The Economics of Training

[Camlo Alban]

With the newest GW Blog post, I'm really excited to see that training is becoming a finite resource that can be bartered and sold. I do have a concern though, namely that it will not be on par with trading physical goods. This is for one reason:

Upkeep.

Upkeep is what drives any economic system. As items leave the market after being used to the point of no longer being usable, crafters are there and ready to supply a brand new - and possibly improved - version. Or alternatively, are there to "reforge" the sword or "patch holes" in the wizard's robe. Either way, you're paying upkeep on the gear you own, and this upkeep continually keeps money flowing through the economy.

Yet with training, I'm worried that it will be a system where, once you've purchased the training, you do not need anything else. Sure, you'll need to return to train better skills/abilities/feats (I'm just going to say skill from now on for simplicity), but once you have a skill, it's yours forever. You theoretically never need to return to that place of skill training.

There are upsides and downsides to this. The upsides are for the consumer, the downsides for the training establishment. So what will keep the training establishment in business? Is it new customers, purchasing skills as they gain XP? Or is it old customers returning as they continue to advance (assuming the training facility keeps pace their advancement)?

While I'm not sure what the best way is to resolve what I see as a problem, I can offer a few opinions.

Solution 1:
This is largely a player-based solution. Training is expensive. Since you get to keep it forever, there should be a high fee for learning a skill, especially at upper tiers of play. Training facilities would subsist off of the large(r) payments of upper-tier players as they wait for lower-tier players to reach a similar level of skill. Rinse repeat. Additionally, larger fees are likely required of upper tier characters because by necessity, a significant portion of income will need to go into improving the facility. This is because if they want upper-tier characters as a significant source of income, they will need to be able to continually offer upper-tier skills.

Solution 2:
This is more of a GW-based solution. Training is not as expensive, but skills require upkeep (practice) to stay sharp. Over time (personally I would say time logged in, as that's when you're "using" your skills, but there are other solutions), a skill gradually decreases in efficacy. If this is the solution enacted, I think this should be a very slow decrement, such that you only need to really re-up your training once or twice a month or so, or it will get annoying quickly. And after a while, skills near the bottom of the pyramid stop needing to be re-upped as you become an expert or master at them. So, recently-acquired skills need continual training until mastery. This would allow for training establishments to charge more of a constant, low fee for training (perhaps with a larger installment for the initial skill purchase), rather than have to gouge trainees with a one-time fee. I think it would also allow the "training economy" to operate more smoothly and similar to the crafting economy.

Any thoughts on this? I love the idea of monetizing skill training, but I think it does need to be more than a one-time purchase to keep the training economy afloat (thus I like option 2 better). What do others think? Do you think this is even a problem?

[Dario]

The cost (in coin) is already set by the players. They can adjust it however they want.

Quote:

•Finally, each feat may have a cost in coin that's set by the settlement that owns the training hall. Like any other fee, such as using their markets, settlements have a lot of control over pricing for these feats and can charge a different rate for guests or members (and likely more fine-tuned control for different types of members).The fee is important, because each hall offers a limited amount of training (there are only so many instructors to go around), and the settlement probably doesn't want guests swooping in to take all the training from a building they made to support their members.

What do you feel is wrong with this system?

[Camlo Alban]

I understand that players already set the cost and can adjust it as they see fit. The difference between training and anything else though, is that it is a one-time fee as far as I can tell, and this might present a problem economically for training centers.

Unlike items that require upkeep to remain viable, skills just "are", and once you have them, you have them. Basically, you are much less likely to have repeat customers as a training center than as a merchant or crafter, unless a character wants a new skill, in which case you better have it ready. Crafters on the other hand can simply repair broken items. It will make the training economy fundamentally different from the crafting economy, which I think might be a bad thing, like I addressed above.

[Nihimon]

I think you're right, that it could be a problem.

