Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:09:02 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Archived: We distort. We decide.  |  Topic: The MMOG Economical Flaw 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The MMOG Economical Flaw  (Read 47718 times)
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #140 on: October 19, 2005, 01:31:18 PM

..) is a smile. Like justice, politeness is blind..P


And I still fail to grasp your point. You claim that inflation will render quests useless, which I fully agree with! What I have tried to point out is that inflation it not an economical problem per se, but a game designing one. A "rl" quest market would indeed clear and find an equilibrium where all quests pays the same amount for each time unit spend doing it. Which would be the same as the best possible reward you could get for monsterslaying. A forced system, as they appear today, never clears, and thus some quests are underutilized. I perceive no major difference between questing and grinding gaming-wise. I would say that we agree with eachother.:)

Laissez-faire could, I believe, very well exist in an online game setting. I use the term as it was explained to me, that it's the opposite to regulative actions on the market. Regulative, as an example, would be the subsidy effect a NPC merchant would provide for tradeskill players, and not in the terms that you use it, the "shaping" itself of the background. I still believe it is a poor crutch, as the correct way of correcting the problem would be, I feel, to make tradeskills appealing from the start.


I interpreted your choices in the way that you was of the opinon that you could "pick" the parts of the economy that you liked. A laissez-faire approach is in no way a choice, but an approach. Again, however, I feel that my rather basic understanding of the English language might have perverted my intended meaning.


Btw, from my, rather shaky, recollection of national economics, the correct "other side of the coin" for employment is actually inflation, and not growth..)

Lax
koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #141 on: October 20, 2005, 02:47:53 PM

..) is a smile.
  Maybe, if you’re a flounder! Rimshot

I’m just messing with you.

I still fail to grasp your point. You claim that inflation will render quests useless, which I fully agree with! What I have tried to point out is that inflation it not an economical problem per se, but a game designing one. A "rl" quest market would indeed clear and find an equilibrium where all quests pays the same amount for each time unit spend doing it. Which would be the same as the best possible reward you could get for monsterslaying. A forced system, as they appear today, never clears, and thus some quests are underutilized. I perceive no major difference between questing and grinding gaming-wise. I would say that we agree with eachother.:)
  Mostly yes we do agree with each other, but there are still a few sticking points.

  First off the difference between questing and grinding is that to put a monster into a game is a matter of writing half a dozen lines of code whereas when a developer puts a quest into the game someone had to write the scripts for all the dialog, someone had to lay out the dungeon and script the monster attacks, someone had to draw up a loot table and someone had to check it for bugs, for each and every quest. Short answer grinding costs the producer a lot less than questing. Also to grind is rarely regarded as ‘fun’ by the players.

  Secondly, the inflation is an economic problem because if the developers don’t understand the economics of the problem they have no way of knowing how to fix them. That said, you are right it must be the design which is fixed and not the economy per se.
Laissez-faire could, I believe, very well exist in an online game setting. I use the term as it was explained to me, that it's the opposite to regulative actions on the market. Regulative, as an example, would be the subsidy effect a NPC merchant would provide for tradeskill players, and not in the terms that you use it, the "shaping" itself of the background. I still believe it is a poor crutch, as the correct way of correcting the problem would be, I feel, to make tradeskills appealing from the start.
  I used the term Laissez-fair as a bit of a double entendre. The doctrine of Laissez-fair basically states that the economy should be left alone to find its own path to balance, like letting the path of thousands of little tributaries form the shape of a mountain stream. But developers don’t have the luxury of leaving it alone, they're building the mountain. Every decision they make in the game’s construction will alter the course of the economy. Whether the economy will resemble a river, a waterfall, or a lake, depends on the decisions of the developers during production.

  Sure developers should fix trade skills but if that was all that they did they would do nothing to fix the problem of stagnant mechanics in a dynamic economy.
I interpreted your choices in the way that you was of the opinon that you could "pick" the parts of the economy that you liked. A laissez-faire approach is in no way a choice, but an approach.
  First of all, I don’t advocate a laissez faire approach. I do however certainly advocate more dynamic and freer systems. As such I have no problem in having certain forms of market regulation, be they antitrust (anti-monopoly) systems, some form of contract law (in game lawsuits), or even (heaven forbid) subsidies. The choice is how, to what extent, and in what way, to enact these regulations.
Btw, from my, rather shaky, recollection of national economics, the correct "other side of the coin" for employment is actually inflation, and not growth..)
  But growth causes inflation and increases jobs, so at least in this day and age growth = inflation.

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
LoH
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2


Reply #142 on: November 05, 2005, 07:41:12 AM

Alrighty - this is a hot spot for me and I'm going to present my .02 - agree with it or not, some basic facts players tend to overlook remain.

It doesn't really MATTER how much gold is stacked up in an ecomony.  Nope - it doesn't.  Other than bragging rights (which are important to some - but you usually don't know what anyone else has so it's a moot point) that it will cost me more if I have more simply isn't true. What drives up prices are people demanding more - and in a simplistic MMO scenario - every player has the right to say - uhhhh - yeah, good luck with that - you are on crack. The only effect it may have is if folks have too much they don't REFUSE to buy at that price. It's not the economy - it's people themselves that are actually doing it - to themselves.

I've heard this same argument since day one - so far, WoW is the only game I've played where it's actually been visible as a reality instead of simply a perception of the players.

I've had shops in every game I've played but WoW - my prices are set based on cost to produce - and although I played for years - except when source materials changed prices - my prices NEVER changed.

Ok - so players often have this perception - but if you look around, you can find reasonable prices - what's different.

The model where there is one primary source of goods (the AH) in WoW is the problem.  Convienent yes, but there is no private sector checks and balances on it at all - and that model is self-reinforcing.  I look to see what the going price is on the AH - and price, that's a HORRIBLE model to try to keep inflation down - especially when customers perceive they have no other options for obtaining those goods.

Another entire branch of an economic model is missing entirely.  I've often recommended this - especially when I was playing SWG with their focus on resources but I haven't found it in action - till I played Puzzle Pirates.  Why is there no buyers market in these?  That is also a natural break - or sanity check if you will, on prices in the marketplace. Fluctuations happen - but not nearly to the degree they do unchecked.

Yet another way to keep this from happening is by use of NPCs - pricing that sets a benchmark, and NPCs that also RESELL what they've purchased at a markup.
Again, if there is a POTENTIAL to get goods at resonable prices somewhere else - enough people keep looking till they find them that although you can ask anything you want for an item - whether or not you'll actually GET it is an entirely different conversation.

What that leaves us with is lack of goldsinks.  Everyone will eventually be wealthy - that's not necessarily a bad thing - but what makes money lose it's value is NOTHING TO SPEND IT ON.  Goldsinks have to go back out of the world, not just between player's hands. Goldsinks don't have to be tangible either - rich players want luxury items for bragging rights, or just plain fun.

So remember folks - next time you think the price of something is outrageous - JUST DON"T BUY IT.
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #143 on: November 05, 2005, 09:07:31 AM

Sorry, I think that you are wrong. On many lvls.


Demand might drive up price, but we are not talking about demand derived price fluctuations - but about inflation derived from the availability of money. Moderate fluctuations in demand is healthy for an economy. You havent attributed the search time into your calculations. If your clients need to search to find your cheaper goods, that time spend is ALSO a cost, and thus, your prices are higher than you think.

It does MATTER  how much gold is stacked up - since afaik no NPC in any mmog have ever taken the amount of gold circulating into account when setting their prices. Thus inflation affect the game, ie. it was harder to get a horse earlier on in wow than it is today, due to the increased availability of currency in the game.

You changed your prices when raw materials changed price - welcome to inflation, remember that your time is also a raw material.

The AH isnt a "source of goods". It is the players that are the source. The AH market is just that - a market. A market decreases transaction costs (which you can have different opinions about, ie EC tunnel vs Bazaar for interactiveness)

What is a "buyers market"? Im intrigued.


Goldsinks are a poor way to try to solve a market failure. I'd rather see that mobs didnt drop currency.



I interpret (perhaps due to my lacking englishskills) that you dont understand inflation from your last statement. Inflation is a term describing the situation where the amount of currency have risen faster than the total worth of goods in the economy. That means that the "outrageous" price isnt outrageous anymore, since there are so much cash around to pay for it. What pisses ppl off is that there is individuals ( and lately, companies) that spend all their time getting money, which, comparatively, deflates the worth of your time spend doing that..



I know Im bad with teh english.

Lax
Shockeye
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 6668

Skinny-dippin' in a sea of Lee, I'd propose on bended knee...


WWW
Reply #144 on: November 05, 2005, 09:29:50 AM

I know Im bad with teh english.

Hey, you're doing better than some native english speakers I know.
LoH
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2


Reply #145 on: November 05, 2005, 03:53:33 PM

A buyers market is where you post much like the AH - but in reverse.

You put up a deposit - and say you want to buy X amount of Y for Z.

MMOs have one surefired hedge against the worst case scenario of what you are calling inflation - it's called the crafting mule.

People get TOO greedy - you either get it from your guildies - or make it yourself.
Honkwomp
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2


Reply #146 on: November 06, 2005, 06:56:54 AM

Unless the economy is the game, you do not need the economy to mirror the real world.  Not only that, you don't want it to.  The only real economy you need in a game world is someplace players can get stuff and someplace they can use stuff. I started playing UO in 1999, and before I started playing, I read the boards.  Once of the first threads I encountered was how the economy was broken

In a general sense, the economy works if :

Players can get stuff they value for a price they can handle , and players can sell stuff of value for a price they deem fair.
     All the rest of the crap that goes along with a "real economy" is just getting in the way

If you want a nice economy sub game, more power to you.   But it matters little to me if it is as simple as the UO model or more complicated.  But here is what I know.  If monster x gives 500 gold to my buddy, but only gives 200 to me, that seems unfair.   If that happens simply so that the game economy can model the "real" economy, well to me that is just plain stupid

koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #147 on: November 17, 2005, 09:56:33 AM

  Fight necroposts with necroposts, that’s what I always say!

  Ok, first up, I can say nothing bad about the proposal for buyers markets; it's just a good idea.

BUT
MMOs have one surefired hedge against the worst case scenario of what you are calling inflation - it's called the crafting mule.

People get TOO greedy - you either get it from your guildies - or make it yourself.

  You have the right idea but the wrong inflation. The type of inflation which is combated by using a crafting mule is price inflation. In such a case goods in the market, like weapons, armor, and heals, are being sold for not only more than the equilibrium price of the good (econ term meaning the price most people will pay for a good), but it is being sold at a price which is more than the cost of enlisting a guildmate to re-roll as a crafter, train up, gather resources, and produce the good. This is the textbook answer for why a producer can not just charge anything they want, even if they are a monopoly. If price is too high new producers will enter the market and drive down price through competition. So in that regard your right...

  But that’s not the type of inflation which I am warning against. I am concerned with the inflation of capitol (read: gold), in a system where the government (read: dev team) have instituted price ceilings. In this situation prices are set (by a number of factors) lower than the equilibrium price.

  To put it in appropriate terms let’s have an example. Let’s examine three people in a game, a crafter, an NPC shopkeeper, and a buyer. Let’s say that the buyer has 20 gold pieces, and for the sake of argument let’s say that the crafter and the shopkeeper are selling there goods at the same price, cost plus, or 5 gold pieces. It’s a happy productive world just as god and the devs intended... Ok so now let’s say that the value of gold is inflated. This means that the buyer who used to have 20 gold now has 100 gold, but is no richer for it because each piece of gold is worth one fifth of what it used to be. Now we look at the situation again, the shopkeeper still sells the good for 5 gold pieces but the crafter must now account for inflation and so charges 25 gold pieces. The inflation has caused the NPC shopkeeper to essentially lower it’s prices by the inflation rate, this will mean that eventually if inflation is left unchecked the NPC will sell the good for less than the cost of crafting. So as inflation grows it bumps EVERY crafter, even the mules, out of the market.

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #148 on: November 17, 2005, 01:31:08 PM

Unless the economy is the game, you do not need the economy to mirror the real world.  Not only that, you don't want it to.  The only real economy you need in a game world is someplace players can get stuff and someplace they can use stuff. I started playing UO in 1999, and before I started playing, I read the boards.  Once of the first threads I encountered was how the economy was broken

In a general sense, the economy works if:

Players can get stuff they value for a price they can handle , and players can sell stuff of value for a price they deem fair.
     All the rest of the crap that goes along with a "real economy" is just getting in the way

If you want a nice economy sub game, more power to you.   But it matters little to me if it is as simple as the UO model or more complicated.  But here is what I know.  If monster x gives 500 gold to my buddy, but only gives 200 to me, that seems unfair.   If that happens simply so that the game economy can model the "real" economy, well to me that is just plain stupid
So let me sum up that last bit for you
Quote
"Not perfect yet," some bread makers exclaim, "We work just as hard at making our run-of-the-mill-bread as those frou-frou French bread makers do. We should be paid the same as them!"
Read the fucking article! This is the same, "fuck you I’m walking off this cliff just like everyone before me has cause there are a hundred of them and only one of you so they must be right" argument. It’s just ignorant of the facts.

But perhaps I’m being unfair so I will attempt to make my points more clear.

Fact one: It's an economy, stupid!
  An economy exists anywhere two people interact.
  MMOGs have more than two players interacting.
  QED
  An economy exists within an MMOG.

Fact two: you can’t opt out of the economy
  The real world constitutes an economy
  You live in a real world economy
  You don’t give two shits about economics
  You are a participant in and have an effect on the economy
  QED
  Even if you don’t give a fuck about an economy you have an effect on it

Fact three: devs have to give a shit about the economy
  The devs create the world
  The world includes the means of production: resources, tools, and procedures.
  QED
  The devs control the means of production.
  Production in the form of goods supply defines goods price
  The price of all goods define money demand
  Money demand defines value of money
  QED
  The devs control the value of money

Fact four:  players and programmers get screwed in bad economies
  Part one:
    Inflation causes prices to rise for Crafters
    NPCs don’t change prices according to inflation
    One symptom of bad economies is inflation
    QED
    Crafters get priced out of the market in bad economies

  Part two:
    A game’s content is the sum of all programmed encounters (henceforth known as quests) which is the work product of programmers.
    Each quest has tasks and rewards
    Rewards are objects and or gold accrued by completing the task
    Inflation reduces the value of all products including gold
    Value of tasks = difficulty * time * tasks’ content.
    Inflation reduces the cost of swords, armor, and heals, which make the tasks easier and quicker to complete.
    QED
    Inflation reduces the value of all programmers’ work product

  Part three:
    Players who prefer fighting over crafting (henceforth known as fighters) value content
    A game’s content is the sum of all programmed encounters
    Inflation reduces the value of all programmed encounters
    QED
    Bad economies make the game suck for fighters

Conclusion
  If economies, which you interact in, and developers control, fail, they make the game suck for players, be they crafters or fighters, while destroying the value of the work of programmers.

  I’m not sure I can make this much clearer.

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #149 on: November 17, 2005, 04:22:32 PM

Fact two: you can’t opt out of the economy
...
Even if you don’t give a fuck about an economy you have an effect on it

Non sequitur.  You already defined economy as interaction, so I can opt out of an economy by refusing to interact.  It would better defined as a system of production, distribution, and consumption; but I can opt out of this as well.  You can opt out of IRL economies as well via subsistence farming, assuming you can get around property tax.

Quote
Production in the form of goods supply defines goods price

False.  In a pure capitalist environment price is determined, mostly, by supply and demand (ignoring market segmentation, etc) of the product AND money.  Fluctuations in money supply/demand will independently affect price points just as much as product.  The nasty part is that these two variables offer some amount of positive feedback to each other.

Quote
The price of all goods define money demand

No.  Utility is also a function of money.  In MMOGs, other factors affect money utility such as social status and achievement.  That is, wealth is an end unto itself independent of goods/services.  However, the ability to trade money for goods/services significantly affects the demand for money.

Quote
The devs control the value of money

Because devs do not control all aspects of utility, both for money and product, they are unable to entirely control the value of money.  What remains is significant, however.

Quote
Fact four: players and programmers get screwed in bad economies
...
 Crafters get priced out of the market in bad economies

Non sequitur.  For one, just because something bad happens to a player doesn't mean it is necessarily bad for programmers; it may be part of the game (eg, PvP).  Further, you are assuming unlimited supply at NPC vendors, which is not always true.  They sometimes have limited or no supply of a particular craftable.  In fact, it has sometimes happened that a certain craftable has no supply at NPC vendors and a greater demand in the PC community than at NPC vendors, making NPCs irrelevant with respect to a given craftable.  Crafters may get priced out of market, but that's not an absolute.

