Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hussar

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16
16
I was under the impression that player markets no longer affect the global market size.

I'll have to boot up a new game with Shadowyards for a definite answer then. But the economy wasn't changed at it's core so it feels exactly the same as before.

17
No, they were trap options about 90% of the time in 0.9, where reducing demand reduced your income or did nothing. Now what's changed is that you should put gamma cores only on industries with demands that aren't already fulfilled in-faction.

As I had tried to explain in the post - one rather should place them on industries on which you can "remove" most of the non-faction imports without removing a single unit of in-faction imports. Because whole system operates on total sum of demand of an colony and if you "remove" an unit of in-faction imports you're not only worsening the overall % of fulfilled demand and in cases of taxable goods - you're also shrinking the global market which drives the prices of the particular commodity down across all your colonies (theoretically across the system but it's hard to notice on AI markets).

In other words gamma's have an expiration date as soon as you'll start covering the demand for goods through in-faction imports. Only industries like mining perhaps can be still positively affected overall by a gamma, as you gonna limit the demand for drugs (unless you're a "freeporter") and since it might take a while to get a heavy industry going - also machinery. But otherwise there is a point at which gamma's will stop serving any kind of purpose on your normal colonies.

Thanks for taking the time to type all this out! It's super helpful -- I had thought gammas were basically just a 'trap' for new players, glad to see that's (not always 100%) the case.  ;D

Thanks I appreciate it.

18
EDIT 09 June 2019: It appears that latest hotfix might have "fixed" gammas as removing the demand boosts the "% of demand met". If so, the whole thread is void. With which I'm more than fine with if that's the case but I haven't yet tested that. Following edit: Actually it appears that what's below does still hold true mostly. Albeit player doesn't influence the global market anymore as Histidine pointed out. I'll be doing a new round of testing and update accordingly.

==================


So, before 0.9.1, gamma cores were only kinda useful if our colonies begun experiencing "global shortages". However by this point most of us would either invest into Industry Planner perk (which had changed and no longer provides -1 bonus to commodity demand) and more than likely had a few beta and alpha cores lying around ready to use instead of gammas. Thus to some - including myself - gamma cores were useless in all intents and purposes in regards to their colony applications. They were (and still are) useful diplomatic chits - this however ain't subject of this post.

Though overall economy haven't changed in 0.9.1, as it still does adhere to what I do call a "cookie principle" (our colonies eat the cookie (goods) and export the very same cookie (goods) at the same time - taxing them twice), there are now ways of using gamma cores to reduce demand and actually earn a few credits. I'll explain below with a few screenshots how to do it - but first I want to make it clear that this is clearly only an early game solution. As our colonies will grew and we'll produce more and more - effectively filling the in-faction demand - it will nullify the effect of gamma cores and will make you loose money if we keep them on industries and won't remove them/replace them with better AI cores. This is sadly because of the "cookie principle" economy where consumption doesn't affect our possible exports.

With that said, I'll explain the rules on how to actually make gamma's useful early game.


For an example, I'll take my colony of Telcontar - a 50% hazard Terran World in system with another colony - an 100% Jungle world that provides the foodstuffs. At the time I had only 4 gamma cores to use - so keep that in mind.

Colony
[close]
Non-tampered with Telcontar.

What values matter:
[close]
As we're importing food in, and have crew demand met - it translates to 25% of demand fulfilled (and 0.88 modifier - why it is so - I have no idea - (edit: I have idea, annendum at the end of the post) it does however get slashed by planetary conditions [so 50% in this case] and applied across all structures and industries afterwards - so the modifier is 0.44 in the end). We can however push it further, but the thing that does matter for us are not individual industries but the overall market demand. That is why I had marked the Commodities tab on the right - instead of any particular industry.

So, my first move was to drop gamma onto Ground Defenses:
1st gamma
[close]
Reasoning: GD consumes 2 "commodities" that I'm not yet producing in-faction and my faction is forced to import. By doing so I had completely removed the need for heavy armaments and limited the need for marines - effectively removing 2 units of commodities from overall pool of resources needed & counted towards the ratio of demand met through in-faction imports and production. As we can see, the % had risen from 25% to 28% - and we've earned 105 credits. This is nothing of course, but still a welcome change from loosing income as before.

Next I had applied gamma to Patrol HQ:
2nd gamma
[close]
Reasoning: PHQ is the only structure that consumes 2 units of starship hulls (Ship Hulls & Weapons), as spaceport does demand only 1 unit of those. Thus by applying gamma onto PHQ, I had effectively removed another 1 unit of demand from the overall equation. The reduced demand for supplies and fuel (from 2 units down to 1 respectively) is irrelevant here - as there are other structures that do demand two or more units of those. We've pushed overall % of demand met from 28=>29%.

Next I had took a look at fuel situation:
3rd gamma
[close]
Reasoning: Waystation had been the sole reason why demand for fuel was on 3 units at my colony (3 for WS, 2 for PHQ, 1 for Spaceport), and since I've already applied gamma onto PHQ, the difference was even greater (3 WS, 1 for PHQ & SP each). WS does of course demand supplies and crew too, but those commodities are irrelevant in here as other structures does demand same or greater amounts of those. However by applying a gamma core on WS, I had effectively removed another unit of commodity from overall equation - pushing the overall % of demand met from 29=>31%! And getting another 58 credits a month in the process (it's meme worthy but it's still a gain) :x

So, I had one last gamma core left to use. And that's where I'm going to show you the "cookie principle" at work as my two remaining choices were to apply it to either orbital station or population & infrastructure. Tech-mining does not have any demands so placing gamma on that structure is pointless. While SP's demands are 1 unit of fuel, hulls and supplies - so applying gamma there would completely nullify the demand for this building. It wouldn't however affect the overall commodity situation, so it wouldn't lent itself towards a bigger % of demand met. However, if you're loosing shipments due to raiding - dropping gamma on SP might prevent you from loosing further accessibility as SP will be less susceptible to trade disruptions (and completely impervious on size 3).

So, lets first take a loot at what happens when we drop gamma onto Population & infrastructure:
"Cookie Principle" on Pop&Inf
[close]
So, this time we're getting quite different results that perhaps otherwise expected (for those unfamiliar with my laughably named principle). After all, we've clearly lost money - despite % of demand met staying at the same level of 31% (as we still have gammas on GF, PHQ and WS). Why is that?

Although we had eliminated the demand for Recreational Drugs, and limited the demand for Domestic Goods - we had also removed 1 unit of food from equation. Which means that we had eliminated 2 units of imports from the total demand - but we had also removed 1 unit of in-faction imports. Which means that we've reduced in-faction market and demand for foodstuffs we already produce. Which in turn yields us a hit towards monthly income, while removed imports from outside of our faction kept the overall % of demand met on 31%.

In the end, unless we have an axe to grind with smuggling elements - placing a gamma core on population and infrastructure turns to be unprofitable for us. Lets try again, by removing this gamma and placing it on orbital station:
"Cookie Principle" on Orbital Station
[close]
This time results are even more surprising, aren't they?

As the previous 3 gammas are still on their industries (GD, PHQ, WS) - the only effect we've got this time was upon crew demand. Although they're a non-taxable good, they do apparently still count towards the overall % of demand met on the market. And by placing the 4th gamma on OS, we had reduced their demand from 3 units (which we are providing in faction/on planet) down to 2. Effectively removing 1 unit of in-faction imports - thus the 31% dropped down to 27% and we've lost money through reduced discount towards the planetary upkeep. As you can see it raise from 0.84 up to 0.87 which is then slashed in half (because 50% hazard) and applied across all industries and structures.


I hope this post will help those who don't yet understand how to use gamma cores in a way to not loose money.


Edit: *The figure 0.88 comes from 25%/2 (as max in-faction supply is to give us 50% upkeep discount) rounded down, so 100-12=0.88 - then local hazard conditions and possible further 25% from beta/alpha core and 10% from IP perk are being applied.

19
Oh my! Finally a high-tech ground support vessel! Wonderful! :D

Shame only a frigate, but oh well. Just gotta get more of them I suppose!

20
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Shadowyards Reconstruction Authority 0.8.1(01/09/19)
« on: April 11, 2019, 05:59:13 AM »
Holy hell, I haven't given Shadowyards a go in a long time (like since 0.8.1) - but I've did so today. And hell, the work you did with stations is honestly amazing. I'd wish more people given it a go for their mods, but then I also realize how time consuming it had to be - but still! Shadowyards is feature complete thanks to it! Huge props!

I also enjoy the new industries that are more of an alternative to (and perhaps downgrade from at times) vanilla stuff rather than improvement. Handy at the beginning, but I imagine switching to vanilla orbital works and refining as soon as I get a chance heh. Still, it's an really nice flavor!

21
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Planetary Shield: Access Control (1.1)
« on: March 24, 2019, 02:16:46 PM »
Nexerelin's way of removing pather cells is sure nice, but not always works. Also, the spies deal with the problem once it's already on the planet - established and possibly entrenched. Your mod however was making it harder for them to establish a cell in the first place. And in general I think your changes were well thought out across the board.

I'll have to think about it, but if I could suggest (though we don't know the release date yet) waiting for 0.9.1 to drop? I'd would wait to see what the changes are first and how the new colony dynamic flows before making any drastic overhauls like that?

22
I'm not sure if Histidine can do anything about administrators.
Is there (or will there be) a way to increase number of agents you can have? At the moment I can't have more than two and I have no idea if I can somehow get more. No skill references them, either.

You can have 3 - check the Command & Control perk. Also Agents are still SUPER STRONG even after the latest nerf - so I'm not totally sure that having more than 3 is a good idea. Unless they'll start dying in failed missions but that doesn't seem to be a case for now.

23
Quick update to fix the cell infiltration crashes, and fix or at least bandaid a couple of issues.
Thanks again for the feedback Hussar! I hope to devise some good solutions in the future.

No problem. I'd say there's still plenty of ways to abuse 'em but since you're planning on overhaul post 0.9.1 - I'll see how this pans out. I'm free to talk about it tho if you had any ideas.

Code
* Agent fixes/improvements
    * Security alert level actually relevant now (decrement interval 15 -> 30 days, decrement amount 25% -> 5%)

This is a really good change. I was wondering about the alert decay values. Still, once we got an agent leveled up that ain't a big issue.

Also if this doesn't conflict with your goals, you can talk to the base commander to transfer a market to independents (this is a good idea for unprofitable planets regardless).

Maybe in the future, I (or Alex, when he gets around to implementing conquest) will think of a good way to handle surplus markets.

I'm actually pro-actively colonize planets that are habitable but not that great. Bump 'em to size 5, set up with gamma cores on infrastructure and set off as independent markets that actually make money. It's helpful in many ways. Through networking it raises the accessibility of all colonies (mine and "independent"), also provides additional revenue and backup supplies sources if anything was to happen.

And Alex is considering some way of "letting the markets go". But till he posts something up, we won't know is he coming through with any idea.

24
Apologies if what I'll write below gonna be a bit rambly. Either way, I'd wanted to leave a bit of feedback on the agents system - as I both love it and hate it. Here's why. (Impressions made on an independent playthrough for 99% of time, so not on a commission)

So, first - the good things? Well, there's a few that's for sure. They're a great asset in curbing down the hostilities and managing the constant expeditions as it gives us an option to improve the relations with the raiding party. Meaning that if we're at war, we may finally be able to get peaceful with a faction without having to either doing missions for them or coming to the core systems to spent "tokens" (by which I mean gamma cores or VIP's we captured). To say that's convenient it's an understatement truly, as with a bit of time and some money we're spared the hassle of trying to get some respite for our colonies through direct interaction. Furthermore, we can always set the agents to work so we have a bit of rep to spent (instead of credits) to avert the expeditions and such. I'd say that's a very good thing for early and mid-game as using agents is more cost effective than spending cash. Of course this changes if we're earning over a million in one tick a month, but then that's late game for you.

Furthermore, since currently there's no way to view the planet side industries and defenses of the planet that does interest us - being able to sent an agent to the market is really useful. As we can conduct some espionage on site by exploring the possible missions without actually giving 'em out to execute. Thanks to this I was able to do a quick list of industrial targets like orbital works and fuel production facilities - with associated information like are there nanoforges installed and what kind. Really useful stuff, since I plan to 'equal the playing field' and sell some to the AI ;)

Speaking of industrial targets, it is of course helpful that we can play a "pather card" and mess with AI's industries too. Not to mention the fact that we can always try to toss some sand into eyes of ai faction's ally - and break their alliance given enough time and money. Quite useful if we find one alliance starting to dominate the sector. I had heg and TT almost wiping out sindria - but with agents I had managed to break that unholy union (those who saw my screens on discord know what I talk about haha) apart and set against each other.

And oh, being able to scout up pather bases is great. I'd wish the same could be done about pirates?

So, in other words there's a lot of positives to talk about when it comes to agents. If I'll be starting a new playthrough, I'll definitively gonna try a more aggressive AI setting  since agents are really making it possible to curb the "constant tournament cheating" that sets off everybody against you in just a matter of month from a full cooperative relationship. I'm exaggerating of course for comedic effect.


Not all is good however. As on normal settings, the properly employed agents make the game ridiculously easy to be honest. Not to mention that their success chances are too high as well. I'll try to explain what I mean by that of course.

Unless someone will start throwing a level 1 agent onto industrial sabotage missions, they'll find themselves with a maxed out agent in no time really. The raising/lowering relation missions are stupidly easy (AND USEFUL so you'll want your agents to do these things after all!) with base chance of 70. And it only gets better as the agent improves, providing for a really easy and fast way to level 'em up. Not to mention that even if unsuccessful, I never had any of my agents in trouble. Even if the security was on alert (I'll touch on them in a bit), they had no problem repeating their mission and exping in the process.

Not that industrial sabotage (and other activities) need a lot in terms of leveling up either, as level 3's have already a good success chance for blowing orbital works up for instance. So I'd would argue that though base success chances are considerably lower for these kind of activities (industrial sabotage, market destabilization and stockpile sabotage) - a midtier agent have no trouble of succeeding at them. And even if they won't, they won't be in trouble either (literally never had any attempt blowing up in my face) apparently.

The fact that "security alert" is kinda artificial doesn't help? Nor it does make much sense really. If the mission goes sour for our spy, all we need to do is to give him an easy task of rising/lowering relations (which they can do in circa 20 days if high level - so quite quickly) and the security alert will cease to exist. Giving us another safe try to do some nefarious and potentially explosive stuff. It does make sense if our first attempt was unsuccessful and there's nothing "disrupted" on the market. That however makes very little sense if we're trying to blow another thing up (for instance in my current game I've blew up Kazeron's OB and then megaport and followed it up market destabilization as well as sabotage of stockpiled hulls - all in span of just few months with either OB or MP disrupted - at one point at the same time) while our first target is still repairing the damages. What I'm trying to say that there's no difficulty curve to this, as all we need to do is to sent the agent off world or give him an easy and quick task of rising/lowering rep to just reset the security settings to null again before our next strike.

Which makes it too easy to be honest.

And that'd be my main gripe with it as of now honestly. Once you're floating with money, you can just keep playing with dynamite without increased difficulty nor risk factor. At least that's how it does feel.

25
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Automatic Orders
« on: February 25, 2019, 09:07:47 AM »
Use notepad++ and you'll never want to use notepad again.

Fair enough. I'll give it a try~

26
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Automatic Orders
« on: February 25, 2019, 08:16:03 AM »
I think you should put up a disclaimer that this mod is potentially save breaking. I know you've tried to mark it as utility but once added to the save file - you can't play without it.

I had experienced save breaking the other day while trying to access Prism Freeport from SCY - the problem had faded away after reactivating the automatic orders mod. But now with the AO, I can't for example do a ForceMarketUpdate command anymore. At all.


As for the mod itself... It's radical, I love elements of it. I would be testing more out of it - if we could add and remove it at will from the save. Though one can definitely appreciate the automatic disengage orders upon taking a certain amount of damage.

If I can give any pointer, if you'd tried to restructure the setting file to not be a one continuous line in notepad - it'd would make it easier to get around the various options. A small thing, call me nitpick'y but user experience matters too.

27
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Planetary Shield: Access Control (1.0)
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:05:05 AM »
Especially good job on balancing the shield. A result like this looks far better than vanilla's 144k+ def strength I would have with x4,5 modificator :x

It's a nice balance since it does make shields usable on small outposts (for a heavy price in growth) we want to protect without absolutely killing the need for anything more than one other defensive industry on a size 10 planet. So I think you've got this absolutely right.

And it indeed does help with pathers a little. Though they seem to be still active despite being 0.43% on a size 10 xD

28
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Planetary Shield: Access Control (1.0)
« on: February 04, 2019, 09:28:43 PM »
This is kinda must have to me! Though with upcoming changes to the pather cells interest, there might be need of some adjustments. However, unless Alex changes the planetary shields - this mod is kinda a must.

It's especially useful to quietly send people off from a tech-mining colony once it grew out it's usefulness.

29
Mods / Re: [0.9a] Underworld 1.3.1
« on: February 03, 2019, 02:52:20 PM »
(They may try, but that's a situation where I'm perfectly happy to blow them up, reload the game, or otherwise take whatever action is needed to make that not happen.)

Quickload usually ends with them asking for money. Something I'm happy to oblige when I float on money.

Strangely it had paid out, though only at welcoming rep - I've snatched a Paragon from their market. That makes my second one I have, waiting patiently for me to call upon it to take down a remnant station or something. Since it sits at my capital with a star fortress, I guess it makes for system defense flagship :P

Only drawback - it ain't pink & flashy!

30
Aside from that I was wondering if you could have a successful vote require over half of members rather then at least half? There seems to be a slow spiral into being at war with absolutely everyone for the rest of the game and since the vast majority of alliances are two members with alliances coming and going due to relation changes it means you get a cascade effect with people your on good terms with who suddenly end up hating you because they joined a two polity alliance with a faction who was at least suspicious of you and decided to hit the big red button, then they split after a hour or so of game play and it starts over again when they forge separate alliances.
Yeah, I may have to do something about alliance votes.
Currently it requires 'yes' votes > 'no' votes, but since members often abstain instead of voting no the resolution often passes. I might just remove abstentions, they're not very interesting.

But even so, I often find less than few months of peace going before the faction jumps back in into the war - no matter how well or bad it was going for them. It's especially strange if throughout the previous months if not cycles the aforementioned faction was pushing for peace in the alliance and had multiple "war weariness" events.

Have you thought about putting some hard lock on "peacetime" (which can be of course broken by the player) or something like that?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 16