Borehole eco-damage

lbores · February 18, 2001, 10:32

What is the best strategy to minimize eco-damage from boreholes? Like how many forest squares/hole?

Should boreholes be driven inside a base perimeter or between several bases and then serviced by crawlers?

How many boreholes/base? Or how many max in your territory?

If you have the borehole complex within your territory, do you build a base in the center of the complex?

Same question for Uranium fields as the preceeding.

Aredhran · February 18, 2001, 12:16

I usually have one, sometimes two boreholes within base radius. To reduce pollution, build Centauri Preserve, Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests. Planting forest does *not* reduce your ecodamage.

It is better to have the boreholes within base radius and have a worker on it, because they take such a long time to build, it would be a waste to only harvest 50% of the ressources they can provide with a crawler.

For the borehole cluster, I usually share it between two bases.

The uranium flats, it really depends. But usually only one base uses it, with a bunch of crawlers for maximized energy input. Great location for a science city.

Aredhran

lbores · February 18, 2001, 12:24

quote:

Originally posted by Aredhran on 02-18-2001 11:16 AM
Planting forest does *not* reduce your ecodamage.

Really? Run that by your average tree hugger.

I'm confused here, however. What I've gleaned from this section is that planting forests is good since it reduces eco-damage.

Newbie cries for help! I'm being repressed (or something)!

Dimension · February 18, 2001, 15:17

For the real formula for eco damage, look in the datalinks under Ecology in Advanced Concepts.

Every kind of terraforming in a base's radius--even roads--gives you eco damage. Boreholes give you 8 eco damage. This damage is reduced by 1 for each forest in the base's radius. BUT, this eco damage is cut in half by the presence of a Tree Farm and completely eliminated by the presence of a Hybrid Forest in the base.

Early in the game, your cities usually aren't producing enough minerals to cause much damage, and later in the game you should have a Hybrid Forest to negate that, anyway.

So, what you really have to worry about is the number of minerals being produced by a city. The only thing that determines eco damage once you have a Hybrid Forest is your planet rating and your mineral production.

Again, look at the formula in the datalinks. A forest reduces damage from terraforming by 1. Tree Farms reduce damage from terraforming by 50%. Hybrid Forests remove all damage from terraforming. The rest of the damage is from mineral production. Centauri Preserves, Temples of Planet and Nanoreplicators each cumulatively reduce the remaining eco damage (from mineral production) by 50%, 67%, and then 75%.

Eventually you're going to want all your bases to have Hybrid Forests. Whenever one of your major production centers grows, builds a damage reducing facility, builds a mineral enhancing facility, or starts crawling more minerals, you should check your city screen. If you've started causing eco damage, you should probably either (a) re-assign a mineral crawler to get energy instead or (b) pull back a worker and make him an Engineer/Thinker/Transcend.

One common mistake is to think that drilling boreholes is going to really screw things up as far as eco damage. Not true. It's very easy to run a city with two or three boreholes without any eco damage. If your formers have nothing better to do, you can run a base with six boreholes and not have much to worry about if you've got a Hybrid Forest.

I did think that base population factored into the amount of minerals you could produce before causing damage, but the formula in the datalinks doesn't say that. Of course, it's still pretty vague about what you do with your "Ecology%" after you get it, and what the threshold is before causing damage.

It's really not a good idea to run a city with eco damage, especially once you're into the 2300's. You can often run a city with eco damage for a single turn and you'll lose a forest and the road that was on it to fungus. Even if you really don't mind having to re-terraform all the time (which is dumb, because you're losing production while you rebuild), you have to consider where your crawlers are. You may have a big stack of beefy trance garrisons in the city, but the mindworms that popped up will probably go for your crawlers first. If you're going to run with eco damage, you'll want some pretty serious stuff in the city that can kill big stacks of mindworms in one turn before they go for your crawlers, like at least a couple Elite Empath Resonance Bolt choppers. They'll have to be able to get about 10 worms at a time with the fungus bonus.

cbn · February 19, 2001, 01:00

The only real answer to most of your questions on this one is " it depends". If you go through the older threads you will find some good discussion on what goes into calculating ecodamage for the base.

