Specific Economic Proposals

[FireFrenzy]

Just a random thought, really... Perhaps we should, come summer, work a bit on reinventing FAF and Promisance. I'm not really sure what I mean, persay... Perhaps thinking of ways of adding new dimensions and features WHILE maintaining the traditional simplicity and ease of use of Promisance.

For example, heroes. Where do we want to go with them? Do we want to turn them into an almost-minigame, where they can grow (and age, and die) and have a more prominent effect on the outcomes of battles and production? And, if so, how do we do so without making the game too complex?

Take a look at QMT Epicurus to see what I mean. They had some great ideas about making Promisance more realistic and "cool", but they made it way too complex and hard to use. Can we do both? Maybe. It'll take some work, though.

As an aside, I'd really like to see the interface designed into a more modern-looking ("pretty") layout. Maybe even throw some graphics into the mix. People have a short attention span, so prettiness might grab them better; then, features and gameplay come into play. As it stands, FAF looks pretty dull and technical - perhaps we can make it more pretty and exciting.

Here's is what I'd say is one of the most important posts on these boards, and yet I find its thread dormant!

Well, let's change that!

I write due to what I've observed: Many Promisance games have fallen into slothful decadence; they are copies of one another, will little, even no, innovation. Hence, I find it extremely refreshing, and almost suprising, to encounter a community where thoughtful ideas seem ubiquitous.

I've been browsing these boards for a while now: Between The Beatles' grocery list of gameplay additions and Ruddertail's dissertation, I'm extremely impressed by your community's ability to work fresh ideas into workable realizations. Likewise, I have my own thoughts on enhancing this game -- which I would easily consider the current standard for the Promisance-type genre -- that I'd like to toss into the mix.

First, I should note that I have come to hold sentiments simliar to those expressed by bjornredtail: additional realism, just in itself, could expand complexity while maintaining simplicity.

For instance, currently, smithies appear to generate military via some fanciful extra-dimensional rift in space -- at least, this is the lone postulate I've formed.
Perhaps produce military from population? I believe that this would be a good (and indeed logical) step towards a game of nation-building, rather than nation-warring, as well as a leap towards realism.

Additionally, the current market only caters to commercial goods. Beatles lightly touched the idea when expressing his economic thoughts, but I believe a complete money market would significantly add to gameplay: perhaps players should be able to borrow and loan from each other. One could then integrate the defunct stock market into this system, perhaps making it rely on in-game trends, rather than it being a randomly chaotic system -- true, stock markets are surely chaotic, yet they are far from truly random. Ideally, then, there would be a system of monetary trade integrated with that of commercial trade.

Though there are significant considerations prior to realizing such a significant addition to gameplay, it would prove to be quite a fresh addition if ever implemented.

I'm curious, what are all of your opinions and thoughts on this?

[Slasher]

Additionally, the current market only caters to commercial goods. Beatles lightly touched the idea when expressing his economic thoughts, but I believe a complete money market would significantly add to gameplay: perhaps players should be able to borrow and loan from each other.

This is one of the best ideas I have seen in a while.

[The Beatles]

Well, FireFrenzy, thanks for posting. I had quite forgotten the feature catalogue I had posted, although not Ruddertail's list.

First of all, I quite agree with your idea about smithies. Once we implement that, we could even put reasonable restrictions on military to population ratios: for instance, too high or too low ratios could hurt economic performance.

I came up with an idea for more economic realism just a few weeks ago; your post compells me to post it.

Briefly then, introduce markets. In overview: On markets, you ought to be able to offer or buy anything, goods (game resources, troops, land, etc. -- conceivably even negative amounts of things) and services (a text string describing it). It wouldn't be a deposit service -- you'd put goods up, and the transaction would go through if you still had the resources to offer. There would be a feedback system to discourage (although, of course, not entirely prevent) dishonest dealing, and owner-determined commissions. This would be both realistic and useful.

