• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #13 - Standard of Living

DD13.png


Hello again and welcome to yet another walkthrough of some interrelated systems fundamental to Victoria 3’s economic model: Standard of Living, Wealth, Pop Needs, and Consumption.

All Pops in Victoria 3 have a Standard of Living score between 1 and 99, which represents - by a perfectly scientific and objective metric, don’t @ me - precisely how great their life is. Pops with levels 1-4 are labeled Starving, levels 5-9 are Struggling, and so on through Impoverished, Middling, Secure, Prosperous, Affluent, Wealthy, Lavish, and at levels 60+, Opulent. We don’t really expect a lot of Pops to reach levels 60+ but - knowing you folks - we’ve left plenty of headroom to accommodate your mad economic experiments.

Standard of Living affects two major aspects of the game: birth- and death rate, and Pop loyalty.

Birth rate is simply the percentage of children born to Pops each year, while death rate is the percentage of Pops who die. Both values start out high and decline with increasing Standard of Living, but birth rate declines slower than death rate, leading to a net increase in population growth with increasing Standard of Living. This system models that increasing Standard of Living tends to lead to longer life expectancy but declining natality. Each parameter can be modified independently by a variety of effects.

Scratch your priesthood’s back and they’ll scratch yours. Note that Interest Group Traits can vary between Interest Group variants, so a different religion might provide a different benefit.
fruitful.png


There are side effects to emancipation! But while reduced population growth here initially appears to be a penalty, increasing the proportion of industrial workforce at the same time tends to lead to increasing Standard of Living, which provides a net increase in population growth.
women-workplace.PNG

Pop loyalty is altered whenever their Standard of Living increases or declines from its current value. Martin will get into much more detail on this in next week’s Development Diary on Political Movements.

A Pop’s Wealth attribute forms the foundation for its Standard of Living. Pops can also gain more intangible boosts or penalties to their Standard of Living from any number of sources.

Pops accumulate Wealth over time while their weekly income exceeds their weekly expenses. Conversely, if a Pop’s expenses exceed its income, Wealth will decline. How large their expenses are depends on what and how much they consume, which is also dependent on their Wealth. What this means is that as long as a Pop’s income remains the same, and the cost of the goods and services in their state and market remains the same, that Pop’s Wealth will over time drift towards exactly the level of consumption they can afford to sustain. Of course, as Wealth changes the consumption also changes, which affects the prices of the goods in the market, which might in turn affect their wages, dividends, etcetera.

This weekly shortfall of funds will eventually lead to a reduction in Wealth and thereby consumption, but since the shortfall is only a small fraction of its income it will take several months to have an impact on the Wealth score and thereby the Standard of Living.
peasant-net-income.PNG

Wealth has a number of functions in addition to forming the basis for Standard of Living. A Pop’s raw Political Strength (excluding any such power conferred by the country’s Voting Franchise, which is treated separately) is dependent on their Wealth. Some privately operated Institutions provide benefits to Pops only in relation to their Wealth. Many Professional Qualifications also require Pops to have a certain amount of Wealth.

Each Wealth level is defined by a set of Needs and an amount of “value” that needs to be spent on goods to fulfill that Need. This “value” is defined in goods base prices, such that the Need for Standard Clothing for a Pop of size 10,000 with Wealth level 14 might be fulfilled by buying £87 worth of Clothes, assuming perfectly balanced supply and demand. If the actual price of Clothes where the Pop lives is over-demanded, their cost to fulfill this need will also be higher. As a result, cheaper goods means wealthier, happier Pops.

This Peasant Pop’s Wealth is low (6), so it consumes only the basic necessities.
simple-needs.png

Many Needs can be satisfied by a variety of different goods. For example, the Need for Heating requires Wood, Fabric, Coal, Oil, and/or Electricity. These can be purchased in any combination assuming the total base prices add up to the required value. When given this option Pops will attempt to make a rational purchase decision based on which goods are the most available, satisfying their Need with some mix of these goods or even only one, if that’s the only one available. In this way an inland, isolated state might not consume any Fish at all as long as it has sufficient Grain, Fruit, Meat, or even packaged Groceries to satisfy their Need for food.

