Print

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

[Granite26]

First, go here, the page titled dev_next.html, and search for core38.  Next, apologize to Footkerchief

The supply of pokemon proceded demand for pokemon, but not the demand for useless crap.  Pokemon started at a low price (10$ for a pack) but due to the RARITY of certain cards, the PRICE for them went up, bounded only by the cost of buying packs until you got the rare card.

Nobody is suggesting any merchant say 'no more obsidian items'... It's just that people aren't going to pay a ton of gold for yet another stone mug.  This problem has come and gone in American culture, where supply far outstripped demand because production increased, prices dropped, demand rose and found a new equilibrium based on production costs.  It's not 'Price goes to zero' but diminishing returns.

[praguepride]

Ahhh, I love a good war

*cracks knuckles*

I can't go into full details because I have to do "real" work sometime today, but we'll try and hit the high points.

1) dev_next/core38. Sorry, I didn't know you were referring to the actual page name, just thought you meant what's next for DF. There's a LOT of things listed there that chances are won't see the light of day because there's an entire lifetime's work buried in all the cores/bloats/ etc. When I look at what is actually coming for DF, I look for the "Future" thread that is updated as Toady does work.

2)Japanese: Predatory pricing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

It's a common belief that this is why Japan has completely overtaken US manufacturing, that Japanese corporations (with the help of their own government) have basically usurrped US markets by keeping prices artifically low despite outside fluctations in the market. HENCE why those "video games" and "cars" haven't jumped in price because the US dollar is tanking. In fact, despite the US dollar losing value, prices on the PS3 and WII are going down.

3) Internetz is serious business! Relax...it's just a thread...in a forum....about a game.  I think we've established that "actual" economic models are complicated as sin and even the "experts" will bicker and argue. Heck, at first Greenspan was lauded as a hero for keeping interest rates low, but now people are cursing his name because of the recession. As Toady has proven to be brilliant at, if you can't model it acurately, fake it. Pathfinding "cheats" Fluid Dynamics "cheats"... why not the economy? Like I said, take a small slice of a macro model and you'll find that the prices and influences can be just as random as if they were random (and I'm still not convinced that random chance doesn't apply to economics as well). There were millions of cuddly teddy bears, but none of them caused riots at shopping malls like beany babies and pokemon. You can say it's marketing, you can say it was product engineering and proper market targetting, but I respond saying "they were just really really lucky. Right place at the right time!" Random chance. Anyway, back to the model.


Take a town and slice it out of a macro model. It has it's products:

X for 10 units
Y for 20 units
Z for 30 units

So X is worth 10 "bucks" or whatever, I just use units.

Now you could try and model out the entire world. So you have your computer simulate that a drought happens "off-screen" and a war happens "off-screen" and suddenly X is in high demand and Z is worthless. The prices fluctuate

X is worth 30
Y remains 20
Z is now only worth 10.

Great! You've got a S/D model that's taken you months/years to write!

Or you could just do the random model. The dice randomly determine that X price increases by 20, Z decreases by 20 and Y remains the same.

X is worth 30
Y remains 20
Z is now worth 10.

From the "players" perspective, there is no difference. Whether it was random chance, or a flood (which is just another word for random chance, really, who can predict floods?) the end result is that X > Y > Z instead of the other way around.

Now if you're a economics major who feels like they need to utilizae that 4-year education, you can come up with all sorts of imaginative justifications to explain the price fluctations, saying that suddenly X is in higher demand or the supply of Z was trippled overnight. Have fun! But it's very arrogant to demand a fully working economics model when games with fully staffed devs can barely get the model working. RTT was a great game, maybe, but it still wasn't accurate. The model couldn't adapt itself for random chance, fluke fluctations, and "butterfly effect" type disruptions.


But in the end it's just randomness with a slight degree of predicatbility. That's what is truly the gem of fun in this game. It doesn't try and balance, it doesn't allow itself to fit into rote molds like a typical MMO.

