Making/Money: Conservation of Mass - Part 1
Filed under: Economy, Game mechanics, Opinion, Academic, Making/Money
This is the first in a series of articles theorizing on what a virtual economic system that had a finite number of resources might be like. I would like to impress upon you that everything expressed here is hypothetical. As far as I am aware at this time, there are no games currently being made with a system like this. Also, this is only one potential way that it could be done.
There have been several discussions amongst friends and fellow bloggers lately of what the economy of game with no ability to spontaneously create items might be like. Specifically, what if all of the resources, loot, and money in the game was there at the start and no more could be generated during gameplay than had been removed? In short, what if the law of Conservation of Mass was obeyed in a MMORPG?
Let's be clear about this - we're not talking about each character starting out with a set amount of gear or money that they would then have to use throughout their lifespan. This would be a server-wide amount of stuff. All players would have access to it provided that it was available. Once an item was "destroyed", either by dropping it or by selling it to an NPC, another item could become available.
Fundamental to the way I am laying out this concept of a system is that just because an item leaves the world as an axe, for instance, doesn't mean it has to re-enter as one. It could come back in the form of steel ingots, iron ore and coal, or maybe even as a different weapon entirely. With that in mind, onward we go!
The first question would be - how does it begin? Most of us are accustomed to being handed something useful to fight with while in an intro quest or looting the first enemies we defeat in order to obtain money or a salable item. Without helpful quest-givers with endless supplies of Bent Staffs, we would not necessarily be able to receive these seeming necessities.
In order to counter the lack of starting items, I posit that there would need to be a relatively limited server capacity. Technically, server capacities are already limited. This is evident when World of Warcraft offers free character transfers or when City of Heroes shows a red status indicating that the server is nearing its maximum load. However, those are temporary states of being that usually reflect the power of the server equipment rather than the in-game dynamics. Facilitating a system with no new items would require a maximum number of characters, not just a maximum number of simultaneous connections to a particular server. By limiting the number of characters that could exist on a server, the developers could start the game with sufficient intro items to accommodate them all.
Generally, after receiving your starting items, you are given a task to go beat up some baddies or gather something for a quest giver. These types of quests probably wouldn't need much tweaking. After all, the corpses already disappear before others reappear (They're all zombie critters!), so there's no need to go crazy trying to figure out what happens if they were all dead when you logged in. And gathering quests usually require you to fork over your gathered items to the NPC, thereby allowing them to re-spawn for other starting players to gather.
Ding! Time to level up. We, as gamers, are accustomed to the amount of loot from each kill increasing as our character level and/or enemy's level increases. Therefore, in the beginning levels, we expect to hold little of the in-game currency. At higher levels, we expect to be wealthy adventurers. But if every type of resource is limited, including money, how could every endgame character have the money needed to purchase gear or mounts?
This is where the limit placed on the number of characters per server becomes critical. In order to allow players reasonable access to items they will need as they near endgame, the system would have to start out with quite a bit of money floating around. Players would gain access to this through higher-level content, as usual, but there would have to be significant, perpetual money sinks.
Perhaps additional service-oriented NPCs (think of the saw mill in Runescape) might be used to pull funds back out of players' hands in order to recirculate it. Repairs, mounts, and all the other typical gold sinks we see might be relatively more expensive so that money flows more readily. Of course, that also means that either quests or crafts would have to require the use of such services. If not, there would be no reason to purchase goods and services from NPCs and money would likely tend to stay in the hands of those who have it - potentially leaving other players with insufficient funds for their adventuring.
We'll stop there for now. But tune in next time when we'll ponder how loot and gear could work in a system where the conservation of mass applies.
What do you think so far about the possibilities presented here? Would you be interested in playing a game where resources were limited on a per-server basis? What are your thoughts on other ways players could start out in such a system? Do you think that the limitation of the amount of money in the economy would create a caste system of the haves and the have-nots?
Alexis Kassan is a numbers nerd. She spends her days with statistical programs and her nights with spreadsheets and textbooks. She's also a MMORPG addict, having gotten sucked into Ultima Online at a formative age. In her time away from work, books and games, she can usually be found drowning in pools of sprinkles. If you have a question about in-game economics or how crafting fits in with them, hit her up at alexis DOT kassan at weblogsinc DOT com.
















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Mythic said on 11:19PM 9-07-2008
Any MMO needs macroeconomic balancing to prevent runaway inflation. I like the LOTRO system where expensive mounts, crafting, and player housing pull money out of the economy, keeping prices fairly balanced.
I think games with PvP or RvR action have great potential to pull money out with purchasable fortifications/ defensive buffs, etc. EVE handles this issue by allowing PVP to destroy very expensive ships.
I prefer the route of economic balancing that relies on voluntary purchases such as housing, mounts, or PVP ships rather than an enforced cap on population or fixed amounts of currency. This style works well in LOTRO and EVE, at least.
Reply
Major251 said on 2:28AM 9-08-2008
In addition, a finite source of money would lead to individuals, and more importantly, guilds becoming economic powerhouses. It could lead to the caste system mentioned above, but it could also lead to the hording of wealth simply as a griefing technique. Guilds could become an absolute necessity if a player wanted any part of the wealth.
In EVE, most corporations (guilds for those not familiar with EVE) have huge amounts of wealth compared to individuals, but individuals who find themselves in hard economic times can always start from square one by having at least one basic ship supplied for them by the game. In a truly closed economic system with no spontaneous generation of items, a player could truly end up destitute and would have to reroll or beg to continue playing.
There would of course also have to be a set amount of time before a character was deleted and its items/wealth recirculated into the system. If a significant portion of a server did not log on for a time (perhaps from playing on other servers even) the entire server would feel the strain of the lack of global resources.
Reply
recursive said on 3:09PM 9-08-2008
Interesting idea. I think the gents above me covered the main problems already, but I'll be interested to see where you go from here.
From a technical pov, I wonder what implementing something like this'd do to your load, if you want to keep circulation going. You'd have to start out with a whole bunch of stuff, especially if you don't throw alts out of the window straight away. Item decay would be a must as well I suppose, you can't simply rely on money sinks as they'll, you know, just get the money out.
Would be an interesting experiment in current day player end-game tolerance though.
Reply
Cray said on 12:53AM 9-09-2008
I would be in favor of a deterioration time tax on loot. For example let say you've acquired a elite sword, I would give that sword a deterioration time on basis of how often its used and how long it's been in your possession. I would allow games to keep the sword (skin) but the combat value would be nil once it had met it's deterioration criteria.
I also would be in favor of a non-playing tax. Basically charging players gold who don't log in and play a set amount of hours. The tax would be based on amount gold in your possession. More gold a steeper non-playing tax.
Of course there are loopholes for these such players spreading their gold/items across multiple accounts/players, but that can be curbed by limiting transaction of items. Gold would be harder to police.
Reply
steve said on 7:28AM 9-09-2008
i can see problems with a system like that
one: you would have to have more servers because you limit the people for each sever
two: instead of that why not just combine the two you just limit the amount by having the player go to a shop to have the item made. some items take mins, hours, and days to complete
Reply