Economic Stagflation – Why commodities are bad for game economy

I’ve been sitting on this for a while because, until now, I didn’t have a good example to outline why the in game economy is sluggish and why the current in game model for procuring and refining items has a limit on its ability to create a robust economy. To make constructive discussion easier to achieve I will start with my assumptions so if you disagree with an assumption, please address the assumption specifically. After dealing with assumptions I will then outline why, given my assumptions, the economy is stagflating and requiring huge artificial gold sinks like the raffle to ‘balance’.


Assumption 1

The economy is experiencing Stagflation. This is high inflation, with low demand for products in an economy. This is being masked by the temporary raffles that are the only source of drain in any significant amount to those that generate large amount of gold.


Assumption 2

There is a low supply and demand for high level armour and weapons because of the following

·Results are random and it is impossible to predict what combination of refinements is attractive to your customers or what combination of material bonuses are in demand.

·Prices are impossible to set above what buyers are willing to pay. Given the HUGE time sink in crafting, the price cannot exceed the time it would take to reach the skill level to make the item because..

·Everyone can make everything. Our Enchanter stopped regular play so in one hour I got to the point I could gem and enchant. This is easily possible for any profession; especially the equipment based ones where NPC drops give huge ‘free’ skill gains..

Those last two points are a big limiter on how attractive it is to enter that market as a seller as the time to make a +9 Halberd with Meteoric iron or Bronze if you start gathering the items is far less than the time it takes to skill up.

Assumption 3

Because of the easy access for all players to create any item, the items are no longer ‘Products’ with value through scarcity, but are ‘commodities’ that experience a race to rock bottom prices as large producers price the market with supply, removing the ability of smaller producers to get enough coin for their relative effort.

Assumption 4

Gathering is too attractive to everyone as it grants large amounts of Producer XP. Buying ore is not attractive because, everyone can do it and buying it also costs you’re the ‘opportunity’ to gain thousands of XP.



So, with these assumptions in place, it leads me to read the current state this way. Gathering your own items is ideal as it is easy, and it rewards you too fully with producer XP that is required to craft anyway. This is particularly attractive as I believe the bigger your pool, the more XP is added to a skill per use, making levels much cheaper in terms of items and therefore optimal.

Here we have trivialized demand for primary resources and made the time spent gathering worth only the bear minimum. I’ve seen posts where people value gold ore at something like 15g each? You get more gold from a skeleton in Middle downs once you trash their weapon.

So, people have the mats and they have the XP required to reach the minimal levels to make items. From that point there is not a very significant difference between the easy to reach 80 skill, and the iconic ‘Grandmaster’ state in terms of competitiveness on the market. Over the course of a week or two you can have a character capable in all aspects of outfitting themselves diminishing demand and cost and therefore incentive for specialization.


Why this hurts

Currently, I can earn around 10k in just about an hour. This is new gold from trashing mob drops and inflates the market.

If I go to make a gothic chair, which requires something like 36 trees to be gathered, processing time, cost of fuel, cost of durability on cubit measures and such, I would be lucky to have it done in 30 minutes, start to finish. Because everyone can make the chair with minimal investment though, the chairs value becomes the value of the items, not the value of the effort or ‘expertise’ and I will not get 5k for one chair. It has no scarcity. Therefore, I shouldn’t be a carpenter (I am) because I cannot even approach the financial independence afforded to me by adventuring. The chair is a light example because if you then look at the cost of weapons at tier 2, which are orders of magnitude more resource intense, you would expect to see values at over an hour of ‘value’ when selling the items. This increases to several hours if you include masterworking, gems and enchanting. No one is paying any amount close to what the ‘opportunity cost’ of crafting is equivalent to. Crafters too, on a small basis, due to variance in RNG are breaking items and hours of time. Then they are losing item value when they succeed in making a +9, but it isn’t the right stats or rolls.

Then, following that you have another crafter get good luck, they price theirs according to good luck and a moderate success is no longer sellable because the demand is so low as groups craft their own items.

Basically, statistically, 50% of the items are worse than average and become near unsellable and 50% are above average and may find a market if the seller and buyer DO find each other (Connecting buyer and sellers is a huge problem in the game right now).

So, we have ‘commodities’ in SOTA, items with no true rarity that can be made by anyone who decides to. No one can make products that gain value from scarcity. However scarcity is arequirement for a business venture to be successful if they cannot be the fastest to scale out competition.

Most games achieve scarcity through, professions being limited per character or ingredients having scarcity through degree of difficulty to obtain. This is achieved by making them drops in high end content or creating a large journey to gain the proficiency to gather the item, or even timers on the ability to craft items to remove mass availability. Often these are mixed.