A war dog can take down a giant eagle, while a kobold thief can stab your Champion in the kidney and disable him for the rest of the game. You can't predict that, it's based off of that beautiful randomness that makes this game so much more real then any "accurate" model, because if you really look at life critically, it is random. That's what makes it SO MUCH FUN!


Finally, if you think this is a brilliant idea that will get tons of fans foaming at the mouth, put your "money where your mouth is" and get it thrown up on the Eternal Suggestion page. See how it stacks up against Improved Hauling.

[Footkerchief]

Great! You've got a S/D model that's taken you months/years to write!

Months?  Rudimentary S/D will be very simple to implement once sites store counts of goods and raw materials.  Most of the necessary components -- the materials and professions available at sites, variable pricing, etc. -- are already in place.  Entities probably need a little more instrinsic like/dislike for materials and items to keep things interesting, but that's coming anyway.

Or you could just do the random model. The dice randomly determine that X price increases by 20, Z decreases by 20 and Y remains the same.

X is worth 30
Y remains 20
Z is now worth 10.

From the "players" perspective, there is no difference. Whether it was random chance, or a flood (which is just another word for random chance, really, who can predict floods?) the end result is that X > Y > Z instead of the other way around.

The point is that YOU, the player, might have caused the price changes with your own actions.  The core of games is showing the player their ability to affect the game world.  Or, even if the change wasn't caused by your own actions, the cause-and-effect in the outside world could still be conveyed to the player -- for instance, traders telling you that their demand for food has increased due to a famine, or that their demand for steel has increased due to imminent war with the goblins.  If these floods and famines and wars were just RNG fudge factors, then you'd never see reference to them again.  But when they're real events in the game world, they become part of a story, a narrative that the player glimpses in bits and pieces -- in other words, the kind of thing that makes DF worth playing.

A war dog can take down a giant eagle, while a kobold thief can stab your Champion in the kidney and disable him for the rest of the game. You can't predict that, it's based off of that beautiful randomness that makes this game so much more real then any "accurate" model, because if you really look at life critically, it is random. That's what makes it SO MUCH FUN!

Unpredictability is great, but it's hollow and bland without a thorough and convincing chain of cause and effect.  The kind of economic unpredictability you're advocating is more like the kobold stabbing the champion in the finger, followed by the champion's kidney failing for no reason.

[Squirrelloid]

footkerchief dealt with 3, I suppose I'll take 2.

2)Japanese: Predatory pricing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing

It's a common belief that this is why Japan has completely overtaken US manufacturing, that Japanese corporations (with the help of their own government) have basically usurrped US markets by keeping prices artifically low despite outside fluctations in the market. HENCE why those "video games" and "cars" haven't jumped in price because the US dollar is tanking. In fact, despite the US dollar losing value, prices on the PS3 and WII are going down.

First, its entertaining to note that, despite examples of predatory pricing on the wikipedia page, 'japan' does not appear on either the page or the discussion page.  If it was such a notable explanation for US-Japan trade relationships, shouldn't wikipedia say something?

Second, it notes that the very idea that predatory pricing has ever been beneficial has been challenged - ie, there are apparently no well-documented cases of a firm successfully predatorily pricing, only cases where companies have been sued for possibly engaging in such behavior.  Predatory pricing remains a theoretical rather than empirical phenomenon.  This would suggest its not an explanation for Japan-US trade.

Finally, upon initial release the cost of, say, the PS3 was too low.  So consumers bought the game console at $300 (or whatever it was) and then sold it on ebay for actual market value.  This high real market price was due to the scarcity of PS3s relative to initial demand.  As more PS3s were produced and shipped, real prices dropped down to actual resale value.  Finally, as the company exhausted the market for those who were interested in owning a PS3 at the initial retail value, it reduced prices to capture more of the market.  This is basically offering a similar good that is differentiated by some quality, in this case how early you could own one, that customers care about.  The theatre uses a similar strategy by selling seats in better positions for more money than seats in worse position - both viewers see the show.

It should be noted that US-made consoles were hardly driven out of the market by PS3 underpricing - in fact, the Xbox 360 was also initially underpriced, and has also come down in price - and Microsoft is most certainly not a Japanese company.  It should probably also be noted that the price of a given piece of technology decreases over time as better technology becomes available.  That is, advances in things like chip design and production reduce the cost of making older technology, so goods using that technology become cheaper over time.

Finally, Japanese have not price-competed US cars out of the market through their actions.  On the one hand, Japanese cars are simply built more efficiently than US cars because when Japanese car factory workers go on strike the companies put engineers on the line (meaning the engineers directly experience manufacturing problems and inefficiencies).  Japanese assembly line workers are also encouraged to communicate with engineers about difficulties and optimization of production lines.  Neither of these are generally true in the US.  Finally, Japanese companies were more aggressive in heading off union demands, meaning their cost per worker is lower - this is a failure of US car companies who didn't even bother to fight union demands no matter how ridiculous they were.  Its also quite possible japanese cars are better engineered than US cars - certainly Toyotas last longer than anything made by GM or Ford.

Basically, the failure of US car companies is solely the fault of US car companies.  Your example fails.

[Granite26]

The point is that YOU, the player, might have caused the price changes with your own actions.  The core of games is showing the player their ability to affect the game world. 

This...

I won't argue against opinions that randomness is almost as good as simulation for outside the fort (disagree, just not argue). 

[praguepride]

Alright, I don't have time to respond to much, but the japan thing irks me.

1) Wikipedia tries to stay "neutral" and it has never been proven so to speak. A quick google search of "japan" and "market dumping" however will reveal many many interesting web pages.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDC1639F935A35750C0A964958260

Now, before we get offtangent: this isn't a debate about whether japan market dumps, my point is that S/D models can be artificially manipulated like any model. The PS3...oh I'm gald you brought that up. It was HILARIOUS!

Step 1) Media predicts that there's going to be a PS3 shortage and people are already trying to sell them for thousands of $$$'s online even though it's not even out yet
Step 2) Every greedy idiot gets dollars in their eyes and thinks "hey! that could be me"
Step 3) Lines form everywhere as people stand in line for their PS3 to throw up on ebay as soon as they  get home
Step 4) nobody is buying
Step 5) Everyone realizes "crap, nobody's buying my PS3 for 1000% profit...s***!
Step 6) All the PS3's get returned/pulled from the market.
Step 7)
Step Profit

I know DOZENS (no exaggeration, PS3 came out while I was still in college) of people who followed the above steps. None of them (0/22) was able to sell their PS3 online for anything more then a couple dollar profit. The one person I know who actually wanted one went into a Best Buy 3 days after opening and said there were piles of them, and more were being returned every day.

Sure there were acutal sales of PS3's for upwards of $2,000 but hey, there's always a sucker somewhere who will spend that much money on a "gotta have it" impulse buy. It's really funny because I bet everyone of those suckers is kicking themselves when they go into their local store a few days later and see the PS3 piles on sale for regular price.

Anyway, again, not a debate about PS3 price gouging. My point again is that S/D models are not complete, and are about as accurate as weather models, heck maybe even less so. At least meteorologists get about 48 hours warning before a hurricane....


So on to other respones:

Affecting the game world: Except for your actual digging, nothing you do right now effects the game world unless it comes to you. You can only kill goblin leaders if they try to actually invade you. Same with elves and humans. Typically you kill one and another one pops up yet. So why of ALL the wonderful proposals for having global impacts should economy get the #1 spot over military and political actions?

I know I'd much rather be able to seige enemy towns (military) or start up my own villages (political) as opposed to having to worry about global economy.

Finally, I'm glad you all agree that unpredicatability is great, and that you can "cheat" the system and random macro does simulate it well enough (not great, but enough that in our narrow view of the world you can't really tell the difference).

@Global events: Global events have to be coded in before a drought can cause price shortages. So chalk that up as yet another feature that needs to go in before the economic system.

I guess my point is that while the economy might be an interesting thing to toy with, I would argue that it is fairly low on the priorities list.

