Timeline for Optimizing the economy of a resource management game
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2022 at 13:08 | comment | added | Hassan Baig | @EkadhSingh-ReinstateMonica and ultimately that's exactly what happened! I didn't make this game, but several other game designers did. A whole new genre called "Play-2-earn" was born, where early movers made a ton of money and late movers lost everything. It is what it is :-) | |
| Jun 25, 2021 at 22:31 | comment | added | Ekadh Singh | @Philipp “everyone is going to lose in the end except for the developer running the Ponzi scheme” a smart player could pull out at the correct time (before the scheme collapses) and make a profit, so it is possible to make money off of this game | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 17:04 | comment | added | Philipp | @HassanBaig The core issue here is that you are trying to create money from nothing. People will notice that this is a game where everyone is going to lose in the end except for the developer running the ponzi scheme. It's not even like a poker tournamet where people can be under the illusion that skill and luck will give them an edge over other players and let them take their money. The "game" is far too simple for that. | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 17:03 | comment | added | Hassan Baig | @Philipp So it seems the core issue is inflation in digger prices without a proportional inflation in their rate of return. That is why an alternative income source to finance the treasury would have helped, like you pointed out in your answer. Correct? | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 16:59 | comment | added | Philipp | @HassanBaig The ponzi scheme will collapse as soon as the cheapest digger gets more expensive than the most gullible member is able and/or willing to pay. | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 15:57 | comment | added | DMGregory♦ | Here Philipp is using "new members" as a shorthand for "new investment" - you require players to keep buying more and more at escalating costs, whether those are new players buying their first machine, or existing players buying replacement/additional machines. That's still within the definition of a ponzi scheme that Philipp describes. | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 15:51 | comment | added | Hassan Baig | Thanks for the elaboration. One distinction though: the game is not necessarily sustainable because of new members (although they do help). The game gets an injection of money every time there is a theft event. A closed system, with conceivably lots of theft events, may actually be sustainable too? That is what I wanted to model and find out. | |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:50 | history | edited | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 265 characters in body |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:39 | history | edited | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 1 character in body |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:33 | history | edited | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 28 characters in body |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:28 | history | edited | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 28 characters in body |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:11 | history | edited | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 58 characters in body |
| Mar 28, 2021 at 13:05 | history | answered | Philipp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |