You've landed in the archive of the Cambrian House community. We've kept some pages here for posterity but the community is no longer active. Now we market the technology that made our early crowdsourcing a success.

Can we help you get to Cambrian House the company? – Come on over.

Are you seeking crowdsourcing technology? – Check out Chaordix by Cambrian House.

Thanks for dropping by
The Cambrian House Crew

Close [x]
Cambrian House

Cambrianhouse has inspired me to become more professional and study a whole lot of new things, so now I am a lot more skilled and I think I may have landed a killer job at Electronic Arts, probably thanks to the mention of Gwabs
Cory Ross

Cambrian House began as a crowdsourcing community using a wisdom of crowds based approach to discover new business and technology ideas. These pages are being kept online as a technology demo to showcase Chaordix™.

Looking to harness the power of your crowd? Find out about Chaordix™ - technology that enables enterprises to get the most out of crowdsourcing.

Real-ish Economy Browser Game

Tordek is offlineSend a Message to TordekAdd Tordek as a FriendSend a Hat Tip to Tordek
  • Submitted by: Tordek
  • Created: May 15, 2007, 7:33 am
  • Share on Facebook
  • Promote

Join Cambrian House




Connect with talented people. Collaborate on ideas. Realize your vision.
It's free! Like love in the sixties!

The Idea

Most online games [browser-based, I mean] are usually based on a simple structure:
*Gather Resources
*Grow an Army and improve it
*Attack a weakling
*Go to 1
My idea is, make attacking expensive, and focus mostly in the economy, alliances will be more useful, so that gatherers are as necessary as attackers, and focusing is almost obligatory (for example, upgrading costs depends on the number of upgrades you already have); This will make everyone in an alliance equally necessary, and watching each other's backs is the only way to survive.
Also, add a system of Offer/Demand; the more a resource is bought (perhaps from default trading planets), the more it costs, which will make the backmarket bigger.
No permadeath, attacks are to destroy resources in a city, and intercepting transport ships is awfully profitable.
Moneymaking [irl] is in buying upgrades with real money, and offering Secure Trading via the site; ads could be added, and you can pay to get them removed.

I thought of this idea when I was...

Playing OGame
===I ran out of napkin!===
Too powerful players should be unable to attack weaker ones, or make it almost useless: attacks should be more expensive, and players with too big an armament become nearly useless, because they destroy the cargo.

Comments Posted

Robintje Posted: May 15, 2007, 8:13 am

Sounds cool :)

It covers the economy aspects which I do miss in some games. Great!

Moogy Posted: May 15, 2007, 11:52 am

It's all nice and all

Whats your game?

You have spurted out bits and pieces but not a game.

This is not a complete idea.

PS I teach game design. This is a classic situation of though but not thought out.
Make a game design document and post your resume of the game as the idea.

Send me a message if you need help.


Tordek Posted: May 15, 2007, 2:14 pm

I've described more of a framework than a game, but I've never designed games; there are many things to choose, but it's really mostly the same options on different settings:
Could be a pirates game, where you control an island; a space game where you control a planet, or just all-in-the-land medieval fighting... or even futuristic with planes and troops.

Besides the setting detail, you have a basic structure: you control a (location), where you create (troops), build (structures, to investigate new technology and defend. You can ally with other (players) in order to share (resources). You use your (troops) to attack and defend from other (players).

Rizal Posted: May 15, 2007, 3:11 pm

sounds great.,. i miss the capitalism type of games. how cool wouldnt it be if there was web 2.0 games . like in the old tycoon. and sim city games on the web.. i bet that would make alot of money. if people paid for premium accounts..

and total multiplayer mode.

Tordek Posted: May 15, 2007, 4:08 pm

Originally I was just talking about a browser-based game (see OGame), but it could work.

gzep Posted: May 15, 2007, 7:13 pm

lookup 4X game genre. (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate)
The game you describe fits into that genre.

Keep in mind that for a big company to develop a great game nowadays, generally requires a full time team of 80 to 100 developers, across all relevant disciplines.

You need to start with a very well defined idea, then find out if it has already been done.

There are hundreds (thousands) of games already out there. shop around, a lot, use your experience to define your idea more clearly, while you see if what you want has already been done.

some free games such as Domain Knights from http://www.jaian.com/ offer alternate models including some financial stuff. (it's a hacking simulator roughly in the 4X genre) In the discussion forums attached to that game, many people discuss other similar games, and may offer suggestions to save you from having to check hundreds of games yourself.

sajjadi335 Posted: May 16, 2007, 1:12 am

A totally economy game is Industry Player, but it's not browser-based

TheGuru Posted: June 4, 2007, 8:38 pm

Civilization by Microsoft?

Patrick_Jones Posted: June 8, 2007, 12:12 pm

Great Idea!

Keep going!

algocache Posted: June 13, 2007, 3:34 pm

Great idea, especially for those who are trying to grasp economic concepts...like me. (6.13.2007 5:35PM)

fossiloflife Posted: June 14, 2007, 2:50 am

sounds good!

vanhees Posted: June 14, 2007, 6:16 am

I like the idea of working 2gether.

Patrick_Jones Posted: June 15, 2007, 11:54 pm


Fitzpatrick Posted: June 18, 2007, 11:56 pm

Excellent idea, but I spot a few problems.
1) The game sounds like a political simulator, with an emphasis on economics. In order to make this more of an economics simulator, I would do away with the "country vs country" idea and move towards a "company vs company" idea.
2) If you do go with the idea of having armies, I would suggest keeping the price low, so they are easily accessible. Why? Because if only people with large amounts of money can purchase them, newer players would be left essentially defenseless.

jill Posted: June 19, 2007, 8:52 pm

It sounds like this idea is at least worth further discussion. Maybe you should set it up as a business and try to map out the concept as Moogy suggested, taking into account the comments above as well as future comments from interested parties.

Fitzpatrick Posted: June 20, 2007, 7:30 am

^Agreed. This idea has a lot of potential! Spend some time with the idea and start expanding it. Before you know it, you will have all the game details mapped out. =]

sushichan Posted: September 4, 2008, 11:28 am

stupid idea. forget about it


Post A Comment

Got something to say?
Log in to post a comment.