Ecological Damage Question - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Ecological Damage Question

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Ecological Damage Question

Urban Ranger posted 05-07-99 10:10 PM ET
There's an equation in the online help (Advanced Concepts -> Ecology (Advanced)) that is supposedly the one used to compute the ecology damage:
Ecology% = (ValuefromStep10)*Difficulty*Technologies*(3-Planet)*Life/300
My question is, does this mean that, when the Planet rating reaches 3, i.e., Gaians with the Green SE, there's no ecological damage? This is obvious incorrect, since I played the Gaians with Green before and still get lots of damage.
So does anybody know the correct equation?
G e o r g e r i f i c posted 05-07-99 10:14 PM ET
I've read that a planet rating over 2 will be counted as 2 in the formula. That seems to make sense, since otherwise you'd have negative eco-damage
Urban Ranger posted 05-07-99 10:18 PM ET
Hmm... how do you get a Planet rating higher than 3?
JAMiAM posted 05-08-99 12:07 AM ET
Urban Ranger,
Green Economics yields a +2, and Cybernetic Future society gives a +2. So +4 base before faction modifiers are taken into effect.
JAMiAM
PhysicsMan posted 05-09-99 06:01 PM ET
Urban Ranger
This topic has appeared numerous times since SMAC was released. You would be wise not to consult the datalinks, manual, or strategy guide regarding any of the equations used in the game. Most of them are incorrect. The prevailing theory is Firaxis modified the equations to balance gameplay and neglected to note these changes anywhere. I have been in search of the answer to the ecodamage equation for months. If you ever find the answer, PLEASE POST IT !!!
re Georgerific
Though possible the PLANET value in the equation has a maximum value of 2, there are other discrepencies that are not so easily accounted for. Firaxis did some major tampering with the equations and refuses to divulge this imformation to the masses. Good Luck in finding the answer.
PhysicsMan posted 05-09-99 06:02 PM ET
Urban Ranger
This topic has appeared numerous times since SMAC was released. You would be wise not to consult the datalinks, manual, or strategy guide regarding any of the equations used in the game. Most of them are incorrect. The prevailing theory is Firaxis modified the equations to balance gameplay and neglected to note these changes anywhere. I have been in search of the answer to the ecodamage equation for months. If you ever find the answer, PLEASE POST IT !!!
re Georgerific
Though possible the PLANET value in the equation has a maximum value of 2, there are other discrepencies that are not so easily accounted for. Firaxis did some major tampering with the equations and refuses to divulge this imformation to the masses. Good Luck in finding the answer.
Va1en posted 05-09-99 06:09 PM ET
Maybe Firaxis could fix that problem.
It is like having a 1999 encyclopedia lising computers as a room-sized adding machine.
Anyone else get the sense that Firaxis rushed SMAC out the door after it seemed to work a few times?
cousLee posted 05-09-99 06:14 PM ET
keep in mind, there are 2 formulas used in eco damage. 1 is Terraforming done, the other is mineral output. A tree farm and hybrid forest eliminates eco damage done by farms, solar collectors mines and roads. The minerals received from these Still cause eco damage. example: rocky terrain, the "mine" causes damage, and the minerals is produces also causes damage. Forests help reduce ED caused by the act of terraforming, but do contribute to damage caused by mineral production. As far as i can tell, the planet rating affects the damage conversion numbers, not the actual damage itself. (eco damage minus planet % = total damage). if this is incorrect, Firaxis can correct me. Otherwise, this is how I view it.
Submachinegun posted 05-09-99 08:44 PM ET
Va1en: maybe Electronic Arts put pressure on Firaxis to get the game out as fast as possible.
After all, Sid & Co. seems like a thorough bunch, but when these mega-corporations
find out how much money further delay of shipping is costing them...
It's not like it would be the first time. Anyone tried Frontier: First Encounters?
Daggerfall?
Xerxes314 posted 05-09-99 09:10 PM ET
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the formula for ecodamage being a 6-step monstrosity that resembles my tax forms. Where did you get that silly little one-liner?
cousLee posted 05-09-99 09:20 PM ET
I was only trying to be brief about it. The montrosity is how the ED is calculated, where exactly the planet rating fits in, I would have to check, but I believe it is at the end. The POINT of the post, is that there is more than 1 factor that fits in to eco damage, and planet rating and forests only address part of it. damage caused by mineral output can not be reduced (other than producing less minerals). The lead question was if you had a planet +3, how come you still get eco damage. hence the silly one liner: ED - Planet rating = total ED. If you can offer a better explaination, be my guest. OK?
PhysicsMan posted 05-12-99 01:36 AM ET
CousLee
According to the datalinks and the strategy guide, there is only ONE single equation (with several steps) for the calculation of ecodamage. Ecodamage caused by mineral output, terraforming, atrocities committed, technologies discovered, etc. is all included in the one equation. Therefore, ecodamage%, as calculated by the published equation, should equal 0 if the PLANET rating is +3 or higher.
The bottom line is Firaxis modified the equation and failed to document the changes.
If Firaxis ever publishes the actual ecodamage equation, PLEASE POST
Smeagol posted 05-12-99 01:44 AM ET
Isn't it also possible that what Georgerific said was the answer? The equation might be valid, with anything higher than +2 counting as +2.
Smeagol posted 05-12-99 01:47 AM ET
BTW, Physicsman-- I am wondering what makes you "Physicsman." Just curious...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Ecological Damage Question
Urban Ranger	posted 05-07-99 10:10 PM ET There's an equation in the online help (Advanced Concepts -> Ecology (Advanced)) that is supposedly the one used to compute the ecology damage: Ecology% = (ValuefromStep10)DifficultyTechnologies(3-Planet)Life/300 My question is, does this mean that, when the Planet rating reaches 3, i.e., Gaians with the Green SE, there's no ecological damage? This is obvious incorrect, since I played the Gaians with Green before and still get lots of damage. So does anybody know the correct equation?
G e o r g e r i f i c	posted 05-07-99 10:14 PM ET I've read that a planet rating over 2 will be counted as 2 in the formula. That seems to make sense, since otherwise you'd have negative eco-damage
Urban Ranger	posted 05-07-99 10:18 PM ET Hmm... how do you get a Planet rating higher than 3?
JAMiAM	posted 05-08-99 12:07 AM ET Urban Ranger, Green Economics yields a +2, and Cybernetic Future society gives a +2. So +4 base before faction modifiers are taken into effect. JAMiAM
PhysicsMan	posted 05-09-99 06:01 PM ET Urban Ranger This topic has appeared numerous times since SMAC was released. You would be wise not to consult the datalinks, manual, or strategy guide regarding any of the equations used in the game. Most of them are incorrect. The prevailing theory is Firaxis modified the equations to balance gameplay and neglected to note these changes anywhere. I have been in search of the answer to the ecodamage equation for months. If you ever find the answer, PLEASE POST IT !!! re Georgerific Though possible the PLANET value in the equation has a maximum value of 2, there are other discrepencies that are not so easily accounted for. Firaxis did some major tampering with the equations and refuses to divulge this imformation to the masses. Good Luck in finding the answer.
PhysicsMan	posted 05-09-99 06:02 PM ET Urban Ranger This topic has appeared numerous times since SMAC was released. You would be wise not to consult the datalinks, manual, or strategy guide regarding any of the equations used in the game. Most of them are incorrect. The prevailing theory is Firaxis modified the equations to balance gameplay and neglected to note these changes anywhere. I have been in search of the answer to the ecodamage equation for months. If you ever find the answer, PLEASE POST IT !!! re Georgerific Though possible the PLANET value in the equation has a maximum value of 2, there are other discrepencies that are not so easily accounted for. Firaxis did some major tampering with the equations and refuses to divulge this imformation to the masses. Good Luck in finding the answer.
Va1en	posted 05-09-99 06:09 PM ET Maybe Firaxis could fix that problem. It is like having a 1999 encyclopedia lising computers as a room-sized adding machine. Anyone else get the sense that Firaxis rushed SMAC out the door after it seemed to work a few times?
cousLee	posted 05-09-99 06:14 PM ET keep in mind, there are 2 formulas used in eco damage. 1 is Terraforming done, the other is mineral output. A tree farm and hybrid forest eliminates eco damage done by farms, solar collectors mines and roads. The minerals received from these Still cause eco damage. example: rocky terrain, the "mine" causes damage, and the minerals is produces also causes damage. Forests help reduce ED caused by the act of terraforming, but do contribute to damage caused by mineral production. As far as i can tell, the planet rating affects the damage conversion numbers, not the actual damage itself. (eco damage minus planet % = total damage). if this is incorrect, Firaxis can correct me. Otherwise, this is how I view it.
Submachinegun	posted 05-09-99 08:44 PM ET Va1en: maybe Electronic Arts put pressure on Firaxis to get the game out as fast as possible. After all, Sid & Co. seems like a thorough bunch, but when these mega-corporations find out how much money further delay of shipping is costing them... It's not like it would be the first time. Anyone tried Frontier: First Encounters? Daggerfall?
Xerxes314	posted 05-09-99 09:10 PM ET Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall the formula for ecodamage being a 6-step monstrosity that resembles my tax forms. Where did you get that silly little one-liner?
cousLee	posted 05-09-99 09:20 PM ET I was only trying to be brief about it. The montrosity is how the ED is calculated, where exactly the planet rating fits in, I would have to check, but I believe it is at the end. The POINT of the post, is that there is more than 1 factor that fits in to eco damage, and planet rating and forests only address part of it. damage caused by mineral output can not be reduced (other than producing less minerals). The lead question was if you had a planet +3, how come you still get eco damage. hence the silly one liner: ED - Planet rating = total ED. If you can offer a better explaination, be my guest. OK?
PhysicsMan	posted 05-12-99 01:36 AM ET CousLee According to the datalinks and the strategy guide, there is only ONE single equation (with several steps) for the calculation of ecodamage. Ecodamage caused by mineral output, terraforming, atrocities committed, technologies discovered, etc. is all included in the one equation. Therefore, ecodamage%, as calculated by the published equation, should equal 0 if the PLANET rating is +3 or higher. The bottom line is Firaxis modified the equation and failed to document the changes. If Firaxis ever publishes the actual ecodamage equation, PLEASE POST
Smeagol	posted 05-12-99 01:44 AM ET Isn't it also possible that what Georgerific said was the answer? The equation might be valid, with anything higher than +2 counting as +2.
Smeagol	posted 05-12-99 01:47 AM ET BTW, Physicsman-- I am wondering what makes you "Physicsman." Just curious...