Base Size and Pollution

[Fitz]

I agree ned, the math was not right, and in fact I got 19 clean mins doing it one way, and 21 minerals doing it the other. I need to rethink it. Keep testing, please.

And your method of testing cleanmins sounds fine. But are you matching a positive value against what the calculated positive value (using what you think is the formula, and the orgininal (flawed) formula) should be?
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Fitz]

Okay, here is the perfect test to see if terraforming eco-damage is divided by goodfacs.

Make sure minerals are 0. Make terraforming a positive # (a large one) of eco-damage. Add (don't build) a CP. Since you are adding a CP, it should not affect clean minerals (we hope).

If adding a CP halves the damage, then Goodfacs divides terraforming, but does not subtract from it. If it reduces by a small amount, goodfacs subtracs but doesn't divide. If it reduces it to a amount slightly below half, it subtracs and divides. If it doesn't affect it, it neither subtracs nor divides.

Check your conclusion against the appropriate formula to see if the numbers before and after match. The before should match regardless of formula.

I'll add a scenario so you have the numbers before hand:

Base (no facilities)
4 Boreholes
16 condesors/farms/soil enrichers
20 roads (roads everywhere)
work none
add all techs and count how many that is.

terraforming eco-damage = (72 + 32 + 64)/8 = 21
eco-damage = (21-16)*5*techs*3*2/300 = techs*3/10

Add CP:
Goodfacs doesn't affect it: techs*3/10
Goodfacs divides but does not subtract: techs*3/20
Goodfacs subtracts but doesn't divide: techs*2/10 = techs/5
Goodfacs divides and subtracts: techs*2/20 = techs/10

If you don't care to count techs, use this instead:
Goodfacs doesn't affect it: eco-damage unchanged
Goodfacs divides but does not subtract: eco-damage halved
Goodfacs subtracts but doesn't divide: eco-damage reduced to 2/3
Goodfacs divides and subtracts: eco-damage reduced to 1/3
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Ned]

I just conducted a rigorous test on a base w/o a TF or HF and POSITIVE Terraforming - both with and without a CP. No pops. CP added using SE.

The data confirms the following: The CP adds one to the ED limit, and also divides the damage by two. It does not add two to the base ED. Nor does it multiply Terraforming in any way.

I also confirmed that all GoodFACs, including the Pholus M and SI, similarly to CPs, add 1 to the ED Limit

Again, the formula

ED = (Minerals - Orbitals - Clean Minerals - GoodFACs + Terraforming + 5*MA)/(1 + GoodFACs).... seems to be right.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, Just read your post. What I see is roughly the following:

After adding the CP, but not building it, a chart of eco-damage vs. Minerals - 16 - Terraforming shows a net left shift of one mineral and a reduction in slope of 2.

I hope this helps.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, I tried setting up your example. I got as far as adding all tech (88) and terraforming. 4 boreholes, 16 of each condensors/farms/enrichers and 20 roads. ED = 76. With one worker on a condensor, ED = 89. On a borehole 152. The game then crashed and I could not reload. Perhaps you could try.

The base was generating one mineral.

I calculate 4 x 8 = 32 borehole bonus
1 x 4 = 4 four holes
20 x 1 = 20 roads
4 x 16 = 64 condensor bonus
16 x 1 = 16 condensors
16 x 1 = 16 farms
16 x 1 = 16 enrichers
168

Divide by 8 = 21

Net Minerals = (1 + 21 - 16) = 6

ED = 6 * 5 * 3 * .01 * 88 = 79

This is different from the observed value by 3. Either I screwed up and didn't select all techs (I did them one by one, is there another way?) or the base itself must count for some Terraforming damage.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, I ran your example. Here are the data. (Remember, the NR and SI multiply minerals by 1.5.)

	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

The above data appears to show both an "effective" clean mineral for each GoodFAC and a reduction in slope due to minerals greater than a "base" exactly according to the 1+GoodFAC factor.

It also seems show that there is a base terraforming factor of 64 (77?) which is unaffected by the divisor 1+GoodFAC. 64 represents the ED cased by 5 minerals - eactly that for terraforming per se. 77 is roughly the value of 1 additional mineral without a division by 1+GoodFAC. Minerals in excess of 1(2?) seem to then get the division. Also, only Minerals in excess of 2 are mulitplied increase by 50% due to an NR or an SI.

I'll think on this a bit before drawing conclusions.

Ned

[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Ned]

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).]

[Ned]

Guys, If you see my post above, two posts ago, you will see that I attempted to report results of an experiment in a table. It came out hash twice. The first time I simply typed it in. It looks fine in the editor. The second time, I pasted it from a spreadsheet.

If anyone can tell me how to get this right, I would really appreciate it.

Ned

[Chowlett]

UBB supresses all but 1 space in any one place. you can get round it by putting the tables inside [code][/code], which should maintain formatting. I have used it, but can't actually remember if it works as advertised.
[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Ned]

Chowlett, Thanks. It worked!

After seeing the post properly aligned, I noted one data error, which I corrected.

I also subtracted Orbitals after multiplication.

Ned

[johndmuller]

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)

[Ned]

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.

Also, the GoodFACS reduction appear to subtract from minerals before they are multiplied by factories.

Finally, the first two minerals surviving reductions from Clean Minerals and GoodFACs do not appear to be divided by 1+GoodFACS.

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.

Assuming Fitz and Blake are in agreement, what do we do with this new information?

Ned

[johndmuller]

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]

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]

Ned, it seems that you have confirmed for me that terraforming damage is not divided by Goodfacs. Thanks. I didn't have time to analyze your whole table or interpretation in regard to goodfacs subtraction yet, but I'll copy it and look over it while sitting on the beach drinking Mai Tais.