Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

This idea is intended to build on Dynamic demands idea, meaning that it it would be introduced after or alongside it.  It is also intended to be optional, controlled by the existing economy = yes/no that exists in the ini file.

At the moment dwarves are happy to work entirely for free without any payment except generic access to all the goods of the fortress.  While there is no inherent problem with people producing valuable goods or performing services without demanding payment, volunteers, slaves, housewives and Toady One himself do this, there is simply no realistic basis for the 'economy' to develop beyond the present system if everyone always happy to work without any incentive to do so. 

I propose that dwarves develop idleness under certain circumstances, meaning that despite not having any needs to be met they still hang about the place and do no work at the job they have decided to do.  This is to be governed by a complex set of motivations such as the following.

+ Positive
There are a large number of dwarves that you know and are on good terms with in the fortress.
Being part of a special organisation built around the job you are presently performing.
The job you are doing pertains to a noble position you hold.
A dwarf you hate is better at the task than you are. 
You have hard-working personality traits.
It is a job you particularly like.

- Negative.
Lots of dwarves that know and do *not* hate is better at that task than you are.
There are large number of dwarves in the fortress that you do not know.
There are large number of dwarves in the fortress that you hate.
You have lazy personality traits.
It is a job you particularly hate.

What this would tend to mean is that as the population of your fortress increases rapidly but there is also a high level of social atomisation, dwarves tend to lose their 'intrinsic' motive to work.  At the same time social integration can generate problems as well since relationships between skilled and the unskilled dwarves tend to generate dependency, since the unskilled dwarf feels that the other dwarf will always do the task better than them so there is no point bothering.

[Ribs]

The way the economy will work in the future is a mistery to all of us. Were you playing back in 40d when the game had a proto-economy going? It was a bit of a mess. I'm all for having dwarves be a little more independent and not want to work in certain situations, but some people are very against it.

Toady has talked about changing the "VPL" system, where ou directly force dwarves to have certain jobs, and make it so that only certain dwarves are controlled that way (it's in the last DF talk). We'll see what happens then, maybe dwarves will become more whimsical as you propose

[GoblinCookie]

The way the economy will work in the future is a mistery to all of us. Were you playing back in 40d when the game had a proto-economy going? It was a bit of a mess. I'm all for having dwarves be a little more independent and not want to work in certain situations, but some people are very against it.

Toady has talked about changing the "VPL" system, where ou directly force dwarves to have certain jobs, and make it so that only certain dwarves are controlled that way (it's in the last DF talk). We'll see what happens then, maybe dwarves will become more whimsical as you propose

The VPL system works very well at the moment with the new changes to the way that jobs are allocated.  Dwarves tend to gain skills in things they are permitted to do and thus those best suited to do the jobs will tend to be those who already have said jobs allocated.  The great weakness of the system is that it is a very labour intensive system to change anything away from the status quo using the present interface, but the same system combined with a better interface and/or automation would be fine. 

I was not around when the economy was introduced and I do not actually want to see it come back as such.  The above idea is not intended to make dwarves more autonomous, it is intended to introduce problems into the present economic system that make the development of something that might be comparable to the old economy that was abolished; but crucially it is not a monolithic system but instead a series of individual economic policies implemented voluntarily by the player (or not).  This is my vision for the future of the game, instead of downloading entire social systems from history we instead start with a basic social arrangement and then develop on it in a manner of our choosing.

There is a great danger however that the game will develop in such a way as to have systems being implemented just to replace existing systems, thus leading to a situation where a great amount of work is expended to implement a cool system and then an even greater amount of work is expended in order to replace it an even cooler system, thus slowing down the development of the actual game.  The outbreak of this kind of tail-chasing is a great risk because Toady One is essentially not subject to any discipline at all, he is not subject to economic market constraints, not subject to a deadline, not subject to a higher authority of any kind, nor subject to any fixed working hours. 

Introducing a whole new system of labour to replace the present system of labour even if just for particular dwarves would be an example of that kind of tail chasing.  The team needs to think about building on and completing it's present systems *not* creating redundant new systems that perform the same function as present ones. 

[Ribs]

I think Toady said that the next time he'll get to the economy, it's going to be pretty final and not some stump system.We'll never know until he gets there, though.

I think the last economy was made at a time he was less ambitious with the project, and the idea was that when the player revisited his fallen fortress in adv. mode he would find some coins laying around. So the next time he tries to introduce an economic system to the game, he'll try to be more careful and account for more variables, making a more dynamic and flexible system. No idea how he's going to do that, though.

[GoblinCookie]

I think Toady said that the next time he'll get to the economy, it's going to be pretty final and not some stump system.We'll never know until he gets there, though.

I think the last economy was made at a time he was less ambitious with the project, and the idea was that when the player revisited his fallen fortress in adv. mode he would find some coins laying around. So the next time he tries to introduce an economic system to the game, he'll try to be more careful and account for more variables, making a more dynamic and flexible system. No idea how he's going to do that, though.

That is why I am making my economic suggestions.  The main fear I have is that Toady One will simply opt for another coercive, cookie-cutter system drawn from history or from the many fantasy themed RPGs that there are but with mechanics which he thinks are better.  As things used to work as I understand it there was an economic system (the present one essentially) and then on top of that a new more 'realistic' economic system was imposed arbitrarily once you were rich enough to qualify for a baron.  This whole arrangement aside from the question of the functionality of it, also is rather unrealistic because there was never any attempt to model the breakdown of the original system.

That is why I propose that we work based upon a model based upon problems with the economic system and a number of options available to the player to address said problems as they arise due to particular variables.  It would be quite possible however to start with 'capitalist fortress' from the go, since the implementation of the policies does not depend upon the problems just as the problems do not force the player to implement the policies, he can choose simply to live with or work around them.