I probably wouldn't. It sounds like its over complicated on papaer but I dunno how it would play out.
Instead of loosing all or most of my items, I'd reather have items have a condition and when you die they take some time to be repaired by you or an npc of up to 3 days until you can use them again...but then again that still keeps them recirculated.
"I don't see how a game could function without a currency system." Have some of you never played a videogame before MMORPGs? Don't get me wrong, I dig economy in games. It's fun. But there are thousands of games without economy which are fun.
Economies are only necessary for games, like MMORPG's because there are no clrealy defined paths to winning. FPS's, RTS's, adventure games, Sims all have one thing in common, there is a clearly defined goal that aventually allows you to reach a goal.
If the game can be ended though your interaction, then there is no point for an economy. If on the other hand, the game dosen't end, like persistant worlds, then the economy takes on a whole new meaning.
Economies in persistant worlds allow players to have a clearly defined means of trade. Money in an economy allows players to move value to obgects like the "coin" which makes them highly portable and generally recognized as valuable. This keeps frustation to a minimum and is one of the yardsticks players use to determine their success relative to other players.
I belive the problem is that the introduction of "new" coin (coin from NPC's) in most games cannot be controled by developers. Dev's can only remove coin from the world through drains. Most game worlds become saturated with coin, as a result each unit looses value over time and players loose confidence in coin as a store of value. The solution in my proposal (see linky in sig) is to base coin on something of universal value to all players. Then keep the amount of coin in proportion to the number of players (that's waaay over simplifiing it, if you want a detailed answer read my concept).
"I don't see how a game could function without a currency system." Have some of you never played a videogame before MMORPGs? Don't get me wrong, I dig economy in games. It's fun. But there are thousands of games without economy which are fun.
Yes. I was assuming the OP was talking about someone trying to block gold-sellers by having no "tradeable" currency rather than no currency at all, but that was just a guess, possibly a wrong guess.
What the guy was saying was that "everything in the world is useful, no junk drops". Basically everything could be traded to a "barter bot" So is you wanted a shiny new breast plate, you would take whatever you were willing to part with to the bot and start giving him what you had. When the bot calculates that the items that you have given are worth what you want (values based on supply and demand) then he would allow the trade. I was told that items are basically the same and don't have uber properties and that all items would be relatively easy to come by.
My question was, isn't the earning of wealth part of the accomplishment system? If you have a vault filled with items to replace the ones you have lost, ummmmm what's the point?
The propose for the poll was so that I could quantify a statement I had made, which was that I believed that 50% of people would dismiss his idea out of hand if players learned that they lose everything on death and that there was no coin. Looks like I was close....
If there was no currency, something else, that didn't weigh too much, would just take it's place.
Yup, there'd always be something. Not sure what the OP's intention is, but if it's to create a game without gold-farmers (a fine goal) I can't envisage it working. People would start trading using something useful and commonly available like iron bars, animal skins or some other crafting resource.
A few days later you'd see farmers advertising 1000 iron bars for £50 at www.wehackyurshit.cn* *Not a real website, you'll have to buy your iron bars elsewhere.
If you click on the link in my sig you will know what my idea of what an economy should look like. The intention of this post was to see if when I made the statement to someone else that his idea, that no matter how good his concept, it would be dismissed out of hand because of lack of "coin" and the idea of full loot. Looks like I was right. As of this post 52% say they will dismiss it outright and only 8% said it sounded good so far. I just wanted to quantify my statement.
That is actually a fairly good economic idea. I like it. I might play a game that had this system in place.
Edit:
I wanted to add that perhaps you would have better reception if you didn't have such poor spelling in this. It is difficult, at least for me, to focus on your presentation with words like mid evil. The correct spelling is medieval. It means something completely different. Otherwise, you have fairly solid concepts.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by Talinguard That is actually a fairly good economic idea. I like it. I might play a game that had this system in place. The moneyless system?
I was talking about your EBM system from your signature.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I think if there's anything that shows how badly this industry is in need of innovation, it's the way we've come to think of individual mmos as packs of standardized features rather than original works. I mean, if you can remember it, think back to the nintendo era of side scrollers. How often did you hear people talking about those games the way we talk about mmorpgs? "So Super Mario Bros. 3 nerfed the life meter in Super Mario Bros. 2? Why would they want to make the game more hardcore?" "I don't want to play Double Dragon, they don't even have player flight" "How can Sunset Riders work without keys? How else will players be able to unlock the doors that separate the levels?" "There aren't any." "Oh, well I suppose that might work for *sneer* a niche audience." If anyone started saying things like this, they'd be rightly considered to be talking gibberish. With mmorpgs, we hear about a game with certain features, and judge it assuming that it's identical to the games we know in every other way. I'm guilty of this as well, but it's time we realized that games should be more than a list of features, and should be treated as such.
I hope you realize that the point of this post was not necessarily to just the viability or impracticallity of this idea, it was to prove the point that these design decision, no matter how good in reality are going to be judged harshly in the world of perception. It just seems to me that good ideas often fail because they are ahead of their time. I was simply trying to suggest this to the author.
Now personally, if I get past those two features, I have to understand more about what there is to accomplish in a system like this. I think accomplishment is key and I just can't understand where it is in this idea.
Yes. I was assuming the OP was talking about someone trying to block gold-sellers by having no "tradeable" currency rather than no currency at all, but that was just a guess, possibly a wrong guess.
What the guy was saying was that "everything in the world is useful, no junk drops". Basically everything could be traded to a "barter bot" So is you wanted a shiny new breast plate, you would take whatever you were willing to part with to the bot and start giving him what you had. When the bot calculates that the items that you have given are worth what you want (values based on supply and demand) then he would allow the trade. I was told that items are basically the same and don't have uber properties and that all items would be relatively easy to come by.
My question was, isn't the earning of wealth part of the accomplishment system? If you have a vault filled with items to replace the ones you have lost, ummmmm what's the point?
The propose for the poll was so that I could quantify a statement I had made, which was that I believed that 50% of people would dismiss his idea out of hand if players learned that they lose everything on death and that there was no coin. Looks like I was close....
I think the earning of wealth is a very important part of the accomplishment system for some players. I think the majority see it purely as a means to an end.
I don't think you can prove your point while "full-loot" is mixed in with "no coin" though. I doubt most of the people who voted to "reject out of hand" did it because of the "no coin" element. For most players "Full loot" = gankfest, in their heads. So your poll effectively says "do you want to play a gankfest game with no coin". So you're getting a false reading imo, not because the idea is too new and futuristic but because of people's experiences in "full loot" games from the past.
"I don't see how a game could function without a currency system." Have some of you never played a videogame before MMORPGs? Don't get me wrong, I dig economy in games. It's fun. But there are thousands of games without economy which are fun.
None of them needs to have TRADE between players.
Well yes and no.
Yes in that I was replying to the guy's extremist statement, where he couldn't understand how a game could function without currency. I very much understand the value currency has in games, particularly those where it makes a lot of sense for economy to be part of gameplay.
No in that Planetside worked without currency. And I can easily imagine a game made which is exactly like Planetside except with MMORPG-style combat.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the earning of wealth is a very important part of the accomplishment system for some players. I think the majority see it purely as a means to an end.
I don't think you can prove your point while "full-loot" is mixed in with "no coin" though. I doubt most of the people who voted to "reject out of hand" did it because of the "no coin" element. For most players "Full loot" = gankfest, in their heads. So your poll effectively says "do you want to play a gankfest game with no coin". So you're getting a false reading imo, not because the idea is too new and futuristic but because of people's experiences in "full loot" games from the past.
What difference does it make which element they rejected it for, the fact is the proposal given had both. People who answered the poll knew this when they gave their answer.
