Overdriving

[Litcube]

Besides the extra cost, what are the drawbacks of overdriving?

[Breschau]

Pretty sure it's just the extra cost (gets real inefficient).

[Maxx Power]

That's my understanding.....increased cost only

[Hikari]

I remember reading somewhere that overdriving Industry results in unrest, but I've never seen any proof of it. I've also heard it said that overdriving produces more pollution than normal, but that really just translates into costing more.

If you're overdriving one category but not others, you could probably get better returns by taking a more balanced approach. Change the ratio of Industry/Research DEAs to get things evened out, maybe. Of course, if you're overdriving both, then just pat yourself on the back and give your economists a heart-felt thanks.

[Skymage]

Costs of overdriving:

Industry – increased costs (IE inefficiencies), added pollution (which costs AUs to clean up). Benefit: more production and more AU income.

Research – increased costs (again inefficiencies).


SkyMage

[James1701]

AFAIK, or that I've heard polution goes up at a linear rate. So while polution will go up with overdriving it won't go up at an greater or lesser rate for using overdriving. I don't know if anyone has really tested this though.

[Skymage]

Originally posted by James1701
AFAIK, or that I've heard polution goes up at a linear rate. So while polution will go up with overdriving it won't go up at an greater or lesser rate for using overdriving. I don't know if anyone has really tested this though.


As I understand it, pollution is linear to the AUs spent on industry, not the PP. So overdriving will give perportionally(sp?) more pollution than non-overdriving.

If anyone knows differently, please correct me.


SkyMage

[James1701]

Originally posted by Skymage
As I understand it, pollution is linear to the AUs spent on industry, not the PP. So overdriving will give perportionally(sp?) more pollution than non-overdriving.

If anyone knows differently, please correct me.


SkyMage

If this is the case then obviously polllution is NOT linear to production.

[Ron_Lugge]

Overdriving may or MAY NOT give you more production.

The reason is they used a screwey piece-wise (I think thats the term) equation to determine overdriving. Thus, you increase production by a few AUs and instead of getting more production, you go up an overdriving level and it ends up costing more to get less.

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
Overdriving may or MAY NOT give you more production.

Incorrect. Suppose you have 50 TT and want to produce 75 RP. 50 < 75 < 2*50, so this will be overdriving at 2:1. This does NOT mean that the cost will be 150 AU. Instead, the cost will be 100 AU - the first 50 are at 1:1, the next 25 are at 2:1.

Overdriving further always gives you more production. The marginal cost for each bit of production increases, but that's it.

[Da_Blade]

Originally posted by Beamup
Overdriving further always gives you more production. The marginal cost for each bit of production increases, but that's it.

With the exception of a bug at high-production numbers where you actually can produce slithgly less. but aside from that, overdriving alwats gives you more. And pollution is proportional to the AUs spent on industry, so you get much more pollution with overdriving as well. But again, you will usually never get less for more money.

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Da_Blade
With the exception of a bug at high-production numbers where you actually can produce slithgly less.

Could you expand on this? I've never seen anything about such a bug, either here or in Bugs.

[Da_Blade]

http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=303851&highlight=overdrive+bug

[MrBoom]

Originally posted by Da_Blade
With the exception of a bug at high-production numbers where you actually can produce slithgly less. but aside from that, overdriving alwats gives you more. And pollution is proportional to the AUs spent on industry, so you get much more pollution with overdriving as well. But again, you will usually never get less for more money.

I remember seeing somewhere that OD production can lead to higher HFOG. Don't know how accurate that is though...

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Beamup
Incorrect. Suppose you have 50 TT and want to produce 75 RP. 50 < 75 < 2*50, so this will be overdriving at 2:1. This does NOT mean that the cost will be 150 AU. Instead, the cost will be 100 AU - the first 50 are at 1:1, the next 25 are at 2:1.

Overdriving further always gives you more production. The marginal cost for each bit of production increases, but that's it.

Please explain following scenario:

I need a ship ASAP, and jack up the military slider. It goes down to 3 turns, so I increase it a little more and it goes UP to five, but as I pump more money it it quickly goes back down to 3, then 2.

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
Please explain following scenario:

I need a ship ASAP, and jack up the military slider. It goes down to 3 turns, so I increase it a little more and it goes UP to five, but as I pump more money it it quickly goes back down to 3, then 2. I have been meaning to post about this one! It does not make sense though. Increase MBQ spending, close the panel and you will note that your PP have increased and 5 times your PP will give you 1.67 of whatever you are building. Increasing MBQ so that turns left drops down to 3 again close and 3 times your PP is about right. I do not understand what is going on here! :bulb:

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
Please explain following scenario:

I need a ship ASAP, and jack up the military slider. It goes down to 3 turns, so I increase it a little more and it goes UP to five, but as I pump more money it it quickly goes back down to 3, then 2.

What was happening with the other production sliders? They interact with each other in some very nontrivial ways. In particular, this sort of thing can happen when how much pollution cleanup is coming out of each slider - which correspondingly redistributes the PP. This would be my first guess, anyway - and has definitely been the explanation when I've seen this.

A far better measure of what's going on is looking at the PP produced as you adjust one slider, with the others zeroed out. When you do this (the only way you can actually isolate the funding/PP relationship from all the other factors at play) you find PP monotonically increasing with funding.

[Ron_Lugge]

Originally posted by Beamup
What was happening with the other production sliders? They interact with each other in some very nontrivial ways. In particular, this sort of thing can happen when how much pollution cleanup is coming out of each slider - which correspondingly redistributes the PP. This would be my first guess, anyway - and has definitely been the explanation when I've seen this.

A far better measure of what's going on is looking at the PP produced as you adjust one slider, with the others zeroed out. When you do this (the only way you can actually isolate the funding/PP relationship from all the other factors at play) you find PP monotonically increasing with funding.

All the other sliders were left untouched. (IIRC, I had them set to 0 to facilitate my overdriving)

[Beamup]

Originally posted by Ron_Lugge
All the other sliders were left untouched. (IIRC, I had them set to 0 to facilitate my overdriving)

"Untouched" is irrelevant. If they really were 0 that would mean something but apparently you aren't sure.

This most often happens, in my experience, when one slider loses a !. This vastly redistributes the pollution spending.

If this isn't what's going on, I'd like to see a save. And so would QSI - PP not increasing montonically with spending would be a bug.

[Kralizec!]

Beamup wrote:
This most often happens, in my experience, when one slider loses a !. This vastly redistributes the pollution spending.

I have seen this happen before but could not explain it. What happens when a slider loses its “bang”?

[Beamup]

What I believe happens - it is consistent with the data, but I can't be positive - is the following.

1. The total amount put into all sliders is added up and converted to PP, then divided among the different sliders.

2. If one slider gets more PP than it needs, it gets a !. Any AU it's spending beyond what's needed to produce its PP is devoted to pollution - so this slider is paying more of the total pollution cost than it normally would.

3. If the total pollution costs rise so much that the AU in the ! slider is no longer too much to produce its PPs, 2 no longer applies and the pollution costs are redistributed. This results in the other sliders getting fewer PP for their money because they are now paying for more of the pollution.