Cantr II Economics:

[Cwalen]

Useless drones would be such a programming effort, that given our lack of programmers and lack inclination to take on more it's a moot point.

Looking at the real world, yes there should be a lot of mindless drones who eat drink breed and reproduce, in any simulation of it, and no one would ever be bothered to play them. The sort of coding to make them interesting to interact with is far past the scope of this project.

For better or worse we are stuck with what we have.

[Doug R.]

The essential and fundamental element to a profit economy is ownership. The creators of Cantr II, assuming that characters in Cantr would behave the same as they do in real life, believed that characters would form governments, and then use those governments to "own," or stake monopolies on the local resources. With resource gathering restricted, these governments could then pay laborers much less than what they could get if they had worked on their own, and hence a profit economy would develop. Difficult jobs could pay more, basic jobs less. The product of one day's labor could support wages for multiple laborers. Unfortunately, this assumption proved extremely false, and no economy like this has ever developed. Even if it had, it would be quickly destroyed by a mass-migration away from that region to another controlled by the altruist/communist character majority.

With large land areas to migrate into, and no hard-coded mechanisms to support ownership (of land, machines, etc.), Cantr failed right out of the gate as an accurate society simulator. This is why Cantr is, was, and always will be a simple barter-based economy, and why characters seeking to work for payment are so often met with town leaders that instead, expect them to work for ideological reasons.

With the invention of machines that make higher tech materials, such as iron, steel, and manufactured goods, another opportunity was created to form a profit-economy. While this was practiced on a very low level by some entrepreneurs, on the whole this never took off. People still expect to buy items at cost, and traders are willing to sell at cost, simply because given infinite time and the lack of resource gathering restriction, the customer can make it themselves. Had Cantr from the start encouraged ownership with hard-coded game mechanisms, instead of assuming that ownership was a natural state that human nature pulls us to, I believe that the Cantr II society would be very different and much more advanced than we have today.

I'm resurrecting my old thread with some suggestions that would correct the problems I cited. I don't think any could be implemented now, but if we had to do it all over, this is what I would change. These mechanistic suggestions will basically force people to form a real economy.

Having multiple locations with the same resource, collected at the same rate, makes that resource essentially worthless.

-Institute a new system of "tech levels" for resource gathering, and make the product of gathering dependent on the tech level. I'll use stone as an example:

1 - no tools yields rocks. Rocks can be used for primitive things like tools and simple rock huts.
2 - pickaxe yields boulders or rocks. Boulders can't be used for much unless they're further chiseled into stone blocks. Very low yield for boulders. 4x yield for rocks.
3 - simple quarry - yields boulders at 4x the rate as a pickaxe and rocks at 16x the rate as a pickaxe, but two people are required to run it.
4 - advanced quarry - yields stone blocks at 16x the rate of pickaxe and rocks at 256x. Requires 4 people to run it.

Notice the exponential increase in output while only doubling the labor input. Also notice that some things aren't possible without a certain tech level. Getting that advanced quarry and four folks to run it is going to save a TON of time, since you don't have to chisel out your blocks manually. So how does increasing yield help the economy?

1) The cost to upgrade to the next level of tech should be exponentially more expensive than the cost of the previous level. The materials used to upgrade should always be materials of the same tech level. How does that work? In this example, you'd have to chisel out those stone blocks by hand, the hard way, to make your advanced quarry (in game now: hand crafting your logs to make the lathe to make logs).

2) The higher the tech level, the faster the machine rots

3) You can repair these machines, BUT, working on them repairs them also. So, if you keep your advanced quarry active, it'll never fall apart, and you don't have to spend separate time repairing it. But that also means you need to keep 4 people dedicated to quarrying (it would need 4 on the project to repair it also, if you were just doing repairs).

Now you can generate large quantities of resources and actually pay your workers a wage and still make a profit! And if your advanced quarry is the only one around, you can set your own prices and people can either pay them, or go schlep it out digging for boulders with their pickaxes at (comparatively) stupidly slow rates.

Highlights:

-Forces specialization and settling in one spot of large numbers of people to achieve high-tech societies (realistic)
-Forces the achievement of high-tech societies in order to make the best stuff (realistic)
-Outputs larger than individual effort means you can pay workers and still make a profit.

[Doug R.]

And, you ask, why does forcing specialization improve the economy? Because, if two towns have stone, and your neighbor is already building quarries to mass produce stone blocks, why would your town do the same thing? You'll find something else to manufacture. Suddenly you have a "Teregotha/Noniwrok" effect, where one town is dominating the market for even the most mundane resources. This creates economic conflict as well, which is great! But even better, it can be solved by just building your own quarry. Price wars anyone? It would make the game so much more interesting.

We could even implement higher tech levels with much lower increase in output for exponentially higher cost to build, creating resource sinks for modest output gains.

[Joshuamonkey]

It would be complicated to implement but I think it's a good idea. Having a more complicated economy would be a good thing.

I also find requiring more than one person to work on a high tech machine interesting and a good idea.

[Doug R.]

I also think we should have more resource inputs to get our outputs. Fuel was a great idea.

[SumBum]

Interesting ideas, Doug. I still think changing skills so that they control -what- can be made versus only factoring into the speed of production would be a big benefit to any sort of economy. When you have a society where anyone can build anything, there's no need for them to seek out trade. The most trading that's required is to obtain the resources unless you gather them yourself.

[Chris]

Those who think that making things more difficult or more scarce will help the game are wrong. At best, it would be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. My bet is that it would be even less noob-friendly, and the rate at which we retain noobs determines how quickly the game world becomes (even more of) a wasteland.

Few enough people want to play a text-based game these days. Most characters don't make it to age 30. I think that's larger than anything that Cantr can do, good or bad.

What does a noob want to get, materially speaking? A good shield, a steel weapon, clothes, a home, a vehicle. How can he or she get these things? Go through a bazillion steps that will pay off in a RL year. Or, if the noob is lucky, he or she lives in a town populated by a character who is wealthy, who is run by a player (like me) who knows all the steps, who has the raw materials and tools and machines, and who is willing to hire the noob. In this case, you're just making more Cantr Wiki homework for me. The game's rewards are already on a downward trajectory for me. So you are just moving up the time when I decide to press the big X.

Put down your econ textbook and think about the player's experience!

[Pies]

Put down your econ textbook and think about the player's experience!

I strongly disagree with you. As long as character is living in town that is trying to get new things, play is going fine. But cities shortly hit level when they have everything and trade have no use. Economic in cantr is in terrible state and it's mainly because two things:
things doesn't almost degenerate
everybody can have everything by themselves

And economic, technology tree and wars could be three things that can give fun playing city. But economic is in terrible state, technology tree almost doesn't exits and wars are impossible, because players love they chars and if you have town of ~20 people, then in probably every bigger city some player have char and in yours.

[SumBum]

Chris, it's not about making the game more difficult. It's about making the game more interesting. Would WoW have been so successful if every created char started at level 200 with a full stock of everything they'd need in the game? Without a challenge or goals, chars grow sleepy fast. Ask 10 newspawns what their goals are. If they say "I want nice clothes, a car, and good weapon" then hand them everything they want that instant and see how many of them fall into sleeping soon after.

Maybe changing the game's economy isn't the solution but it's worth exploring.

[Tiamo]

What you propose already exists within Cantr, Doug, albeit not in the form of hardcoded 'levels' and with much lower efficiency differences:
Level 1: Gathering by hand
Level 2: Tooled gathering
Level 3: Mechanic gathering
Level 4: Fuel-driven gathering

Hard-coding production levels and expanding the profit differences doesn't necessarily lead to economic behaviour like you think. If it would, we would have seen some develop in-game already.
Why not? Because efficiency (just saving time!) is NOT an incentive in the Cantr world.
SumBums proposal of limiting what characters can do rather than how fast they can do it would be a million times more effective: now characters would NEED to coöperate (and trade) to get what they want.
Although a character could still forget about it all and be happy living off raw potatoes (if they can gather them), finding fulfillment in roleplaying drama.

An economy needs production, trade and above all: consumption. The persistent need for consumer goods is what keeps any economy going.
What Cantr needs to get the economy going are more needs, the advantage/necessity of coöperation to fulfill those needs and some compelling incentive for characters/players to gain and sustain a higher level of wealth (which comes with more needs, requiring an increasingly higher level of organization/cooperation).
As long as the need/incentive is there, characters will find ways to achieve things.

