Technology proposal: Astroid infrastructure platforms
Chriz
Elmer
Brend
Gerben
Fedor
Stuiter
RemcoSwenker
Technology proposal: Astroid infrastructure platforms
Chriz » Sat Mar 14, 2015 10:01 pm
We propose a technology to build support zones on astroid belts. By building infrastructure platforms on a cluster of three zones on an astroid belt the zones can now be used to construct support zones.
Due to the conditions on the astroid belt with infrastructure platforms these three zones have a -20 penalty on production. This penalty is also for metals mining when these platforms have been created on the zones.
Proposal:
Technology name: Multi-segment platform stabilization
Technology cost: 2000
/ 6 
Special project: Astroid infrastructure platforms
Special project cost: 1500, 200 
, 400 
, 400 
Notes:
The -20 production is a penalty of about 2 / zone, based on 104 this is a penalty of 624 for the three zones.
Zonelessness is worth about 2000 per zone. since we are creating 1,5 extra zones this is worth about 3000 . Since additional support zones are worth more than metals zones it is reasonable for the technology share to be 1000 and the special project share to be 3000 and the penalty of -20.
Due to the conditions on the astroid belt with infrastructure platforms these three zones have a -20 penalty on production. This penalty is also for metals mining when these platforms have been created on the zones.
Proposal:
Technology name: Multi-segment platform stabilization
Technology cost: 2000
/ 6 Special project: Astroid infrastructure platforms
Special project cost: 1500
, 200 , 400 , 400 Notes:
The -20 production is a penalty of about 2
/ zone, based on 104 this is a penalty of 624 for the three zones.Zonelessness is worth about 2000
per zone. since we are creating 1,5 extra zones this is worth about 3000 . Since additional support zones are worth more than metals zones it is reasonable for the technology share to be 1000 and the special project share to be 3000 and the penalty of -20.Player of the Praetorian Empire
Elmer » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:48 pm
I helped with this tech and I approve :)
Brend » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:05 pm
I still have to run the numbers, which I hope to do this weekend.
Brend » Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:51 pm
(Note: a proposal like this also needs the actual text of the tech and the project for both the crunch and the fluff. Since that is not there yet, I have only commented on the cost and known crunch facets of the tech.)
I like the idea and agree with most of the cost calculation. Based on these calculations, the platforms have a repayment time of about 183, which places them in the same general area as a host of recycling, outpost and the atmosphere IIII and III terraformations.
I have also checked (just to get a feeling for the impact) the impact of the platforms when viewed only as 'industry zone creator' by thinking of the platform as freeing up 3 zones for industry by moving three support zones away. In this case, the -20 penalty is annoying, but only on Power Zones. Open Market Zone are not built for their open market capacity but for their trade fleet support, and as such they suffer no penalty at all.
In fact, of the 6 support zones, only the Power Zone really care about their labour numbers. All other zones are there for the non-labour benefits... This leads me to the conclusion that the 624 for the -20 labour is not really all that impressive. I propose to increase the effective cost of the project by 500 . This amount is based on the share of zones that do not care about their labour: 624 * 5 zone / 6 zones = 520 .
So, my proposal would be to increase the project cost to either of:
Knowing this, you could also argue that the removal of the whole penalty would be better then, because it has little to no impact at all. I disagree with this for two reasons. First off, the penalty is very thematic. Running industry while tumbling through a field of rocks the size of your house is simply difficult and that is represented by the steep penalty. Secondly, I see possible follow-up technologies that allow the construction of other zones on these platforms and nearly all of those zones do care about the labour they produce.
I like the idea and agree with most of the cost calculation. Based on these calculations, the platforms have a repayment time of about 183
, which places them in the same general area as a host of recycling, outpost and the atmosphere IIII and III terraformations.I have also checked (just to get a feeling for the impact) the impact of the platforms when viewed only as 'industry zone creator' by thinking of the platform as freeing up 3 zones for industry by moving three support zones away. In this case, the -20 penalty is annoying, but only on Power Zones. Open Market Zone are not built for their open market capacity but for their trade fleet support, and as such they suffer no penalty at all.
