Money,taxes and caravans

[Vlad123]

Hello, I have noticed that when you buy at the market ... you can buy what you want, the money is not there "money". In the rise of nation (in which there are national borders) there are two ways to get money: tax the territories under its control or send caravans to their town or city allied. The idea would be to create the caravans (instead of the usual merchants normally used) to create "money" or "richness" with this wealth can buy the resources to market and build buildings.

[FeXoR]

Hi Vlad123.

You are correct. There is no "money" resource in 0 A.D.. Since at this time money was somehow similar to gold you could see money as part of metal.

IMO there is no need to add it because you cannot build anything with money but only buy the material you need to build something.

Traders used money for the easier exchange of goods.

Example:

City 1, Woodstock:

- The city lies within a forest thus wood is easy to access thus the people of Woodstock doesn't value wood that much.

- They don't have access to stone to build longer lasting buildings thus the people of Woodstock value stone very much.

City 2, Quarrypebble:

- The City lies within rocky hills with many natural quarries with some grassland arround thus the people of Quarrypebble have easy access to stone and don't value that much.

- The thin layer of earth on the otherwise rocky ground does not support trees so the people of Quarrypebble value wood quite high.

Merchant:

- A merchant with some money goes to Woodstock and buys some wood.

- He brings it to Quarrypebble and sells it there. Since wood is valued there more he likely gets more money back than he spend initially.

- He uses some of this money to buy stone, again quite cheap.

- He returns to Woodstock and sells the stones there, again likely with some profit.

Now check what has changed:

- Money: Towns -> Merchant (Represented ingame by the cost of metal to produce the merchant. He'll spend some of the money to get e.g. food and shelter so the money might go back to the towns)

- Wood: Woodstock -> Quarrypebble

- Stone: Quarrypebble -> Woodstock

Assuming the player manages Woodstock the main change for him is he exchanged wood for stone (and that's exactly what happens ingame).

Note:

- The access to resources have risen for everyone (That's the real gain of trading).

- There is no gain in value (both towns value the resource brought to them less the more trading goes on which cancles out against the slight increase of value of the resource they produce by beeing able to sell it)

- There is no money generated (Who ever plantet that into the brains of people, I heard that several times now)

- If one of the parties realizes what's going on and just slightly changes it's behaviour to at the end of the loop come out better all money will end up at this party

[Vlad123]

I did not understand, then there is a kind of "barter"? It seems strange that there is gold in ALL the games that I did was the gold / currency / wealth to collect that was the basis of the economy of the games (and historically the drachma, gold and so on ...They were the basis of the civilized economies)

[FeXoR]

That's likely because of the modern worldview mainly focussing on price/cost (in contrast to what individual people value - or society as a whole).

(Not to be mistaken for the numeric value (or simply quantity) as a mesure in a given unit...)

[feneur]

It seems strange that there is gold in ALL the games that I did was the gold / currency / wealth to collect that was the basis of the economy of the games (and historically the drachma, gold and so on ...They were the basis of the civilized economies)

Well, if you take that to its extreme you would only have one resource (and I'd find that a bit boring, but there are certainly other games just using one or two resources). Or on the other hand you could probably argue that there are reasons to split the existing resources up in a ton of different ones. But for 0 A.D. it was chosen to have wood, food, metal (which includes both currency and raw material), and stone, and at this point I really don't see why we should change that (especially since there are always going to be people who want fewer/more resources and arguments as to why). Four is a middle ground between having so few resources that there's no variety and so many that it's impossible to balance the game (or for the players to keep track of them for that matter).

[Lion.Kanzen]

More resources? I only can think in the disaster made by EE 2

[Vlad123]

Disaster?

Forse cercavi: Perchè IE è un disastro? Io ho giocato solo a AoE 2, Rise of nation e warzone2100(lì solo 1 risorsa). Ma da quello che ho capito puoi acquistare risorse all'infinito usando la "pietra"

Because EE is a disaster? I have only played AoE 2, Rise of nation and warzone2100 (there only 1 resource). But from what I understand you can buy infinite resources using the "stone"

[auron2401]

Ah

Empire earth 2.

