Thoughts about money in RW...

    What follows is simply a collection of doubts, questions, hints without any organic sense (yet?). The intention is to provoke a discussion about the meaning and the implications of introducing a monetary system in RW.

    It has been stimulated by the recent scripts which add some kind of money management to RW. If it sounds like I am occasionally criticising them, I apologise in advance; this is not my intention at all, as I owe to them the push to think about these matters in the first place.

    So, what money means, could mean, should mean in a context like RW? I assume different players will have different perspective, and I think sharing them would be useful. Some questions follow trying to elicit some answers, new questions, and also criticisms.

    1) What a money system could make possible which is currently not possible in RW or at least easier which is currently hard?

    2) Does a money system necessarily implies an economy? This question may seem vague, and probably is; it is tied to the previous, though: would a money system stir something (some activity, some relationship, something) which would be impossible or very hard to stir without? Caveat: not in general, but in the RW context as it is now and/or as we can suppose it will evolve.

    3) Does an economy necessarily implies a separate, abstract, money system? would be barter not enough? Again, not in general, but in the RW context.

    4) Can a money system / economy ignore social / community expenses / incomes and still make sense?

    5) Shall a money system / economy be tied to a specific economic theory (say, capitalism or socialism) or this should be left to the 'rulers' (say, server admins) to decide depending on which policies they choose to implement or enforce? (In fact, the systems I have seen implemented so far in RW scripts, tend to be rather on the socialist side or at least of a State capitalism, which makes 4) even more important).

    6) CAN it be general enough to leave the door open to such a diversity?

    7) This is rather specific and I am trying to be provocative here! Is a "free market" possible in a context like RW? (as it should be quite evident, "free market" is largely a myth in any economic context of decent complexity. See also the note at the end of 5) ).

    8 ) This is very specific and might be a study case for 5), 6) and 7): I have seen in several occasions the so-called "law of supply and demand" (or however it is worded in English) referred to. Now, this law is also largely a myth or, at least, it has some value only in small and rather restricted and isolated economic contexts. of which RW might be an example. How should a monetary / economic system deal with it? Should it enforce it or should it leave to the "free market invisible hand", if it can exist?

    I think I have put enough meat on the grill by now. Awaiting your reactions... M.

  • My thoughts: the last thing RW needs is an "economy".
    The game is about building and surviving- not making money.

    An economy, and corresponding "money" or monetary system, has been discussed for years in that "other" game, and several people have tried setting up their own.
    Never works.
    The Barter System will always win out.

    The only "economy" in a game like this that I've ever seen that has worked (some) is the one in Total Miner. In that game everything has both a buying and selling price (in gold coins) at the Store, therefore for RW, you'd have to put a buying & selling price on everything- from dirt to all the finished products. The proper balancing of those prices would take... a long time. Which would be for naught, as players could set their own "prices" each time they barter with another player. And in single player, it's always cheaper to make it yourself than buy it.

  • What Geneo said. I agree with it all.

    People are stubborn that they must insist in having an economy in their game, such as myself, that we're constantly forcing it in, yet we just can't make it work. It does for awhile, yet never for long enough that it just goes bust. There's always something that just gives up that you go back to bartering. You try to by then expanding it onto other times by giving everything a price to simply go bust. Figuring out how to price items, it then goes bust. It's like trying to put a bed blanker over a train, or something over-sized. Myself & other players also have the pride that we would rather build things up ourselves without others lending a hand because 1) We want to show we've done it with our own blood, sweat, and tears with that personal touch. & 2) Economy like that tends to collapse from over-reaching & poor supply & demand.

    The way I feel this working best is through bartering system that we could use elements from both 'Millenaire mod' for Minecraft & the way 'Timber & Stone' does things, yet minus coins. I need logs, and they need fish, so we trade that. We then make use of that, more so on player side of things.

    Check this out:…-new-villagers-in-players
    [This had an interesting trading system that you can give them your supplies for them to build with it. They would eat food, and such. They would however give you tokens in return, or years back when I played it.]

