Economic Catastrophe

[Buck Turgidson]

So, market prices are terrible, and I predict that they will remain so for another 2 months. The traditional end of summer war, for whatever reason, will happen in August. So, the game is boring until then for speculators and warriors alike.

 

It would be cool to mimic some real-world events like the the US' recent siding with Syria and Nicaragua on the Paris Accord on climate change.

 

Alex could create an event, in which nations could subscribe to an Orbis-wide accord on the environment, the objective of which would be to reduce total pollution on Orbis to a set target, failing which, unpredictable destruction and production penalties would happen for all.

 

- Nations that subscribe could invest money up front, and commit to a "pollution per city" target. At the end of the event, Wind power could generate a little more energy permanently for them, for example, but they would still feel the effects of the coming real-world environmental catastrophe if the targets are not met. Simulated, of course.

 

- Nations that don't subscribe might save money up front, and not get the bonus, but would probably come under pressure from those who know how to read and have more than a high school education. 

 

I hope this would have the effect of reducing production, driving up commodity prices, provoking conflict, and mitigating the effect of the ridiculous credit sale that caused the current market conditions, all while doing Alex' bidding and driving demand for credits - a market correction that serves all.

 

We could also model other events that involve governments acting selfishly for their elite, breaking their word, and using entertainment companies as news outlets to drive the poor to vote against their own interests, mirroring events like Brexit.

 

Thoughts?

[Ripper]

Are you suggesting a new global mechanic like the color stock (that used to be in place), treasures and global radiation?

 

I like it.

 

I guess the Global Pollution mechanic could work in a similar way that the global Radiation mechanic works. But, as you said, it could impact production of other resources too, not only of food.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Ripper

[Sketchy]

Honestly I think IRL politics should stay WAY away from IC politics in any form.

[Sketchy]

Are you suggesting a new global mechanic like the color stock (that used to be in place), treasures and global radiation?

 

I like it.

 

I guess the Global Pollution mechanic could work in a similar way that the global Radiation mechanic works. But, as you said, it could impact production of other resources too, not only of food.

What we need isn't something like color stock, but actually color stock.

 

Color stock was a mechanic that was actually advantageous. Treasures have been nerfed so badly they are pretty crap these days. Color stock used to get bonuses up to like 15% in income.

[Hydrando]

Interesting idea, however some issues:

- Pollution can easily be offset (recycling centers), and already has detrimental effects (more disease = reducing population = less money from commerce) 

- Nuclear power is used by majority, if not all, of top nations, and is clean. Wind energy is completely inferior, only able to power 250 infra whereas nuclear can power 2k. Unless it is seriously buffed, there is no incentive to invest if the only return is better wind farms

[Buck Turgidson]

Interesting idea, however some issues:

- Pollution can easily be offset (recycling centers), and already has detrimental effects (more disease = reducing population = less money from commerce) 

- Nuclear power is used by majority, if not all, of top nations, and is clean. Wind energy is completely inferior, only able to power 250 infra whereas nuclear can power 2k. Unless it is seriously buffed, there is no incentive to invest if the only return is better wind farms

 

True, it is a vehicle for buffing green technology. Even if pollution has a consequence, it is entirely in your control, which is not realistic. The political and war elements of the game are not, so why the environmental?

[MinesomeMC]

i'd be interested to see after a set amount the map change to some place being underwater, and maybe we should add a thing where we can only live on land, to make this a bit more of an issue, also add for the pirates to live in the ocean u need some kind of sealandish type of platform, it would be nice, I'd also add natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, thunderstorms, rain storms, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, etc.

[Patty]

Quite the catastrophe this is indeed!

 

zeebrus pls dont kill me kthx

[Catho]

i'd be interested to see after a set amount the map change to some place being underwater, and maybe we should add a thing where we can only live on land, to make this a bit more of an issue, also add for the pirates to live in the ocean u need some kind of sealandish type of platform, it would be nice, I'd also add natural disasters like tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones, thunderstorms, rain storms, volcanoes, supervolcanoes, etc.

What about events like a nuclear meltdown if you have a nuclear power plant?

[WISD0MTREE]

Honestly I think IRL politics should stay WAY away from IC politics in any form.

115% this. 

 

It would be cool to mimic some real-world events like the the US' recent siding with Syria and Nicaragua on the Paris Accord on climate change.

My EPA disagrees. I'll massacre everyone who works at a recycling center just as Duterte massacred drug dealers. 

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Ok just spit- balling here, but there are a lot of ways to achieve this:

 

- A meteor approaches the earth - potentially a global killer. Nations can choose to invest in a global defense system, and reap the rewards of lowering the amount of damage suffered by all as well as some lasting token economic boost for themselves. Another way to do this would be to invest in a cave system, but then you would lose the Orbis-wide aspect of it.

 

Nations could still draw their information from sources like Bazooka bubble gum comics, choose to ignore the scientific argument, and deny the meteor's existence.

 

- A disease & quest for a cure could be another interesting scenario, with an equal opportunity for unscrupulous politicians to mislead their uneducated constituents.

 

- If we want to get really outlandish, we could even face a feline conspiracy to take over the world by hacking from their "masters'" computers while they are at work. Once elected, their puppets would deny even knowing what a cat is, ever having met one, or that their influence had anything to do with their victory. This could evolve into a civil war between cats and dogs, with various effects.

 

Basically I think a more interesting economic apocatlypse than the current one is in order - there are more possible disruptions to the global economy than war.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Buck Turgidson

[WISD0MTREE]

as well as some lasting token economic boost for themselves. 

 

Nations could still draw their information from sources like Bazooka bubble gum comics, choose to ignore the scientific argument, and deny the meteor's existence.

 

- A disease & quest for a cure could be another interesting scenario, with an equal opportunity for unscrupulous politicians to mislead their uneducated constituents.

If added, it should be temporary so new players aren't at a disadvantage. 

 

And they should, on occasion, be correct. Scientists have been incorrect in the past. For example: 

-The Caloric Theory was believed to be right, and some experiments back it up. Now, the Mechanical Theory of Heat is believed to be right. 

-Spontaneous Generation was believed to be right. 

-Points 2 and 3 of Dalton's Atomic Theory were proven wrong. JJ Thompson and Frederick Soddy discovered radioactive and stable isotopes, proving the second point wrong. Thompson also proved the third point to be  incorrect. 

-Einstein's Universe would've been a disaster. The entire universe could've became so dense it could've collapsed into a black hole. Imagine people funding a solution to "expand the universe." 

-Cold Fusion was proven to be false. Imagine all of PaW funding "cold fusion power plants."

[Buck Turgidson]

If added, it should be temporary so new players aren't at a disadvantage. 

 

And they should, on occasion, be correct. Scientists have been incorrect in the past. For example: 

-The Caloric Theory was believed to be right, and some experiments back it up. Now, the Mechanical Theory of Heat is believed to be right. 

-Spontaneous Generation was believed to be right. 

-Points 2 and 3 of Dalton's Atomic Theory were proven wrong. JJ Thompson and Frederick Soddy discovered radioactive and stable isotopes, proving the second point wrong. Thompson also proved the third point to be  incorrect. 

-Einstein's Universe would've been a disaster. The entire universe could've became so dense it could've collapsed into a black hole. Imagine people funding a solution to "expand the universe." 

-Cold Fusion was proven to be false. Imagine all of PaW funding "cold fusion power plants."

 

That was my intention - even if the science is right, the forecasting could be wrong. It could not happen. Just because something could or could not happen does not mean the chances are 50-50 however. The degree of the effects could also vary.

 

As for the competence of science, they do sometimes get details wrong - it is academia's job to challenge even well accepted theories. Caloric Theory was accepted for so long because it did a pretty credible job of explaining repeatable experiments and real world observations. Same for Spontaneous Generation. 

 

Dalton's hypothesis laid the foundation for our current atomic theory, but he got details wrong, which is why it never made it to theory. Einstein's universe was never finished, and a 'Grand Unified Theory' eluded him, as well as every scientist to date. Cold Fusion is right, but not at a practical pressure. Yet. Who knows what the future holds?

 

It's valid to bring this up even if most of these examples predate flight, computers, telecommunications, the internet, virtual reality, satellites, astronauts landing on the moon...etc

 

The possible subjects should be restricted to issues that are, say, being experienced today, or whose major effects are in the near future - no sense worrying about 5 billion years from now when our attention can be more practically fixed on things like current mass extinctions and incontrovertible rises in sea levels.

 

Fundamentally, the causes and potential solutions could be debated between the followers of the Age of Reason, and on the other side the Age of Opinion. In the end, ideal events would fracture the world into the forward looking and the selfish.

 

As for temporary effects, I would agree on the negative ones - this should be a relatively short term of infra, building, and reserve damage perhaps. As for the benefits, I hink they should stay - no one uses wind anyhow, and the tech is advancing IRL. Since the benefit would be incremental, new players could just catch the next event. This could also create some lasting differentiation...

[Keegoz]

I mean, it isn't worth discussing because the economics in this game has been collapsing over the last 6 months and Alex hasn't even looked at it. Only updates are ones to make money, he's too busy with his new game.

 

Save yourself sometime and speak to a brick wall, it'll likely take more notice.

[Buck Turgidson]

Well what can I say? I hope you enjoyed this satire.

[WISD0MTREE]

That was my intention - even if the science is right, the forecasting could be wrong. It could not happen. Just because something could or could not happen does not mean the chances are 50-50 however. The degree of the effects could also vary.

 

As for the benefits, I hink they should stay - no one uses wind anyhow, and the tech is advancing IRL. Since the benefit would be incremental, new players could just catch the next event. This could also create some lasting differentiation...

If it isn't 50/50, then people will always just go with whatever is more likely. Gameplay > Realism

 

The main reason why war doesn't have a technology scale is to allow new players to catch up. How would it be different if we gave cumulative economic boosts to established players? 

[Buck Turgidson]

Fair point. Maybe a different mechanism could prevail. I mean, what are the policies for?

[WISD0MTREE]

Fair point. Maybe a different mechanism could prevail. I mean, what are the policies for?

I mean, your idea would work if it was a 50/50% chance for each and only have temporary bonuses. I actually like the idea, tbh. 

[Buck Turgidson]

Temporary could work - it could still create a shock for the market...

 

How about a zombie apocalypse?

Edited June 11, 2017 by Buck Turgidson

[Arkiri Arch]

On the positive, it took 3 years to crash the economy in such a way we look for hard changes to the game to fix it.

[ComradeMilton]

Thoughts?

if i wanted to play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), i'd go play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

[Buck Turgidson]

 

Thoughts?if i wanted to play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), i'd go play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

 

You should want to go play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways).

[ComradeMilton]

I didn't really play (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) when doing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). I had an account in-game fior tech dealing and verifying diplo masking requests.

[Buck Turgidson]

That's great. What I meant is that you should go do that or make a contribution to the discussion at hand.

[ComradeMilton]

Well, become a mod if you want. Otherwise, I'm quite fine as I am.