Techtree entries vs. In Game descriptions.

C-F · 15-08-2006, 06:00

O.K., Version1.04, no mods, no hotfixes.
After going nowhere fast in several aspects of gameplay and forum discussions, I decided to get 'organized' *Hmmpf*

So I took several screenpics of the descriptions of the Research techs and for no particular reason picked 'Private Banks':

[and yes, I saw that too, 'They were private enterprises...' while it should read 'Where's the money honey'...(as will be explained below...)]
and compared it to "Victoria Techtionary" (version 1.03)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victoria Techtionary

Effects:
Increase the tax efficiency for rich by 10%
Increase the tax efficiency for middle by 10%
Increase the tax efficiency for low by 20%

Hmm, I thought, there must have been some big changes to 1.04, so I checked the changelog - and indeed I found:

Quote:

- Tech folder with reworked commerce tech and invention files to adjust for higher initial tax and tariff efficiencies compared to last beta
- Inventions 3001-3005; 3101-3105 and 3301-3305 and their related inventions now increase tax_eff or tariff_eff or both for the nation receiving it, so that completion of the techs and discovery of the inventions will result in these efficiencies equaling 1.0 at the end of the scenario

This does not explain however the shown increase in
-education and crime cost unless you interpret 'adjust for higher initial tax and tariff efficiencies...' as such.
Just to be sure, I decided to enter the 'lions den / Area 54'

and open commerce_tech.txt and right at the beginning I found:

Code:


	Quote:
	
	
		
			
				area = { # 1 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
		id = 3000
		name = TECH_AREA_COMMERCE_1_NAME
		desc = TECH_AREA_COMMERCE_1_DESC

		application = { # Private Banks
			id = 3001
			name = TECH_APP_COMMERCE_1_1_NAME
			desc = TECH_APP_COMMERCE_1_1_DESC

			required = { }
			cost = 10
			time = 360

			effects = {
					#command = { type = strata_income_mod which = rich value = 10 }
					#command = { type = strata_income_mod which = middle value = 10 }
					#command = { type = strata_income_mod which = low value = 20 }
					command = { type = tax_eff value = 1 } 
					command = { type = tariff_eff value = 6 } 
					command = { type = account_eff which = education value = -3.5 } # added
					command = { type = account_eff which = police value = -3.5 } # added
			}
		}

So, if I'm reading this correctly and comparing it to the in game description above,
a) tax and tariff efficiencies are indeed increased by 1% and 6% respectively.
b) education and crime cost go up by 3.5% and through rounding are displayed as +4% (actually education & crime efficiency are reduced by 3.5%)
c)Pops are getting an across the board, hidden to the general public (mainly the player) 'pay raise' of 20,10,10 % which doesn't show up in the description.

My question,
Since c) doesn't show in the description under effects, is it not 'fired' and actually modifing or are the values adjusted and the player just not told about?
Btw, the next one 'Stock Exchange' deviates too from its description...

oxmonsta · 15-08-2006, 06:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

c)Pops are getting an across the board, hidden to the general public (mainly the player) 'pay raise' of 20,10,10 % which doesn't show up in the description.

No they are not. The hash (#) in front of those command lines means that they are deactiviated (effectively the hash makes them lines of text rather than lines of code). These lines are the previous effects prior to 1.04, and rather than deleting them entirely it is easier (and better programming) to simply deactivate them using the hash.

Colon · 15-08-2006, 08:50

I'm more annoyed that the description says "These where private...", rather than "These were private...".

rafiki · 15-08-2006, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colon

I'm more annoyed that the description says "These where private...", rather than "These were private...".

If it annoys you, it's easy to fix yourself

C-F · 15-08-2006, 12:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by oxmonsta

No they are not. The hash (#) in front of those command lines means that they are deactiviated (effectively the hash makes them lines of text rather than lines of code). These lines are the previous effects prior to 1.04, and rather than deleting them entirely it is easier (and better programming) to simply deactivate them using the hash.

I can't believe my carefully tailored my case just crumbled like a card house over a hash...
Thanks for taking the sand out of my eyes...
so if I delete a # it should modify the value and show up in the description with other words 'activate' - cool, Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rafiki

If it annoys you, it's easy to fix yourself

Oh master,please say, where shall it be written....

?

[off topic] And while being generous, how about this:

Looks like it skipped a space at the top - I'm two for two on this one - [/off topic]
Thanks.

Walen · 15-08-2006, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

and compared it to "Victoria Techtionary" (version 1.03)

The techtionary is generally still valid in most fields for 1.04 but commerce branch is certainly not one of them. Hope this gets fixed eventually - sorry rafiki this site is so great that I cannot stop complaining it is not up to date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

So, if I'm reading this correctly and comparing it to the in game description above,
a) tax and tariff efficiencies are indeed increased by 1% and 6% respectively.
b) education and crime cost go up by 3.5% and through rounding are displayed as +4% (actually education & crime efficiency are reduced by 3.5%)
c)Pops are getting an across the board, hidden to the general public (mainly the player) 'pay raise' of 20,10,10 % which doesn't show up in the description.

Costs go UP by 3.5% but after rounding game engine displayes 4%. A hash '#' means the following text is commented out. It is not a part of the event code any more. A leftover from 1.03. The remaining events behave simillarily.

rafiki · 15-08-2006, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

Oh master,please say, where shall it be written....

?

config/technames.csv

Search for the text "TECH_APP_COMMERCE_1_1_DESC"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walen

The techtionary is generally still valid in most fields for 1.04 but commerce branch is certainly not one of them. Hope this gets fixed eventually - sorry rafiki this site is so great that I cannot stop complaining it is not up to date.

