[0.90] Sane Strategies 0.42.1 - Dec 18

[Starman4308]

By the way, how much effort would it take to fudge the rewards for contracts outside Kerbin specifically? I'm playing with the 6.4x RSS config, which means that there is a very, very sharp increase in the difficulty of extra-atmospheric contracts, but anything atmospheric is exactly as easy as stock (probably moreso with NEAR removing the souposphere). It's not terribly fun when I either get bankrupted by extra-atmospheric contracts (low fund setting) or roll in money from atmospheric contracts (high fund setting).

[Hyomoto]

After playing with this for a bit I have to say it's only somewhat 'sane'. The returns are okay, but I did find a big issue:

20% reputation to funds: 188:1 Start up costs 100 rep (18800)

20% science to funds: 940:1. Start up costs 100 science (94000)

20% funds to reputation: 1:212. Start up costs 80000

20% funds to science: 1:1064 funds. Start up costs 200000

The bracketed start up costs are the value of the exchanged resource in funds. As you can see, the numbers are all over the place. The biggest offenders you've clearly nerfed are the science strategies but instead of being OP, they no longer serve a purpose. A 200,000 funds payout @ 20% will cost 200k to start, absorb 40k in funds and yield around 80 science. The ENTIRE payout at max investment of ONE MILLION funds would return no funding and a paltry 140 science. Early on in the game, there would be no point in trying to supplement science by starving funds and it would only become less useful later on. The entry cost is prohibitive and the returns do not exist. I've made adjustments to my game which I'm going to test out that run as follows:

initialCostFundsMin 0 => 0
initialCostFundsMax 1000000=> 200000

minRate 0.001 => 0.003
maxRate 0.0007=> 0.0014

This means minimum investment costs around 10k to start, and would cost 10k on a 200k payout and return 30 science. A more feasible mission of 40k would cost around 800 and return about 6 science. Not a lot, but matches the investment. A more reasonable investment of 20% costs 40k to start and would return around 20 science. 200k would return a paltry 280 science at 100% investment. Acceptable if you need it, but not enough to live on alone.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Hyomoto

[Crzyrndm]

Gaining extra science is a massive benefit for the early game. I do agree that the cost:value dipped too low with 0.3, but the startup cost is intentionally high (a little too high, but anyway) because of the value placed on science in a career game. I don't believe that you should just be able to easily convert your excess funds into the highly valued science.

PS

If someone wants to convert 100% of their funds to anything, they're going to have problems. Startup or no startup.

[Hyomoto]

That's not really true. By the time you reach the end game, why wouldn't you convert your science and most of your reputation into funds? Why would you amass science once you unlock the tree? It makes sense that during the early game you would convert the other currencies. Science isn't a benefit, it's a requirement. Besides, unlocking parts also costs money on hard. No matter how much science you gather, you'll still need to budget to actually put them into production. Trading funds for science directly hampers that. Besides, amassing funds in the early game is easily just as beneficial, as parts become more expensive science quickly tapers off. Once you have unlocked up to the mid tree you need more science for unlocks, but the unlocks are less vital.

It's weird you used the term beneficial negatively. Should you just do away with strategies because the player may benefit? Gathering currencies is a means to an end. Whether you do it by strategies, contracts or exploration should be the player's choice. I understand wanting to provide meaningful progression, but like I said, as it stands right now all the current numbers do is make a strategy completely prohibitive and pointless. The stock numbers were definitely too high, you would earn somewhere around 300 science on a 40k paycheck. You swung a bit hard in the other direction .

Edited October 17, 2014 by Hyomoto

[Crzyrndm]

I've made adjustments to my game which I'm going to test out that run as follows:

initialCostFundsMin 0 => 0
initialCostFundsMax 1000000=> 200000

minRate 0.001 => 0.003
maxRate 0.0007=> 0.0014

You might want to bring the max rate a little closer to the min rate. With those numbers, you're actually going to run into a scenario where increasing commitment result in reduced returns (If you have the .dll and enough currency, you'll see the returns actually decrease between 95 and 100% commitment and flatline a bit before that). I've been using the max rate == 70% of the min rate so the returns don't flatline or decay like that.

You swung a bit hard in the other direction .

I get that. I've known for a few days now, I just haven't had a whole lot of time this week to correct that.

0.4 release going up shortly, changes include:

* An increase in the "value" of funds relative to the other currencies used to calculate conversion rates.
* 8 new strategies that are similar to the originals but with noticeably different gameplay impact. Instead of trading one currency directly for another, you trade on collection efficiency. Increasing science collection efficiency at the cost of funds means the science you bring back is worth more, but funds rewards are reduced (bring back no science and you'll still get penalised, but there will be no reward. Plan carefully).
* A review of startup capital required for each strategy to be more inline with the benefits associated with each option
* Bundling of Mini-AVC and AVC support

Edited October 18, 2014 by Crzyrndm

[Jagzeplin]

can this be installed and used in my current game or will i need to start a new one?

[Crzyrndm]

Any game

[Hyomoto]

You might want to bring the max rate a little closer to the min rate. With those numbers, you're actually going to run into a scenario where increasing commitment result in reduced returns (If you have the .dll and enough currency, you'll see the returns actually decrease between 95 and 100% commitment and flatline a bit before that). I've been using the max rate == 70% of the min rate so the returns don't flatline or decay like that.

Sorry for the delayed response, I like your idea of tapering off with increased commitment. Because the basic investment is going to be higher on 80% than 60%, even a reduced overall return still yields higher results. The issue is largely with the random and unpredictable returns of contracts. Granted, the missions are much longer, but even as close as Duna the payouts can be insanely high. I understand why you went with lower numbers, but it really only affects the early game when you'd actually be interested in performing this type of conversion so that's why my bonus was larger at the low end. Honestly, I think the variance could be a lot sharper. By the time you CAN drop 1m on a contract, the returns are mostly moot anyways. I'm sure this type of work is maddening, there isn't really a baseline anywhere. Let's hope after beta the contract system will be better exposed and Squad will take a bigger interest in trying to figure out just how much these various numbers are supposed to be worth.

[Crzyrndm]

Can't take credit for the diminishing returns, that was suggested by someone earlier in the thread and it was just way too good to pass on.

I'm sure this type of work is maddening, there isn't really a baseline anywhere.

The headache worthy problem.

[Crzyrndm]

Updated to 0.42, fixing a major screwup that was causing memory usage and CPU load to skyrocket inside the admin building.

[StevenV]

The changelog says 8 new strategies, but the alt.cfg only has 6 in it?

Charitable Donations

Hangar Sale

Tech Demo's

Internal Restructuring

Pilot Training

Technology Consultants

[Crzyrndm]

I obviously can't count...

[Spheniscine]

Is it possible for strategies to not touch advances? It's a little silly to earn science just by accepting contracts... of course, advances are already broken in that you don't ever go into negative funds when you decline contracts...

[Crzyrndm]

Very easily.

Open the SaneStrategies.cfg included with the download and replace the [OutsourcedResearchCfg] edit with this

@STRATEGY[OutsourcedResearchCfg]
{
	@initialCostFundsMin = 0
	@initialCostFundsMax = 450000

	@EFFECT[CurrencyConverter]
	{
		@minRate = 0.002
		@maxRate = 0.0014
		@AffectReasons = ContractReward
	}
}

[ymir9]

I love this mod. What's the word on 0.90 compatibility?

[Crzyrndm]

I may have forgotten about this while trying to get Pilot Assistant working again . The old version should work without a hitch, but I've uploaded a recompile with an updated .version file just in case.

[ymir9]

That's great to hear, thanks!

[Yemo]

Hello,

I m the author of the SETI-BalanceMod.

Since adjusting the admin building strategies is important for the balanced gameplay my mod tries to achieve, I stipulated SaneStrategies as a requirement

For easier installation, is there any chance for this mod becoming available via CKAN?

