Paradox Economy

[alphah4x0r]

I am simply giving this idea because I can see it being beneficial, even though I can see everyone here going "ZOMG! NOES I DOES NOT LIKES THIS IDEAZ!".

Out of every online game I have ever played (and I've played a lot) I have always seen the economy go incredibly south and never recover (I wonder why everything goes south when it goes bad). At that point in time, the creators of said game have to implement some massive economy change to help the economy recover, else the game be ruined forever. To save us that pain, it might in fact be better to implement some economy restrictions now too better help us tommorrow.

My idea is that every item in the game start out with a 'default purchase price', when an item is bought or sold, it can only be bought or sold for +/-10% of the items default purchase price. After every day the total worth of the total number of the item sold are added to the 'default purchase price' of said item. It is then divided by the total number of that item sold to set the 'new default purchase price'.

This type of 'stock market economy design' can be benificial to the economy because:
1. It will help stop scams
2. It will help maintain balance in the economy (players cannot sell a probably meat patty for 999,999,999)
3. It still keeps players in control of the economy (players mass purchasing items for more than it's worth will increase worth)

Note 1: Items like probably meat patties do not need to be in the mall for 999,999,999 moolah, if you want to keep it, it should be in your showcase, not for a ridiculous price.
Note 2: I can see everyone here calling this BS, but someday it will prove beneficial to the Paradox Economy.
Note 3: This is similiar to how the real world economy works, Items have a set 'Retial Price', if you go more than n% above or below this you can no longer legally advertise it for purchase and the transaction must remain a private transaction
Note 4: Items that are no longer obtainable, such as 'holiday items', can be completely player driven with no 'default purchase price', or could be 'max obtainable moolah divided by total number of said item in game'.
Note 5: You could add a complex market watch to the wiki, or in game so that you can see how the price of an item has changed over time, similar to the stock market graphs.
Note 6: There are many, many more benefiets to this, and probably some drawbacks to combat them, but overall I beleive this would be largely beneficial to the economy, especially if implemented early on when it will be simpler to code.

[Gobberwart]

Note 3: This is similiar to how the real world economy works, Items have a set 'Retial Price', if you go more than n% above or below this you can no longer legally advertise it for purchase and the transaction must remain a private transaction

This is the biggest single flaw in your argument. Because it's nonsense. With the exception of a few highly-regulated industries, nothing has an enforced "Retail Price". The vendor sets the price based on what they know about the market and what they think they can sell the item for. If, for example, a supermarket wants to advertise a loaf of bread for $25,000 there's nothing stopping them. Nobody will buy it, but that's not the point - they have the freedom to do that if they're that silly.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

[alphah4x0r]

ok... ok.... I made a mistake there, but anyways, I think the general idea is still good

[Grokly]

There are many factors which influence a game economy or, rather, the influx and outflow of game currency in the database. Trading amongst players has no effect on this at all and is in fact based on things ephemeral such as, e-peen, collections, status, etc. In fact, the rarity of an item is a large part of what sets the price. Forcing artificial values on items based on drop rates or status as a 'rare' is not a good approach in my opinion.

As has been stated before in these forums, the dev team is dedicated to providing a healthy economy. Unfortunately, there is only a false economy present at the moment. Even once a direct exchange rate can be established, the player base will always have the most influence on the trading that is getting done. After all, the health of a game economy is not based on how evenly the wealth is distributed.

[Gobberwart]

Yeah, I have to say I'm not a fan of setting prices on player-to-player trades. Many items have an "autosell" value, which IS artificial and really has very little bearing on an item's actual "value". It's there purely so people can offload junk they don't want for a small amount of moolah. If they want to.

In my experience, in a free economy, the weirdest things become valuable. For example, you might get two or three or ten players who decide they REALLY want to collect string, even thought it's currently useless. As a result, the price goes up. That's kinda cool actually.

As to why economies "go south"... there are a lot of factors involved. I can't see setting artificial prices being helpful at all, but I'd be interested in an economist's perspective.

[invisible]

I agree with Gobb and Grokly 100% just because i have a token of appreciation in the mall at 40 million moolah that I think anyone is willing to pay that... I have only placed the item there to watch the market and if someone else was being competitive then my price would go down... economies in games like this are give and take... I for one know that 5 items will go up greatly in value in the next few days as people learn what they need them for.... as the game changes so will the value of a given item and to put limitations on what people can but and sell for only hurts that potential market....

[jimmyBUFFET]

While I WILL say that Barack Obama should read the last line of Grok's post and learn from it, I will also say that I don't really see any urgent need for a change to the in-game economy...It may seem like there is a growing group of 'haves' and as time goes on there will be more and more 'have-nots' and that there isn't a whole lot of moolah floating around for the taking, but don't be too impatient. We aren't even up to 2000 accounts created yet, are we? There is a player-run mall, a chat channel in which to discuss these matters, and enough moolah to have a stable base, although fair prices for most things haven't been set yet.

As it is, I can see how this economy could potentially grow at a rate that is directly proportional to the number of players that are active on a regular basis. The economy is small because the game is still rather small in a lot of ways, but it isn't, by my measures, unhealthy.

-jB

[mastechno]

Comment holder...

While the idea Alpha is proposing sounds really intriguing...it just wouldn't work, and would more than likely drive people away, rather than keeping them playing the market/that part of the game.

Way back when...myself and Grok would have price wars in the mall on certain items :-p that would be pointless under the proposed system...and sales would just bring down the price as a whole rather than a 1 time thing.

As I talked aboot on the radio show from ParaCon, the economy will fix itself, once we get a much bigger player base(under 1k currently isn't going to cut it[go figure huh :-p]) and can actually establish what a Token is 'worth' in game, then the econ will start to form itself...rather than us attempting to form it.


Great suggesting Alpha! I just don't think it would work out as you were hoping.

[Elusis]

So in conclusion, we should stick with perfect competition (other than there being an initial 50k to make a store).

[Gobberwart]

Excellent. No action required then.

[Diageous]

It is only right the economy go down - games move forward and there is a limitless amount of money to be found. If, for example, there is weapon A and it is sold at a high price and people are willing to pay that, that's fine. However, it can not possibly remain that way. Unless the item is discontinued or un-tradeable, in either case it would be bad for a powerful weapon, the price will change. The first reason is more of the items will be acquired by players. Supply and demand. Weapon A will drop in price due to oversaturation. Also, if weapon B is released and is even better, A will drop a substantial rate.

Now, instance two. It's called anchoring bias. When I set all my items incredibly cheap (for less than half of my nearest competitor), I am setting a standard without people being consciously aware. Less-than-half price certainly looks good and I'm not concerned with how much money I earn as I only buy in the stable market. However, these cheap items have a higher chance to sell, and if they do, may draw attention to other people and cause them to drop their prices. This may shift the whole economy for a few items and shift them down to reasonable prices.

Laissez-faire. The less manipulated the economy is, the more things will be player-influenced. There will always be capitalists and communists. Economies aren't stable. If things don't go down in price, something is wrong. VCRs used to cost hundreds of dollars and now they're obsolete. Thus, we have progress to blame.

[invisible]

what most of you need to look at is that economy in games are based on supply and demand as the game chances demand chances... as new awards and zones and quest and special events are created it will happen... and lets be hones what is moolah really worth in game in the grand scheme of things... very little as long as you are eating and drinking well you should be fine..... look at things like mack does where he just goes and buys 100s of a random Item if more players did that then you have in economy


here is in idea for all pick some random item in the mall and collect it something that fits your character... set a value and let people know what you will pay or check the mall every few weeks and buy all that is available up to a certain prize... creating in economy is not hard you just have to losen your purse strings.....

[mastechno]

Great point Invis...which is something that was done a while back by teh Devs to create some moolah...also I am still randomly buying up random stuff to do that exact same thing, help generate random moolah and attempt to start to create "base" prices for items...as of right now it's a failed attempt :-p but I'll still keep doing it this early into the econ of the game

[Gobberwart]

Since we're on the topic... Throwing moolah into the economy via the "lottery" and Elljae's dice rolls... Good, bad, indifferent? Other thoughts?

[Cowboy]

Don't forget free high-end food from Elljae's store. I think they are all good, until the playerbase exceeds 25,000 or so. Then they won't be needed. I also think there should be more ways to get moolah, as the best way is to grind the Second-hand Sideshow.

[SportGuy]

This idea, with a few additional points was done in the popular game runescape over a year ago due to the economy being all weird and them wanting to make things harder for scammers, etc. Mostly, I hated the idea then and still do because I think a game is best run by the players and part of that is through free enterprise in the market. Just my 2 cents...maybe 3.5 cents with inflation....damn economy.

[commandermack]

damn it sportguy... i was about to mention runescape. bastage.