[Squirrelloid]

Maybe Wikipedia is just better read and researched than you.  You linked an article which includes allegations of dumping by competitors (ie, biased rivals who want to force government intervention to realize market prices that are higher than present).

This article from the Cato Policy Institute debunks predatory pricing in detail, with scholarly references.

Some select quotes:

"In sum, despite over 100 federal antitrust cases based on predatory pricing, Koller found absolutely no evidence of any monopoly having been established by predatory pricing between 1890 and 1970. Yet at the time Koller's study was published (1971), predatory pricing had long been part of the conventional wisdom. The work of McGee, Elzinga, and other analysts had not yet gained wide recognition.

The search for the elusive predatory pricer has not been any more successful in the two decades since Koller's study appeared. The complete lack of evidence of predatory pricing, moreover, has not gone unnoticed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio (1986), the Court demonstrated knowledge of the above-mentioned research in declaring, effectively, that predatory pricing was about as common as unicorn sightings."

As common as unicorn sightings!!!  Yeah, there's a theory to hang your hat on.

Or how about:

"The same anti-consumer policies prevail today. In June 1991 the Bush Commerce Department launched an investigation of alleged dumping of Japanese minivans in the American market. If successful, the investigation could lead to "forcing up prices of Japanese . . . cars."(37) The Big Three domestic automakers were advocating Japanese price increases, which they hoped would "blunt the Japanese advance" in the minivan market.(38) The Big Three at that time controlled 88 percent of the minivan market, but they complained that their sales were "weakened by the unfair pricing."(39)"

They have 88% of the market and because the japanese saw an opportunity to gain some market share because the US car makers were charging too much they're clearly competing illegally...     Seriously, that means the US car companies are abusing the legal system to maintain unreasonable profits by getting the government to force other companies to raise prices. 

Basically, the idea of predatory pricing is nonsense, and anyone who claims otherwise is looking for government protection and/or doesn't know what he's talking about.

Anyway, again, not a debate about PS3 price gouging. My point again is that S/D models are not complete, and are about as accurate as weather models, heck maybe even less so. At least meteorologists get about 48 hours warning before a hurricane....

How are S/D models not complete?  What's not usually complete is information (which is notably complete in DF).  The model just claims that price is set where supply=demand.  It assumes resources are limited, and people engage in trade.  A specific model requires knowledge of what supply and demand are - and knowledge of demand in the real world is hard to acquire.  But in DF we'd be stipulating it or measuring it perfectly, so that 'problem' disappears.

There is absolutely no controversy regarding the accuracy of S/D models that I've been able to find.  And problems with measurement of quantities are not problems with the model. 

I'll accept meteorology as a great example though - in DF we can make perfect predictions about the weather (if the game code tried to), because it knows what the weather model is, and has perfect information about the relevant variables.  In real life meteorology models may not be accurate, but more relevantly we never have perfect information to feed into those models.  Heck, we may not even understand what all the relevant information is.  The information problem is far larger than the modelling problem, and is not a factor in what's possible in a game.

------

On your summary point: why does it matter that military should happen first?  Military stuff is *already being developed*.  Saying we should prioritize it over economics is a non-issue.

And some events (like wars) already occur in world gen (and could occur once the world starts doing stuff during fortress mode), which will create demand for particular goods.

Basically, an objection that's 'known future component is more important' is not an objection at all.  Or did you not read the OP (which assumes the Arcs will eventually all be completed).

[Mikademus]

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

Nope. DF is a game of exploration and discovery. DF is a game of creativity. DF is a game of aesthetics. AND DF is a game involving managing a diverse set of aspects, where you in general do not have direct control over outcomes.

But you can (and probably will) define "management" to mean whatever you want to feel you will win a meaningless internet debate, so be my guest.

[Squirrelloid]

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

Nope. DF is a game of exploration and discovery. DF is a game of creativity. DF is a game of aesthetics. AND DF is a game involving managing a diverse set of aspects, where you in general do not have direct control over outcomes.