[bnlphan]

I like this discussion and I'm for anything that improves the game. I used to be on the side against some of the changes but accepted them, but on further thought I like a lot of them. I like ideas like road deterioration especially if it leads to the point where there will constantly be a need for stone and sand and oil productioin and workers to upgrade them. This will while creating more work, will stimulate the economies in Cantr. I welcome any change that has this effect and unlike real life we alway have the option to adjust later on if the need arises. I dont think the powers that be will let it get to the point where all roads are paths again and all the iron rusts away
On to the main point Doug brought up. I really like the use it or lose it concept. Even if not implemented its ideas like that that will keep the game from becoming more stagnant than it is.

[kicking jay]

I think the most important thing that could happen to Cantr is wars and the destruction they bring. More difficulty in gathering large numbers of resources is great, and don't think that I'm against it, but if town loyalty was strong enough that they would band together and slaughter another town, or at least burn it down, the RP, the economy of protection and weaponry and defenses, not the mention the history, but most importantly, the protectiveness of various towns/town groups to keep themselves safe and distant from others would make the game so much more diverse in the governments and therefore the economies that spring up. I can't wait for the combat revamp.

[Uma]

but the battle system is silly. it all dissolves down to hit some one, drag them in a vehicle then drive them away while 2-4 people beat the person to death in a contained environment.

I think if more time was spent on safety pursuits. (guards work a 'guard the town job, which protects vs stab-drag-vehicle) would make less resources enter the world. that person would become a resource sink but be required for safety. not to mention that this would enable the people who want combat (the guards and the town raiders/kidnap squads) to play a game with each other rather than with the peaceful roleplaying people. Nothing in the game would upset a person more than having one of their favorite characters randomly stab,drag,boated to death.

i think that coupled with 'rotting food' and decaying structures and vehicles and we would, over time, see the game based on how cities want to function over time, rather than the way it is now. Now you just spawn, live in a town with all sleeping leaders and wait until one of them keels over and you get the keys to the vast expansive riches behind the locked doors.

If things decayed all of that would fall apart without real people supporting them. You'd need more multi-dimensional cities that need production, as well as food, as well as guards. vs today's "just accumulate more things! heap them in the store house!"

[hyrle]

i think that coupled with 'rotting food' and decaying structures and vehicles and we would, over time, see the game based on how cities want to function over time, rather than the way it is now. Now you just spawn, live in a town with all sleeping leaders and wait until one of them keels over and you get the keys to the vast expansive riches behind the locked doors.

If things decayed all of that would fall apart without real people supporting them. You'd need more multi-dimensional cities that need production, as well as food, as well as guards. vs today's "just accumulate more things! heap them in the store house!"

Completely agree 100%. However, there is more than just "wait for sleepy leader to keel over" that can be done. While I realize this is the #1 way power transfers, I have seen other ways - coups, votes to replace sleeping leaders, etc. Not often, but it does happen.

[Chris]

Chris, it's not about making the game more difficult. It's about making the game more interesting. Would WoW have been so successful if every created char started at level 200 with a full stock of everything they'd need in the game? Without a challenge or goals, chars grow sleepy fast. Ask 10 newspawns what their goals are. If they say "I want nice clothes, a car, and good weapon" then hand them everything they want that instant and see how many of them fall into sleeping soon after.

Maybe changing the game's economy isn't the solution but it's worth exploring.

I don't hand everything out for free. I give noobs opportunities to work for what they want. Most people don't want to read 1,000 Wiki entries to figure out how things work. I've already done it, so I am (one of) the buffers that keeps the overly elaborate game world from collapsing in on itself. When there aren't enough buffer players, and all the legacy stuff has rotted away at the accelerated rate that many want to implement, then the noobs will be faced with a world that is neither socially rewarding (because there are too few players spread over a huge world) nor materially rewarding. They won't stay.

I love new stuff like domesticated animals. I support new mechanics for new things that people enjoy. I don't support the view that economic austerity will restore Cantr's golden age. That's dead and gone and will never return.