Re: Things to add to Known Bugs. |
Sun, 20 March 2011 06:01 |
|
magic9mushroom | | Commander | Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:05 | Are you just bent on contradicting me for no reason? What I just said is like -F 101...
|
Nope. It would be better, once 25% is achieved, to grow to 48% while waiting to fill.
Having the same amount of pop grown per year as at 25% is not relevant to anything. It is merely a curiosity.
nmid wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:36 |
my 2 most devious foes, on the forum,
POPCORN !!!
Btw, on a serious note, for non -f races, spreading the 42% as 25% + balance on another world, might be better.. but for a -f, 42% is a milestone to be achieved.
|
Us two, devious?
Well, Eagle may be, but I'm certainly not.
However...
25% hold is the point at which pop growth becomes suboptimal, so it's logical.
33% hold is the point at which differential pop growth becomes negative, so it's logical.
48% hold is the point at which the resource integral to fill to 100% is maximised, so it's logical.
What does 42% hold do that one of these doesn't do better?
Just don't mention IS. Trying to work anything out about that PRT makes my head hurt.
[Updated on: Sun, 20 March 2011 06:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Things to know (population 101) |
Sun, 20 March 2011 06:10 |
|
|
neilhoward wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 11:42 | Pop growth and percent pop growth are very different.
A standard 20% MPGR race without OBRM on a 100% planet gets 50k new pop at 42% capacity.
The same race gets 50k pop growth on that planet with 25% capacity, and the difference of 170k population on a second planet will grow up to an extra 34k colonists per year.
Since -f rely entirely on population for resources, this is a much bigger matter for them. That is almost a 31% difference in annual resource growth for the initial 420,000 population.
Eagle of Fire wrote on Sat, 19 March 2011 19:22 |
Why are we arguing about this again?
|
Because you insisted.
|
But neil, you are talking mathematically.
In real game situations, what are the chances of getting a similar 100% second world?
It's better to get to 42% on the HW, simply because
A> The balance 170k would be on a 2-year-far world is 50%-70% green.
B> The time taken to get the 170k to the other world.
Maintaining a balance
I would maximise my current resources, while keeping my growth at it's "practically possible" maximum..
After I've taken all 2-year-far worlds to 25%, I would get my HW to 42% and then restart exporting my colonists further away.
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Things to add to Known Bugs. |
Sun, 20 March 2011 09:35 |
|
|
magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 15:31 |
nmid wrote on Sun, 20 March 2011 08:36 |
my 2 most devious foes, on the forum,
POPCORN !!!
|
Us two, devious?
Well, Eagle may be, but I'm certainly not.
However...
25% hold is the point at which pop growth becomes suboptimal, so it's logical.
33% hold is the point at which differential pop growth becomes negative, so it's logical.
48% hold is the point at which the resource integral to fill to 100% is maximised, so it's logical.
What does 42% hold do that one of these doesn't do better?
Just don't mention IS. Trying to work anything out about that PRT makes my head hurt.
|
Indeed ... and indeed. I was holding my tongue .
However...
42% is just something that I would achieve, for reasons stated in my last.
Practical game scenario, for maximising growth and resource generation at the same time.
Does it work in-game? I think so.. but I'm sure you'll clarify if it works mathematically.
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Things to add to Known Bugs. |
Sun, 20 March 2011 23:37 |
|
|
magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 07:12 |
Eagle of Fire wrote on Mon, 21 March 2011 05:08 | Devious? Since when stating facts is being devious?
|
It's not. He's calling you devious for other reasons.
Quote: | I'm not entirely sure what you meant by that but once I translate this word in French it turns out to be quite the insult...
|
Quebecois?
Well, it's not entirely an insult, but nor is it something most would like said about them. It's similar to "sly" or "cunning".
|
My attempt at light banter failed with Eagle.. so I didn't really know what to say after that.
Though, he really isn't as white as snow, as he feels...
gah... I just can't stop my fingers :@
ps - 2 days/10 days/1year/26 years.. and discussions still on hold, if you needed an indication of what I'm talking about
[Updated on: Sun, 20 March 2011 23:38]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Things to add to Known Bugs. |
Tue, 22 March 2011 05:39 |
|
magic9mushroom | | Commander | Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 22 March 2011 15:06 |
But I still don't understand. Sly or cunning are compliments as far as I can tell while devious seem to have an immediate negative tone. Very negative.
|
Not really.
One might say "That's devious!" as praise of a plan.
"Devious" has more of a positive tone than "sly", as the latter carries connotations of cheating or other underhanded measures.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|