    When we get NPC Traders it be sweet for them to ask for items they need so we can then as for items we need to trade such [bonus points if they make use of those items]. I guess some light 'token' system could be in place to purchase from NPC supply stock at their huts, villages, and such, if absolutely necessary. Roaming merchants also, yet once things get overly monetized shall be when everything crashes. If Red51 can figure out how to make NPC Traders/traveling merchants more lively then I can see the bartering system being used more efficiently. Lively, in that they have more filters to read through, and that they can even add percentages & random number generations on what they need & how likely they'll accept. Token wise, Red51 could probably price the items in region-specific tokens, yet you would then be locked out having to grind when you could simply exchange one needed item for another. It's somewhat tricky when you want an economy going that I'd simply prefer bartering. Yet, a part of me wants to have a long-term RPG type bartering that my wordings becoming confused. I want to see NPCs make use of it that it's ruining my flow of thought.

    If we can get NPCs into the mix then it be sweet if they can reward you with region specific food & resources. They want something from another region, you can give such to them. They'd then give something local back to you. Fun fun.

    I favour bartering for one needed item for another. What you don't need can be happily used by another person. It makes me wonder though how deep Red51 wants to code bartering on the NPC side because it does get pretty nasty with what players demand. Player economy is just rotten that it just ruins things. Another fun example of a turned bartering system being, for example: I've seen people on Vortac's server making the sort of storage places I make by putting what they need in a public storage house for others to use. What we don't need is given to others, and we put things we don't want there for others to use. That's another form of it.

  • Thanks for the replies! They seem to me to provide some meaningful input, which I'll try to summarise into the questions listed above (when applicable), with my additional comments.

    1) What a money system could make possible which is currently not possible in RW or at least easier which is currently hard? Possibly nothing or near to nothing, which I suspected since the beginning, but I refrained from venting at once.

    2) Does a money system necessarily implies an economy? Apparently the replies seem to imply "Yes". I probably do not agree; given point 1) above, a money system is likely to be largely 'decorative' more than substantial, without significantly expanding the game mechanics or only (mostly) in things which could also be done otherwise, possibly better.

    3) Does an economy necessarily implies a separate, abstract, money system? would be barter not enough? Barter seems strongly supported, either as a preference, as @ArcticuKitsu says, or as a more or less automatic consequence of player interaction, as @Geneo seems to imply. As barter is already explicitly supported by the game, there seems to be little need to add new kinds of economic interactions.

    A small side note to Geneo's comment: "My thoughts: the last thing RW needs is an "economy" ". I appreciate the quotes around economy, but it seems to me that RW already has one, as an easy barter system is in place and it is actually used. This is an economy, a non-monetary one, maybe a small one, not much used (yet?), but an economy nevertheless.

    For the other questions I originally proposed, there seem to be no specific replies. However, I still note a prevalence of what I would call State-centric economies, for the lack of a better name:

    *) If I understand correctly, the "Store" Geneo quoted from Total Miner is in a sense a community owned and run agency, independent of any player (or groups of) and subtracted to any commercial constrain (it never goes broken, for instance); in the real life, this would approximate quite well a State agency (I never played Total Miner, so I might be wrong).

    *) ArcticuKitsu's emphasis on NPC's shifts the accent a bit, but still supports a kind of actors (the trading NPC's) which interact economically with players but are not subject themselves to economic constrains (again, they never go broken and may implement whichever commercial strategy they like or the programme imposes on them, regardless of the end-of-year bottom line). If not of a State strictly speaking, they would act like emissaries of a sovereign Guild anyway.

    I do not find anything inherently good or bad in this tendency (not in a game at least; in real life it would be different, but this is not real life...). It stirs my curiosity, though: why State-centric economies (or economic paradigms) seem to prevail in this kind of games?

    Ah, for the record, I never played "that other game", which is one of the reasons I asked the opinions of other fellow gamers.

  • hi i'm the dumb(beep) who made vornet and i'm about to say something that all of you was not expecting me to say.

    I love and prefer the barter system more than money system

    There i said it. Screenshot it if you want because i won't say that again.

    Why did i just say that knowing it could hurt VorNet?
    Well look at how greedy people have become in real life and price of everything keeps going up.
    I live poor, i work for peanuts and will most likely die with a zero balance in my bank.
    That's the way i rather live because life is about having fun and enjoying life, not how much money you can collect before you die.
    Yea it be nice to be able to HAVE a high end gaming PC with 6 monitors but i don't need it.
    What i need is food and a roof over my head for when it rains and a warm bed for the winter time.
    That's all my native ancestors did before the british came to Canada and they enjoyed life.

    As for this game having a money system. I think that should be a option for server owners, i will always have money in VorNet and as always everything in my system is optional and configurable but i prefer a "i'll give you copper for iron" kind of system.

