33 replies to this topic

[GaussDragon]

I know the devs are being somewhat mum until the beta however something I feel that hasn't been discussed much is the nature of the economy and I'm curious as to how it's going to be designed and implemented - are there any novel mechanics, crafting etc? I'm curious to know how it's going to handled especially given that this is going to be on a F2P model. I feel that the F2P model increases the challenge and complexity of designing an in-game economy because it has a very direct effect on revenues (company profits, that is).

Small anecdote

Up until the end of September I was playing Black Prophecy and it had a ton of problems - one of them being a poorly designed economy. It didn't take long for inflation to start going Zimbabwe and the somewhat small player-driven secondary market started to see price quotes go up for everything across the board. What made things worse is that the newbies didn't have access to the kinds of revenue generating streams that the more organized clans did and income disparity priced the newbies right out of the market. What's more interesting is that one of the more critical and scarce resources started to become the de facto currency and those of us that gamed the faucet for it (I discovered that the devs were re-using formulas in all sorts of places) were more or less printing money. This is what happens when an economy is an after thought haha.


To the devs: What's the gameplan here (if you guys are permitted to divulge)


To the community: What do you want to see in terms of F2P balance? What do you feel is a fair/effective balance in terms of free content vs things you have to pay for and what kinds of mechanics do you want to see? (Crafting, trading/auction, mercenary contracts etc)

[Cattra Kell]

A lot of people are still curious about this and I for one am very curious about this mainly due to my business background. We have seen a lot of suggestions from playing as an Industrialist: http://mwomercs.com/...-industrialist/ to other such ideas as what Anastasius Focht put forward "playing the stocks" as an example here:

[CG]Anastasius Focht, on 29 November 2011 - 04:12 PM, said:

Yeah in crescent hawks inception there were 3 portfolios you could invest in, and in game time, some made a profit some a loss, it was a way of getting that little bit of extra cash for the mechitlube

I wonder if this could be expanded in MWO, with the stocks value perhaps being tied to real game results. for example if your house holds Hesperus II then stocks in defiance industries give good returns etc etc
http://www.sarna.net...ance_Industries

I always found it to be a fun aspect of Crescent hawks inception

To address what you have said though, and I can only speak on the side of the community, I personally would like to see a few things here.
1. A unique and diverse player run marketplace, what do I mean by this? Well with the main markets I can see it being limited to either:
a. Houses, trade is only within your house with others in it
b. Global trade, almost like the EVE Jita

2. Mercenary Contracts offered to other merc corps would be another very interesting thing. Say you are fighting a battle on two fronts but only can personally muster the forces for one, I don't see why you couldn't hire another corp to fight under your banner.

3. As Anastasius Focht said, I wouldn't mind seeing a stock market where you buy stocks in company's. For this to work I think we would have to see different company weapons such as "GMC X-Light 200 Gyro" vs "Honda X-light 250 gyro" and depending on which part is sold more, the more that stock is worth and more you get on return etc. This would be VERY hard to do but I think it would be a interesting mechanic in-game.

Just a few things I would like to see, I do have more but I need time to develop thoughts and systems for them before I talk about them to try and paint a better picture.

[SGT Unther]

Personally I liked the economy that was used in the MW2:mercs game, although it was a simple system it worked quite well. What was availible in the market mostly depended on what happened that week. For example if someone found star league tech or salvaged a rare mech it would often appear on the market for sale. Also the opposite could happen, I remember during the course of the campaign all the PPCs in the market were recalled due to a fault (it would flood the mech with 2x the heat and not fire). It forced me to improvise a load-out on one of my mechs because it lost its PPC (I think it was a panther) and during the clan wars near the end the market was almost empty because of everything was going directly to the front to fight the clans.

With all that said I would like to see something similar to this or even taken to the next level.

[GaussDragon]

Cattra Kell, on 01 December 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

a. Houses, trade is only within your house with others in it

Or how about this, a tax imposed on trades done out of your house/clan. Also, since the game is going to have a persistent quality and imbalances may accrue over time, perhaps use things like lowered tax rates on a faction that is suffering from a lower population than others etc. Economic incentives to maintain balance.

