|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 6:17:21 GMT -5
so, I am looking at upgrading to Habs 2, Factory 2, and Mines 2.
Lets tackle Mines first:
Pro: if I have a 6 mineral capacity, having mines 2 is nice because I only need 3 of them instead of 6. so I can build something else
Con: Maintenance $ is still the same. shouldn't cost go down because of efficiency? The other reality is that maintenence will actually go up because I now have 3 new buildings I can add that will cost me more.
Habs: No brainer. more people in the same space is good.
Factories:
Pro: More output from one factory. +1 trade
Con: Even though they are more productive, the maintenance per CP actually goes up $5/CP to 6.7/CP.
so right now, if I have 6 population and want to have 6 factory spots available, here is what you can do
(3 Hab 2 and 3 Factory 1) gives you 6 of each, and maintenance cost of $30 for the factories
(3 Hab 2 and 2 Factory 2) again gives you 6 of each and 6CP but with a maintenance cost of $40.
Maybe when you get a Hab 3, factory 2 becomes worthwhile.
Can someone else input here, because I hope I am greatly misunderstanding something
|
|
|
|
Post by contributor on May 18, 2014 8:33:09 GMT -5
nails, I think you've done a good analysis and it's worth looking at these things now. I'm guessing that at least in terms of Mines the answer is that the advantage is that you can put in more buildings. And yes those buildings come with more maintenance, but they might also generate more income to offset that maintenance. Being able to do more with less buildings is especially important on low quality worlds. More advanced mines allow you to do more without going over your quality limit and therefore incurring other costs. The point about the factories is really good. Why should they be more maintenance per CP? That doesn't make a lot of sense. They do however generate a trade point and depending on what that is worth it might well make up for the extra maintenance.
|
|
|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 9:39:09 GMT -5
I think what I really want to know is how the maintenance % is calculated.
|
|
|
|
Post by shapcano on May 18, 2014 10:06:12 GMT -5
nails, I think you've done a good analysis and it's worth looking at these things now. I'm guessing that at least in terms of Mines the answer is that the advantage is that you can put in more buildings. And yes those buildings come with more maintenance, but they might also generate more income to offset that maintenance. Being able to do more with less buildings is especially important on low quality worlds. More advanced mines allow you to do more without going over your quality limit and therefore incurring other costs. The point about the factories is really good. Why should they be more maintenance per CP? That doesn't make a lot of sense. They do however generate a trade point and depending on what that is worth it might well make up for the extra maintenance. With the way quality works, we're lucky that every level 2 building doesn't cost more than 2x to maintain. And I think the +1 trade is exactly why factories do. I think what I really want to know is how the maintenance % is calculated. Yeah, I'd love to see that equation too. |
|
|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 10:36:46 GMT -5
nails, I think you've done a good analysis and it's worth looking at these things now. I'm guessing that at least in terms of Mines the answer is that the advantage is that you can put in more buildings. And yes those buildings come with more maintenance, but they might also generate more income to offset that maintenance. Being able to do more with less buildings is especially important on low quality worlds. More advanced mines allow you to do more without going over your quality limit and therefore incurring other costs. The point about the factories is really good. Why should they be more maintenance per CP? That doesn't make a lot of sense. They do however generate a trade point and depending on what that is worth it might well make up for the extra maintenance. With the way quality works, we're lucky that every level 2 building doesn't cost more than 2x to maintain. And I think the +1 trade is exactly why factories do. I think what I really want to know is how the maintenance % is calculated. Yeah, I'd love to see that equation too. I think knowing how the % is calculated would help in figuring out if factory 2 higher maintenance per cp is worth the extra +1 trade, before installinghhas 3 |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 18, 2014 12:03:44 GMT -5
How maintenance rate is calculated -- one of the simplest pieces of math in the game.
All Maintenance is added together. Then it is multiplied by the maintenance rate, calculated per colony. To determine the Maintenance Rate look at population, morale and quality.
Every point under 10 Morale costs 10%.
Every 1% over 100% Quality costs 1%.
Every 1% over 100% Population costs 1%.
Difficulty scalars are applied to individual Colony rates.
[EDIT: Replaced a 2% with a 1% in Quality to match rules.]
