Print

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

[Granite26]

It's a separate issue, but IMHO it should take one armoursmith one year to make a suit of plate...

[Squirrelloid]

It's a separate issue, but IMHO it should take one armoursmith one year to make a suit of plate...

I may well agree with you.  I'd actually have to do some research first to see what reasonable times were.  But that would require a massive re-working of the labor code.

[Granite26]

This doesn't get to much into the economics of relative advantage, but it covers the low end spectrum of it

[praguepride]

Realistic economies = booooring

[Granite26]

Speak for yourself....

Besides, a reasonable amount of groundwork to create a good simulation could be relatively to use (kinda like how it places all the layers and stuff is crazy complicated, but we just know 'look for this')

Or the same way with the new wounds system.  Realistic biologies = boooooring, up until shit gets real with blood running into your eyes

[praguepride]

Ah, you make the mistake of equating biology to combat.

Economies do not result in splattered enemies!

[Squirrelloid]

Ah, you make the mistake of equating biology to combat.

Economies do not result in splattered enemies!

No, but they do result in price wars, underselling to drive competitors out of business, and turning foreign populations into nothing more than slave labor for your glorious civilization.  Economic warfare is a proven computer game theme, going back at least as far as Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon.

And since you spend so much more time in this game making things than killing things, one might say larger spheres and consequences for production are even more important than larger spheres and consequences for military conflict.

[praguepride]

::snore::

Let's just say I didn't read Boatmurdered because of their shrewd S/D models. I read Boatmurdered for elephant rampages and flaming puppies.

You do bring up a good point. Players already spend a large part of time making things, so why balloon the "economy" out into even more proportion of the time. Let's rebalance the game so you can spend as much time exploring the environment as you do in manufacturing as you do slaughtering gobbos by the hundreds.

We don't want this to turn into Dwarf Fortress Tycoon. Heck, the only reason Rollercoaster Tycoon was so much fun was because you could shoot the rollercoasters off the tracks and laugh with glee as they crash down from the lower stratosphere.

[Footkerchief]

Nobody's saying that trade should become the dominant gameplay element in DF.  However, insofar as it's a gameplay element already, it deserves to have much more interesting decisions, motivations and consequences.  You would, of course, be every bit as free to ignore trade in your own fortresses as you are now.

[praguepride]

But again the beauty is the randomness. We wouldn't love all these crazy artifacts and engravings if they made sense!

Making sense is for humies, thar be dwarves here!

I still don't see why this is even a suggestion. There already is a basic S/D model with the liasons.


Liason even asks you "What do you want" You say "Metal bars and leather!" next year a caravan with leather bins and a variety of metal bars shows up with the prices set up to 2x as high.

Meanwhile they say "We want toys!"  if you build toys you can make quite a tidy profit, to spend on their bins of leather and metal bars.

What more do you need?

[Granite26]

The ability to affect the world beyond your fort through economic means.

The inability to dump nigh-infinite numbers of carved mugs out into the world for astronomical prices

Some sense of consequence or sacrifice with what we sell versus the return goods.

[Footkerchief]

But again the beauty is the randomness. We wouldn't love all these crazy artifacts and engravings if they made sense!

Making sense is for humies, thar be dwarves here!

I still don't see why this is even a suggestion. There already is a basic S/D model with the liasons.


Liason even asks you "What do you want" You say "Metal bars and leather!" next year a caravan with leather bins and a variety of metal bars shows up with the prices set up to 2x as high.

Meanwhile they say "We want toys!"  if you build toys you can make quite a tidy profit, to spend on their bins of leather and metal bars.

What more do you need?

Pure randomness is not fun.  It's white-noise garbage.  Meaningful decisions and consequences, both on the part of the player and the part of the computer, are fun.

Also, you really don't know what S/D means even at the most simplistic level if you think the game currently models it at all.  The supply factor is not modeled outside of the player's fortress.  Hence dev_next item "Track resource counts at sites".

[praguepride]

That's where nobles come into play. Their mandates will eventually prevent you from exporting infinite amounts of mugs.