On Kerbalstuff, there was a checkmark in the lower right corner when I uploaded my mod there, which automatically tries to add it to CKAN.

I m not too versed in the matter, but it would simplify the installation process a lot.

Thank you for the fantastic mod!

[Crzyrndm]

If you want to add it to CKAN, go ahead. I'm not a fan of CKAN and will not officially support it.

[Wercho]

I'm just starting my career, so I don't have much to say on balance yet. I do think the alternative strategies are a great way to go with this mod. As you've mentioned, the contracts are all over the place with rewards ratios, and I think that's as it should be. Some are sciency, some are just business, etc. But that introduces problems when you exchange one currency for another. Your alternative strategies avoid that problem entirely, and seem much less prone to breaking the game.

Good work.

By the way, how much effort would it take to fudge the rewards for contracts outside Kerbin specifically?

Starman, I suggest looking at Contracts Window+. It allows you to edit the return values on contracts, so you could adjust the atmospheric contracts down and the others up, I think.

[Yemo]

I'm just starting my career, so I don't have much to say on balance yet. I do think the alternative strategies are a great way to go with this mod. As you've mentioned, the contracts are all over the place with rewards ratios, and I think that's as it should be. Some are sciency, some are just business, etc. But that introduces problems when you exchange one currency for another. Your alternative strategies avoid that problem entirely, and seem much less prone to breaking the game.

With the stock contract/game balance, you will drown in science around tech level 5.

[Wercho]

With the stock contract/game balance, you will drown in science around tech level 5.

Yeah, I know that. That's why I'm playing with 30% science rewards. I meant the balance of the new strategies.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

FYI - This may be intentional, but right now, your configs make it so that greater commitment results in LESS favorable outcomes - for example, 90% commitment in Outsourced Research makes each point of research MORE expensive than 10% commitment. It's the opposite of how stock does it (better gains per unit spent with higher commitment) - is this what you were going for?

[Crzyrndm]

FYI - This may be intentional, but right now, your configs make it so that greater commitment results in LESS favorable outcomes - for example, 90% commitment in Outsourced Research makes each point of research MORE expensive than 10% commitment. It's the opposite of how stock does it (better gains per unit spent with higher commitment) - is this what you were going for?

100% intentional.

The stock method (constant => increasing gain with increasing commitment) means it is always a good choice to increase your commitment because the resource income per unit resource spent increases with it. Your income per unit increases AND the ratio of units being converted also increases.

Sane strategies reverses this, making it less efficient to increase your commitment (this is carefully controlled to still provide an increase in output income, as can be seen if you have the plugin installed). Your income per unit decreases when the ratio of units converted increases.

This is a graph showing stock (Orange. Scaled by 1/5 to fit on the same page) and Sane Strategies (Black) appreciation campaign. You can see how stock curves very slightly upwards, while Sane strategies has a marked decay (but still shows positive increase all the way to 100%)

PS

If you ever need to graph something quick, google desmos, solid tool

PPS

The numbers on the Y axis are the reputation per unit of funds income (total income, not the converted amount). Rep per unit funds converted is what you see in the cfg file and does decrease slightly (3% per 10% commitment) as you increase commitment.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[AccidentalDisassembly]

100% intentional.

The stock method (constant => increasing gain with increasing commitment) means it is always a good choice to increase your commitment because the resource income per unit resource spent. Your income per unit increases AND the number of units being converted also increases.

Sane strategies reverses this, making it less efficient to increase your commitment (this is carefully controlled to still provide an increase in output income, as can be seen if you have the plugin installed). Your income per unit decreases, but the number of units converted increases.

This is a graph showing stock (Orange. Scaled by 1/5 to fit on the same page) and Sane Strategies (Black) appreciation campaign. You can see how stock curves very slightly upwards, while Sane strategies has a marked decay (but still shows positive increase all the way to 100%)

http://i.imgur.com/dtHZTQA.png

PS

If you ever need to graph something quick, google desmos, solid tool

Gotcha! Good to know, just making sure it was as it was meant to be!