Quote
Inflation reduces the cost of swords, armor, and heals, which make the tasks easier and quicker to complete.

False, by definition.  Inflation has the opposite effect; prices increase.  Of course, you are here confusing goods and money.  A glut of product in an economy is not, for example, inflation.  If the sum of all products were to increase while the amount of money remained constant, you would actually have deflation due to the increased purchasing power of money. 

Quote
Inflation reduces the value of all programmers’ work product

A quest does not have value in an economic sense.  Nor can you really try to argue it in, since any perceived value of a quest includes the "difficulty" and "time" variables  you mentioned, which is dependant upon the player doing a quest.  Hence any value gained from doing a quest is indeterminate.  The rewards are reasonably determinate (perhaps randomized, but within set parameters so as to have an average).  Since reward was defined as both money and product, the actual value of a given reward is dependant upon the ratio of money and product, and may serve to deflate.

Quote
Inflation reduces the value of all programmed encounters
QED
    Bad economies make the game suck for fighters

More non sequitur.  First, it is already demonstrated that the assertion is wrong.  Second, bad economies would have no affect whatsoever on fighters who value encounters on their own merits without need of reward.  The assumption is that fighters seek largely/only wealth.  This is already untrue by your definition of fighter; by desiring fighting over crafting, you have already ascribed at least some of their motivation to something other than money, independent of the means of gathering wealth.  Third, you have already stated that NPCs are immune to inflation, which in themselves create a static economy over products they both buy and sell by virtue of simulating a larger economy.  If supply/demand of a product is framed by an NPC, by definition the economy neither inflates or deflates.

Quote
I’m not sure I can make this much clearer.

That is very unfortunate.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #150 on: November 17, 2005, 07:51:21 PM

You can opt out of IRL economies as well via subsistence farming, assuming you can get around property tax.
  Tell the Native Americans that.
Seriously though, the only way to opt out of an online economy is to have no contact with any other player in any way. In which case what the fuck are you paying a subscription for, buy a damn single player game every month with the money and have your lonely fun.
Quote
Production in the form of goods supply defines goods price

False. In a pure capitalist environment price is determined, mostly, by supply and demand of the product AND money.
  That’s the nominal value of money not the real value

  But to be clear I am making the assumption that we are discussing a moment in a generic case and in such a case everything is constant relative to the previous moment unless changed by the added variable. If the example were the ejecting a probe from a space shuttle then we would not need to conceder in what direction the subject was going or any other initial conditions because both bodies would have the same initial conditions.
 
  So if supply is the only thing changed the price for any amount demanded is the only thing affected.
Quote
The price of all goods define money demand

No. Utility is also a function of money. In MMOGs, other factors affect money utility such as social status and achievement. That is, wealth is an end unto itself independent of goods/services. However, the ability to trade money for goods/services significantly affects the demand for money.
A) Why the hell are you talking about wealth?
B) Once again as compared to a concurrent control state the only effect on money demand is the change in the price of goods in the market. And to clarify (perhaps not for you) money demand is, in part, affected by the consumers in the market needing money to buy things. So when players need more money to buy the same products they demand (read: want) more money.
Quote
Fact four: players and programmers get screwed in bad economies
...
 Crafters get priced out of the market in bad economies
Non sequitur. For one, just because something bad happens to a player doesn't mean it is necessarily bad for programmers; it may be part of the game (eg, PvP).
Read the whole thing before you post.
Further, you are assuming unlimited supply at NPC vendors, which is not always true. They sometimes have limited or no supply of a particular craftable. In fact, it has sometimes happened that a certain craftable has no supply at NPC vendors and a greater demand in the PC community than at NPC vendors, making NPCs irrelevant with respect to a given craftable. Crafters may get priced out of market, but that's not an absolute.
  In my experience NPCs either have something or they don’t. One of the things I am advocating is more reactive NPCs, but until then any craftable product which is sold in a shop with a fixed price will, with inflation, destroy the compaction for said product. Which is why I say fix NPCs or take them out, because in the end there is no way for crafters to compete with price ceilings. But perhaps the conditional should be set: in all cases where NPC shopkeepers exist that sell craftables at a fixed price with infinite supplies. But I didn’t think I needed to say that, as that conditional doesn’t exclude anything from the set.
Quote
Inflation reduces the cost of swords, armor, and heals, which make the tasks easier and quicker to complete.

