Money Inflation/Time Travel

[Qeo]

Inflation isn't really a thing in Chrono Trigger, the items are the same price no matter what time you're in.


But if someone were to make a game where there was time travel but inflation existed, how would they go about it?


How much would a potion cost in an ancient, almost caveman like time compared to a medieval time? Or present compared to about 400 years in the future?

 

[trouble time]

Jojo's bizarre adventure literally has a disclaimer that they were going to use modern currency and currency rates in part 7 because it makes the story easier to follow, which IMO is good enough.

 

[Chrispy]

If the time travel stretched across huge gaps in time, inflation would be kind of unrealistic because of the fact that different time periods use different currencies and that inflation is usually something that happens in the short term. If players can freely travel between time periods, then the game would be open for abuse by players who would find the deal time period to get the best value for their time, making all that work you spent balancing your currencies and inflation, useless.

 

[Qeo]

If the time travel stretched across huge gaps in time, inflation would be kind of unrealistic because of the fact that different time periods use different currencies and that inflation is usually something that happens in the short term. If players can freely travel between time periods, then the game would be open for abuse by players who would find the deal time period to get the best value for their time, making all that work you spent balancing your currencies and inflation, useless.

Would you think it's best to change currencies for every time period or just keep it simple and leave the prices/currencies unchanged?

 

[LaFlibuste]

There's also other matters to consider:
1) If there's inflation in buying prices, there certainly is in selling prices, too. Fighting ennemies in the future would/should be considerably more profitable than in the prehistoric past. Likewise, you could maybe buy a potion for a few pennies from a caveman and sell it for a fortune in the future. And there you have it, the game is broken

2) Aside from the currency itself, there's also the matter of the product. Would a prehistoric potion really be as potent as a futuristic one? Would some dirt and plant brew heal as much as a medicine developped after centuries of research and trials and errors that was produced in a highly controlled environment? Could a flint sword really hold up to a laser saber/gun DPS-wise? Who are we kidding, here?

So unless your game goes through time in a straightforward manner (you begin in the prehistory and progress through time towards the future in a linear fashion without any zigzags or going back or anything), I think realism is not a good thing in this instance. It would just complicate your game, unbalance it and possibly make it less fun to play. I would go with equivalent items and equivalent money across all time periods. It's game, after all, and it's primary objective is to be fun, not necessarily realist.

 

[Qeo]

There's also other matters to consider:
1) If there's inflation in buying prices, there certainly is in selling prices, too. Fighting ennemies in the future would/should be considerably more profitable than in the prehistoric past. Likewise, you could maybe buy a potion for a few pennies from a caveman and sell it for a fortune in the future. And there you have it, the game is broken

2) Aside from the currency itself, there's also the matter of the product. Would a prehistoric potion really be as potent as a futuristic one? Would some dirt and plant brew heal as much as a medicine developped after centuries of research and trials and errors that was produced in a highly controlled environment? Could a flint sword really hold up to a laser saber/gun DPS-wise? Who are we kidding, here?

So unless your game goes through time in a straightforward manner (you begin in the prehistory and progress through time towards the future in a linear fashion without any zigzags or going back or anything), I think realism is not a good thing in this instance. It would just complicate your game, unbalance it and possibly make it less fun to play. I would go with equivalent items and equivalent money across all time periods. It's game, after all, and it's primary objective is to be fun, not necessarily realist.

Yeah, I think doing it in a linear way is better. Being able to go back would cause too many problems. I guess keeping the prices the same is the way to go.

 

[Chrispy]

Would you think it's best to change currencies for every time period or just keep it simple and leave the prices/currencies unchanged?

Whichever one you want to do really...


After doing a little more research on the subject, I found that Silver by weight hasn't really changed that much in relative value over thousands of years until the end of the 1800's. A day's of hard work, and 2-5 grams of silver paid was more than enough to buy a week worth of food. Then, silver mining exploded to the point that almost all of silver ever mined in human history was in the last hundred years. Before modern times, the value of silver didn't change much (though Rome is one example). Having one currency (as long as its a precious metal of some sort) is quite believable to have, and you wouldn't need inflation as a side mechanic unless you are making jumps through time that are less than a few years apart.


