+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Lurker Games (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: World of Warcraft (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: The Economy of WoW (/thread-7366.html)
The Economy of WoW - Bolty - 12-19-2004
I like the name of this site - it's kinda like this one here. :)
Anyhow, link to the article:
http://www.overanalyzed.com/portal.php?topic_id=19
He's very accurate - the economy works very well up until levels 40-50, after which the monies really start piling up for characters who make good use of the auction house.
This impacts everyone, because once the servers start filling up with level 60 players, the economy will fall badly to inflation. Too many characters will be walking around with hundreds of gold, devaluing everything that isn't a level 55-60 item heavily.
What would you do to fix this? One-time costs do not solve the problem, and never will. Only recurring costs can stem the tide. What recurring cost could you implement that wouldn't drive everyone crazy?
One idea of mine is housing - that there would be a recurring cost to this that would keep draining you if you wanted to keep one up. Make there some kind of point in having one, and players will line up to get it anyway.
-Bolty
The Economy of WoW - Thecla - 12-19-2004
Bolty,Dec 19 2004, 12:26 AM Wrote:What would you do to fix this? One-time costs do not solve the problem, and never will. Only recurring costs can stem the tide. What recurring cost could you implement that wouldn't drive everyone crazy?
-Bolty
[right][snapback]63138[/snapback][/right]
Good questions, to which I don't have a good answer (though at low lvls WoW has, in my experience, balanced the cash in and outflows pretty well).
The issue of real-life money vs. virtual money is a different question, but still this makes you wonder.
The Economy of WoW - swirly - 12-19-2004
Side topic from that article. He says:
Quote:Legally, the analogy I like to use is this: If you go into Kinkos and rent a computer, they do not own what you produce. The same is true, in my mind, for MMOs: The player pays for the ability to produce something using the game's systems and servers. To claim that the player has no rights and no ownership over any in-game results of production strikes me as inherently flawed. But I'm no lawyer, so we'll just have to wait and see.
This seems like a flawed analogy to me. In a Kinkos you rent a computer, but what you do and create on that computer comes directly from your own mind. In a game, what you do and create comes directly from the developers. These games aren't to the point where a player is really creating anything original. Rather its that players are just creating copies of what the developers have already created.
A better analogy would be walking into a Kinkos, renting a computer, producing something using the Kinkos' logo, and then trying to sell it. I think Kinkos would complain about you trying to sell their logo as if it was your own creation. Though here you get into trademark infringement and so maybe its not such a good analogy either.
Thinking along these lines does bring up an interesting thought though. I hear that in City of Heroes a player can pretty much make their character look any way they wish. So then this makes one wonder who owns the rights to how their character looks? The player may actually be creating something original in this case. Lets say a player designed a character, played it, became known among the whole fan base, and then went on to use that character in a comic book or cartoon. Would the developers of City of Heroes have any right to say that that player couldn't sell the comic book/cartoon or that they (the developers) should get a cut of the money made from it? I think it is areas like this where things start to get rather fuzzy. Areas where a player is actually creating something new instead of just copying what the developers have already come up with. Of course, then one must ask where the line is between what the developers come up with and what the player creates.
The Economy of WoW - Chaerophon - 12-19-2004
Thecla,Dec 19 2004, 12:51 AM Wrote:Good questions, to which I don't have a good answer (though at low lvls WoW has, in my experience, balanced the cash in and outflows pretty well).
The issue of real-life money vs. virtual money is a different question, but still this makes you wonder.
[right][snapback]63139[/snapback][/right]
:blink: That's some crazy stuff...
The Economy of WoW - Guest - 12-19-2004
Sounds like real life.
"the economy works very well up until levels 40-50, after which the monies really start piling up for characters who make good use of the auction house"
If you through 5000 people on a clean planet with starter gear, I think about 40-50 years you would find that a few had individuals had a disproprtionally high amount of the wealth.
The Economy of WoW - Doc - 12-19-2004
There are two sorts of people.
