Beta 010: Agriculture-based industry & environment

[Koem Kab]

How much longer until these betas are added?

[World Nature]

I am against this fix to penalise Environment-based nations, aside from me being the greatest stakeholder here, but also the fact that Environment-based nations are hard to survive and maintain. There may be multiplicative effects of environment on industry size, but they are negligible considering the costs behind investing on Environment: very little value gains, yet high expenses to maintain

Any fixes against Environment will further to weaken and shatter Environment-based nations.

[Leondaldal]

I am against! Realistically the environment has HUGEeffects on the agricultural sector. For example it is much harder if not impossible to grow crops on polluted soil and in the case of cheese exports if less crops and grass can grow to feed the cattle.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I am against! Realistically the environment has HUGEeffects on the agricultural sector. For example it is much harder if not impossible to grow crops on polluted soil and in the case of cheese exports if less crops and grass can grow to feed the cattle.

For sure, and the environment will continue to affect agriculture after these changes.

However to contextualise this, it's all about ratios.

Right now if we were to code an issue that allows farmers to use fertilisers on their fields, we'd code that as a slight weakening of the environment with a slight boosting of agricultural industry output.
Under the current system, such an option would almost certainly result in the agricultural sector shrinking.

We could, of course, fudge this by using an an inappropriately large boost to agricultural industrial output by three times as much, but that would cause really inaccurate knock on effects throughout multiple other stats, such as overall economic efficiency, employment and so on, with this fudge factor meaning that a real terms +1% in agriculture has five times the knock on effects of a +1% increase in any other industry.

Under the new system, poor environment will continue to worsen farming output, and farming industry will continue to strain the environment. However, the work being done here is in rescaling magnitudes. You chaps can see the outcome effects through the beta, but you need backstage access to see the underlying imbalance that needs fixing.

With that view, it is very much obvious that the balance is in the wrong place.

[Azurius]

Problem first of all is: I cannot copy and paste a nation in beta, do it yourself and you will notice that the website adress does not allow specific links of nations for NS Beta.

Actually, you can link to the beta effects on a certain nation. Examples:

Thanks.

Well here are some up to date ones:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta/ ... ed_monkies

https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta/ ... enrichment

https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta/ ... he_stalker

https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta/ ... _concordat

https://www.nationstates.net/page=beta/ ... ullenstein

It´s clear that many nations just get raw losses of economic output for no apparent reason. With environments as high like those they should not be facing any losses in their agricultural industries. You can see that more environment in the current system doesn´t bring up their agricultural industries any further either.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

It´s clear that many nations just get raw losses of economic output for no apparent reason. With environments as high like those they should not be facing any losses in their agricultural industries. You can see that more environment in the current system doesn´t bring up their agricultural industries any further either.

The entire point of this beta is to reduce the effect environments have on these specific industries. It's obvious that nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries and therefore an overall decrease in economic output.

[Azurius]

It´s clear that many nations just get raw losses of economic output for no apparent reason. With environments as high like those they should not be facing any losses in their agricultural industries. You can see that more environment in the current system doesn´t bring up their agricultural industries any further either.

The entire point of this beta is to reduce the effect environments have on these specific industries. It's obvious that nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries and therefore an overall decrease in economic output.

You don´t seem to understand: These nations have long had enough environment to gain 0 further boosts from higher environment, no matter how much higher they keep pushing it as you can also clearly see by comparing these nations agricultural industries and environment curves.

And that´s exactly why nations with saturated environment should see no change in their agricultural industries, and yet they do.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

The entire point of this beta is to reduce the effect environments have on these specific industries. It's obvious that nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries and therefore an overall decrease in economic output.

You don´t seem to understand: These nations have long had enough environment to gain 0 further boosts from higher environment, no matter how much higher they keep pushing it as you can also clearly see by comparing these nations agricultural industries and environment curves.

And that´s exactly why nations with saturated environment should see no change in their agricultural industries, and yet they do.

That makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how long their environments have been good for, the fact that their environments are good now is what matters because that stat feeds into agriculture/fishing. Reducing the effect this stat has means that most nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries, because their good environments no longer inflate the industries as much. I'm really not sure how to put it clearer than that.