On the other side of things, we use paper and electronic fiat money today that isn't backed by gold. in earlier times, we switched between gold and silver, whichever was perceived as more valuable at that time. Earlier than that, we used whatever was shiny, such as copper, tin, or even shells. In the future, we might switch entirely to electronic credits and not have to ever carry around money. You don't need inflation for this either, because, if Silver can be worth the same through most of history, you now have an exchange rate that can be applied to every currency so they are always an equal value.

There's also other matters to consider:
1) If there's inflation in buying prices, there certainly is in selling prices, too. Fighting ennemies in the future would/should be considerably more profitable than in the prehistoric past. Likewise, you could maybe buy a potion for a few pennies from a caveman and sell it for a fortune in the future. And there you have it, the game is broken

2) Aside from the currency itself, there's also the matter of the product. Would a prehistoric potion really be as potent as a futuristic one? Would some dirt and plant brew heal as much as a medicine developped after centuries of research and trials and errors that was produced in a highly controlled environment? Could a flint sword really hold up to a laser saber/gun DPS-wise? Who are we kidding, here?

So unless your game goes through time in a straightforward manner (you begin in the prehistory and progress through time towards the future in a linear fashion without any zigzags or going back or anything), I think realism is not a good thing in this instance. It would just complicate your game, unbalance it and possibly make it less fun to play. I would go with equivalent items and equivalent money across all time periods. It's game, after all, and it's primary objective is to be fun, not necessarily realist.

On point 2....magic (Ancient), alchemy (Medieval), science (Modern), ......space magic? (Future). There are at least a thousand ways to come up with an explanation for them all to have equal potency.

 

[Qeo]

Whichever one you want to do really...


After doing a little more research on the subject, I found that Silver by weight hasn't really changed that much in relative value over thousands of years until the end of the 1800's. A day's of hard work, and 2-5 grams of silver paid was more than enough to buy a week worth of food. Then, silver mining exploded to the point that almost all of silver ever mined in human history was in the last hundred years. Before modern times, the value of silver didn't change much (though Rome is one example). Having one currency (as long as its a precious metal of some sort) is quite believable to have, and you wouldn't need inflation as a side mechanic unless you are making jumps through time that are less than a few years apart.


On the other side of things, we use paper and electronic fiat money today that isn't backed by gold. in earlier times, we switched between gold and silver, whichever was perceived as more valuable at that time. Earlier than that, we used whatever was shiny, such as copper, tin, or even shells. In the future, we might switch entirely to electronic credits and not have to ever carry around money. You don't need inflation for this either, because, if Silver can be worth the same through most of history, you now have an exchange rate that can be applied to every currency so they are always an equal value.


On point 2....magic (Ancient), alchemy (Medieval), science (Modern), ......space magic? (Future). There are at least a thousand ways to come up with an explanation for them all to have equal potency.

Whichever one you want to do really...


After doing a little more research on the subject, I found that Silver by weight hasn't really changed that much in relative value over thousands of years until the end of the 1800's. A day's of hard work, and 2-5 grams of silver paid was more than enough to buy a week worth of food. Then, silver mining exploded to the point that almost all of silver ever mined in human history was in the last hundred years. Before modern times, the value of silver didn't change much (though Rome is one example). Having one currency (as long as its a precious metal of some sort) is quite believable to have, and you wouldn't need inflation as a side mechanic unless you are making jumps through time that are less than a few years apart.


On the other side of things, we use paper and electronic fiat money today that isn't backed by gold. in earlier times, we switched between gold and silver, whichever was perceived as more valuable at that time. Earlier than that, we used whatever was shiny, such as copper, tin, or even shells. In the future, we might switch entirely to electronic credits and not have to ever carry around money. You don't need inflation for this either, because, if Silver can be worth the same through most of history, you now have an exchange rate that can be applied to every currency so they are always an equal value.


On point 2....magic (Ancient), alchemy (Medieval), science (Modern), ......space magic? (Future). There are at least a thousand ways to come up with an explanation for them all to have equal potency.

Thank you, you have been very helpful! //rmwforums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_smile.gif

 

[Warpmind]

Side note: Diamonds in medieval Europe were expensive. This was before African mines were found and excavated.

Diamonds are still expensive, because a single cartel (deBeers) has something in the vicinity of 90% of the world's diamond supply in vaults somewhere to keep the prices artificially inflated.