Quote

b. Global trade, almost like the EVE Jita

It's actually quite interesting that you bring this up. EVE is divided into 4 major factions just as the Inner Sphere is. Perhaps each House gets its own trading hub - Jita, Dodixie (<3) etc

Quote

2. Mercenary Contracts offered to other merc corps would be another very interesting thing. Say you are fighting a battle on two fronts but only can personally muster the forces for one, I don't see why you couldn't hire another corp to fight under your banner.

Sub-contracting, I love it! I think it'll allow for larger-scale battles and it'll allow interesting relationships to form and more inter-unit communication and planning.

Quote

3. As Anastasius Focht said, I wouldn't mind seeing a stock market where you buy stocks in company's. For this to work I think we would have to see different company weapons such as "GMC X-Light 200 Gyro" vs "Honda X-light 250 gyro" and depending on which part is sold more, the more that stock is worth and more you get on return etc. This would be VERY hard to do but I think it would be a interesting mechanic in-game.

Totally on board with this one. The market could act as a meta-game, engaging in warfare with player corps/units via market manipulation. Metrics to measure the going-ons: Equities markets, bond markets, composite indices - I'm all for it.

[Cyttorak]

I like the idea of some sort of economics being implemented, but there are gameplay issues that will get in the way. It seems the vast majority of players don't want to lose their mechs to salvage if they lose a battle, but want salvage as a concept to be included (for the winners of a match, at least). That means new instances of equipment would have to be spawned for the winners, which would skew the supply of equipment. It seems to me the only way to have an accurate economy is to set the server on "hardcore" mode, which many players will not like...and that would be poison to a F2P game architecture.
Then, there's the level of involvment for players: casual players would be at a disadvantage. OTOH, why engage in economic activity if there's no benefit? Two groups, casual vs. hardcore, have diametrically opposed goals and methods and I'm not sure the devs can satisfy both.

[EDMW CSN]

We got Galatea, Solaris 7 and Outreach no ?
Make Outreach the Jita 4 - 4 of MWO !!!

[LordRush]

Cyttorak, on 01 December 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

I like the idea of some sort of economics being implemented, but there are gameplay issues that will get in the way. It seems the vast majority of players don't want to lose their mechs to salvage if they lose a battle

Well Cyttorak, you went on to say it , and it is true. If Salvage is added to MWO, it doesnt matter, someone at the end of the match is going home with some "loot". And I agree as well, "People dont want to lose their mechs".
This is what I am GLAD to see! This means that people just might think about what they are doing on the batllefield! It will bring back the days of the "True Lance" & "OT" matches. That my friend is Battletech!

As for an economic system, this is all a kid could want , right? But then you sit down and think about it. All the little variables racing around connecting and diverting. And then it hits you. The reality . Bringing all the key elements together is alot harder than it looks.
Is it possible? Sure..but is the reality there to make it happen.
See, the reality is, world of warcraft [IMO] has the most balanced economy platform out there. It's balanced and crafted around a constant flow of new accounts. But the balance comes from other key facets like questing & professions [which have their own variables as well].
To implement something of this magnitude would require more than just coding. This would require a substantial amount of $$$$$.
Cash that I doubt really these guys are able to come up with after the millions dumped into this game as it stands.
To me, as much as I want it...I have to be realistic, and I KNOW these guys are monitoring the books.

[Haeso]

If there is no loss, there will be no economy. This isn't like an MMORPG where they can just release a ton of new 'Mechs every so often. Following the timeline after the clans invade there's one new 'Mech every... what, few years unless you count variants? Not to mention new 'Mechs can't just be "Better" like they would be in an MMORPG.

There must be some form of loss, or no economy at all.

[Cyttorak]

Haeso, on 02 December 2011 - 02:02 AM, said:

...There must be some form of loss, or no economy at all.

There are 4 basic permutations if you lose a match:
1) No loss of mechs/equipment, but the other team gets salvage of *something* - this was what I was referring to, and it will result in a flood of items into the economy as the salvaged material would be new instances of stuff. Would probably lead quickly to inflation.
2) You lose mechs/equipment and the other team gets what you lose as salvage - this is rather "hardcore", but also the most realistic. As a zero-sum transaction, no extra items are introduced into the economy.
3) No loss of mechs/equipments, but there's no salvage either - rewards for winning would be solely in terms of C-bills which you can use to buy things off the economy. Again, zero-sum and the devs can keep control of the economy's supply.
4) You lose mechs/equipment, but no salvage - unlikely to happen, as it angers both teams involved.

Considering the "carrot" approach the devs are taking, #3 seems most likely to me.

As a mech combat simulator, I seriously doubt there will be any "crafting" of items in this game. I would expect that if you want to earn money, you'll have to do it by taking missions.

Edited by Cyttorak, 02 December 2011 - 02:38 AM.

[Thorqemada]

Economy is a big driving factor of any MMO that has a good one - EVE without economy is unthinkable for example.
Personally i am for salvaging of complete Mechs if they were shut down in the combat.
If they want sell Mechs per RMT they should sell instead Pilot Licences making the Mech not a real money item so the loss of a complete Mech is acceptable - the Pilot then has to buy the Mech with ingame credits as the Licence grants him the right to buy such a Mech from now on.
Licences could be permanent or temporal and priced high or low in each case.
No Mechwarrior should ever have no Mech to fight but that would be a non permanent fall back solution and not a full insurance that clones Mechs out of nowhere.

Edited by Thorqemada, 02 December 2011 - 02:52 AM.

[Haeso]

Cyttorak, on 02 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

There are 4 basic permutations if you lose a match:
1) No loss of mechs/equipment, but the other team gets salvage of *something* - this was what I was referring to, and it will result in a flood of items into the economy as the salvaged material would be new instances of stuff. Would probably lead quickly to inflation.
2) You lose mechs/equipment and the other team gets what you lose as salvage - this is rather "hardcore", but also the most realistic. As a zero-sum transaction, no extra items are introduced into the economy.
3) No loss of mechs/equipments, but there's no salvage either - rewards for winning would be solely in terms of C-bills which you can use to buy things off the economy. Again, zero-sum and the devs can keep control of the economy's supply.
4) You lose mechs/equipment, but no salvage - unlikely to happen, as it angers both teams involved.

Considering the "carrot" approach the devs are taking, #3 seems most likely to me.

As a mech combat simulator, I seriously doubt there will be any "crafting" of items in this game. I would expect that if you want to earn money, you'll have to do it by taking missions.

There's a way to make #2 without being zero sum, mission rewards on top of salvage. My own thread goes into it in detail if people care, but don't just count salvage out. I support a salvage system that is full loss without being hardcore through other methods, I'd also support a more hardcore limited supply model for Merc Command Vs Merc Command as well, but for standard gameplay I don't think #2 must necessarily be hardcore at all.

Thorqemada, on 02 December 2011 - 02:51 AM, said:

Economy is a big driving factor of any MMO that has a good one - EVE without economy is unthinkable for example.
Personally i am for salvaging of complete Mechs if they were shut down in the combat.
If they want sell Mechs per RMT they should sell instead Pilot Licences making the Mech not a real money item so the loss of a complete Mech is acceptable - the Pilot then has to buy the Mech with ingame credits as the Licence grants him the right to buy such a Mech from now on.
Licences could be permanent or temporal and priced high or low in each case.
No Mechwarrior should ever have no Mech to fight but that would be a non permanent fall back solution and not a full insurance that clones Mechs out of nowhere.

I've been saying pretty much exactly this for a few days now, a Cert system like planetside, just you have to keep buying what you're cert'd for as you lose it. I really hope it's something like that. Gives people a way to circumvent grind with cash without ruining the economy. That sort of system is pretty popular in various forms for many other games.

Edited by Haeso, 02 December 2011 - 08:34 AM.

[GaussDragon]

Cyttorak, on 02 December 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

There are 4 basic permutations if you lose a match:
1) No loss of mechs/equipment, but the other team gets salvage of *something* - this was what I was referring to, and it will result in a flood of items into the economy as the salvaged material would be new instances of stuff. Would probably lead quickly to inflation.

Perhaps make the accumulation of salvage a slow process. A broad example being maybe you have to salvage like 20, 30, 40 etc ER Large laser remains before you can turn them into a new one again. This has to be balanced against how much it would cost to buy them new in the market.

Quote

2) You lose mechs/equipment and the other team gets what you lose as salvage - this is rather "hardcore", but also the most realistic. As a zero-sum transaction, no extra items are introduced into the economy.

EVE buffers this with the use of insurance. But unlike EVE where you're not necessarily limited to simply being a PvP pew pewer and have other career paths, this game is primarily (or entirely) focused around combat (and rightly so) . The result would essentially be the mandatory use of insurance (otherwise you'd be poor in after a few fights) and we'd end up back at square 1 because of inflation caused by a never-ending flood of insurance money haha.

[Cyttorak]

Actually, I just realized that I got #1 backwards: a flood of items into the economy would lead to deflation. There would be a million instances of every piece of equipment available for purchase, and even supposedly rare items would become common.
Now, this is much less a game-breaker than rampant inflation, as it will prohibit nobody from playing...it will make repair and refit even easier, it turns out.
But, it would make resource management pointless and would detract from the game, IMO. I keep remembering previous games (especially Mechcommander 1&2) where by the end of the campaign every one of your pilots was riding the highest-end mech, with the most tricked-out weapons...there just wasn't much challenge in it.

[Cattra Kell]

Cyttorak, on 03 December 2011 - 09:23 AM, said:

Actually, I just realized that I got #1 backwards: a flood of items into the economy would lead to deflation. There would be a million instances of every piece of equipment available for purchase, and even supposedly rare items would become common.
Now, this is much less a game-breaker than rampant inflation, as it will prohibit nobody from playing...it will make repair and refit even easier, it turns out.
But, it would make resource management pointless and would detract from the game, IMO. I keep remembering previous games (especially Mechcommander 1&2) where by the end of the campaign every one of your pilots was riding the highest-end mech, with the most tricked-out weapons...there just wasn't much challenge in it.

this could also allow for Market Corps and some fun. Say you know that your Rivals in the Conquest mode have on the market 1000 Medium Lasers, and you happen to have 1000 Lasers too. Now the competition is selling at 500,000 C-bills per unit and turning massive profits which they are using to fund their war against you. Now what you can do, since you got these lasers say from salvage, is sell your 1000 at 350,000 C-bills. You may not be making the highest profit imaginable but you just successfully blocked your competitions from financial gain and ruined their market status. You now have options as, keep selling @ reduced price, Raise price slowly to 400,000 Bills, when 1000 are gone then they are gone.

I think this would be a very interesting economic system if it works that way but who knows.

[GaussDragon]

Cattra Kell, on 03 December 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

this could also allow for Market Corps and some fun. Say you know that your Rivals in the Conquest mode have on the market 1000 Medium Lasers, and you happen to have 1000 Lasers too. Now the competition is selling at 500,000 C-bills per unit and turning massive profits which they are using to fund their war against you. Now what you can do, since you got these lasers say from salvage, is sell your 1000 at 350,000 C-bills. You may not be making the highest profit imaginable but you just successfully blocked your competitions from financial gain and ruined their market status. You now have options as, keep selling @ reduced price, Raise price slowly to 400,000 Bills, when 1000 are gone then they are gone.

I think this would be a very interesting economic system if it works that way but who knows.

Hahaha, good old fashioned 'dumping' in order to undercut your opponent's war against you. This thread delivers. I really want to start thinking up scenarios and trade systems however I want to see what the devs have coming before I start day-dreaming too much. In the FAQs, the devs pointed out that each house will have certain advantages over others. In terms of trade advantages, maybe ER Large lasers will be my faction's equivalent of softwood lumber

http://en.wikipedia....pricing_policy)

[Tweaks]

Thorqemada, on 02 December 2011 - 02:51 AM, said:

Economy is a big driving factor of any MMO that has a good one - EVE without economy is unthinkable for example.

The devs clearly stated that MWO will not be a MMO at all. This is a quote from the Q&A1:

Quote

[MATT C] Each game spawns its own dedicated server, these are not persistent like WoW, as mentioned that would take us into MMO territory. There is persistent game world information, i.e. match results are communicated to affect the balance of power in the Inner Sphere, who owns what planet etc. but there is no true persistent world, more of a persistent meta-game.

Please stop referring to MWO as if it was going to be a MMO with a complex economy system such as in EVE Online or World of Warcraft. The devs have made no direct allusions yet that there will be any kind of complex player driven economy in MWO, which would imply some sort of player to player trading system or auction house.

Personally, I'd prefer if all of the content was only managed by PG, and that there's no player to player trading or player-driven economy. That would bring a level of depth and complexity I don't want in this game. I want MWO to be an action game, not a game where people can spend their whole day trying to control the auction house and play "bid wars" with each other.

Stop saying it "has" to be there. That's your personal preferences (not pointing anyone specifically, just saying this to everyone generally), but it's not a fact. It doesn't have to be anything that the devs don't want it to be.

As for salvage... I don't really want to get into that debate, but my thoughts on it is that as long as it doesn't imply that I'm losing my precious 'Mech, I'm ok with it. I don't care for risk/reward, especially if I can buy 'Mechs or equipment with real money.

[GaussDragon]

We know it's not going to be an MMO, apart from quoting Torq, nobody here said it was. You can have an economy without it being an MMO. The system the devs have in mind, I'm guessing, is probably based upon many planetary leagues that have been implemented by many of the well-known MW leagues in the past. Here's one that I have fond memories of participating in - http://www.mechwarri...wRules&ruleid=2

[Tweaks]

GaussDragon, on 03 December 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

We know it's not going to be an MMO, apart from quoting Torq, nobody here said it was. You can have an economy without it being an MMO. The system the devs have in mind, I'm guessing, is probably based upon many planetary leagues that have been implemented by many of the well-known MW leagues in the past. Here's one that I have fond memories of participating in - http://www.mechwarri...wRules&ruleid=2

I see MWO more like a F2P shooter such as Battlefield Play4Free, where your soldier is your pilot, and the guns and equipment you buy is in fact 'Mechs or 'Mech weapons and equipment. Instead of playing 1st person on foot, you'll be driving a vehicle all the time (your 'Mech), much like you can drive vehicles and tanks in BFP4F. The difference is that there will be a persistent Inner Sphere world status (who owns what planet and such) based on computed individual battle results (each spawned on its own server). There will be Merc Corps, and you'll probably be able to pick which territory you want to fight for much like you did in MPBT:3025. Your pilot will earn experience, which will enable you to train skills. I also think this is close to what the devs have in mind.

IF they add to this a salvage system, then I'd prefer to have the option to opt out, either by making it a dedicated mode (i.e. would only be in Merc Corp battles, similar to Clan Wars in World of Tanks, but not in quick random battles). Then, IF they allow us to sell the spoils of war on some sort of market, I'd prefer if prices were fixed by the devs. What I'm against is player-driven auctions or a market where players can set their own prices.

Rule of thumb: Keep it simple and but fun.

[GaussDragon]

Tweaks, on 03 December 2011 - 01:27 PM, said:

The difference is that there will be a persistent Inner Sphere world status (who owns what planet and such) based on computed individual battle results (each spawned on its own server). There will be Merc Corps, and you'll probably be able to pick which territory you want to fight for much like you did in MPBT:3025. Your pilot will earn experience, which will enable you to train skills. I also think this is close to what the devs have in mind.

Allow myself to... repeat msyelf http://www.mechwarri...wRules&ruleid=2
What you're thinking of is essentially what Planetary League is. We decided progression I.E., who claimed what planets based upon match results in instanced servers.

EDIT: Essentially, what PGI plans to implement based on what I've read is fundamnetally something we've all been doing for years. This discussion isn't about a persistent shard/server, it's about the details or particulars of this hybrid system between instanced and persistent play.

Edited by GaussDragon, 03 December 2011 - 01:37 PM.

[Tweaks]

I don't think it will have near as much complexity as the planetary league thing you referred to (I don't know what it is, and there's too much to read on that link for me to go through it, I just skimmed the bold titles).

To get back to the original discussion (based on what I mentioned I expect the game to be), I don't think there will be any complex persistent player-driven economy with auctions and a market, and in fact hope there won't be. The only persistence I wish to see is that of my own 'Mech bay, my pilot's skills and the state of the Inner Sphere as stated by Matt C in the Q&A1. I'd be satisfied with a simple "store" of 'Mech parts, chassis, weapons and equipment, all managed and controlled by PG and not by players.