What's the formula for HURRY cost?

[Adam_Smith]

I meant that you said that you got incorrect values with the formula that Helium Pond presented, not Frankie's.

One question before I test the new formula (Yes, I'm willing to consider that it may give correct values): At what mineral number does the formula that Helium Pond presented give an incorrect cost? I would like to know since I've tested it a lot and never recieved an incorrect cost. If anyone can tell me I will test the new formula. If not I will assume that there is atleast one true formula, and one formula that may be true.

[Aredhran]

Good morning Mr. MoSe. Your mission should you choose to accept it, will be to post succinct responses on the forum for one week.

This thread will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

(Sorry Mario, couldn't resist )

[MariOne]

HP reported "formula" (?) gives incorrect values for all the missing minerals ending with 5, that is when you miss
5
15
25
35
... minerals
The difference is only of 1ec, not a big issue.
I already gave credit that such method got "close", but not enough (it's up there to be read).
I just found very superficial to state (many times) that "the last 5 minerals cost 2ec each", when it would have been so simple to verify that instead 5 missing minerals cost actually 11ec (and NOT 10).

MORE important tho:
That way to present the costs is instead misleading (at least...) when you have to make a partial payment.
As I said (too) many times already, for a partial payment you have to use the formula (or my table) to determine in any case the cost for the whole missing minerals, and then make a proportion.

If you use HP reported method, and you pay 10 ec (or even 11ec!) when you miss 10 minerals, you might find out (with scorn) that you won't get the 5 minerals you're expecting, but just 4, as with 10 missing they all cost 2.5 each.
And with 20 minerals missing, you'll get just 3, as they all cost 3ec each (thus wasting even the 1 or 2ec you paid more than 9).

If you instead start counting from the other end of HP reported table, you'll be overpaying, as opposite mistake.
If you miss 10 and you want to pay for 5, and you imagine that you have to "leave out" the "last" 5 minerals and pay for the previous 5, you'll read in HP table that they should cost 3ec each and you'll be paying 15 ec, where 13 (12.5) would have been enough.
You'd find out that paying 15ec when you miss 10 minerals will grant you 6 minerals, one more than you needed and expected.
If this looks negligible to you, consider that for higher figures, the error will also be higher.
The most misleading thing in that reported table (supported by the explanatory comments HP added, go and read his post), is that it makes you think that also for a partial payment the cost of each single mineral is FIXED according to its position from the bottom of the production box, regardless of the total minerals you miss. That is UTTERLY WRONG (and it's what brought me to post in the first place).

It's important to understand that whether you use HP reported (slightly incorrect) table,
OR Frankie's approximated formula (rounding DOWN),
OR my formula (which is practically the same as Frankie's, with the rounding rule explicited),
OR my table (which is nothing more than the values anyone can observe and write down playing the game, the SAME you obtain with the formula),
[ .breathe. ]
all those must be only used to determine the cost for a complete hurry of the unit!
For a partial payment, start from THAT value, then open the WinCalc, and do some basic grocery arithmetics like in primary school.
---
HP, maybe this post is too long again, but I hope that I put down all the necessary examples to make the matter clear once for all.

[Jesus Egg that Wept]

If he posted here we could ask the REAL Brian Reynolds.

[Adam_Smith]

quote: Originally posted by MariOne on 07-30-2000 12:10 PM If you use HP reported method, and you pay 10 ec (or even 11ec!) when you miss 10 minerals, you might find out (with scorn) that you won't get the 5 minerals you're expecting, but just 4, as with 10 missing they all cost 2.5 each.

Sure, I'll be REALLY scornfull because of that one mineral.

OK, you are right, and you saved us all 1 mineral.

[Jesus Egg that Wept]

Jesus says that there is beauty in truth.

Besides, Jesus saves....

[Aredhran]

[Adam_Smith]

There is no reason to get nasty. I don't pay partial payments. Why would you?