In structure: Certain markets could be open -- anyone can buy from them. There would always be a global, open market with no commission on goods (alternatively, there could be a game-imposed minimum commission for all markets). Clans would have markets associated with them, and these could be open or closed. Both players and clans could belong to markets. Markets could relate to one another: a certain market could be open only to certain other markets, or could set tariffs for other markets (i.e. a player who is a member of a certain market could also buy from markets friendly to it). Goods can be transferred between open (or friendly) markets, only incurring the minimum commission for doing so. Market profits go to the founder (or the lottery, for the global market, if there is a commission). Markets could also unite. Everyone is of course a member of the global market -- that is the literal "free market".

In details: players can adjust prices on their goods freely, or offer more goods than they have (or even offer "infinite" goods, i.e. valid while supplies last). Players can withdraw goods. Transfer occurs at the time of purchase. A certain number of troops might have to be transferred with a sale to guarantee successful delivery (although this could be skipped for the small risk of loss, and either the seller or buyer can choose to provide them). For now (and conceivably indefinitely) all markets are on one currency, i.e. we have a gold standard.

This system would be most useful if the private market, bounties and aid were eliminated (or aid was changed to allow unlimited shipments) and the current "markets" replaced with them. It would be realistic for both goods and services, due to the feedback system. It would tend to disallow inherent advantages of certain strategies, as long as the markets are necessary to their success, by stabilising prices over a long time. On the other hand, of course, they would encourage a class of businessmen rather than warriors or producers -- but this is realistic. Although the market could work as an ad hoc banking system (sell banking as a "service"), a more easy-to-use and direct banking system could be written later. Transactions would be public to anyone who is a member of a market or a friendly market (as a consequence, the global market transaction history would be public). Private markets would flourish, partly because of this, and partly because of the other opportunities they offer, as an economic counterpart to clans. Anonymous sales could be allowed by the founder of the market, as long as he is alive. (And disallowed for the free market.) I am not sure precisely how ownership of markets ought to be handled if the owner is killed. We might consider espionage against markets to determine their transaction history, but I think that that should carefully considered and definitely not in the initial version.

The real beauty of such a system would be that there would be no complicated rules or difficult formulas, no great kinks in implementation or endless arguing over parameters. The implementation would be straightforward, because we would just be creating a framework to unleash all the natural economic tendencies in an easy, well-defined and trackable manner. The main difficulties preventing someone from offering private bounty services, for instance (and some people did do it despite this) are communication, reputation, and management. These would be taken care of.

There would of course be greater transparency for purchases, greater flexibility in aid, etc., but I think these things are realistic in any case.

I am sure I have forgotten some things, as I originally developed this idea several weeks ago. So let's have some discussion about the idea and see where it needs to improve to be an accepted idea.

[bjornredtail]

The only real catch is the lack of market volume. This is what happened with the Vulpine Imperium stock market. So few shares traded hands that most 'companies' could not be purchased at any price, or worse the companies would issue watered down stock. Thankfully the nature of production would reduce the risk of the latter. You couldn't simply "issue troops" in infinite amounts without cost.

Any chance of my felx-goods idea being implemented? It would really compliment system.

[The Beatles]

Exactly; if a service is necessary a market will spring up based on it. True, low-volume games would suffer fluctuations unacceptable to the modern mind, but in fact, even the real world suffers from these fluctuations in goods as core as oil. More players would even it out very much, and that's not something we can fake with AI.

[FireFrenzy]

These are great thoughts. I have a few details which I would like to clarify for myself:

It wouldn't be a deposit service -- you'd put goods up, and the transaction would go through if you still had the resources to offer. There would be a feedback system to discourage (although, of course, not entirely prevent) dishonest dealing, and owner-determined commissions.

So we're talking like an eBay-type exchange system? First, you keep your goods until they are purchased. Additionally, there is not necessarily any hard-coded obligation for the seller to fulfill his/her offerings; however, to counter, there is a feedback "rating" for the given seller, which is contributed to by that seller's buyer(s)?

Also, I know you mentioned further down that "[t]ransfer occurs at the time of purchase." How would this work for indefinite (such as unlimited or infinite, as you mentioned) amounts of goods?

Both players and clans could belong to markets. Markets could relate to one another: a certain market could be open only to certain other markets, or could set tariffs for other markets (i.e. a player who is a member of a certain market could also buy from markets friendly to it).

