[MUD-Dev] DESIGN: Active and Inactive currency

[Freeman]

From: Matt Chatterley

> If we extend the model, and include (as another poster suggested)
> the Baker (BA), we have:

>   CH + DG sell to CO.
>   DG sells to BA.

>   BA sells to everyone.
>   CO sells to everyone.

> Does this added complexity add anything to the model, or not?

> Now the DG players can sell to two buyers, and if they were to
> work harder and produce more dough, they could sell more,

I don't think this additional level of complexity is useful.  Bakers
are still Cookie-makers.  Abstracting the model to this level, we're
better off just considering them all CO's regardless what they
really (virtually, hypothetically) make.  You might get *some* more
cookie-makers by extending the choices, depth and interest of the
level, but probably not that many more.

I say they're the same because the BA's and CO's are selling
essentially the same thing: Well, for one it's bread and the other
it's cookie, but if bread serves the same purpose as cookie, then we
might as well consider it to be a cookie, just as we consider BA's
to be cookie-makers.

Point being that doubling the number of crafting professions in the
game won't double the number of people who want to craft: You're
just dividing the same pool of players.

> increasing their profits (probably accumulating money themselves);
> the CH players do not have this luxury, and have only one outlet
> for their goods.

Even if they could work harder and sell more dough, their profits
(coming from COs) are the cookie makers costs.  Cookies are just
going to increase in price to cover that, the COs still make all the
money.

But in reality, I don't think would happen.  I think they would work
harder and sell more dough, for less money.  The price of cookies
would drop, based on the resource being cheaper.

> I think in this case, everyone would still be making money - but
> the higher up you go (the further away from the 'resource
> gatherers'), the more money there is to be made - and the more
> money players will pool.

Yah, agree with you there.

> Assuming that the sinks/faucets are appropriately serviced, and no
> potential gain is "excessive" compared to others, I don't see
> anything wrong with this.

I suspect that the higher up you go, the higher the rate of
conversion from active to inactive cash you'll find.

> What it suggests to me is: There must be other outlets for
> money. Better ovens. Bigger shops, a larger wheelbarrow to carry
> choccie chips in - whatever it is, things such as upgrades will,
> if made available, encourage the richer players to re-invest their
> 'inactive cash', putting it back into circulation.

True, but in the real world investment means risk.  Players will
demand a garuanteed return on their investment, with no risk or
potential for loss.  They'll put the money back into the system
(such as when they buy dough or chips), but only with the complete
assurance that they'll get it back later, plus a little more.

> Blurring the distinctive hierarchy above might change the
> situation too, but I haven't really thought that through enough -
> however, what about adding the 'wholesaler' in, someone who buys
> cookies and dough in bulk from the gatherers, and then sells it on
> to bakers/cookie makers - covering the costs of storing and
> transporting the goods?

It seems that adding more levels like this is a good thing, in that
it spreads-out the amount of cash being converted to inactive a bit
more.

It's still being converted to inactive cash, but more people have a
chunk of it than in the 2-tier model.

Also, I think we've been overlooking the role of taxes in wealth
re-distribution (in the real world, that is).

So offline we have banks and other investments, risk, taxes and so
on to redistribute wealth, but online we have none of these things,
and the players would probably hate it if we did.

Kind of thinking about the idea of 'virtual investments' which don't
return any money to the investor, but instead buy the crafter his
advancement in the system.  So we tell the crafter that he's still
got that money - hasn't spent it, and it's all his and 100% safe -
but he can't spend it unless he's willing to sacrifice his
advancement.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev