12/28/2013 - Economy Update

[Jerry LeRow]

 

How do you wanna change it?

Balance it in such a way that no single Economy type is the best.

 

that's not logical, as the difference is the only thing that makes those systems different economic systems

[Reagan]

Is someone running around slapping people with a stupid stick today?

[Jerry LeRow]

Is someone running around slapping people with a stupid stick today?

Maybe... although I don't get it: is the stick stupid or makes the stick stupid? 

[Hao Huiyu]

that's not logical, as the difference is the only thing that makes those systems different economic systems

How is it not? If it wasn't balanced then everyone would choose the best one (and thereby the same one), meaning that there is no point to having the system in the first place.

[Jerry LeRow]

 

that's not logical, as the difference is the only thing that makes those systems different economic systems

How is it not? If it wasn't balanced then everyone would choose the best one (and thereby the same one), meaning that there is no point to having the system in the first place.

 

well, if all systems are balanced, then yes, we wouldn't need three different systems

 

but the systems are chosen based on the commerce rate:

if someone wants to invest in commerce and possibly get a higher output, then he chooses capitalism

if someone wants a lower commerce rate and still high output, he chooses communism

[Dongs (old)]

there is no point in having the system in the first place.

I agree.

[Jemmm]

Well since I still make a million I am still a millionaire which means you all are broke.

[Jerry LeRow]

Well since I still make a million I am still a millionaire which means you all are broke.

i also want some millions...

[Hao Huiyu]

if someone wants to invest in commerce and possibly get a higher output, then he chooses capitalism

if someone wants a lower commerce rate and still high output, he chooses communism

But people aren't going to invest in a lower commerce rate - that would be a fine way to retard yourself economically.

[Jerry LeRow]

 

if someone wants to invest in commerce and possibly get a higher output, then he chooses capitalism

if someone wants a lower commerce rate and still high output, he chooses communism

But people aren't going to invest in a lower commerce rate - that would be a fine way to retard yourself economically.

 

right... but we have people out there who act unrational and are communists...

i don't understand it either, i'm on your side, but as you can see in my graphs, at low commerce rates communism is more attractive... although for me capitalism is the only right system

[Alex]

Maybe this wasn't as good of an idea as I thought. In my mind, I had finally come up with a purpose for the economy system.

 

What I originally wanted to do was make it so that up until a certain population (maybe 1,000,000) capitalism was most effective, and then at something like 5,000,000 communism became more effective, etc. That seems like a trend, urbanization leads to more progressive "liberal" policies (socialism->communism). I couldn't figure out how to come up with formulas for those, though.

 

Remember we're still in beta and nothing is permanent, we can always change this to something that works better. My thoughts were potentially increasing the cost (likely upkeep cost) of commerce improvements so smaller nations would lean towards communism instead of commerce improvements.

[Hao Huiyu]

It's a good concept and has merit, but just needs to be balanced, really.

[Jerry LeRow]

Maybe this wasn't as good of an idea as I thought. In my mind, I had finally come up with a purpose for the economy system.

 

What I originally wanted to do was make it so that up until a certain population (maybe 1,000,000) capitalism was most effective, and then at something like 5,000,000 communism became more effective, etc. That seems like a trend, urbanization leads to more progressive "liberal" policies (socialism->communism). I couldn't figure out how to come up with formulas for those, though.

 

Remember we're still in beta and nothing is permanent, we can always change this to something that works better. My thoughts were potentially increasing the cost (likely upkeep cost) of commerce improvements so smaller nations would lean towards communism instead of commerce improvements.

If you need a formula I could try to help you... if you give me some figures: so you say up to 1 mio inhabitants, capitalism is best, from more than 5 mio inhabitants communism is best and, I guess, between the both would be socialism?

 

Altogether, I'm against the idea of degrading an economic system like capitalism, as it's by far always the best.... we need a mechanism that, on the one side, values each system equally, but on the other side involves the negative effects...

[Alex]

An equal system would be good, but then there really isn't a point in having a system at all. I'm not sure what the best direction to go with this is.

[Jerry LeRow]

An equal system would be good, but then there really isn't a point in having a system at all. I'm not sure what the best direction to go with this is.

