Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » How Would You Rate These Races?
| How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 13:20  |
|
|
|
Hi,
How would YOU rate these races?
Don't talk about logic... don't talk about silliness...
just rank them...
3 CA's
#1 LRT NRSE Growth 9% Hab 1/3 PopRes 1000, Facts:12,13,10,ch, Mines: 18,8,18 Research: All normal except Prop&Bio expensive.
#2 LRT none Growth 15% Hab 1/7 PopRes 1000, Facts:10,10,10,nch, Mines: 10,5,10 Research: All normal except Energy cheap.
#3 LRT UR Growth 5% Hab All PopRes 2000, Facts: 8,12,14,nch, Mines: 25,12,11 Research: All cheap except Con&Bio normal. ch
You may make the following other assumptions, the universe is a sparse medium and the game will end in 80 turns.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 13:32  |
|
| Orca |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
In descending order, number 2, number 1, number 3. And they all suck rocks.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 14:10 |
|
|
|
Are you basing that on just pop growth? What about habs, resources, mins and tech???
[Updated on: Wed, 07 April 2004 14:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 14:39 |
|
| Orca |
| Chief Warrant Officer 1 |
Messages: 148
Registered: June 2003
Location: Orbiting tower at the L5 ... | |
|
#1 LRT NRSE Growth 9% Hab 1/3 PopRes 1000, Facts:12,13,10,ch, Mines: 18,8,18 Research: All normal except Prop&Bio expensive.
Factories and mines too expensive. No movement strategy whatsoever. Mines too expensive, but lots of them and very efficient. Factories moderately efficient, too expensive, not enough of them. Growth horrendously low. Remember that achieved growth rate is arguably the most important part of resource gain, unless your factories are stupid.
#2 LRT none Growth 15% Hab 1/7 PopRes 1000, Facts:10,10,10,nch, Mines: 10,5,10 Research: All normal except Energy cheap.
CA Humanoids. Tolerable, but only compared to the the others. Decent growth rate. No major movement strategy, but normal prop, so less painful than for others. Higher growth, and higher achieved pop growth possible. Factory and mine settings rather "bleh" - but still better than race 3's. Any real monster (nevermind CA monster) will tear them to pieces assuming equal skill of the players and same circumstances. Will be possible to monster this race, unlike the other two.
#3 LRT UR Growth 5% Hab All PopRes 2000, Facts: 8,12,14,nch, Mines: 25,12,11 Research: All cheap except Con&Bio normal. ch
UR is only useful under very specific circumstances. Quite a waste of points here most likely. Growth so low as to be completely untenable. Pop res should be considered as having only two settings - 1/1000 and 1/2500 unless you know what you're doing (if you have to ask, you probably don't). Factories horrible - inefficient, expensive, and a fair number of them - and not enough to offset the poor pop ef. Mines ridiculously efficient, but also 4x more expensive than normal. Not many built (though efficiency will more than offset that). Effectively 5 cheap - extremely expensive in points. Quite stupid.
Jesus saves.
Allah forgives.
Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 15:01 |
|
|
|
I'm with Orca - 2, 1, 3 and not based on just habs either.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 23:20 |
|
 Crusader |
 | Officer Cadet 2nd Year |
Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dixie Land | |
|
| donjon wrote on Wed, 07 April 2004 12:20 |
Hi,
How would YOU rate these races?
Don't talk about logic... don't talk about silliness...
just rank them...
3 CA's
#1 LRT NRSE Growth 9% Hab 1/3 PopRes 1000, Facts:12,13,10,ch, Mines: 18,8,18 Research: All normal except Prop&Bio expensive.
#2 LRT none Growth 15% Hab 1/7 PopRes 1000, Facts:10,10,10,nch, Mines: 10,5,10 Research: All normal except Energy cheap.
#3 LRT UR Growth 5% Hab All PopRes 2000, Facts: 8,12,14,nch, Mines: 25,12,11 Research: All cheap except Con&Bio normal. ch
You may make the following other assumptions, the universe is a sparse medium and the game will end in 80 turns.
|
Well, OK, since you specified it had to be ME, I guess I'll give it a shot.
All CA's, ooooh, how utterly boring and bland. 
#1 has no real growth but lots of hab they'll never be able to fill. Cool.  Expensive mines and factories with decently cheap research settings that the poor economy can just manage to handle. It'sa super-slow -f race! I get it! 
#2 has decent growth of pop with livable hab range and you get remote mining to boot. PopRes is good, factories are managable and mines are affordable, although just barely. Research can be managed with this hab. Yeah, you could conceivably talk yourself into a victory with this 'un. 
I look at #3 and I ask, "Why?". 
How would I rate them? As a whole, I would rate them all as being a joke, although I know that's not a nice thing to say because your question looked serious, and I did kinda catch the post about the random race generator or something (I rarely read posts really closely unless they really catch my interest, I just scan 'em until I find something I want to flap my jaws about). But I would absolutely HATE to have to play with any of the three races you offered. Maybe it is just the CA prejudice I can't get past, I don't know.
And the uni settings don't influence my opinion at all.
Creating the races I play with is a big part of my enjoyment of this game, so perhaps my rating someone else's attempts isn't such a great idea after all. But you did ask.
I think #2 could be almost playable as either a WM or SS PRT, assuming the other races in the universe are as equally bad in design, or you could get an ally - with good econ ratings.
Oh well. I hope I didn't offend. 
The Crusader 
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 07 April 2004 23:44 |
|
| icebird |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 178
Registered: September 2003
Location: In LaLa land... | |
|
| donjon wrote on Wed, 07 April 2004 10:20 |
How would YOU rate these races?
Don't talk about logic... don't talk about silliness...
just rank them...
3 CA's
#1 LRT NRSE Growth 9% Hab 1/3 PopRes 1000, Facts:12,13,10,ch, Mines: 18,8,18 Research: All normal except Prop&Bio expensive.
#2 LRT none Growth 15% Hab 1/7 PopRes 1000, Facts:10,10,10,nch, Mines: 10,5,10 Research: All normal except Energy cheap.
#3 LRT UR Growth 5% Hab All PopRes 2000, Facts: 8,12,14,nch, Mines: 25,12,11 Research: All cheap except Con&Bio normal. ch
You may make the following other assumptions, the universe is a sparse medium and the game will end in 80 turns.
|
#1: Hehe. I used to play with races that looked like that. 
OK. Is's second worst.  Next.
#2: Considering the others, this one is a downright monster.  It sucks too. Next.
#3: I can't stand it. The random race generator should be beaten on the head.   And shot.  This race just doesn't do anything. It looks like 3i HE, but without the late game potential.
Its not often that I get to yell at other people about race design, instead of reciving the yelling.   
-Peter, Lord of the Big Furry ThingsReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 06:10 |
|
| Kotk | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 00:18 |
| Kotk wrote on Wed, 07 April 2004 13:10 |
#1
80% of good LRTS
33% of good life
75% of good econ
100% of good tech
Overall: 19.8% of good race.
|
OK, where does this come from? Is this from an article by JC or something??
|
I evaluated each race generation page separately with PRT and previous pages in mind. It was attempt to "mathematically" explain my feelings. | Quote: |
Good LRTs vary by PRT??
|
For CA 100% good is IFE, NRSE, OBRM, RS
Separate LRTS add or substitute from it ... value depending on PRT.
| Quote: |
Good Life (I assume this has something to do with page 3 of RW)
|
Again ... 100% for CA is 1 in 5 & 18% growth
| Quote: |
Good Econ (How do you sum up facts and mines?)
|
There are actually 2 100% "good" settings on econ page
1000 12/9/16 box checked 10/3/17
2500 15/7/21 box checked 11/3/20
And one 70% "not so good":
1000 5/25/5 box not checked 10/3/13
Changes to each of these have different weights.
| Quote: |
Good Tech (Is this related to PRT and LRT, or is just a fixed count of cheap vs normal vs expensive Techs...)
|
Weapons and construction are the best fields for most races
Bio is also best for CA if it has TT and useless without
rest of the fields are useful but with weaker affect
| Quote: |
And then, how do you take .8 and .33 and .75 and 1.0 and come up with .198??
|
0.8 * 0.33 * 0.75 * 1.0 = ??? 
[fixed typo with HP setting]
[Updated on: Fri, 09 April 2004 07:38] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 07:32 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Quote: |
For CA 100% good is IFE, NRSE, OBRM, RS
|
No TT for CA??? Or the formula extends to IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM, RS = 200%?
BR, Iztok
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 08:10 |
|
|
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 07 April 2004 18:07 |
I think maybe Kotk made up those numbers
That said they are great categories. 
LRTS = tactical/strategic measure
Life = pop growth, habs etc
Econ = resources, minerals
Tech = ...
This is the basis of a good framework to meausure those random races of yours...
Your final measure could be some sort of function based on these values (e.g. LRTS+sqrt(Life^2+Econ^2)+sqrt(Econ^2+Tech^2) would econourage the race design to balance econ with growth and econ with tech.)
Maybe I'm taking this too seriously.
|
That is a very interesting suggestion...
And everyone afterwards I read your posts with rapt attention as well... (I am serious)
My intention is to randomly generate 256 races and then pull out 1 AR's, 2 CA's, 2 WM's, 2 JOAT's, 2 SD's, 1 PP's, 2 SS's, 2 IS's, and 2 IT's of the "best caliber" and then hand this to the tournament players as their set to choose from.
Now LRT's vs PRT:
Walter Pullen (http://www.starsfaq.com/articles/sru/art156.htm) had an article on LRTs.
In distillation it looks like:
HE: good(+10): IFE, ISB, NRSE, OBRM; not so good(+5): ARM, UR, MA; bad(-10): TT, NAS, LSP
SS: good(+10): NAS; not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): NRSE, CE
WM: not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP
CA: good(+10): TT, OBRM; not so good (+5): ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP;
IS: good(+10): CE, OBRM, NAS; not so good(+5): ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): TT;
SD: not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): NRSE, CE;
PP: good(+10): ARM, ISB, NAS, RS; not so good(+5): TT, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): OBRM;
IT: good(+10): ARM, ISB, NRSE, CE, NAS; not so good(+5): TT, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): IFE;
AR: good(+10): TT, ARM, ISB, RS; not so good(+5): UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): OBRM, NAS;
JOAT: good(+10): NAS; not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP;
Now, LRTS:
Race #1 LRT NRSE: start with 100 no effect, therefore 100;
Race #2 LRT none: start with 100 therefore 100;
Race #3 LRT UR: start with 100 +5 UR, therefore 105;
Maybe UR should always be not so bad(-5) instead of not so good(+5)?
Also, GR is never touched, therefore maybe it should also be not so bad(-5).
Similarily, for BET???
Interestingly, IFE falls into the category of no effect, except for HE where its really good and IT where its really bad...
[Updated on: Thu, 08 April 2004 09:23] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 08:18 |
|
| Kotk |
| Commander |
Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
Oh its not scientific .... its subjective idea-level system. Donjon wants to make some automatic race leveling system... so i am jus trying to describe algorithm. Based on my own feelings.
For me IFE, NRSE, OBRM, RS ~ 100% Good CA LRT-s
TT +50%
NRSE -5%
OBRM +5%
RS +5%
IFE +10%
UR +1%
So IFE, TT, NRSE, OBRM, RS is yes 150%
For example: Adding TT to second race without changing its other pages would turn it from 85% 75% 75% 110% into 135% 75% 75% 120% or 91% overall. So probably playable in intermediate game.
[edit: forgot that TT will turn normal bio from useless to very good thing]
[Updated on: Thu, 08 April 2004 08:43] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 12:50 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Interestingly, IFE falls into the category of no effect, except for HE where its really good and IT where its really bad...
|
HE has mini-colonizer hull with cargo pod that is comparible to the medium transport fuel mizer (generates more fuel at warp six, a bit weaker at warp 9). So IFE is not as big an advantage for HE as with others who are in more need of easy early expansion.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 14:53 |
|
| EDog |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 06:10 |
Now LRT's vs PRT:
Walter Pullen (http://www.starsfaq.com/articles/sru/art156.htm) had an article on LRTs.
