Currently when you are low on work-hours (i.e. efficiency) it effects every complex equally. What if you could set a priority list of complexes that are affected?
This could work either way: a "protected work-hour list" or an "expendable work-hour list" not sure which is better (maybe you could use two lists?)
To explain:
A "protected work-hour priority list" would be a list of complexes that you want to keep working at max efficiency for as long as possible. e.g. you want factories to continue working at 100% even when there is less than 100% available for the colony as a whole. Factories will take their 100% cut of the available work-hours, sharing the adjusted available work-hours between the rest.
The "expendable work-hour priority list" would work the other way. You would say, for example, if there is a shortage of work-hours then "turn down" e.g. Shuttle Ports until there is enough for the rest.
You would probably have maybe 3-5 on (each?) list. The maths might get a bit complicated with all the compounding priorities etc., but I'm sure a formula could be thrashed out pretty easily if the idea was felt to be a good one.
Just a thought, maybe worth comment...
The main reasons for a loss in efficiency are lack of sufficient work hours, command complexes and/or domes. Perhaps it would be better to have a section that includes clear results of what is left (or short) for each? We already have enclosed/required for the domes, so could we add spare command complex capacity and work hours? I know it doesn't take long to calculate the spare work hours, but if you run your starbase with minimal spare employees it's something you have to do every week for every starbase.
If these three were all shown clearly there could be no complaints if you built too many complexes.....
Dan
Let's say you have an outpost with 1 factory and 1 resource complex.
You decide that the resource complex should have priority.
Now, 100% efficiency means that you need 1000 work hours available (500 each). (We'll ignore command complexes etc. for this simple example)
So now say we only have 800 available one week for whatever reason. Currently this would mean that both complexes run at 80% efficiency (400 each). That's logical perhaps, for a computer, but isn't really very well managed. "We are short of men, what should we do?" "Erm, share them out equally."
Why can't the governor say, "We need those trade goods, but I don't need those modules in any particular hurry. So I want 2 of you men to leave the factory and give them a hand in the resource complex".
Thus the resource complex runs at 100% efficiency (500 work hours) while the factory now runs at 60% efficiency (300 work hours).
That's what governors/managers do isn't it?
Now ideally, perhaps you would have an order that assigns/reassigns each individual employee to each individual complex. Tedious or what! I really don't want to do that (who does!) so I was trying to think of a quick and easy, automated way to manage this.
And I can see what you are saying about free close down of complexes, but
a) it wouldn't necessarily be a close down in many cases and
b) it's only temporary.
When you deactivate a complex, it takes work hours to prepare the complex for long term shut down (put the dust sheets down, reassign workforce, whatever). If you simple send your men to work place B instead of workplace A for a week or two, it doesn't incur any extra labour. (Take an extreme example of how it works now, if you suddenly had 0 work-hours in a starbase now, you run at 0% efficiency - you are effectively shutting down *every* complex for free.)
But, like I say, just an idea to try and impose a little impression of actual (day-to-day) colony management. And no, I'm not looking for Sim City :)
Even if that XP is currently only gained via battle, at least it could signify ability to make decisons under pressure / keep head in a crisis etc.
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Apr 20 2004, 11:34 AM) |
| Should the governor's % bonus have a influence on this? Even if that XP is currently only gained via battle, at least it could signify ability to make decisons under pressure / keep head in a crisis etc. |
I would say that makes sense yes. Whether it makes it all horribly hard to follow is another matter :) It would get pretty messy anyway if you multiple priorities etc.
But as this is only theory, I'd say yes. Maybe governor's XP should have an effect on efficiency anyway, regardless of this idea?
"I signed on to work in merchandising there's no way I'm going to work in a bloody factory or a mine for a week or two"
Now I know employee feelings don't enter into things at the moment,but knowing Mica he'll throw something in like a base getting a rep for assigning employees wherever they like.A bad rep might mean a reduction in employees coming looking for work!
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Apr 20 2004, 09:44 AM) |
| If you simple send your men to work place B instead of workplace A for a week or two, it doesn't incur any extra labour. (Take an extreme example of how it works now, if you suddenly had 0 work-hours in a starbase now, you run at 0% efficiency - you are effectively shutting down *every* complex for free.) But, like I say, just an idea to try and impose a little impression of actual (day-to-day) colony management. And no, I'm not looking for Sim City |
For the small starbase you suggested, that would seem to be logical. But using one and one for the nmbers of complexes gives a high level of granularity that skews the result - for the vast majority of starbases, they aren't small and the management discretion is provided by the ability to close complexes - and it has a manhour cost attached. If you scale the numbers you used up even by a factor of 20 the example becomes
Starbase: 20 factories, 20 resource, 16,000 manhours = 80% efficiency. Factory production 720, resource similarly variable at 80% of the total output
AS-IS: close 9 factories - eight for the hours shortfall, one more for the "dustsheets" - or possibly for the disruption of reassigning people as well?
Factory production 540 (75%), resource complexes 100% of the output
your proposal: set a standing order and get the 60%/100% split.
Hmm on second thoughts, I've just changed my mind - your proposal looks to give people the opportunity to set some variables and let the starbase run itself - or actively manage the numbers of active complexes and get a better output.... Of course it does reverse the "active management" argument somewhat
It still doesn't get away from my assertion that people shoul consider efficiency in their complex-building decisions and not build the complexes in the first place. And I can think of very few situations where a one-week dropoff in efficiency will cripple a starbase or affiliation
e.g: I might set my complex priority list as: Two security complexes, two platform control complexes and twelve research complexes. If the starbase has insufficient man-hours, the available man-hours are assigned to these, to keep them at 100% efficiency, if possible. If the priority list runs out before the man-hours, the remaining hours are shared out among the remaining complexes equally (as happens to the whole starbase, at present). If the man-hours run out first, the remaining listed complexes, and any unlisted, would be totally unmanned.
