Supply OR Demand... function over form with Oolite's economies

[Redspear]

After you posted some of strangers code I was able to both see a little of what he did and also get some hints on where to look to oxp my own changes. I'm now actually half way through writing it; just adding some randomisation.

I don't know the mechanics behind the old model but (to my surprise) I'm finding it relatively easy (thus far) to create sonething approximating what I would like.

Where one can break away from the tyranny of the bipolar model and easily have prices which are not purely centred around the two agri/indi poles. And to have 13 models of economies rather than 8?

Be careful what you wish for


A few points.

Realism may not be what we think it is

If we have economy a in circumstance b then we can apply understanding to expect outcome c, right? In other words, with enough thought, a logical economic model can be predicted and applied. Disagree.

Once you add a variable you're adding complexity and the more you add the more nuanced their interaction tends to be. Add enough variables and you get what appears to be chaos, or at least can occasionally morph into such.

It's like the difference between recognising the forces that shape the weather and then trying to predict it (without the help of weather stations and satellites). And prediction is key here I think because if it isn't predictable in game then it doesn't look 'realistic' it just looks random.

Therefore, even some of the 'realistic' oxps are actually simplified models partly in efforts to avoid this problem.


Randomness can occasionally fake realism pretty well

Again, no disrespect to anyone here but rather an example of convenience:

On planet a there's a small radius and a small population with an agri economy so they turned to mining. Meanwhile on planet b there's a large radius with a large population but they also turned to mining... because of the enormously accessible mineral resources peculiar to that planet...

The game doesn't include the above variable (mineral content) but we can both imagine and enable it (thereby simplifying some of the radius and population elements) by adding a dash of random. No need to mention mineral content rather it and many, many other variables can be implied by randomness.

Too much and it's not sufficiently predictable and therefore not as playable. Just enough to throw up the odd peculiarity rather than rock the boat. The rest can be fixed with sufficient imagination.


What's the goal? That it be 'realistic' or that it be fun?

To paraphrase David Braben, "I don't see why you can't have both". Fair enough DB but if we can only have one then let's have fun. Fun is not unlike realism however in that both can be surprisingly subjective when it comes to identifying them.

Trading is only part of the game within oolite and an optional one at that. If it doesn't yield predictable returns however then it's become akin to piracy or bounty hunting. Two relatively safe options (trading/mining) and two risky ones (piracy/hunting). Trading is initially the most lucrative of them all but it can't compete with the excitement of the others (even mining is more fun) and so, I would argue it needs to be more reliable and therefore more predictable.

Predictable isn't that realistic, so let's fake it with an (unrealistically small) amount of random.


But wouldn't it be better if...

I'm the same as everyone else who's ever tinkered with this: I have ideas that I think could improve things. My solution is flavoured both by my own tastes and also by my understanding of the problem.

That said, I have sufficient imagination to accept almost any configuration of events re trading models. So it makes sense that I'd create one that fixes the most boring element of trade as I see it but without losing the convenience of trading.

Computers, furs, computers, furs, computers, furs, (platinum), computers, furs etc. etc. etc. (yawn...)

As I pointed out up thread, 8 is almost the perfect number of economy types, the problem rather is that the variance is only expressed in profit and not in cargo type.

No harder to find a trade route.
No harder to make a profit (although I may make the most lucrative trips rarer).
No more blindly stocking your cargo hold.

You can still find everything you need to know listed as economy type (and I haven't changed them) but rich/poor etc now affect specific demands rather than general pricing.

So the player would only pick the same goods again and again if stuck in a milk run... and that would be their choice.

[Cody]

Realism may not be what we think it is

<chortles>

[Redspear]

I prefer a system where, in the demand for the computers, the rich agri's would buy a full load at a lower profit while the poor agris would buy a handful but pay more (especially those which are dangerous & of primitive TL).

Is that because you're imagining each system as a single economic entity? In a dictatorship that might be true but what about a multi-government? Are corporate states a single corporation or multiple competing corporations? More complexity but does it help gameplay?

So the player heading to your imagined poor agri buys 90% alloys and 10% computers for slightly more profit. I'd argue that the key part is buying the alloys in the first place, precisely because it makes a change from buying computers all the time. In this example you'd still be buying them and so from a gameplay perspective there's more repitition.

By my reckoning the player is just a humble lone-trader, unable to compete with the great trading companies and alliances that roam the eight.

Don't trade expensive trivia to a hungry world.

Repeating myself I know but its not that they don't want it or even that (on occasion) they won't pay above the odds for it but maybe those niches are occupied by other, more reliable suppliers. Don't forget that there's the contract system too which could see potentially anything shipped to anywhete for considerable reward.