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 18, 2014 12:08:28 GMT -5
so, I am looking at upgrading to Habs 2, Factory 2, and Mines 2. Lets tackle Mines first: Pro: if I have a 6 mineral capacity, having mines 2 is nice because I only need 3 of them instead of 6. so I can build something else Con: Maintenance $ is still the same. shouldn't cost go down because of efficiency? The other reality is that maintenence will actually go up because I now have 3 new buildings I can add that will cost me more. Habs: No brainer. more people in the same space is good. Factories: Pro: More output from one factory. +1 trade Con: Even though they are more productive, the maintenance per CP actually goes up $5/CP to 6.7/CP. so right now, if I have 6 population and want to have 6 factory spots available, here is what you can do (3 Hab 2 and 3 Factory 1) gives you 6 of each, and maintenance cost of $30 for the factories (3 Hab 2 and 2 Factory 2) again gives you 6 of each and 6CP but with a maintenance cost of $40. Maybe when you get a Hab 3, factory 2 becomes worthwhile. Can someone else input here, because I hope I am greatly misunderstanding something A decent start, but you are missing some really big factors here. The biggest one is Quality Points. The second biggest one is Trade. Discussing Credits/CP is irrelevant without discussing Quality. The cost is going down, dramatically, but you are discounting all the values that are being used to provide that benefit. Running the simulations, I can see that there are slight dips are you go through each revolution of rating, and then a subsequent value climb. Great discussion -- I am looking at VERY solid numbers from simulation players from Factory 1 to 6. I am verrrry curious, given your analysis ... what you would do? Reduce maintenance on Factory? |
|
|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 12:36:55 GMT -5
So a planet of 15 quality can't build anything without a 2% increase in maintenance, hit a 20 quality planet can build 1 extra without penalty.
no, those are both wrong. 1% is .2.
More specific please.
do you add up ALL the colonies quality and divide that into the total quality used or do you calculate the % over/ under for each then add them together?
so if you had one colony that is 10% over on quality and another that was 5% under, your net is 5% over?
I would need to sit down and really think about this, bit I am in the middle or pouring concrete and laying stone.
but initially, I can see where they unstoppable freight train of bad income can come from, especially while under attack.
|
|
|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 12:56:03 GMT -5
So i am getting a message that morale is decreasing because of poor life quality.
so i should build spice dens and do spice festivals, because every 1 morale drop =10% increase in maintenance.
planet is maxed out.
quality 15/14
morale 6
actually under on pop and I will get quality down to even shortly.
but right now, this colony is 7% over by quality and 40% on morale, so 54% total.
A spice festival is well and good but short term. If I build a palace my entertainment/spice will equal my pop.
so obviously, if that brings my morale back, I will be better off with my new number of 14% over in quality which is 28% maintenance.
This is well and good until the next population spike where i need more has which ups my overage and morale drops because i can't build that many more has and all 9f a sudden this power house planet is at 80% on maintenance costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by fallen on May 18, 2014 13:10:03 GMT -5
nails - which highlights one of the most important factors of Factory 1 vs. Factory 2 that was not given proper credit in the OP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 18, 2014 13:14:57 GMT -5
A Quality 15 System can hold 15 upgrades.
A Quality 20 System can hold 20 upgrades.
A Quality 15 System will pay at 6.6% Maintenance fee for every 1 Quality Point over 15.
A Quality 20 System will pay at 5.0% Maintenance fee for every 1 Quality Point over 20.
----
Each Colony is processed individually in terms of Maintenance Cost. Each one is calculated and then the results of each Colony are then added up.
This is because each Colony may have unique problems or be impacted differently by the political scene.
----
Great feedback on over population. The system needs a balancing factor that that, which I am working on.
Colony Income will fluctuate as they grow and develop.
While you are not reducing Quality or Mineral Points permanently (like most games) you are allocating them to fixed cost groups which can cause a once prosperous planet to slowly decline.
|
|
|
|
Post by nails on May 18, 2014 13:19:30 GMT -5
nails - which highlights one of the most important factors of Factory 1 vs. Factory 2 that was not given proper credit in the OP. I hear you. that is why we have these conversations. i am guessing that one of the hiccup points can the time between getting factory 2 and has 3? also, i guess i am really going after this because i am not sure how intuitive this all is for the average gamer. an advanced tutorial may be in order. |
|
|
|
Post by johndramey on May 18, 2014 20:13:59 GMT -5
Very cool discussion, I'm still not at grips with the economy side of the game. Once everything gets balanced out for the full release I'd be very interested in working on an FAQ / tutorial for people, learning how everything works. Maybe we could get the information from Cory and Fallen and then have some of the more hardcore number crunchers (like John Robinson) make nice graphs? I would be willing to actually do the writing and explanation, as long as someone would be willing to explain it all to me  |
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 19, 2014 0:44:55 GMT -5
The economy is a node based financial simulator, just like the ones I used to make back in the day for people who dig that type of stuff ("Simulation of Complex Adaptive Financial Network")
In essence what it is doing is taking the overall economic situation, distributing that state out to the colonies (nodes) and running the nodes, then pushing the state back up and running a big operational transformation merge to put it together (and trim out events that overflow the stack.)
----
So, the economic system tries to approximate a whole empire result by calculating each colony in alone, then mixing all the events together and sequencing them, trimming the end off based on difficulty.
I've got tons of data to publish out in spreadsheets if anyone wants to look at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Robinson on May 19, 2014 14:13:21 GMT -5
So, the economic system tries to approximate a whole empire result by calculating each colony in alone, then mixing all the events together and sequencing them, trimming the end off based on difficulty. I've got tons of data to publish out in spreadsheets if anyone wants to look at it. So should we take Cory Trese up on his generous offer? Or is this the old saying; "Be careful what you ask for or you just might get it" haha I'm in if you are to "go medieval" on the numbers. Should we try this crazy plan?  |
|
