The farmer needs a lot more than tools. He needs weapons to defend against wild animals and bandits, some sort of container to hold his grain, maintenance on his buildings, etc. There are some people he won't interact with that needs his grain like miners, but they can still get grain through the blacksmith. In such a system, you could see a merchant role emerge. His role would be to carry a large inventory of everything and provide goods that would be inaccessible normally, like a miner trading iron ore for bread. All a currency does is provide convenience. It is not required to run an economy.

Aaah, I see where you're coming from. I was definately looking at it too basically.
How would a player become a merchant to begin with? One resource would have to be supplied to him with which he could barter his services as merchant, in order to grow? This is not a role I would choose to take on within the game - too much risk, hard to start-up (I'm thinking it's a role that is often given to NPCs), but it certainly opens my eyes to how such a system could work.

And then your point "All a currency does is provide convenience." - I would say that players want convenience.
And so, short of any genuine reason not to have currency (a lore point, for example), it would be a smarter move to include it.


Wyrm.

For currency to have any value, the player needs to be able to exchange it for something of value. It has to come from a non-player driven mechanism. NPC vendors usually provide this mechanism, but it could be anything like wages or property taxes. If you need to pay 100 gold per year to have land to be able to grow your grain and you can get 10 bags of grain per year, then that means 10 gold can always get you 1 bag of grain if you put in the labor. If you can't get anything non-player driven for your money, you will get massive inflation until it's worth the raw material used to create the money(usually nothing). Everquest was like this early on. All high end item sales were done as trade. You would trade one item for another. No platinum was used because it was worthless.

For the merchant players, I'm assuming they would emerge after a while once economy stabilizes. They could amass items through some basic job. After saving a lot, they would have enough items to start walking around and trying to barter for more diversity. Players would accept to pay a bit more because they provide a service by coming to them with everything they might need, which saves them time. Trading large quantities with 1 person is faster than running around the town trading with a dozen persons.

I'm done with this discussion. Bye.

May your future errands grant you peace and gracefulness.

They're certainly not necessary. A game can exist without them, but then relies heavily on active player input.
What do you see as the benefits of a "free market system"? What about disadvantages?
To me, having NPC vendors gives you - as the developer - a control over the market. Whether their prices change, or stay constant, it gives you an opportunity to step in and change the economy if you don't like where it's going.
Without NPCs you have no control (short of making your own characters to try and force change), if things "go bad" - how are you going to recover the economy? Or do you rely on a bullet-proof system from day one?

I see the benefits of a free market system where resource production, conversion, creation (etc) is a driving force for the game. Greed lets players profit and want to grab more. There is an incentive for players to act based on supply and demand - e.g. the main oil producers are stockpiling too much oil and not supplying the world trade with enough, the big oil consumers go to war over it until equilibrium is re-achieved and then eventually another resource is up for grabs.

Actually, you may have control but this all depends on what the setting of the game is and how it works. An NPC is just another proxy for how you as a dev interact with the players in a virtual world. I know for my game, as a dev I will rebalance the economy by affecting how the natural resource generation works. For example, if there is an excess of coal being generated into the game due to whatever reasons, such as high demands have led to high supplies, players have misconceived the importance of coal, or maybe the algorithm in which new areas are being produced has just randomly created too many coal providers, then as a dev I can tweak the mechanic for generating new nations with new players, so that less coal is being created as a resource in new countries,and compensate with another useful resource, like gas or whatever.

Disadvantages? Yeah, you need to have player input. You are relying on players to create both supply and demand for goods. This may be tricky, but pulling it off with the right incentives for players to take part in your game is the magic of creating a game, I feel.

I hope that makes sense.

You don't want an accumulation of money in the system. Or rather, you don't want an excessive accumulation of money in the system.
If you have too much money flowing into the system, and not being sunk, the prices of everything go up and "prices" in general become redundant. You want a constant flow of money, through the players, not an accumulation.


Wyrm.
[/quote]

Yes, agreed. I didn't mean to say it was desirable to get an accumulation of money btw.

