Fwurg

[Brend]

1) The Organics page lists that a planet must have Atmospheres or an Ocean. The Frozen Ocean special contradicts this by saying that the Natural Life allows the growth of Organics. Should the Organics page list Habitable as actual condition?

Context: I was working on the Megadome Cities, when I remembered that were restricted. So, I went to check the conditions required for to be grown; later on I checked the Frozen Oceans special because of the interaction with Megadome Cities. There, I spotted a differen tale.

I think that the organics page should list the condition as being Habitable. This is logical because the conditions overlap, and the frozen ocean exception is listed on the habitble page.


2) How does this work with Outposts?

Context: Space Habitats are clear, they just allow any of the six raws to be produced. But, habitats do not use zones. Outposts do, and with the current limitation, they aren't allowed to produce . To be honest, I don't really have a problem with this. I think it adds good flavour to the system not to have all raw materials and products be equal. But I felt I should bring it up anyway.


Additionally

I would also propose a slight change of the Habitable page. Instead of only naming Frozen Oceans, I propose to generalize the "As a special exception the Frozen Ocean special adds Natural Life to a planet, making it habitable automatically. " condition to "As a special exception any planet with Natural Life is habitable automatically. One of the ways to achieve this is the Frozen Ocean special."; this allows the condition to correctly generlize to non worlds that acquire Natural Life somehow (related to the final project of the Megadome Cities proposal).

[Mercury]

1) Agreed, Habitable should be the condition - if things can live there and form a biosphere, it means things can live there to form a biosphere.

2) Good question. I think this is reasonable. Its an outpost after all.

Additionally) Agreed. Natural Life was intended as a greater version of Habitable, not as a separate vector.

[Brend]

Will put this into effect in the coming weekend.

[Dragonmaster352]

To be completely honest, now that I know Habitable is a requirement to produce I don't like it.

What is to stop someone from putting a giant greenhouse on a planet that isn't habitable? not to mention possibilities of cloning, growth acceleration, etc.

I say throw the requirement out all together. Star wars technology can easily overcome those limitations. Why is it even there in the first place?

[Mercury]

Its not about growing one single plant. Its about growing huge fields of them. This requires more than just a greenhouse. Its also a game thing which allows organics to be slightly different.

[Elmer]

Dragonmaster, as I understand it correctly, nothing prevents you from building a giant greenhouse. We call that Megadome cities ;) I think there is nothing wrong with making the different products having different limitations. This sounds like a good way to add more debt to the game.

[Dragonmaster352]

I think there is nothing wrong with making the different products having different limitations. This sounds like a good way to add more debt to the game.

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that Organics is the ONLY product with a limitation.

Also I find it ridiculous to require an advanced tech for something that doesn't require that kind of technology.

Mercury, yes you need more then just a giant greenhouse, but that still is nothing beyond the cost of normal zone development. Nor are they of a special nature in relation to what you would need to let other life forms, such as people, live there.

And it's not like I only refer to plants. Why not a cloning facility and clone cows for meat? Grow a cow in a single day with growth acceleration, kill it, turn it into burgers, steaks, etc. Star wars technology allows to do that on a large scale without requiring ridiculous amounts of money. (as far as you consider not to be ridiculous amounts of money.)

[Brend]

I think that a giant cloning facility is actually very advanced for the Star Wars technology level, and should not be something that is casually thrown around... In fact, other life forms are actively punished for living in crappy conditions (I reference the additional +1% population growth your population enjoys on Habitable worlds). Besides, is also a special case, and I haven't heard abouy any problems with that.

I think that such limitation add to the game, and if anything we could do with some more.

(@Dragonmaster352: Just to be sure, I have a quick question to so we understand each other: Are you against any limitations, or are you against it because it screws up your planned system development?)

[Brend]

I would also like to add that it has never been said that the Megadomes are the only way to remove the limitation. If you want to tackle the perceived problem with an IC technology, I think that it will cost a lot less than a full double terraform...

[Mercury]

I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that Organics is the ONLY product with a limitation.

That may appear to be the case, but it is not actually so. All resources have their own limitations and special abilities:

• are the only resource that can be produced in Trojan Asteroids, Asteroid Belts and Rings.
• are the only resource that can be produced on Gas Giants
• can be transferred by Holonet Relay, whereas other resources cannot.
• can only be produced on Habitable worlds
• cannot be boosted by more than one climate without significant penalties.
• likewise cannot be boosted by more than one climate without significant penalties.

Each resource has its special features and penalties. This is deliberate. By having these differences, the resources are not only interesting, but it creates trade imbalances that motivate players to exchange goods.

Also I find it ridiculous to require an advanced tech for something that doesn't require that kind of technology.

Mercury, yes you need more then just a giant greenhouse, but that still is nothing beyond the cost of normal zone development. Nor are they of a special nature in relation to what you would need to let other life forms, such as people, live there.

And it's not like I only refer to plants. Why not a cloning facility and clone cows for meat? Grow a cow in a single day with growth acceleration, kill it, turn it into burgers, steaks, etc. Star wars technology allows to do that on a large scale without requiring ridiculous amounts of money. (as far as you consider not to be ridiculous amounts of money.)

There exists only very limited growth acceleration in Star Wars (see the Clone Troopers, who even with growth acceleration took years to mature). That's not the point though: there is more at work than merely being able to do it.

The problem is economical.

I do not doubt that Star Wars technology allows the growing of cows on a Hot Orbit world, for example. But where the issue comes in is when you are trying to sell that cow on the marketplace.

In order to grow cows in hot orbit, you need to maintain an entire facility to grow the cows in. This means cooling, growing food stuff, getting rid of manure, etc, all in a controlled environment that is protected from radiation, has filtered oxygen, etc. These acts are not free of charge, and the cost - by the long or the short route - influences the total cost you have to grow each cow.

By contrast, a regular farmer on a habitable world has a far lower cost. He too may need to deal with manure, oxygen and food, but because the natural conditions are so much better, his cost per cow are simply far lower. If he can grow 100 cows for the cost you have of growing 1 cow, then you need to spend 100 times as much on infrastructure to get an equal number of cows (i.e. an equal number of put out by the zone.

1 is a ridiculously large amount of money. But 1 is also a ridiculously large amount of cows. And you pay 100 times the regular price for each and every single one of them.

Now, you may argue that this cost can be offset by zone building, but I say you are better off investing the 200.000 such a zone would cost into building a domed city, then in setting up a 100x more expensive zone.

The problem isn't cloning 1 cow. Its cloning a hundred million cows in a way that is cost effective.

Lets look at other resources. Each can be easier or harder depending on local circumstances, and various climates, atmospheres, and orbit temperatures represent this fact. However, none have the strict requirements that organics do. For example, metals can be gathered even if its 50 K. But you cannot keep cows at 50 K.

You might say "Well, certain rare elements or crystals will have very specific conditions required to grow / extract them". You would be right. But this is for specific instances, not for the whole branch. By contrast, -all- organics have relatively strict conditional requirements with regards to where they can exist. Thus, while an individual bacteria may have a wide range and an individual crystal may have a very specific growth condition, generally speaking this does not hold for the whole slew or crystals vs organics.

The habitable condition represents a condition which is such that organics can thrive with relatively little trouble. The range of conditions on a habitable world is such that a reasonably wide array of organics can be produced there within the economic limits.

Go outside of the habitable condition and it is no longer economical to make a sensible organics zone without huge investments of resources. Huge investments that would go beyond the cost of terraforming the world.

Does this seem reasonable to you, Dragonmaster352?

[Brend]

I have updated the wiki: Organics, Outpost and Habitable.

This isn't meant as a way to discard or ignore Dragonmaster352's comments, that should still be hashed out.

[Dragonmaster352]

First off, sorry for not posting here for a long time. Life kept me busy and this got lost in the noise.

On to more important matters.

My problem on this matter is the imbalance the limitation gives . Yes every raw material has it's pros and cons, but organics has a lot more cons then the rest.

You can produce every raw material wherever you want in your system except for organics. That is a very severe restriction in my eyes. If you want to produce organics you are forced to use your valuable goldilocks, habitable zones and there is practically nothing to compensate for that disadvantage. All you get is +10 organics per zone IF you have a high enough atmosphere AND an ocean.

Sorry but even with a scientific explanation this still seems unreasonable to me.

[Elmer]

Let's approach it the other way around:

Normally, you can make 9 sets at best with your system, however, when you have a goldilocks planet with either a ocean or an atmosphere 4, you get the magical bonus that now you suddenly can make 12 sets.

So are not restrictive, they are the bonus product which allow you to rise above the normal 9 sets to the high value 12 sets.

[Mercury]

My problem on this matter is the imbalance the limitation gives .

You are completely correct, Dragonmaster352. Organics is not "balanced" compared to other raw materials. Now I shall let you in on a secret of the Fwurg game design: it's not supposed to be.

Now, you may feel that game balance is something to strive for, and indeed it is. But its a bit more complicated than that. Fwurg is a relatively complex game, so allow me to explain by means of a simpler game: Rock-Paper-Scissors (RPS).

RPS is a game where you pick one of three options (rock, paper or scissors). Paper beats Rock, Rock beats Scissors and Scissors beats Paper. The game is perfectly balanced. However, RPS is not very interesting. There is no strategic thinking involved because any option is the right one. There is no way to select any option so you can just pick one at random and hope for the best (in fact, playing "random" may very well be the best possible strategy).

Now lets say, we modify RPS by adding a new option, "Glass". Lets say rock beats glass, but glass beats scissors and paper.

Our new game, RPSG has two choices that defeat 2 other options (rock beats glass and scissors while glass beats scissors and paper) and two choices that defeat only 1 option (paper beats rock and scissors beats paper). Clearly the first two (rock and glass) are the superior choices. So a smart player will always pick one of those (and they will never ever pick scissors because it is objectively inferior to glass in every possible way, but more on this later).

Within those choices, rock is the better one, because it beats glass, while glass only beats sub-par choices (the ones that only win over 1 option instead of 2). Thus, clearly Rock is the best choice to make - it beats 2 options, including one of the "good" ones, while making a tie with the other. Everyone will always pick rock, because the system ensures that rock is the best choice.

But wait...

If rock is always the best choice and everyone picks rock... then a smarter player would instead pick paper, the only choice capable of defeating rock. Since everyone always chooses rock, paper will always win!

But wait...

Everyone now knows paper is the best choice. So everyone will pick glass, as it beats 2 choices, including the best one (paper). Nobody would pick scissors as it does nothing for them. Since now glass is the best choice, everyone will always choose rock instead. And we have gone round.

RPSG is still "balanced". Every choice has a counter, just as in RPS. However, there is now an element of strategy, in the sense that you can make a choice based on the knowledge you believe to have of your opponent, as well as your knowledge of what people in the environment do. For example, if you are facing a new player, or know that rock is very popular, then paper may very well be the best bet.

Unlike RPS, where distribution of the three choices will essentially be 33% for each choice, RPSG has varying distributions of the four choices depending on the environment, which you can adapt to.

Of course, nobody ever chooses scissors. Effectively it is a useless choice. But if we remove it, RPSG becomes the equivalent of RPS (now called RPG) and we're back to playing randomly!

In RPSG, having an option that is sub-optimal, even if it is -never- chosen, makes or breaks the strategy element. The strategy that is never, ever used, is what makes the game interesting to play!

Now, lets be clear as we head back to Fwurg - organics is not as "useless" like scissors - people still make organics. However, the fact that it is more difficult to grow organics is very much a strategy influencer, and it impacts the trade game in a way similar to the way scissors does RPSG.

In Fwurg, the economic system is designed to be self-balancing. If one product or raw material is not available in sufficient supply, the twelve set system will ensure that this product or raw material will rise in value. Likewise, if a product or raw material is overly abundant, the value will fall. As the value of goods change people adjust their production strategies, and in the end a balance is established.

If every good in Fwurg was of equal conceptual value, and all zones could produce all goods in the same way, this would mean trade would simply be a matter of finding a trade circle to join and have everyone swap out goods 1 on 1. There would be very little value fluctuation, and thereby there would be very little exchange beyond trading 3 sets, for example.

By unbalancing the inherent value of the raw materials (and thereby of the products etc.), we influence their base-line supply, creating an artificial trade imbalance that encourages players to exchange goods outside of the 1 on 1 ratio as all goods are not of equal value. Thereby, we make trade more interesting and Fwurg more fun!

TL;DR: By having organics be unbalanced, the game becomes more fun ^_^

[Dragonmaster352]

TL;DR: By having organics be unbalanced, the game becomes more fun ^_^

I disagree, one of the most fun parts of FWURG is the freedom to do things the way you want. Like creating a system divided the way you want. The fact that if I want to produce organics I MUST use zones in goldilocks orbit with at least an ocean or atmosphere limits that freedom.

Consequently that make the game less fun. :(

[Brend]

But you aren't allowed to create a system the way you want!

You can not have two medium planets in a single orbit... Or have asteroid belts that create ... Or have captured moons on all your eight planets... Or start out with 24.1 ...

You seem to have no problem with all the other limitations, except this one.

So, I would, once again like to ask: "@Dragonmaster352: Just to be sure, I have a quick question to so we understand each other: Are you against any limitations, or are you against it because it screws up your planned system development?"

You say "Consequently that make the game less fun. :(", but based upon your reaction, I surmise that this consequently makes the game less fun for you -- mainly because I get the feeling that this specific limitation annoys you because you wanted to farm on an outpost.

[Dragonmaster352]

Fun is ALWAYS subjective as it is an opinion.

Yes I would like to farm organics on an outpost. I'm afraid that because of the limitation I can't survey for organics based products.

I'm against limitations that prevent me from building zones where I want without prior knowledge of this being the case. Limitations on gas giants and asteroid belts are clearly stated on their respective pages during system creation. Organics requiring a habitable planet however is not made clear during system creation, it's like one of those sneaky silent extensions.

And I don't like sneaky things like that on an OOC rules level.

[Brend]

I agree that the information on this should have been clearer, but I disagree that this is a 'sneaky silent extension'. Nobody planned on being sneaky here, it just so happened that not all of us spotted the interplay of rules. On the other hand, up till now, all players have neatly painted all their Organics zones within the lines of what is possible, so apparently the limitation was clear to some (or magically logical).

It is your own responsibility to find out of something is possible, you not checking the Organics is not anyone’s fault but your own. Might I suggest that instead of trying to get the rules changed, you find a work-around? For example, a technology would allow you to remove the limitation -- technologies are bending and breaking rules all the time, it's their whole reason of being (though I must admit that this will probably be a rather expensive technology. The current route is to buildt Megadomes on all zones of the outpost, and then combined them all to get the correct environment.)

[Brend]

To be completely honest, now that I know Habitable is a requirement to produce I don't like it.

I would like to add that the limitation was listed on the Organics page starting 2011-07-07, with a clarification on 2012-02-28. This was before you joined FWURG at roughly 2012-06-20 so there is nothing sneaky and silent about this.