Page 7 of 8

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:04 pm
by travists
Glad you like it!
PGPTB need a feature request tracker, or does it need further discussion first?

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:32 pm
by klauss
Feature request tracker immediately, otherwise we forget.

We can discuss it on the tracker or a new thread if you wish, though it seems quite straightforward.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:43 pm
by travists
Added!

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:40 pm
by travists
Still looking for input on the faction list, on the factions page. Again, if you see a group that does not need to be considered for inclusion in base type/owner listings for distinct goods production mark it with a strike-through, preferably in red. I'll probably go through the wiki again and see if I can spot those groups unlikely to be running a base (or at least not have a distinct production preference) in a few days if nothing is heard.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:46 pm
by klauss
Why is the commerce center striken?

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:00 pm
by pheonixstorm
In some references a guild can also be thought of as a type of corporation.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:49 pm
by travists
klauss wrote:Why is the commerce center striken?
Lack of applicability mostly. Way back it was suggested that the "Wal-Mart in space" should go away; I'm ambivalent on the issue. Everyone should have edit rights, so feel free to add it back. I'm a ways from being onto that page though. At the bottom are some tabs, the faction one contains a list of every faction I can find in the wiki. My present wondering is how many of them need independent base entries as a distinct economic entity?
pheonixstorm wrote:In some references a guild can also be thought of as a type of corporation.
Thanks for the info, much better explanation of the "merchant guild". Still, another "guild"?

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:05 pm
by klauss
travists wrote:
klauss wrote:Why is the commerce center striken?
Lack of applicability mostly. Way back it was suggested that the "Wal-Mart in space" should go away; I'm ambivalent on the issue. Everyone should have edit rights, so feel free to add it back. I'm a ways from being onto that page though. At the bottom are some tabs, the faction one contains a list of every faction I can find in the wiki. My present wondering is how many of them need independent base entries as a distinct economic entity?
Well, don't think of it as a Wal-Mart in space, more like a central-market in space.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:31 am
by loki1950
That and there well may be more than one merchant house/family/faction renting space on said platforms ie: a Mall :wink: After all there is lots of capital cost to recover for building any platform of that size besides the lease holders would want some insurance that their business have continuity.I would not be surprised if several allied factions built them in partnership.
KISS works for computer systems but has never been the rule for economies :shock:

Enjoy the Choice :)

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:55 am
by travists
Ok, they stay, but when the new universe making script comes online they cant be the sole station in an out of the way system. Needs to make sense where they are placed. Also dropped the factions onto the bases page. Looking like a lot of data to do...
11 base types * 39 active factions = 429 instances! Throw in the goods list and wow! Though as I recall some factions/races are utterly dependent on their benefactors

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:44 am
by klauss
Actually, it makes a lot of sense to throw them in out-of-the-way places. Those kind of places make for very good distribution hubs.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:46 pm
by travists
I was thinking more one jump in and out well off the beaten path out-of-the-way. Border regions and between population centers makes perfect sense.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:37 pm
by travists
Uln,Shmrn, and Saahasayaay lack wiki info under factions. Are these independent enough to have their own stations and/or production preferences?

Bzbr, Lmpl, Nuhln, and Purth all are listed as subservient to their benefactors and have been stricken. Objections, additions, comments? I'm also working on a rough draft of goods starting with the current list.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:50 pm
by travists
Tangent time!
I had a thought on how to enhance the handling of contraband. A simple csv has:
Cargo_name, Faction, Sector, System

When you do a contraband search
  • Should I search? If yes continue, if no done
  • Is cargo hidden? if yes continue, if no skip next
  • Is my scanner sophisticated enough to penetrate hiding? if yes continue, if no handle per faction.
  • repeat for every cargo item and upgrade on target ship
    • Is item listed in contraband list? if yes continue, if no next item
    • Is my faction or all listed with an instance of that item? if yes continue, if no next item
    • Is sector with instance blank? if yes attack-done, if no continue
    • Does sector with instance = current sector? if yes continue, if no next item
    • Is system with instance blank? if yes attack-done, if no continue
    • Does system with instance = current system? if yes attack-done, if no next item
  • done

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 11:58 pm
by klauss
How do you hide cargo?