Planet rating seems to be huge. Toy with this sometime once you have a fair bit of terraforming done. Switch from green to FM and watch the eco danmage numbers skyrocket. So how much terraforming you can do before Planet starts reacting vigourously depends on how planet friendly you are.

The other reason "it depends" is because differnet players run very different strategies when it comes to ecodamage. I can think of a few (note that these are not really discrete but merely examples across the range of possibilities

1. Eco-friendly-- this player hates the ideas of searises and fungal blooms destroying terraforming and takes all necessary steps to avoid ecodamage -- probably only 1 borehole a base and is very careful to build ecofriendly facilities

2. Ordinary Joe -- Just like in real life I suspect most players are in the range that will accept small amounts of ecodamage in order to maximize production-- probably 1-2 boreholes per base with eco-friendly facilities or switching workers when eco-damage starts to get too high.

3 Selective polluter-- This strat is to have a base that is designed to have high ecodamage. There would likely be 4 boreholes and a lot of mined rocky squares with NO eco-friendly facilities. The high production from this base is a beneficial side effect since the main idea is to ATTRACT lots of worms/locusts. The base is stacked with resonance/trance defenders and resonance empath attackers. You would be amazed at how much cash you can gain.

4. The polluter/terraformer -- The idea here is to maximize production and pearl hunting. There are boreholes and mines and terraforming everywhere and the fact that there are going to be sea rises is a given. This strategy requires a lot of formers to keep out of the water. The idea is to get as much production as possible and live with the fact that you are going to be terraforming up constantly to stay out of the water. Fungicidal Formers are also necessary for clearing back fungal blooms. Empath and trance troops are also required here for the inevitable cash bonanza from worm hunting. I've done this type of strategy a few times in SP and it can work (kind of fun to sink the AI into the sea). However it is very slow to do since you need a lot of terraformers to keep pace with the damage and a lot of units for killing worms. Turns got kind of long.

All of the above is kind of a long way to say "it depends". Some specifics on your other questions

Boreholes are better worked than crawled since they yield both 6 min and 6e and the crawler can only take 1 type of production. That said most of my bases get 1 borehole (maybe 2) that are worked. The bulk of the remaining boreholes are crawled back to a super science city so the energy can go through the effects of the best infrastructure and Secret Projects. Other boreholes(the minerals) are crawled back to production centres to attain desired production levels. I like to have as many bases as I can that can pump out a crawler a turn, or a needle a turn etc.

I have no maximim number of boreholes and tend to build them every second square along the coast. Depending on the surrounding terrain I usually build the bases such that 3 bases can take advantage of 1-2 of thos boreholes in the Borehole Complex each. I did plop a base in the middle once but it takes a long while for the base to be able to use all three (ie to have enough nuts coming in to keep the base population up while 3 workers provide an aggregate of 0 nutrients.

Uranium flats-- This area doesn't affect my base spacing much and I wouldn't go out of my way to ensure there was one base in the center. I usually end up with 2-4 bases that can use some of the squares. I do find the UF as a great place for boreholes and also rivers (they seem to meander through a lot of squares).

Neuromancer · February 19, 2001, 16:08

quote:

Originally posted by cbn on 02-18-2001 12:00 PM

Planet rating seems to be huge. Toy with this sometime once you have a fair bit of terraforming done. Switch from green to FM and watch the eco danmage numbers skyrocket. So how much terraforming you can do before Planet starts reacting vigourously depends on how planet friendly you are.

It's huge up to +3. Beyond that, it doesn't help any further. The formula in the datalinks has a term "3-Planet" that it multiples by several other terms to get your final rating, which I thought algebraically might produce a zero final rating if you had a 3 or higher Planet rating. But it doesn't. (Actually, I'm not sure there is even a difference between +2 and +3, since at a 3 or higher rating it seems to use a 1 for that term in the equation.)

Under desperate mind worm siege, I also rush built the Pholus Mutagen, which seemed to have no impact at all. I couldn't find anywhere in the datalinks or the manual what exactly it was supposed to do.

MariOne · February 19, 2001, 16:47

We suppose that anyone interested enough to ask about how EcoDamage actually works has already studied the datalinks formula.

We *know* that it *says* that each forested square reduce the ED by one.

What probably Aredhran wanted to intend, is that the Datalikns state how the ED formula is *supposed* to work.
How it *actually* works, has been the matter of *many* debates here at Apolyton, most of them I must have missed

.

Some say that the formula reported in the datalinks is completely unrelated to the actual mechanism.
In my experience so far I have to say that probably it is not exact till the last digit, but I pretty much found out that the stated principles are grossly reflected in the figures I obtain.
It's still a bit obscure to me the exact meaning of sentences like "reduce by up to...".
You can verify tho that:
- increasing production has an effect on the ED
- sometimes with low figure I found out that homing an additional unit to the base, reducing the NET minerals, "can" reduce a bit the ED (probably depending on how it's rounded up)
- if you obtain the same number of minerals with a different amount of terraforming in the base, the ED is different
- even shifting workers between tiles yelding the same minerals, can show a variation in ED (e.g. from a mineral bouns forest to a mine)
- try having many forests, some with roads and some without. You can see that if you place your workers on the forets with roads, your ED will be higher than on forests without roads, the rest unchanged.
- with the Mutagen, I experienced a strange effect: while beofre my ED could increase by small numbers, with it it increased in big leaps. That is I could add even 4 minerals to my production before it jumped from 5 to 10.

Of course parameters with a heavy impact, like the difficulty and lifeforms levels (fixed within a game), or the Planet Rating, will lower on enhance the sensitivity to other variables like production and terraforming, making your observations more or less awkward to determine.

I don't have the Prima Guide, but IIRC those who have it reported that ther a more detailed formula can be found. One I know who has it is Googlie.

Sikander · February 19, 2001, 19:56

Ecodamage is one of the most complex formulae, and I have yet to hear a definitive explanation of it's various aspects. There seem to be at least two types of ecodamage, and possibly three: terraforming damage, total (empire-wide) mineral output damage, and base total mineral output ecodamage.

As stated above terraforming ecodamage is no trouble at all. I terraform about as much as is possible (roads and mag tubes on every square, boreholes, Farm/condensor/soil enrichers, kelp/tidal harness etc.) I never seem to have any trouble from the game regarding this as long as I build tree farms and eventually hybrid forests. I only harvest from between 10 and 15 squares per base, and a vast majority of that is crawler production.

Total mineral production formulae are given in the datalinks as well as the prima guide, but there is enough ambiguity in the terminology as well as unexplained effects that what is written should be taken as generally correct but not complete.

I never have any but the slightest ecodamage because I don't produce obnoxious amounts of minerals until:

1) I can build a few temple of planets and centauri preserves (which are standard in well-developed bases).The total number of these facilities is used as a divisor (according to the datalinks / prima) of the gross mineral production number, so building the first one has a large effect. Building them in all of your big bases allows a great deal more mineral production without ecodamage.

2) I can get my minerals from space via the nessus mining stations.

Previous to that I run around 15 to 20 minerals (whatever gives me no to very little ecodamage) This is enough to do what I need in the game, which is build facilities halfway (and then complete them by buying them), and building trained unit shells (and upgrading them), and of course building crawlers. I substitute money for minerals to avoid ecodamage, and I get my money from food (food = engineers = money) rather than energy, although the game doesn't really seem to penalize either energy or food production.

As my ecodamage free mineral production capability increases, I increase my mineral production to meet it by building the various factory type facilities rather than increasing my raw mineral production. This happens in the mid game to late game. When satelite production is available I don't hardly ever build mines or boreholes anymore (perhaps one or two in a new base to get it started), just satelites and farm/condensor/soil enrichers (with the Cloning Vats or SE selections for perpetual pop boom). Every two food produces 1 Min, 1 Energy and 1 food, as well as a large amount of Labs / Econ / Psych from the Transendent or Engineer. Every land square is a gold mine at this point, because it can be made into a 6 food producing square. It produces better than late game fungus or boreholes.

Blake · February 19, 2001, 23:55

Boreholes, I build lots of them, at the maximum density possible, and I plan my city layout so they never fall where a borehole eventually gets placed, if the land is sloped I lower it then build the borehole.

The eco-damage formula is indeed complex, and atleast in part the one in the datalinks is not correct either.

But I have noticed the following things, and can support them from the formula.

Cent. Preserves do NOT help you achieve zero ecodamage, building a preserve does NOT let you produce more eco-damage free minerals. How it works is building a preserve HALVES ecodamage, so if you produced 60 before, after your produce 30. If you produced 2 before, after building you produced 1 (wahoo, from building a preserve you decreased ecodamage by 1!!!!) Cent.Preserves and the like ONLY work in the base they are built in.

Ditto for planet, it acts to multiply the effect of ecodamage, switching to green from FM never allows you to produce more eco-damage free minerals.

The only things you should build to help you have 0 ecodamage are:
Forests
Tree Farms
Hybrid Forest (Interestingly the HF means you can replace all of your forest with "dirty" terraforming, at no penalty).

And that's it.

The other things you can do to increase your free mineral threshold is cause ecodamage, the more planet attacks you the more tolerant it gets, in fact if the (part of the) formula is correct then it should equate to +1 free mineral for each attack. So once you have hybrid forest you can't increase your mineral production and remain ecodamage free until you increase your ecodamage and have planet attack you. I'm sure theres a third factor, possibly to do with tech, but I know for sure simply researching cent. meditation does NOT let you produce more eco-damage free minerals. I'm 90% sure the worm attack effect is why some players have had bases producing hundreds of minerals with no ecodamage.

But it holds that if your base produces 0 ecodamage, and you intend to keep it that way then don't bother with a preserve, they don't let you increase your production, they only reduce the chance of an attack.

Minerals from orbits are completely clean ASSUMING you DON'T put them through a +50% mineral facilty. So if you want to keep 0 ecodamage don't build such facilities.

Now it's all different if you want to say, never have ecodamage above 15 in your bases. But I prefer to have NO chance of ecodamage, remembering that even a base with 2 ecodamage can and most likely will spawn a dozen worms someplace bad at a bad time. That or I accept ecodamage, and expect it to happen, in which case I'm worm farming and want to maximise ecodamage to maximise profit.

The final factor is the Voice Of Planet, it seems this SP completely eliminates the chance of fungal growth, so once you've built it fear mindworms no longer.

So the result is I almost never build preserves, in short, they are worthless for a cash based strategy (not quite worthless, you still get the +1 lifecycle, but at expense of 2 credits per turn).

Aredhran · February 20, 2001, 08:30

quote:

Originally posted by Blake on 02-19-2001 10:55 PM
Cent.Preserves and the like ONLY work in the base they are built in.

That is absolutely wrong. Check it.

Walt · February 20, 2001, 12:53

quote:

Originally posted by Aredhran on 02-20-2001 07:30 AM
That is absolutely wrong. Check it.

So...where else would it have an effect? Sorry if that's a dumb question, but I've not been in on the previous iterations of this discussion either.

Blake · February 20, 2001, 18:15

I would like to see proof that preserves act globally (This COULD be a version thing...) because I have fairly conclusive proof they DON'T act globablly.

I'm not sure about global ecodamage, I'm not sure what global ecodamage is considered, sea level rises and chance of volcano activity prehaps. But I'm talking about the the per base ecodamage here.

Building a preserve in one base, does NOT reduce ecodamage in another base.

Anyway, here was my test.

I started a game as Roze (neutral faction) and using the scenerio editor gave all tech and set up four identical bases as follows:
Size 9
Terraforming, lots of forest, 3 boreholes being worked.

Facilities
Tree Farm, Hybrid Forest, Robotic plant, Quantum Convertor, drone control. This ensures ecodamage is well over 100 and fungus should grow every turn.

I also set up a controlled fungal growth areas, so the fungus never changes which square a worker works.

I save it as this setup.
1st test: I play for 5 turns, removing fungus and worms using editor.

2nd test: I add a cent preserve to two bases

3rd Test: I then play for 5 turns.

4th test, I delete the bases preserves from 3rd test (to see if preserves reduce ecodamage for each turn they exist)

Here is a table of ecodamage for each of my 4 bases
2100 1 Preserve 2 preserves
382 191 191
382 382 382
382 382 191
382 382 382

2105 2 Preserves Preserves scraped
249 125 249
249 249 249
249 125 249
249 249 249

That would seem conclusive to me that preserves only reduce ecodamage in the base they are built, and only while they exist.

Now, I'll try to explain why the ecodamage went down.
Each time planet "attacks" your ecodamage goes down in all bases. Planet attacked me 20 times, which is why ecodamage went down. This is my point, every time planet attacks you ecodamage goes down. If planet has attacked you hundreds of times you can produce hundreds of minerals without creating ecodamage.

THIS IS SUPPORTED BY THE ECODAMAGE FORMULA

Anyway, I'd still like to see that evidence for preserves acting globally.

Edit: I'm trying to work out this concept of "global" ecodamage, The only ecodamage induced events which depend on some form of global ecodamage is sea level rise, and volcano erupt (possibly other random events too), which effect all factions. There is no formula for global ecodamage in the datalinks. So I assume (possibly incorrectly) that global ecodamage is simply the sum of every bases individual ecodamage. Preserves definetly reduce the ecodamage in one base, and therfore that base adds a reduced amount to global ecodamage, that is the only possible sense a preserve could reduce global ecodamage, atleast assuming most of the ecodamage formula is correct, and the base display screen is correct.
[This message has been edited by Blake (edited February 20, 2001).]

Aredhran · February 21, 2001, 01:41

I'm at work and don't have access to the datalinks to give you the exact formula, but preserves and temples GLOBALLY reduce ecodamage, not for the base that builds it.

Skanderbeg · February 21, 2001, 11:41

I don't know if there is an exact formula, but after my knowledge, there are three "elements" of ecodamage:

1. base ecodamage, caused by terraforming and mineral production.

2. faction ecodamage, which is sum of base ecodamage + ecodamage by atrocities

for my experience and knowledge, tree farms and hybrid forest influence only base ecodamage, but centaury preserves and temple of planets influence both faction ecodamage AND base ecodamage. So, building a centaury preserve in one of your bases, no matter which base, will help You in every base.

3. global ecodamage, which is sum of faction ecodamagages

global ecodamage influences the sea level changes.

Fitz · February 21, 2001, 14:48

quote:

Originally posted by Skanderbeg on 02-21-2001 10:41 AM
I don't know if there is an exact formula, but after my knowledge, there are three "elements" of ecodamage:
2. faction ecodamage, which is sum of base ecodamage + ecodamage by atrocities

for my experience and knowledge, tree farms and hybrid forest influence only base ecodamage, but centaury preserves and temple of planets influence both faction ecodamage AND base ecodamage. So, building a centaury preserve in one of your bases, no matter which base, will help You in every base.

What the hell is faction eco-damage, and what does it affect.

I'm sorry, but I've heard this Global eco-damage and building Cent Preserve heps every base thing for ever, but I've never seen any proof. I agree with Blake. Building a Centauri Preserve only helps you in the base you build it in as regarding base eco-damage. It will, of course, be a global factor as regarding sea levels and volcanos.

I think this false assumption that Cent Preserves and Temple o Planets have an affect beyond the base they are in comes from a misreading of the eco-damage formula. It is possible (vaguely) to interpret the line of the formul that says something like 'add one for every Cent Preserve, Nano replicator, & Temple' as everyone in ALL your bases, but what it means is everyone in THAT base, out of those three items.

In other words, the first gives you 50% damage relief, the second 67%, and the third 75%.

Blake, thank you very much for that test. I've been planning to do it for a while, to clear up this misreading of the formula.

Mari: I disagree that the formula is incorrect (out side of the Planet rating thing). In my experience, it works fine. Every point you listed is covered by an aspect of the formula.

[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited February 21, 2001).]

theohall · February 21, 2001, 22:51

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 · February 22, 2001, 00:49

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 · February 22, 2001, 05:06

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 · February 22, 2001, 06:30

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 · February 22, 2001, 11:51

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 · February 22, 2001, 12:42

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 · February 23, 2001, 01:52

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 · February 23, 2001, 06:38

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 · February 23, 2001, 06:54

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 · February 23, 2001, 23:33

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 · February 24, 2001, 00:38

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 · February 24, 2001, 02:56

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 · February 24, 2001, 09:01

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 · February 24, 2001, 16:04

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 · February 24, 2001, 20:43

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?