Ratjoy.com » Forums » EoS General Discussion » re
You need to register or login to post a reply.
re
|
Zack WenJian RJ: Zack CO: Zack Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 114 Karma: 503 Joined: Mar 31, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 (Last edited on May 3, 2015) .. |
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 Worker training is considered, but max workers to increase efficiency is simply redundant at the moment - since you will be hiring the max workers, or you'll leave the buildings un-expanded.
|
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 If there's a number-of-workers value already in the system at this point, would you be willing to surface that (if not other details) on the facility's info page? It'd be neat to see what the modeled value is, if it's something other than literally just like "one per square meter".
|
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 salary = SUM(building_size^2) * 100;
|
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 Wait, why building size squared? A factory with 1000 square meters of space will be ten times as productive as one with 100 square meters, all else being equal, but if I'm understanding you right, you're saying that it would be paying 100 times the salary.e.g. 100 m^2 factory salary = (100^2) = 10,000 1000 m^2 factory salary = (1000^2) = 1,000,000 That implies either that a 1000 m^2 factory has ten times as many workers per square meter (which doesn't bear out since they sure aren't ten times as productive, even at maximal economy of scale) or that each worker at the larger plant gets paid ten times as much as each worker at the smaller plant (in which case they have one HELL of a labor union). |
|
Tony Wooster RJ: Johnny Appleseed Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 41 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 I'm guessing building_size == 100 if your building is 100^2 m. Otherwise Fearless Leader would have sqrts littered all over the code...
|
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 (Which isn't to say that having some sort of scaling factor to nudge up the per-employee cost of managing a larger number of bodies isn't sensible. More bodies means more management and more logistics, so your costs for human resource management are likely to scale up a bit with the size of the employee base. But not at this sort of rate! It's like the inverse of the original factory economy equation situation: the effect is really stark when it'd make more sense for it to be significant but not as direly so. If it was (building_size^1.1), you'd still get significant increase in employee salary with growth; someone with a 1000 m^2 facility would be paying just about twice as much per employee as someone with a 10 m^2 facility, for example. Nothing to sneeze at, but also not prohibitively explosive growth in costs.) |
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 I'm guessing building_size == 100 if your building is 100^2 m. Otherwise Fearless Leader would have sqrts littered all over the code... No, certainly, but the point is that it's not the 100 that's squared in 100 m^2, it's the meter length of the unit of measure. A 100 square meter building isn't 100^2 meters in length, it's 100 units of one square meter of space. The exponent is in the unit, because it's a two-dimensional measurement of area. |
|
Tony Wooster RJ: Johnny Appleseed Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 41 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 7, 2012) Hmm. Good point there, but the growth should be logarithmic, I think. E.g., if one person can manage 10 people, then one middle-manager could manage 10 managers, and so forth.Re: Second point. I suppose I was misreading a bit, or miswrote a bit. I'm saying that I think he's treating building size as linear even in that equation (e.g., he accidentally pulled the ^2 out of the unit and is expressing it). But then, maybe that doesn't make sense considering how he wrote it. I just can't see the squaring being reasonable -- like you said -- for some of the much larger shops. That'd put a 2000m^2 shop at 400,000,000 in wages, and I think we would've heard someone bitching about that. Edit: Well, I was wrong! :D |
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 7, 2012) For the sizes, 200 m^2 is twice as big as 100 m^2, nothing complicated there.As for the squaring of the sizes for calculation in salary, it's to account for the management level employees needed in a large company vs in a small one. Josh made the correct assumption in his earlier reply: More bodies means more management and more logistics, so your costs for human resource management are likely to scale up a bit with the size of the employee base. But not at this sort of rate! Why use the square instead of 1.5 or 1.2 or 3, or base to the power? Easy answer: Because from my coding perspective for the beta, putting a square simply tells myself the equation is non-linear, and we'll be experimenting until we find the optimal tweak. So thanks for voicing your opinions, so I'll know whether the values are too high or too low. We'll be trying size^1.2 tonight. |
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 Cool. Like I said, I do like the idea of it being a factor, I just worry that the factor at squared would be HEY LARGE EMPLOYERS, EAT FIERY DEATH in practice. :)
|
|
Tony Wooster RJ: Johnny Appleseed Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 41 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 7, 2012 Another thought which occurs to me, somewhat generally to the whole fee structure: It might be a good idea to nix wages and maintenance for a company that has had no activity over a day (no production or store sales). That way, if I take a week vacation or don't look at the game for a few days, I don't have to worry about my company going into the ground.
|
|
Scott (Admin) RJ: Ratan Joyce CO: Ratan Joyce Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 1175 Karma: 5083 Joined: Jan 13, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 8, 2012 (Last edited on Apr 8, 2012) No wages/sales after 7 days, but maintenance and interest still accrue.Also it looks like I forgot to change the multiplier after doing the 1.2 last night, so I'll be adding that back. Don't be alarmed that the salaries will look very different between the past 3 days. |
|
Tony Wooster RJ: Johnny Appleseed Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 41 Karma: 51 Joined: Apr 4, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 8, 2012 Good to know! Thanks.
|
|
Josh Millard RJ: Tex Corman CO: J. Quaff Arabica Post Rating: 0 + / - Total Posts: 167 Karma: 231 Joined: Apr 3, 2012 |
Posted on Apr 8, 2012 Ha, yeah, I was wondering. Not that I can complain about paying $14K instead of the $4M I had budgeted for, but I was guessing something went a bit wrong there.
|
You need to register or login to post a reply.