Closed Economy Idea

it works for 99% of the people ... but we are not talking about them

The issue lies in the ultra wealthy player or player associations in game - as your rares market idea hints at

So any economic model that seeks to slow / or stop inflation has to address that 1% that holds a lot of money / but player to player transactions does not help the situation as we discussed in your other thread about RARES MARKET

 

DITTO ... DITTO ... DITTO

 

Except being allowed to keep more money allieviates that fear. When people have enough money to feel secure, they're willing to spend more.

As for money being worth more than what they're buying.. "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it".

 

The root of the problem lies with shinnies - you can have a barter economic model that works fantastically - look at PoE - but that would be a thread for another topic (but seriously - look - at how they have the discovery element into their "currency model")

 

Never heard of it, they have a barter model or do people just barter because their economy is broken?

I'd love to have no gold and let everyone barter items. I think that would be great.

 

You end up trading in orbs that can be used to mod magic items.

 

Its a gear based game / with lots of "rolls" on gear quality - it works because its a system based on farming - so it may not be your cup of tea - it's also - action "cough" RPG - its a great game (Diablo est)

Everything in game as a "resource" value to it - and they are used to get new "rolls" on gear / so for optimum build you have to amass "currency" to optimize your stuff -

it works for that game - not saying it would work for this game - but there are good lessons to be learned conceptually

 

Except the 1% doesn't control the vast bulk of the currency. Not in RL, not in game. Most of the wealth is with 99%. I would argue that you start running into problems when the 99% is no longer spending. The rares idea is just one more thing people want to spend money on. Collectors like to collect.

There is no easy one solution fits all here but currency needs to flow. If it's a faucet / sink system.. no flow = inflation.. if it's a completely closed system that recycles currency.. no flow = stagnant economy as less and less money is available over time.

 

Yup - think about it - is that such a bad thing - unless you have organized players who want to sell gold? or Just be silly?

There is no inherent need for it in a video game - none - however we incorporate it because its what we are accustomed to .. and what we strive for in the world

stagnating economy in the game - if it does not affect gameplay - is not a real problem (how many people want to be rich in the game - if it is a large majority then you would have a problem)

Money is just a medium for trade - it has taken a whole new meaning in life - and that has naturally been incorporated in games - but from a game design perspective (with the admittedly little knowledge that I have - I don't necessarily see a need)

What would stop people trading in goods? Or player made resources such as player created paintings/ books / furniture etc .. (not the idea from J.....)

 

Didn't Mexico do this with the peso? Problem is that new players get gold at slower rates it would hurt the new players.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

Doesn't matter if gold farmers don't use the sinks. Their customers will.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

They definitely had hyperinflation - precisely due to over printing money to pay foreign debt

 

What percentage of the market place do you think gold farmers make up? I think it's a fairly high concentration of wealth. Afterall it's backed by real money.

If you want to stop inflation you have to put gold farmer's investments at risk to loss. That will keep them out of the game and fix your economy. That's what this system does.

 

As I've said.. gold farming is a separate problem with a separate solution (for a separate discussion).. the ideal way to deal with them is make it easier for them to go do their gold farming in some other game.

 

Have fun chatting about this stuff. I don't think I have any more to contribute.

Sent from my Galaxy S5 using Tapatalk.

 

Yeah I think we're rapdily approaching the running around in circles stage.

I'm aware that my approach is not an easy thing It potentially requires a constant effort to include more and more content. It's a lot like Richard's notion of having so many skills that no one would ever have the time to master them all. You have to keep adding more and more skills as time goes on to stay ahead or else the hard core players will catch up to you. It's just one part of a solution to a large and complex issue.

 

A closed economy would never work, and it's a loony idea to have "Gold" decay... A much simpler idea would be to limit the amount of gold, resources that could stack, and have the game watch everyones inventory and not allow multiple stacks. Even if you store it in someone elses house, it's still part of "your" inventory.

Having Gold decay, even at a slower rate, is the same as mandatory Taxes, at such a high rate, that there would be no point in keeping any gold at all. If the point here is not to allow anyone to have items, then take the items out of the game.

In a closed system, you could never have any new players because all the old players would already have everything, so there would be nothing for the new guys... Only hand me downs the old players don't want (trash items) or anything they could sell the new guys, but the new guys have nothing, it all decayed away...

This whole idea is loony...

 

You would be right on the assumption that the total amount of currency is fixed at launch and can never fluxuate. On the other hand, if the amount is based on the number of active accounts or characters it would still technically be a closed system. It would work assuming a reliable flow from players back into the system.

 

I agree with you completely; i wouldn't like a closed economy with a limit on resources; i'd prefer a bit of resource control. I'd like to point out that having mandatory taxes in a lower (or proportional) rate could be interesting. I think having a "Big Brother Economy" (the server knows exactly how many valuable assets are out there... You can't decieve Big Brother) could make a tax system interesting... it could prevent passive hoarding and giving a bit of a concern to players who wants to become rich. Throwing a sketch here of a way to implement a (quite standard) tax system.

Let's say you value all assets a player have stored in the bank, and (I recall they said bank will be probably global, so i'll go for it) if your stored assets value is over a certain number, the bank charges you with a (monthly? daily?) fee automatically substracted from your gold or you get a payment due if you don't have enough gold (just other valuable assets). In that case gold will be automatically substracted from player bank as soon as some gold is deposited. The "certain number" will be calculated using the equivalent in gold of the assets in the world as a factor.

Also, the system will balance the real state assets and, depending on the town you have them (probably could be the town's owner option to set it) you'll get charged with a tax proportional to the value of your real state assets and the tax value in the town. The taxes money will disappear, it doesn't matter if town is player owned or NPC owned, but it would be nice if it gives some passive benefits to the town. The money collect works exactly as described above. Disclaimer: since real state assets already have a tax tied to them, this step could be not taken in consideration at all, just trying to take all factors in consideration.

Anyway, Tax fee by player = stored assets tax and real state assets tax.

Players with an "average" economy status should get no fee at all, and people with an economy a bit above average should get a most symbolic tax fee. The richer you get, the tax total becomes more expensive (making rich people in the need of giving an use to his money if they don't want to lose it).

I think this system could give the same benefits of the economy concept posted in the OP but lessening the withdrawals i described in my former post in this thread.