Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » How Would You Rate These Races?
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 19:42   |
|
|
|
How about a couple more sets from the generator:
JOAT:
#1 LRT: IFE, ISB, UR, MA, NRS, LSP, BET (whew!); growth 5%; hab: all; PopRes: 2000, facts 7,25,14,nch; mines 24,8,22; tech all cheap except weapons and bio normal;
#2 LRT: UR, MA, NAS, BET, RS; growth 15%; hab 1/21; PopRes: 2200, facts 7,17,25,ch; mines 19,10,9; tech all cheap except weapons expensive and bio normal; 
#3 LRT: IFE, TT, IS, GR, OBRM, BET, RS; growth 6%; hab: all; popres 1000; facts 14,8,11,nch; mines 11,3,12; tech all cheap except energy and electronics normal;
I know these are all crap but how crappy are they?
WM:
#1 LRT: TT, ARM, ISB, GR, BET, RS; growth 7%; hab: all; PopRes: 900; Facts: 10,8,13,ch; Mines: 13,5,14; tech all normal except Elec and Bio cheap;
#2 LRT: IFE, ISB, GR, UR, CE; growth 14%; hab: 1/22; PopRes: 900; Facts: 10,10,10,nch; Mines: 11,5,10; Tech EN,CON,ELEC expensive, the rest are cheap;
#3 LRT: TT, ARM, ISB, GR, MA, RS; growth 11%, 1/12; PopRes: 1800; Facts: 8,10,7,ch; Mines: 9,6,24; Tech: EN,PROP,ELEC normal, the rest cheap;
For your interest:
My rating of Page 2 for these races:
Set#1: #1-(-.25), #2-(.25), #3-(0.0)
Set#2: #1-(.50), #2-(-.25), #3-(1.0)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Thu, 08 April 2004 22:11 |
|
 icebird |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 178
Registered: September 2003
Location: In LaLa land... | |
|
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 16:42 |
JOAT:
#1 LRT: IFE, ISB, UR, MA, NRS, LSP, BET (whew!); growth 5%; hab: all; PopRes: 2000, facts 7,25,14,nch; mines 24,8,22; tech all cheap except weapons and bio normal;
#2 LRT: UR, MA, NAS, BET, RS; growth 15%; hab 1/21; PopRes: 2200, facts 7,17,25,ch; mines 19,10,9; tech all cheap except weapons expensive and bio normal;
#3 LRT: IFE, TT, IS, GR, OBRM, BET, RS; growth 6%; hab: all; popres 1000; facts 14,8,11,nch; mines 11,3,12; tech all cheap except energy and electronics normal;
|
I would rate these 3, 2 then 1.
Even if it (#1) is slow (very) it at least has late game potential. 
#2 has the best growth rate, but it just can't do anything with all that pop it can grow.  And its hab hurts.
#1 has no good points. Weapons isn't even cheap. 
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 16:42 |
I know these are all crap but how crappy are they?
WM:
#1 LRT: TT, ARM, ISB, GR, BET, RS; growth 7%; hab: all; PopRes: 900; Facts: 10,8,13,ch; Mines: 13,5,14; tech all normal except Elec and Bio cheap;
#2 LRT: IFE, ISB, GR, UR, CE; growth 14%; hab: 1/22; PopRes: 900; Facts: 10,10,10,nch; Mines: 11,5,10; Tech EN,CON,ELEC expensive, the rest are cheap;
#3 LRT: TT, ARM, ISB, GR, MA, RS; growth 11%, 1/12; PopRes: 1800; Facts: 8,10,7,ch; Mines: 9,6,24; Tech: EN,PROP,ELEC normal, the rest cheap;
|
I am inclined to rate #1 as the best, followed closly by #2. It seems that the generator has a thing for low pop and factory efficency.
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 16:42 |
For your interest:
My rating of Page 2 for these races:
Set#1: #1-(-.25), #2-(.25), #3-(0.0)
Set#2: #1-(.50), #2-(-.25), #3-(1.0)
|
Page 2? That's PRT. Did you mean page 3; LRTs?