Shroud of the avatar has attempted to create scarcity through only two mechanics and one can be trivialised. Breaking when creating and item durability destruction. It takes ten minutes to get enough gold to restore max durability and I haven’t seen any rise in COTO prices yet to indicate that the supply of COTO is likely to change anytime soon. They are too easy to churn for profit as evidenced by the many ‘ATMs’ when you make gold buying low, selling high, selling gold on forums for SC and injecting more COTO. The RNG destruction, either literally, or by poor stat distribution is devastating to small and medium sized businesses that can lose a weeks’ worth of productivity in a single afternoon. I believe that for a vibrant economy to exist in game, you need these smaller groups room to succeed to allow regional variance instead of the main participants being large guilds that set prices globally through ubiquitous presences.


Solutions

Make crafting and gathering more specialized. The application of combat sensibilities (Everyone should be on a linear power curve) is hurting gathering and crafting significantly. I would suggest playing with an exponential curve from 80-100 that would roughly double the proficiency to put people at levels of productiveness that were ‘commercially viable’. That requires a lot more work and investment to attain and would make crafters feel more attached to ‘being’ their GM.

Put the risk of breaking an item on the customer. Allow ‘Masterworking kit’ ‘Enchanting kit’ to be sold that allows the buyer to make the roll and pick what they want while risking their item. The crafter confers their proficiency rate so GM masterworking skill when making the kit are more valuable than a kit crafted by someone with 80 skill. Takes away having to guess what is sellable or in demand because the game offers no feedback on sales like other games. As a carpenter I would love to stock a store full or tier two, blank halberds, spears, bows, staves and then sell the ‘rolls’ at masterworking to strangers as a complementary item. Right now crafters might as well be selling lotto tickets that have already been scratched off to show whether or not they won.

Don’t destroy items on either of the first two rolls. Failure on the third roll should remove the last enchant only and four+ rolls risk breaking it. That is a better risk vs reward model then ‘Fail a 95% roll and lose it all. It feels bad. This is more in line with making a game ‘fun’, ‘respectful of player time’ and ‘fair’ then about economic balance.

Pie in the sky suggestion. Max profession advancement to 80 in all but a limited selection of skills capped, unable to take to GM+ to reduce ubiquity of competitiveness. In real life it’s said you need 10000+ hours of ‘present practice’ to become an expert. It’s unreasonable to have a system where the natural outcome over time is players that are committed will max out all producer skills to the ‘soft caps’. Combat skills are more balanced because you’re limited by either slotting complimentary skills, or risk losing synergy by putting everything on bars when active. Crafting has no such constraint on cohesion and being independent.


These ideas I believe addresses the commodification of items that is caused by the huge time sink requirements to achieve a minimum viable business in game. It still allows the big risks that pay off when done in huge numbers for large guilds to specialize in +9 and higher items they reach through large scale attempts and co-operation. At the same time it is more respectful of the time put in by solo, small and medium groups that are at more risk of statistical variance crippling them.


Credit to Planet Money for identifying the issues with commodities in a market place and the solution.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/10/12/497697621/episode-627-the-miracle-apple

 

Still in major development

Since crafting is so borked and so much still needs to be implemented this is not somthign worth the time unitl the systems are actually in place. And selling the ability which you are talking about is still a no go.

And this is a majopr problem across the boared they have give player to much from the get go so to many have to much 3 months and already "end Game" for over 90% of the players.

It is just sad.

 

Valid points. My opinion is the introduction of the raffles was just a bit too soon. The economy had not stabilized , nor had all the elements been introduced as yet. Piece meal economy cannot fluctuate without a sustained influx of demand . The market stands stagnant , primarily I assume and not quoted as a fact, that the addition of the raffle siphoned the majority of gold into the sink. A sink without optional outlets leads to inflation. It will take some time to re stabilize. It will stabilize, but I think slowly at this time.

 

Please don't dismiss feedback in the feedback thread.

Please elaborate on why crafters and producers having access to scarcity through game mechanics capping omnicrafting is sad.

And i also ask you refrain from using belittling language like characterizing my submission as sad in the first place.

Constructively disagree and outline why you disagree. Don't marginalize through language with no substance

 

Very eloquent reply -

Crafters and every other player in the game have achieved way more than any should have been allowed to ins such a short time frame and are obtaining more resources also. As I stated 90% are already at "end Game" and asking for "more.

I did not say you post was sad what is sad is the general state of the game - weak is more like it.

And you are complaining about systems that are still under development and some are just actually coming on line in the last release or two.

If they had created a game that actually took some effort to play and achieve things and items like a very few of the items are then this would turn out to be a much better game.

But - Sadly they have give players so much with such ease that when something is difficult - silver in the mines, harvesting in tier 5 areas, that they should have been doing from the start then it is pointless since player are just whining about how hard it is now.

I have said it over and over and will repeat they screwed up made a pathetically easy system to get to much to fast and no cannot take it back.

Your post showed a lot of then shortcomings but your solutions - well they are not solutions just more issues

If I dismiss something I just generally ignore it since actually staying what needs to be said for most of these posts if a waste of time and effort.

You made some great points, and explained a lot of the problems, just need different solutions.

