Print

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

[Sirbug]

Admittedly, I didn't see dwarven economy in action, but I heard it didn't work. I would like to sketch a system that I think would add more fun and realism to the game without need to overhaul mechanics.

What if we give each dwarf an entitlement counter? Every job he performs adds some to it, based on his or hers personality, and contribution. Meanwhile, we decide a percentage of finished goods that will be marked for handouts, as well as allowed to mark them for handout manually, the same way we mark them for dumping. Too meet his entitlement dwarves would claim trinkets as their property, wearing or storing it. Rooms, food and clothes should also probably count toward this. If dwarf doesn't get enough, he would get upset and maybe go on strike.

This way we wouldn't have much additional troubles with interface while finding a way to utilize finished goods that average fortress probably produces massively.

[Teldin]

The way the economy worked before wasn't bad - the issue was mostly about storage.

Dwarves would accumulate a hidden 'value owed' counter based primarily on their current tasks. Hauling would pay out the least, while high-value work, being a noble, being a soldier etc. would accumulate more. If there was no coinage in the fort they would basically be 'owed' it in the form of items. You could build merchant stalls, which would carry superfluous goods automatically from in your fortress; a dwarf would claim the shop as an owner and would sell items based on this invisible currency. A dwarf would browse the shops, find something he likes, and either give coins (if there were any) or simply haul the item off.

The issue with storage though - there simply wasn't enough room for dwarves to put all their items, leaving to massive piles of scattered belongings all over the fort that couldn't be moved, cleaned up, or destroyed (they also would rarely, if ever, use cabinets or chests). If you had coins, they would take individual coins from the stack and just leave them strewn all over the floor, sometimes in the hundreds.

In the raws you'll see some vestiges of this- the 'zero rent' toggle was for the economy, as dwarves would have to pay rent based on the value of their bedroom, and would get evicted if they couldn't afford it (leading to slum housing and even vagrants who slept on the floor if you had lots of unemployed and no cheap hovels).

Personally I really liked the economy as it was.

[MDFification]

I too would like to see the economy come back - perhaps many of the storage issues could be solved by deleting a coin once a dwarf had claimed it (turning it into value attatched to that dwarf) and isn't spawned again unless a transaction is taking place or that dwarf dies? That way for all intents and purposes that dwarf has that coin, but the coin doesn't cause problems with hauling.

[Zarathustra30]

I think any system that prevents dwarves from claiming a bedroom will be inherently broken. I think the economy will only be useful for automated trading with fortress visitors.

[GavJ]

It's not a real economy if it isn't dynamic. Everything other than hauling issues is a symptom of that. Like not claiming bedrooms -- in real life, the room rates would just dynamically be adjusted so that everybody has a room if enough exist. Even if the least good room is still "too fancy" for a hauler, the fort is still better off by getting 1/2 the ideal rent versus getting zero % of the rent for that room. If when somebody comes along that earns more and there's a room shortage, they can boot out the hauler if they can afford 2/3 the asking price. But as long as you have enough rooms, everyone should claim one.

[Dirst]

It's not a real economy if it isn't dynamic. Everything other than hauling issues is a symptom of that. Like not claiming bedrooms -- in real life, the room rates would just dynamically be adjusted so that everybody has a room if enough exist. Even if the least good room is still "too fancy" for a hauler, the fort is still better off by getting 1/2 the ideal rent versus getting zero % of the rent for that room. If when somebody comes along that earns more and there's a room shortage, they can boot out the hauler if they can afford 2/3 the asking price. But as long as you have enough rooms, everyone should claim one.

That's only true if the marginal cost to rent out a room is zero and it is costless to boot someone out.  Neither applies in the real world (insurance and landlord-tenant court are each very costly), but could in a videogame.

As it stands now, a fortress is run like a commonwealth, and there is historical precedent for running a colony like that.  But once you start charging people for necessities you have slid out of the commonwealth and into a market economy.  I would prefer a system that starts an outpost as a commonwealth and transitions into a market.  The Dwarves get paid from the start, but are only charged for luxuries at first.  Eventually the scale slides down to where Dwarves are being paid and paying for everything other than assigned uniforms.  Beyond that, you might even start changing them taxes for the privilege of being in your fortress.

Such a system would be far more dynamic if prices adjusted for supply and demand as well as giving individuals/families the freedom to migrate in or out of the fortress.

[Shazbot]

Prices fluctuating with supply and demand can also provide the price signals needed for autonomous workshop operation by craftsmen who begin making finished goods on demand, rather than on the player's orders. Hands-off domestic clothing industry anyone?

[ArKFallen]

For dynamic rate ideas:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Once a [insert time measurement] the game averages the value of all (bed)rooms in the fort to get the basic room which haulers can afford. Cost is [room value/basic room] per [other time measurement]. So straight haulers spend their whole pay on rent for a basic room (hauling should be a side job for many dwarves anyway) and a single noble's room will jack the basic room value up to make conditions more liveable (or opulent). You could factor in dwarves, owned rooms, and room owners like the below.

At the same time the number of dwarves is compared to the amount of each unowned item type (dwarves/items). And owned ones are compared to owners (owned items/owners). And then multiply the two for a price modifier (base price could be arbitrary or based on something).
IE -chests: [10 dwarves/5 chests (hospital)]*[15 owned/6 owners(king alone takes 10)]= modifier of 5
And if you made 1 more chest for each dwarf, so 4 more [10 dwarves/9 chests]*[15 owned/6 owners]= mod of 2.7repeat
And gave them their chest [10 dwarves/5 chests (hospital)]*[19 owned/10 owners]= mod of 3.8


So dynamic prices are doable but further fps drop would be a major issue. If world wide by site or civ it would majorly slow down when it updated. If only fort wide it'd create a weird disconnect between the fort and traders as their prices for things would be static. Implementing dynamic prices in trading at all would be tricky I think.

Rooms, food and clothes should also probably count toward this. If dwarf doesn't get enough, he would get upset and maybe go on strike.

I find this idea interesting but it seems like going on strike would be a death sentence. It would lessen the entitlement they'd potentially get from working thus dragging them further into hunger/thirst if they lack food. They'll then spend all their time scrounging vermin until going bananas.
Need a way to manually boost entitlement or every fort will be one step away from starvation with plenty of food.