Principle 1: I think that the return for using a skill should be tied
to the cost in obtaining that skill level (much as we have done with
combat*). Thus, if X has studied 10 times as long as Y, then the
per-man output of X should be roughly 10 times as much as Y. We want
diminishing returns, so that newbies have some hope of catching up to
Principle 2: There should not be a "Best" way to make money. As we've
seen in Oly so far, players flock to the holes in the economy (first
entertain, then the work/recruit/transfer/pay cylce, and now horse
trading, and gold mining, etc.). If my level 8 miner invests a month
mining, his monetary output should be roughly the same as Greg's level
8 horse trainer, etc.
This becomes clouded, because horse training takes two cycles of use
(breed or capture, then train). How much is a galley worth? What
about something like mining of iron ore, which must then be turned
into plate armor or longswords? Boy, this is a toughie...
* note to Greg: the updated combat damage calculations were *NOT* in
the preceding turns of Olympia.
Bill Viggers says:
>> It should be related to the costs in learning the skill ($) and
>> time taken to learn. Say working for a full month should be
>> enough to support your self in training for 2?
How do you mean working? Do you mean using a skill, or using the WORK
command? Rich and I are of the opinion that WORK should be just above
subsistence level for a unit (e.g. in working for a month, you make
your maintenance +10%). That means that units can always "get by,"
but that if you want to really make the bucks, you're going to have to
do something with your life.
I also think that WORK output should not be tied to the population of
a province. I know this doesn't reflect reality, but it makes it
possible for units to maintain themselves. The danger here is that if
Olympia gets so overcrowded with units, it might actually be more
profitable, on average, to WORK your units than to have them compete
for a slice of the relatively small "production" pie.