Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:58 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> BTW whose idea was it that paying agora for proposals and cfjs would
> cost LESS when agora had LESS money? Can we like insta-fix that?

This was an intentional design decision. From a discussion I had with nichdel 
at the time:

On 06/13/17 23:39, Owen Jacobson wrote:

> So, in short, these actions get less expensive as Agora runs out of money? 
> Interesting. The incentives aren’t totally clear to me - which is probably a 
> good thing.

On Jun 14, 2017, at 1:38 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Do you mean 'incentives' as in 'encouraging/discouraging gameplay' or do
> you mean it as 'economic strategy'? For the former, a high FV comes from
> a high reserve which happens either because of stamp creation or because
> more work is being made (CFJs and unpassed proposals) than is being
> resolved to the benefit of Agora (judged CFJs and passed proposals).
> High FV discourages making more work while encouraging success. Note
> that w/o objection actions don't stop the other end resulting in pay, so
> a prohibitively high cost should resolve itself.

nichdel has commented elsewhere that a boom-bust cycle was an intentional 
choice, and is not a defect. However, G.’s critique that FV fluctuations are 
too abrupt to be a meaningful incentive system probably applies to FV as 
backpressure, too.

That said, if you think it’s not working, change it! It’ll take at least a 
couple of weeks to get a proposal through that replaces FV with some other 
system, so we’d still have time to live with FV for a bit longer and decide 
whether it’s working for us. If someone (hi) feels strongly e can also float a 
counterproposal that makes some other change.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-09-26 at 00:56 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I’d be open to replacing the Estate auction with a lottery of players
> with the fewest number of Estates, or a straight lottery. My original
> intention was specifically to create a high-value item, so that
> shinies would return to Agora somewhat regularly, but tying it to
> Voting Strength seems to have made Estates “too good to use,” and I
> expect that once all five are auctioned off, the only time they’ll go
> back to Agora to be auctioned again will be due to deregistrations.

Temporary voting power boosters are pretty weird; they're almost
useless in 99% of circumstances (because most players don't strongly
feel about whether a particular proposal passes, and if they do, they
can normally just convince other players to vote with them unless some
other player feels equally strongly in the other direction). The
exception is pure scam/economic proposals that are intended to benefit
the proposer and nobody else but maybe some co-conspirators, but those
are very rare. They also tend to lead, unfortunately, to dictatorship
scams if anyone finds a way to farm arbitrary numbers of them in finite
time, something that's happened at least once in the past (it's why
there's a large number of contracts with numerical names deregistered
in a Writ of FAGE, and which still show in the Registrar's Report).

(Admittedly, my favourite piece of Agoran gameplay was when I was out
of ideas for ways to win and just proposed one of those things on the
spur of the moment with no preparation. I actually managed to get it
through, too, with a series of bribes to other players for their votes,
and exploiting flawed wording and ambiguities in some of the
conditional votes that players attempted. Apart from me, G. came out
best from it as e gave me a very clear and unambiguous offer for eir
votes at a fair exchange rate, and thus it was one of the few offers I
accepted. Still, it's worth noting that there was *not*, as far as I
remember, a way to instantly boost voting power at the time.)

Anyway, this normally means that temporary voting power boosts at Agora
are undervalued / treated as almost worthless unless someone manages to
accumulate enough of them to force a proposal through. Limiting the
number of Estates in existence to 5 was enough to effectively prevent
that, so Estates were treated as low-value (and as was seen, didn't go
very far at auction). My bid for an Estate was mostly speculation on
its future value (especially with Agoraculture); I had no plans to
spend it, because spending it doesn't really produce a useful effect.

I have no idea why the bidding for the Estate after that ended up in
the stratosphere, but suspect that it was mostly just CuddleBeam being
CuddleBeam.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[VJ Rada]

BTW whose idea was it that paying agora for proposals and cfjs would
cost LESS when agora had LESS money? Can we like insta-fix that?

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic 
>>> system.
>>> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.
>>
>> Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
>> thoughts.
>>
>> I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
>> think of it in terms of Game Design.
>
> Shinies have already been a spectacular success at incentivizing adding to 
> the Story of Agora, per nichdel’s essay last year.
>
>> On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
>> assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
>> particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
>> fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start *really*
>> producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
>> winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
>> slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
>> the gerontocracy.
>>
>> It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
>> is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
>> your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
>> right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
>> directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right now
>> is to have any chance in an auction.
>
> I’d be open to replacing the Estate auction with a lottery of players with 
> the fewest number of Estates, or a straight lottery. My original intention 
> was specifically to create a high-value item, so that shinies would return to 
> Agora somewhat regularly, but tying it to Voting Strength seems to have made 
> Estates “too good to use,” and I expect that once all five are auctioned off, 
> the only time they’ll go back to Agora to be auctioned again will be due to 
> deregistrations. Agoraculture aggravates this by allowing Estates to produce 
> a steady income so long as players are willing to buy Comestibles. 
> (Separately, I suspect that the Voting Strength effects of Comestibles are 
> going to be… interesting. babelian did something smart by giving them a 
> best-before date, which should limit the carnage.)
>
> The last round of randomness framework work you did is more than sufficient 
> to support a lottery, and while I _dislike_ nondeterministic play, I think 
> it’s probably an improvement over a straight auction.
>
> Even if we had an effective way for players to form a cartel - which we 
> don’t, writing the appropriate Organization is significantly too hard, and 
> setting up an Agency with the right properties requires trusting someone with 
> the giant pot of Shinies, and the resulting Estate, to a degree that’s 
> probably impractical - what we’d probably end up with is a cartel of 
> gerontocrats, or a classic capitalist oligarchy.
>
>> I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
>> buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
>
> I picked five estates when I believed that estates would cycle back to Agora 
> somewhat regularly, but that hasn’t happened. If we keep auctions, I’d be in 
> favour of a multi-part fix:
>
> * Create significantly more estates - maybe another five, maybe another ten.
>
> * Significantly shorten the auction period. Three days should be sufficient. 
> Add some timing-scam padding to ensure that it’s not two days of silence 
> followed by a late-night flurry of messages.
>
> * Auction an estate off weekly to get them into circulation faster.
>
>> On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
>> things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
>> to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>
> If you’ll humour adding steps for steps’ sakes, the “farm switch” system 
> suggests a system of land improvements. We could bring back medals, but 
> create a production chain for them:
>
> * An estate with an improvement cannot be cashed in for voting strength. 
> Removing or replacing an improvement costs shinies and requires a notice 
> period/only becomes possible some time after the estate was last improved.
>
> * An estate with no improvements can be cashed in for voting strength.
> * An estate with a Farm produces Comestibles, as under Agoraculture.
> * An estate with a Mine produces Minerals.
> * An estate with a Refinery consumes Minerals and produces Ingots, and 
> pollutes the estate when it does so.
> * An estate with a Mint 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic 
>> system.
>> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.
> 
> Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
> thoughts.
> 
> I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
> think of it in terms of Game Design.

Shinies have already been a spectacular success at incentivizing adding to the 
Story of Agora, per nichdel’s essay last year.

> On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
> assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
> particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
> fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start *really*
> producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
> winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
> slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
> the gerontocracy.
> 
> It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
> is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
> your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
> right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
> directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right now
> is to have any chance in an auction.

I’d be open to replacing the Estate auction with a lottery of players with the 
fewest number of Estates, or a straight lottery. My original intention was 
specifically to create a high-value item, so that shinies would return to Agora 
somewhat regularly, but tying it to Voting Strength seems to have made Estates 
“too good to use,” and I expect that once all five are auctioned off, the only 
time they’ll go back to Agora to be auctioned again will be due to 
deregistrations. Agoraculture aggravates this by allowing Estates to produce a 
steady income so long as players are willing to buy Comestibles. (Separately, I 
suspect that the Voting Strength effects of Comestibles are going to be… 
interesting. babelian did something smart by giving them a best-before date, 
which should limit the carnage.)

