 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
In order to explain this data, we have to distinguish between Minerals before their multiplicaton by a factory of some sort. The formula looks like this
GoodFAC = Base CP, TP, NR or Faction PM or SI
Clean Minerals (faction) = 16 + # of pops, and BUILT TF, HF, CP or TP
T-Damage = Terraforming - Clean Minerals
Net Clean Minerals = Clean Minerals - Terraforming, cannot be negative
Minerals = Raw Minerals - GoodFAC
Cleaned Minerals = Minerals - Net Clean Minerals
Ed = (TDamage + 1st 2 Cleaned Minerals +
((Cleaned Minerals -2) * Factories - Orbitals)/ (1 + GoodFACs)) +
5* MA (here introduce another division by (1+GoodFACs)(BLAKE))
* Ajustments
Note, I subtracted Orbitals after multiplicaion by Factories. This follows the observed evidence.
Very Complicated.
Ned
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
Ned, Fitz, Blake: Hey, after a few days away from this I should probably stay away from this thread, but I can't help myself. Just to see if I understand where you guys are now at, let me restate what it looks like to me and you all can tell me if you're on a different wavelength.
First, earlier analysis of this subject was undermined by the newly discovered feature that the Scenario Editor does not adequately prepare the datafile for Ecodamage reduction due to the construction of various facilities such as TFs, HFs, CPs & TPs.
Changes to the "Classic" formula
GoodFacs element:
---now also includes the PM and SI
---subtracts from the rough terraforming/mineral damage like pops
---(GoodFacs+1)is divided into the ED for terraforming & minerals & atrocities instead of just into the mineral part.
The Total number of the 4 base facilities (TF, HF, CP & TP) in your Entire Faction are also subtracted from the rough terraforming/mineral damage like pops.
Otherwise, the formula is pretty much as set out in the documentation or as restated in Buster's early post on page 1. It is nevertheless true that a lot more minerals can be produced in the mid game and beyond than was previously thought particularly in accordance with the number of certain facilities.
The summary above does not necessarily reflect the latest areas of Ned and Fitz's exploration (particularly the "cleaned" mineral variation). It also may omit several fine points which do not in themselves seem to have a major impact on the calculation and which can get morae complicated to explain than they may be worth.
Ned's formula :
ED = (Minerals - Orbitals - Clean Minerals - GoodFACs + Terraforming + 5*MA)/(1 + GoodFACs)
where Clean Minerals = 16 + # "pops", TF, HF, CP & TP (in faction)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
|
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned on 05-14-2001 04:35 PM
John, Substantially correct - however take a look at the data on the test Fitz had me run. It shows that the base terraforming, to the extent it remains positive after step 5, is not divided by 1+GoodFACs.
|
If that is what is shows, it would take us back to roughly the formats represented by Fitz Variations #1 or #4 (from page 2) depending on whether Atrocities are divided by the (1+goodFacs) factor or not (I gathered from your prior post that some uncertainty on that score remained - where you referenced (Blake) at the end of the formula).
quote:
Also, the GoodFACS reduction appear to subtract from minerals before they are multiplied by factories.
|
Are you talking about a new "GoodFacs" in the numerator, the Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) also in the numerator each of which subtract} from or the "(1+GoodFacs)" in the denominator (1+CP+TP+NR+PM+SI) which divides into the intermediate ED value?
quote:
Finally, the first two minerals surviving reductions from Clean Minerals and GoodFACs do not appear to be divided by 1+GoodFACS.
|
You had a similar qualification w/r a need for 1 Pop before something else happened too, as I recall; is that still in effect? Frankly, this seems pretty quirky or off the wall to me; it's hard to imagine them deciding to do it exactly this way on purpose.
quote:
I have not run the revised formula for Negative Terraforming to see whether that enters as the result of Step 5, or in the Net Mineral calculation.
|
The test I finally ran with well mitigated ED and the use of PB told me that some form of amelioration of ED is in effect, either negative carryforward from either terraforming (step 5), minerals {subtracting the Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) term (step 7)} or division by the (1+GoodFac) factor and rounding down to zero. Given the game in question, I would guess subtraction of Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) as the cause of the lack of ED. (TF/HF to zero terraforming and (1=GoodFacs)=2 vs 50+ techs) This doesn't establish whether the terraforming term itself can be negative (although I thought that had been established already by someone saying that ED can go up with the building of an HF) or whether it the (1+GoodFacs) is divided into the Atrocities term or not, but it does limit some of the possibilities.
quote:
Assuming Fitz and Blake are in agreement, what do we do with this new information?