To your first statement about accomplishment being a means to an end. Of course it is. That's like saying, at work, you strive to reach accomplishments, but it's all a means to an end. Of course it's a means to an end.
It's both. The game doesn't end when you accomplish something, you use the fruits of your accomplishments to improve your position and move on.
Now my beef is that most games, item's should be a means-to-an-end, but after playing most games you realize that items aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
What difference does it make which element they rejected it for, the fact is the proposal given had both. People who answered the poll knew this when they gave their answer. To your first statement about accomplishment being a means to an end. Of course it is. That's like saying, at work, you strive to reach accomplishments, but it's all a means to an end. Of course it's a means to an end. It's both. The game doesn't end when you accomplish something, you use the fruits of your accomplishments to improve your position and move on. Now my beef is that most games, item's should be a means-to-an-end, but after playing most games you realize that items aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
From what you've explained, the guy's concept it genuinely seems like a bad idea. In his zealous quest to be rid of gold sellers, he's made a system that's simultaneously less compelling and more complicated to players. The cons outweigh the pros.
Also full-loot is pointless if "every item" is useful, and items are "relatively easy to come by". That describes TF2's weapons. But if TF2 had full-loot nobody would do it because everyone basically has every weapon already!
But I'd still nitpick your poll and question its usefulness as a measure of actual player interest, or actual game fun.
Like I said, your poll describes Planetside. Planetside was incredibly fun.
Part of the problem is the presentation of the poll. You're asking people a rather arbitrary question that doesn't even hit the game's main features.
If I wanted to gauge player interest in Planetside I wouldn't ask about "full-loot" or "no currency". I'd ask whether they wanted to participate in massive epic warfare with tanks, jets, and infantry vying for control over bases spread across continents. It'd gauge player interest much better.
But even that poll wouldn't tell us if the game was fun. The exact same "massive epic warfare" poll would also describe WWIIO, which I found to not be fun at all due to the other game mechanics not mentioned by the poll. So "implementation quality" is also a factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Asheron's Call was a game that was close to this. There were coins, but their value decreased at such a rate that they were essentially worthless between players. Also, when you died, you lost something like your five (can't remember the exact number) most valuable items. Of course it was the game itself that assigned value to the items, and most people would have so-called "death items" that were worthless between players but were valued very highly by the game. These allowed people to protect their more useful items (e.g., the stuff they're wearing) in case they die.
However, the players developed their own currency in the form of Sturdy Iron Keys, which would drop from higher level badguys and give access to treasure chests that have a lot of good loot. Currency is a good thing. If the developers don't establish their own, the players will in the form of universally useful items. But the auction systems we see in WoW or EVE wouldn't work if there wasn't an agreed upon or enforced form of currency.
But getting back to losing items on death... In the PVP of most MMOs, the winner gains something and the loser loses nothing. In my opinion, the winner should gain exactly what the loser loses. Giving up all your items might be a little extreme, since it's something you probably won't be able to recover from. On the other hand, getting set back by one or two hours of gameplay is fair, I think.
What difference does it make which element they rejected it for, the fact is the proposal given had both. People who answered the poll knew this when they gave their answer. To your first statement about accomplishment being a means to an end. Of course it is. That's like saying, at work, you strive to reach accomplishments, but it's all a means to an end. Of course it's a means to an end. It's both. The game doesn't end when you accomplish something, you use the fruits of your accomplishments to improve your position and move on. Now my beef is that most games, item's should be a means-to-an-end, but after playing most games you realize that items aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
From what you've explained, the guy's concept it genuinely seems like a bad idea. In his zealous quest to be rid of gold sellers, he's made a system that's simultaneously less compelling and more complicated to players. The cons outweigh the pros.
Also full-loot is pointless if "every item" is useful, and items are "relatively easy to come by". That describes TF2's weapons. But if TF2 had full-loot nobody would do it because everyone basically has every weapon already!
