Print

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

[GoblinCookie]

When it comes to wages, wouldn't it make more sense to pay everyone a fixed monthly/yearly salary? I think the variation should be more accordingly to individual skill or guild ranking status of individual dwarves. Otherwise it would be a random distribution of money, because an unlucky dwarf could easily end up not working at all for a long time because another one was closer to the workshop and ended up with all the work. Unless we introduce quotas (where each dwarf can ony work so much and is forced to stop once a certain % of the working order is reached), that system would be unbalanced.

If you're going to pay them individually like that, you may as well not call it a "wage" but a comission. You comission a job from a certain dwarf, agree on a price, and pay them when the job is completed (or maybe before that).

A wage and a comission system could even work together, harmoniously. So you give wages to everyone to assure that they don't starve to death (and also perhaps to support an apprendice system so unskilled beginners can sustain themselves when they just join a profession/guild), and at the same time reward highly skilled dwarves by giving them special jobs and more money.

Alternatively, you could also allow your dwarves to go full individualist and actuallly own their workshops. That way, they could buy their own supplies from either a stockpile or from a foreign trader and make their own stuff to sell, so they could have their own shops like we see in human towns. You could have something like a clothier open up his own little named shop (like in adv. mode) where he would buy cloth from someone, make clothing items and put them for sale. Dunno if that system could work well, though, as it may be a bit too complex for dwarf mode.

I actually like this idea (mostly). 

Now how does this all fit together with dwarf personalities.  Does an envious dwarf get upset when a dwarf that is less skilled/productive than he is gets paid the same or more?  I think the simplest way to arrange things is to have it work essentially the same way that noble's rooms do at the moment.  A dwarf gets paid a monthly wage defined by his employer (us for the time being) but he has an ideal wage based upon how valuable he thinks he is, he cannot force the player to player but if he does not get it he complains.  This is based upon the total value of his products per month, averaged out and then modified by his personality/ethics.  A dwarf that gets paid under that amount is unhapppy while a dwarf that gets overpaid is happy.

If one dwarf is getting paid considerably more (not in total but in % of base value) then other dwarves get upset based upon their envy.  We are told of the dwarves base value seperately from the dwarf's percieved wage.  If we pay some dwarves a greater % of their base value than others, the shortchanged dwarves get upset at a level dependant upon their envy and to a degree dependant upon their anger propensity (perhaps).  One problem with this however is that labours that do not produce much of a product (mining, woodcutting, medical stuff) have to have a base value pre-defined as do nobles positions. 

What I like about this system is we are not living under the tyranny of the IMF code (as I like to call it).  We do not have an external mechanic setting all our wages and prices but instead we set those things.  However our dwarves still get a say in the matter, we can always pay our low-value dwarves enough to eat but if we give them enough to live like kings then other dwarves will get upset due to envy as you are paying them so many % over their base value.

[StagnantSoul]

When it comes to wages, wouldn't it make more sense to pay everyone a fixed monthly/yearly salary? I think the variation should be more accordingly to individual skill or guild ranking status of individual dwarves. Otherwise it would be a random distribution of money, because an unlucky dwarf could easily end up not working at all for a long time because another one was closer to the workshop and ended up with all the work. Unless we introduce quotas (where each dwarf can ony work so much and is forced to stop once a certain % of the working order is reached), that system would be unbalanced.

If you're going to pay them individually like that, you may as well not call it a "wage" but a comission. You comission a job from a certain dwarf, agree on a price, and pay them when the job is completed (or maybe before that).

A wage and a comission system could even work together, harmoniously. So you give wages to everyone to assure that they don't starve to death (and also perhaps to support an apprendice system so unskilled beginners can sustain themselves when they just join a profession/guild), and at the same time reward highly skilled dwarves by giving them special jobs and more money.

Alternatively, you could also allow your dwarves to go full individualist and actuallly own their workshops. That way, they could buy their own supplies from either a stockpile or from a foreign trader and make their own stuff to sell, so they could have their own shops like we see in human towns. You could have something like a clothier open up his own little named shop (like in adv. mode) where he would buy cloth from someone, make clothing items and put them for sale. Dunno if that system could work well, though, as it may be a bit too complex for dwarf mode.

I like that idea, minus the make their own workshop bit. That always seems like a huge bad idea to me.

