I've been thinking about this lately.  In the real world as we know different countries have different currencies.  I wonder what this would do in a game.  Players would have to set their own exchange rate, and be able to set their NPC vendors to accept or refuse currencies and at what rate.  Hopefully the market would adjust for any disparities in the value of different currencies,  What do you think would happen, if there were multiple currencies based on what part of the game world you were located?

Would the playerbase choose one universal currency and abandon the rest?

Would they all be valued the same?

Would the players come up with standard exchange rates?

Would they be accepted at a reduced value outside of their region of origin?

Would a class of professional money-changers arise?

As a further thought experiment, what would happen if all currency was player issued?

This is realy intresting. What if you have two servers. one island on each. Then the players arrive on a ship that brings lawbreakers to the island as a prison. They would then entirely player drivenly make their own organising, food collecting and create their own currency from local resources (If thats how they want to play). Now what would happen if the players made boats enabling them to cross over to the other server? Culturally and economicaly?

Resources trade?
Currency? (What if one server has currency and the other dont?)
Cultural exchange?
Would players move from one server to another and settle down?
Language?

Very intresting scenario, both to behold and to play.

I'm not sure I understand, you mean there are two islands, one is the starting location, the other is a penal colony of sorts where lawbreakers are sent?  And then they're isolated for a long time until one or the other builds boats to contact the other island?

I imagine they wouldn't be too different, since they'd still be communicating out of game.  Language wouldn't change for this reason.

I think the outlaw island would be pretty empty, since the starter island keeps getting new players and the outlaw one wouldn't have any to replace those who quit.  Depending on the nature of their crimes, the outlaws may be very different, and not willing to interact peacefully with the first island. 

If the resources on each island were different but equal, there may be trade, and they probably wouldn't use the same thing as currency, meaning they'd use something valuable to the other item in all their dealings with them.

If one island is emptier as I predicted the second island would be or if the two are different enough in flavor, there would be settlement between the two.

These are my predictions anyway.  How about responding to the OP?

I was thinking of more in the lines of that all players are outlaws and both islands are penal colonys, which would give the players a feeling that they have to survive, and they would group together depending on what kind of players there are currently playing. New players would either be sent to diffrent isnalds randomly or by gender (birth control?).

Anyway yhe idea is that they start from scratch and the intresting thing would be to se the community evolve. Dunno how fun it would be to play though.

Would be fun in the sence that the game can evolve. Imagine you live life on the island, then you build boats find the other island then you build bigger boats and go back to the land you came from to have your revenge. Rather fun from a RPers perspective and developers perspective.

To answer the OP.

What type of game do you envision with the type of currency model you discuss?  How big a part of game play do you imagine that the economy will play?

Frankly there is no need for multiple currencies, in fact, I think it would cause far more headaches than play oppertunities, would depend on the game though.  Most games today use resources as a secondary form of currency.

If the currencies were valued the same in you hypothetical multi-currency world, what would be the point?  Presumeably currency value would be tied to some sort of local economy, which in turn would be compared to the others to determine a trade rate.

I think you could create a whole economy centric game play without multiple currencies.  If it was me, I'd have one unit of currency but let the local markets themselves determine relative value.  In this way you could create a situation where trade would be profitable and thereby create a whole game from just that.

Player issued currency would only work if you had a banking system, the banks loan out money to players who then can use it for circulation. (How it works in real life).  Sooner or later all of the money will end up back at the banks, it would also allow speculation and markets.

-Gooney

Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.

Originally posted by Gooney

To answer the OP.

What type of game do you envision with the type of currency model you discuss?  How big a part of game play do you imagine that the economy will play?

 I would imagine the economy would of critical importance and the basis of the entire game.

Frankly there is no need for multiple currencies, in fact, I think it would cause far more headaches than play oppertunities, would depend on the game though.

I don't really think there's a "need" for it exactly, this was more intended as a thought experiment than anything.  However, one advantage it would have would be to isolate various regions of the game world.

I've seen alot of people want to play the role of a caravaneer or trade ship captain, trading goods between far away regions.  In order for this to be a viable role for a player to take, there needs to be 1.  A disparity of one or more resources between the two areas, and 2.  Some barrier that prevents normal people from doing the transportation themselves.

The barrier could be achieved simply by making the game world huge and limiting travel, but while that may be worth considering, it brings alot of problems with it.  Multiple currencies combined with a slightly larger world could ensure that different economies develop in relative isolation.

If the currencies were valued the same in you hypothetical multi-currency world, what would be the point?  Presumeably currency value would be tied to some sort of local economy, which in turn would be compared to the others to determine a trade rate.

I didn't mean they would be valued the same by design.  I suspect that in the beginning a few players would be lazy and set their shops to accept all currencies at equal value.  This situation may or may not become the norm, in which case a few entrepreneurial individuals may make a nice profit exploiting this situation.  In theory, their activities could serve to normalize the macro-economy, eventually making the currencies truly equal in value, as long as the majority of players continue to accept all currencies at equal value. 

I think you could create a whole economy centric game play without multiple currencies.  If it was me, I'd have one unit of currency but let the local markets themselves determine relative value.  In this way you could create a situation where trade would be profitable and thereby create a whole game from just that.

Like I said, there has to be some way to isolate the different markets.  Distance is one way, barriers such as currency or  language are another.  A combination of these may be the way to go about it.

Player issued currency would only work if you had a banking system, the banks loan out money to players who then can use it for circulation. (How it works in real life).  Sooner or later all of the money will end up back at the banks, it would also allow speculation and markets.

I really can't see loans working as a cornerstone of an mmo economy.  The simple fact is, players often quit and therefore can't be held accountable for their loans.  There could be a loan system in place, but it wouldn't be worth counting on for anything.

In most games ALL currency is player issued.  Gold in these games is really more of a commodity currency than fiat, since its value comes from what it can buy from NPCs that nothing else can.  The NPCs must be considered part of the game world, not a participant in its economy, since they have no  true self interest.

The difference here would be that the players can issue fiat currency, the value of which will come from who, if anyone, is willing to accept it.  The player organization responsible for issuing the currency would have to be considered trustworthy and competent at controlling inflation.  Individual guilds could have their own currency for internal transactions.  This all would might cause alot of headaches, but I think it's interesting to think about.

 

-Gooney

Sounds like a great idea to me, yea, I agree with the multiple boundaries between the "cultures"... a quest to become "bilingual" might be cool. I think the player populace would decide on one or two of the available currencies and forget about the others given no other barriers, though. NPCs might change that, if they had some important role in the market... I was on a private server of a game where the gold inflation was so bad that all of the stronger characters used OCAs (Old Card Albums, a rare item that was almost impossible to get unless you were a guild leader who owned a castle and were given as rewards by those guild leaders to their members at the end of successful wars). The "gold" was usually given to really weak new people in large amounts as an apology for accidentally targeting them and/or killing them to help them out because they had to buy from NPCs since they  weren't strong enough to kill the monsters that dropped pots (potions) or area attack weak mobs and sell masses of drops to buy masses of pots like the strong people could...

But yea... that felt sort of like 2 currencies... you could buy some wings for 50-60 OCAs, but if you offered gold for them, you might offend someone.

I think players are capable of establishing their own currencies given some feasible object in game... probably an item that's not only rare, but useful. It'll be more like barter, though.

And loans in a game sound funny... You could have a repo monster... or the Infernal Revenue Serpent...

Originally posted by Impacatus

Sorry I took so long to get back to this thread.

Originally posted by Gooney

To answer the OP.

What type of game do you envision with the type of currency model you discuss?  How big a part of game play do you imagine that the economy will play?

 I would imagine the economy would of critical importance and the basis of the entire game.

Frankly there is no need for multiple currencies, in fact, I think it would cause far more headaches than play oppertunities, would depend on the game though.

I don't really think there's a "need" for it exactly, this was more intended as a thought experiment than anything.  However, one advantage it would have would be to isolate various regions of the game world.

I've seen alot of people want to play the role of a caravaneer or trade ship captain, trading goods between far away regions.  In order for this to be a viable role for a player to take, there needs to be 1.  A disparity of one or more resources between the two areas, and 2.  Some barrier that prevents normal people from doing the transportation themselves.

The barrier could be achieved simply by making the game world huge and limiting travel, but while that may be worth considering, it brings alot of problems with it.  Multiple currencies combined with a slightly larger world could ensure that different economies develop in relative isolation.

If the currencies were valued the same in you hypothetical multi-currency world, what would be the point?  Presumeably currency value would be tied to some sort of local economy, which in turn would be compared to the others to determine a trade rate.

I didn't mean they would be valued the same by design.  I suspect that in the beginning a few players would be lazy and set their shops to accept all currencies at equal value.  This situation may or may not become the norm, in which case a few entrepreneurial individuals may make a nice profit exploiting this situation.  In theory, their activities could serve to normalize the macro-economy, eventually making the currencies truly equal in value, as long as the majority of players continue to accept all currencies at equal value. 

I think you could create a whole economy centric game play without multiple currencies.  If it was me, I'd have one unit of currency but let the local markets themselves determine relative value.  In this way you could create a situation where trade would be profitable and thereby create a whole game from just that.

Like I said, there has to be some way to isolate the different markets.  Distance is one way, barriers such as currency or  language are another.  A combination of these may be the way to go about it.

Player issued currency would only work if you had a banking system, the banks loan out money to players who then can use it for circulation. (How it works in real life).  Sooner or later all of the money will end up back at the banks, it would also allow speculation and markets.

I really can't see loans working as a cornerstone of an mmo economy.  The simple fact is, players often quit and therefore can't be held accountable for their loans.  There could be a loan system in place, but it wouldn't be worth counting on for anything.

In most games ALL currency is player issued.  Gold in these games is really more of a commodity currency than fiat, since its value comes from what it can buy from NPCs that nothing else can.  The NPCs must be considered part of the game world, not a participant in its economy, since they have no  true self interest.

The difference here would be that the players can issue fiat currency, the value of which will come from who, if anyone, is willing to accept it.  The player organization responsible for issuing the currency would have to be considered trustworthy and competent at controlling inflation.  Individual guilds could have their own currency for internal transactions.  This all would might cause alot of headaches, but I think it's interesting to think about.

 

-Gooney

 

http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/workingmudeconomy.html

Originally posted by FreddyNoNose

 

Game economies have been debated since the days of mudflation.  But here is something about loans:

 

http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/workingmudeconomy.html

Interestingly enough, I read Richard Bartle's book recently, and in it he suggests multiple currencies essentially to provide backups in the event that one of them collapses.  That's another benefit I didn't think of.

Originally posted by Impacatus

 

Originally posted by FreddyNoNose

 

Game economies have been debated since the days of mudflation.  But here is something about loans:

 

http://www.mud.co.uk/dvw/workingmudeconomy.html

Thanks for that, I actually have read that.  The idea of collateral hadn't occurred to me when I made this thread, and it might actually work.  However, it relies on players being skilled at speculating and assessing the value of things, so it might still be a shaky foundation for an economy.

 

Interestingly enough, I read Richard Bartle's book recently, and in it he suggests multiple currencies essentially to provide backups in the event that one of them collapses.  That's another benefit I didn't think of.

I was going to post several links, but they turned out to no longer be valid. It is annoying when that happens.

You don't need for the exchange rate to be set by the players. You could have it be computer generated, making it more realistic. And also, if there are exchange rates, there's no point in being a professional money-changer because you can get the same amount of stuff with a different amount of money. If you wanted it to be realistic, you would have exchange rates. However, having players set exchange rates might be interesting. But could all players set exchange rates or just some?

I don't see how computer generated exchange rates are more realistic, especially not in a pre-modern setting.  Even if you have exchange rates, you still need someone to actually make the exchange (take your money and hand you the foreign money minus their cut). 

Essentially, anyone with money can decide what they'll trade it for and at what rate.  That's how players set exchange rates.  They're essentially "selling" their money for a different type of money, and they can set any price they want as long as they can find someone who will pay it.  Supply and demand determines the rate.

Oh, yeah. I was thinking that the exchange rates in real life aren't set by people, but then I realized "well, who does then?" Yeah, I get your point there. Sorry, I just wasn't thinking.

I would see a scenario like this becoming a barter based economy, that is what happened in Diablo II where the in game currency was valuless.

What if you didn't even have a currency and it was totally barter-based? Okay, I see some problems with that:

1. Noobs getting ripped off
2. People in general getting ripped off
3. How would you trade with NPCs? Would they have a set amount of something for something else? Would it be random within a certain range?

But, still, if it was done, it would be a pretty cool in-game experience.

That might happen I didn't think of that.  Players might turn some useful item into the de facto currency of all the different countries.  That would be a completely different dynamic.  I guess there's really no way to tell.

As for bartering with NPCs, it could be done.  There would have to be an abstract currency, but it wouldn't have to be handled in the transaction.  The owner of the NPC would create a list of what's for sale at what price, and what he wants to buy for what price.  The customer would just take items from each list until the totals of both add up.  Kind of how it worked in Fallout.  For example:

NPC sells:

Corn 1

horseshoe 5

hammer 7

NPC buys:

firewood 2

jerky 3

shirt 5

A player can come up and trade a unit of firewood for two units of corn, of a unit of firewood and jerky for a horseshoe, or a shirt and firewood for a hammer, and so on.

Overall though, I think a barter system only works for simple economies.  The more complex it is, the more of a headache it becomes for players to determine how much things are worth and find the items the seller wants.

Or, alternatively, you could have gold, for trading with NPCs, and a barter system for trading with other players. Still a bit of a headache though. I think it's best to just leave it with barter-based with gold/currency as a resource and let the players decide what to use. Otherwise it gets to be a bit of a headache, and it's not as good an in-game experience. Some people might like completely barter-based, though. The values could just be a general value that fluctuates to account for supply and demand. It depends on the what the players want. Perhaps somebody should do a poll.

Even if you had a currency, I don't think you want to *forbid* players from bartering if they want to.  Really most mmo economies can be said to be barter systems, there's just one good, gold, that every player uses for trade.  There's nothing stopping them from making something else their "money", and in many cases they do. (Asherons Call, Diablo 2, that game mentioned earlier in the thread).  So really, you're only choices are barter or combo, and the line between them isn't even all that clear.  I think having a currency is usually best best for simplicity's sake, though.  If barter fits the setting better, or if the economy is really simple, it might be a better choice, but most of the time I think it's better to have currency.

 I like the idea of multiple currencies and bartering. I think having distanced and seperate cultures would be a requirement. If it was in a game where different races or factions could gain control of different resource areas this might affect the value of their currency. Some Npcs could accept only their own currency, some could only barter, and some could accept all currencies or exchange them for you. It could add another layer to a tactical sandbox type of game.

Having players in charge of minting their own money would be a huge seperate step. I think having control of a city and a certain base population to your city would be a requirement. People could gain control of cities in different ways (forms of government) some could be owned by an oligarchy type guild. Others could offer other forms to try to attract more citizens to their city. I think it would need to be one layer in a game with multiple goals.

 in my game the players gonna make there own monney... at the start them have to mine minirals and melt it in to forms that them have made. The hole game idea of mine is that players make there own world..

So if them wonna have different currencies then let them have it. =)

Sorry for my bad english