Beyond Earth E3 Demo Videos

[3of5]

They could go with a generic "currency" or the oft used "credits." But, personally, I'd prefer they used something tangible rather than "energy." I don't know why they couldn't use "gold." It would make sense that the colonists would bring earth's currency with them to, at the very least, trade/purchase amongst themselves (I'm not sure if the expedition is supposed to be aware from the start of the game that other expeditions will be launching ships too, or if they think they'll be the only earthlings on the planet - until the others show up).

I think a colonial society on a virgin planet with no connection to its homeland would have very little use for gold aside from its value as a ressource for manufacturing (can't do much with it anyway aside from bling and as a conductor). Energy is imperfect because there is no matter2energy conversion, but imho it could work if it is explained how it gets stored (a main problem for energy management today). I agree that "stockpile of various ressources" would be the best currency equivalent in BE.

 

[shaglio]

I think a colonial society on a virgin planet with no connection to its homeland would have very little use for gold aside from its value as a ressource for manufacturing (can't do much with it anyway aside from bling and as a conductor). Energy is imperfect because there is no matter2energy conversion, but imho it could work if it is explained how it gets stored (a main problem for energy management today). I agree that "stockpile of various ressources" would be the best currency equivalent in BE.

Well, when you first arrive on the planet and, for example, start generating food, unless everyone grows their own or everyone sits down for a giant communal meal, then the "farming specialists" might want to be compensated for the work they've done or reimbursed for the food they provided. Bringing gold (or whatever was used on earth; I'm just going by what Civs 1-5 used) along for the ride would help get the currency system under way.

 

[Seek]

I don't see why they wouldn't simply call money "money"... It not like many currencies have any sort of tangible/utile representations these days anyway, it's all just data. Guess it wouldn't sound sci-fi enough.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't see why they wouldn't simply call money "money"... It not like many currencies have any sort of tangible/utile representations these days anyway, it's all just data. Guess it wouldn't sound sci-fi enough.

That's the big problem. (not sounding sci-fi)
[actually "wealth" might work...similar to "research"]

It's why I'm also afraid they might use SMACs Explicitly immortal-never-out-of-power leaders.
In civ1-5 you never had a backstory justification for the same leader appearing in diplomacy throughout the game.. Either you came up with your own complicated one or recognized it was just a limitation of the graphics, and abstracted it away.

SMAC offered them the 'sci-fi' backstory of immortal leaders (who also never get deposed/term limited, etc.) Unfortunately that makes the suspension of disbelief Harder because it eliminates the "its just an abstraction" needed to deal with 'never being run out of power' and the lack of the broader implications of biological immortality.

 

[Aeson]

I don't think that Energy (or Gold) represents currency that people would use to buy and sell things, so much as potential for a civ to do something as a whole. Cogs (or whatever) are physical resources, rather than actual cogs. Food isn't what you buy at the grocery market, but a representation of how much population you can support. Some cogs are represented in Cogs, some food is represented in Food, some energy is represented in Energy ... but other things can be included as well.

Energy is as good a label as anything else for that high level abstraction. Whether they call it Gold or Energy or Magic Beans, it really doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not it's production and potential are balanced with the rest of the gameplay.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think that Energy (or Gold) represents currency that people would use to buy and sell things, so much as potential for a civ to do something as a whole. Cogs (or whatever) are physical resources, rather than actual cogs. Food isn't what you buy at the grocery market, but a representation of how much population you can support. Some cogs are represented in Cogs, some food is represented in Food, some energy is represented in Energy ... but other things can be included as well.

Energy is as good a label as anything else for that high level abstraction. Whether they call it Gold or Energy or Magic Beans, it really doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not it's production and potential are balanced with the rest of the gameplay.

I disagree, because it Is a high level of abstraction (making it absurdly unnecessarily specific is unnecessary)

The 'Food' resource is probably the most specific.. but the currency resource is not less abstract than 'research' or 'culture'.

Why not use "energy" as the resource to obtain technologies or get virtues (you need energy to run labs, and to run the servers with cat pictures/philosophical treatises)

Instead you just use the term research (and a picture of a flask) or culture (and can't tell what it is a picture of) ... why not the term "wealth"/"currency"/"trade"/"finance"/"economy" etc. (and a picture that doesn't look like any energy symbol I'm familiar with)

 

[shaglio]

I don't see why they wouldn't simply call money "money"... It not like many currencies have any sort of tangible/utile representations these days anyway, it's all just data. Guess it wouldn't sound sci-fi enough.

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around using energy as a currency. Is everyone walking around with a pocketful of batteries? ("Here's your bag of groceries; that'll be 2 D's, 1 C, and 5 AAA's." "Aw crap, I only brought my 9-volts with me!").

Or maybe I'm an old man who's too hung up on paper money and can't fathom the concept of intangible currency (I own a credit card and a debit card, I swear it).

Or maybe it's my lack of affection for the sci-fi genre, and my preference for the fantasy genre where precious metal coins are common currency.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around using energy as a currency. Is everyone walking around with a pocketful of batteries? ("Here's your bag of groceries; that'll be 2 D's, 1 C, and 5 AAA's." "Aw crap, I only brought my 9-volts with me!").

Or maybe I'm an old man who's too hung up on paper money and can't fathom the concept of intangible currency (I own a credit card and a debit card, I swear it).

Or maybe it's my lack of affection for the sci-fi genre, and my preference for the fantasy genre where precious metal coins are common currency.

Well for paper money, you just have a bill that says 1 kWhr, 5 kWhr, 100 kWhr (you can go to the bank and get 20 kWhr notes at the ATM)
ie everyone pays their bills in "queers"

 

[Seek]

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around using energy as a currency. Is everyone walking around with a pocketful of batteries? ("Here's your bag of groceries; that'll be 2 D's, 1 C, and 5 AAA's." "Aw crap, I only brought my 9-volts with me!").

Or maybe I'm an old man who's too hung up on paper money and can't fathom the concept of intangible currency (I own a credit card and a debit card, I swear it).

Or maybe it's my lack of affection for the sci-fi genre, and my preference for the fantasy genre where precious metal coins are common currency.

I was referring more to the gold standard than cash (the only real "utility" for cash is burning it for heat). Tying currency to energy is significantly more strange, I agree; energy is an abstract enough thing that money might as well be called "money". See the following:

Well for paper money, you just have a bill that says 1 kWhr, 5 kWhr, 100 kWhr (you can go to the bank and get 20 kWhr notes at the ATM)
ie everyone pays their bills in "queers"

 

[3of5]

Well for paper money, you just have a bill that says 1 kWhr, 5 kWhr, 100 kWhr (you can go to the bank and get 20 kWhr notes at the ATM)
ie everyone pays their bills in "queers"

this feels like trading in replicator rations (which were energy capped too in ST:Voyager). Energy was scarce on Voyager, so it was used as internal currency (like cigarettes are the cliché currency in jails). Maybe Energy was scarce after landing on planet too?

The main question when talking about currency is if it has to be backed by something tangible (gold, stored energy) or just be restricted in quantity and backed by a strong legal system and the prospect of future production (like todays currencies). So the kWhr of early colonial scarcity days could very well evolve into a trade based currency later on, only in name refered as energy (as gold in civ could be gold (->Gulden ->Geld) only in name after the modern era).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

this feels like trading in replicator rations (which were energy capped too in ST:Voyager). Energy was scarce on Voyager, so it was used as internal currency (like cigarettes are the cliché currency in jails). Maybe Energy was scarce after landing on planet too?

The main question when talking about currency is if it has to be backed by something tangible (gold, stored energy) or just be restricted in quantity and backed by a strong legal system and the prospect of future production (like todays currencies). So the kWhr of early colonial scarcity days could very well evolve into a trade based currency later on, only in name refered as energy (as gold in civ could be gold (->Gulden ->Geld) only in name after the modern era).

However, the problem with that is that the name implies something, ie that "Gold" the actual stuff is worth 'currency'.

In civ 1-5 that was OK the "gold resource tiles" actually provided a boost to gold... (and that was the only place gold entered the game and it was fairly rare)

If you have your currency based on something that will suddenly dramatically change in availability, you expect to suddenly get a lot more of the 'currency' (in reality you get massive inflation... However in the game I should just get a lot more 'currency')

That is why usually the way to increase 'currency' in civ games was not to get more of the stuff (gold), but to get better markets/banks, trade routes or get rare goods (ie all luxury goods including gold) ... ie increase 'financial' type output instead of mining output.

In the game CivBE I expect the ability to produce energy to go up significantly (Fission power, Fusion power...possibly beyond) etc. Normally those would be used to increase production.
However, by naming currency energy, Power plants will be expected to be the main thing that increases currency, as opposed to better financial/market inovations (trade routes, etc.)

Either you violate that expectation (power plants=production not currency) OR you cut out the whole idea of different/better economies..ie social concepts as important in increasing currency.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Energy should replace production if anything at all. Because production is more or less the effort/energy that is stored in some project/building etc.
For currency a new noble metal could be used. This could be either a existing one rhodium, palladium etc or an imagionary one (like how there is firaxite as a resource). A physical currency is the most logical one I think. Because until the new alien planet is colonized to a certain degree, each corporation will have not much interaction with each other and probably won't value each others monetary system. So they will trade with each other with rare valuable "elements" like happened in history: salt, silver, gold etc.

 

[3of5]

If you have your currency based on something that will suddenly dramatically change in availability, you expect to suddenly get a lot more of the 'currency' (in reality you get massive inflation... However in the game I should just get a lot more 'currency')

[...]