False, by definition. Inflation has the opposite effect; prices increase.
A good catch, through and through. I was making an unstated assumption. I mistakenly used the word inflation instead of saying inflation in conjunction with price ceilings.
A quest does not have value in an economic sense. Nor can you really try to argue it in, since any perceived value of a quest includes the "difficulty" and "time" variables you mentioned, which is dependant upon the player doing a quest. Hence any value gained from doing a quest is indeterminate. The rewards are reasonably determinate (perhaps randomized, but within set parameters so as to have an average). Since reward was defined as both money and product, the actual value of a given reward is dependant upon the ratio of money and product, and may serve to deflate.
  I really don’t understand what your talking about. Difficulty and time are attributes of demand just as they are in any other exchange. If I have to travel 100 miles over unpaved roads to purchase one bag of rice, and only 20 miles on paved streets to purchase another, then my demand will be lower for the one further away than it is for the same one which is closer. Time and difficulty are not only well defined attributes of supply and demand but they are easily translated to the example.
  As for reward it makes no difference from an objective point of view what the hell you get rewarded with. All commodities have a value, be they weapons, armor, or gold, and the sum of all values is the value of the reward.
Quote
Inflation reduces the value of all programmed encounters
QED
 Bad economies make the game suck for fighters
[…]Bad economies would have no affect whatsoever on fighters who value encounters on their own merits without need of reward. The assumption is that fighters seek largely/only wealth. This is already untrue by your definition of fighter; by desiring fighting over crafting, you have already ascribed at least some of their motivation to something other than money, independent of the means of gathering wealth.
  I know SirBruce, and you sir are no SirBruce!
  If you had read the entire post you would have read
Players who prefer fighting over crafting (henceforth known as fighters) value content
  I didn’t say a damn thing about the reward so what the hell are you going on about?!?!
You have already stated that NPCs are immune to inflation, which in themselves create a static economy over products they both buy and sell by virtue of simulating a larger economy. If supply/demand of a product is framed by an NPC, by definition the economy neither inflates or deflates.
  In all honesty, what the hell are you saying?
Quote
I’m not sure I can make this much clearer.
That is very unfortunate.
  That’s a nice glass house you’ve got there.

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #151 on: November 17, 2005, 09:32:14 PM

Seriously though, the only way to opt out of an online economy is to have no contact with any other player in any way. In which case what the fuck are you paying a subscription for, buy a damn single player game every month with the money and have your lonely fun.

No trade = no participation in the economy.  If the NPCs do not remember inventory, and mobs randomly respawn, you have no effect on an economy if you kill/sell/vendor purchase - which is what you are strongly suggesting when you say that crafting market collapses.

Quote
In my experience NPCs either have something or they don’t. One of the things I am advocating is more reactive NPCs, but until then any craftable product which is sold in a shop with a fixed price will, with inflation, destroy the compaction for said product.

How do you figure it's a requirement that inflation will drive prices beyond any arbitrary value?  Inflation occurs when money outstrips product.  However, both money and product are increasing.  Price inflation often does occur since money is increased due to liquidity of product, but not without end.  This is demonstrable.  Within Shadowbane, runes are a requirement for character advancement; yet their drop within the game was regular, predictable, and very rare.  Despite the continued growth of the overall economy, the price for them leveled out.  Why? 

MMOG money is not fiat money.  It is a product just like any other, just one with a function inherit for making barter easy.  As such, the value of money in a MMOG cannot be devalued to near nothing, because production of new money always has a baseline cost assossiated with it; mob farming.  Excess gold will impact price points, but not without end since sans cheating, all gold remains a function of time just like every other product.

Quote
If you had read the entire post you would have read
Quote
Players who prefer fighting over crafting (henceforth known as fighters) value content
I didn’t say a damn thing about the reward so what the hell are you going on about?!?!

If it's confusing it's probably because your arguments are nested, so you have to trace them back.  The only reason that bad economies would suck for fighters is if the fighters somehow cared largely/only about the reward.  That is, if they didn't care about the economy, a bad one wouldn't matter.  Their main interaction with economy is through rewards, which are a result of content.  They interract with purchasing as well, but you have already defined a price ceiling on product due to NPCs, so that side is moot, as it creates a stable economy.  So, bad economies don't make the game suck for fighters, at least per your argument.


-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #152 on: November 18, 2005, 12:11:09 AM

MMOG money is not fiat money.  It is a product just like any other, just one with a function inherit for making barter easy.  As such, the value of money in a MMOG cannot be devalued to near nothing, because production of new money always has a baseline cost assossiated with it; mob farming.  Excess gold will impact price points, but not without end since sans cheating, all gold remains a function of time just like every other product.

This IS the problem (ok,ok, ONE of the problems..) of MMORPGs today! The fact that the actual money value can be derived down to the fastest way of getting it!
Essentially, you have rendered every other way of getting it useless, since the others ways CAN'T change their rvr (or whatever you prefer to call it, payback-, payout ratio etc) to compensate for it. Couple this with an excessive amount of farming that spot, which devaluates the amount of currence already in the game and possessed by players (via seignorage) and you can see why/how inflation affects a game world.

However, again as we discussed, this is = a designer problem. The real problem isnt that it happens today, but that noone have tried to prevent it happening tomorrow afaik..P

[edit] fix'd some formatting..
« Last Edit: November 18, 2005, 12:13:28 AM by Swede »

Lax
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #153 on: November 18, 2005, 08:26:45 AM

This IS the problem (ok,ok, ONE of the problems..) of MMORPGs today! The fact that the actual money value can be derived down to the fastest way of getting it!

Hmm.  I think it is and it isn't.  I mean, because money always has a certain minimum value determined mostly by the optimal effort required to farm it, you don't have to worry about runaway inflation.  On the other hand, it will also virtually require money to be devalued down to this level.  The question becomes then, is there a better way of handling it?  How for example, *could* you setup a fiat economy?  Investment banking doesn't exist in MMOGs, and it would be really complicated to try and set one up so that money filters back through a central bank where supply can be regulated.  Further, you have the additional difficulty of needing a Greenspan-esque individual to judge how to best throttle the economy based on player demand for coin.  This is a tremendous amount of work for a system that works mostly right in its oversimplified, current state.  Are problems with MMOG economies so bad that something like this needs to be introduced in place of other systems - say, guild options, PvP features, etc?  Does it impact fun that much?