Right now the game is limited to your X by Y area. You have very finite resources and limiting your ability to play due to lack of map diversity would be very un-Fun.

Imagine you get dropped onto an obsidian map. There is nothing but obsidian, and the occasional gem. Your only source of income to buy all those metal ores you need comes from those little mugs and knick-knacks you dump on wandering merchants. Now suddenly they say "no more obsidian items"

What's left? You're s*** out of luck and what is ordinarily a rare and beautiful thing (all...that...obsidian!!!) has become a horrible curse because you built yourself onto a mountain.

Plus S/D doesn't work if you actually work to control prices. Look at what Japan's done to the US. As part of their business strategy they've completely ignored S/D pricing and kept their prices steady for decades.

S/D does not auto-dictate prices or resources or anything. Heck, look at "fad" items like Pokemon or Beeny Babies. There was no demand before the product. Someone somehow stirred it up after the supply was there.

The Supply preceeded the demand. Explain that with your puny models AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!


Finally, there is a philosophical rule that comes to mind (I don't know the name, don't ask) but basically you cannot model a system if you are not outside of said system. It's the issue we're running into with programming A.I. We don't really know how intelligence works as is, let alone trying to model it on a smaller scale. An ant in an ant farm has no idea what "glass" is. It has no idea that it is not on the ground but on a shelf. Then ask said ant to model it's surroundings and it will be wrong and incomplete, because the ant can never see the whole farm from beyond the glass walls.

edit:

  Hence dev_next item "Track resource counts at sites".

Lol! First off, that's hardly "next."  That's not included at all in the current development, which is the army arc (RAWR!). Secondly, that's a mighty leap of assumption from a one line item note that mentioning resource counts by site AUTOEQUALS huge complicated S/D model economy

[Squirrelloid]

Look, praguepride, you're welcome to not care.  You might not think its fun.  DF isn't just for you. 

However, DF at its heart is a management game.  Similar games have historically involved economic subgames as the or a major focus of gameplay.

There is abundant evidence that economic 'warfare' is a viable game basis.  Sid Meier's RRT spawned numerous sequels and knock-offs, and its immediate successor RRT2 made the top 100 games of all time.

You're welcome to say its not fun for you, but its obvious that it would be fun for a lot of people.  Especially since it goes hand in hand with the management style game DF already is.

Ok, lets clear up some willful stubbornness or clear lack of understanding on your part.

Imagine you get dropped onto an obsidian map. There is nothing but obsidian, and the occasional gem. Your only source of income to buy all those metal ores you need comes from those little mugs and knick-knacks you dump on wandering merchants. Now suddenly they say "no more obsidian items"

What's left? You're s*** out of luck and what is ordinarily a rare and beautiful thing (all...that...obsidian!!!) has become a horrible curse because you built yourself onto a mountain.

With the exception of raw obsidian and obsidian blocks, the fact that something is made of obsidian should not be the sole determiner of demand for it.  (And demand for obsidian stone and blocks should be large and relatively inelastic with respect to supply.)  If you're selling a stone mug, its still a stone mug.  They may stop paying a premium for obsidian stone mugs if you flood the market with obsidian stone mugs (obsidian is only more valuable than other stone as long as its rare), but they won't stop buying stone mugs unless you sell enough to flood the entire mug market.  And there are a lot of other things you can make with obsidian (various types of furniture, mechanisms, etc...) which have their own S/D relationships independent of mugs.

Plus S/D doesn't work if you actually work to control prices. Look at what Japan's done to the US. As part of their business strategy they've completely ignored S/D pricing and kept their prices steady for decades.

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to here.  Japanese imports have been provenly priced below actual market value before, hence the crazy ebay prices on things like console systems at first release, because the company didn't make enough for demand at the price they were sold at.  This means that japanese goods most certainly follow S/D in the market - goods sold below value will be resold by buyers to others who are willing to pay more and can't get one.

I'd love to know what prices you think they've kept steady for decades.  Vague allusions to things that make no sense don't convince anyone.  (Japanese car prices have not held steady.  Console game prices have fluctuated.  TV prices have varied.  Etc...).  Also, Japan is not a monolithic entity.  Japanese companies make pricing decisions, not the japanese government.

S/D does not auto-dictate prices or resources or anything. Heck, look at "fad" items like Pokemon or Beeny Babies. There was no demand before the product. Someone somehow stirred it up after the supply was there.

Its called marketing.  And there was certainly demand for the category of product (eg, 'toy', 'stuffed animal') long before their were pokemon or beanie babies.  Successful marketing increased demand for those particular products.

Finally, there is a philosophical rule that comes to mind (I don't know the name, don't ask) but basically you cannot model a system if you are not outside of said system. It's the issue we're running into with programming A.I. We don't really know how intelligence works as is, let alone trying to model it on a smaller scale. An ant in an ant farm has no idea what "glass" is. It has no idea that it is not on the ground but on a shelf. Then ask said ant to model it's surroundings and it will be wrong and incomplete, because the ant can never see the whole farm from beyond the glass walls.

How does this even apply?  Determining rational supply/demand relationships for goods shouldn't even be hard, since we know their shape and have some idea about how elasticity (read: slope) should vary by good type.

[Footkerchief]

That's where nobles come into play. Their mandates will eventually prevent you from exporting infinite amounts of mugs.

This doesn't make any sense.  Nobles have motivations.  Why would a noble without a special liking for mugs or mug materials do this?

Right now the game is limited to your X by Y area. You have very finite resources and limiting your ability to play due to lack of map diversity would be very un-Fun.

Your ability to play?  You're conflating the ability to play with the ability to become rich enough to buy the entire world.  I thought you said trade wasn't the focus of the game anyway, so how would this inhibit your play-style?

Imagine you get dropped onto an obsidian map. There is nothing but obsidian, and the occasional gem. Your only source of income to buy all those metal ores you need comes from those little mugs and knick-knacks you dump on wandering merchants. Now suddenly they say "no more obsidian items"

What's left? You're s*** out of luck and what is ordinarily a rare and beautiful thing (all...that...obsidian!!!) has become a horrible curse because you built yourself onto a mountain.

What was ordinarily a rare thing is no longer rare once it stops being rare due to a glut?  That seems pretty reasonable.  Or you could always be smart like DeBeers and artificially constrain the supply.

S/D does not auto-dictate prices or resources or anything. Heck, look at "fad" items like Pokemon or Beeny Babies. There was no demand before the product. Someone somehow stirred it up after the supply was there.

The Supply preceeded the demand. Explain that with your puny models AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Say's Law was already mentioned.

Finally, there is a philosophical rule that comes to mind (I don't know the name, don't ask) but basically you cannot model a system if you are not outside of said system. It's the issue we're running into with programming A.I. We don't really know how intelligence works as is, let alone trying to model it on a smaller scale. An ant in an ant farm has no idea what "glass" is. It has no idea that it is not on the ground but on a shelf. Then ask said ant to model it's surroundings and it will be wrong and incomplete, because the ant can never see the whole farm from beyond the glass walls.

What?  This principle applies to things like the universe, which we cannot model, because you would have the devote the entire universe to storing its own state.  The memory and processor that run the DF simulation are not part of the simulation itself.

As for your concerns about the workings of intelligence:
1. They don't have anything to do with that rule.  It is in fact computationally possible to simulate a human brain.
2. DF doesn't need to simulate a human brain.  It only needs to model relatively few abstract, high-level processes.  Not that hard.

Lol! First off, that's hardly "next."  That's not included at all in the current development, which is the army arc (RAWR!). Secondly, that's a mighty leap of assumption from a one line item note that mentioning resource counts by site AUTOEQUALS huge complicated S/D model economy

Sorry, I assumed you knew what dev_next was.  Dev_next is not current development, it's near future.  The current and near future development is also not exclusively the army arc: "The Army Arc continues to be the main focus, but there will also be some other features thrown in to keep the programming lively, the most likely of which I've listed below."

The inclusion of a resource count item doesn't imply a full-blown S/D economy at all, and I don't know how you got that from my post.  It DOES imply that resource counts aren't already tracked, which means that supply is not currently modeled.