Given you just used 'managing' as the active verb for one of your claims, saying its not a management game is kind of bizarre.

But you can (and probably will) define "management" to mean whatever you want to feel you will win a meaningless internet debate, so be my guest.

Wow, misanthropic and poisoning the well, all at the same time.

But lets not take my definition.  Lets ask the english language.

1 : the act or art of managing : the conducting or supervising of something (as a business)
2 : judicious use of means to accomplish an end
3 : the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise

–noun
1. the act or manner of managing; handling, direction, or control.
2. skill in managing; executive ability: great management and tact. 
3. the person or persons controlling and directing the affairs of a business, institution, etc.: The store is under new management. 
4. executives collectively, considered as a class (distinguished from LABOR)

1. The act, manner, or practice of managing; handling, supervision, or control: management of a crisis; management of factory workers.
2. The person or persons who control or direct a business or other enterprise.
3. Skill in managing; executive ability.

1. The act or art of managing; the manner of treating, directing, carrying on, or using, for a purpose; conduct; administration; guidance; control; as, the management of a family or of a farm; the management of state affairs. "The management of the voice." --E. Porter.

2. Business dealing; negotiation; arrangement.

He had great managements with ecclesiastics. --Addison.

3. Judicious use of means to accomplish an end; conduct directed by art or address; skillful treatment; cunning practice; -- often in a bad sense.

Mark with what management their tribes divide Some stick to you, and some to t'other side. --Dryden.

4. The collective body of those who manage or direct any enterprise or interest; the board of managers.

Gee, the appropriate definition of management is the 1st definition in every dictionary i've looked at so far.

Management can involve exploration, discovery, creativity, aesthetics, and diverse aspects, but ultimately you're directing entities to do things for you rather than accomplishing them directly.  To quote the unabridged Websters: "Administration; Guidance; Control" are your direct interactions with the game.

[praguepride]

tl, dr;

Like I said, I'm not here to debate price dumping or PS3 profiteering.  You, Mr. Squirrelloid are taking this to be serious business, citing facts and doing research.

Anyway, Mikademus' point is that there is much more to this game then just a management game. He was saying that at it's heart, this game is a lot of things to a lot of people. Critics would look at my post and think that DF is just a sadistic carnage machine (while truth be told i've yet to have a single seige because of my poor FPS rate ) while to others its about discovery or exploration, or management, which it obviously is to you.

Frankly, I tend to just throw up as many jobs as possible for my dwarves and let them figure it out.

[Footkerchief]

Like I said, I'm not here to debate price dumping or PS3 profiteering.  You, Mr. Squirrelloid are taking this to be serious business, citing facts and doing research.

Why would you say this about a point that you were both the first to bring up and the first to post links about?  If you mention a "fact" in support of your argument, and are unable or unwilling to defend it, just back down.  You lose a lot more face by dragging out the discussion while simultaneously blaming the other person for making an issue of it.

[praguepride]

I was bringing up an example, nothing more. A common analogy that I thought would allow you to get on the same page as I.

I brought up price dumping as an example of artificial manipulation of S/D that breaks the "everything's neat and simple" models. Whether it is actually happening IRL is a matter of debate for a different forum. Same thing with the PS3 profiteering.

Anyway, back on topic. OP doesn't state "after everything is done, it would be nice..." no, it says that. In fact, you say "Please!" with an exclamation point like this is the most critical factor in the game at the moment. Don't blame me for blowing things out of proportions when you use exclamation marks!!!!


Also, face!? What the heck? I don't have a face. I am anonymous on teh internetz

[Squirrelloid]

I was bringing up an example, nothing more. A common analogy that I thought would allow you to get on the same page as I.

I brought up price dumping as an example of artificial manipulation of S/D that breaks the "everything's neat and simple" models. Whether it is actually happening IRL is a matter of debate for a different forum. Same thing with the PS3 profiteering.

It doesn't break S/D at all, even in theory.  In order to actually drive out competition, the underseller needs to also increase supply to meet demand at that new price or the competition they're trying to ruin will simply sell to cover the shortage, which was even pointed out by the CATO article.

