Due to every player having a homeworld you must build that into the model.
Average of 4.25 resource nodes/planet.
Eh, but why? We know that homeworlds contain 12 resource nodes on average. And since keith used a "1 homeworld" for his basic colculation, why not do the same and go with a "1 homeworld with 12 resources".
It doesnt make the math that much harder.
Baseline uses logistic stations.
Once again, why? Why not the econ stations? Since our research only considers maximising economical output, we always use highest available mark of an eco station. A possibility of setting logistics and combat stations are just some points to be considered later.
Finally, i dont see your charts incorporate efficiecy per K spent. I mean sure, if you only compare MKIII harvesters vs MKIII stations its fine, but to really check how it goes with MKII's, you need study K cost efficiecy.
3. How many planets is "mid game" vs. "end game"? - How does map size effect this?
Thats a big question to actually consider. It seems like the end game can be anywhere from 12-15 to 30-40, with mid-game going all the way from 1 to these values. The eco stations reach their full potential at 13 planets, usually more because sometimes you have to pop other kinds of stations. In my opinion, it means that at 15-17 planets they should become inferior to harvesters, and thats not counting the opportunity cost of not using the other station types.
Ive built a model of my own to provide those graphs for my post in the .031 thread. It assumes theres 1 homeworld with 12 resources, 4 resources per system on average, Eco stations of max available level are being built in each system. The income calculated is "bonus income", as compared to all-MK1 economy.
And since i also suggested K cost changes there, the model calculates 2 things: total (bonus) income provided by a given upgrade, and its knowledge efficiecy (total income/K spent).
Since this thread proves that the average is 4, ill go recalculate a little and post some graphs.
Above is the current situation. So obvious its boring.
And this is what i have suggested there. 4000/5000 -> 3000/6000 on both eco stations and harvesters research, 32/44 on harvester income, 90/150 on eco station income. As you can see, this makes pretty much ANY combination of techs viable, including MKII ecos+MKII harvesters, and so on. One could argue that MKIII harvesters would be overnerfed, but imo, no they wouldnt. Dont forget the whole opportunity cost, it matters quite alot, and MKIIs while efficient, cant generate much income. So, people who want more moneys and want to use their battle stations will still enjoy them, i bet.
Also, i cant believe people are suggesting to actually boost eco station to the OP level of the harvesters. Come on, if you want easy money, just use a handicap. The economy has been becoming easier and easier for the last i dont know how many updates, along with many other things. And in all that time the AI got what? The hybrid antagonizer? Boosts to some ships which might end up in its bonus type list? Thats not very much to compensate for all the boosts the humans got. First eco stations come, massively superior to harvester upgrades, everyone abuses the hell out of them and starts considering the eco boost they give normal, now this happens and people get used to it so damn quickly that they even start getting opposed to reverting to where it was.
Oh, and derp at people bashing me for my previous comment. I know the devs are pretty cool guys, but i kinda expected to get more credit after spending so much time doing that awesome research over there. The reason i keep talking about it everywhere, eh.