Ned
|
Do you think Ted Koppel might be interested?
I also wondered whether you all had been able to stay free of the Scenario Editor in your various tests or whether or not some of that uncertainty was in these results.
I'm having a hard time with your latest formulas with the clean and the cleaned mins, etc. I was trying to map your minerals into this:
a) total mins as displayed on the left of the "minerals" line
b) the part of a) produced in orbit
c) the part of a) due to min enhancing facitities (factories)
d) the part of a) produced by "other" (worker, crawler, anything else ?)
where a) = b) + c) + d)
However, I remain confused with the formulation shown in your post do you think you could restate it or explain it differently; maybe I'd follow it then. If you could bring yourself to use Fitz #1 or #4 as a starting point, that might be helpful to me. Thanks,
John
[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited May 14, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Johnd, You may want to go back to the post in this thread, about 6 posts ago, where I set forth a table. This table had results of positive terraforming from step 5 after subtracting Clean Minerals. I set it up using the SE and never BUILT anything. Nor was there a pop.
The data cleary show the effect of GoodFACS (= CP, TP, NR, PM, SI) on BOTH a subtraction from RAW MINERALS, a new concept, and as a divisor into NET MINERALS. However the substraction appears to operate BEFORE multiplication by any factories. The divison by 1 + GoodFACs operates on factory-multiplied minerals, but only after the first two minerals produced by a base are accounted for differently. Significantly, the division does not operate on either net Terraforming damage, T-Damage, a label I now give to the corrected Datalinks Step 5, or the first two minerals.
It is significant to realize that the above is a base calculation and has nothing to do with a faction calculation related to TF's etc. This said, it is clear that Clean Minerals are updated between turns base-by-base. If the base had a pop or a built TF, etc, Clean Minerals increases by 1 before any other calculation.
We have previously verified that Clean Minerals are increased after the first pop by each TF, HF, CP or TP built.
The result of all these observations is that we need to invent new terminology completely beyond prior Fitz, Blake or Ned formulas.
So, please take a look at the chart and see if you can make sense of it.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fitz
|
 |
& Anarchist
Mar 2000
time: 21:13
|
|
Okay, Ned, I calculated what the eco-damage should be for the test above, using the following formula:
Eco-Damage = Damage*Life*Planet*Diff*Techs/100
where:
Life = 2
Planet = 3
Diff = 5
Techs = 128
Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs
Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1
Reverse engineering the value 64 in the formula allowed me to calculate that the techs value had to be 128.
Here are the calculated results, when I truncate the Terrafoming value before sticking it into the formula:
code:
RawMins NoFACS CP TP TP&CP NR NR&TP PM SI PM&SI
NoWorkers 1 76.8 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Condensor 2 89.6 76.8 76.8 64 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8
BoreHole 7 153.6 102.4 102.4 89.6 128 102.4 102.4 128 102.4
Here is your original table:
code:
RawMins NoFACS CP TP TP&CP NR NR&TP PM SI PM&SI
NoWorkers 1 77 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Condensor 2 89 77 77 77 64 77 77 77 77
BoreHole 7 153 102 102 89 128 102 102 128 102
Points of interest:
1) You appear to have switched the values in the Condensor Row for the TP&CP and NR values.
2) Terraforming is obviously not divided by Goodfacs. If it was, the value for the NoWorkers row would decrease below 64 in yhr TP&CP row. I ran a few values and they didn't match.
3) Goodfacs obviously does NOT add to CleanMins, or subtract from terraforming or minerals. In addition to noting that my calculated values match when I don't use a formula with Goodfacs in the top, I ran a few values through and found that it didn't match. You must have been observing a rounding/truncate situation as I previously described when you thought you had an increase in cleanmins. Remeber. If you end up with a value of 1.25, and it is divided tby 2 for a CP to .75 and then truncated/rounded to 0, you appear to have added two clean minerals, but have only added one to the Cleanmins value in the formula.
