Radical play-time related idea Options

[Minthos]

Heh, actually, we are the "God's" of our world, so we can deny them whatever we want. Keep in mind, though, that I said make some resources decay. Mainly, I would think that that would be those things that need refining, like raw lumber, raw ore, pelts, etc; anything that needs to be refined to be used. This wouldn't stop hoarding, it would just keep resources moving in and out of the economy (keeping it from becoming stagnant). I don't want to stop players from becoming wealthy, that's part of what makes MMO's fun to a lot of players.

Being gods doesen't mean we should be tyrants - we do want players to enjoy our world. And no, I don't think ore and lumber should perish if stored, as long as they're kept fairly dry. Lumber/ore discarded on the forest floor should decay swiftly, but stored in a barn it should decay very slowly, if at all. Pelts and food should decay swiftly of course, unless it's properly cured.

Basically - realism. Not for its own sake of course, but because I don't think there's any point in denying players the ability to hoard stuff. The industrious players will seek to increase their wealth, and having a huge stockpile of one resource is wasteful unless they expect its price to increase dramatically.

[Jerky]

Being gods doesen't mean we should be tyrants - we do want players to enjoy our world. And no, I don't think ore and lumber should perish if stored, as long as they're kept fairly dry. Lumber/ore discarded on the forest floor should decay swiftly, but stored in a barn it should decay very slowly, if at all. Pelts and food should decay swiftly of course, unless it's properly cured.

Basically - realism. Not for its own sake of course, but because I don't think there's any point in denying players the ability to hoard stuff. The industrious players will seek to increase their wealth, and having a huge stockpile of one resource is wasteful unless they expect its price to increase dramatically.

I agree with this. We definitely don't want to be tyrants. On the other hand, we shouldn't be scared to do things that will be better for the game world, even if players may be hesitant to accept the idea. We can always try testing it, and have a plan B to fall back on should they really dislike it.

Regarding lumber and ore, I would be okay letting it not decay in a barn if the barn had a taxation and/or upkeep cost. And you're correct about hoarding. Hoarding is only going to become a problem for us if we have a limited supply of resources, like njpaul suggested. In UO's case, they also cite it causing unnecessary slowdown to the item databases, which might be something to think about.

Realism works, but keep in mind that in real life, people don't get to save everything ever. Their house fills up, their back yards also, and if they need more space, they pay for it (storage). People who hoard in real life usually are either rich (can afford the storage costs) or cramped.

[Ethan]

I will move the topic from in-game economics to in-game history but only to say again that if we don't want people do something we have to reduce the value of it relatively to the other things.

Player invests time in order to gain something. This is a fact, we can't( and don't want to) change that.

In a part of the MMO games, the only value that can be obtained and kept is character's power. (By the way, from an economy point of view, that's an open system.) This value can be obtained by anyone and is only related to the character and not the player, so it can be easily traded. As stated by someone , even if we try to put limits on this, this won't change. *

'Sociability' assets on the other hand can not really be traded i.e. the business/friends/enemies network has not much value for another player as they are more related to the player and how (s)he plays. The gameplay should thus promotes networks building as a protection against farming but also as a feature.
This asset is however not permanent, which is partly the reason why there is no much value for another player. A permanent asset would be simply said history. What should be permanent is not the characters but their history. (http://www.guildcafe.com/Vox/04073-Smith-Dynamic-Worlds.html) Again the world design should promotes that even though the design of such feature might not be easy.

* If you think that this fact implies that my first post's idea is not that good, that's true.

[RicoSuave]

(Just to keep things in perspective, someone, somewhere will find a way to turn "using" this into "ABusing" it.)
Hyrup's Loophole Law
If something can be abused, it will be.



Prevention of decaying materials could be a profession ingame. I could see taxidermy being a specialization to leatherworking. That jump is easy to make. But what about dry rot? Wood (even when treated) decays at a fairly significant rate compared to other materials... even some biomatter. Metals (swords, shields, breastplates) will rust. Stone will erode SLOWLY. Paper, books, torches, and so forth...

[RicoSuave]

Also, Brotoi mentioned something long ago about RMT transactions and hording. It's still a good read.
http://www.projectwish.com/index.php?showtopic=7266

[Minthos]

I wonder if perhaps we should allow ingame trade of game time - that way we provide a way for:

* Players to buy ingame currency with rl money (not something we really want, but something players will do anyway)
* Players to finance their play time with ingame currency (some players, especially young players in poor countries, will appreciate this a great deal - and age is not equivalent to maturity)

While not providing a way for players to buy rl money with ingame currency. The idea is that this could undermine the RMT business somewhat, without hurting our game.

It's not a new idea of course. EVE allows it, and from what I can tell, players seem mostly positive to it.

[RicoSuave]

There are a few Chinese online games out there that make ends meet by what they term "micro-transactions." There is no monthly fee to play, and everything can be experienced in the game without shelling out a cent. The purchases made are for (mainly) customizations and tweaks for characters. For example, if you want hair that doesn't fit into the two hair types per race per gender, it requires a small fee (just a couple bucks/quid -- nothing big). Or perhaps you want to customize your character portrait away from the boring default one, or have a character biography written about you, or whatever. Most everyone can afford a couple bucks here or there, and with 10,000 players (extremely rough estimate) it helps things for a bit. Then when a player get bored of a look or article, just a couple bucks changes it all.

Minthos, in my opinion, I would prefer to have game developers/owners shy away from charging players RL money for anything that can be tied directly or indirectly to ingame advantage. Player-to-player transactions will always occur just as you said. Whether it be a friend talking to another telling him they'll buy him lunch if he can use his heals for the next hour, or whether it's a Korean gold farmer trying to make a few American dollars to feed his family (whatever), transactions will occur. I guess you can call that, Minthos' Currency Law and tack it to Raph Koster's site.

Unless you make everything in the game bound to the character, you will have RL money transactions. This comes at a huge price, however, in that no ingame economy exists either (no trade, no selling, etc.). I doubt we want that. So that brings us back full circle to what Jerky originally posted about ways to either interrupt the RL transactions or find a way to siphon off a bit.

Summarizing this post... my opinion:
- Ingame currency will trade hands
- Real-life currency will trade hands
- Admin charging money for ingame advantage = bad
- Micro-transactions = good
- This thread needs MUCH further exploring

[Honis]

Ok to start out, I stopped reading posts once I saw the word Economy (or skipped to the next).

In the begining of the thread people are talking about making characters exp/skill gain based on the amount of time played.

Did we forget that most MMOs require players to rest to recover HP/MP? In FFXI I wait up to 5min if I forget my pj's (my recovery+ gear). That's nearly 5 game hours and unless we are REALLY moving I wait 5-7 min before doing anything anyways! Trust me, my character is well rested by the end of a day from getting his 2-3 power naps. Why should I get penalized in the name of realism because I'm fallowing realism?

Now some MMOs recovery is automatic when not in combat (EQ2 and some free ones I've played).

Also, the only person this exp/skill gain would hurt are the players that only have time for 1 character/account. Since accounts with 1 chacter are free (assuming the payment plan Jerky has talked about in IRC with me) farmers/power players will play 2-3 accounts and just rotate as the exp/skill goes to crap. Farmers would not be effected, and account sellers would have 2-3 characters ready for sale in the same amount of time to get 2-3 characters for sale...

Also, for the little I have read on ingame economy and the sale of money for money... Look up how people make money buying and selling money in Real Life (and the country's they avoid and why). If you control the amount of one currency you can make it not worth the time to gather your currency (yes I'm proposing taking the economy behind the dumpster forcefully). Make it not worth money sellers time. If its about game play, then those that need $ shouldn't need to spend pointless game time gathering it... Hell, sell in game money for real money yourselves! The money sellers wouldn't dare undercut you, it's be like cutting off a foot when you undercut them! (Oh no, more dumpster time with the economy). Artisans get credit/sign EVERY piece of anything they make. If they are higher skill its higher quality and there demand to make the gear increases, they get what they want. Customers with hardly any money for items that cost next to nothing. Not quiet communism, we aren't buying 10,000 of the same pants and telling everyone to wear them...

This was a late night rant btw... If I terried off course let me know. I'll be back just before bed again tomorrow night ;-D

[Brotoi]

A lot of interesting ideas, some of them contradictory. Personally, I've always wondered why MMORPGs don't impose some kind of time limits. It solves numerous problems while causing only minor annoyance for the majority of players.

Anything you can do that complicates the lives of RMT companies is good. Their profit margins are small and the sooner a game becomes unprofitable the sooner they move on to some other game.

Other than Aria's off-topic post about Assassins and Rangers, I haven't seen anything in this thread that I dislike. Personally, I think all of the ideas here are good ones, even those that appear contradictory at first glance. For example: limited resources vs. unlimited currency. At first, these seem like impossible to reconcile opposites. The fact of the matter is, this is exactly how the real world works. Currency is effectively unlimited while all resources are finite, regardless of how high the limit is. As a result, regular attempts are made to limit currency as well, which always leads to one economic disaster or another (either hyperinflation or depression).

A game economy mimics the real world, but a game should not become an economic simulation. If it does, then we wind up with the same problems of poverty, marginalization, and oppression that the real world exhibits and no one wants to play a game that excels in recreating the stress and frustration of real life. As impossible as it seems, time limits solve this problem nicely, and to then turn around and charge extra to those players with both time and money to spare seems to me to be icing on the cake.

You want to spend 40+ hours a week maxing out all your stats, no problem, it'll cost you $x.xx. You just want to log in an forget about life for awhile? Cool! That's free!

Seems like a nice marketing model to me, and is the exact same method American utility and phone companies have used for generations (a low-enough flat-rate equals free in actual practice). On top of that we add micro-transactions for alternative art resources (dyes, armor, weapons, crafting patterns) with equal functionality to freely available ingame assets and now we're looking at an entirely new way to market a game.

However, in order for the players to accept this model, we would have to insure there is never a wasted moment in the game. There would have to be systems in place to allow players to play without stopping for the time they are in the world. Imposing long rest times, long travel times, or making necessary NPCs such as trainers and provisioners inaccessible from certain areas of the map will rapidly destroy the benefit the free gamer receives and regardless of our real intentions will communicate to our customers the idea that all we care about are those players who pay for extra time.

But, yeah, provided a happy medium can be found that preserves gameplay and uses free vs. pay to impose a soft limit on game time, I think we're onto something truly innovative.

[RicoSuave]

It will be tough, Brotoi. Any choice we make will most definitely have pros and cons. For an example of a con, I enjoy helping others progress in the game, especially if those new players are professional and mature. If this concept goes into effect, I will lose that portion of MMOs that I enjoy to be able to progress my little character within the few hours I'm allotted, unless we revolutionize the concept and use an idea not presented as of yet. But I have a feeling that I'm just going to have to live with a decision made by the community at large this time. And that's okay if the pros outweigh the cons.