Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

My new economics concept [EDIT: 09/29/11 presentation re-done]

2»

Comments

  • Lucifer.iixLucifer.iix HoensbroekMember Posts: 19

     In economics, money supply or money stock, is the total amount of money available in an economy at a particular point in time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

     

     

    And that results in: "Financial DATA"

    US Financial Data - 23 October 2009      Look's fine to me... Lol !

     

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Originally posted by Lucifer.iix


     Where does the value of coint come from?
    -- Normaly the material where its made from. So iron, copper , silver and so on. So its a weight thing....
    Thanks for joining the conversation!!
    The value of coin in the US economy hasn't used representative money since the Nixon era and I don't know if agame that has ever used representative standard.
    -- And in my MMORPG the value of money is the "amount of gold" divided by "The money printed for it".
    (So if you print 2x times more money than other currencies with the same amount of gold for it. The currencie is devaluated 50%)
    Again I'm not aware of any of the major titles that "print  money" against a physical commodity.
    I'll argue that the value of money in most systems is the amount of money in the economy modified by the amount of commodities that can be bought with it modified by how that money is distributed among players.  There is little benefit in most games in having grossly more money then needed offer little advantage, thus the value of coin varies from player to player relative to the needs and wants of the player.
     
    So in my game there is no money... Only "GOLD" and "Paper" with gold stored for it.

    Paper is mutch more handy to travel and to pay with... ofcourse...

    This all depends on whether or not gold has some useful function in game and where it comes from.  If you expect that people will value it simply because it's called "gold" I think your going to be disappointed.
     
    Bye !!!  (Happy HaCkInG)

     

     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Originally posted by Lucifer.iix

    Originally posted by Talinguard


    Every one wants to scream that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
    Actually I didn't say that, got your quotes messed up!

     

    If everybody get rich.....Your "ALL" poor but don't know it yet !!!



    Poor people are just normal people with less money than the rest...

    Rich people are just normal people with more money than the rest...



    So if there is no difference in "wealth" there is no "wealth", and your all very "poor" and very "happy" !!!

     

    You have to make a construction that the poor people get a liitle more richer by lending wealth to other people with low risk.

    And 'Rich' people can multiply there wealth by taking risk. (Or 'loss' a lot)



    Than the poor people always get richer in money, but the difference between poor and rich alwas grows. But the amount of 'rich' people will decrease because of the risk taking (some one did a wrong bet, and is poor now).



    Poor people get more money.... So more demand, Inflation, prizes go up....

    Rich people get less money.... So less investments, less money circulating, Deflation, prizes go down....



     

    Bye ! and good luck.....

    Are we discussing the real world or the game economy?

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • arieschildarieschild Keller, NMMember Posts: 65

    Honestly Lucifer; I think you would do well to take the hour to review Talinguards PDF and take some notes. They would probably answer a lot of your questions.

     

    Talinguard; I must apologize for taking a personal stand point in my last post, but I think that Human nature is a substantial input that effects any economy and would like to know how you take this into account. All game economies will be adversely effected by gold farmers and sellers, Do you have a corse of action set in place to deal with these intrusions?

    If you build it, let others tear it apart so you can make it better.

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Originally posted by arieschild


    Honestly Lucifer; I think you would do well to take the hour to review Talinguards PDF and take some notes. They would probably answer a lot of your questions.
     
    Talinguard; I must apologize for taking a personal stand point in my last post, but I think that Human nature is a substantial input that effects any economy and would like to know how you take this into account. All game economies will be adversely effected by gold farmers and sellers, Do you have a corse of action set in place to deal with these intrusions?

    Sorry haven't been ignoring you it's just that I need a little more time to prepare for my response, and I didn't take anything personal.  I enjoy talking about this stuff and a learn from others even if I come off as being somewhat of a know-it-all.  I appreciate your input.

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • Lucifer.iixLucifer.iix HoensbroekMember Posts: 19

    This all depends on whether or not gold has some useful function in game and where it comes from.  If you expect that people will value it simply because it's called "gold" I think your going to be disappointed.
     
    The only useful function of 'GOLD BARS' is for printing money AND to buy 'other' currencies, for buying forein goods. You can make 'gold bars' of course but it will cost you more than its value. So nobody will create them only when the value gets to rediculas high (Self correcting system). The use of the normal gold is for luxurary goods like a golden watch or electronic goods. In the begin of the game (year -4) the 'governments' and 'population' get created and they only have 'GOLD BARS'. And they will store the gold at deposits and will get 'printed' money for it. That printed money are just 101010110 on a bank account, They dont really get printed.


    The nice thing is that the "GOVERNMENT" can "control" the economics (inflation/deflation/excange rate) if the government is 'RICH'. (Putting more GOLD in the vault or print more, or buy stocks/debt). Are there players that are richer than a country the government can't control the markets anymore. Just the US doenst control the "Credit To Default Swap Market" of 5 Trilj. dollars beqause they dont have the money for it. But the US is "NOW" controlling the 'Housing' markets, keeping the prizes high. So a little bit of control is nice to have....
    Collective animal behavior and Economics don't match so nice...

    Good luck.... Getting a good economical system is very difficult.



     

     

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Originally posted by Lucifer.iix


    This all depends on whether or not gold has some useful function in game and where it comes from.  If you expect that people will value it simply because it's called "gold" I think your going to be disappointed.
     
    The only useful function of 'GOLD BARS' is for printing money AND to buy 'other' currencies, for buying forein goods. You can make 'gold bars' of course but it will cost you more than its value. So nobody will create them only when the value gets to rediculas high (Self correcting system). The use of the normal gold is for luxurary goods like a golden watch or electronic goods. In the begin of the game (year -4) the 'governments' and 'population' get created and they only have 'GOLD BARS'. And they will store the gold at deposits and will get 'printed' money for it. That printed money are just 101010110 on a bank account, They dont really get printed.