PS3 profiteering also made perfect sense, because TIME was a relevant component, and some people did indeed demand a PS3 enough that they were willing to pay $2000 on ebay for the very first initial release.  In some cases it might mean they got their system just days before larger supply became available, but apparently it was worth it to them.  That supply and demand have a time component is unsurprising. would you say a promise of a dollar now or a dollar in one year are equivalent?  Of course not.  The dollar now is worth more.

Anyway, back on topic. OP doesn't state "after everything is done, it would be nice..." no, it says that. In fact, you say "Please!" with an exclamation point like this is the most critical factor in the game at the moment. Don't blame me for blowing things out of proportions when you use exclamation marks!!!!

So you missed the part where I talk about the bustling town arc specifically? (Which is clearly slated for after the army arc)

[Mikademus]

Mikademus' point is that there is much more to this game then just a management game. He was saying that at it's heart, this game is a lot of things to a lot of people. Critics would look at my post and think that DF is just a sadistic carnage machine (while truth be told i've yet to have a single seige because of my poor FPS rate ) while to others its about discovery or exploration, or management, which it obviously is to you.

See, Squirreloid, it IS possible to not misunderstand.

But you can (and probably will) define "management" to mean whatever you want to feel you will win a meaningless internet debate, so be my guest.

...set of dictionary definitions...

QED.

For some people this game is obviously a management game (which means something beyond and other than a Webster's definition of "management". If you had business management experience you'd also know that in the real world management means something entirely different and more than those dictionary definitions. Also, "management" as implied by those dictionaries would be considered a very American style outside the former colony). For other people is is a game of expression. Many people get bored with the fortresses when the "management" aspects start to dominate and start over. DF is a Rorschach inkblot test. You might see a management game.

[Squirrelloid]

Mikademus' point is that there is much more to this game then just a management game. He was saying that at it's heart, this game is a lot of things to a lot of people. Critics would look at my post and think that DF is just a sadistic carnage machine (while truth be told i've yet to have a single seige because of my poor FPS rate ) while to others its about discovery or exploration, or management, which it obviously is to you.

See, Squirreloid, it IS possible to not misunderstand.

Apparently not for you however.

Management can involve exploration, discovery, creativity, aesthetics, and diverse aspects, but ultimately you're directing entities to do things for you rather than accomplishing them directly.

Or more simply 'it is not a game about those things, but it contains those things within it.'

Similarly, Civilizations (and successors) are games about guiding a civilization through time (ie, management).  They involve war, diplomacy, and other aspects, but it is not a 'war game', a 'diplomacy game', or so forth, and anyone looking for (for example) a war game is going to be severely disappointed.

But you can (and probably will) define "management" to mean whatever you want to feel you will win a meaningless internet debate, so be my guest.

...set of dictionary definitions...

QED.

For some people this game is obviously a management game (which means something beyond and other than a Webster's definition of "management". If you had business management experience you'd also know that in the real world management means something entirely different and more than those dictionary definitions. Also, "management" as implied by those dictionaries would be considered a very American style outside the former colony). For other people is is a game of expression. Many people get bored with the fortresses when the "management" aspects start to dominate and start over. DF is a Rorschach inkblot test. You might see a management game.

Management games by necessity include other aspects - ie, those activities which your management directs.  Any game wherein you control the actions of more than one character in game, especially when you do so (to varying degrees) indirectly, is a management game to the degree that such activity is the norm.  In DF you do nothing but that - it is the dominant mode of play. 

I mean, to take the creativity example, you could imagine a game where you just draw the fortress and place pieces - where everything happens automatically.  It would involve just as much creativity, but no management.  With the exception of some architect players (who may really want that instead), such a game would lose a lot of its charm because we don't get to watch and direct digital creatures to actually make the thing.  Calling it a game of creativity fails to understand what makes the game fun for most people.  (Which doesn't mean I don't enjoy building grandiose and bizarre structures, but the building is as much if not more fun than having or designing the structure itself.)