FreeOrion

This is drifting way off topic.

If you want to totally reinvent the economy, please do so on brainstorming. I believe this thread is meant for discussion of the Build system for the v.3 requirements document. The v.3 economy should resemble the v.2 economy.

... I thought this was for the v.1.0 design document (final goal)... the economy portion of which was to be fleshed out in the v.0.3 requirements.

... This would explain why nobody can link to a "final goal" design document...

Edit: OK, I scanned through the v.0.2 requirements, and it doesn't seem like there really IS an economy model... it's just production of each resource proportional to population and scaled by focus settings.

Correct. That is the economy model. It is intentionally simplistic.

We are working on expanding that model somewhat one thread below, in the effects thread, so that it can accomidate the effects of buildings and technology. (and racial picks, planet specials, events, etc. etc.)

This is for the v0.3 design document. Although it would surprise a few people if we went directly from v0.2 to v1.0.

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

Ok, so the v.0.3 economy will be a bit more complicated than the v.0.2 economy, but to what end?

If each major revision in the requirements needs to be based on the previous, then it seems reasonable to establish a final goal, then use that as a basis to decide what to put in each revision. The alternative seems to be to make small additions to the previous revision for each new revision... without consideration of where it's all going. If this method is used, it seems that the final v.1.0 economy would be a bunch of extras tacked onto a simplistic economy model that doesn't work as a unified whole. Issues like simulation vs. abstraction need to be decided from the get-go (or at least now), don't they?

If we could agree to a final goal economy that has all the consensus desired properties, then we could plan a series of iterative steps towards that so there's not too much difference between v.0.X and v.0.(x+1).

Sorry if this is even more off topic than the big proposal posts...

Can a 10+ pages thread stay on topic?

The idea is that the v1.0 resource economy will resemble the v.2 economy, just as the v1.0 build and research systems will be almost 100% based on the v.3 build system. (though, in truth, I think the v.2 economy is going to need -some- overhauling to make it easy to add buildings and techs in the picture, hence Meters.)

There's a roadmap on the wiki somewhere.

There were complicated and simulationist proposals for the v.2 economy. These proposals were rejected. In final review the majority of participants favored a simplistic model with a very high degree of abstraction.

(...though final review isn't a democratic vote...)

The nexus of the problem is that there can be no prototyping. We can't assert if a system is too complicated or too simplistic because we can't try it hands on, we have too go with feeling and previous experience. Since the specs aren't based on a system we can experience (completely SMAC, completely MoO I/II/III, etc), our experience is not reliable.

I would propose an attitude where nothing is written on stone tablets, with many parts redesignable, if it turns out to be poor design. It would involve documenting dependencies of the different designs as well as description of the design so development can branch to try out non-unanimous designs.

I don't think drek and I are going anywhere near a compromise, and we won't give up our ideas based on the non-tangible arguments of the other. Democraty isn't an option either because not everybody involved will vote and it's still based on the non-tangible arguments (so how could the best solution come out?).

I did prototype the basic economy system (which btw, I didn't invent), and a few other things as well, on a spreadsheet that's floating around -somewhere-.

If there's good reason (an obviously broken system, a fantastically great new idea) old decisions can be amended. But, if these amendments are easy or encouraged, then we'll just end spending endless hours debating things that have already been debated to death.

By prototyping I mean implementing in the game and see how it fits with the whole. Any system by itself can be balanced with numerical simulation, but these simulations won't predict accurately how it will integrate with the rest of the game: how much time you spend on it, how repetitive it is, the fun factor, etc.

I assumed the basic economy system was a collective effort. I named you because you're the one currently backing it.

The point is that if you can playtest, you have much more solid facts to back up your arguments.

Excellent point. Start coding all proposals, and let us know when you're done. While you're at it, I want a pony too.

If the whole issue has already been resolved, you probly should have said so back in these posts:

http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 1796#11796
http://www.freeorion.org/forum/viewtopi ... 1814#11814

(ie. say it's already been decided to use a very abstract nonsimulationist model instead of justifying / giving reasons why we *should* do so)

If it's been decided, then that's fine. I had thought it was part of what we were deciding right now... hence my extended arguments / proposal(s).

...

(But I do still suspect my proposal(s) would just as playable and understandable as the abstract system... while being more flexible.)

Edit: Was the previous decision actually "abstract vs. simulation" or more about whether or not to use focus settings?

How industry is pooled and spent has not been decided.

How resources and population basically work has been addressed, but I'm guessing will be -somewhat- revised in v.3. I made those posts before things spiraled into the realm of complete revision.

Sorry for any confusion. In any case, I'm not an authority. Feel free to ignore me.



Technically, it was just how resources are generated and the nature of population. Since the simplest, most abstract proposal "won" the public review, I consider it a referendum for simplicity. But that's just my take on the subject.

Ok, what, if any, penalty is there for switching focus? Are the effects of focus switching immediate?

If there's a transition delay or big penalty, then it's still possible to use industrial production to determine both PP made at a planet, and capacity to spend PP from the empire pool (more than # produced). This way you still need to think about the location of your industrial worlds not just how many you have. Planets could send up to their spending limit to the system shipyard. More so, you can't easily build a shipyard anywhere... you have to have an industrial world at a strategically useful location for a shipyard to be quickly built there and to supply the shipyard with PP.

Since 'Supply trains' seem to be out. That means that each world will have some limit on how much can be spent there. Combining the ideas I've seen so far, the limit is

1. How much is produced there

2. A multiple of How much is produced there

3. What projects are 'allowed' on that world (drek's required level of infrastructure for certain projects to start there)

4. A numerical measure of generic Infrastructure (ie what this world Could produce)

5. Other

I'm personally in favor of 5, where the 'investment limit' on a world depends on the type of project.. some are limited based on The Industrial Infrastructure, other's on Shipyard Capacity (0 at most worlds), others on Total Infrastructure (ie similar to #4), others on Research or Money Infrastructure, Population, Planet Size, etc.*

*Specifically I feel that if Infrastructure has cost, its investment rate allowed should be proportional to its current value creating a model where Infrastucture acts somewhat similarly to population. (with a cap for each type set by Focus)

# 1 and 2 have the issue of the 'Industrial Booster world' (assuming the cost is met by Industry, a Totally local model where the Cost of New infrastructure was what it produced...would actually simulate some of the others.. and has some appeal... but I don't want to have a totally local model..)

The disadvantages of a local model are the fact that it doesn't allow pooling in the things we Want to pool, (ie production for ships..that should definitely be pooled across several Systems, food for population, minerals for industrial projects, research should Easily be pooled since its results are shared across the empire anyways, money should probably be pooled if it works for spy actions and such which are also not local)

#3 I think is too yes/No, not quite fine grained enough

#4 is good but I think it should only be one of the options

Under #5 Industrial worlds could still be strategic in that they are your shipyard worlds (if Shipyard Capacity was a function of Both the Shipyard And the World's Industrial Infrastructure, ie a product of the two) but the 'Industrialization' of a world wouldn't be important it's for Infrastructure Growth only it's current Infrastructure. Leaving industry worlds as truly strategic (particularly if the needed multiple worlds to support their projects with Minerals)


These are entirely seperate from whether that spending limit is 'Hard' ie a cut off, or Soft ( a point where diminishing returns set in)

I'm generally in favor of Semi-soft (ie diminishing returns set in at that limit and then cut off at a multiple of that limit... ala MOO1 rushing)