|
Vulpex Posts: 390
7/2/2017
|
One problem with the growth / crash cycle in cities is the way it affects population overall - the way it works is that unless a product is being supplied a city continues to grow but the following happens:
At 1 million population (where cities start) demand for basic products becomes normal
At 2 million population demand for components becomes normal
at 3 million population demand for end products becomes normal
at 5 million population demand for services becomes normal.
That's when population is rising. But when population is decreasing there are no effects on demand - it just keeps crashing down.
There is a broad suggestion and a specific suggestion.
Broad suggestion - as population drops - demand itself should somehow drop, either absolute demand or the rate at which demand is generated.
Specific suggestion - two options:
Either demand drops down again based on population - i.e. once a city drops below 5 million demand for services is generated at 10% only (this does not seem to be the case now) or
When population drops below certain thresholds or as population drops demand ALSO drops for the most in demand products and services. The thresholds and/or mechanisms for this could be fleshed out but it is simply a way to prevent populations from fluctuating too wildly. Soon earth will be a very strange place indeed as it becomes impossible to keep up with demand. (Even with geoboosters active populations are crashing - and I am not talking about large populations here but really small cities are crashing inexorably)
|
|
|
+2
link
|
|
Aywanez Posts: 64
7/3/2017
|
I would like the demand system in general to be more 2 sided: currently it only increases on it's own in (what seems like) a linear progression. That's not how real world demand works.
What I'd like to see is a 2-force system: demand for each product increases by, say, 1 percentage point each turn, but then also falls by. for example, 0.1% if it's current value. (Demand is, of course tracked as a float in this scenario) that way demand rises much faster when it's low and slower when it's high. Indeed a city where demand is below 15% requires a near-constant stream of supplies to keep there, whereas one with demand> 800% will almost never get any more demand.
This will also resolve the proposed problem, as the severely decreased growth of demand for higher-tier goods will drive demand down on it's own, even if the city doesn't get supplied by players.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
7/3/2017
|
Aywanez wrote:
I would like the demand system in general to be more 2 sided: currently it only increases on it's own in (what seems like) a linear progression. That's not how real world demand works.
What I'd like to see is a 2-force system: demand for each product increases by, say, 1 percentage point each turn, but then also falls by. for example, 0.1% if it's current value. (Demand is, of course tracked as a float in this scenario) that way demand rises much faster when it's low and slower when it's high. Indeed a city where demand is below 15% requires a near-constant stream of supplies to keep there, whereas one with demand> 800% will almost never get any more demand.
This will also resolve the proposed problem, as the severely decreased growth of demand for higher-tier goods will drive demand down on it's own, even if the city doesn't get supplied by players.
The Demand moves up at the same rate, but the as the population falls, the VOLUME falls and it makes it much easier to lower the demand. If a city is completely un-supplied it has to eventually die out Also, when the population goes below 5 mil, the end products start actually fall in Demand back to 200, then at 3, 2 its the infastructure, components.
I have a big issue right now with all the systems opening up because someone is actually going around and force spawning cities. It breaks the game because there aren't enough players to make any one system work. I might up the city count to 20 instead. Its difficult to get 20 forced because there usually aren't that many planets and moons
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Aywanez Posts: 64
7/4/2017
|
Well, what happens now (at least out in the colonies) is that there's a city that gets supplied with mostly underfoot garbage, it then grows and starts to slowly demand better goods, it does not get supplied (because there's hardly any industry, and demand isn't nearly high enough to ship stuff from Earth.) and then continues to free-fall until it finally dies (presumably). You might also want to check if the code that should make demand fall to 200 actually works.
Also, if you don't like demand as float idea, how about making volume (slightly) dependent on demand? Make it demand a bit elastic. It makes sense that if you could buy apples for 10c/ pound you'd buy a lot more of them then if they were $100/pound. Even if you live in a place where that was always the price.
Wikipedia link on the subject
edited by Aywanez on 7/4/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
TimurThunder Posts: 28
7/5/2017
|
There are a couple basic changes to the trading controls that would permit a whole different treatment of cities.
1) Enable a fixed price setting for a sell-all order. Allow a loop to continue depending on number of goods in storage.
Consequence: A corp can set a trader to supply a town at a desired price-level. Once empty the transport can auto-fetch new product from base camp. Currently setting up a supply system for multiple towns is just a headache of micro-management.
2) Make demand population- and price dependant
2a) Multiply base value x city pop x (various pop types percentages) to get what is currently the 200% base value for sustain.
2b) Make market price/demand curve. This will have to vary a bit for various goods.
- at 200%, there should be lots of demand, so prices vary with fluctuating supply sometimes, but not much.
- basic goods like food tend to keep selling when supply shrinks, so higher demand% does less to them than to luxury goods (check "price elasticy of demand")
- however not much more is sold if prices go below that threshold
- people that are hungry care less for cars, but not about what they eat, so some things should be tied to categories.
- two, maybe three curves should to the trick.
Consequence: Mass production becomes a viable strategy. Corps not way above their logistics thresholds get a boost because they make higher profits in high volume/small profit markets. Mega-corps can use their assets to leverage a ton of small markets for big credits, but volume will keep low.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
TimurThunder Posts: 28
7/6/2017
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve
You might also want this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
(Not going into details, those articles. My apprenticeship used linear functions (albeit far from parallel to x), my controlling spec at university went in the other direction.^^)
edited by TimurThunder on 7/6/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
7/6/2017
|
TimurThunder wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_curve
You might also want this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
(Not going into details, those articles. My apprenticeship used linear functions (albeit far from parallel to x), my controlling spec at university went in the other direction.^^)
edited by TimurThunder on 7/6/2017
Let me stop you right there!.... It's a game, based on real economics =)
Lets not get to crazy
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
TimurThunder Posts: 28
7/7/2017
|
Fully agreed, no need to go crazy. A change to having demand increase with decreasing price however is necessary, right now the income of a city goes down if you supply it with cheaper products. At least let us make the same money for delivering more goods when prices go down. (Set max amount of money spend per category, calculate volume by dividing that amount by price%)
|
|
|
+1
link
|
|
Ranged Posts: 10
7/9/2017
|
I suggest giving much higher weights on pop growth/decline on the food and water products. A city should die out because it couldn't be supplied with music holoreels and personal aircraft, it should die out because the people starve (or can't maintain their houses, maybe add some of the construction material components to this idea). If a city is fully supplied with food and water (maybe <150 demand) there should be no pop loss, or maybe no pop loss lower than 1 million.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Doctor Dread Administrator Posts: 1478
7/9/2017
|
Ranged wrote:
I suggest giving much higher weights on pop growth/decline on the food and water products. A city should die out because it couldn't be supplied with music holoreels and personal aircraft, it should die out because the people starve (or can't maintain their houses, maybe add some of the construction material components to this idea). If a city is fully supplied with food and water (maybe <150 demand) there should be no pop loss, or maybe no pop loss lower than 1 million.
Planet Dune had like 1000 Demand for water, but they had some wicked Rare plants !
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Vulpex Posts: 390
7/10/2017
|
Doctor Dread wrote:
Planet Dune had like 1000 Demand for water, but they had some wicked Rare plants !
You know.... you might be onto something...
What about a resource - extractable (and therefore subject to overcrowding) which has NO demand in any planet ever - but which can be sold as any basic resource instead. So for instance you could sell it instead of lamb or of tobacco or even minerals or chemicals or metals....
It should be of course something rare - possibly as rare as artifacts but it would help to manage demand and growth in the long term.
We could also call it spice you know... for effect...
edited by Vulpex on 7/10/2017
|
|
|
0
link
|