Martin said he himself would like more control over his workforce. It just wasn’t something he had time to get to yet.
Switch the “MIC” of the last two exchanges in the Castillo-Ito Mercantile. It is really confusing that the code for the CI 3 Commodity Exchange is “CI2” and not “CI3”.
started today, accidentally deleted one of my farm structures. A confirmation for drastic actions would be nice to prevent accidents, especially for the new folks. I had to reset and start over. Overall enjoying what I am seeing. Thanks
I noticed that too. Very confusing. We are still looking for proper planet names for these planets. Once they have been named the confusion will end. I think I opened a topic ages ago where we tried to find names…
improvement: starting package balancing
After the twitch discussion today about incinerators and their cost I thought I’d compare the starting packages. Assuming all starts have 2x pioneer habitation I factored those out.
Interesting to note is that currently the best choice for a Victualler is actually the Metallurgist package as it allows an immediate second farm, second rig with zero idle pop.
Package data from wiki. Current packages are:
Victualler (rig farm FP) idle pioneers 80, cost to buy from market maker 108,400
Metallurgist (extractorx2 smelter) idle pioneers 30, cost 196,700
Carbon Farmer (farmx2 incinerator) idle pioneers 60, cost 127,200
Manufacturer (collector incinerator bmp) idle pioneers 10, cost 196,300
Constructor (bmp pp1) idle pioneers 20, cost 153,200
The proposed change to the carbon farmer would exchange a farm for an incinerator
Carbon Upgraded Farmer (farm incineratorx2) idle pioneers 70, cost 170,400
Adding a rig also would make it the most generous package slightly, but make it more able to produce the core product and reduce that heinous idle pop a bit. Cost 206,400
It think that it would also be a good idea to add a second rig and second farm to the Victualler package or else advertise that a better option is already available.
Going the full distance to create similarly priced packages include more materials to bring the value up to par. I assume the 10k credits for each player is best left alone so I’m adding value with more market ready items to help jumpstart the exchanges. I am not including unnecessary prefab construction parts because then starting out will feel like an IKEA project with bits left over
Summary and TL:DR
balance starting packages by market maker value
Victualler: add 14 BSE 4 BBH 55 MCG, 90 RAT, 90 DW (value 207,200 wiki edit +2 buildings)
Metallurgist: add 3 FE (value 205,700)
Carbon Farmer: add 18 BSE, 2 BDE, 1 BTA, subtract 40 MCG (value 206,400 wiki edit building swap)
Manufacturer: add 30 OVE (value 205,300)
Constructor: add 12 FE, 10 LST, 600 PE (value 207,200)
Getting nothing back from demolishing seems a bit harsh and not exactly logical. At the least, we should be able to use some of the MCG.
Hey, I have another suggestion that has come up a couple times.
Can we have production timers always in the hhmmss format? They only show the minutes once it is under 1h.
This is regarding the price chart of a given commodity. Volume is currently being represented as the sum of prices a commodity is bought at. But volume should be the number of units traded.
From Investopedia - “Volume of trade is the total quantity of shares or contracts traded for a specified security.”
So for example, if 2 units of C are going for 2300 and 2000 respectively, and a player comes along and buys both, then the volume of this trade is 2, not 4300. But the current chart shows 4300, not 2 .
Hm, you seem to be right. Do you happen to know what “volume * trade price” is called in correct terms? Now that I know our terms are wrong, it bothers me greatly
I guess the ‘real’ volume as by the definition above is the more interesting metric. We should implement it!
I don’t think there’s a term for this. The only use of such a formula I could find was in the VWAP calculation. But commodity traders (in Prosperous Universe or IRL) are much more interested in the number of units that have been sold in a given period (like @Molp pointed out).
Since if, for example, I’m in the business of selling FE on the market. I would want to know (on average) how many units of FE are sold every day or week (market liquidity) so that I can estimate how many Incinerators I need to meet that demand (minus competition). If the volume is in “units”, then I can estimate this at a glance or use a calculator to get the exact value. But if the volume is in SUM(unit_price * units_sold), then I have to “reverse engineer” how many units have sold based on either the Open, High, Low, Close of that candle, and I would almost certainly get a decimal value as a result. Not only that, I would have to repeat that calculation for every single candle which would be immensely tedious.
Volume in units is also used in tonnes of financial formulas, so having access to that metric is fairly important.
I just deleted a currency exchange buy order for CIS/NCC, but it would appear the deposit was not reimbursed. not sure if you can look into that, but I burned quite a bit of money right now, I’m afraid.
maybe you can look into the mechanics and make sure that won’t happen again
edit: it shows under “recent transactions” making me doubt myself a bit now, but I am 95% sure that money was not actually added to my account.
edit2: I just did the maths. according to the recent transaction statement and my current cash, I was 2.4k NCC in debt a short while ago. since I am pretty certain, I was not, it might be something. I can provide you with a screenshot of the statement, but I’m assuming you have way easier access to my account, don’t you
I found out and started this game yesterday, I’m playing on google chrome on a macbook and noticed that the icons on the universe map don’t show up. For example I can see all the lines but no solar systems,or fleet icons. I can basically only see the lines between the solarsystems and orbital lines but no planet circles. I don’t know if this is my mac or my browser but when I play on chrome on a chrome box everything works fine.
Hello and welcome.
That’s a known bug unfortunately, and we’ll address it in the future. In the meantime, could you try if switching to another browser works for the moment? Sometimes the problem is also fixed by restarting your browser. If none of that works, send me a DM, and we’ll figure it out!
Thanks for the response I switched to safari and it worked! So that seems to be a reasonable temporary fix.
Loving the game so far but I’ve noticed some very suspect behavior by some players who appear to be abusing the COLIQ function for economic gain. Seems like some kind of reasonable limit should be placed on COLIQ to dissuade these kinds of tactics. Maybe limit an account to 1 COLIQ/24 hours or something?
Thanks @loutakki. we got several reports of people abusing the COLIQ feature. We will restrict it with one of the next updates.
I just discovered a bug with building efficiency calculation. I had a few production lines running that in total required more Pioneers than I had, all of their efficiencies lowered as expected. Then some of my production lines finished while others were still going, at this point I had enough Pioneers for my remaining production lines yet their efficiencies stayed at the lower level that they were at when I had more production lines running instead of recalculating their efficiency. It seems like production lines aren’t recalculating their efficiency ratings when other production lines finish.
This is by design! There is no idling workforce that could be assigned to different production lines, even if there are no orders running.
So my workforce is stuck in a production building even if it’s inactive? Or am I misunderstanding?
I have 2 farms and 2 incinerators. This requires a total of 180 Pioneers to run all 4 of them. I am only running 1 farm and 1 incinerator right now, requiring 90 Pioneers to do so. I have 100 Pioneers. Since my active production lines only require 90 Pioneers to run, I should be running at 100% efficiency (not counting other factors), as described in this post by Mjeno: Feature backlog
Only workers in currently active buildings count towards the efficiency rating. This way, there’d be a distinction between “total workers needed when all Production Lines are active” and “workers needed for currently active Production Lines”. As long as a base has enough workers to operate all active Production Lines, Efficiency is at 100 %, even when running all Production Lines would require more workers than are available in the base. This could also apply to several buildings within the same Production Line, e.g. if only one out of two Smelters is running, efficiency is at 100 % even though it would be below 100 % if both were running. Players could also be given the possiblity to allocate workforce, e.g. by sending a maximum amount of workers to one building to max out its productivity, while others are running at lowered productivity.