Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » Wide + narrow vs all average habs
Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 02:14 Go to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

Sending this post because it seems for me that most AR races around (not 2 or 3-immune) take narrow + wide hab ranges.

After some of my tests, it looks like AR with all habs equal goes much better than with one hab very narrow and others wide (or 2 narrow and one wide, though rare case I guess). By taking narrow + wide habs, AR is double-handicapped.

Is above true, or my tests just went bad because odds?

Well, I know that narrow + wide have some disadvantage compare to both equal habs - you can see that in the race wizard because you actually get some points by taking narrow + wide. However, it looks far not balanced for AR race - it seems AR should get twice more points for taking narrow + wide habs. This is because AR is dependent on habitability percent much more than other races - not only pop growth, but also resources output depend on it.

Also, is there any post or article that explains clearly why narrow+wide habs are worse than 2 equal habs with the same total number of poins in ranges?



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 05:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 20:14

However, it looks far not balanced for AR race - it seems AR should get twice more points for taking narrow + wide habs. This is because AR is dependent on habitability percent much more than other races - not only pop growth, but also resources output depend on it.


Actually (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), AR is slightly _less_ affected by habitability than other races.

Short version: AR get's hit twice, but they are not cumulative, for non-AR, they are.

Long version:

Let's compare a 100% and a 50% planet for a AR and non-AR (assuming AR has a Space Station, both have a growth rate of g, AR has Energy of 10, and neither has OBRM, and they have planets 25% full for best growth out of their pop. I also disregard factories. The calculation below will scale for whatever values are used).

On a 100% planet, both races will have 250000 colonists, for a growth of 250000*g, and 500 resources for the AR, 250 resources for the non-AR.

On the 50% planet, the AR will still have 250000 colonists, but growth of 125000*g and 250 resources (i.e. both halved).

On the 50% planet, the non-AR race will only have 125000 colonists for maximum growth, and have a growth of 62500*g (half that of the AR), as they are hit both on the colonist number and the growth), and 125 resources (i.e. resources are halved, growth is quartered).

So if going for maximum growth, the AR is better off. Also, the AR mining (small though it is), is not affected by the hab %, whereas for the non-AR, the hab % limits the pop, which limits the number of mines.

Of course the above requires that the AR finds 125000 colonists more than the non-AR to keep the planet 25% full.

Having said that,and getting back to what you are posting about, I'll always try to take 1 immunity (the widest hab there is) for any race (except maybe a TT CA) - it's better for your initial growth (when it really matters) to find a small number of good greens than a somewhat larger number of small gree
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 07:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Well, and nooooowwwww...
try to account factories. Very Happy

Actually, with factories, you get better with non-AR at the game start. When planet is settled initially, you usually not affected by the max pop. Only growth is actual, as well as resources are actual. If you account that double AR people has only quarter of resources output compare to half of them, it equals to what you stated for non-AR race even without factories Smile - max pop not limited for AR is not a big plus here because square root. Try to calculate resources output by usual average non-AR planet with 50% hab, include factories and assume half of the planet max (250,000). The same half of the planet max with starbase (500,000 people - twice more) for AR and with teraforming (it would be better than 50%) results in less resources - 223 resources with Energy 10 and 100% hab (assuming full teraformed). With good non-AR races, I have 223 resources sometimes even on yellow planets.
Now, if you cannot teraform to 100%, you have even less resources no matter what you do. Better people growth because you spent time teraforming while non-AR race built factories? Well, true, BUT, thous factories together give more than your AR planet full of pop, just because they are not affected by hab at all.
Things are well balansed here though so it does not looks so amazing for non-AR races. You usually spend more time to build factories than teraforming for AR, and factories require minerals as well. In addition, AR can build something better than Starbase having much more people, as well as develop Energy. Through the timeline, it looks quite balanced. I tried this many times (AR vs non-AR) in test playing and see mo much difference in development, apart from the fact that AR ends up with more total people (though cannot use it for planets capturing - not a big plus). And non-AR usually ends up with more minerals stocked up on planets (if you care only about resources output for AR).

So, I gues the hab influence is the same for AR and non-AR.

Anyway, you seems
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 08:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Madman is currently offline Madman

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 228
Registered: November 2003
Location: New Zealand
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 01:42

Well, and nooooowwwww...
try to account factories. Very Happy


No need to account for factories - it only alters resource output (has no effect on pop growth which is where the non-AR gets hit twice), and is just a linear scaling factor (once built).

