Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[marginoferror]

I brought this up in the IRC channel and it was suggested I post it here:

I think item values are broken in the current version, because the multipliers for material and quality lead to unrealistic results in many cases.

For instance, an exceptional marble statue, which reasonably would be exceptionally valuable just on artistic grounds, is dwarfed (forgive the pun) in value by a merely well-crafted iron statue.  Similarly, two basic crafted swords, one silver and one iron, are worth the same amount; in reality, a silver sword with no artistic merit would probably be worth no more than the silver it was made of, while an iron sword of any quality is useful as a weapon.

I propose that instead of item value multipliers working on each other, they add value separately.  Each item would have a few separate values:  For instance, at least an "artistic" value and a "utility" value.  All of the values would multiply against the base item cost separately, but then add to one another.  Some examples:

A shale earring would have a utility value of 0 and a material value of 0 (because total item values aren't multiplied against material costs anymore, material values of 0 for stuff like plain rock makes sense now).  Its value would be based solely on the artistic quality of the item - assuming the base item value wasn't changed, that would be 10 for a basic crafted item, 20 for a well-crafted, etc.

A shale mug would have a positive utility value (probably a minimal one, like 1) no matter what the quality.  A mug that holds beer is worth something to a dwarf no matter how well-crafted it is.  It *may* also have an artistic value, depending on quality.

An iron sword would have a minimal material value - much lower than the current x10 multiplier.  The value of a sword is in its utility - any functional iron sword would have a high utility value, and a well-crafted sword is more useful in combat so it would have an even higher one.  A well-crafted sword may even have additional artistic value.

A silver sword would have a higher raw material value, but a much lower utility value - a poorly crafted silver sword is worth barely more than the silver that was used to make it.  A masterwork silver sword would still have a lackluster utility value, but that would be dwarfed by its artistic value - because it is only useful as a showpiece.

An obsidian sword would have to have a utility value far below a steel sword, due to the realistic immediate blunting and breakage of that kind of weapon.  Even if weapon breakage isn't implemented, it would be unrealistic and unbalancing to clean out a caravan with a few obsidian swords.

The specifics of how this would all work are open for debate; I just wanted to see if anyone else liked this idea.  One of the benefits of this kind of system is that it would open the door to new kinds of values and preferences that weren't practical before.  For instance, elves could multiply artistic value, and dwarves could divide material value because dwarven civs are already awash in precious metals.  Someone suggested in IRC that there could be a "historical" value for items that belonged to legendary figures, such as a crown found in a king's tomb in adventure mode.  Adding new modifiers like that would be difficult in the current system because multipliers would result in ever-more ridiculous values, but a more toned-down additive bonus would be reasonable.

[Ancient_Sleeping_Dude_Rei]

Yeah, once ruins get fleshed out a bit instead of having just 2-3 very small dungeon crawls with 0 features, maybe you could go fetch that fabled crown (which gives an prestige bonus on value for just itself), that was owned by the great king whatever (another bonus since this was actually the crown of someone *very* prestigious).

These kinds of items aren't something you should just go sell in at a town merchant, nay you go to a castle, talk around with nobles or even the king, see if they are interested in the grandest crown ever.

This could also be seen when you inspect an item: This was once the Royal Crown of Emperor Zoph.

It's only natural that the crown was so grand that the king became undead to protect it in his royal tomb.

[JayTee]

Sounds like a good idea. Another way to do it, which seems simpler in my head is to just have different multiplier values for material dependant on what the item is.

Also, new "ornamental" types of items for things like silver swords or marble picks which could be used as decoration.

[qalnor]

I pretty much agree with this idea.

Scarcity is important to the concept of value, but real demand is more important.

Ignoring cultural differences between dwarves and humans, there is almost no demand for an iron statue.

And while, broadly, iron has a higher demand/scarcity and is therefore more valuable than marble, that does not mean that anything made of iron is more valuable than anything made of marble.

An interesting thing to do in any process of correcting this would be to introduce cultural elements to utility and aesthetics.

For example, a dwarf might well find iron to be aesthetically appealing, and might indeed value an iron statue over a marble statue but as an export it would be worthless because nondwarves have no aesthetic appreciation for iron.

Utility could also be variable. Elves, for example, might find very little use in mining caps, but might attribute utility value to precious stones in addition to their aesthetic virtues.

[axus]

Yah, somehow working the buyers and sellers preferences into the equation for price would be cool.  Like, if a dwarf just liked statues, then the statue quality would play a bigger factor than the material.  But if he liked iron, the material would matter more.  And if he liked iron and statues, his willingness to pay would be multiplied.

[Citizen of Erl]

I would not be so quick to discard the value of an iron statue, myself. It can be as well crafted as skillfully as any work of marble, if the creator is willing to do so.

Another aspect of iron's value may come from technology level. From my observations of the armaments and such of human civilizations, it seems that bronze their main metal of choice. I would presume that most of the human cultures are in the Bronze Age. In that light, an iron statue would be a thing of wonder to them. Let alone steel or Adamantite.

[Maximus]

Iron rusts, which is probably why bronze is a favored material for statues.

[marginoferror]

Added this old suggestion, with some updates, to Eternal Suggestion Voting as "Supply/Demand Prices for Goods"

[Pilsu]

Materials could just have separate values for decor and practical items

Bronze should definitely be more valuable than iron when it's worked into statues and the like. As is, lesser metals are absolutely worthless. The fact bronze isn't even as good as iron for all the effort is disappointing. Only reason anyone even stocks the lesser stuff is to train their smiths. Not even artifacts use the stuff (probably for the best since bismuth bows would get old fast)

And for the love of pete, make metal items not cost extra bars. Why make pure platinum statue when filler rock makes 3 statues of the same value?

[Granite26]

I read:

Quality modifyer split into Aesthetic, Tool, Construction (maybe more, maybe less) and the value of the material is determined by it's GREATEST modifyer.  (modified by scarcity, of course).

That way, making a statue out of iron is questionable because you aren't getting the highest value output of it.  It's still friggin' expensive, but dwarves don't really like to look at it (doesn't add to room value)