✦ GC FORUM Galactic Conquest
Sign in
Back to the Game
Forum Index › General Discussion › Income Adjustments Discussion

Income Adjustments Discussion

Started by Deiloche · 15/07/2009 · 11:31 AM · 127 replies · 1 read
D DeilocheOP
OP 15/07/2009 · 11:31 AM
NOTE: This may not happen. We still need to get Paid Staff or Stephen to implement these, as well as get the itech to work temporarily so that races may change their infra. However, we would like to do this.

Contributors: EphemeralEternity, BrokenSwordS, Deiloche, Raistlin, Omegian


MARKET LIMITS
250 minimum on all minerals
3 minimum on goods
5 maximum on goods
4 minimum on food
2500 minimum on ore
1 minimum on raw material


Viral
-Commerce modifier dropped to -95%
-Infected clusters given the ability to use industry and agriculture
-Agriculture yield on infected clusters similar to that of c.4s.
-Giving the industry modifier to the virals a number sufficient such that at 4 per unit a CG viral would make more income than an agriculture viral would make at a decent level of 9 or 10. Exact numbers not worked out yet.

With those stats that would make tax and agriculture equal in income around 13 per unit of food with industry a little behind if food were at that price. Agriculture tends to fluctuate up and down, but a fairly standard `steady` level is 9 or 10, because most taxers appreciate that type and will buy at that level, hence why the industrial mod is going to be aimed to match at that level. Industry tends to be more stable, and given that a lot of virals will be going tax and agri there should be an even higher demand for goods.


Marauder
Plunder bonus: +400% > +900%

The increase in plunder bonus there will effectively double how much plunder marauders make. This will dramatically improve their ability to play with the new ship upkeeps.


Collective
Plunder bonus: +200 > +300%
Tax mod: -50% > -10%
Goods demand: -95% > -50%

Note: Collectives would NOT have their infected clusters able to make agri. A good collective would probably do both tax and agri, with c.4s making agri and c3s doing tax.


A.Miner
Industry Efficiency: +200% > +350%

Effective 50% increase for industry for a.miners.


Terran
Industry Efficiency: 0% > 50%
Terran n00b can do all incomes.

Edited by BrokenSwordS on 2009-07-15
S Slavyzz
22/07/2009 · 02:05 AM
Pistol by supply and demand what he is saying is that if goods went to 1 p/u then people who make goods would be inclined to switch incomes and people would be inclined to go tax. Thus the price for goods would shift, possibly all the way to five in not so long a time *hence supply and demand*
P PistolPete
21/07/2009 · 03:32 PM
Deiloche wrote: "Goods are supposed to be plentiful and even if guardians got goods at 1 per it wouldn`t unbalance them."

Maybe.. But i havent seen any numbers on how many percent higher their income will be, and that is really the only relevant answer to my question. That supply/demand answer is a nonsense answer and completely irrelevant for what i am talking about.

Ohh.. and another thing i wonder about. What is tha actual modifiers on the different viral incomes going to be? I can`t find that anywhere.
D DeilocheOP
21/07/2009 · 03:19 PM
Pete, your points are completely irrelevant to the game and therefore will be disregarded. Goods are supposed to be plentiful and even if guardians got goods at 1 per it wouldn`t unbalance them. It`s called supply and demand for a reason. If things get to cheap, people change incomes. Or are supposed to. If they don`t, big whoop. We are NOT going to discuss that.
R raven
21/07/2009 · 08:35 AM
Marauder
Plunder bonus: +400% > +900%

The increase in plunder bonus there will effectively double how much plunder marauders make. This will dramatically improve their ability to play with the new ship upkeeps.

me like it :) hopefully u can implement some of these changes soon :)
E EphemeralEternity
20/07/2009 · 10:45 AM
*sigh*, i`m pretty sure the guardian upkeep idea was suspended, since it wasn`t posted in the list with the maru/viral upkeep changes....fairly sure we would have provided you with the upkeep changes as we did for all maru and viral ships that would be effected.

i for one don`t think guardians need an decrease in ship upkeep, if anything they could use a little raise in their upkeep....but staying right where they are is fine..

the formula what can i say, it`s stephen math at it`s best.

about their ships, well guardian is a special case, they`re the "guardians `part time lazy tyrannts` " of the universe. and they can`t set off a UW which in some peoples eyes entitles them to special privileges....there ships are good but not all that. and it`s not like their income grants them tens of millions per turn...even with cg`s, the average guard any how, there`s always exceptions....and yes there`s always going to be super rich empires of every race that makes them look imbalanced as well.

as for that guardian upkeep reduction i could be wrong, might not have got a memo, you`ll have to wait til Deil BSS or Maraudian post on the matter for conformation
P PistolPete
20/07/2009 · 10:12 AM
I don`t really care how things were 3 years ago. The updates that are made right now I assume are based on how game experience have been the has been the last half year - not how it was 3 years ago. I know you want guradian to be able to sit on a bigger fleet - but when the upkeep is reduced combined with this i fer it will be too muc. So all I am asking for is some real estimates of how much we can expect the economy to be boosted.

I tested your formula, and i think some the paranthesis are not placed correctly. This is what i get when I reduce it. I took out the term with food prices, as that is not relevant, and replaced what i interpreted as the total population with POP.

POP x RaceMod/2 + POP x RaceMod^2 x loyalty/5000 + (POP x RaceMod/10) x RaceMod

And btw. Guardians have the best ships in game but do not rely very much on the market - how does this makes sense?! Thought it was only n00b terrans that was supposed to be like this with the present changes.
E EphemeralEternity
20/07/2009 · 09:32 AM
pete this game was balanced once on the fact that there would always be consumer goods on the market, in fact at before about September of 05 there was always everything on the market. the only time the market ever lacked anything was 1-2 days after a UW and after that the market pretty much corrected itself, but that`s when there was constantly 200-350 people on all the time.

there`s been no upkeep changes or racial mods since way before that time. so nothing has been reconfigured for this extremely long market drought that has been going on in RT, TB seem to be decently balanced most of the time.

So the current numbers/ratios reflect that time. so a revival of the market, such as steady cg supplies would just mean all races incomes would be functioning as they`re supposed too, rather than the sub par incomes most of us have come to love and know.


but if you really want to know you can calc it yourself

Tax income

((housing x (10 + research lvl) x (race mod) / 2) + ([(housing x (10 + research lvl) x (race mod)) x loyalty / 5000] x (race mod)) + ([housing x (10 + research lvl) x (race mod)] / 10 x (race mod))) - (housing x (10 + research lvl) x (race mod) / 10 x (food price)) = per turn income
P PistolPete
20/07/2009 · 08:35 AM
Ok.. so 3 is the minimum goods price, which limits the damage this may introduce. But still i think it is interesting to get some real numbers on this. Can someone with a 2500loyalty guard empire post how much they get from tax and goods?
P PistolPete
20/07/2009 · 07:46 AM
Pistolpete wrote: "What is the ratio between tax income and consumer goods consumed for a guardian empire, with 2500 loyalty clusters?

I am concerned that guards will get a large income boost if they have consumer goods available all the time, though i don`t know if this should be a concern."

Deiloche wrote: "As for the concern about guards getting too big of a boost, too bad. The game was meant to have all resources readily available on the market, whatever the price happened to be. :P You just won`t be used to some empires actually having the added income."

Well.. I am asking how many percent the income is boosted if goods cost 1,2,3,4,5?! If the income boost is more than 20% it is a lot, and should be taken into account in the upkeep of the ships available for the guardian race, as these upkeeps are balanced towards the current average income - not the boosted.