[Alfrodo]

Workshops could work, but not privately owned and made ones, just ones you made that aren't occupied, or designated not to be used by individual craftsmen. (By the manager)

imagine a Forge with a sign on it saying "No private work.  I'm looking at you, Therleth."

And I like the idea of the steady wages PLUS the commission.

Then, you don't run into one of the original economy problem of dwarves starving because you didn't give them work to do in the last 10 minutes.  But dwarves are also rewarded for their skills and hard work in a way.

[Splint]

That's actually a pretty good use for the manager actually, in addition to thier usual duty making sure the Mayor or noble's production orders are met.

[StagnantSoul]

That'd give me an actual use for the manager, which would be a first. I've never used it before.

[Splint]

That'd give me an actual use for the manager, which would be a first. I've never used it before.

Really only useful for workshop profiles and bulk production orders. If you don't mind some additional micro though, it's possible to go quite a ways without one.

[Ribs]

What I like about this system is we are not living under the tyranny of the IMF code (as I like to call it).  We do not have an external mechanic setting all our wages and prices but instead we set those things.  However our dwarves still get a say in the matter, we can always pay our low-value dwarves enough to eat but if we give them enough to live like kings then other dwarves will get upset due to envy as you are paying them so many % over their base value.

Easy comrad. While player controling wages to some extent (or even completely) seems reasonable in the context of Dwarf Fortress, prices are a completely different creature to tackle. I think that players having any direct control over the price of things would be a needlessly complicated mechanic, and the result of that would probably be very messy.

When Toady talks about the prices of things, he usually says that ultimetely they should migrate from their current artificial and stagnant form and become more reasonably based on supply and demand (just trust me, I don't want to start hunting for quotes again). That's more than ok and anything beyond that would be chaos. There's no need for a central "IMF" or whatever weird institution to define the global price for goods and services, but also no need for the player to get that involved (unless it's something like comissions or direct pay in trading agreements).

If you had a bad harvest or something and food becomes rare (low supply), it should automatically become more expensive (because the demand didn't change as people still want to eat the same ammount of food). You can raise people's wages to temporarily adjust to that (like a temporary "band-aid" sort of solution), but in the end only increasing the supply of food can solve the problem. Players also having to consider manually adjusting prices would be just confusing. Frankly, even an emergencial rationing system would make more sense in this case.

[StagnantSoul]

What I like about this system is we are not living under the tyranny of the IMF code (as I like to call it).  We do not have an external mechanic setting all our wages and prices but instead we set those things.  However our dwarves still get a say in the matter, we can always pay our low-value dwarves enough to eat but if we give them enough to live like kings then other dwarves will get upset due to envy as you are paying them so many % over their base value.

Easy comrad. While player controling wages to some extent (or even completely) seems reasonable in the context of Dwarf Fortress, prices are a completely different creature to tackle. I think that players having any direct control over the price of things would be a needlessly complicated mechanic, and the result of that would probably be very messy.

When Toady talks about the prices of things, he usually says that ultimetely they should migrate from their current artificial and stagnant form and become more reasonably based on supply and demand (just trust me, I don't want to start hunting for quotes again). That's more than ok and anything beyond that would be chaos. There's no need for a central "IMF" or whatever weird institution to define the global price for goods and services, but also no need for the player to get that involved (unless it's something like comissions or direct pay in trading agreements).

If you had a bad harvest or something and food becomes rare (low supply), it should automatically become more expensive (because the demand didn't change as people still want to eat the same ammount of food). You can raise people's wages to temporarily adjust to that (like a temporary "band-aid" sort of solution), but in the end only increasing the supply of food can solve the problem. Players also having to consider manually adjusting prices would be just confusing. Frankly, even an emergencial rationing system would make more sense in this case.

...What's wrong with stagnant things? 

[GoblinCookie]

Easy comrad. While player controling wages to some extent (or even completely) seems reasonable in the context of Dwarf Fortress, prices are a completely different creature to tackle. I think that players having any direct control over the price of things would be a needlessly complicated mechanic, and the result of that would probably be very messy.