There are those where a dollar burns a hole in their pocket. They must spend it.
There are those that have a nagging overwhelming desire to turn one dollar into two and will not rest until they do so.
The moneymakers will always have an advantage over the moneyspenders. I would love to see how this will effect online gaming long term, in games with working economies.
The Economy of WoW - Zarathustra - 12-19-2004
Perhaps a repair cost hike for the upper-level items? This way it would only directly affect those using them. The only worry I have with that is the possibility of people hiking up prices to compensate, in which case we're in the same boat we were before. The only difference would be the fact that it's the players' actions causing the price increases, not a surplus of gold.
Guildhouses or personal housing might accomplish the goal if there is a monthly "rent" due, since it would again target the higher-ups. It could effectively remove a good portion of money from the economy.
The Economy of WoW - Guest - 12-19-2004
Thats the wrong approach.
The most important concept is that the game stay fun for the average player. The problem wont be that the average player has too much money. Increased repair costs actually hurt the active players more than the serious traders.
The problem is the really rich traders who end up inflating the prices for the average player.
What you need special extremly expensivw status elements to draw the money out of the rich guys. DAoC does this with houseing - it has mainy grades/prices for house. The biggest fanciest houses cost an utter fortune. They dont give the rich guys a game play advantage but it gives them status/acomplishment, gives an outlet for wealth which limits inflation.
The Economy of WoW - MongoJerry - 12-19-2004
Quote:He's very accurate - the economy works very well up until levels 40-50, after which the monies really start piling up for characters who make good use of the auction house.
Keep in mind that the much coveted level 60 mount costs 1000g to train and buy (paladins and warlocks excepted), so there's a huge money sink for upper level players, making the economy work quite well up for a good time into level 60. After one buys one's 1000g mount (keep in mind I never got close to saving up for my 1000g mount in the beta :( ), I'm not so sure what happens afterward. When Blizzard added repair and reagent costs in the beta, my cash-flow actually went negative so that I went from 150g down to 20g in just a couple of weeks. (The repair costs from dying to Onyxia repeatedly were murder!) Now that they've toned down both money sinks, I don't know what the balance is like, so I can't comment on that until I get there.
Quote:This impacts everyone, because once the servers start filling up with level 60 players, the economy will fall badly to inflation. Too many characters will be walking around with hundreds of gold, devaluing everything that isn't a level 55-60 item heavily.
I guess you mean relative devaluation, because you can't have inflation and items being devalued on a strict basis at the same time. As money piles up for the level 60 players with lvl 60 mounts, they'll buy lower level stuff in the auction house for any new characters they or their guildies/friends make, causing the value of all items to rise to varying degrees. The key way an individual can take advantage of this inflation is to participate in it -- i.e. sell stuff on the auction house to make some money. As the game goes along, I predict it'll become easier for newer players to buy their mounts -- both level 40 and level 60 -- earlier in their character's lifecycle, since they will be able to sell items to all the level 60 fat cats.
The key thing to understand about the auction house, however, is that it's primarily a market of second-tier items and of trade goods ingredients and final goods. Most of the best items in the game are bind-on-pickup -- from boss loots, quest rewards, or special tradeskill recipes -- so those won't be able to appear on the auction house (or on E-bay!). The only exceptions are the occational rare random epic item that drops and isn't bind-on-pickup. Those are the things you'll see go for hundreds of gold in the auction house as people with lots of extra cash lying around throw money at the auction. Still, even those epic bind-on-pickup items will likely be overshadowed by the newer high-level raid and instance items that are already in place or will soon be in place. So really, for those level 60's with lots of cash, the auction house is only a minor source of second-tier equipment for themselves or friends or of minor tradeskills items that they can't make themselves -- health and invisibility potions, mithril gyroshot, etc. It's not a place to go get your uber equipment.
Which then brings us to the real crux of problem with the WoW economy. After a lot of people get their level 60 mounts, people are going to finally realize that money doesn't mean anything at all! Then, you get the Diablo II problem where cash was never a commodity in trading, and you instead have to rely on a convoluted trading scheme using the valuation of various bind-on-equip blue and purple items in order to conduct trading business. *Nobody* wants that.
