search

pmotschmann / Evolve

An incremental game about evolving a civilization
Mozilla Public License 2.0
794 stars 343 forks source link

Fix Cataclysm scenario iridium mine production to reflect tooltip value #1139

Open Raragyay opened 1 month ago

Raragyay commented 1 month ago

global.civic.coal_miner.impact is always 0.2 and is affecting iridium mine production of coal even though there are no coal miners in the scenario.

Resolves #1138

CondoSlime commented 1 month ago

Are you sure that this is an issue? Looking at the code, it seems like the coal mine correctly displays in the tooltip how much coal it gives. It does seem like coal mines are the only non-job income source that is affected by a job's impact, but I don't think removing it, and 5-folding coal production is a good way to go about it.

Raragyay commented 1 month ago

Hey, great question! Could you clarify what you mean by "the coal mine correctly displays in the tooltip how much coal it gives"? From my understanding, each iridium mine is only giving 0.11 coal production instead of the 0.55 on the tooltip. In my attached screenshot (and I apologize for this being a bit misleading), I have 5 iridium mines active, but I'm only producing 0.55 coal base, meaning I'm only getting 0.11 / iridium mine.

I think there could be two ways to approach this:

In this case I'm not confident on which one would be the better balance decision (and am happy to adjust to whatever is most appropriate) - I'm more so trying to point out that the tooltip and the actual production are not aligned.

Happy to provide more evidence on the difference in production / tooltip if desired.

I should also note:

It does seem like coal mines are the only non-job income source that is affected by a job's impact, but I don't think removing it, and 5-folding coal production is a good way to go about it.

In this case base coal mine production (i.e. the one on the home planet) would not be affected by this change, since that's scaled here instead of at the line change that I've proposed. But maybe this is just a difference in our terminology.

CondoSlime commented 1 month ago

Aha, I understand it now. I did not catch the fact that you had 5 iridium mines. Looking at the Production function, makes it seem like iridium mines are expected to produce 0.55 coal/s each, so that makes this a more sensible change to me.

ActualDio commented 2 weeks ago

Ive also encountered this issue so Im bumping it so it hopefully gets merged