Some Thoughts on Scarcity; or, Why Tying Resources to Cities Might Not Be Best

[Psweet]

After a discussion in the public IRC channel today, an idea has coalesced that I think has merit.  I believe that resource production should be tied not to how many cities one has, but by how much land one has (for raw resources) or by how much infra one has (for manufactured resources).  What I mean by this is that the number of slots you are allowed for any specific resource should be adjusted higher as your nation grows.  It makes no sense to me that a city with 2000 infra can't have more steel mills than a city with 600 infra.  You more than tripled the size of the city, but steel production is the same as it was before.  

 

The problem leading to this suggestion is that scarcity is increasing.  Average nation size grows larger, and larger nations have a higher infra:city ratio.  What this means is that while war (the prime use of resources) is getting *much* more expensive as a whole, while the production capacity of the game (as measured in number of cities) is still growing but not as quickly.  If we carry this trend forward in time, barring other changes to economics of the game it's easy to see that scarcity will become a serious problem, and one which could possibly threaten to make the game grow stale as building a warchest would become exceedingly expensive due to ever-increasing resource costs.  Those of us who have played even as little as six months can easily see this being borne out.  The price of steel when I started playing was around 1700.  Today I doubt I will ever see it dip below 2000 again.   War is brutally expensive, and the production capacity is simply not keeping pace.  Demand is consistently outstripping supply.

 

So why would this suggestion make any more sense?  

 

Well first of all, by tying production to land and infra, you give a nation the ability to specialize a bit.  I feel right now that there isn't much specialization.  I joined the game with the idea that I could be a coal tycoon... but then I hit max coal mines and there wasn't anything more I could do.  Wash, rinse, repeat for all the other resources.  Heck, during the raws boom of the past month, I've had almost max raw material production in all my cities, except farms.  I'm not even a big nation.  My cities are just sitting at 1500 infra.  Giving me a way to increase production of the resources I want to could make the game more flavorful.

 

Second of all, it would serve to increase production over time more effectively than having it just tied to cities.  As a city grew, so would its production capacity, and so as nations get larger, they will be able to produce the same amount, relatively (if they choose to, of course).  This would tie up the growing scarcity problem, as there would no longer be a point where nations have to consume far more than they can hope to produce. 

 

Thirdly, I think it just makes sense.  What's the limiting factor on how much coal you can dig out of the ground?  Why, the amount of land you have available to mine it out of!  What's the limiting factor on how much steel one can mill?  The cost of creating the facility and the number of workers you can assign to it!  Land and infra, respectively.  

 

I think a linear progression of infra/land : slots would work best.  As I said, the intent is mostly to head off the scarcity problem, and by making the relationship linear, you'd ensure that you could do just that.  However, this would be an enormous change to how the game's economy works, so I'd recommend instituting the change slowly, as a non-linear relationship that became closer and closer to linear over time, so as to not shock the markets.

 

Thanks to Seabass, Kyubey, and Samdoo for the ideas and discussion.  Also, 

 

[15:04] <isolataway> I want some credit btw

[15:04] <Psweet> I'll quote you

[15:04] <isolataway> Thanks

 

[Kyubnyan]

I'm all down for inflation.

[Alex]

A better solution, imo, is just removing limits on raw and manufactured resource production.

[Bezzers]

I like this idea, but finding the balance between nation size to resource production ratio would be hard to achieve if it were to not greatly disrupt the market. If it were well planned one could simply swap around a few numbers and nations would be making the same amount of money with lower ppu just by having a greater excess of material. It also allows for faster growth of smaller nations, as not as much needs to be bought in but with the dropped prices they could grow a whole lot faster. The downside to that is that smaller nations would find it harder to make as much money on the market, but the saving could easily counteract that. All in all I think this is something that has potential

[Psweet]

A better solution, imo, is just removing limits on raw and manufactured resource production.

That would also work, but I assumed you wanted to keep some kind of limit 

[Alex]

A change like this would really de-stabilize the market. Everyone is more or less forced to diversify atm, and I'm not sure that players react quickly enough to price shocks that they won't flood and tank markets (and their incomes) etc. I think there would be a lot more tears, but larger profits during boom cycles.