The solution to the problem isn't a strict money sink like taxes, repair costs, etc. The solution is to make purchaseable items that are of value to players -- like the 100g and 1000g mounts. Bolty already hit the nail on the head as far as what Blizzard is eventually planning to do -- player housing. They already have the (non-functioning) instance portals for player housing in place. Unfortunately, we'll probably have to wait until the inevitable expansion pack before we get to see this feature. Having infinitely expandable and customizable player housing would be the perfect way to make sure that level 60's continue to covet cash.
Other than that, though, I'm not quite sure what else can be done. I've seen some stuff that Blizzard already has implemented that shows that Blizzard is thinking about this, though. For example, in the Burning Steppes, there's an elf who gives out these recipe quests (involving some tomes you find in Blackrock Depths). Once you collect all of the items -- involving stuff that's hard to get even for level 60's -- you still have to pay the NPC 50g to get your reward. But the rewards are really good -- like enchantments that give +50 to fire resistance or +300 armor to head or legs (items that are not enchantable by players). There are a couple more level 60 quests that involve paying cold hard cash to get the reward (getting the key to Scholomance is one), too.
Still, there should be more. Any Lurker ideas?
The Economy of WoW - Malakar - 12-21-2004
Repair costs and housing rent I would consider negative sinks. They tend to piss players off, because they don't actually get anything new for their money.
People have a psychological tendency to want new and better stuff. They don't like to keep paying for the same old stuff.
There are some options for positive sinks, so I see no reason to choose negative ones.
A couple positive options:
1) As already mentioned, status elements like housing that gets ridiculously expensive.
2) Like Lineage 1, exponential costs for item upgrades.
Since most of you aren't really familiar with the gameplay mechanics of Lineage 1, I'll explain a bit about option 2. Base items started off as +0. You buy enchant scrolls for cash, and use them on your items to make them higher +. Items would go to a certain + safely, then they'd have a chance to blow up when you enchant them.
The result of this system was a very nice economy. The best I've seen in a game so far. Two key parts: unlimited use of gold to improve one's character strength through items; and unlimited use of base items to make stronger items of that type.
The second part is more interesting. It keeps a relationship between the value of cash and the value of base items stable.
I don't know if there could be a form of option 2 that would be a comfortable fit for WoW though.
The Economy of WoW - Cryptic - 12-21-2004
I believe the short-term solution is to add more money sinks that provide player benefit and/or status, and donât require significant coding.
Example of expensive sinks available only to level 60+:
⢠The ultimate griffon / bat / etc. pass. Free flights from any city to any other, all the time. Flight speed is 200% of usual. Distant cities can be linked with a single path, or multiple-destination path transfers are automatic.
⢠Blessing that gives all items and all items found in future unlimited durability.
⢠Cartography service. Pay for each land and receive a complete working map with all monster levels listed, all minerals and herbs, etc. This would require some coding.
⢠Housing; others have covered this nicely. But this requires lots of coding.
⢠Permanent movement speed increase (20%?) that works in all areas and doesnât require a mount. When used in conjunction with a mount, increases mountâs speed.
⢠Elite designation. Your characterâs name and/or story are used in the development of future quests and place names by Blizzard, giving you a permanent legacy across all servers. Basically they ask you for a 2,000-word review of your character, one time, and they use that to create future stories. Some existing quests could even be changed very easily to name your character instead of an NPC.
⢠Hall of honor / round table. When youâre logged off, your character appears as an NPC standing in the rulerâs hall. He doesnât have to be interactive, just there with a nice short script than you can help Blizzard write.
⢠Mark of honor. A nice customizable halo that surrounds your character, basically just an elite âlook at meâ perk.
⢠Minor shapeshifting. One-time fee to change your characterâs appearance.
⢠Major shapeshifting. Can change your characterâs race and/or sex. Must stay within faction.
