Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) I'm going to start this off by saying that I don't think most people will like this suggestion, when I say overhaul I really mean an overhaul. Most people will argue that this is the final version of the game and that such drastic changes shouldn't be made but I think this is something worth considering. The Problem: Economics is the idea of the production and consumption of limited resources, resources in PW are entirely unlimited and I think we'll reach the point where nation growth (therefore resource production) will outgrow the growth of the game. Depending on how long this game lasts it will drive resource prices down to a point where it's entirely pointless in selling them. To an extent we're seeing this happen already, resource prices at the beginning of the game were higher than they are now, there wasn't as much production going on because nations were still small. I think this trend will continue, you'll have a few spikes around war time but that's about it, even the spikes during war haven't been as high as they used to be. This will continue to a point where the supply completely outweighs the demand. It's a similar situation we saw with the color bonuses, too many nations which caused the color bonus to be almost entirely worthless. The Solution: Put resource production in the hands of the alliances. Have a soft cap (you'll understand why I say soft later on) on the amount of resource slots an alliance can have, this is something that should be based around the total infrastructure of an alliance. Obviously because of this the output and cost of mines, farms and refineries should be increased, this could also lead to things such as alliance projects which boost the production of certain resources (and the people who bought these projects should have their money refunded). The Soft Cap: The reason why I think it should be a soft cap is because I think resource slots could be something that's traded between alliances. Say x and y alliance get friendly, x alliance has a lot of infrastructure but y alliance has a relatively small amount. X alliance could send Y some of their resource slots, this will encourage things like economic deals and treaties. Another purpose is it could be used as terms in a war, if Y alliance loses a war to X alliance, X alliance could negotiate for some of their resource slots. Won't this benefit larger alliances?: To an extent, yes. But the benefit of the soft cap is it allows alliances to earn more than what they technically should. Whether that be through diplomacy or war is entirely up to them. But it's something that I think will have a very interesting effect on the politics of the game here in the future. But what about food and keeping my nations powered?: There's a few options to this, either 1. Take out having to have food (and the resource) entirely, and also take out having to keep your nations powered. 2. Leave it in there and allow the alliances to distribute these to their members, straight communist style. Edited March 19, 2015 by Shellhound 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erin Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I'm curious how truly edit or quasi-limited resource production in light of Shellhound's post below might play out in P&W, personally. I don't have a well-thought-out input right now, but I'm for this kind of thing and I'd like to see this idea explored further Edited March 19, 2015 by Erin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nations get bigger, they produce more, but they also consume a whole lot more. My memory isn't perfect, but I pretty damn well sure remember most if not all resources are all much more expensive than they were at the first few weeks of the game. Remember how good it was to be able to buy coal and uranium far below the cost to actually produce one yourself? Yeah, no longer a thing since months ago. So no, while the production is still theoretically unlimited, the demand has been so far effectively to keep the price up. There's no surplus of any kind on the market that would drive the resources useless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Also, this still technically allows unlimited resource production but at what should be a slower rate, especially if alliances are having to distribute resources to their members. I thought about having a truly limited system but the ideas I came up with just wouldn't be viable. If someone has one that they think is good feel free to share it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Nations get bigger, they produce more, but they also consume a whole lot more. My memory isn't perfect, but I pretty damn well sure remember most if not all resources are all much more expensive than they were at the first few weeks of the game. Remember how good it was to be able to buy coal and uranium far below the cost to actually produce one yourself? Yeah, no longer a thing since months ago. So no, while the production is still theoretically unlimited, the demand has been so far effectively to keep the price up. There's no surplus of any kind on the market that would drive the resources useless. Some of that is because people are expecting a war atm, steel hasn't been 2k in a while, uranium was completely useless back then as no one was at a point to go nuclear. I'm not saying the problem is an epidemic yet, but there hasn't been a huge growth in the amount of nations while the nations that are here are continuing to grow. Regardless of the main issue that I presented, I still think it would be cool to see how the politics play out from this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Changing one of the most vital part of the game because it would be, allegedly, cool to see how things would play out... that's a bad idea, to be honest. The price fluctuates all the time, I don't know about now but even at its lowest, prices never go down below the level it were on the beginning of the game. Right now... there are 1100ish active nations that are on the color palette. Not counting the gray and beige ones, it was remarkably higher than months ago. I don't really see the issue here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 Eh, this game isn't even a year old yet. It's not like we're 10 years deep into the game, we have time to try things out and see what works better. If It's something I had thought about during alpha it's something I would've suggested, I think it's something worth debating and looking into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiki Mod Dr Rush Posted March 19, 2015 Wiki Mod Share Posted March 19, 2015 What about lone nations? What happens when a nation joins an alliance or leaves one? What happens when a nation switches alliances? What about... You are right the ever increasing supply of goods is a problem. However I think trying to places caps on production, especially through AAs which should be fluid in their existence is not the way to do it. I have my own idea which I will be posting shortly that goes in the opposite direction. Quote 23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves 23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous 23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed 23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves 23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love 6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be !