Thoughts on the In-game Economics

[TheCaptn (DayZ) 12]

Currently the economics of the game are completely ruined by the easy duplication of weapons and equipment, but I'm not addressing that here.

-----

I've been thinking about the economic fundamentals of the in-game experience. I'm not an economist, but if someone around here is I'd really love to get more input.

The problem, as I see it, is that better weapons, ammo and equipment are continually being filtered out from among the loot tables and being saved, stored, or otherwise kept in play. Since there's currently no mechanism to remove these things from play, other than their owner dying and -not- being looted, their numbers generally continue to increase without limit, and their actual value declines accordingly.

Imagine a blank server, with a blank database, and 50 people join it. The only weapon type anywhere, at that point is Makarov's... Half an hour later a few people have Winchester's, some have better pistols and one guy has an AKM that he found in a deer stand. That AKM is arguably the highest value item in the game at that point.

A day later AKM guy has died, and his killer now has that gun. An additional 6 or 7 people have also found AKMs, two others have found DMRs, and one lucky bastard has found a Suppressed M4 in addition to their AKM, so they store that AKM in a tent just in case they die.

Fast forward another week and many more people have done the same. They've continued looting, stored their 2nd best weapons (and perhaps many more), and either improved their current equipment, or died. For those who died, their 'best' items are often kept in play by whoever killed them, and not removed from the economy.

The dead player then respawns, gears up with their 2nd tier equipment, and picks up the loot filtering process not far from where they left off. Even in the most extreme case, where they die without any stockpile, and their equipment isn't looted, they still begin to contribute to the filtering process again immediately.

At some point then the game economy will become saturated with high-end gear, and I'm already seeing that trend develop. Four or five weeks ago when I started playing an AKM was really worth holding on to, quite the rarity among a field of Winchesters, CZ-550s and Lee Enfields. When my group found a single M4 CCO we treated it like it was some kind of magical totem.

Now AKMs are dirt, we're armed with Suppressed M4's, an MP5SD, Bizon SD, M-24s and a number of DMRs. We don't even look at AR-15 pattern rifles anymore unless they come with an ACOG or M203 launcher, and we have more than enough stuff that people can restock easily after a death (assuming we don't recover their original gear). Yet we still spend all our time looking for even better "stuff"; continuing the filtering process.

I think some additional kind of mechanism is required to remove equipment from the game. A single standard rate of breakage or malfunction for instance... Items that spawn above that rate would tend to hang around, while items that spawn below the rate would be removed from play faster than they respawn, and thereby maintain their value.

This doesn't mean you'd have to make rare weapons exceptionally fragile, just that their spawn rates would be managed to maintain limited numbers. People could still hoard them, or save them for special missions, and that would actually contribute to the campsite-hunting metagame that goes on.

If anyone knows of other ways to regulate an over-abundant economy I'd very much like to hear it, because honestly I'm not entirely sold on my own solution... I just can't think of any practical alternative.

[duddbudda 33]

why contain it? let it spill over into the schools and churches, let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end they'll beg us to save them.

I'll be presenting an argument against your suggestion, but first an overview of my squad's setup:

the guys I run with are getting top-tier saturated too: two snipers in ghillies with M107s and M9SDs, coyote backpacks and rangers, one with NVGs; myself with an mk48, DMR, camo, coyote and NVGs; we've got MP5SDs, M14s, spare camo, most of us have a GPS &c

to be clear: I understand escalating loot and why you have made your suggestion to curb it

but loot is secondary: the key is to survive

: we have phat loot because we are accomplished survivors

: our loot makes us more valuable targets

: our loot raises our stakes, any death will cost us enormously

: our loot diminishes potential rewards from any raid or player engagement

; our loot encourages us to hit buisier and higher value targets

; our loot encourages us to target better equipped and generally better skilled players

: our loot cannot compensate for any lack of skill or poor tactical consideration

ultimately, we have earnt our gear as we have earnt our long survival times: losing an M107 to an enforced 'you're too uber' tax would only diminish the value of survival and make mock of our tenacity and resoursefulness

effectively you are suggesting we be punished for our status as top-rate survivors

to be clear: I don't agree there is a problem with any 'escalating loot' and I certainly don't believe that any such escalation justifies punitive measures against the best players: this isn't Mario Kart

ultimately, once magazines' contents are tracked by player saves, escalating loot will be nullified by the challenge of keeping a 10 round per second mk48 in bullets

[Wired 1]

Long range communication being taken out from the game leaves me questioning the future of being able to cooperate with survivors.

[ApeToe 3]

The economy should be based on vast marijuana fields hidden deep within Blunt Rocks.

[TheCaptn (DayZ) 12]

why contain it? let it spill over into the schools and churches' date=' let the bodies pile up in the streets. In the end they'll beg us to save them.[/quote']

That's exactly what I don't want. If this game ends up with team 'v' team combat with full military kit, no real fear of death, and zombies as just an afterthought, then what actually sets it apart from regular ArmA II combat?

If that's all you want, then why not play some of the awesome community missions out there instead?

but loot is secondary: the key is to survive

I agree that's the ideal, but my team no longer plays that way, and it doesn't sound like yours does either... After all, you apparently have more than enough kit that you could hunt animals and refill waterbottles in perfect safety indefinitely.

And yet you don't, right? All the actual requirements for survival have long since been met, so now you'd be setting your own loot-based goals. Finding and repairing vehicles? Upgrading weapons? That sort of thing.

: we have phat loot because we are accomplished survivors

Maybe, but it's not a prerequisite. Unaccomplished survivors can still stumble into a campsite full of gear.

: our loot makes us more valuable targets

Even if that's still true, what do you do when you die? Restock at camp and try to replace the lost loot?... Meanwhile all your old stuff is still in play.

: our loot raises our stakes, any death will cost us enormously

In my experience this is a bell curve, and my whole goal here is to keep us at the top of that curve. At one end (respawn) you care nothing about death because you're no worse off, at the other end (fully loaded campsite) you also care nothing about death, because you can get picked up and restocked in a matter of minutes.

The point where the stakes feel real, and you're truly afraid of dying is in between. Where you have some good equipment, but you can potentially still lose it all.

: our loot diminishes potential rewards from any raid or player engagement

Unless your team deliberately hunts newbies in the bean wars that's not true at all. The way you're geared up it sounds like you're probably up in the north, fighting people on a more or less equal basis, right? If that's the case, then your chances for potential rewards are only going up, regardless of which team wins a given encounter... This is because the winning side will tend to keep the best loot in play, it might change hands multiple times; meanwhile more copies of that same loot are constantly trickling in.

; our loot encourages us to hit buisier and higher value targets

; our loot encourages us to target better equipped and generally better skilled players

See above.

: our loot cannot compensate for any lack of skill or poor tactical consideration

You keep equating loot with skill like it's some kind of simple distinction. It's not, it shouldn't be, and I'm a little confused by your claim... Are you seriously suggesting that one unskilled player with an M249 is no better off than another unskilled player with a Makarov? Clearly both skill and resources are factors in any combat.

ultimately, we have earnt our gear as we have earnt our long survival times: losing an M107 to an enforced 'you're too uber' tax would only diminish the value of survival and make mock of our tenacity and resoursefulness

You've clearly missed my point here, since I'm not trying to take your M107 away from you, I'm looking for a way to keep it unique and valuable. A few weeks ago we passed the point where the CZ-550 and DMR were the standard long-range rifles, into the era of the M24 and SVD. Now we're already starting to retire those later rifles as more and more M107s become available... In a few more weeks you won't care about losing -that- M107 anymore, because you'll likely have backups in stock.

Effectively you are suggesting we be punished for our status as top-rate survivors

Wait, didn't you just try to argue that loot can't compensate for survival skills? That would mean I'm not punishing you at all... Any misrepresenting of my actual argument notwithstanding. :)

to be clear: I don't agree there is a problem with any 'escalating loot' and I certainly don't believe that any such escalation justifies punitive measures against the best players: this isn't Mario Kart

I'm still not sure you're getting my point. How is not being able to find an ultra-rare weapon in any way punitive?... Even with a theoretical malfunction mechanic that I already suggested wasn't ideal, it would be applied equally to all weapons, not targeted at the high-end ones.

Anyway, when we eventually hit the ceiling and there are enough M107s, Mk 48s, M16A2 M203s and FN FALs littering the servers that basically anyone who's interested can find one fairly easily, I reserve the right to say "I told you so". :P

ultimately, once magazines' contents are tracked by player saves, escalating loot will be nullified by the challenge of keeping a 10 round per second mk48 in bullets

What you're talking about here is a consumption mechanic, and you're right, it would be very possible to limit the proliferation of effective weapons by severely limiting the ammuntion available to them. The only reason I'm not a huge fan of that solution is that the numbers of weapons would still continue to rise, it's just that the vast majority of them would never have any ammo to fire.

[duddbudda 33]

that first comment was a quote from the intro to deus ex, there , but it was throwaway

as for military squads with no fear of death: there are numerous threads asking for NPCs to take this role - why shouldn't players be allowed to do so

you are making assumptions

for us it is the characters' continous survival that matters, not the loot

I thought that was stressed in my post

re: you're up north so of course you find good shit

we haven't been able to find anything more useful than a soda or a clip of ammo on any of the last dozen men to cross our path - the only things we need are a few more GPS and a pair of NVGs each, and those are rare, even among those we meet in the north

in the last week we have made a dozen raids on Stary, Berez, Krasno and the NWA - we have come away with nothing but ammo, extra camo and, when we need it, an AK for the latest respawn

it's possible you play on servers flooted with duped weapons, but on our server, we don't have that concern

re: a nub who finds a camp might walk away tooled up with a SAW and NVGs & other concerns about the distinction between and conflation of skill and

nubs won't have phat loots for long - I've had a DMR on me for three weeks because I'm a reasonable shot and a better tactician

of course all gear gained is dependant on chance, whether taken from a spawn point, camp or player

holding onto it is entirely about player skill (disregarding those killed by hackers and random despawn glitches)

a skilled player is barely more dangerous with an M107 than with a leinfield (my best kill was at 450m one-shotting a running survivor, I made the shot with a lee) but there is pleasure in possessing prestigious things

re: assumptions about what we do when we die

we do not have a camp to restock at. we re-equip respawns by raiding places, or giving them spare camo etc that we carry on our backs

players retooling themselves immediately after death ought not be frowned upon - if they choose to put more stock in the PvP than their characters' longevity or any role play or whatever, well that is their choice, and it makes my game more interesting

re: misrepresenting you - you suggest weapons break, and I was addressing that measure's effects

weapons spawning in relation to their numbers in play? worth a trial during the alpha for sure

finally, apologies for disjointed posts, I am distracted by The Young Victoria while I reply

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

I kinda agree with the OP, the game logic need to actively recycle and create in the game world, create new items, but also recycle the old ones, ensuring a continuous flow. Any technological advantage rotting away as time pass.