Re: [MUD-Dev] Game Economies

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag#ifi,uio.no>]

Marian Griffith wrote:
> 
> In <URL:news:local.muddev> on Fri 04 Jun, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> > The only "economy" that kinda works is
> > the non-transferrable one, experience points and similar constructs. Thus
> > you get an economy of favours and connections (help me get to the last
> > mananode in Meridian59 etc)...
> 
> Do not forget Dr.Cat's ideas about 'attention' being the ultimate gain on
> any mud.

Getting accepted and feeling included is important in any human-human
context, when that doesn't happen we are likely to go for the next best,
being recognized, that is to have our existence verified as valid. People
that are willing to spend a lot of time on MUDs of today are most likely
under stimulated socially, but the overall picture is a lot more
complicated. (I am not getting into that, but MUDs are lousy social spaces
in terms of backchannels, undefinedness, expectancy and interpretation)

"ultimate gain" is a very value laden phrase.  Different users find very
different rewards. Some users avoid or ignore attention, some seek it. Some
participate in a world in order to explore the possibilities, many because
they are lonely. I am not sure I understand the ideas you refer to, or maybe
they are obvious and follow from accepted social theory and mud research. Or
maybe you refer to economy inspired models for social interaction, which I
am sceptical to, but they probably have some limited usefulness
(transactions of gifts, sex partners of equal value, exchanging friends..).
There are researchers that try to view virtual communities as economies in
the social and social control sense as well... Or maybe you refer to
sociology and future research about humans being increasingly isolated,
smaller families, people not knowing their neighbours, american suburbs,
urbanism etc.

I think it would be good if you would elaborate on the attention ideas which
I never grasped the exact content of, and more specifically how they relate
to _economies_.

Note: One shouldn't forget that what one perceive is not representative for
the overall population and certainly not the physical world. Another thing
is that single-user systems are currently better equipped design wise than
current multi-user systems and less costly to use, so people that actively
use multi-user systems either seek human-human interaction or
human-enviroment-human interaction or just enjoy living on the digital
frontier. Alphaworld was probably a good example of the latter.  I didn't
build on Alphaworld in order to get attention any more than an artist that
makes a sculpture. I built in order to see if I would manage to do it.
Everybody (mentally healthy) want to sustain their selfesteem, but that is
human and engulf /almost everything/ we do.

> Two additional systems I have seen in use that had a devastating effect on
> the typical play were limiting money found on a monster in relation to the
> total amount of money owned by the players.  The more money players pulled
> out of the monsters the less they could earn from more kills.

I would think that this is similar to reducing the killing activity, or fun
of the killingactivity.  Did it work?

> The other idea was actually giving money a weight. Even with the gold coin
> having the weight of a grain of salt,  players still were collapsing under
> the load of the average treasure.

Yes, this I think is not uncommon.  However, people will use mules, or buy
items that weigh less, but have a good value, or find some other way to deal
with it, or quit.

I don't think "taxes" or "breaks" will ever work, because it isn't a
response to the main problem: how do I offer rewards to powerplayers that
know-it-all?  They need some kind of score, the perceived ability to have
impact is such a score.  Having a strong character is another score. 
Running a big or powerful or fun guild might be another score.  An easy fix
is to remove the monetary economy and earthly rewards altogether, but then
you probably will have to come up with activities that are a lot more
implementation intensive in order keep the same players entertained. (Not
all users are capable of entertaining themselves).
--
Ola Fosheim Groestad,Norway      http://www.stud.ifi.uio.no/~olag/



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev#kanga,nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev