Make the faucets competitive. That way the farmers have to compete with the regular players. May not stop farming but it makes farmers part of the game.

I got to Sam's work from this post on another board.

http://www.gamedev.net/community/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=455304&whichpage=1&#3011910

The formula itself is something I learned in school but Sam does a great job explaining it so I didn't have to. Velocity is a really interesting concept in real world economics and MMO economics. Definitely one worth reading up on and understanding.

When I started my blog I thought about trying to do what you are doing in terms of drawing flow charts and talking in detail about the types of faucets there are, etc. I wimped out though so it is good to know someone did all that work. Mind if I reference it?

Here is a good description of UO's economy that is helpful and deals with a lot of the same things you are talking about.

http://www.mine-control.com/zack/uoecon/uoecon.html

Good luck with the project and keep us updated.

I am trying to do a similar thing and took a different approach. I would check out this article about inflation. It was written by Sam Lewis and is pretty good.  

http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/09/07/agc-mmo-economies/

My blog is here.

http://mmorpgdesigntalk.blogspot.com/

As you can see I also talk about the P = MV/Q formula which is key to understanding inflation. I think this formula is a good place to start because it helps you categorize things in a way that should help you later on.  It also helps establish the relationship between these variables.

For example, hoarding is a concept that is more easily understood with this formula. Hoarding essentially decreases V, but a hoarding player may also be increasing M at a high rate. The overall impact on prices depends on the combination of both of these factors. 

My blog is almost all about the macro economics of an MMO economy so far. I will eventually get into the micro economics more. This is where your stuff shines IMO. Your diagrams are great and should really help anyone trying to understand the economics of an MMO. I do think that you should talk more about things like transactions taxes(drains) and the micro economics of drains and faucets. 

SWG is an example of a game that had issues with crafters being rich and adventurers being poor. 

Overall I think you did a really good job. I think if you are going to talk about inflation you have to use that formula though.  

Originally posted by KaltesHerz

Originally posted by Vindvalya

Well it seems my point was lost on Sung.

/shrug

 

 

Actually no, she did what you could've done from the beginning, READ.

 

Everything you even remotely mentioned in your post she answered, and had already been answered.

I think I'll go back to the Jap forums, there may be missunderstandings when it comes to translations, but in all the years I posted on those particular game forums never, NEVER did someone reply who had so obvioulsy not been reading what had been posted.

 

If you think she's missed your point, then MAKE A POINT.

If you read my post you would see that Sung's responses didn't make any sense and I did make a couple of points. I will spell it out for you.

1) Crafting is not economics. If you want to talk about the economics of your game leave OUT the details about crafting, and talk MORE about economics. The thing that really matter from the economics standpoint is that there is crafting and what is invested into crafting.

2) Looting is not economics. If you want to talk about the economics of your game leave OUT the details about looting, and talk MORE about economics. The thing that really matters from the economics standpoint is how much of the ingame value originates from looting.

3) I wanted more details about the currency idea. Allowing a player currency is a complicated thing and you really need to establish how the economics of your game works first. You basically listed a very high end idea and failed to talk about the basics of your game economy.

4) So after I read your post I realized you left out some key details about the actual  in game economy and failed to actualy explain the structure of the in game economy. I gave some suggestions in my first post in order to help you focus your idea. If you talk about what I asked you to talk about then we would be talking about economics and could get somewhere.

5) I am sorry your feelings were hurt. You are free to leave but that won't actually fix the problems I found.

Well it seems my point was lost on Sung.

/shrug

There are actually relatively few details about your economy in the original post.

My suggestion to you is to organize your ideas a bit better. I don't even really know what your game is about. Maybe it is burried in a very long post or one of your links but I am not seeing it.

You also talk a lot about details that are not all that important to the economy, like crafting details and loot drop details while leaving critical details out, like you briefly mention something about player currency and territory holding.

I think if you want to talk about the economy of your game you should start over and focus on a very simple description of how value in entering into the economy, how value is liquid(or not) in your economy, how value can be altered in the economy, where value is accumulating in your economy, and how value is leaving your economy.

"We agree totally here, the question is how we accomplish that"

I have already talked about my solution.

Design a War for groups of players to take part in. The casual player can be on equal footing as a soldier with the HC player, but as a Lord they may not be.

In other words you cap, soft or hard, the advancement potential of the avatar. In a 1 V 1 battle the HC player and the Cas player are relative equals.

There will also be a war where the HC player can win value. For example they have enough resources to upgrade a wall of their city.

The War is not just HC vs casual though. It is group v group. The cas player contributes as a soldier. The HC player contributes as a soldier and a Lord or city builder.

Originally posted by Talinguard

Originally posted by Vindvalya

A) That's a lot clearer, So what are you suggesting, that if players can't get right to the part of the game they like they may quit?  Is the goal in your mind to make it easier for players to get to the part of the game they enjoy?

B)  To make a statement like "full loot should be in every game" (players dropping everything when they die).  Obviously full loot is causes a lot of contraversy.  However full loot in some games works for some players.  It all depends on the context.

 C) Well that is the definition of consumption. 

D) OK, Im familar with the faucet-and-drain style economy, I'm also very aware of its limitations.  The drains are fixed but the faucet is only limited by the ambition and population of the players. 

E) You keep using the word "value".  As I stated before, value is a subgective word as the value of an object will depend on who you ask, and as such it's confusing when you used that term.  No one pulls value into the world, players produce its value is determined by the supply and demand for whatever they produce.  I know it's semantics and I'm not trying to correct you for the sake of correcting you, but you have used the word value in several different ways.

F) Inflation might be analogus to water in a bucket, but literealy its when players are producing more then others are able or willing to consume (buy, use whatever).  This is of course is a design flaw in whatever game that its implemented in.

Games like WoW control inflation artifically by putting massive restrictions on how players can sell or trade their items.  Combined with server wide auction houses and the items that are for sale are kept low though competition.

G) Going back to the OP, my comment was that the design of the economy should try to, on average, limit the fiscal disparities between the average high producers and the average low producers.

 

Do you have a soulution in mind for the economy?

 

 

 

 

 

A) I am suggesting that you want to make a game players will enjoy.

B) I still don't see how that applies to my previous point about time spent to get a reward.

C) OK. Look at your initial statement.

"Inflation often results from production in the world as a whole as being too high and there not being enough people to consume. "

In the real world people actuall use up their resources. They eat food, they burn gas, they use toilet paper, etc. In a MMORPG consumption tends to favor things that don't use up the resource. The player is more likely SAVING when they buy things as opposed to consuming things. A lot of MMORPG trading is more like the act of saving in the real world than the act of consumption.

D) It is not a type of economy, it is the way all MMORPG economies that I am aware of can be described. Drains are not "fixed"

E) I use the term value as a way to describe anything that is brought into the world that can potentially have value. 1 definition and your complaints don't really impact the way I am using the word.

F) Or when the players have a running faucet and a full bucket. So you only have so many solutions. Put a whole in the bottom of the bucket(value sink, drain), slow down the faucet(slow down the rate a player sees rewards), make more buckets(make other places where the value can go.), make the bucket bigger(Add 10 more levels), or maybe something else I can't think of.

G) Why? How does this impact the hardcore player? Does this really help the casual player?

Like I talked about before I think you really want to please both if you can. That is why I suggested a system where in one context the HC and Cas player can be competitive and relative equals, while in another context they are not. The HC player gets their continued rewards AND the Cas player is included in the game.

No typo.

I am saying obvious stuff here and you may be over thinking it a bit, but I will repeat it for you.

In many MMORPGs in order to kill a mob there is time spent doing things in the process of killing a mob other than killing mobs. Traveling to the mob, resting after the fight, selling loot, etc. The player may also be spending time finding a group or getting a quest or something.

A player who enjoys fighting mobs will prefer the time spent actually fighting the mob. The explorer may enjoy finding the mob. The social player may enjoy getting a group together, the achiever may enjoy getting the reward.

I don't get your point about the "context of the game" at all.

Your definition of consumption is strange to me and I don't think it fits.

"I know what it is to accumulate value, but I'm not sure what you mean by "value sink"."

Value enters the economy as a whole. Some of it may leave the economy. This act of value leaving the economyis also known as drains, money drains, etc.

Value accumulated in the game is value that is not drained out.(atm)

From a simplified standpoint the player provides time, or is a seller of their time. In return they buy in game value with that time. Inflation is related to that value coming into the game and accumulating in the game. It is often compared to a faucet. You as a player turn on the game and turn on the faucet. Rewards, or value, or water start pouring out of a faucet. You in turn collect that value in an avatar like you would collect the water in a bucket.

A value sink, or drain, takes water out of the bucket, or takes value out of the game.

Inflation is like having too much water in a bucket.

If the player that like to fight monsters has to spend a lot of time not fighting monsters to gain reward A they will begin to feel that the time they are sinking into getting reward A is a waste. Time sinks are not the problem really, it is when the players feel like they are wasting time.

Time sinks relate to the rate of production. The larger the amount of time needed to be sunk into getting reward A the less production of reward A there will be(generally speaking).

What do you mean by consumption? As this relates to my point.

There are value sinks, and there is value accumulation.

Originally posted by Talinguard

 

Value is going? not sure what you mean by that.  Also, the more experienced is one type of player.  It's my hope that a game will appeal to all types of players and that each would have a useful roll to the others.

A different possibility is to have value go to increasing a player's ability to perform diplomacy like in Vanguard. The player can attain value that increases their diplomacy skill, similar to value going into a sword of slaying and increasing a player's ability to kill things.

There are other areas where value can go. Mounts, houses, walls, crafting, buildings, cities, and who knows what else.

When a game has limited areas for value to go the experienced player will be continually dumping value into these limited areas. For example in WOW the experienced player basically has little choice but to dump value either into their fighting ability (and to a lesser degree their mount). So the experienced player is left to have a lot more power in their fighting ability than the less experienced player.

If the experienced player had other areas for their value to go the less experienced player could potentially catch up to the more experienced player in terms of fighting power. The experienced player has power in other areas though so it is not like they are not seeing rewards for their efforts.

IMO this is a key element in dealing with the PVP issues you brought up in your OP.

I did not contradict myself, but I will explain my point about time sinks and value coming into a game again.

When a player spends time killing mobs value may enter the game in the form of loot, exp, skill ups, quest rewards, and maybe more. That is an act of pulling value into the game.

A player can also walk from one point to another. During that time they are not pulling value into the game.

A player can trade one form of value for another form of value. When trading is done between two players the amount of value in the game doesn't change. IT just changes hands. When a player sells to an NPC shop keeper they also change value but the value in the game changes. Some value is destroyed and some value is created based on some dev determined ratio.(price)

The idea of a time sink relates to the time it takes to accomplish various tasks, with a strong emphasis on the time spent not actively doing the task. For example if you kill a mob then have to walk or wait five minutes to kill the next one. That 5 minutes is a time sink.

Now from the player pov time sinks are pretty relative. Players as a whole have different tolerance levels for time sinks. They are also dependent on past experience. For example if the last game the player played had 10 minute time sinks between kills then that wait of 5 minutes is relatively short. But if a player has been playing a game where they only have to wait 2 minutes between kills then the 5 minute wait will seem long.

From a designer POV the idea is to try and take into account various players. For example the act of trading with other players. How long does it take to trade item A for item B? Well if players are used to games where it takes 5 minute a game where it takes 20 minutes will seem like it has a relatively large time sink.

As a designer you are also concerned with inflation. Well the more value being pulled into the game the more inflation you are likely to have. Time sinks end up decreasing the rate in which the gamer is likely to bring value into the game. This can be a good thing.

There can also be a strategic element to time sinks as already talked about.

I am not advocating or even arguing against any idea talked about here. I am simply bringing up the considerations of such a design decision.

I think we are just approaching the discussion from different angles.

You are trying to establish your own opinion.

I am talking about design considerations taking into account the opinions of many.

Time sinks just need to be balanced. And I don't consider levelling to be a time sink like making it longer to get from point A to point B or to trade object A.

There can be many forms of inflation besides monetary inflation in a MMORPG.

Time sinks are likely to be part of any game and they are not always bad. But some players may not like them and see them as a WASTE of time. ie not worth their time. From a design pov this is a critical consideration because if your game becomes a waste of time for the player, they are less likely to keep giving you money.

Adding in logistics is a time sink. As the original post talks about time is a big factor in the amount produces. Well if people are spending time moving things around they are not spending that time actively pulling value into the game by killing mobs or whatever.

The problem with all time sinks is that some people consider them a waste of time.

IMO the real problem here is where the value is going and the appeal of gaining this value to the more experienced gamer. Everything else is just details for the most part.

Some really good comments balo.

Did you check out the link?

Anyway. To address some of your issues. The player would have avatars that they develop along with a town. For example a governor character would have skills to develop that in turn help the player develop their town the way they want to. The actual avatar would be developed over time in addition to their governor's palace(or whatever).

The governor won't be alone either. They will need a network of aids to help them.

This includes diplomats which help facilitate interaction between the players. The governor's palace ends up being a kind of meeting room for diplomats and governors. Overall I think there is plenty of opportunity for RPG elements to help establish a player's connection to the game.

What the person gains from playing this sim city type of game would be a sci fi setting, a more interactive and persistant setting, and a game with options outside of just city building. In addition to just the city building choices there is a relationship to neighbors and other real people that could be developed to everyone's benefit.

PVP is a tough thing to consider. The solution I have thought of that I like the best atm is to have different rules for different planets. Essentially having a safe zone for people who do not want their city to be taken away from them as well as planets where a player's city can be taken away from them. The safe zone does not have to be PVP free. It could simply be a situation where a player's city can change hands from one military power to another while the player keeps control of the city.

The military powers at be simply get some tax revenue from the city, or maybe some access to resources. The hope is that players who do not want to PVP can avoid it or at the very least not be negatively impacted too much.

Well some more details to the idea I have in mind.

When I say city building, I literally mean a game where the player sits down and plays a game like Sim City. They have a set area of land to develop, broken into squares. The city will then grow in time, and as the player makes various decisions it will grow in various ways. Everything from what the city produces, or is likely to produce, to what the city looks like will be based on decisions of the player.

Of course in a MMO environment the time it takes to develop a city may need to be longer than a traditional Sim City like game. So the player would need multiple cities to develop and/or other things to do than the traditional Sim City like gameplay.

There can be combat, both land and space based. There can be businesses to run. There can be nations to form between players. Aliens to meet and trade with or conquer.

But it is really this city building part that I am curious about.

I gave some more details here

http://vnboards.ign.com/mmorpg_concepts_and_design_discussion_forum/b22584/104528983/p1/?5

I think the idea for lower level players to see drops that higher level players want is a good one but it can come with some issues.

In WOW for example a lot of trade items had value to the higher level players who were just skilling up their profession or twinking. The higher level players demand for the low level items caused the prices to go up and made it harder for lower level players to buy those items.

A similar thing could happen in your system.

I would also propose an idea to deal with this issue in PVP.

Cap player advancement in terms of their PVP skill. Soft cap it if you want but there needs to be a cap. This cap on PVP ability could presumably turn the hardcore player off because they will no longer be seeing a lot of rewards. So provide rewards but make them relevant to group v group combat as opposed to PVP.

This requires a game outside of just killing one another in PVP. An obvious possibility is a war. Players earn the ability to put their rewards toward things like walls or something. Meanwhile the hardcore player may be just as powerful as the casual player one v one, but the hardcore player is contributing a lot more to the overall war effort.

The hardcore player will also just get better as a player, which is fine, it just doesn't need to be reflected by a number in game.

So my lil formula is more like

Production A = Prof A x Time A

Production B = Prof B x Time B

In one case the seperation between the casual and hc player is significant, and the other it is less significant. The hc player gets more than the casual player and the casual player gets to fight against the hc players and doesn't get segregated from them.

The key is developing a really solid war for players to take part in. Something I think players want anyway, even if it may be a huge design project.

How many of you would like to see a MMO where each player has the opportunity to build up a city, similar to a Sim City game or a tycoon game?

I have a rough idea for a space setting MMO where the player can city build, develop a corporation/business, fight as a soldier in an army, and fight in a intergalactic armada. Each player would be able to do all these things and each player can have at least one city.

Do you think people would want to play such a game?

I know I am not giving many details, I am just trying to judge interest.

I have also had a similar ideas and had various ideas on how to make it work. The ideas are not totally thought out though.

Idea 1) Part of the world has these wizard towers that players can capture. When capturing the wizard tower they can then defend the wizard tower in various ways. They can add monsters, traps, whatever. The catch is that they have to pay for what they add in. Although they do get some free defenders. There would also be some way to upgrade the towers.

The players that have claimed the wizard tower gain some sort of good over time or get some other bonus. (I prefer that they get some sort of tradable item though) So the player really wants to hold onto that tower. Over time they can get other reward as well, maybe the tower is needed to make staves or something. Who knows.

The person who does not own a tower wants one. So they will attack the towers trying to capture it so they can get the reward. You can even limit how many characters can enter.

Idea 2) Once again the players are making defenses for players to attack but in this instance they want players to attack. Now this is going to be a lot trikier to figure out but the basic premise is that the better the dungoen the more reward given to both the player who built it and the player who attacks it. Don't know how that could work yet.