No problemo; I'll add my hopes to yours

I am in the process of getting it updated, but it will take some time, so I'm afraid I can't give an ETA on when it's ready.

C-F · 15-08-2006, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by rafiki

config/technames.csv

Search for the text "TECH_APP_COMMERCE_1_1_DESC"

No problemo; I'll add my hopes to yours

I am in the process of getting it updated, but it will take some time, so I'm afraid I can't give an ETA on when it's ready.

a1) Thanks for the 'quick hint'

a2) You are waiting for 'Revolutions' to come out - or will there be two tech dir's?

rafiki · 15-08-2006, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

a2) You are waiting for 'Revolutions' to come out - or will there be two tech dir's?

I'm not waiting for VickyRev, and I don't know how VickyRev will affect it all yet

C-F · 15-08-2006, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by rafiki

I'm not waiting for VickyRev, and I don't know how VickyRev will affect it all yet

On a side note, I have
-'Pop Overview' and
-'Industrial Overview' updated for myself to 1.04.

They are in Word.doc format if you are interested I can mail them to you...

Andrelvis · 15-08-2006, 15:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

On a side note, I have
-'Pop Overview' and
-'Industrial Overview' updated for myself to 1.04.

They are in Word.doc format if you are interested I can mail them to you...

Why not just update it yourself? It is called Vicky Wiki for a reason, after all.

Kriegsspieler · 15-08-2006, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colon

I'm more annoyed that the description says "These where private...", rather than "These were private...".

I hate them too, and I believe it is not a huge violation of the NDA to say that a great many of the in-game texts have been cleaned up and edited for the release of Revolutions.

C-F · 15-08-2006, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrelvis

Why not just update it yourself? It is called Vicky Wiki for a reason, after all.

Because (1) I've never done that before..

(2) I changed some things (i.e. added Classification to factories & default efficiencies to factories & RGO's ) that would need proofreading and ok'ed and I wouldn't know how to add this...
Then again, I have not read the instructions either...

oxmonsta · 15-08-2006, 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by rafiki

I am in the process of getting it updated, but it will take some time, so I'm afraid I can't give an ETA on when it's ready.

rafiki are you planning to bring the Techtionary across to a wiki format so we can all update it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriegsspieler

I hate them too, and I believe it is not a huge violation of the NDA to say that a great many of the in-game texts have been cleaned up and edited for the release of Revolutions.

Excellent news indeed. I look forward to seeing your / the Beta team's work. Only two more days to wait!!!

C-F · 15-08-2006, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriegsspieler

I hate them too, and I believe it is not a huge violation of the NDA to say that a great many of the in-game texts have been cleaned up and edited for the release of Revolutions.

A violation is a violation - no matter how large or small...

So you are guilty of all charges and in trying to solicitate the purchase of 'Revolutions'...

Thanks for the info, looking forward to verify....

Kriegsspieler · 15-08-2006, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

A violation is a violation - no matter how large or small...

So you are guilty of all charges and in trying to solicitate the purchase of 'Revolutions'...

Thanks for the info, looking forward to verify....

Well, if Johan wants to boot me over this, there'll probably be no one else to do this sort of s**t work. Not everyone has the neanderthal qualifications needed for this kind of thing . . . .

C-F · 15-08-2006, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kriegsspieler

Well, if Johan wants to boot me over this, there'll probably be no one else to do this sort of s**t work. Not everyone has the neanderthal qualifications needed for this kind of thing . . . .

I didn't mean to offend I was kidding...I appologize and will remove if you want me to.

PS, I just checked Vikki and above mentioned articles are shortcuts to rafiki's site that I believe one can't modify.

Kriegsspieler · 15-08-2006, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

I didn't mean to offend I was kidding...I appologize and will remove if you want me to.

Not to worry . . .I didn't take offense.

I was responding in a similarly facetious manner.

rafiki · 15-08-2006, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

Because (1) I've never done that before..

(2) I changed some things (i.e. added Classification to factories & default efficiencies to factories & RGO's ) that would need proofreading and ok'ed and I wouldn't know how to add this...
Then again, I have not read the instructions either...

The wiki has guides on how to add/edit articles, and in any case, I tend to read most of what is done, so I'll help out if need be

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-F

PS, I just checked Vikki and above mentioned articles are shortcuts to rafiki's site that I believe one can't modify.

It's all the same site, but the Techtionary is in a part that isn't wikified, so it's not editable for enyone else but me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oxmonsta

rafiki are you planning to bring the Techtionary across to a wiki format so we can all update it?

Yup, that's all part of the plan for Techtionary 2.0

C-F · 16-08-2006, 00:57

Well, I just added the 1.04 cost and the missing 'teaplantation' to the RGO page - and the page came back up afterwards - so, in time, it looks definitely like a fun thing to do...

Now I'll have to figure out how to add a column and shift the entries to incorporate the efficiency factors.

btw, 'where' is now 'were' in my Vicky edition..., guess I own a 'modded' version now.

15-08-2006, 08:50	#3
Colon Second Lieutenant Join Date: Feb 2000 Posts: 181	I'm more annoyed that the description says "These where private...", rather than "These were private...".

16-08-2006, 00:57	#20
C-F Second Lieutenant Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SC, USA Posts: 137	Well, I just added the 1.04 cost and the missing 'teaplantation' to the RGO page - and the page came back up afterwards - so, in time, it looks definitely like a fun thing to do... Now I'll have to figure out how to add a column and shift the entries to incorporate the efficiency factors. btw, 'where' is now 'were' in my Vicky edition..., guess I own a 'modded' version now.