Marketeconomy in Coh2 and other rts

Interesting idea, but risky experiment. Market economy of Diablo 3 was disastrous and consequently removed in the expansion.

Ok, how was that economy set up?
I still believe it would be a better system than having relic trying to balance the game. As an example Kubels would be very expensive at the moment. It would disable abuse.

Ok, how was that economy set up?
I still believe it would be a better system than having relic trying to balance the game. As an example Kubels would be very expensive at the moment. It would disable abuse.

But what else would be expensive? All infantry would likely increase in price, since they're built more than other unit types. It's seldom that more than 2-4 snipers are built in a game, but what about Riflemen? Or Conscripts? Or Grenadiers?

I think balancing a 'market economy' RTS would have its own challenges. As someone else pointed out, some units are meant to be produced more than others. Also, this might discourage alternate strategies, since building more of something would be penalized. This would introduce a pretty stale meta, I think, where everyone just built 1-2 of the most effective units they could, then 1-2 of the next most effective, etc. I really dislike this idea.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about how free market economy works.

An item is not highly priced based on demand alone, it is factored by supply.

Chicken eggs, for example, are in high demand. Most kitchens stock them.
But that doesnt mean price is high. No. Why? Because so is supply.

There are games like EUIV, Civ and some other grand strategies that have internal trade commodities.

But overtly fixing cost to "balance" would be insane.

Imagine what would happen to Gren cost, if it was factored by how many are built thoughout the community? Suddenly youd have to pay 600 MP for Grens.

Really, wtf?

There are games like EUIV, Civ and some other grand strategies that have internal trade commodities.

Victoria 2 from Paradox:


http://store.steampowered.com/app/42960/

The idea per se is not bad.
But honestly Valve tried it many years ago and it was a disaster. Some weapons costed 5$ while others costed 15.000$.

You seem to have a misunderstanding about how free market economy works.

An item is not highly priced based on demand alone, it is factored by supply.

Chicken eggs, for example, are in high demand. Most kitchens stock them.
But that doesnt mean price is high. No. Why? Because so is supply.

There are games like EUIV, Civ and some other grand strategies that have internal trade commodities.

But overtly fixing cost to "balance" would be insane.

Imagine what would happen to Gren cost, if it was factored by how many are built thoughout the community? Suddenly youd have to pay 600 MP for Grens.

Really, wtf?

Y economy isnt my strongest side Havent even read Marx.
And youre right that the marketeconomy-model wouldnt work. Such model needs some planned economy Relic has to make up a meta and then if that meta is broken the price of a unit would go up or down. Example: the meta is 3-5 grens for ost, if that meta isnt achieved then the price would fall or go up.

I thi k your idea is very interesting and has great potential.

But not for this game.
It would require a game that supports a far wider economic system.
Something like a persistant world MMO/RTS with production and sales systems, supported by an advanced resource and eco omic system.

Very xool direction, but requires a completely different game.

Know what I mean?

(PS: If you eant to understand capitalism and free economy, Marx is the last guy on your reading list...)

Y economy isnt my strongest side Havent even read Marx.
And youre right that the marketeconomy-model wouldnt work. Such model needs some planned economy Relic has to make up a meta and then if that meta is broken the price of a unit would go up or down. Example: the meta is 3-5 grens for ost, if that meta isnt achieved then the price would fall or go up.

But that sounds awful. Relic decides exactly how many of each unit a player should be producing, and if a player wants to build more than Relic's plan, they're penalized. You'd see a dramatic decrease in player experimentation of builds, because everyone would just build what they're 'supposed to' That sounds terrible!

What's more, that's not going to solve issues with units like the kubel, as even 1 can completely screw over the USF.

Units and mechanics and static costs should continue to be balanced. This method is, pardon, nonsensical in this context. You can't randomly plug whatever mechanic you want into an RTS. The game needs to be designed from the ground up to accommodate them. Imagine what would happen to the balance in sc2 if all of a sudden we threw directional armor into the game. It'd have to be completely rebalanced from the ground up. But this idea is worse, as it creates a doomsday 1984 meta that's dictated by unit cost penalties.

I thi k your idea is very interesting and has great potential.

But not for this game.
It would require a game that supports a far wider economic system.
Something like a persistant world MMO/RTS with production and sales systems, supported by an advanced resource and eco omic system.

Very xool direction, but requires a completely different game.

Know what I mean?

(PS: If you eant to understand capitalism and free economy, Marx is the last guy on your reading list...)

I agree with this.

Marx is definitely not pro-free market, but he's an interesting read.

Every item you win should have a points value based on rarity. In the bottom of your loadout screen is a chest for stuff you don't want. When you hit 'x' amount of points you can choose something you *do* want thus making your useless spoils and duplicates of value.

I don't really care if I get the same faceplate AGAIN if I can dump it and get a tiny fraction of points towards a skin or commander I *do* want. It really is simple - play, collect, reward.

These are good ideas. Current COH 2 game resource and cost mechanics are not maintainable without paying the cost of having a 'small' player base

I agree with this.

Marx is definitely not pro-free market, but he's an interesting read.

Indeed.

Marxist communism may never have succeded anywhere, but frankly neither has as abject capitalism.

Funnily enough though, their point of contention is not strictly on the idea of a free market, it is on who owns the means of production. Marxism holds they belong collectively to the people who work them, whereas Capitalism holds that they can be owned entirely by one entity.

Marx actually, in his way, understood the necessity of a free market as a competetive basis for better value for the consumer, on whixh Capitalists agree. Marx got practically ecstatic (yes, almost in a fedora sense) at the idea of international competition between worker/employee owned communes. Marx also didnt in anyway ascribe to government control of enterprise. He just wanted everyone involved to have equal ownership, not just a wage output like scraps from the masters table.

The difference is really in how the profits are distributed.
In Marxism, everyone OWNS a proportional share, and is thus motivated to work towards better productivity. Ideally, you earn as much as you, and others, put into it. You are not co peting with your co-employees, you are working togehter for profit.
In Capitalism, the owner OWNS it all, and motivation to increase productivity stems from him creating incentives for advancement and better pay. You are working against your co-employees to increase your own income, as derived from the owner.

Just pointing out that a free market is not actually a point of contention between Marxism and Capitalism, though it is often painted so falsely. A free market is, from a Marxist perspective, emminently good for the public and the consumer, just as it is in from a Capitalist perspective. The issue is on ownership, and how profits are distributed. In Marxism you work hard cos you own a part of the company. In Capitalism (and it sounds bad, no matter how I express it), you work hard because you want a larger scrap from the master/owners table...

Kind of makes you think, doesnt it. And no wonder the establishment of the West was terrified of Marxism at the time. Leftist politics though have atleast helped secure the position of employees in Caplitalist systems through unions etc. Unfortu ately, all national Communist experiments have failed miserably (for reasons that are beyond the scope of this post, and would take hours to describe, some of it good, but most of it bad).

There has been a recent trend towards stock options, in a sense, part ownership, that have been very successful, especially because they dont cost the owner much actual money. Especially because dividends are usually paid out of profit, so there are ways to re-invest money before paying out.

Dunno. Time will tell.But the funny thing is, unless you are an owner of the means of production, such as a mine, factory, or service provider, you should really automatically prefer a Marxist model toa Capitalist one, in your own interest. Yet many seem extremely reluctant to think that way, for whatever reason.

As an old saying goes (albeit somewhat religiously paradigmed), "Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven".

In a game with campaing yes, in a rts with games almost never longer than one hour no.