I've always been a fan of Skill Decay, and have even proposed it here before. In essence, a Skill could exceed it's "normal" cap temporarily by additional training, but would gradually revert back to that "normal" cap. Of course, this would only solve the problem at the higher tiers.

From Are You Experienced?:

Quote:

Training halls are generally role or skill-based (e.g., Fighter College, Blacksmith, etc.)...

... each hall offers a limited amount of training (there are only so many instructors to go around)...

I see two basic possibilities here:

1. The Hall can offer every Skill that's been unlocked.

2. The Settlement assigns Instructors to individual Skills or Tiers.

If the Settlement has to choose not only which Halls to build, but also which Skills and Tiers to make available, this could get very complex.

I definitely hope that each Settlement isn't limited to a set number of Training Halls. I'd love to be able to forego certain types of buildings in order to build additional Training Halls.

[Nihimon]

Dario wrote:

What do you feel is wrong with this system?

Not to speak for Camlo, although I think I understand him.

The problem is that once a majority of the player base has purchased a particular Skill/Tier, then the demand falls off dramatically, causing the price to plunge. It's similar to the problem with lower-level gear in most games - once most players are level 50, the market for level 20 gear is really distorted since most level 20s at that time are actually alts who can afford prices much higher than a "natural" level 20 could.

Camlo is looking for ways to ensure the demand is more or less constant, the same way the demand for adventuring gear will be constant.

[Being]

I think it depends on how granular the skills turn out to be.

If I have to train shield I, II, III and one hand blade I, II, and III, but also parry I, II, III and Riposte I, II, III.

That is just the start. Defense en quarte could train each quadrant of blade defense. Shield I, II, III is probably defensive only: there might also be shield bashing, shield wall, tortoise (formation) and who knows what else.

If the skills being taught are granular enough I don't think the reusability will be less than sock darning, but more.

[AvenaOats]

Really interesting OP.

We know running settlements is expensive and the more advanced the more expensive.

But I wonder if that means that settlements have finite space to build training, among other going concerns & infrastructure which means they specialise in certain types of training. Then it's a question how successful the settlement is and therefore how advanced it CAN progress towards? Ie diminishingly frequent high level skill-training? So early S-T centres would simply advance and charge more as they advance (and in comparison to who else/how many same centers are on offer and how many players are in the market).

Guess it's a feedback of better settlement -> better S-T facilities -> better skilled player -> more successful settlement (wealth/power, social pull)?

I guess that's a macro look. Leave the micro to more learnt hands than me.

[Camlo Alban]

I also like the skill decay concept, at least for newly-acquired or top-of-the-pyramid skills. Once you have a skill that has it as a prerequisite, perhaps you are assumed to have mastered that skill, and it no longer decays (at least not until the skills above it decay, but that's a whole separate can of worms).

This would also disincentivize people to play characters that are TOO varied. Having one level in every role might be interesting, but unless there are synergies between skills you're going to have a hard time keeping them all useful. Another point that could be a whole other discussion topic, lol.

Personally, I like Nihimon's option 2... the more complex the better :) It would also differentiate settlements. Perhaps one settlement is really good at training blacksmiths at making plate armor, but another is very good at training blacksmiths who make axes. Or magic academies that are specialized in certain schools. Super cool to think about.

I also hope that settlements aren't restricted too much in terms of numbers of Training Halls... but I think we're in the same boat in this one, Nihimon.

[Camlo Alban]

Nihimon wrote:

Not to speak for Camlo, although I think I understand him.

The problem is that once a majority of the player base has purchased a particular Skill/Tier, then the demand falls off dramatically, causing the price to plunge. It's similar to the problem with lower-level gear in most games - once most players are level 50, the market for level 20 gear is really distorted since most level 20s at that time are actually alts who can afford prices much higher than a "natural" level 20 could.

Camlo is looking for ways to ensure the demand is more or less constant, the same way the demand for adventuring gear will be constant.

This was exactly my point, Nihimon.

[clynx]

Camlo Alban wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

Not to speak for Camlo, although I think I understand him.

