12-22-2004, 07:02 PM
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
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
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?