But I'd still nitpick your poll and question its usefulness as a measure of actual player interest, or actual game fun.
Like I said, your poll describes Planetside. Planetside was incredibly fun.
Part of the problem is the presentation of the poll. You're asking people a rather arbitrary question that doesn't even hit the game's main features.
If I wanted to gauge player interest in Planetside I wouldn't ask about "full-loot" or "no currency". I'd ask whether they wanted to participate in massive epic warfare with tanks, jets, and infantry vying for control over bases spread across continents. It'd gauge player interest much better.
But even that poll wouldn't tell us if the game was fun. The exact same "massive epic warfare" poll would also describe WWIIO, which I found to not be fun at all due to the other game mechanics not mentioned by the poll. So "implementation quality" is also a factor.
I agree with your assesment of his idea. I don't believe that his goal was to eliminate gold sellers I think that he believed that he could eliminate inflation if he could control the fluctuation of item value by, in effect, making ever item equally worthless (That last part was embelished a bit by me). The point is that I agree with you. A game without items has an up hill battle.
Now, I'm not saying it cant be done. To the contrary I think that almost anything can be accomplished if your clever and inovative enough.
The point of the poll was not to explain the idea, I said that I believed that the concept would be dismissed out of hand, meaning that most people wouldn't care to even hear the details, they would look elsewhere. I covered myself when I said, "I would need more info". You sound like a person who wants more info.....
Comments
"I don't see how a game could function without a currency system."
Have some of you never played a videogame before MMORPGs?
Don't get me wrong, I dig economy in games. It's fun. But there are thousands of games without economy which are fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I probably wouldn't. It sounds like its over complicated on papaer but I dunno how it would play out.
Instead of loosing all or most of my items, I'd reather have items have a condition and when you die they take some time to be repaired by you or an npc of up to 3 days until you can use them again...but then again that still keeps them recirculated.
Economies are only necessary for games, like MMORPG's because there are no clrealy defined paths to winning. FPS's, RTS's, adventure games, Sims all have one thing in common, there is a clearly defined goal that aventually allows you to reach a goal.
If the game can be ended though your interaction, then there is no point for an economy. If on the other hand, the game dosen't end, like persistant worlds, then the economy takes on a whole new meaning.
Economies in persistant worlds allow players to have a clearly defined means of trade. Money in an economy allows players to move value to obgects like the "coin" which makes them highly portable and generally recognized as valuable. This keeps frustation to a minimum and is one of the yardsticks players use to determine their success relative to other players.
I belive the problem is that the introduction of "new" coin (coin from NPC's) in most games cannot be controled by developers. Dev's can only remove coin from the world through drains. Most game worlds become saturated with coin, as a result each unit looses value over time and players loose confidence in coin as a store of value. The solution in my proposal (see linky in sig) is to base coin on something of universal value to all players. Then keep the amount of coin in proportion to the number of players (that's waaay over simplifiing it, if you want a detailed answer read my concept).
Cheers
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
None of them needs to have TRADE between players.
Yes. I was assuming the OP was talking about someone trying to block gold-sellers by having no "tradeable" currency rather than no currency at all, but that was just a guess, possibly a wrong guess.
What the guy was saying was that "everything in the world is useful, no junk drops". Basically everything could be traded to a "barter bot" So is you wanted a shiny new breast plate, you would take whatever you were willing to part with to the bot and start giving him what you had. When the bot calculates that the items that you have given are worth what you want (values based on supply and demand) then he would allow the trade. I was told that items are basically the same and don't have uber properties and that all items would be relatively easy to come by.
My question was, isn't the earning of wealth part of the accomplishment system? If you have a vault filled with items to replace the ones you have lost, ummmmm what's the point?
The propose for the poll was so that I could quantify a statement I had made, which was that I believed that 50% of people would dismiss his idea out of hand if players learned that they lose everything on death and that there was no coin. Looks like I was close....
