Forums » Suggestions
Hi
This is a re-run of my original (PCC) posting on the New Economy / Economy Redux / Rebalancing. Brought back to you after several requests (and in Suggestions for a wider audience, to keep Guides happy, cos they are always right). The posting is my editor's cut of the original: it's simpler and a little shorter. The purpose of my suggestion, critique, and model is essentially to contribute ideas to a more complex, dynamic and rebalanced Economy in VO 2.0. If you have constructive criticism, or better ideas to add, feel free.
== Table of Contents ==
1. The Problem
2. The Aims and Objectives
3. Some Requirements
4. Some Ideas for Solutions
5. - A Model for the Real Economy.
- A Model for the Money Supply
maybe more.
-- Foo Fighter
This is a re-run of my original (PCC) posting on the New Economy / Economy Redux / Rebalancing. Brought back to you after several requests (and in Suggestions for a wider audience, to keep Guides happy, cos they are always right). The posting is my editor's cut of the original: it's simpler and a little shorter. The purpose of my suggestion, critique, and model is essentially to contribute ideas to a more complex, dynamic and rebalanced Economy in VO 2.0. If you have constructive criticism, or better ideas to add, feel free.
== Table of Contents ==
1. The Problem
2. The Aims and Objectives
3. Some Requirements
4. Some Ideas for Solutions
5. - A Model for the Real Economy.
- A Model for the Money Supply
maybe more.
-- Foo Fighter
References: See also these related posts in VO:
The original posting (content withdrawn tho) http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/17067
Economics, Manufacture, and You http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16119
PysRa's take on the above http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16119?page=2#204224
Player driven Economy Suggestions http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15975
Crafting: Implementations and Ramifications http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
The original posting (content withdrawn tho) http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/17067
Economics, Manufacture, and You http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16119
PysRa's take on the above http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16119?page=2#204224
Player driven Economy Suggestions http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15975
Crafting: Implementations and Ramifications http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
New Economy / Economy Redux / Rebalancing
== 1. The Problem ==
The problem I'm trying to discuss and to tackle, is:
- there is an almost-infinte supply of cheap money in VO, easily accumulated by players.
- there is an unlimited supply of goods.
- there is an unlimited demand for ores.
- there isn't a strong relation between making money and VALUE created for the "system" / the VO universe / the economy / the player community.
This debases the value of money.
Let me give you an anecdotal example. I accumulated $2M in a short time without even trying specifically to make "loads of money" or setting out to be a Trader (which I am not). I recognised early on that even having 200,000c was easily sufficient for my gaming, provided I knew how to earn little from time to time to pay for my ships and weapons. The prices of Ships and Weapons does not seem to go up over time, after all. It turns out however, that $2M is peanuts (I now have $30M): players have even $130M or more. Some players milk borked convoys of moths / mothballs for millions. We don't bat an eyelid to offer $1M for a bounty on someone's head. Because money has almost no value. A decent PK on the other hand ... that can be fun.
Also (and this is a whole other problem), it was reasonably difficult to earn money right at the first levels (upto about level 2), but it got easier, until (past about level 4) it became risibly easier. It appears (to me) that a player's ability to "make money" increases exponentially with his levels. Many other variables in the game are damped or nerfed or log-scaled. Examples include: ship speed is damped; XP levels are log-scaled. Making money could be rebalanced, if desired by the Devs. I think it was well balanced at the beginning levels.
I hope for a robust, dynamic and balanced "New Economy" in VO 2.0 where money is (somewhat) valuable. Where resources are (somewhat) scare. And really cool kit (or really big kit) is very expensive.
I know work is going on (and scheduled) at Guild Software for a New economy system and even Crafting has been mentioned in other threads. I'm just chipping in my ideas 'aloud', I hope they can help.
== 1. The Problem ==
The problem I'm trying to discuss and to tackle, is:
- there is an almost-infinte supply of cheap money in VO, easily accumulated by players.
- there is an unlimited supply of goods.
- there is an unlimited demand for ores.
- there isn't a strong relation between making money and VALUE created for the "system" / the VO universe / the economy / the player community.
This debases the value of money.
Let me give you an anecdotal example. I accumulated $2M in a short time without even trying specifically to make "loads of money" or setting out to be a Trader (which I am not). I recognised early on that even having 200,000c was easily sufficient for my gaming, provided I knew how to earn little from time to time to pay for my ships and weapons. The prices of Ships and Weapons does not seem to go up over time, after all. It turns out however, that $2M is peanuts (I now have $30M): players have even $130M or more. Some players milk borked convoys of moths / mothballs for millions. We don't bat an eyelid to offer $1M for a bounty on someone's head. Because money has almost no value. A decent PK on the other hand ... that can be fun.
Also (and this is a whole other problem), it was reasonably difficult to earn money right at the first levels (upto about level 2), but it got easier, until (past about level 4) it became risibly easier. It appears (to me) that a player's ability to "make money" increases exponentially with his levels. Many other variables in the game are damped or nerfed or log-scaled. Examples include: ship speed is damped; XP levels are log-scaled. Making money could be rebalanced, if desired by the Devs. I think it was well balanced at the beginning levels.
I hope for a robust, dynamic and balanced "New Economy" in VO 2.0 where money is (somewhat) valuable. Where resources are (somewhat) scare. And really cool kit (or really big kit) is very expensive.
I know work is going on (and scheduled) at Guild Software for a New economy system and even Crafting has been mentioned in other threads. I'm just chipping in my ideas 'aloud', I hope they can help.
New Economy / Economy Redux / Rebalancing
** REQUEST for comments **
Please could a Dev let me know on this post (or by email) what is relevant, what is missing (add it), what is good, what is weak (improve it), or what is irrelevant or wrong and should be dropped.
== 2. The Aims and Objectives ==
1. V.O. is first and foremost a player-vs-player universe and a large number (possibly a majority) of players want to PvP in fighters (as opposed to roleplaying, trading, mining or micro-managing an economy).
2. Therefore any changes / improvements / rebalancing must be sufficiently easy on the bottom end of player incomes, such that players with little interest in earning money, are still able to go and fight, die, rearm, reload, repair many light fighter ships (Vult, Cent IBG, Warthog) per login session. What I mean by that is, we don't want to throttle back players PvP or dieing.
see - http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16812 (Death should be cheap not costly).
3. Nevertheless the supply of neat kit like Proms and Valks is both limited and costly. You shouldn't just fly out there in your Prom / Valk / [insert neat ship here] with the top-of-the range weapons and repeatedly get PK'd and spawn in the same top-end kit 30 times in an hour, and think nothing of it, without earning some serious money. (Same goes for constant repairing and reloading in Grey space).
3a. The Guild Software devs should be able to tune the balancing between the two (2 and 3) as playing conditions change.
4. The underlying Model of the Economy must recognise that, for each Nation [or faction] there is an effectively LIMITED amount of wealth available, and money available for it to issue.
(4 is "Demand" for real goods)
5. The Economy must also model that, for each Nation [or faction] there is an effectively LIMITED amount of goods available, both trade goods and ships / weapons.
(5 is "Supply" for real goods)
6. The Economy will be dynamic; by that I mean that Supply and Demand and Prices and the Money Supply, are all inter-related and are all influenced by in-game actions, both by player actions and standard NPC actions (which may act as a balancing factor). There are feedback loops in the model of the Economy. There are auto-balancing filters too.
7. The full functioning of the Economy should be abstracted from the player base. V.O. is not a resource management or XXXX game. Players whose primary interest is Trading may come to understand the laws of Supply and Demand and the imbalances in prices, and profit from them, but they need not see the full workings of the model, underneath the hood.
7a. The model of the Economy should not be unnecessarily complex to code and implement. It should be simple where possible, and scalable.
8. The Economy system must appear to control the Money Supply in such a way as to protect the value of money over time. As more player characters get created, more Money is made available to the community automatically. As player characters become inactive or retire, their fortune needs to be recycled by the Economy (their savings are reinvested in corporations). At the minimum, the Guild Software Devs should have a report that tracks the Money Supply weekly, even if they are not taking proactive steps to constrain it.