Hence, I gather a given country (and clan) can belong to the global market, as well as a limited number -- perhaps even one -- user-based market?

Market profits go to the founder (or the lottery, for the global market, if there is a commission).

I'm curious as to whom, how, and when one may found a market? Because, it seems to me that every given country would create its own market, so to gather the commissionable profits: Thus, is the idea for each country to have its own market, should it wish?

Finally: Do you intend for one market to support all goods? What I mean is, would each market accommodate all types of transactions in the game: military, bounties, food, aid, etc., all in each individual market? Or would markets be separated by types of goods being transacted? I gather that you mean the former, but simply want further clarification on the preliminary thoughts.

At the moment, if my gatherings are correct, everything seems to connect quite sensibly, exept market ownership: I would expect that there should be incentive to participate in a given market, rather than to create one.

[The Beatles]

Yes, eBay type system. At least for services; we might make it more automatic for goods just to make things easier, plus goods are realistically something easier to exchange reliably. For indefinite goods, as I said, the transaction would go through if you still had the goods.

You automatically belong to the global market, any any number of other markets.

Other countries might not participate in a market if it was too high. But ownership is definitely something requiring more thought.

There might be niche markets, I hadn't considered that before.

Sorry for terse answers -- in a hurry.

[prog frog]

What is stopping one from buying someone's goods off their market and then attacking with the bought troops? If the troops are held by the owner until they are bought, it would be obvious whose they were and therefore you could attack them with their own troops. I would hate to be bought out then ravaged by the buyer and also stolen from if they use spies. Seems like that would be a problem. Maybe you have a solution.

[The Beatles]

Forgot to mention, we ought to get rid of cash sack. Food sack is realistic, but cash sack is less so, as gold is generally not that hard to transport. At the very least, yield ought to be less. Or a variant shield mission could prevent it entirely.

The way this is currently handled, by the way, is by making proceeds go into your bank. But a bank might not be that realistic, so it may need to be replaced with private banking in time. A basic service provided by the game for a fee, and various interest-based services provided by enterprising players. This can already be done through "services" but it's more messy than if we can do it properly.

A minor detail: to make services easier, anyone ought to be able to create service text templates, that others can then reuse for consistency. These would have a short, unique alphanumeric tag, and a full description.

[FireFrenzy]

I like the ideas. A few comments:

For indefinite goods, as I said, the transaction would go through if you still had the goods.

Well, after examining my thoughts, I think that my question seems to stem from ambiguity regarding to what "the goods" refers: Indefinite goods are, well, indefinite. How many goods are needed to accommodate an indefinite sale? I assume that you mean that the transaction will occur so long as the seller has any amount (or, more precisely, the amount requested) of the goods still available -- just making sure I've got things straight. I suppose, then, for something like this, there could be a listing -- marking the goods as "indefinite" -- as well as a display of the current amount available.

You automatically belong to the global market, an[d] any number of other markets.

Tariffs wouldn't work, then, because one would simply join a given market to bypass the tariff -- unless there were barriers to joining a market.

Other countries might not participate in a market if it was too high. But ownership is definitely something requiring more thought.

Well, this depends on how participation is defined, I suppose: If one could only buy goods from a market in which he or she was selling, then my above comment regarding tariffs would be nullified. However, if one could join any market he or she wanted (i.e. granted access via a simple "join market" button), then one would simply join every market possible, unless restrictions applied. Obviously, this all depends on how access to marks is defined and regulated.

Irregardless, the whole system sounds coherent and feasible.

Also, regarding prog frog's hypothetical inference: I think you're quite right. Nevertheless, the buying country can never know how much military the selling country has left (unless it's being sold indefinitely). Likewise, the simple counter strategy would be to refrain from selling one's complete military in one transaction -- at least I'd suppose.

Finally, concerning your last post, Beatles: I agree with your thoughts on private banking; I was going to suggest simliar alternatives.

[The Beatles]

I'm not sure whether we ought to show amounts for the indefinite listing. That's a free espionage, after all. On the other hand, all it takes is persistence to find out the true amount. Realistically (i.e. in the real world), army sizes are usually quite public.

What I meant by private markets in my original post is markets with a barrier to entry, such as password, or only clan-conferred membership. This addresses your tariff etc. concerns. Markets could be public or private.

Economy also allows more flexibility for diplomacy. Players with bad reputation or bad 'human rights record' might be shunned by players, or banned from certain markets, etc.

[FireFrenzy]

I'm not sure whether we ought to show amounts for the indefinite listing. That's a free espionage, after all. On the other hand, all it takes is persistence to find out the true amount. Realistically (i.e. in the real world), army sizes are usually quite public.

I think excluding indefinite listings from any initial implementation of this system would be logical -- then you could see exactly how persistent, or lack thereof, players are in garnering that information, and adjust accordingly.

What I meant by private markets in my original post is markets with a barrier to entry, such as password, or only clan-conferred membership. This addresses your tariff etc. concerns. Markets could be public or private.

aye, I think that this would work quite nicely -- both password-conferred and clan-confered membership.

Economy also allows more flexibility for diplomacy. Players with bad reputation or bad 'human rights record' might be shunned by players, or banned from certain markets, etc.

Indeed. And it gives just one more reason for legitimate war! If one is considering cheating deals to accrue additional prosperity on his or her country, what better restraint than the risk of losing that same country, and all its prosperity, due to war!

[The Beatles]

If we exclude infinite goods and people want to use it, they'll just put in ridiculously large numbers. If we put them in and people don't want to use it, they won't.

[edit] We may get an approximation to a perfect market:

A perfect market is a heuristic that has the following assumptions about a market: there is a sufficiently large number of participants such that no individual can affect the market (perfect competition), everyone participant is fully informed (perfect information), everyone has equal access to the market, everyone acts in their rational self-interest, the commodity in that market is homogeneous, and there are no transaction costs.

Of course, due to various factors, the global market will be more like a traditional free market. But that gives me an idea: we might consider giving market owners the ability to set minimum or maximum prices on goods, maximum sales of a particular good per player, and other restrictions. This would introduce a form of regulation or even (in the extreme case) control. Imagine the benefits of that. Responsible and intelligent leaders of popular markets might be able to use market regulation to dampen crises, force stable prices, help out players during a price spike, counteract vicious buyers, i.e. engage in all forms of politics by subverting the traditional free-market, for good or for evil. I really like that, come to think of it. Of course, once we introduce a proper economy into the game like this, there is no limit to how many fun and realistic things we can do.

[The Beatles]

After some more thought, here is a proposal for a simple (but, I hope, sufficiently powerful) banking system. Sorry for the double post.

Any player, clan, or market may open a bank. If a clan or market opens a bank, access to it is regulated based on whether it is "open" (general) or "closed" (internal). For an open bank, only those allied with the clan or market can access it. A bank is just a balance account into which its owner or owners can put money, and players can borrow or deposit money. The total available for loans is at most as much as its balance, but the owner(s) can set it as less. Loan and savings interest rates are published, and the players notified if they change. There would be a global bank, with the current loan and interest rates, but it would start with no funds: nobody can take out loans until players start putting deposits into their savings accounts. It is up to the owner(s) to enforce collection of loans: this is done by displaying to the owners, for each account, the balance, its date of creation, the interest accrued, and the date and amount of the last payment made. They can then decide when to send out form letters or even declarations of war for really defaulting payments.

Since it would operate just as markets in terms of alliances, etc., banks might (or ought to, if we do it right) become the primary financiers of war, and wars might succeed or not depending on the financing available for them.

Some miscellaneous thoughts that are necessary for a lot of the ideas to work properly:
1. All aid shipments sent between players, except cash, ought to be published. This, too, is fairly realistic, I think.
2. Soldiers' pay ought to be higher during a campaign or at low health than at full health and peacetime. This, too, is realistic, and even necessary if wars are to have an economic disincentive. Also, weapons are destroyed during war, and the soldier has to pay to repair them or buy new ones.
3. As FireFrenzy said earlier, making soldiers derive from population would impose additional checks on campaigns.

[Death]

Well, I don't think banks should be a huge source of income. I think they are better used as just something simple a player can use. But then again you guys make some creative addons, so I'll just wait and see how it functions within the game to say anything.