One of the things I love about MMOs is the emergent economies that develop over time. When I don't feel like grouping I enjoy searching for ways to cleverly make a buck and build up my character's wealth. As a result I wanted to post to weigh in with some economic design ideas for consideration.
Arbitrage
The simple definition of arbitrage is when a good has different values in different markets. Given the Pantheon philosophy that travel should have a (time) cost, I think it would be great to include some arbitrage opportunities. Vendors in different cities should sell the same goods at different prices, and enterprising players should be able to profit by buying on one side of the world, traveling to the other side, then selling.
For example, let's say a type of metal needed in many crafting recipes is cheaper near certain mountains (presumably where it's mined). This metal can be found all over the world, but one city has the lowest price available. If I wanted to spend my time in this manner, I could visit the mountains, fill my bags with the metal, then travel to another market. If I can charge more on the local auction house than what I paid, I can make money. Of course this is only possible if a player can't simply pick up the metal from a local NPC at the same price I did.
A similar example would be a consumable item that helps with a particular atmosphere, but is only sold on the other end of the world. Adventurers about to encounter that atmosphere will want the item, and creating a means for the trade to flow through players rather than NPCs helps with social dynamics and world immersion.
Lending Markets
One thing I've always wanted in MMOs are available loans. Your character could really use a new item and you are a little short. Why not borrow the money from another player at a reasonable interest rate, buy your item, and repay over time? This interaction is only possible with some help from the system, as the loan would either need to be collateralized or payments automatically withdrawn from future earnings of that player. Could be run through a bank, but I like the idea of a player driven, competitive lending market.
Seasonal Costs
Many goods and services have different costs throughout the year, and it would be cool if Terminus worked the same way. When fruit is in season it is cheap and abundant. Similarly items can also have different prices based on their age (ie cheese, wine, whiskey). Another cool mechanic would be to let players take advantage of the seasons if they plan ahead: buy cheap, hold onto the item, sell later to make some coin.
Personally I love when a game's economy is driven by players. The requirement for money sinks necessitates NPC vendors, but why not create these vendors in a manner that can still allow players to engage cleverly with the economy? Would love to have a discussion about these or similar ideas.
I like where your head is at, but I doubt whether the lending markets would be feasible from a logistics standpoint. If you lend to player A, all player A would have to do is give said money to player B, and delete the character. If you create a system where, if that happened, you would be guarenteed reimbursement from the game after a certain period of time, then players would knowingly lend to a a player A, then give money back to lender and delete character. That way the lender would get the original amount back, plus the guarenteed reimbursement from the system. Not sure how such a system could work without obvious glitches.
MMO economy is very important to the feel of a game. I like the arbitrage idea, however I suspect it would require a significantly larger effort than simply applying a flat value to items.
What's important to me is an in-game economy that is meaningful and can resist inflation. No doubt the dev team has already considered various currency sinks for the game design. Granted it's much easier said than done; if a game dev could make an economy system that is immune to inflation I might suggest they govern a country instead!
randomrob82 said:I like where your head is at, but I doubt whether the lending markets would be feasible from a logistics standpoint. If you lend to player A, all player A would have to do is give said money to player B, and delete the character. If you create a system where, if that happened, you would be guarenteed reimbursement from the game after a certain period of time, then players would knowingly lend to a a player A, then give money back to lender and delete character. That way the lender would get the original amount back, plus the guarenteed reimbursement from the system. Not sure how such a system could work without obvious glitches.
Thanks for the feedback! I think the key thing to keep in mind is that some loans will need collateral. If I am lending to a low level character but they can put up a valuable item for collateral, I don't have to worry as much about that character vanishing. And high level characters would be less risky as well. Guild resources could also be used as collateral in certain circumstances. Under no circumstances should the game create new money to fulfill loans.
This feature would certainly not be trivial, but I think adds to the player driven economy in a good way.
MettleRook said:MMO economy is very important to the feel of a game. I like the arbitrage idea, however I suspect it would require a significantly larger effort than simply applying a flat value to items.
Yeah, you're definitely right about that. Just because I can make a little coin on a trade doesn't mean I will, especially once the time/cost of travel is factored in. To determine if a trade is good value:
(Sell Price - Buy Price)(Quantity) - Total Cost
If that number is substantial then it's a good arbitrage play. So if devs want to implement something like this it would require a careful consideration of which items and price differentials could be utilized.
Asah said: I like the idea on devs setting sale prices for players. They could associate a player sale cost or range included in item info based on rarity and quality to control the inflation
That does remove some of the player to player interaction, and is entirely bypassable by simple trades between players. If an item has a wrong price set, of simply if players control the market of a low drop rate item, it's easy no to use automated trades and work like in 99.
cenalan said:Arbitrage
Lending Markets
Seasonal Costs
Thank you for the post. The game economy is something I am passionate to see succeed.
I take your point about Arbitrage. In some games the economy is exploited to take advantage of this phenomena, such as WOW, where goods could be transferred from Horde to the Alliance markets in the early game. Black Desert Online does this in a more formal way by encouraging players to develop caravan networks to exploit this system. Whilst interesting, after a very short time they cease to be fun mechanics. I believe the work involved doesn't and cannot yield sufficient rewards vs the time involved.
