Home » Primary Racial Traits » CA » CA Balance
| Re: CA Balance |
Tue, 06 June 2006 08:36   |
|
|
|
Hi!
Is this correct place to discuss _all_ PRT changes?  Anyway...
| iztok wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 10:49 |
Since you can also change the RW points for a race then I'd suggest the following settings:
PRT RW diff. comment
PP +60 +97 to buy better mine eff.
AR +40 +67 to buy ISb
HE +35 +45 they're a bit too weak
SD +35 -18 a bit to cheap for their strenght
SS +25 +63 need better econ
WM +20 +32 need a bit better econ
IS +10 -26 a bit to cheap for all what they get
CA 0 0 same, already lost instaforming
IT -35 +22 a bit too expensive
JoaT -50 -75 so they take NAS without too much additional points
Most econ races lost their RW points, JaoT the most. OTOH those weak/least played races got some improvement, PP the most, as IMO it NEEDS more minerals to use packets.
|
Well, did you consider later game economy and race development?
IMO, IT race needs LESS points, or, at least make -f IT not that powerful at the early game and late game (with a lot of planets). And not by RW points, but in some other way. For example, make RW work differently - when you choose to have no factories at all (minimum of them), it should leave less RW points than it is now. Or make /800 people resources more expensive (700 is already expensive, but /800 is seems what usually used by -f races).
Also, PP IS POWER, if have something for better startup. If you launch a game with 50 year startup with only factories/mines built on starting HW, PP wins all other races (except, probably HP IT race and CA) because starting minerals + packet-teraform, and 2 planets.
I guess, later in the game, with more RW points, PP may have much better economy than others. So I would suggest to just increase PP starting minerals instead of increasing RW points.
AR - do you know how powerful AR can be at the later game? Instead of adding RW points, I would give some better means to protect AR early in the game (that is the weak point of AR and that is why it is disliked). Nice way for t
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Tue, 06 June 2006 13:23 |
|
 iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 14:36 |
IMO, IT race needs LESS points, or, at least make -f IT not that powerful at the early game and late game
|
I agree in early game IT is very strong, because it can gate around pop and minerals, thus making it very fast. But that's about the only thing it has, besides being expensive. When nubians come around (late game), they lose lots of their advantage, as everybody can gate missile ships. Besides, 1/800 people resources is hideous expensive for what is offers. IMO not many experienced players would pick that. For a -f is IMO more important to have excellent tech and good hab. 1/800 can't afford any.
| Quote: |
PP IS POWER, if have something for better startup. If you launch a game with 50 year startup with only factories/mines built on starting HW, PP wins all other races
|
That's exactly the reason why in most forced-gen games (or games with very small amount of planets) packets are forbiden, or severely limited. I wanted to give PPs more minerals, because for everythign what they can do, they need minerals, and at the end they don't have them enough for ships.
| Quote: |
AR - do you know how powerful AR can be at the later game?
|
I do. But they need to survive early game.
| Quote: |
Instead of adding RW points, I would give ... AR starting Construction 7 and Electronics 4 for better mining robots right from start.
|
That's IMO one solution to avoid early mineral crunch that makes ARs so vulnerable in early game. Hovewer in previous notes there was not mention of changing starting tech.
| Quote: |
you propose to make difference between SD and SS as much as 91 RW points!!! But SD is not that much more powerful than SS, specially in economy. And SS plays much better against SD minefields than others. Why SUCH big difference then???
|
SD is MUCH stronger in economy than SS - just the difference in starting RW points is 87. And SD gets additional 105 ponts by taking NAS, while SS gets only 40. Now convert those ~150 points in econ and/or hab and check what you get. Besides, h
...
[Updated on: Tue, 06 June 2006 13:28] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Tue, 06 June 2006 13:54 |
|
|
|
Hi!
| iztok wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 20:23 |
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 14:36 |
IMO, IT race needs LESS points, or, at least make -f IT not that powerful at the early game and late game
|
I agree in early game IT is very strong, because it can gate around pop and minerals, thus making it very fast. But that's about the only thing it has, besides being expensive. When nubians come around (late game), they lose lots of their advantage, as everybody can gate missile ships. Besides, 1/800 people resources is hideous expensive for what is offers. IMO not many experienced players would pick that. For a -f is IMO more important to have excellent tech and good hab. 1/800 can't afford any.
|
You have a point here. Looks like makes sense, if look that other races get more RW points... 
