Borehole eco-damage

[theohall]

Prima Guide EcoDamage formula

DIFFiculty = 2 citizen; 3 specialist-librarian; 5 thinker/transcend

PLANET = SE Planet value

LIFE = Native life setting 1 sparse; 2 average; 3 abundant

MINERALS = Minerals produced on Planet this turn (not including those produced in orbit)

TECHS = # of Techs discovered

PREVIOUS = # of times your faction has been hit with Ecodamage

GOODFACS = 1 + (total number of Centauri Preserves, Temples of Planet, and Nanoreplicators you have)

ENHANCEMENTS = Total number of each eco disruptive enhancement - mines, solar collectors, farms, soil enrichers, roads, mag tubes, condensors and boreholes. Count each working square twice. Count each Borehole 8 more times and each Condensor 4 more times. Subtract # of forests in that base's control.
Add up each base individually, because you can cut half the value of any base with a Tree Farm and totally delete the value of any base with BOTH a Tree Farm and a Hybrid Forest. Add all the base values together to get the ENHANCEMENTS value.

Formula:

MODIFICATIONS = (ENHANCEMENTS/8) + (MINERALS/GOODFACS) + (Major Atrocities * 5) - 16 - PREVIOUS

Percentage chance for EcoDamage = MODIFICATIONS * DIFF * TECHS * (3-Planet) * LIFE/300

NOTE: A +3 Planet rating means you have NO CHANCE of suffering EcoDamage so Borehole to your heart's content if you stay Green.
[This message has been edited by theohall (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Fitz]

You are incorrect. if you have a +3 or higher Planet, for this formula it is treated as a +2. Or at least, you still sufer eco-damage, so it's not treated as a three.

The term GOODFACS is what was misread. People obviously interpreted the words 'you have' to mean total you have in all your bases. It means in that specific base.

Edit:

I can also see an error in the EHANCEMENTS line. 'Add all the base values together?'

Whoever tried to put this formula together for Prima obviously didn't understand the eco-damage formula. It looks like they thought there was a single eco-damage rating that was calculated once, then applied to every base as a single same rating. We all know from experience that this is wrong. That would explain their wording in the GOODFACS line. I'm not even sure their final equation is correct.

If I were y'all, I'd completely disregard this Prima eco-damage formula, and cast a doubting eye on their other info too. A blatant error.

I can't believe I never noticed the error all the other times people posted the Prima formula.
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited February 21, 2001).]

[Skanderbeg]

quote: Originally posted by Fitz on 02-21-2001 01:48 PM What the hell is faction eco-damage, and what does it affect. [This message has been edited by Fitz (edited February 21, 2001).]

There certainly is an ecodamage related to every faction.

And it is simple to prove: You only have to do some major atrocities (i. e. gassing), and You will see Your
ecodamage go skyrocket in every base (not only in the home base of the gas chopper), but only in the bases of Your own faction.

And centaury preserves decrease the ecodamage of every base of your faction. In my current game with blind research, I had some ecodamage below 10 in all of my major bases before discovering tree farm tech. Then, even before discovering tree farm tech, I discovered centauri preserve tech. Just when the first centauri preserve was finished, ecodamage went down to zero in all bases.

"Steelborn, Starborn"

[Aredhran]

Skanderberg, Exactly.

Blake, your test is not really representative. Try it again with a bunch of bases, each producing some ED and add ONE preserve and watch the red numbers go back to green...

I've seen this both with SMAC and SMAX.

[Neuromancer]

quote: Originally posted by theohall on 02-21-2001 09:51 PM Prima Guide EcoDamage formula ... NOTE: A +3 Planet rating means you have NO CHANCE of suffering EcoDamage so Borehole to your heart's content if you stay Green. [This message has been edited by theohall (edited February 21, 2001).]

This is definitely wrong. I had a +5 Planet rating and enough ecodamage to basically lose a game that was well in hand. My damage came from atrocities, and I managed to learn in the process that a bunch of little atrocities (gassing humans) can add up to one big one for ecodamage purposes.

[MariOne]

Red, as I posted in the other thread, here we have two different theories.
Blake's one is supported by an (apparently) thorough testing.
Yours and Skanderbeg's are supported by your recollection (i.e. I don't know if you set up a controlled test for it or relied on what you remembered from occasional play observations). But knowing you, and knowing Skanderbeg from his posts here as an accurate and up-to-the point analyst, I would also give credit to your statements, lacking my direct definitive tests.
The only possibility is that one of you forgot to consider a collaterla variable which could have justified the different outcome.

Playing the devil's advocate, I'd ride piggyback on Blake's controlled test results.
I would go wit fitz when he agrees that "[ a C.Preserve ] will, of course, be a global factor as regarding sea levels and volcanos."
But Blake had 4 equal bases with big ED.
He added ONE CP in one base and only that base ED got halved, the other 3 *remaining the same*.
He added a second CP, and the second base ED got halved, the other base's remaining as it was.
He also played few turns to check wether the "global CP effect" needed turn passing to show. Notwithstanding that, as any change within a base is *immediately* reflected in its ED figure, I'd expect the alleged effect on all your bases be also *immediately* reflected in the respective basewindows.
According to his test, the ED in the 2 bases without CP remained UNCHANGED.

Even wanting to spouse your PoV, HOW could Blake's test be not representative? Where could have he messed or overlooked some significant variable? It seems to me that he instead *cleared the field* from any collateral effect, that's what I call a controlled test.

You say:
"Try it again with a bunch of bases, each producing some ED..."
Well, he had 4 bases, wasn't it enough? How would 5 or 10 be different?
"... and add ONE preserve and watch the red numbers go back to green..."
From his test, the red numbers in the bases without CP did NOT go green, the didn't even change at all.
And he not only added one, he added first one then a second. He still had 2 bases without CP, according to your theory he should have observed all his ED values cut down to half after the first one, and to a third after the second. Instead his figures were consistent with the hypothesys of CPs working only in the bases where they are built, contradicting with what you state.
Had I to do a test, I'd set it up more or less the way he did. To say his one is not representative, I'd have to believe that he's not able to read and report numbers...!

So...
1. we'll have to build our OWN *controlled* tests to be definitely sure, and...
2. we might exchange savefiles, so that we can cross-check each other what one could have done wrong.

In your pbem challenge, I did build a couple of CP in my 2 biggest bases, already maxed out in growth (18 with PK and Ascetic).
IIRC I was surprised because the ED was only slightly reduced, not by 50%. I attributed it to my imperfect understanding of the formula, or to having overlooked some other "global" effect... BTW, always IIRC, the ED in all my other bases was completely unaffected.

---
right after posting, I reloaded my last turn of Arehran's Challenge.
For testing purpose I put all the citizens to work in my 4 big bases.
This way HQ collects 31 minerals, the 2nd CP base 32 (29 net), the others 28 (25net) & 23 (20 net).
The two with CP got up to ED 13 (HQ) and 17, one other has 17 and the 4th has 10.
All four bases have TreeFarm and Hybrid Forest. 55 techs, 0 Planet, Librarian and Avg Life (IIRC). No Atrocity committed, 1 past damage in HQ.
I scrapped the CP in the HQ, the ED figure in the basewindow *immediately* jumped to ...23!
The other three figures... unchanged!
Now I scrap the CP in the 2nd base: ED in that base (unchanged after the first scrapping) goes from 17 to ...23!
The HQ ED stayed at 23, and the other two bases remained UNCHANGED again.

You see that my experiments would support Blake's theory and NOT yours.
But of course this is not a controlled test, only an adaptation from an avilable pbem, and I have the Mutagen too...
[This message has been edited by MariOne (edited February 22, 2001).]

[Fitz]

quote: Originally posted by Skanderbeg on 02-22-2001 04:06 AM And it is simple to prove: You only have to do some major atrocities (i. e. gassing), and You will see Your ecodamage go skyrocket in every base (not only in the home base of the gas chopper), but only in the bases of Your own faction.

You have missed a point in the formula (possibly ). You can consider it faction eco damage if you want, but the forula (in the datalinks, although the Prima is similar) says +5 for each major atrocity. I consider that base eco-damage. To me, there are two types of eco-damage. Base, and global. I don't know how global is calculated, but I would hazard that the simplest approach was taken, adding all the base eco-damages together.

Yes, you are correct that a major atrocity by any unit/method affects every base (+5 in each for every atrocity). But I wouldn't use that to constue another type of eco-damage.

quote: And centaury preserves decrease the ecodamage of every base of your faction. In my current game with blind research, I had some ecodamage below 10 in all of my major bases before discovering tree farm tech. Then, even before discovering tree farm tech, I discovered centauri preserve tech. Just when the first centauri preserve was finished, ecodamage went down to zero in all bases.

I think you are recalling incorrectly, and Blake's test bears out my theory. As Mario points out, it is correctly done (a controlled test), and counters exactly Aredrhan's proposal that building one CentPreserve anywhere will reduce in all bases. Since they all had large positive eco-damage, and only the one base is reduced, I'd say it's pretty damn good proof. I can't see that adding more bases will make one jot of difference.

Thanks again Blake.

I'll say it agian, I think this whole misunderstanding arises from the obvious error in the Prima guide, and it's about time it was cleared up.

Edit: just saw your confirmation test Mario. It'd be nice to get more (i'll do one tonight if I get time, but that wraps it up as far as I'm concerned.

And sorry if I'm offending anyone. I just don't like to see what I consider to be major errors perpetuated.
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited February 22, 2001).]

[Skanderbeg]

Fitz:

I have thought about that thing again.

Surely Blake's test was valid.

But my experience of the ecodamage going down to zero after building the first centauri preserve was also true, it happend in my current game just the evening before.
But perhaps there was a simple explanation: It could be
that the ecodamage went down not because of the centauri preserve, but because of fungal blooms just before the centauri preserve was completed, which allowed, as Blake was pointed, more "clean" minerals in each base.

"Steelborn, Starborn"

[Sikander]

Well, I have to say that I too have noticed an effect on all of my bases when I have built my first Centauri Preserve. Perhaps there is another explanation, but Blake and Marione's tests seem pretty conclusive.

Btw Fitz, check out the datalinks explanation for the Centauri Preserve. IIRC it seems to add to the impression that there is a global effect (rather than a base effect) to these facilities.

[Basil]

I don't find Blake's test or MariOne's test conclusive.

I (like Aredhran) claim that building Centauri Preserves will reduce your eco-damage faction wide in future turns. Blake's test and MariOne's test prove that scrapping Centauri Preserves will increase the eco-damage in that base but not other bases in the turn the bases were scrapped in.

A possible reasons why these might work differently:
If there is a faction-wide ecodamage rating which takes the faction's total number of CP's into account, it might be calculated at the beginning of each turn when the game calculates production, but not when facilities are scrapped in the middle of the turn.

A good controlled test would look something like this:
- set up a situation with bases causing modest amounts of eco-damage (modest because you don't want to get a fungal bloom, which would screw up your results).
- save that turn.
- now rush-build a CP at one of the bases. Press end-of-turn and see what the eco-damage is like at the beginning of the next turn.
- restore your turn, and press end-of-turn without rush-building a CP. Now see what the eco-damage is like.

[MariOne]

Basil, I concur with your approach.

I care tho to point out that:

- I said in the first place that I was doing an experiment on the fly with a file I had available, and not a truly controlled test.

- Blake's test DID *BUILD* the Preserves! He observed the ED *GO DOWN*, ONLY IN THE CP BASES!
- Blake DID PLAY few turns!
OK, his ED was huge, but (in case) the eventual fungal damages would have indeed helped lower the figures, while he reported that the CPless bases didn't nudge from their original values.
There is also a disadvantage using very low figures in the test. The maths tell you that if you have ED from minerals, a CP can *halve* it. But you can't set a figure to zero by multipling it (unless you multiply it by 0, which is not our case). So, you might read zero just because the figure gets so small that it gets *rounded* to zero...

- if when scrapping a CP you see the ED reported INSIDE *that* base immediately go up, and NOT in the other bases, this proves that there is a *direct* influence of the CP on the ED INSIDE *that base* ONLY, and NOT on the others.
FOR SURE, even admitting that a CP has an effect on the ED of the other bases, it IS NOT the one the formula would yield counting for a base the CPs of the others.

Fitz and me *do agree* with you, Red et al. when you say that there is a faction-wide ecodamage *rating*, we just don't see its effect on the ED figures pertaining to each separate base. As far as we can tell, it applies only to searising, volcanoes and the like.

I'll set a test your way in the week-end.
But anyway, I think taht a savefile exchange is recommended.
After all, this is not an "I'm right you're wrong" contest.
We're working together to understand how the pesky ED works, thus it's natural that we share all the experimental data and work as a common pool of minds towards a common endeavour!

PS: the datalinks text might just be generic, not general (Reduces the effect of industry on Planet's ecology). Also the Basic Concepts Ecology could give that impression, where the Advanced Concepts state in detail how it (allegedly) works. And "Planet's Ecology" might just mean "a chironian ecosystem (e.g. a basezone ecosystem) as opposed to an earthly one"

[Blake]

Prehaps I should explain how I did my experiment again.

I built four bases and made each base identical, each working 3 boreholes 6 forest squares. Facilities include Tree farm and hybrid forest. I ensured fungus growth would NEVER displaced a worker. I also had ecodamge so high that fungus would attack EVERY turn, this is much easier to achieve than having some ecodamage, but it never attacking (would required save restore).

I then saved this game so I could run different mutli-year tests with the same intial variables.

My first test: turn 0 I tried scraping and adding preserves, they acted exactly as I predicted. I then had 2 bases with preserves, two wthout.
Genned 5 turns, in every turn fungus attacked at every base, I removed the fungus square and the worms (if any). turn 5 I noted the ecodamage in bases without preserves and bases with preserves.

My second test was exactly the same, but without the preserves. Turn 5 I also tried adding preserves to two bases.

Comparing both tests at turn 5 the ecodamage in bases without preserves was exactly the same. The ecodamage in bases with preserves was exactly the same. And the ecodmage in bases with preserves was exactly 1/2 of that in the bases without perserves. Also by exactly the same I mean EXACTLY the same, I wasn't accepting 190 and 191 as the same ED figure, in fact if it was out by 1 or 2 that would have been strong evidence for CP's having a global effect.

I think my test is overwhelminly conclusive that a CP acts only in the base it is built, and has no effect on ED other than halving the ED figure for that base. I basically used the same controlled test techniques as are used for physics experiments.

All a supporter of CP "global effect" has to do to prove that CP's have a global effect is produce a test to show a CP in one base changing the ED in another base. Meanwhile proving a CP *doesn't* have a global effect is nowhere near as simple, we can only say that under every situation tested so far CP's have not had a global effect. Just one of those annoying fundamental principles.

So I'll leave it up to the supporters of CP global effects to devise a test showing a CP in one base changing the ED in another base, as I can't reasonably "prove" otherwise

If anyone wants any save files of my tests then I'll e-mail them, but keep in mind that it only takes a couple of minutes work in the scenerio editor to throw a test together.

[MariOne]

Then I wonder:

Did we determine whether the "damages" have to be counted as faction overall or if they affect only the base they hit?

And more:

You'll surely know that with ED in low figures, ONE tile in a basezone can get covered by fungus, and that is a "damage", with or without worms appearing/attacking.
While with serious ED, MORE THAN ONE tile in a basezone can get covered by new fungus.
I thought that "damages" had to be counted for the # of fungus tiles generated. Do you think that instead a "damage" to one base counts as one regardless of the tiles affected?

I ask that in case you could have also noted the *initial* ED values in your test.
And for completeness of testing, I would have also produced a 3rd run where you DON'T add CP at all in the end. Wouldn't you?

Blake: "So I'll leave it up to the supporters of CP global effects to devise a test showing a CP in one base changing the ED in another base"

...devise a REPRODUCIBLE test! Or pass us their same original material.

[Blake]

Mario:
Only ONE tile can get covered by fungus at each base. Even with ecodamage up to 500 I have never encountered more than one attack per base. I ED wormfarm in OCC's

What you have (probably) seen is two bases with overlapping radius, first base pop happens and creates a tile of fungus in the base overlap area, if possible fungus always grows next to existing fungus so when the second bases pop happens it also happens in the overlap, and could easily happen closer to the first base.

Previous Attacks is a factionwide variable, a pop in one base helps ED in all bases.

I noted the initial ED values in my test, altough they aren't very usful because you have to pretty much put the values through the whole ED formula to get anything usful, comparisons much easier. A 3rd test would have been redundant because I ran the 5 turns without the CP's, then I noted the ED values. THEN I added the CP's and noted the new values, two tests for the price of one

[MariOne]

Well, the few times that I got so far in a game and couldn't avoid ED, I had indeed overlapped bases, and didn't pay overly attention to where the ED messages in the MFD were assigned.
I remember tho that I saw MORE THAN ONE "stack" of lifeforms attacking a base becaus of ED. And that included 2-3 stacks of locusts appearing on the shore seatiles of a sinlge base, where basezones didn't overlap for sure.
I thought that each attacking stack was associated with a new fungal tile. Maybe they can also appear on existing ones...

You're right on the way you did the test. Two worms with a stone
You cited physics experiments techniques: are you a researcher?