Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Tue, 10 August 2004 23:57]

Report message to a moderator

SinicalIdealist wrote on Wed, 11 August 2004 05:44

Say small-packed. Then have a race w/ very moderate abilities.

Is it planned JOAT olympics or JOAT para-olympics?

Report message to a moderator

The original race posted is hardly a powerful race and typical of JoaT designs. If you wanted a powerful and intersting -F joat, I could think of a number of better designs, such as a 17% dual immune variant. Hits 40k by 50 pretty easily.

As a NF, the proposed design is relatively weak and would require significantly more MM than most other races. Moreover, due to the low overall resources, it would mean that the game would have a slow pace. It would allow far fewer overall strategic options for players to tackle given the specialized race design. For a game where all people play the same race, you'd think you'd want to maximize the ability for individuals' play styles and strategies to show through.

Report message to a moderator

SinicalIdealist wrote on Wed, 11 August 2004 09:31

The original race posted is hardly a powerful race and typical of JoaT designs.

So as real good cure you suggest a race with what the original "hardly useful" race will just brush its toilets?

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

xdude wrote on Tue, 10 August 2004 12:46

Finally reaching a calmer part in my life right now. I have the time to get Joat Olympics finally started. IFE/NRSE

Why NRSE? With -f there's plenty germ available for cheaper ramscoops. And with low -f econ it's really recommended taking ISB.

Quote:

5/25/5 Facts

I have some doubts with Olympics and -f econ combo. IMO it is not as fair as the Olympics should be. If the race has factories, then it can grow econ from two sources: pop and factories. But with -f econ there's only one source, and that source depends heavily on planet draw. If a good player with a -f race gets bad planets, he can not do much against average player with many good planets. He will be crushed with just sheer numbers from much larger economy, and not with skill. But if he could build factories, then that difference in econ size should not be so big, as factories compound with the same speed on 100% planet as on the 40% one.
My .
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Wed, 11 August 2004 02:37

SinicalIdealist wrote on Wed, 11 August 2004 09:31 The original race posted is hardly a powerful race and typical of JoaT designs. So as real good cure you suggest a race with what the original "hardly useful" race will just brush its toilets?

Well, in my experience (and I've been playing stars! since 1996, won more expert level games than most players have even played), I answer: Yes.

The modified aforementioned Hybrid-QS design is lower growth and w/ centered hab due to the nature of planetary distributions in each hab variable. This is not an olympics game to see who can design the best race. The goal is to see who can do the best given that opponents face all the exact same challenges.

As such, the goal must be to minimize the probability that a group of player in any given region of the universe will have their competitiveness offset massively by universal randomness. A NF race will face challenges in randomness of hab distribution. A race that w/ less centered habs will also face these challenges more. Something around 70-80% of planets fall more than 20 clicks from the edge in Grav and Temp. As such, it is more important to center these variables if all races are going to have the same design. That way you have the maximum number of habitable planets available to all. If I were going to field my most competitive race in this game, it would not be the design I suggested. I would take plenty of cheap tech, forgo a number of LRTs, and boost the PGR to 19%. However, this is a game where it is more important that random chance of getting screwed on planet distribution is minimized. Also, by increasing the number of available strategies, you're more likely to see a highly competitive game with genuine variation in game-plans -- some very disparate that will turn out to be highly successful.

g.e./Gakl on #stars!

Report message to a moderator

SinicalIdealist wrote on Thu, 12 August 2004 00:46

(and I've been playing stars! since 1996, won more expert level games than most players have even played)

Oh... someone like me. I would like to duel you.

Quote:

As such, the goal must be to minimize the probability that a group of player in any given region of the universe will have their competitiveness offset massively by universal randomness.

How can narrow hab, growded environment and unability to reach any terraforming tech in sane timeframe work against it? One gets 2 breeders neaby, rest get 3 yellows and one tiny germaniumless green. I am not advocating -f, but I think that such alternative works opposite.

If we want a fair JOAT olympics then why not make it fair JOAT olympics by taking some average JOAT?
Common JOAT LRT-s: IFE, NRSE, OBRM, NAS, RS
Common JOAT econ: 1000, 12/9/15 (v) 10/3/17
Useful tech: Weapons cheap, energy & construction normal
And then ... to get it more fair and all around ... make it centered 1 in 3 hab
That leaves 15% growth ... but since all get it... its fair.

Of course for me "JOAT olympics" at the first place sounds simply like a game where all PRT-s beside JOAT are banned. Then players can join in with their desperately innovative game plans and successful tools.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Wed, 11 August 2004 16:38

Oh... someone like me. I would like to duel you.

I don't really do duels. I prefer games with many players. More fun w/ more player interaction. I usually choose a low planet:player ratio. ie. Small packed w/ 16 players or medium sparse. Fun starts earlier.

Quote:

Quote: As such, the goal must be to minimize the probability that a group of player in any given region of the universe will have their competitiveness offset massively by universal randomness. How can narrow hab, crowded environment and inability to reach any terraforming tech in sane timeframe work against it? One gets 2 breeders neaby, rest get 3 yellows and one tiny germaniumless green. I am not advocating -f, but I think that such alternative works opposite.

Crowded environments just mean the action of the game happens more quickly. The 70% cost on terraforming will offset a bad hab draw. The reasonably high growth can offset a bad germ draw. Admittedly, I should probably have set bio to cheap. That would make biotech a legitmate strategy for tech gain for at least a few races. W/ slightly higher growth 1 or 2 parties could even benefit from acting like a NF and researching bio. I think more expensive tech would be fine as long as you're not using slow tech. Makes the game far less of a race straight to nubians. It's more interesting if you push that technology into less of a possibility until after year 85 at least. Even in a small packed you'd see players getting nubians in the 60s-70s w/ con cheap.

Also, for a small crowded universe, hybrid designs with a heavier factory load and narrow hab makes more sense. There won't be many planets anyhow. Makes red colonizing a viable alternative w/ more useful factories in a serious planet crunch.

Quote:

If we want a fair JOAT olympics then why not make it fair JOAT olympics by taking some average JOAT? Common JOAT LRT-s: IFE, NRSE, OBRM, NAS, RS Common JOAT econ: 1000, 12/9/15 (v) 10/3/17 Useful tech: Weapons cheap, energy & construction normal And then ... to get it more fair and all around ... make it centered 1 in 3 hab That leaves 15% growth ... but since all get it... its fair. Of course for me "JOAT olympics" at the first place sounds simply like a game where all PRT-s beside JOAT are banned. Then players can join in with their desperately innovative game plans and successful tools.

Game is more like IROC JoaT. The race design for CA olympics was pretty painful. I managed to get stuck with the worst hab draw I'd ever seen in any game. Killed enough players that I didn't do terribly though.

[Updated on: Wed, 11 August 2004 22:51]

Report message to a moderator

SinicalIdealist wrote on Thu, 12 August 2004 04:42

I don't really do duels.

How sad... with me duel is usually over with two weeks. Did i say i wont interact?

Quote:

I prefer games with many players. More fun w/ more player interaction. I usually choose a low planet:player ratio. ie. Small packed w/ 16 players or medium sparse. Fun starts earlier.

So 16 experts playing tons of expert level games somewhere? Take me too? Last time i played in advanced+ level game we got barely 10 players. Even there half of them did feel like intermediates.

Quote:

Crowded environments just mean the action of the game happens more quickly.

That is true. Trying techless for a variety might also be fun. But main problem still remains. The race is designed for lucky. Initial draw really matters for a while and one who got 2 nice nearby greens is quite a bit in advantage that he can improve shortly with brute force.

Think yourself. Small packed with 16 players all wielding same JOATs that you proposed:
1) HW + 2 greens per player so in reality getting just HW + 5 yellows (at terra 7 in all fields) is not so odd.
2) Yellow planet is not too big without OBRM so it half offsets TT bonus. Factories cost 9 so still take a while to build.
3) Techless means 8k to get bazookas and 12k to get cruisers. That dumps most hopes to some OWW tactic.
4) Surprize attacks with lower junk + pop-drop also not too possible since all are bloody ISB JOATs around.

(edit: tiny was typo)
small packed is 15 per player so at 1 in 3 (1 in 6 at TT 7) you got 5 habitable planets in average.

[Updated on: Thu, 12 August 2004 06:18]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Game has started. Topic locked.

Report message to a moderator