    The nice thing is that the "GOVERNMENT" can "control" the economics (inflation/deflation/excange rate) if the government is 'RICH'. (Putting more GOLD in the vault or print more, or buy stocks/debt). Are there players that are richer than a country the government can't control the markets anymore. Just the US doenst control the "Credit To Default Swap Market" of 5 Trilj. dollars beqause they dont have the money for it. But the US is "NOW" controlling the 'Housing' markets, keeping the prizes high. So a little bit of control is nice to have....
    Collective animal behavior and Economics don't match so nice...

    Good luck.... Getting a good economical system is very difficult.



     

     

    I belive you're looking at the game economy though the "glasses" of the real economy.  People involved in game economics have seen that people try to use elements of real world economics in the game world and fail, because they didn't understand the differences in what players need and want in game, and what people in the real world need and want and recognize that the two often aren't compatable.

    Now to be honest I don't have enough information to truly understand what your proposing (if anything).  I cut my own presentation on my ideas from 50 slides down to about 1/2 that (15 pages of written material) in order to explain my idea, thus if you're trying to explain your own ideas, were gonna need a lot more info.

    You say;

    "The only useful function of 'GOLD BARS' is for printing money AND to buy 'other' currencies, for buying forein goods."

    There is some truth in that statment in the real world, but in the game world that is flat out wrong (at least the way I'm understaning the statement).  Luxury items in the game world have little if any value and are usually only tokens of a players accomplishments and as such are low the list of priorities.  In a world with PvP these items are virtually worthless.  As a result, printing money gainst something of little value in game undermines the concept of represenitive money.

    If you read my concept you would know that I also use the concept of represenitive money.  Insted of gold I created a fictional substance of equally high value to every player within the game.  It's called EBM and it is a component used to create all magical items within the game and as the physical substance which money is printed against.  Thus, EBM is analogus to gold in the real world, but I had to adapt the concept in order to make it work in the game world.  Along with that I created a unique system of distribution and have worked to deal with a lot of the issues that the traditional F&D economies suffer from, including RMT.

    I'm in a hurry, but I'll come back and explain my thoughts on RMT.....

     

     

     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • BjordionBjordion Jersey City, NJMember Posts: 10

    Man I love these long, thought provoking posts...

     

    Excellent presentation OP.  I'd like to suggest theft as a means for commodity to be lost/transferred from one player to another.  What I have in mind is chiefly meant to combat gold farmers that have the potential to hoard commodity and wreck havok on the system.  

     

    Players that accumulate massive amounts of wealth and do not spend it, i.e. do not actively participate in the production/consumption cycle of the system, are, in my humble opinion, gold farmers.  Simply possessing vast game wealth is not in and of itself a crime, which is why I am steadfastly against a taxation system that penalizes the rich.  A flat tax rate can work if and only if it provides benefits within the game structure (increased guards/security of the resident city, R&D for magic/tech, etc.), but that is another topic altogether.  Hoarding wealth is a crime within the system, because it allows for manipulation of commodity value by an elite few that can potentially ruin the fun of the game for many.  Players that possess large amounts of wealth AND regularly spend it as part of the consumption/production cycle do not fall into this category.  

     

    Plainly put, require wealth over a certain threshold that has existed for a certain length of time to be held at a physical location (bank, personal house, guild hall, etc.) that can be raided or broken into in some fashion.  

     

    Before discounting this suggestion, take a look at the modus operandi of the gold farmer:  

    1. They work alone

    2. They perform repetitive tasks that yield the highest possible amount of commodity with the smallest amount of time committment

    3. They do not invest commodity beyond the minimum required amount into their character

     

    This makes gold farmers ideal candidates for raiding.  They operate solo, so they have no backup and no guild members to offend who will exact retribution.  If they are true gold farmers then they are off farming somewhere and cannot see to the defense of their storage facility.  Give other players the ability to raid the storage facility where all that commodity is held, and one of two outcomes is guaranteed to occur: 

    1. Commodity is obtained and redistributed back into the system

    2. Players are defeated by the defenses (fortification, wards, enchantments, guardians, etc.) of the gold farmer.  Defenses that cost resources and commodity to develop, time to plan and place, and commodity to maintain upkeep.

     

    Either outcome is a win scenario for the system.  If the gold farmer is forced to spend commodity to protect what they have, they will continually spend to maintain their protections.  This environment is not at all suitable for the typical gold farmer and I believe would highly discourage them from participating in the game in their typical fashion.  Typical (sarcasm font here). 

     

    It is now 2:30 in the morning where I'm at, so I shall post this for now and return to edit it tomorrow.

    I has a crayon

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common

     

    They say great minds think alike.....

    Originally I had just such a system as part of my presentation (and I think It's mentioned somewhere in this thread), but it was a system that required several pages of explanation (the presentation was over 50 pages at one point) and wasn’t necessary for the core to function.  It's always been my intention to design ancillary systems and post them separately.

    I created the system for two reasons.  It creates real tangible reasons for conflict.  It also address the exact point you've made regarding hording.  I know it's impossible to prevent gold farmering without creating restrictive artificial feeling rules.  Instead I decided to incorporate gold farmers and their style of play into the game just as you've suggested.  

    If you've read my presentation in the link you know that all items require a specific commodity and that commodity can be exchanged for money.  So the theft of coin and commodity is possible though some fantasized fictional mechanic means that players cannot horde items or coin.  Well, they can hord the item, but not the commodity that makes it valuable.

    In each realm there is a vault and every player that wants to store their money and goods would do so in the realm vault.  By storing it in "realm" vault it would assure that online or offline you could be assured that other players in the realm would have a vested interest in protecting the realm vault as everyone stores their wealth there.  The wealthiest members of the realm would have a proportionally larger investment which is always a good thing.  The amount of money lost in a raid would be proportional to the amount of wealth each player has within the vault.

    Attacks on the realm vault would come in stages taking several hours, each stage requiring more players and increasing in rewards all of which would come from each realms vault.

    This would have the added advantage of ensuring that the realms with the greatest wealth offer the greatest reward.  With several realms in the mix, smaller realms could work together to balance out larger ones.

    I also agree with your assessment of farmers.  They don't participate in the game like most thus they make PvE their focus and are generally unprepared to defend their wealth from other players.

    Theft insures that money is circulating which is necessary for a healthy economy.

    I wrote more, but honestly the possibilities are virtually limitless and depend on the system overall.

    I know I wrote about this system here as well, I just can't find it.....

     



     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • BjordionBjordion Jersey City, NJMember Posts: 10

    Figured I'd just piggyback off your comments rather than editing my previous post.

     

    Yes, it is difficult to convey the idea of potential theft without going into specific detail about the aspect.  And as you point out, such a potential creates a very real reason for conflict.  The entire point of implementing such a feature is to draw the hoarders back into the economic system.  If they are forced to spend in order to defend (and spend continuously, replenishing arrows, repairing defenses, wages for guards, etc.) then they are part of the system and the desired result is achieved.  Moreover, such a feature heavily promotes the advantages of joining a guild or at least a group of friends in an effort for self-preservation.  Again, this is a characteristic quite foreign to a gold farmer.  

     

    To wrap my initial post up, let me state that such a feature of the system (allowing theft) would not have anywhere near the effect on a regular player, even if they are the weekend warrior type, as it would on the gold farmer type.  Strength comes in numbers and only the most dedicated and addicted player that logs significant hours (as a true player, not just as farmer) could operate in solo mode and possibly hope to survive the onslaught of raiders and thieves.  This feature isn't designed to pidgeon hole a player into a certain method of play.  Crafters can craft, PvEers can PvE, PvPers can PvP.  As long as the player participates in the economy it is highly unlikely they will become a target.  A FIFO system could even be used (purely spitballing here) to identify gold hoarders.  FIFO is an accounting term, First In First Out.  If I make $10 yesterday, then make another $10 today but also spend $10 I am left with $10.  That $10 is from today.  The $10 from yesterday has been spent.  A gold farmer typically (I love this word obviously) will *gasp* hoard their wealth.  With a FIFO system this distinctly separates them from a wealthy player that regularly spends and generates large amounts of commodity.  Code could be written to identify certain players (and make this information known to the general public via "tavern gossip") that have "aged" wealth over a certain numerical threshold.  If a player is part of the economic system they will not fall into this category.  Gold farmers are then targeted by the player base and wealth/commodity is redistributed accordingly.  And let's face it, even the most hardcore PvE player would be lining up around the block to get a chance to stick it to a gold farmer.

     

    OP, I very much like the concept of multiple realms in your presentation, and I agree 4-5 would be preferable (5 is ideal IMHO).  However, I'm not clear on why you do not like the idea of commodity being gained through PvP (unless I misinterpreted what you said).  Please expound on that a little more, and I will go back to your presentation to see if I clicked through a page or two by accident.

    I has a crayon

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common

    Originally posted by Bjordion

    Figured I'd just piggyback off your comments rather than editing my previous post.
     
    Yes, it is difficult to convey the idea of potential theft without going into specific detail about the aspect.  And as you point out, such a potential creates a very real reason for conflict.  The entire point of implementing such a feature is to draw the hoarders back into the economic system.  If they are forced to spend in order to defend (and spend continuously, replenishing arrows, repairing defenses, wages for guards, etc.) then they are part of the system and the desired result is achieved.  Moreover, such a feature heavily promotes the advantages of joining a guild or at least a group of friends in an effort for self-preservation.  Again, this is a characteristic quite foreign to a gold farmer.  
     
    To wrap my initial post up, let me state that such a feature of the system (allowing theft) would not have anywhere near the effect on a regular player, even if they are the weekend warrior type, as it would on the gold farmer type.  Strength comes in numbers and only the most dedicated and addicted player that logs significant hours (as a true player, not just as farmer) could operate in solo mode and possibly hope to survive the onslaught of raiders and thieves.  This feature isn't designed to pidgeon hole a player into a certain method of play.  Crafters can craft, PvEers can PvE, PvPers can PvP.  As long as the player participates in the economy it is highly unlikely they will become a target.  A FIFO system could even be used (purely spitballing here) to identify gold hoarders.  FIFO is an accounting term, First In First Out.  If I make $10 yesterday, then make another $10 today but also spend $10 I am left with $10.  That $10 is from today.  The $10 from yesterday has been spent.  A gold farmer typically (I love this word obviously) will *gasp* hoard their wealth.  With a FIFO system this distinctly separates them from a wealthy player that regularly spends and generates large amounts of commodity.  Code could be written to identify certain players (and make this information known to the general public via "tavern gossip") that have "aged" wealth over a certain numerical threshold.  If a player is part of the economic system they will not fall into this category.  Gold farmers are then targeted by the player base and wealth/commodity is redistributed accordingly.  And let's face it, even the most hardcore PvE player would be lining up around the block to get a chance to stick it to a gold farmer.
     
    OP, I very much like the concept of multiple realms in your presentation, and I agree 4-5 would be preferable (5 is ideal IMHO).  However, I'm not clear on why you do not like the idea of commodity being gained through PvP (unless I misinterpreted what you said).  Please expound on that a little more, and I will go back to your presentation to see if I clicked through a page or two by accident.

     

    It's quite refreshing to have a conversation with someone who is capable of moving beyond the ideas pioneered by Everquest and perfected by World of Warcraft.

    In regards to gold farmers, I agree totally.  Instead of fighting the problem by making it impossible or threatening to ban people that do it, I would create a world where players can exploit the farmer (not really expoit, but force the farmer to play the game) and have fun while they do it.  This of course will make farming less profitable and will help maintain the value of the currency.

    In regards to theft I think we're on the same page.  Theft takes place on a more macroscopic level so that losses are shared....no single individual is left to feel exploited, but on the other side, the thieves reward is in relation to their number.  That is, the greater their number (those wishing to plunder another realm) the greater the chance for success, but the lesser the reward.  Thus, players will have to measure their number against the amount of time they need to sustain their attack in order to make a raid profitable.  Hopefully that makes sense with so little context.