-Peter, Lord of the Big Furry ThingsReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Fri, 09 April 2004 06:13 |
|
|
|
| icebird wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 20:11 |
| donjon wrote on Thu, 08 April 2004 16:42 |
For your interest:
My rating of Page 2 for these races:
Set#1: #1-(-.25), #2-(.25), #3-(0.0)
Set#2: #1-(.50), #2-(-.25), #3-(1.0)
|
Page 2? That's PRT. Did you mean page 3; LRTs?
|
Yep, thats a typo... page 3.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Fri, 09 April 2004 06:30 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| donjon wrote on Fri, 09 April 2004 01:42 |
How about a couple more sets from the generator:
JOAT:...
|
#1: 12/100
#2: 15/100
#3: 18/100
#1: 20/100
#2: 45/100
#3: 20/100
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 09 April 2004 06:34] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Fri, 09 April 2004 10:23 |
|
|
|
Indicators:
Some indicators for calculating viability of race:
#1 MPop: the maximum population on planet (assume deathstar for AR)
#2 SPop: the starting population of HW. (assume ABBS)
#3 Speed: 1-(int((ln(mpop)-ln(spop))/ln(growth)))/100
This returns 100- #of years to fill hw (not using stars! diminishing returns) (a percentage rating)
#4 Nplanets: UniverseSize*hab*speed+1
#5 PRes: calculate resources of one planet, pop and fact at max.
#6 TRes: ln(Nplanets*PRes)
#7 PMins: calculate min prod of one planet. (assume MC 100)
#8 TMins: ln(Nplanets*Pmins)
#9 Page3Value(LRTS): default 100% redid rating mods (+50,+25,-25,-50)
#10 Page4Value(Life  ): sqrt(hab*growth)
#11 Page5Value(Prod): sqrt(Tres*Tmins)/max(sqrt(Tres*Tmins))
Note: this is an overall percentage indicator of how the race compares with all races entered.
#12 Page6Value(Tech): Haven't done it yet... (any help here??)
[Updated on: Fri, 09 April 2004 19:26] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Fri, 09 April 2004 10:43 |
|
| Dark_Traveller |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 33
Registered: October 2003
Location: Tigard, OR. USA | |
|
Well not being an expert but I have played my fair share of WM and have recently been educated by some Expert?  (just kinding) members of the forum. The Generator appears not to take into effect the PRT. WM is tough to play with TT(I know I have tried) unless you have a long drawn out game but then the WM Tac advantage is nullified.
#1: TT, ARM, GR not needed-to low of a growth rate for anything other than HE
#2: CE (Yuk) a killer when you have to get your fleet there on time, Ok growth, Hab and Growth now where needing to be
#3: TT, MA? I don't think I have ever seen a race with MA, but if you knew the Minerals were going to be scarce in the ENTIRE Universe, No growth, No resources from Pop, Alot of Expensive mines with crappy factories. Yikes.
Well now that I have ranted I would say #2 would be the only one I would even try to run if forced into it. The Others I would hit the regenerate button.
IMO.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Sun, 11 April 2004 05:02 |
|
| Shadow Whist |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 2 |
Messages: 167
Registered: August 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA | |
|
Hmm...
For the record, I am no expert...
Considering these are sucky races, however if one's opponents are similar then "sucky" is a relative term. The "monster" concept is not the same.
BTW- Donjon does hab =all mean 3Immune? cause I might change my mind if that's what that means...
My ratings for the 3 are:
CA - 1 and 2 are close, then 3. I think 1,2 are close because of the hab ranges, growth rate, and fac/min settings. With 1 you will end up with more planets generating pop. More facs are built and then gen more mines. With 2 they grow faster. But have less area to grow in, they have good fac/min but considering the number of mines that can be built, it might be iffy.
JOAT
I don't think i can even pick. JOAT are not my favorite. But...
#2, #3, #1.
2 might be the OWW of this game. Its pop explodes, so you build more fac and mines then the rest. Compared to most others you are advancing fast. Also, with cheap prop your scouts are finding other nice worlds fast. By the time you hit your second world the 5-6% growth races are getting close to moving to their 2nd world. By the time you hit each other you will probably be ahead in tech and in production. Terraforming will happen faster as well. (although not rad) and a change in terr, will change the planet value quickly.
WM
This is tough, because comparative to the other PRT's WM's have ok stats...
#3, #2, #1
3 is the best option for continuous growth and has the ability to gain more space due to TT. Bio cheap, make nice worlds fast. can get the weapons fast.
With the options for slow growth rate, it might be good to extend the number of turns. The game might end just a bit too soon. Although I think there will be cheap horde fleets attacking mineral-less races...
____________________________________________
Paid for by the University Security Department Budget... 
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Sun, 11 April 2004 17:16 |
|
|
|
| Shadow Whist wrote on Sun, 11 April 2004 03:02 |
Hmm...
For the record, I am no expert...
Considering these are sucky races, however if one's opponents are similar then "sucky" is a relative term. The "monster" concept is not the same.
BTW- Donjon does hab =all mean 3Immune? cause I might change my mind if that's what that means...
|
Hmmm, I haven't been able to distinguish between 3i and total wide habs, however, 3i has an extreme cost and results in low growth 4%-5%...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Wed, 14 April 2004 08:58 |
|
|
|
Still Having Problems
Hi People, I'm still having problems, here is my results so far:
Group #1 (CA) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 1.00 0.17 8.46 0.30 2.26
Race 2 1.00 0.15 9.52 0.60 2.91
Race 3 0.75 0.22 9.77 0.80 3.35
Group #2 (JOAT) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 0.75 0.22 13.19 0.75 3.74
Race 2 1.25 0.08 6.66 0.85 2.92
Race 3 1.00 0.24 17.33 1.00 4.86
Group #3 (WM) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 1.50 0.26 9.95 0.75 3.60
Race 2 0.75 0.08 10.08 0.50 2.58
Race 3 2.00 0.10 5.77 0.90 3.25
You will note that there are discrepancies in the ratings, for example in group#1 race#3 is rated higher than race#2.
I can only figure this is due to the higher output from either resources or mins expected overall. How do I minimize this effect without causing other false reports?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Sat, 17 April 2004 08:52 |
|
|
|
Still Having Problems
Better? Implementing some of the changes suggested, ignoring potential production but considering speed...
Group #1 (CA) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 0.75 0.43 0.13 0.15 1.00
Race 2 1.00 0.53 0.13 0.70 1.44
Race 3 1.00 0.39 0.09 0.90 0.94
Group #2 (JOAT) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 1.50 0.39 0.06 0.75 0.89
Race 2 1.50 0.11 0.08 1.05 1.45
Race 3 1.00 0.60 0.20 1.25 1.22
Group #3 (WM) Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Rating
Race 1 1.50 0.86 0.15 0.50 1.42
Race 2 1.00 0.08 0.14 0.60 1.15
Race 3 2.00 0.10 0.10 1.10 1.50
It looks a little better considering your ratings of the races, at least at finding the top race...
Thoughts?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: How Would You Rate These Races? |
Tue, 20 April 2004 14:34 |
|
|
|
Present Status
OK, I've run through 3 sets of 16 races.
I'm basically rating the races by PRT and dropping all but the top 3. I've only run across 2 HE's and SD's so have left them out of the report...
