Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Uniques Economies

I've been thinking about game economics, specifically in massively multiplayer games. They suffer from a host of problems, but the situation gets infinitely more confusing and muddy if you begin to talk about large numbers of unique items, like we will certainly see in the relatively near future.

The whole point of MMORPG economics is that everything is fungible. That is, there is no difference between this gold piece and that gold piece, and there is no difference between this Codpiece of Flugorth and the other Codpiece of Flugorth. Demand varies, of course. Over time, space, and between items, demand varies wildly. Today the Codpiece of Flugorth is worth 10,000 gold, tomorrow only 150. When combined with the various other bits of Flugorth, the price becomes ten times that of the pieces individually, because they form a set, but even that set can be considered perfectly identical and interchangeable with other sets of the same components.

This interchangeability is the cornerstone of MMORPG economics, both the good and bad elements. However, it can't last. As time marches on, more and more massively multiplayer games are going to feature more and more customized content. Even if they take the cheap route and allow for only small amounts of customization on top of solid fundamental blueprints, that small customization will change the value in chaotic ways. Even just letting you die your gear various colors will make the price vary wildly, often with the expensive variants costing more than double the cheap variants.

With true variation between objects you can end up with something more like SecondLife. One detail worth noting is that SecondLife allows for very easy mass production, however, so it is possible for many people to have the exact same product. To a large extent this focuses and centralizes the production of goods so that many of the people in SecondLife own the same sets of goods, even though there are technically an unlimited number of unique variations they could use instead.

However, SecondLife's economy is not suitable for other massively multiplayer games (and is arguably not suitable for SecondLife), so their method of mass production and weekly dole isn't one that should be adopted willy-nilly. I personally would prefer to think of a system where all the players tended to create uniques, rather than a few players creating uniques and everyone else buying them.

In such a system, the economics would be very different and would need to be carefully planned. For example, what purpose is there behind trading? Are some uniques flat-out better than others (IE a unique wooden sword versus a unique flaming sword of badassium)?

An economy of uniqueness seems to require a few rather unusual attributes in the rest of the game.

First, there seems to be a need for an unlimited number of "slots". If someone can only equip one weapon, one hat, one suit, then there are only so many unique things they'll want. They may end up with ten or fifteen hats, if they're obsessive, but they'll usually only wear one of perhaps two favorites. To encourage people to gather uniques, it is important that a large number of uniques be simultaneously viable for play without sorting through them every time.

One example of this would be a wardrobe that the character would automatically dress from, picking random (perhaps themed or otherwise fashionable complements) pieces. This would allow you to see a variety of uniques over time, meaning that none of your uniques get forgotten in the back of some closet somewhere.

However, this is only one step in the right general direction. You're still limited by the number of clothes your character can wear. equally important is increasing the number of slots. For example, your players may want to collect houses, NPCs, dance moves, poetry - things we can't even think of. It's important to allow this to (A) exist in multitudes during gameplay and (B) vary such that no uniques get lost in the closet.

Once this basis is set up, we can talk about the actual economy of uniques. Without this kind of revolving, wide-spectrum use, an economy of uniques would simply be a stilted and clumsy normal economy.

One aspect of any economy is how difficult it is to manufacture wealth. Most MMORPGs have various means of manufacturing wealth, but the biggest is through killing monsters. This automatically scales with your level, meaning that you generate much more wealth if you are higher level and killing nastier monsters.

A uniques economy could have the same basic philosophy - perhaps the components of the uniques are collected from the corpses of monsters - but it doesn't really fit the needs very well. The reason for the monster farming is to create a treadmill, but when uniques get involved there are a lot of other ways to suck down player time, and level-based treadmills should be easy to play down without losing players.

A uniques economy could also have the opposite philosophy, where you can build anything you want whenever you want, like in SecondLife. A newbie can theoretically build anything that an experienced player can. However, this also has problems, largely in the proliferation of non-unique uniques (I call them "hello world" uniques).

A middle ground can be reached by allowing users to literally grow their content. Real-world time is spent while their character manufactures or tends a given product. The next iteration(s) of the product naturally descend from that, allowing the users to tweak their products to their own desires, rather than programming them from the ground up.

This middle ground has a lot of advantages, but the biggest is that the amount of uniqueness between player content will be much, much higher. Even just a few days in, newbies will have manufactured suitably unique newbie gear. After a few months, two players will have developed such radically different equipment that trade becomes useful. Crossing two "lines" of unique content could also be fun...

This method of growing content does result in a huge number of "spares", so you need to take some pains to eliminate them. This can be done through making things wear out, or through making them break when you descend from them, or from selling them to NPCs, or any number of other means. However, at some point some players will be producing literally hundreds of times more stuff than they can use, and this is a serious threat to the economy because they will flood the market.

Therefore two things must happen. One is that those players should have some recourse for all their spares (perhaps donating them for prestige). The second is that there must be a difficulty in marketing. It must be hard for a player to mass market goods (or even give goods away to many people).

There are a lot of ways of doing these things, but thiey all have ramifications on the overall nature of the economy. For example, if it is difficult to mass market goods, then the economy is hugely fragmented, which will result in a large number of players who specialize in moving goods from one fragment to another. These brokers will probably use out-of-game channels to organize and, in time, they will flat-out replace your implemented market with third-party market(s) that unite the fragments into one, more smoothly-operating economy. You can inhibit them to some extent, but doing much inhibiting will make the players angry.

It is still important to prevent an in-game smorgasborg of uniques, though. Players routinely encountering lists of hundreds or thousands of unique items will cause problems with swamping. There are various means of dealing with this, too, such as a central market that randomly segments, or having players rigidly separated into shards.

These are some of the difficulties a uniques economy will cause, I think. But I also think it's inevitable. How about you?

4 comments:

Christopher Weeks said...

This article seems to take it as given that an MMO economy requires certain artifacts, such as NPC vendors and auction mechanism. Is that your concious intent for the purposes of this discussion?

Also, you seem to be implying that brokers and (I assume) gatherers of arbitrage are bad for the game -- or am I inferring wrong? If you do mean that, why?

And regarding ubiquitous fungibility as "the whole point" or "the cornerstone" of MMORPG economics, do you just mean that it is a prevalent model? As I recall, from the very beginning of Star Wars Galaxies, the stats of each item type were variable based on the materials used to craft it. So items with the same name weren't universally interchangeable the way they might be in another game (like WoW). I mentioned Wurm Online a few posts back, that game works similarly (same item name can have different quality level and enchantments). Does this address your point or am I missing the main thrust?

When considering the economy of uniqueness, why do we want to encourage the players to gather many uniques? What does it mean for them to be "simultaneously viable...without sorting through them?" Is it just that the handling time involved in choosing your hat from scene to scene needs to be small and thus can't involve a detailed analysis of the various hats' stats? If so, allowing the player to name or at least annotate the name would solve that.

A "slot" is just a limitation on what you can own or carry or something, right? Why have limits at all? Maybe everything has a mass and volume and you can carry and/or store whatever based on those stats? And I want to make sure that you're not advocating for characters wearing multiple hats -- which is quite silly with only a few small exceptions.

I guess I have another sort of fundamental question. Are these unique things different from other unique things because they interact with the numeric model of the game differently or because they are just cosmetically different? Or (of course this is probably the answer) both?

Your description of growing equipment has me really jazzed. I'm not sure how literally you mean "grow" but even if we're not playing some awesome game set on an alien world where we coax organisms to produce all of our goods for us, the same notion works for completly vanilla crafting. If you're crafting a backpack and you want to improve the rate at which it degrades your speed or endurance by three points, first you have to "grow" the ability to improve it by two and before that, one. So you have spent that time learning three "levels" of pack-endurance crafting or whatever while someone else learned levels of waterproofness or fine-apointment or whatever. It's not exactly the same as the growing that you describe (which is cooler -- but a larger step away from the state of the art) but it's a similar notion and also creates a diaspora of "uniques." The notion of breeding or crossing lines of thing is extra-neato but kind of weird too. And I don't think this necessarily has to result in the huge number of spares is what you're doing is modifying the same piece of equipment over time rather than birthing generations of new stuff. Does that harm the model that you're describing here?

