[MUD-Dev] Economy (was Re: [MUD-Dev] [STORY] Story and populationsize)

[Dave Rickey]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Cole <jeffcontact at mindspring.com>
> From: Dave Rickey

>> Something about your emails keeps my email client (Outlook
>> Express 4.72) from quoting them properly.  It's a pain inserting
>> all those ">" indentations by hand.  

> Hmmm ... dunno ... is this any better?

Unfortunately not.

>> It's not real in the sense that no realistic limitations on raw
>> materials or labor exist, barring my simulating them there is an
>> infinite supply of both.

> It's a design decision.  I would argue that in DAoC, it's much
> more an issue of the skills system as a whole.  At the moment,
> raising skills requires overproduction.  Combine that with a
> levelling curve far steeper than that of the crafters and you've
> got further issues.

I didn't want a use-based skill gain system, unfortunately I didn't
get to make that decision.  Overproduction and tedium are
unavoidable side effects of use-based systems.

>>  The essence of the transaction in an economic sense, but I am
>>  not creating an economic simulator.  I am creating an adjunct to
>>  a loot-and-level game.  The social interaction is far from an
>>  accidental byproduct of the process, it's the *purpose*.
>>  Otherwise, why bother?

> But it need not be either/or; they are not mutually exclusive by
> definition (though perhaps they are in a given implementation).

Either you have to be present for the transaction or you do not,
it's a binary decision.

> I would say that, by far, the largest socialization that arises
> from the DAoC tradeskill system is crafters socializing.  Crafters
> have nothing to do but socialize.  And that has absolutely nothing
> to do with the final transaction/interaction with the customer.

So you do not consider the buyer-seller communications to be a form
of social interaction?  I take it you didn't continue past where
Consignments stop?

>>  Most of the truly successful tradesmen have become so by
>>  cultivating their market, making items for lower-level players
>>  at cost in order to educate them to the advantages of crafted
>>  equipment.

> Any markup that a craftsman of any significant skill (the next
> higher material?) above that which the lower player wants/needs
> could reasonably expect from said player is insignificant to the
> crafter.

Past 20th level equipment, that isn't true.  The expenses curve
slows down considerably at that point.  It's a 2 or 3 materia (10 to
15 levels) wide window at that point.

>>  Yep.  One that *works*.

> Sure it works ... ok.  Too bad tailoring wasn't designed to be
> valuable within the scope of the game.

The classes that wear tailored products are the classes that do not
tank, they take less wear and tear to their armor and replace it
less frequently.  This was a case where the game elements were
defined for over-riding reasons, and I simply accepted the results
and found a way to make them work.

>>  I have certain advantages that Congress lacks.  I'm not limited
>>  by anything, not even the laws of physics.  Congress would be
>>  hard-pressed to repeal the Law of Gravity.  DAoC trades violate
>>  Conservation of Mass routinely.

> Red herring.

No, it is not.  I can decide that every piece of Plate or Chain
require a corresponding Tailor product and it becomes an immutable
law of nature.  There's no chance that someone will come up with an
innovative way to use raw leather or cloth and skip the
sub-assembly, thereby throwing those Tailors out of work.

--Dave Rickey

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