⢠Bonus race. Pay X gold and your account is âunlockedâ to use goblins, which are neutral characters with no bonuses, but who can travel anywhere in the world unchallenged, and can access all quests on both sides. This would carry the ultimate price, because it allows you to power level new characters. It would be good because it would keep the game fresh for veterans by offering a new experience. Coding heavy but might be worth it. Would have to be carefully balanced.
Etc., etc. The possibilities are endless.
The Economy of WoW - Lissa - 12-22-2004
Bolty,Dec 19 2004, 01:26 AM Wrote:I like the name of this site - it's kinda like this one here. :)
Anyhow, link to the article:
http://www.overanalyzed.com/portal.php?topic_id=19
He's very accurate - the economy works very well up until levels 40-50, after which the monies really start piling up for characters who make good use of the auction house.
This impacts everyone, because once the servers start filling up with level 60 players, the economy will fall badly to inflation. Too many characters will be walking around with hundreds of gold, devaluing everything that isn't a level 55-60 item heavily.
What would you do to fix this? One-time costs do not solve the problem, and never will. Only recurring costs can stem the tide. What recurring cost could you implement that wouldn't drive everyone crazy?
One idea of mine is housing - that there would be a recurring cost to this that would keep draining you if you wanted to keep one up. Make there some kind of point in having one, and players will line up to get it anyway.
-Bolty
[right][snapback]63138[/snapback][/right]
Actually, the best solution for taking money out of the game is to put in fun money sinks, things that people will want to do and won't mind using the money. One of the that Turbine did back in the day with Asheron's Call was to make casinos where you spent money buying chips and then going to the tables and playing. This is one of the better money sinks that everyone actually enjoyed in the game. So what Blizzard really needs to do is institute fun money sinks that people will enjoy and it will easily take the money out of the system keeping the inflation in check.
The Economy of WoW - Jarulf - 12-22-2004
swirly,Dec 19 2004, 10:10 AM Wrote:Side topic from that article. He says:
This seems like a flawed analogy to me. In a Kinkos you rent a computer, but what you do and create on that computer comes directly from your own mind. In a game, what you do and create comes directly from the developers. These games aren't to the point where a player is really creating anything original. Rather its that players are just creating copies of what the developers have already created.
[right][snapback]63140[/snapback][/right]
Hmm, first of all, to me, the whole concept of "owning" ingame stuff and even trying to make it equal in whatever way to property is just silly.
Lets set that aside though and see about the "who creates". It immediately ends up with the problem of what it is we create and we are back to trying to figure out what we create. It is clearly not normal property, it is all imaginary. One can say that one create a story and some character and so on. Still, as for "owning" it, I would say it is hard. I would say that it is the player though that creates. Sure, Blizzard has set up the framework, but it is the player that do the work so to speak.
As an interesting side track, there was a case some years ago here in Sweden about game companies (it was for consoles) going after a shop were you could rent computer games (just like you do with movies for example). Now, for movies and similar work (but not books or music for example) , you are not allowed to do that uless you get special permision from the copyright holder. So the case here was if a computer game was the equivalency of movies. The game producers argued that they were in that they created the story and how it evolved, pretty much as in a movie. The court thought otherwise, it was the players, playing the game that "created" the game as they played, hence, renting computer games was perfectly OK. (Sorry if I used bad terminology and made it hard to follow, I felt my english was not good enough here).
As for the topic of the thread in general, I think any game like the one here will get economical problems of inflation. It is not just about too much money. It is not an issue of making enough things to waste money on. As long as there is an infinite item and money generation with no forced removal of it, there will eventually be problems. Sure, one can sell items to waste the money on stuff, but the longer we play, the more of the good items (for example) will be generated and players will not sell them. So of course they will get cheaper over time and so on. In addition, things like casinos, mounts and so on are voluntary and people can instead spend it on the ever increasing ammount of items and such that simply get cheaper over time.
