It is important to note that this food rebalancing is not just an attempt to balance food. It is something that has been percolating on and off for months. It was enabled by Tom's implementation of the new dynamic map, and all the features and stats it allows us to generate. It does not solely focus on food, but on gold as well. It is also not simply a balancing, but a complete recalculation of both gold and food. We use procedural methods to derive the new values from the actual characteristics of the region, and not just pull numbers out of a hat. Anaris and ban have done a *lot* of work on it the past few days.
While this has been something that has been floating around for a while, the recent debates have brought it to the front. It is also important to note that this will affect all islands and all regions.
Quote from: Indirik on March 09, 2013, 09:29:21 PM
It is important to note that this food rebalancing is not just an attempt to balance food. It is something that has been percolating on and off for months. It was enabled by Tom's implementation of the new dynamic map, and all the features and stats it allows us to generate. It does not solely focus on food, but on gold as well. It is also not simply a balancing, but a complete recalculation of both gold and food. We use procedural methods to derive the new values from the actual characteristics of the region, and not just pull numbers out of a hat. Anaris and ban have done a *lot* of work on it the past few days.
While this has been something that has been floating around for a while, the recent debates have brought it to the front. It is also important to note that this will affect all islands and all regions.
Does that mean there will be no food shortages anymore? Will gold gain go down or up?
Quote from: MediumTedium on March 10, 2013, 12:07:23 AM
Does that mean there will be no food shortages anymore? Will gold gain go down or up?
What it means is that the continents will be more standardized. It means that the gold and food values will be based more on formulas taken from actual region stats.
Gold and food will go both up and down if what I saw is correct. It will all depend upon where you are and what regions. I assume this is very similar to the region rebalances that we've seen before, except based upon new formula calculated values.
I'm not on the Dev Team though, so they can correct me if I'm wrong.
None of the numbers are finalized yet. We are going into this with the goals of making things more sensible and more fun.
Overall, it looks likely that total food and gold production will go up somewhat. This doesn't mean that everyone's food and gold will go up: some regions will go down, others up, but the net result will be slightly higher overall for both.
Indeed, one of the problems we've been fighting somewhat is that occasionally, the equations produced values of 0 food for certain regions ;D
Quote from: Anaris on March 10, 2013, 12:19:16 AM
Indeed, one of the problems we've been fighting somewhat is that occasionally, the equations produced values of 0 food for certain regions ;D
Is that a problem? I could see certain mountain type regions or perhaps certain cities or strongholds not producing any food.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on March 10, 2013, 12:25:51 AM
Is that a problem? I could see certain mountain type regions or perhaps certain cities or strongholds not producing any food.
No; even if it's hunting for rats in the cellar, we'd prefer if every region produced at least a little food.
(Some were even coming in negative...)
Okay, I see how that can be an issue.
Can't you just restrict the values to have an absolute minimum? I don't know what sort of programming structure it would have but something as simple as: y = 5 + x, where {x:x=>0} and x is the function by which you determine food production?
Edit: Alternatively, could have an if/then statement sort of modifier.
x = formula for food production
y = food produced.
If x > 0,
z = x,
else
z = 0
end
y = 5 + z
We have tried to be more dynamic than that. If it turned out that something was too out of line, then we looked for a different way to calculate things, or changed the shape of the curve.
All of this was enabled by Tom's latest dynamic map, and the region borders we drew. This let us calculate things like population density, length of coastline, percentage of coastline, and other such interesting things. The only arbitrary thing defined for a region is the max population. All the rest is procedurally derived from the actual properties of the region. It's pretty cool.
Quote from: Indirik on March 10, 2013, 12:54:31 AM
The only arbitrary thing defined for a region is the max population. All the rest is procedurally derived from the actual properties of the region. It's pretty cool.
You did a pop rebalance in the past, nothing would prevent you from setting a standardized max pop, according to size of region and region type. You'd need a few different city "types", but it could work rather well. If you wish for max pop to also be procedurally derived.
Reworking max pop is not something we're looking at right now unless there is a very specific reason a region would need to be modified.
So when will this happen? Next month?
ban is working as quickly as he can, and Anaris is helping as well, making some good tools to help with it. It may or may not make it this month. We still have to run the end results past Tom for approval. I'm sure these will be warning iin time for people to be prepared.
Quote from: Indirik on March 10, 2013, 02:09:25 AM
ban is working as quickly as he can, and Anaris is helping as well, making some good tools to help with it. It may or may not make it this month. We still have to run the end results past Tom for approval. I'm sure these will be warning iin time for people to be prepared.
I'm not going to apply any rebalance results without significant advance warning.
Quote from: Indirik on March 10, 2013, 01:35:48 AM
Reworking max pop is not something we're looking at right now unless there is a very specific reason a region would need to be modified.
Would it surprise you if I asked that you decrease the size of Golden Farrow? ;)
Not really. But so far, it's still a pretty sweet city.
I'm jealous.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 10, 2013, 03:48:33 AM
Would it surprise you if I asked that you decrease the size of Golden Farrow? ;)
Income along with it ;)
Would it surprise you if my knights would make more gold than me if it weren't for the 10% I take from their taxes?
Efficiency is best when knights earn slightly more than the lord.
Quote from: Charles on March 10, 2013, 04:52:33 AM
Efficiency is best when knights earn slightly more than the lord.
Once their efficiency is good you tax your knights for 50% ;)
Quote from: Zaki on March 10, 2013, 05:05:28 AM
Once their efficiency is good you tax your knights for 50% ;)
So they leave?
Ya, that's a terrible idea.
They really leave? I tax my knights for 50% in all my regions and they seem to stick around.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 10, 2013, 03:58:39 AM
Would it surprise you if my knights would make more gold than me if it weren't for the 10% I take from their taxes?
No, because:
Quote from: Charles on March 10, 2013, 04:52:33 AM
Efficiency is best when knights earn slightly more than the lord.
Quote from: Anaris on March 10, 2013, 12:19:16 AM
None of the numbers are finalized yet. We are going into this with the goals of making things more sensible and more fun.
Overall, it looks likely that total food and gold production will go up somewhat. This doesn't mean that everyone's food and gold will go up: some regions will go down, others up, but the net result will be slightly higher overall for both.
Indeed, one of the problems we've been fighting somewhat is that occasionally, the equations produced values of 0 food for certain regions ;D
Actually, it's more likely that the net food produced for every island -- except Dwilight -- will be reduced.
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on March 10, 2013, 03:58:39 AM
Would it surprise you if my knights would make more gold than me if it weren't for the 10% I take from their taxes?
The tax system is there to be used. It seems perfectly normal to me.
Quote from: Indirik on March 10, 2013, 12:54:31 AM
We have tried to be more dynamic than that. If it turned out that something was too out of line, then we looked for a different way to calculate things, or changed the shape of the curve.
Okay, I just wanted to offer a suggestion. If it turned out that you really liked your formula under most circumstances, there are always ways to make a slight adjustment for negative outliers such as these mentioned.
Quote from: Zaki on March 10, 2013, 05:39:25 AM
They really leave? I tax my knights for 50% in all my regions and they seem to stick around.
I would leave if my lord wasn't providing me with a reasonable tax share. I tax my knights at 15%, and am about to drop it to 10%.
The idea imo, is to encourage knights to come to my region, not encourage them to leave. I want my knights to have as much gold as possible, so they become loyal knights. I don't need gold, I need knights. They are more important in general both for me and my realm.
Quote from: Dante Silverfire on March 10, 2013, 08:31:08 PM
I would leave if my lord wasn't providing me with a reasonable tax share. I tax my knights at 15%, and am about to drop it to 10%.
The idea imo, is to encourage knights to come to my region, not encourage them to leave. I want my knights to have as much gold as possible, so they become loyal knights. I don't need gold, I need knights. They are more important in general both for me and my realm.
Personally I think arguing that taxing a certain percentage is bad, that just means the other person is greedy. It shouldn't be about how much you could receive but how much you are receiving, IMO. (That is not supposed to be an insult if it sounded like one.)
Meh. My knights aren't complaining. They all get at least 100 gold. They don't need that much gold anyway. If they want gold for military reasons, they can get enough gold from their marshals. That is what a military fund is for. I don't play as a loyal knight because my lord pays me a lot. Getting 50 gold per week is perfectly fine as long as the lord interact with me often.
Quote from: Penchant on March 10, 2013, 08:56:39 PM
Personally I think arguing that taxing a certain percentage is bad, that just means the other person is greedy. It shouldn't be about how much you could receive but how much you are receiving, IMO. (That is not supposed to be an insult if it sounded like one.)
No that makes sense. The percentage itself really doesn't matter. It is more efficient to tax a higher percentage and give knights more prior to the tax.
And nothing wrong with being greedy. Some people are greedy for gold, some are greedy for knights. I'm the latter. It's a direct trade off sometimes. Sometimes you get both. But this is getting off topic, I think.
--------
Back on topic:
Just wondering, is it possible to get an idea of what all types of values have been able to be drawn from the game. I think this is really cool to establish a formula that bases its results purely off in-game established values with the exception of max pop. (Which I'm fine being arbitrary). I know some were mentioned earlier in the thread. Of particular interest was the mention of things like length of coast line.
I would guess then that coastlines have a positive benefit on income, due to increased trade and fishing economy? Or perhaps coastlines increase food production due to access to water, or perhaps that is just rivers.
We use things like region type, location, presence and type of coastline, percentage of coastline, and I think a couple other things, to allocate population to different sectors of the economy. This determines what percentage of the population does each different thing, such as mining, farming, fishing, hunting, manufacturing, trade, etc. This is modified by quality of that sector for that type. I.e. you can farm in a badlands, but it's not very effective. Fishing in the ocean is great, and better than fishing on a river. The food and gold income from each sector is then calculated. So you can get both food and gold from, say, hunting. But mining only brings in gold. Some of these are further modified by other things, such as population density. Adding together the food and gold produced by all the sectors gives you the final food and gold values for the region.
If we ever do introduce other goods, such as wood and stone, this gives us an easy way to determine which regions produce how much of each, as we already know how many peasants work each sector, and how good that sector is in that region.
Okay, that is awesome.
Quote from: Indirik on March 11, 2013, 01:32:37 AM
We use things like region type, location, presence and type of coastline, percentage of coastline, and I think a couple other things, to allocate population to different sectors of the economy. This determines what percentage of the population does each different thing, such as mining, farming, fishing, hunting, manufacturing, trade, etc. This is modified by quality of that sector for that type. I.e. you can farm in a badlands, but it's not very effective. Fishing in the ocean is great, and better than fishing on a river. The food and gold income from each sector is then calculated. So you can get both food and gold from, say, hunting. But mining only brings in gold. Some of these are further modified by other things, such as population density. Adding together the food and gold produced by all the sectors gives you the final food and gold values for the region.
If we ever do introduce other goods, such as wood and stone, this gives us an easy way to determine which regions produce how much of each, as we already know how many peasants work each sector, and how good that sector is in that region.
Do you take into account things like demand from nearby regions and/or trade routes?
For example, a city, as a manufacturing center, will have a high net demand for raw materials such as ore and timber. If there is a river that runs near the city, then foresting and mining sectors upstream from that city would have a tendency to be the most developed and most productive since the river affords them a huge advantage in getting their goods to the city for much less cost than competing sectors that have to ship overland.
I recognize that that might be a (big) step further than you've bothered to go, I was just curious about the extent of your modeling.
Regions with coast are assumed to have a larger trade sector employing more of th region's population, and thus get more gold from that sector. Also, they will generate more food due to fishing. Of course that pulls workers from other sectors, such as manufacturing, lumber, mining, etc., which will therefore earn less in that sector. The type of coast determines the magnitude of this effect, and the profitability of it.
Quote from: Geronus on March 21, 2013, 10:14:38 PM
Do you take into account things like demand from nearby regions and/or trade routes?
To answer this question directly and plainly:
No. All values are calculated from the region itself.
I'm assuming existing realms are not beng taken into consideration? So while the entire island may end up with more gold (and less food, according to ban), it's entirely possible that an individual realm may end up with considerably less gold?
Yeppers.
Quote from: Velax on March 22, 2013, 05:29:01 AM
I'm assuming existing realms are not beng taken into consideration? So while the entire island may end up with more gold (and less food, according to ban), it's entirely possible that an individual realm may end up with considerably less gold?
Heh... That will change many things. Some realms really did benefit from the last change. I wonder if the same realms will benefit more again.
Cool story bro. Can't believe you're up so late. :P