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

[Timothy Dang]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Paul Schwanz - Enterprise Services wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, Timothy Dang wrote:
> >One other approach is to increase the opportunity cost of production. If
> >it took a significant amount of time to make a crude dagger, and a similar
> >amount for a really nice halberd, then those capable of creating the
> >halberd wouldn't be competing with those creating the daggers.
> 
> Actually, would it really have to take a similar amount of time?  Assuming
> that you could sell the dagger for x and the halberd for 10x, then you
> would only need to make the production time for the halberd < 10t, where t
> is the production time for the dagger.

Strictly you might be right. I really just suggested the same amount of
time for both as a large and simple fudge factor. In fact, there's going
to be lots of things which affect opportunity cost. For instance, if the
two items require different components and storage is limited, then a
halberd-maker won't want to displace their stored components with dagger
components. Also, there's marketing. If someone is well-known as a smith
(say, crafting regularly in the center of town), they'll be approached for
the cheap daggers as well as the fine halberds, so their opportunity cost
of marketing the daggers is low.

But there's likely also an increasing marginal opportunity cost (geez, too
many adjectives on that). Using your example, and assuming halberds sell
for 10 times the price of daggers (and ignoring material costs), then if I
can produce a dagger in 1/10th the time it takes me to make a halberd, I
might make the one dagger while I'm chatting with a friend and don't have
any halberds on order. The second dagger I might still make, because it
just takes a little bit. In fact I might make a dagger or two every time
I've got a little time, though I won't settle down to create 10 daggers
all at once. I won't settle down to make 10 daggers because by the time I
plan on making 7 daggers at once, that's starting to cut seriously into my
orc-slaying plans, which would be worthwhile for a halberd but not one
more dagger. So (I'm not certain, but it seems likely) the value
(opportunity cost) of my time is nonlinear with the amount of time devoted
to a given task.

I certainly don't know that the same amount of time is the optimal choice,
it depends on too many factors. It just seems like a good rule-of-thumb
and easy to justify to players.

> >If it weren't for existing opportunity costs (gotta choose
> >between killing trolls and crafting swords), one would expect that every
> >profession would be a money-loser, since the competitive price for an item
> >would be the price charged by those already skilled at production.
> 
> But won't those "skilled at production" vary with the item?  If there was
> some sort of graduated profit margin, where "better" items were more
> profitable (I think this would be assumed since it seems to reflect what
> we expect in the rw) then those who are skilled at dagger-making will make
> daggers and those who are skilled at halberd-making will make halberds.

I chose the halberd/dagger examples because in the systems I've seen,
someone skilled at making halberds is also, by definition skilled at
making daggers. In these systems, there are certain items which one can
make at low skill levels, and one doesn't lose the ability as one gains
higher skills and has more options. If the two are on different skill
paths entire, then no, they won't compete with each other.

The worst-case scenario is a learning-by-doing system where each item has
it's own unique skill path. In such a system, there would be no
alternative use of the skill for an expert craftsperson, so they would
stick to what they knew. And their costs would be lower than a novice's.
So, you'd expect a few skilled people at the top of the professions, with
novices too discouraged to bother getting involved at all.

> >> Also, give the character the opportunity to choose whether they are 
> >> attempting to increase skill (resources automatically consumed) or
> >> attempting to make a saleable item (item created if successful).
> >
> >This would solve the problem (while possibly causing others). 
> 
> Did you have some possible problems in mind, or where you theorizing?

I was hedging ;^). Offhand, I can't think of any economic reasons that
this would be a problem. As you point out, it's much like a
pay-for-training system. But it actually seems to have some features which
might make it better than pay-for-training. It sounds like more fun to me,
personally, although I imagine others might just see it as pointless
repetitive tasks. You might alleviate that complaint by giving more skill
gain when more expensive components are expending in the non-productive
practice, so it's still akin to paying a trainer more money for more skill
gain.

If there's training inputs, as opposed to just cash, it could create more
motivation for either adventure or trade with others who gather the items.
Which again brings up EQ's spell research system. I'd really love to hear
if anyone has a feel for how that's working. One of the odder things I
noticed about it is that at least one of the components for spell research
(Burned-Out Lightstones) are nontradeable items, which seems to induce
higher-level folks to compete with lower-level folks for hunting, instead
of simply paying lower-level folks to gather the lightstones. Seems odd, I
can't think of a motivation for that.

But that's getting off track. Basically, while I don't see any economic
problems with allowing a choice of either practice or produce, there might
be another MUD design reason I'm missing.

------------------------------
Timothy O'Neill Dang / Cretog8
520-321-4015
One monkey don't stop no show.








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