9. Players should be able to add new wealth to the system (and thereby increase the Money Supply) by performing services or actions that genuinely create VALUE. This goes for both:
9a) missions interacting with NPC / factions (PvE) and
9b) players interacting between themselves.
[9b may be related in some way to Crafting]
When I say "create VALUE" I mean do something that was either helpful, useful to others, brought them happiness, avoided them loss, or is sought after by the player community. (More on Value in another post). A mixture of effort and skill is required to create real Value. Money should reward value created (at present neither skill nor effort is required to create "Money").
10. The Economy must be designed with the plan to add Crafting in the future. For the Crafting ideas see - http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
-------------------------------------
== 3. Some Requirements ==
Some high-level or functional Requirements were already mentioned above, the others should be:
(please add to what I'm saying if I missed some)
1. There will be only 1 currency (credits) in VO.
[ I have considered that it would be cool to have 4 open Macro-economies and thus 4 currencies: {Dollar, Euro, Sterling and Guineas of Gold} for {Serco, Itani, UIT and Grey space}. However, it would increase the complexity and introduce more possibilities for players to send a nation's macro-economy into a tailspin. It also makes less intuitive sense for USA developers and players ].
2. A closed Macro-economy represents the entire VO universe, and is so modeled by 1 object.
2.1 An open Economy represents the Nation space and stations, for Serco, Itani, UIT and Grey space. By definition, there are interaction between these component Economies, and the sum of these 4, is the entire VO Macro-economy. Each Nation (and faction) needs to be modeled by it's object.
2.2 Each station is a micro-economy. These are components that make up 2.1 and ultimately the VO Macro-economy. Again, each station should have an object that models it's micro-economy.
The first part of my work will deal mostly with the Macro-economy.
The second part of my work [ soon(tm) ] will deal with the micro-economy: station economics.
3. In order to have a more realistic modelling of Economics, and in order to monitor inflation (with respect to Money); it is Necessary and Sufficient to have a model that distinguishes between Real quantities and Nominal quantities.
3.1 Real quantities will be used "under the hood" in the VO economy model. Examples are: Population, Tons of Ore A|B|C, Real quantity of good X|Y|Z| (not price), Weapons, Ships, etc. (Some suggestions for Real variables in a subsequent post).
3.2 Prices are nominal values.
3.3 Nominal values will be used in VO and modelled in the Economy, too. A transformation gives you nominal values:
Nominal_Value = Quantity(real) X Price($)
In this way we decouple Prices (and therefore inflation) from the underlying real quantities in the Economy.
4. There are multiple automated actors in the Economy apart from Player characters including: The Government {Serco|Itani|UIT}, the Military-industrial complex, and the Corporates. They need to be modelled. (more on the actors in a subsequent post)
5. It is probably necessary to introduce frictional losses on players in the Economy, for example station storage costs. It may be necessary to have progressive taxation. These have been referred to as "Money Sinks"
** REQUEST for comments **
Please could a Dev let me know on this post (or by email) what is relevant, what is missing (add it), what is good, what is weak (improve it), or what is irrelevant or wrong and should be dropped.
== 2. The Aims and Objectives ==
1. V.O. is first and foremost a player-vs-player universe and a large number (possibly a majority) of players want to PvP in fighters (as opposed to roleplaying, trading, mining or micro-managing an economy).
2. Therefore any changes / improvements / rebalancing must be sufficiently easy on the bottom end of player incomes, such that players with little interest in earning money, are still able to go and fight, die, rearm, reload, repair many light fighter ships (Vult, Cent IBG, Warthog) per login session. What I mean by that is, we don't want to throttle back players PvP or dieing.
see - http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/16812 (Death should be cheap not costly).
3. Nevertheless the supply of neat kit like Proms and Valks is both limited and costly. You shouldn't just fly out there in your Prom / Valk / [insert neat ship here] with the top-of-the range weapons and repeatedly get PK'd and spawn in the same top-end kit 30 times in an hour, and think nothing of it, without earning some serious money. (Same goes for constant repairing and reloading in Grey space).
3a. The Guild Software devs should be able to tune the balancing between the two (2 and 3) as playing conditions change.
4. The underlying Model of the Economy must recognise that, for each Nation [or faction] there is an effectively LIMITED amount of wealth available, and money available for it to issue.
(4 is "Demand" for real goods)
5. The Economy must also model that, for each Nation [or faction] there is an effectively LIMITED amount of goods available, both trade goods and ships / weapons.
(5 is "Supply" for real goods)
6. The Economy will be dynamic; by that I mean that Supply and Demand and Prices and the Money Supply, are all inter-related and are all influenced by in-game actions, both by player actions and standard NPC actions (which may act as a balancing factor). There are feedback loops in the model of the Economy. There are auto-balancing filters too.
7. The full functioning of the Economy should be abstracted from the player base. V.O. is not a resource management or XXXX game. Players whose primary interest is Trading may come to understand the laws of Supply and Demand and the imbalances in prices, and profit from them, but they need not see the full workings of the model, underneath the hood.
7a. The model of the Economy should not be unnecessarily complex to code and implement. It should be simple where possible, and scalable.
8. The Economy system must appear to control the Money Supply in such a way as to protect the value of money over time. As more player characters get created, more Money is made available to the community automatically. As player characters become inactive or retire, their fortune needs to be recycled by the Economy (their savings are reinvested in corporations). At the minimum, the Guild Software Devs should have a report that tracks the Money Supply weekly, even if they are not taking proactive steps to constrain it.
9. Players should be able to add new wealth to the system (and thereby increase the Money Supply) by performing services or actions that genuinely create VALUE. This goes for both:
9a) missions interacting with NPC / factions (PvE) and
9b) players interacting between themselves.
[9b may be related in some way to Crafting]
When I say "create VALUE" I mean do something that was either helpful, useful to others, brought them happiness, avoided them loss, or is sought after by the player community. (More on Value in another post). A mixture of effort and skill is required to create real Value. Money should reward value created (at present neither skill nor effort is required to create "Money").
10. The Economy must be designed with the plan to add Crafting in the future. For the Crafting ideas see - http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
-------------------------------------
== 3. Some Requirements ==
Some high-level or functional Requirements were already mentioned above, the others should be:
(please add to what I'm saying if I missed some)
1. There will be only 1 currency (credits) in VO.
[ I have considered that it would be cool to have 4 open Macro-economies and thus 4 currencies: {Dollar, Euro, Sterling and Guineas of Gold} for {Serco, Itani, UIT and Grey space}. However, it would increase the complexity and introduce more possibilities for players to send a nation's macro-economy into a tailspin. It also makes less intuitive sense for USA developers and players ].
2. A closed Macro-economy represents the entire VO universe, and is so modeled by 1 object.
2.1 An open Economy represents the Nation space and stations, for Serco, Itani, UIT and Grey space. By definition, there are interaction between these component Economies, and the sum of these 4, is the entire VO Macro-economy. Each Nation (and faction) needs to be modeled by it's object.
2.2 Each station is a micro-economy. These are components that make up 2.1 and ultimately the VO Macro-economy. Again, each station should have an object that models it's micro-economy.
The first part of my work will deal mostly with the Macro-economy.
The second part of my work [ soon(tm) ] will deal with the micro-economy: station economics.
3. In order to have a more realistic modelling of Economics, and in order to monitor inflation (with respect to Money); it is Necessary and Sufficient to have a model that distinguishes between Real quantities and Nominal quantities.
3.1 Real quantities will be used "under the hood" in the VO economy model. Examples are: Population, Tons of Ore A|B|C, Real quantity of good X|Y|Z| (not price), Weapons, Ships, etc. (Some suggestions for Real variables in a subsequent post).
3.2 Prices are nominal values.
3.3 Nominal values will be used in VO and modelled in the Economy, too. A transformation gives you nominal values:
Nominal_Value = Quantity(real) X Price($)
In this way we decouple Prices (and therefore inflation) from the underlying real quantities in the Economy.
4. There are multiple automated actors in the Economy apart from Player characters including: The Government {Serco|Itani|UIT}, the Military-industrial complex, and the Corporates. They need to be modelled. (more on the actors in a subsequent post)
5. It is probably necessary to introduce frictional losses on players in the Economy, for example station storage costs. It may be necessary to have progressive taxation. These have been referred to as "Money Sinks"
== 4. Some Ideas for Solutions ==
- Modelling a Government for each nation, with spending and taxation powers, as persistent objects.
- Modelling Corporations, who spawn NPC convoys, which automatically do a lot of the work and trade in the Economy (and rebalance it) as persistent objects.
- Modelling Stations, which have the capacity to produce certain output, and have certain Demand, as persistent objects.
- Have a set of Demand functions for different ores and supplies.
- Have a set of Supply functions for different supplies, ships and equipment. Be able to tweak the Demand and Supply functions and scale them with active player population.
- Decoupling real variables from nominal variables (amounts of money).
- Modelling a Government for each nation, with spending and taxation powers, as persistent objects.
- Modelling Corporations, who spawn NPC convoys, which automatically do a lot of the work and trade in the Economy (and rebalance it) as persistent objects.
- Modelling Stations, which have the capacity to produce certain output, and have certain Demand, as persistent objects.
- Have a set of Demand functions for different ores and supplies.
- Have a set of Supply functions for different supplies, ships and equipment. Be able to tweak the Demand and Supply functions and scale them with active player population.
- Decoupling real variables from nominal variables (amounts of money).
== 5A A Model for the VO Economy (Real) ==
A model for the entire closed system of the VO Macro-economy, in real terms, was proposed. The article was very lengthy and a bit technical, so I have edited it down.
** REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ** Guild, please chip in with your direction, with what you need more of (or less of).
A). Here I tried to Define most of the real variables that we need to track for the VO Economy, each of which would be a persistent object.
-------------------------
1. PLAYERS.SUBSCRIBED
2. PLAYERS.ACTIVE
3. POPULATION.TOTAL
= POPULATION.ITANI + POPULATION.SERCO + POPULATION.UIT + POPULATION.GREY
4. LABOR.TOTAL
= LABOR.ITANI + LABOR.SERCO + LABOR.UIT + LABOR.GREY
LABOR.TOTAL = 60% * POPULATION.TOTAL.
5. CAPITAL.TOTAL The total Wealth in VO in REAL terms
= .ITANI + .SERCO + .UIT +.GREY + .PLAYER
6. TECHNOLOGY.PRODUCTIVITY
.ITANI .SERCO .UIT .Corporates(i)
7. TAXES again .ITANI .SERCO .UIT and .Corporates(i)
8. CONSUMPTION
9. etc
B). The Actors (the Entities) that make up the VO Economy, again objects:
---------------
- The GOVERNMENT + MILITARY
.ITANI .SERCO and .UIT.
- The CORPORATIONS
- The HOUSEHOLDS of Citizens (population / GDP)
- PLAYER CHARACTERS
C.) Simple Model was discussed, grounded in basic Macroecomics 101. (see "Macroneconomics by N. Gregory Mankiw)
----------------
First, in aggregate (though this applies to all 3 nations spaces and to Grey space).
OUTPUT (Y)
OUTPUT = TECHNOLOGY.PRODUCTIVITY * CAPITAL^0.35 * LABOR^0.65
Y = a * K^0.35 * L*0.65 (Cobb-Douglas)
CONSUMPTION (C)
CONSUMPTION = CONSUMPTION_FUNCTION(OUTPUT - TAXES)
C = C(Y-T)
Taxes are imposed by the Government
Whatever else is produced as output, could be consumed; what is leftover is saved (according to the INVESTMENT(r) function)
GOVERNMENT RECEIPTS (TAXES, T)
To Simplify, you could have something like: TAXES = 25% * OUTPUT
GOVERNMENT SPENDING (G)
GOVERNMENT_SPENDING = GOVERNMENT_MILITARY + GOVERNMENT_CIVILIAN
INVESTMENT (I)
Investment is the surplus of production (output) that is not consumed in this time period. We can distinguish between corporate, government and household (and player) investment. Thus:
INVESTMENT = HOUSEHOLD.SAVING - GOVERNMENT.BORROWING + CORPORATE.SAVING
I assume the Government is Borrowing / the term flips signs if the Government is paying down the national debt. I assume Corporate Saving is nil. CORPORATE.BORROWING = INVESTMENT
INVESTMENT = INVESTMENT_FUNCTION(real returns to capital) (1)
SAVINGS = (OUTPUT - TAXES - CONSUMPTION) + (TAXES - GOVERNMENT_SPENDING) (2)
Here you can see private saving on the left and government saving (or borrowing) on the right.
SAVINGS = INVESTMENT by definition, these are flip sides of the same coin. So (1) = (2)
NET EXPORTS = EXPORTS - IMPORTS has been abstracted away for the VO economy as a closed system. It would come into play for individual nation economies and grey space.
D. TIME
----------
The above is the beginnings of a stochastic model of a real economy, using persistent objects with properties and functions. You need to define some arbitrary time scale, as many of the variables are flows. In Macroeconomics they usually study them with a 1-year national accounts frequency (/ sample rate).
What I propose: Weekly or daily. The variables are tracked weekly or daily.
It is important to note that Real variables are being discussed (not monetary variables) and the distinction was going to be the subject of a subsequent posting.
A model for the entire closed system of the VO Macro-economy, in real terms, was proposed. The article was very lengthy and a bit technical, so I have edited it down.
** REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ** Guild, please chip in with your direction, with what you need more of (or less of).
A). Here I tried to Define most of the real variables that we need to track for the VO Economy, each of which would be a persistent object.
-------------------------
1. PLAYERS.SUBSCRIBED
2. PLAYERS.ACTIVE
3. POPULATION.TOTAL
= POPULATION.ITANI + POPULATION.SERCO + POPULATION.UIT + POPULATION.GREY
4. LABOR.TOTAL
= LABOR.ITANI + LABOR.SERCO + LABOR.UIT + LABOR.GREY
LABOR.TOTAL = 60% * POPULATION.TOTAL.
5. CAPITAL.TOTAL The total Wealth in VO in REAL terms
= .ITANI + .SERCO + .UIT +.GREY + .PLAYER
6. TECHNOLOGY.PRODUCTIVITY
.ITANI .SERCO .UIT .Corporates(i)
7. TAXES again .ITANI .SERCO .UIT and .Corporates(i)
8. CONSUMPTION
9. etc
B). The Actors (the Entities) that make up the VO Economy, again objects:
---------------
- The GOVERNMENT + MILITARY
.ITANI .SERCO and .UIT.
- The CORPORATIONS
- The HOUSEHOLDS of Citizens (population / GDP)
- PLAYER CHARACTERS
C.) Simple Model was discussed, grounded in basic Macroecomics 101. (see "Macroneconomics by N. Gregory Mankiw)
----------------
First, in aggregate (though this applies to all 3 nations spaces and to Grey space).
OUTPUT (Y)
OUTPUT = TECHNOLOGY.PRODUCTIVITY * CAPITAL^0.35 * LABOR^0.65
Y = a * K^0.35 * L*0.65 (Cobb-Douglas)
CONSUMPTION (C)
CONSUMPTION = CONSUMPTION_FUNCTION(OUTPUT - TAXES)
C = C(Y-T)
Taxes are imposed by the Government
Whatever else is produced as output, could be consumed; what is leftover is saved (according to the INVESTMENT(r) function)
GOVERNMENT RECEIPTS (TAXES, T)
To Simplify, you could have something like: TAXES = 25% * OUTPUT
GOVERNMENT SPENDING (G)
GOVERNMENT_SPENDING = GOVERNMENT_MILITARY + GOVERNMENT_CIVILIAN
INVESTMENT (I)
Investment is the surplus of production (output) that is not consumed in this time period. We can distinguish between corporate, government and household (and player) investment. Thus:
INVESTMENT = HOUSEHOLD.SAVING - GOVERNMENT.BORROWING + CORPORATE.SAVING
I assume the Government is Borrowing / the term flips signs if the Government is paying down the national debt. I assume Corporate Saving is nil. CORPORATE.BORROWING = INVESTMENT
INVESTMENT = INVESTMENT_FUNCTION(real returns to capital) (1)
SAVINGS = (OUTPUT - TAXES - CONSUMPTION) + (TAXES - GOVERNMENT_SPENDING) (2)
Here you can see private saving on the left and government saving (or borrowing) on the right.