[Dan77]

Yeah, just what we need.  More changes to help rich players out.

 

I'm not really against this as a change on it's own but combined with all the other changes that are helping out bigger nations it just contributes further toward making the game unplayable for everyone else.

[Psweet]

Yeah, just what we need.  More changes to help rich players out.

 

I'm not really against this as a change on it's own but combined with all the other changes that are helping out bigger nations it just contributes further toward making the game unplayable for everyone else.

Or a reason to get rich to begin with.  I don't see much reason to go above 1500 infra.  I can max military during war and max out all the best resources during peace.  Sure my tax income will go up, but so would my war reparations.  I don't see the incentive to grow past this point (unless one is in Sparta or GPA or a similar alliance), and that tells me something is a bit off, nation-building wise.

Edited March 21, 2016 by Psweet

[Bezzers]

The changes involved in this generates a higher resource income. People wont need to sell things for as much if it is at a greater availability. Imo, this aids everyones growth.

[Samdoo]

A change like this would really de-stabilize the market. Everyone is more or less forced to diversify atm, and I'm not sure that players react quickly enough to price shocks that they won't flood and tank markets (and their incomes) etc. I think there would be a lot more tears, but larger profits during boom cycles.

I love all of the diversity nations use. Lets take a look... who has steel mills. Oh nearly every nation, Thank goodness the game has 50% of players with coal or iron or else steel would really skyrocket. 

 

Players react to market changes?? Even with nukes, uranium has tanked pretty much 1,000 ppu in a year simply because people keep producing it. 

 

Steel is currently limiting a war to with nations with full steel mills producing enough steel for their nation in about 50 days.. making war cycles about 50 days, I think doing something about resource or steel may increase war, it may even reduce boom cycles.( even though currently its a constant boom.) 

[Ole]

Yeah, just what we need.  More changes to help rich players out.

 

I'm not really against this as a change on it's own but combined with all the other changes that are helping out bigger nations it just contributes further toward making the game unplayable for everyone else.

 

Lol?! it helps you alot more than me(I asume im rich), as this will break the market completly, and thus make warfare(Your personall favoritt activity) ALOT cheaper, im not saying im against any of this, i just want a heads up on the change so i can sell eveything before the crash. 

 

And to be fair, solving the res problem would do wonders for the game activity. 

Point is, Arrgh should be super happy about this, not sour. (From an IC POV)

[Hooves]

Yeah, just what we need.  More changes to help rich players out.

 

I'm not really against this as a change on it's own but combined with all the other changes that are helping out bigger nations it just contributes further toward making the game unplayable for everyone else.

Lol?! it helps you alot more than me(I asume im rich), as this will break the market completly, and thus make warfare(Your personall favoritt activity) ALOT cheaper, im not saying im against any of this, i just want a heads up on the change so i can sell eveything before the crash. 

 

And to be fair, solving the res problem would do wonders for the game activity. 

Point is, Arrgh should be super happy about this, not sour. (From an IC POV)

I think that'll help

[Ole]

I think that'll help

 

And my point still stands, the change helps the game as a whole, and him spesifically, alot more than the rich nations.

[Psweet]

 i just want a heads up on the change so i can sell eveything before the crash. 

Well, I did propose that the change be instituted gradually specifically to avoid the complete upending of the market:

 

 

 

I think a linear progression of infra/land : slots would work best.  As I said, the intent is mostly to head off the scarcity problem, and by making the relationship linear, you'd ensure that you could do just that.  However, this would be an enormous change to how the game's economy works, so I'd recommend instituting the change slowly, as a non-linear relationship that became closer and closer to linear over time, so as to not shock the markets.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Psweet

[Pax]

A change like this would really de-stabilize the market. Everyone is more or less forced to diversify atm, and I'm not sure that players react quickly enough to price shocks that they won't flood and tank markets (and their incomes) etc. I think there would be a lot more tears, but larger profits during boom cycles.

