Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

EE 12 Release Notes

Flari-Merchant
I am still a bit baffled on the holding upkeep changes. Baffled as to why on the basic level "pieces into upkeep" gets greater and greater to the ratio of "pieces out of operation".
The more the upkeep cost the less the result in a very flat comparison from a +0 to +5 holding setup. I mean, is my math wrong?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Stilachio Thrax
Bringslite of Staalgard
I am still a bit baffled on the holding upkeep changes. Baffled as to why on the basic level "pieces into upkeep" gets greater and greater to the ratio of "pieces out of operation".
The more the upkeep cost the less the result in a very flat comparison from a +0 to +5 holding setup. I mean, is my math wrong?

I agree, BL. If the incentive is to make us *want* to have better holdings and outposts rather than just dot the landscape with +0 crap, the diminishing returns on production and the steep influence costs are doing a poor job of it.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Bob
In most hexes, there should be at least one holding-and-two-outposts combo that gets more profitable with each upgrade, though diminishing marginal returns means that each upgrade adds less profitability than the previous one. In most cases, this increasing profitability will require stocking small amounts of the third bulk resource required for upkeep at the highest holding upgrades, otherwise the 4-for-1 trade to pay your upkeep will eat into the increased output. Even without that, profits should increase at every upgrade until +3 or so.

The idea is for upgrading to generally be worthwhile, and a reasonable alternative for companies that prefer to manage less hexes, but for it to be more efficient to take more territory than to upgrade your buildings. That way there's always a temptation to spread out, inevitably bumping into others with the same ideas. We're hoping there will be a mix of spreading out vs. upgrading in place, and what we really wanted to take care of was the extra stockpiling of bulk resources that was possible before by only upgrading the outposts.
Flari-Merchant
Is this increased profitability taking into account setups for the passive Holding type bonus? I don't see that making too much difference as they also scale up in a pattern.
Unless(as I asked earlier) my math is bananas, a perfect hex with the right outposts goes from (at +0) 3.64 pieces output Bulk for each piece of upkeep bulk and down to (at +5) 2.6 pieces of output Bulk for each piece of upkeep Bulk.

And as I said, math is not my first language. Would love to be proven wrong here. smile

Edit: Ok well my math was wrong but the result is the same: Less profit the more advanced the Holding. Numbers are adjusted in the OP.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Decius
Less output per upkeep is not the right question. Total net production is what is relevant.
Flari-Merchant
Decius
Less output per upkeep is not the right question. Total net production is what is relevant.
By upgrading your holdings, you are reducing the overall total Bulk resources that you are producing. To me, that poses a real question: Is it worth it?
In addition, the higher that you advance your holding the more diverse bulk you need for upkeep. That has to come from somewhere. So you need to build more holdings or trade for the right Bulk. Draining yourself either way.
This is a flat calculation and the increasing costs leave out the values for frozen influence and building materials.

The perfect hex. It only gets worse the lower the hex's rating.
Gross Produce…..Costs……Net….Pieces Per
+0……..40…………11……..29………3.64
+1……..56…………16……..40………3.5
+2……..72…………22……..50………3.2
+3……..88…………29……..59………3.0
+4…….104…………37……..67………2.8
+5…….120…………46……..74………2.6

As Bob has said, we should be seeing more profit output through at least +3 for at least one holding combination per hex type, right?. We are not. There are other advantages for upgrading and I am aware of those, but there are also added influence and materials costs for those advantages. The numbers game, however, makes upgrading less efficient and is an imbalance because you need different types of Bulk to feed the machine. It is contradictory because a machine with fewer hexes needs the product of more hexes to operate.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Bob
I originally did the numbers without taking into account the holding bonuses, so the improved profitability from upgrades should happen regardless of the holding bonuses, which scale up linearly and therefore don't suffer from diminishing marginal returns.

Your numbers look right when not counting the bonuses. The important thing is that at every stage, you're gaining more in production than you're adding in upkeep, just in decreasing amounts.

If you're shooting for self-sufficiency, things get a little trickier and the increasing profitability likely stops at +2 or +3, depending on just how efficiently you can produce the second bulk upkeep requirement (which also might largely come from your bonus) and whether you can produce the third requirement at all. I ran a variety of possible situations, and it looked to me like most hexes could be self-sufficient and profitable, though some without any particularly high bulk goods to base production on wouldn't be worth upgrading past +1 or +2.
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
As Bob has said, we should be seeing more profit output through at least +3 for at least one holding combination per hex type, right?. We are not.

To be clear, I am not saying that your production should be getting more efficient up to +3. I'm just saying that upgrading to +3 should increase your net production by at least 1 as opposed to actually reducing your net production. When you're doing a lot of 4-for-1 exchanges, or can't produce bulk resources efficiently, upgrading past a certain point will actually reduce your net production.

Of course, going through an entire upgrade just to increase production by 1-2 bulk resources probably isn't worthwhile compared to taking another hex, but in some situations it still might be important to eke out those small improvements.
Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

Well, thanks for clarifying better. The bottom line is that it is everyone's challenge so it isn't an unfair situation or even an unrealistic one for a populated game. If it is supposed to be the way that it is, then that is the way it is!

My particular take on the world goes something along the lines that if I put more effort and investment into something that it should become more efficient. Which is why I feel a bit frustrated and baffled. That and likely a slight case of having had things too easy for too long. I do grasp the concept of diminishing returns despite that.

I have been known in the past for advocating things to be a bit more tough around here. Now that I am seeing it and experiencing it, I will try not to cry too much about the very thing that I asked for. smile
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Decius
If you are measuring efficiency in terms of net production per hex, higher level holdings and outposts improve that.
Higher level holdings will be harder to raid, but also more lucrative to raid each one.
And once population gets high enough that hexes, or even just good hexes, are rare things might become interesting.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post