A breakdown of how the Peasants in Ceylon spent their heating budget this week.
heating-for-peasants-in-ceylon.png

Goods can also appear in several different Needs categories. Groceries, Meat, and Fruit can fulfil the need for both Basic Food and Luxury Food, but Grain or Fish can only fulfil the need for Basic Food. As a result, maintaining only Millet Farms and Fishing Wharfs to meet your food needs will mostly satisfy your poor Pops, while focusing on Livestock Ranches and Banana Plantations will cause wealthy Pops to inflate the price of the available food supply and further impoverish the poor. Operating productive Food Industries that can turn Grain and Fish into Groceries is good for everyone in your country, and frees up any available supply of Meat and Fruit to be consumed by those with a Need for Luxury Food.

A breakdown of who requires Basic Food and how it can be fulfilled.
basic-food-substitution.png

Lower Wealth levels have only a handful of Needs, such as Simple Clothing, Heating, Basic Food, and Intoxicants. The middle levels introduce more refined Needs like Household Items, Services, Luxury Drinks, and Free Movement. Really wealthy Pops consume increasingly vast quantities of Luxury Goods to impress and outdo their peers. In some cases Needs disappear entirely in favor of more diverse Needs. The Need for Simple Clothing which can be satisfied by both Fabric and Clothes will, as a Pop is raised from abject poverty, be gradually phased out by the Need for Standard Clothing which include only professionally sewn items.

Compared to the Wealth 6 Peasants, these Wealth 17 Bureaucrats are more diverse in their requirements.
middle-needs.png

Introducing new goods into your market will help you diversify your economy and alleviate the demand on crucial industrial goods. Importing Oil - either petroleum from newly discovered deposits or whale oil from the few places in the world that produce it - will cause your Pops to buy some quantity of it for heating instead of Coal or Electricity, which lowers the price of those goods and help make your industries more profitable. Introducing Opium into your market will decrease Pop demand for Liquor and Tobacco... for good or ill.

Some goods are favored over others by default if available. Once Electricity is available to them, due to its convenience Pops will prefer to buy it over Wood or Coal, even if they’re the same price. Some goods can be replaced by other goods entirely, while others will always be required to some bare minimum. Train travel can completely replace the need for having your own Automobile to drive around in, but having an Automobile doesn’t ever completely remove the need for an occasional train ride to see your cousin who lives all the way in Paris.

In addition to these factors cultures can develop Obsessions for certain goods, and some even have Taboos they must abide by. A country can also encourage or discourage the consumption of certain goods using Authority, perhaps in an effort to avoid enriching a hated enemy or entice Pops to buy something that’s heavily taxed over something that is not. This impacts the purchase habits of Pops affected despite this being irrational from a strictly financial perspective.

What if the Bengali were obsessed with the status afforded to them by Luxury Furniture? This could happen due to events, or organically because Luxury Furniture is a really prevalent luxury good in markets where a lot of Bengali Pops live. But even if this habit is developed around their homelands, Bengali Pops that migrate abroad - to the USA or Australia or Japan - will continue preferring Luxury Furniture to other luxury goods, and will suffer financially if the same level of access is not available there.
bengali-obsessions-taboos.png

Let’s close out by considering the difference between this and the consumption model from previous games. In Victoria 2, Pops have different Life, Everyday, and Luxury Needs based on their Type (what we call Profession in Victoria 3), both in types of goods and quantities. Pops in Victoria 2 always strive to get promoted into Types which require more advanced, luxurious goods in larger quantities, but will fail to do so if they cannot afford it. Since certain advanced Types of Pops in Victoria 2 perform their duties objectively better than their less advanced counterparts (e.g. Craftsmen, Clerks) it becomes important to retain access to advanced goods in order to ensure that your workforce is internationally competitive.

In Victoria 3 this formula is turned on its head. An Engineer is not intrinsically better than a Machinist who is not intrinsically better than a Laborer, and there’s no ideal national proportions between them you need to maintain in order to maximize your competitiveness. Different Professions do fulfil different functions, but it’s the Production Methods of the Buildings they work in that determine what function they serve. By choosing what Buildings to construct and which Production Methods to activate, you create the opportunities for these Professions which in turn impose changes to the population. What types of goods you need to ensure access to in order to keep your population satisfied is not driven directly by what professional opportunities you have created, but rather by what Wealth development and Wealth distribution these changes have resulted in.