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
PP IS POWER, if have something for better startup. If you launch a game with 50 year startup with only factories/mines built on starting HW, PP wins all other races
|
That's exactly the reason why in most forced-gen games (or games with very small amount of planets) packets are forbiden, or severely limited. I wanted to give PPs more minerals, because for everythign what they can do, they need minerals, and at the end they don't have them enough for ships.
|
Well, if you give just RW points, you cannot guarantee that PP would use them exactly for minerals. That's my point - PP wmay pick better economy or hab instead and win by combined better economy and PP abilities. Also, better mineral settings would not help PP starting economy much, right?
If it is hard to increase starting minerals for PP, if change only RW, it seems fair enough to make better mines efficiency selecting cheaper for PP race.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
AR - do you know how powerful AR can be at the later game?
|
I do. But they need to survive early game.
| Quote: |
Instead of adding RW points, I would give ... AR starting Construction 7 and Electronics 4 for better mining robots right from start.
|
That's IMO one solution to avoid early minera |
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Wed, 07 June 2006 02:22 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 19:54 |
better mineral settings would not help PP starting economy much, right?
|
They could - more minerals means better&faster packet terraforming == faster growth.
| Quote: |
The question was why such BIG difference? 91 points difference is still too much, IMO.
|
It is only 10 points difference. Currently SS's are fun to play, but if you check the statistic of PRT winners, they're quite rare there. So I gave SS more RW points to be more competititve against races with inherently better econ. It's not much: 1% beter growth + 1 factory, or 2 factories + 2 mines, or ~4% better hab.
Besides, those numbers were just a proposal, that should be tested, and adjusted accordingly, not a written-in-stone canon.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Wed, 07 June 2006 02:27] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Wed, 07 June 2006 05:46 |
|
|
|
Hi!
| iztok wrote on Wed, 07 June 2006 09:22 |
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 06 June 2006 19:54 |
better mineral settings would not help PP starting economy much, right?
|
They could - more minerals means better&faster packet terraforming == faster growth.
|
Early PP barely can use packets effectively. Early growth needs transport building, so all that you left with is boranium and (if -f and build privateers) germanium. 1% teraforming costs in average 15 resources and 200kT of minerals. And 1% is not that much. Now think: how much of minerals PP can mine in 10 turns? 20 turns? Not much, there are much more planets around. Well, you can select better mines, but sacrifice economy or something else. In such case, you will do more teraforming and earlier, but what you teraform usually for? For better economy... Now look: choosing worse economy for possibility to have more teraforming at early years seems does not pay off much for laeter game when all pop is grown and factories built.
That is why I almost sure that PP races would choose better economy by additional RW points, instead of choosing better mines.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
The question was why such BIG difference? 91 points difference is still too much, IMO.
|
It is only 10 points difference. Currently SS's are fun to play, but if you check the statistic of PRT winners, they're quite rare there. So I gave SS more RW points to be more competititve against races with inherently better econ. It's not much: 1% beter growth + 1 factory, or 2 factories + 2 mines, or ~4% better hab.
|
Well, measuring and adjusting balance between PRTs just by average winning ratio seems not very good idea. This is good indicator of disbalance, I agree. But just adding RW points in general would not help in this matter much, more it may cause more disbalances of other kinds (like for AR).
SS problem (currently playing it in one of the games) is that Energy and Electric techs give very little for its economy and weapons strength. So if you choose SS fun, forget about economy and wi
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: CA Balance |
Thu, 08 June 2006 03:38 |
|
|
|
Hi!
| iztok wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 09:34 |
| Quote: |
SS problem (currently playing it in one of the games) is that Energy and Electric techs give very little for its economy and weapons strength.
|
Erm... being first to have jammed jihad BBs with SuperComp doubles the survival rate and gives you first shoot over 7-comp BB. Having Gorilla (or Bear) shields over Bear (Wolverine) makes your ships much more resistant to anything. 've been or receiving end against high-elec player: my jugg BBs with 4 SuperComp & 3 jammer-20 were next to useless (20% accuracy) to opponent's 4 jammer-30 & 3 Nexus (50% accuracy). So don't say there's no advantage from better Energy and Elec.
|
Sure. But that's temporary. Cheaper Weapons and Construction techs beat that all in 10-15 turns later. Is not that is why everybody tries to have chap Weapons and construction as soon as possible? Also, you mentioned BBs. When you select enery and electro techs cheap (to try to reach robber baroon quickly), you probably would not be able to have cheap Construction. If select, you end with por economy.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
So selecting Energy and Electro techs cheaper by SS should cost less RW points, IMO.
As about SD, make NAS gives less RW points for it as well.
|
There's the question about feasibility. My proposals can be done. Can you do that, what you propose?
|
 Yes, there is such a question.  But it is worth a try. Starting techs for races probably could be easy to change if they stored in executable for each PRT separately as values. As about particular RW option costs...