Barring moving the Atrocities under the goodfacs division, we are obviously back with:
Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs + 5*Atrocities
Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1
Cleanmins = (16) + (# fungal blooms) + (# of Hybrid Forests, Tree Farms, Centauri Preserves, and Temple of Planets constructed by your faction, provided at least one fungal bloom has occured)
Goodfacs = (1) + (# of Centauri Preserves, Temple of Planet, Nanoreplicators in this base) + (# of Pholtus Mutagen + Singularity Inducator Secret projects owned by your faction)
I won't reconstruct the Terraforming fomula again, and I can't remember anymore if we need to include Nanoreplicators and the SPs in the Clean minerals line if they are constructed (as opposed to just existing). I also can't remember it only counts ones constructed after your first fungal bloom, or counts the ones you constructed before the fungal bloom but only after it occurs. My formula says the latter right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Fitz, Your calculated numbers appear to match the observed data closely, although I don't believe I had 128 techs. I believe I had just 88.
But I don't see how you can get to your numbers from your formula. It would be interesting to see examples of your calculations.
I am assumng that both Terraforming (there is a .375 adder for placing a worker on a condensor, farm, road) and Clean Minerals remains 21 and 16 respectively in all calculations. Ditto the "adjustments" to net Damage.
The results seem to show, and you and I agree on this, that Terraforming damage remains a constant 64, which is 21-16=5*Ajustments. This also means that each effective mineral contributes 12.8 to ED.
What I see is that there does appear to be a subtraction from Minerals due to each GoodFACs.
What I also see is that the first two net minerals, after this subtraction, contribute 12.8 ED, and net minerals above that are divided by 1-GoodFACs.
Again, I don't understand how one can get to your calculated results using your formula.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:13
|
|
Well, after 2(3? 4?, lost count...) weeks of not being able to access apolyton (I really don't know why) it finally starts working again, probably due to the forum upgrade (how long ago did that happen)?
Damn, I was just about over my SMAC addiction too  being deprived of apolyton seems to make it easier to resist playing SMAC. Unfortunately I seem to have a new found Black & White addiction (and B&W web forums), so now I can access Apolyton again I guess I'll get my old SMAC addiction back. Addiction to SMAC and B&W. And just in time for exams. Just what I need. 
Anyway, this was the first thread I checked  . Great to see it is still going, I quickly read over most of the posts... don't suppose anyone could give a concise summary of additional findings?
And have the findings in this thread actually been put somewhere accessable yet? The really important need to know - undocumented things are:
Each TF's, HF's, CP's, ToP's built increases clean minerals by 1...
But only after atleast 1 fungal "pop" has happened....
Also such facilities can offset planetbuster induced ED, 5 "ED friendly facilities" cancel the negative effect of 1 planetbuster use...
Well, someone with better writing skills could write those main points for the benefit of the masses which don't want to wade throught a ton of complicated posts on the last un-accounted for factors in the ED formula.
And SOMETHING concerning ED needs to go in Vel's strat guide, even just a single paragraph.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Blake, Welcome back!
If you go back a few posts, you will see a test that Fitz and I set up, and data from that test. We are now debating what the results mean.
In a nutshell, the test was a size 1 base with one worker. It had a net 21 terraforming damage so that the result of step 5 for all variations was essentially a constant 21-16=5. I then measured ED with no workers, a worker on a 1 minerals tile, and a worker on a six mneral borehole. Although terraforming damage varied slightly, what really was changing was the the number of Minerals, being 1, 2 and 7 respectively.
I then repeated the experiment by adding a GoodFAC or GoodSP by the SE - either alone or in combination - and took measurements. I reported the results in a table, swapping as Fitz noted, the results for NR with TP and CP in the first two columns.
Fitz and I are now heavily debating what the results mean. You input in this debate is more than welcome.
Rather than repeat the debate, you may want to read the data and our posts since the table was posted.