[He Qixin]

Being off-topic here, but how do I boost my cheese exports industry? I don't want to lose my top 10% badge for cheese exports once this beta has been implemented.

How much longer until these betas are added?

Not until all issues about these betas have been addressed, and then [v] will implement all of these betas together.

[Azurius]

You don´t seem to understand: These nations have long had enough environment to gain 0 further boosts from higher environment, no matter how much higher they keep pushing it as you can also clearly see by comparing these nations agricultural industries and environment curves.

And that´s exactly why nations with saturated environment should see no change in their agricultural industries, and yet they do.

That makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how long their environments have been good for, the fact that their environments are good now is what matters because that stat feeds into agriculture/fishing. Reducing the effect this stat has means that most nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries, because their good environments no longer inflate the industries as much. I'm really not sure how to put it clearer than that.

Do you really not get it or are you doing this deliberately?

I not only told you I in fact gave you data that clearly shows how environment itself does NOT "feed" into a trout fishing for example. It is a neccessity if you want to make use of your actual trout fishing.

Say you have 15k actual trout fishing. You will need around 650-700 points of environment for that. If you go below that your trout fishing drops. But here comes the flaw in your argument and logic:

If you push environment any higher then 700, say from 700 up to 1000, you get no extra trout fishing. It stays at 15k and won´t move even an inch! And it doesn´t matter how much higher you push your environment, it stays at 15k trout fishing unless you actually increase the trout fishing sector itself.

Let´s extend the same example and let´s say you increased your trout fishing of 15k up to 20k by answering issues. To actually get your extra 5k you gained from issues, you will now have to achieve an environment of at least 700-750.

That´s how it currently works and not differently. And that´s why environment doesn´t "feed" into the stats. If so then why do nations with already very high environments who gain like 1000 extra points of environment receive absolutely 0 gains to any industry? Go on explaining that and how this exactly is supposed to feed into the agricultural stats.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

That makes no sense at all. It doesn't matter how long their environments have been good for, the fact that their environments are good now is what matters because that stat feeds into agriculture/fishing. Reducing the effect this stat has means that most nations with good environments will see a decrease in these industries, because their good environments no longer inflate the industries as much. I'm really not sure how to put it clearer than that.

Do you really not get it or are you doing this deliberately?

I not only told you I in fact gave you data that clearly shows how environment itself does NOT "feed" into a trout fishing for example. It is a neccessity if you want to make use of your actual trout fishing.

Say you have 15k actual trout fishing. You will need around 650-700 points of environment for that. If you go below that your trout fishing drops. But here comes the flaw in your argument and logic:

If you push environment any higher then 700, say from 700 up to 1000, you get no extra trout fishing. It stays at 15k and won´t move even an inch! And it doesn´t matter how much higher you push your environment, it stays at 15k trout fishing unless you actually increase the trout fishing sector itself.

Let´s extend the same example and let´s say you increased your trout fishing of 15k up to 20k by answering issues. To actually get your extra 5k you gained from issues, you will now have to achieve an environment of at least 700-750.

That´s how it currently works and not differently. And that´s why environment doesn´t "feed" into the stats. If so then why do nations with already very high environments who gain like 1000 extra points of environment receive absolutely 0 gains to any industry? Go on explaining that and how this exactly is supposed to feed into the agricultural stats.

I'm going to quote the OP: "Proposed Change: Reduce the multiplicative effect of environment on industry size in Cheese Exports, Trout Fishing, and Beef/Agriculture. This has flow-on effects to the broader economy, affecting all industries, government departments, and tax rates."

This post was made by an admin. Literally one of the people responsible for coding the game. But sure, you know more about what goes on backstage than them.

[He Qixin]

Guys, I think we are forgetting the fact that this is a mere technical thread, and not a debate or RP.

[Frisbeeteria]

Guys, I think we are forgetting the fact that this is a mere technical thread, and not a debate or RP.

He Qixin, you seem to think that you are a moderator. You're not. Stop posting as if you have the right to admonish other players.

If a player needs admonishment, particularly in this forum where most of us read every new post and thread, a moderator will handle it.

[Azurius]

Do you really not get it or are you doing this deliberately?

I not only told you I in fact gave you data that clearly shows how environment itself does NOT "feed" into a trout fishing for example. It is a neccessity if you want to make use of your actual trout fishing.

Say you have 15k actual trout fishing. You will need around 650-700 points of environment for that. If you go below that your trout fishing drops. But here comes the flaw in your argument and logic:

If you push environment any higher then 700, say from 700 up to 1000, you get no extra trout fishing. It stays at 15k and won´t move even an inch! And it doesn´t matter how much higher you push your environment, it stays at 15k trout fishing unless you actually increase the trout fishing sector itself.

Let´s extend the same example and let´s say you increased your trout fishing of 15k up to 20k by answering issues. To actually get your extra 5k you gained from issues, you will now have to achieve an environment of at least 700-750.

That´s how it currently works and not differently. And that´s why environment doesn´t "feed" into the stats. If so then why do nations with already very high environments who gain like 1000 extra points of environment receive absolutely 0 gains to any industry? Go on explaining that and how this exactly is supposed to feed into the agricultural stats.

I'm going to quote the OP: "Proposed Change: Reduce the multiplicative effect of environment on industry size in Cheese Exports, Trout Fishing, and Beef/Agriculture. This has flow-on effects to the broader economy, affecting all industries, government departments, and tax rates."

This post was made by an admin. Literally one of the people responsible for coding the game. But sure, you know more about what goes on backstage than them.

Yes true. That´s what is proposed. And that´s why I am showing up the fact that this proposed change is flawed. It´s supposed to reduce the dependency of agricultural industries on environment. It does that partially, but it also ends up simply and for no reason reducing agricultural industries in nations that already have plenty environment to spare.

This also has nothing to do with backstage either, it´s a simple and undisputable observation. Seems you know what is going on backstage to exmplain that paradox... or not as it seems.

Also by now I am getting the impression that the only reason you deny the obvious flaws so persistently is because your nation in fact benefits from it.

Okay, here a calming message for you:

I propose fixing the flaw of reduced agricultural industries for no reason. Once fixed the effect of environment on these industries will still be reduced and you will still benefit from it. In fact it will then benefit you even more income wise as well, as you will get the reduced effect of environment without hurting any of your existing agricultural output, unlike the current and flawed beta which does exactly that, hurt your existing agricultural output for no reason.

[He Qixin]

Guys, I think we are forgetting the fact that this is a mere technical thread, and not a debate or RP.

He Qixin, you seem to think that you are a moderator. You're not. Stop posting as if you have the right to admonish other players.

If a player needs admonishment, particularly in this forum where most of us read every new post and thread, a moderator will handle it.

I don't know why you would want to say this, but sorry, I didnt know the rule. I also dont know what admonishment means either. This is also one of my first admonishment, or whatever that is...

I never thought that I had the right to admonish other players. I just didnt know that, ok? Seriously, I never thought that I am a moderator... I never thought that calming the heated debate down is actually admonishment.

Anyway, back on topic, I think you should exclude the beta from the nations which have a score of <=0 in their agricultural industry(ies). I mean, they don't even have (an/two) agricultural industry(ies), so the environment can't really do anything about that/those agricultural industry(ies) when that happens, can it?

[Apabeossie]

Not bad, but my results are bad

[Sapnu puas]

Why does it feel like this already got implemented? I see that my trout industry points are at my personal highest, yet I'm ranked 11th. Is it just me or did the top ten gain some trout?

[Leutria]

Why does it feel like this already got implemented? I see that my trout industry points are at my personal highest, yet I'm ranked 11th. Is it just me or did the top ten gain some trout?

It looks like with this beta you will see your trout industry decrease by 9.8%, likely because your environment is so high.

[Flanderlion]

Do these need more feedback, or is admin time that are the holdups? We're almost at a year since they were mooted, and all bar the lifespan changes look good and make sense.

[Krusavich]

Do these need more feedback, or is admin time that are the holdups? We're almost at a year since they were mooted, and all bar the lifespan changes look good and make sense.

