I never could make a "25k by 2450" race, so my testbed was designed to give me the best possible chance of succeeding. Here's what I did.

Game Parameters:
Small (packed) Galaxy
Accelerated BBS play
Maximum Minerals

Race Parameters:
PRT: JOAT
LRT: IFE, NRSE, OBRM, NAS
Gravity: .69 - 4.40
Temperature: Immune
Radiation: 41 - 85
Growth: 18%
Population Efficiency: 1100
Factory Settings: 12/8/16 (-1 germanium to build)
Mine Settings: 10/3/15
Research Settings: All 75% extra

Default Production Que:
Max factories up to 200
Max mines up to 200
Max terraform up to 100%

By 2434 I had 57 planets and 16k resources; resource count was improving by 2k per year and rising. I was bored with it by this time, so I just cycled thru the turns from 2434 until 2450 with the default production ques on every planet. I ended at 2450 with 70k resources and the following techs: EN4, W16, P10, C7, EL4, B4. I know I could have done much better if I'd kept on micromanaging until 2450, and done a little less without the max minerals setting.

On my second run with an 17% IT (basically the same parameters otherwise) I didn't select the max minerals setting; my planet choices seem much lousier and as luck would have it most of the planets available to me are very germanium poor (my homeworld started with only 30 concentration), yet it doesn't seem to be making a huge difference except I have much more micromanagement to do. I'm currently at 2437 with 15k resources, certain that 25k will be easily surpassed, and bored again.

Anyone else care to brag about your testbed successes? And how about some modification suggestions for multiplayer gameplay?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

freakyboy wrote on Sun, 12 January 2003 23:27

75% extra is something everyone will say will get you killed . . . Then again if your economy is good enough you can compensate up until about tech 20 in weapons when the costs really get high.

Not to disagree (I'm prone to overlook things), but it seems to me if you can get twice the production potential, you can build ships twice as fast and have twice the production to allocate to research when you need to, thus overcoming the 175% cost of tech.

Quote:

Here's a question for everyone - what tech levels should a player aim for by 2450?

The only reference I've seen on this was some vague mention of Armageddons by 2460. I don't know if anyone has bragging rights on that or if it's just something to shoot for. That definitely seems a more complicated goal because you have to balance resource expansion and tech research. Think I'll leave that one to you wizards.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 13 January 2003 17:17]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Calamere wrote on Tue, 14 January 2003 14:15

What I'd like to see is best resource count with a non-economic PRT.

I recently got 28k/2450 with a -f JOAT in a multi-player game.

What can be more non-economic than a -f race?

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

Calamere wrote on Tue, 14 January 2003 15:30

What I'm looking for people to say "Well I made 43k with this SS race." . . . . So if anyone wants to let us know.... feel free

Well, I doubt I'm going to impress anyone with my experiences, but I'm going thru all the PRT's and if I do something that's unusual for ME, I can't resist bragging about it anyways.

So far I've done 70k JOAT mentioned above in an easy testbed (max min and no AI); second I did a 57k IT in a normalized testbed with 4 random expert AI players. In both cases I became bored with the MM involved and started cycling turns without doing anything at all.

BTW, Apelord, your JOAT race mentioned here is real impressive to me. It'll probably be a while yet before I start trying to beat that. I'm still in the "Wow, I finally beat 12k by 2450" phase.

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

Wow!

OK, wave bye bye to the Zoid now, we're just going to take our little 70k JOAT and go find a rock to hide under. A mean ole WM is coming with guns to spoil the Yr2410 Annual Grand Opening of our newest planet, along with the 454k fatman so we don't wanna be there. Big bullies. Bye.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

freakyboy wrote on Sat, 18 January 2003 06:50

If I'm not mistaken the 454k benchmark, though impressive, is totally pointless. In anycase it's what is know to be a "crap" race since although the resources are astronomical the race has so little minerals and no worth while tech it'd get stomped quickly.

I agree. Benchmarks and even testbeds are merely experiments. And the posted results are sometimes distorted or exaggerated to please some egos. They serve a small purpose in that they allow one to compare potential races. But can often be misleading, even depressing if you have to compare your race that just barely made the minimum with something that made 454k. 454k, hell, you might as well give up playing unless you can get a copy of the race, if 454k had much weight on the scale of power.
I have played testbed races that did outstanding and yet did much worse in multi-player games. I have played the same race that did good in one game and bad in another.
There are many variables that affect the outcome of a game.
Player skills, universe density, location of HW's, hab compatibility with neighbors, diplomacy, random events, etc.
Swing one or more of these positive or negative with respect to a race design and a good race can do worse, vice versa.
The ultimate testbed and benchmark is the one achieved in a game with human competition.
If it were simply a matter of benchmark/testbeds we would all just play one race, because the others would all be inferior and not worth the effort.
In reviewing many PPS games I have been in, I can't help but note that the vast majority of players did not achieve 25k by 2450, and many did not even come close. So don't let the your inability in having reached that "benchmark" in any game deter you from having fun playing and trying to win.
Always keep one thing in mind. There are some people out there who like to exaggerate, brag, lie, cheat, and more, also. I recently caught a "free-pop" cheater (the Heretic Heretics verified later by JRC4 now default patch on AutoHost) in early game. He was in first place with very high resources and remained first for many years after he was expelled from the game and his race was shut off. In fact the player in second place reached "very much" above the 25k/2450 benchmark and did not take over 1st place until the 2440's. Had the cheat not been caught and continued playing his score would have been overwhelming and impossible to beat by 2450 at the rate he was growing. Imagine how the other player, with a record-breaking race would have felt having lost to this cheat race afterwards? Perhaps he would have counted his "record" breaking race as inferior to this race and went back to the testbeds to see what he did wrong?

Did you hear about the statistician that drowned in a river that had an average depth of three and a half feet.

[Updated on: Sat, 18 January 2003 08:47]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Sat, 18 January 2003 01:17

Kurt aka OWK once got 454k@50, that's the highest confirmed that I know of. But yeah, there's two basic meanings of the benchmark - to to compare different races on a strictly economical basis, and to prove that you know how to run an economy.

What?!?

No such achievement by me.

Saw 254@50 claimed on a newsgroup post by someone. My best was about 215@50 with the "Testbed Terrors IV" when I spent some time seeing what I could do. IIRC, the race hit TT30 in 2446 or so.

Given initial peace and growing room a variant modifed for game play would be viable. I think Asimov tried it once in a game, and a variation of the "TT IV" known as the "Paper Tigers" was loaned to Xdude for a game. [I don't recall how it did, though X commented once that it was scaring people in the public scores.]

Basic parameters: (don't have the race file on this comp)

CA
TT, OBRM, IFE (TT IV had a pile of negative LRTs for points)
20% PGR
1 in 24 hab (centered)
15/8/22 (g box checked)
10/3/14 mines <-- weakness, something to improve if poss.
Bio cheap; rest exp. @3 checked

MM hell. Scout, colonize, colonize, colonize, shift pop, research bio, shift pop, shift pop and minerals.

General premise was to scout, colonize all greens, establish breeders, expand. Then back-colonize planets as new TT research makes them green. Then fill low-value planets from the breeders - holding everything at 25%, then 50% hold. Only non-bio research was Con to get PVT hull, and eventually LF and SFX.

Given a foothold the race has the ability to research all that expensive tech rapidly on the economic strength alone - and once you've gotten the research done a major handicap is gone. And the CA/TT ability negates the initial narrow hab.

- Kurt

Report message to a moderator

Sorry. I meant 254, not 454.

I guess my grasp on Stars! lore is slipping.

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Thu, 30 April 2009 09:00]

Report message to a moderator