@#$ing stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 What about lone nations? What happens when a nation joins an alliance or leaves one? What happens when a nation switches alliances? What about... You are right the ever increasing supply of goods is a problem. However I think trying to places caps on production, especially through AAs which should be fluid in their existence is not the way to do it. I have my own idea which I will be posting shortly that goes in the opposite direction. It would encourage people to join alliances, alliances are the driving factor in this game, that's how it is. That might piss some people off but that's the truth. As for switching alliances, I assume they'll be treated as a regular member unless they decide not to fund him for whatever reason, in which case they probably won't last for very long. There's also the option to do away with those resources, IE the non war resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Interesting. If by Nation grows, the only consumption is in Building for Economic, army base, power-plant etc, but most consumption had been used in military units and projects. Wouldn't the so called limited resources don't exist bcos someone stockpile the resources or increase the price so the player can earn alot of profits through war, alliance market have been used like a treaty union but because of people ask for profit gain, the market usually end up the same as global market resulting a dead end of this kind of "soft cap." Quote: "But what about food and keeping my nations powered?: There's a few options to this, either 1. Take out having to have food (and the resource) entirely, and also take out having to keep your nations powered. 2. Leave it in there and allow the alliances to distribute these to their members, straight communist style." it is more like self-sufficiency. Edited March 19, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Tbf the main reason resources are a bit higher qtm is the change to iron dome and introduction of the cheap but resource heavy project Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 It seems like a more reasonable solution is to increase the need of resources for larger nations to remain competitive. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 It will not benefit larger alliances. It will benefit alliances with larger, fewer members. Ridiculously horrible idea. 1 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Larger alliance with fewer members... I wonder what it is :s Oh wai- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 It seems like a more reasonable solution is to increase the need of resources for larger nations to remain competitive. This makes more sense to me and seemingly is something sheepy agrees with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Larger alliance with fewer members... I wonder what it is :s Oh wai- Omg Atzuya. I love you. Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apeman Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 My nation is in North America. What about putting a cap on the resources available in my nation. So every nation who can mine coal only has 60k potential mining. Same could go for every other resource except food which is renewable. That would change the dynamic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted March 19, 2015 Author Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) It will not benefit larger alliances. It will benefit alliances with larger, fewer members. Ridiculously horrible idea. Not really. And before you say well that's because they're the top alliance. GPA, UPN, and Rose all have more and DEIC is just right behind. Edited March 19, 2015 by Shellhound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) What I like most about this suggestion is a limit on resources. This is the exact reason why I don't produce as much aluminum anymore. Commerce is simply so much better. Whether we restrict resources based on alliances, or any other method, I think larger nations should have a better chance to produce resources. edit: removed a sentence Edited March 19, 2015 by The Captain Nao Quote Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 What I like most about this suggestion is a limit on resources. This is the exact reason why I don't produce as much aluminum anymore. Commerce is simply so much better. Whether we restrict resources based on alliances, or any other method, I think larger nations should have a better chance to produce resources. edit: removed a sentence Thing is, no point making resource production more enticing to bigger players as it gets to a point where you have to produce resources regardless, otherwise you'd just have spare slots. Needs to be more enticing to smaller players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'd agree with the op, but wars and projects eat up a good amount of resources. Should introduce new projects and increase project costs by about 25%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor (Old Account) Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm just gonna go ahead and say no. 1 Quote "That ain't Cologne, that's the smell of success." 17:00 <•Sheepy> I don't want you to leave the game 19:20 <•Pubstomber>: Man, I really wish Rose had allied BoC a couple months ago when we had the chance instead of picking Vanguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
last187 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 entire discussion is moot if the prices drop under a certain point peeps wont sell em anymore and supply will dry up in turn increasing the price... IMO having a cap is never a good idea, you should be able to build thee way you want ( this game is advertised as a sandboxed political simulator) last but not least, tweaking core game mechanics can cause unintended side effects so its always iffy business Quote Going for top nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Armstrong Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 I'm not in favor of caps or limitations on production/refinement of resources. There is a seasonal feature when it comes to food production. Perhaps if this becomes an issue along the way Sheepy could integrate market dynamics specific to a given resource (e.g. lead mining waste costs have doubled as a result of large-scale pollution in Orbis). Also, currently everything makes it through a war but some of the defeated nation's resources go to the victor. There are possibilities for contamination or destruction of resources as a result of war. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elsuper Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) If you're looking to balance supply and demand long-term, why not just have nation age create a gradual debuff on resource production, to simulate depletion? Or better, if resource production created a gradual debuff on resource production, though I expect that would be harder to set up coding-wise. I don't immediately see why it's better to create an alliance-centric system as opposed to nation-centric. Remember how good it was to be able to buy coal and uranium far below the cost to actually produce one yourself? I saw this as more due to sellers not understanding the costs of their production, and behaving irrationally without realizing it. Edited March 19, 2015 by elsuper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.