This might be good for FreeStars clone, BTW.
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 09 June 2006 02:20 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 09:38 |
> So don't say there's no advantage from better Energy and Elec.
Sure. But that's temporary. Cheaper Weapons and Construction techs beat that all in 10-15 turns later.
|
Give me just five turns of such an advantage and I'll mount on you such a nasty attack your empire will never recover. 
Let's say we start somewhat even in warships and planets. In five turns I would go fully for my jammed BBs that would have first shoot and would kill your unjammed BBs in 2 to 1 ratio. In those five turns I'd get 50% more BBs and would have them at the front to mount an attack. You'd have just two choices, neither of them good.
- If you'd stand and fight you'd lose all your fleet, and I'd remain with most new ships, probably also with quite some older ones. With such a supremacy on my side you'd soon start losing planets.
- If you'd retreat your "outdated" ships you'd start losing planets sooner, and with that also losing your ability to research better tech to counter my ships, and ability to actually build them when you'd get that desired tech(s).
To make things even worse for you, I would in that time also research better tech, and while you'd be struggling to build your ships to counter mine, I'd be quite likely producing ships that would again make your new ships obsolete. Also, you'd be producing those inferior ships with already reduced economy, while mine would be at least the same, allowing me to cripple you even more and with less costs.
All this "spiral of death"  just because I had "a temporary 5 turns tech advantage".
BR, Iztok
...
[Updated on: Fri, 09 June 2006 02:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 09 June 2006 08:20 |
|
|
|
Hi!
| iztok wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 09:20 |
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 08 June 2006 09:38 |
> So don't say there's no advantage from better Energy and Elec.
Sure. But that's temporary. Cheaper Weapons and Construction techs beat that all in 10-15 turns later.
|
Give me just five turns of such an advantage and I'll mount on you such a nasty attack your empire will never recover.
Let's say we start somewhat even in warships and planets. In five turns I would go fully for my jammed BBs that would have first shoot and would kill your unjammed BBs in 2 to 1 ratio. In those five turns I'd get 50% more BBs and would have them at the front to mount an attack. You'd have just two choices, neither of them good.
- If you'd stand and fight you'd lose all your fleet, and I'd remain with most new ships, probably also with quite some older ones. With such a supremacy on my side you'd soon start losing planets.
- If you'd retreat your "outdated" ships you'd start losing planets sooner, and with that also losing your ability to research better tech to counter my ships, and ability to actually build them when you'd get that desired tech(s).
To make things even worse for you, I would in that time also research better tech, and while you'd be struggling to build your ships to counter mine, I'd be quite likely producing ships that would again make your new ships obsolete. Also, you'd be producing those inferior ships with already reduced economy, while mine would be at least the same, allowing me to cripple you even more and with less costs.
All this "spiral of death" just because I had "a temporary 5 turns tech advantage".
BR, Iztok
|
You think about duel and / or about small games or very crowded games. Think about normal game when each player have a lot of planets. Losing few planets of much more would not affect research much. So if I retreat, build better forces after turns of reserach, and make a blow on your attacking fleets, I could quickly not only recover from yo
...
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Fri, 09 June 2006 08:56 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1206
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Tomasoid wrote on Fri, 09 June 2006 14:20 |
You think about duel and / or about small games or very crowded games. Think about normal game when each player have a lot of planets.
|
30 planets per player is what I vowed to myself to be my max. You'll not find me in games much above that. What's for you a "normal" game?
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Fri, 09 June 2006 08:59] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | |
| Re: CA Balance |
Tue, 13 June 2006 08:37 |
|
|
|
Hi!
| tgellan wrote on Tue, 13 June 2006 12:45 |
Hi,
About balancing PP, wouldn't it be a good idea, instead of incrementing any settings, just increase the left over minerals from packet bombing... If I remember it right, the resulting minerals hitting the ground is something 1/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 of the minerals contained in the packet. Increasing these to 1/3 for instance would allow the PP or that planet in general to reuse more of the minerals. Another idea would be to increasing the mineral concentration of that planet. Thus balancing for the minerals lost when sending the packets...
I guess these setting to be rather deep down in code, but just to think about it...?
Comments?
|
Nice idea. This would not help at the game start though when PP have no much minerals at all anyway to do packet-teraforming. Helpful for later economy development and minerals recover after packet attacks. However, think in another way: when you attack enemy planet by packet and do not know what mass driver is there, and if it is there at all, there are cases when packet does not destroy planet completely. With 1/9 minerals recovered you do not give much of minerals to your enemy. With 1/3 recovery you would give much more minerals to your enemy.
So I prefer to leave 1/9 recovery, just update documentation/help file so it states this clearly.
WBR, Vlad
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Thu, 17 February 2011 13:53 |
|
|
|
| gible wrote on Tue, 06 January 2004 17:39 |
Of course...just like in a regular game, No one is impressed when you tell them you won a duel with CA.
|
Damn.. there goes my next idea to use against you.
Edit - Sorry if this appears as spam.. Was reading through the archives to see if CA's should be allowed in duels and hit the comment button.
[Updated on: Thu, 17 February 2011 14:04]
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: CA Balance |
Fri, 18 February 2011 09:12 |
|
|
|
Stupid phone.. I thought I had posted this earlier %@^#%
magic, I remember reading that -f HE is banned in duels, but I don't recollect seeing any other conditions of race penalty points anywhere... Could you please help me and post the link where I can find that?
Thanks,
Nmid.
Edit - I'm blind. That very page had it. My phone was actually saving me from jumping the gun !!
[Updated on: Fri, 18 February 2011 12:18]
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: CA Balance |
Sun, 03 July 2011 13:50 |
|
| Void |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Sun, 03 July 2011 03:11 |
Would a requirement of two immunities balance CA? It's the simplest requirement I can think of, and does remove most of their instaforming.
|
It may be overdoing it.
From the RW standpoint, I took a normal -f CA that I would consider for duels, made gravity and temperature immune, and minimized and right shifted radiation. I was left with this race design:
CA
IFE, NRSE, ISB, OBRM, NAS, RS
I/I/80-100mR
1 in 5, 19%
5/25/5/4
10/3/13
Weapons, Const cheap
Rest expensive, Start @4 checked
...and -317 RW points left.
To get to zero I have to drop Const cheap and make it expensive, drop mines operated to 12, drop ISB, and drop RS.
Actually, I suppose that's not exactly neutered, although it would be a pain to play. I don't see any way to have a +F design, though. On the plus side about 20% of the planets would be 100% for them in short order!
As I play around with the RW, I think a 180 point penalty is too conservative. 250-300 might be more like it.
What would be interesting would be for two equally skilled players to actually play a handicapped CA against a traditional IT duel race design, for example, and see where it did well (and did poorly).
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Mon, 04 July 2011 05:47 |
|
| magic9mushroom |
| Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
| Void wrote on Mon, 04 July 2011 03:50 |
It may be overdoing it.
From the RW standpoint, I took a normal -f CA that I would consider for duels, made gravity and temperature immune, and minimized and right shifted radiation. I was left with this race design:
CA
IFE, NRSE, ISB, OBRM, NAS, RS
I/I/80-100mR
1 in 5, 19%
5/25/5/4
10/3/13
Weapons, Const cheap
Rest expensive, Start @4 checked
...and -317 RW points left.
To get to zero I have to drop Const cheap and make it expensive, drop mines operated to 12, drop ISB, and drop RS.
Actually, I suppose that's not exactly neutered, although it would be a pain to play. I don't see any way to have a +F design, though. On the plus side about 20% of the planets would be 100% for them in short order!
As I play around with the RW, I think a 180 point penalty is too conservative. 250-300 might be more like it.
What would be interesting would be for two equally skilled players to actually play a handicapped CA against a traditional IT duel race design, for example, and see where it did well (and did poorly).
Cheers,
Void
|
- With bi-immune you don't need IFE (you'll likely have at least 1 90%+ breeder within 1-2 jumps of HW) and don't necessarily need 19% growth to compete, especially not as CA.
- -f don't need that many mines.
- You still have OAs as a diplo carrot and "perma-kill" weapon.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: CA Balance |
Mon, 04 July 2011 06:12 |
|
|
|
Diplo carrots in duels? 
Also, dual immunity is too strong a "correction", imo.
It's like trying to use a hot press to straighten out a dog hair.
[Updated on: Mon, 04 July 2011 06:14]
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: CA Balance |
Mon, 04 July 2011 11:35 |
|
| Void |
| Ensign |
Messages: 369
Registered: January 2011
Location: California, GMT -7 | |
|
| magic9mushroom wrote on Mon, 04 July 2011 03:21 |
Well, besides a point penalty it's hard to balance CA.
|
It is hard to balance CA's - agreed.
I like the idea of a simple mandate (e.g. choose two immunities), but it seems to lack the granularity to nail the right balance.
It looks as though the main levers we're trying to pull - hab, growth rate, rate of expansion - all deal with the curtailing the CA's ability to grow their economy. It would help to know what we're trying to curtail it to. That is, should we try to limit it to the growth rate of an HG Inner Strength, for example? That would at least make the exercise more quantifiable.
Cheers,
Void
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 17:37:01 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
