Replaying a saved game would be useful so that you can learn from your mistakes. OK, granted. Being a looter should be harder. That is part of the education. What did John Galt say about sparing feelings?

Wow, that can make being a looter in the game much harder. Maybe not--can I replay a saved game?

In the game I envision, there will be no quick resurrection of characters like there is in traditional video games. In an Atlas Shrugged game, it would have to be like real life to be authentic.

It seems that many Role Playing Games are like that already. Some people invest weeks playing just one character in these games. Lots of people will play as a looter type in these games because nearly all of these games allow for quick resurrection. After all, it's just a game.

Only if your name is Ragnar. Or perhaps Hank Rangar.

In that case, maybe you could be assigned the task of stealing back some of their loot without getting caught and returning it to the "rightful property bureau" or some such place?

That could work! You could begin the game by having to go out and apply for work; then, based on the way you complete your assigned tasks within the job (which could include all kinds of appropriately glitzy game gimmicks such as collecting "coins" or whatnot,) maybe you are assigned points which more or less grade you on the spectrum between looter or producer. ;)

EVE Online was the one mentioned in the Reason magazine article this month that prompted me to start this blog.

There are plenty of zombie apocalypse games out there that are a huge hit. What you do is give someone a society to run for 20 years which is on a trajectory to a societal collapse that will bring about riots and a zombie apocalypse and base it on either the US or EU of today. Tell them that they have just been elected as king for the next 20 years and they can do whatever they want to either stave off or encourage the apocalypse. Each turn is one month and you get status reports about the state of the economy every turn.

The real trick is that the more you do, the worse you make things. The only way to "win" the game is to stop interfering in the first place!

Just a note, but EVE Online was the first major MMORPG to have a real economist on staff, and the entire game was run internally by players - absolutely everything was mined, refined, and built by real players. The only thing phony about the economics engine was the re-spawning of mineral fields and NPC pirates (not the Ragnar kind). I played the game for a couple of years before bowing out.

At 7 billion circles, I am quite sure that the run time for such calculations of interactions between human beings would be high enough that players would lose interest. I am pretty sure that LinkedIn has such a model already, however.

True. Soros made his billions hedging against certain currencies. He single-handedly nearly collapsed the British pound-sterling.

Now he just uses his billions to fund progressive organizations and politicians. He was the single largest donor to Barack Obama's campaign and if you count in all the 501c groups, he's right up there with the trade unions.

Solver, I love the shadow pie vs. the game pie concept. It would indeed be frustrating, just like us living in the world we now are in.

I think you misunderstand my "equality and fairness" comment. If the player's goal is to make the game world fair and equal, the only possible way to achieve this is to get all circles null in size. Very easy to do.

For the original simple idea, the player sets up the circle world, then it plays out. In a similar way as this did,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_...

I can see the “Obama” circle's size representing negative value. It would spawn dark minions that create negative value in everything they do. A "doctor" circle's healing power would be reduced by the "Obama" circle.
With a “Fed” circle the game “pie” would be distorted thus always show everything is doing better. The player would need to constantly switch to the “shadow pie” to tell what is really going on in the game
It could be very frustrating trying to play the game with these circles.

All games are simulations. Theoretically, your game could have 7 billion circles, since each human consciousness is a unique assemblage. Otherwise they could be formulated as fewer circles that represent collectives (you should pardon the word) or at least volitional associations of shared interests.

It may not be necessary for all circles to be of equal size to have a fair balance. If the game is intended to show what values and practices make for a better world, through dramatic interactions of conflicting ideas, each game could be a new adventure with a different scenario and different outcome. I would like to see that everyone has the freedom of motion and interaction, not locked into a rigid pattern.

Ahhhh, valence! like my college chemistry book.
we can visualize this!!! -- j

Particularly nihilist circle minions that could be directed through a command-and-control structure from Washington.

Great idea, solver. How would such favor points be cashed in? Solving that problem would make the looters side much more realistically villainous.

And/or get invited to Atlantis.

LOL ;)

Size mostly. Perhaps you could simulate it with a negative charge and a number.

Such a dynamic balance is sometimes achieved through having at least two ordinary differential equations (ex. predator-prey).

An evangelist circle? There would probably have to be a number of flavors of that one - perhaps each indicated by its own color.

" it wouldn't have to be that all circles end up smaller until the Universe's heat death."
If this happens, the game universe would be just fine. It is just that all the circles would reach full equality and fairness. If that is the goal, it is easy to achieve.

“they could just change through persuasion”
Did I mention the “evangelist” circle?

The current simple concept currently works more as a simulation. If that is viable than it may morph more into a game idea.