Let's Talk About Money

So, we need to talk a bit about money. Not so much in the sense of broad economic shifts, but in the sense of plain old fashion cheap versus expensive.

Now, first off, let's talk about what makes something cheap or expensive. The first question is that of material. Material that is common, and/or easily obtained either by growing or gathering is cheap. Now, on to craftsmenship. If something is very complex, than it takes more time and effort to make, thus, it is more valuable. If something is more useful or effective, than it is also valuable. These are the things that will determine the cost of a TO.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "Do we really need to know that?" In short, yes. Not only is this almost a nessesity for org mode, but it will determine overall happiness and have effects on cost of construction in strat mode.

Now, on to happiness. I think we may need to pull together a hierarchical system here. Basic biological needs come first. Without them, expensive things will fail to effect happiness. If all these needs are filled, then a populace that generally owns expensive TOs will gain happiness from them.

This is incomplete, but feel free to discuss.

So, I short, money does buy happiness (no, I'm not mocking this, I support that) and price is determined by materials and craftsmanship.
Here's the question-
How will craftsmanship be defined?

I think that the amount of vertices could be directly related top how complex it is, no?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I think that the amount of vertices could be directly related top how complex it is, no?

QFT. I believe we will need to have similer algorythms in the background to determine simplification of the model from a distance, so this would simply be an expansion on these.

Tenebrarum wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I think that the amount of vertices could be directly related top how complex it is, no?

QFT. I believe we will need to have similer algorythms in the background to determine simplification of the model from a distance, so this would simply be an expansion on these.

So you're saying complexity is actually just poly count? Good idea- that actually functions in two ways- being fairly realistic (paying for more detail) and keeping players from getting all sorts of very high-poly models, because they will be too expensive to buy many of unless the player has massive amounts of money.
Money- it's gas

I am a little worried about saying poly count, as that would make anything round prohibitively expensive.

And remember, post-industrial, the expense of high-complexity TOs goes down.

Tenebrarum wrote:

I am a little worried about saying poly count, as that would make anything round prohibitively expensive.

And remember, post industrial and the expense of high-complexity TOs goes down.

Ok, but it's still cheaper to get a soap box than a sculpture. I think the best way to define "craftsmanship" is definitely poly count.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

I am a little worried about saying poly count, as that would make anything round prohibitively expensive.

And remember, post industrial and the expense of high-complexity TOs goes down.

Ok, but it's still cheaper to get a soap box than a sculpture. I think the best way to define "craftsmanship" is definitely poly count.

Once again, I agree. But we want it prohibitive to have boxwood, not a clay pot.

Also, remember that this doesn't count for, say, planks vs. ragged staff.

Simply counting polys will not work. Take a two-faced computer chip, and a wooden stick. The stick has to be round, so it will have more polys than the chip. I think splitting the counting to two categories would help.

1. FPs - these could easily have their own price values, as they all have to be defined manually. Polycount not needed.
2. Other - these aren't as easily defined as FPs, so counting polys * material price coefficient id needed.

Thank you Keen.

I mean, one of the most common forms of wall construction is palisade, which involves taking a sappling, cutting of the branches, cutting it down, sharpening the tips, and planting it in the ground, seeing as it only involves fives steps.

Poly count is great for say, the decoration tab, as that's dealing with complex carvings and the like. I like the idea though, and I think it could be encorperated.

Now, this brings up an idea of mine, which I assume will be shot down but I think it could show a point. A while ago I was thinking on how we could get the TE to make a wig-wam. It's a complex shape, but it's commonly used because it's easy to make. I was thinking that if we had a TE in which you made things by showing the proccess by which they are made, it'd be much easier. I know that doesn't work as we start using metalurgy, I know, but it's still a good point. The more steps required = The more work required. I think we may have to figure out the TE before we can actually solve this problem.

Commander Keen wrote:

Simply counting polys will not work. Take a two-faced computer chip, and a wooden stick. The stick has to be round, so it will have more polys than the chip. I think splitting the counting to two categories would help.

1. FPs - these could easily have their own price values, as they all have to be defined manually. Polycount not needed.
2. Other - these aren't as easily defined as FPs, so counting polys * material price coefficient id needed.

Yeah, I took it for granted that FPs generally wouldn't be counted as geometry in this case.