Introduce Anarchist Economics to Rubi-Ka (1)

[_____________Meltzer]

The economy is shot, elites rule the market be they tek or clan.
This is a big problem for me as a newb.
The way round it, IMHO, is to introduce an anarchist economy, similar to Participatory Economics (an ancient Earth idea) http://www.parecon.org/
Or something similar.
Something like this may already be going on, but I have yet to meet anyone involved with anything of this nature.
Any takers?

[AiymaNeut]

With all due respect to Meltzer (for actually having the intelligence to recommend some form of alternative), participatory economics is so pervasively flawed that it can’t even withstand rudimentary scrutiny, let alone application to an economic system for which it was not designed.

For those reading this who know nothing about participatory economics, it is essentially a form of neo-socialism, minus the bureaucracy accompanying traditional notions of the system. It advocates common ownership of the means of production, common and equal input by all people in decision-making processes (qualified only by the level at which a person is affected by the impact of the decision), complete parity of wage rates, income and the distribution of labour functions, and the abolition of competition among perfect substitutes (i.e., no coke AND pepsi, only one or the other).

From a practical standpoint, and without turning this forum into a doctorate thesis, the participatory system suffers from several defeating flaws: it fails to account for “genetic” differences in abilities and potential (i.e., being born healthy versus handicapped); it can not account for efficient decision-making (securing a consensus among any two members of congress is hard enough, let alone among 250 million citizens of the U.S.); and above all it eliminates the incentives which motivate people to act (why invest your time and money in university when you’re going to make just as much as someone who dropped out of high school?).

The problem plaguing AO’s economy is not the structure of its organization. It is further not that “elites rule the market”. As I believe was brilliantly pointed out in a previous post, it is the infinite nature of the money supply that initially triggers rampant inflation of the prices of rare items, effectively closing the market for these items to low-level players or to those who have, for example, focused their play primarily on socialization, rather than the accumulation of wealth.

To qualify and expand on this theory somewhat, it is not, in absolute terms, the fact that infinite money exists. It is the fact that the rate of the flow of money (earned from creature hunting, adventuring, player creation, etc.) FAR exceeds the rate at which these rare items become available to market participants (which items’ supply also seems infinite). Without modelling the system, the simple answer is that it is very difficult for new or low-level players to accumulate the capital necessary to purchase these items, given that high-level players with huge bankrolls can basically monopolize purchasing. But what fun would the game be if these things were effortless to acquire?

Has no one considered the alternatives to purchase? Many of the highest-valued items are dropped by monsters, MOBs, etc. Does no one hunt? It is these creatures that are ultimately the principal “manufacturer” (so to speak) of these items. If you can’t afford to buy it, and if it is that valuable to you, go out and hunt it. If enough players focus their efforts on so doing, it will transfer the monopolization of this wealth to lower-level characters (in the event such players sell the item(s)), or will remove one buyer from the market, lowering demand and reducing price. In the case of player-manufactured items, all it does is give new players a goal to aim for – level up, refine the necessary skills, and become one of the people you used to envy. This is no different than the real world – the expectation of higher salary is the principal driving force behind investment in education.

Price controls in the auctions of Rubi-Ka, which I am certain will be suggested at some point, are similarly foolish. Quite frankly, if some player wants to spend 500 hours of game-play devoted exclusively to earning x billion credits in order to purchase an exorbitantly-priced item that another acquired strictly by chance, more power to him/her. That 500 hours of repetitive, monotonous game-play, and the accompanying boredom, is their investment, and the item is their reward. If you would rather participate in all aspects of the game, realize that you are not investing in the same manner (even though your ultimate non-monetary reward may be higher).

What we need is an open debate about what everyone dislikes about the economic system. We'll only secure change by providing a practically functioning model in terms of the game itself, rather than vague statements or references.

[RVWinkle]

In my eyes this so called "elites rule the market" is more akin to capitolism. There's a reward for working harder and longer than other people. For example, you'll never have someone living in a trailer park bidding on a Picaso just because it's so rare and valuable. I find that most stuff is reasonably priced, by the time you can put on ql 200 stuff (most common items in the market), you can afford it. Now when you bring other things into the equation like GA, NS, or Tarasque loot of course it's going to be desireable because it's rightfully more powerful and rare.

I know it may seem that you'll never have 1 million credits when you're at a low level. Heck, I was in awe of that much cash at one time too. This game is scaled though so you don't "need" any of this top loot and pretty much everybody can get along fine in normal day to day pvm without it. But if you want to be uber you better be prepared to work for it.