It wasn't a disaster, in that it.. ah.. had too many resources.

I mean, saltpeter, oil, gold, iron wood, stone, tin,
Yeah, too much muck, not enough guck.

That said, a resource like EXP (aoe3) isn't too bad, especially if it isn't accumulated via gathering, and allows for timed strategic benefits.

Makes the game more fun, and more competitive. as much as people moaned about it, 'twas a great idea.
Allowed for more diversity in playstyles. Besides your civ, and do you boom, rush, or turtle etc.

Edited August 26, 2015 by auron2401

[Lion.Kanzen]

Disaster?

Forse cercavi: Perchè IE è un disastro? Io ho giocato solo a AoE 2, Rise of nation e warzone2100(lì solo 1 risorsa). Ma da quello che ho capito puoi acquistare risorse all'infinito usando la "pietra"

Because EE is a disaster? I have only played AoE 2, Rise of nation and warzone2100 (there only 1 resource). But from what I understand you can buy infinite resources using the "stone"

very complex system, realism? Yeah was more real but player need memorize what resources need some units. rise of Nations has better resource system split them in two, regular and rare.

[wackyserious]

Makes the game more fun, and more competitive. as much as people moaned about it, 'twas a great idea.

[Stan`]

19:20:37 <leper> #topic MP direction (comfortable/competitive)19:20:44 <leper> FeXoR: stage is yours19:21:41 <FeXoR> Well, at some points I noticed that comfortable gaming and competitive gaming have different needs.19:22:38 <FeXoR> Especially since many of the multiplayer features are actually worked on (pausing/save/load) I though it might be good to find a clear direction what we focus on19:23:32 <FeXoR> Like in the meeting topic it seams that in general we'd like to have nice features and (if we like) can cut off those options prone to missusage in ranked gameing19:23:53 <FeXoR> If there's no controversy in the team about this at all I'm happy with that ^^19:24:05 <leper> rated games already have some restrictions (1vs1 only, no cheats, etc)19:24:20 <wraitii> My opinion is that unless we radically change the game, MP is going to be competitive, so we kinda have to settle on competitive MP. Possibility of restrictions such as ceasefire but ultimately this remains competitive19:24:23 <leper> erik_feneur pretty much said everything IMO19:24:33 <wraitii> leper: link?19:24:51 <leper> http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1992519:24:51 <WildfireBot`> Link successfully received19:25:02 <leper> (staff only in case someone reading the logs wonders)19:26:19 * sanderd17 split off the forum topic about SF meanwhile: http://wildfiregames.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19933 (staff only too)19:27:14 <wraitii> I don't think erik's position really settles the "competitive/relaxed" debate but it's certainly a way to handle the ranking issue19:27:34 <wraitii> if I understand what he said correctly19:27:52 <FeXoR> There are many other concerns with competitive multiplayer gameing IMO including the ability to cheat (which in case of a maphack) means no fog of war/unexplored map.19:28:08 <erik_feneur> That's probably true, yeah. There are most likely other things which aren't covered by what I said :)19:28:50 <wraitii> I mean a legitimate question would be "is 0 A.D. really ever going to be able to get competitive RTS players in sufficient numbers?"19:29:09 <FeXoR> (But I agree: Focussing on comfortable gaming and then (maybe if someone really whants it) add competitive games with cut features is a valud option)19:29:25 <FeXoR> *valid19:29:45 <FeXoR> wraitii: ANother argument for that position19:30:16 <wraitii> well I don't actually which portion of our players are competitive and which aren't, but yeah I'd wager not that many19:30:31 <wraitii> in which case imo campaigns are way higher priority than solid MP19:31:04 <leper> I think campaigns and rated MP player are not something the same people work on19:31:33 <FeXoR> I just wanted to clearly point out that the tools we are actually adding are prone to missusage in multiplayer games. So if we don't really care (or cut them out for that specific group of PPL) that's OK19:31:42 <wraitii> leper: true enough19:31:51 <wraitii> does anyone work on campaigns?19:32:00 <sanderd17> shouldn't campaigns be recreative? Things that everyone can accomplish given enough time (and better players can accomplish it faster)19:32:01 <leper> and unless someone really wants rated MP that is likely to stay at the current level it's at19:33:43 <wraitii> sanderd17: Campaigns is imo the added value to SP (unless we get a really good and fun AI in the future, but it's not there yet). Some should be easy, others probably can be difficult, but we can probably focus more on thinking than "clickfesting" even for those19:34:14 <wraitii> because tbh it's not a great deal of fun to just play against the AI over and over again unless you get something more out of it19:34:52 <sanderd17> like the joy of studying the code :D19:35:01 <Itms> :D19:35:34 <FeXoR> So it seams that we minly want to support comfortable/casual gamelpay?19:35:41 <FeXoR> *mainly19:35:53 * FeXoR has to buy a new keyboard19:36:24 <FeXoR> (For multiplayer)19:36:39 <wraitii> sanderd17: I had way more fun watching 2 of my AIs play than playing myself, back in the days :P19:36:52 <wraitii> FeXoR: I'd vote yes as it just seems more sensible right now19:37:23 <leper> none of us really plays competitively so I'm not sure how any one of us can make a purely competitive (read rated) game19:38:20 <FeXoR> Seams I just didn't know where the teams position was and think it matters for the tools we add. So thanks for the clarification ;)19:38:35 <wraitii> well even "trying" to play competitive is a different beast from just doing stuff. I mean once you start having a build order things move much faster19:38:43 <wraitii> even if you're not godlike at playing19:39:38 * wraitii is caught up thinking about his "huge map" future anyway19:40:15 <FeXoR> Nothing at this position sais there can be no ranked multiplayer option added ^^