When Toady talks about the prices of things, he usually says that ultimetely they should migrate from their current artificial and stagnant form and become more reasonably based on supply and demand (just trust me, I don't want to start hunting for quotes again). That's more than ok and anything beyond that would be chaos. There's no need for a central "IMF" or whatever weird institution to define the global price for goods and services, but also no need for the player to get that involved (unless it's something like comissions or direct pay in trading agreements).

If you had a bad harvest or something and food becomes rare (low supply), it should automatically become more expensive (because the demand didn't change as people still want to eat the same ammount of food). You can raise people's wages to temporarily adjust to that (like a temporary "band-aid" sort of solution), but in the end only increasing the supply of food can solve the problem. Players also having to consider manually adjusting prices would be just confusing. Frankly, even an emergencial rationing system would make more sense in this case.

I am obviously talking about introducing an institution, I am talking about have a code that functions in a similar way to that institution 'structural adjustment policies', that is it works as an external restraint on what economic policies we can implement.  That you think that there is never going to be a need for the player to interfere does not mean that the player should not be able to do this; I am not suggesting the player should not be allowed to automate prices if he or she wishes. 

Normally in a famine the prices rise above the amount that most people can pay, resulting in a situation where there is still food in the shops but the price of it is far too high for the majority of people to afford; this is why we end up with things like food riots.  Actual supply and demand has nothing to do with it, because the people that set the prices have no way of knowing with complete accuracy what the objective situation in the economy even is, they simply set their prices based upon the common perception of the situation and hence what people would be prepared to pay; which may not even be accurate at the present time.  There may objectively be mountains of food out there, but the people owning that mountain rather like the prices they can charge because people believe there is a famine going on (which in a sense there is thanks to their prices); ending the famine results in a crash in prices so the famine must go on as long as it can. 

Prices should work like wages do.  There is a percieved 'proper price' based upon percieved supply+demand vs present set price and we can set the price at give % above or below that amount.  Dwarves are happy when you sell them stuff below the 'proper price' but doing this increases demand for the item.  Similarly dwarves are unhappy if they buy at above the 'proper price' but doing so reduces demand for that item.  If you manage to lower the price of something below the 'proper price' and you do not end up with a shortage then dwarves will adopt the modified price as the 'proper price', but if you manage to create a shortage then the 'proper price' will rise so that the modified price counts as even cheaper.  If it goes right you 'correct' the price, if it goes wrong you end up with empty shelves as the actual price becomes percieved as ever cheaper in relationship to the 'proper price' which goes up and up due to the resulting shortage.

[Calidovi]

Easy comrad. While player controling wages to some extent (or even completely) seems reasonable in the context of Dwarf Fortress, prices are a completely different creature to tackle. I think that players having any direct control over the price of things would be a needlessly complicated mechanic, and the result of that would probably be very messy.

When Toady talks about the prices of things, he usually says that ultimetely they should migrate from their current artificial and stagnant form and become more reasonably based on supply and demand (just trust me, I don't want to start hunting for quotes again). That's more than ok and anything beyond that would be chaos. There's no need for a central "IMF" or whatever weird institution to define the global price for goods and services, but also no need for the player to get that involved (unless it's something like comissions or direct pay in trading agreements).

If you had a bad harvest or something and food becomes rare (low supply), it should automatically become more expensive (because the demand didn't change as people still want to eat the same ammount of food). You can raise people's wages to temporarily adjust to that (like a temporary "band-aid" sort of solution), but in the end only increasing the supply of food can solve the problem. Players also having to consider manually adjusting prices would be just confusing. Frankly, even an emergencial rationing system would make more sense in this case.

I am obviously talking about introducing an institution, I am talking about have a code that functions in a similar way to that institution 'structural adjustment policies', that is it works as an external restraint on what economic policies we can implement.  That you think that there is never going to be a need for the player to interfere does not mean that the player should not be able to do this; I am not suggesting the player should not be allowed to automate prices if he or she wishes. 

Normally in a famine the prices rise above the amount that most people can pay, resulting in a situation where there is still food in the shops but the price of it is far too high for the majority of people to afford; this is why we end up with things like food riots.  Actual supply and demand has nothing to do with it, because the people that set the prices have no way of knowing with complete accuracy what the objective situation in the economy even is, they simply set their prices based upon the common perception of the situation and hence what people would be prepared to pay; which may not even be accurate at the present time.  There may objectively be mountains of food out there, but the people owning that mountain rather like the prices they can charge because people believe there is a famine going on (which in a sense there is thanks to their prices); ending the famine results in a crash in prices so the famine must go on as long as it can. 

