Material Mining Values -- Message Board / Global Triumph -- Too Much Stupid

Currently, all countries get $8,000 plus 0.15% (0.0015) of the materials in the sectors they own during each Daily Cycle.

To accommodate for the inherently larger expenses associated with gathering resources from a larger area of land, my plan is to change the percent of materials mined based on the percentage of the world's land that the country owns.

I've started playing with different values. So far, I'm thinking of dropping the mining value by 0.00005 for every 5% interval in land ownership. So, for example, if you own 0-5% of the land, you'll earn the full 0.0015. If you own 5-10%, you'll earn 0.00145. The lowest bracket (95-100%) would then be earning 0.00055. In terms of money, someone owning the entire world would earn $3,456,738 using the current (0.0015) rate. With the suggested scale, they would instead earn $1,267,471.

To give you an idea of land ownership percentages, yesterday (when I captured the values for testing) I owned 16.97% of the land, West Undies owned 12.79%, Super Cool Yellow owned 7.56%, and everyone else was below 5%. So, using the scale I mentioned above, I would be earning .00135, yielding roughly $60,000 less each cycle.

Does anyone have any feedback on the values?

At worst then, you would earn a rate of extraction 63.33% less than the best extraction rate?

I believe that this seems fair.

Before all your antagonists start yelling that this isn't fair, they need to remember that this is a war game and not a sim. There are a lot of factors that would contribute to this decrease. Shipping distances (and the infrastructure cost) seem to me to be the primary reason that a larger country would make less per acre than a small country.

I would think unit upkeep/maintenance costs would be more important than this.

Johnny wrote on :

I've started playing with different values. So far, I'm thinking of dropping the mining value by 0.00005 for every 5% interval in land ownership. So, for example, if you own 0-5% of the land, you'll earn the full 0.0015. If you own 5-10%, you'll earn 0.00145. The lowest bracket (95-100%) would then be earning 0.00055. In terms of money, someone owning the entire world would earn $3,456,738 using the current (0.0015) rate. With the suggested scale, they would instead earn $1,267,471.

Perhaps this should be a sliding scale, so that someone is not punished from moving from 4.99% to 5.00% (which would, under the proposal above, result in a smaller income despite a larger size). Instead, the mining value would drop by 0.00001 x (percentage of land). For a nation holding 5% of total land, this would be 0.00001 x 5% = 0.00005, the same as above.

If you want to give an out to those under 5%, simply change the formula to 0.00001 x (percentage of land - 5%).

Gopherbashi wrote on :

Perhaps this should be a sliding scale, so that someone is not punished from moving from 4.99% to 5.00% (which would, under the proposal above, result in a smaller income despite a larger size). Instead, the mining value would drop by 0.00001 x (percentage of land). For a nation holding 5% of total land, this would be 0.00001 x 5% = 0.00005, the same as above.

If you want to give an out to those under 5%, simply change the formula to 0.00001 x (percentage of land - 5%).

I'd agree with the sliding scale, only because you don't want the hard "cut" lines, which might cause someone's income to drop dramatically. Rather just have it gradual and barely noticeable.

Dammit gopher, quit making the math easier on Johnny...

Tim_the_Surveyor wrote on :

Dammit gopher, quit making the math easier on Johnny...

See, now I would have thought me coding this game would have given you enough confidence in me to know I can do basic multiplication. haha

I think I initially went with brackets to make it conceptually simple to players, but I agree the sliding scale approach is much better. Thanks, Gopher!

I like running my ideas past you guys because I often get feedback from entirely new angles.

CGOScooter wrote on :

I would think unit upkeep/maintenance costs would be more important than this.

By using a generic deduction based on land ownership, it basically incorporates all of the costs associated with running more land (including having more units).

The problem with upkeep/maintenance costs is that it makes many scenarios difficult or impossible. For example, if you share a large border with someone who is not an ally, you can't expect to protect that border and fight a war with someone else at the same time. Everyone would just be signing treaties left and right so they don't have to maintain forces, and then very little war and conquering would happen. I think the game would just become dull.

Johnny wrote on :

By using a generic deduction based on land ownership, it basically incorporates all of the costs associated with running more land (including having more units).

The problem with upkeep/maintenance costs is that it makes many scenarios difficult or impossible. For example, if you share a large border with someone who is not an ally, you can't expect to protect that border and fight a war with someone else at the same time. Everyone would just be signing treaties left and right so they don't have to maintain forces, and then very little war and conquering would happen. I think the game would just become dull.

So don't make the costs high. It shouldn't be so dramatic as to limit players from doing anything, but 1% unit cost or so per day would keep players from building hordes of full-strength tanks and warships (hic) and parking them wherever they wish. With the ability in this game to buy and sell entire armies in seconds, I don't think it'll keep players from fighting.

CGOScooter wrote on :

So don't make the costs high. It shouldn't be so dramatic as to limit players from doing anything, but 1% unit cost or so per day would keep players from building hordes of full-strength tanks and warships (hic) and parking them wherever they wish.

1% unit cost would currently run me almost $200,000 a day. That's not including base and defense turret maintenance.

Now take into account the fact that almost all of my borders are shared with allies and don't need stationed troops and that I sell off units in areas where they're no longer needed. That means it would cost me that huge amount even though I have a minimal number of units to maintain.

Yes, I can just drop the percentage to something lower. I just worry about making it too difficult for people to go to war, especially if they're already losing income as they grow.

I'd love to hear feedback from more people, though. It's something we could always try and modify if needed.

Johnny wrote on :

1% unit cost would currently run me almost $200,000 a day. That's not including base and defense turret maintenance.

Now take into account the fact that almost all of my borders are shared with allies and don't need stationed troops and that I sell off units in areas where they're no longer needed. That means it would cost me that huge amount even though I have a minimal number of units to maintain.

Yes, I can just drop the percentage to something lower. I just worry about making it too difficult for people to go to war, especially if they're already losing income as they grow.

I'd love to hear feedback from more people, though. It's something we could always try and modify if needed.

i always thought it be a problem anyways.

Johnny wrote on :

1% unit cost would currently run me almost $200,000 a day. That's not including base and defense turret maintenance.

As it should for someone to maintain such vast numbers of units. You can cut it in half, but it should be expensive for someone to maintain large standing armies and navies.

CGOScooter wrote on :

As it should for someone to maintain such vast numbers of units. You can cut it in half, but it should be expensive for someone to maintain large standing armies and navies.

Slavery = cut your costs entirely...

CGOScooter wrote on :

but it should be expensive for someone to maintain large standing armies and navies.

From a realism standpoint, absolutely. I just don't want to inhibit people from being able to wage wars in the game, though, since it would become far too dull.

Johnny wrote on :

From a realism standpoint, absolutely. I just don't want to inhibit people from being able to wage wars in the game, though, since it would become far too dull.

it'd force people to focus on their economies first and the blitz an army into enemy territory. it's just a matter of changing strategies. like when you upped the nuke cost just before you landed on our continent.

parandiac wrote on :

it'd force people to focus on their economies first and the blitz an army into enemy territory. it's just a matter of changing strategies. like when you upped the nuke cost just before you landed on our continent.

I actually changed the nuke cost shortly after I updated the game to support multiple worlds. I was going to change the cost when the map ended and I started a new one, but I realized that was no longer relevant. With multiple worlds, there was no more need to restart at any point. (And it didn't really serve me well, because I ended up buying and using ten of them about a week after I changed the cost!)

I suppose using a small percentage of value for maintenance costs that somewhat affects income might work well enough. I can always start with one value and adjust. Luckily we're still in the development stages!

Johnny wrote on :

I actually changed the nuke cost shortly after I updated the game to support multiple worlds. I was going to change the cost when the map ended and I started a new one, but I realized that was no longer relevant. With multiple worlds, there was no more need to restart at any point. (And it didn't really serve me well, because I ended up buying and using ten of them about a week after I changed the cost!)

I suppose using a small percentage of value for maintenance costs that somewhat affects income might work well enough. I can always start with one value and adjust. Luckily we're still in the development stages!

i'm just giving you shit, man.

i think nukes should have an upkeep cost, though. or cost even more. it takes a decent amount of money to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and people sitting on piles of them is unrealistic unless they're paying for the privilege.

parandiac wrote on :

i think nukes should have an upkeep cost, though.

They were meant to be part of the unit maintenance costs, as were jets and missiles. I forgot to include them in the Daily Cycle script, but that's now fixed.

I also typed the incorrect percentage values. It should have been 0.2% of unit and 0.02% of base costs, not 0.02% and 0.002%. The update post has been corrected.

parandiac wrote on :

i'm just giving you shit, man.

i think nukes should have an upkeep cost, though. or cost even more. it takes a decent amount of money to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and people sitting on piles of them is unrealistic unless they're paying for the privilege.

Yes, but there is no incentive to sit on nukes (or missiles), it's not like there's a limit to how many you can buy a day, and they're one time use, if you keep the cash needed to buy them you can buy them when you need them, you have allot more liquidity, and you don't risk losing them if your airbase gets destroyed.

TodZumTeufel wrote on :

if you keep the cash needed to buy them you can buy them when you need them, you have allot more liquidity, and you don't risk losing them if your airbase gets destroyed.

Exactly. I personally think it's a very bad idea to buy bombs before they're used.

I once bought a few and ended up using two less than I purchased, so now they're sitting around in an air base. I suspect I'll need to use them soon enough, though.

Johnny wrote on :

Exactly. I personally think it's a very bad idea to buy bombs before they're used.

I once bought a few and ended up using two less than I purchased, so now they're sitting around in an air base. I suspect I'll need to use them soon enough, though.

Oh hi Johnny!

Global Triumph

Thread

Messages / 1 to 21 of 21

Message Board

Categories

Search