Suggested changes to Terraforming - Diminishing results == flaw?

#1

I’ve spent too much time for it to be forgotten in a unrelated thread, so I am making Terraforming’s own thread.

The Flaw of Terraforming

Terraforming as it is now is, in my opinion, flawed. There is a competition for valuable stars, but higher levels of Terraforming tend to level all stars to a same quality - preventing the competition.

See the prices of Infrastructure for increasing Terraforming.

Notice the superhigh price reductions on early levels of Terraforming.
This says, that there is a huge difference between stars with 10 and 50 resources, but there is close to zero difference between stars with 110 and 150 resources.

Proof of flaw

It’s because the price is calculated as `base_price / resources`.
The higher the resources are, the lesser the yield.
For cheap economy the base price is `500`. Now difference between a Star A with 10 natural resources and a Star B with 50 natural resources is that B is 5x better than A.

``````First Economy's cost:
A = 500 / 50 = \$10
B = 500 / 10 = \$50

ratio = B/A = \$50/\$10 = 5x
``````

Let’s calculate the price for Terraforming 15, which gives 75 resources.

``````First Economy's cost:
A = 500 / (50+75) = 500/125 = \$4
B = 500 / (10+75) = 500/85  = \$6

ratio = B/A = \$6/\$4 = 1.5x
``````

The concept

The thing with ratio is quite simple. To even more simplify it, let’s say there are 6 Classes of Stars.

``````Class 1 = 10 NR - a shitty star
...
Class 5 = 50 NR - home star
Class 6 = 60 NR - I've heard legends about those..
``````
1. Terraforming’s yield would start at 50 and each level would add 5 as it does now.
`T1->50, T2->55, T3->60, ...` [size=11](or `T0->50, T1->55, ...`)[/size]
2. Each star would be assigned a value from `0` to `1`. A coefficient of how good a star is.

A star which formerly had `50 natural resources` would have a `coefficient 1.0`.

``````Natural resources -> coefficient
60  ->  1.2     -- Class 6 star
50  ->  1.0     -- Class 5 star
20  ->  0.4     -- Class 2 star
10  ->  0.2     -- Class 1 star
``````

How does the ratio translate to actual resources?

``````Terraforming 1 = 50 Resources
Class 6 : 50 x 1.2 = 60 Resources
Class 5 : 50 x 1.0 = 50 R
Class 2 : 50 x 0.4 = 20 R
Class 1 : 50 x 0.2 = 10 R
``````

Notice that the values are actually the same as with old Terraforming!

Proof of concept

The pictures below show prices and number of economy built using the old terraforming (Additive) and my suggested approach (Multiplicative).
They show values for Terraforming 4 and 20.

To explain the pictures, there are three main columns:

1. NR - the natural state of a star, compared `natural_resources` and `coefficient`.
2. Additive - actual calculated resources using `natural_resources + terraforming` (old)
3. Multiplicative - actual calculated resources using `ratio x terraforming` (new)

Prices

These two show how much would the upgrade cost for first and tenth economy on stars with resources from 1 to 50.

Infrastructure density

These show how much economy would have been built on your stars if your cheapest upgrade was priced at \$20 or \$60.

Resume

A shitty star should stay relatively shitty whole game. A legendary star should be legendary and should be fought over!

[size=20]Moreover, the concept I suggest also deals with the problem of hyperinflation.[/size]

How are the prices calculated?

An idea to keep Experimentation "interesting" and more balanced
#2

This seems like a much better revolution to every other ‘solution’ that I’ve read. Good job!

#3

Hey @qwerty, thanks for your awesome work on this. You went above and beyond the call of duty on this one.

This is the solution I would use if I decide not to make any drastic changes like 3 new “cap techs” that would replace banking, experimentation, terraforming and manufacturing.

edit: Also, we I make some new badges soon I’ll make one for those folks, like yourself, that put in a huge effort to help improve the game.

#4

I like that, qwerty always seems to be on the frontline. Maybe a title like Wizard, or Developer?

#5

Haha, lol `Wizard` is so cool

#6

The best suggestion ever!

#7

As commented in the other thread, QWERTY rocks (!) … and while (at least for me) it took a few minutes to wrap my brain around this concept, it’s really, really good!

And yes, the “averaging of stars” at high TF should be addressed - good stars should be fought over and crappy ones not so much. Plus addresses the hyperinflation issue.

I.e. tastes great AND less filling!

P.S. I’ve seen resource 55 stars (center of circular galaxies), but never a resource 60.

#8

I am flattered

The legends say that there was only one star in 1500 with 60 resources. It was supposed to be in the centers of centers of circular galaxies…

(Center star of 64p galaxies :D)

#9

No more center star with the Mega Circle layout