[MUD-Dev] Simpson's "In-Game Economics of UO"

[Raph Koster]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu [mailto:mud-dev-admin at kanga.nu]On Behalf Of
> Christopher Allen
> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2000 2:07 AM
> To: mud-dev at kanga.nu
> Subject: Re: [MUD-Dev] Simpson's "In-Game Economics of UO"
>
> On DartMud and
> Accursed.Org, you only can gain in a skill if it is a challenge. For
> instance, with carpentry, you start by carving simple things like batons
and
> staves, etc. but after a time you are 100% successful with them, but gain
no
> more skill. It isn't until you try to carve more difficult things like
> flutes that you can gain more skill.
>
> This applies to all skills in the game, so if you don't fight things
tougher
> then you, and take risks, you don't advance.

UO also does this, and terms it "difficulty-based advancement." UO also
tried the advance through failure system for a while (Ithink that it may
still be in there for stats advancement... not sure offhand).

Either way, it's a distortion of the economy, because you are making lots of
stuff (either to intentionally fail or to keep tackling more difficult
items) for which there is no market. Your goal is not economic but a form of
goal-oriented play (doing it just for the skill gain). In the real world,
this isn't a very common occurrence. :) You usually only see it in people
learning their craft.

A possible tactic that just occurred to me: what if when you went to do
something, you designated it as "for production" or "for practice."
Production wouldn't confer skill gains; practice wouldn't create an item or
have any effect. It would still have to use up the resource, though or it
becomes very easy to automate.

-Raph




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev