|
I kinda think that buildings that change what good they produce based on PM was a bad idea and that all buildings should just make one type of good. It's really annoying to balance hardwood for example. When you jump to steel construction and you need a lot more glass, you'll probably overproduce porcelain. You can only change PM state by state so you can't fine tune that well. Whereas if every building made only one good then production would get balanced using the profitability/employment logic. I think maybe pdx recognizes that this is a problem too, they already split shipyards and separated explosives and fertilizer factories. It's probably ok to keep the current system for goods which are only temporarily used and then transitioned. For example I think you don't need to split shipyards up further into sailing and steamer shipyards. When you research the better ship type you might spend a few years transitioning but eventually you'll have all your PMs on the new one. Contrast with the luxury goods where you always want to produce at least a small quantity of them.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
They clearly merged buildings together because more different building types = more pops = more lag
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:They clearly merged buildings together because more different building types = more pops = more lag Ah, that's good point. Then maybe they can add a slider that can auto balance the ratio of goods produced from a building
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
I wish the output ratios weren’t fixed. I wouldn’t mind a single lumber camp that adjusts its output ratio depending on whether hard or soft wood is more in demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
Yaoi Gagarin posted:Ah, that's good point. Then maybe they can add a slider that can auto balance the ratio of goods produced from a building 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
Yeah slider has been the obvious fix since day 1 IMO, there's also much higher priority objectives of course so I'm not complaining it still being fixed ratios. But I am kind of expecting sliders at some point, and 5 years from now everybody except the real OG's will have forgotten that PMs used to have weird fixed ratios that forced overproduction at all. Unless it's an intentional feature to cause crises of overproduction in the Marxism Simulator. But I think there's better/more historical ways to do that than making porcelain dirt-cheap in every modern economy because of glass demand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 05:36
|
|
|
Sliders would be a micromanagement nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 05:52
|
|
|
It could default to automatically track an equilibrium between the goods. It could be the point of maximum profit, for example, or some other function. Then you'd only move the slider when you really wanted more of one good than the other for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 05:58
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Sliders would be a micromanagement nightmare. If you want to perfectly minmax it maybe, but all I want is to be able to drag the output ratios somewhere into the ballpark instead of being forced to either have +50% price hardwood or -50% price hardwood with no in between as a country with only a handful of states. And even as big countries, fiddling with per-state PM micro is a PITA too, a slider at least centralizes that to micro'ing one control on the national buildings panel instead of having to remember which 3 of my 27 states I speced into hardwood. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Mar 21, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 06:33
|
|
|
Don't think the sliders are needed, hardwood and porcelain are just not consumed enough for you to use the third setting; since main product is always in much higher demand. Even using the middle setting everywhere is often too much, both of those modes should just have the effects significantly reduced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 11:34
|
|
|
I don't want to micro sliders, poo poo's annoying enough already. I would, however, like to see buildings automatically shift production between output resources in accordance with supply and demand, that sounds very cool and a thematic solution to this issue instead of having to overproduce a byproduct every time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 11:40
|
|
|
I started a game as a released Sudan recently, it's really fun if not somewhat overpowered; you have relatively good tech while still having an African primary culture so you can conquer your way through the natives, get max integration speed on a ton of land and quickly dominate East Africa. Pretty much like playing Ethiopia but with a far stronger starting tech position.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 12:15
|
|
|
Simply making it so: * some buildings always produce two resources * the building tries to balance the output of both so both outputs are profitable (so tend to equilibrium) * the Production method only changes the total amount of goods produced (instead of shifting between what is produced) would increase the quality of life in micro management of the economy so much. I feel this would allow players to do less fiddling with the PMs (on top of reducing the the amount of “mixed pm” icons in the buildings tabs, which might in practice makes that icon useless) It would make it easier for the devs to figure out which products need their own buildings and which are fine being mixed (sometimes something being rarer /more difficult to make might be an intended effect) It’s for sure a complicated puzzle and I don’t envy them
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 12:34
|
|
|
I think this auto-regulating system might turn inot a nightmare loop. POPs chose what to consume, industries grow depending on a price of input goods. I'm afraid that if you leave the decision to the industry you'll be stuck in forever loop of no one using an advanced good for anything so its price is low, and since the price is low you don't want to produce it. You'll need a more complex AI that just balancing for price, and also different industry will interfere with each other affecting prices. The current system is irritating but at least it's clear and it gives you a proper decision to make.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 13:55
|
|
|
Just split it into different buildings so that each building vomits out a single good. That would also help capitalists (and the AI) making less silly decisions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 14:35
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:I think this auto-regulating system might turn inot a nightmare loop. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
Happy Litterbox posted:Just split it into different buildings so that each building vomits out a single good. That would also help capitalists (and the AI) making less silly decisions. That's the ideal state, but they've said it's impossible due to a hard limit on the amount of possible goods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
But the amount of goods would not increase, only the amount of different buildings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
Popoto posted:That's the ideal state, but they've said it's impossible due to a hard limit on the amount of possible goods. What are you talking about? There is no hard limit on goods, it's really just that every additional building type further splits pops and thus degrades performance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 15:33
|
|
|
Blocks! https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/victoria-3-dev-diary-109-power-blocs.1636916/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 16:10
|
|
|
Wiz posted:What are you talking about? There is no hard limit on goods, it's really just that every additional building type further splits pops and thus degrades performance. I remember reading here from a dev that over X amount of goods performance fully tanks in an exponential way, and that something like “36” or something was the guessed maximum number. Maybe I’m remembering wrong though, as you say. 🤷
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Blocks! This looks rad, I especially like that the one principle they went into detail on (defensive cooperation) mostly avoids giving arbitrary numbers bonuses and instead changes the relationship between bloc members in a meaningful way. Hopefully this is a running theme, though I do suspect that at least some of these are just going to be "get bigger numbers" buttons (construction, research and trade seem likely to fall into this trap, but I would be happy to be wrong)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Ideally, the game systems should allow you other options for handling surpluses of goods, and the problem is that those systems aren't really quite there yet. For example, trade and markets. Instead of perfectly balancing your hardwood production, you should be able to either produce more than you need and export the excess, or produce less than you need and import the rest. But in practice, it's hard to rely on trade for many goods, because the AI doesn't export some goods in sufficient quantities, and doesn't tend to rely on imports from outside its own market if it can help it. All the foreign investment stuff coming with Sphere of Influence might change that, but it's hard to say how much small and poor countries (who tend to be worst-affected by these issues) will be able to make use of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 16:55
|
|
|
Fixing the issues with black of demand for trade will probably be vital now that buildings can be owned by the government. What's the point of making a state owned industry thats meant to export goods to fund the government if nobody ever has enough demand for them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Vizuyos posted:Ideally, the game systems should allow you other options for handling surpluses of goods, and the problem is that those systems aren't really quite there yet. It definitely doesn't help that trade routes are extremely finicky and can go from a huge profit to a huge loss and back again from week to week, without any kind of feedback or way to deal with it. And it's also just weird that you have no direct control over how big the trade route is going to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Does the game offer more to differentiate gameplay between nations, especially late game? Late game it feels like your country is just a blob of GDP which increasingly trends towards population. I had a game where due to resources I was 3rd place from sheer resource availability fueling my industry but gradually and then very quickly fell off as other people got techs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure there is a number of goods that will cause the game to crash everytime you try to launch it. Probably someone already reached it by adding things like Prussian 1902 summer uniform right boot etc.  Picked up the game during the sale and looking forward to an easy and smooth time implementing policy and conquest which will definitely not involve getting crushed or dealing with rebelions. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Wiz posted:What are you talking about? There is no hard limit on goods, it's really just that every additional building type further splits pops and thus degrades performance. Popoto posted:I remember reading here from a dev that over X amount of goods performance fully tanks in an exponential way, and that something like “36” or something was the guessed maximum number. KOGAHAZAN!! posted:Since Radia is referencing something I told her- my recollection is that it was, I think either the Mexico stream or a segment of the release day stream, with Wiz and Paul Depre- is that Ofaloaf?- where they're discussing coal in the game, and how they want to maybe split coal into different types- anthracite, lignite, etc- so as to better model the fact that not all coal was equally useful for all purposes, and not everywhere with coal had every type- I think Germany notably had a lot of lignite, which is basically dogshit, and not a lot of anthracite, which is what you really want for, say, steel production. And that turned into a discussion of the problems involved with adding more types of good, and then jokes about the inevitable megamod that will introduce a thousand hyper-niche goods, at which point the non-Wiz dev makes an offhand comment that if anyone tries to go much above fifty, they're going to start running into serious performance problems. That's what I was remembering! so the number was/is 50 // no idea how much that changed with the performance patches
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 20:14
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does the game offer more to differentiate gameplay between nations, especially late game? Late game it feels like your country is just a blob of GDP which increasingly trends towards population. I had a game where due to resources I was 3rd place from sheer resource availability fueling my industry but gradually and then very quickly fell off as other people got techs. Late game is when you start running into limits on raw resource availability for a lot of things, and also maneuvering for world warrin'. Also, your economy is more of a house of cards; significant losses in inputs could cause enormous problems. Depends on whether you've achieved full autarky i suppose, but even then you're probably reliant on sea routes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does the game offer more to differentiate gameplay between nations, especially late game? Late game it feels like your country is just a blob of GDP which increasingly trends towards population. I had a game where due to resources I was 3rd place from sheer resource availability fueling my industry but gradually and then very quickly fell off as other people got techs. Because the game doesn't have stuff like "Germans are naturally just hardworking and have better armies than other races!" the answer to this is generally no, the thing which helps to differentiate your playthroughs is starting location (population / resources) and laws, tech level, certain region-specific IG traits (especially the devout) and state culture (which impacts integration time and discrimination) Personally I think that this gives a pretty wide variety of different starting conditions, but it does limit the game in some significant ways. All of the European great powers play exactly the game way, with some minor variation (except for the OE) because they all have good tech, population, laws and resource access off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 20:42
|
|
|
Russia plays different from them as well, and to a lesser degree Austria. And the starting geographic/global situation does a decent job of differentiating your short to mid term goals as France/UK/Prussia imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Does the game offer more to differentiate gameplay between nations, especially late game? Late game it feels like your country is just a blob of GDP which increasingly trends towards population. I had a game where due to resources I was 3rd place from sheer resource availability fueling my industry but gradually and then very quickly fell off as other people got techs. Not sure which country you were, but generally you were supposed to spend that 3rd-place time beating the crap out of your potential rivals and stealing anything valuable from them before they could catch up to you in industrialization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
Popoto posted:That's what I was remembering! so the number was/is 50 // no idea how much that changed with the performance patches There's no magic threshold like 50 so if I implied that then I probably phrased it poorly. I think what I was trying to get across was more that adding more goods (and particularly more building types to produce them) does impact performance so we try not to do so unnecessarily. Basically 52 goods would be 100% fine, 100 goods with 50 new buildings to produce them not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 11:42
|
|
|
Couldn't you theoretically only have a single building that just determines input and output goods entirely via its production methods? Assuming you have the number of states to make that work, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 13:04
|
|
|
Are we debugging Victoria 3 code through post messages now? I imagine Victoria 3 logic is very complex but I have to say it's a little worrying that this game's requirements are so much higher than other current Paradox games. Soon AI will get new toys in the expansion, there will be new mechanics, will the system be able to handle it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 13:39
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Couldn't you theoretically only have a single building that just determines input and output goods entirely via its production methods? Assuming you have the number of states to make that work, anyway. Victoria 3 MBA Edition: There is only one building, a factroy, and it only makes widgets
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 14:11
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:Are we debugging Victoria 3 code through post messages now? The code logic problem is way less confusing than you imagine, it's middle(?) school math. Every good, is a factor. One of the things the ai needs to do is run its calculatations for each one. Most of these interact with eachother and other systems. That means, in processor cycles, one new good isn't x{algorithm} +1{algorithm}. It's {algorithm}x+1. 102 vs. 103. Code is fine, it's designing away issues of the amount of work the 'puter needs to do, that makes adding new mechanics doable. All the goods and their dynamic demand is way more process power hungry than any other part of the game, and not adding to that specific domain is what the conversation is about ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Mar 23, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 14:19
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a big O computational problem and the stuff that happens to O between the brackets is bound to not be pretty. I just find amusing seeing algorithmic proposals based on what we as end users see. I just hope something can be done with it because it doesn't look pretty. We're not in the era where you can expect average user processing power soon to catch up with the game, and we all want this game to get enough DLCs for us to complain about the amount of DLCs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
An interesting idea I've had for a similar econ-sim game project was if maybe if some relationships between agents in the game are simple enough, perhaps as a linear formula, you could parallelize it in a very clever way by making agents into pixels in a texture and then do your math per pixel. The problem is probably unloading and loading the texture are still going to be bottlenecks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:05 |
|
|
If that kind of parallelism fits your problem you don't need to do it in a texture, you could just use a compute shader. I think the round trip of data from CPU to GPU would kill you if you tried to use it in game logic though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2024 16:44
|
|