Architect Archive
Thread: Extraction Rate vs Maint Cost
I think the efficency ratio should be disscussed. The ratio could be found in the tables in my last post. They only take maintenence into account and no power consumption and the ratio is a maxium (100% spot) but that doesnt matter here. The efficiency ratio is in units per maintenance cost (u/cr).
In the past the most efficient harvester was a heavy one with 4.7 u/cr. Small and medium are both at 4.0 u/cr.
Now (formular #3) the most efficient harvesters are small ones with 8 u/cr at rate 4and 10 u/cr at rate 5 (maint allways 30 cr/h). Medium harvester get an increase in efficiency with increasing extraction rate. They start at 4.0 u/cr at rate 4 (60 cr/h)and end up at 5.6 u/cr at rate 10 (maint 108 cr/h). But heavy harvesters have decreasing efficiency with increasing extraction rate! Heavy's efficency ratio starts at 4.7 at rate 7 (maint 90 cr/h) and drop down to 4.2 cr/u at rate 13 (maint 186 cr/h).
It is a bad thing that mediums have better efficiency than heavys. It is even worse that the efficiency goes dont for better heavy harvesters.
I think the best formular would be #5 (from my last post):
base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extraction_rate - base_extraction_rate) * 8
The ranges would be:
small ones: 4.0 u/cr at rate 2 (maint 30 cr/h).. 5.2 u/cr at rate 4 (maint 54 cr/h) (i think rate 5 smalls shouldnt be possible at all)
medium ones: 4.0 u/cr at rate 4 (maint 60 cr/h) .. 5.6 u/cr at rate 10 (maint 108 cr/h)
heavy ones: 4.7 u/cr at rate 7 (maint 90 cr/h) .. 5.7 u/cr at rate 13 (maint 138 cr/h)
Power Problems Fix: (I think!)
I think I have a workaround for the power problem, the power usage hasn't gone up, there appears to be a display bug linked to the animations.
I loaded a fresh harvester with 1 days power/maint, arrived back 8hrs later and I have 16hours maint, 0 power but, the harvester is still running. Added 1hrs power and still at 0, stopped and restarted the harvester I have 16maint, 17power. Tried the same on a 2nd placed last night but without adding extra power, just stopped and restarted (restarting the animation) and the power displayed as I expected.
This is on Chimaera, perhaps someone on a US server could test my theory.
The hotfix didn't seem to work for me. I have a harvester that is +16 wear (it has a 9 extraction rate). It had been at a maintenance rate of 106cr/hr (90 base), which seemed correct. But this morning I redeeded it and moved it to another resource, and its rate increased to 122cr/hr (106). So it looks like it is still increasing the base rate stored in the harvester deed, and then applying the penalty again. Looks like I'm going to have to take a break from the mining business until this is fixed. I can't afford paying this kind of extra costs.
Your harvester is still increasing? That's frustrating. I must have missed some other case where the wrong maintenance value is still written to the deed. Can anyone else confirm the maintenance is increasing with each redeed?
I apologize for the problems. We didn't test harvesters enough on TC.
Still seems bugged to me.
I made two rate 10 medium this morning and dropped them on some resources.
Once dropped the maintenance displays at 108(84) with a mention on top of window that there is +24 maintenance due to heavy extraction rate.
I dropped 20 000 credit and got a little over 7 days worth of maintenance in them which fits with the 108 maintenance cost.
These are brand new medium harvesters that have never been redeeded.
They were planted for the first time this morning....
)Thanks Dragan. Those formulas and cost per unit is what I was looking for.
Your research shows that on heavy harvs the higher the base rate, the more it costs in maintenance per unit. I think I read that right. Is that the way things were intended to be?
If the costs per unit are working how they are supposed to be, how does it compare with the costs per unit pre-patch? If costs are higher now then prices on houses, harvs, city structures should go up.
I will try and do some testing to see if my results match your findings. I think they do.
Cagliostro
Still broken on bloodfin. I just dropped a rate 11 heavy and the rate looks like this 154cr/hr(122) which looks broken to me. Isnt it supposed to be 122cr/hr(90)? This crap is costing me a fortune. Please fix it as soon as possible!!
Thanks GreenMarine to answer here.
you wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what you guys are seeing.
Maintenance for harvesters with a current extract rate below 7 is just the base rate of the harvester. For harvesters with a current extract rate above 7 the equation is:
base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extract_rate - 7)*4
The base maintenance rates are:
- Small Harvester - 30 cr / hr
- Medium Harvester - 60 cr / hr
- Heavy Harvester - 90 cr / hr
I'm seeing consistant numbers on my local server, but I'm interested in if there are inconsistancies on live.
If what you are saying is you made a medium harvester of extract rate 7, then yes, it would have a better cost ratio than a heavy harvester with 7. The experimental ranges overlap. It's possible to make a highly experimented small harvester that's better than a low end medium harvester. It's possible to make a high end medium harvester that's better than a low end heavy harvester. A high end heavy harvester will always have the highest potentially craftable extract rate. You pay, however, for every point of extraction above 7. So a high end heavy harvester will also cost more to maintain.
A medium harvester at rate 7 is probably the most cost effective harvester, but a rate 13 heavy harvester will pull out nearly twice as many resources in the same spot for a higher cost.