The best direction would be to the amount of resources produced. Let's say communists get more money, but less output; capitalists less money and higher output (as we all know communist productivity is really bad)

 

EDIT: ok, it'd have a weird effect on the economy... maybe the best is to simply abolish the classes and make a flat tax of ~32%?

[Hao Huiyu]

An equal system would be good, but then there really isn't a point in having a system at all.

It is in the sense that it's another level of customisation. I'm sure that many people are fine with just having the three selections there to choose from, but it can be expanded upon. We could find the answer one day.

[Jerry LeRow]

What if you everyone simply decide his own tax rate and connect it to a "happiness"-indicator? let's say the higher the tax rate is, the lower productivity (output) gets (so you just have to multiply the output with X)

[Alex]

Until we figure out what needs to be done I've simply allowed anyone to change their economy type at any time.

[Karel V]

I want to just say I switched from Capitalism to Communism today (something that makes my Austrian mind cringe), and my tax revenue increased by a factor of two. There is a new way to play the game, and we have to be creative and think dynamically. Linear (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style charts don't work in this game, and I love it!

[Dongs (old)]

Economy: You have already changed your economy type in the last 6 days. You can change it again on 01/04/2014.

[Aenir]

I want to just say I switched from Capitalism to Communism today (something that makes my Austrian mind cringe), and my tax revenue increased by a factor of two. There is a new way to play the game, and we have to be creative and think dynamically. Linear (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style charts don't work in this game, and I love it!

...I don't think you understand how the economy types work.

 

And the best one for you would be Socialism, not Communism.  Saying that "linear style charts don't work in this game" is simply pure ignorance, as it is even worse than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s government types.

[Karel V]

 

I want to just say I switched from Capitalism to Communism today (something that makes my Austrian mind cringe), and my tax revenue increased by a factor of two. There is a new way to play the game, and we have to be creative and think dynamically. Linear (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style charts don't work in this game, and I love it!

...I don't think you understand how the economy types work.

 

And the best one for you would be Socialism, not Communism.  Saying that "linear style charts don't work in this game" is simply pure ignorance, as it is even worse than (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)'s government types.

 

I haven't played (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) in several years, but so far the mathematics has been more complicated (granted, it has been nearly 7 years, I am sure things have changed in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)).

I am not speaking simply of Economic types, but of the entire game as a whole. If you have multiple cities and different levels of progression you may find yourself having to pick between several different scenarios (also, I had a commerce rating of 0% when I posted this, so it communism was my best bet). I addition, this game's improvements have multiple issues and concepts that must be considered before purchase. Once other aspects are turned on (pollution, military, etc.) the game will become even more complicated. This is a step in the right direction.

 

And if you try to graph the commerce equation in a linear fashion, you are going to have a bad time.

[Hereno]

Until we figure out what needs to be done I've simply allowed anyone to change their economy type at any time.

 

Can you just undo the changes and make things the way they were? Not every single aspect of the game has to effect gameplay in such a radical way, and all of the suggestions ITT are trying to find ways to make the change not so (but still) imbalanced as opposed to finding reasons why there has to be a change in the first place. Because there really isn't one. You've already made it so continent and government and color types all can be minmaxed depending on what alliance we are - just throw economics in with those or something and give us a war system.

[ataraxis]

 

And if you try to graph the commerce equation in a linear fashion, you are going to have a bad time.

 

 

Depends on what you're plotting: the relationship between commerce and citizen income is so linear it's actually a line! (Given a fixed government of course. There exists a single optimal government based on how much commerce you have, so you could say it's a piecewise graph.)

[Karel V]

 

 

And if you try to graph the commerce equation in a linear fashion, you are going to have a bad time.

 

 

Depends on what you're plotting: the relationship between commerce and citizen income is so linear it's actually a line! (Given a fixed government of course. There exists a single optimal government based on how much commerce you have, so you could say it's a piecewise graph.)

 

Yeah, if you create a model that uses two variable that are inter-connect it formulates into a linear model, but the commerce equation has more than two variable and therefore is not linear.

 

But the effect of citizen income and commerce will be effected in new ways in the future and this is only the beta. As the other factors gain more variables, All it takes is three variables for multiple important economic factors to create a kaleidoscope of variation.