Jump to content

The Economy


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Lord_Void said:

It's going to be very interesting trying to balance the economy, especially when NQ have given themselves very few means to influence things once the game goes live.

That is my concern too, specially seeing as that "influence" will consist of competing with players in the resource market.

 

AFAIK, NQ will generate "fake" resource buy orders for resources. Those buy orders will effectively set the floor price for resources. They will also remove resources from the game, in exchange for Quanta.

 

So NQ will be directly meddling in the "player-driven economy", because if you want to place a resource buy order, you'll have to beat NQ's price, regardless of supply and demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

That is my concern too, specially seeing as that "influence" will consist of competing with players in the resource market.

 

AFAIK, NQ will generate "fake" resource buy orders for resources. Those buy orders will effectively set the floor price for resources. They will also remove resources from the game, in exchange for Quanta.

 

So NQ will be directly meddling in the "player-driven economy", because if you want to place a resource buy order, you'll have to beat NQ's price, regardless of supply and demand.

Yeah, I mean some meddling is fine in order to avoid huge market crashes or basic goods getting super expensive. I had what I thought was a good idea on how to handle this a little while back: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lord_Void said:

Yeah, I mean some meddling is fine in order to avoid huge market crashes or basic goods getting super expensive. I had what I thought was a good idea on how to handle this a little while back: 

 

 

That's an interesting idea, but I'd like to see less interference in the market, not more.

 

It's surprising how many people will vigorously defend FFA-PVP in combat, but will quite happily allow market-PVP to be regulated by the devs, lol

Priorities, I guess...

 

That's not aimed at you specifically, it's a view that's expressed by many in this thread and in your recycling thread too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, my idea would allow for less interference because the system would be essentially self regulating.

 

1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

It's surprising how many people will vigorously defend FFA-PVP in combat, but will quite happily allow market-PVP to be regulated by the devs, lol

Priorities, I guess...

 

That's not aimed at you specifically, it's a view that's expressed by many in this thread and in your recycling thread too.

I see your point, but I think the key thing is balance. Combat is not totally free for all since there are a number of systems that affect it like safe zones, RDMS tags, shield generators (with possible timers), and territory controls. Sure none of that will let you entirely escape combat but it will allow you to properly manage your risk when used properly. When people want to add more restrictions on that I think they are pushing it more into the realm of stifling content. On the flip side when people want to lift a bunch of restrictions on combat I think it pushes it more in the direction of chaos. There needs to be balance between order and chaos and I think the combat mechanics they have in mind are currently pretty well balanced, so I am against major pushes in either direction. 

 

The economy on the other hand is out of balance as they currently envision it (in my opinion). It tends to far towards chaos. As fun as perfect freedom sounds it will result in financial crashes, large scale market failures (like monopolies) or other adverse affects. This might be fun for a few people but for most people it would be annoying/unbearable. Specifically, they need to be able to manage the monetary policy of the game to prevent rampant inflation/deflation. They also need to be able to ensure their is ample circulation of resources so that the game doesn't seize up from the lack of some rare material. How they currently plan to control this, I don't know and that is why I'm worried. The economic model currently envisioned does not provide adequate means for people to control their risk.

 

No one wants NQ tightly regulating the market and controlling the prices, but they need to be able to oversee things as a whole and make sure the system doesn't get destabilized. They need to prevent the system from swinging to far to the extreme. You may think having the entire economy fail and cease to function sounds fun, but it's not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Lord_Void said:

...

 

No one wants NQ tightly regulating the market and controlling the prices, but they need to be able to oversee things as a whole and make sure the system doesn't get destabilized. They need to prevent the system from swinging to far to the extreme. You may think having the entire economy fail and cease to function sounds fun, but it's not. 

 

If one giant alliance starts crushing all opposition and dominating the game, should NQ step in and limit their power, so that things don't get too "destabilized" ?

 

If market-PVP has to be regulated by NQ, then there's something seriously wrong with the economic design. Surely the ideal would be to improve the checks and balances, so that player actions and pure supply-and-demand can dictate things without constant interference by the devs. Will DU have "player-driven war", but a "developer-regulated economy" ?

 

In EVE, resources are not distributed evenly. It's entirely possible for one powerful group to gain a significant monopoly on certain resources, because the locations of those resources are static. Yet EVE's economy has never failed or ceased to function. Quite the opposite, in fact, it has thrived. CCP does not constantly interfere in the markets to "regulate" prices by seeding fake buy and sell orders. Throughout EVE's history, there have been many instances of one or other resource spiking in price. Whenever that happens, the player base inevitably steps up to increase supply until the price spike smooths out again. It's part of the EVE meta.