I don't assume anything, just answering your question. What do you mean by "money sinks"?

Actually, you said that it was unfair for new players who had less money than the rich ones, so yeah, you did make the assumption that this price raising would happen half-way through the game starting.

A money sink is the opposite of a money source. The same way you have a heat source and a heat sink.

A money sink would be anything that costs money really. Whether it's paying for items, travel, land, healing, bribing, whatever.

They will still profit from it, and if the demand is high enough players will buy and they wont have to sell to NPC.
However if the prices go down too much, having an NPC with fixed prices is a fallback, so the players wont have to sell too cheap and still earn good money.
And the NPC's could only sell common goods like copper etc, and only a certain amount per day/player to benefit the server.

How does that work? Why would they be selling above the NPC price in the first place? They would only be able to sell cheap, and even that's assuming they can gather that resource/item at a cheaper rate than the buying price from the NPC vendor - e.g. from the environment, loot, etc.

With regards to the common goods being supplied by NPCs, why yes that's actually pretty useful. Sometimes you need a quick currency exchange to something with more use. Plus, maybe that way you won't have crafters/merchants having monopoly of basic goods, but would have to specialise into more higher-value or niche goods. So yeah, good for pointing that out, I might use it.

Aaah, I see where you're coming from. I was definately looking at it too basically.
How would a player become a merchant to begin with? One resource would have to be supplied to him with which he could barter his services as merchant, in order to grow? This is not a role I would choose to take on within the game - too much risk, hard to start-up (I'm thinking it's a role that is often given to NPCs), but it certainly opens my eyes to how such a system could work.

And then your point "All a currency does is provide convenience." - I would say that players want convenience.
And so, short of any genuine reason not to have currency (a lore point, for example), it would be a smarter move to include it.

Wyrm.

Yeah there are many ways to pull it off - that's your job to be creative. The example Tiblanc gave is something I'd agree with.

For merchants, it depends on the game, but essentially players/countries/factions will grow, produce more but also consume more. You can design the game so that everyone has an imbalance of what they produce and what they consume, forcing them to either trade or attack each other for useful resources. When one player recognises that they have something of value in abundance, which other players might need, they will offer it in return for currency or resources or service etc.

Actually, you said that it was unfair for new players who had less money than the rich ones, so yeah, you did make the assumption that this price raising would happen half-way through the game starting.

Based on this statement yes:
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=2]

[color=#666666]"As a game dev, you could counteract this by making things cost more, such as travelling, skill training, levelling up etc etc, and by doing that you are adding function to that currency and giving it more value. This doesn't apply to currency only, but any resource really.[/font]"

How does that work? Why would they be selling above the NPC price in the first place? They would only be able to sell cheap, and even that's assuming they can gather that resource/item at a cheaper rate than the buying price from the NPC vendor - e.g. from the environment, loot, etc.

You're misunderstanding me. Let me explain. If the NPC buys copper for 10 gold, the player will obviously sell it for atleast 11 gold to another player or he "can just go to the NPC and sell it" commonly used in tibia and other games.

On the other hand, if the NPC sells copper for 15 gold, the player can never sell it for more than 15 gold, because then the threats to go to the NPC comes from the buyer instead. Put a maximum cap per day on the amount of resource the NPC sells to each player and you have somewhat steady prices, but still a means for players to set their own prices above those of NPC.

But me personally I wouldn't play a purely resource based economy game. Because it makes it inconvinient, sure there might be a market for it, but it's a very niche market. And it will be extremely difficult to balance.

Coins is a means to put a price on items, the players manage this very good themselfs, You can still have a resource and accumulation based economy, just that the oil vendor wont have to give away too much oil for something of less worth. In a resource based economy players are forced to trade useless items just to get the full worth of their items, while coins is more measurable.

But if noone values these coins, they become useless, so it is still resource based. This is how economy works, and there is a good reason for it. Even in the stoneage they used pieces of rock to do this.

Based on this statement yes:
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=2]

[color=#666666]"As a game dev, you could counteract this by making things cost more, such as travelling, skill training, levelling up etc etc, and by doing that you are adding function to that currency and giving it more value. This doesn't apply to currency only, but any resource really.[/font]"

How does that imply anything?

You're misunderstanding me. Let me explain. If the NPC buys copper for 10 gold, the player will obviously sell it for atleast 11 gold to another player or he "can just go to the NPC and sell it" commonly used in tibia and other games.

On the other hand, if the NPC sells copper for 15 gold, the player can never sell it for more than 15 gold, because then the threats to go to the NPC comes from the buyer instead. Put a maximum cap per day on the amount of resource the NPC sells to each player and you have somewhat steady prices, but still a means for players to set their own prices above those of NPC.

How would they sell it for 11 gold? This doesn't make any sense. Why would a player pay for a big order at a rate of 11 gold and not a small order of 10 gold? Bulk orders should be cheaper if anything.

But me personally I wouldn't play a purely resource based economy game. Because it makes it inconvinient, sure there might be a market for it, but it's a very niche market. And it will be extremely difficult to balance.

EVE Online?

Coins is a means to put a price on items, the players manage this very good themselfs, You can still have a resource and accumulation based economy, just that the oil vendor wont have to give away too much oil for something of less worth. In a resource based economy players are forced to trade useless items just to get the full worth of their items, while coins is more measurable.

But if noone values these coins, they become useless, so it is still resource based. This is how economy works, and there is a good reason for it. Even in the stoneage they used pieces of rock to do this.

No, coins are a means to exchange resources easily. They don't necessarily have to reflect the true value of what is being sold.

Why would the oil vendor give away something of less worth? They'd be losing money.

Why the hell would you have useless items in your game anyway? Look at the 3rd heading in my OP. And if coins supposedly reflect the value of those 'useless items', how in the hell does that make them more measurable than the items themselves?

Players need to acquire goods for whatever reason, be it war, crafting or whatever the endgame scenario is for the game. Currency can be introduced in order to allow for these goods to be exchanged more easily than bartering. Economy is good when resources are being extracted, they are crafted/converted and value is added to them, and they are being supplied to those people who demand them, in return providing other people with the resources and items that they need. Some provinces have an abundance of some materials and the other provinces have other materials. When one province gets hold of too much value of materials, war and theft can occur in order to break the imbalance. Money flows from pocket to pocket and the world is being productive and destructive.

How would they sell it for 11 gold? This doesn't make any sense. Why would a player pay for a big order at a rate of 11 gold and not a small order of 10 gold? Bulk orders should be cheaper if anything.

It's obvious, unless the player pays what the seller wants, the seller simply goes to an NPC. And you are the one to mention bulk, i am comparing same amount whatever the price. bulk of 10 could be 100 gold and 105 gold, it would be retarded to sell for less than what the NPC offers wouldn't it?

Why would the oil vendor give away something of less worth? They'd be losing money.

Why the hell would you have useless items in your game anyway? Look at the 3rd heading in my OP. And if coins supposedly reflect the value of those 'useless items', how in the hell does that make them more measurable than the items themselves?

Misunderstanding me again, the oil vendor might not need 14 shovels from the shovel producer just to meet the worth of HIS oil, the oilvendor doesn't give extra items to get rid of the oil obviously that would be retarded. But every item is not useful to every player, thats why economy was introduced in the first place, the first account of currency is from 2000 B.C. Do the math, why would you want to go backwards in your game?

Players need to acquire goods for whatever reason, be it war, crafting or whatever the endgame scenario is for the game. Currency can be introduced in order to allow for these goods to be exchanged more easily than bartering. Economy is good when resources are being extracted, they are crafted/converted and value is added to them, and they are being supplied to those people who demand them, in return providing other people with the resources and items that they need. Some provinces have an abundance of some materials and the other provinces have other materials. When one province gets hold of too much value of materials, war and theft can occur in order to break the imbalance. Money flows from pocket to pocket and the world is being productive and destructive.

I think the contrary will happen, players will have a difficult time getting rid of the accumulated goods without a general currency, and a economy like this is very much dependant of the community, how exactly will that community grow? dont expect to get full servers and flowing exchange in the beginning.

Anyway I don't know if you misunderstand me on purpose or are too in love with your idea to understand my points. I'm not trying to change your opinion, my last posts have been trying to explain my first post.

Let me know how successful your economy is once the game is released.

It's obvious, unless the player pays what the seller wants, the seller simply goes to an NPC. And you are the one to mention bulk, i am comparing same amount whatever the price. bulk of 10 could be 100 gold and 105 gold, it would be retarded to sell for less than what the NPC offers wouldn't it?

No I am sorry it is not obvious. Why would you even bother going to a player vendor to buy copper when you can buy copper from the NPC, unless like I originally said, the vendor can get hold of it even cheaper than the NPC rate, e.g. theft, loot, etc

Why would the oil vendor give away something of less worth? They'd be losing money.

Misunderstanding me again, the oil vendor might not need 14 shovels from the shovel producer just to meet the worth of HIS oil, the oilvendor doesn't give extra items to get rid of the oil obviously that would be retarded. But every item is not useful to every player, thats why economy was introduced in the first place, the first account of currency is from 2000 B.C. Do the math, why would you want to go backwards in your game?

Of course I am going to misunderstand you if you make no sense. Why would you even put non-useful items into the game? If however, you mean, one resource is not useful from the perspective of the oil vendor, then he's not going to trade oil for that resource and the value of that resource is now reduced. Why would I want to go backwards? Sorry, but WTF does that even mean?

I think the contrary will happen, players will have a difficult time getting rid of the accumulated goods without a general currency, and a economy like this is very much dependant of the community, how exactly will that community grow? dont expect to get full servers and flowing exchange in the beginning.

Anyway I don't know if you misunderstand me on purpose or are too in love with your idea to understand my points. I'm not trying to change your opinion, my last posts have been trying to explain my first post.

Let me know how successful your economy is once the game is released.

LOL what? Why does it suddenly have to be difficult if every player needs to either trade or fight in this game? How will that community grow? Ever heard of a mechanism known as advertising or marketing, perhaps?

Don't expect to get full servers in the beginning? No, I never said I would. And why would it have to be full in order to function?

Too in love with my idea? What idea? When did I even propose my game idea here? I am just summarising real life economics in a basic way that can be implemented into a game! You, however, are talking crap that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Unless someone else could please clarify your points in a manner in which I am capable to comprehend, other than the idea of NPC for basic goods, everything you've said seems illogical to me.

And when did I ever say I will make a successful game? I'm merely having a discussion. Whether my ideas are brilliant or absolutely stupid doesn't matter because it is the implementation of making a game in the final run that matters - we are not discussing that part of the process.

You are trying to make me sound pretentious when I'm really not.

You might give some consideration to making money (coin) a focussed resource as well. One way in which I could see this utilised:

Each country produces it's own coinage - inflation/deflation becomes the control mechanism on its purchasing power. Utilising precious metal resources to produce the coins would open up another use for the metals as well as defining a limit on how many coins could be produced. Not to mention the creation of a monetary exchange system. Backing the coin with an actual value i.e. the gold standard would tie up precious metals kept as backing for the coins value or alternatively the coin itself is made of gold..in which case if gold suddenly became very valuable would melting down the coins suddenly be viable and correspondingly forcing an increase in bartering as the amount of coin diminishes.

Same stuff as previous quotes.

I will make one last try to explain it as I would explain to my 4 year old little brother.

1) NPC both BUYS and SELLS copper.
2) BUYING price = 10 gold for 1 piece of copper.
3) SELLING price = 15 gold for 1 peice of copper.

This makes it useful for players with alot of copper, when the demand is low and supply is high, to STILL MAKE SOME PROFIT by selling to NPC. Mkay?
Since the NPC BUYS copper for 10 gold a piece, the player SELLING the copper wouldnt SELL for LESS than 10 gold to another player right?
Say he gets offered 9 gold from another player, this means he would lose 1 gold by selling to the player instead of going to the NPC.

Benefits: Keeps a steady lowest price for goods once they are too available, and still makes good profit for players who wants to get rid of these quick.
Call it a parachute for too much inflation.

On the other hand, the player might want to try his chances and make more profit, he might not need the money right away, so he waits until a player that has reached his daily cap of copper from the NPC (remember 15 gold per copper bar) so the player SELLING this copper can make a bigger profit, if he is patient.

This benefits both kinds of players, patient and impatient. While providing a means of controlling the economy from spinning out of control.

Next we will cover the NPC SELLING copper. We agreed on 15 gold right?
"So why does he sell it more expensive than he buys it?" you might ask.

You see my friend that is to keep a margin in between where you as a developer see the currency fit considering the mechanics you introduced in the game. (accumulation rate etc).

But remember there is a maximum amount of copper available from the NPC per player and day.

Example: Player 1 needs 5 copper bars, NPC only allows him to buy 1 each day.
This leaves our player with 2 choices, be patient and economic, and wait for five days buying 1 bar of copper every day, summing up to 5 days multiplyed by 15 gold = 75 gold.

On the other hand he could just buy 4 from another player. at the price of lets say 20 gold for the ease of multiplications. this has lost our player 20 gold, but he gained 4 days in waiting time choosing to buy from another player.
He could also wait until a player sells his copper bars for less than the npc SELL them for (not BUYS try not to mix them up this time). Which could be 14 gold.
This way BOTH players benefits from 1 single transaction, where the SELLER SELLS for MORE than he would to the NPC.
And the BUYER BUYS for LESS than he would from NPC.

Benefits of the merchant NPC: Keep a roof on the prices.

In this 1 transaction, the real resource of value is the copper. But the gold helps the players buy this copper.
What if the buyer only had oil, a crate of oil might be worth 200 copper bars. and he only needs 5. He might not want 195 copper bars lying around.
That is why currency is good. This is why we have used it for 4 thousand years.

If you don't get it this time I give up.

You might give some consideration to making money (coin) a focussed resource as well. One way in which I could see this utilised:

Each country produces it's own coinage - inflation/deflation becomes the control mechanism on its purchasing power. Utilising precious metal resources to produce the coins would open up another use for the metals as well as defining a limit on how many coins could be produced. Not to mention the creation of a monetary exchange system. Backing the coin with an actual value i.e. the gold standard would tie up precious metals kept as backing for the coins value or alternatively the coin itself is made of gold..in which case if gold suddenly became very valuable would melting down the coins suddenly be viable and correspondingly forcing an increase in bartering as the amount of coin diminishes.

That definitely sounds good mate, might be hard to implement in my game but perhaps it can give a better function for the 'precious metal' resource in mine. i don't know if this has been used elsewhere. Perhaps it would be easier to have one universal currency which could have its uses in things which other resources do not, like paying wages or funding research or skills. Nonetheless I'll take what you said into account.

In this 1 transaction, the real resource of value is the copper. But the gold helps the players buy this copper.
What if the buyer only had oil, a crate of oil might be worth 200 copper bars. and he only needs 5. He might not want 195 copper bars lying around.
That is why currency is good. This is why we have used it for 4 thousand years.

If you don't get it this time I give up.

As I said for about the 5th time, currency is great for exchanging goods.

Well lets put this bluntly, hustlerinc. It is impossible for the player to profit by selling to the NPC without finding a cheaper alternative, such as loot or theft or by-product of resource extraction. And what did I say before? Almost exactly that.

In the case you have explained, the player must sell to another player who does not have the benefit of an NPC. And what did I say before? You cannot have a good economy with just NPCs, you have to have some free market for players to make profit and here we are - a situation where the NPC cannot provide the excess of goods to the player's demand and thus another player must provide this on a private trade.

And why does this mechanic control inflation? - because you're introducing a reliable exchange to convert a currency into a more hard or functional asset or service within in the game. Effectively introducing a money sink. And I wonder I said at the start when I introduced this topic?

And this other stuff about resources must be useless to someone? Well, as a dev you have to design this problem out of the game. As I said...

I hope we are all getting the picture now.