25 ms·
I was just stating what the difference is to a closed market environment like Second Life. Whether it's good or bad is another matter. In my view experimentatio
by kennu 2y ago
I was just stating what the difference is to a closed market environment like Second Life. Whether it's good or bad is another matter. In my view experimentation is good. I would assume that nobody can control your in-game assets arbitrarily unless you grant them permission via some contract.
- solardev 2y ago> I would assume that nobody can control your in-game assets arbitrarily unless you grant them permission via some contract. Sorry, I don't mean that somebody is going to just hijack my spaceship, but that having a totally decentralized marketplace of assets might mean that an API bot army that doesn't even bother playing the game could just buy up all the space stations around me, hire a fleet of pirates, and destroy everything I earned in human playtime. It's like the Borg meets aimbots. A closed market environment like most MMOs have allows the game devs to at least try to balance the economy for fun vs absolute liberty, such as marking some items as notrade or controlling inflation by adjusting money sinks (repair costs) and currency production (coin drops) as well as introducing new ships and weaponry on a human timescale. Fleets also require human coordination and real-time communications, at least in the current EVE. And exploits (dupes, infinite gold glitches, etc.) are frowned upon and can be retroactively removed from the economy by altering the central DB state. If all of that is externally transactable and decentralized, it sounds like an automation hellscape that'll very quickly trend towards a megamonopoly or oligarchy of bots that can analyze everything and instantly respond 24/7... what gameplay will be left for the mere humans?