Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: An idea about making the economy better  (Read 6809 times)

lucusLoC

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2010, 11:50:58 am »

i am posting the link from my previous thread here, if you already read it please disregard.

here is the TLDR: real life modeling of economics in DF means that DF will need the equivalent of real life tools to keep up with it. i am not an accountant or financer or stock market annalyser, nor should i have to be to play DF. DF's economy model should be simple, not complicated.

@firehound: please pay special attention to the subquote at the bottom; if a dorf owns all made items, and the fortress must buy them, how do you assure that the player can always afford to perform actions?

Quote
i disslike the idea of basing DF ecconomics on the real world. if you do then you will need real world tools to help track things like supply and demand, valuations and exchange rates, trending, blah blah blah.

i think DF needs its own simple economic theory. something that is easy to grasp, and provides fun for the player. something that would probably meake even an entry level econ student balk.

lets start with the most basic, value of goods.

the value of currenct should be based off of the lowest possible demomination of coinage, i.e. a coin of the leas vauable metal. let us assume that is lead. so on lead coin is the least valuable unit of currency in the game, valued at 1DB or dorfbuck.

(Asside: values specified in the raws would be relative to each other. so if lead had a value of 10 in the raws, and gold had a value of 3500, then lead coin would be worth 1, and a gold coin would be worth 350. the same would be true if lead were worth 1 and gold 350 in the raws. this would allow for the creation of worthless materals as well. if you make lead worth 1000, and some stone worth 1, then that stone would effectivly be worthless, since lead is the least valuable coinable matiereal and so has a base value of 1 per unit.)

the value of an item is based on its material (M), times the number of that material in the item (N), plus a base usefullness of the item (I) (which is multiplied by the quality (Q)), as defined in the raws. so (MxN)+(IxQ)

M can be 0.
N must always be 1 or grater (so no more 3 mugs from 1 unit of stone)
I can be 0, but should be baed on how useful/desireable that item type is
Q is defined as below (names and numbers made up, open for debate):


shoddy: .5
ugly: .7
rough: .8
decent (or qualityless): 1
good: 1.1
beautiful: 1.3
superb: 1.5
masterpiece: 1.7





i am now going to BS some numbers.

say you have a table. the base value for the stone in that table is 2, and it requires 8 stone to make, for a total of 8. the overall usefulnees/desierability of a table is 10, and it is good quality. (2x8)+(10X1.1)+27

so the table is worth 27 DB. period. the value of the table does not change. the amount of labor put into that table does not affect its value (that part is true to life). the value of the table is set in the stone it is made from.

now, if a dorf wants to put this table in his room he must buy it, and he will pay 27DB for it. glut of tables or not. i do not realy care if htat is how it wroks or not, it is simple, easy to understand, and cuts out the need for  the player to think about how many table to make for optimum value and usefullness. the player should not need a calculator to figure out the value of something, or watch the reported values of items fly about all over the place (except for noble mandates, but we will get to those).

now, that reported value may not nessisarily be what everyone is going to pay though. caravans are going to want to make a profit on the things they buy, and they know taht that table is going to only be woth 27 DB when they get there. so they may only be willing to pay 70% (this number should be based on distance to market, whatever that market is determined to be). now, if you are trying to unload, say, 100 table onto them, they may not be wiling to take them all. they may only want 15. you may, perhaps, be able to get them to take 30, but the last 15 will only be bought at 35%. the coice is yours.

now if you request something from a caravan, they are going to stick it to you, making you pay more. if they have a request of you, you can getthem to pay more. pretty much same as now, but the markets will be derived from the world, instead of randomly. this is where the nobility come in.

if urist McNoble sees that his fort is in need of something, say tables, he can resonably assume there is a shortage and boost the price on them. please note that the carivan is not going to care about this local price hike, they will still only pay 70% of the actual value, not the inflated value. they will, however, be willing to charge more. price hikes can be based off of thoughts and complaints, or simply the whim of the noble, like they are now. also note that noble in other locatoins are what is going to drive the merchant requests. if some noble up north has hiked the price of sunshine to 200%, the merchant may very well be wiling to pay you 120% to get you to give up a large portion of you stock.