Professions that are part of the Middle Strata in this state are considerably better off than those in the Lower Strata, and not far off from the Upper Strata. It’s very likely this state hasn’t started industrializing yet, since Shopkeepers - who run the pre-industrial economy - are Middle Strata, and Upper Strata Aristocrats aren’t always particularly wealthy if their income originates from exploiting the Peasantry on Subsistence Farms. Since the Middle Strata is already wealthy enough to demand Transportation, construction of Railways in this state is likely to be both profitable and beneficial for population growth and general happiness.
sol-breakdown.PNG

As a result, Pops in Victoria 3 won’t always strive to ascend to a higher social strata, nor will an Aristocrat always have a higher income or goods consumption Needs compared to a Clerk. All of this is driven by market forces - a qualifying Clerk would gladly become an Aristocrat on available land if that comes with a higher income than remaining a Clerk, and this increased income will gradually result in an increase in their Wealth and consumption demand. Conversely, Aristocrats don’t demote to Laborers because they can't acquire enough goods to sustain their lifestyle - they would only turn to such desperate measures if they become landless (unemployed) and are trying to avoid starvation, or if by some miracle taking on a relatively well-paid Laborer job in a particularly profitable factory would actually yield a greater paycheck than their failing farm provides them with.

In practice this means that it's important in both games to secure your populations’ basic needs to prevent starvation and dissent, followed by appeasing their desire for ever more advanced or exotic goods in larger and larger quantities to increase the size of your economy and power on the world stage. But while reaching this commonly pursued end goal in Victoria 2 often meant pursuing a certain optimal population distribution no matter what else happened throughout the game, the Professions of the Pops you end up with could be vastly different between games in Victoria 3! If you build a colonial plantation economy, your Aristocrats might remain as dominant by endgame as they were at start. If you're a manufacturing powerhouse on the cutting edge of technological progress, your middle strata Pops might come to rival the Capitalist class in wealth and power. If your high taxes are reinvested in vast Institutions your power base might be dominated by Bureaucrats and Academics. If your workers own the means of production, your Laborers might even be wealthier - and consume more luxuries - than your neighbor's Aristocrats.

These possibilities for diverse Pop distributions also result in very different political tendencies in your population, which lead to demand for different kinds of Laws. While in Victoria 2 it’s primarily the rising Consciousness of a greater ratio of more advanced and literate types of Pops that drives a desire for reform in a liberal direction, Victoria 3’s more open-ended consumption model and the diversity of Professions it can create could result in your population having very different political desires by endgame depending on the path you’ve taken. This requires your political machinery to be working in tandem with your economic engine, both to create the right conditions for your Pops and to satisfy their changing desires.

Next week, we will learn more about these desires as Martin introduces us to Political Movements, which themselves are strongly connected to Standard of Living. Until then!
 
  • 242Like
  • 156Love
  • 18
  • 5
Reactions:
Time for you two to move over to private messaging or simply accept that some people are going to have different opinions about certain aspects of the game.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
A lovely and intriguing DD, as always. I haven't reviewed the entire 16 pages of posts, so please forgive this if it repeats something said earlier.

For purposes of thinking about population growth and life expectancy, it is important to realize that the increase in what is called "life expectancy" in the later 1800s and then the 20th century came almost completely as a result of lower rates of death, primarily among newborns and then secondarily among children aged 5-12. In other words, people did not mostly begin to live to an older age at death than they had before in industrialized countries, but instead more people made it past the age of 12, which raised the weighted average on which "life expectancy" is based. I mention this fact because as used in the media "life expectancy" is almost universally misunderstood and misinterpreted. "In ancient Rome, no one lived past the age of 50!" One sees silly things like that everywhere. Only in the 1960s did people really start to live longer lives, and, well, it has just exploded from there.

One consequence of this is that the old-age pensions would not be as costly as the game might suppose, depending on when they kick in. To take but one example, the Social Security system created in 1934 by the USA only started paying out at age 65, an age when comparatively few people, especially factory and mine laborers, would expect to collect the annuity for a very long time.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Would be great to get a confirmation from Lachek


Hertzila said:

The conversion rates are based on the base price of the default good (I kept using "units" but it's more like "equivalent base value"), but that doesn't indicate that they wouldn't also be need-specific conversion rates. One does not preclude the other.

Coal might be five times as valuable as base than Lumber, which would make it far cheaper to transport around since you need much less of it for substitutable uses and would not require Heating to have any big conversion rate for Coal while still making Coal super-good for it, but nothing would stop a need from using a conversion rate of 0.1 for Coal to completely nerf its base value for that specific use. Or at least that's my read of it.

I think it's confirmed in the screenshots, actually.

1630693002860.png


This would suggest that meat/fruit/groceries is 50% more valuable than grain, unless I'm misunderstanding?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Question: do pops that produce life needs provide for themselves before selling their surplus,
Unlike in V2, there's no concept of buying goods "before" other consumers. If a particular resource has 100 units of supply and 120 units of demand, all 120 units will be filled. However, this will raise prices in the future (which will generally lead to more supply and/or less demand).
 
I think it's confirmed in the screenshots, actually.

View attachment 753087

This would suggest that meat/fruit/groceries is 50% more valuable than grain, unless I'm misunderstanding?
Well, the main question is if, assuming all goods are at their base price, 10£ of grain provides for the same amount of need as 10£ of meat. Here we can see that meat, fruit, and groceries are all 1.5 times as effective as grain or fish at supplying for the need, but we have no idea what the base price for any of those goods are. It might be that those three are all 1.5 times the base price, and so the equivalent is 1 for 1. Personally I hope there at least exists the possibility for inefficient conversions, so in a crashed economy you might see people burning luxury furniture to satisfy their heating needs. Having 40£ of luxury furniture provide for the same heating as 40£ of lumber would be silly.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Well, the main question is if, assuming all goods are at their base price, 10£ of grain provides for the same amount of need as 10£ of meat. Here we can see that meat, fruit, and groceries are all 1.5 times as effective as grain or fish at supplying for the need, but we have no idea what the base price for any of those goods are. It might be that those three are all 1.5 times the base price, and so the equivalent is 1 for 1. Personally I hope there at least exists the possibility for inefficient conversions, so in a crashed economy you might see people burning luxury furniture to satisfy their heating needs. Having 40£ of luxury furniture provide for the same heating as 40£ of lumber would be silly.
Could even current economy of vic3 crash to that level? Mechanics they had described so far sound like they will prevent any extreme instability and will avoid going to such cool result, for better or worse. There could be so many nice possible results like furniture made out of cement or steel because of their oversupply and peasants using tanks to plow the land after war otherwise.
 
Could even current economy of vic3 crash to that level? Mechanics they had described so far sound like they will prevent any extreme instability and will avoid going to such cool result, for better or worse. There could be so many nice possible results like furniture made out of cement or steel because of their oversupply and peasants using tanks to plow the land after war otherwise.
I think you can still end up with stuff like this in the short term. It wouldn't happen without some massive outside cause though. Say you've been producing luxury furniture and exporting it to the British market for some nice profits. Then, they embargo you or cut ties or whatever and suddenly you are massively overproducing furniture. If you are producing 100 units of luxury furniture, but your market is only buying 7 units, the price is going to plummet. As your furniture industries run through their cash stockpile they will start laying off workers and lowering wages, but there will still be a few weeks of furniture being at rock bottom prices.

Short of suddenly gaining or losing access to a market (or potentially losing market access to a significant portion of territory), I doubt such large instabilities will happen. And even without player input they will self-correct to a decent degree, if leaving a lot of unemployed and price fluctuations in the wake.

Since tanks and tractors will likely be made by different production methods of the same building, it's likely that example wouldn't come to pass unless the player was being deliberate.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I think you can still end up with stuff like this in the short term. It wouldn't happen without some massive outside cause though. Say you've been producing luxury furniture and exporting it to the British market for some nice profits. Then, they embargo you or cut ties or whatever and suddenly you are massively overproducing furniture. If you are producing 100 units of luxury furniture, but your market is only buying 7 units, the price is going to plummet. As your furniture industries run through their cash stockpile they will start laying off workers and lowering wages, but there will still be a few weeks of furniture being at rock bottom prices.
The main obstacle to it would be base prices and price limits themselves, I feel. If base price of lux.fur. even divided by 2 (lowest limit) is still significantly larger than usual lumber, it will never be used in such way, I think it would require freely floating price.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The main obstacle to it would be base prices and price limits themselves, I feel. If base price of lux.fur. even divided by 2 (lowest limit) is still significantly larger than usual lumber, it will never be used in such way, I think it would require freely floating price.
In Vicky 2, the minimum price was base price*.22

Unclear if/how price floors are implemented at this point, though.