 

Monopolizing resources is theoretically impossible in DU, because the game world is theoretically infinite in size. Besides, the locations of mined resources will constantly change as deposits are depleted. One powerful group cannot set up camp on the gold deposit and deny it to the rest of the player base until they are driven off. If they try, someone will just go further and find a new deposit of that resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

If one giant alliance starts crushing all opposition and dominating the game, should NQ step in and limit their power, so that things don't get too "destabilized" ?

That is not a market destabilization. That is just normal gameplay. You are thinking too small. No, a market destabilization is when the entire currency system becomes worthless, it's when there is a shortage of goods so severe that no one can build any new ships, it's when the entire economy shuts down and ceases to function. To put it in real world terms, it's when you are walking down the street with a wheelbarrow full of cash so that you can buy a loaf of bread and some one mugs you, dumps the cash and steals the wheelbarrow. Those are the things the devs need to prevent.

 

7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

Yet EVE's economy has never failed or ceased to function. Quite the opposite, in fact, it has thrived. CCP does not constantly interfere in the markets to "regulate" prices by seeding fake buy and sell orders.

Oh? EVE has never failed? CCP has never interfered? That's funny. You should tell that joke to the team of economists that oversee and regulate EVE's market:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3024392/meet-the-alan-greenspan-of-virtual-currency-in-eve-online

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-videogames-economist-life/virtual-world-hires-real-economist-idUSN0925619220070816

The reason EVE has "never failed" is because when the economy starts to form a bubble or go into hyper-inflation or otherwise begin to destabilize, CCP has the forethought to quietly intervene, using multiple tools for manipulation including changing resource distribution, item recipes, subtly seeding the market, adjusting currency sinks and faucets like insurance rates, market taxes and industry fees, or offering deals on PLEX in order to increase supply.

7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

Throughout EVE's history, there have been many instances of one or other resource spiking in price. Whenever that happens, the player base inevitably steps up to increase supply until the price spike smooths out again.

Yes there have, but when it goes past a certain point CCP steps in and helps to deflate or raise the prices. That is, as you say, "part of the EVE meta".

 

If we want this game to succeed, NQ has to be able to adjust the market enough to keep it from going into the extreme failure zones. Should there be fluctuations and allow for minor 'crisies'? Sure, that's what makes it fun. But if things get too far out of hand people will leave in droves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Lord_Void said:

That is not a market destabilization. That is just normal gameplay. You are thinking too small. No, a market destabilization is when the entire currency system becomes worthless, it's when there is a shortage of goods so severe that no one can build any new ships, it's when the entire economy shuts down and ceases to function. To put it in real world terms, it's when you are walking down the street with a wheelbarrow full of cash so that you can buy a loaf of bread and some one mugs you, dumps the cash and steals the wheelbarrow. Those are the things the devs need to prevent.

 

Oh? EVE has never failed? CCP has never interfered? That's funny. You should tell that joke to the team of economists that oversee and regulate EVE's market:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3024392/meet-the-alan-greenspan-of-virtual-currency-in-eve-online

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-videogames-economist-life/virtual-world-hires-real-economist-idUSN0925619220070816

The reason EVE has "never failed" is because when the economy starts to form a bubble or go into hyper-inflation or otherwise begin to destabilize, CCP has the forethought to quietly intervene, using multiple tools for manipulation including changing resource distribution, item recipes, subtly seeding the market, adjusting currency sinks and faucets like insurance rates, market taxes and industry fees, or offering deals on PLEX in order to increase supply.

Yes there have, but when it goes past a certain point CCP steps in and helps to deflate or raise the prices. That is, as you say, "part of the EVE meta".

 

If we want this game to succeed, NQ has to be able to adjust the market enough to keep it from going into the extreme failure zones. Should there be fluctuations and allow for minor 'crisies'? Sure, that's what makes it fun. But if things get too far out of hand people will leave in droves. 

If the economy "ceases to function", it's not because the markets are broken, it's because the game's economic model is fundamentally borked.

 

My assertion is correct, CCP does not constantly interfere in player markets by seeding fake buy and sell orders. Those articles confirm that.

 

CCP interferes in game play only when there is a "broken" mechanic, which is sometimes an unfortunate side-effect of introducing new game features. But notice how they interfere: they change resource distributions, they adjust recipes, they change tax rates, etc. They DON"T simply try to cap market prices, they correct the imbalances that caused the market bubble. Fix the game and the market will fix itselfThey adjust the tools and features, which is the correct way of addressing the problem. THAT's why EVE's economy works.

 

I have no objection to NQ using similar methods to correct game imbalances. If it becomes apparent that DU's initial resource distributions are not a good match for actual game play, then adjust those distributions. Or change the element recipes. Pouring minerals into the system via fake sell orders is just cheesing it, because that's treating the symptoms, not curing the disease. If the problem is caused by a game imbalance, those fake buy and sell orders will become a permanent feature, forever limiting the player-driven market.