In distillation it looks like:
HE: good(+10): IFE, ISB, NRSE, OBRM; not so good(+5): ARM, UR, MA; bad(-10): TT, NAS, LSP
SS: good(+10): NAS; not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): NRSE, CE
WM: not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP
CA: good(+10): TT, OBRM; not so good (+5): ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP;
IS: good(+10): CE, OBRM, NAS; not so good(+5): ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): TT;
SD: not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): NRSE, CE;
PP: good(+10): ARM, ISB, NAS, RS; not so good(+5): TT, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): OBRM;
IT: good(+10): ARM, ISB, NRSE, CE, NAS; not so good(+5): TT, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): IFE;
AR: good(+10): TT, ARM, ISB, RS; not so good(+5): UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP; bad(-10): OBRM, NAS;
JOAT: good(+10): NAS; not so good(+5): TT, ARM, ISB, UR, MA; not so bad(-5): LSP;
|
Was this article written before -f races were popular? For example: I have played (with some success) a -f PP with OBRM. Does that make it a 'Bad' race? I have also found that under no circumstances would I ever consider CE to be 'Good', even for an IT. Likewise, I have never found IFE to be really a 'Bad' LRT, especially when combined with NRSE (heck, the two are combined so often they might as well be a single LRT in Freestars!).
Just my  ,
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 18:37 |
|
|
|
| mazda wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 13:56 |
Obviously there are other ratings that puzzle me.
Like why RS +10% for PP, and not even mentioned for WM.
|
Hmmm, he seems to be thinking of late games... ostensibly the effect on superlat is extreme compared to the points generated for shielding of the same era.
However, I think that it is a rare thing that a WM wins in a late game (or even survives to there.) The benefits to a WM in the early/mid game make up for it and I will push it to "not so good(+5)"
Likewise, I will push PP/OBRM to "not so bad(-5)", and IT/CE to "not so good(+5)"
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 19:09 |
|
| Carn |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 284
Registered: May 2003 | |
|
| Kotk wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 12:10 |
There are actually 2 100% "good" settings on econ page
1000 12/9/16 box checked 10/3/17
2500 12/7/21 box checked 11/3/20
|
Agreed that 1000 12/9/16 box checked 10/3/17 is good way to spent points, but 2500 12/7/21 box checked 11/3/20 is not optimal for the amount of points used, 2500 15/8/17 box checked 11/3/19 costs 4 points less and is better. It of course has disadvantages:
- a little less iron, bor due to 1 mine less, but realy just a little bit
- people bombing you need ~12% less bombers to have the same defense, mine, factory destroying effect(less mines + facs acting as chaff for defenses)
but they are outweighed by the advantages:
- higher max production(2,95 per 1000 colonist against 2,92 per 1000 colonists with maxed facs)
- faster factory building (5,33 turns against 5,83 turns for facs to build another fac), even if resources from pop are considered(56 resources generate 7 facs = 10,5 res against 8 facs = 9,6 res), so planets will be maxed sooner
- piles of germ more( 5,1 kT germ against 6,3 kT germ necessary per 1000 colonists to get facs maxed)
Of course there might be some more optimal setting with this amount of points used, but it seems to me, that dropping fac costs below 8 and/or increase number of facs above 16 is very often not as efficient like increasing res per fac, since that way one effectively increases factory building speed(~= cheaper facs), max production(~= number of facs) and decreases germ needed to get x resource production from factories(~= germ box checked), therefore increasing factory efficiency is a bit like making the 3 other factory variables better.
Especially dropping cost to 7 cost 100 points is bad compared to increasing efficiency from 12 to 14(136 points), because one gets 16,66% more resources from facs and a faster building(5,71 turns against 5,83 turns).
Oops, thread is about race ranking. Ok, i agree with everyone else #2 is not good, but not downright rubbish, #1 can be played successfully against AI and #3 is to scare people away from playing stars and it would be very difficult to beat AI with that.
Carn
[Updated on: Thu, 08 April 2004 19:16] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 10:10:26 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