I'd like to have some word on this too. I feel it's just a total lack of time admin wise to implement anything, though.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I'm told that the hold-up is purely on time available.

I mean, between various events, the card game coming in, and the ongoing maintenance work generated by this forum, I'm surprised that any of the betas have been implemented. As it is, we just need to be patient.

[Trotterdam]

Just how hard can it be to implement these?

The code for the new calculation clearly already exists, since the beta shows it. So implementing this shouldn't require writing anything new, just moving existing code from the beta section to the live section.

[Azurius]

I'm told that the hold-up is purely on time available.

I mean, between various events, the card game coming in, and the ongoing maintenance work generated by this forum, I'm surprised that any of the betas have been implemented. As it is, we just need to be patient.

Well I hope the hold up also includes fixing the flawed effects of this proposed beta. It cannot be that output for all simply dissapears only so that a few nations with terrible environment can have higher industrial stats(and as said technicaly percentage of their own raw output dissapears into nirvana as well).

Besides if you want to talk about fixing flaws why not fix the ridicilous black market effect on economic output? Formerly I actualy thought blackmarkets in fact reduced official income(makes sense) as nations whom used to have a 100% blackmarket also ended up with 5 to 6 average income lol. Of course there is no official income when 100% are in the black.

However, it seems this was a "bug" that is now fixed. It would seem it was intended exactly that way: The more blackmarket = the more output you just get! Even worse it´s literaly like economic rating, everything goes up for having a blackmarket! I calculated that my nation alone could gain a boost of at least 350k income minimum from just building up a blackmarket. How ridicilous is that?

That and the effect of environment on tourism as mentioned still remains a joke, alongside the fact that there is no tourism industry shown in currency to begin with.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Well I hope the hold up also includes fixing the flawed effects of this proposed beta. It cannot be that output for all simply dissapears only so that a few nations with terrible environment can have higher industrial stats(and as said technicaly percentage of their own raw output dissapears into nirvana as well).

I'm not clued in as to the reasons for delays, but I doubt it is to address those "flaws", as it's not entirely clear what flaws you're referring to. However, the sole purpose of this beta is to reduce the disproportionate effect that environmental quality has on farming, cheese and fishing output, as IRL there's hardly a correlation between the size of these industries and the quality of the environment.

What will basically happen is that nations with terrible environments will see their farming industries rise, while those with great environments will see those industries fall. It's not that the environment will become irrelevant, more that it will be scaled down in proportion to other factors, most notably the infrastructure and previous commercial success of the industry itself.

Besides if you want to talk about fixing flaws why not fix the ridicilous black market effect on economic output? Formerly I actualy thought blackmarkets in fact reduced official income(makes sense) as nations whom used to have a 100% blackmarket also ended up with 5 to 6 average income lol. Of course there is no official income when 100% are in the black.

Unsurprisingly, this isn't within the scope of this beta. Beta 5b deals with the black market, but it's primarily a rescaling thing again. It doesn't change how the black market still creates economy within a nation.

However, it seems this was a "bug" that is now fixed. It would seem it was intended exactly that way: The more blackmarket = the more output you just get! Even worse it´s literaly like economic rating, everything goes up for having a blackmarket! I calculated that my nation alone could gain a boost of at least 350k income minimum from just building up a blackmarket. How ridicilous is that?

You might be misinterpreting how that stat works. It's more that incomes go up as economic output goes up, regardless of what sector it exists within. How that output is carved into the various sectors is a separate calculation.

That and the effect of environment on tourism as mentioned still remains a joke, alongside the fact that there is no tourism industry shown in currency to begin with.

[/quote]

Yep, Tourism being significantly revisited was my first suggested revision, and exists as a beta that really could go public now. However, I don't have the authority to move that from private to public, so it remains in limbo.

[Aclion]

Yep, Tourism being significantly revisited was my first suggested revision, and exists as a beta that really could go public now. However, I don't have the authority to move that from private to public, so it remains in limbo.

I hope it will change to being measured in currency. I still want to make a pie chart of my economy. (even if it will be as weird as death charts )