Jump to content

  •     

Photo

Erepublik Economy: Back To Basics.

Basics raw companies factories productivity bonus food weapons economy

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:04 AM

The most famous slogan in this epoch to the eR users is "Fix Economy!". principally by the current and terrible overproduction.

 

And, of course, all people have, more or less, a correct definition of Economy, but, by the same reason, to me is ununderstandable why does it proposed so many ideas (rise gold price, bring back the market bot, more taxes) that doesn't attack the very core problem of the economic module in eRepublik.

 

Hence, my suggestion is simple: to fix the economic module in eRepublik, we have to go back to the basics.

 

And for "Back to Basics" I don't mean the V1 or the Rising versions of this game. I mean to apply the very basic definition of Economy.

 

iXw8OL6.png

 

As you can see in the rectangule, those two words,applicated in this game, would represent an overwhelming change in that module.

 

RdhZs2g.png

 

The main problem here is: the New World is the dreamed world in economical terms. in the New World, the agricultural soil never erodes, resources like the oil, the saltpeter, the iron, the aluminium are extracted from endless mines or rigs, the abroad oceans, forests and farms are plenty of fishes, deers or cattles with an very high reproduction rate, it is non-existent things like "natural disasters", "hurricanes", "earthquakes" or "tsunamis", and words like "climatic change", "greenhouse effect", "biodiversity" or "sustainable development" doesn´t have any sense or meaning.

 

All these things make me remember about some anti Mc-Donald activists game where, citing their developers, "Behind every sandwich there is a complex process you must learn to manage: from the creation of pastures to the slaughter, from the restaurant management to the branding." (I'm sure some people here had played that game).

 

Putting aside the learning about "labour explotation", "capital acumulation", "health risks" and other speeches, the objective in this game (with plenty of similitarities with the eRepublik production chain) is, as the player simulating to be the Mc-Donald CEO, the management of all the Mc-Donald production chain, from the raw production (cattle raising, animal breeding, feedlot), passing by the manufacture (livestock slaughtering, preparation of the product), distribution (points of sale) to the consume promotion (advertising, marketing), with the ultimate goal of to generate constants upwards profits to the shareholders assembly. Of course, this is, on the other hand, the game trap: those shareholders will demands more and more profits, but the primary resource of your company, the cattle raising, remains over soil with high risk of permanent erosion, so if you weren't careful enough, very soon you would encounter all your available soil irreparably eroded, thus leading to the company at bankruptcy. In my case, however, I could be careful enough to avoid that and, hence, I create a sustainable production model that generate profits, ignoring the complains and demands of the shareholders because I knew that, otherwise, I would fall in the game trap.

 

I think the same logic can be implemented in the economic module in eRepublik. Of course, I'm not talking about to create "natural disasters", but certainly I propose landing economically the New World to the reality, where the weapon raw materials and the food raw materials aren't created as if by magic, giving us the impresion the New World is plenty prosperous and inexhaustible, but inventing some historical, geological or UFOlogical excuse to say the New World's economical resources, surprisingly, becomes scarce,  leaving to the ecitizen the task to guarantee a sustainable development in his country economy.

 

To put an example, let's talking about my country, eColombia.

 

GVx8l8b.png

 

As you can see, eColombia have two grain regions, two iron regions, one fruit region and one rubber region.

 

Now, as other propose to the game, let´s make worth all those regions eColombia have in the raws building type.

 

uoaf.png

 

bAfM9ym.png

 

As you can see, we will suppose that Plato equals all the raws buildings, and give a 20% production bonus per each territory a country have of the same resource (being different with the bonus production system applied to the manufactures, which still remain in place)

 

But now, he would add a factor of availability of the resources:

 

ToLe3Xw.png

 

The "Resource Availability" factor would be the availability of economic resources to be extracted by the raw buildings. When the percentage are in 100%, the raw buildings will can extract 100 raw materials plus the corresponding bonus, but if the percentage is different (for example, 50%), the formula would be:

 

Number of raw materials =  region sustainability percentage x (100 + national bonus)/100

 

50 x (100 + 40)/100 = 50 x 140/100 = 70 raw materials

 

But other alternative could be to keep the production normally without gradual loss by RA percentage.

 

And of course, if that percentage is 0%, it means the region had been exhausted of their resources. Hence, no raw building would produce raw material in that region.

 

The mentioned "resources availability" would be determinated by the number of raw buildings working in that region and the number of employees of that buildings, in a directly proportional relation (the more the amount of building and employees working in the region, faster the drop of the resources availability percentage.). However, the region can slowly recover their economical resources, although that would depends of the raw buildings' will to let recover it, using less buildings or employing less users. Even it could be found an equilibrium between the number of buildings and his employees, and the percentage aforementioned. Of course, all this system would force the governments to ejecute policies intented to enhance their regions sustainabilities, both the core and the conquisted ones, becoming, en passant, in a new argument for the military module.

 

In the other hand, to apply the percentage, the raws buildings will have written his location and theirs transfers to other regions must be paid with a susbstantial amount in golds or currencies.

 

kLsjg6s.png

(I know, I haven´t raw buildings, but the idea is understandable. ;) )

 

The expected effect, of course, is a strong fall in the raw production (at reasonable levels, I expect), the price raising in the raw materials and manufactured products (Food and Weapons) but, in the overall, the full existence of a economical module, based in the reality and not in fairy tales.

 

On the other hand, the manufacturing companies, in cases of raw scarcing, could travel to other country to buy the raw material needed to the production, meaning a prize to the countries with best competitivity at preserve efficiently his resources, the trade would be more dynamic (although, in the same way it exists an export license, it should exists an import license, subject to taxes and trade embargoes, to restrict the abusives product importations) and it would be a real challenge in most of eR modules (political, economical and military)

 

I think the post is already too long so let it be here.

 

Thanks for your attention.

 

Greetings.


Edited by Demonaire, 16 August 2013 - 05:22 PM.

  • Syz2, Rusto, Waysted and 4 others like this

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#2 Lalo292

Lalo292

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
  • LocationMéxico

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:48 AM

What a great post dude!
De verdad que te esforzaste, aplicaste la realidad al juego. Tal vez sea un poco complicado de implementar, pero es una solución alternativa a las que siempre se proponen.

Lo firmo!

Plato, hear him please!

#3 Tim_Holtz

Tim_Holtz

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:48 AM

not a bad idea, but it would create serious imbalances depending on implementation

 

for instance my country Australia, has massive physical size regions but few of them, would that affect the sustainability?

 

or how about the USA, it has many many regions but in RL isnt that much bigger than Australia, so if it was purely regions than USA would have a huge advantage.



#4 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 12:59 PM

not a bad idea, but it would create serious imbalances depending on implementation

 

for instance my country Australia, has massive physical size regions but few of them, would that affect the sustainability?

 

or how about the USA, it has many many regions but in RL isnt that much bigger than Australia, so if it was purely regions than USA would have a huge advantage.

The way as it is now, it exists that imbalance too, but in respect to infinite productivity.

 

Instead, if Australia have better "sustainable development" than USA, despite the number of regions, the first one would be more or as competitive than the second.

 

And, anyway, Australia can use the wars against his neighborhoods to achieve territories, as always.


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#5 Syz2

Syz2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 47 posts
  • LocationKY

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:06 PM

Very interesting. It would certainly change how wars are done, and make purchasing RMs interesting and valuable. I really like the idea.

 

What I do NOT agree with is only the idea that you cannot move companies and that their location is fixed. If a government wants to raise a sustainability, you can't just tell someone to cut off their income. But if you can get people to move somewhere else and let the sustainability rise, they can still work.



#6 2503830

2503830

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:26 PM

I don't fully understand HOW would you create this sustainability percentage go up and down.

Wouldn't it be simple to:

a) give every region a stable set of resources which are non-renewable

B) allow the creation of "recycling plants" that can recover 50%-75% of resources consumed from produced goods that have been consumed ( weapons )

and

c) Every few months the devs would add/replace a new resource and technology that would:

1. need new investment from players so we don't get people who hog cc or gold

2. resources never really run out physically.



#7 2503830

2503830

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:31 PM

Also we should allow companies to leave to areas with lower wages - to better simulate how the RL economy is working ( jobs leave for slave wages ).

After all if we want fidelity to RL we should follow what happens in it, right? :)

 

Countries should be able to impose import tax per specific country to prevent specific countries from price dumping, or impose quality restrictions :

ex: China can only bring into the USA Q7 tanks and nothing less.

Or maybe Q1 tanks and nothing less.

 

Implement a real protectionism VS free trade system of management.

 

And we can go even further.

Let workers have a special button they can access once a month called "STRIKE!" at which point the factory can no longer be used by the employer if there are 50%+1 worker striking.

That way the minimum wage isn't the only limiting factor to how low the wages go.

But also strikes.

 

The more strikes -> the more pressure to pay people more -> the more money people have -> the more they buy -> more consumption -> more demand -> more jobs, etc


  • Pedro Matias Gonzalez likes this

#8 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 04:46 PM

Very interesting. It would certainly change how wars are done, and make purchasing RMs interesting and valuable. I really like the idea.

 

What I do NOT agree with is only the idea that you cannot move companies and that their location is fixed. If a government wants to raise a sustainability, you can't just tell someone to cut off their income. But if you can get people to move somewhere else and let the sustainability rise, they can still work.

OK, I get your point. But, still, those companies must have a location, and maybe pay tickets or something to move on other region.

 

Anyway, it would be still possible to destroy that company or sale it.


Edited by Demonaire, 15 August 2013 - 04:50 PM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#9 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 15 August 2013 - 11:55 PM

I don't fully understand HOW would you create this sustainability percentage go up and down.

Wouldn't it be simple to:

a) give every region a stable set of resources which are non-renewable

B) allow the creation of "recycling plants" that can recover 50%-75% of resources consumed from produced goods that have been consumed ( weapons )

and

c) Every few months the devs would add/replace a new resource and technology that would:

1. need new investment from players so we don't get people who hog cc or gold

2. resources never really run out physically.

 

 

Also we should allow companies to leave to areas with lower wages - to better simulate how the RL economy is working ( jobs leave for slave wages ).

After all if we want fidelity to RL we should follow what happens in it, right? :)

 

Countries should be able to impose import tax per specific country to prevent specific countries from price dumping, or impose quality restrictions :

ex: China can only bring into the USA Q7 tanks and nothing less.

Or maybe Q1 tanks and nothing less.

 

Implement a real protectionism VS free trade system of management.

 

And we can go even further.

Let workers have a special button they can access once a month called "STRIKE!" at which point the factory can no longer be used by the employer if there are 50%+1 worker striking.

That way the minimum wage isn't the only limiting factor to how low the wages go.

But also strikes.

 

The more strikes -> the more pressure to pay people more -> the more money people have -> the more they buy -> more consumption -> more demand -> more jobs, etc

Well, neither I :P The only thing I can think about the percentage is:

 

Region sustainability recover rate: 0,1%

Raws industries' wastage rate: 0.005% per industry

Raws employees' wastage rate: 0,001% per employee.

 

About your points:

 

a. Certainly the non-renewable resources are realistic, but because are non-renewable, the industries dependables of those would become in an economic zombie part in the game until Plato "replenish" that resources. That's why isn't a good idea and is better have only renewable resources (although certainly the oil, iron or aluminium isn't)

 

b. Those "Recycling Plants" are too complex and advanced to a simple game like this.

 

c. That would be a very good idea: to create a technological module as support to the economy (food, weapons, raw) and military (training camps) module. But the numeral 2 would go against my proposal.

 

d. In fact, it already exists w00t.gif Only changing of citizenship.

 

e. More like quality restrictions, it is better products restrictions. An taxes system individualized to each product would be excellent.

 

f. And about the strikes... see literal b.

 

Greetings. B)


Edited by Demonaire, 16 August 2013 - 12:04 AM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#10 projectUnduli

projectUnduli

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 04:30 AM

Current "economy" doesn't provide room for such micro management, in fact it is a state-of-the-art simplification. (you read no-brainer) This is actually the part I differentiate from most, even though I'd swim in gold economy module would still be needed to fix on my own.



#11 2503830

2503830

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 05:34 AM

\\

 

b. Those "Recycling Plants" are too complex and advanced to a simple game like this.

 

\

That's the usual excuse the devs give and that people who don't want to think with more tjhan 2 neurons also give.

"Oh this game is simple" well make it more complicated then.

 

The more complex a game the less boring  Don't get me started on the 'stupidification" of games nowadays.



#12 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 05:06 PM

 

That's the usual excuse the devs give and that people who don't want to think with more tjhan 2 neurons also give.

"Oh this game is simple" well make it more complicated then.

 

The more complex a game the less boring  Don't get me started on the 'stupidification" of games nowadays.

You're right, bur are putting aside some considerations:

 

1. My proposal is about to stop overproduction, If your idea was applied, will aggraviate that overproduction. Hence, your idea would be valid if it was demonstrated that an idea like mine had created a completely scarcity crisis. In other words, that "Recycle Plant" could be implemented in a long-term future.

 

2. By the way, How do I use that plant, if a weapon partially used can't be sold, precisely to avoid scam?

 

Greetings.


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#13 tarasino

tarasino

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:22 PM

From what i've read from articles with some preview info about the changes in the economy module, the admins are going for time limits on production (if you produce wrm you have to wait x hours until you can produce weapons and so on). I don't know if your idea would fit into that.



#14 bonjik

bonjik

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • LocationAtlantis

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:33 PM

From what i've read from articles with some preview info about the changes in the economy module, the admins are going for time limits on production (if you produce wrm you have to wait x hours until you can produce weapons and so on). I don't know if your idea would fit into that.

 

The admins never make good ideas and think their brilliant instead of listening to the players.


  • ronnyJnrJnr likes this

#15 pacifyer

pacifyer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 07:58 PM

I  mostly agree with Demonaire!

Also, there is a great unfairness in the number of core regions a country has, as was mentioned. It is extremely unfair that some countries have 10, 17, 20 or even 50 core regions, while other only struggle with ONE! There is no way a country can develop in the game with such differences ab initio!

A possible solution, too, could be to have resources jumping from region to region, so to say, once or twice a year, so it would be needed to develop strategies to control such resources.



#16 Kyronte

Kyronte

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 16 August 2013 - 08:40 PM

Buena propuesta gato, esperemos que te escuchen.

 

o/   :)


Kyronte.


#17 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 04:05 AM

From what i've read from articles with some preview info about the changes in the economy module, the admins are going for time limits on production (if you produce wrm you have to wait x hours until you can produce weapons and so on). I don't know if your idea would fit into that.

 

That, of course, isn't going to solve the problem: the people uses the market, not always produce for themselves (and more discouraged with the work tax)

 

Now, if that measure affects the market too, then it is a improper intromission and isn't going the solve the problem neither, in case of babybooms and high permanence rates, and, whatever, if is used some coordination, the overproduction still is going to exist.

 

Buena propuesta gato, esperemos que te escuchen.

 

o/   :)

 

Pues la idea es que debatan para que esto sea un tanque de pensamientos, antes de mandar el respectivo ticket con el tema. w00t.gif

 

Saludos. °-°7


Edited by Demonaire, 17 August 2013 - 04:08 AM.

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!


#18 2503830

2503830

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 06:52 AM

You're right, bur are putting aside some considerations:

 

1. My proposal is about to stop overproduction, If your idea was applied, will aggraviate that overproduction. Hence, your idea would be valid if it was demonstrated that an idea like mine had created a completely scarcity crisis. In other words, that "Recycle Plant" could be implemented in a long-term future.

 

2. By the way, How do I use that plant, if a weapon partially used can't be sold, precisely to avoid scam?

 

Greetings.

Weapons could have a visible "life" bar.

The more of it used up the more that can be recycled.

So let's take a Q7 tank with 100% health. Recycling value = 0 ( it's working fully, no need to recycle )

Then you use it up to 40% -> Recycling value = 60% / 2 of the total value. ( remember recycle value is 50% maximum of total value )

 

Of course we could implement a more complicated formula and add the "time limit" factor in the term of "obsolescence".

Tanks RUST in, let's say 30 days if they don't get used up.

I dunno, the possibilities are endless.



#19 tarasino

tarasino

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:13 PM

That, of course, isn't going to solve the problem: the people uses the market, not always produce for themselves (and more discouraged with the work tax)

 

Now, if that measure affects the market too, then it is a improper intromission and isn't going the solve the problem neither, in case of babybooms and high permanence rates, and, whatever, if is used some coordination, the overproduction still is going to exist.

Sorry, but that's the basic idea of the new economic module they will introduce: waiting times. Train, wait x hours, produce wrm, wait x hours, produce weps and so on. Waiting times exist in many games. That's how they think they will deal with overproduction.



#20 Demonaire

Demonaire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 316 posts

Posted 17 August 2013 - 02:48 PM

Sorry, but that's the basic idea of the new economic module they will introduce: waiting times. Train, wait x hours, produce wrm, wait x hours, produce weps and so on. Waiting times exist in many games. That's how they think they will deal with overproduction.

The fact that it exists in many games doesn't mean that isn't an improper intromission.

 

And repeat: that isn't going to stop the overproduction.


(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ FLIP THIS TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ ヽ(°□°ヽ) FLIP THAT TABLE. ┻━┻ ︵ \('0')/ ︵ ┻━┻ FLIP ALL THE TABLES
ಠ_ಠ Put. ಠ__ಠ The tables. ಠ___ಠ Back.
(╮°-°)╮┳━┳
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ NEVER!!!!!!!!!!






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Basics, raw, companies, factories, productivity, bonus, food, weapons, economy

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users