Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
To me, I think such a mechanism would have to work on a more sociological level.
And I'm not sure a 'property' is absolutely necessary for this. We have happiness already. That's basically the same thing imo.
Not saying some additional programming couldn't be helpful though.
What happens in society, is that when a new product is generated (discovered, invented, yadayada, etc...) usually there's some patience among the masses in waiting to obtain access to it. The rich usually have some kind of exclusive access at first and most don't begrudge this as its the understood value of being wealthy. But over time it becomes more and more expected to have mass access.
Now, generally, what a person has not experienced will not leave them feeling like they are missing out, (you don't know what your missing if you don't know what you're missing yet.) But once they'd grown accustomed to having access to a luxury or utility, or they start hearing widely of others having it, they get irritated by its denial in rough equation to
a) how greatly access impacts (or would impact) their quality of life
b) how greatly they must adapt to being without it
and
c) how long and reliably they've had access and thus have come to expect its continued access
For example: if you have a horse and never had a car, what does it matter to you whether gas (petrol to some here) is cheap and available? But once you have a car, even though you still have your horse, its a little annoying if you can't ever get any gas for it. However, down the road, as society evolves to rely on the existence of gas access, the panic and rioting that can ensue when its suddenly unavailable and nobody has a horse at all (or any other nearly viable substitute for example) would be legendary. I figure this will happen gradually for us all here in the future as the cost grows to prohibitive levels to continue allowing its reliant use as we know it today.
When the people know they could have something they'd want, but know they don't have access to it now, they get a bit irate about it. Look at how prestigious it was to have a Cuban cigar during the trade freeze with Cuba? People had come to appreciate Cuban cigars then they were taken away to the chagrin of many and now that they've come back to being in circulation again its not quite such a big deal now.
Look at what took place during prohibition!!! Here the people were all the more upset that something they'd taken for granted as a standard accompaniment to life, something that was so basic it could be made in a person's bathtub (though not to the same quality or safety), something that was fairly addictive to some, something that had become a huge central point in much social culture for centuries before, had been taken from the people as a result of laws declared by a radical political movement. If prohibition had not been rescinded, it could arguably have torn our nation in two and for its day, the crime the resentment for this policy generated was a wave more powerful than our nation had ever seen before, threatening to make organized criminals as influential as our elected politicians.
My point is, there's a surge of happiness when people gain access to something new - just look at how excited people got over getting plastic bags in stores (they only had paper bags before this!) or how wild we go over new tech today. But if you want to see a REAL impact from resource access, look at what happens when something we count on is taken away from us.
What do you think would happen if carrots, something really basic like that, were suddenly unavailable (maybe carrots suddenly get a global disease and go extinct)? Wow... the upset that would cause would be tremendous!
The graduality of loss also plays a big role. We may never come to riots and such over the loss of gasoline due to the SLOW increase of its price over time into infeasability. It gives us time to financially adapt and buy electric cars, for example. So abrupt interruptions of service cause greater upset than a gradual one. (We'll never be able to replicate that without a volumetric access vs need being implemented for resources though...)
Personally, for this reason, I'd prefer to see work go first in a direction to get a more volumetric resource system rather than the yes/no have/don't have access that we currently have in the game. THEN working out a system like this that is more based on supply vs demand factors.
And I'm not sure a 'property' is absolutely necessary for this. We have happiness already. That's basically the same thing imo.
Not saying some additional programming couldn't be helpful though.
What happens in society, is that when a new product is generated (discovered, invented, yadayada, etc...) usually there's some patience among the masses in waiting to obtain access to it. The rich usually have some kind of exclusive access at first and most don't begrudge this as its the understood value of being wealthy. But over time it becomes more and more expected to have mass access.
Now, generally, what a person has not experienced will not leave them feeling like they are missing out, (you don't know what your missing if you don't know what you're missing yet.) But once they'd grown accustomed to having access to a luxury or utility, or they start hearing widely of others having it, they get irritated by its denial in rough equation to
a) how greatly access impacts (or would impact) their quality of life
b) how greatly they must adapt to being without it
and
c) how long and reliably they've had access and thus have come to expect its continued access
For example: if you have a horse and never had a car, what does it matter to you whether gas (petrol to some here) is cheap and available? But once you have a car, even though you still have your horse, its a little annoying if you can't ever get any gas for it. However, down the road, as society evolves to rely on the existence of gas access, the panic and rioting that can ensue when its suddenly unavailable and nobody has a horse at all (or any other nearly viable substitute for example) would be legendary. I figure this will happen gradually for us all here in the future as the cost grows to prohibitive levels to continue allowing its reliant use as we know it today.
When the people know they could have something they'd want, but know they don't have access to it now, they get a bit irate about it. Look at how prestigious it was to have a Cuban cigar during the trade freeze with Cuba? People had come to appreciate Cuban cigars then they were taken away to the chagrin of many and now that they've come back to being in circulation again its not quite such a big deal now.
Look at what took place during prohibition!!! Here the people were all the more upset that something they'd taken for granted as a standard accompaniment to life, something that was so basic it could be made in a person's bathtub (though not to the same quality or safety), something that was fairly addictive to some, something that had become a huge central point in much social culture for centuries before, had been taken from the people as a result of laws declared by a radical political movement. If prohibition had not been rescinded, it could arguably have torn our nation in two and for its day, the crime the resentment for this policy generated was a wave more powerful than our nation had ever seen before, threatening to make organized criminals as influential as our elected politicians.
My point is, there's a surge of happiness when people gain access to something new - just look at how excited people got over getting plastic bags in stores (they only had paper bags before this!) or how wild we go over new tech today. But if you want to see a REAL impact from resource access, look at what happens when something we count on is taken away from us.
What do you think would happen if carrots, something really basic like that, were suddenly unavailable (maybe carrots suddenly get a global disease and go extinct)? Wow... the upset that would cause would be tremendous!
The graduality of loss also plays a big role. We may never come to riots and such over the loss of gasoline due to the SLOW increase of its price over time into infeasability. It gives us time to financially adapt and buy electric cars, for example. So abrupt interruptions of service cause greater upset than a gradual one. (We'll never be able to replicate that without a volumetric access vs need being implemented for resources though...)
Personally, for this reason, I'd prefer to see work go first in a direction to get a more volumetric resource system rather than the yes/no have/don't have access that we currently have in the game. THEN working out a system like this that is more based on supply vs demand factors.
