Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

 Jump to Stars! AutoHost

 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Why bi-immunity is a bad idea.
Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 06:58 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Even for AR and HE, who can take fairly low growth and at least consider the idea.

Compare these two hab schemes:

Grav immune/Temp (-120)-120/Rad 16-84

vs.

Grav immune/Temp immune/Rad 64-84.

The first starts with 47% of planets green, 12% over 75% habitability.

The second starts with 21% of planets green, 13% over 75% habitability.

The first reaches 98% green, 49% >75%.

The second reaches 52% green, 43% >75%.

The second costs more RW points, BTW.

Conclusion: 1-immune 2-wide is pretty much strictly better than 2-immune 1-narrow, largely because the second immunity costs so much more than the first.


(Yes, I know that most experienced players will know this, but some newbies won't.)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 07:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ForceUser is currently offline ForceUser

 
Lt. Junior Grade
Stars! Nova developer
Stars! Nova developer

Messages: 383
Registered: January 2004
Location: South Africa
 I agree, bi-immunity is a bad idea for newbies to even consider. Even as an AR player I wouldn't really consider that since we are so strapped for points and low pop+pop death isn't a good idea anyways.

"There are two types of people in the world. AR players and non-AR players" Nick Fraser

Working on some new stuff: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/stars-nova/index.php?t itle=Graphics
And the Mentor Database www.groep7.co.za/Mentor/ ZOMGWTFBBQ!! it still works lol!
Check out my old site with old pics at www.groep7.co.za/Stars/

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 08:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
ForceUser wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 21:21

I agree, bi-immunity is a bad idea for newbies to even consider. Even as an AR player I wouldn't really consider that since we are so strapped for points and low pop+pop death isn't a good idea anyways.


Well, as I just showed, there's literally no reason to go bi-immune unless you have enough points to make the third variable wide - and generally in that situation it's easier to just take the third immunity and forget about hab.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 16:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gible

 
Commander

Messages: 1343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 00:09

ForceUser wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 21:21

I agree, bi-immunity is a bad idea for newbies to even consider. Even as an AR player I wouldn't really consider that since we are so strapped for points and low pop+pop death isn't a good idea anyways.


Well, as I just showed, there's literally no reason to go bi-immune unless you have enough points to make the third variable wide - and generally in that situation it's easier to just take the third immunity and forget about hab.

ccmaster's bi-immune monster -f HE (that is banned from the champs) would tend to disprove this theory. Its a monster among monsters. I've played a variant myself and its insanely fast out of the gate - I played in non-AccBBS to slow it down because it was too fast for me. At time's I've been critical of HE not being allowed gates, thinking the 50% capacity was enough punishment, but this race pretty much justifies it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 18:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
gible wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 06:23

magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 00:09

ForceUser wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 21:21

I agree, bi-immunity is a bad idea for newbies to even consider. Even as an AR player I wouldn't really consider that since we are so strapped for points and low pop+pop death isn't a good idea anyways.


Well, as I just showed, there's literally no reason to go bi-immune unless you have enough points to make the third variable wide - and generally in that situation it's easier to just take the third immunity and forget about hab.

ccmaster's bi-immune monster -f HE (that is banned from the champs) would tend to disprove this theory. Its a monster among monsters. I've played a variant myself and its insanely fast out of the gate - I played in non-AccBBS to slow it down because it was too fast for me. At time's I've been critical of HE not being allowed gates, thinking the 50% capacity was enough punishment, but this race pretty much justifies it.


Building my own version of that monster of monsters is exactly what led me to this conclusion - the extremely wide habs you can take with the points compensate fully for losing an immunity in your numbers of breeder planets, while also giving you that many again "bad" greens (which are still better than reds, I'm sure you'd agree).

IOW, yes, that is an extremely powerful race, but can be made strictly more powerful by losing the temp immunity.

[Updated on: Tue, 05 July 2011 18:03]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 18:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
 A 16% -f bi-immune CA can be quite fast out of the gate.
At turn 20 I got 1625 resources and had Con5 and was within 1 year of weap10 (and the 11% terraform).
This would have made 40% of worlds habitable (eventually 47%)

You might be able to do better with a 1 immune - but with most of the worlds you hit initially being close to 100% you probably get a calculated average growth rate of around 15% for the first 20 years.

Of course you need to find a small/crowded game that allows CA Rolling Eyes

Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 18:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
As I showed in the OP, 2-immune 1-narrow does NOT get more good greens than 1-immune 2-wide.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Tue, 05 July 2011 18:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gible

 
Commander

Messages: 1343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
magic9mushroom wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 10:11

As I showed in the OP, 2-immune 1-narrow does NOT get more good greens than 1-immune 2-wide.

