Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[evilcherry]

Evil. Cherry. Can I buy frigates plox?

Everything has a price, but clearly something you can't pay for the moment.

[evilcherry]

Rule Check. Do Missiles arriving at the same turn additive or muplicative?

(in other words, If I fire 8 missiles at a size 1, will I wipe the population off that planet?)

[Nirur Torir]

Additive. The extreme and sudden climate shift from 8 missiles hitting a size 1 planet simultaneously would purge all life from the planet. They're rather large missiles. Of course, if it shifts from 50 enviro to 1 enviro, the missiles after the second would be far less effective at killing people/factories/loyalty.

As they only have 1 HP each, they're rather easy for garrisons to shoot down, but it's possible (yet expensive) to swarm weak garrisons to cripple the planet if you feel so inclined.

Rules update: MM class missiles cost 40 credits per turn in upkeep up until they're launched, including the turn they're launched in. Once they're flying, further maintenance is unnecessary.

[Criptfeind]

Everything has a price, but clearly something you can't pay for the moment.

Fair enough. What price would you be willing to let it go at? So I can know if it is worth saving up for.

[evilcherry]

Everything has a price, but clearly something you can't pay for the moment.

Fair enough. What price would you be willing to let it go at? So I can know if it is worth saving up for.

The collective does not consider Credits, in any amount, be enough to persuade us to share such a technology with someone who is clearly in violation of the collective's basic principles.

[Criptfeind]

My bugs are basically filthy dirty disgusting commies as well. Whats the issue?

[evilcherry]

My bugs are basically filthy dirty disgusting commies as well. Whats the issue?

Are you serious that money can satisfy true left-wing socialists, who see democratically elected councils as the only viable form of government?
And how's comradeship be possible with a hive mind, which is the epitome of state capitalism?

(sorry for the philosophical babble, but if you think parting with some money is enough for a brand new shiny tada ship design, then you are seriously belittling the Kosel'skaya resolve.)

[Criptfeind]

My guys ain't a hive mind, although I can understand why you would think that since I never gave any info on them. As for money you still need it. So yeah.

Although, now I am unsure if this is role play or if you are serious. I don't really think I have enough money for it now, but I did assume you would sell it for some amount. If that is untrue I am sorry.

[evilcherry]

My guys ain't a hive mind, although I can understand why you would think that since I never gave any info on them. As for money you still need it. So yeah.

Although, now I am unsure if this is role play or if you are serious. I don't really think I have enough money for it now, but I did assume you would sell it for some amount. If that is untrue I am sorry.

Pretty much both. But we do not think that receiving money is in our best interests.

We prefer a more civilized way of trade such as barter, or, fair exchange of goods.

[Criptfeind]

What you want? Colonization pods for frigates maybe?

[evilcherry]

What you want? Colonization pods for frigates maybe?

At present your techs are bad choices for me. And I'm not giving away technology for some amount that does not really add up.

This should summarize my point.

[Criptfeind]

Alright. I have been doing my turn, but I think I hit a snag. How it currently is, the higher your pop growth, the more you lose if you have a negative pop growth. That seems. Really wrong.

Maybe make it so it is something like .05*mods (which in my case comes out to 0.066) then for every difference in environment you minus a flat 0.0005?

It comes out to something like increasing the power of pop growth things by... Maybe... 7% (IE: Pop 1 growth would be, compared to what it is now pop 1.07 growth) or something(I dunno, we are officially math wise over my head)? But it also evens out all the craziness in the system.

Edit: To give a working example of this, it would make my pop growth on my new planet 0.0105 as opposed to -0.00726

[IronyOwl]

Alright. I have been doing my turn, but I think I hit a snag. How it currently is, the higher your pop growth, the more you lose if you have a negative pop growth. That seems. Really wrong.

What seems wrong about it to you? That's the way growth works, and it prevents larger planets from not caring about negative or positive growth, and prevents smaller ones from being instantly populated or emptied by poor conditions.

Maybe make it so it is something like .05*mods (which in my case comes out to 0.066) then for every difference in environment you minus a flat 0.0005?

It comes out to something like increasing the power of pop growth things by... Maybe... 7% (IE: Pop 1 growth would be, compared to what it is now pop 1.07 growth) or something(I dunno, we are officially math wise over my head)? But it also evens out all the craziness in the system.

Well... at Pop Growth 2, the equation would be 0.06 * loyalty, then you'd lose a flat 0.0005 people per point of environmental difference afterwards.

Assuming a Size 3 planet, simply because that's your secondary world, we get a hypothetical equation of:

0.06 * 1.0 * 3.0 = X * 0.0005

or 360 = X, meaning once you get your planet to the full 3 pop, it can be 360 away from its ideal environment and still break even on population growth.


Clearly, this is rather odd. Specifically, it means the more inhabited a planet already is, the less its environment matters in terms of how much faster it grows.

[Nirur Torir]

I think the formula he is proposing is more like this, which is what I'd want the formula to be if I took his suggestion:
x = growth(.066) * loyalty(.36) - (enviro_away_from_ideal * .0005)
growth = x(-.03174) * pop

It still hurts higher growth for negative loyalty, but I don't want loyalty and environment penalties to cripple low-growth people while only annoying high-growth people.

Any other input on whether or not to make this the new formula?

[Criptfeind]

What seems wrong about it to you?

Did. What? How does that not seems wrong to you that when you slip into negatives you lose people faster the higher your pop growth tech is?

And your equation, well interesting, is flat wrong. If you actually put it in, you come out with a pop growth of -0.12, or losing 12% of your population per turn, and that does not change based on population. At pop growth 0 you are losing 13% per turn.

Now, if you put that into the old system, at pop growth tech two you are losing 15.6% of your population per turn, and  at pop growth zero you are losing 13% of your population per turn.

See how it comes out? I made it so that at zero tech it stays the same about, but higher techs help offset the loss of population, as I think it should be.