Realism may not be what we think it is

<chortles>

Correction: ...is almost certainly not what we think it is

[Cholmondely]

After you posted some of strangers code I was able to both see a little of what he did and also get some hints on where to look to oxp my own changes. I'm now actually half way through writing it; just adding some randomisation.

I don't know the mechanics behind the old model but (to my surprise) I'm finding it relatively easy (thus far) to create something approximating what I would like.

Good! another Redspearianic Revision for me to look forwards to trying out!

Where one can break away from the tyranny of the bipolar model and easily have prices which are not purely centred around the two agri/indi poles. And to have 13 models of economies rather than 8?

Be careful what you wish for
A few points.

Realism may not be what we think it is

If we have economy a in circumstance b then we can apply understanding to expect outcome c, right? In other words, with enough thought, a logical economic model can be predicted and applied. Disagree.

Once you add a variable you're adding complexity and the more you add the more nuanced their interaction tends to be. Add enough variables and you get what appears to be chaos, or at least can occasionally morph into such.

It's like the difference between recognising the forces that shape the weather and then trying to predict it (without the help of weather stations and satellites). And prediction is key here I think because if it isn't predictable in game then it doesn't look 'realistic' it just looks random.

Therefore, even some of the 'realistic' oxps are actually simplified models partly in efforts to avoid this problem.

Fair enough, But not my point. Thinking of Vincentz's New Deal. We have 4 varieties of agricultural and 4 varieties of industrial. I would like to see mining and I would like to see commercial/financial added to the mix.

Randomness can occasionally fake realism pretty well

Again, no disrespect to anyone here but rather an example of convenience:

On planet a there's a small radius and a small population with an agri economy so they turned to mining. Meanwhile on planet b there's a large radius with a large population but they also turned to mining... because of the enormously accessible mineral resources peculiar to that planet...

The game doesn't include the above variable (mineral content) but we can both imagine and enable it (thereby simplifying some of the radius and population elements) by adding a dash of random. No need to mention mineral content rather it and many, many other variables can be implied by randomness.

Too much and it's not sufficiently predictable and therefore not as playable. Just enough to throw up the odd peculiarity rather than rock the boat. The rest can be fixed with sufficient imagination.


What's the goal? That it be 'realistic' or that it be fun?

To paraphrase David Braben, "I don't see why you can't have both". Fair enough DB but if we can only have one then let's have fun. Fun is not unlike realism however in that both can be surprisingly subjective when it comes to identifying them.

Trading is only part of the game within oolite and an optional one at that. If it doesn't yield predictable returns however then it's become akin to piracy or bounty hunting. Two relatively safe options (trading/mining) and two risky ones (piracy/hunting). Trading is initially the most lucrative of them all but it can't compete with the excitement of the others (even mining is more fun) and so, I would argue it needs to be more reliable and therefore more predictable.

Predictable isn't that realistic, so let's fake it with an (unrealistically small) amount of random.


But wouldn't it be better if...

I'm the same as everyone else who's ever tinkered with this: I have ideas that I think could improve things. My solution is flavoured both by my own tastes and also by my understanding of the problem.

That said, I have sufficient imagination to accept almost any configuration of events re trading models. So it makes sense that I'd create one that fixes the most boring element of trade as I see it but without losing the convenience of trading.

Computers, furs, computers, furs, computers, furs, (platinum), computers, furs etc. etc. etc. (yawn...)

As I pointed out up thread, 8 is almost the perfect number of economy types, the problem rather is that the variance is only expressed in profit and not in cargo type.

No harder to find a trade route.
No harder to make a profit (although I may make the most lucrative trips rarer).
No more blindly stocking your cargo hold.

You can still find everything you need to know listed as economy type (and I haven't changed them) but rich/poor etc now affect specific demands rather than general pricing.

So the player would only pick the same goods again and again if stuck in a milk run... and that would be their choice.

Sounding interesting...

I prefer a system where, in the demand for the computers, the rich agri's would buy a full load at a lower profit while the poor agris would buy a handful but pay more (especially those which are dangerous & of primitive TL).

Is that because you're imagining each system as a single economic entity? In a dictatorship that might be true but what about a multi-government? Are corporate states a single corporation or multiple competing corporations? More complexity but does it help gameplay?

Beautiful! And if I have Stranger's PlanetLand (Roolite only) installed and can choose where I land, it is very relevant. I love the idea!

But. If I'm just dealing with the orbital station up above, then what I find is surely some sort of average of the situation beneath... ?

So the player heading to your imagined poor agri buys 90% alloys and 10% computers for slightly more profit. I'd argue that the key part is buying the alloys in the first place, precisely because it makes a change from buying computers all the time. In this example you'd still be buying them and so from a gameplay perspective there's more repetition.

By my reckoning the player is just a humble lone-trader, unable to compete with the great trading companies and alliances that roam the eight.

Don't trade expensive trivia to a hungry world.

Repeating myself I know but its not that they don't want it or even that (on occasion) they won't pay above the odds for it but maybe those niches are occupied by other, more reliable suppliers. Don't forget that there's the contract system too which could see potentially anything shipped to anywhere for considerable reward.

But I don't see that in-game. All I see is the F8 screen - and no evidence of other trades going on - not even changes in quantities for sale on the F8 market. And unless I have some of the big cargo transporter oxp's loaded, no evidence outside the station either...

Realism may not be what we think it is

<chortles>

Correction: ...is almost certainly not what we think it is
[/quote]

Thank you for thinking all this through...

[Redspear]

Fair enough, But not my point. Thinking of Vincentz's New Deal. We have 4 varieties of agricultural and 4 varieties of industrial. I would like to see mining and I would like to see commercial/financial added to the mix.

I think it's very relevant to your point and here's why:

We already have 4 varieties of each, what I'm trying to do is make them distinct without adding extra fluff. So what I'm using instead is already present if we reapply the rich/poor dynamic.

Using my model...

Most profitable items:

Rich - luxuries/furs
Average - computers/liquor
Mainly - machinery/radioactives
Poor - alloys/food

Do you see mining? (radioactives) Do you see construction? (alloys) How about farming? (food) Commercial interests (luxuries/furs), as for finance I presume you mean something in particular (it's all financial). True, I'm doing it by more by demand than supply but that's for gameplay reasons explained above.

But. If I'm just dealing with the orbital station up above, then what I find is surely some sort of average of the situation beneath... ?

Or, and I would suggest more likely, you get what's left after the big trading companies have done the most lucrative business (whether planetside or at the station). So those relatively few TCs of computers you imagine folks paying above the average for, have already bought and that opportubnity exploited.

Of course this is me making assumptions now but the player is a lone-wolf trader are they not?

Most space stations have made the process of trading very simple, in order to facilitate a fast turnover in goods and ships. Import and export tariffs - which are high on some worlds - are automatically added or deducted and this is reflected in the prices shown. The auto-trader system, employed by the Cobra, does not allow for more specific trading deals to be performed.

Maybe others don't need to pay those tarrifs and maybe the big companies aren't restricted to the auto-trader system.

Personally, I don't care I just want to add variety - related to but not the same as complexity. Want to add 'commercial/financial'? OK but where's the gameplay addition. I'm not actually adding, I'm juggling what's already there to (hopefully) spotlight elements we already have.

But I don't see that in-game. All I see is the F8 screen - and no evidence of other trades going on - not even changes in quantities for sale on the F8 market. And unless I have some of the big cargo transporter oxp's loaded, no evidence outside the station either...

There's lots of things we don't see in game but are implied wouldn't you say? If you're thinking, 'If I don't see it then it's not happening', then consider that no-one else is seen trading at any station anywhere. Shipping goods, yes but buying and selling? No.

For example, who needs to see a big cargo hauler? You just need to imagine that some of those pythons, boas, anacondas etc. are working for the aforementioned companies. Want to get involved in those kind of deals yourself? You can - it's already in game via the contract system.

You want new elements added? Look elsewhere.
I'm just 'tidying up' to blow the dust off some goods that could be more involved in gameplay than they presently are.

[Redspear]

You want new elements added? Look elsewhere.

Not the best line for a discussion thread... My apologies.

[Cholmondely]

You want new elements added? Look elsewhere.

Not the best line for a discussion thread... My apologies.

It's fine. I can see what you are trying to do, and how you are trying to do it. And you've said enough about your approach in previous posts that I do not expect my cup of tea (Lapsang Souchong, slightly on the tarry side, milk and half a sugar...). But I do hope to try it out when you publish it.

But it would be nice to add in some more economies with icons etc, etc,.


Note: As the penultimate post in this thread, note that all this led to Redspear's Demand Driven Economy OXP with more in store if he finishes his species differentiation OXP

[Redspear]

But I do hope to try it out when you publish it.

Well, it works and it has even started behaving in the manner desired (after some significant bug squashing - the most amusing of which was to have any system you travel to instantly become a poor agricultural - take that Ceesxe!).

I've included minor considerations for population, productivity and tech level but not enough to change the simple design goal of economy dictating (specific) demand.

I've not yet included any new icons; sorry