This is true, but the point of immunities is not more greens its better greens.

Personally I try to take at least one just to avoid the low % greens - the death toll from overcrowding is much bigger than the death toll from red planets (which don't suffer from overcrowding)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Wed, 06 July 2011 04:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
gible wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 08:56

This is true, but the point of immunities is not more greens its better greens.

Personally I try to take at least one just to avoid the low % greens - the death toll from overcrowding is much bigger than the death toll from red planets (which don't suffer from overcrowding)


It is clear that you do not get my point.

Therefore, pictures!

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/2572/biimm.png
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/3577/oneimm.png

The first is the hab profile of the bi-imm setup above, the second is the profile of the one-imm setup.

Note that the bi-imm hab does not get significantly better greens, they simply get reds instead of non-breeder greens.

EDIT: Oh, and that's without terraforming. With terraforming, of course, the one-immune gets even better.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 July 2011 04:15]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Wed, 06 July 2011 04:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gible

 
Commander

Messages: 1343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

 oh I got that point, 1 in 2 vs 1 in 5 is clearly more planets..

try I/I/50-84 (1 in 3) a much better comparison.

20 wide is too narrow.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Wed, 06 July 2011 04:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
gible wrote on Wed, 06 July 2011 18:14

oh I got that point, 1 in 2 vs 1 in 5 is clearly more planets..

try I/I/50-84 (1 in 3) a much better comparison.

20 wide is too narrow.


The bi-immune hab I posted is already significantly more expensive in points than the one-immune, enough for 1% more growth (13% vs. 12% in my +f HE).

Taking a wider bi-immune hab needs mondo points from somewhere, which gets into comparing apples and oranges.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 July 2011 04:18]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Wed, 06 July 2011 14:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
 Growth Vs Growth
16% bi-immune Vs 18% 1 immune
At an 89% world the 1 immune grows at 16% at an 80% world it grows at 14%
so I am comparing the number of worlds that would be at 80%+ for this race.
Assuming 1 click = 1% this will expand their range by 10 on either side (so 20 wide with no terraforming)

Terraform3 = 6% at 100 Vs <1% at 100, 6.5% at 80%+
Terraform7 = 14% at 100 Vs 2% at 100, 11% at 80%+
Terraform11 = 22% at 100 Vs 5% at 100, 17% at 80%+
Terraform15 = 30% at 100 Vs 9% at 100, 25% at 80%+

A 20% 1 immune could go for worlds that were 70%+ and still compete on growth (assumes 30 wide with no terraforming)
T3 = 13% at 70%+
T7 = 19% at 70%+
T11 = 27% at 70%+
T15 = 36% at 70%+

But a 20% 1 immune would be struggling for the points to have both other habs wide enough that 1 click = 1%
so a more realistic assumption would be 24 wide with no terraforming - which gives
T3 = 9% at 70%+
T7 = 15% at 70%+
T11 = 21% at 70%+
T15 = 29% at 70%+

You could also look at a 20% no immune 3 wide (assume 30 wide with no terraforming) which would easily have the points.

T3 = 5% at 70%+
T7 = 8.5% at 70%+
T11 = 14% at 70%+
T15 = 21% at 70%+


In brief the CA bi immune (rad 13-33) has (by the time it has T7) sufficent 100% (or very close) worlds (1 in 7 worlds will be 100%) that it can select to only colonise 100% worlds.
This allows it to maintain very close to 16% growth for a significant time. With IFE it should always find a few 100% worlds within 2-3 years travel time from any planet.
By the time planets are looking for extra planets nearby it should reach T11 - making more worlds 100%

Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 03:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
Your analysis of how many good worlds the 1-immune would get is flawed, as 80%+ hab isn't "all variables must be within 10 of the centre", one can be further if the others are closer. I'd put the amount above 80% after 15% terraforming, for a 1-immune 2-wide, as closer to 40%.

Did you look at the pictures? That's with an actual hab calculator tool.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 06:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
 Hi!

I have to chime in. Benefits of dual-immunity:
- better greens.
- terraforming costs. Dual-immune pays for terra only a half of a single-immune.
- consequence of better greens and faster terra is you get more breeders == pop == resources earlier in the game.

The main problem of the dual-immunity is RW cost. Usually you need to nerf the race so much that it can't benefit enough from dual-immunity advantages to outweight costs.

So the dual immunity is useful only in limited cases. One you already mentioned - the -f HE. I'll add another one - the AR(*). But then the usefullness runs out. Again it looks like Jeffs knew very well what they were doing. Thumbs Up

(*) Please check the: Primary Racial Traits » AR » The viability of biimmunity... Also the strongest race in one of the All-AR games was the dual-immune AR. Though despite taking more than 40% of all planets, the player ceeded the victory to the second-place one-immune.

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Thu, 07 July 2011 06:25]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 07:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
iztok wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 20:23

Hi!

I have to chime in. Benefits of dual-immunity:
- better greens.
- terraforming costs. Dual-immune pays for terra only a half of a single-immune.
- consequence of better greens and faster terra is you get more breeders == pop == resources earlier in the game.

The main problem of the dual-immunity is RW cost. Usually you need to nerf the race so much that it can't benefit enough from dual-immunity advantages to outweight costs.

So the dual immunity is useful only in limited cases. One you already mentioned - the -f HE. I'll add another one - the AR(*). But then the usefullness runs out. Again it looks like Jeffs knew very well what they were doing. Thumbs Up

(*) Please check the: Primary Racial Traits » AR » The viability of biimmunity... Also the strongest race in one of the All-AR games was the dual-immune AR. Though despite taking more than 40% of all planets, the player ceeded the victory to the second-place one-immune.

BR, Iztok


But as I just showed, the 2-immune 1-narrow is inferior to 1-immune 2-wide for a given amount of points spent on hab.

Hence said races, assuming they were indeed 2-immune 1-narrow, would be MORE powerful if redone as 1-immunes with wide hab.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 July 2011 07:15]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 07:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 13:14

But as I just showed, the 2-immune 1-narrow is inferior to 1-immune 2-wide for a given amount of points spent on hab.

Hence said races, assuming they were indeed 2-immune 1-narrow, would be MORE powerful if redone as 1-immunes with wide hab.

Are you taking speed/growth into account, or just longterm performance? Sherlock

So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 07:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 21:24]
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 07 July 2011 13:14

But as I just showed, the 2-immune 1-narrow is inferior to 1-immune 2-wide for a given amount of points spent on hab.

Hence said races, assuming they were indeed 2-immune 1-narrow, would be MORE powerful if redone as 1-immunes with wide hab.

Are you taking speed/growth into account, or just longterm performance? Sherlock



The latter, but without significant handicap to the former.

IE, the 1-immune 2-wide gets 50% extra capacity, and loses very little growth.

The average green hab for a 1-immune 2-wide is lower, but that is almost entirely due to the extra bad greens "dragging down the average" rather than a lack of good greens.

For 1-immune vs. non-immune, the situation is quite different, because a 1-immune gets a LOT more breeders and hence can grow better.

[Updated on: Thu, 07 July 2011 07:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Thu, 07 July 2011 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
joseph is currently offline joseph

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 440
Registered: May 2003
Location: Bristol
 I crunched the numbers using the helpful hab tool (foolish me trying to do it myself). And I found for CA that Magic was right. A 2 immune is not faster at the start.

see stats

HaBs
16% bi-immune
Grav immune
temp immune
rad 13-33

Habs
16% 1 immune
Grav immune
temp -160 to 160
rad 24-76

Habs
18% 1 immune
Grav immune
temp -156 to 156
rad 30-70

16% grow Bi immune, 16% grow 1 immune, 18% grow 1 immune
T3 7% (and 12%), 0.55% and 18%, 0.55 and 14%
T7 15.2% (and 12%), 2.5 and 25%, 2.5% and 20%
T11 23% (and 12%), 6% and 32%, 6% and 27%
T15 31% (and 12%), 11% and 39%, 11% and 33%

18% grow (only 1 terraform tech researched - other stays at starting 3)
T3 0.55 and 14%
T7 2% and 18%
T11 2% and 22%
T15 2% and 27%

So if you want faster growth of colonists for -f CA go for a 1 immune and move the growth rate up to 18% rather than go 2 immune and drop to 16% to pay for it.

Joseph
"Can burn the land and boil the sea. You cant take the Stars from me"

Report message to a moderator

Re: Why bi-immunity is a bad idea. Mon, 11 July 2011 13:34 Go to previous message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008
I'm not entirely sure which numbers are referring to what, but we seem to have reached the same conclusion, so I'll trust your working. Laughing

But yes, that's just it. It's counter-intuitive, since the first immunity has very real advantages in the short term. Hence why I made this thread to alert people.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Game setup for HP viability
Next Topic: minelaying + OoE + Move merge Heal
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Apr 19 22:34:55 EDT 2024
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.3.
Copyright ©2001-2011 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software