  • @Chrisx84: well, of course, I for one did not expect you saying that. But, in a way, it makes sense, exactly because you are the author of VorNet, and it casts some more light on the above.

    As you wrote VorNet, you spent time thinking about it, its bases, its function and so on. So, you are in a better position than many other to say something about this topic.

    Even if mostly expressed as a personal preference, the general consensus hints that a monetary system is probably not well suited to a context like RW (ok, only a very tiny minority of forum users said something here, but they are those who care about this topic nevertheless).

  • I know I'm late to the party by a while but I thought I'd drop in my two cents.

    If there was to be an economy system, and I'm not against bartering mind you, it would need to be something quite substantial and dynamic.

    Let's say for instance that there was a small town near the woods, home to lumberjacks and hunters and they had a trade, or were owned by, a larger town, keep, city or military compound, whatever it may be. They delivered supplies there so if you went to either one you could by furs and logs, but buying furs and logs straight from the source might be cheaper, or it might be even more cheaper if you bought it from the larger town if they had an overstock, maybe the smaller town gave them too much and they didn't know what to do with it. Then you go to another town a while away and they'll buy your pelts, furs and other items for double the price of what you bought it for as they don't have a smaller town that supplies them and have to make do with buying and selling.

    Now let's shake things up a bit. Let's say that, one day, the caravan that normally passes by your base every week carrying valuable goods (muskets, bows, other weapons or tools, whatever it may be), but this time they don't. You go to the town where you can normally buy some musket/rifle bullets for one coin a bullet or fifty coins a rifle, for example. Unfortunately, the town or factory that supplied them has been attacked by bandits, raiders, monsters, jellybean men, that sort of thing. Now they can't get their supplies until they take that town back and either save the population or repopulate the place with settlers. Those bullets that were dirt cheap before? Ten to fifteen coins each. The rifles? 150 coins please, we can't make them ourselves and only have thirty left.

    But I like bartering as well. See that survival compound all the way up in the mountains with generators, solar panels and guys armed with scoped rifles? They don't care about money, they want nothing to do with all the other people out there. All they're concerned about is their crops, their hunting, their safety and the small groups of people that wander to and from the survival compound trading valuable scrap stuff for food. What do they trade? Well, like some other people above me suggested with fish and stuff, they want solar panels. What do you get in return? Food, water, advanced technology (solar panels and the like, obviously no spaceship stuff as these guys can barely keep their clothes stitched together), that sort of thing. Stuff for stuff basically, with stuff that's more valuable getting you more stuff of a lesser value, like a bullet for five apples or something.

    This is all from a purely single-player perspective, as I don't play multiplayer at all (yet). Plus, that's all advanced stuff and I don't know if even a big dev team could make something that dynamic, but that's the way I'd see an economy system working, plus bartering as well. I suppose you could also take this system and make it a multiplayer type of thing, but it would need to be something like EVE: Online to be a true economy system with players running guilds, kingdoms, whatever.

    But yeah, that's my idea. Not quite sure if that's what you wanted but it's the first idea that sprang to mind after reading your post and I had to write it down before I forgot it.

  • @ConJon: thanks for your comments. And the party is not over, there is no "best before" date on ideas! In fact, what you describe supports one or two not secondary observations.

    1) Money vs Economy. The economy / economic trend example you make does not necessarily depends on money: it may be based on "coins" as well as on pelts you trade in or on whatever item RW currently already has, from ores to lumbers.

    This matches my feeling that money and economy do not necessarily go together and, in a game like RW which is based mostly on items you craft, harvest or raise, money will likely have no structural function, but at most an 'ornamental' function.

    2) Who runs the business?. The image you paint involves several parties (factories, local shops, villages to support those shops, enemies of some kind to shuffle the deck periodically, and so on). Who runs them? In single-player, it must obviously be the programme. But even in multi-player, it would not be so different: RW is not an MMO game and even in the future, when the game will be more popular, the average number of players in a private server will not be large enough to primarily rely on players for filling all those roles.

    So, in the end, we are again at an example of State (or social(-ist?)) economy: all this trading chain is obviously an-economic or even anti-economic and it should go bankrupt very soon as it relies on a single 'final customer' in single-player mode and on quite few final customers in multi-player mode, unless a superior -- or abstract -- party keeps it running independently of economic considerations (the game itself).