 

I think most of the points you bring up are really good. I don't know that I agree with all of the assumptions, but I honestly can't find fault with them as such (though I will revisit it tomorrow when I am more awake). Thanks for a good read and something to think about.

 

Why does commodities make me think of commodities?

 

@Weins201

Thanks for the reply. Agreeing on the problems is a positive step in giving some feed back of value.

I do agree we were given too much, too fast. Issues like skill gains requiring hours and not weeks to craft the top tier items. Perhaps you don't agree with how i think it should be adjusted back to require more effort to create better items more reliably, but I'm glad you see the need for something.

All my ideas could be found wanting, but i still belive scarcity is the missing ingredient.

If you look at the rares market in marketplace forum, scarcity there makes the trading robust. Seeing that in the in game economy and not tied to RMT to guarentee scarcity is what is needed

I haven't had the benefit of wrestling with these ideas in the face of critique and other people's knowledge which is why i hope to see more specific discussion on what does and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

 

I think things would be a lot better if crafting skill increased the quality of the gear or enhancement that you produce instead of just giving you a slightly better success %. People would still be able to make their own stuff, but if they wanted the best stuff they'd have to buy it from the most skilled crafters.

 

While I agree with much of what you're saying, your statement (above) that "over 90% of the players" are at an "end Game" state - makes me question the rest of your logic.

I have serious doubts that 90% of our players are already at anything approaching an end game state..... No matter how an end game state is defined.

I mean.... C'mon man !

 

How about if we consider end game state to be 'Able to craft the best recopies in the game?

The only difference between a GM crafter with GM Master working is a liniar percentage chance to succeed. Most situations you'd be happy with a +5-6 weapon or armor and there isn't a significant variance between the odds of getting that with small amounts of skill and someone who has spent days working on the specializations.

In terms of skills sets and character development then yeah, there isn;t a 90% propensity for people to have reached what they would consider 'end game goals' but itemization isn't as long a journey because of how common items are due to the ease of access.

I figure you are likely referring to a total 'end game state' inclusive of character experience and a holistic view point, but given the OP and intent of my post, I think it's relevant to look at it from an itemization point of view to avoid cross arguments that are besides the point.

 

OK

 

Great ideas.

I also suggest that the second masterwork or enchant should allowed to act as a replacement for the first enchant if you didn't get what you wanted the first time. When this second replacement enchant is made, it would still reduce durability. Only one replacement enchant/masterwork is allowed per item.

 

I would have loved to see the economic plan they had for the game. Everything feels so hammered together from a players pov... I just hope they have a master plan and I just cannot see it yet. I don't need anyone else in this game, and that is what's wrong for mp mode. Maybe future changes will be better for online play.

 

I think the curve in crafting advancement they're going for is "make it doable for very casual gamers to get somewhere in a profession". While I think that has been achieved. I think they should revamp the 80-100+ crafting skill benefits for the longer term/hard core crowd. Give some kind of better reward/bonus to crafters that make it all the way up there maybe, and make it therefor more incentive to get that high in any profession. This might make the advancement curves different between adventuring skills and crafting skills.

 

So the ideal crafter experience would be to start up SotA, walk up to a crafting table and then spend hours managing lists of available supplies, inventory and open orders? Not to be rude, the company I work for has to pay good money to hire folks to spend their days doing that, if y'all want to do it for free, send my your contact details, I hear there's a pretty sweet referral bonus.

 

Is this a solo game, like the original Ultima series, or an MMO like Ultima Online? This game has an identity crisis and it affects all aspects of gameplay. If the former, then everyone should be able to craft everything, given enough time and XP. If the latter, then people should specialize which would create a demand for their goods. They've tried to make a game that is both, part solo, part multiplayer. In my opinion, I was looking for a successor to UO, where people did specialize. But they developed the crafting system around the former, so everyone can do everything. It is what it is.

 

Engaging single player offline crafting and a robust multilayer system are not compatible. That's for sure

 

It also doesn't take hours to get a crafting skill to be proficient at anything.

It takes days just for mats/xp for anything worthwhile. Less time to farm gold and buy from the market.

Not everyone wants to craft either (or gather for that matter)

Or deal with the trolling of the RNG.

Some very valid points from the OP though

 

Somewhat tangential but related: I'd happily trade the random three MW/enchant choices for the surety of infusing some rare item. No, it's not unique in the gaming world. Yes, that's okay.

Say I go out and happen to get a (somewhat scarce) fox spleen. Foxes are nice and agile, so I take the spleen to the alchemy station* and distill it down to an essence, which I then use as a component for my enchantment to straight up add a dex modifier. The distillation and its materials dictates whether that's a +2 or +4 modifier. Materials for +4 are more scarce than for +2, naturally. Maybe just a fox spleen is insufficient for +4. Or perhaps other combinations do other things.

*Perhaps you need a grand master alchemist to do the distillation even though you as a, say, armourer, are competent enough to enchant your wares. Or even a grand master cook since it's an animal part?

In any case, you could leave the Korean-mmo style lottery in place for them what likes that sort of thing,