I honestly think it would be more like some tweaks under the hood from the perspective of most users. They'd interact with it three times per year, and some players might need to reign in particular egregious strategies of overproduction, but given the game specifically wants you to produce individual items of clothes for your dwarves so they can replace clothing as particular pieces wear out, this is actually less micromanagement than that (since you get specific information on what types of goods are currently 'short' in the world market from traders, not having to keep checking your stocks to see if you need more dresses or mittens). ... Basically, its less of a hassle than some things the game already wants you to do, and more rewarding than those things as well. (At least, I don't find having to specifically order socks, trousers, and hoods particularly rewarding).
These are among your more interesting (and succinct) arguments in this thread. If what you're suggesting really is only some relatively minor aspects, or something that can be turned off, then sure (and is already in the dev notes). So, is that really the case?
--------------------------------------------
@Granite about nasty watering holes:
As far as your debate skills: Poisoning the Well is pretty much exemplified by saying : "And if you respond with "but RTS' are management games..." then you're just going to sound whiney . The focus is on ECONOMY, not just generic management."
I never said that, that was another poster. However you might have tried to use another's quite to convey a message to me. Nonetheless, I rather doubt one's debate skills is measured by the number of tropes known. I know quite a few, and I'm certain there's a bunch I don't. It says nothing about my arguments, but an excessive reliance on tropes might say something of the worthwhileness of the other's.
@Squirrel about discussions:
Its hard to have a discussion with someone who mostly ignores your points, even when they cite them. ... go watch some professional starcraft games.
It is unrewarding to have a discussion with someone who can ignore selected arguments on a whim by his powers to define them as unworthy. It is incredibly boring to have a discussion with one who is stubborn and whose notion of when to stop writing a post is "when they keyboard breaks". Write better and your true points may be addressed in a way more pleasing to you. For the record, I have watched many professional RTS games (Starcraft, C&C, RA III and others) though I generally find playing RTS tedious nowadays.
About why people respond in an confrontational way
... it is in fact answering you sort of in style (strong and uncompromising opinions elicit confrontational replies; if you want to avoid this you have to change your writing and argument style).
It is poisoning the well. It is attempting to dissuade future arguments by denigrating them before they are even made. That's the textbook definition of the fallacy. Calling out fallacies for what they are is exposing such rhetoric or argument for the sham it is. I am hardly the victim, an argument is the victim of a fallacy.
(1) You selected to attack the relatively meaningless aspect of an argumentative trope I was unfamiliar with, the name of which I interpreted as "being nasty in my thread". You say you debate by arguments but your arguments are rather about saying that the arguments you argue against are bad arguments than actually saying how they are bad arguments. That or writing walls of texts that few will bother with. (2) In this context, doing so thus elided the real question you yourself asked: "why do people poison the well", or in context, "why aren't people nice to me in my thread". To that the same answer stands: you invited strong confrontation and perhaps even dislike.
About scientific stances and current scientific thinking
Probably your writing style (and the world view you seemingly espouse) invites dislike. Absolute certaintym entrenched stubbornness and unyieldingness even when proved wrong (as f.i. about science and physics). It is unsightly in that particular way one wants to address even though it would be better and saner to stay the hell away.
We never actually had that discussion about science because one notable post of yours was obviously trolling. It would also probably be pointless as I am a realist and you are clearly a postmodernist. It would devolve to a fundamental disagreement about axioms, which isn't very interesting, especially since we'd never be able to agree as to what constitutes evidence in such an argument.
Sure. Only problem is that by your definition most active physicist today are postmodernists. If you had ever met a true postmodernist (in the non-naive sence) you wouldn't have had the discussion you're talking about since it would only have been meaningful to you and not to your counterpart. And finally, you may consider yourself a "realist", but given what I reponded to in my "clearly troll" post (where I marked out your argumentation styles through the aid of an ironic site, which incidentally is similar to your naming and pointing out (a) rhetoric trope) you're still a realist almost two centuries out of touch with current scientific thinking.
(Ps: A little bit personal: Me and some academic friends (tenured teachers and PhDs) have enjoyed your views 
About non-programmers making claims about programming
Ok, as *not* a professional programmer, I can think of a fast implementation. I can't imagine a S/D economy adding more than 1% additional time to world gen.
Never, ever make this claim.
Um, huh? I've written code far more processor intensive than that which took less time than I could measure. I do matrix manipulation as part of data analysis. I'm not a programmer, that doesn't mean I don't use some basic programming as part of my work.
If you're not a programmer don't make programming claims. If you consider yourself a programmer by knowing a few "basic programming" (whatever that means, some of my colleagues think they are programming when they type in Word) then you're not qualified to make any, and very much less quantitative, claims. Especially since you have NO insight into the DF code or world generator. If it is well structured and efficient code that is already amenable to your particular solution then it might be fast and pleasurable implementation with a low footprint. Now, this isn't very likely, which every experienced programmer would know, and thus never make such a claim.
About hand-waiving
Any voluntary/recreational game is about fun. And quite unlike claimed in one of squirrel's posts above, I seriously doubt very many play DF for the management of it. The management aspects is just a tool to the rest of the game, the Rorschach inkblot test underneath.
Of course, I actually made an argument about why it was true. You can't just dismiss an argument with a wave of your hand - deal with the argument or conceed.
Oh, was that the "DF is a management game at heart" or the implied "all games that involves any kind of management is a management" argument? I don't have the masochism to re-read your magnum opus in the making, above.
Author
Topic: Modelling a Global Supply/Demand Economy (Please!) (Read 14503 times)