[______________Rogoff]

Originally posted by Alamexis
If you can’t afford to buy it, and if it is that valuable to you, go out and hunt it. If enough players focus their efforts on so doing, it will transfer the monopolization of this wealth to lower-level characters (in the event such players sell the item(s)), or will remove one buyer from the market, lowering demand and reducing price.

Excellent read, and I completely agree with the above statement.

The problem is that Funcom, thru bossloot-only drops, is forcing people to participate in an economy.

The random nature of bossloot insures that you will get the drop I need, and vice versa. I must then compete to purchase it from you.

The team-mission orientation of bossloot insures that getting desireable items requires negotiation, and favors those with established ties.

The experience-optimizing nature of teams insures that you will quickly level past the equipment bosses drop in any case. Very few teams will repeatedly fight 20% missions for cash.

Getting your own items is becoming less and less an option. Economic controls are then our sole refuge.

[AiymaNeut]

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one supporting the (albeit imperfect) market. Both replies make their respective points perfectly.

Rogoff raises some particularly interesting points, and exposes certain short-comings of the economy, the solution of which would redress a great deal of the issues players are complaining about.

Firstly, the implications of players "level[ling] past items" is clear: if you can derive no utility from equipping the item, and if a market exists in which you can profit ridiculously from that item's sale, you certainly will not bank it or let it take up a spot in your inventory. And, so long as some uber-obsessed player with deep pockets exists and you have a reasonable certainly of locating that player, you will undoubtedly sell.

My conjecture on this point: what if Funcom modified the structure of these rare uber items to make them either (a) level with the character or (b) have no ql at all (and essentially fix their enhancements)? I will admit that both options would increase the value of these items at least 10-fold; more importantly, however, either measure would make it worthwhile for players to retain these items and essentially price EVERYONE out of the market. The only times you would be motivated enough to sell the uber item are (i) when you're made "an offer you can't refuse" for some insane quantity of money or (ii) if you spent all of your credits on a crazy wild bender at Reets or Baboons, and, in between fits of praying to the porcelin god in the morning, realize that you don't even have enough credits to use a mission terminal.

Joking aside, I must respectfully disagree with Rogoff's point concerning the probability of acquiring the item you want, but only so long as the probability is consistent for all characters, and so long as no single character has an advantage over another. The work-for-it-or-go-without rationale still holds in this case. In addition, if you happen to acquire an item that I want, while I acquire an item that you want (this can also be aggregated over a number of degrees of separation - for instance it could work its way through many members of a guild), then what's to stop us from explicit mutual barter?

Price controls would be an adequate "band-aid" solution in the interim until the matter is more fully remedied. (Wait...we don't even have a consensus on whether or not a problem actually exists...) However, as RVWinkle points out, the experience and learning curves prevent low-level players (those who can't afford it) from acquiring and/or using the rare uber items.

What must be realized is that this is nothing more than a strategic decision on the part of Funcom; if you could register, play for ten hours, and be in the top 5% of the player base power-wise, you would quickly find yourself bored, wandering around looking for something to do, and end up spending the balance of your free first month slaughtering NPC guards and generally disrupting the game. Obviously, you would not be renewing your subscription when that month ended.

Funcom's other evident strategy, which is undoubtedly somewhat of a religious practice across the MMORPG world, is to foster as much interpersonal exchange as possible. That's why more and better rewards are available to those who team with others, who create and maintain orgs, and who invest the time to make and maintain contacts. The more closely knit the gaming community, the greater satisfaction EVERYONE derives from the game, which in turn increases customer loyalty (which is the money mantra of marketing).

Finally (it's about time to head into Rubi-Ka and slaughter me some leets so I can afford to make a mess of myself at Reet's tomorrow night), and to effectively quash the entire debate on the perceived evils of capitalism, no matter what players may personally think of the system as it operates in the real world, or on Rubi-Ka for that matter, the only thing to keep in mind is that the COMPLETE history, plot and current affairs of AO are founded upon the tenets of capitalism. Changing this aspect would require nothing short of a rewrite of the entire game (even though, as an aside, the lack of story updates in-game as well as on this site really makes me wonder what I'm doing sometimes - sorry Funcom, I know you're moving into new offices, but interest in the story is dwindling). It is as much a part of the system as those horribly annoying frightened rollerrats you find in trapped chests (thank God for the "mute" button on my keyboard...)

Any further discourse or argument on the matter of Rubi-Kan economics is more than welcome.