Optimizing cargo space

Optimizing cargo space (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series

Message

Airpower -> Optimizing cargo space (7/9/2014 12:25:14 AM)
After dozens of hours of testing and gathering data from around 1900 starbases, I'd like to present my findings on cargo space. The collected data is in the attached file, for your amusement. Use the below data to choose the cargo hold size for your mining star bases (mineral, luxury, and gas all use the same values). I would recommend the "5 resources per planet size", since 5 is the max I've ever seen in game on one planet. 1 resource per planet: 7775 cargo (Optimal size for a 1-gas refueling base) 2 resources per planet: 15300 cargo (optimal size for a 2-gas refueling base) 3 resources per planet: 22825 cargo 4 resources per planet: 30350 cargo 5 resources per planet: 37875 cargo (this is the value I would use) 6 resources per planet: 45400 cargo (overkill in regular gameplay) 7 resources per planet: 52925 cargo (overkill in regular gameplay) 8 resources per planet: 60450 cargo (overkill in regular gameplay) The formula the game uses to calculate a star base's actual cargo hold size is *(Cargospace 4) - 1000. The observed values don't match this perfectly - especially at low cargo hold sizes, but the larger data supports it. The below chart displays the observed in-game max cargo values (blue dots), and the calculated trendline from this data (red line). [image]http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg630/mr_fission/CargoGraph2_zpsd326370b.gif[/image] Bottom line: If you want cheaper star bases that will still never hit capacity 99% of the time, go with 30350 cargo. If you want to be 100% covered, go with 37875 cargo. For a single-gas refueling base (hydrogen OR caslon), use 7775 cargo. For a two-gas refueling base (hydrogen AND** caslon), use 15300 cargo. Putting more than 37875 cargo space on a base is a waste, due to the 30100 per-resource storage cap http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3651245. Feelotraveler has another post on cargo with some additional information here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3650778.

pkoko -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/9/2014 4:41:27 AM)
Thanks... Great work

janamdo -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/9/2014 7:23:36 AM)
The graph is not reflected the steepness .. a 4 as gradient. It seems than there is a 4 fuel unit / 1 carcospace unit as storagecapicity So you can store 4 fuel energy units in one carco space unit with a 30100 max fuel units Component Resch Cat Area Size Cost Capacity Massive Cargo Bay STR HT 8 3.840 1.000 Small Cargo Bay STR HT 8 60 360 Standard Cargo Bay STR HT 8 240 650 30100/4 =7525 massive cargo bay cost: 7525/1000 ( = 7,525) x 3840 = 28.896 it takes 7,525 x 8 = 60,2 size standard cargo bay cost : 7525/ 650 (= 11,57) x 240 = 2778 ... = 92,56 size small cargo bay cost : 7525/ 360 (=20,90) x 60 = 1254 ... = 167,2 size you need 7,5 x massive cargo bays to store 7525 cargo units filled each with 4 fuel units cost you 28.896 you need 11,57 x standard cargo bays ........................................................................ cost you 2778 you need 20,0 x small cargo bays ................................................................................ cost you 1254 It is the "optimized cargo storage" in the research tree what shows 1000 as capacity and the "advanced cargo storage" what shows 800 as capacity So you dealing first with the "advanced cargo storage" as massive cargo bay , but before that you can use the standard cargo bay The standard cargo bays ( 2x research) can be found under enhanced research

feelotraveller -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/10/2014 5:24:14 PM)
Airpower what were your testing conditions? e.g. Map size, difficulty, race, base design, and whatever else might be relevant. [:)] I ask because my limited testing repeatedly gave me (4xcargo space)-500, (or 625 depending on how gases get treated, does the editor mess things up?). For example I ran quite a few tests with 5xsmallcargobays = 1750, and kept getting totals in excess of 6500 when mining stopped. I must have had 20 or 30 cases without a single one less than 6500. And yet your observed cargo values show all your figures of just below 5500. The only thing I can think of was that I was testing with 1.9.5.4... but that should not have made any difference. Will repeat (briefly) tomorrow once I update to rule that out. Anybody else want to have a look?

Airpower -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/10/2014 9:51:16 PM)
Hey Feelo, yeah I was pretty surprised to find that the 4x-1000 formula fit the collected data. After reading your post, I thought for sure I'd come to the same formula you did! Here's what's going on. At very low cargo sizes, the observed cargo values get... weird. Especially for a size 350 hold. At size 350, the values fluctuate wildly. I even got different values depending on the resource richness of the planet that was being mined. I manually built every one of the 1850 mining stations in this study. I didn't use any editor-placed ones. When I used editor-placed stations, the max cargo values were consistently higher than what I saw from my manually-built stations. Moreover, I built every station while playing at 4x real time speed, with the game unpaused. I found that when multiple stations were all completed at the exact same second, each of those stations would sometimes reach an identical maximum cargo value. This was especially true of editor-placed stations at larger cargo hold sizes. Building in real-time was the only way to ensure the results weren't influenced by this phenomenon. I have no explanation for why this is the case... it appears random, but I suspect the game only checks each base for maximum cargo storage once a month, leading to seemingly random variations. Here's my data for Cargo Hold 350 bases. The Y axis is resource richness (in percentage) of the planet being extracted, and the X axis represents each of the 10 stations I built on those planets. The expected median value using the 4x-1000 formula is 400 The expected median value using the 4x-500 formula is 900 Base 1 Base 2 Base 3 Base 4 Base 5 Base 6 Base 7 Base 8 Base 9 Base 10 1% 69 73 69 73 65 65 77 69 93 93 2% 153 217 209 113 121 169 137 113 113 113 3% 266 205 157 145 169 157 157 169 277 157 4% 297 233 313 185 249 313 265 217 249 313 5% 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 306 305 6% 315 313 313 313 290 313 313 315 313 313 7% 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 8% 313 315 313 313 313 313 313 313 314 313 9% 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 313 10% 305 305 307 305 305 305 305 305 305 305 15% 325 325 325 325 325 325 328 325 325 325 20% 345 346 345 345 345 345 345 345 346 345 25% 332 325 325 325 325 325 325 325 326 325 30% 385 385 386 386 385 386 386 386 386 398 35% 305 305 308 306 305 305 307 306 306 166 40% 346 346 346 346 354 347 345 346 345 346 45% 385 401 385 385 389 387 386 386 205 386 50% 427 427 425 425 444 425 426 425 425 427 55% 467 469 470 468 470 482 468 467 467 473 60% 508 510 505 510 505 507 507 506 508 511 65% 550 551 550 286 549 548 551 545 548 550 70% 305 307 305 310 308 308 306 305 307 305 75% 325 325 328 325 325 327 326 327 326 326 80% 346 350 347 345 347 353 347 345 347 345 85% 366 365 367 366 367 366 366 369 365 368 90% 407 386 385 386 385 385 386 389 385 387 95% 405 406 406 407 405 406 406 405 407 408 100% 427 425 427 434 429 427 427 425 432 426 10% 680 600 560 560 560 560 600 920 920 560 (this row is for editor-placed stations) This weirdness from mining from low-richness planets went away after cargo hold sizes got bigger. Even still, at every cargo hold size, I tested on at least a 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% richness planet, to ensure the collected data was representative of actual in-game situations and wasn't tainted by this trend.

Airpower -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/10/2014 10:00:29 PM)
[image]http://i1247.photobucket.com/albums/gg630/mr_fission/CargoGraph3_zps933436ee.gif[/image] Here is the graph with the 4x-500 formula. The slope is right, but it was higher than the observed values for every tested cargo hold size. Oh, and the reason I tested almost 2000 bases is because the weirdness from the low cargo hold sizes led me to believe there was an exponential component to the calculation. I was WAY disappointed to find out my precious theory was wrong. [:)]

feelotraveller -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/11/2014 2:05:31 AM)
Ah, ok. I had an inkling that the editor might be screwing with the results - either that or the non-editor game is. [:D] (nearly) All my testing was done with the editor, as a time convenience. How did you stop freighters from collecting cargo in your tests? [Edit] Presumably you obsoleted all freighter designs?

Airpower -> RE: Optimizing cargo space (7/11/2014 2:54:41 AM)
Yup! I destroyed all freighters and obsoleted the design. All of the stations were Star Bases without commerce centers though, so the freighters couldn't take the stuff anyways.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

9.15625