SAVINGS = INVESTMENT by definition, these are flip sides of the same coin. So (1) = (2)
NET EXPORTS = EXPORTS - IMPORTS has been abstracted away for the VO economy as a closed system. It would come into play for individual nation economies and grey space.
D. TIME
----------
The above is the beginnings of a stochastic model of a real economy, using persistent objects with properties and functions. You need to define some arbitrary time scale, as many of the variables are flows. In Macroeconomics they usually study them with a 1-year national accounts frequency (/ sample rate).
What I propose: Weekly or daily. The variables are tracked weekly or daily.
It is important to note that Real variables are being discussed (not monetary variables) and the distinction was going to be the subject of a subsequent posting.
I am glad to see this back! Thanks EddyHolland.
Greetings:
One possible solution to this problem
“- Modelling Stations, which have the capacity to produce certain output, and have certain Demand, as persistent objects.”
More thoughts and details on my previous comments about the VO economy linked above.
A big reason I like to be involved with this type of topic, is that I have real life experience designing systems that record financial transactions, that fall under the scrutiny of auditors. The core of how financial systems are recorded is transactional. Each and every movement of money comes and goes to somewhere. Always money moves from one account balance to another. Money that comes into the system from outside is recorded as that “type” of transaction.
Now, in order for this to work, everything that can manipulate money requires an account. Stations, players, nations, and everything else that is paid or pays for services requires an account.
In most situations, every action that results in the movement of money is recorded in a transaction log.
These logs typically contain the following types of information.
Account credited
Account debited.
Amount
Current balances of both at time of transaction
Type of transaction.
Time of transaction.
So what you develop is a closed system. In the world of VO then, a system developed this way would have everyone hold a balance, and all money movements would trigger a transaction event. Money movements would have to have the source of the funds, or the account debited, pre-determined. Also, those accounts would have to have sufficient funds to enable the transaction to take place.
In order to maintain control central accounts have to be set up. This is where all funds are “created”, to enter the system. In VO terms, this is the nation’s capital account. It is also where funds are “destroyed” or controlled, in times when the money supply needs to be tightened.
Manufacturing:
Manufacturing and Economy are very closely related, so that the two can not be separated from each other. First the model of manufacturing should mimic real world, in as simple as possible approximation as possible.
To start, you need to have a table that contains all the items in the universe. This table should contain only those details that are universal to every item. Columns like description, item types, lot size, and any thing that applies to the item regardless of its type, be it commodity, weapons, or ships. This is the central table for controlling what everything is.
You then need a lookup table that lists all the items, and quantities, that are used to make every single item. This table should have no primary keys, but is rather a list, with the fields for item to be MANUFACTURED_ID, REQUIRED_ITEM_ID, and QUANTITY. From this any combination of formulas can be made.
An example of a production lot could be;
Select * from UNIVERSAL_ITEMS where ITEM_ID=27 [Rail ammo]
From this you get the lot size of 10,000
Select * from MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS where MANUFACTURE_ID = 27 [Rail ammo]
From this you get something like this;
MANUFACTURE_ID | QUANTITY | REQUIRED_ITEM_ID
27 [Rail ammo] | 10 | 13 [Xithricite ore]
27 [Rail ammo] | 10 | 14 [Ferric ore]
27 [Rail ammo] | 100 | 15 [food]
27 [Rail ammo] | 100 | 16 [water]
27 [Rail ammo] | 1 | 77 [Hazmat Suit]
27 [Rail ammo] | 40,000 | 1 [credits]
Each station needs a way to store those items it produces. This can be stored in the same table as station quantities lists, with the addition of columns for such things and minimum stock, maximum stock, current value. Additionally this table should contain a station production toggle. From these two tables you can now pull a production queue and required materials for the station, likely with a single joined query.
Note: This example may produce a Cartesian product and need refining to limit rows returned to the actual values matched.
(E.G. select * from MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS, STATION_ITEMS, where MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS.MANUFACTURE_ID= STATION_ITEMS.ITEM_ID and STATION_ITEMS.QUANTITY < STATION_ITEMS.MAXIMUM_STOCK and STATION_ITEMS.STATION_PRODUCES=TRUE)
Using the results of this type of request, you can gather both what items can be made, what items need to be made, and construct a procurement mission lists etc.
The act of production could be easily accomplished by simply putting the results of two queries together, one of what is available, and one of what is required. If any results come back that indicate that the complete number of required for production items is available to the station, then a manufacture event is triggered, the items used in manufacturing are destroyed, including the credits, and the new items are made. This can be scheduled via a cron like script, or tied to an event trigger like docking or any time items are sold to the station.
Making things cost more:
Not entirely a separate topic from manufacture, but it needs to be addressed. With the above system there are several ways to make the end products most often used cost more. The lot requirements for can be increased in both item quantity, and staff wages (credits). This will affect the up front costs, and will trickle down through the entire production chain.
The Profit factor for stations:
After the manufacturing process is complete, the cost of production can be calculated. Within the stations items table, that contains the quantities of each item, another column that determines the items cost should be in place.
The value stored in this column should be the average cost to acquire or manufacture the amount of items currently in storage. Manufacture costs are based on the price of every item consumed in the production, as well as all credits spent, divided by the number of items manufactured in the lot. By using the formula
((STOCK * OLD_COST) + (PRODUCED || ACQUIRED * _CURRENT_COST)) / (PRODUCED + STOCK) = NEW_COST
After finding the items cost, a station markup should be applied, to produce a new selling price. The average universal selling price of the item should be used by stations wishing to acquire items for their procurement missions. This should be a record in the universal items table, and calculated in a similar fashion to the costs formula, but applied when items are sold, not manufactured. The usage of this should be based on a standard, universe wide, average markup. I would think that 30% would be a good starting point.
Supply and demand:
With an average item cost, required production queue, and a station minimum and maximum of all items, you can monitor and regulate the supply and demand aspects of the economy.
By adjusting the station purchase price based on current supply, you can affect a stations tolerance for paying prices higher than the production cost + markup. How close the stations stocks are between its minimum and maximum determines this tolerance
The station minimums, and maximums should be calculated values based on production requirements and product velocity as it relates to just in time manufacturing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In_Time_(business) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban
Minimums should start at the amount required to produce the lot that requires the most amount of the material. Maximum should start at the total needed to produce every lot on station that requires that material once. This value would then adjust based on the velocity of consumption, so that based on expected demand, the minimums and maximums would rise. Stock below Maximum would trigger an order event (procurement mission), where as stocks below Minimum would trigger an NPC Convoy event to secure the items.
This will give players the chance to participate in the economy directly, but allow for NPC’s to correct any shortages.
The station should have a willingness to pay ranges of up to 100% markup if it is below minimums, crossing into mark downs as items get close to maximum.
1-(CURRENT QUANTITY / (MAXIMUM - (MINIMUM * (BASEMARKUP*10))) = PURCHASE_MARKUP.
Once this has been calculated, it is trivial to automate the process of setting up escort missions from stations that are willing to sell their goods for a price that another station is willing to pay, as well as define the rewards of procurement missions.
Initial costs of resources: (ores)
The cost of these resources should be determined by the production requirements for them. They can start anywhere, because once the forces of the economy have taken hold, their prices will fluctuate based on supply and demand, and settle at actual value.
Manufacturing stations that require them would pay markup based on their current stocks and requirements. Once the ores had been sold, a new standard price would be set based on the quantity sold, and universal availability.
Select Sum(QUANTITY) as UNIVERSAL_STOCK from ALL_STATION_ITEMS where ITEM_ID=X;
((UNIVERSAL_STOCK * UNIVERSAL_PRICE) + (PRODUCED || ACQUIRED * COST)) / (PRODUCED + STOCK) = UNIVERSAL_PRICE (NEW)
Sold items not used in manufacture:
As with all things, products that do not get used directly in the manufacture of goods on a station need to be handled.
For these items, specific station min/max balances should also be set however a universal pricing policy, should be used to determine how all items of this nature are handled.