Oh, and I should have pointed out in my analysis is not about comparing AR with non-AR - there's too many variables to do that easily - just the effect on reach of reduced hab h - the non-AR ends up with the h^2 on growth.

Quote:

I'll illustrate my question on example:
Let's take 2 one-immune AR races.
Race 1 has narrowest possible temperature, though wide radiation.
Race 2 - is a copy of race 1, but I increase hab range for temperature and equally decrease hab range for radiation, so total number of hab range "clicks" remains the same. Up until temperature and radiation are almost equal. I lose some points here in race wizard by that, so I take normal construction or energy, or even decrease pop growth, sometimes 2 at the same time, to compensate the loss. Now I test. Race 1 is always weaker after 50 years on large/packed/distant/ABBS/NRE game no mater what I choose for race 2 to compensate points losing. Try it out Smile


Well if you are talking about the sum of the clicks remaining the same, the number of habitable planets is proportional the _product_ of clicks, so with the sum the same, the product (hence number of habitable planets) will be higher in race 2. For example 0.2*0.8=0.16, 0.5*0.5=0.25 - same sum of clicks (0.2+0.8=0.5+0.5=1.0), but over 50% more planets.

This gets watered down a bit by the fact that wide+narrow gets much faster initial terraforming (often really fast terraforming if do the narrow first).

A much better way to compare is using the '1 in 4 planets will be habitable' etc. in the race wizard.

As for the _exact_ formula for hab, try: http://constb.5u.com/

although for any sort of analysis, the following (taken from http://www.starsfaq.com/advfaq/guts2.htm ) is likely to be ad
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 11:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Well, let's return to main point now:
It looks like AR is beated twice by taking narrow + wide vs both ranges equal. However, the race wizard does not compensate this by additional advantage points compare to normale races. That is why race 1 is always worse than race 2 in my example. Looks like a race wizard disbalance for AR races.

Quote:

For example 0.2*0.8=0.16, 0.5*0.5=0.25 - same sum of clicks (0.2+0.8=0.5+0.5=1.0), but over 50% more planets.

Interesting.
One more note: If you take a closer look, it is not that simple. As you probably already figured out, hab value for a particular hab range tend to be "centered". It means that if you place your hab range at the center, you will get more planets than when placing at the edge. In your formula, "0.2" varies dependent on where you place it. For example, if you place all ranges at the edges, "0.2" becomes something like "0.1", and 0.8 becomes something like "0.9". For halves, it becomes 0.45 for both. So we have: 0.09 and 0.20. If we place all at the center, "0.2" starts to be, say, 0.25 and 0.8 is 0.95. 0.5 becomes 0.6 only. Completely another picture.

Anyway, your analysis is good. However, AR is beaten twice more by using narrow + wide and seems is not appropriate to the advantage points you get in race wizard by taking narrow + wide.

Quote:

This gets watered down a bit by the fact that wide+narrow gets much faster initial terraforming (often really fast terraforming if do the narrow first).


No, not at all. If you use really narrow hab, you lose. You use only 10 or even 7 teraformings out of 15 available (TT is not selected). Then you need to colonize all thous yellow planets with really small resources and thus small teraforming power. With wider range, you use up all 15 teraformings until you need to colonize yellows. With really narrow range that quickly improves you end up with a couple of green planets that have a good hab (>70), and the rest are either yellow or at start of dev
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Quote:

As you probably already figured out, hab value for a particular hab range tend to be "centered". It means that if you place your hab range at the center, you will get more planets than when placing at the edge.


I believe that this is correct for Grav and Temp, but not for Rad. My understanding is that Grav and Temp are both bell curved in distribution, but Rad is evenly distributed across the spectrum, so you can move Rad away from the center without substantially reducing the number of planets within any given Rad range.

Also, it is true that while narrow ranges will give you less initial greens it also means that those greens are very good and easily terraformed and this can be played to give you a fast start which is particularly important for AR. You don't really waste your 15% terraforming ability, you just have to colonize fat yellows which quickly become good greens. The RW points you gain from taking the narrow ranges can then get plowed back into things that improve your resources/terraforming such as cheap Energy and/or high PGR.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 18:14

It looks like AR is beated twice by taking narrow + wide vs both ranges equal. However, the race wizard does not compensate this by additional advantage points compare to normale races. That is why race 1 is always worse than race 2 in my example. Looks like a race wizard disbalance for AR races.