 

My objection is only in relation to the fact that NQ have chosen to inject money into the game via direct and constant interference in the player market. It will be very crude and obvious interference, and I suspect it will be permanent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

If the economy "ceases to function", it's not because the markets are broken, it's because the game's economic model is fundamentally borked.

The game's economic model is always in flux due to updates, unforeseen interactions between systems, or even just things that seemed to work in the short term may fail. Even in the real world, when the economy breaks down it doesn't mean that economics itself doesn't work, it means that things need to be adjusted. Likewise in the game things need to be adjusted over time to make sure they stay on the right track.

 

2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

My assertion is correct, CCP does not constantly interfere in player markets by seeding fake buy and sell orders. Those articles confirm that.

Ahh but they do! There are quite a few NPC merchants throughout the game that buy or sell all sorts of things from trade goods to blueprints to ships/other items. There may not be buy and sell orders for every item, but conversion rates allow them to set indirect price floors and ceilings for many items. Likewise with insurance rates, that may not seem like a "buy order" but it sort of is. If the difference between the premium and payout is higher than the market price of the ship, people will "sell" the ships to the game by insuring it and then exploding it. This in turn carries over to the materials that make the ships and from there onto the other things that can be produced from those materials. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because it isn't a plainly visible system that it doesn't exist. 

 

2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

CCP interferes in game play only when there is a "broken" mechanic, which is sometimes an unfortunate side-effect of introducing new game features. But notice how they interfere: they change resource distributions, they adjust recipes, they change tax rates, etc. They DON"T simply try to cap market prices, they correct the imbalances that caused the market bubble. Fix the game and the market will fix itselfThey adjust the tools and features, which is the correct way of addressing the problem. THAT's why EVE's economy works.

Gameplay and the economy are inherently linked. Manipulating one IS manipulating the other. And yes, they don't just declare price controls, they influence it in subtle and indirect ways. NQ won't have these options since they don't have the same tools available to CCP. Refer to my original statement: "It's going to be very interesting trying to balance the economy, especially when NQ have given themselves very few means to influence things once the game goes live." You are saying the same thing I am

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a brilliant and lively discussion that probably didn't happen when Eve was in early alpha, simply because people didn't know how or if it would work.

 

What we do know now is that very early on a sandbox environment is going to need a lot of sand and some sink holes to create further demand. This analogy is getting dark.

 

CCP did at the very beginning of Eve, which is when we should be looking at not 2010, but around the 2003/4 years. They needed to do it as player capacity and module limits made resource mining a lot slower than it is today, with fewer items to build too. They don't need to do it in the same way as they have the player activity.

 

PLEX trading isn't an Isk injection or faucet at source, it's relocating existing Isk supply from one place to another. It may lead to people working that little extra to get their own plex but most chose overtime and pay for their account sub, cheaper and faster in most cases.

 

Ultimately the game will need AI NPC's to serve as faucets for the player base, be it mission content in the form of blow me up for currency or move this stuff to my mate for money.

 

This will mean they don't have to have a closed market money supply which will need hand holding forever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Lord_Void said:

... 

 

Gameplay and the economy are inherently linked. Manipulating one IS manipulating the other. And yes, they don't just declare price controls, they influence it in subtle and indirect ways. NQ won't have these options since they don't have the same tools available to CCP. Refer to my original statement: "It's going to be very interesting trying to balance the economy, especially when NQ have given themselves very few means to influence things once the game goes live." You are saying the same thing I am

Yes, we share the same concern, I'm just focused on the direct market meddling aspect of the interventions.

 

DU's proposed economic design is very simplistic AFAIK. There's only 1 faucet (mined resources), and 1 sink (materials lost when a construct is destroyed). The sink and faucet appear to be massively out of balance.

 

Some of the mined resources will be converted to "money" (Quanta) to provide liquidity. The conversion process will create upward pressure on resource prices, because NQ's buy orders will remove resources from the game, whilst setting effective "floor prices" for those resources that they buy. In order to buy resources from other players, you'll have to outbid NQ's buy orders. 

 

However, outbidding NQ's buy order prices won't be easy initially, unless you've sold them enough resources to earn the Quanta needed to outbid them !

 

Quanta will always be highly desirable, because it's the ONLY 100% safe way of storing wealth, as well as making general trade less tedious and risky.

 

The plan seems to be to cap the amount of Quanta in circulation by removing the fake buy orders at some arbitrary point. But a fixed money supply will start strangling trade, which means players will resort to barter, and "asset swaps" will become the dominant feature of the economy. Once the money supply is capped, the only way of becoming "richer" is by stockpiling resources. The resource faucet cannot be turned off, because building is a central pillar of game activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...