The handling of these items is the only way that new money gets put into the universe. Just like ores all items need a universal average price. This is calculated based on the selling prices of the items, and will be different than the stations manufacturing costs. They will be related, and affect one another.
Outside of system, a universal bank for each nation needs to exist. This bank controls the flow of money into the universe; this is the account that purchases from stations those items the station does not use in manufacturing.
[From my original version, GNP instead of OUTPUT]
In a very similar way to the amount of items needed by a station functions, this account regulates the money supply into the system. Based on a GNP model where the value of production determines the availability of money. For example, based on the production lot of ammo above, if the total costs for the ammo was 20 credits per unit, the production would have had a value of 200,000 credits. At the production event, the GNP value of the universe would have gone up 200,000 + Standard Markup credits. This needs to be logged and tracked in a similar fashion to transactions.
[Note: I am not enough of an economist to know if the GNP value or the OUTPUT is more appropriate. Most likely the output formula is better so I will use that formula throughout the rest of the document. ]
The money in circulation (sum(ACTIVE_BALANCES)) represents all funds currently in circulation. The difference between the amounts in current circulation, and total OUTPUT represents the needed control for money supply.
If the OUTPUT is vastly higher than money in circulation, then the consumption value of items not used in manufacture or produced by the station is set to pay a very high percentage. The central bank sets the markup/down on consumption or these items based on how close to ideal standing the OUTPUT and current circulation is.
(ACTIVE_BALANCES - OUTPUT = AVAILABLE CURRENCY)
((ACTIVE_BALANCES / OUTPUT) = CURRENCY SATURATION)
If (CURRENCY SATURATION <1 ) {ABS (1- CURRENCY SATURATION = CONSUMPTION MARKUP))}
Else {(1- *(ABS (1- CURRENCY SATURATION)) = CONSUMPTION MARKUP)}
Note: Stations should never trigger consumption for anything they manufacture, nor should they purchase above their current production costs. Additionally, NPC’s should not be used here either. Only player activity should add new money to the system.
This means that for every item produced, the money necessary to purchase that item is made available to the system. The destruction of items that are sold, and then consumed by players (like space ships), is made up by players participating in the other aspects of the economy, like from mining, hauling products, and the like.
Greasing the wheels:
Problems inevitably will arise.
Players may horde wealth, taking it out of productive circulation. If OUTPUT remains far below currency circulation for a long time, it is possible that all manufacturing becomes unprofitable. With the OUTPUT control noticing that there is an abundance of currency, final consumption of goods will happen below cost of production. Therefore some mechanisms need to be in place to control this.
Escalated involvement:
Players need things to spend money on that contribute to the economy. Fleets of mining bots, paid flight escorts, expensive and large capital ships and other money sinks or investments. Make them spend the credits having fun, that’s what they want to do anyway.
Less missions without value:
As the GNP approaches currency circulation, tighten the availability of missions that pay simply for bot killing and other activities that are not economically beneficial. BP and the like add nothing, but pay far more than the destruction to the other teams resources would indicate. Only pay for what the player actually adds to the cause.
Lower buying power:
As with the real world, added money will cause inflationary pressure on production costs. If money is cheap and easy to come by, then the cost of other items should go up. Once a station has gotten a higher price for an item, that price will affect the new standard. That new standard will result in a higher OUTPUT for all production. Therefore horded wealth will become worth less and less, as inflation takes its toll. Without the addition of interest, horded wealth will directly translate into inflation and the decreased buying power of the credit.
(DO NOT ADD INTEREST!!!)
Wealth destruction: This is the simplest mechanism. High taxes for the wealthy and low taxes for the poor as well as storage fees, nation fees, docking fees, and the like, can all take money from wealthy players and put it back into circulation.
Station starving:
Stations could theoretically run out of money if enough of their convoys were destroyed. To fix this, they would offer up many procurement missions that asked for consumption items that would be sold to the central bank directly at a profit, thus giving them funds to resume normal operations.
With a system based like this on records in DB tables, tweaking things would be as simple as altering manufacturing formulas, or changing some of the universal calculation models slightly
Starting it off:
For the system to start properly there would need to be wealth in the universe other than both the OUTPUT controller, and the players. As no production has happened, stations have no profit with which to work. Start the stations with an amount of cash based on the total in all player balances. In this way stations control at least as much as the players, and their natural built in tendency to make a profit should keep things moving and prevent players from causing hording problems.
Mining isn’t happening:
Currently, there is no automated mining production. As such, there is no source of minerals to facilitate the acquisition of raw materials. I would recommend that mining facilities automatically produce and sell these raw materials when there is not enough supply in the universe. Then procurement missions could include these raw resources, in addition to mining missions for same. Once enough other mechanisms exist for mining to happen regularly, this functionality could be scaled back or turned off.
Keep it fun.
Because of the nature of money has, it means power. Make certain that many of the fun things continue to be cheap, so that the ultimate goal of having fun is not diluted. Keep ship and weapon production requirements artificially low, at least for the “common” varieties.
In summary
Production results in total cost to produce items.
Standard markup is applied; this value is added to the universal currency availability, as (OUTPUT)
Supply of products built on station determines how to mark up the sale price.
Demand of other manufacturing dictates the willingness to purchase items at marked up value.
Available currency affecting the profit margins affects the willingness of stations to acquire consumption products.
Station capital as it relates to production requirements dictates the willingness of stations to fund missions.
One possible solution to this problem
“- Modelling Stations, which have the capacity to produce certain output, and have certain Demand, as persistent objects.”
More thoughts and details on my previous comments about the VO economy linked above.
A big reason I like to be involved with this type of topic, is that I have real life experience designing systems that record financial transactions, that fall under the scrutiny of auditors. The core of how financial systems are recorded is transactional. Each and every movement of money comes and goes to somewhere. Always money moves from one account balance to another. Money that comes into the system from outside is recorded as that “type” of transaction.
Now, in order for this to work, everything that can manipulate money requires an account. Stations, players, nations, and everything else that is paid or pays for services requires an account.
In most situations, every action that results in the movement of money is recorded in a transaction log.
These logs typically contain the following types of information.
Account credited
Account debited.
Amount
Current balances of both at time of transaction
Type of transaction.
Time of transaction.
So what you develop is a closed system. In the world of VO then, a system developed this way would have everyone hold a balance, and all money movements would trigger a transaction event. Money movements would have to have the source of the funds, or the account debited, pre-determined. Also, those accounts would have to have sufficient funds to enable the transaction to take place.
In order to maintain control central accounts have to be set up. This is where all funds are “created”, to enter the system. In VO terms, this is the nation’s capital account. It is also where funds are “destroyed” or controlled, in times when the money supply needs to be tightened.
Manufacturing:
Manufacturing and Economy are very closely related, so that the two can not be separated from each other. First the model of manufacturing should mimic real world, in as simple as possible approximation as possible.
To start, you need to have a table that contains all the items in the universe. This table should contain only those details that are universal to every item. Columns like description, item types, lot size, and any thing that applies to the item regardless of its type, be it commodity, weapons, or ships. This is the central table for controlling what everything is.
You then need a lookup table that lists all the items, and quantities, that are used to make every single item. This table should have no primary keys, but is rather a list, with the fields for item to be MANUFACTURED_ID, REQUIRED_ITEM_ID, and QUANTITY. From this any combination of formulas can be made.
An example of a production lot could be;
Select * from UNIVERSAL_ITEMS where ITEM_ID=27 [Rail ammo]
From this you get the lot size of 10,000
Select * from MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS where MANUFACTURE_ID = 27 [Rail ammo]
From this you get something like this;
MANUFACTURE_ID | QUANTITY | REQUIRED_ITEM_ID
27 [Rail ammo] | 10 | 13 [Xithricite ore]
27 [Rail ammo] | 10 | 14 [Ferric ore]
27 [Rail ammo] | 100 | 15 [food]
27 [Rail ammo] | 100 | 16 [water]
27 [Rail ammo] | 1 | 77 [Hazmat Suit]
27 [Rail ammo] | 40,000 | 1 [credits]
Each station needs a way to store those items it produces. This can be stored in the same table as station quantities lists, with the addition of columns for such things and minimum stock, maximum stock, current value. Additionally this table should contain a station production toggle. From these two tables you can now pull a production queue and required materials for the station, likely with a single joined query.
Note: This example may produce a Cartesian product and need refining to limit rows returned to the actual values matched.
(E.G. select * from MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS, STATION_ITEMS, where MANUFACTURE_FORMULAS.MANUFACTURE_ID= STATION_ITEMS.ITEM_ID and STATION_ITEMS.QUANTITY < STATION_ITEMS.MAXIMUM_STOCK and STATION_ITEMS.STATION_PRODUCES=TRUE)
Using the results of this type of request, you can gather both what items can be made, what items need to be made, and construct a procurement mission lists etc.
The act of production could be easily accomplished by simply putting the results of two queries together, one of what is available, and one of what is required. If any results come back that indicate that the complete number of required for production items is available to the station, then a manufacture event is triggered, the items used in manufacturing are destroyed, including the credits, and the new items are made. This can be scheduled via a cron like script, or tied to an event trigger like docking or any time items are sold to the station.
Making things cost more:
Not entirely a separate topic from manufacture, but it needs to be addressed. With the above system there are several ways to make the end products most often used cost more. The lot requirements for can be increased in both item quantity, and staff wages (credits). This will affect the up front costs, and will trickle down through the entire production chain.
The Profit factor for stations:
After the manufacturing process is complete, the cost of production can be calculated. Within the stations items table, that contains the quantities of each item, another column that determines the items cost should be in place.
The value stored in this column should be the average cost to acquire or manufacture the amount of items currently in storage. Manufacture costs are based on the price of every item consumed in the production, as well as all credits spent, divided by the number of items manufactured in the lot. By using the formula
((STOCK * OLD_COST) + (PRODUCED || ACQUIRED * _CURRENT_COST)) / (PRODUCED + STOCK) = NEW_COST
After finding the items cost, a station markup should be applied, to produce a new selling price. The average universal selling price of the item should be used by stations wishing to acquire items for their procurement missions. This should be a record in the universal items table, and calculated in a similar fashion to the costs formula, but applied when items are sold, not manufactured. The usage of this should be based on a standard, universe wide, average markup. I would think that 30% would be a good starting point.
Supply and demand:
With an average item cost, required production queue, and a station minimum and maximum of all items, you can monitor and regulate the supply and demand aspects of the economy.
By adjusting the station purchase price based on current supply, you can affect a stations tolerance for paying prices higher than the production cost + markup. How close the stations stocks are between its minimum and maximum determines this tolerance
The station minimums, and maximums should be calculated values based on production requirements and product velocity as it relates to just in time manufacturing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_In_Time_(business) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanban
Minimums should start at the amount required to produce the lot that requires the most amount of the material. Maximum should start at the total needed to produce every lot on station that requires that material once. This value would then adjust based on the velocity of consumption, so that based on expected demand, the minimums and maximums would rise. Stock below Maximum would trigger an order event (procurement mission), where as stocks below Minimum would trigger an NPC Convoy event to secure the items.
This will give players the chance to participate in the economy directly, but allow for NPC’s to correct any shortages.
The station should have a willingness to pay ranges of up to 100% markup if it is below minimums, crossing into mark downs as items get close to maximum.
1-(CURRENT QUANTITY / (MAXIMUM - (MINIMUM * (BASEMARKUP*10))) = PURCHASE_MARKUP.
Once this has been calculated, it is trivial to automate the process of setting up escort missions from stations that are willing to sell their goods for a price that another station is willing to pay, as well as define the rewards of procurement missions.
Initial costs of resources: (ores)
The cost of these resources should be determined by the production requirements for them. They can start anywhere, because once the forces of the economy have taken hold, their prices will fluctuate based on supply and demand, and settle at actual value.
Manufacturing stations that require them would pay markup based on their current stocks and requirements. Once the ores had been sold, a new standard price would be set based on the quantity sold, and universal availability.
Select Sum(QUANTITY) as UNIVERSAL_STOCK from ALL_STATION_ITEMS where ITEM_ID=X;
((UNIVERSAL_STOCK * UNIVERSAL_PRICE) + (PRODUCED || ACQUIRED * COST)) / (PRODUCED + STOCK) = UNIVERSAL_PRICE (NEW)
Sold items not used in manufacture:
As with all things, products that do not get used directly in the manufacture of goods on a station need to be handled.
For these items, specific station min/max balances should also be set however a universal pricing policy, should be used to determine how all items of this nature are handled.
The handling of these items is the only way that new money gets put into the universe. Just like ores all items need a universal average price. This is calculated based on the selling prices of the items, and will be different than the stations manufacturing costs. They will be related, and affect one another.
Outside of system, a universal bank for each nation needs to exist. This bank controls the flow of money into the universe; this is the account that purchases from stations those items the station does not use in manufacturing.
[From my original version, GNP instead of OUTPUT]
In a very similar way to the amount of items needed by a station functions, this account regulates the money supply into the system. Based on a GNP model where the value of production determines the availability of money. For example, based on the production lot of ammo above, if the total costs for the ammo was 20 credits per unit, the production would have had a value of 200,000 credits. At the production event, the GNP value of the universe would have gone up 200,000 + Standard Markup credits. This needs to be logged and tracked in a similar fashion to transactions.
[Note: I am not enough of an economist to know if the GNP value or the OUTPUT is more appropriate. Most likely the output formula is better so I will use that formula throughout the rest of the document. ]
The money in circulation (sum(ACTIVE_BALANCES)) represents all funds currently in circulation. The difference between the amounts in current circulation, and total OUTPUT represents the needed control for money supply.
If the OUTPUT is vastly higher than money in circulation, then the consumption value of items not used in manufacture or produced by the station is set to pay a very high percentage. The central bank sets the markup/down on consumption or these items based on how close to ideal standing the OUTPUT and current circulation is.
(ACTIVE_BALANCES - OUTPUT = AVAILABLE CURRENCY)
((ACTIVE_BALANCES / OUTPUT) = CURRENCY SATURATION)
If (CURRENCY SATURATION <1 ) {ABS (1- CURRENCY SATURATION = CONSUMPTION MARKUP))}
Else {(1- *(ABS (1- CURRENCY SATURATION)) = CONSUMPTION MARKUP)}
Note: Stations should never trigger consumption for anything they manufacture, nor should they purchase above their current production costs. Additionally, NPC’s should not be used here either. Only player activity should add new money to the system.
This means that for every item produced, the money necessary to purchase that item is made available to the system. The destruction of items that are sold, and then consumed by players (like space ships), is made up by players participating in the other aspects of the economy, like from mining, hauling products, and the like.
Greasing the wheels:
Problems inevitably will arise.
Players may horde wealth, taking it out of productive circulation. If OUTPUT remains far below currency circulation for a long time, it is possible that all manufacturing becomes unprofitable. With the OUTPUT control noticing that there is an abundance of currency, final consumption of goods will happen below cost of production. Therefore some mechanisms need to be in place to control this.
Escalated involvement:
Players need things to spend money on that contribute to the economy. Fleets of mining bots, paid flight escorts, expensive and large capital ships and other money sinks or investments. Make them spend the credits having fun, that’s what they want to do anyway.
Less missions without value:
As the GNP approaches currency circulation, tighten the availability of missions that pay simply for bot killing and other activities that are not economically beneficial. BP and the like add nothing, but pay far more than the destruction to the other teams resources would indicate. Only pay for what the player actually adds to the cause.
Lower buying power:
As with the real world, added money will cause inflationary pressure on production costs. If money is cheap and easy to come by, then the cost of other items should go up. Once a station has gotten a higher price for an item, that price will affect the new standard. That new standard will result in a higher OUTPUT for all production. Therefore horded wealth will become worth less and less, as inflation takes its toll. Without the addition of interest, horded wealth will directly translate into inflation and the decreased buying power of the credit.
(DO NOT ADD INTEREST!!!)
Wealth destruction: This is the simplest mechanism. High taxes for the wealthy and low taxes for the poor as well as storage fees, nation fees, docking fees, and the like, can all take money from wealthy players and put it back into circulation.
Station starving:
Stations could theoretically run out of money if enough of their convoys were destroyed. To fix this, they would offer up many procurement missions that asked for consumption items that would be sold to the central bank directly at a profit, thus giving them funds to resume normal operations.
With a system based like this on records in DB tables, tweaking things would be as simple as altering manufacturing formulas, or changing some of the universal calculation models slightly
Starting it off:
For the system to start properly there would need to be wealth in the universe other than both the OUTPUT controller, and the players. As no production has happened, stations have no profit with which to work. Start the stations with an amount of cash based on the total in all player balances. In this way stations control at least as much as the players, and their natural built in tendency to make a profit should keep things moving and prevent players from causing hording problems.
Mining isn’t happening:
Currently, there is no automated mining production. As such, there is no source of minerals to facilitate the acquisition of raw materials. I would recommend that mining facilities automatically produce and sell these raw materials when there is not enough supply in the universe. Then procurement missions could include these raw resources, in addition to mining missions for same. Once enough other mechanisms exist for mining to happen regularly, this functionality could be scaled back or turned off.
Keep it fun.
Because of the nature of money has, it means power. Make certain that many of the fun things continue to be cheap, so that the ultimate goal of having fun is not diluted. Keep ship and weapon production requirements artificially low, at least for the “common” varieties.
In summary
Production results in total cost to produce items.
Standard markup is applied; this value is added to the universal currency availability, as (OUTPUT)
Supply of products built on station determines how to mark up the sale price.
Demand of other manufacturing dictates the willingness to purchase items at marked up value.
Available currency affecting the profit margins affects the willingness of stations to acquire consumption products.
Station capital as it relates to production requirements dictates the willingness of stations to fund missions.
Visitor: thanks for your input, I think you and I agree to a large extent. I didn't get yet into inflation and deflation, but it's a sequel to what I'm talking about. Yeah, the production functions need to take real values as inputs, and real values as outputs. The relation of monetary values (nominal ie prices) is as per Supply (and Demand) functions; and notably the money supply.
PsyRa: thanks that was an interesting read, and detailed. I'd need to re-read it tomorrow, but we agree.
Accounts: absolutely, all transactions involving money should be recorded with transactional integrity. If not, it would be possible to have "infinite money-supply machines" (like perpetual-motion machines) as we can see today in VO. All entities need to have accounts and only the Central Bank to print money.
Nice thinking on the Production functions for individual items. Whatever the production function, keep it simple, and include Labour-hrs, Capital, and "Productivity" (Technological prowess). A lot of your posting is about production and operations (hehe I remember studying TPS / Kaizen and JIT and Kanban squares in business school).
"> Making things cost more" Here I don't think I'd want to vary the real quantity of input ingredients in the production function. You would merely increase the selling price of the good in high demand, as per Supply and Demand functions. Further, sustained increase in Demand (and higher prices) would trickle down to the fundamental input ores, causing their prices to be bid up, too.
What I had in mind is more having prices for goods available to players determined by Supply functions and Demand functions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_Demand
In this way, prices would bid up if Demand rose (this would stimulate additional production). Prices would wane down if Demand fell, or if production rose too fast. In any case, the price would be determined by market factors and would be decoupled from real quantities of ores required.
How much Miners would be rewarded for ores, in the Primary sector of the Economy, would depend on the quantities of said ores needed for various goods to be produced - i.e. the Demand - and the Supply (over-supply or under-supply) of these ores by the Miners. It's true, Miners are harvesting an unlimited supply of ores. However, it is time-consuming, and as I have pointed out, the Demand for it is limited, and the amount of cash paid out for it is also limited.
Central Bank injecting money: yep, the Central Bank in VO would print money as a function of: active users and/or Output (GDP).
With respect to OUTPUT or GNP: To be honest, as I've discussed the VO macroeconomy as one simple closed system, OUTPUT is GNP, the model is simplified. (OUTPUT is often quoted as GDP. GNP is GDP adjusted for the net income from assets owned by your countrymen, but abroad. We can ignore the difference).
Yep, problems will arise. As a complex and dynamic economy with perturbations from players, it will require monitoring and rebalancing by the Devs. Money sinks and NPC convoys can be used as auto-stabilising processes.
Mining: personally I can't think of anything as boring as mining, but we do have a lot of miners in VO and they love it, so don't automate it completely: let them mine. They are harvesting wealth after all, with their time and effort: it creates value. (ooc, The last time our ancestors automated mining, they created the Hive).
">Lower buying power:" Yeah I agree, if there is more and more money in circulation, the logical response is for the prices of goods, equipment and ships to rise, since the supply of these is limited. Inflation also deters hoarding the money.
Having said that: you'd want decent entry-level ships to always be affordable to new players (like the Vult, the Cent IBG, the Warthog) with halfway decent guns. This can happen also because new players earn more (in nominal terms) next year than they used to last year. BUT, if the Devs really manage to monitor and control the Money Supply, as you and I have agreed, then there should not be runaway inflation in prices. Then, will they know they have succeeded.
It's interesting reading your thinking. To be honest what I described was incomplete but started from the top-down approach. If you look at individual production functions for goods, then you are building from a bottom-up approach, which is also good.
Here's hoping we have a better VO Economy soon :-)
Accounts: absolutely, all transactions involving money should be recorded with transactional integrity. If not, it would be possible to have "infinite money-supply machines" (like perpetual-motion machines) as we can see today in VO. All entities need to have accounts and only the Central Bank to print money.
Nice thinking on the Production functions for individual items. Whatever the production function, keep it simple, and include Labour-hrs, Capital, and "Productivity" (Technological prowess). A lot of your posting is about production and operations (hehe I remember studying TPS / Kaizen and JIT and Kanban squares in business school).
"> Making things cost more" Here I don't think I'd want to vary the real quantity of input ingredients in the production function. You would merely increase the selling price of the good in high demand, as per Supply and Demand functions. Further, sustained increase in Demand (and higher prices) would trickle down to the fundamental input ores, causing their prices to be bid up, too.
What I had in mind is more having prices for goods available to players determined by Supply functions and Demand functions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_Demand
In this way, prices would bid up if Demand rose (this would stimulate additional production). Prices would wane down if Demand fell, or if production rose too fast. In any case, the price would be determined by market factors and would be decoupled from real quantities of ores required.
How much Miners would be rewarded for ores, in the Primary sector of the Economy, would depend on the quantities of said ores needed for various goods to be produced - i.e. the Demand - and the Supply (over-supply or under-supply) of these ores by the Miners. It's true, Miners are harvesting an unlimited supply of ores. However, it is time-consuming, and as I have pointed out, the Demand for it is limited, and the amount of cash paid out for it is also limited.
Central Bank injecting money: yep, the Central Bank in VO would print money as a function of: active users and/or Output (GDP).
With respect to OUTPUT or GNP: To be honest, as I've discussed the VO macroeconomy as one simple closed system, OUTPUT is GNP, the model is simplified. (OUTPUT is often quoted as GDP. GNP is GDP adjusted for the net income from assets owned by your countrymen, but abroad. We can ignore the difference).
Yep, problems will arise. As a complex and dynamic economy with perturbations from players, it will require monitoring and rebalancing by the Devs. Money sinks and NPC convoys can be used as auto-stabilising processes.
Mining: personally I can't think of anything as boring as mining, but we do have a lot of miners in VO and they love it, so don't automate it completely: let them mine. They are harvesting wealth after all, with their time and effort: it creates value. (ooc, The last time our ancestors automated mining, they created the Hive).
">Lower buying power:" Yeah I agree, if there is more and more money in circulation, the logical response is for the prices of goods, equipment and ships to rise, since the supply of these is limited. Inflation also deters hoarding the money.
Having said that: you'd want decent entry-level ships to always be affordable to new players (like the Vult, the Cent IBG, the Warthog) with halfway decent guns. This can happen also because new players earn more (in nominal terms) next year than they used to last year. BUT, if the Devs really manage to monitor and control the Money Supply, as you and I have agreed, then there should not be runaway inflation in prices. Then, will they know they have succeeded.
It's interesting reading your thinking. To be honest what I described was incomplete but started from the top-down approach. If you look at individual production functions for goods, then you are building from a bottom-up approach, which is also good.
Here's hoping we have a better VO Economy soon :-)
Another thing to take into account is that the more factors are involved with the Economy, the more likely it is that something will break down. Safeguards are needed to stabilize the Economy, but it is necessary to do so with as few as possible, or the server will choke.
Yeah the simpler the better.
vIsitor, you would be surprised at how little is actually involved server wise in calculating and recording all these types of values in a well designed system.
Economy functions happen only when money moves, and at most you would need two to five transactions (initiating transaction, taxes, value adjustments, etc) to record and calculate the process or money movement. I have seen systems on moderate hardware that could handle thousands of these transactions a minute without pushing the SQL server above 10%.
If VO had that many money movement transactions happening, the player base would justify at least one server just dedicated to the money functions.
I would be more concerned with a system developed so that it can be easily re-configured to handle the necessary balance changes and adjustments.
Simpler is better.
Economy functions happen only when money moves, and at most you would need two to five transactions (initiating transaction, taxes, value adjustments, etc) to record and calculate the process or money movement. I have seen systems on moderate hardware that could handle thousands of these transactions a minute without pushing the SQL server above 10%.
If VO had that many money movement transactions happening, the player base would justify at least one server just dedicated to the money functions.
I would be more concerned with a system developed so that it can be easily re-configured to handle the necessary balance changes and adjustments.
Simpler is better.
In my experience, the game engine takes up massively more memory and CPU time than the database ever does.
some good solid suggestions for a dynamic economy .
"- there is an almost-infinte supply of cheap money in VO, easily accumulated by players.
- there is an unlimited supply of goods.
- there is an unlimited demand for ores."
why are these considered problems? sounds like the land of milk and honey to me.
it's like we spend our whole life scraping and scrounging for food, shelter, and clothes, and some of us are lucky enough to get it.
then what happens? we get bored, and want imagine ourselves back in those days of scraping and scrounging, killing each other for a sack of rice. why?
a psychologist might have some theories. but since i am not one, i might have some BS i pulled out of my bum.
1. things that traumatize us sometimes become very attractive to us.
2. some people even think that by re-experiencing traumatic events in a 'safe' recreation you can somehow treat psychological problems caused by that trauma. i personally think that has a great potential to be a load of BS, because a lot of people's "safe" recreations end up causing them to lose jobs and friends
3. our excitement system is 'burned out' and we want higher and higher levels of stimulation. it is not enough to have finely ground organic sea pepper over duck a l'orange, we must have it served in a hand made ethiopian wooden bowl from the muckmuck tree, finished with free trade no-voc child safe environmentally friendly wood finish, while we sit on our $5,000 herman miller recliner and pretend to be space captains on a 200 inch (or 6 meters, because we are trying to pretend we are 'european') television screen.
----
so then i have a proposal for a new, new economy.
1. the economy should be based on human heads as the basic form of currency
2. graphic depictions of severed human heads should be added to the game
3. drugs should be mailed to players, including 50x concentrated caffeine and sugar pills, 'energy booster' drinks in pure syrup form, and so forth and so on.
4. electrodes should be hooked from the USB port onto the players body, so they receive a horrific shock whenever they are PKd.
I think this will provide all of the trauma recreation that you could possibly want.
---
Now, an alternative view, put forth by the filthy hippie chicks who lay on the sidewalk of college towns trying to sell jewlery, is that we should create with our imaginations, instead of re simulated trauma, resimulated pleasure... or 'beauty' itself to use the colloquial phrase.
I do not know what a 'beautiful' game would look like, but the last one I remember was king's quest. On replaying King's Quest, however, I have determined that the game was boring as hell, and went back to playing 'severed testicle rampage 7.5 extreme expansion'.
Any thoughts are welcome.
- there is an unlimited supply of goods.
- there is an unlimited demand for ores."
why are these considered problems? sounds like the land of milk and honey to me.
it's like we spend our whole life scraping and scrounging for food, shelter, and clothes, and some of us are lucky enough to get it.
then what happens? we get bored, and want imagine ourselves back in those days of scraping and scrounging, killing each other for a sack of rice. why?
a psychologist might have some theories. but since i am not one, i might have some BS i pulled out of my bum.
1. things that traumatize us sometimes become very attractive to us.
2. some people even think that by re-experiencing traumatic events in a 'safe' recreation you can somehow treat psychological problems caused by that trauma. i personally think that has a great potential to be a load of BS, because a lot of people's "safe" recreations end up causing them to lose jobs and friends
3. our excitement system is 'burned out' and we want higher and higher levels of stimulation. it is not enough to have finely ground organic sea pepper over duck a l'orange, we must have it served in a hand made ethiopian wooden bowl from the muckmuck tree, finished with free trade no-voc child safe environmentally friendly wood finish, while we sit on our $5,000 herman miller recliner and pretend to be space captains on a 200 inch (or 6 meters, because we are trying to pretend we are 'european') television screen.
----
so then i have a proposal for a new, new economy.
1. the economy should be based on human heads as the basic form of currency
2. graphic depictions of severed human heads should be added to the game
3. drugs should be mailed to players, including 50x concentrated caffeine and sugar pills, 'energy booster' drinks in pure syrup form, and so forth and so on.
4. electrodes should be hooked from the USB port onto the players body, so they receive a horrific shock whenever they are PKd.
I think this will provide all of the trauma recreation that you could possibly want.
---
Now, an alternative view, put forth by the filthy hippie chicks who lay on the sidewalk of college towns trying to sell jewlery, is that we should create with our imaginations, instead of re simulated trauma, resimulated pleasure... or 'beauty' itself to use the colloquial phrase.
I do not know what a 'beautiful' game would look like, but the last one I remember was king's quest. On replaying King's Quest, however, I have determined that the game was boring as hell, and went back to playing 'severed testicle rampage 7.5 extreme expansion'.
Any thoughts are welcome.
Hmm, really insightful ideas and constructive criticism there, ananzi [sarcasm].
ROFL about the caricature of the poncy organic duck a l'orange dish .... it really is getting like that in rarefied circles in London (and no doubt NYC) and it's almost all toss.
This was _not_ a thread for physchology BS, you are so far off topic.
ROFL about the caricature of the poncy organic duck a l'orange dish .... it really is getting like that in rarefied circles in London (and no doubt NYC) and it's almost all toss.
This was _not_ a thread for physchology BS, you are so far off topic.
What about having an economy entirely run by the players? Kinda like EVE...
Wops, i said the E word...
Wops, i said the E word...
In my thinking it's not incompatible with a player-run economy, just that you need to have a sound model underpinning it; and I agree with PsyRa about transactional integrity. I'm sure these things (and more) are modelled in EVE too. Without these things, you got nada
I again find myself agreeing with Eddy. There has to be some state of rules for the economy to begin with, simply because the code has to be written that gives players the ability to make the kinds of exchanges that are the core of all economies.
Second, they claim to have a player run economy, but what does the manufacturing? Who decided what was allowed to be manufactured? Who designed the ship models, resource collection methods, weapons possible, etc?
That would be the developers. Now at this point perhaps every price and product has been "influenced" by the players, but a fully player run economy is impossible.
In VO terms, a mostly player ran economy would happen in my model, if players were capable, and did, all the functions necessary to eliminate the need for NPC's to "grease the wheels". This could be facilitated by making certain that the NPC's only became active if things became too stagnant, and they were needed or the whole thing would end up stopping.
As long as NPC's aren't needed to grease the wheels, it ends up being a player ran economy, as much as it can be.
Second, they claim to have a player run economy, but what does the manufacturing? Who decided what was allowed to be manufactured? Who designed the ship models, resource collection methods, weapons possible, etc?
That would be the developers. Now at this point perhaps every price and product has been "influenced" by the players, but a fully player run economy is impossible.
In VO terms, a mostly player ran economy would happen in my model, if players were capable, and did, all the functions necessary to eliminate the need for NPC's to "grease the wheels". This could be facilitated by making certain that the NPC's only became active if things became too stagnant, and they were needed or the whole thing would end up stopping.
As long as NPC's aren't needed to grease the wheels, it ends up being a player ran economy, as much as it can be.