DESIGN: Economy Details for v.2

Past public reviews and discussions.
Locked
Message
Author
User avatar
skdiw
Creative Contributor
Posts: 643
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am

#136 Post by skdiw » Sat Oct 11, 2003 5:29 am

Aquitaine wrote:
skdiw wrote:
EntropyAvatar wrote:I'll assume for now that it's steeper than linear.


Obviously you arent very good at math (y=999x ?). Whatever, we know what you mean.

Please watch your tone. This is a good discussion, but blatant disrespect is against forum policy and I'm quite a jerk about it.

Thanks.

Aquitaine


It was suppose to be a joke. We all know what EA meant--like everybody is carefully reviewing everything they write and never make a typo. Losen up.

EA wrote:I do feel that minerals and food should match though... because otherwise food production seems doomed to become an after thought mid late game (as it was in MOO2 after Weather Controllers +Terraforming...basically enough to stop the auto placement from wasting people on it.)


How about food importance = min importance = 40% beginning and 10-20% end. I prefer min having a slightly more importance.
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1414
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

#137 Post by Krikkitone » Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:10 pm

How about food importance = min importance = 40% beginning and 10-20% end. I prefer min having a slightly more importance.


That is accomplished easily enough by having highly productive Ultra Rich+Very Rich mineral worlds and making terraforming very difficult.

Because if Ultra/Very Rich worlds are highly productive,

and mineral productivity keeps up with mineral need,

then only 10-20% of the pop would be needed as soon as you colonized some of those worlds.

And unless food is going to have some use other than keeping people alive, it should only increase in productivity may be 5* at most.

Locked