Last meeting discussion about competitivity of MP.

Edited August 26, 2015 by stanislas69

[av93]

Ah

Empire earth 2.

It wasn't a disaster, in that it.. ah.. had too many resources.

I mean, saltpeter, oil, gold, iron wood, stone, tin,

Yeah, too much muck, not enough guck.

Yes but if i recall correctly there was the 4 basic resources (food, wood, mineral, gold) and later one or two special resources every era

[nhan27]

Well, if you take that to its extreme you would only have one resource (and I'd find that a bit boring, but there are certainly other games just using one or two resources). Or on the other hand you could probably argue that there are reasons to split the existing resources up in a ton of different ones. But for 0 A.D. it was chosen to have wood, food, metal (which includes both currency and raw material), and stone, and at this point I really don't see why we should change that (especially since there are always going to be people who want fewer/more resources and arguments as to why). Four is a middle ground between having so few resources that there's no variety and so many that it's impossible to balance the game (or for the players to keep track of them for that matter)

Hello, I thinks add money is good

You collect money from tax ( which define on area you have ) and pay for solders salary ( or use food to keep them if they're female, citizent; and champian have highter salary ), and you sould pay for building too.

Image a player have langer area. He must have munbers of building, so he had to work hard to pay for solder and build -> Game is more blance

Sorry for my English.

[DarcReaver]

Would just create unnecessary complexity without any gameplay advantage whatsoever. Also, this is RTS, not a city construction sim (where this would make sense. See Anno 1503 or 1404).

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

If you want "taxes" you could just do it with a tech and don't overcomplicate. In my mod I add 'Commerce Taxes' tech that gives trickle of resource for each market build. I could see maybe having it be a trade off tech:

Harvest Tax

All farms 10 food trickle per minute
Units -10% grain gather rate

Trade Tax

All Traders 10 resource trickle per minute for every resource

But -10% speed

Something like this. Just ideas. But they should be simple and abstract, not require additional micro from player.

Edited September 13, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Lion.Kanzen]

If you want "taxes" you could just do it with a tech and don't overcomplicate. In my mod I add 'Commerce Taxes' tech that gives trickle of resource for each market build. I could see maybe having it be a trade off tech:

Harvest Tax

All farms 10 food trickle per minute

Units -10% grain gather rate

Trade Tax

All Traders 10 resource trickle per minute for every resource

But -10% speed

Something like this. Just ideas. But they should be simple and abstract, not require additional micro from player.

Your mod is running for the interesting way... Very creative, try to create a fab fan page and feed changes here, and even record videos, I have something similar with vanilla game but in Spanish to attract more fans to the project.

[Stan`]

Indeed a lot of players seems to like it. Could be an alternate balancing. Best would be a vote

[DarcReaver]

If you listen to the community all you get is "more content = more better". It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not, community polls will always result in that you add it. After that you'll get the @#$%ing in the forums about how unfun the mechanic is.

You have to check if it fits your gameplay concept. If it doesn't you shouldn't implement it. If you let the community decide about gameplay related stuff you get a messed up game.

Edited September 13, 2015 by DarcReaver

[Stan`]

Okay let's assume community advice is bad which is a little weird on a community game but whatever.

I think we should then look at the original plans: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document

and see what we are missing and what we have that we should'nt.

If you don't know where you are going look where you are from.

I see a lot of features than we lack and only capturing that is added. Maybe I'm wrong but we are still on trac.

I thibk what we need is someone to lead now.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

If you listen to the community all you get is "more content = more better". It doesn't matter if it's a good idea or not, community polls will always result in that you add it. After that you'll get the @#$%ing in the forums about how unfun the mechanic is.

You have to check if it fits your gameplay concept. If it doesn't you shouldn't implement it. If you let the community decide about gameplay related stuff you get a messed up game.

I agree in general. One must have strong vision for end product. And most community ideas are just people spitballing and seeing what sticks. That's why I advocate use these idea in mod first. Github is wonderful tool for this. And the game has a good mod manager to test changes.

Edited September 13, 2015 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Wijitmaker]

Okay let's assume community advice is bad which is a little weird on a community game but whatever.

I think we should then look at the original plans: http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Design_Document

and see what we are missing and what we have that we should'nt.

If you don't know where you are going look where you are from.

I see a lot of features than we lack and only capturing that is added. Maybe I'm wrong but we are still on trac.

I thibk what we need is someone to lead now.

Just out of curiosity... I was wondering if anyone has ever read this?

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/War_Story

[Stan`]

I have

[Lion.Kanzen]

We need someone else like Mythos Ruler, a Game designer, a Leader to take decisions.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Lion.Kanzen

[Wijitmaker]

I hear you guys. I think the challenge is volunteer turnover. This game has been in development for so long that is continually evolving due to the people working on it. When I was running it for 6 years, I did my best to maintain a cohesive vision for the game. I took a lot of heat for "locking in" some design decisions and would tell people to hold off on criticism until it could be played as a whole. We got 60% there, but I couldn't finish before I handed off the reigns to Erik. Again due to this being a volunteer effort, people come and people go and that shapes how the game is made. Michael saw 0 A.D. in a very different way than I did, and things started to change (what was once locked was open again for debate) - but I don't think he made it all the way to the end of his vision either.

The dangerous end result in this path is a hodge-podge of halfway implemented features that don't quite make sense as a whole. Ken Wood (lead designer back in the early 2000's) once stated: The fate of 0 A.D. is in the hands, of those who have vision and perseverance. This is why it is going to be super difficult to make a game that is cohesive over a period of 15 years, everyone has a different idea of how it should be done. It is both good and bad. The flip side is... If you don't like it, you can get involved and do something about it to change it.

[Stan`]

The question isn't wether it's good or bad, there is always someone that's not going to like it. The question is more about synergy. I wasn't there when you were at the lead, but I know for sure that Michael did add something to the game. He might have made bad choice, as we all do, but he made choices, which is exactly the thing we need right now. I mean yes, it could go on like this. But I think it shouldn't. I think we need to find someone to take Mythos place, as Feneur is the best for all the Administrative stuff, and can't also manage the game right now, but I could be wrong.

I have many times seen contributors leave because of lack of presence, which is to be expected due to the nature of the project, but surely could have been avoided.

How did they elect the project Leaders in the past ?

I bet you are not willing to come back are you ?