 

It would actually be really interesting to see a dynamic market with its own crashes and booms take place. Maybe not fun for everyone at all times (which is definitely a concern to think about), but a realistic market with huge variation based on the ingame needs and productions would certainly have an appeal of its own.

 

At any rate, it would probably be better than "everybody absolutely needs to max their steel production... and then other than that do whatever really"

[Keegoz]

I kinda like resource scarcity. Makes the game much more interesting than everyone sitting around with thousands of resources stacked

 

I just think it needs to move away from steel really being the only resource that is scarce.

[Woot]

Lol?! it helps you alot more than me(I asume im rich), as this will break the market completly, and thus make warfare(Your personall favoritt activity) ALOT cheaper, im not saying im against any of this, i just want a heads up on the change so i can sell eveything before the crash. 

 

And to be fair, solving the res problem would do wonders for the game activity. 

Point is, Arrgh should be super happy about this, not sour. (From an IC POV)

 

If you take his comment at face value instead of assuming that all Arrgh players are selfishly lobbying at all times to make their own raiding easier, what he said is reasonable.

 

Right now big nations have tons of spare infra, commerce, and cash, but are seriously limited in resource production slots. New players on the other hand have plenty of resource slots, but no cash.This gives the small players an absolute advantage in the resource trade per point of infra and results in a flow of cash from the big nations to the small ones.

 

It's a kind of rubber band tying the big nations to the small ones - the bigger the gap between them, the more expensive resource prices will get to pull them back together. 

 

Now, on the other hand, if you lifted all slot limits, 1000 average rich nation infra would simply be superior in every way to 1000 average poor nation infra. Resources would become cheap and most players might count themselves better off than before, but the big would benefit the most. And since the game is a competition, that means that small nations lose.

[Magnanimus]

If you take his comment at face value instead of assuming that all Arrgh players are selfishly lobbying at all times to make their own raiding easier, what he said is reasonable.

 

Right now big nations have tons of spare infra, commerce, and cash, but are seriously limited in resource production slots. New players on the other hand have plenty of resource slots, but no cash.This gives the small players an absolute advantage in the resource trade per point of infra and results in a flow of cash from the big nations to the small ones.

 

It's a kind of rubber band tying the big nations to the small ones - the bigger the gap between them, the more expensive resource prices will get to pull them back together. 

 

Now, on the other hand, if you lifted all slot limits, 1000 average rich nation infra would simply be superior in every way to 1000 average poor nation infra. Resources would become cheap and most players might count themselves better off than before, but the big would benefit the most. And since the game is a competition, that means that small nations lose.

 

On the contrary, I feel this will be better for smaller nations as now the production of resources will solely be done by Larger nations. They have free slots so they will produce and sell, prices will go down and it will become uneconomical for smaller nations to produce resources. The prices would become affordable for them to buy resources directly from market. Smaller nations will focus only on military and commerce and not on resource production. There will be a breakthrough with respect to infra/ land per city where resource production becomes profitable. This will be decided by the market.

[Fox Fire]

Oh, boy. This gravy train just doesn't stop does it? 

[Bezzers]

On the contrary, I feel this will be better for smaller nations as now the production of resources will solely be done by Larger nations. They have free slots so they will produce and sell, prices will go down and it will become uneconomical for smaller nations to produce resources. The prices would become affordable for them to buy resources directly from market. Smaller nations will focus only on military and commerce and not on resource production. There will be a breakthrough with respect to infra/ land per city where resource production becomes profitable. This will be decided by the market.

this is the sort of thing I was on about earlier

[Fox Fire]

On the contrary, I feel this will be better for smaller nations as now the production of resources will solely be done by Larger nations. They have free slots so they will produce and sell, prices will go down and it will become uneconomical for smaller nations to produce resources. The prices would become affordable for them to buy resources directly from market. Smaller nations will focus only on military and commerce and not on resource production. There will be a breakthrough with respect to infra/ land per city where resource production becomes profitable. This will be decided by the market.

So the smaller nations can focus on military to protect themselves from Arrgh while the larger nations like the forum loud mouths get even richer?

Sounds pretty counter productive to smaller nations while larger nations reap the benefit. Sounds like a ponzi scheme. 