There is another problem that is getting lost, I think, because of the use of the word inflation.  Namely, that economies also suffer because of a glut of product on the market which drives price points down.  In effect, everyone becomes a millionaire.  The only things of value are either extremely difficult craftable-only items or ultra rare drops, both of which retain value only due to scarcity.  What becomes broken isn't price points, it's that suddenly "need" vanishes from the economy.  IRL, I need food, a house, a car, etc.  I have to have them for survival, and (mostly) therefore I work.  Once needs are met, I may then continue to work for the purpose of increased luxury.  There is always, ALWAYS a bigger house that I could build.  Not even Gates can have everything. 

This isn't true in an MMOG, because there are limitations on product.  Houses only get so big, there are only so many types of rares to collect, etc.  At some point you do have everything, so the only thing left is to have more of them than anyone else.  And you never really need anything, because your needs are so easily taken care of. Whereas IRL my needs take up a majority of my budget (house, food, car, gas, insurance, day care, elec, etc), only a miniscule amount of my MMOG budget is taken up by needs (weapon, armor, regs, etc).  It's a world where everyone is rich.  To a point maybe this is OK, because it wouldn't be much fun to play a game where you're always impovrished, but bears some considering.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #154 on: November 18, 2005, 08:37:50 AM

Well ... Should the devs provide players with a monetary system at all, or leave that to the players to establish? Im a sandboxer as far as mmogs go, so for me, that doesnt sound as crazy as it might be...


------

Is a fiat monetary system necessairy? Can there even be one without a governmental backbone keeping it stable? Will barter systems automatically create currency to lower transactional costs?

-----

As K said, economical systems, and markets, tend to happen even if we want them or not - why not let the players run it them selves? Alot of them/us likes that challenge..

Lax
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #155 on: November 18, 2005, 11:34:42 AM

Well ... Should the devs provide players with a monetary system at all, or leave that to the players to establish? Im a sandboxer as far as mmogs go, so for me, that doesnt sound as crazy as it might be...

What do you mean?  It sounds like "no gold drops".  That reduces an economy to a barter system and would pose difficulty with any sort of NPC vendor due to lack of a base value for products.  How is that an improvement?  Or did I miss what you were getting at?

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #156 on: November 18, 2005, 01:09:30 PM

no that was pretty much what i was going at..

Do we need NPC vendors? Or are they just a crutch? Everything essential from npcs could be made available tru player tradeskills... barter systems would eventually develop some sort of currence of their own I bet.. Instead of the hassle with inflation related problems today - wouldn't this be prefered?

Lax
Typhon
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2493


Reply #157 on: November 18, 2005, 07:21:27 PM

The Stone of Jordan (SOJ) in Diablo online (or was it Diablo 2?  Diablo 2, I think) is very similar to the "develop currency of their own", so I'd say that thinking was correct (although in an odd way, because money existed in D2, it just was worthless for buying anything anyone wanted, so it wasn't useful as a trade arbiter).

Seems easy enough to create a currency, have mobs drop "mana" which is needed in all crafting, and can be combined up (10 lowest combine to 1 next lowest, etc).  I think this might be the money sink (inflation counter) that y'all are looking for - give the base item of trade some utility in and of itself which prevents too much from building up.  Crafted items enter the game at a rate proportional to how money leaves the game.

Sure, it's not exactly like a monetary system (where the money is supposed to be abstracted from goods or services), but so what?  I dont know, I'm tired, maybe this doesn't make as much sense as I think it does.
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #158 on: November 19, 2005, 10:46:27 PM

Do we need NPC vendors? Or are they just a crutch? Everything essential from npcs could be made available tru player tradeskills... barter systems would eventually develop some sort of currence of their own I bet.. Instead of the hassle with inflation related problems today - wouldn't this be prefered?

NPCs are needed because a crutch for dev-generated economies are needed.  If you break your leg, you have a real crutch because you need it.  But I'm getting ahead here - you're talking about two different things.

A barter system just means eliminate the use of gold.  That's not exactly fun - money has importance in society because it is convenient.  It is nothing more or less than the commonly accepted physically represented store for value.  You can pick anything, but because you have something universal, you have something to enable ease of trade.  The problem of inflation or deflation is that it harms this store; you can't easily use your money if it is unreliable as a store.  Still, barter isn't forbidden just because you have coin; but barter is not usually better (more fun) than using gold.  Why?  Well, it's more complicated - which is why people came up with money to start with, and why game trades usually include exchange of gold, not goods.  Otherwise, I'm left with A for trade, need B, and have to find someone in the opposite circumstnace.  With gold, I can sell A, use gold as my store, and purchase B when able.  The two situations do not have to coincide.

As for NPCs, they often form ceiling/floor for the economy, as well as prop up parts of crafting which may either not exist, or be boring.  Without them for example, it may be possible to hyperinflate an economy with duping.  Or disrupt production of certain items enough to harm the overall economy.  NPCs can often become a safety net incase anything goes wrong; no matter what else, you can still buy the essentials.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #159 on: November 20, 2005, 01:44:38 AM

well... currency in real world solves alot of problems as you said - but alot of those problems arent present in a game world.. (ie storage of goods realated issues, general decay, etc.). Aren't you just applying the standard thinking without considering that RL != Game?

For the rest of your post, everything you say again derivates from the poor design of the game, and not from some magical formulae that gives currency>barter. Don't make tradeskills booring - dont give loopholes for duping - dont make a game where there arent enuff alternatives so that a few can disrupt a whole chain of making - assess supply of material at any given time and change when needed etc... You might need a crutch because you broke your leg, but you also might wanna try to prevent the leg from breaking in the first place...

Lax
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #160 on: November 20, 2005, 10:52:02 PM

well... currency in real world solves alot of problems as you said - but alot of those problems arent present in a game world.. (ie storage of goods realated issues, general decay, etc.). Aren't you just applying the standard thinking without considering that RL != Game?

No because trade is trade, whether RL or game.  If I need to trade, a money based economy is superior to a barter one, for reasons given above.  However, a money economy introduces problems that need dealing with as well (inflation, etc).  Much about RL economies don't apply - for example, investment is non-existant in MMOGs, and there doesn't seem to be much reason to introduce it.  However, basics of economics do apply merely because we are talking about wanting a basic economy.

Quote
For the rest of your post, everything you say again derivates from the poor design of the game, and not from some magical formulae that gives currency>barter. Don't make tradeskills booring - dont give loopholes for duping - dont make a game where there arent enuff alternatives so that a few can disrupt a whole chain of making - assess supply of material at any given time and change when needed etc... You might need a crutch because you broke your leg, but you also might wanna try to prevent the leg from breaking in the first place...

You can sum that up as "make a game that doesn't suck".  Make tradeskills un-boring?  That's normally the intent, but building fun is hard.  Don't have dupes?  Not going to happen.  Again, it's not like devs decide one day "you know, I think we'll introduce dupe bugs into our game".  Don't let a group of players hijack supply?  That's hard if you want anything to be rare.  Rare anything requires limited supply, which suggests it can be dominated by a coordinated group.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #161 on: November 20, 2005, 11:52:01 PM

um..

I was merely stating that alot of the reasons why we use currency in RL isnt a factor in a game - different variables gives a different solution.. not that we dont "want" an economy

Lax
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #162 on: November 21, 2005, 09:24:09 AM

Barter is "bad" for a massive market MMOG as an economy, because if all you are left with for economy is a barter system, you cut out the soloers. Bartering is social gameplay, and MMOG's have shown that the mass market doesn't want to rely on completely social gameplay. That was one of the failures of Asheron Call 2's no-NPC design; in order to engage in the economic game, you had to find other players.

I'm not saying putting social gameplay in is bad, but like forced grouping, it shuts out a good proportion of mass market customers, especially if there is no alternative. Besides, even with a NPC/money economy, that doesn't preclude those who like barter from doing it. It might be nice in an MMOG to have both a WoW-style auction house and a Live Bazaar area. In the Live area, you have to "hawk" your goods and haggling is de rigeur. You cannot sell your item for more than the last recorded high price on the Auction House, but you can sell it for lower.

Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #163 on: November 22, 2005, 01:27:00 PM

Barter is "bad" for a massive market MMOG as an economy, because if all you are left with for economy is a barter system, you cut out the soloers. Bartering is social gameplay, and MMOG's have shown that the mass market doesn't want to rely on completely social gameplay...

Interesting topic.  Are there actually two problems? 1) controlling inflation and income within a game, and 2) deterring farmers.  They're connected obviously, but might be useful to view independently.  Ignoring farmers for a moment, I don't understand why barter isn't useful.  If you limit the available currency (e.g. only certain mobs, and control payouts by configuration) and allow PC's to barter with NPC's for other goods, wouldn't that be more interesting?  And what if the high-ticket items were themselves items that could not be traded to help control farmers?

Not sure what's already been debated and dismissed by game designers around economic and RMT problems, but I always thought reducing currency and supplementing it with a barter system might help.  Point me to some other discussions on this if you could.  Thanks.
Roac
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3338


Reply #164 on: November 22, 2005, 01:44:54 PM

Not sure what's already been debated and dismissed by game designers around economic and RMT problems, but I always thought reducing currency and supplementing it with a barter system might help.  Point me to some other discussions on this if you could.  Thanks.

See a few posts above, where I talk about why barter systems suck.  Less specifically, it's annoying and not fun to people who actually participate in bartering as the only/primary means of trade.

-Roac
King of Ravens

"Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us." -SC
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #165 on: November 22, 2005, 01:55:09 PM

Not sure what's already been debated and dismissed by game designers around economic and RMT problems, but I always thought reducing currency and supplementing it with a barter system might help.  Point me to some other discussions on this if you could.  Thanks.

See a few posts above, where I talk about why barter systems suck.  Less specifically, it's annoying and not fun to people who actually participate in bartering as the only/primary means of trade.

Sorry, should've added that I was idealizing having the NPC's know the current real value of the item and it would be a challenge to barter to something reasonable.  I'll read the whole thread.  :-D
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #166 on: November 22, 2005, 02:11:17 PM

IF bartering with NPC's were a decent mini-game, it might be fun. Bartering with people, though? Only fun for some, and I'm not one of them. No game stops you from doing this currently, they just don't make it the only means of trade.

Pococurante
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2060


Reply #167 on: November 23, 2005, 12:33:27 PM

Interesting topic.  Are there actually two problems? 1) controlling inflation and income within a game, and 2) deterring farmers.  They're connected obviously, but might be useful to view independently.

I consider them very different.  One is a design challenge, the other a customer support responsibility.  I have no problem w./ RL sales of VL items but I still expect CSRs to deal thoroughly with farmers actively ruining other player's service experience (e.g. kill stealing, PK/training to hold spawn spots, etc)

Barter always happens - it's better to code in money and let the players define the barter system.
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #168 on: November 23, 2005, 02:47:40 PM

why?

Lax
Daeven
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1210


Reply #169 on: November 23, 2005, 05:33:22 PM

Two words: EVE Online.


Can you please expand upon this?

Koboshi, outstanding read, even if it has been written about before.  Only flaw I see is that there are limits to resources in RL as opposed to in MMORPG's.  This has obvious impacts on the issue also. 
That strikes me as the intrinsically obvious answer to mudflation: make resources finite. Make it so there is only X amount of 'gold', therefore a vast hoard becomes a target. Thereby spawning conflict.