Alternate Reality
#1 (0.80) TT,UR,MA,CE,OB,NAS,LS,BET 9% 1/16 9 all cheap but CON exp BIO norm
#2 (0.86) IF,TT,ARM,IS,GR,UR,BET 5% all 8 all cheap but WEAP,ELEC,BIO norm
#3 (0.81) MA,NRS 8% 1/9 10 all cheap but CON,BIO norm
Claim Adjuster
#1 (1.42) ARM,IS 13% 1/8 1000,10/10/10ch,10/5/10 all norm but WEAP,PROP cheap
#2 (1.10) GR,UR,MA,NR,CE,OB,LS,BET 9% 1/2 2400,15/17/20nch,6/13/9 all cheap but PROP,ELEC norm
#3 (1.51) IF,TT,ARM,UR,CE,OB,NAS,RS 11% 1/9 1800,5/8/15ch,21/9/7 EN,PROP cheap, WEAP,BIO norm, CON,ELEC exp
Inner Strength
#1 (1.29) TT,ARM,IS,MA 14% 1/11 1400,15/11/10nch,6/6/8 all norm but EN,ELEC cheap, BIO exp
#2 (1.21) No LRT 10% 1/4 2100,10/18/15ch,24/3/10 all cheap but EN,PROP exp BIO norm
#3 (1.18) No LRT 12% 1/8 900,11/9/10ch,11/5/10 all norm but BIO cheap
Interstellar Traveller
#1 (1.43) IF,TT,ARM,MA,CE,OB,RS 11% 1/4 1000,11/10/10nch,10/5/11 all norm but EN,CON exp, BIO cheap
#2 (1.76) ARM,IS,UR,OB,NAS,LS 15% 1/4 1300,9/22/16ch,21/14/15 all exp but EN,PROP norm, BIO cheap
#3 (1.36) TT,ARM,GR,UR,NR,NAS,RS 9% 1/2 1000,10/10/10ch,10/5/9 all exp but PROP,BIO cheap, ELEC norm
Jack of all Trades
#1 (1.42) UR,MA,NAS,BET,RS 15% 1/21 2200,7/17/25ch,19/10/9 all cheap but WEAP exp, BIO norm
#2 (1.14) IF,TT,IS,GR,OB,BET,RS 6% all 1000,14/8/11nch,11/3/12 all cheap but EN,ELEC norm
#3 (1.04) TT,ARM,GR,UR,MA,BET,RS 5% all 1600,7/19/20nch,11/7/17 all cheap
Packet Physics
#1 (1.59) IF,ARM,TT,GR,UR,MA,NR,CE,NAS 9% 1/3 2300,12/15/15ch,13/3/5 all cheap but PROP,BIO norm, ELEC exp
#2 (1.63) MA,NR,CE,NAS,LS,RS 12% 1/2 1500,14/11/10nch,12/12/9 all exp but WEAP,PROP norm, EN cheap
#3 (1.81) IF,ARM,TT,GR,MA,CE 9% all 1000,10,10,10ch,10/5/10 all exp but PROP,BIO norm, WEAP cheap
Super Stealth
#1 (0.94) NAS 5% 1/2 700,13/6/9nch,19/5/10 all cheap but EN,BIO exp, CON norm
#2 (1.03) IF,TT,IS,UR,MA,NR,CE,NAS,LS,BET,RS 6% 1/2 1000,12/8/14nch,12/2/12 all cheap but WEAP,ELEC norm
#3 (0.92) IF,TT,ARM,IS,MA,NR 4% all 800,15/7/14nch,15/2/14 all cheap but EN norm
War Monger
#1 (1.29) TT,ARM,IS,GR,BET,RS 7% all 900,10/8/13ch,13/5/14 all norm but ELEC,BIO cheap
#2 (1.48) TT,ARM,IS,GR,MA,RS 11% 1/12 1800,8/10/7ch,9/6/24 all cheap but EN,PROP,ELEC norm
#3 (1.18) IF,TT,IS,GR,NR,CE,BET,RS 6% 1/2 1800,6/10/19ch,25/3/15 all cheap but PROP,CON norm
Comments?
I will NOT report on this progress again since the final races will be used in Round #2 of the All Round Player Tournament.
Note the ratings I have obtained are the bracketed values at the beginning and appear to have a maximum value of 2.00... (Thanks to Leit for the yardsticks
Oops got hungry and forgot my favorite PRT: WM
[Updated on: Tue, 20 April 2004 16:58] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun May 12 17:34:36 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