A bigger concern in the “burning luxury furniture to stay warm” mechanic though is durable goods. I don’t think goods in Vicky 3 are durable or non-durable, so a POP would have to buy luxury furniture purposefully to burn it: they wouldn’t have it laying around. And I very much doubt luxury furniture will ever fall below regular furniture, let alone lumber.

I could be wrong about good durability, though.
 
In Vicky 2, the minimum price was base price*.22

Unclear if/how price floors are implemented at this point, though.

A bigger concern in the “burning luxury furniture to stay warm” mechanic though is durable goods. I don’t think goods in Vicky 3 are durable or non-durable, so a POP would have to buy luxury furniture purposefully to burn it: they wouldn’t have it laying around. And I very much doubt luxury furniture will ever fall below regular furniture, let alone lumber.

I could be wrong about good durability, though.
I am basing my information about price ranges on screenshots where if base price of a good is 20, then it's price range is in 10-30.
If 40, then 20-60, check out images at goods diary. The example when luxury furniture could fall a lot below was given above by Tamwin: you lose some dominating source of demand for your luxury furniture and during adjustment period it could go down a lot without limits. I don't think there would be durability as it would require modelling of storage which is already out of question.
 
I am basing my information about price ranges on screenshots where if base price of a good is 20, then it's price range is in 10-30.
If 40, then 20-60, check out images at goods diary. The example when luxury furniture could fall a lot below was given above by Tamwin: you lose some dominating source of demand for your luxury furniture and during adjustment period it could go down a lot without limits. I don't think there would be durability as it would require modelling of storage which is already out of question.
I don't agree with your conclusions here. Let's look at the images in that dev diary. I don't think the range on the graphs in those screenshots shows price ceilings and floors.

The base price of Grain is 24, not 20.

V3analysis1.png
Likewise, the base price of tools is 50 (you don't really need to do any drawing on the graph to figure this one out) I don't think it's price ceiling is a mere 20% of it's base price while the floor is 40%.

1630708808837.png
 
I don't agree with your conclusions here. Let's look at the images in that dev diary. I don't think the range on the graphs in those screenshots shows price ceilings and floors.

The base price of Grain is 24, not 20.

View attachment 753232
Likewise, the base price of tools is 50 (you don't really need to do any drawing on the graph to figure this one out) I don't think it's price ceiling is a mere 20% of it's base price while the floor is 40%.

View attachment 753233
Yeah, these are not that clear, national markets diary has a better one, also shows that price at the left side is not a base one.
1630709569277.png
 
Yeah, these are not that clear, national markets diary has a better one, also shows that price at the left side is not a base one.
View attachment 753234
Hmmm... this chart seems to disprove my assumption that prices start at base price on game start, so my analysis of the other two screenshots might be off.

Still I don't know if we can speak with any kind of certainty about price floors and ceilings, given that we still know very little about how prices generally work.
 
To get a sense of what I mean when I say we have no idea what's goin on with price, take a look at this screenshot:

vicky3wine.png

Wine here is perfectly balanced in buy orders and sell orders. Is 43 its base price, with a ceiling at 86 and a floor at 21.5?

Or this screenshot:
1630712258990.png

The price of dyes here is 63.6 and it is labeled as "Expensive" by the coin icon. Is its max price 65? It'd be at 98% of it's ceiling. 70? It'd be at 91%. Either value gives us some weird unround base prices and/or floors.

And given what we've heard about how prices work, especially how they increase or decrease over time the longer they've been in shortage, I would have expected dyes to hit their price ceiling already if there's such a dire shortage of them.

None of this disproves your theory, but I think it should make us cautious of what we currently know about price mechanisms in the game.
 
To get a sense of what I mean when I say we have no idea what's goin on with price, take a look at this screenshot:

View attachment 753240
Wine here is perfectly balanced in buy orders and sell orders. Is 43 its base price, with a ceiling at 86 and a floor at 21.5?

Or this screenshot:
View attachment 753241
The price of dyes here is 63.6 and it is labeled as "Expensive" by the coin icon. Is its max price 65? It'd be at 98% of it's ceiling. 70? It'd be at 91%. Either value gives us some weird unround base prices and/or floors.

And given what we've heard about how prices work, especially how they increase or decrease over time the longer they've been in shortage, I would have expected dyes to hit their price ceiling already if there's such a dire shortage of them.

None of this disproves your theory, but I think it should make us cautious of what we currently know about price mechanisms in the game.
I could see shortages kicking in at 90% or 95% of max price. There would likely be degrees of shortages, having some amount of a good should always be better than none.
 
Well, the main question is if, assuming all goods are at their base price, 10£ of grain provides for the same amount of need as 10£ of meat. Here we can see that meat, fruit, and groceries are all 1.5 times as effective as grain or fish at supplying for the need, but we have no idea what the base price for any of those goods are. It might be that those three are all 1.5 times the base price, and so the equivalent is 1 for 1. Personally I hope there at least exists the possibility for inefficient conversions, so in a crashed economy you might see people burning luxury furniture to satisfy their heating needs. Having 40£ of luxury furniture provide for the same heating as 40£ of lumber would be silly.
We have this screenshot from goods dev diary:
1630734846255.png

We can see that meat is at 32 and slightly above base price (judging from coin stacks), fruit and grocery are significantly above at 42, so it seems safe to assume they all have base prices of 30. Fish is slightly above at 22, and in another screenshot we saw grain slightly below at 17, so both seem to have base prices of 20. So yes, the ratios of need satisfaction are just ratios between base prices. This not only makes your extreme example impossible, but also some very legit ones. Let’s say I want to subsidize my shopkeepers involved in luxury clothes sewing, which makes said clothes cheaper than standard ones. But poor and medium strata would still rather go naked than wear those filthy capitalist outfits - no way luxury clothes can satisfy standard clothing need at reduced efficiency.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I could see shortages kicking in at 90% or 95% of max price. There would likely be degrees of shortages, having some amount of a good should always be better than none.
Perhaps. And the shortage is not as bad as it could be yet because the factory is still producing at least some clothes (it’s down to 1/3rd of total output, according to the dev diary).
 
We have this screenshot from goods dev diary:
View attachment 753270
We can see that meat is at 32 and slightly above base price (judging from coin stacks), fruit and grocery are significantly above at 42, so it seems safe to assume they all have base prices of 30. Fish is slightly above at 22, and in another screenshot we saw grain slightly below at 17, so both seem to have base prices of 20. So yes, the ratios of need satisfaction are just ratios between base prices. This not only makes your extreme example impossible, but also some very legit ones. Let’s say I want to subsidize my shopkeepers involved in luxury clothes sewing, which makes said clothes cheaper than standard ones. But poor and medium strata would still rather go naked than wear those filthy capitalist outfits - no way luxury clothes can satisfy standard clothing need at reduced efficiency.
But in order to produce luxury clothes, you also have to produce regular ones. Wouldn’t that drive the price of both types down at once?
 
But in order to produce luxury clothes, you also have to produce regular ones. Wouldn’t that drive the price of both types down at once?
Maybe I can export the standard ones, but don’t have market for luxury at the moment. Or my egalitarian society don’t have demand for luxuries. There are many imaginary possibilities like that. Of course non ideal substitution is better than no substitution in Vic2, but I don’t understand what prevents devs from introducing a good utility value different from base price, which could vary across categories.
 
Another good example where this approach is flawed is groceries. We saw that one of the production methods for them is bread baking (from grain). As the base price for them has to cover both inputs and labor, you can’t have 1 grocery at £30 made of 1.5 grain at £20 each. Most likely it is 1 unit of groceries made of 1 unit of grain. But then suddenly the magic recipe of your bakers make it 1.5 times more nutritional. So your poor laborers need say 1 kg of grain to survive, but can do just as fine with 667 grams of bread? Doesn’t make much sense. The ratio of basic food need satisfaction for groceries in this example should be 1, maybe it should come with a strong convenience bias so if for some reason (subsidies) price of bread equals price of grain pops would by bread. But then groceries can be the preferred way to satisfy luxury food need. And why the heck sugar is not among the goods satisfying basic food need? If you are starving you can eat sugar, right? I think you can guess the answer - devs can’t add it, as it’s high base price would make it too effective in satisfying the need.
 
  • 1
Reactions: