Ah, the joys of BBCode tables
.
Meguca Micro Empire Quest (PMMM)
- Thread starter inverted_helix
- Start date
.
I just kludged it together by beating it with a stick. (And searching technical support section of SV because normal bbcode wasn't working.)Ah, the joys of BBCode tables
So apparently you need {} brackets when doing tables in sufficient velocity. Despite [] brackets being what you use for quotes, spoilers, italics, bold, underline, etc. Also xtable instead of table.
Though I still can't find any sort of table creator in the post tool, which supposedly exists.
Last edited:
Aranfan
Team Plasma Grunt
It involves saying "you don't actually need this many cubes, so we won't give them to you". I cannot think of a better way to encourage hording. It also runs directly counter to fun with magic.
What are your design goals then? I was trying to include a way to make armor and the like actually increase the total number of cubes harvested in a given territory, which seemed to be a design goal of your RT system. Otherwise, DS is more like a 'storage' sort of thing, where you can burst hunt if you need to but then it takes an exactly equal amount of lost cubes to get back to normal.
Isn't that the whole point of having negative DS training grounds?
Also, are you keeping the 1/4 multiplier for DS<0?
Yeah, but at ~250 people is pretty different from ~170. Though yeah, 250 is probably a bit low for a /10. The point would be to make it more granular to reduce low-impact arguments rather than to reduce options. The idea would still be that most actions require multiple groups.
IIRC Kyuubey handled most of the paperwork, that's why it cost us cubes to set one up.
And now you know why I used [code] instead of making an actual table.
Last edited:
In the existing system, because RT only decreases DS gain when you overhunt it means that until you can safely reach the maximum DS decay per turn in overhunting, each point of additional protection increases the total amount you can overhunt.
For instance, if you overhunt to DS 5 with IRT that gives you an upswing harvest of 150% of territory, and a downswing of 75%. For 112.5% per turn averaged.
If you can instead go to DS 10 with IRT that gives upswing of 200% of territory, downswing of 50%. For 125% per turn averaged.
Each point of extra protection increases your average yield per month by 2.5% of the territory.
It's not an equal amount lost on the downswing as you gained on the upswing. It costs you 1 cube less hunting on the downswing for ever 2 you got on the upswing.
The whole point of the system is to apply limits and tradeoffs. More cubes at more risk, or conversely you need more protection to get more cubes. If it applied on the downswing you could in fact vastly increase the number of cubes you generated at no additional risk.
Honestly you're unlikely to ever use Greens for hunting again. And maintaining negative DS training grounds wasn't actually that effective a tactic in the first place. It had incredibly niche uses which were reasonable when we had people optimizing like crazy, but plans involving that is a needless complexity. I'm simplifying the mechanics and this is the time to eliminate that.
Yeah I'll add that in to the post.
It's only about a 50% difference.
I had wondered about that.
I definitely thing something along these lines is the way to go. We always try to ensure zero casualties so any options that don't include that are, barring life or death emergencies, going to be ignored so they might as well not exist. A simple table like you and notgreat have came up with works pretty well. That way we just need to decide:
1) What hunting type (Normal/RT/IRT) we use
2) How many Meguca we assign.
which is nice and simple.
Just to be clear; the DS Average Limit is the point it's safe for that level of girl to hunt right? So a Green girl can hunt normally up to an average DS of 5 before she faces a risk of death but due to the increased risk of RT she's only safe up to a DSA of 4. In effect it acts as a cap on how much hunting can be safely done per turn rather then messing with casualty chance. I like it!
That said are you sure you want to change the demon strength change formula like that? If we're aiming to keep the DS under 10 and starting from a DS of 0 then under the current system (20*[{Harvest-Territory}/Territory]) we can gather:
North (37 Territory): 55 GCU (+9.73 DS)
South (37 Territory): 55 GCU (+9.73 DS)
Kanagawa Prefecture (455 Territory): 682 GCU (+9.98 DS)
Tokyo Prefecture (675 Territory): 1012 GCU (+9.99 DS)
while under the new system ([Harvest-Territory size]/[Territory size*5]) we can gather:South (37 Territory): 55 GCU (+9.73 DS)
Kanagawa Prefecture (455 Territory): 682 GCU (+9.98 DS)
Tokyo Prefecture (675 Territory): 1012 GCU (+9.99 DS)
North (37 Territory): 1,886 GCU (+9.99 DS)
South (37 Territory): 1,886 GCU (+9.99 DS)
Kanagawa Prefecture (455 Territory): 23,193 GCU (+9.99 DS)
Tokyo Prefecture (675 Territory): 34,408 GCU (+9.99 DS)
which really doesn't seem in line with what you want to do. Of course this new system also alters the cool down time of DS so that it only drops by 0.2 DS per turn so I suppose that is balanced out. In practice though it would make overhunting so risky that we'd likely never do it.South (37 Territory): 1,886 GCU (+9.99 DS)
Kanagawa Prefecture (455 Territory): 23,193 GCU (+9.99 DS)
Tokyo Prefecture (675 Territory): 34,408 GCU (+9.99 DS)
Seems fairly reasonable take on this after the mess that was the negotiation turns with Sachiko.
Hm. I think I may have misunderstood what the option did. I thought it was determining how much each girl actually needs per month and reducing our upkeep by 5% going forwards. From what your saying here it sounds more like we'd be just tightening control on grief cube use for that one month; effectively dropping upkeep that turn.
If that's the case then @Aranfan is right and I'll remove it from the plan. Not only is that a bad message to send to our girls, new and old, it's actually a highly inefficient use of Meguca Months. A one time 5% upkeep reduction saves 8.5 GCU and costs 4 Veterans. Meanwhile those same 4 Veterans could rake in 17.6 GCU, over twice the number of GCUs.
That's some very useful information. Definitely needs to be saved somewhere. Since I can't find it listed anywhere easy can you tell me what DS levels start spawning higher tier demons like Youma?
Ah but we do have a contact who is very skilled in such areas. How much would Sachiko charge for her legal services? Even if she and her company can't directly handle it they, with her adult human members, could act as intermediators between the Serene and a company qualified to handle it.
To refresh your memory a wealthy father of one of our girls did help:
Well going over the growth of the Restaurant:
it seems you just decided to say it makes $9,000/month for no real reason. After scanning through a dozen or so of your posts it seems you just got confused at one point and started thinking $9,000/month was the base rate and no one corrected you:
Also it seems I was way off on how much we're paying on that business loan.
As I said that was a worst case scenario. Although looking at my spoilered quotes it seems the first restaurant started at half pay although I think that befitted from a great roll cutting the buildup time from 3 months to 2.
How about this; we say that a restaurant with a magic cook earns $20,000 a month and one without only suffers a 10% penalty dropping it down to $18,000 a month. We'll also say that profit builds up over the 3 month setup time. Something like:
Magical Restaurant:
Month 1: $6,000
Month 2: $13,000
Month 3: $20,000
Month 2: $13,000
Month 3: $20,000
Mundane Restaurant:
Month 1: $6,000
Month 2: $12,000
Month 3: $18,000
Such a growth pattern would fit pretty well. Both start out as new restaurants and earn about the same number of customers. Then in the second month word of the Mgaical Restaurant's better food has spread resulting in more customers. Finally in the third month the Magical Restaurant is notably better known and so the full performance difference is seen.Month 2: $12,000
Month 3: $18,000
For the loan stuff we'll say that the loan for the original restaurant had a 5.5% fixed interest rate, as per below, and we've just been making unnecessarily high repayments to try and pay down the loan. Assuming we started with $500,000 in debt, the update does mention us getting a bit more but doesn't clarify so I'll just use the base for now, then by my calculations we should be down to $411,052.89 in debt and be finished paying off the loan in Turn 78. While for the game that is a long time away, more then twice it's current life, for a property loan that is insanely fast, just 4.33 years.
