Base Size and Pollution

[Fitz]

I agree ned, the math was not right, and in fact I got 19 clean mins doing it one way, and 21 minerals doing it the other. I need to rethink it. Keep testing, please.

And your method of testing cleanmins sounds fine. But are you matching a positive value against what the calculated positive value (using what you think is the formula, and the orgininal (flawed) formula) should be?
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Fitz]

Okay, here is the perfect test to see if terraforming eco-damage is divided by goodfacs.

Make sure minerals are 0. Make terraforming a positive # (a large one) of eco-damage. Add (don't build) a CP. Since you are adding a CP, it should not affect clean minerals (we hope).

If adding a CP halves the damage, then Goodfacs divides terraforming, but does not subtract from it. If it reduces by a small amount, goodfacs subtracs but doesn't divide. If it reduces it to a amount slightly below half, it subtracs and divides. If it doesn't affect it, it neither subtracs nor divides.

Check your conclusion against the appropriate formula to see if the numbers before and after match. The before should match regardless of formula.

I'll add a scenario so you have the numbers before hand:

Base (no facilities)
4 Boreholes
16 condesors/farms/soil enrichers
20 roads (roads everywhere)
work none
add all techs and count how many that is.

terraforming eco-damage = (72 + 32 + 64)/8 = 21
eco-damage = (21-16)*5*techs*3*2/300 = techs*3/10

Add CP:
Goodfacs doesn't affect it: techs*3/10
Goodfacs divides but does not subtract: techs*3/20
Goodfacs subtracts but doesn't divide: techs*2/10 = techs/5
Goodfacs divides and subtracts: techs*2/20 = techs/10

If you don't care to count techs, use this instead:
Goodfacs doesn't affect it: eco-damage unchanged
Goodfacs divides but does not subtract: eco-damage halved
Goodfacs subtracts but doesn't divide: eco-damage reduced to 2/3
Goodfacs divides and subtracts: eco-damage reduced to 1/3
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Ned]

I just conducted a rigorous test on a base w/o a TF or HF and POSITIVE Terraforming - both with and without a CP. No pops. CP added using SE.

The data confirms the following: The CP adds one to the ED limit, and also divides the damage by two. It does not add two to the base ED. Nor does it multiply Terraforming in any way.

I also confirmed that all GoodFACs, including the Pholus M and SI, similarly to CPs, add 1 to the ED Limit

Again, the formula

ED = (Minerals - Orbitals - Clean Minerals - GoodFACs + Terraforming + 5*MA)/(1 + GoodFACs).... seems to be right.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, Just read your post. What I see is roughly the following:

After adding the CP, but not building it, a chart of eco-damage vs. Minerals - 16 - Terraforming shows a net left shift of one mineral and a reduction in slope of 2.

I hope this helps.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, I tried setting up your example. I got as far as adding all tech (88) and terraforming. 4 boreholes, 16 of each condensors/farms/enrichers and 20 roads. ED = 76. With one worker on a condensor, ED = 89. On a borehole 152. The game then crashed and I could not reload. Perhaps you could try.

The base was generating one mineral.

I calculate 4 x 8 = 32 borehole bonus
1 x 4 = 4 four holes
20 x 1 = 20 roads
4 x 16 = 64 condensor bonus
16 x 1 = 16 condensors
16 x 1 = 16 farms
16 x 1 = 16 enrichers
168

Divide by 8 = 21

Net Minerals = (1 + 21 - 16) = 6

ED = 6 * 5 * 3 * .01 * 88 = 79

This is different from the observed value by 3. Either I screwed up and didn't select all techs (I did them one by one, is there another way?) or the base itself must count for some Terraforming damage.

Ned

[Ned]

Fitz, I ran your example. Here are the data. (Remember, the NR and SI multiply minerals by 1.5.)

	RawMins	NoFACS	CP	TP	TP&CP	NR	NR&TP	PM	SI	PM&SI
NoWorkers	1	77	64	64	64	64	64	64	64	64
Condensor	2	89	77	77	77	64	77	77	77	77
BoreHole	7	153	102	102	89	128	102	102	128	102

The above data appears to show both an "effective" clean mineral for each GoodFAC and a reduction in slope due to minerals greater than a "base" exactly according to the 1+GoodFAC factor.

It also seems show that there is a base terraforming factor of 64 (77?) which is unaffected by the divisor 1+GoodFAC. 64 represents the ED cased by 5 minerals - eactly that for terraforming per se. 77 is roughly the value of 1 additional mineral without a division by 1+GoodFAC. Minerals in excess of 1(2?) seem to then get the division. Also, only Minerals in excess of 2 are mulitplied increase by 50% due to an NR or an SI.

I'll think on this a bit before drawing conclusions.

Ned

[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Ned]

In order to explain this data, we have to distinguish between Minerals before their multiplicaton by a factory of some sort. The formula looks like this

GoodFAC = Base CP, TP, NR or Faction PM or SI
Clean Minerals (faction) = 16 + # of pops, and BUILT TF, HF, CP or TP
T-Damage = Terraforming - Clean Minerals
Net Clean Minerals = Clean Minerals - Terraforming, cannot be negative
Minerals = Raw Minerals - GoodFAC
Cleaned Minerals = Minerals - Net Clean Minerals



Ed = (TDamage + 1st 2 Cleaned Minerals +

((Cleaned Minerals -2) * Factories - Orbitals)/ (1 + GoodFACs)) +

5* MA (here introduce another division by (1+GoodFACs)(BLAKE))

* Ajustments

Note, I subtracted Orbitals after multiplicaion by Factories. This follows the observed evidence.

Very Complicated.

Ned


[This message has been edited by Ned (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Ned]

Guys, If you see my post above, two posts ago, you will see that I attempted to report results of an experiment in a table. It came out hash twice. The first time I simply typed it in. It looks fine in the editor. The second time, I pasted it from a spreadsheet.

If anyone can tell me how to get this right, I would really appreciate it.

Ned

[Chowlett]

UBB supresses all but 1 space in any one place. you can get round it by putting the tables inside [code][/code], which should maintain formatting. I have used it, but can't actually remember if it works as advertised.
[This message has been edited by Chowlett (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Ned]

Chowlett, Thanks. It worked!

After seeing the post properly aligned, I noted one data error, which I corrected.

I also subtracted Orbitals after multiplication.

Ned

[johndmuller]

Ned, Fitz, Blake: Hey, after a few days away from this I should probably stay away from this thread, but I can't help myself. Just to see if I understand where you guys are now at, let me restate what it looks like to me and you all can tell me if you're on a different wavelength.

First, earlier analysis of this subject was undermined by the newly discovered feature that the Scenario Editor does not adequately prepare the datafile for Ecodamage reduction due to the construction of various facilities such as TFs, HFs, CPs & TPs.

Changes to the "Classic" formula

GoodFacs element:
---now also includes the PM and SI
---subtracts from the rough terraforming/mineral damage like pops
---(GoodFacs+1)is divided into the ED for terraforming & minerals & atrocities instead of just into the mineral part.

The Total number of the 4 base facilities (TF, HF, CP & TP) in your Entire Faction are also subtracted from the rough terraforming/mineral damage like pops.

Otherwise, the formula is pretty much as set out in the documentation or as restated in Buster's early post on page 1. It is nevertheless true that a lot more minerals can be produced in the mid game and beyond than was previously thought particularly in accordance with the number of certain facilities.

The summary above does not necessarily reflect the latest areas of Ned and Fitz's exploration (particularly the "cleaned" mineral variation). It also may omit several fine points which do not in themselves seem to have a major impact on the calculation and which can get morae complicated to explain than they may be worth.

Ned's formula :
ED = (Minerals - Orbitals - Clean Minerals - GoodFACs + Terraforming + 5*MA)/(1 + GoodFACs)
where Clean Minerals = 16 + # "pops", TF, HF, CP & TP (in faction)

[Ned]

John, Substantially correct - however take a look at the data on the test Fitz had me run. It shows that the base terraforming, to the extent it remains positive after step 5, is not divided by 1+GoodFACs.

Also, the GoodFACS reduction appear to subtract from minerals before they are multiplied by factories.

Finally, the first two minerals surviving reductions from Clean Minerals and GoodFACs do not appear to be divided by 1+GoodFACS.

I have not run the revised formula for Negative Terraforming to see whether that enters as the result of Step 5, or in the Net Mineral calculation.

Assuming Fitz and Blake are in agreement, what do we do with this new information?

Ned

[johndmuller]

quote: Originally posted by Ned on 05-14-2001 04:35 PM John, Substantially correct - however take a look at the data on the test Fitz had me run. It shows that the base terraforming, to the extent it remains positive after step 5, is not divided by 1+GoodFACs.

If that is what is shows, it would take us back to roughly the formats represented by Fitz Variations #1 or #4 (from page 2) depending on whether Atrocities are divided by the (1+goodFacs) factor or not (I gathered from your prior post that some uncertainty on that score remained - where you referenced (Blake) at the end of the formula).

quote: Also, the GoodFACS reduction appear to subtract from minerals before they are multiplied by factories.

Are you talking about a new "GoodFacs" in the numerator, the Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) also in the numerator each of which subtract} from or the "(1+GoodFacs)" in the denominator (1+CP+TP+NR+PM+SI) which divides into the intermediate ED value?

quote: Finally, the first two minerals surviving reductions from Clean Minerals and GoodFACs do not appear to be divided by 1+GoodFACS.

You had a similar qualification w/r a need for 1 Pop before something else happened too, as I recall; is that still in effect? Frankly, this seems pretty quirky or off the wall to me; it's hard to imagine them deciding to do it exactly this way on purpose.

quote: I have not run the revised formula for Negative Terraforming to see whether that enters as the result of Step 5, or in the Net Mineral calculation.

The test I finally ran with well mitigated ED and the use of PB told me that some form of amelioration of ED is in effect, either negative carryforward from either terraforming (step 5), minerals {subtracting the Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) term (step 7)} or division by the (1+GoodFac) factor and rounding down to zero. Given the game in question, I would guess subtraction of Sum(TF+HF+CP+TP) as the cause of the lack of ED. (TF/HF to zero terraforming and (1=GoodFacs)=2 vs 50+ techs) This doesn't establish whether the terraforming term itself can be negative (although I thought that had been established already by someone saying that ED can go up with the building of an HF) or whether it the (1+GoodFacs) is divided into the Atrocities term or not, but it does limit some of the possibilities.

quote: Assuming Fitz and Blake are in agreement, what do we do with this new information? Ned

Do you think Ted Koppel might be interested?

I also wondered whether you all had been able to stay free of the Scenario Editor in your various tests or whether or not some of that uncertainty was in these results.

I'm having a hard time with your latest formulas with the clean and the cleaned mins, etc. I was trying to map your minerals into this:
a) total mins as displayed on the left of the "minerals" line
b) the part of a) produced in orbit
c) the part of a) due to min enhancing facitities (factories)
d) the part of a) produced by "other" (worker, crawler, anything else ?)
where a) = b) + c) + d)

However, I remain confused with the formulation shown in your post do you think you could restate it or explain it differently; maybe I'd follow it then. If you could bring yourself to use Fitz #1 or #4 as a starting point, that might be helpful to me. Thanks,
John

[This message has been edited by johndmuller (edited May 14, 2001).]

[Ned]

Johnd, You may want to go back to the post in this thread, about 6 posts ago, where I set forth a table. This table had results of positive terraforming from step 5 after subtracting Clean Minerals. I set it up using the SE and never BUILT anything. Nor was there a pop.

The data cleary show the effect of GoodFACS (= CP, TP, NR, PM, SI) on BOTH a subtraction from RAW MINERALS, a new concept, and as a divisor into NET MINERALS. However the substraction appears to operate BEFORE multiplication by any factories. The divison by 1 + GoodFACs operates on factory-multiplied minerals, but only after the first two minerals produced by a base are accounted for differently. Significantly, the division does not operate on either net Terraforming damage, T-Damage, a label I now give to the corrected Datalinks Step 5, or the first two minerals.

It is significant to realize that the above is a base calculation and has nothing to do with a faction calculation related to TF's etc. This said, it is clear that Clean Minerals are updated between turns base-by-base. If the base had a pop or a built TF, etc, Clean Minerals increases by 1 before any other calculation.

We have previously verified that Clean Minerals are increased after the first pop by each TF, HF, CP or TP built.

The result of all these observations is that we need to invent new terminology completely beyond prior Fitz, Blake or Ned formulas.

So, please take a look at the chart and see if you can make sense of it.

Ned

[Fitz]

Ned, it seems that you have confirmed for me that terraforming damage is not divided by Goodfacs. Thanks. I didn't have time to analyze your whole table or interpretation in regard to goodfacs subtraction yet, but I'll copy it and look over it while sitting on the beach drinking Mai Tais.

[Fitz]

Okay, Ned, I calculated what the eco-damage should be for the test above, using the following formula:

Eco-Damage = Damage*Life*Planet*Diff*Techs/100

where:
Life = 2
Planet = 3
Diff = 5
Techs = 128

Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs
Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1

Reverse engineering the value 64 in the formula allowed me to calculate that the techs value had to be 128.

Here are the calculated results, when I truncate the Terrafoming value before sticking it into the formula:

	RawMins	NoFACS	CP	TP	TP&CP	NR	NR&TP	PM	SI	PM&SI
NoWorkers	1	76.8	64	64	64	64	64	64	64	64
Condensor	2	89.6	76.8	76.8	64	76.8	76.8	76.8	76.8	76.8
BoreHole	7	153.6	102.4	102.4	89.6	128	102.4	102.4	128	102.4

Here is your original table:

	RawMins	NoFACS	CP	TP	TP&CP	NR	NR&TP	PM	SI	PM&SI
NoWorkers	1	77	64	64	64	64	64	64	64	64
Condensor	2	89	77	77	77	64	77	77	77	77
BoreHole	7	153	102	102	89	128	102	102	128	102

Points of interest:

1) You appear to have switched the values in the Condensor Row for the TP&CP and NR values.

2) Terraforming is obviously not divided by Goodfacs. If it was, the value for the NoWorkers row would decrease below 64 in yhr TP&CP row. I ran a few values and they didn't match.

3) Goodfacs obviously does NOT add to CleanMins, or subtract from terraforming or minerals. In addition to noting that my calculated values match when I don't use a formula with Goodfacs in the top, I ran a few values through and found that it didn't match. You must have been observing a rounding/truncate situation as I previously described when you thought you had an increase in cleanmins. Remeber. If you end up with a value of 1.25, and it is divided tby 2 for a CP to .75 and then truncated/rounded to 0, you appear to have added two clean minerals, but have only added one to the Cleanmins value in the formula.

Barring moving the Atrocities under the goodfacs division, we are obviously back with:

Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs + 5*Atrocities

Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1

Cleanmins = (16) + (# fungal blooms) + (# of Hybrid Forests, Tree Farms, Centauri Preserves, and Temple of Planets constructed by your faction, provided at least one fungal bloom has occured)

Goodfacs = (1) + (# of Centauri Preserves, Temple of Planet, Nanoreplicators in this base) + (# of Pholtus Mutagen + Singularity Inducator Secret projects owned by your faction)

I won't reconstruct the Terraforming fomula again, and I can't remember anymore if we need to include Nanoreplicators and the SPs in the Clean minerals line if they are constructed (as opposed to just existing). I also can't remember it only counts ones constructed after your first fungal bloom, or counts the ones you constructed before the fungal bloom but only after it occurs. My formula says the latter right now.

[Ned]

Fitz, Your calculated numbers appear to match the observed data closely, although I don't believe I had 128 techs. I believe I had just 88.

But I don't see how you can get to your numbers from your formula. It would be interesting to see examples of your calculations.

I am assumng that both Terraforming (there is a .375 adder for placing a worker on a condensor, farm, road) and Clean Minerals remains 21 and 16 respectively in all calculations. Ditto the "adjustments" to net Damage.

The results seem to show, and you and I agree on this, that Terraforming damage remains a constant 64, which is 21-16=5*Ajustments. This also means that each effective mineral contributes 12.8 to ED.

What I see is that there does appear to be a subtraction from Minerals due to each GoodFACs.

What I also see is that the first two net minerals, after this subtraction, contribute 12.8 ED, and net minerals above that are divided by 1-GoodFACs.

Again, I don't understand how one can get to your calculated results using your formula.

Ned

[Misotu]

Wow, are you guys still going on this? Now that's dedication for you

Unfortunately, I'm not able to follow most of it. But I'm just posting to say thank you anyhow. Because the one thing I did understand is that "good" facilities built after an eco-damage-related fungal pop will increase the number of clean minerals that can be produced per base. Tried it in a recent game, and it worked like a dream. I probably haven't been paying attention, I don't suppose this is new to the old hands here. But it was new to me. So thanks.

[Ned]

Misotu, You're welcome.

As to the state of knowledge of members of this forum as to much of this thread, I think that it was not widely known, if at all. Others apparently noticed the different ED damage limits depending on number of bases, but didn't know why. Some thought the increased resistance to ED as the game went on was due to researching more tech's, even though the opposite is the case. I too was extremely confused by the disparity between what I was seeing and the Datalinks formula.

The information we have gathered here will allow the player who knows the information to dominate a player who does not. This is why it is puzzling that the information was not included in the Datalinks in the first place.

Ned

[Blake]

Well, after 2(3? 4?, lost count...) weeks of not being able to access apolyton (I really don't know why) it finally starts working again, probably due to the forum upgrade (how long ago did that happen)?

Damn, I was just about over my SMAC addiction too being deprived of apolyton seems to make it easier to resist playing SMAC. Unfortunately I seem to have a new found Black & White addiction (and B&W web forums), so now I can access Apolyton again I guess I'll get my old SMAC addiction back. Addiction to SMAC and B&W. And just in time for exams. Just what I need.

Anyway, this was the first thread I checked . Great to see it is still going, I quickly read over most of the posts... don't suppose anyone could give a concise summary of additional findings?

And have the findings in this thread actually been put somewhere accessable yet? The really important need to know - undocumented things are:

Each TF's, HF's, CP's, ToP's built increases clean minerals by 1...
But only after atleast 1 fungal "pop" has happened....

Also such facilities can offset planetbuster induced ED, 5 "ED friendly facilities" cancel the negative effect of 1 planetbuster use...

Well, someone with better writing skills could write those main points for the benefit of the masses which don't want to wade throught a ton of complicated posts on the last un-accounted for factors in the ED formula.

And SOMETHING concerning ED needs to go in Vel's strat guide, even just a single paragraph.

[Ned]

Blake, Welcome back!

If you go back a few posts, you will see a test that Fitz and I set up, and data from that test. We are now debating what the results mean.

In a nutshell, the test was a size 1 base with one worker. It had a net 21 terraforming damage so that the result of step 5 for all variations was essentially a constant 21-16=5. I then measured ED with no workers, a worker on a 1 minerals tile, and a worker on a six mneral borehole. Although terraforming damage varied slightly, what really was changing was the the number of Minerals, being 1, 2 and 7 respectively.

I then repeated the experiment by adding a GoodFAC or GoodSP by the SE - either alone or in combination - and took measurements. I reported the results in a table, swapping as Fitz noted, the results for NR with TP and CP in the first two columns.

Fitz and I are now heavily debating what the results mean. You input in this debate is more than welcome.

Rather than repeat the debate, you may want to read the data and our posts since the table was posted.

If you go back further, though, you will see my conclusions on terraforming damage caused by Kelp and a sea base. It is really different from anything else. This data should also be verified and reported.

[DilithiumDad]

You are right about the Tree Farms and Hybrids adding one to clean minerals after the first fungal pop. BUT your formula is incorrect about each fungal pop raising mineral limit by 1.

I have a single-player game as Believers on a high-fungus map. Very challenging, I might add. I had 16 clean minerals per base before Hercules went into periphelion, then that dropped to 12. Since I had all forest, I had to go way into massive eco-damage unless I wanted mass starvation. I had 4 fungal pops the first turn after perihelion began, and clean minerals stayed at 12. A tree-farm building campaign (made difficult by the low mineral lmit) gradually raised the clean mineral limit. Going Free Market (-4 panet!) lowered mineral limit back down to 12.



Anyway, allowing fungal pops is NOT a good strategy for limiting ecodamage.

[Ned]

Hey Dilithium Dad, I think you are equating the ED limit with clean minerals. Remember, that until a base has both a TF and an HF, that Terraforming damage subtracts from Clean Minerals.

However, what you said is interesting. Even if you are looking at the ED limit, it sees to vary depending on whether AC is in Perihelion. This indicates that TD is scaled by Perihelion before it subtracts from Clean Minerals.

As to pops not affecting Clean Minerals, I believe they do. Blake, what have you confirmed on this?

Ned

[Blake]

Originally posted by Ned

As to pops not affecting Clean Minerals, I believe they do. Blake, what have you confirmed on this?

Pops most definitly effect clean minerals. The first pop also counts, so after the first pop you have a clean mineral limit of 17.

[Velociryx]

Just to clarify this in my own mind...the way this stuff works is:

1) Each fungal "pop" increases the clean mineral threshold at ALL your bases (including ones not yet founded) by one per.

2) Each tf, hf, cp, top you build increases your clean mineral threshold by one (for the base it is built in, or has the research show it to be for ALL your bases?) per facility built.

3) The more fungal pops + more eco-friendly facilities you build, the greater your "innoculation" to ED becomes....ballpark the effect at 5 eco-happy facs = 1PB

Izzat about the crux of it?
-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, Yes and more. The effect adding to clearn minerals is faction wide and permanent. Subsequent events do not lower clean minerals. So each pop you have, each tf, hf, cp or top you build, not capture, adds to clean minerals. [From a strategy point of view, it might be wise to build one or more TF, HF, CP or ToP in a captured base before giving it to a submissive.]

IN ADDITION, we have found that the presence of GoodFACs, e.g., CP, TP, NR, in a city, and either the Pholos M or Sing. Induct. in a faction, also effectively gives one more clean mineral per. This effect depends on the presence of the facility in the base or the SP in the faction. The effect is not permanent. It does not add to clean minerals.

These are the major findings.

Minor findings include that a "negative" Terraforming damage caused by the presence of trees also increases the effective clean minerals.

Kelp and a Sea Base add 1 per tile to terraforming damage, but not an extra 1 when worked.

The first two minerals a base produces above the number of clean minerals are treated differently from the rest. They are neither multiplied by factories, or divided by the 1 + GoodFACs factor.

Ned

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Ned
IN ADDITION, we have found that the presence of GoodFACs, e.g., CP, TP, NR, in a city, and either the Pholos M or Sing. Induct. in a faction, also effectively gives one more clean mineral per. This effect depends on the presence of the facility in the base or the SP in the faction. The effect is not permanent. It does not add to clean minerals.

The first two minerals a base produces above the number of clean minerals are treated differently from the rest. They are neither multiplied by factories, or divided by the 1 + GoodFACs factor.

I'm still willing to debate these points.

Anyhow, here's how I calculated the eco-damage:

Eco-Damage = Damage*Life*Planet*Diff*Techs/100

where:
Life = 2
Planet = 3
Diff = 5
Techs = 128

so Eco-Damage = Damage*Tech*30/10 = Damage*Techs/10

Damage = (Terraforming - CleanMins1) + (Minerals - CleanMins2)/Goodfacs
Cleanmins2 = Cleanmins - Cleanmins1

Terraforming damage: = 21 for no workers, 21 and 1/4 for Condensor/Borehole situations. Truncate to 21 in all situations.

Cleanmins1 = 16, and 21-16 = 5.

Minererals = 1, 1.5 for NR/SI, 2 for Condensor, 3 for NR/SI, 7 for Borehole, 12.5 with NR or SI.

Cleanmins2 = 0 (since 16 -16 =0)

1+Goodfacs varies by column.

Add any good fac, amd we have 64 = (5+1/2)*Techs/300 = 5/300*Techs (truncate 5&1/2 to 5)
Therefore Techs = 128

To double check this, with nothing we have (5+1/1)*Techs/10 = 6*128/10 = 76.8

Similar calucalations based on (terraforming + mins/(1+goodfacs))*Techs/10 or alternately [b](terraforming + mins/(1+goodfacs))*128/10 will produce the other numbers in the condesor and borhole rows, provided you remember to truncate the [terrformiing - (mins/(1+goodfacs))] portion before you multiply by 128/10 (12.8).



Thus, there is no need to include in your calcuation the 1+goodfacs in the top. In fact, lets try that with just a CP, no workers (row 1 column 1):

(4 + 1/2)*128/10 = 4*128/10 = 51.2

No TP&CP = (3 + 1/3)*128/10 = 3*128/10 = 38.6

Now this obviously doesn't match the observed values for the Noworker CP or TP&CP rows.

And now I gotta go watch a soccer game. I'll come back later and use the 88 Techs figure and see what happens when I don't truncate, round, only do it in certain places, etc.

Eidt: inserted formula at top for conciseness

[Blake]

I really can't understate the importance of the fact that atleast one pop must happen before getting any clean mineral benefit from building TF's etc. Because if a player plays extreme green, and builds 50 TF's etc, then expects to be able to boost his mineral production, he'll get a nasty suprise when it is still at 16.

The good thing is only one pop is required. You need never create any more ED after that, but you may want to anyway because each pop increases clean minerals by 1, this is more valuable in blind research games where you may lack TF's, CP's, it's also cheaper, because you don't need to build anything, and you get the planetpearls from killing worms. Win-win.

Also clean mineral threshold is strictly across faction, a pop counts for the faction it occured in only. A tree farm counts only for the faction it is built in, terraforming ED and rounding(?) effects from GOODFAC's aside clean mineral threshold should be exactly the same in all bases across faction.

The other slightly less important thing is that you get clean mineral boost strictly from building. not owning tree farms etc. As Ned pointed out you can build tree farms in captured bases then give the base to a submissive, you can also buy/scrap CP's in bored bases to increase your clean mineral limit, atleast a use for CP's .

Finally, if I understand Fitz correctely the +1 clean minerals in bases with a CP is technically a rounding error. And also as you get up to a clean mineral threshold of about 100 each TF, CP etc is worth slightly more than 1, it is not clear whether this is a rounding error or another unidentified factor.

Anyway the really important stuff, with pratical applications, which wasn't said in Vel's post, and every player should know:
Must have one fungal pop (in faction) before being able to increase clean mineral threshold.
The clean mineral benefit from TF's, CP's etc comes strictly from building, not owning said facilties.
Various rounding errors can result in a higer clean mineral limit than the statistics suggest.

The last item should probably be included to prevent posts from people claiming they have "discovered" a bug where you get a higer clean mineral threshold


I don't think there is really anything more to say about Ecodamage, the contributing factors behind ED are now generally well defined. I have no wish to attempt to account for the anomalies at very high mineral bases, I'm content to say you will always get ATLEAST the clean mineral limit calculated by the new formula(s). Others are welcome to continue the quest for the final formula, but I'm going to try and find something to do with my time which is more conductive to passing my exams.

[Ned]

Fitz, Thanks. And, I agree with your calucalation. Here is a "full" table showing each step in the calculation:

	RawMins	NoFACS	CP	TP	TP&CP	NR	NR&TP	PM	SI	PM&SI
No Workers	1	77	64	64	64	64	64	64	64	64
Condensor	2	89	77	77	64	77	77	77	77	77
BoreHole	7	153	102	102	89	128	102	102	128	102
										
Subtract 64 and divide by 12.8										
Adj.		1	1	1	1.5	1.5	1	1.5	1.5
# of GdFAC			1	1	2	1	2	1	1	2
No Workers		1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Condensor		2	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
BoreHole		7	3	3	2	5	3	3	5	3
										
										
No Workers	Adjusted	1	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.5	1.5	1.0	1.5	1.5
Condensor	Minerals	2	2.0	2.0	2.0	3.0	3.0	2.0	3.0	3.0
BoreHole		7	7.0	7.0	7.0	10.5	10.5	7.0	10.5	10.5
										
No Workers	Adj. Min	1 	1/2 	1/2 	1/3 	3/4 	1/2 	1/2 	3/4 	1/2 
Condensor	divided by	2 	1 	1 	2/3 	1 1/2 	1 	1 	1 1/2 	1 
BoreHole	(1+GdFAC)	7 	3 1/2 	3 1/2 	2 1/3 	5 1/4 	3 1/2 	3 1/2 	5 1/4 	3 1/2 
										
No Workers	Truncated	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Condensor		2	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
BoreHole		7	3	3	2	5	3	3	5	3

Dan Q has given us permission to summarize our results for a main page post.

Fitz, Blake, I suggest that we confine our remarks to the new information on Clean Minerals and GoodFACs - with the one exception for the effect of Kelp on Terraforming damage.

What do you think?

Ned

[Ned]

Guys, What about this:

Eco-Damage Formula Revised - Have you ever wondered why the number of minerals a base could produce seemed to rise as the game went on or was greater the more bases you had? There is a good reason for this, but it is not explained in either the Datalinks or the manuals. Ned, Blake and Fitz have discovered that the number of "clean minerals" the game allows rises from an initial 16, as set forth in the Datalinks formula, each time you "build" a Tree Farm, a Hybrid Forest, a Centauri Preserve or a Temple of the Planet. This increanse in base "clean minerals" only seems to begin after the first pop. (Pops also increase "clean minerals," but this information is already set forth in the Datalinks formula.) So each time you build one of these facilities anywhere in your faction, you increase your faction's "clean mineral" limit and thereby the number of minerals you could produce without eco-damage.

Ned, Blake and Fitz also report that acquiring bases with these facilities does not affect the number of "clean minerals." Neither does losing a base or selling the facilities. It is building them that is important.

Ned