The system behaves like you have descibed it here. So there is no bug in the code.But i still think the design/balance is broken.
It is not only the rate 7 harvesters. All medium harvesters have less maintenance than their heavy counterparts with same extraction rate.
i think you should change your formular a bit. use:
base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extract_rate - base_extract_rate)*4
where base_extract_rate is not 7 for all harvesters but 2, 4, 7 (for small, medium, heavy).
Other bugs concering harvesters:
- the display of the maint on a deed is allways the base_maintenance_rate
- the display of the additional maint in status window is 1/2
- no experimentation on solar and fusion generators though it is in the schematic description
Oopsmy last replay was wrong.
The system does not behave like you have descibed in your forular.
cur_maintenance_rate = base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extract_rate - 7) * 16
Is what is used atm. Its not only 8 istead of 4. It is 16! I am working on a matrix that i will post soon.
GreenMarine wrote:
Your harvester is still increasing? That's frustrating. I must have missed some other case where the wrong maintenance value is still written to the deed. Can anyone else confirm the maintenance is increasing with each redeed?
I apologize for the problems. We didn't test harvesters enough on TC.
There simply aren't ENOUGH people to test everything enough on TC. The economy seems to me, very much like a new server economy, which will not cut it for testing everything. I have a suggestion, may be flamed for it, but... If it were somehow possible to install the new patch onto test center for testing, yet also create a new server, which would have a copied database from one live server and install the patch on for one day, allowing people to play with new features, then wiping the server clean at the end of the day, tracking down and fixing the bugs, then doing the same for another live server, getting the bug feedback and fixing the bugs, the patches may go a bit better. Now one may say this is counter productive or go against everything that the test center stands for. I've read the test center uses a different code base? Why not put some strain on the systems, there aren't enough bodies on test center to strain the system. As the patches progress through the live servers, you'll see a much more stable and bug free game.
For instance install new server, copy databases (I'm sure this would take a while, but it would be worth the effort) if it is even possible from Bria. The following day, Bria players have the option of logging onto the "Bria-Test" server to test out the new patch and report bugs, buisness can still be done as normal, however at the end of that day the databases on that "test" cluster would be wiped. Take a day patch everything you can, install a new update, allow players on the Starstrider galaxy to log into "Starstrider-Test" report bugs, etc.
Is this the best way of testing? No, Will more bugs be noticed? Yes. Is it possible to do? I'm not really sure.
Greenmarine, I hope you are still reading this thread.
I am going to attempt to say this with as little "venom" in my type voice as possible, however, I and many others are very upset at the cumulative changes.
This is TWO patches in a row now where you have left me stuck with harvesters which simply can't be sold. Hell, I can't even GIVE ones away from before the last patch. And now I am stuck with literally fleets of heavy harvesters at extraction rate 10 which no one will purchase.
Please don't tell me that these harvesters are "average" or "poor" harvesters in quality and the whole line about "great mediums are better than average heavies". I don't have my hip waders on, so I won't get through it. 
These were, until a few days ago, the best that most architects could make, using the best resources available. The only people who could make better than BER 10 up until a few days ago were those with experimentation tapes. So there is no way that these harvesters are "average" now simply because someone out in CA decided to mess with the system some more.
Why won't anyone purchase a BER 10 heavy harvester? Well because any idiot can realize that it is stupid economics to do so, that's why.
A BER 10 harvester takes more power and maintenance per hour than a BER 10 medium. You want me to pay more but get the same exact item? Even my son who's only 8 knows that isn't smart money management.
There is, however, a very simple solution to this. Whatever forumula you plugged in these changes to, simply make the "base" for a heavy harvester be 10 instead of 7. And the "base" cost of running the harvester is always 60. Here is what I mean.
Mediums, range 7 to 10 BER. "penalty" applies as it does now, where anything over 7 has an additional cost of 8 cpu/BER point. So a BER 7 costs 60 per hour, but a BER 10 costs 84 per hour.
Heavies have a range of 10 to 13 BER. "Penalty" applies only for BER's of 11, 12 and 13, where anything over 10 has an additional cost of6 cpu/BER point. So a heavy of 10 BER costs only 60 per hour to maintain, but costs much more to purchase in the first place due to the quality of the harvester and the size. A BER 13 harvester costs the same 84 per hour that the medium costs, but wouldbe a lot more to purchase.
You have to have a system where "upgrading" is rewarded, even if upgrading means moving from afleet of mediums to a fleet of heavies. Our harvesters never decay (unless, unless, I know I know.) This gives people something to "shoot" for still, however. Do you save up for the big investment of going from personal to heavy or do you takea step in between, paying slightly more per unit of resource in the mean time?
It doesn't leave me with a50 harvesters which were awesome earlier this week and now considered "crap" compared to what I used to be able to make. And it makes heavy harvesters what they should be... the most efficient harvesters in the game per unit of resource harvested.
(BTW, not that I am not even TOUCHING the fact that I was left with piles of components made from before the patch which now make even more of the "crap" harvesters that can't be sold... why? Because I am hoping that someone at SOE will see this post and realize that the logical thing to do is notcreate more problems and hassles for the player base by ruining those of us who have worked so hard for months to build a business in a very competative world.)
So rather than costing