    "However, I'm not clear on why you do not like the idea of commodity being gained through PvP"

    There are two ways to obtain commodity.  One is a sort of wage given to the member of a faction, guild, or clan for completing certain tasks.  The tasks would be the sort of thing that an average player would do in the course of playing the game.  The point is that the tasks would consume time and prevent players from creating multiple characters just to collect a "wage"

    But there are 5 types of commodity, the other 4 are earned in combat with other players.  When you win you earn a small percentage of the commodity the other player has used to create and power their items, the same items they are using in combat against you.  Thus the rewards you earn for defeating another player are in direct proportion to the power of their items.  The intangable is the players skills (not to be confused with the players charachter)  I have very specific reasons for doing this way.  If the presentation didn't make it clear let me know.

    Just remember that it all relates to money and the power of your items.  That is, the power of items comes from the amount AND the different types of commodity you bind into your items (a player only receives one type as a wage).  Money is created when you exchange commodity for coin.  The exchange rate is determined by a formula that looks at the amount of goods and services against the amount of money in circulation modified by how quickly money is changing hands. 

    It's all designed to make the economy sustainable and maintain the value of coin over long periods of time, that is, prevent inflation.  Other games battle inflation by introducing new items into the game usually through expansions.  The new items have value because they are usually better than older items.  Players spend time to retrieve them and place them on the player markets.  The price they charge is in some relation to that players perception of how much each unit of money is worth.  The more money there is in the economy the less each unit is worth.  

    The struggle to create drains that siphon out excess cash to prevent inflation has had it's own consequences which I'll skip for now in the interest of brevity...ooops ...too late...lol

     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • BjordionBjordion Jersey City, NJMember Posts: 10

    Originally posted by Talinguard

    There are two ways to obtain commodity.  One is a sort of wage given to the member of a faction, guild, or clan for completing certain tasks.  The tasks would be the sort of thing that an average player would do in the course of playing the game.  The point is that the tasks would consume time and prevent players from creating multiple characters just to collect a "wage"

    But there are 5 types of commodity, the other 4 are earned in combat with other players.  When you win you earn a small percentage of the commodity the other player has used to create and power their items, the same items they are using in combat against you.  Thus the rewards you earn for defeating another player are in direct proportion to the power of their items.  The intangable is the players skills (not to be confused with the players charachter)  I have very specific reasons for doing this way.  If the presentation didn't make it clear let me know.

    Just remember that it all relates to money and the power of your items.  That is, the power of items comes from the amount AND the different types of commodity you bind into your items (a player only receives one type as a wage).  Money is created when you exchange commodity for coin.  The exchange rate is determined by a formula that looks at the amount of goods and services against the amount of money in circulation modified by how quickly money is changing hands. 

    It's all designed to make the economy sustainable and maintain the value of coin over long periods of time, that is, prevent inflation.  Other games battle inflation by introducing new items into the game usually through expansions.  The new items have value because they are usually better than older items.  Players spend time to retrieve them and place them on the player markets.  The price they charge is in some relation to that players perception of how much each unit of money is worth.  The more money there is in the economy the less each unit is worth.  
    The struggle to create drains that siphon out excess cash to prevent inflation has had it's own consequences which I'll skip for now in the interest of brevity...ooops ...too late...lol
     

    Went back and re-read the presentation.  Helps when it's not well past midnight and I'm already half asleep.

     

    Your definition of wage above seems to contradict page 11 of your presentation when you state that "commodity is not earned from time spent questing, killing npc's or any other activity that requires time spent interacting in the game".  I believe this is where my initial confusion stems from.  Please clarify.

     

    The idea of players losing power from weapon enchantments when they die is intriguing, but the concept almost seems like "anti-xp".  I've always loved the notion of weapons gaining xp from combat and developing new/greater abilities as they advance in level, but to be perfectly honest I'm not very keen to the idea of being forced to gather multiple commodity types from different realms just to obtain maximum potential of an enchantment.  I may be misinterpreting, but this seems like the player is being forced to play the game a certain way.  The crafter or even dedicated PvEer doesn't have native access (I like the description) to all commodity types and is forced to either PvP or trade via the commodity exchange for the desired commodity type.  This is stating the obvious, and I know you've mulled this over, but how will a system like this not turn into an abusive "buy low/sell high"?  Gold farmers would just farm the commodity exchange, there would never be a reason to go out into the game world itself.  I understand that having multiple commodity types encourages and almost demands that  players interact with one another, but it seems too ripe for exploitation.

    I has a crayon

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Sorry I missed your post, look for a response soon...

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    "Went back and re-read the presentation.  Helps when it's not well past midnight and I'm already half asleep.

    Your definition of wage above seems to contradict page 11 of your presentation when you state that "commodity is not earned from time spent questing, killing npc's or any other activity that requires time spent interacting in the game".  I believe this is where my initial confusion stems from.  Please clarify."

     

    Looking at it again, I can understand the confusion.  I think it has to do with my poor choice of words.  I said”… or any other activity that requires time spent interacting in the game"

     

    I should have said “…or any other activity that requires time spent interacting WITH the game"

     

    In other words, players interact with one another in order to become wealthy.

     

    The reality is that if there is money in the game, it has to come into the world though some kind of interaction with the game.  If you’ve read my presentation you’d know that the mechanism in which money comes into the world requires that players simply play the game.  That’s it.

     

    The idea is that players can’t “farm” mobs for money or items.  They must engage and interact each other.  That means that players defend the currency in the world from each other.  Because money is directly linked to a substance that improves and maintains the power of items, then I’ve created a system that incentivizes players to value money.  This creates new and different social incentives as well.

     

    I realized that in most games players don’t value money they value what it can do.  While a player is gaining experience (i.e. gaining levels) money has high value because items are constantly changing, thus the need for money is very high, but the end game is where most games fail.  The reason they fail is the need for money declines as players collect the best items for a given slot.  If a player uses a sword as a primary weapon, then once you obtain the best (or very close to) the best sword, then the need for money to purchase a new sword has declined.  At the end game, once players have acquired reasonably good sets of gear, the need for money declines.  I’m not suggesting that players don’t need money.  Most games see that that’s not the case.

     

    When you combine what I’ve said above with the fact that in many cases items can’t even be purchased, they must be gained through mandatory interaction with NPC’s, this again decreases the value of coin and increases the value of items that help them gain more items.  That is, each new (presumably better) items gives a player enhanced utility.   It is this enhancement that makes gaining other new items via interaction with NPC’s even easier.

     

    In the end, what happens?  Players obtain most of what they want and they very quickly become board.

     

    This is where my idea is totally different.  Items can gain and lose power based on a players skill within the game.  Now there is no doubt that PvP is the most direct route to obtaining other types of commodity from other players, but players can also obtain commodity though earning money (which is of course what gives it value!!) selling the best raw materials, used to create the best items, earned though combat with monsters.

     

    This is largly besed on the assumption that players play the game to accomplish something, whatever that something is, that virtually anything a player wishes to accomplish in the game (within reason) can be done more easily with better items.

     

     

     

    "The idea of players losing power from weapon enchantments when they die is intriguing, but the concept almost seems like "anti-xp".  I've always loved the notion of weapons gaining xp from combat and developing new/greater abilities as they advance in level, but to be perfectly honest I'm not very keen to the idea of being forced to gather multiple commodity types from different realms just to obtain maximum potential of an enchantment.  I may be misinterpreting, but this seems like the player is being forced to play the game a certain way.  The crafter or even dedicated PvEer doesn't

     

    have native access (I like the description) to all commodity types and is forced to either PvP or trade via the commodity exchange for the desired commodity type.  This is stating the obvious, and I know you've mulled this over, but how will a system like this not turn into an abusive "buy low/sell high"?  Gold farmers would just farm the commodity exchange, there would never be a reason to go out into the game world itself.  I understand that having multiple commodity types encourages and almost demands that  players interact with one another, but it seems too ripe for exploitation."

     

    Few things I’d like to clarify….

     

    Remember that items gain a benefit from something tangible, that is, a substance represented in the game world, not something conceptual like XP.  Having it or not having it doesn’t prevent a player from doing anything.  The sword you carry still does damage, but the commodity infused into it unlocks its full potential.

     

    I’ve never thought of it in terms of “anti-XP”, and while I don’t think that’s entirely unfair assessment (though the gaining of experience is an entirely different scale) I think you’re looking at it the wrong way.

     

    I’ve always believed that player accomplishment is relative to the chance of meaningful consequences in the event you fail.  In my concept failure means losing a little of what makes your items powerful, but NOT the item itself.

     

    In response to your concern regarding farmers and exploitation, you have a valid point, however I’ve given this a lot of thought.  I had to decide if I wanted to prevent farming or not.  In the end, I incorporated farmers into the game if they choose to play.  Farmers want currency to sell to other players.  The problem for currency traders is that the more they have on hand the less it will be worth in game terms.  This is because currency is directly linked to commodity which has real tangible value in the eyes of players.  Large swings in currency relative to goods & services means a decline in the value of coin.

     

    Furthermore, I foresee a system where enormous sums of currency can't be taken out of the game.  That is to say that when a player “banks” his money it is effectively taken out of the economy.  It is unreachable by anyone else in the game.  Though I haven’t explicitly laid it out, I would allow players to bank “reasonable” sums that are 100% safe.  But beyond that the money would be stored in a public vault of some type that could be looted by other players.  Those with the most money to loot will always be the farmers…But before everyone gets their panties in a bunch at the thought of theft of your hard earned cash, I promise the system is well thought out and creates more opportunities for adversarial gameplay.  It’s actually a concept still in the works, but the point is that money, large sums of money cannot be protected 100%, thus players will target those that have the most to loose.  Those with the most to lose will be well equipped senior players (in which case the conflict will be a welcome part of the game) or they will be farmers (in which case, they will be tasked to defend their fortunes and won’t have time to continue to create them).

     

    Either way it’s a win win.

     

    In regards to earning commodities from other realms, I think you understand, that you can earn your commodities in ways other than combat.  Since everyone has goals and those goals fuel incentives, players will do the activity that brings them the most fun and virtually all activities play into the overall economy.

     

    Hope that makes sense.

     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TertiaryTertiary Vista, CAMember Posts: 53

    Initial Impression:  The summary does not provide enough information for me to evaluate whether reading everything is worth my time.  It implies a new, innovative model for MMOs; is it not just another take on F/D MMO economics?  Or are you positing that having a second faucet makes your system different?  It would help if you could dillute your core concept to the barest essentials and post that as the summary.  As it is, your slide-show does not look like a new economic model... it looks like a new game concept.

     

    Having only browsed, the following are the major faults I foresee...  if they are addressed, do not feel compelled to reply.  If I am motivated to read your concept entirely I will find the answer myself: 

    • What compels the players to participate in your economy?  Hint:  1337 gaears is not a good answer; in your system you can still solo for gear.  If you cannot, you are preventing a valid play style and will drive away a portion of your target audience.
    • Why will the players not conquer the opposing kingdom's resources?  That would be my step one.  If the answer is 'because I have not designed the game mechanics to allow them to conquer the other kingdoms' that is also probably a poor answer.
    • What makes this a unique economic model and not just another game concept?  Nothing wrong with it being a game concept, but if it is then it should be labeled and marketed as such.  When you start saying how the game has to be run in order for your 'economic' model to work...  you know what I mean?

    If reduced to the basest concept, all I see is the implementation of a wage system for being a memeber of a guild?  (Your second faucet.)  I know you have your ideas for moving resource around, but I don't know that any of that is necessary to describe your new economic model?

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common

    Excellent critiques.  I don't have time for a full reply right now.  Later I'll sit down and get back to you.

     

    With that I will say that just from what you've written I can see that you don't fully understand how the system works.  That's my responsibility as I'm not very good at explaining the concept and putting it to paper.  I've given some thought to a video, which may be a bit more entertaining and at the very least require less effort to read/ watch.

    It's comments like yours that inspire me to pick up on this again.

     

    Thanks for your time, look for a reply soon.

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common

    Originally posted by Tertiary

    Initial Impression:  The summary does not provide enough information for me to evaluate whether reading everything is worth my time.   It implies a new, innovative model for MMOs; is it not just another take on F/D MMO economics?  Or are you positing that having a second faucet makes your system different?  It would help if you could dillute your core concept to the barest essentials and post that as the summary.  As it is, your slide-show does not look like a new economic model... it looks like a new game concept.  Yes, I admit the summary is weak.  Always working to improve.   Is it a "new" economic model?  Well I guess on how you define new.  I admit I worked largely with familiar elements but changed the incentive structure.  I felt that familiar elements would be more easily accepted and that new incentives would improve player interaction. Having only browsed, the following are the major faults I foresee...  if they are addressed, do not feel compelled to reply.  If I am motivated to read your concept entirely I will find the answer myself:  {C}·    {C}What compels the players to participate in your economy?  Hint:  1337 gaears is not a good answer; in your system you can still solo for gear.  If you cannot, you are preventing a valid play style and will drive away a portion of your target audience. Gear is a pivotal part of the game, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you think that gear can be acquired though drops which isn't the case.  You say, if gear is not dropped then I am driving away some players.  It's not much different then the change that Eve made with skills.  That is, where skills are acquired over time and not though experience.  I knew of players that shunned the system at first, but many came to embrace the system.   I admit that some players may shun the system at first and it will take more innovative ideas too keep players interested   To your point, gear will be fairly easy to acquire.  It is adding increasing power that becomes difficult. {C}·    {C}Why will the players not conquer the opposing kingdom's resources?  That would be my step one.  If the answer is 'because I have not designed the game mechanics to allow them to conquer the other kingdoms' that is also probably a poor answer. ?Player conquest of "kingdoms" would seem unlikely, but conquest of individual fortresses would seem to me to be a good option.  Though holding a player fortress for a long period of time would be very difficult but extremely rewarding. {C}·    {C}What makes this a unique economic model and not just another game concept?  Nothing wrong with it being a game concept, but if it is then it should be labeled and marketed as such.  When you start saying how the game has to be run in order for your 'economic' model to work...  you know what I mean? ?I know what you mean, but there is sooo much else to designing a game.  The setting, the classes races, crafting, interface, mechanics...All thinks I'm not defining.  I agree that the economy touches a lot of the game, but much of what I've done is flexible to a point. If reduced to the basest concept, all I see is the implementation of a wage system for being a memeber of a guild?  (Your second faucet.)  I know you have your ideas for moving resource around, but I don't know that any of that is necessary to describe your new economic model? At the end of the day goods and the money to buy them have to be introduced into the world and ultimately into the hands of players.  The traditional F&D model uses NPC's in some fashion to make acquisition of those resources difficult.  That is players have to engage NPC's to make money or items.  In my concept, it is the players that will be the obstacle for other players.  Making the items you want will be fairly easy, it will be the acquisition of the materials used to enchant those items with increasing power that will be difficult and this will drive conflict and "fun" gameplay.  Thanks again for your input....  

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

  • TertiaryTertiary Vista, CAMember Posts: 53
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by Tertiary Initial Impression:  The summary does not provide enough information for me to evaluate whether reading everything is worth my time.   It implies a new, innovative model for MMOs; is it not just another take on F/D MMO economics?  Or are you positing that having a second faucet makes your system different?  It would help if you could dillute your core concept to the barest essentials and post that as the summary.  As it is, your slide-show does not look like a new economic model... it looks like a new game concept. Yes, I admit the summary is weak.  Always working to improve.   Is it a "new" economic model?  Well I guess on how you define new.  I admit I worked largely with familiar elements but changed the incentive structure.  I felt that familiar elements would be more easily accepted and that new incentives would improve player interaction. New, in this instance, would be anything not already innovated and implemented by an MMO.  Your economy is socialist, so obviously 'new' is not something that can be applied to it in a universal sense... so, I am speaking specifically to the audience we are addressing (that being, mmorpg.com).  What is new about the economic model?  That should be the feature of your summary.  If it is new, and that is your method of marketing it, I should look at the summary and think, 'Oh, my!  That is new, I should take a gander!' -------------------------------------------------------------- Having only browsed, the following are the major faults I foresee...  if they are addressed, do not feel compelled to reply.  If I am motivated to read your concept entirely I will find the answer myself *What compels the players to participate in your economy?  Hint:  1337 gaears is not a good answer; in your system you can still solo for gear.  If you cannot, you are preventing a valid play style and will drive away a portion of your target audience. Gear is a pivotal part of the game, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you think that gear can be acquired though drops which isn't the case.  You say, if gear is not dropped then I am driving away some players.  It's not much different then the change that Eve made with skills.  That is, where skills are acquired over time and not though experience.  I knew of players that shunned the system at first, but many came to embrace the system. I admit that some players may shun the system at first and it will take more innovative ideas too keep players interested To your point, gear will be fairly easy to acquire.  It is adding increasing power that becomes difficult. You do not seem to understand me correctly.  One person can complete all tiers of the item crafting experience by themselves, there does not seem to be an incentive to interact with another player in that process.  'Grinding' and 'Time Managment' in the crafting process have never seemed to impede players from simply making additional characters and completing the entire process by themselves.  What is the incentive for participating with others? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Why will the players not conquer the opposing kingdom's resources?  That would be my step one.  If the answer is 'because I have not designed the game mechanics to allow them to conquer the other kingdoms' that is also probably a poor answer. ?Player conquest of "kingdoms" would seem unlikely, but conquest of individual fortresses would seem to me to be a good option.  Though holding a player fortress for a long period of time would be very difficult but extremely rewarding. Then my inquiry follows a different line; how do you continue to balance the influx of resources when one side gaining additional resources changes the balance of the game in their favor and makes it more likely they will continue to inflate geometrically?  When one faction controls the majority of the resources, how does the economic system naturally reset? --------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes this a unique economic model and not just another game concept?  Nothing wrong with it being a game concept, but if it is then it should be labeled and marketed as such.  When you start saying how the game has to be run in order for your 'economic' model to work...  you know what I mean? ?I know what you mean, but there is sooo much else to designing a game.  The setting, the classes races, crafting, interface, mechanics...All thinks I'm not defining.  I agree that the economy touches a lot of the game, but much of what I've done is flexible to a point. Those are superfluous elements.  The sort of thing that, as you said in your presentation, can be changed to literally anything with minimal effect on the core aspects of the game.  That is, as we say in the RP part of the community, fluff.  If you wish to concentrate on the economic aspect, rather than positing that (for instance) 'x' factions are required, it may be better to offer proofs that this economy would work better in a game with 'x' factions.  Again, I have yet to go through your entire presentation, if that already exists consider that point moot.  It still seems as if this is a game concept and not a feature... but, that may be my obstinance. Example:  "What's the selling point?"  "Well, it has this revolutionary new economic model that influences all aspects of the game and twitch based combat in a sci-fi setting!"  --->  Which part of that stands out as the game concept? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If reduced to the basest concept, all I see is the implementation of a wage system for being a memeber of a guild?  (Your second faucet.)  I know you have your ideas for moving resource around, but I don't know that any of that is necessary to describe your new economic model? At the end of the day goods and the money to buy them have to be introduced into the world and ultimately into the hands of players.  The traditional F&D model uses NPC's in some fashion to make acquisition of those resources difficult.  That is players have to engage NPC's to make money or items.  In my concept, it is the players that will be the obstacle for other players.  Making the items you want will be fairly easy, it will be the acquisition of the materials used to enchant those items with increasing power that will be difficult and this will drive conflict and "fun" gameplay.  At the end of the day, goods and the money to buy them do not have to be introduced to the game.  There are several examples of procedural world development that already exist and it is only necessary to tweak a few lines of code so that procedural kingdoms naturally develop procedural resources based on procedural supply and demand.  Translated to an MMO, all that is necessary is to state 'this is the point in time the PCs enter the world and it stops being procedural.' The traditional F&D model is based on the knowledge that it is nearly impossible to work on a simulated economy without the real world economy influencing it.  It is not to make aquisition of resources difficult, it is simply the most often used (not even the most effective anymore) method of regulating a simulated economy.  The core reason for the F&D model is not the input of resources in to the economy, either... it is the removal of those resources so as to prevent inflation and devaluing the core resources.  It is a pool; if you keep filling the pool with an infinite amount of water... F&D is not based on the difficulty of recovering resources, it is a method of moderating the infinite nature of those resources.  Now, again, you mention fun gameplay...  are you certain this is not a game concept? -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks again for your input.... You are, of course, very welcome.  I hope you continue to take my feedback as a challenge.  Refine your concept so that it does not require anything else in order to function... then you may have a 'new' concept, as such things can be related.  However, keep in mind that socialist/participatory economy has already been done... and done well.  'New' is seldom accurate.  'Participatory F&D Economic Model' is probably a better name for yours, it tells me what it is in three words and an acronym.  You don't need guilds in a PvP game with at least three factions in order to say you want the players to drive the economy in a participatory manner. And, this is to everyone, instead of structuring in-depth game designs on infinitely rehashed material... why not make this game theory more theory and less game?  This isn't a scientific journal so anecdotal evidence and pure subjective speculation is fine.  "I think that..." -particpation in the economy will result in the following factors -relabeling resources as 'experience' or 'mana' or 'blumperkins' will change the economy in the following manner -giving the players the power to customize their gear with resources will result in the following behavior -etc.  What is a resource?  Does it need the ability to be actively exchanged in order to be part of the economy?  I suppose further instigation would be better suited for a different thread... but, again, rehashed material. ;)   EDIT:  Revisiting your presentation, it seems as though your concept is the intigration of PvP into normal economies?  Outstanding.  I will mention, however, that has already been done in multiple MMOs as well.  Resources achieved specifically through PvP, that is, as well as resources achieved through other methods that can be 'taken' by PvP.

     