Artificial scarcity of valuables are a thing you might want to consider for development over several eras, as well. //rmwforums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_smile.gif

That said, even if the currency remained the same for some thousands of years, consider this: "Good sir, I cannot accept these false coins. As we both know, I'm sure, it is the Year of our Lord 1322, and Reginald II sits on the throne. There's been no word of an engraver's error from the Royal Mint, resulting in coins stamped with Reginald VI in 2317. And he is facing the wrong way. Now go away, or I will be forced to summon the constabulary."

 

[Qeo]

Side note: Diamonds in medieval Europe were expensive. This was before African mines were found and excavated.

Diamonds are still expensive, because a single cartel (deBeers) has something in the vicinity of 90% of the world's diamond supply in vaults somewhere to keep the prices artificially inflated.

Artificial scarcity of valuables are a thing you might want to consider for development over several eras, as well. //rmwforums.s3.amazonaws.com/emoticons/default_smile.gif

That said, even if the currency remained the same for some thousands of years, consider this: "Good sir, I cannot accept these false coins. As we both know, I'm sure, it is the Year of our Lord 1322, and Reginald II sits on the throne. There's been no word of an engraver's error from the Royal Mint, resulting in coins stamped with Reginald VI in 2317. And he is facing the wrong way. Now go away, or I will be forced to summon the constabulary."

Thanks


I think that could be annoying to the player, though. They might have been trying to make a lot of money, then when they go to a new time all of that money they spent time getting would be useless. Maybe I'd make a world where the money stays exactly the same.

 

[Warpmind]

Thanks


I think that could be annoying to the player, though. They might have been trying to make a lot of money, then when they go to a new time all of that money they spent time getting would be useless. Maybe I'd make a world where the money stays exactly the same.

Keep in mind OLD coins would be worth, heh, a mint in the future, even if future coins would be considered forgeries in the past.

Trade goods from the future and coin from the past would have an outright vicious profit margin...

 

[Makio-Kuta]

I think this sort of thing could be very interesting in a game where it's, say, about a merchant who exploits time travel. But if it's just a smaller part of a game with a bigger focus, I could see this easily over complicating things and making it a lot of unwanted extra work for the player.


Also, everyone keeps talking about currency and buying stuff, but let's not forget that bartering and trading were a bigger practice in history than in modern times. You could trade the wooden table you made for some food from the farmer for example. Imagine a warrior from the past trying to walk into fast food chain and sell his sword skills for a cheese burger. "That's $3.50, sir." "I have no coin, but I can slay the rats in your cellar in exchange!" "We don't have a cellar, sir."


But again, this might be needless complication that's adding layers to a system. I think before asking yourself how it should be handled, you should stop and think why. Because if I had to worry about forged coins, fluctuating exchange rates, inflation, etc while also memorizing 5 different characters' skills, a weapon upgrade system, and such not on top of this, I think that could get very frustrating very fast as a player. Even if you stuck to a linear time path and a set currency over time. So I guess, how in depth you go should reflect on how much focus this system has in the game.

 

[Qeo]

I think this sort of thing could be very interesting in a game where it's, say, about a merchant who exploits time travel. But if it's just a smaller part of a game with a bigger focus, I could see this easily over complicating things and making it a lot of unwanted extra work for the player.


Also, everyone keeps talking about currency and buying stuff, but let's not forget that bartering and trading were a bigger practice in history than in modern times. You could trade the wooden table you made for some food from the farmer for example. Imagine a warrior from the past trying to walk into fast food chain and sell his sword skills for a cheese burger. "That's $3.50, sir." "I have no coin, but I can slay the rats in your cellar in exchange!" "We don't have a cellar, sir."


But again, this might be needless complication that's adding layers to a system. I think before asking yourself how it should be handled, you should stop and think why. Because if I had to worry about forged coins, fluctuating exchange rates, inflation, etc while also memorizing 5 different characters' skills, a weapon upgrade system, and such not on top of this, I think that could get very frustrating very fast as a player. Even if you stuck to a linear time path and a set currency over time. So I guess, how in depth you go should reflect on how much focus this system has in the game.

Yeah it does seem that not changing the money around is the way to go.