So there's this game I want to make. I don't really talk about it because it would be such a massive undertaking at this point and there are 100 other things I need to do first (or maybe just get successful from one of my ideas; or maybe just let Hive keep pumping).
Last night at work I was thinking about this a lot, in fact I was thinking about a lot more resources than just these, but these are the ones I want to focus on for now. What are the relationships between each of these resources? What are they used for? How rare are they? Supply/demand yada yada yada.
At first I was thinking I'd use factors of 10 to separate copper from silver and
silver from gold. Then I remembered that a lot of games use a factor of 100. 100 pieces of copper for one piece of silver. 100 pieces of silver for one piece of gold.
These values are measured in Troy ounces (14.5833 ounces per pound)
I almost got fooled with copper because it was measured in regular ounces (14 cents)
Iron is so cheap I had to divide $88.66 per metric ton by 32150.7
It just so happens that the value of these metals are already pretty much multiples of 100 of each other. The video games I played as a kid had it right all along. Who'd a thunk it?
This is important to me because the resource-based game I'd like to make involves targeting the crypto community. The crypto community has a lot of libertarians and homesteaders and the like, so having actual tethers to reality in-game is important to me.
I worked at SOE (Sony Online Entertainment) as a game tester for about 6 months as a temp. It was interesting. I actually was pretty lucky because they allowed me to do black-box testing very often instead of white-box testing.
With black-box testing, they just set you lose on the game and you try to break it by any means necessary. You don't know what's broken and you don't know what needs to be tested. With white-box testing you have a list of check-boxes to test and it's super duper boring.
I actually happen to know quite a bit about how video game economies should work. I've made over $1000 playing WOW using the auction house and such, and I made over $1000 playing Diablo 3 when the real-money auction house was a thing. Pretty impressive considering how much competition there is between bots, 3rd-world gold farmers, and legitimate players.
While I was at SOE I also tested a game called Pirates of the Burning Sea (Wow that article is from 2012; I'm old). Yeah, the game sucked and I'm not even sure if it hit shelves. I still have an unopened copy laying around somewhere. However, the economy was really unique.
There are basically a ton of port cities and each city has its own auction house. Different resources are created in different locations, so the only way for many of the resources you need to get to where you are is to transport them there with a merchant ship.
However, ships are really expensive. They take a lot of resources to create (huge supply sink). Also, any area that isn't next to a port on open waters leaves you open to attack. Another player could come attack you and steal all your stuff if you aren't careful.
This unique dynamic of supply lines and extreme resource sinks in conjunction with risk/reward dynamics creates all kinds of crazy arbitrage opportunities and emergent economic situations.
Making something akin to this on the blockchain would have 1000 times more value because blockchain resources are provably owned by the players themselves, and the devs who designed the game would not be able to interfere with an economy without community consensus.
The disadvantage of this dynamic is that the game has to be pretty solid. If you have bots running around unchecked or even human farmers running around grinding resources without having to employ any kind of skill or risk, there are going to be problems (too much supply).
This is why I know the successful blockchain games of the future will be "hardcore". They're going to be difficult, and high risk situations will come with high rewards. This kind of paradigm will punish a lot of the bad actors, and even discourage bots from being created in the first place.
Another thing that will discourage inflated supply will be forcing players to burn crypto in order to create items. Even if it only costs 0.001 SBD being sent to 
Imagine spending $10 (or even $100 or $1000) decking out your hero with some cool gear... and then you die and your character is dead forever. These are the kinds of ultimate resource sinks that will exist in blockchain gaming. Eliminating resources from the resource pool is absolutely necessary to tame the otherwise ever-expanding supply.
Imagine buying a sword and as soon as you equip that sword it can no longer be transferred to another character. This is called bind-on-equip and functions as a very good resource sink. Bind-on-account would allow you to trade to other characters you control, but not to other players.
Imagine the only way to attain certain resources is if an algorithm is running that calculates there is a chance that you die in battle and you lose everything. Even if that chance is less than 1% this is significant because it hurts bots and unskilled farmers far harder than anyone else.
Imagine being the merchant who pays mercenaries to defend a shipment of silver from one town to another. Imagine being the bandits who try to steal that silver. Imagine all these resources being worth real money with a direct trading pair to HBD. Seriously, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the blockchain games of the future are going to be absolutely insane. The amount of professional gamers that are allowed to thrive in this atmosphere will be exponentially higher than in the legacy economy.
Considering my account just gained more value in 4 days than I've made at work in the last 2 years... maybe I'll get a chance to build this thing much sooner than expected.