  • TalinguardTalinguard Winchester, VAMember Posts: 676 Common
    Originally posted by Tertiary
    Originally posted by Talinguard
    Originally posted by Tertiary Initial Impression:  The summary does not provide enough information for me to evaluate whether reading everything is worth my time.   It implies a new, innovative model for MMOs; is it not just another take on F/D MMO economics?  Or are you positing that having a second faucet makes your system different?  It would help if you could dillute your core concept to the barest essentials and post that as the summary.  As it is, your slide-show does not look like a new economic model... it looks like a new game concept. Yes, I admit the summary is weak.  Always working to improve.   Is it a "new" economic model?  Well I guess on how you define new.  I admit I worked largely with familiar elements but changed the incentive structure.  I felt that familiar elements would be more easily accepted and that new incentives would improve player interaction. New, in this instance, would be anything not already innovated and implemented by an MMO.  Your economy is socialist, so obviously 'new' is not something that can be applied to it in a universal sense... so, I am speaking specifically to the audience we are addressing (that being, mmorpg.com).  What is new about the economic model?  That should be the feature of your summary.  If it is new, and that is your method of marketing it, I should look at the summary and think, 'Oh, my!  That is new, I should take a gander!' Point taken.  I'll take a look. -------------------------------------------------------------- Having only browsed, the following are the major faults I foresee...  if they are addressed, do not feel compelled to reply.  If I am motivated to read your concept entirely I will find the answer myself *What compels the players to participate in your economy?  Hint:  1337 gaears is not a good answer; in your system you can still solo for gear.  If you cannot, you are preventing a valid play style and will drive away a portion of your target audience. Gear is a pivotal part of the game, but if I'm understanding you correctly, you think that gear can be acquired though drops which isn't the case.  You say, if gear is not dropped then I am driving away some players.  It's not much different then the change that Eve made with skills.  That is, where skills are acquired over time and not though experience.  I knew of players that shunned the system at first, but many came to embrace the system. I admit that some players may shun the system at first and it will take more innovative ideas too keep players interested To your point, gear will be fairly easy to acquire.  It is adding increasing power that becomes difficult. You do not seem to understand me correctly.  One person can complete all tiers of the item crafting experience by themselves, there does not seem to be an incentive to interact with another player in that process.  'Grinding' and 'Time Managment' in the crafting process have never seemed to impede players from simply making additional characters and completing the entire process by themselves.  What is the incentive for participating with others This is realy just a proceedural issue though, isn't it?  Artifically we could just say a players charatchter cannot learn all the skills required. If your talking about multiple charachters per account or multiple accounts.  We can prevent multiple charachters, but not much you can do about multiple accounts.   Would enough players open multiple accounts to efect the balance of the game? The question is,why would a player attempt to do everything on his own?  Simple beacuse it's easier or gives a significant avantage.   As long as other players could achive what the singe player tries to do by themselves then the effect would be minimal, but it is an important incentive that would have to be paid close attention to. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Why will the players not conquer the opposing kingdom's resources?  That would be my step one.  If the answer is 'because I have not designed the game mechanics to allow them to conquer the other kingdoms' that is also probably a poor answer. ?Player conquest of "kingdoms" would seem unlikely, but conquest of individual fortresses would seem to me to be a good option.  Though holding a player fortress for a long period of time would be very difficult but extremely rewarding. Then my inquiry follows a different line; how do you continue to balance the influx of resources when one side gaining additional resources changes the balance of the game in their favor and makes it more likely they will continue to inflate geometrically?  When one faction controls the majority of the resources, how does the economic system naturally reset? This is an excellent question and the answer depends on what can be done with those resources.  Recources and the money that it can be exchanged for can be used to do what?  Make and purchase items.  To do what?  To help the player to achive his/ her goals. The question is, how much does additional resorces effect the items a player carries and in turn how much does it affect player power relative to other players? Now this is a debate best had in "person" (that is live), because the explenation is many fold and I don't want to tear off on a tangent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- What makes this a unique economic model and not just another game concept?  Nothing wrong with it being a game concept, but if it is then it should be labeled and marketed as such.  When you start saying how the game has to be run in order for your 'economic' model to work...  you know what I mean? ?I know what you mean, but there is sooo much else to designing a game.  The setting, the classes races, crafting, interface, mechanics...All thinks I'm not defining.  I agree that the economy touches a lot of the game, but much of what I've done is flexible to a point. Those are superfluous elements.  The sort of thing that, as you said in your presentation, can be changed to literally anything with minimal effect on the core aspects of the game.  That is, as we say in the RP part of the community, fluff.  If you wish to concentrate on the economic aspect, rather than positing that (for instance) 'x' factions are required, it may be better to offer proofs that this economy would work better in a game with 'x' factions.  Again, I have yet to go through your entire presentation, if that already exists consider that point moot.  It still seems as if this is a game concept and not a feature... but, that may be my obstinance. Example:  "What's the selling point?"  "Well, it has this revolutionary new economic model that influences all aspects of the game and twitch based combat in a sci-fi setting!"  --->  Which part of that stands out as the game concept. Again, point taken.  I wouldn't call it "revolutionary", but I would like to think I took an intellegent approch to an exsisting system and made a few simple changes that improve the system overall.  I focused on player incentives and a system that could addapt to player habit and demand over time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- If reduced to the basest concept, all I see is the implementation of a wage system for being a memeber of a guild?  (Your second faucet.)  I know you have your ideas for moving resource around, but I don't know that any of that is necessary to describe your new economic model? At the end of the day goods and the money to buy them have to be introduced into the world and ultimately into the hands of players.  The traditional F&D model uses NPC's in some fashion to make acquisition of those resources difficult.  That is players have to engage NPC's to make money or items.  In my concept, it is the players that will be the obstacle for other players.  Making the items you want will be fairly easy, it will be the acquisition of the materials used to enchant those items with increasing power that will be difficult and this will drive conflict and "fun" gameplay.  At the end of the day, goods and the money to buy them do not have to be introduced to the game.  There are several examples of procedural world development that already exist and it is only necessary to tweak a few lines of code so that procedural kingdoms naturally develop procedural resources based on procedural supply and demand.  Translated to an MMO, all that is necessary is to state 'this is the point in time the PCs enter the world and it stops being procedural.' The traditional F&D model is based on the knowledge that it is nearly impossible to work on a simulated economy without the real world economy influencing it.  It is not to make aquisition of resources difficult, it is simply the most often used (not even the most effective anymore) method of regulating a simulated economy.  The core reason for the F&D model is not the input of resources in to the economy, either... it is the removal of those resources so as to prevent inflation and devaluing the core resources.  It is a pool; if you keep filling the pool with an infinite amount of water... F&D is not based on the difficulty of recovering resources, it is a method of moderating the infinite nature of those resources.  Now, again, you mention fun gameplay...  are you certain this is not a game concept? I think you missed the point I was making.  In the traditional MMO NPC's are the "gateway" of new money into the game.  In my game players are. -------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks again for your input.... You are, of course, very welcome.  I hope you continue to take my feedback as a challenge.  Refine your concept so that it does not require anything else in order to function... then you may have a 'new' concept, as such things can be related.  However, keep in mind that socialist/participatory economy has already been done... and done well.  'New' is seldom accurate.  'Participatory F&D Economic Model' is probably a better name for yours, it tells me what it is in three words and an acronym.  You don't need guilds in a PvP game with at least three factions in order to say you want the players to drive the economy in a participatory manner. And, this is to everyone, instead of structuring in-depth game designs on infinitely rehashed material... why not make this game theory more theory and less game?  This isn't a scientific journal so anecdotal evidence and pure subjective speculation is fine.  "I think that..." -particpation in the economy will result in the following factors -relabeling resources as 'experience' or 'mana' or 'blumperkins' will change the economy in the following manner -giving the players the power to customize their gear with resources will result in the following behavior -etc.  What is a resource?  Does it need the ability to be actively exchanged in order to be part of the economy?  I suppose further instigation would be better suited for a different thread... but, again, rehashed material. ;)   It's funny, I've already started working more in theory and less is "game design" per-se.

    EDIT:  Revisiting your presentation, it seems as though your concept is the intigration of PvP into normal economies?  Outstanding.  I will mention, however, that has already been done in multiple MMOs as well.  Resources achieved specifically through PvP, that is, as well as resources achieved through other methods that can be 'taken' by PvP.?

    Which games? If your really interested in discussing this in more depth, perhaps we could do a skype chat?

     

     

    Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.