow.

They also have a basic economy model, which describes how anything of "worth" are created/destroyed/etc in game.

I fount my point finally, and its time... It''s sort of simple, just make the resources unlimited for a while until something happens. Say someone clears out several areas in your game. This empties the pool when the monsters respawn with thier cash, over time the money builds back up, but in the meantime anyone killed twice will not pay out the second time. The only thing your system should have to worry about is how long to build up the gold again. If it is not limited then people have unlimited money ''fast''. This is really the only problem. If you have a newbie that is rich something is wrong, however a really old player should be able to be rich, as long as he worked for it. If you have to pay to play this game, let them use multiple characters to hoard the money, just don''t let it be easy. Make them have to drop it somewhere where anyone can pick it up. You should be benefiting anyhow since they have to pay to play the game, that is half of what you care about anyhow.

It sounds like half of you are trying to play a game of dnd. Most mmorpg''s I know don''t give a group of 8 people out of 1000 a chance to overthrow the king, and nobody else. Sure you might have some people band together, but it still sounds like you want to have to much control over this game you are gonna be a immortal logged in 24 hours a day doing stuff and expecting players to react, just so you can interact with them. "there goes that group of heroes again, killing off my goblins, guess ill have to do something about them killing my goblins, seeing as how for some reason I don''t want them to kill them." Of course, I''m not directing this at anyone. It is just a game, if you could have a perfect game that is challenging to the point of frustration, or a semi-perfect game that is fun to play because of its easiness, which would you rather play? Be honest too, nobody likes a liar.

"Practice means good, Perfect Practice means Perfect"