If you go back further, though, you will see my conclusions on terraforming damage caused by Kelp and a sea base. It is really different from anything else. This data should also be verified and reported.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Vel, Yes and more. The effect adding to clearn minerals is faction wide and permanent. Subsequent events do not lower clean minerals. So each pop you have, each tf, hf, cp or top you build, not capture, adds to clean minerals. [From a strategy point of view, it might be wise to build one or more TF, HF, CP or ToP in a captured base before giving it to a submissive.]
IN ADDITION, we have found that the presence of GoodFACs, e.g., CP, TP, NR, in a city, and either the Pholos M or Sing. Induct. in a faction, also effectively gives one more clean mineral per. This effect depends on the presence of the facility in the base or the SP in the faction. The effect is not permanent. It does not add to clean minerals.
These are the major findings.
Minor findings include that a "negative" Terraforming damage caused by the presence of trees also increases the effective clean minerals.
Kelp and a Sea Base add 1 per tile to terraforming damage, but not an extra 1 when worked.
The first two minerals a base produces above the number of clean minerals are treated differently from the rest. They are neither multiplied by factories, or divided by the 1 + GoodFACs factor.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fitz
|
|
& Anarchist
Mar 2000
time: 21:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
IN ADDITION, we have found that the presence of GoodFACs, e.g., CP, TP, NR, in a city, and either the Pholos M or Sing. Induct. in a faction, also effectively gives one more clean mineral per. This effect depends on the presence of the facility in the base or the SP in the faction. The effect is not permanent. It does not add to clean minerals.
The first two minerals a base produces above the number of clean minerals are treated differently from the rest. They are neither multiplied by factories, or divided by the 1 + GoodFACs factor.
|
I'm still willing to debate these points.
Anyhow, here's how I calculated the eco-damage:
Eco-Damage = Damage*Life*Planet*Diff*Techs/100
where:
Life = 2
Planet = 3
Diff = 5
Techs = 128
so Eco-Damage = Damage*Tech*30/10 = Damage*Techs/10
Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs
Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1
Terraforming damage: = 21 for no workers, 21 and 1/4 for Condensor/Borehole situations. Truncate to 21 in all situations.
Cleanmins1 = 16, and 21-16 = 5.
Minererals = 1, 1.5 for NR/SI, 2 for Condensor, 3 for NR/SI, 7 for Borehole, 12.5 with NR or SI.
Cleanmins2 = 0 (since 16 -16 =0)
1+Goodfacs varies by column.
Add any good fac, amd we have 64 = (5+1/2)*Techs/300 = 5/300*Techs (truncate 5&1/2 to 5)
Therefore Techs = 128
To double check this, with nothing we have (5+1/1)*Techs/10 = 6*128/10 = 76.8
Similar calucalations based on (terraforming + mins/(1+goodfacs))*Techs/10 or alternately [b](terraforming + mins/(1+goodfacs))*128/10 will produce the other numbers in the condesor and borhole rows, provided you remember to truncate the [terrformiing - (mins/(1+goodfacs))] portion before you multiply by 128/10 (12.8).
Thus, there is no need to include in your calcuation the 1+goodfacs in the top. In fact, lets try that with just a CP, no workers (row 1 column 1):
(4 + 1/2)*128/10 = 4*128/10 = 51.2
No TP&CP = (3 + 1/3)*128/10 = 3*128/10 = 38.6
Now this obviously doesn't match the observed values for the Noworker CP or TP&CP rows.
And now I gotta go watch a soccer game. I'll come back later and use the 88 Techs figure and see what happens when I don't truncate, round, only do it in certain places, etc.
Eidt: inserted formula at top for conciseness
Last edited by Fitz on 27-05-2001 at 04:08
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
|
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:13
|
|
I really can't understate the importance of the fact that atleast one pop must happen before getting any clean mineral benefit from building TF's etc. Because if a player plays extreme green, and builds 50 TF's etc, then expects to be able to boost his mineral production, he'll get a nasty suprise when it is still at 16.
The good thing is only one pop is required. You need never create any more ED after that, but you may want to anyway because each pop increases clean minerals by 1, this is more valuable in blind research games where you may lack TF's, CP's, it's also cheaper, because you don't need to build anything, and you get the planetpearls from killing worms. Win-win.