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
That is actually a fairly good economic idea. I like it. I might play a game that had this system in place.
Edit:
I wanted to add that perhaps you would have better reception if you didn't have such poor spelling in this. It is difficult, at least for me, to focus on your presentation with words like mid evil. The correct spelling is medieval. It means something completely different. Otherwise, you have fairly solid concepts.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
That is actually a fairly good economic idea. I like it. I might play a game that had this system in place.
The moneyless system?
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
I was talking about your EBM system from your signature.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Ok, wasen't sure...lol
Thanks
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
I hope you realize that the point of this post was not necessarily to just the viability or impracticallity of this idea, it was to prove the point that these design decision, no matter how good in reality are going to be judged harshly in the world of perception. It just seems to me that good ideas often fail because they are ahead of their time. I was simply trying to suggest this to the author.
Now personally, if I get past those two features, I have to understand more about what there is to accomplish in a system like this. I think accomplishment is key and I just can't understand where it is in this idea.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
Yes. I was assuming the OP was talking about someone trying to block gold-sellers by having no "tradeable" currency rather than no currency at all, but that was just a guess, possibly a wrong guess.
What the guy was saying was that "everything in the world is useful, no junk drops". Basically everything could be traded to a "barter bot" So is you wanted a shiny new breast plate, you would take whatever you were willing to part with to the bot and start giving him what you had. When the bot calculates that the items that you have given are worth what you want (values based on supply and demand) then he would allow the trade. I was told that items are basically the same and don't have uber properties and that all items would be relatively easy to come by.
My question was, isn't the earning of wealth part of the accomplishment system? If you have a vault filled with items to replace the ones you have lost, ummmmm what's the point?
The propose for the poll was so that I could quantify a statement I had made, which was that I believed that 50% of people would dismiss his idea out of hand if players learned that they lose everything on death and that there was no coin. Looks like I was close....
I think the earning of wealth is a very important part of the accomplishment system for some players. I think the majority see it purely as a means to an end.
I don't think you can prove your point while "full-loot" is mixed in with "no coin" though. I doubt most of the people who voted to "reject out of hand" did it because of the "no coin" element. For most players "Full loot" = gankfest, in their heads. So your poll effectively says "do you want to play a gankfest game with no coin". So you're getting a false reading imo, not because the idea is too new and futuristic but because of people's experiences in "full loot" games from the past.
None of them needs to have TRADE between players.
Well yes and no.
Yes in that I was replying to the guy's extremist statement, where he couldn't understand how a game could function without currency. I very much understand the value currency has in games, particularly those where it makes a lot of sense for economy to be part of gameplay.
No in that Planetside worked without currency. And I can easily imagine a game made which is exactly like Planetside except with MMORPG-style combat.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think the earning of wealth is a very important part of the accomplishment system for some players. I think the majority see it purely as a means to an end.
I don't think you can prove your point while "full-loot" is mixed in with "no coin" though. I doubt most of the people who voted to "reject out of hand" did it because of the "no coin" element. For most players "Full loot" = gankfest, in their heads. So your poll effectively says "do you want to play a gankfest game with no coin". So you're getting a false reading imo, not because the idea is too new and futuristic but because of people's experiences in "full loot" games from the past.
What difference does it make which element they rejected it for, the fact is the proposal given had both. People who answered the poll knew this when they gave their answer.
To your first statement about accomplishment being a means to an end. Of course it is. That's like saying, at work, you strive to reach accomplishments, but it's all a means to an end. Of course it's a means to an end.
It's both. The game doesn't end when you accomplish something, you use the fruits of your accomplishments to improve your position and move on.
Now my beef is that most games, item's should be a means-to-an-end, but after playing most games you realize that items aren't a means to an end, they are the end.
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10
From what you've explained, the guy's concept it genuinely seems like a bad idea. In his zealous quest to be rid of gold sellers, he's made a system that's simultaneously less compelling and more complicated to players. The cons outweigh the pros.
Also full-loot is pointless if "every item" is useful, and items are "relatively easy to come by". That describes TF2's weapons. But if TF2 had full-loot nobody would do it because everyone basically has every weapon already!
But I'd still nitpick your poll and question its usefulness as a measure of actual player interest, or actual game fun.
Like I said, your poll describes Planetside. Planetside was incredibly fun.
Part of the problem is the presentation of the poll. You're asking people a rather arbitrary question that doesn't even hit the game's main features.
If I wanted to gauge player interest in Planetside I wouldn't ask about "full-loot" or "no currency". I'd ask whether they wanted to participate in massive epic warfare with tanks, jets, and infantry vying for control over bases spread across continents. It'd gauge player interest much better.
But even that poll wouldn't tell us if the game was fun. The exact same "massive epic warfare" poll would also describe WWIIO, which I found to not be fun at all due to the other game mechanics not mentioned by the poll. So "implementation quality" is also a factor.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Asheron's Call was a game that was close to this. There were coins, but their value decreased at such a rate that they were essentially worthless between players. Also, when you died, you lost something like your five (can't remember the exact number) most valuable items. Of course it was the game itself that assigned value to the items, and most people would have so-called "death items" that were worthless between players but were valued very highly by the game. These allowed people to protect their more useful items (e.g., the stuff they're wearing) in case they die.
However, the players developed their own currency in the form of Sturdy Iron Keys, which would drop from higher level badguys and give access to treasure chests that have a lot of good loot. Currency is a good thing. If the developers don't establish their own, the players will in the form of universally useful items. But the auction systems we see in WoW or EVE wouldn't work if there wasn't an agreed upon or enforced form of currency.
But getting back to losing items on death... In the PVP of most MMOs, the winner gains something and the loser loses nothing. In my opinion, the winner should gain exactly what the loser loses. Giving up all your items might be a little extreme, since it's something you probably won't be able to recover from. On the other hand, getting set back by one or two hours of gameplay is fair, I think.
From what you've explained, the guy's concept it genuinely seems like a bad idea. In his zealous quest to be rid of gold sellers, he's made a system that's simultaneously less compelling and more complicated to players. The cons outweigh the pros.
Also full-loot is pointless if "every item" is useful, and items are "relatively easy to come by". That describes TF2's weapons. But if TF2 had full-loot nobody would do it because everyone basically has every weapon already!
But I'd still nitpick your poll and question its usefulness as a measure of actual player interest, or actual game fun.
Like I said, your poll describes Planetside. Planetside was incredibly fun.
Part of the problem is the presentation of the poll. You're asking people a rather arbitrary question that doesn't even hit the game's main features.
If I wanted to gauge player interest in Planetside I wouldn't ask about "full-loot" or "no currency". I'd ask whether they wanted to participate in massive epic warfare with tanks, jets, and infantry vying for control over bases spread across continents. It'd gauge player interest much better.
But even that poll wouldn't tell us if the game was fun. The exact same "massive epic warfare" poll would also describe WWIIO, which I found to not be fun at all due to the other game mechanics not mentioned by the poll. So "implementation quality" is also a factor.
I agree with your assesment of his idea. I don't believe that his goal was to eliminate gold sellers I think that he believed that he could eliminate inflation if he could control the fluctuation of item value by, in effect, making ever item equally worthless (That last part was embelished a bit by me). The point is that I agree with you. A game without items has an up hill battle.
Now, I'm not saying it cant be done. To the contrary I think that almost anything can be accomplished if your clever and inovative enough.
The point of the poll was not to explain the idea, I said that I believed that the concept would be dismissed out of hand, meaning that most people wouldn't care to even hear the details, they would look elsewhere. I covered myself when I said, "I would need more info". You sound like a person who wants more info.....
Presentation for new MMORPG economics concept http://www.slideshare.net/talin/mmo-economics-concept-v-10