The problem is that once a majority of the player base has purchased a particular Skill/Tier, then the demand falls off dramatically, causing the price to plunge. It's similar to the problem with lower-level gear in most games - once most players are level 50, the market for level 20 gear is really distorted since most level 20s at that time are actually alts who can afford prices much higher than a "natural" level 20 could.

Camlo is looking for ways to ensure the demand is more or less constant, the same way the demand for adventuring gear will be constant.

This was exactly my point, Nihimon.

Yes, skills are likely something that you train once, and then never need to again. That isn't as bad as it sounds however. Keep in mind, that as a training settlement - your 'customer' is every player on the server. If you ever lose business, it'll be from another settlement that offered the same training.

Each player levels at their own pace. 'Block Rank 1' might be something that all fighters might pick up early, but probably not all at the same time. Maybe some players train it a few weeks behind other players, or months behind! And that's just the players who have an immediate need for it. All the people leveling a craft early, or a caster may not have had any need at all for 'Block Rank 1' - but after developing their class for a few months, they notice it's taking a long time to train for marginal rank increases. So they diversify a little, and train up some of the other entry level skills that other playstyles offer - one of those being 'Block Rank 1'.

In this case, I can see training being relevant year-round; not to mention the influx of new players and alts continually being added to the world. Unlike the level 20 gear analogy; not all players develop down the same path at the same time. Skill training is much more of a web than it is a straight line.

I wouldn't mind upkeep either. Maybe in the form of recurring merit badges at the highest level. If you didn't re-earn your badge for the month (for example), you'd have to pay the fee via retrain (but if you did pay to retrain, it would wave the badge requirement for that month).

[clynx]

As a practical example - You'd be hard pressed to find the "level 20 gear" equivalent on this chart:

EVE Skill Tree

Mainly because unlike Theme parks, PFO doesn't have a liner progression. The idea that you 'start at level 1 and progress to level 2, then to three, on and on until level cap' doesn't have a literal translation into a sandbox skill-based progression. Each player may start at a different point and develop down a completely unique path. When players will be in need of the training your settlement offers will be impossible to forecast.

[Nihimon]

@clynx, that's a really good point. Since PFO characters will be training different skills at different points in their lives, it's quite possible there will be a relatively stable demand for any particular skill training.

[clynx]

What I find really cool, is the prospect of training facilities being the reason to go to war.

Imagine your settlement offered training in an obscure high-end skill. Now imagine only 4-5 other settlements offer that training. As is, you'd have a pretty commanding dominance in that market. BUT, what if you went to war with those nations and took over their hex/destroyed their settlement. Now you'd be the only settlement which offers that training.

Maybe you don't even want a monopoly. Maybe outlaws are a thorn in your kingdom's side, and so you make it a crusade to eliminate their high end training settlements around the world to keep their numbers low?

I'm not sure what the logistics will be for settlements that have grown to a large size, and then eliminated. But if you could remove/undo their progression, I wonder what kind of strategies we'd see from some of the larger powers.

[Stephen Cheney]

We're hoping that training becomes one of our incentives for established groups being inviting to newbies. At some point, a powerful settlement starts to notice that it has low-level training "rotting on the vine" and starts marking it down and setting up touts in starter areas to try to convince lower level players to come buy it to avoid it just going to waste. Ideally there are several settlements all fighting to get new players to come visit in this way.

[Camlo Alban]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

We're hoping that training becomes one of our incentives for established groups being inviting to newbies. At some point, a powerful settlement starts to notice that it has low-level training "rotting on the vine" and starts marking it down and setting up touts in starter areas to try to convince lower level players to come buy it to avoid it just going to waste. Ideally there are several settlements all fighting to get new players to come visit in this way.

This sounds great!

Also, clynx, you raise some good points. I'm still a little skeptical until I see it in action I think, but hopefully it'll work out. I just want training to be a viable economy in and of itself as well, and upkeep costs were the very first thing I thought of that made it different from crafting.

[Valandur]

Stephen Cheney wrote:

We're hoping that training becomes one of our incentives for established groups being inviting to newbies. At some point, a powerful settlement starts to notice that it has low-level training "rotting on the vine" and starts marking it down and setting up touts in starter areas to try to convince lower level players to come buy it to avoid it just going to waste. Ideally there are several settlements all fighting to get new players to come visit in this way.

One large benefit (that I've thought anyway) to the escalation system is it creates the need within settlements for lower powered players to keep the hexes around a settlement free of the small bands of mobs that if left alone, grow to become huge mobs of... Well mobs. So now we have settlements having two things to offer noobs to get them to choose to settle in a particular settlement. It will certainly be a change from the normal MMOs view on new players, to have settlements compete to get them to join their settlement.

[Hardin Steele]

Wow Stephen! Working on this game has really aged you! You looked much younger just a few months ago.

[Greedalox]

There are a lot of restrictions on skill training that have just been illuminated. I say restriction because previously I had thought we'd just earn skills in the background at the click on a button plus a few in game actions. Now I sort of feel like Im paying for skill training twice, once with real money, and again with game money. And yet I still might have to wait for it?

And I am not completely convinced that limited "instructor" slots is a good idea. Seems more annoying then challenging or fun, but we will see. Lets face it, with economic and PvP wars and all the other prereqs, skill training at high tiers will be HARD (due more to politics, money, and war than anything else).

I started to warm up to the limited "insturctors" thing, but Ive been thinking about it all day, and decided it sounds horrible. Limit me to the quality or availibility(maybe no one has it) or price of the training. But do not seemingly give me access only to find their is a system designed stagnation to available instructors. With an invisible line of people ahead of me.

The whole thing seems pointless, and there are many other resources people can corner the market on or fight over. I can see that it could be used as a "limited resource". It shouldnt be, it represents a very flawed and potentially game breaking game design by my view. An rpg to me has always been primarily about character progression. I urge GW to tread lightly with the skill training direction. Its got some great ideas, but it could be bad if not implemented just right.

Completely disagree with the decaying skills idea. Sorry but that would end it for me. As would any system that could Greatly hinder or completely block my skill training. Its one thing if my guild/settlement is destroyed. I can pick myself up and dust myself off and rebuild/seek revenge. If my ability to train skills is destroyed or my skills are taken away from me from decay (max level is 2.5 YEARS guys), then I will loose my will to play.

Am I the only one that feels this way? I love the idea of having a settlement and community. This is something to help band us together or set us as enemies or just as rivals in business. Thats the social aspect. But I keep my character growth for me, its personal, something to be proud of, something that defines me.

[Decorus]

Why do I have the feeling that the Seventh Veil will be upkeeping 5 or 6 training halls at the same time in thier settlement?

The price for training can easily be dealt with by price fixing.
Basically the Guilds get together once a month and set the prices for members, allies and nonmembers for skills. Given how training slots will be precious commodities it would be extremely easy to fix the prices for training of skills.

[Nihimon]

Decorus wrote:

Why do I have the feeling that the Seventh Veil will be upkeeping 5 or 6 training halls at the same time in thier settlement?

*beams a bright smile*

We're glad this occurred to you, because it definitely occurred to us as well. We're discussing it now, and are very excited at the possibility of becoming a real center of learning.

[clynx]

@Greedalox

I don't think the 'double-pay' is a fair assessment of skill training. What you're paying for with real money is a game subscription - Like any subscription based MMO. In EVE, you have to pay for game time, pay for the training book, and then pay for the ship/CPU/Laser/etc that you trained to use. Some books in EVE were more rare than others. Some, you had to travel out of your way to pick up and pay a lot more for. This feels like the same system in PFO, just presented a little differently.

At the highest tiers of training, you're likely looking at months worth of EXP. During that time, it should be feasible to track down a settlement that can train you (because of fixed EXP gains, you'll know exactly when you'll need to train). Book an appointment with a few settlements. Say "hey, in 5 weeks, I'll need to train Gigatron Smash XII", and they should be able to reserve a trainer for you. Make a couple appointments like that, in case something happens to one of the settlements (war or w/e), and pay them a small cancellation fee for the inconvenience.

Because of the time required at higher levels of training, I think you'll have ample to time to: save money, find a trainer, and satisfy the merit badge requirements (assuming you can do badges PRIOR to training)

As for skill decay, not a big issue for me. If it's not in, I'm fine with that. If it is in; neat. If it were in, I'd like to see it as a mechanism to decay skills you don't use. For instance, if you've trained down 2 trees, and only use one tree (say you play your bounty hunter skills 100% and neglect your paladin skills), then there should be a decay on the skills you don't use, and some sort of retrain/reactivation/rebadge measure required to use them again. Just a thought, but I don't expect most to be on board with it :p

[Greedalox]

Sorry Im sounding so negative, but Im just not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. I will of course wait and see. But this whole thing just makes me feel so ho-hum about the system and game in general. Even still what about lower training especially when the game first starts. Wont there be a lot of people all trying to train at the same time with a handful of instructors to go around.......... Just so blah.

[Nihimon]

Greedalox wrote:

... what about lower training especially when the game first starts...?

From Are You Experienced?:

Quote:

The NPC settlements will have a lot of the basic feats, particularly for starting characters...

I remain confident that Goblinworks will do everything it can to ensure that the game remains fun. Everyone knows it won't be fun to be unable to train simple starting skills, so I'm confident there won't be a bottleneck there. In fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the NPC Settlements offer completely unrestricted training to those lower tier skills.

[GrumpyMel]

I think it's probably not that big of an issue since I expect a basic level training hall is a pre-requisite for a more advanced facility (probably they are even the same facility just upgraded and can provide a range of services from basic-advanced).

So you've already earned your income for the basic facility when those skills were in high demand and what you are paying for now is the advancments to the facility that allows it to produce training that is currently in demand...whatever income you still get from more basic training is just a bonus....given that players can progress up multiple career paths and that (presumably) settlements and thier improvements can get damaged and destroyed...it doesn't seem too much of an issue.

Example:

Back in 2004, 2004 model cars fetched a high price. Now they fetched a very low price and 2013 models fetch a high price...however the car maker needed the 2004 facility to learn the know-how to have a facility that produces 2013 models. It doesn't really matter that 2004 models don't earn them much anymore.

The difference here (in PFO) is that someone that owns a 2013 sedan still needs to buy a 2004 pickup before they can buy a 2013 pickup. So there is still demand, even from veterans not just newbies....and the facilities producing pickups occasionaly get blown up...meaning there is still some possibility of scarecity in the market.

So I think it will generaly work out.

[Mbando]

Camlo, I think you're making a category error, mixing up physical and intellectual capital investments.

Physical capital investments are by their nature finite. I save up production until I have enough savings to make a capital investment in...I dunno, a widget machine. Now, I have a capacity for widget making, and can get a return on capital. This return is finite though, because over time the widget machine breaks down, becomes obsolescent, etc. I will have make additional capital investments eventually--that's why we have depreciation for capital assets.

Intellectual capital investments are of a different kind, because they are infinite. I made a large capital investment, both in terms of direct production (labor as a teacher) and time (the opportunity cost of being a student) to get my doctorate. That doctorate is an intellectual capital investment, and like the widget making machine gives a return on capital. However, unlike the widget making machine, my intellectual capital doesn't get used up or worn out*. In fact, the more I use my intellectual capital, the more valuable it becomes.

This works in the real world, and it will work in our virtual world. All human beings have intellectual capital (being able to speak or write for example), and we all have physical capital needs that form our consumption demands--we'll need new cars, or new swords, or new whatever.

