Difference between revisions of "User:Dashiva/Economy"
(Moving talk) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
* Out: Dead money on inactive accounts | * Out: Dead money on inactive accounts | ||
| − | Two main differences from the minimal system. The first is that much (or most) of the money that goes out is returned to the game through the king. This reduces the need for bought silver to keep the currency stable. The second is that this money is granted to size 10 villages. Anyone who buys and pays upkeep for a homestead or size 5 village is essentially subsidizing the larger villages. | + | Two main differences from the minimal system. The first is that much (or most) of the money that goes out is returned to the game through the king. This reduces the need for bought silver to keep the currency stable. |
| + | |||
| + | The second is that this money is granted to size 10 villages. Anyone who buys and pays upkeep for a homestead or size 5 village is essentially subsidizing the larger villages. | ||
== Possibilities == | == Possibilities == | ||
Latest revision as of 02:53, 15 July 2007
Random reflection. Note that most ideas are purely theoretical and would probably be detrimental to both the game and the developers' income.
There is no purpose to this, just seeing where my thoughts take me. Also, I'm not an economist, so don't take terminology at face value.
Minimal interaction
- In: From store, to anyone
- Out: Special purchases (deeds)
- Out: Upkeep
- Out: Sacrificing money
- Out: Dead money on inactive accounts
Possible result: People use existing silver to pay upkeep. As the amount of money in the game decreases, deflation kicks in. The more deflation, the more valuable bought silver becomes. Might reach a temporary balance at some point, but can easily be disrupted again.
Current
- In: From store, to anyone
- In: From king, to size 10 villages
- Out: Special purchases (deeds)
- Out: Upkeep
- Out: Sacrificing money
- Out: Dead money on inactive accounts
Two main differences from the minimal system. The first is that much (or most) of the money that goes out is returned to the game through the king. This reduces the need for bought silver to keep the currency stable.
The second is that this money is granted to size 10 villages. Anyone who buys and pays upkeep for a homestead or size 5 village is essentially subsidizing the larger villages.
Possibilities
A radical option is to separate the silver from the real world completely. Deeds and upkeep would only be payable in euros, silver would not be sold, money sacrifice would be prevented. End result: the in-game wealth would be completely static. It is likely that eventually most of the wealth would be gathered by a small group of players.
The above, with the ability to buy silver. This counteracts hoarding in two ways. First, it provides a source of money that cannot be monopolized. Second, inflation is now inevitable, making hoarded money less valuable. The latter effect would be augmented if the inflation was taken into account by the silver sales, leading to more silver per euro over time.
The above, with taxes. Rather than increase the amount of currency in circulation, every time someone buys silver the rest of the game is taxed to balance the total wealth.
The above, but with optional taxes. Instead of a forced instant tax, provide money sinks players are likely to voluntarily spend money on. Requires careful balancing of the sinks. Too attractive sinks lead to dominance of bought currency. Not attractive enough sinks don't have the required balancing effect.
Note that the minimal system is essentially the above.