The last round of randomness framework work you did is more than sufficient to 
support a lottery, and while I _dislike_ nondeterministic play, I think it’s 
probably an improvement over a straight auction.

Even if we had an effective way for players to form a cartel - which we don’t, 
writing the appropriate Organization is significantly too hard, and setting up 
an Agency with the right properties requires trusting someone with the giant 
pot of Shinies, and the resulting Estate, to a degree that’s probably 
impractical - what we’d probably end up with is a cartel of gerontocrats, or a 
classic capitalist oligarchy.

> I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
> buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

I picked five estates when I believed that estates would cycle back to Agora 
somewhat regularly, but that hasn’t happened. If we keep auctions, I’d be in 
favour of a multi-part fix:

* Create significantly more estates - maybe another five, maybe another ten.

* Significantly shorten the auction period. Three days should be sufficient. 
Add some timing-scam padding to ensure that it’s not two days of silence 
followed by a late-night flurry of messages.

* Auction an estate off weekly to get them into circulation faster.

> On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
> things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
> to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

If you’ll humour adding steps for steps’ sakes, the “farm switch” system 
suggests a system of land improvements. We could bring back medals, but create 
a production chain for them:

* An estate with an improvement cannot be cashed in for voting strength. 
Removing or replacing an improvement costs shinies and requires a notice 
period/only becomes possible some time after the estate was last improved.

* An estate with no improvements can be cashed in for voting strength.
* An estate with a Farm produces Comestibles, as under Agoraculture.
* An estate with a Mine produces Minerals.
* An estate with a Refinery consumes Minerals and produces Ingots, and pollutes 
the estate when it does so.
* An estate with a Mint consumes Ingots and produces Medals, and pollutes the 
estate when it does so.
* An estate with a Recycler can be tapped to remove pollution from an estate, 
on a cooldown.

* An improvement on a polluted estate is non-functional.
* Destroying N owned medals grants a victory.
* If more than N estates are polluted at any one time, all 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> 
>>> You can dereg and reset within a day, always.
>> 
>> Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your 
>> last
>> deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” 
>> appears to
>> cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
>> send it.
> 
> No, I just judged that you can't do it while you're a player (CFJ 3529, 
> finally resolved).

So you did. My mistake!

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > 
> > You can dereg and reset within a day, always.
> 
> Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your 
> last 
> deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” 
> appears to 
> cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
> send it.

No, I just judged that you can't do it while you're a player (CFJ 3529, finally 
resolved).

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:01 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> You can dereg and reset within a day, always.

Right now, it doesn’t even take that long. If it’s been 30 days since your last 
deregistration, an unsporting “I register. I claim a welcome package.” appears 
to cause Agora to transfer you 50 sh., even if you’re already a player when you 
send it.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 23, 2017, at 7:09 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I 
> haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first 
> proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild without 
> double-checking some basic things first.
> 
> 天火狐

I’d be more than happy to give your proposal a once-over, either publicly or 
privately. My From: address is live if you want to contact me off-list.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   What fatal mistakes can a new player make?
> 
> 
> Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new players 
> can burn 
> through their Welcome Package and not be able to replenish it.

That's exactly it.  We don't right now have a gerontocracy problem, in that some
players having funds isn't actually stopping newer players from doing anything.
The only direct competition is auctions and we haven't had enough of those
yet for it to be an issue.

