20 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

MMO by it their nature need an economy to survive. MWO does not have one and therefore it stands to reason that MWO is slated to not survive. It's fairly easy to remedy this: add a mechanism for having an economy. However, since MWO is F2P and relies on microtransactions economies like those seen in WoW (auction house) and EVE (central market) will not work (generate real world revenue) without being adjusted.

Here is my suggestion for creating a game economy while insuring a stream of cash for PGIGP (which keeps MWO going). First, establish a central market place. All marketplace transactions should be in c-bills only. Allow all goods, including MC, to be sold on the market place. Allow buy and sell orders to be place for specific prices over a specific time window. Remove the current mech store from the game and you have a virtual economy in MWO. Now mech warriors need to buy and sell from one another to get the part they want and the market sets the prices for various goods.

Next, disallow destroyed components from being repaired. If a Gauss Rifle is destroyed, buy a new one. However, damaged components should be repairable at a fraction of the cost (repair costs should be a fraction of the going market rate for a given component).

Good, now we've established an economy with limited goods and a proper sink for its fluidity. This will help keep inflation in check because the number of c-bills will constantly be reduced by destroy components. What next?

We need a method of obtaining new components! Obviously mech warriors can go to the market to purchase new components, but as components are destroyed the availability of new components will trend towards zero (and quickly I imagine). Therefore we need a way to inject completely new components into the system.

PGIGP should sell Salvage Lots for MC. Salvage Lots should contain a random assortment of components. Pretend these are bins being sold by professional and house salvage companies. Salvage Lots should come in a number of sizes and should relatively MC cheap. On the order of US$0.50 to US$2.00 depending on size. The reason for the cheapness is compulsion purchases and the contents are random so players may need to purchase several lots before getting the components they want. Also, because this is required to support the economy, it's in PGIGP's best interests to sell a lot of these.

Of course unwanted components can be sold on the market allowing the "free players" to get the items they want while making the "paying players" richer for it (a nice bonus from PGIGP for supporting them).

Mechs should follow a similar pattern but should not be random; players should be able to choose a CAT-A1 and have to hope they get one. Non-hero mechs should be for sale directly from PGIGP for about US$3.00. Why the low price? You need to sell a lot of them to make the economy work. But there's no sink for the number of mechs in the game after a month or so they'll be worthless on the marketplace because the economy will be flooded with discarded Fleas and nobody will need to buy anything from PGIGP - oh noes!

The solution is pretty straight forward, make mechs destroyable. If the center torso is reduced to zero structure points, the mech is considered destroyed and it is removed from the game. What? That sucks, I'm not spending US$3.00 on something that gets destroyed in 15 minutes!

Addendum: Make mech purchased on the marketplace (for c-bills) destroyable. This way the F2P people have to keep grinding to keep up with the Joneses and the P2P people can play as they like while funding the F2P.

If you wanted to get ridiculous with the granularity of the market you could make armor and intrinsic components, like actuators and sensors, be non-repairable and include them as part of the salvage lots. This would make P2P players more likely to drop US$5 on some salvage to get their mechs all fixed up and maybe get that ERPPC they want.

Anyways, the point of this is that it makes everybody dependent on everyone else. The F2P people are dependent on the P2P to provided components and mechs, and the P2P people are dependent on the F2P people to provide a steady steam of c-bills into the economy.

Thoughts?

[Bhael Fire]

Honestly, I think if they just lower the MC prices on their in-game products they will thrive as long as they have a steady flow of new content (i.e., standard mechs, hero mechs, cockpit items/themes, camo patterns, decals, etc.)

They should also add a 500 MC credit purchase point for $2.95; Many impulse sales will result from this (as long as they lower MC prices on various in-game items).

The price of their premium time, mech bay expansions, and XP->GXP exchange are currently the only reasonably priced features in the game. The "money grab" method currentl;y being used with the other items will work in the short term, but will not allow the game to thrive with a sustainable future.

[focuspark]

Sure with the current model PGIGP might make some money but I'd hardly believe thrive and are people really having thier options limited to christmas lights and fuzzy dice? Having a central market would help bring the entire world to "life" in my opinion.

[Faolan65]

@Focuspark, I think this would be great and would integrate very well into the community warfare (as has been shared with us) and actually make the concept of community warfare valid. The idea that they are going to a persistent universe, but then have an economy that isn’t even remotely related to that persistency is futile.

I also think its that kind of in-game economies you’re talking about that draws players in and keeps them invested in the game. Another level of immersion that keeps wanting to come back for more.

Above all else though I think the balance they have with MC is fine, it’s the dollar to MC that is the problem.

I also agree that mechs and components should be destroyable (with the exception of founder's mechs, but it should still be pretty painful to repair, so to balance with destroyed & gone mechs). it will change the way players engage, they might actually have to think before jumping into the middle of a melee. Players will have to play tactically rather than rush in all COD/Rambo style to survive. but under current repair and rearm cost model, permanent destruction of mechs and components would be disastrous.

Edited by Faolan65, 06 December 2012 - 06:56 AM.

[Drakemoore]

Great idea I feel. However, I feel that PGI would need to make it so that destroyed mechs as well as debris that are shot off have a chance to become salvage at the end of a match with the loot going towards the winner (including some of their own losses) though this would differ of course if we ever get more 'grand' game modes.

I also feel that you'd probably need some game modes like tournaments or something where players can earn some cbills and they're provided with some equipment to use for that match. So they can eventually catch back up if they lose everything.

[Elder Thorn]

focuspark, on 05 December 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

MMO by it their nature need an economy to survive. MWO does not have one and therefore it stands to reason that MWO is slated to not survive.

Objection:
World of Tanks

(what about LoL?)
You shall not confuse MMORPG with MMO.

If we had some sort of economy, we would also need ressources and stuff to craft and a system to gather ressources and this at a risk, which would also mean that an open world would be nice so i can walk arround and shoot people while they are gathering ressources - so that i can use the ressources they gathered

[Syllogy]

Devs are releasing a change to the economy Dec 18.

Proof: http://mwomercs.com/...ember-4th-2012/

Also, community warfare will have a significant impact on the economy, so let's see what happens before we start proposing big changes.

[focuspark]

Now is the time to be suggesting bid ideas, in fact it's probably too late.

Basically, it'll come down to how good the economy and this "community warfare" is which determines the success of MWO.

[focuspark]

Elder Thorn, on 07 December 2012 - 07:30 AM, said:

Objection:
World of Tanks

(what about LoL?)
You shall not confuse MMORPG with MMO.

If we had some sort of economy, we would also need ressources and stuff to craft and a system to gather ressources and this at a risk, which would also mean that an open world would be nice so i can walk arround and shoot people while they are gathering ressources - so that i can use the ressources they gathered

This isn't WOW or EVE and I sure as hell don't want to see mining mecs. what I am proposing is that new materials flow into the economy from MC purchases of goods. Never have I suggested a harvest and craft solution. That concept is tired, old, and boring.

[Willie Sauerland]

In general, I like the ideas proposed here. I do have one concern with the MC <-> CBill exchange. While it is not possible to convert the MC back into real cash for a person, I am a bit concerned that this could unbalance the game significantly since I could easily put a large amount of MC onto the exchange and receive a significant amount of CBills at a very low cost to me personally. And I'm sure people running with premium time and/or founders/hero bonuses will be able to put CBills on the market as well. In other words, I can purchase CBills (or anything else) for money and I find this disturbing about your idea.

Understand, I don't mind PGIGP making a profit and I happily support them with my own hard-earned money, but I worry this part of the idea could cause more problems in the long-run.

In all, I still like the grind factor (though it shouldn't be as hard of a grind as it is now) for earning CBills. I do wish there was a way to earn MC as well and I do hope this is coming in the near future to make this truly F2P (otherwise, everybody's mechlab is going to get awfully crowded since a new mech bay costs 300MC).

Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit how much MC or CBills a person is allowed to place on the market during a certain period of time?

What I absolutely want to avoid is a real cash-based economy like the one found in other games like Diablo III.

Edited by Willie Sauerland, 08 December 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[focuspark]

Willie Sauerland, on 08 December 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

In general, I like the ideas proposed here. I do have one concern with the MC <-> CBill exchange. While it is not possible to convert the MC back into real cash for a person, I am a bit concerned that this could unbalance the game significantly since I could easily put a large amount of MC onto the exchange and receive a significant amount of CBills at a very low cost to me personally. And I'm sure people running with premium time and/or founders/hero bonuses will be able to put CBills on the market as well. In other words, I can purchase CBills (or anything else) for money and I find this disturbing about your idea.

Understand, I don't mind PGIGP making a profit and I happily support them with my own hard-earned money, but I worry this part of the idea could cause more problems in the long-run.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to limit how much MC or CBills a person is allowed to place on the market during a certain period of time?

That's the beauty and elegance of using a central market. If too many MC sales are going on at one time the value of the MC drops. Supply and demand. This makes is very difficult for an individual or group to dominate by pouring money into the game all at once.

Willie Sauerland, on 08 December 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

In all, I still like the grind factor (though it shouldn't be as hard of a grind as it is now) for earning CBills. I do wish there was a way to earn MC as well and I do hope this is coming in the near future to make this truly F2P (otherwise, everybody's mechlab is going to get awfully crowded since a new mech bay costs 300MC).

And using this idea you could grind for MC by trading your hard won CB for somebody's purchased MC. Both parties are happy because the F2P player can get access to the MC only stuff and the P2P player didn't need to grind to get what they wanted; PGIGP makes money in the process. Everyone wins.

[Elder Thorn]

edit: forget what i was saying... will try to sleep first

Edited by Elder Thorn, 09 December 2012 - 06:21 AM.

[Wormrex]

While it is a good idea on paper, but I would rather keep all this 'virtual economy' hype out of the game for what it's worth.

Last thing I want is :

1. C-billionare playing tycoon warrior online. You know it will happen.

2. An even worse gap for new players and old. Besides skills, now you want them to even have a worse time of catching up 'financially'?

3. Dollar sign on every single piece of thing out there. If you even dare say it won't happen.


Perhaps after CW comes out, and there are clear goals and targets... might you consider some sort of commodity exchange, and even then by gods don't make it Real Money transaction.

[focuspark]

Not sure what the problem with some mech warriors being more wealthy than others is. Adds to the atmosphere if you ask me.

Are you saying new players should be on par with veterans? Are you suggesting that a veteran mercenary group who's put in hundreds of missions and hours of time should be on par with some kid starting up the game for the first time? Doesn't make any sense to me. Why work hard and earn C-Bills at all if they don't offer you an advantage? Why no remove ammo costs, repairs, and c-bill rewards complete?

Everything does have a dollar sign on it. Either you allow an economy in game or one will be created out of game. If you think people won't be selling their characters for real money, you're crazy.

[Willie Sauerland]

focuspark, on 10 December 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

Not sure what the problem with some mech warriors being more wealthy than others is. Adds to the atmosphere if you ask me.

Are you saying new players should be on par with veterans? Are you suggesting that a veteran mercenary group who's put in hundreds of missions and hours of time should be on par with some kid starting up the game for the first time? Doesn't make any sense to me. Why work hard and earn C-Bills at all if they don't offer you an advantage? Why no remove ammo costs, repairs, and c-bill rewards complete?

Everything does have a dollar sign on it. Either you allow an economy in game or one will be created out of game. If you think people won't be selling their characters for real money, you're crazy.

I think what we are saying is this is a free to play game. Having a market where anybody can pay real hard cash to get items through an MC exchange means the people will be able to be on par with a veteran (if this were a balanced game, which it isn't). In other words, the new person with cash to spend will not have the same experience level running their mech I have had grinding.

Understand, I'm not advocating a PUG stomp. I am not opposed to a C-BIll market either. But once real money is involved, the amount of crying and whining will go up. And I have seen plenty of games where paying money allowed a person to get the best items and be immediately competitive - even to the point of almost overly so.

I don't want to see that for this game. Considering all the MIN/MAXers we already have in this game, do you seriously think there won't be people gaming a market system as well? I don't mind a person being "richer" than me in terms of C-Bills. I do mind day-1 noob being able to take on a veteran force by himself and winning because he had more cash to spend.

I understand the desire to have a market (I'm actually for it) as it makes things which should be rare and valuable, well, rare and valuable. I think it would be better to leave the MC out of it though to keep this game free to play (instead of pay to win).

[focuspark]

So there's more than one problem to be solved here. Notice the thread title is "Suggestion for Economy and Business Model" because the two are tightly intertwined. I agree, WMO is a F2P game but that doesn't mean it's a Free to Operate business. Running a MMO is expensive, surprisingly expensive. Wouldn't surprise me if it cost PGIGP $5/month per user to keep the system up and running. That means we all need to see MC sales and let's face it paint sales aren't going to cover it.

Allowing players to spend real money to skip the grind is what F2P is all about. If you want to avoid this, you need to find a P2P game like World of WarCraft where nobody can skip the grind. Allowing individuals to pay real money to avoid having to waste time grinding in order to be effective means we get a larger player base because F2P players are subsidized by P2P players, which are incentived to pay because they do not want to deal with the grind the F2P player deal with.

Effectively you have to pay your way, either by grinding away in game or by grinding away in real life and bringing your cash to MWO to avoid grinding here as well. This is F2P model.

[Willie Sauerland]

focuspark, on 10 December 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

So there's more than one problem to be solved here. Notice the thread title is "Suggestion for Economy and Business Model" because the two are tightly intertwined. I agree, WMO is a F2P game but that doesn't mean it's a Free to Operate business. Running a MMO is expensive, surprisingly expensive. Wouldn't surprise me if it cost PGIGP $5/month per user to keep the system up and running. That means we all need to see MC sales and let's face it paint sales aren't going to cover it.

Allowing players to spend real money to skip the grind is what F2P is all about. If you want to avoid this, you need to find a P2P game like World of WarCraft where nobody can skip the grind. Allowing individuals to pay real money to avoid having to waste time grinding in order to be effective means we get a larger player base because F2P players are subsidized by P2P players, which are incentived to pay because they do not want to deal with the grind the F2P player deal with.

Effectively you have to pay your way, either by grinding away in game or by grinding away in real life and bringing your cash to MWO to avoid grinding here as well. This is F2P model.

To be fair, I don't have a problem with people paying for things and I certainly understand PGIGP needs to earn money. I am not against either one of these facts. However, I would much rather see a MC <-> CBill conversion controlled by PGIGP for use on the market rather than a market where such a conversion is most likely exploitable.

This is all I'm saying. If PGIGP controls the MC <-> CBill conversion I'm fine with everything else stated in your idea. Having PGIGP control the conversion rates means nobody is having to deal with the bidding wars for currency which is certainly bound to happen. It would mean the rich and the poor are on an equal footing when it comes to currency as they both have the exact same exchange rate.

[focuspark]

Interesting. I was taking the exact opposite approach to the solve the same problem. I believe a central authority will distort the value, even if accidentally, and if far easier to be gamed. Where as the supply/demand market would be more reactive and self correcting, thus thwarting most attempts at cheating it.

As in you could not dump US$10,000 into the market because it simply couldn't support it which would mean your ROI would trend toward zero quickly. Therefore it's better to invest smaller amounts (US$5 or US$10) which are on par with what the average person can spend because the market can accommodate them and you won't drive the price of MC towards zero.

Additionally, even if the price of MC were driven down real people got the benefit of having access to MC on the cheap. Which means that many people have access to MXP->GXP conversions, purchasing of salvage bins, etc. Because the sellers do not control the the buyers, this quickly evens out any temporary gain made by the sellers.

Edited by focuspark, 10 December 2012 - 10:32 AM.

[Avarice1of2]

we are still in open beta, early open beta it wouldnt make since to have a market tell we are about to go full gamma

[focuspark]

Avarice1of2, on 10 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

we are still in open beta, early open beta it wouldnt make since to have a market tell we are about to go full gamma

yes, of course I'm proposing this for release and not necessarily for Open Beta; though I would assume the developers would like to test the feature before taking it live and no better place than Open Beta.

Edited by focuspark, 12 December 2012 - 11:26 AM.