In the game CivBE I expect the ability to produce energy to go up significantly (Fission power, Fusion power...possibly beyond) etc. Normally those would be used to increase production.
However, by naming currency energy, Power plants will be expected to be the main thing that increases currency, as opposed to better financial/market inovations (trade routes, etc.)

You mitigate inflation if that something your curency is based on is inherently useful and will be consumend as soon, as more of it is available. That would be the case with energy. The problem i see is stockpile. If the something that backs your currency is inherently useful to grow the colony (as is energy) you'll want to use it to do just that and not just have it lying around in some bunker. We never had that problem on earth, because gold is a pretty but quite useless metal unless you need it as jewelry or conductor (which only happened after the abolition of the gold standard). Even today most of its value comes from its use as speculation object. You don't need that in an effciently organized colony struggling to survive.

on the other point: so long we don't know if the thorium reactor unlocked by engineering will grant production or energy bonus for the colony and how that would play out. I can see both being an option. Either the energy is used directly to increase production (as any wise leader in a planned economy would do it (not meant as ideological comment, keep in mind that even Fieldings corporation is organized as a planned economy internally)), but the reactor could also be used to store energy (ie chemically) for later use. Maybe he does both, reflecting that it is oversized and intended to create reserves as well as power a growing industrial base (and is being expanded as well with time).

The thorium reactor might also be the reason for the convoluted "fusion reactor in a drop pod" message. Maybe the original message was: "you found a fusion reactor: 60 energy" and someone said "well if i have a fusion reactor here, why should i need to build an (arguably weaker) thorium reactor in my city?" so they added the "sorry, no transport, pick up the parts and shut up wiseass!" part of the message.

"But why schouldn't i be able to reassemble it once i brought the salvaged parts to my city for stockpile?" "Leave it be already Ted, just leave it be already! Damn we should just have used gold as currency"

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Energy should replace production if anything at all. Because production is more or less the effort/energy that is stored in some project/building etc.
For currency a new noble metal could be used. This could be either a existing one rhodium, palladium etc or an imagionary one (like how there is firaxite as a resource). A physical currency is the most logical one I think. Because until the new alien planet is colonized to a certain degree, each corporation will have not much interaction with each other and probably won't value each others monetary system. So they will trade with each other with rare valuable "elements" like happened in history: salt, silver, gold etc.

A physical currency would make the most sense for trade... however, likely it would be several different physical currencies shifting back and forth based on the situation (including energy since it is physical)... which is why a generic "currency" or "wealth" would be best, instead of locking it in.

 

[Aeson]

I disagree, because it Is a high level of abstraction (making it absurdly unnecessarily specific is unnecessary)

The 'Food' resource is probably the most specific.. but the currency resource is not less abstract than 'research' or 'culture'.

Why not use "energy" as the resource to obtain technologies or get virtues (you need energy to run labs, and to run the servers with cat pictures/philosophical treatises)

Instead you just use the term research (and a picture of a flask) or culture (and can't tell what it is a picture of) ... why not the term "wealth"/"currency"/"trade"/"finance"/"economy" etc. (and a picture that doesn't look like any energy symbol I'm familiar with)

The symbol may just be a placeholder, we don't know.

You could use a lot of other labels, they're just labels. It's such a high level abstraction of nebulous processes you could make a case for many different labels. Any of which will not match up perfectly to what you can do in the game with it.

Energy is fine. You could rush a project with more work (energy expenditure), or look at it as rushing a project with more pay for more work (currency), or rush a project by procuring more materials faster (production).

In the end no label will encompass all those things and fit the way that X is procured. Wealth is pretty good, but too encompassing. Cogs would be wealth. Food would be wealth. Your land is wealth. So you could make the argument that if you use Wealth, you only need Wealth and it doesn't make sense to have anything else. That would be a very bad thing for the game. Of course you could still use the label and it would be ok. Currency, Energy, Trade, Finance on the other hand are too narrow. They make sense in some known applications/effects/procurement, but don't cover everything you can do with it.

But the game needs a label for this abstraction of rather divergent things (compensate other factions, reclaim power sources, speed up projects, use/harvest energy of natural resources, effect of trade routes, and perhaps other things). Energy works as well as many other possibilities. If they split it up into more well-defined components (Energy, Trade) then you could get labels that fit better. But it may not be better for gameplay, which is the ultimate consideration.

 

[archmagej]

you mean were not all going to use paypal and bitcoins in 2216?
Energy as Wealth worked well enough in AC I don't think it much matters what its called.

Now get off my lawn

 

[Nick31]

One has to admit the semantics here are, in a vacuum, pretty amusing to read . And yes, i certainly acknowledge that game immersion is a big deal, so I don't mean to belittle the chat.

Nonetheless, basically since the tried and familiar 'gold' isn't deemed appropriate, we're all just trying to come up with a new synonym for 'stuff.'

 

[Mustakrakish]

Bottlecaps!