I appreciate you thinking about this, but I think you're trying to solve a self-created problem.

*Some intellectual capital investments (e.g. some kinds of domain knowledge) may become obsolete and need to be replaced, but skills like analysis, synthesis, communication skills, etc. don't.

[randomwalker]

clynx wrote:

What I find really cool, is the prospect of training facilities being the reason to go to war.

Imagine your settlement offered training in an obscure high-end skill. Now imagine only 4-5 other settlements offer that training....

suggestion: a finite amount of npc instructors for each obscure high-end skill (but growing with the number of players trained).

When a new settlement opens a similar training facility, the capacity of yours may therefore decrease due to competence being lost to competitors. Getting the trainers back could require warfare, sabotage, diplomacy or economic incentives (and success would reduce the training capacity of your rival, leading to a reaction from them).

[Being]

randomwalker wrote:

...suggestion: a finite amount of npc instructors for each obscure high-end skill (but growing with the number of players trained).

When a new settlement opens a similar training facility, the capacity of yours may therefore decrease due to competence being lost to competitors. Getting the trainers back could require warfare, sabotage, diplomacy or economic incentives (and success would reduce the training capacity of your rival, leading to a reaction from them).

Rand I do like the way you think.

[Gabrial Goodfellow]

That could be interesting, but to my understanding, there are a limited number of trainers in a settlement. So there has to be a way to train more. I see this as a counter point to the concept of stealing trainers. However, razing a training hall could be devastating. And I hope they make this game a bit more challenging by not flooding the game with coin, where a settlement losing a high level building would drain most of the coffers of the city to consider rebuilding it.

[Being]

I'm unsure whether a single building in a settlement can be razed alone, but it sure would add an element to things if it could, wouldn't it?

Le saboteur...

[Gabrial Goodfellow]

Why wouldn't you be able too? If you're going to war, what is preventing you from targeting specific buildings... Say the bank or training halls?

[Tuoweit]

Gabrial Goodfellow wrote:

Why wouldn't you be able too? If you're going to war, what is preventing you from targeting specific buildings... Say the bank or training halls?

Because the buildings won't exist as separately interactable entities, the settlement is a monolithic whole with a "services" menu - at least initially.

[randomwalker]

if sabotage is implemented, that would be as easy as adding hostile options to the "services" menu, such as
-assassinate trainer (reduces facility capacity by 25% for 1 week, criminal act)
-spread rumors (reduces morale/crime/other rating by 1, trespasser flag if detected)
-bribe official [submeny of effects, costs and risks]
-poison water supply (adds "poisoned" trait to the settlement, criminal and heinous act)
-sabotage building (submeny of effects and risks, may require specific gear, criminal act)
-attack settlement (declare war)

sabotage/npc assassination would require some settlement buildings or actions to unlock ('cold war'), and actions should take some time and could be foiled by NPC or PC observers.

the point is to expand settlement pvp to include 'cold war' rivalry where settlements can have meaningful conflicts even if they can never raise the armies for a full siege.

and of course unchecked npc lairs would start sending saboteurs ;-)

EDIT: this is derailing the discussion on training economics, sorry!

[Valandur]

Tuoweit wrote:

Gabrial Goodfellow wrote:

Why wouldn't you be able too? If you're going to war, what is preventing you from targeting specific buildings... Say the bank or training halls?

Because the buildings won't exist as separately interactable entities, the settlement is a monolithic whole with a "services" menu - at least initially.

I've read where initially you will only be able to access a buildings menu, not enter it. I hope they are able to change that fairly soon though. It'll be important in terms on RP and immersion. The same goes with buildings being individual structures. With the new information on training halls, settlements will want to pick and choose what sort of training facilities they construct and upgrade, and where within a settlement those buildings are built.

As settlements grow in size and number of residents, it will be nice to be able to selectively tear down buildings to reform a settlement. Being able to design and manage how a settlement looks, to me, is very important and something that's never been done in a MMO to my knowledge anyway.