Re: [glob2-devel] concept for building priorities

[Kai Antweiler]

You need initial values for AT and HT.


> If usage continues as before, the inn could use up all of its current
> food after roughly AUT ("average utilization time") time units:
>
>   AUT = (W / G) * FT

If G==0, then AUT = ?
If W==0 (and therefore G==0), the AUT = ?
There have to be values for these cases as well.
Something like:
If G==0, act as if G were 1 (or 1/2).
If W==0, act as if W were 1 (or 1/2).
We probably have to experiment here.


> This is an oversimplification.  We should in fact consider that the
> globules already allocated to the inn for feeding will take on average
> only FT / 2 units of time:
>
>   AUT = FT / 2 + ((W - G) / G) * FT
>
> This simplifies to:
>
>   AUT = ((W / G) - 0.5) * FT
>
> (If usage suddenly goes to maximum capacity, the inn's supply might
> last roughly MUT ("maximum utilization time") units of time: MUT = ((W
> / C) - 0.5) * FT.)

More like:
MUT = ( (W - (G / 2) ) / C ) * FT
Because (for simplicity we can assume) half of the G globs are about
to finish and
the other half has just signed up for a meal.
And AUT corresponds to a special case of MUT where C==G.


> The calculation of the decaying averages AT, HT, and G should probably
> use factors other than 0.9.  Determining the best factors to use will
> require experimentation.

We could also experiment with other control structures.
Steph mentioned a PID controller (for something else) a while ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

Right now the values might jump a bit depending on how high the "running" levels
are for the arriving glob.  (Especially when a few explorers get hungry.)
We could flatten this a bit by using the globs speed as well as time.
(And the average running level for workers, or globs)


> By the way, there is a complication that is not handled.  Both AT and
> HT should somehow also include the time taken by globules assigned to
> the inn who give up before they succeed.  This generally happens due
> to congestion and sometimes is due to hunger while harvesting.  I
> don't have a specific proposal for how to handle this complication.

We could add these times to the time of the next arriving glob.
Or we could let an imaginary glob arrive, which took current average time +
the time that the other glob walked in vain.


> Basically, what I think we want is to completely replace the current
> system where we specify a maximum number of requested globules for
> each building/flag by a priority for each building/flag.  Usually, you
> would leave the priority alone and the right thing should happen.  For
> example, for inns the above method would be used and the
> player-supplied priority would be used as some kind of multiplier.

Basically I would prefer an market economy style system, where every glob
has to work for its money and also buildings compete with each other
in their wages.
The amount of social welfare would be up to the player.  And globs
with low money
might get only small amount of food back in restaurants and of health
in hospitals.
The player would have to care about debts, inflation, subventions and taxes.


> I think there should also be various global settings to shift
> priorities between categories (e.g., "more food" vs. "more globules"
> vs. "construct buildings").

Yes.  But Steph warned that glob1 was less fun, because global settings
took away too much influence from the player.  We would probably need
settings-flags to compensate.
(In the marketing model, this would correspond to township.)
-- 
Kai Antweiler