[Bezzers]

So the smaller nations can focus on military to protect themselves from Arrgh while the larger nations like the forum loud mouths get even richer?

Sounds pretty counter productive to smaller nations while larger nations reap the benefit. Sounds like a ponzi scheme. 

On the contrary, it means remarkably cheaper imports for smaller nations

[Woot]

Aren't small nations mostly net exporters? That's what it seems like to me, they fill up their raw resource slots immediately because at the current high prices that surplus is more profitable than anything else, and their armies are usually incredibly light on war resources.

 

Of course you're right in a sense: if you remove game restrictions on production things overall become "easier" for most players, everyone can more easily afford things like projects and max tanks.

 

But you're ignoring the fact that this is a competitive game, and winning is zero sum. If I want to win alliance wars, then I lose if enemy alliances gain power faster than me. If I want to reach the top of the score leaderboard, I lose if other nations gain score faster than me. If I want to buy all the advertising space and fill it with pictures of Donald Trump, I lose if other nations get richer than me. Every mechanics change like this has winners and losers, the only people who believe in win-win are the filthy GPA.

 

I'm not saying that this suggestion is a bad idea because it benefits big players the most, but it would be a consequence that should be taken into account.

[Psweet]

Aren't small nations mostly net exporters? That's what it seems like to me, they fill up their raw resource slots immediately because at the current high prices that surplus is more profitable than anything else, and their armies are usually incredibly light on war resources.

 

Of course you're right in a sense: if you remove game restrictions on production things overall become "easier" for most players, everyone can more easily afford things like projects and max tanks.

 

But you're ignoring the fact that this is a competitive game, and winning is zero sum. If I want to win alliance wars, then I lose if enemy alliances gain power faster than me. If I want to reach the top of the score leaderboard, I lose if other nations gain score faster than me. If I want to buy all the advertising space and fill it with pictures of Donald Trump, I lose if other nations get richer than me. Every mechanics change like this has winners and losers, the only people who believe in win-win are the filthy GPA.

 

I'm not saying that this suggestion is a bad idea because it benefits big players the most, but it would be a consequence that should be taken into account.

If I might add a facet to the discussion of helping rich vs poor...

 

One of the things that got me thinking about this proposal was that it takes so long to build up a warchest.  This has the effect of reducing the frequency of wars, since no one wants to start a cluster&#33;@#&#036; with themselves at the center unless they are well prepared.  Thus, I think that this change would greatly increase the frequency of wars.  

 

Now, which nations, the large or the small, get hit hardest by wars?  A small nation can be rebuilt from scratch by an alliance bank without any sweat off its brow.  A large nation that gets severely damaged, on the other hand, takes weeks or even longer to rebuild, and that demands a concerted effort, a lot of lost production, and it will take that much longer for them to rebuild their warchest as it was for the next war.  It seems to me that war should be the limiter on the growth of large nations, not arbitrary rules that limit how much profit you're allowed to make from a given resource.  And if we allow wars to become more common, it might do just that.

[Woot]

If I might add a facet to the discussion of helping rich vs poor...

 

One of the things that got me thinking about this proposal was that it takes so long to build up a warchest.  This has the effect of reducing the frequency of wars, since no one wants to start a cluster!@#$ with themselves at the center unless they are well prepared.  Thus, I think that this change would greatly increase the frequency of wars.  

 

Now, which nations, the large or the small, get hit hardest by wars?  A small nation can be rebuilt from scratch by an alliance bank without any sweat off its brow.  A large nation that gets severely damaged, on the other hand, takes weeks or even longer to rebuild, and that demands a concerted effort, a lot of lost production, and it will take that much longer for them to rebuild their warchest as it was for the next war.  It seems to me that war should be the limiter on the growth of large nations, not arbitrary rules that limit how much profit you're allowed to make from a given resource.  And if we allow wars to become more common, it might do just that.

 

That's a good point, but it depends on smaller nations having the influence to drag bigger nations into lots of wars that they'd rather not fight. An alliance of nothing but big nations like TEst or Sparta that could enjoy this change without going out of their way to spend any more money on war than they did before.