Real world have phsyical items, buildings, whatever deterioating (spelling?) over time, and hence we need to constantly make new, otherwsie we would have the same problem in the real world. However, in a game, such a concept of things gooing "poof" over time is not fun, hence there will always be problems with the economy not working.
The Economy of WoW - --Pete - 12-22-2004
Hi,
This is not really in reply to any one post.
Almost all the discussions on balancing a game economy are garbage because people do not take into consideration one simple fact: since there is a constant influx into the game of value (money, sellable items, etc.) there must be an equal *constant* sink of value. And it leads to some general conclusions, some of which are:
First: one time expenses will not control inflation unless there's an (effectively) infinite number of them. Otherwise, all they do is postpone the onset of inflation. As a corollary, one time expenses must give something worth having or the players will not spend their cash on them. In a one dimensional game like WoW (kill mobs to get better gear and become more powerful to kill bigger mobs) the only important rewards tend to unbalance the overall game play. Fixing the economy by destroying the game balance is a poor trade.
Second: voluntary side show items (gambling for instance) will have only limited effects on the economy. Unless there is a compelling reason to play these 'games within a game', people will soon get bored of them and they will lose their effectiveness as a sink. But if there is a compelling reason to play them, then they become the game, thus changing the nature of the game and losing much of the audience. Not many people, for example, will buy WoW in order to have to play blackjack.
There are others, but I think those two are the most important. I have yet to see any ideas other than 'operating expenses' that meet those two criteria. The argument that 'players will not be happy with . . .' (fill in your own pet expense) is a foolish argument. Anything which balances the economy will have to be something that takes from the player.
Frankly, I see no way to have a balanced economy and still maintain a game where everyone wants to (and is promised that they will) win.
--Pete
The Economy of WoW - Guest - 12-22-2004
But do we want a normal balanced ecomony?
I suggest that we actually dont. In a real world economy there is a vast disparity in wealth distrobution, and every game that mimics a real economy has this problem.
I say "problem" because games are meant to be fun. If the games economy effective works against the majority of players or the casual its not fun for them.
I think an "infinete" number of 1 time exspenses is far preferable to to simply creating a high cost of living. Prizes such as increaseing exspensive houses, fancy mounts and pretty clothes are a more player friendly solution.
I want money sinks with costs which inrease expodentially with grade but offer diminishing or non-exesitant increase in core game effectiveness.
Also maintence costs are reasonable if they only support the types of fluff mentioned above.
Most syetems I see suggested end up squeezing the guy who justd wasnt to bash monsters/players and have good gear. But these same system do nothing about the expert trader who amasses 100s of the times wealth of the average player.
Its more important that the economy be fun for the average player than that it mimic a real economy.
The Economy of WoW - --Pete - 12-22-2004
Hi,
Ghostiger,Dec 22 2004, 02:58 PM Wrote:But do we want a normal balanced ecomony?Good question. Perhaps not. Let us consider the alternatives. If an economy (at least a game economy) is not balanced then either there is more money than there are goods and services or there is less money. If there is too much money, then the prices for items increases to the point that only those who have accumulated a lot of money can afford them. That usually means high level players. If there is not enough money, then certain things just don't get done (like buying tabards, or mounts, etc.). Again, it is the low level people that get screwed because even in a money poor society (game or real) those better off can get more, and the higher level characters are better off, if only because they have more choices (i.e., a level 30 can mine a newbie area, a newbie cannot mine a level 30 area, etc.).
[right][snapback]63360[/snapback][/right]
So, I think that a little reflection indicates that a balanced economy is perhaps best.
Quote:I suggest that we actually dont. In a real world economy there is a vast disparity in wealth distrobution, and every game that mimics a real economy has this problem.I think your logic is flawed. While it is true that in the real world economy there is a disparity in wealth distribution, that is not a flaw caused by the real world economy being 'balanced'. Indeed, the effects of that disparity are *smallest* when the economy is balanced and more severe the more the economy is out of balance. Historically, during periods of high inflation and periods of depression, the rich give up their toys and the poor give up their necessities.
