I'm looking to see if a game like the following already exists before I waste my time recreating it:The basic gist is that there have a set number of bot agents with the ability to make trade offers with one another for various goods, some of which spawn automatically and some of which have to be produced. Any item type can be traded for any other item type, and there is no specified currency (unless the player sets one and forces the bots to only trade in it). Bots can have different agendas and personalities(Homo Economicus, shopaholic, foodie, etc) and smarter bots can farther plan ahead to rip others off. The fun is in watching emergent scenarios unfold over time: spawn in a bunch of apples for example and watch as they decrease in price after a few turns. Or watch as one particular mostly useless item type becomes a de facto currency because one agent likes to collect it, but then said item fades out of use after the agent dies.Also I don't have a degree in economics so please be nice, the above is purely theoretical and driven by my own personal biases.
>>1760165Do you really think it would be fun to watch a bunch of graphs go up and down? If so, just hang out on /biz/. Watching emergent situations in a simulator is not a game. Games have goals and the ability to win and/or lose.
>>1760195>Watching emergent situations in a simulator is not a game.it probably qualifies as one by the academic definition of game
>it probably qualifies as one by the academic definition of game
>>1760165Have you tried google?"Funny" how you know exactly precisely completely perfectly all the right keywords yet "couldn't be bothered" to google e.g."agent-based economy simulator" or "emergent economies for games"
>>1760195I thought this was the graphs and numbers vidya board
>>1760165Just download any of the stock trading apps and stick to the training setting.
If you are looking for something as complex as Eve Online, with human players and not bots, without PVP (there are ways to compete) Then checkProsperous Universe(You need to love creating Excel sheets)
>>1760165space warlord organ trading simulator?
>>1760165STONKS-9800
>>1761372wsr is great, but needs more graphs and a better ui
>>1760165
>>1760165Liquoria 2 is sorta like what you described, if you turn off the automation in the trade screen you can troll other countries by either flooding the world market with resources, setting really high buy orders that drain the market of a specific thing, or there's the classic move of playing as the UK and blowing up all your machine parts factories so that no one can build anything ever again. But I think turning automation off is considered a non-standard function, the devs even added a warning saying to not mess with it because it breaks the game easily. Trolling the CPU like that is also only fun for about two minutes.I think the game you're describing might have the same issue; ruining the in-game economy sounds fun on paper but gets stale quickly in practice. Recettear's a game that's about ripping people off, but they also give you the option of dungeon crawling when you get bored of that. You might need to add some minigame where you have sex with the game's bots or something to keep the player entertained. Maybe some dynasty mechanic where you use your economic prowess to fuck increasingly better women through the generations? (I had an idea for a game like that at one point, feel free to steal it I guess)
>>1766629It really does
>>1760195>do you think it'd be fun to wa-YES FUCK YOU I LIKE ECONOMICS GAME
>>1760165I think the main problem with a game like this would be the smarter bots. simple "spontaneous" agents with preferences and jobs is easy to simulate, but making agents produce educated speculations is harderthink about it this way, a simple game economy with N items is predictable because it can be described as a NxN spreadsheet, where the Nth row represents how many of the other resources are needed on average to produce one unit of item N. now, realistically agents would have limited knowledge, so there would be gaps in that spreadsheet. in fact, for most stuff they would only know the "price" (the resources they need to exchange, on average, for a certain item). the problem is that you can't compress a NxN-spreadsheet (the economy) into an N-list (known prices)at most they could do simple guesses based on linear regressions ultimately based on their preferences, like "apples have been going up in the last 3 cycles so I'm going to hoard apples and then exchange them for pears (which I like)", simple arbitrage (assuming agents don't share a common market), and a combination of both. in fact, you could model intelligence as memory about previous prices, and energy to traverse the arbitration graphso a smart agent could, for example, remember some of the prices from the last X cycles and be willing to go through Y "intermediate" arbitration steps to get the items he wants
>>1760165Tangentially related. During Steam Next fest last summer there was a game where you would barter. Most(all?) items had no pricetag, you simply haggled to get what you wanted. I didn't like the game at the time but I'm interested again but I can't remember the name of it or find it looking through Steam. Anybody know?
>>1760165Only game I can think of that approaches this is CgHawk. Each nation has it's own currency in addition to a universal currency.Nations would offer exhange rates to purchase equipment from them, with bigger/allied nations offering more favourable rates than small/enemy nations (universal was basically medium-neutral).Currency was typically paid out in the form of whoever issued it (although raids would also reward it in the form of whichever nation you were attacking:2:).If a nation was destroyed their currency become worthless.You could make a lot of money speculating who would be winnning fights or by working for a smaller nation and turning the chances around.