I don't agree with you on Lending Markets, in much the same way I don't believe gambling should be part of the game. Effectively, both mechanics create debt and situations were some players cannot afford to pay back loans or encourage players to gamble money they cannot afford to lose. Debt isn't fun, fundamentally.
I've never come across Seasonal Costs in a game. The nearest example I can think of is in Secret World were players would horde large amounts of treasure chests before an expansion, because during the next expansion a new chest would come out making the old one rarer and more expensive to buy. In general, I like the idea of seasonal prices for crafted and raw materials. It would add a new dimension to the economy.
Also, Mettlerook, brought up inflation:
"What's important to me is an in-game economy that is meaningful and can resist inflation. No doubt the dev team has already considered various currency sinks for the game design. Granted it's much easier said than done; if a game dev could make an economy system that is immune to inflation I might suggest they govern a country instead!"
I agree that controlling inflation in a MMORPG is essential to an in-game economy. I disagree this is a hard thing to achieve. It is a constant source of frustration for me to see game economies ruined by inflation which can easily be controlled. It only becomes an issue when real life currencies enter the fray. A game such as Pantheon has a closed economy and thus inflation can be manipulated with ease using tax banding. I'd like to give an example:
'Apple' RRP = 5, Costs 0 to scavenge, 3 to =grow/make. You sell for 5 and make a good profit.
'Apple' = Tax Band A which means Selling for:
1-4cp = 0% Auction House Tax
5cp = 1%
6cp = 2%
7cp = 4%
8cp = 8% etc
In a system like this you can easily undercut a competitor, particularly if you are willing to take a hit on profit, perhaps to push out a new competitor to the market, or maybe just to help the community, or to empty some bank space.
The manufacturer can make/grow far more than can be scavenged and thus can afford to sell for less (4cp) and make a larger profit selling crates than a scavenger who sells for 5cp for example in single quantities.
Anyone trying to inflate the market is penalised, but not in a crippling way, in a gradual way which makes it clear selling at a reasonable price is more profitable. It still makes it possible to sell at inflated prices but at some point the price reaches a level where it is ridiculous to try.
Band B could be designed for crafted armour/weapons and Band C for rare drops, and so on. From a coding point of view each item would come with a RRP, a single or stacked option, and a Band Identity A, B C etc. Leaving the Finance strategists to manipulate bands as the game progresses and when market information becomes more readily available.
MauvaisOeil said:Asah said: I like the idea on devs setting sale prices for players. They could associate a player sale cost or range included in item info based on rarity and quality to control the inflation
That does remove some of the player to player interaction, and is entirely bypassable by simple trades between players. If an item has a wrong price set, of simply if players control the market of a low drop rate item, it's easy no to use automated trades and work like in 99.
Black markets are fine, like 99 etc. They take more effort and thus yield more profit. A good black market is an essential part of an economy, no need to fear it imo. The sanctioned AH will win out for players who wish to spend there time in other ways.
Blood.
I like the approach too - but God is in the details. And the law of unintended consequences is very powerful and cannot be repealed or vetoed.
Much depends on design decisions that may not have been made yet - or if made are subject to change during testing.
Take arbitrage. If you can mail the items from one place to another travelling is irrelevent unless the price differential is less than the postage - in which case it is hardly worth a long trip.
Nor is it good design to allow players to make significant amounts of money from the game itself without significant risks or investments of time. Such things are often called by a nasty word - exploit.
If I can get level 50 money by having a level 10 in the Butt Cheeks Mountains mail local harvests to an "alt" in Terminus City to sell to a NPC merchant there for more than the Butt Cheeks merchant will pay this is most unbalancing. Worse, it will discourage a player economy - we won't need to deal with other players.
This is said not to disagree with the OP but to emphasize how details are *really* important here.
The above link is to my Commodities exchange NPC. In short its an NPC that will buy all raw materials for less than but close to what players are willing to pay and sell for a little more than what players are willing to sell for. By having these NPCs localized and their inventory targets based on consumption rates you create a mechanical situation where traveling with a full inventory of one commodity from one exchange NPC to another could be profitable for a player but will not actually increase the amount of cash in the economy.
Additionally I just thought of something that could be very interesting. What if there was a set amount of coinage in the game and no more could be created?
Now a large chunk of it would be in the background float account for the server, especially at launch. Only humanoid and other lore logical situations will reward currency and will only do so while the background float account is positive.
The rest of the money will be on the vendor NPCs. They will have starting assets and will keep track of cash balances from buying and selling. Once their balance hits 0 they will stop buying and will likely offer less for items as their cash gets low, if their on hand cash is very high they may actually pay more for your items. After a certain amount of time their accounts will be refilled from the background float account and conversely if they have too much money it will partially return to the background float account.
Service NPCs that are not also vendors will have their fees go directly into the background float account or the account of a linked vendor. Additionally I would have currency banked over a certain level be taxed back to the background float account to prevent hording.
By limiting the amount of platinum and gold available in the game it will actually make silver and copper relevant as prices for stuff will actually be low enough that people will consider using lower increments. It’s possible that certain high value commodities might actually become the go to trading currency for very high value item trading.
Not sure if all of this is worth the effort involved but it would be an interesting in game economy and would go a long way to prevent money hacks as most depend on endless looting or vendor selling.
Trasak
P.S. All items could have a globally tracked buy/sell value that Vendors could use as the basis for what they offer to buy and sell for based on their current cash on hand.