    I am not a partisan of capitalism (quite the contrary, actually) but, for all we live in a capitalist environment of some flavour and we are sold the idea that capitalism is the "natural" or "right" way of doing things, I find curious that we seem unable to arrive at a capitalistic economy in a game like RW (other games simply assume a capitalist context as datum). There must be something profound here, but I cannot grasp it...

  • Unfortunatly for an economy to work in RW the difficulty rate of finding ores should be way higher than it is now. I"m even going to say last year when ores like aluminium and silver were the hardest to find/see it gave them a sense of rarity subsequently it gave a reason why somebody would want to trade them around.

    If the games difficulty rate of finding ores and growing/finding food were higher players would feel the need to trade/buy & sell more.

    right now everybody can grow super size farm in a matter of 1 day of gaming.
    everybody can find mitril gold cobalt anything really fast, nobody needs anything from nobody unless they're in a hurry.
    As long as theres no difficulty in getting something yourself there wont much value in trading.

    Just like in real life its hard to make something like for example a phone yourself because finding the resources yourself even the equipment to make it is hard. so you go out and buy it.
    same should apply in RW if one would want an economy in game.


    At Freaks R US we've been running an economy for close to a year now (Skynet w.i.p website) in fact it was Skynets birthday 2months ago.
    You can only attract a flow of money when you're offering something people cant get on their own or are having a hard time getting on their own.

    Its easy to sell stone to players who just want to build, -> builders who build stuff for players that just want a nice place while they farm -> farmers who sell their crops to those who go out mining -> miners who bring back the stone to those who like to trade stuff -> merchants sell back to the person who only likes to build. <<<

    full circle^ is what ive been experimenting with and only since January been seeing an increase in commerce activity once we started a marketplace to kickstart it.

    What i saw was people that need something real quick but cant get it might want to pay for it.
    So this is how SKynet started out to be.

    Offering desirable services along with a currency so it wouldnt be a survival breaking free-for-all.

    BTW to set the record straight.

    back to the economy.

    We also have (NPC) automated machines where players can sell their stuff in exchange for money. money which they need for increasingly expensive services.
    Boosting farming and mining activity because now theres a point to it after youve achieved all you can with vanilla RW.
    And in return rich players can afford more luxury services.

    Rising World vanilla could have a working economy it just needs to rebalance the rarity of resources and maybe even introduce character roles.
    a farmer, a builder, a merchant etc etc so a player is able to do something better than another player (have something others want).

    Hower its spinned around a few rules remain true;

    As long as life on RW is free. you wont have an economy.
    As long as life on RW is easy. you wont have a barter system
    Without a need to barter you wont reach to an economy

    I've been critisized a lot in the beginning especially since a lot of resources dont have any use but it works for us really well doing what we do.
    An economy certainly is possible but ONLY when you stick to a harder survival gameplay. ( people have to need stuff) this goes for single and multiplayer alike.

  • Hi SilverSatin,

    Perhaps I mis-understood you a few months ago in this comment linked below. I thought SkyNet was not available for distribution. Anyone can look at someone else's work and decide to make an imitation. That takes more work than merely "copying" and re-naming which is the impression I get from you right now as to the origin of VorNet. Please clarify. But again, I thought the source for SkyNet was unavailable to anyone.

    Important notice / Wichtige Information

  • Hi SilverSatin,

    Perhaps I mis-understood you a few months ago in this comment linked below. I thought SkyNet was not available for distribution. Anyone can look at someone else's work and decide to make an imitation. That takes more work than merely "copying" and re-naming which is the impression I get from you right now as to the origin of VorNet. Please clarify. But again, I thought the source for SkyNet was unavailable to anyone.

    Oh yes indeed you've misunderstood what i'm replying about.
    Here is the specific quote to clarify.

    As you wrote VorNet, you spent time thinking about it, its bases, its function and so on.

    @zfoxfire Its Not at all about the distribution of my ideas. That's a different story. After all, credits were rightfully given on its github page.

    I'm setting a record straight here about that quote from Miwarre as it should be understandable that i stand by what I've created. its bases, its functions... (the thinking) while i was critisized before for it to fail. i stood by it as it matured before hitting the year 2016.

    vornet is an imitation, Thats just plain as it is. An open-source alternative. which is fine but the truth still remains truth and credits should be held as they rightfully should. an imitation =/= an innovation. lets not sugarcoat it as such.

    back on topic.

    While we dont really have to have an economy in game it does open up another gameplay aspect to the game beside the all the building and survival. Even on single player it would introduce another reason why interacting with an NPC might be in your best interest besides of killing "the others".

  • Sorry for the delay in answering, my computer broke and I'm using my wife's when she is not using it. I'm splitting the answer in two. First about the "who made what" issue.

    @SilverSatin: No disrespect assumed. Still, the context of my reply above seemed clear to me, possibly I didn't make it clear enough. Of all who replied to my OP, Chris was at that time the only one who actually worked at an economy related script; this put his reply a little apart from all the other, interesting but abstract, replies. Now there are two: Chris and you (to list in reply order) or you and Chris (to list in implementation order).

    I will not enter in the question about who made what; at anyone browsing the fora should be clear that 1) you were first (Chris himself said it openly in this post, among others), 2) as apparently the source is not available, Chris had to re-implement everything from scratch and this, by itself, requires time, thought and knowledge, even if it is only a pure copy, which I cannot tell, as I have no access to sources, like everybody else.

    Anyway, I am ready to acknowledge any right of primogeniture you want to establish in this area. And with this I hope the matter can be considered clarified.

  • Coming from someone with an actual experience in implementing and running an economy system in RW, this seems to me a very important reply. Still there are some aspects I do not understand.

    1) The 3 rules you quote make a lot of sense to me, in particular the middle one (of which the other two can mostly be considered consequences): As long as life on RW is easy, you wont have a barter system.

    Still, you seem to imply that SkyNet is a successful experiment. Does this mean that you managed to make life in RW less easy? Or it is mostly a matter of speed? Is the main point that, for instance, builders can buy materials for building and food for surviving quicker than crafting/farming them in vanilla RW (and similarly for other activities)?

    2) Which is the role of money in your system? It is 'just' an exchange token, making transactions simpler and/or quicker -- for instance by removing the need of physical proximity --, or there is a money market in its own?

    Thanks, M.

  • Hi :D ,


    On topic;
    To your question,
    1) we'd like to make life a little harder on RW but that would mean disabling a lot of things in the game that players would miss. So all we have is speed.

    Longtime playing players have too much & new players have nothing. So the new players are more likely to buy stuff.
    Most new players want to get started on building as soon as possible so that is how the most commerce transactions take place.

    For singleplayer this is currently harder to do unless its kept optional to those that want a challenge and keep creative mode off, lower ores spawn etc...

    2) The role of money on Freaks R US is just like money on your debit card in real life.
    You use it as a universal barter currency for resources/items/ Skynet services/ or services you purchase from others.
    basically its a full blown currency where the value lies with how much value you put on something.

    Free Market
    if you know how hard it is to get $1000 from somebody
    and you know how easy it is to get $10 then you can scale it out on
    how much value you want to put on a certain resource.

    Its a very interesting topic because this game has a lot going for it beyond a fantastic build sandbox.
    Many say they rather have just a barter system but you cant have one without the other.
    just as in the real world 1 for 1 trading becomes harder when you have to match the value of something.
    real world bartering always ended up in a currency trade be it gold, copper etc... (its money)

    money is just a universal barter currency -> when theres money involved you'll eventually have a little economy going somewhere because money carries a value. :D and working to get something requires time & effort. time is money!

  • @SilverSatin: thanks for your reply and for the additional info.

    "The role of money on Freaks R US is just like money on your debit card in real life. You use it as a universal barter currency for resources/items/ Skynet services/ or services you purchase from others".

    Thanks, I think I understand. Of course, in real life, money is not simply this. Maybe it pretends to be or some economic theories pretend it to be just a measure unit of the value of goods (inherent value, perceived value, usage value, exchange value: whatever; these are interesting distinctions, but secondary). In fact, it became a merchandise in its own, which you can buy and sell; a merchandise which has a value of its own, which is supposed to be measurable with money itself (in other words, money is supposed to be a measure of itself); value which is variable over time (hardly compatible with the usage of a measure unit!). It is from this that many problems we have in our societies stem.

    And it is mostly in this that 'our' real world money differs from a system of barter tokens.

    I find particularly interesting the concept of purchasing services from other players, also because this almost inevitably brings in Justice and Judges... about ehich I have not thought and I am probably not knowledgeable enough to discuss.

    Thanks, M.

  • Yes haha i was cutting corners with the usage behind real life currency.
    And indeed money is a merchandise of its own.

    If money should or should not be a part of the game...
    ( just in general about this topic Pro-money vs Anti-Money )
    I'd say it really depends on the direction of what the game is about. RW looks to be more about creative building and exploration right now.
    However If it wants to lean towards the goal of players creating a civilization or a multiplayer survival with bartering then the broad sense of money is inevitable

    i think most are over-thinking the idea behind money in game.
    I'll try to explain why i see money being part of the game as best as i can but English isnt my first language either :rolleyes: so please bare with me folks :P .

    I look at it from a survival gameplay perspective. << very important to get into the reasoning here.
    Looking at RW from this mindset;
    Lets imagine the game further down the line with a much more balanced rarity, time and effort for gathering resources (not at all as easy as how the game currently is) from this point of view is how i explain.

    8o It would be a very awesome and utopic civilization, a world without money where we give eachother what we need and not care about whats more or whats less.
    A world where we emphasize the need of our fellow neighbours above our own. A world where effort and time spent on whatever it is your giving away doesnt matter.

    It would be cool, but we still remain humans, even in games.
    We all have some level of conciousness when it comes to values, even if its not a value put on materialistic things, we still think about if something is worth the time or effort before we give it away or exchange it for something else. When we do exchange, we still think about trying to match or calculate the loss/gain.

    When we are trading we are transfering different goods that hold their own value. So we cant trade 1 stone for 1 gold ingot because from a survival gameplay perspective it just doesnt make any sense.
    Thats when you start to measure a value and by doing so it gets complicated or even just not possible when you dont have anything that cant match the value of what you want. This is where currency jumps in.
    Any resource with the highest value will almost always become your universally accepted barter- token/currency/money (in this context its all the same)

    Take minecraft for example (havent played in ages but back in my days.... ) emeralds was what people bartered with if they didnt have what the other person wanted due to its value (time & effort needed to obtain)

    That is the broad sense of money that i mean is inevitable when bartering becomes a common activity.
    programatically having a currency makes an npc bartering system as easy as baterring with somebody that just wants to get rid of something or doesnt know what to ask for in return.-
    give them some money for the value they think something is worth and thats it.
    get rid of anything in exchange for money and thats it. The level of convenience is just a must-have even in the context of RW. 8o

    I think that was a long answer to a few questions in the OP such as;
    1) What a money system could make possible which is currently not possible in RW or at least easier which is currently hard?
    3) Does an economy necessarily implies a separate, abstract, money system? would be barter not enough? Again, not in general, but in the RW context.

    Not yet ready for Supply & Demand
    For now the game is still very much unbalanced. just farming alone takes only a few in game days, no seasons,no vegitation health requirements no anything. So theres no absolute need to trade something, we all have everything very easily. Its only new players that need something.

    Once the game increases depth of farming, mining, crafting and even the very act of staying alive (hunger, thirst etc..) it would introduce a level of dificulty that would drive up a supply-demand chain. bartering would be greatly incentivised but as much as bartering activity rises it will naturally introduce money on its own.
    I think it would be just a matter of a convenience necessity :whistling:

    2) Does a money system necessarily implies an economy?
    I dont think it does. I think its more of an exchange tool and a measure of value as its foundation but if wanted it could go deeper..

    One could do something close into the direction of one.
    And it doesnt even have to be server admins who makes such policies/currencies.

    I'll take our server for example, @YakMe a.k.a RedTon has made a community project of a settlement out and away from the servers own public settlement.
    He made it with several other players who help him out building on their own little plot within this settlement completely managed and runned by RedTon himself. and its a dang good job :D
    He isnt an admin and no special abilities or rights has been given to him but he is just like everybody else free to build and do what he like on their own plot of land. RedTon as the owner of his plot can run his own settlement under his own policies, currency, little government etc... as long as its within his own plot and of course doesnt break the overruling rules (which are already in the best interst of the main gameplay of the server in general)

    A small scale economy between two or more settlements might grow each generating their own production of goods and services (their own little economy).
    in this sense yes theres room for diversity. ( on our server at least)

    Too soon

    Its mostly too soon for the game to be judged on the posibilities of money. especially not fair to compare with others.
    other games could be used as an inspiration tho. Thats what RW needs. its more ideas and picking out one that fits into its identity.
    Everything is possible. :thumbsup: lol well... almost :whistling:

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Create a new account now and be part of our community!