Mass Effect Factions RP|New OOC|Open

[Lunas Legion]

I think it's a behind the scenes thing that Istan will use to calculate everyone's income on a IC-monthly basis, and then post everyone's income alongside the rolls.

So I don't have to do anything? Good.

And I think it's only coming into force in the next RP, where everyone is starting from scratch again, so it's a lot more equal at the start.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So I don't have to do anything? Good.

And I think it's only coming into force in the next RP, where everyone is starting from scratch again, so it's a lot more equal at the start.

You don't say?

[Illan]

Wait wait, I am so against the whole " no non-canon faction thing until all canon factions are filled". I would much prefer to play something of my own creation over something pre-made

[Creataris]

Wait wait, I am so against the whole " no non-canon faction thing until all canon factions are filled". I would much prefer to play something of my own creation over something pre-made

Technically since Mass Effect mentions something similar to your faction you could be canon, I would be taking up the reigns of a group of independent human colonies that prefer to be ruled from somewhere around them instead of Arcturus/Earth.

[Illan]

Wait wait, I am so against the whole " no non-canon faction thing until all canon factions are filled". I would much prefer to play something of my own creation over something pre-made

Technically since Mass Effect mentions something similar to your faction you could be canon, I would be taking up the reigns of a group of independent human colonies that prefer to be ruled from somewhere around them instead of Arcturus/Earth.

But what if I decide to go for something else next installment? I still want to be able to switch up some things.

[Illan]

Also, I suggest we balance the starting incomes of the bigger and smaller factions so they aren't at a huge disadvantage straight from the beginning.

[Greater Istanistan]

Also, I suggest we balance the starting incomes of the bigger and smaller factions so they aren't at a huge disadvantage straight from the beginning.

The problem with this is that the Asari would naturally have a massive economy compared to some Terminus warlords. It wouldn't be quite canon-friendly to do that and would turn the game into an utterly surreal and frankly BS-filled experience.

I vote no.

[Illan]

Also, I suggest we balance the starting incomes of the bigger and smaller factions so they aren't at a huge disadvantage straight from the beginning.

The problem with this is that the Asari would naturally have a massive economy compared to some Terminus warlords. It wouldn't be quite canon-friendly to do that and would turn the game into an utterly surreal and frankly BS-filled experience.

I vote no.

I don't mean equal economy, I just don't want the big guys to dominate us from the start. I mean no "1000 to 25 Credits" starting income. And when have we ever been canon friendly in this?

[Eden Valley]

I think deposits on planets should be taken into account.

[Greater Istanistan]

Actually, a small ORGANIZATION - not a faction, an organization -starts with 1/10th of what I do, and has a base income of 1/3 of mine.


I was thinking that Industry levels (in my previous proposed area) would be made cheaper by being on Garden Worlds. And as for resources, covered in the Trade Equation.

[Illan]

Actually, a small ORGANIZATION - not a faction, an organization -starts with 1/10th of what I do, and has a base income of 1/3 of mine.


I was thinking that Industry levels (in my previous proposed area) would be made cheaper by being on Garden Worlds. And as for resources, covered in the Trade Equation.

I think we're overcomplicating the economy a tad bit.

[Archangelskl Oblast]

Lots of regional stuff to deal with..
What I miss?

[Lunas Legion]

Actually, a small ORGANIZATION - not a faction, an organization -starts with 1/10th of what I do, and has a base income of 1/3 of mine.


I was thinking that Industry levels (in my previous proposed area) would be made cheaper by being on Garden Worlds. And as for resources, covered in the Trade Equation.

I think we're overcomplicating the economy a tad bit.

Istan can handle the economy bit. It shouldn't be too hard to set up a Excel spreadsheet to do all that.

[Greater Istanistan]

Meh, I guess the economics might be a bit tricky for some to fully handle.

It's just that the game stinks if it is solely based on mass combat. It makes everything less interesting, allows some powers to be ludicrously stompish while others suffer, and entirely ruins it for factions like the Volus.

I'll vastly simplify that trade equation and propose a new system for building stuff which shall make stuff simpler.

[Illan]

Meh, I guess the economics might be a bit tricky for some to fully handle.

It's just that the game stinks if it is solely based on mass combat. It makes everything less interesting, allows some powers to be ludicrously stompish while others suffer, and entirely ruins it for factions like the Volus.

I'll vastly simplify that trade equation and propose a new system for building stuff which shall make stuff simpler.

I agree with you on the whole "less combat more diplomacy" part, but I think that a complicated economy could drive new players away, you know?

[Lunas Legion]

Meh, I guess the economics might be a bit tricky for some to fully handle.

It's just that the game stinks if it is solely based on mass combat. It makes everything less interesting, allows some powers to be ludicrously stompish while others suffer, and entirely ruins it for factions like the Volus.

I'll vastly simplify that trade equation and propose a new system for building stuff which shall make stuff simpler.

I agree with you on the whole "less combat more diplomacy" part, but I think that a complicated economy could drive new players away, you know?

Which is why you do all the economic bit behind the scenes.

[Archangelskl Oblast]

Meh, I guess the economics might be a bit tricky for some to fully handle.

It's just that the game stinks if it is solely based on mass combat. It makes everything less interesting, allows some powers to be ludicrously stompish while others suffer, and entirely ruins it for factions like the Volus.

I'll vastly simplify that trade equation and propose a new system for building stuff which shall make stuff simpler.

I agree with you on the whole "less combat more diplomacy" part, but I think that a complicated economy could drive new players away, you know?

I wouldn't be able to do it..

[Greater Istanistan]

I'd hopefully have time for that.

The equation is mostly just based on looking at stuff and figuring it out, you know.

The new flat-out planetary system could go something like this:



To upgrade planets, you may purchase Development levels. Levels are successive, with each level requiring more credits but being more profitable. They also reflect a planet's development, with higher levels reflecting more advancement. For example, Terra Nova would be a high level, while Horizon would be far lower. Costs and profits are modified by various and assorted factors, including planetary habitability, available space, and natural resources. Thessia would be very profitable and cheaper, as it is both a garden world and rich in element zero. Palaven would be more expensive as it is radioactive, barren, and full of endless deserts. Finally, industry would be vastly more expensive based on DNA. For example, Elcor are dextro-based. For them to build on a levo-based area would be horrifically expensive.

Haven't got the balancing down quite yet, but here's a try.

Each level's base cost would go like this:

Lvl. 0 (This is required to set the planet up for habitation) - 300 Credits - Note that any starting planets or planets which are settled in canon do not require this.
From here on, all level costs follow this basic equations:

Let L be level

40 L + 10

This would mean, for example, that Level 1 would be 50 credits, level 2 would be 90 credits, and Level 5 would be 210 credits.



Income per level would go like this:

Level 0 would have +5 credits. Level 1 would have +10 credits. From then on, it follows this equation:

Let L be level

Let C be credits/month


(L squared x 5) - 5 = C


This would mean that level 2 would grant 15 credits/month, and level 5 would grant 120 credits/month.



Level income does not stack. If you have level 0 and you upgrade to level 1, you do not get the income of level 0 + the income of level 1.



Essentially, the higher the level, the more costly things get. Costs and profits are modified as such:



-50% costs on all levels before Lvl. 5 and -25% costs for level 5 and beyond for garden worlds.
-25% costs on levels 1-5 for small/non-canon factions.
+100% costs on all levels for any species building on habitable worlds (planets with an environmental Threat Level below 1 in-game) which do not match their DNA pattern.
+25% profits on all worlds with Moderate or Rich mineral scores.
+50% profits on all worlds which have Element Zero reserves.
+5% build costs for every relay jump away from the homeworld by the shortest possible route your colony is. This increases to +20% for independents.
-10% profits if your world has an infrastructure level of 3 or below and is outside a cluster with a friendly planet with a level of 5 or above (as it is unlikely to have a spaceport of any real size).
+200% costs for building infrastructure on gas giants.
-75% Lvl.0 purchase costs and +15 credits in Lvl.0 income for small/non-canon factions.



The Mass Effect wiki and galaxy map provided in the OP should address all of these considerations. All planets must be canon. All colonies must be precisely placed on the map.



This sound workable? It gives serious bonuses to independents, while punishing massive sprawling small-colony empires and encouraging careful internal growth. However, independents still do get an advantage and have the ability to still profit while remaining small, giving them a fighting chance. However, it also prevents them from ridiculously spamming.



What do you think?

[Illan]

I'd hopefully have time for that.

The equation is mostly just based on looking at stuff and figuring it out, you know.

The new flat-out planetary system could go something like this:



To upgrade planets, you may purchase Development levels. Levels are successive, with each level requiring more credits but being more profitable. They also reflect a planet's development, with higher levels reflecting more advancement. For example, Terra Nova would be a high level, while Horizon would be far lower. Costs and profits are modified by various and assorted factors, including planetary habitability, available space, and natural resources. Thessia would be very profitable and cheaper, as it is both a garden world and rich in element zero. Palaven would be more expensive as it is radioactive, barren, and full of endless deserts. Finally, industry would be vastly more expensive based on DNA. For example, Elcor are dextro-based. For them to build on a levo-based area would be horrifically expensive.

Haven't got the balancing down quite yet, but here's a try.

Each level's base cost would go like this:

Lvl. 0 (This is required to set the planet up for habitation) - 300 Credits - Note that any starting planets or planets which are settled in canon do not require this.
From here on, all level costs follow this basic equations:

Let L be level

40 L + 10

This would mean, for example, that Level 1 would be 50 credits, level 2 would be 90 credits, and Level 5 would be 210 credits.



Income per level would go like this:

Level 0 would have +5 credits. Level 1 would have +10 credits. From then on, it follows this equation:

Let L be level

Let C be credits/month


(L squared x 5) - 5 = C


This would mean that level 2 would grant 15 credits/month, and level 5 would grant 120 credits/month.



Level income does not stack. If you have level 0 and you upgrade to level 1, you do not get the income of level 0 + the income of level 1.



Essentially, the higher the level, the more costly things get. Costs and profits are modified as such:



-50% costs on all levels before Lvl. 5 and -25% costs for level 5 and beyond for garden worlds.
-25% costs on levels 1-5 for small/non-canon factions.
+100% costs on all levels for any species building on habitable worlds (planets with an environmental Threat Level below 1 in-game) which do not match their DNA pattern.
+25% profits on all worlds with Moderate or Rich mineral scores.
+50% profits on all worlds which have Element Zero reserves.
+5% build costs for every relay jump away from the homeworld by the shortest possible route your colony is. This increases to +20% for independents.
-10% profits if your world has an infrastructure level of 3 or below and is outside a cluster with a friendly planet with a level of 5 or above (as it is unlikely to have a spaceport of any real size).
+200% costs for building infrastructure on gas giants.
-75% Lvl.0 purchase costs and +15 credits in Lvl.0 income for small/non-canon factions.



The Mass Effect wiki and galaxy map provided in the OP should address all of these considerations. All planets must be canon. All colonies must be precisely placed on the map.



This sound workable? It gives serious bonuses to independents, while punishing massive sprawling small-colony empires and encouraging careful internal growth. However, independents still do get an advantage and have the ability to still profit while remaining small, giving them a fighting chance. However, it also prevents them from ridiculously spamming.



What do you think?

Seems to take the whole micro-managing to a whole other level, and, to be honest, I don't have the time to keep track of all that.

[Lunas Legion]

I'd hopefully have time for that.

The equation is mostly just based on looking at stuff and figuring it out, you know.

The new flat-out planetary system could go something like this:



To upgrade planets, you may purchase Development levels. Levels are successive, with each level requiring more credits but being more profitable. They also reflect a planet's development, with higher levels reflecting more advancement. For example, Terra Nova would be a high level, while Horizon would be far lower. Costs and profits are modified by various and assorted factors, including planetary habitability, available space, and natural resources. Thessia would be very profitable and cheaper, as it is both a garden world and rich in element zero. Palaven would be more expensive as it is radioactive, barren, and full of endless deserts. Finally, industry would be vastly more expensive based on DNA. For example, Elcor are dextro-based. For them to build on a levo-based area would be horrifically expensive.

Haven't got the balancing down quite yet, but here's a try.

Each level's base cost would go like this:

Lvl. 0 (This is required to set the planet up for habitation) - 300 Credits - Note that any starting planets or planets which are settled in canon do not require this.
From here on, all level costs follow this basic equations:

Let L be level

40 L + 10

This would mean, for example, that Level 1 would be 50 credits, level 2 would be 90 credits, and Level 5 would be 210 credits.



Income per level would go like this:

Level 0 would have +5 credits. Level 1 would have +10 credits. From then on, it follows this equation:

Let L be level

Let C be credits/month


(L squared x 5) - 5 = C


This would mean that level 2 would grant 15 credits/month, and level 5 would grant 120 credits/month.



Level income does not stack. If you have level 0 and you upgrade to level 1, you do not get the income of level 0 + the income of level 1.



Essentially, the higher the level, the more costly things get. Costs and profits are modified as such:



-50% costs on all levels before Lvl. 5 and -25% costs for level 5 and beyond for garden worlds.
-25% costs on levels 1-5 for small/non-canon factions.
+100% costs on all levels for any species building on habitable worlds (planets with an environmental Threat Level below 1 in-game) which do not match their DNA pattern.
+25% profits on all worlds with Moderate or Rich mineral scores.
+50% profits on all worlds which have Element Zero reserves.
+5% build costs for every relay jump away from the homeworld by the shortest possible route your colony is. This increases to +20% for independents.
-10% profits if your world has an infrastructure level of 3 or below and is outside a cluster with a friendly planet with a level of 5 or above (as it is unlikely to have a spaceport of any real size).
+200% costs for building infrastructure on gas giants.
-75% Lvl.0 purchase costs and +15 credits in Lvl.0 income for small/non-canon factions.



The Mass Effect wiki and galaxy map provided in the OP should address all of these considerations. All planets must be canon. All colonies must be precisely placed on the map.



This sound workable? It gives serious bonuses to independents, while punishing massive sprawling small-colony empires and encouraging careful internal growth. However, independents still do get an advantage and have the ability to still profit while remaining small, giving them a fighting chance. However, it also prevents them from ridiculously spamming.



What do you think?

Hmm... Presumably races such as the Rachni, Vorcha and Krogan who can live pretty much anywhere don't suffer from things like the environmental penalty?

Also, I think that you should keep all these workings to yourself on the next RP, just to avoid scaring people off with maths.

[Versail]

I'd hopefully have time for that.

The equation is mostly just based on looking at stuff and figuring it out, you know.

The new flat-out planetary system could go something like this:



To upgrade planets, you may purchase Development levels. Levels are successive, with each level requiring more credits but being more profitable. They also reflect a planet's development, with higher levels reflecting more advancement. For example, Terra Nova would be a high level, while Horizon would be far lower. Costs and profits are modified by various and assorted factors, including planetary habitability, available space, and natural resources. Thessia would be very profitable and cheaper, as it is both a garden world and rich in element zero. Palaven would be more expensive as it is radioactive, barren, and full of endless deserts. Finally, industry would be vastly more expensive based on DNA. For example, Elcor are dextro-based. For them to build on a levo-based area would be horrifically expensive.

Haven't got the balancing down quite yet, but here's a try.

Each level's base cost would go like this:

Lvl. 0 (This is required to set the planet up for habitation) - 300 Credits - Note that any starting planets or planets which are settled in canon do not require this.
From here on, all level costs follow this basic equations:

Let L be level

40 L + 10

This would mean, for example, that Level 1 would be 50 credits, level 2 would be 90 credits, and Level 5 would be 210 credits.



Income per level would go like this:

Level 0 would have +5 credits. Level 1 would have +10 credits. From then on, it follows this equation:

Let L be level

Let C be credits/month


(L squared x 5) - 5 = C


This would mean that level 2 would grant 15 credits/month, and level 5 would grant 120 credits/month.



Level income does not stack. If you have level 0 and you upgrade to level 1, you do not get the income of level 0 + the income of level 1.



Essentially, the higher the level, the more costly things get. Costs and profits are modified as such:



-50% costs on all levels before Lvl. 5 and -25% costs for level 5 and beyond for garden worlds.
-25% costs on levels 1-5 for small/non-canon factions.
+100% costs on all levels for any species building on habitable worlds (planets with an environmental Threat Level below 1 in-game) which do not match their DNA pattern.
+25% profits on all worlds with Moderate or Rich mineral scores.
+50% profits on all worlds which have Element Zero reserves.
+5% build costs for every relay jump away from the homeworld by the shortest possible route your colony is. This increases to +20% for independents.
-10% profits if your world has an infrastructure level of 3 or below and is outside a cluster with a friendly planet with a level of 5 or above (as it is unlikely to have a spaceport of any real size).
+200% costs for building infrastructure on gas giants.
-75% Lvl.0 purchase costs and +15 credits in Lvl.0 income for small/non-canon factions.



The Mass Effect wiki and galaxy map provided in the OP should address all of these considerations. All planets must be canon. All colonies must be precisely placed on the map.



This sound workable? It gives serious bonuses to independents, while punishing massive sprawling small-colony empires and encouraging careful internal growth. However, independents still do get an advantage and have the ability to still profit while remaining small, giving them a fighting chance. However, it also prevents them from ridiculously spamming.



What do you think?

That may as well Chinese to me.
My head hurts now.

[Archangelskl Oblast]

To complicated, lots of people won't have time for that..

[Creataris]

I could keep track of that on my end, maybe for the majority of factions.

[Greater Istanistan]

Sure, I can do that.

The Vorcha, Krogan, and Rachni - and other hardy species like them - would have advantages, yes.

I will simply replace all the internal gubbins with a simple table for everyone to use along with the modifiers.

[Lunas Legion]

I could keep track of that on my end, maybe for the majority of factions.

Exactly. Just stick a Excel spreadsheet with the formulas above in, and you've got a working calculator for every faction's economy. Whoever OPs it could post each factions income alongside the rolls at the start of each month.