Also clean mineral threshold is strictly across faction, a pop counts for the faction it occured in only. A tree farm counts only for the faction it is built in, terraforming ED and rounding(?) effects from GOODFAC's aside clean mineral threshold should be exactly the same in all bases across faction.
The other slightly less important thing is that you get clean mineral boost strictly from building. not owning tree farms etc. As Ned pointed out you can build tree farms in captured bases then give the base to a submissive, you can also buy/scrap CP's in bored bases to increase your clean mineral limit, atleast a use for CP's  .
Finally, if I understand Fitz correctely the +1 clean minerals in bases with a CP is technically a rounding error. And also as you get up to a clean mineral threshold of about 100 each TF, CP etc is worth slightly more than 1, it is not clear whether this is a rounding error or another unidentified factor.
Anyway the really important stuff, with pratical applications, which wasn't said in Vel's post, and every player should know:
Must have one fungal pop (in faction) before being able to increase clean mineral threshold.
The clean mineral benefit from TF's, CP's etc comes strictly from building, not owning said facilties.
Various rounding errors can result in a higer clean mineral limit than the statistics suggest.
The last item should probably be included to prevent posts from people claiming they have "discovered" a bug where you get a higer clean mineral threshold
I don't think there is really anything more to say about Ecodamage, the contributing factors behind ED are now generally well defined. I have no wish to attempt to account for the anomalies at very high mineral bases, I'm content to say you will always get ATLEAST the clean mineral limit calculated by the new formula(s). Others are welcome to continue the quest for the final formula, but I'm going to try and find something to do with my time which is more conductive to passing my exams.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Fitz, Thanks. And, I agree with your calucalation. Here is a "full" table showing each step in the calculation:
code:
RawMins NoFACS CP TP TP&CP NR NR&TP PM SI PM&SI
No Workers 1 77 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64
Condensor 2 89 77 77 64 77 77 77 77 77
BoreHole 7 153 102 102 89 128 102 102 128 102
Subtract 64 and divide by 12.8
Adj. 1 1 1 1.5 1.5 1 1.5 1.5
# of GdFAC 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2
No Workers 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Condensor 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
BoreHole 7 3 3 2 5 3 3 5 3
No Workers Adjusted 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5
Condensor Minerals 2 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
BoreHole 7 7.0 7.0 7.0 10.5 10.5 7.0 10.5 10.5
No Workers Adj. Min 1 1/2 1/2 1/3 3/4 1/2 1/2 3/4 1/2
Condensor divided by 2 1 1 2/3 1 1/2 1 1 1 1/2 1
BoreHole (1+GdFAC) 7 3 1/2 3 1/2 2 1/3 5 1/4 3 1/2 3 1/2 5 1/4 3 1/2
No Workers Truncated 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Condensor 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
BoreHole 7 3 3 2 5 3 3 5 3
Dan Q has given us permission to summarize our results for a main page post.
Fitz, Blake, I suggest that we confine our remarks to the new information on Clean Minerals and GoodFACs - with the one exception for the effect of Kelp on Terraforming damage.
What do you think?
Ned
Last edited by Ned on 27-05-2001 at 06:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:13
|
|
Guys, What about this:
Eco-Damage Formula Revised - Have you ever wondered why the number of minerals a base could produce seemed to rise as the game went on or was greater the more bases you had? There is a good reason for this, but it is not explained in either the Datalinks or the manuals. Ned, Blake and Fitz have discovered that the number of "clean minerals" the game allows rises from an initial 16, as set forth in the Datalinks formula, each time you "build" a Tree Farm, a Hybrid Forest, a Centauri Preserve or a Temple of the Planet. This increanse in base "clean minerals" only seems to begin after the first pop. (Pops also increase "clean minerals," but this information is already set forth in the Datalinks formula.) So each time you build one of these facilities anywhere in your faction, you increase your faction's "clean mineral" limit and thereby the number of minerals you could produce without eco-damage.
Ned, Blake and Fitz also report that acquiring bases with these facilities does not affect the number of "clean minerals." Neither does losing a base or selling the facilities. It is building them that is important.
Ned
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-05-2001 01:11
|