This seems fairly simple and easy to maintain, and not incredibly difficult in a program-design sense. It avoids getting into the nitty-gritty of individual research or mass production lines although if complexes were assigned in the same order as the mass production line or research project, multiple entries of the same type might take care of of that.
However, I wouldn't consider this a critical change and... does anyone relevent ever take note of these game mechanics proposals anyway?
TonyH
It's often hard to explain your own ideas, especially when they seem so simple to you...
And Dan, I'm not saying you shouldn't manage your colonies with a long term goal. This isn't intended to be instead of closing down complexes for longer term, I'm saying that this would help manage those unplanned for over-and-above demand for extra work hours that crop up every now and again.
If you suggesting ways to exploit the idea, then how about a counter to stop people doing that? A stellar cost maybe? An additonal reduction in work hours? (those factory workers will not be as efficient as the trained resources pickers).
| QUOTE |
| That's exactly what I was proposing Tony. If your explanation reads better then mine, then thanks for that |
Yes, sorry about that. Re-reading your original proposal, I havn't added much. I just lost track of it during the days postings.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Apr 20 2004, 08:25 PM) |
| And Dan, I'm not saying you shouldn't manage your colonies with a long term goal. This isn't intended to be instead of closing down complexes for longer term, I'm saying that this would help manage those unplanned for over-and-above demand for extra work hours that crop up every now and again. If you suggesting ways to exploit the idea, then how about a counter to stop people doing that? A stellar cost maybe? An additonal reduction in work hours? (those factory workers will not be as efficient as the trained resources pickers). |
If you read the comments at the end, they might be a touch tongue-in-cheek, but after working the maths I decided your idea was a good one! (and that was without it costing work hours, either...)
For small starbases it does give an advantage over closing complexes, that's true. But for small starbases the difference in real terms (rather than precentages) is truely minor in the grand scheme of things.
For larger starbases, the way that the "diminishing returns" game mechanic works for normal production factories, merchandising complexes, mines and all the other "exploitation"-type complexes (amongst others) gives balance enough in my opinion: Conmpared to closing complexes, your proposal saves the RL time to check on the details, at the cost of a reduced overall return from the starbase when efficiency drops happen.
That is perfactly consistent with one of the underlying themes to the game mechanics: making it possible to operate reasonably well by letting things "tick over", but giving those who want to put in the effort of constant tweaks the opportunity to squeeze a little bit more out of their available resources
One thing I would suggest is that, if this proposal became reality, then there would be certain complexes that were automatically considered to be "critical": active mass production (assuming that they were locked into production while they were operational) and just enough command complexes to prevent even more efficiency losses (else it might be possible for this kind of routine to give a diminishing spiral if people forget to have command complexes on the list)
Dan
However, it is not a perfect solution either yet. It is a nightmare to accurately calculate the optimal wage increase to get 100% efficiency for minimal additional money; also you have to be aware of the shortfall in the first place.
It would therefore be good to have a tag on the starbase saying "In case of insufficient man-hours, the employees will automatically receive higher wages to cover the shortfall." Instead of reduced efficiency, you would suffer from higher wages.
Steve has a point about this whole issue.I like his proposal and wholeheartedly agree, but I reckon it is not easy to code in. An automated wage increase would be fairly easy to implement (...I hope...) and alleviate the problem for the most part.
In itself I don't think its that huge an addition, the problems may arrise though when you factor in the various knock-on effects...
Still, its all just hypothetical isn't it :)
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Apr 22 2004, 11:05 AM) |
| Well its a point, but I'd prefer another option to just spending more money. Sacrifice efficiency in one area to maintain it elsewhere seems a valid alternative to just paying everyone overtime |
I'm not sure of teh exact percentages, but would it not cost roughly teh same?
100 employees working for $1 per week == 80 employees working for $1.25 pw
?
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Apr 22 2004, 11:40 AM) |
| I'm not sure of teh exact percentages, but would it not cost roughly teh same? 100 employees working for $1 per week == 80 employees working for $1.25 pw |
I'm thinking more of the situation where you have enough employees, may even have extra, but additional tasks that week (building/scrapping complexes, etc) that you may not have planned for (or may have miscalculated) use up work-hours so that you end up with not enough to run your complexes at 100%. It's not about not having enough enough employees, its about not having enough work-hours left at the end of the week.
You could employ more employees permanently, but for most of the time the "spares" would be getting paid to just sit around drinking Falconian Beak Tea. In an outpost this would be expensive, in a starbase these men would be less idle (and cheaper anyway), but needn't be necessary.
If you had the option of paying X more stellars, or reducing shuttleports to 50% for one week, isn't that a nice *choice* to have? If you are trade hub, you'd probably rather pay extra to retain full efficiency on everything, but a remove starbase that gets few visitors, might not want to turn off shuttleports, hiports, etc between uses, but would be happy to turn them down as and when needed.
yep, would be a nice choice.
would personally be happy with just the stellar option though
<--------------- celebrates managing to spell 'the' correctly for a change.
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Apr 22 2004, 10:40 AM) |
| I'm not sure of teh exact percentages, but would it not cost roughly teh same? 100 employees working for $1 per week == 80 employees working for $1.25 pw |
If it does, it shouldn't - there should be some form of diminishing returns for the enhanced efficiency (all that overtime = knackered employees who make mistakes
) Dan