In fact, of the 6 support zones, only the Power Zone really care about their labour numbers. All other zones are there for the non-labour benefits... This leads me to the conclusion that the 624
for the -20 labour is not really all that impressive. I propose to increase the effective cost of the project by 500 . This amount is based on the share of zones that do not care about their labour: 624 * 5 zone / 6 zones = 520 .So, my proposal would be to increase the project cost to either of:
- 2000 , 200 , 400 , 400
- 1500 , 300 , 450 , 450
Knowing this, you could also argue that the removal of the whole penalty would be better then, because it has little to no impact at all. I disagree with this for two reasons. First off, the penalty is very thematic. Running industry while tumbling through a field of rocks the size of your house is simply difficult and that is represented by the steep penalty. Secondly, I see possible follow-up technologies that allow the construction of other zones on these platforms and nearly all of those zones do care about the labour they produce.
Gerben » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:20 am
Looking at the original proposal and taking into account Brend's analysis, I'm inclined to follow Brend's opinion on this matter.
1500, 300 , 450 , 450 , would have my preference, but either choice is reasonable.
1500
, 300 , 450 , 450 , would have my preference, but either choice is reasonable.
Fedor » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:44 pm
I have read and agreed to the terms of service (I agree with what was said).
I don't have a strong preference between the two proposed options, 1500, 300 , 450 , 450 sounds good.
I don't have a strong preference between the two proposed options, 1500
, 300 , 450 , 450 sounds good.
Elmer » Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:52 pm
My preference goes for the more tax less superstructure component way of paying.
Chriz » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:12 am
2000 , 200 , 400 , 400 seems to be the most balanced and is more in line with the planetary defence grid.
, 200 , 400 , 400 seems to be the most balanced and is more in line with the planetary defence grid.Player of the Praetorian Empire
Brend » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:14 am
Chriz wrote:2000
Is that option 'more balanced' because you prefer it, or do you have a reasoning to end up with the predicate 'more balanced'?
If so, could you share it with us? (Reasoned arguments win out over preferences IMHO)
Chriz » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:29 am
Just as with the planetary defence grid the larger part should be in . Zone creation should be a thing.
. Zone creation should be a thing.Player of the Praetorian Empire
Brend » Tue Mar 24, 2015 1:04 am
I agree that the building of zones should feature ; but this isn't zone creation, this is building platforms inside an asteroid belt that will later be used for zone creation. That being said, I have no real opinion either way.
Here is a tally of the opinions so far:
2 in favour of more goods
2 in favour of more tax
I will ask two other FWURG players tomorrow, and will post my own opinion as tomorrow as well. Why don't you all start working on the fluff? ^_^
; but this isn't zone creation, this is building platforms inside an asteroid belt that will later be used for zone creation. That being said, I have no real opinion either way.Here is a tally of the opinions so far:
2 in favour of more goods
2 in favour of more tax
I will ask two other FWURG players tomorrow, and will post my own opinion as tomorrow as well. Why don't you all start working on the fluff? ^_^
Stuiter » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:11 pm
Maybe another way of balancing is by saying that the platform which you create to build an zone on cost also 
.
I am in favor of using more as it fits better and special goods are already rarely used so we need to create some more demand.
.I am in favor of using more
as it fits better and special goods are already rarely used so we need to create some more demand.
Brend » Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:44 pm
The fun of the -20 labout is that it is a very direct effect. In my opinion having things cost more is more logical if they are advanced or high-tech, such as with the space elevator or the domed cities, both of which are definitely advanced constructions. I think the immediate penalty represents the problems that are present with building your industry in an asteroid belt very well. There are arguments available for both kinds of penalties, in this case I prefer the more direct penalty (though we could keep the power cost in mind as a later addition if the platforms start supporting industrial zones).
As promised my opinion: I am also in favour of using more goods. Together with Stuiter this puts the tally at:
4 in favour of more goods
2 in favour of more tax
is more logical if they are advanced or high-tech, such as with the space elevator or the domed cities, both of which are definitely advanced constructions. I think the immediate penalty represents the problems that are present with building your industry in an asteroid belt very well. There are arguments available for both kinds of penalties, in this case I prefer the more direct penalty (though we could keep the power cost in mind as a later addition if the platforms start supporting industrial zones).As promised my opinion: I am also in favour of using more goods. Together with Stuiter this puts the tally at:
4 in favour of more goods
2 in favour of more tax
RemcoSwenker » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:34 pm
i forgot to mention that i was also in favour of more goods as you are building something complicated.
Brend » Sun Apr 05, 2015 5:08 pm
So, after 6 days of inaction, the final tally stands at:
, 300 , 450 , 450 " seems to have won out.
If the OPs would be so kind as to draft the full proposal including fluff, we can have the 1-week objections period immediately after their post.
- 5 in favour of more goods
- 2 in favour of more tax
, 300 , 450 , 450 " seems to have won out.If the OPs would be so kind as to draft the full proposal including fluff, we can have the 1-week objections period immediately after their post.
Elmer » Wed May 13, 2015 10:56 am
Asteroid infrastructure platforms
Asteroids have great potential for all kinds of infrastructure, but inhibit many difficulties to overcome before the loosely floating rocks can be used to support any safe construction. By building special platforms between the asteroids and bridges to connect them, a stable foundation can be created for the construction of buildings.
Elmer » Mon May 25, 2015 3:15 pm
it has been almost 2 weeks, and no one has raised any objections so far. In the coming week I will put this technology on the wiki.
Brend » Mon May 25, 2015 3:54 pm
Errr... You only posted a small bit of fluff for the project. I was actually waiting for you to write the full proposal of both the technology and the project, including the discussed changes and the necessary fluff. It is a bit difficult to comment on a proposal that is strewn all over the thread.
Which is why I asked "If the OPs would be so kind as to draft the full proposal including fluff" (emphasis added). Given that you did not do that, I assumed that you had lost interest in the proposal... o_O
(For the record: I'd still like the complete proposal with changes and fluff actually, so I can review and comment on the final proposal.)
Which is why I asked "If the OPs would be so kind as to draft the full proposal including fluff" (emphasis added). Given that you did not do that, I assumed that you had lost interest in the proposal... o_O
(For the record: I'd still like the complete proposal with changes and fluff actually, so I can review and comment on the final proposal.)
Fedor » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:33 pm
I'm also interested in this technology, so wrapping it all together I have made the following full proposal:
This technology allows for the Astroid infrastructure platforms upgrade of zones on asteroid belts, enabling construction of support zones at the cost of production output.
Technology cost: 2000 / 6
Prerequisites: Astroengineering, Standard Template Construction
Zones upgraded with Asteroid infrastructure platforms widen the restriction on zone types, allowing the construction of Support Zones. Asteroid infrastructure platforms give a -20 production penalty.
This upgrade costs 1500, 300 , 450 and 450 for 3 zones.
Note: I have added Astroengineering as a prerequisite. This seemed like an appropriate technology to require as it is building big things in outer space.
Multi-segment platform stabilization
Asteroids have great potential for all kinds of infrastructure, but many difficulties must be overcome before the loosely floating rocks can be used to support any safe construction. By building special platforms between the asteroids and bridges to connect them, a stable foundation can be created for the construction of buildings.This technology allows for the Astroid infrastructure platforms upgrade of zones on asteroid belts, enabling construction of support zones at the cost of production output.
Technology cost: 2000
/ 6 Prerequisites: Astroengineering, Standard Template Construction
Asteroid infrastructure platforms
This upgrade allows for the construction of support zones on asteroid belt. The upgrade applies to a cluster of 3 zones at a time. The knowledge required is unlocked through research of the Multi-segment platform stabilization technology.Zones upgraded with Asteroid infrastructure platforms widen the restriction on zone types, allowing the construction of Support Zones. Asteroid infrastructure platforms give a -20 production penalty.
This upgrade costs 1500
, 300 , 450 and 450 for 3 zones.Note: I have added Astroengineering as a prerequisite. This seemed like an appropriate technology to require as it is building big things in outer space.
Last edited by Fedor on Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brend » Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:29 pm
Looks good!
I would suggest adding Standard Template Construction as a secondary prereq, just to make the technology a little more multi-field. This also adds to the idea of deploying multiple platforms, as I see it.
I would also suggest to change the phrasing of the Asteroid infrastructure platforms crunch to: "Zones upgraded with Asteroid infrastructure platforms widen the restriction on zone types, allowing the construction of Support Zones. Asteroid infrastructure platforms give a -20 production penalty."
I would suggest adding Standard Template Construction as a secondary prereq, just to make the technology a little more multi-field. This also adds to the idea of deploying multiple platforms, as I see it.
I would also suggest to change the phrasing of the Asteroid infrastructure platforms crunch to: "Zones upgraded with Asteroid infrastructure platforms widen the restriction on zone types, allowing the construction of Support Zones. Asteroid infrastructure platforms give a -20 production penalty."
Fedor » Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:00 pm
If no one is opposed to this I will add it to the wiki on saturday the 4th of July (yay fireworks)
Brend » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:10 pm
Don't forget to find nice pictures and link to this thread in the technology and project data entries ^_^