i do wish to emphasise that the actual value of the item does not change, just the relative value. this is not like the real world, where it is actual value that fluctuates, but it keeps things simple for the player, as they have a baseline that they can always fall back on to see if they are getting a good deal. it provides a constant, so that frustratoin is kept to a minimum.

now i am going to quote myself, becaue i kinda alreay explaned how i would like the transfer of wealth to work:

Quote

    As to the fortress account, you do have to make sure the player does not get the (still active) fortress into an unplayable state. If there are no funds left, how is digging handled? What about food production? I think fortress wealth should be phsical wealth only, but dorfs are paid in "work credits" that do not count twords actual wealth. They are mearly a way to aquire actual wealth from the fortress. With a system that simple we can also do away with inflation models. We can do that since we are more or less dealing with a closed system, with finite resources. If a dorf makes a billion dorfbucks hauling, and there is not a billion dorfbucks of stuff available, he buys what he can and either sits on the rest or buys out caravans. I lean twords the sits on it part, as i prefer the caravans to only take phisical goods, or phisical coinage. Payment from off site (traders buying ale at the inn for example) would obey the same rules. So player interaction would be paid out of the "fortress cedit," which is onlt good on the local map, and for local units, all other trasactions would need to be phisical.a dorf who owns a shop that could not sell stuff for lack of demand wold either have to return to the general fortress work pool or be hired by a more succeddful dorf to earn credits to buy food. If they are renting something, they loos it, if they own it outright then they can sell it (prefered) or keep it. Dorf bums (dorfs with no monies and no available jobs) eat on the forts dime, drink water and sleep either on the floor or in an avaialable barracks/unclaimed bed, similar to what they do now. This would obviously make them unhappy. The price of goods would not fluctuate, except by noble mandate. This would keep things simple for the player. However, i am totaly for the idea of trade caravans refusing to take more of a paticular good. Not pay less for it, just refuse to take it. There should probably be a warning though, like a liasion telling you "the human caravan is not interested in any more mugs"

here is the link to that thread:

http://www.bay12games.com/forum/index.php?topic=40667.0
 
Logged
Quantum dumps are proof of "memory" being a perfectly normal dimension in DF. ~Gazz

Atanamis

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2010, 12:46:34 pm »

@firehound: please pay special attention to the subquote at the bottom; if a dorf owns all made items, and the fortress must buy them, how do you assure that the player can always afford to perform actions?
You might not be able to do so, and the game would become more like sim city where sometimes you can just "lose" because the city has run out of money. Personally, I'd rather not see that change happen, but it is definitely a legitimate game style should Toady want to move in that direction. It would be a major change from how the game has run to date though, and I doubt it is the direction the game will go.

I think there definitely needs to be a separation between cost of something to inhabitants of the fortress vs cost to a trader. If we have a fortress that is drowning in gold but short on food, gold items might not have much cost to a dwarf relative to a meal. However, if a trader wants to buy that same gold item they would likely be willing to pay a large amount of food for it. The relative skills of the traders should determine what price is struck. Skilled traders should also provide feedback to the player regarding whether the trade will make their competitor happier or unhappy. For trading, rarity in the trading civ should always be represented by a trade preference level for the good, combined with a max amount they will buy.

The trader coming to visit really doesn't CARE how rare a good is in your fortress, only on what they can sell it for elsewhere. Their pricing should have NO relation to local conditions, and be learned only by trading and talking to the liason. Price histories should be available to the player so I can easily see that the dwarves are paying 2x as much for armor as the humans. Again, the accuracy of such tables would be based on the skill of the trader. Long term, I'd like to be able to set up trading caravans of my own that will let me send off a caravan of goods with predetermined trade priorities. Since eventually we are supposed to BECOME the mountain home, this kind of interaction with our subjects should become possible.