For that matter I never even use the formula. It's enough to know not to rush build your units when there are many minerals needed.

As for playing with each other, I don't know why we should do that. Personally, I don't have anything against you, but it seems that you want to play me because you think you can beat me and you want to embarase me. I don't want to embarase you so I would have nothing to gain. Really, I only play for fun.

[MariOne]

Short-reply to a short-sighted:
If one single mineral you fail to pay for makes you one mineral short from completing the defender who had to defend your base from conquest, and you're not scornful, then I want to play against you...

[Googlie]

So, do I sniff a challenge?

Battle of the Hurry Builders

Adam_Smith vs MariOne

A PBEM game where the victory condition is most points by, say 2300 with one point awarded for being the first (between the two) to complete each base facility, ten SPs and, say, each of 50 agreed-upon predetermined units.

Heck, I'll even volunteer to CMN

Googlie


[This message has been edited by Googlie (edited August 05, 2000).]

[MariOne]

Wow, what a misinterpretation, completely the other way round!
I smell prejudice!

- Get nasty?[list=1][*]First, look at the smiley I put as message icon![*] then, remember that YOU addressed me a CLEARLY sarcastic reply in your previous post (try to deny that)[*] I got it nicely anyway, I smiled at it, but you can't be surprised if you get an answer on the same tone[*]one who fails to see the consequences of his choices one turn away, is short-sighted, that's a fact not an insult.[*]suggest me a more appropriate synonym for that, which you'd feel less "nasty", and I'd be glad to learn a new word and replace my previous lexical pick.[/list=a]

- Why using partial payments[list=1][*] First, why NOT using them?[*] I admit, a good strategy can overcome this details, but even a good strategy has sometimes to rely on timing for its actuation, and being able to perform some action one turn earlier, or one turn before your opponent, may turn out to be pretty relevant.[*] We start from the premises that we hurry a unit (or any other item) because we NEED (or find convenient for our development) to get that unit ready in the next turn. Otherwise we wouldn't even bother to hurry in the first place, leaving items to be produced *later* using our minerals only, and leaving our money for other purposes (bribes, SE switches, cornering the market...)[*] That said you wouldn't want to be in NEED to hurry something and find out that you lacke the resources to do it. If you realize that it's because it's your fault to have wasted your resources previously, I'd feel scornful, won't anyone?[*] In particular:
-using partial payments instead of complete ones, you might spare money enough to hurry one more item in that turn
-you might be simply short of money for a complete hurry, but have enough for a partial one.
-if your base produces more than 10 minerals, you know thay you can carry a maximum of 10 to the next turn. With a complete hurry, you pay for excess minerals that will go completely wasted. That is, you'd be throwing away extra money for *nothing*. You're welcome to it, be my guest![*]Example: you need to hurry 2 simple crawlers, or your opponent will snatch a coveted project from you.
You have no other crawler available to upgrade, not the money to do it. Nor units in range that you can disband.
You have two bases, with 10 minerals accumulated, your industry is at +20%.
You miss then 14 minerals for each crawler.
Such a complete hurry will cost you 37 ec.
74 ec for the two crawlers.
You only have 60ec. They would be enough for a partial payment tho in both the bases. With 14 missing, each mineral costs 2.64ec.
You can get 22 minerals with 60ec. For instance, gettin 10M in one and 12M in the other, you'd spend 59ec, if you have then enough production in those bases to complete the 2 required crawlers.
What would you do? Would you scrap a precious facility to have the 74ec, because yoiu despise partial paymentsP? You're welcome.
Or you'd prefer to lose the project altogether?[*]It would be even nicer if you decide to go for the partial payments, but then you fail to pay the right sum and obtain less minerals than expected! Even one single mineral less might make you fail to complete the needed crawler and lose the project[*]it would be rocking, if you think that you'd agree to the partial payments, but then your misunderstanding of the partial payment costs (caused by THIS thread) makes you overestimate the cost, and makes you renounce to the endeavour for lack of resources, when instead you had more than enough! LOL.[*]Partial payments are an useful *option* of the game. If you renounce to that option out of "principle", you take away some depth from you play, that is, you *decide* to play in a bit more superficial way than you could.[*]the formula (or rather the TABLE) is exactly useful to plan things in advance, as from the previous example. I don't use the table myself neither, once I come to the moment I need to hurry: at that point I do the maths by mind (using fractions) or I use Win Calculator.[*]you say :"It's enough to know not to rush build your units when there are many minerals needed". OK, but HOW "many"?
What if you NEED to rush that unit?
With a bit more detailed knowledge, you'd see exactly when it can still be convenient and when not, or which is the less expensive way to do it, should you HAVE TO.[/list=a]


- As for playing with each other...[list=1][*]First, let me rephrase my previous "succinct response":
I'd wish that my opponents would all play with such a superficial attitude towards details, I'd wish that they all fail to consider that even one tiny mineral not paid for will not let them get the unit they NEEDED against me (or they'd not be rushing it...)
That's what I meant[*] Many posters know (offhand I'd cite MtG & Mongoose) from cases I've been involved in the past, that I'm the first one to refuse to play only to sort out a personal disagreement. Here we agree completely, I too play only for fun, and not to prove anything other than my skills.[*] SO, I didn't mean at all that I actually want to play against you, it was a way of telling, I'd wish that my enemies were players with an attitude like the one you showed, because I believe that it makes them a little bit weaker.[*]Actually and seriously, I wouldn't like to play against you or anyone because I think I can easily beat him. On the contrary I seek strong players to play with, otherwise I'd have signed in all the newbies PBEMs.
If I cared for my win-loss record I'd have found better than making me repeatedly beat (not always...) by JAM, Mongoose & Pagan.[*]for the same reason, I don't think that even if I'd beat you that should "embarass" you. Playing for fun can also be tho playing to test different playing approaches and see which is most effective, no room for shame or personal feuds[/list=a]


Adam, I don't have anything against YOU personally neither.
I wrote (more than once) that I respect you as an esteemed member of Apolyton community.
I object strongly to the things you WROTE in THIS thread.
I apologized (more than once) for the inappropriate (supercilious?) tone of my first post.
Most of my subsequent posts were caused tho by the superficially dismissive and WRONG posts that you insisted to throw at me without bothering to properly reflect about the problem in discussion.
To the point that I began to think that YOU had something personal against me, despite what you said now.
You saw that anyway I continued to heed you even after HP invited us to ignore you, because you showed renewed interest in a construcitve discussion, and I respect everybody as long as he does that.

In conclusion

• The thread was born asking for a formula, and I followed the thread topic. Even one single mineral error makes a formula incorrect.
• even one mineral can be important sometimes in actaul play
• sometimes tho it's quite more than that at stake, and that was written ("If this looks negligible to you, consider that for higher figures, the error will also be higher.")
• if there's still something that we can gain on the issue, that will be reached with reasoning, a gaming challenge would have nothing to do with that
• LOL Googlie, nice one! It nearly looks as an interesting scenario to play!
• I'm already waiting tho for my PBEMs to end, I decided long ago to not start new ones, sorry.

THIS post is all Aredhrans' fault!
you see how succint posts easily lead to misunderstanding!!! (not that long-winded ones avoided me that so far... )

MoSe

[MariOne]

JEtW, ROFLMAO!

Shouldn'd be that the slogan of a Christian Bank, "Jesus saves..."?

[Adam_Smith]

I had no idea about partial payments. I didn't play PBEM for a long time, and I never really thought of using partial payments. Now I can see why you need a formula, and why you would want to use partial payments. Credit to you for coming up with a correct formula then.

[Aredhran]

Hey, don't blame ME, I only gave you the URL of that thread, but never told you to post in it !

[JAMiAM]

Red,

Obviously MoSe didn't accept the mission.