Craig Perko said...

Great comment! Ready for a long reply?

"This article seems to take it as given that an MMO economy requires certain artifacts, such as NPC vendors and auction mechanism. Is that your concious intent for the purposes of this discussion?"

Deviating from that assumption would require paragraphs and paragraphs of analysis on what that would mean. It didn't fit into the already overloaded essay, so I left it as a given. I don't believe it to be a given, however.

"Also, you seem to be implying that brokers and (I assume) gatherers of arbitrage are bad for the game -- or am I inferring wrong?"

I must have communicated poorly. I don't mean that they are bad for the game. I do mean that their dynamics will override your own in many cases, especially if your dynamics are specifically sub-par.

"And regarding ubiquitous fungibility as "the whole point" or "the cornerstone" of MMORPG economics, do you just mean that it is a prevalent model?"

Yes, that's just the prevalent model. However, the economics of the games you described, with not-completely-interchangeable goods, are often simply the economic systems of games with interchangeable goods. As I mentioned, you can do that, it just means that the economy limps a bit.

"When considering the economy of uniqueness, why do we want to encourage the players to gather many uniques? What does it mean for them to be "simultaneously viable...without sorting through them?" Is it just that the handling time involved in choosing your hat from scene to scene needs to be small and thus can't involve a detailed analysis of the various hats' stats? If so, allowing the player to name or at least annotate the name would solve that."

I didn't realize that I needed to go into more detail on that. I should have.

The player DOES need to be able to acquire and use many more items than a player would normally want. Furthermore, while a player in a modern MMORPG would sell his old equipment, that will not be guaranteed in a uniques environment.

I'll go into more detail on exactly why players need to process more uniques if you like, but it basically falls down to the fact that generating and classifying uniques requires way more iterations across more equipment than simply buying preclassified goods.

"A "slot" is just a limitation on what you can own or carry or something, right?"

No, no, a slot is a limitation on what you can EQUIP or MANIFEST. Even if you have fifty swords, you only have one Sword Slot. Yeah?

Instead of a character wearing fifty hats, what if you could equip fifty NPCs with hats? There are lots of ways to increase the number of slots available, but it will require designing the game to suit this need, rather than adapting an existing game to serve.

"Or (of course this is probably the answer) both?"

That depends on the design of the game and how far the designers push the idea of unique content...

"Your description of growing equipment has me really jazzed."

Yay! Your commentary is all quite accurate, except that when "growing" uniques rather than "designing" uniques, there will be lots of spares because there will be dead ends - variations that aren't as suitable as you like.

You could probably design a game without those dead ends, but you will still end up with players producing way more than they need. :)

I hope this clears my position up, and I'm ecstatic someone read that long-ass essay and understood it. Ha!

Christopher Weeks said...

A point of interest that I've noted as I've continued to ruminate on this is that The Economy means different things to us. To me, it's totally the trade ecology that evolves during play with real players. And it only became clear to me after some time that to you it is the system of trade built into the game by the devs -- something that should be madly tweaked to provide a kind of steering to the game. I don't know that this points to an actual philosophical difference, but it might.

Craig Perko said...

I guess there is a difference in philosophy there, but in my opinion, the pattern of actual trades the players perform is based on the underlying rules and connections created by the developers.

For example, having an in-game centralized auction house changes the whole tenor of the market, as does having a minimum level requirement for items. These are walls and gates that encourage the players to trade in specific ways.

In short, I guess I'm talking about how the highway system is set up, and you're talking about how people drive.