glob2-devel
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [glob2-devel] concept for building priorities

 From: Kai Antweiler Subject: Re: [glob2-devel] concept for building priorities Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:34:07 +0200

```> >> The calculation of the decaying averages AT, HT, and G should probably
> >> use factors other than 0.9.  Determining the best factors to use will
> >> require experimentation.
> >
> > We could also experiment with other control structures.
> > Steph mentioned a PID controller (for something else) a while ago.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller
>
> Do we have someone available to program such things who would
> understand them?

Leo and I have studied math.

>  I worry about the maintainability of the extra
> program complexity.  Would the improvement in the calculated values
> make a big enough difference to justify the extra program complexity?

This probably depends on how you compute it.
Taking average is a form of integration.
And a differential quotient can be approximated by a difference quotient:
(f(x+h) - f(x)) / h

> > Right now the values might jump a bit depending on how high the "running"
> > levels
> > are for the arriving glob.  (Especially when a few explorers get hungry.)
> > We could flatten this a bit by using the globs speed as well as time.
> > (And the average running level for workers, or globs)
>
> I don't understand the previous paragraph.  Can you explain?

A slow glob that is far away will have an unproportional big effect
when it arrives.
All other globs that arrived during the game combined lead to a number
that is just 9
times as heavy as the impact that this glob will have.
It probably is an outlier in the statistic.  (Probably it shouldn't be
waited at all.)
On the other hand fast explorers, or globs nearby will have an
unproportianal influence
as well - again only at the time when they arrive.  After a few other
globs it will be flattened.
We can reduce this effect somewhat, if we (let's say) multiply the
time by the speed of the globs and maybe divide by the average speed.

> > Basically I would prefer an market economy style system, where every glob
> > has to work for its money and also buildings compete with each other
> > in their wages.
> > The amount of social welfare would be up to the player.  And globs
> > with low money
> > might get only small amount of food back in restaurants and of health
> > in hospitals.
> > The player would have to care about debts, inflation, subventions and taxes.
>
> I'm not sure what you are proposing.  Do you want to write a concrete
> proposal?

No, I don't.  It's more a long term idea, that I haven't thought much about.
Imagine real life economy in glob2.  This would add a nice gaming element.
Money would also be an intuitive quantity for the player.
When the player gives his globs more money (by social welfare) or your buildings
more money (by subvention), then he earns from taxes and booty,
inflation happens.

> >> I think there should also be various global settings to shift
> >> priorities between categories (e.g., "more food" vs. "more globules"
> >> vs. "construct buildings").
> >
> > Yes.  But Steph warned that glob1 was less fun, because global settings
> > took away too much influence from the player.  We would probably need
> > settings-flags to compensate.
>
> Can you give more details?

I have never seen glob1, so I can't.

> > (In the marketing model, this would correspond to township.)
>
> I don't understand the above sentence.

Local politics deals with the construction industry, social structure
of the local population,
farming conditions, ...

Global settings corresponds to the country
Local settings to the township
Is "township" the wrong word?
Would "municipality" fit better?
--
Kai Antweiler

```