Internal Counterbalance for Deflation.

[Senry]

The issue is that the relative value of resources to currency is increasing over an extended period of time. We can see how this happens when we look at our nations. By their very nature, improvements which generate these resources also eat up daily upkeep cost that relates to some fraction of their value. People are concerned that resources are being over-produced, I think another and more legitimate way of looking at it, is that currency is being under-produced. In a system where the money is consumed to make the resources, of course you should expect natural deflation over time.

 

I posit that if the upkeep factors were removed from resource and industrial improvements, it is likely that deflation would be cut or removed entirely. These numbers would need tweaking for each individual resource, I'm unsure as I don't have the data or the ability to see into the internals of the system entirely like Sheepy probably does.

 

While this is a suggestion that could be called another 'Fix Da Economi' attempt, my real goal with this post is to state that the game does not necessarily need a re-balancing to curb fears and stop the global economy from being entirely devalued. I believe in a healthy pace of wars that don't need to be hastened to every two weeks because of resource overproduction.

 

(Hi Felkey)

Edited June 10, 2017 by Senry

[Dubayoo]

It's not a bad idea, but we have to remember that the market is relative.

 

If people want prices to reach equilibrium, they should just build more commerce buildings and less resource buildings...

 

...or just buy more resources to go to war more.

[Senry]

No, most people already have commerce and fill slots with resources just because it's the most profitable thing to do. No individual can be expected to work to their own detriment, because if they don't produce resources not only are they wasting slots, but the people around them will be the only ones reaping the benefits, hence why nobody would commit to such a thing.

 

And to have a system where the only thing people do is war because constant war is the only way to stop the economy from crashing, would make the 'politics' part of the Politics & War pointless.

[Dubayoo]

Eh... younger players with less infrastructure per city don't use commerce because you can make more money on the market as is by selling resources.

 

Eventually, if prices keep plummeting, this will change.  It will be a gradual process though as people adapt together.

 

That said, yea, there should be a civilian side to the game so politics actually matter.

[Senry]

Change? I suppose if you want to have everything balanced on the wafer-thin line of a profit margin. It's not a good change.

[Dubayoo]

From a gameplay perspective, we have to consider this as a player dynamic where players are strategizing to figure out when's the right time to shift gears to take advantage of the world's conditions.  The mechanics aren't broken.  The players are just taking their time to think things through and anticipate each other. 

 

I will say this is a good thing for the game if anything because it will encourage more unit production.  The next war will probably end up like WW2 after Germany's loans were struggled to be paid off.  Some people will get frustrated, they'll buy up the cheap resources, and they'll strike back instead of paying off loans.

 

On the other hand, we could end up with a bounty hunter/debt collector dynamic taking place as well.

[Senry]

In design, you don't blame your players for how they play, or for making the most efficient decision at any given time.

 

What this system leads to is the devaluation of resources to their break-even point.

 

But maybe it was always intended for that to happen. To reach a stable dead-end for resource values.

[Dubayoo]

The problem is while you have some actual players playing your game, you don't have all potential players playing your game.

 

If you start tuning the game given the actual gameplay styles being played, then you implicitly discriminate against all other gameplay styles.

 

Arbitrage opportunities need to be available for other players to take advantage of.

 

Something I might consider is making unit costs cheaper so players are more willing to buy more resources.  The problem here, though, is it would discriminate against players with saved resources which creates a precedent of dishonoring how people establish themselves over time.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Argotitan

[Senry]

That's not a problem, if anything you're arguing against yourself. Markets tend to be less exciting and less profitable to play when all resources have been taken down to their minimal point.

 

I consider this to be a neutral change.The rate of change of the price index has been slow enough that rebalancing cost to maintain production for all resources could in itself stop the drop, or at least slow it enough that even with current rates of usage it could stabilize around a non-definite level, which would still allow for market randomness, unlike the world I think we're headed for now.

 

It seems like the easiest solution for a developer who seems to currently have their main focus on another game entirely.

[Dubayoo]

Mmmm... market profitability comes from profit margin and volatility, not price level. You could have an exciting market that's expensive or cheap.

 

That said, everyone doesn't play the market here.  Some people like a stable market instead so they can anticipate if they're getting their money's worth in making units. 

 

Honestly, I think this is really something that comes down to player dynamics.  You'd probably be better off advocating a strategic style in-game than making a game suggestion outside of introducing more complex civilian mechanics.

[Dr Rush]

It's not a bad idea, but we have to remember that the market is relative.

 

If people want prices to reach equilibrium, they should just build more commerce buildings and less resource buildings...

 

...or just buy more resources to go to war more.

Just one tad problem with this, commerce hard caps long before res. production does. Which bring me back to doing soft caps but thats another thread. 

[Senry]

Mmmm... market profitability comes from profit margin and volatility, not price level. You could have an exciting market that's expensive or cheap.

 

That said, everyone doesn't play the market here.  Some people like a stable market instead so they can anticipate if they're getting their money's worth in making units. 

 

Honestly, I think this is really something that comes down to player dynamics.  You'd probably be better off advocating a strategic style in-game than making a game suggestion outside of introducing more complex civilian mechanics.

 

 

And there won't be volatility, because the 'actual deflation' wouldn't stop after the prices hit rock bottom, so the price could never go up by very much,

 

I know not everyone plays the market. It was also your own argument saying that you shouldn't balance to the exclusion of some of your playerbase.

 

 

 

Just one tad problem with this, commerce hard caps long before res. production does. Which bring me back to doing soft caps but thats another thread. 

 

It's not a bad idea, but possibly too complex to be balanced around and solved in a timely manner. Why not tackle the problem at its core and just give people a scaling income along with production improvements.

[Dubayoo]

 

And there won't be volatility, because the 'actual deflation' wouldn't stop after the prices hit rock bottom, so the price could never go up by very much,

 

I know not everyone plays the market. It was also your own argument saying that you shouldn't balance to the exclusion of some of your playerbase.

Volatility is about short-term cycles such as what you might see between players being interested in different hours of the day or different days of the week.  It's not an inflation/deflation issue.  Even when price levels adjust, they would still adjust in cycles.  If you were to graph it, it would look like a staircase or peaks and valleys on a mountain.

 

My position is you don't prioritize some players' issues before the game in general.  That means you don't take action just because some players are concerned.  This especially applies in a competitive game where the point is for players to jockey for position in the course of solving problems.  If you solve problems for the players, then they don't have as much motive to jockey for position.

 

 

Just one tad problem with this, commerce hard caps long before res. production does. Which bring me back to doing soft caps but thats another thread. 

 

To be fair, I don't disagree here.  Commerce buildings seem way too expensive and yield way too little return on investment.  I don't say this because of the market's price levels though.  I say this because it's just much more apparent that your resource production buildings are producing something.  Figuring out a good purchasing price is rather difficult...

 

...but maybe that's the point.  Maybe the point is to reward players who actually do go through the difficulty of overcoming what's apparent to figure out good purchasing prices.

[Azaghul]

This would only raise profitability in the short term.  The issue right now is that wars are really the only that use up resources and people aren't using proportionally as many resources fighting for a variety of reasons.

 

I'd like to see some way for high infra cities to convert resources into income.  To remove resources from the market and create a system where it makes more sense for smaller nations to focus on production and big nations to consume them.  Maybe some kind of improvement that turns manufactured resources into a cash amount multiplied by city population?