Within the fortress, rarity should absolutely be used to set prices. If I don't make many shirts, only my Baron should be able to afford shirts. I'd rather the rich be able to maintain their happiness than go shirtless because some hauler walked off with the only shirt. Nobles should mandate production when they are hearing complaints from all those having to go without socks because I forgot, and make mandates for 50 socks to reduce the shortage. That way I don't have to keep track of shortages, my nobles do it for me. This makes nobles a tool for monitoring the happiness of the people, and for making sure I don't have to micromanage. Ideally I could just assign a clothes maker to automatically fulfill mandates as a top priority if I don't want to be bothered. If done right, there need be little extra work for the player.
Logged

Arkenstone

  • Bay Watcher
  • Perfect Clear Diamond
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2010, 05:52:58 pm »

One thing that occured to me is a way that might make money AKA coinage a bit more useful and sane (and non-gamebreaking than before) is to make coinage somewhat abstracted instead of having them as items that dwarves can hold and hoard.
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The coins themselves are stored in a new stockpile tagged as a "Vault" (new target for kobold thieves?) with their actual movement of "currency" being handled invisibly without the actual movement of coins...

Just a thought I had.

I like your last idea, but not the others.  The vast amount of coins should be in the vault or hoard, with smaller 'personal hoards' being designated by the player inside set containers.
Now, here's the big idea:

All transactions happen instantaneously.

The coins just teleport from one container to another, no matter the distance!
No more hauling issues, no more worrying about stacks of 1, all that's really broken about the economy fixed, period.
Everything else can follow smoothly from that: all the bells & whistles of supply & demand, noble demands for a bigger hoard, dwarves that like to count their money (and stack those that go together), etc.
The Trade Depot can even be linked to the inter-hoard system, so that coins become useful for trading (whatever you bought still has to be hauled, though).
However, any coins outside the system, whether newly-minted or stolen, have to manually be hauled back to where they belong.


Independant of but related to that idea, bags should be labeled as containers for coins, similarly to seeds,  but with a #limit of >100; so that hauling coins might be easier.
Logged

Quote from: Retro
Dwarven economics are still in the experimental stages. The humans have told them that they need to throw a lot of money around to get things going, but every time the dwarves try all they just end up with a bunch of coins lying all over the place.

The EPIC Dwarven Drinking Song of Many Names

Feel free to ask me any questions you have about logic/computing; I'm majoring in the topic.

bluea

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2010, 06:13:48 pm »

Dwarf Fortress is sufficiently complex that I would actually really like to actually run completely different types of economies.

The fact that the individual actors have different desires and thus ascribe different personal values to the same physical object makes this a non-trivial puzzle.

And not all the necessary knobs are exposed.
Logged

lucusLoC

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2010, 07:13:33 pm »

@firehound: please pay special attention to the subquote at the bottom; if a dorf owns all made items, and the fortress must buy them, how do you assure that the player can always afford to perform actions?
You might not be able to do so, and the game would become more like sim city where sometimes you can just "lose" because the city has run out of money. Personally, I'd rather not see that change happen, but it is definitely a legitimate game style should Toady want to move in that direction. It would be a major change from how the game has run to date though, and I doubt it is the direction the game will go.

i never meant to sound like it was not a valid game mode, it is just not the way i would prefer df to go.

Quote
I think there definitely needs to be a separation between cost of something to inhabitants of the fortress vs cost to a trader. If we have a fortress that is drowning in gold but short on food, gold items might not have much cost to a dwarf relative to a meal. However, if a trader wants to buy that same gold item they would likely be willing to pay a large amount of food for it. The relative skills of the traders should determine what price is struck. Skilled traders should also provide feedback to the player regarding whether the trade will make their competitor happier or unhappy. For trading, rarity in the trading civ should always be represented by a trade preference level for the good, combined with a max amount they will buy.

The trader coming to visit really doesn't CARE how rare a good is in your fortress, only on what they can sell it for elsewhere. Their pricing should have NO relation to local conditions, and be learned only by trading and talking to the liason. Price histories should be available to the player so I can easily see that the dwarves are paying 2x as much for armor as the humans. Again, the accuracy of such tables would be based on the skill of the trader. Long term, I'd like to be able to set up trading caravans of my own that will let me send off a caravan of goods with predetermined trade priorities. Since eventually we are supposed to BECOME the mountain home, this kind of interaction with our subjects should become possible.

Within the fortress, rarity should absolutely be used to set prices. If I don't make many shirts, only my Baron should be able to afford shirts. I'd rather the rich be able to maintain their happiness than go shirtless because some hauler walked off with the only shirt. Nobles should mandate production when they are hearing complaints from all those having to go without socks because I forgot, and make mandates for 50 socks to reduce the shortage. That way I don't have to keep track of shortages, my nobles do it for me. This makes nobles a tool for monitoring the happiness of the people, and for making sure I don't have to micromanage. Ideally I could just assign a clothes maker to automatically fulfill mandates as a top priority if I don't want to be bothered. If done right, there need be little extra work for the player.

i think you are hitting on the same concept i was getting at: trying to keep the economy simple enough to be easy to manage, yet complex enough to be interesting. i am sure there are a few ways to do this, and finding the one that fits df best is what we should be trying to do. adding in details is all well and good, but like the geology portion, it works best if it is not absolutely essential to running a decent fort. at the very least having some sort of base value for an item set off of quantifiable (and editable) numbers lets a player quickly see what an "optimum" price is for any particular good. this would quickly let player see if items are over or under valued (in game terms) in trades, and by how much. if you let the "actual" value of items dynamically adjust based off of some sort of supply and demand it becomes very hard for a player to determine if the items are actually worth producing for trade without having some very advanced price tracking tools at their disposal. if we have a fixed number to compare to it becomes drastically easier to make that judgment call, even if we loos a lot of realism. it also make it way easier to program, simply because we do not need as advance an interface to manage it (no need for trending graphs to compare price fluctuations, for example).

what we *do* need is more realism in how the demands of traders are generated, and to a lesser extent how dorfs respond to shortages of desired local goods. if, for example, the human king loves tables and is filling his castle with all kinds at any cost, it should be reflected in the prices that traders are willing to pay. to a lesser extent this kind of supply/demand system can be implemented with the noble price adjustments. these would only really come into play in the more extreme circumstances, and would keep local price fluctuations nonexistent until there was actual a problem. if the record keeper saw that their was 500 unused tables available in the free market, he may drastically reduce prices to encourage people (including merchants) to take advantage of that. if the mayor saw that there were many people complaining of a lack of places to sit he could increase the price of chairs. this would a). discourage traders from purchasing chairs at inflated prices (they would only be wiling to pay normal prices) and b). encourage dorfs to make more chairs.

of course somewhere in there we have to consider player actions. if a player is hording tables for a megaproject those table should not really be considered part of the dorfen supply/demand model. they are "commissioned" pieces that affect neither the supply or demand side of the economic equation. this is why i stated in my economy control thread there needs to be a way to mark items as part of the economy. this would in effect flag that item as part of the supply/demand equation. the basic idea is that anything the player explicitly orders to be made is a commissioned piece, and should not be treated in the supply side of any calculation, even if it does actually reduce demand.

of course that leads to the issue of how to correctly interpret things like communal "player owned, not part of the economy" dining halls, that satisfy needs outside of the supply/demand equation. hence my above suggestion that nobles be the only one allowed to adjust prices, and only really do so based on complaints for dorfs and not any real-to-life type equation (e.g. lots of dorfs are hungry, the price of food goes up, but not its actual value).
Logged
Quantum dumps are proof of "memory" being a perfectly normal dimension in DF. ~Gazz

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2010, 09:44:41 pm »

here is the TLDR: real life modeling of economics in DF means that DF will need the equivalent of real life tools to keep up with it. i am not an accountant or financer or stock market annalyser, nor should i have to be to play DF. DF's economy model should be simple, not complicated.

Someone doesn't need to understand the economy to participate in it, just as you don't need to understand Geology to play DF.  All you really need to know is YOU HAVE STRUCK HEMITITE!

Likewise, in real life, you don't need to know much about the political policies of Iran, Russia, or Venezuala, global production or refining capacity, or the practices of speculators who essentially horde the world's oil supply until the world is willing to pay their ransom for it back to understand that, "hey, gas costs more than it used to!"

The current economy is the most simple kind of economy, essentially a "Karl Marx Hates Your Guts" economy, where all goods have the same price at all times, except when you or they request something, arbitrarily raising the value of that good.

We can make the economy have a simple increase in complexity by making rarity alone modify value, but this doesn't really reflect anything realistic in demand, because it makes the only billon chair in existence worth many times more than more common copper or silver chairs or even gold chairs.

We can have a system where elves might want to demand more weapons based on a shortage in their civ, or a sudden interest in quarrey bush leaf meals without making the PLAYER track the global supply of iron.  Likewise, humans may have a general civ-level wealth rating.  When they are poor and desperate, they only trade for food or necessities.  When they are wealthy, they will pay greater prices for higher-quality items and toys and luxury goods.  All the player would need to know about this, however, is that they could hit the "c" button, and look at what the different civs are paying for different kinds of goods, and adjust what he/she is selling, accordingly.  (I mean, unless a player really, honestly DOES want to meddle in fixing global prices of goods.)  We certainly don't even  expect the player to pay more attention to other civs right now other than to simply note that they exist in the first place. 

Likewise, I don't even blink when my nobles start fussing over the price fluctuations of internal pricing of goods, since it makes no difference at all to my fort's operation.  Oh no!  That rope reed sock will now cost 308 DBs instead of 290 DBs because many people replaced their socks, and supply has gone down!  This means next to nothing when my dwarves are generally gainfully employed, and it makes little difference since they're going to buy the thing if they want it, anyway.  Who seriously wants to go micromanaging every single one of their dwarves' checkbooks?

The trader coming to visit really doesn't CARE how rare a good is in your fortress, only on what they can sell it for elsewhere. Their pricing should have NO relation to local conditions, and be learned only by trading and talking to the liason. Price histories should be available to the player so I can easily see that the dwarves are paying 2x as much for armor as the humans. Again, the accuracy of such tables would be based on the skill of the trader. Long term, I'd like to be able to set up trading caravans of my own that will let me send off a caravan of goods with predetermined trade priorities. Since eventually we are supposed to BECOME the mountain home, this kind of interaction with our subjects should become possible.

Within the fortress, rarity should absolutely be used to set prices. If I don't make many shirts, only my Baron should be able to afford shirts. I'd rather the rich be able to maintain their happiness than go shirtless because some hauler walked off with the only shirt. Nobles should mandate production when they are hearing complaints from all those having to go without socks because I forgot, and make mandates for 50 socks to reduce the shortage. That way I don't have to keep track of shortages, my nobles do it for me. This makes nobles a tool for monitoring the happiness of the people, and for making sure I don't have to micromanage. Ideally I could just assign a clothes maker to automatically fulfill mandates as a top priority if I don't want to be bothered. If done right, there need be little extra work for the player.

I'd like to back this notion, as well.
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Andeerz

  • Bay Watcher
  • ...likes cows for their haunting moos.
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2010, 12:06:51 am »

Quote
what we *do* need is more realism in how the demands of traders are generated, and to a lesser extent how dorfs respond to shortages of desired local goods.

Amen to that, brotha!  Also, I agree with NW_Kohaku's post wholeheartedly. 

Stemming from those posts... how would we be able to model actual demand for goods above the fortress level beyond contrived "oh, I'm a noble of a neighboring city who likes cheese. I will pay handsomely for some cheese" sort of situations?

Basically, how do we model demands that are directly affected by or are the result of events and circumstances in the world?  For example, how could we model a demand for weapons by a civ/city/fort that wishes to build up supplies for outfitting troops for a coming invasion or planned military excursion? 

Also, how could we model the civ/city/fort's decision process regarding what action to take to satisfy their demand (conquest, extortion, or trading)?

« Last Edit: March 18, 2010, 12:09:43 am by Andeerz »
Logged

Firehound

  • Bay Watcher
  • !!human!!
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2010, 07:13:12 am »

-snip-
@firehound: please pay special attention to the subquote at the bottom; if a dorf owns all made items, and the fortress must buy them, how do you assure that the player can always afford to perform actions?

-snip-

    As to the fortress account, you do have to make sure the player does not get the (still active) fortress into an unplayable state. If there are no funds left, how is digging handled? What about food production? -snip-

It makes the dwarves unhappy probably based off a personalty trait, probably the one that makes them like to help people. They still do it. but they get an unhappy thought for working for pretty much nothing.
Maye something along the lines of

'Urist McMiner was annoyed/unhappy/angered/enraged that he was forced to work for free by Urist DeNoble'

Or

'Urist McMason was annoyed/unhappy/angered/enraged that his goods were seized by Urist DeNoble'

Making if it comes down to it, Money might cause tantrumming. Just like if your boss in the real world writes you an IOU, Dwarves won't tolerate it for too long.
Logged

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

dizzyelk

  • Bay Watcher
  • Likes kittens for their delicious roasts.
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2010, 11:03:38 am »



The trader coming to visit really doesn't CARE how rare a good is in your fortress, only on what they can sell it for elsewhere. Their pricing should have NO relation to local conditions, and be learned only by trading and talking to the liason. Price histories should be available to the player so I can easily see that the dwarves are paying 2x as much for armor as the humans. Again, the accuracy of such tables would be based on the skill of the trader. Long term, I'd like to be able to set up trading caravans of my own that will let me send off a caravan of goods with predetermined trade priorities. Since eventually we are supposed to BECOME the mountain home, this kind of interaction with our subjects should become possible.

I'd like to see something like this, but I think that if its an item the civ in question wants, they'll outright say something like, "We need arms for our troops, we'll pay you (twice base price modified by broker skills vs trader skills) for X iron short swords." It should be done with the liaisons during the trade meeting. Then you could agree to fill the order (with possible penalties on future transactions if you fail) or say, no, we have no magma or coke / iron ore, give us two years and bring a ton of coal/ore next year at (half base price modified by skills), or outright no, not gonna do it.

Then, when the traders show up, you bring the items and trade at the currently set fort value. The traders then compare that to whatever they're willing to pay and say something along the lines of "You must be sober! I'm not paying that much for a stupid stone mug!" when you try to trade it to them. After all, the merchants go to specific places to get what they want because they know its cheaper there from high supply.
Logged
Dwarf Fortress - Bringing out the evil in people since 2006.
Somehow, that fills me more with dread than anticipation.  It's like being told that someone's exhuming your favorite grandparent and they're going to try to make her into a cyborg stripper.

stuntedkind

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2010, 09:34:55 am »

Within the fortress, rarity should absolutely be used to set prices. If I don't make many shirts, only my Baron should be able to afford shirts. I'd rather the rich be able to maintain their happiness than go shirtless because some hauler walked off with the only shirt. Nobles should mandate production when they are hearing complaints from all those having to go without socks because I forgot, and make mandates for 50 socks to reduce the shortage. That way I don't have to keep track of shortages, my nobles do it for me. This makes nobles a tool for monitoring the happiness of the people, and for making sure I don't have to micromanage. Ideally I could just assign a clothes maker to automatically fulfill mandates as a top priority if I don't want to be bothered. If done right, there need be little extra work for the player.

This is the sort of powerful tool the 'late game' is really crying out for, would really help cut out a lot of micromanagement.  An economy system that (if well run) keeps your dorfs occupied and well supplied and tells you of any shortage problems, freeing up player time to plan magaprojects and deal with improved siegers/diplomacy (when they get added).

With price changes and mandates the current economy already tries to do similar things- it's the production system, skills system and lack of universal item decay that bork it up at the moment. Without 'production chains' being added to all workshops and stores you can't automate producing goods to fill mandates, at the moment legendary skilled craftdwarfs and growers overproduce and put dwarfs out of work (not to mention the yearly goblinite delivery), and only clothes rot (and not quick enough to keep up with one dwarf clothing industries).

With regards trading, I'd love to see more emphasis put on trade agreements like dizzyelk suggests. This would also open up trade as the main driver for coin production - for example if I want iron bars from Civ X, I should be able to make an agreement to buy them with coin rather than having to make a million rock crafts or whatever. Even better, if for example Civ Y mints coins, I should be able to set up an agreement were I trade my million rock crafts for coins- thus storing wealth without having the million rock crafts clogging up my storerooms and giving me lag.

Logged

Silverionmox

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2010, 12:08:57 pm »

One important thing that the economy should do is recover, after a tantrum spiral or similar catastrophic event.
Logged
Dwarf Fortress cured my savescumming.

Andeerz

  • Bay Watcher
  • ...likes cows for their haunting moos.
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2010, 01:18:31 pm »

Awww... where's the FUN in that?  :P
Logged

NW_Kohaku

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ETHIC:SCIENCE_FOR_FUN: REQUIRED]
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2010, 11:15:23 pm »

... Honestly, with regards to "millions of rock crafts", I generally just trade away everything I haul to my trade depot, regardless of the price of whatever I am trading for in exchange... somtimes trading at something like 5:1, which I often do now, since I've moved my oversized textile mill into more decorations than actually making new clothes, and everything they touch is masterwork, which means I'm trading away 1200 DB socks by the bin.  (And generally around three or four pages of bins per trade season.)

One important thing that the economy should do is recover, after a tantrum spiral or similar catastrophic event.

I can get behind this sentiment, as DF, as it stands, is largely about prevention, and has essentially no means of disaster management, largely leaving you to just try and absorb losses.

Still, I've never really seen the economy as a terrible difficulty with regards to tantrum spirals, so I'll have to ask you to specify how the economy could help with catastrophies?
Logged
Personally, I like [DF] because after climbing the damned learning cliff, I'm too elitist to consider not liking it.
"And no Frankenstein-esque body part stitching?"
"Not yet"

Improved Farming
Class Warfare

Aachen

  • Bay Watcher
  • Wenzo Pilgrim cancels job: unstuck in time.
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2010, 11:18:17 pm »

One important thing that the economy should do is recover, after a tantrum spiral or similar catastrophic event.

All sectors of an economy, or even economies under vastly different pressures, should not be equally resilient.

Logged
Quote from: Rithol Camus
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is magma.

Quote from: Chinua Achebe
.... For Cliché is pauperized Ecstasy.

AngleWyrm

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: An idea about making the economy better
« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2010, 11:36:02 pm »

Some thoughts on Dorf Economic Modelling

Don't model the economy after "real life." In real life the banks mint new dollars every time someone deposits a dollar in the bank. This should be shocking to the point of disbelief, because it means that a single dollar becomes a smaller fraction of the total dollars every day. In theory, we would be on a constant inflation track until the purchasing power of a buck is less than the paper it's printed on. In reality this has already happened several times, and will continue to happen. For example, the US penny was stripped of it's copper content when it became apparent that a penny's copper traded for more than a penny. Same with the nickel Nickel, the silver Dime, and the silver Quarter and Dollar.

Use a Gold Standard. Reconnect the worth of material to Dorfbucks. 100 Dorfbucks -> 1 Gold bar, and 1 Gold bar -> 100 Dorfbucks. It is important that this is a lossless exchange, with no percentage charges or fees for service. In order for 100 Dorfbucks to be WORTH 1 Gold bar, it must take exactly 100 Dorf bucks to make a Gold bar, and visa versa. (Note that it could be 10 bucks, or platinum, or anything else, but it has to be stationary for the whole game timeline). Then it can be seen that minting new coins will do no harm, because they are just as easily converted back to metal bars. A person can hold many metal bars worth of bucks in their private reserve, or they could have a stack of metal bars. Doesn't really matter.

The hard part: Service Value. I am of a mind that 'Money' is an overly-generic concept that covers at least two forms of exchange. The first is the transfer of materials, usually a trade of materials. I give one gold bar and I get 1 stack of <something else I want>. The other part is as merit for service to King and Country. I go to work to serve my fellow man, the paycheck is a proof of service I can use to get served by my fellow man.

If tokens for service were separated from material wealth, we could probably explore a much better form of economic model.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 11:38:12 pm by AngleWyrm »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4