The problem is just basic supply for any non-officer, once the package is gone.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[VJ Rada]

You can dereg and reset within a day, always.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> What fatal mistakes can a new player make?
>
>
> Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new
> players can burn through their Welcome Package and not be able to replenish
> it.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>>
>> On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

 Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
 http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
 erontocracy-syndrome
>>>
>>> One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
>>> economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
>>> functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
>>> will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
>>> on the win.
>>
>>
>> That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain a
>> win.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
>>> than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
>>> noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
>>> that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
>>> now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
>>> reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
>>> a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
>>> a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
>>> that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
>>> deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
>>> advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
>>> rules reset.)
>>>
>>> Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
>>> something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
>>> new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
>>> they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
>>> fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
>>> simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
>>> general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
>>> starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
>>> at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
>>> way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
>>> maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
>>> accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
>>> accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
>>> within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
>>> anything quickly).
>>
>>
>> Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:
>>
>> - Be interesting to both new and old players
>> - Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
>> - Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness
>>
>> Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not
>> because of any perceived 'gerontology'.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:55 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

What fatal mistakes can a new player make?


Right now, since we lack a basic income or enough 'easy' rewards, new 
players can burn through their Welcome Package and not be able to 
replenish it.




On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans > wrote:


On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:

http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g


erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the
economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won
and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all
their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps
to gain a win.



In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of
an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable
VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many
years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system
that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to
win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else
that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also
note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a
considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the
economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making
sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is
hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might
have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in
the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this),
and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time
if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level
frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not
to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game
should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's
not because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

What fatal mistakes can a new player make?

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>
>>> Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
>>> http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
>>> erontocracy-syndrome
>>>
>> One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
>> economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
>> functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
>> will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
>> on the win.
>>
>
> That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain a
> win.
>
>
>
>> In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
>> than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
>> noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
>> that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
>> now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
>> reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
>> a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
>> a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
>> that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
>> deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
>> advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
>> rules reset.)
>>
>> Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
>> something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
>> new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
>> they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
>> fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
>> simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
>> general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
>> starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
>> at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
>> way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
>> maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
>> accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
>> accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
>> within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
>> anything quickly).
>>
>
> Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:
>
> - Be interesting to both new and old players
> - Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
> - Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness
>
> Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not
> because of any perceived 'gerontology'.
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 06:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
on the win.


That's the general idea behind stamp wins. You destroy 10 stamps to gain 
a win.




In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
anything quickly).


Pretty much entirely agree with the above. The way I see it a game should:

- Be interesting to both new and old players
- Prevent new players from fatal mistakes
- Reward both long term planning and short term cleverness

Admittedly, we're failing the second point right now. But that's not 
because of any perceived 'gerontology'.

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-09-24 at 01:30 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
> http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#g
> erontocracy-syndrome

One obvious fix is to make it so that it's possible to cash in an
economic advantage for a win. That way, before long (if the economy is
functioning correctly), the experienced players will have won and then
will end up behind the newer players as they've spent all their assets
on the win.

In general, though, I suspect gerontocracy issues are less of an issue
than many players think. The most recent time I've seen it be a
noticeable problem was in the era of permanently accumulable VLOP, and
that went away soon after I initially joined the game, many years ago
now. Since then, I don't think we've had an economic system that didn't
reset either as a result of people using economic assets to win, or as
a result of it being repealed and replaced with something else that had
a cap on how much economic advantage you could accrue. (I also note
that with the typical rate at which players become inactive,
deregister, etc., it tends to be fairly hard to get a considerable age
advantage over another player, especially given how often the economic 
rules reset.)

Note that there are two separate issues here: "can new players do
something?" and "can experienced players do more?". Making sure that
new players aren't locked out is very important. Making sure that
they're on a level playing field with experienced players is hard to do
fairly, though, as otherwise deregistering and reregistering is a
simple way to get rid of any economic disadvantage you might have. In
general, I'd suspect that the perfect system involves a) enough
starting assets for new players to be able to participate in the game
at a reasonable rate (I'd argue AP is sufficient for this), and b) a
way to get semipermanent advantages which will fade over time if not
maintained, and for which a skilled new player who's trying to
accumulate advantage and a skilled existing player who's trying to
accumulate advantage will both end up as roughly level frontrunners
within a medium timescale (say, a few months; Agora tends not to do
anything quickly).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

Btw Agoran Geronotocracy has been a problem since forever:
http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html#gerontocracy-syndrome

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Josh T  wrote:

> I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
> haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
> proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
> without double-checking some basic things first.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
>> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
>> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
>> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
>> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
>> participation.
>>
>> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
>> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
>> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
>> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
>> used.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > There's two separate issues:
>> >
>> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
>> player;
>> >
>> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
>> non-officer.
>> >
>> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
>> welcome
>> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
>> >
>> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
>> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
>> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
>> >>
>> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at
>> the start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
>> front). For example, the case where the total capital
>> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
>> Pack), grows over time.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
>> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
>> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
>> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
>> sooner.
>> >>
>> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin <
>> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> >>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
>> gerontocratic system.
>> >>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
>> allocation.
>> >>
>> >>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and
>> some broad thoughts.
>> >>
>> >>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
>> Economies and
>> >>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
>> >>
>> >>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
>> growth.  Base
>> >>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
>> (I'm
>> >>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This
>> can be very
>> >>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
>> start *really*
>> >>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
>> determination of
>> >>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
>> frustrating
>> >>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
>> life), this is
>> >>   the gerontocracy.
>> >>
>> >>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
>> valuable assets
>> >>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
>> lead in
>> >>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
>> Moreover,
>> >>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
>> to compete
>> >>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
>> hoard right now
>> >>   is to have any chance in an auction.
>> >>
>> >>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
>> reducing the
>> >>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
>> land).
>> >>
>> >>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
>> diversity of
>> >>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending
>> on.  We need
>> >>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>> >>
>> >>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
>> personally would
>> >>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
>> system, and
>> >>   simultaneously re-form the 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Josh T]

I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
without double-checking some basic things first.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
> participation.
>
> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
> used.
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's two separate issues:
> >
> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
> player;
> >
> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
> non-officer.
> >
> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
> welcome
> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> >>
> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
> front). For example, the case where the total capital
> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
> Pack), grows over time.
> >>
> >>
> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
> sooner.
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
> gerontocratic system.
> >>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> allocation.
> >>
> >>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
> broad thoughts.
> >>
> >>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
> Economies and
> >>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
> >>
> >>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
> growth.  Base
> >>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
> (I'm
> >>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can
> be very
> >>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
> start *really*
> >>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
> determination of
> >>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
> frustrating
> >>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
> life), this is
> >>   the gerontocracy.
> >>
> >>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
> valuable assets
> >>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
> lead in
> >>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
> Moreover,
> >>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
> to compete
> >>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
> hoard right now
> >>   is to have any chance in an auction.
> >>
> >>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
> reducing the
> >>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
> land).
> >>
> >>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
> diversity of
> >>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.
> We need
> >>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> >>
> >>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
> personally would
> >>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
> system, and
> >>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
> last week.
> >>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
> things we could
> >>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
> about specialized
> >>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
> easily change
> >>   whether you're a farmer or 

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[VJ Rada]

I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
participation.

I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
(Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
used.

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> There's two separate issues:
>
> 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old player;
>
> 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a non-officer.
>
> It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the welcome
> package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
>> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
>> time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a 
>> win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
>>
>> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the 
>> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that 
>> front). For example, the case where the total capital
>> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
>> grows over time.
>>
>>
>> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome consistently 
>> good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't restricted to 
>> one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
>> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.
>>
>>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently 
>> gerontocratic system.
>>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary 
>> allocation.
>>
>>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some 
>> broad thoughts.
>>
>>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of 
>> Economies and
>>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
>>
>>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  
>> Base
>>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
>>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be 
>> very
>>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start 
>> *really*
>>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
>>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a 
>> frustrating
>>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), 
>> this is
>>   the gerontocracy.
>>
>>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable 
>> assets
>>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
>>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
>>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to 
>> compete
>>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard 
>> right now
>>   is to have any chance in an auction.
>>
>>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing 
>> the
>>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
>>
>>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
>>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We 
>> need
>>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>>
>>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally 
>> would
>>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
>>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last 
>> week.
>>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we 
>> could
>>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about 
>> specialized
>>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily 
>> change
>>   whether you're a farmer or not).
>>
>>   The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game 
>> balance and
>>   different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of 
>> random
>>   investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

There's two separate issues:

1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old player;

2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a non-officer.

It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the welcome
package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
> time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a 
> win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> 
> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the start 
> than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that front). For 
> example, the case where the total capital
> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
> grows over time. 
> 
> 
> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome consistently 
> good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't restricted to 
> one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently 
> gerontocratic system.
>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary 
> allocation.
> 
>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
> thoughts.
> 
>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies 
> and
>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
> 
>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  
> Base
>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be 
> very
>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start 
> *really*
>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a 
> frustrating
>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), 
> this is
>   the gerontocracy.
> 
>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable 
> assets
>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to 
> compete
>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard 
> right now
>   is to have any chance in an auction.
> 
>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing 
> the
>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
> 
>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We 
> need
>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> 
>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last 
> week.
>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we 
> could
>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about 
> specialized
>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily 
> change
>   whether you're a farmer or not).
> 
>   The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance 
> and
>   different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of 
> random
>   investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Nic Evans]

On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much 
time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will 
achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.


If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at 
the start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on 
that front). For example, the case where the total capital of all 
active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), 
grows over time.




New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome 
consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't 
restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as 
old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting sooner.


On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin > wrote:




On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
gerontocratic system.
> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
allocation.

Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
broad thoughts.

I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
Economies and
think of it in terms of Game Design.

On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
growth.  Base
assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here). This can
be very
fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
start *really*
producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
frustrating
slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
life), this is
the gerontocracy.

It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable
assets
is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset). Moreover,
right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to
compete
directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard
right now
is to have any chance in an auction.

I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
reducing the
buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
diversity of
things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on. 
We need
to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally
would
add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
last week.
This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
things we could
invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
about specialized
roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
easily change
whether you're a farmer or not).

The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game
balance and
different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag
of random
investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Cuddle Beam]

I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how much time
the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will achieve a win
(or dictatorship) given their join date.

If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
front). For example, the case where the total capital of all active
players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome Pack), grows over
time.

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic
> system.
> > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.
>
> Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad
> thoughts.
>
> I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
> think of it in terms of Game Design.
>
> On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
> assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm
> particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
> fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start
> *really*
> producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
> winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
> slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
> the gerontocracy.
>
> It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
> is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
> your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover,
> right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
> directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right
> now
> is to have any chance in an auction.
>
> I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
> buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).
>
> On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
> things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
> to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
>
> There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
> add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
> simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last week.
> This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we
> could
> invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about
> specialized
> roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily change
> whether you're a farmer or not).
>
> The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance and
> different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of random
> investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

DIS: Economy and Games

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently gerontocratic 
> system. 
> It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary allocation.

Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some broad 
thoughts.

I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of Economies and
think of it in terms of Game Design.

On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset growth.  Base
assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster (I'm 
particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can be very
fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties start *really*
producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early determination of
winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a frustrating
slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real life), this is
the gerontocracy.  

It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of valuable assets
is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight lead in
your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).  Moreover, 
right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have to compete
directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to hoard right now
is to have any chance in an auction.

I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically reducing the
buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased land).

On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough diversity of
things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.  We need
to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.

There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I personally would
add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic system, and
simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about last week.
This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other things we could
invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think about specialized
roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't easily change
whether you're a farmer or not).

The total portfolio of things to buy should have a unified game balance and
different pathways to riches/success, and not just be a grab bag of random
investment instruments (e.g. stamps, bonds, whatever).