You did not bring any clear examples. Felt like you just clicked around in rw. Letme bring some to see then.
AR: IFE, NRSE, ISB, RS, 15% growth, eff divisor 10, energy and construction cheap, rest expensive, no start at 3 box. I did not build it for a AR contest, its just "a AR".
Now lets equip it with the habs like you described:
1) narrow + wide
gravity 0.22 to 4.40 temp -140 to -52 radiation immune
2) more/less balanced
gravity 0.20 to 1.36 temp -140 to 12 radiation immune
0 points leftover

In my testbeds 1 performs significally better somehow. What is the base of your concerns? Confused Describe your penalties please? The penalty 1 and the penalty 2? Surprised

Some things to note:
a) AR colony max pop is limited by orbital type. Value does not matter.
b) AR planet resources are = MAX(Planet value, 25%)*SQRT(Pop*energy tech/divisor) so yellows are not so bad to take.
c) AR gets energy 10 usually before propulsion 5.
d) In real game hab 1 fits lot better for intersettling.
e) the planets with worse hab than -15% are lot more usual for hab 2, so hab 1 pop dies significally less on reds.
Nod Cool


[Updated on: Wed, 04 January 2006 14:30]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 04 January 2006 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Kotk wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 13:18

Felt like you just clicked around in rw. Letme bring some to see then.


Abondoning most of my response, since Kotk got to it first. Smile

About the only thing missing is this graphic chart about hab distribution and mins. This should be plagerized and put into the must know section. Smile

http://members.cox.net/alan.kolaga/

Rad will give you a more even distribution, the other 2 more centered. Hence, you can keep the Rad slid over toward one edge and not be as worried that it will affect overall planet draw. Thus gaining more point in the RW.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 02:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
icebird is currently offline icebird

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 178
Registered: September 2003
Location: In LaLa land...
The reason I always take wide+narrow habs is terraforming. One click oy terraforming on a narrow band may raise the value of a planet by 4%, whereas the same click on a wide band may not even increase the value. So, with a wide and a narrow band, my terraforming has more of an effect raising the value, thus raising the resource output, thus leading to faster terraforming... A vicious cycle that makes wide+narrow several times faster ramping up planet. I'd give numbers to back this up, but it's about 1 AM here.


-Peter, Lord of the Big Furry Things

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 10:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Yeah, teraforming is quick for narrow hab, but think about second hab. What you are saying is true only when second hab (there is wide range) is close to 100%. Only then you will get 4% teraforming. However, because second hab is wide, you will get large variety of teraforming power. If take into account 2 main things: terafoming power depends on hab%, and wide range is _wide_, so you will have a lot of planets which have hab on wide range off of center, you would have not very good teraforming at start most of the time. With both habs average, it is interchangable. If you have one hab on the edge and another a bit closer to center, you have MUCH better starting hab% compare to narrow+wide in average.

Also, for narrow range you would not use your teraforming possibilities completely. When colonizing yellow planet for which you have 100% for wide habitability and -5 for narrow (to make use of the rest 5 teraformings of thous 15% teraforming you have), you get only 25% of resources. With average habs, above case always means 41% or better hab, so it is possible for you to use up all your +-15% teraforming possibility a bit quicker and more effectively.

With equal habitability ranges, it appears you will always use +-15% teraforming possibilities completely, and most of the time you will have better starting planets at start and far better at the end.



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 10:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Quote:

You did not bring any clear examples. Felt like you just clicked around in rw.


Sorry, I did at least 10 tests before sending this post. Laughing

Quote:

1) narrow + wide
gravity 0.22 to 4.40 temp -140 to -52 radiation immune
2) more/less balanced
gravity 0.20 to 1.36 temp -140 to 12 radiation immune
0 points leftover


Noooo. Sad
The main point is comparing hab ranges of 2 races for which total number of teraforming points is the SAME. Yet you made gravity for race 2 much narrower than required for the test, handicapping race 2 habitability in general. You lost the main point by that. Please, read starting messages accurately again. Do not move hab ranges around, keep them on the same place. Then enhance one range and narrow down another by EQUAL number of clicks up until ranges are equal. (Let they move if ranges are at the edges). Once you do so, you will notice that you lost some advantage points for race 2. Do not compensate them by further narrowing down of habs and/or by moving them around. Just use other race options to compensate that. Despite lose of advantage points for something else, race 2 always does better, MUCH better than race 1. That is a disbalance I'm talking about.






WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 12:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 17:50

Sorry, I did at least 10 tests before sending this post. Laughing

How we judge what you do at home? Post the example races otherwise we do not get what you are complaining about here.
Quote:

Noooo. Sad
The main point is comparing hab ranges of 2 races for which total number of teraforming points is the SAME.

Shocked But RW points were same. Surprised Both races had 0 points leftover all else beside hab settings was equal. Nod
What i did wrongly? Confused Where i cheated? Take my race 1 then and tell us how you modify it into correct race 2 in your correct way. Avoid touching something else besides habs. For example "uh ok i take NAS for race 2" is generally frowned upon when we talk about investing points into habs in RW. Then post your result. Just "noos" do not help us to understand what strange things you do there. Rolling Eyes Laughing

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 13:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Laughing
Got it.
Well, what about race 1 is AR and race 2 is WM with narrowest hab on a tiny universe? WM would do even more better despite narrower hab Laughing

You just do not want to accurately read how to create races for test. Ok, below is 2 example races.

Race 1:
IFE, NRSE, ISB, NAS
Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95
Growth rate 17%
Annual resources divider=10
Energy, construction and weapons are cheap, the rest are 75%, no start at techs 3

Remaining points:0

Race 2:
The same. Then:
Click 10 times for temperature to make it wider. Click 10 times to radiation to make it narrower. Ranges are equal, though total number of teraforming points is not changed. You should have Temp 28 to 188 and Rad 45 to 85.
Make population growth 16% to compensate points loss.

Remaining points:0

Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.



[Updated on: Thu, 05 January 2006 13:38]




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 13:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 12:33


Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.


Post race stats @ y2450 and y2460. We have no way of knowing if your results are what we would call normal. Or, what you mean by saying "worse".

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 12:33


Race 1:
IFE, NRSE, ISB, NAS
Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95
Growth rate 17%
Annual resources divider=10
Energy, construction and weapons are cheap, the rest are 75%, no start at techs 3


I see a couple of issues here. The immune race should have a lower growth than the non-immune. You chose temp as the narrow band, and slid it to far to the edge. See my post with the link, and look at hab distributions.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 14:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Quote:

You chose temp as the narrow band, and slid it to far to the edge. See my post with the link, and look at hab distributions.


Look again - I DO NOT move hab ranges at all. All that I do is just make one wider and make another narrower. Temp 68 to 148 (the narrowest in my example) is located on the equal part of the Habtability chart for Temperature. When using a chart, race 2 is far more slided to the edge and handicapped than Race 1 (188 for right edge of Temp habitability). Despite that, Race 2 does better.

I did not understood your concern about too high growth rate for one-immune race. What's the issue here if RW displays 0 points for both races? Higher growth rate was always better for AR, is not it? Well, you can make growth rate worse and choose better habitability after that. Anyway, result is the same - AR race with equal hab ranges does better than with narrow + wide.

Quote:

Post race stats @ y2450 and y2460. We have no way of knowing if your results are what we would call normal. Or, what you mean by saying "worse".


Will post them as soon as I'll bring them here (do not have at the moment here). I'll make zip with game files available by email as well - with backups for few checkpoint years. Will do more tests as well (If have time Shocked )



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 13:08



Look again - I DO NOT move hab ranges at all. All that I do is just make one wider and make another narrower.



My bad. Misread.

Quote:


I did not understood your concern about too high growth rate for one-immune race. What's the issue here if RW displays 0 points for both races?


Apples to apples. Let me be more clear. One race is 17% growth, the other is 16% growth. You should not be changing growth rate to test hab differences between the 2 nearly identical races. Change the hab, and only the hab. You should test again with the same growth, and better hab choices.

Quote:

Higher growth rate was always better for AR, is not it? Well, you can make growth rate worse and choose better habitability after that. Anyway, result is the same - AR race with equal hab ranges does better than with narrow + wide.



Not necessarily if you have no more room to stuff colonists, especially if those points could be expanding the hab to get more expansion room.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 15:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 20:33

Click 10 times for temperature to make it wider. Click 10 times to radiation to make it narrower. Ranges are equal, though total number of teraforming points is not changed. You should have Temp 28 to 188 and Rad 45 to 85.

