However in some games if the economy is not pruned and tested thoroughly, things can become chaotic very quickly and backfire. E.g. when Ultilma Online started, it was famous for how quickly the economy spiralled out of control. Zachary Simpson analysed UO in 1999, showing a number of the more notable errors experienced at launched.
- Players used vendors as infinite safety deposit boxes by setting the prices of their own resources vastly above the market value.
- Resource hoarding forced teams to leave the closed-loop economy as the game world started to run out of goods.
- Cartels (including one from a rival game company) monopolised the market on magical Reagents, stopping average players form casting spells.
- The item crafting system encourage vast over-production via rewarding players for each item produced.
- Due to over production, this led to hyper-inflation as NPC-shopkeepers printed more currency on demand to purchase the worthless items.
Fortunately since then, MMO (and offline games) have come far since them. EVE: Online hired an economist graduate for balance out the economy by analysing the flow of game resources and the fluctuation of in game prices.
Can markets balance the game?
Many games designers have used economic game structures as a tool for balancing out their games. E.g. Rise of Nations, every time the player purchases a unit such as a Knight, the price of the future unit of the same item raises. This simulates pressure of demand based on the price. This design encourages the player to diversify their forces in game, this was to maximise their in game purchasing power.
Through allowing the variables of different paths and options to float around during a game, designers present players with a constantly evolving landscape, this extends the re playability through guaranteeing no dominant strategy.
Although if this method is taken too far, auto-balancing by tweaking the economy can potentially destroy a game. Valve back in 2006 conducted an experiment with it's game Counter Strike: Source, by implementing a dynamic weapon pricing algorithm. The idea the developers has was "the prices of weapons and equipment will be updated each week based on the global market demand for each item. As more people purchase a certain weapon, the price for that weapon will raise and other weapons will become less expensive."
However, due to the overwhelming popularity of certain weapons this trumped the ability of the algorithms tp balance the game. E.g. very effective weapons sky rocketed, whilst the less useful weapons flat lined, this led to some extreme cases. If this persists, by the price climbing higher and higher, this can become prohibitive for many players and they may not only just change their strategy. If they are not having fun they can just change to a different game unlike a real world economy.
Due to this, playing with a games economy is a slippery slope. If the cost of a player's favourite weapon has been raised it may feel like a penalty and should only be done if the imbalance is actually destroying the game play.
Putting the Economy Inside the Game
In some cases a better use of economic dynamics is as a transparent mechanic inside a game itself. Plenty of board games provide examples of certain free markets. The game Puerto Rico increases subsidies to improve the appeal of unpopular technologies and roles. In the case of the first one, every turn no one decides to be a Craftsman, a single gold piece is added as a "reward" for choosing the role. When the gold increases gradually, a few players will can resist such a bounty, that nicely solves the problem of making sure roles are chosen.
In Puerto Rico, the game has clearly better or worse options, they merely change from turn to turn. In this instance auto-balancing actually works, and keeps the game fun because players are rewarded for choosing less common strategies, instead of penalising players for sticking with their favourite strategies. Also the effects of the market are transparent before the game, so it doesn't feel like the game is against the players'.
the game power grid is a great example of a free market since it's based around actual resources. In this game, all resources are purchased from one central market to supply their power plants. The resources are placed along a linear track of escalating prices. Each turn, X new items are added to the market, and the players purchase Y pieces. As the supply fluctuates, does the price of each item.
By making the demand mechanic transparent to the players, the market becomes its own war zone. By purchasing as many resources as possible, a single player could drive the price out of range for most players in the next round, causing some players to not be able to power their plants that turn. Therefore, with a completely free open market, the price of items can be used as a weapon, just like a bullet with a gun.
Benefits of Having Free Trade
A number of strategy games, which include Age of Empires, have included free markets which players are able to purchase or sell products, influencing nationwide prices with their actions. These markets serve as "greed tests" in which players are frequently tempted to sell when they require cash or to purchase when they are short of a specific resource, however they realise in the back of their minds each time they use the market, they could be giving an advantage to another player.
However , the market dynamics of these games generally repeat themselves, since the prices usually bottoming out once the players' production overwhelms their needs. This effect stems from the fact the game maps emphasise economic fairness, each player is guaranteed a decent quantity of resources near their start location. Spreading resources randomly around the map may lead to a far more dynamic market mechanic, however this is at the cost of overall pay balance for a game with a core military mechanic.
However in some games like M.U.L.E. the player has to specialise in a certain resource, and gain economic dominance through this. due to this the players' rarely can produce all the resources they need on their own and have to purchase resources from other outlets and players.
The players are arranged at the bottom of the screen, and the sellers at the top. As buyers go up, so does their asking price. As their position moves down, so does their asking price, where the two are level, a transaction is made.All information is public for greater transparency. The mechanics are, the player either has to adjust their prices or cave in to the other players. Some times a player will have to spend money to produce resources to power their buildings or food and drink to feed the labour, the player may want to save every last penny. This this case, prices generally fall only if the a player is scared another player may sweep in and gain the benefits.
What Might be in my game?
Since my game revolves around an economy I may include in inflation mechanic since I find this aspect interesting and it could help my games economy. However, I require more research on the topic, and it depends if I have the time to do it in my project. If I do have the time to include this in my dissertation it will probably be involved when upgrading aspects of the game. For example health capacity, how powerful a certain ability is.
No comments:
Post a Comment