Prices should work like wages do.  There is a percieved 'proper price' based upon percieved supply+demand vs present set price and we can set the price at give % above or below that amount.  Dwarves are happy when you sell them stuff below the 'proper price' but doing this increases demand for the item.  Similarly dwarves are unhappy if they buy at above the 'proper price' but doing so reduces demand for that item.  If you manage to lower the price of something below the 'proper price' and you do not end up with a shortage then dwarves will adopt the modified price as the 'proper price', but if you manage to create a shortage then the 'proper price' will rise so that the modified price counts as even cheaper.  If it goes right you 'correct' the price, if it goes wrong you end up with empty shelves as the actual price becomes percieved as ever cheaper in relationship to the 'proper price' which goes up and up due to the resulting shortage.

Then should there be a set 'neutral' supply amount? An amount that ascertains that the product is sold at its proper price? And will that number scale up as population increases?

[Shazbot]

One thread of Economic thought.

A subsequent thread of thought.

If I had the time or the caffeine in my blood, I would suggest ways to tie the idle dwarf number to an unemployment modifier for wages. The crux of it is that dwarves bid based on how much happiness an item gives each dwarf individually. This money can go partially to who made the item and partially to the fortress coffers. The fortress coffers then pay for haulers, soldiers, and the various "non-producers". This would make fisher-dwarves and farmers all rather poor economically compared to your legendary jeweler. Also, all dwarves will decide what job to do based on the pay expected for that job. If your fisher-dwarf isn't making much money fishing, but there are no idle dwarves and hauling jobs are bid up through the unemployment modifier, then he would choose to haul instead of fish.

Interesting economic choices to make there, forbidding your fisher-dwarf from hauling and condemning him to poverty for the greater good... Of course, if the fortress is hungry then the value of fish is being bid up, so it may sort itself out in a crisis. In fact, I'd say its a robust and correctly modeled economy if it does.

[GoblinCookie]

Then should there be a set 'neutral' supply amount? An amount that ascertains that the product is sold at its proper price? And will that number scale up as population increases?

A very, very tricky question; to what extent to our dwarves 'know' how much wealth is available to our fortress?  Probably the percieved supply should be decided by the following.

1. The total number of the item that there is visible on the map.
2. That belong to our fortress.
3. That are not private property.

Caravans and stuff would be ignored because dwarves in the fortress due not know what their supply will actually be nor is the productivity of our dwarves taken into account for the same reason.  Demand is even harder to work out because we have a division between consumable items and owned items.  The best system I think is to give each dwarves a set of dynamically expanding demands, aka Dynamic consumer demands idea and then make a list of the items that are demanded by all dwarves, whether the demand has been met or not.  Since owned objects are tied to demands that a dwarf has, meeting them on a permanant basis then the price of non-consumables will not collapse once the initial demand is met because we will count the replacement item that the dwarf needs to get once the non-consumable items wears out/breaks/is destroyed. 

We can see that in order for the system to work and make sense we need to make non-consumable items break down/wear out.  Only then can we use a unified system that can take into account consumable and owned items; every bed needs a replacement bed just as every meal needs a replacement meal.  The great thing about this is that we can have the dwarves use the same logic in their economic activity, they save up for replacement items. 

[Ribs]

I am obviously talking about introducing an institution, I am talking about have a code that functions in a similar way to that institution 'structural adjustment policies', that is it works as an external restraint on what economic policies we can implement.  That you think that there is never going to be a need for the player to interfere does not mean that the player should not be able to do this; I am not suggesting the player should not be allowed to automate prices if he or she wishes. 

Normally in a famine the prices rise above the amount that most people can pay, resulting in a situation where there is still food in the shops but the price of it is far too high for the majority of people to afford; this is why we end up with things like food riots.  Actual supply and demand has nothing to do with it, because the people that set the prices have no way of knowing with complete accuracy what the objective situation in the economy even is, they simply set their prices based upon the common perception of the situation and hence what people would be prepared to pay; which may not even be accurate at the present time.  There may objectively be mountains of food out there, but the people owning that mountain rather like the prices they can charge because people believe there is a famine going on (which in a sense there is thanks to their prices); ending the famine results in a crash in prices so the famine must go on as long as it can. 