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:50 am
by loki1950
Shielded compartment maybe deep in the hull an other item for the shady mechanic travists :wink: and it's presence should not be noticed by low order sensors so your pseudo code should be ok.


Enjoy the Choice :)

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:15 am
by travists
The way the dialog describes it in the original Privateer makes it sound like finding a hollow door panel and storing contraband in there. I was thinking shielded or cloaking type device. Yes, It should be a shady mechanic type item and if a higher military grade sensor detects the jammer regardless of whether they can punch through you could get in trouble.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:22 am
by pheonixstorm
Yeah hidden cargo compartments are a must. Its the one thing that the Priv mods had to make a hack for since VS doesn't really support them.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:34 am
by klauss
Actually, contraband searches are a must. I've never gotten into trouble by carrying contraband around, and I've done it for a long while just to check.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:04 am
by loki1950
And whether you get into trouble depends on the faction doing the scanning as each should have differing ideas on what constitutes contraband.Such as carrying Aeran bulk food in Confed space and the inverse in Aeran space.

Enjoy the Choice :)

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:14 am
by travists
How about "Zhollus:A plant-like lifeform that, while exceptionally tasty to a Rlaan, is exceptionally devastating to a Rlaan friendly ecosystem."
Think the confed could care one way or another?

Or

"Aera Nerve Stimuli: Ever watched an Aera spasm in something that looks like a cross between an epileptic fit and an orgasm? Give them some of this and sit back. Way back. Preferably behind a barrier..."
I suspect that for the same reason recreational drugs are popular on 20th/21st century Earth despite laws to the contrary, the Aera would have a similar market. Given the on going war and lack of market/effect in human space You might even get a medal for making runs of the stuff to an Aera fighter base.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:03 am
by travists
Anyway.... How frequently should they scan you? I'm thinking about 1 in 10 encounters.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:20 am
by klauss
That will have to be subject to a lot of tinkering to find a balance I guess.

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:26 pm
by travists
Do we have enough here to start a feature tracker, or do we want more details first?

Re: Midway step in refactoring trade

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:48 pm
by klauss
travists wrote:Cargo pricing again:

With some new voices cropping up, lets work from the bottom up. Bases and planets. I think we need primary producers (ore/raw agricultural products), secondary producers (useable metals/food), manufacturers(consumer, industrial, and military goods), and end consumers (military bases, resorts, and mega-residential facilities) as well as some special types like medical
**Note: planets can support more than one industry more readily than bases**

PP
  • Asteroid mines
  • Gas harvesters
  • Agricultural (station)
SP
  • Refineries
  • Food processing (station)
  • Agricultural (Planet)
M
  • Factory
  • Pharmaceutical production facility
  • Shipyard
EC
  • fighter base
  • Orbital housing facility
  • Super station/star fortress
  • Mobile Recreational Facility (station)
  • Resort
S
  • Medical facility
  • Relay station
  • Research
  • Educational
Full quote since it's quite far in the past.

I think we need a more granular characterization. I've been thinking about the implementation, and storing item-by-item what can reach what system at what price, is quite a difficult proposition. VS has a large variety of items, and we'd end up with a hundred-MB matrix.

I'm not kidding. master_part_list has ~600 elements. VS has ~11000 systems in milky_way.xml. That's a 6.600.000-entry matrix. Even if we only stored a number for the quantity, that's 24MB. We probably will have to store a lot more, so you see where that's going. And Python will have to process all that data, number crunching isn't exactly Python's strong suit.

So, I've been thinking, and a more efficient representation would be a matrix of system-vs-bundle (instead of system-vs-item). Bundles would be what producers make. So, if a system is N jumps from an agricultural producer, the matrix would have a corresponding cost-and-quantity entry in the "agricultural" slot for that system.

That would be a lot more efficient, but we need "bundles" to be granular enough to make the distinction between the various producer kinds.

Transformers (secondary producers) would only process the bundle matrix with their own "production matrix", so they don't need to be in the matrix or in memory.