Meanwhile for new restaurants with Sachiko's 4.5% interest rate means we can cut the repayments down to $10,610/month and still hit the same completion time (4.33 years). That would put Magical Restaurants at earning $9,390/month and Mundane Restaurants $7,390/month at their peaks. Alternatively if we go with a far more reasonable loan length of 30 years, and just say the first one was thanks to Mr. Ogawa not wanting his daughter's friends to be in debt forever, that drops the repayments to $2,500/month for incomes of $17,500/month for Magical Restaurants and $15,500/month for Mundane Restaurants.
Sounds quite reasonable to me. Besides interest is easier to handle then messing around with equity so it fits with reducing computational complexity.
I seriously fucked up math if it's producing results like that, let me review numbers.
It should have produced results almost identical to old system.
I fail at math like a total idiot, fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
Last edited:
You definately messed up the math because there is no way multiplying the divisor by five would give anything close to the old result.
This is the old formula:
LaTeX:
\[\Delta Demon Strength = 20 \times \frac{Hunting - Territory}{Territory}\]
LaTeX:
\[\Delta Demon Strength = \frac{Hunting - Territory}{Territory \times 5}\]
LaTeX:
\[\Delta Demon Strength = \frac{1}{5} \times \frac{Hunting - Territory}{Territory}\]
I think what you want is instead of x5 to instead have x0.05 ala:
LaTeX:
\[\Delta Demon Strength = \frac{Hunting - Territory}{Territory \times 0.05}\]
Now personally I've been using:
LaTeX:
\[\Delta Demon Strength = 20 \times (\frac{Hunting}{Territory}-1)\]
LaTeX:
\[\frac{Hunting - Territory}{Territory} = \frac{Hunting}{Territory} - \frac{Territory}{Territory}\]
Actually now that I'm thinking about it; what was the reason behind this change in formula?
Last edited:
Basically.
It's actually incorporating changes to your hunting style from before. With standard hunting you'd be working in pairs, with RT/IRT it automatically shifts to packs. (Elites being solo shifting to pairs instead.)
I seriously fucked up math if it's producing results like that, let me review numbers.
It should have produced results almost identical to old system.
I fail at math like a total idiot, should be fixed now, hopefully.
Yes that mess was one of the reasons I really wish I could recruit someone to do diplomacy for me. I'm really bad at understanding people.
I thought that the action itself was fairly clear. I might need to rephrase it somehow since you misunderstood. Essentially it's setting up a bunch of amateur counselors and having them try to assess people's emotional states so you can reduce their grief cube use to match what they need more accurately on a month to month basis rather than just issuing everyone the standard amount.
Yes, in your current situation it's highly inefficient. But when you were in the previous territory constrained state it was quite useful.
Anything above 10 you have a low chance of Youma spontaneously appearing that scales to basically certainty by 40. You do not know when you start getting Class 4 spontaneously.
Added that chart to a slide on first post.
It's possible but you'd be facing some stiff rolls on properly leveraging. Because Sachiko is of course going to have the same idea with her own money. And the normal human bankers you'd deal with as alternatives for this will still be in that supernaturally hope deprived state where they can't imagine you being successful.
Honestly it was probably an adjustment at some point.
That's because you calculated just paying the interest forever. The loan I calculated had an actual payoff date. Though having trouble remembering what the terms were supposed to be, I think it was like a 5 year payoff period.
Honestly it was completely accidental, I intended to use the same formula, wrote from memory instead of double checking. It's back to the same now.
Honestly cutting the period is probably when I mixed up the numbers.
Eh you're underestimating the difference that magical cooking makes. It's utility magic, but it's still outright magic.
1. You instantly have full knowledge of how to cook as if you had a full 5 star chef's knowledge downloaded into your brain. (This really can't be matched by the average magical girl in any reasonable time frame.)
2. If you start with the same ingredients following the same exact recipe your result is still significantly better than another person doing the same thing. Your food tastes better and is healthier. The health problems from foods that are bad for you are mitigated, and the health benefits of healthy foods are increased. (Mind you health benefits are pretty much irrelevant to magical girls as their magic will override such things.)
Abbreviated version added to the wish magic entry on first page.
Last edited:
Huh, that is quite the system for how simple it is displayed as.
I see, that makes perfect sense. Such a system would probably work better as an automatically ongoing action rather then something we activate here and there but since the number of counselors needed fluctuates with our population it's reasonable for it to be a single turn action.
I thought it was 10+ for Youma so thanks for confirming that. Given the number of Youma in Tokyo I wouldn't be surprised if Class 4s started appearing around DS 40 to 50. That would give enough time for dozens of Youma's to spawn before the Beholder appeared and slaughter the Megucas raising the DS.
I guess we'll just have to wait until the next city we rescue from disaster to make a killing in real estate.
With anything resembling a regular loan term there is little difference between paying interest forever and your actual monthly payment, at least in the first couple years. This graph:
The problem is that you used a ridiculously short loan period. No one does five year loans for things like property because it's just not worth it. The bank is risking $500,000 but on a five year loan only generates $72,595.98 in interest while on a thirty year loan they make $521,436.15 in interest. There is a reason why property loans, even for companies that can afford large repayment rates, are in the twenty to thirty year range. In fact banks will actually charge you extra if you repay a loan too fast.
Yeah I suspected 90% was a bit high but when I saw the high speed loan repayments figures resulted in 9.4k vs 7.4k for their monthly incomes I figured it was close enough. Something like 70% may work better. Here is a comparison at 70%:
Magical Restaurant:
Gross Income:
Month 1: $6,000
Month 2: $13,000
Month 3: $20,000
Month N: $20,000
Net Income (5yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: -$3,600
Month 2: $3,400
Month 3: $10,400
Month N: $10,400
Net Income (30yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: $3,160
Month 2: $10,160
Month 3: $17,160
Month N: $17,160
Month 1: $6,000
Month 2: $13,000
Month 3: $20,000
Month N: $20,000
Net Income (5yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: -$3,600
Month 2: $3,400
Month 3: $10,400
Month N: $10,400
Net Income (30yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: $3,160
Month 2: $10,160
Month 3: $17,160
Month N: $17,160
Mundane Restaurant (70%):
Gross Income:
Month 1: $4,500
Month 2: $9,500
Month 3: $14,000
Month N: $14,000
Net Income (5yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: -$5,100
Month 2: -$100
Month 3: $4,400
Month N: $4,400
Net Income (30yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: $1,660
Month 2: $6,660
Month 3: $14,000
Month N: $14,000
Month 1: $4,500
Month 2: $9,500
Month 3: $14,000
Month N: $14,000
Net Income (5yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: -$5,100
Month 2: -$100
Month 3: $4,400
Month N: $4,400
Net Income (30yr loan @ 5.5%):
Month 1: $1,660
Month 2: $6,660
Month 3: $14,000
Month N: $14,000
What do you think about those numbers?
Last edited:
It's simplifying a massively complex system.
Actions can be moved from single turn to continuous at player discretion simply by keeping it on the sheet.
I'm aware of the nature of interest outweighing principle in many cases. Though I hadn't heard of banks charging extra for repaying a loan too fast.With anything resembling a regular loan term there is little difference between paying interest forever and your actual monthly payment, at least in the first couple years. This graph:
The problem is that you used a ridiculously short loan period. No one does five year loans for things like property because it's just not worth it. The bank is risking $500,000 but on a five year loan only generates $72,595.98 in interest while on a thirty year loan they make $521,436.15 in interest. There is a reason why property loans, even for companies that can afford large repayment rates, are in the twenty to thirty year range. In fact banks will actually charge you extra if you repay a loan too fast.
At the time a 5 year loan for a business loan seemed to make sense to me. I'm aware mortgages are more typically 30 years.
I'm wondering what "Month N" stands for and why it's the same as Month 3 in every case except the last one.
Hmm a 30 year loan would allow you to make significantly more money that I'd have to somehow compensate for in balancing.
Though then again I'd been planning to start a gradual increase to your monetary and cube expenses to represent some of your girls graduating high school. The cube expenses from needing to spend magic on disguising lack of aging beginning to be rather obvious in many cases. The money because your expenses simply should rise as girls become adults.
It's not that common place because most people can't afford to but it does happen.
From the perspective of the SIMP paying off in five years makes perfect sense. As I showed by comparing how much interest the banks get we'd saving over four hundred grand long term. Personally I suggest blaming Mr. Ogawa and saying he managed an extreamly good deal because he was willing to act as guarantor or something.
Anyway you might be wondering why companies accept thirty year loans knowing it will cost them significantly more. The answer is that the logic that governs the corporate world is different to that of the household world. This is because while it doesn't really matter much on the personal level on the corporate level the time value of money is important. So it's better to make the minimum repayments for thirty years on a loan then repay it ASAP because that money can be better used making more money. What's more all that interest isn't that big a deal for companies because interest, at least in Australia since I haven't studied international tax laws, is tax deductible.
With the way the SIMP is growing they could honestly benefit from this sort of business thinking, at least for their financial department, but there aren't too many teenage girls who study business, especially in Japan, and even then a lot of this is university level stuff.
It's to show that after the third month the income remains, at least from what we've seen so far, constant for effectively forever. It's different on the last one due to me failing at copy and pasting. I've since fixed that.
For those girls old enough to be graduating high school they shouldn't need cubes to disguise their age. The right clothes, mature attitude (which most our girls definitely have), and some subtle makeup are enough for most teens to look in their twenties. The real problem is our younger members, like Yuma, who should be growing noticeably taller.
Taking Yuma as an example; she was one of our founding members and was just eight years old. Now she should be ten going on eleven. In that time your average girl, US because numbers for Japanese girls are almost certainly in Japanese, grows ~18cm. That is a very noticeable height growth. Especially since in Japan they regularly measure the heights of kids in school. Not growing 1cm over three years is suspicious as hell.
As for money; adults tend to spend more money because they are generally moving out of their parent's homes and have to start paying all the expenses associated with living on your own. We've already been paying that since the beginning so we shouldn't see much of a raise there.
No a bigger problem for us should be our freshly adult girls being pressured to move out. So far we've been acting as if half our population still lived with their parents, a reasonable assumption given our demographics, but as our girls age more and more of them are going to move out of their family homes and we'll need to provide housing.
Then of course there is schooling. While they've graduate high school I'm sure a lot of our girls would like the chance to go onto university and that is something we should provide if at all possible. Fortunately Japanese universities are nowhere near as expensive as US ones with even top tier stuff like Todai only clocking in at ~$350 a month. That said even a "low" price like that will add up fast.
Yeah... and how does my proposed modification not achieve that goal? It's a way to make the higher risk = more cubes/territory thing stay there.
In fact, under the original system, if you don't have RT, there is literally no reason to hint above 0 DS since it takes the same amount to go up as it does to go down- this is in seeming contradiction to how most groups operated, there should've pretty quickly been PvP groups that force all of their territory to DS 0.
That proposed modification (DS*0.5-15 instead of DS-20) provides the same "higher risk = more cubes", and makes it apply even without RT having been researched. You'll need to check the balance to make sure that IRT vs. RT still gives more cubes/territory, but aside from that it seems to hit your stated design goals.
Have you removed the "hunting greens level to vet faster" then? (I think there was something like that at least...) It seems strange to make greens hunting a completely nonviable option.
Except they'd have still mostly had their ages halted years before.
Indeed.
Your expenses in general have been far lower than they really should have been because of that abstraction. As time goes on it will climb significantly.
No it really isn't. I could use your modification to get massively more cubes.
Which is why it's not happening.
If you take your proposed modification. For groups that push it to something like DS 20 then they're automatically getting more cubes than you do per month in a sustainable fashion than your IRT. Each month it would drop to -5 even. So they could get 225% returns every month forever without any RT. Honestly at this point I'm thinking you're being actively deceitful in an effort to push through a formula that would vastly increase profits.
DS20 without the 10 point penalty for IRT is actually quite feasible to get enough casualty reduction to make safe. If you have the elites to dogpile any youma immediately it's safe on that front too.
There isn't one inherent to a single group operating in a vacuum based off what you have. However groups don't operate in a vacuum. There's always an advantage to be gained by poaching other people's territory for their cubes driving up their DS and making things harder on them.
It was always completely nonviable for greens to hunt at high DS. And negative territories are intentionally a non-optimal arrangement. There's also essentially no way you can set things in which using greens to rotating tactics overhunt a negative territory is actually the optimal scenario. It's a trap option in the first place which is why it's eliminated.
Greens can still hunt, just not with IRT.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but... your math is objectively incorrect. Under that proposal, a 20 DS territory would have a 25% increase in sustainable cube harvest compared to the current territory system. I literally have no clue where you're getting your numbers from.
Currently: Take DS, subtract 20, then add hunting.
Proposed: Divide DS by 2, subtract 15, then add hunting.
If DS is below 10, this means less cubes sustainably harvested. If DS is above 10, every 10 DS is equivalent to 25% extra territory.
I guess this is where I claim you're being purposefully ignorant/misunderstanding? Yes, each month it would drop to -5 instead of dropping to 0, but that's because DS 20 is freaking high. That means that an untrained and unequipped vet doing pack hunting has a 25% chance of death every month.
edit: Unless you're somehow confused and think I mean divide by 2, subtract 35 in which case... please try to read I guess? This would be replace, not add. Maybe go and re-read UberJJK's 2nd-to-last formula from here and/or review your basic algebra?
edit2: For us this would actually almost certainly be a nerf. So maybe I should stop trying to help you and just exploit the system once you have it set.
I guess this is another part where I claim you're being purposefully ignorant/misunderstanding? I literally never claimed anything similar to what you're refuting here. Greens would only ever be hunting in medium-to-low DS territories, or even in negative-DS territories as I was mentioning.
What? You're not making any sense. We never used the option previously, but we totally could've- it just isn't territory efficient or meguca-month efficient, unless you have an excess of greens. (edit3: or don't have RT researched, in which case it's territory efficient)
IRT would be used in negative DS territories, and done such that DS effectively doesn't change (or increases by ~0.1 since it needed to be positive) and thus we're trying to get as many greens in there as we can.
If we're not doing boom-bust RT like we have been doing, then there really isn't any significant penalty to operating in negative DS territory- in fact, there's noticeable benefits in that it has a lower casualty chance and no other penalties. (edit3: Up to -10 DS at least)
edit2: Heck, this is like 100% the reason why you added the 1/4 multiplier to negative DS, to make this less viable.
Last edited:
- Location
- Head in the clouds
Um, there is to the human population. Anything below -10 starts to have noticeable side effects it seems.
Right, sorry, I should've said down to -10, but @inverted_helix was claiming that even -1 was completely nonviable.
Right. I'd completely forgotten while writing that bit but last turn was the third anniversary of the SIMP's founding. So most graduates would be physically three years younger then their peers.
That being said women generally stop growing around fifteen and in some cases it can be as young as ten. Now their body still continues to develop in various ways but they don't physically grow any bigger. Which is good since height is probably the hardest thing to cover up without magic.
Yes I imagine more and more of our girls moving into SIMP housing would significantly drive up our expenses since we'd be responsbile for housing, feeding, clothing them, ect.
May I ask how you got those numbers? I'm only getting 125% returns sustainably using notgreat's system using normal hunting.
So just to be clear you are suggesting going from:
LaTeX:
\[New Demon Strength = Old Demon Strength + 20 \times (\frac{Hunting}{Territory}-1)\]
LaTeX:
\[New Demon Strength = \frac{Old Demon Strength}{2} + 20 \times (\frac{Hunting}{Territory}-0.75)\]
This is actually the greatest problem with your proposed system; it nerfs us but in the wrong ways. Under the new system hunting without IRT gives better yields then hunting with it. Using a 40 Territory location you can sustainably harvest 49 GCU/month with 9.5 DS. Meanwhile with IRT the best I've been able to squeeze out is an average of 45 GCU/month. Well technically you can get an amazing 75 GCU/month but it requires raising the DS above 10, specifically up to 30, at which point Youma start forming.
Making IRT less effective at squeezing cubes out of a territory then regular hunting is a highly undesirable behavior.
Correct. Note that this change would also require some rebalancing of the chart, since as you noticed it changes the incentive structure for IRT rather drastically. The easiest way IMO would be to make IRT safer but give even less cubes, but there are plenty of possibilities by buffing the alternatives or other systematic changes.
And actually, IIRC under the previous hunting system IRT actually was worth slightly less than RT until we got a few more casualty reduction%.
Edit: It had been brought up before that one of IRT's main advantages is that it effectively eliminates class 3 production.
Last edited:
I think you might be missing the big problem here; under your new system IRT, and by extension RT, produces less cubes then normal hunting so long as you are staying under 10 DS, which almost everyone does. This negates the entire reason RT/IRT was invented and would require massive retcons since we traded it away to other groups saying RT/IRT would increase their yields.
We could probably mess with the numbers on RT/IRT, such as increasing the reduction in DS growth on them, or your formula until this problem goes away but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
Earlier on you said:
except that's exactly what happens. No one intentionally raises their territory above 0 DS. The only places we see with high DS are areas where no one group has complete control so there is significant amounts of poaching going on.
If you use the chart that's false. RT gives less cubes/meguca, normal hunting gives less cubes/territory. It's a tradeoff. Admittedly this wouldn't work very well given the full older system, but with the more limited chart system I think it makes sense. This allows us to fully replace the "RT only works if it would raise DS" thing which I found kinda awkward. (though this would likely require some rebalancing)
Well, we clearly do with our RT tactics, but that's being pedantic. Still, wouldn't it make sense that even without RT more intensive hunting increases cubes/territory? Under the old system it doesn't make any sense to hunt above 0 DS, if your territory is leaky enough to get much above ~10 DS then you might as well just give up and not try to claim it as 'territory' since there's no benefit. (Alternatively, they just don't have the statisticians to figure this out and the Incubators aren't offering)
I think you are misunderstanding me. When hunted to full capacity under your DS formula you get less cubes overall, average of 45 GCU/month, from using IRT to overhunt, and probably even less from RT, then if you just hunted sustainably at ~9 DS. In other words under your new system normal hunting would give more cubes per meguca and per territory.
As for your final bit; I don't see why you would find that awkward at all. RT/IRT is all about limiting DS growth by forcing the demons to become hyper adapt to one specific tactic then rotating onto the next tactic. Of course that doesn't work when the DS is dropping since that represents the demons devolving and thus they aren't going to be evolving immunity to one specific tactic.
More intensive hunting does increase the cubes you get per territory. It's just that after a while it makes hunting less and less effective until you can no longer hunt the area at all. It's basically a sped up version of what happens with slash-and-burn farming.
The latter part definitely applies. The SIMP is, or rather was before we started sharing the data/techniques, in how accurately we track DS. Look back at the first couple updates; it wasn't until Turn 3 we even started tracking DS and until Turn 10 it was limited to vagaries like "Below Average", "Above Average", and "Strong".
Incidentally holy shit we hit DS 18 back during Turn 10. If we'd gotten unlucky and spawned a Youma that could have been game over for us.
As for the first part; very few groups are willing to accept strange meguca like us, or at least without strict requirements, so for most moving isn't really an option even without considering their civilian lives. There is also something we've both not considered that would make raising the DS reasonable; emergency supply. Sometimes you need a bunch of grief cubes right now so you over hunt and "payback" those cubes later (IE: let the DS fall by under hunting) when you can afford to.
I claim that the problem is that people have already voted and UberJJK's plan won by a landslide. Unless a system change comes along that invalidates it, we're waiting on the update.
In addition, we're arguing systems, basically game design. Which isn't really what most people come to a quest for. If @inverted_helix wants I'll just shut up and use the system as it's given, it's been defined enough that we can definitely continue, I just see some issues that I think would make it nicer to deal with.
----
Ok, looking back at the discussion I don't think I made my position clear enough, so I'm going to try to restate it in full, as the set of differences compared to the current system that @inverted_helix is using as of the chart on the previous page. There have been two proposals that have gotten mixed together here: only 1) below, and all 3 listed below.
1) The DS rules change: changing from a system of -20+hunting to *0.5-15+hunting.
2) Making RT, IRT, etc be applied at any hunting levels, including negative. This would also allow for mixed groups so that, say, elites can IRT and vets RT which were disallowed under the old system and still seem to be under @inverted_helix's new one.
3) A rebalancing of the numbers, either reducing our territory or making RT and IRT less efficient since they now still apply below the first 20 DS we add. This would also likely coincide with making IRT give less cubes to further separate it from RT, since right now IRT is mostly strictly inferior.
edit: 4) (optional) make it so that instead of casualties being calculated at exactly the 1/2 point, it forms the expected linear progression, such that if any amount of hunting is done over the DS limit there is some casualty%. This will massively reduce the amount of DS we can safely harvest in a non-steady system. This also nicely makes it so that the numbers don't have to change much to still be reasonable, since right now we can harvest straight from 0 to 20 then back to 0 even if we only have protection up to 10.
The purpose of doing all 3 of these:
1) Simplify plans such that steady-state (+/- 1) makes sense rather than needing a constantly-adjusted crop rotation.
2) Simplify math by making it so that the direct calculation of DS is easier to do via elementary school arithmetic, while still leaving complexity in the strategy layer.
3) If we presume that other groups are as restricted as we are, then this provides other groups with an incentive to hunt above 0 DS despite not having researched RT.
Alternatively, applying only 1) would also work, and has also been discussed above. This would provide some of the benefits, but would still leave a lot of the complexity.
One of us is definitely misunderstanding the other. Due to the chart system, that specific claim is false. IRT would require a rebalancing (as mentioned), but RT is better in terms of cubes/territory for casualty% at the cost of lower cubes/megucamonth. It's a fairly direct tradeoff if you look at the chart.
Under the old system (if you didn't have any RT), you always got a flat 1 cube/territorymonth, with a buffer in the form of DS which always had to be paid back in full. Note that I specified cubes/territory, technically you can hunt as many cubes from a single territory as you want as long as you can deal with the DS. The only exception is rounding errors, but those are generally too small to be of any major consequence.
Last edited:
Honestly at this point I am really frustrated with notgreat because he's being purposefully obtuse.
His proposed change not only increases the yield anyone can get at any level, it also makes RT/IRT completely and utterly worthless with them actually being worse than just normally hunting.
The math you have is actually significantly more complex.
There's no need for that incentive.
Honestly I'm leaning towards just calling the quest over at this point. The argument with notgreat is tremendously frustrating. Interest in the quest is at an all time low (still no omakes for instance). Quite honestly my own interest in continuing it isn't that great. And this is a decent point to just call it over.
His proposed change not only increases the yield anyone can get at any level, it also makes RT/IRT completely and utterly worthless with them actually being worse than just normally hunting.
Crop rotation was the entire damn point of RT in the first place.
The math you have is actually significantly more complex.
There's no need for that incentive.
Yeah I noticed that too. I'm not even sure it's worth the effort at this point to continue.
Honestly I'm leaning towards just calling the quest over at this point. The argument with notgreat is tremendously frustrating. Interest in the quest is at an all time low (still no omakes for instance). Quite honestly my own interest in continuing it isn't that great. And this is a decent point to just call it over.
Last edited: