[oinkoink12]

buying land already gives you an environment bonus (max 2), but not on a sliding scale. currently if you get more land than your infra/2 your env will better by 1. also if you have more land than your age/3, your env will better by 1.

a more simple way would be to simply use a crowdness factor: land/infra which is directly applied as bonus to your env.

Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) = 100/1000 = 0.10 env bonus
medium land (500), high infra (1000) = 500/1000 = 0.50 env bonus
high land (800), high infra (1000) = 800/1000 = 0.80 env bonus
high land (1000), medium infra (750) = 1000/750 = 1.33 env bonus
high land (1000), low infra (500) = 1000/500 = 2.00 env bonus

of course, the more infra a nation has, the more land it needs to get high boni.


(editted DAC's Idea in)

This post has been edited by oinkoink12: 25 May 2008 - 02:38 PM

[Philotheos]

A lot of people have been suggesting different ideas for how to "fix" land since admin's update. I saw this one suggested by several different people, which is partially why I approved it.

[energizer]

EDIT: whoops, read it wrong.

This kinda setup is already installed. Its best to keep your land at 1/2 of what your infra is to notice this change. 1/3 being minimum

Also, with the high prices of land, that usually steers people away from buyen to much of it.. or any of all "Hmm, buy 400 miles of land.. or 175 infra"

This post has been edited by energizer: 23 May 2008 - 06:24 PM

[greenansatsu]

That is improving environment, environment is like golf Low score wins.

I like this idea but at the same time its helping older nations and making it easier for them to negate environment. I agree making land more important to environment is great but I think it should be a ratio. I think that any change should be able to benefit all nations equally and not just the big nations that already have tons of land.

[+Zeke+]

greenansatsu, on May 23 2008, 07:52 PM, said:

.....but at the same time its helping older nations.....

Why is this a crime?

We put our time in fairly.

[Amnesiasoft]

+Zeke+, on May 23 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

Why is this a crime?

That's a very good question. Why is it always "Oh no, you'll help the older nations, when are you going to help us smaller nations?"

Where were improvements when I started in the game?
Where was my extra trade slot when I started the game?
Where were bonus goods when I started the game?
Where was $3,000,000 in foreign aid being thrown around all over the place when I started this game?
For that matter, where was foreign aid when I started this game?

There was once a time in this game where the most tech anyone in the game had was 10. Now, it's practically impossible to find someone without 10 tech. There was once a time where $100,000 was an insane amount of money. It's hard to believe that my nation, Penguin Island, once stood with the largest casualty count in the game at a couple thousand, which was a devastating loss, where now a relatively new nation can fairly easily shrug off the loss of 5000 soldiers. You younger nations don't realize you do have a significant advantage that older nations didn't have. We spent months achieving what you can accomplish in one day if you just go join an alliance throwing out free aid to new members.

[greenansatsu]

Ok let me change it. Why help older nations more. You have the National Environment Office helps environment by 1 and gets rid of all negative effects of 'dirty' resources. You now have the new wonders of Agriculture Development Program, and the Mining Industry Consortium. Which also help fight off the effects of environment. All three of these wonders are restricted by infra or land limits. Plus you also have the open slots to keep Border walls at all times. Adding another suggestion that will only help larger nations is a mute point. You can pretty much buy your way to perfect happiness as it is, why add another thing that will only help large nations?

Quote

That's a very good question. Why is it always "Oh no, you'll help the older nations, when are you going to help us smaller nations?"

Where were improvements when I started in the game?
Where was my extra trade slot when I started the game?
Where were bonus goods when I started the game?
Where was $3,000,000 in foreign aid being thrown around all over the place when I started this game?
For that matter, where was foreign aid when I started this game?

There was once a time in this game where the most tech anyone in the game had was 10. Now, it's practically impossible to find someone without 10 tech. There was once a time where $100,000 was an insane amount of money. It's hard to believe that my nation, Penguin Island, once stood with the largest casualty count in the game at a couple thousand, which was a devastating loss, where now a relatively new nation can fairly easily shrug off the loss of 5000 soldiers. You younger nations don't realize you do have a significant advantage that older nations didn't have. We spent months achieving what you can accomplish in one day if you just go join an alliance throwing out free aid to new members.

If your quite done with your hissy fit now... My guess would be those things weren't part of the game yet, because it was new, its like a computer you don't go back to the store wand whine when an upgrade is made a month or two later so why do it here.

Quote

Why is this a crime?

I mistyped if you will forgive me. Its not a crime, i merely saying it is ONLY helping larger nations. as said above larger nations already have more options open to them than smaller nations. I am merely saying that we do not need a suggestion that only effects upper nations. A suggestion that effects all nations would be a better line of thought than one that simply focuses on the larger I am the better. I have nothing against large nations I know the work they put into their nations and I don't knock them for it. However I also don't think its fair to focus all ideas towards one area of the spectrum. I think an idea that focuses on land helping environment should not be based solely on the amount owned it should be based on a ratio that way EVERYONE in the game can benefit from it.

This post has been edited by greenansatsu: 24 May 2008 - 11:38 AM

[uaciaut]

Like i said before, i think 2*land/infra should be the equivalent of the environment decrease. Or you could go with 50/pop density. I mean land should have a bigger influence on the env, just not by itself imo

[oinkoink12]

True, it was just a starting idea to make Land a bit more important

[Nimblefinger]

I definitely agree that land should be more important in lowering the environment, but also that it should be linked with the amount of infrastructure. The ratio of land to infra is a good idea - it would certainly make land more important - and if people are really worried about it affecting small nations, perhaps have it graded so that the negative effect of this ratio being poor builds up over time (like pollution does).

[martinius the great]

Good idea anyway, I'm only 220 miles afar from 1000 miles... But each 1000 mile should reduce environment by 0.5 I think.
And 0.3 for nations with more than 3000 miles.

[(DAC)Syzygy]

buying land already gives you an environment bonus (max 2), but not on a sliding scale. currently if you get more land than your infra/2 your env will better by 1. also if you have more land than your age/3, your env will better by 1.

a more simple way would be to simply use a crowdness factor: land/infra which is directly applied as bonus to your env.

Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) = 100/1000 = 0.10 env bonus
medium land (500), high infra (1000) = 500/1000 = 0.50 env bonus
high land (800), high infra (1000) = 800/1000 = 0.80 env bonus
high land (1000), medium infra (750) = 1000/750 = 1.33 env bonus
high land (1000), low infra (500) = 1000/500 = 2.00 env bonus

of course, the more infra a nation has, the more land it needs to get high boni.

[LJ Scott]

Don't like the OP suggestion.

I prefer DAC's land/infra, or if I really wanted to help myself I'd say uaciuat's 2*land/infra or 50/pop density.

[+Zeke+]

LJ Scott, on May 24 2008, 06:22 AM, said:

I prefer DAC's.....

Isn't that always the case here?




Alright, greenansatsu, I can accept the concept that only helping older nations isn't the best route. I just get tired of newer players complaining that the older and bigger nations have it better. Put enough time into something and you expect your situation to be better. The day that much newer nations become my size simply because of rule changes that favor them then I'm going to find another game where the idea of time investment means something.

As for your rebuttal to Amnesiasoft, you might want to remember that time and size are not the same thing.

[bart416]

energizer, on May 24 2008, 02:46 AM, said:

EDIT: whoops, read it wrong.

This kinda setup is already installed. Its best to keep your land at 1/2 of what your infra is to notice this change. 1/3 being minimum

Also, with the high prices of land, that usually steers people away from buyen to much of it.. or any of all "Hmm, buy 400 miles of land.. or 175 infra"

War is an easy way to get land, that's how I got most of mine

[oinkoink12]

(DAC)Syzygy, on May 24 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

buying land already gives you an environment bonus (max 2), but not on a sliding scale. currently if you get more land than your infra/2 your env will better by 1. also if you have more land than your age/3, your env will better by 1.

a more simple way would be to simply use a crowdness factor: land/infra which is directly applied as bonus to your env.

Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) = 100/1000 = 0.10 env bonus
medium land (500), high infra (1000) = 500/1000 = 0.50 env bonus
high land (800), high infra (1000) = 800/1000 = 0.80 env bonus
high land (1000), medium infra (750) = 1000/750 = 1.33 env bonus
high land (1000), low infra (500) = 1000/500 = 2.00 env bonus

of course, the more infra a nation has, the more land it needs to get high boni.

Sounds good to me
Any1 disagrees with this?

[Lord Emares]

(DAC)Syzygy, on May 24 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

buying land already gives you an environment bonus (max 2), but not on a sliding scale. currently if you get more land than your infra/2 your env will better by 1. also if you have more land than your age/3, your env will better by 1.

a more simple way would be to simply use a crowdness factor: land/infra which is directly applied as bonus to your env.

Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) = 100/1000 = 0.10 env bonus
medium land (500), high infra (1000) = 500/1000 = 0.50 env bonus
high land (800), high infra (1000) = 800/1000 = 0.80 env bonus
high land (1000), medium infra (750) = 1000/750 = 1.33 env bonus
high land (1000), low infra (500) = 1000/500 = 2.00 env bonus

of course, the more infra a nation has, the more land it needs to get high boni.

This though is more extreme than what is currently in the game...meaning that in order to get the full bonus one needs to have twice the amount of a nations infra in land, where at present one needs to have half the amount of infra as land.

Infra gives you between 6-10 pop per level of infra (rough estimate not quite sure about the exact number), Land gives you 0.2 per mile.

6 per level of infra, 0.2 per mile of land, Minimum soldiers required for non anarchy, 3BG set with uranium, discounting the effect of environment (because environment effects the population you need to work out the numbers before the environment effect to give you the environment impact)

Your Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 94.38 people per mile
medium land (500), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 19.068 people per mile
high land (800), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 12.0075 people per mile
high land (1000), medium infra (750) equates to a population density of 7.305 people per mile
high land (1000), low infra (500) equates to a population density of 4.954 people per mile

10 per level of infra, 0.2 per mile of land, Minimum soldiers required for non anarchy, 3BG set with uranium, discounting the effect of environment (because environment effects the population you need to work out the numbers before the environment effect to give you the environment impact)

Your Examples:
low land (100), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 157.06 people per mile
medium land (500), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 31.604 people per mile
high land (800), high infra (1000) equates to a population density of 19.8425 people per mile
high land (1000), medium infra (750) equates to a population density of 12.005 people per mile
high land (1000), low infra (500) equates to a population density of 8.088 people per mile


So using your setup this would mean that to get the max benefit of environment one needs to have a population density (before environment is added in) between 4.954 and 8.088 people per mile of land, which is extreme imo.


A sliding scale would be nice but i would suggest that the formula be based on your population density as opposed to your land. Something similar to uaciuat's suggestion of 50/(pop density), with a maximum of +2 possible.

something like (multiplier)/(pop density) where the multiplier is somewhere between 20 and 100

A multiplier of 20 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 10
A multiplier of 30 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 15
A multiplier of 40 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 20
A multiplier of 50 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 25
A multiplier of 60 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 30
A multiplier of 70 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 35
A multiplier of 75 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 37.5
A multiplier of 80 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 40
A multiplier of 90 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 45
A multiplier of 100 means to get the max environment effect you need a pop density of 50

This post has been edited by Lord Emares: 25 May 2008 - 03:37 AM

[(DAC)Syzygy]

unfortunately popdensity cannot be used for the equation, because of the way the game is coded. you need to use one of the values which are already known about a nation (a database entry). and popdensity is only a result of those, its calculated after all other effects. using popdensity for determining effects which would alter the population (and therefore popdensity itself) is not possible, it would create an error.

If you want to strengthen the effect of land, simply change my suggested formula to: land*2/infra = envbonus. In that case, you have halved the amount of land needed for receiving the same bonus as before.

[PussInBoots]

(DAC)Syzygy, on May 25 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

land*2/infra = envbonus.

I am supporting this

[Lord Emares]

(DAC)Syzygy, on May 25 2008, 01:02 PM, said:

unfortunately popdensity cannot be used for the equation, because of the way the game is coded. you need to use one of the values which are already known about a nation (a database entry). and popdensity is only a result of those, its calculated after all other effects. using popdensity for determining effects which would alter the population (and therefore popdensity itself) is not possible, it would create an error.

If you want to strengthen the effect of land, simply change my suggested formula to: land*2/infra = envbonus. In that case, you have halved the amount of land needed for receiving the same bonus as before.

An error would only happen should you include the environment effect as part of the population density...which you don't necessarily have to. IE if a new quantity were created (much like the 2*land/infra is being created) which was the pop denisty excluding environment effects

formula would be easy enough to create

basepopdensity = (population before effect of environment on population is added)/(total land)

envbonus = modifier/basepopdensity

where the modifier is some number chosen by the admin

EDIT:

so i guess the formula i'm advocating really is this one:

envbonus = (modifier*total land)/(population before effect of environment on population is added)

This post has been edited by Lord Emares: 25 May 2008 - 09:04 AM