Prices should work like wages do.  There is a percieved 'proper price' based upon percieved supply+demand vs present set price and we can set the price at give % above or below that amount.  Dwarves are happy when you sell them stuff below the 'proper price' but doing this increases demand for the item.  Similarly dwarves are unhappy if they buy at above the 'proper price' but doing so reduces demand for that item.  If you manage to lower the price of something below the 'proper price' and you do not end up with a shortage then dwarves will adopt the modified price as the 'proper price', but if you manage to create a shortage then the 'proper price' will rise so that the modified price counts as even cheaper.  If it goes right you 'correct' the price, if it goes wrong you end up with empty shelves as the actual price becomes percieved as ever cheaper in relationship to the 'proper price' which goes up and up due to the resulting shortage.

What a waste of time would that be. As long as you don't introduce complex concepts such as "price gauging" when there's a demand and supply shock, there's no need to add things like controlled pricing. I'm not even going into how incredibly fucking stupid price control (and even wage control, to be honest) is percieved as by economists even in the most basic level and what a historic failure it has been whenever it was attempted. It basically never worked, but that's we discussing real life ideology and economy again and I refuse to do that with you.

Fine, have your socialism, comrad. It wouldn't be completely out of place as a feature (just very confusing and posssibly game breaking if the game has any success in simulating an actual dynamic global economy) as long as you don't start selling it as a reasonable solution that was somehow the standard in classical and medieval societies.

[Alfrodo]

Don't forget the one thing mentioned in the first post.

That raw meat and exceptionally cheap food is free of charge.  So demand/supply things aren't likely to kill all of your dwarves.

Also, my stance:  I don't think price controls are a particularily good idea. (Due to it not ever working in reality.) But It'd be an interesting if entirely broken mechanic.

Player Drops Prices for Prepared Meals to 10.
Kitchen Chefs immediately go broke and leave the fort.
Wealthy People complain about having to eat raw meat.
Revolt ensues.
Everyone dies.

[Splint]

Let's not bring consumer demand, supply, and all that into a discussion about the fort's internal stuff. For certain things, namely necessities, it's one thing, but for stuff like ores and whatnot, that's another.

That's a whole horrific can of worms we don't need reopened, and far more complicated than what would be fun to work with. Something like that is all well and good for a grand scale situation, but not the relatively small scale of Fort mode and a possible extension for the immediate area around it once you have a landholder. Our focus is simply too small for stuff of that nature to matter for us (or, in my opinion, not really a fun inclusion, just needless complication to intra-fortress activity.)

If Shop A has Item B and Dwarf C has money, he'll buy the item and get a happy thought/a stress reduction. If the item happens to be made from something that Dwarf C likes, even better modifier because of material preference. If the item is a necessity (shirt for example,) they'll get a happy boost because they won't have to buy it later/depend on government stock.

Dwarves with enough free time may opt to buy a shop if there are any available, and buy it from the fortress (basically buying it from the Mayor/Noble,) and buy a random assortment of goods based on the preferences of dwarves they know + thier own and material preference. Can limit what a given shop can sell by using the Manager to set it: Clothing Store (only sells clothes,) General Store (sells whatever,) Craft Items Store (sells crafting items such as toys, instruments and amulets.)

During break times or sufficient idle time, dwarves will go to the shops and buy items from the shop owners. Likewise, they may use public workshops to make items based on preference (after buying the materials from the Mayor/Noble,) to sell for a small profit later (be it to a fellow citizen, a visitor in the tavern, or a caravan,) or even keep for themselves. Might necessitate a "Private Stocks" screen possibly tabbed to from the "Fortress Stocks," to keep track of any privately owned weapons and armor in addition to other 'private' goods.

Things like weapons, ammunition, and certain tools such as jugs would be barred from sale to private shops, because those things are "vital" fortress items, restricting private weapons and armor to caravan and between-dorfs purchases or making the gear themselves.

I can't really say anything on the matter of food other than prepared meal prices desperately need to be changed. All for "raw" foods like meat and basic crops like plump helmets or squash being either free or dirt cheap so the population doesn't become a bunch of emaciated zombies.