Arguments about games based on an analogy to real life are problematic enough when the comparison is to a valid point. When the statement about the real world situation is dubious, at best, the argument becomes almost pointless.
Quote:I say "problem" because games are meant to be fun. If the games economy effective works against the majority of players or the casual its not fun for them.I think your concept of fun is like eating ice cream -- fine at first but eventually too sweet and eventually cloying. Not suitable for a sustained diet. Perhaps pandering to the instant gratification with no effort crowd is the best way to sell a million copies of a game. But if the game has no staying power, then that gravy train of monthly subscriptons soon runs out.
It is up to the game designers to balance a game, including the economy. To simply say, "We cannot have a balanced economy because the players will not accept it." is a mark of a poor designer.
Quote:I think an "infinete" number of 1 time exspenses is far preferable to to simply creating a high cost of living. Prizes such as increaseing exspensive houses, fancy mounts and pretty clothes are a more player friendly solution.Which either have no effect in game and will soon be ignored by any player with room temperature or higher IQ, or do have an effect in game and lead to uber characters. At best they do not fix the economy, at worst they break the game.
Quote:I want money sinks with costs which inrease expodentially with grade but offer diminishing or non-exesitant increase in core game effectiveness.That is the holy grail of game economy balance. We all want that, possibly just behind world peace and universal brotherhood. And a big winning lottery ticket.
The goal is simple -- but the path is not.
Quote:Also maintence costs are reasonable if they only support the types of fluff mentioned above.Optional junk, like better mounts and clothes and gambling are poorly thought out. People in RL buy those things and sacrifice others for them because they want the luxury or the relaxation or the prestige. In game, there is no luxury. The game is already a form of relaxation, so finding a way to relax in it is a bit of an oxymoron. Prestige is OK, but, unlike in real life, it will not get you a better job or get you laid, so people will not give up as much in a game as they would in real life just for prestige. So, people will not spend money on this things at the expense of trade items or better gear. They'll spend the surplus *after* they get their 'necessities'. Not much of a curb on inflation.
Most syetems I see suggested end up squeezing the guy who justd wasnt to bash monsters/players and have good gear. But these same system do nothing about the expert trader who amasses 100s of the times wealth of the average player.
Quote:Its more important that the economy be fun for the average player than that it mimic a real economy.What can I say? I never intended that the economy mimic a real economy -- a real economy isn't a closed system like a game economy, so that would be a bad model. There are some lesson to be learned from real economies, but no more than that. Which is why I never mentioned "real economies" in my post and your arguments against them are, at best, moot.
And, again, your argument is illogical on the surface. The assumption that an economy cannot both be fun and mimic a real economy is shown to be false from the success of all the Tycoon games over the years, starting with Monopoly (or the game Monopoly ripped off).
--Pete
The Economy of WoW - Malakar - 12-23-2004
Pete,Dec 22 2004, 03:02 PM Wrote:In a one dimensional game like WoW (kill mobs to get better gear and become more powerful to kill bigger mobs) the only important rewards tend to unbalance the overall game play.[right][snapback]63350[/snapback][/right]
Not necessarily. Exponential costs to better one's character strength quickly become ridiculous or impossible to obtain. Yet players still go for it.
In Lineage 1, it was not uncommon that players would spend a year on making enough money just to increase their average weapon damage from 30 to 31. 31-32 took 3-5x as long as that, and yet players still went for it. Why? They had nothing else to spend their money on that affected their character's strength. Not only that, people tended to believe the new weapon did more damage than it actually did.
Giving high-level players options to improve their high level gear with exponential costs, will only solve one part of the problem though. We still have the problem of high level players buying low level gear for their new characters and friends and inflating the price.
Due to the massive amount of gold available to the high level players, the only thing that will keep the low level items' price from inflating is statically linking gold to the items through vendors. The nice transferable stuff would have to become buyable from vendors at a set rate, reasonable for the new players with no help from high level players. Either this or get rid of trade completely and make it all bind-on-pickup, but I think that's the worse option.
The Economy of WoW - --Pete - 12-23-2004
Hi,
Malakar,Dec 22 2004, 06:15 PM Wrote:Not necessarily. Exponential costs to better one's character strength quickly become ridiculous or impossible to obtain. Yet players still go for it.The question isn't whether *some* people will waste time and gold on marginal items. It is whether *enough* people will do so to balance an economy. I'm not familiar with Lineage, so I cannot address that. But I do have some questions. Was the economy at or near a state of ruin and did the offering of expensive yet useless buffs save the economy? What did the people who bought those buffs give up to buy them? What percentage of the people bought into the scam and what did the rest of the people do with their money?
In Lineage 1, it was not uncommon that players would spend a year on making enough money just to increase their average weapon damage from 30 to 31. 31-32 took 3-5x as long as that, and yet players still went for it. Why? They had nothing else to spend their money on that affected their character's strength. Not only that, people tended to believe the new weapon did more damage than it actually did.
[right][snapback]63380[/snapback][/right]
Quote:Giving high-level players options to improve their high level gear with exponential costs, will only solve one part of the problem though. We still have the problem of high level players buying low level gear for their new characters and friends and inflating the price.Whoa. If the problem of inflation making it impossible for low level characters to buy their own gear isn't solved by exponential cost goodies, then just *what* problem is solved? Effectively, you are just saying the same thing I've been saying -- expensive gee-gaws don't balance the economy, they just soak up the excess gold *after* the economy has gone to hell.
Quote:Due to the massive amount of gold available to the high level players, the only thing that will keep the low level items' price from inflating is statically linking gold to the items through vendors. The nice transferable stuff would have to become buyable from vendors at a set rate, reasonable for the new players with no help from high level players. Either this or get rid of trade completely and make it all bind-on-pickup, but I think that's the worse option.Let's see. To keep the low level items from being inflated, have them available from vendors. But then the mid level items get inflated. Same solution? Then the high level items become inflated. Do it again? Then you've fixed the economy by abolishing it.
I don't think so. I think you need to go a few more steps in your "what if" analysis.
--Pete
The Economy of WoW - Guest - 12-23-2004
You ignored the crucial qualifier. Cute, but not very clever.
I said "normal". When you looked at the contrast between your and my suggestions I believe its clear what I meant by "normal".
As for your notion that people wont pay exorbitant prices for increasingly marginal improvements and fluff - I suggeest you dont have much experience playing MMORPs. Its been my personal observation that people will do exactly that.
I have seen the balance work in other MMORPs. It is true that the economy will only work for max level charcters - there is no way around that except complete barring item/money trading between disparate levels. But you can make an economy balanced but still have a minimal cost of living for people who choose simply fight and trade only at a simple direct level. I have seen it done.
If you try take cash out of the economy in a completely equitable manner the result the poor guys are seriously pinched and the rich guys keep building bigger and bigger treasure mounds.
Also your reference to Lineage 2 shows that you really dont understand why so many long term but caual MMORP players are so thrilled with WoW.
We want a game where we can work together with friends on advenures, find cool items and have fun.
Lineage 2 is a great game for some people but it is exactly the opposite of what most of my MMORP friends want.
The Economy of WoW - Guest - 12-23-2004
Actually low level stuff eventually becomes cheap in economies with high end sinks.
It might be moderatly exspensive to get exactly what you want, because people with high level toon will essentially charge for their time at a rate that respect what they could make killing high lvl mobs/mining etc. But its ussually affordable to reasonable mix and match gear.
You really cant worry about low end economy though after a year. Each server probaly has less that 7000 active players once most of them hit 60 and start focusing on the end game, their wont be enough true newbiesto have a viable economy. People will still level but most will be twinked and theres always going to be a few nice people to craft for true newbies if they realy need gear.
The economy for lvl 60s(what what ever the high lvl is) is all that matters in the long run, you will realize this if you play MMORPs long enough.