Not correct. Hab range is not sum of range clicks. People who design races invest RW points not mouse clicks.
For example: If you make say 80% hab band one click narrower (so its 78%) you lost from your total hab only by 2.5% while making 20% hab band one click wider (so its 22%) you add 10% to your total hab. Someone already explained here to you that for getting numbers of habitable planets you got to multiply the ranges. That means in numbers close to your example 100%*20%*60% = 12% hab for first race and that is not equal 100%*40%*40% = 16% hab for the second race. So RW puts you correctly into 62 points hole with second race for making hab 33% wider. Fairer would be say immune, 32 to 184, 47 to 83 that is 100%*36%*34% = 12.24% and even that puts you into 9 points hole. To get even there take temp click narrower and away from edge and rad 2 clicks toward edge. On any case keep your growth. Then test again. These races are more equal.
Quote:

Make population growth 16% to compensate points loss.
Why? You end up with different races that way and your tests do prove that wide hab is better than high growth for your playing style. Confused Actually for mine too. Smile
Quote:

Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.
Large packed alone? Shocked In such a conditions any results are quite hard to believe. Large/Packed got 960 goddamned planets in it. Shocked Both races probably had over 60k resources, hundred of planets colonized and hell of a micromanagement going on at turn 60?
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 05 January 2006 15:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 19:33

Race 2 performs better at the year 60 on Large/Packed/Distant/ABBS/NRE, despite pop growth is worse.

Have you noticed that the race wizard estimates for race 1 1_in_7 green planets, and for race 2 1_in_6? That's why the second one is more expensive, and fares better.

Also a hint: if you want to get really exact comparisson of two designs, do testbeds in the same universe. Check the StarsFAQ http://www.starsfaq.com/def.htm how to make one.
BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Thu, 05 January 2006 16:13]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Fri, 06 January 2006 07:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Hi!

Thanks for suggestions. I'm testing in the same universe. Using large packed game for several AR races to compare at once, and have not intersettled them Smile

After all posts, once again, I'll re-formulate the disbalance statement to make it more exact:

"AR race benefits much more than other races from taking equal hab ranges vs narrow+wide with the same total number of teraforming points in hab ranges, no matter how you compensate points loss for that."

The point is not in just comparing 2 nearly identical races. Let me explain again. By taking equal hab ranges for race 2 with preserving total teraforming points, I lose advantage points in race wizard. This loss is THE SAME for AR and non - AR races. YES, equal habs in such case have better % of green planets. HOWEVER, non-AR race performs almost equally the same after that, while AR economy develops much better by that no matter how you compensate lost points - by worse growth rate, more costly techs, non-critical change in LRTs (do not uncheck IFE Razz) etc.

It appears for me, for proper balance, AR should lose more advantage points in RW for many cases of habitability selections. AR economy (and, possibly, non-AR -f race) is more dependent on hab % than +f non-AR race. Thus better hab range should be handicapped more by RW for AR races.

BTW, I did similar tests for non-AR races as well Smile


Quote:

Hab range is not sum of range clicks. People who design races invest RW points not mouse clicks.
For example: If you make say 80% hab band one click narrower (so its 78%) you lost from your total hab only by 2.5% while making 20% hab band one click wider (so its 22%) you add 10% to your total hab. Someone already explained here to you that for getting numbers of habitable planets you got to multiply the ranges. That means in numbers close to your example 100%*20%*60% = 12% hab for first race and that is not equal 100%*40%*40% = 16% hab for the second race. So RW puts you correctly into 62 points hole with second race for making hab 33% wid
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Fri, 06 January 2006 10:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
I don't think that would be exactly fair - it is hard for AR to find advantage points as it is (because so many things are considered necessary - i.e. 2.5 or 3 cheap techs, ISB/ARM, etc.).

Or do you think AR should get more points from reducing habs? That's kind of silly - narrow ranges make it easier to get high % value planets (but you get fewer of them) and it's the difference in the effect of % value that is being used to justify the handicap.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Fri, 06 January 2006 13:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
iztok is currently offline iztok

 
Commander

Messages: 1189
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe
Hi!
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 13:21

Using large packed game for several AR races to compare at once, and have not intersettled them Smile

When I do such race comparissons, I use the same tiny packed uni for all designs, one at a time. I build the same number of scouts for every race, send them at about the same paths, try to go the same research paths... In your uni one race can have much different planet draw that it should have on average, so results you get are less reliable.

Also, I agree with crr65536 on the AR penality. They are IMO the weakest race to start a game with Crying or Very Sad , so "punishing" them even more would made them unplayable.

BR, Iztok


[Updated on: Fri, 06 January 2006 14:01]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Fri, 06 January 2006 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 06 January 2006 07:21


"AR race benefits much more than other races from taking equal hab ranges vs narrow+wide with the same total number of teraforming points in hab ranges, no matter how you compensate points loss for that."
What is "equal" there? Circumference of a temp/rad rectangle? Why it matters? Laughing What matters is the volume of your hab brick. Millirentgens can not be summed up with degrees of Celsius, may they? The sum of mR and degrees is nonsense and comparing two such sums is double nonsense. Confused You are confusing yourself with that "equal" and i must admit you were confusing me too at start since you did not bring any clear examples and posted no results of your experiments. How can mouse clicks matter to a guy who is claiming making huge packed testbeds? Surprised Laughing

For accurate picture what is equal what is not there is a javascript tool... that generates amounts of random planets and displays statistics for selected habs and terraforms...
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml
Say i give your exampe races calculated for 20 000 planets:
1) Gravity immune, Temp 68 to 148, Rad 35 to 95 gives 14.2% planets. 1 from 7.04.
2) Gravity immune, Temp 28 to 188 and Rad 45 to 85 gives 17.7% planets. 1 from 5.65.
Using term "equal" is quite silly and rightfully since 2 costs 62 points more in RW. Confused
Btw you still have not posted what were the resources of your races at turn 40, 50 and 60. Rolling Eyes Why i ask, its because the race 1 has more good planets after terraforming, and 1% better growth in ungodly available room (large packed) sounds not so bad. I think i try race 1 in medium packed and see if it gets more than 100k resources at 2460 or less.
Quote:

The answer to exactly YOUR question: "What is better: narrow+wide vs equal ranges, with the same estimated % of green planets." is seems known quite far ago - of course narrow + wide is better.

It is not MY question. You try and read my posts again? Correct question is: &
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Sat, 07 January 2006 18:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Kotk wrote on Sat, 07 January 2006 00:48

I think i try race 1 in medium packed and see if it gets more than 100k resources at 2460 or less.

results:
y10) 0.6k
y20) 2.8k
y30) 7.1k
y40) 20k ... i had about 75 planets colonized so it turned real awfully slow to play, stopped building pintaes.
y50) 59k at 101 planets.
Cant be that 16% growth race is better since 17% growth race still feels no growding and still has built no deathstar. About half of planets are still docks or starter colonies rest are ultras. Took me whole day and i am kinda bored to play 10 turns more. Sad

It is clear that this race has about 150k res at y60 on 100 planets, probably most tech maxed too. How you test them buggers in large packeds ... beats me. Nod

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 05:33 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Quote:


results:
y10) 0.6k
y20) 2.8k
y30) 7.1k
y40) 20k ... i had about 75 planets colonized so it turned real awfully slow to play, stopped building pintaes.
y50) 59k at 101 planets.



My test on medium packed only single AR race shows only 40k and 108 planets and year 50, with growth 3-4k of resources per year, but a lot of yellow planets. Just let me guess... you colonized only green planets, right? Amd, I assume you have large % of your planets that are not capable to build Jihad torp defences on bases at all. Is that true?

Quote:


Cant be that 16% growth race is better since 17% growth race still feels no growding and still has built no deathstar. About half of planets are still docks or starter colonies rest are ultras. Took me whole day and i am kinda bored to play 10 turns more.

It is clear that this race has about 150k res at y60 on 100 planets, probably most tech maxed too. How you test them buggers in large packeds ... beats me.



Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

I'm currently at year 58 and have something like 70k resources on ~110 planets. However, I also already have Arm BBs, overthruster, Elec 12 (good comps), tons of minerals, Interspace-10 etc. - ready to build good fleets for real fighting. Already packed few planets to 3M people to have good minerals and building bases.

Please note, that "race 2 doing better than race 1" is not just economy and number of planets. You would require to not only reach good reasources, but also be able to put your resource to good use.

I guess we used different styles of playing for tests. In my test, I tried to play with assumption there is an opponent, despite growing to the edges.

I usually research few levels in Electronics to have good mining robots, and then _build_ these, as well as have Jihad torps before you get Death Star, that means some research in prop and weapons. And you would require to care about colony to be able to build armed bases just for case of attacks, and to do so, you would require to car
...



[Updated on: Mon, 09 January 2006 05:38]




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: AR guide
Next Topic: Iperithon's AR
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Sep 19 06:27:10 EDT 2019