Architect Archive

the med harvester getting a rate of 7 makes larges a poor investment

it used to be everythingwent up buy a certian amount each level(almost)

extraction = 2 (except large which got an extra 1)

power = 600

mant. = 720 each step

so you got better extraction compacity but resources costs stayed constant until you got to large were you got a small perk

but now it is no where near that

smalls =

2 extraction

costs 720 +600

meds =

7 (3.5 times!)

costs = 720+720+600+600 (2 times)

heavy =

10 (5 times better than small or 1.42 times better than med)

costs = 720*3 + 600*3 (1.5 times more than med, 3 times a small)

problem being... the heavy harvesters now get you less in return than the meds. So your resource costs will be higher per a unit. You will be able to get more units but basicaly this made it so no one is buying heavys.... i currently have 50 meds on order! this can't be what the devs wanted

Looking at the cost of production is the wrong way of analyzing the economcs. The true economic is net profit/lot.

Lets assume 3 cpu is the value of the resource being mined and you've got an 80% concentration. I'll ignore the cost of power because power is quite cheap.

With a medium havester: Production is 336/hour, revenue is 1008/hour, operating costs are 60/hour, net revenue is 948/hour/lot.

With a rate 10 heavy harvester: Production is 480/hour, revenue is 1440/hour, operating costs are 90/hour, net revenue is 1350/hour/lot.

Basically, with gross margins of about 93% you can ignore the cost of revenue and focus exclusively on maximizing production and capital costs. Heavy harvesters are (and always have been) more capital intensive than medium harvesters, but the return-on-investment of harvesters is incredibly favorable - with net revenue of 1350/hour a 150k heavy harvester is paid for in 4 1/2 days.

Neilla, why is that the only way to look at it?

It seems that, using present numbers which we are told will likely be changing, you currently have a choice.

You can get heavies that give you more revenue.

Or you can get mediums which may provide less revenue but give you a higher percentage of profit per resource (assuming you are charging the same amount per unit, i.e. 2 cpu).

Either is an option... the difference may not be large but there is a difference.

---

Ropock wrote:

Neilla, why is that the only way to look at it?

It seems that, using present numbers which we are told will likely be changing, you currently have a choice.

You can get heavies that give you more revenue.

Or you can get mediums which may provide less revenue but give you a higher percentage of profit per resource (assuming you are charging the same amount per unit, i.e. 2 cpu).

Either is an option... the difference may not be large but there is a difference.

---

Because, with gross margins of 93%, the cost of revenue is not a significant factor in the business. The cost of capital is significant. The number of lots available are significant.

ok, so you've adjusted the selling price then.... to make a 93% gross margin on the heavies your selling price must be higher... if costs were the same, then yes you'd be correct.

without going into too much detail and using simplistic numbers

if it costs me 50 credits to generate 100 resourceswith a heavy my cost per unit is .5

if it costs me 40 credits to generate 100 resources with a medium my cpu is .4

if i sell at 2 cpu my profit margin (while a slim difference) is greater on the medium harvester.

If you want to make morerevenue with more resources you get the heavies (which i agree most would do)

If you want to maximize your profits with less concern for quantity you get the mediums.

you can't make profit margins the same unless you are charging different selling prices... in the above example to make the same profit the person operating the heavy must sell at 2.5, the person running the mediums can sell at 2.4.

Your Contribution margin is much better with heavies at 10. You may have a smaller operating leverage but givien enought time, say a month or so, the person who invested in more capital intensive goods (IE: heavies) will have the advantage, its the old "how do I cost my stuff" dilemma. And given only 10 lots available at best, you want to extract as much ressrouces, espcially if you are an achy who needs the most, since after extracting the ressrouces we add value to them by building more strucutres.

Subo, I agree... realistically for most people they want the most they can get out of the ground.

But for those few that don't need extremely large quantities... it makes more sense to go with a medium as the resources will provide a higher profit margin... no?

Reducing it to a profit % and saying that they're nearly the same misses the point.

Over the course of a month, and we're all gonna use harvesters a month, right? a heavy costs you nearly 40k more to run thana medium, even if you never re-deed your harvies.

By calling it a % and saying their nearly the same per hour, you ignore the fact that 40k extra maintenance per month per harvester is a lot of money. That's 400k per month, every month, forever,if you run ten harvesters.

I don't care if one is 93% and the other is 92.8%. I don't care if people make a lot of money either way. The fact is this: if heavies cost you 40k a month extra to run, 400k per month for your ten lots, then it is objectively silly to run old heavy harvesters rather than new medium harvesters.

How much you make, whether it's 1 million a month or 10 million a month, doesn't matter. If old heavies and new mediums have the same production rate, and old heavies cost 40k/month more to run, then it would be unwise to use old heavies.

---

Neilla wrote:
Looking at the cost of production is the wrong way of analyzing the economcs. The true economic is net profit/lot.

Lets assume 3 cpu is the value of the resource being mined and you've got an 80% concentration. I'll ignore the cost of power because power is quite cheap.

With a medium havester: Production is 336/hour, revenue is 1008/hour, operating costs are 60/hour, net revenue is 948/hour/lot.

With a rate 10 heavy harvester: Production is 480/hour, revenue is 1440/hour, operating costs are 90/hour, net revenue is 1350/hour/lot.

Basically, with gross margins of about 93% you can ignore the cost of revenue and focus exclusively on maximizing production and capital costs. Heavy harvesters are (and always have been) more capital intensive than medium harvesters, but the return-on-investment of harvesters is incredibly favorable - with net revenue of 1350/hour a 150k heavy harvester is paid for in 4 1/2 days.

---

You know, I like numbers, and it is amazing how numbers can convey multitudes of information as well as disinformation.

I'm going to use your example first. Given a resource sale price of 3cr/unit, a single heavy at 10kg/h. a single med at 7kg/h, power purchased at 1cr/unit, a standard resource percentage of 80%and28 days figuring in 4 redeeds.

Ok, first the medium. Resources gained and sold equated 677376cr - 120960cr maintenance - 6000cr deeding costs - 100800cr for power gives you a net 449616cr/lot.

Second the heavy. Reesources gained and sold equate 967680cr - 181440cr maintenance - 12000cr deeding costs - 151200cr for power gives you a net 623040cr/lot.

Difference is 173424cr more for the heavy. Take out the additional cost for a heavy (estimated at 20k for a medium and 120k for a heavy) and you make only 73424cr in the first 28 days and 173424 thereafter.

Not to bad, but this is of course assuming three major things, A) power is only 1cr/unit, B)selling rate is sustainable at 3cr/unit, and C) resource percentage is 80% constant for 28 days.

Now let's play with the numbers a bit. First, keep everything the same except drop the selling price to 2cr/unit. I'll skip the math, you can do it if you want to verify, but a medium nets 332724cr and a heavy nets 300480cr. Yup, the heavy now is 32244cr LESS than the same medium.

Now, lets get realistic. Let's change the average resource percentage to 60%, power to 1.5cr/unit and a sell price of 3cr/unit. A medium now nets 339872 and the heavy nets 305520. Heavy loses again,and you paid more for which one?? So what about the same model at 4cr/unit?? Medium - 399216 / Heavy - 547440 / Difference is 148224. Close to my first model with power, but not quite as good.

So, look at these numbers and the prices and extrapolate what is really going on with these things. In many cases, the medium is far superior to the heavy, and I'm talking about cases that the economy will allow because costs are pretty much set for most people's minds.

Griswel, we/re not even talking new vs. old in this thread.... this is simply a discussion of new heavies vs. new mediums at the current numbers in the game.

---

Ropock wrote:
Griswel, we/re not even talking new vs. old in this thread.... this is simply a discussion of new heavies vs. new mediums at the current numbers in the game.

---

Agreed, although an old heavy would really be ugly in comparison. Very ugly. /sigh

Tig, thanks for the laugh .... and yeah, that would be scary