The same goes for tax virals, that will get an income boost of nearly 50% if consumer goods are overproduced so that consumergoods prices are 1. But then again - the upkeeps of viral ships are raised not lowered at this upkeep update, and they don`t all have those high buildrate ships that can totally dominate any TB server.
R Raistilin
20/07/2009 · 07:34 AM
Itech doesn`t switch the land you put into... it just changes your research. As for what it changes, you get all the levels you researched, minus granted levels from missions, and you can put whatever you want into where ever, aslong as it adds up to the total you had. say you had 200 in comm, and wanted to go agri, you could put 7 in housing then the next 193 into agri.
D donster
20/07/2009 · 07:25 AM
Perhaps someone can outline the details of ITech to clear up any confusion. I`ve gleaned little tidbits here and there from the post and can make some assumptions, but its hard to know how much is actually factual.
- Are we able to transfer research levels from one area to another?
- If the previous is true, is it only from one particular area to only one other area or can we distribute the current research levels to more than one new area?
- Are we able to transfer infrastructure from one area to another?
- As with the research question is it a one to one transfer or one to many or many to many transfer?
- If we can transfer infrastructure, do we need ore on-hand for the transfer?
D DeilocheOP
20/07/2009 · 06:19 AM
Ragnarok, please actually READ THE WHOLE POST instead of saying something like that.

RIGHT AT THE VERY BEGINNING:
Quote>
NOTE: This may not happen. We still need to get Paid Staff or Stephen to implement these, as well as get the itech to work temporarily so that races may change their infra. However, we would like to do this.
EndQuote>

The money cap is very simple. Same with the resource cap. Any programmer could explain it to you. :P

(2^32)/2 = 2,147,483,648. That is the maximum value available for a 4 byte integer. I`m not exactly sure how the game has it`s run-time memory operate (since we seem to be able to temporarily go over that maximum value without breaking anything) but I rather imagine that, to conserve space, a 4 byte integer is being used to store any values like that. Which means that the 2 trillion limit is imposed to keep players from exceeding the literal maximum. If there wasn`t code preventing stuff like that? Well, if you went just a LITTLE too far and you`re running on an integer, BOOM, you just went from positive 2 trillion to negative 2 trillion. That is also, I imagine, why the limit on negative credits is so small. Otherwise it would be really easy to get max positive credits simply by incurring a simply MASSIVE debt. But the way the game is constructed, it`s physically impossible to get a debt that big.

As for the concern about guards getting too big of a boost, too bad. The game was meant to have all resources readily available on the market, whatever the price happened to be. :P You just won`t be used to some empires actually having the added income.
P PistolPete
20/07/2009 · 05:59 AM
What is the ratio between tax income and consumer goods consumed for a guardian empire, with 2500 loyalty clusters?

I am concerned that guards will get a large income boost if they have consumer goods available all the time, though i don`t know if this should be a concern.
R Ragnarok
20/07/2009 · 05:14 AM
The only thing i would object to is that dropping commerce modifier for viral would destroy any viral accounts that depend partially or wholly on commercial income. How would these accounts be compensated? Would they get to have a infrastructure research reset and get the turns compensated back to them in BTC and stc?
S Slavyzz
20/07/2009 · 03:16 AM
It is there so that empires cannot create a limitless stockpile of money then spend it in the course of a few years without having to maintain an income the entire time. I see minerals on RT, I have plenty of minerals and I keep stocked up. Buy them before you need them.
K Karnage
19/07/2009 · 11:33 PM
or even raising the cap a bit might change a few things
K Karnage
19/07/2009 · 11:27 PM
What reason is the $ cap there for? To make the rich ppl buy all the minerals so nobody else can have any once they hit it? - I personally think this is one of the biggest reasons why we dont have minerals on RT. It should be something to think about...
S Slavyzz
19/07/2009 · 03:19 PM
dont remove the rich list! That has already been done, and is back by popular demand. And the popular slavyzz will simply demand it back again. The money cap is there for a reason.
K Karnage
19/07/2009 · 01:59 PM
NO for 10K $ price for minerals, lower the limits and that`s it. also - remove the $ cap for empires - that makes a big difference! also remove the top stats "richest empire".
A AshyLarry
19/07/2009 · 01:35 PM
I have a suggestion for an adjustment of the maximum price for minerals. Change it from 1,000 to 10,000 and you will never have a shortage of mineral miners on RT.
Page 2 of 7

Reply

⚠
You must sign in before you can reply.
Sign in to the game and come back — the forum uses your game account.