And now you have a game.

"There is a technical term for someone who confuses the opinions of a character in a book with those of the author. That term is idiot." -SMStirling

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4701


Reply #170 on: November 23, 2005, 06:01:38 PM

Quote
And now you have a game.

Instrinsically obvious, but not easy to implement. That hoard would have to be awfully accessible to targetting, or the game locks up like (extremely) early UO. Once you've made it accessible, the player or guild in control needs to guard it, likely by catassing. If they succeed, the game locks up like ShadowBane.

Very few consumers like to be on the losing side... the life of a revolutionary striving to overthrow a great power works well in fiction, but Joe and Jane gamer in a similar situation tend to play serfs for a short while, and then leave. Zero Sum: The Rich Get Richer! is not a realistic MMORPG.

if at last you do succeed, never try again
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #171 on: November 25, 2005, 07:31:41 AM

Great topic, testical tweaking aside.  Although sometimes that's helpful too.  Still interested.   

If we agree that if NPC bartering as a system is built intelligently into the game (i.e. it is tracked and indexed centrally so there is an invisible hand at work) it could alleviate the need for some of the gold supply?   It could act as a means of throttling some of the need and thus some of the supply for gold?   The existing alternative are sinks.

If so, what about extending this further and controlling the overall money supply.  Index available currency to total player currency wealth (i.e. how much coin is in game with PC's). If you have the technical means to monitor and index all NPC barter transactions (since there is a finite catalogue of goods to trade as assets in the game) you might be able to monitor and track all PC gold.  If you can do that, then you would have the technical means to do more interesting design with things like barter.  You would also have the means to consider ways of helping new players over veterans who are more wealthy, since time-in-game is still the only non-RMT way to gain the most wealth. 
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4737

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #172 on: November 25, 2005, 07:36:28 AM

That strikes me as the intrinsically obvious answer to mudflation: make resources finite. Make it so there is only X amount of 'gold', therefore a vast hoard becomes a target. Thereby spawning conflict.
And now you have a game.

Or better yet, make resources decay. 

Making hoarding a risk with mini-sinks from design ideas like theft, or decomposition, or spoilage or whatever.  Crafters could maintain small amounts of resources they really prize, and have to likewise maintain sane amounts of grinding resources they don't care about.  Anything above some design limits starts to drip.  Don't like the idea otherwise of finite resources -- finite nodes like in WoW maybe, but not overall.
Swede
Terracotta Army
Posts: 49


Reply #173 on: November 25, 2005, 08:15:19 AM

Im torn

Why do they even try to institue a fiat currency system in mmorpgs? When i talk about barter - i dont mean that everyone should run around and try to trade a horse for a sword, but rather some sort of gold standard. I know know gold is a misgiving term in mmorpgs since most players go gold = currency, and not gold = goods. Basicly, why not use a currency that have an inherent value as a trade mean. Since alot of the reasons why we started to use gold and silver standards in RL doesnt apply to games - not just logistical issues, but also the fact that gold, as a resource or good, is laregly worthless in game to players. Why not use lifepotions as someone suggested above, or some sort of standardized stackable equipment? Or why not use _experience_ as currency?

Lax
koboshi
Contributor
Posts: 304

Camping is a legitimate strategy.


Reply #174 on: November 27, 2005, 12:08:49 PM

Why do they even try to institue a fiat currency system in mmorpgs? When i talk about barter - i dont mean that everyone should run around and try to trade a horse for a sword, but rather some sort of gold standard.
  Let me start by saying that the gold standard is not something to we should wish to attain, but rather something we should wish to rid ourselves of. The gold standard is a crutch, or better yet, a couch. Think of when an infant is learning to walk for the first time, in the beginning they literally climb up on things like couches to achieve their upright position.  Then as they become more accustomed to standing and walking they hold on to it for stability. Eventually however, those things to which the baby clings to are actually limiting what they can accomplish, where they can go. And so, eventually, they learn to walk on their own two feet. Likewise the gold standard was at first the only thing sustaining value in currency, then it was simply stabilizing it and finally it was holding the economy back.

  With that in mind there are two perspectives on MMOG currency. One holds that a game's economy springs fully formed from the void when ever the game is turned on because that is how the game was designed. In this instance the programmers have decided the value of money and created it accordingly. The definition of fiat currency. But the other perspective, the one to which I ascribe, is that when the game is first started it initiates the birth of a new economy. But oddly enough this too calls for fiat money. If players are to ever have a currency like the one which the modern world is used to they need a form for capitol, the fiat currency. By having the programming support currency and its transfers, players feel confident that their exchanges and stores of money are secure. But there are two ways which this perspective differs from the previous.  1) Money is not given a value by developers just an availability. (An economist knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.) 2) Any structural elements of the economy, like NPCs, must be fluid, and flexible, or completely removable. (Put a fitted ring on a baby’s finger, and as the baby grows, either the ring comes off, or the finger does.)

  Long story short and ramblings aside, the gold standard can’t be applied until players know what everything in the world is worth. Until then it can only be either all out barter, or fiat currency, you have to pick one. Oh, and to make the decision easier just remember, people like Haemish will cry if you chose the wrong one.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2005, 12:59:57 PM by koboshi »

-We must teach them Max!
Hey, where do you keep that gun?
-None of your damn business, Sam.
-Shall we dance?
-Lets!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Archived: We distort. We decide.  |  Topic: The MMOG Economical Flaw  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC