Force expiration

New features that have been submitted via forum or in game that require more information, or further discussion.
Travdan
Quiet One
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm

Tweaking Forces

Post by Travdan »

Since not everyone could see this where I posted it before, I felt it should be public so that everyone can critique it:
Blum wrote:
Travdan! wrote:Actually I kinda like that idea Blum.
If you really like it, pull up some numbers(I know you are good at it) and make it presentable:)
I think this would be a great time to use Blum's idea in conjunction with the "different forces have different expire times" idea.

Let me elaborate...

Ok, rule #1
1. Scouts laid with no other forces have a different expire times depending on the number of scouts
1 scout = 1 day
2 scouts = 1.5 days
3 scouts = 2 days
4 scouts = 2.5 days
5 scouts = 3 days

x = number of scouts
t = longevity (in days)

t = (1/2)(x+1)

This way there is a tradeoff. You can have lots of scouts that last a short time, or a few scouts that last a long time.

Rule #2
2. Combat Drones in sector and Combat Drones with Scouts function like forces do now

That is, if:
x = total forces
t = longevity (in days)

t = INT[(x-1)/10]+1, where INT rounds down to an integer.

Rule #3
3. If you add any number of mines to any stack, only expiration rules for mines apply. The mine rules will be modeled by logistic growth:

x = total mines
t = longevity (in days)

t = 5/(1+5(e^(-(x-10)/2)))

This is the only semi-continuous function of forces because it is depicting a physical model of the population of mines in a certain sector.

Here, let me provide the graph of expire time vs. total mines because it leads right into Blum's idea.

Image

As you can see, after 20 mines, the force stack's duration is practically constant at the maximum of 5 days. (Vladimir brought up the fact that some ships only have mines, and limited ones. Therefore, if they want to have large force stacks, they will have to do it themselves or *coordinate with ships that do have scouts*. Or they can just decide it's not worth it and have fewer force stacks). This encourages two things:

First, many people use as many mines as possible so that they reach the maximum expire time. If the maximum is reached well before the "41" that usually is associated with the current maximum, then the only reason to add more mines is for added defense. Lacking reason and/or money, larger stacks may become obsolete.

Second, the increased longevity of middle-range stacks of mines is not a bonus. It has two compensations. The first is that singles and smaller stacks last a much shorter time (singles lasting 15 minutes, 2 mines lasting 45 minutes - good for focused purposes). The second compensation is Blum's idea: Mines that are not monitored chaotically experience entropy. They cannot be controlled fully after some time.



This brings us into new territory:
Rule #4

This rule has no bearing on the size of the mine stack or the total number of stacks in the sector, their proximity to a planet, or the number of sandwiches that Lotus has eaten today.

It will follow the wonderful maxim: Keep it simple, stupid.

Force stacks will have a certain probability of "drifting" into different positions than you left them (in game terms: force stacks have a certain probability of becoming neutral after a time t)

There are no extra features for this, nothing fancy, except there will be a column in the forces page that tells you the probability that each stack will drift away (similar to an expire time). You don't need to refresh anything, you just need to go to the sector.

Again, this will only affect mines:

t = days since last ally visited the sector
P = probability that a stack will "drift" (become neutral)

P = 0, if t<3.5 days (this means stacks of 15 mines or fewer will have no chance of drifting)
P = (1/20)(t-3.5)^4, if t>=3.5 days (this will have to be calculated at even intervals of a convenient duration when the random numbers are drawn - I suggest a certain number of hours, like 1,2, or 5)


You may ask why this is different from expiring. Two things:

1. It promotes that you travel through the sectors you mine more frequently. ie. it will be harder to mine every single sector of a 15x15 galaxy, but it will still be very easy to mine a planet or warp 3-sectors deep, mine routes, and mine travelled paths.

2. This timer for "drifting" resets independently of expiration. It just so happens that when you go to refresh mines so they don't expire, you'll also be resetting the "drifting" timer.

EDIT: I understand this has deeper consequences than just affecting forces, but I believe that it is more cohesive with the current game than the current way forces are handled.
OmegaRenegade
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1997
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:47 pm
Location: Canucklandia
Contact:

Post by OmegaRenegade »

While interesting I really dont think this will make any long term difference to galaxy sized mine fields. An alliance that maintains such mine fields has to be very adept at refreshing stacks, moving into the sector and refreshing the stacks (and extending the time frame) is something they do anyways. And while it does reduce the number of singles kicking around, its only a partial fix to these huge mine fields, since it only requires slightly more co-ordination, and obviously wont be any burden to the alliances that use this defence of galaxy sized mine fields.
My ties are severed clean, the less I have the more I gain, off the beaten path I reign, rover, wanderer, nomad, vagabond, call me what you will

Image
Travdan
Quiet One
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm

Post by Travdan »

You play one game with it and I guarantee it would change your mind. I don't think people like blundering into mines in their own galaxy very much.

The whole point of having to go into a sector to reset the "drifting" timer is that it distinguishes useful mines from excessive mines. If you travel through the sector often, it's never a problem, but if you have to go out of your way to refresh them, you expend twice about twice the normal turns to be safe.
-Twice as difficult to maintain
-Penalized if you don't maintain them (in two different ways).

I think if you ask for much more than that OR you will start to sound unreasonable.
OmegaRenegade
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1997
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2002 5:47 pm
Location: Canucklandia
Contact:

Post by OmegaRenegade »

I dont think anyone who uses these mine fields will ever worry about thier blundering into, as you put it, thier own mines. Anyone who mines this much is going to maintain them, reguardless of how annoying it is for someone to do, esp if that person is a dedicated team player.

I will agree to try it out for a game and see, since I am not unreasonable, I just dont think it will work. If it doesnt work however, can we agree to start looking at more drastic means of resolving this problem?

I also want to make one thing clear, I am not anti-mine or anything like that, I have no problem with mines in a planetary galaxy as long as its a layout similar to this one. What I have a problem with is seeing these huge non-racials mined all over the place, that get in the way of everyones movement.

I would also be willing to try changing expiration times on mines so that they last longer within a planetary galaxy and shorter in non-racials
My ties are severed clean, the less I have the more I gain, off the beaten path I reign, rover, wanderer, nomad, vagabond, call me what you will

Image
Travdan
Quiet One
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 3:12 pm

Post by Travdan »

Sure, of course we would look for something more drastic if what I proposed doesn't work.

However, the key here that I want to emphasize is that with these added stipulations to forces, the costs (in time, effort, money, and safety) are just over the cusp of outweighing the benefits.

Sure, an alliance may try to rival the extensiveness that DC mined Lacerta et. al, but now they will be paying a much larger price to do so.

In the end, I believe that something akin to the above will create a healthier level of mining as one of its main benefits.
RandyOrsolo
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 1084
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by RandyOrsolo »

I really like this idea, because with it in place there'd be an uncontrollable factor in maintaining minefields, and less fire and forget. It might need some tweaking, but as long as it keeps rule 4 in some shape or form I'd be thrilled with it.
Grey
Newbie Spam Artist
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 9:51 pm
Location: Copenhagen

Post by Grey »

If the planet galaxies didn't have so many locs in them I'm sure you'd see a lot smaller mine fields in the non-planet neutrals.
Freon22
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Freon22 »

Posted two times sorry
Last edited by Freon22 on Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Freon22
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 3278
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Freon22 »

Tweaking forces I don't think is going to help, it worth a try. Mines have alway been a problem and some have make it worst when you were for the Refresh all button.
Freon22 wrote:I want to bring up an old topic. When everyone was all for the refresh all forces button I was against it because I knew it would make it easy to maintain a large mine field. I use it because all I have to do is hit the link set there a few sec, or so then move on. Everyone ask for an easy way to refresh forces well you have it. :lol: The way it was before you would have to refresh each stack and if you missed one it would expire, well not anymore just hit that refresh all link and you won't miss any mines. If you realy want to cut down on the mine fields, then just make it so they cann't be refreshed. But even that will not work because then all you have to do is pick up one then put it back down again and that stack is refreshed. So increase the cost of mines from 10,000 each to 50,000 each. Make it so it cost and you will see fewer mine fields. If 50,000 each doesn't work then move it up to 100,000 each sooner or later it will get to cost to much. Then even the big alliances will only use mines there they have to have them. Players want to play they want ships, weapons, planets all these things cost in the game. If all their money is going to buy mines they will cut down the size of their mines fields and will only mine where they have to.
Another thing you could try is have the CA ack like ports do, it starts off at 4000 mines. As you buy mines the stock gos down by the number that you buy. But that would mean that when you do get to a CA there may not be any mines to buy.
Hate
Quiet One
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 2:39 am

Post by Hate »

Larger planet galaxies would also help solve the problem. Not these little 5x5's or 6x6's we have now, how about maknig them 12x12 or something to make it big enough to worry about.
Post Reply