Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » One immunity
|
| Re: One immunity |
Thu, 07 July 2005 05:58   |
|
 mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
| crr65536 wrote on Wed, 06 July 2005 22:46 |
Not that every planet is 10% better, but that the average planet is 10% better, which could be (I haven't tested it). This would be because a planet that is in your radiation range is just as likely to be at a given endpoint as at the midpoint, whereas a planet that is in your gravity range is more likely to be at the midpoint than at the endpoint (not so with temperature, because of the shape of the distribution, unless you take a particularly wide hab).
|
Sorry, but no, no, no.
Grav and temp are identical distributions.
Consider the hab distribution for radiation. It is a flat band all the way across from 1 to 99.
Now compare rad against grav and temp.
What we do is to cut off two *small* triangles from each end of the rad band.
Each triangle is 5% of the whole band.
Those missing "triangles" are compensated by making the whole thing 10% higher.
Therefore you do not get more planets in the middle.
There is no more chance of the temp being +4, say, than +156, or grav being 1.04 than 5.36.
When we say you get 10% more planets but at the same average that is what we mean.
Instead of 10 planets with an average of 53% hab you will get 11 with an average of 53% hab.
If you select the best 10 of those 11 you may get 10 planets at 57% or 58%.
After terraforming the gap will come down.
This is because the worst planets get a lot better with terra and all the values start to crowd together.
So by not picking the worst planet you only improve the average a little.
Velevetthroat only did one test.
It looks like his single universe was slightly biased towards the rad-immune scheme.
However, we don't really need to test this as we have the formulas for planet distribution and for hab values.
So we can work out anything that we want from those without relying on random chances in an actual universe.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: One immunity |
Thu, 07 July 2005 16:04 |
|
| crr65536 |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
After a search in the newsgroup, I found what was going on - some people had stated that gravity had the probability drop off at 8 clicks from the edge as opposed to temperature, which we all know drops off at 10 clicks from the edge. This assumption, which was supported by the estimates in the race wizard, turned out to be false. Nevertheless, I had read an article stating the old belief (that for gravity it's only 8 clicks) and only committed to memory that "they're different".
I had already known that, for temperature, the probability drops linearly - I think my first post in this topic demonstrates that - but again I had thought that gravity was different, and didn't remember how.
Again, though, and I'm not sure if this is what velvetthroat did exactly, but his post stated that he colonized and put orgies over all planets. Now, for 10% more planets to not be red, must mean that those planets must have a better value than the corresponding ones for a g-immune race, for which they would still be red.
Thus, at least for 10% of planets (the 10% of planets you gain by choosing rad immune), the value is better. Of course, this does not require that the average value of all planets is increased by 10%, but it does not forbid it either. While the average value of all greens does not increase by 10%, the average value of all planets may, and based on the OP's wording I thought he might have colonized all planets.
Now, if a race which relies on habitability (that is, is not tri-immune) but still colonizes all planets in range (for example, certain AR races or an IS race like the one that's the subject of this thread) takes an immunity, it may prove to be beneficial to take rad immunity instead of grav or temp immunity, because this test could imply that the average value of all planets in it's area increases by 10%. Thus, such a race could use 10% less colonists in breeder fleets (IS) or get a 3.16% boost to the planets' economies (AR).
Now, whether this is the case would demand more testing, but it could be the case if velvetthroat's test situation is typical and my interpretation is correct.
Of course, 10% more and 10% better would not be right. However, if velvetthroat did not have 10% more planets (i.e. the same number of planets - all of them - in both tests) then the 10% increase in econ implies 10% better planets.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: One immunity |
Thu, 07 July 2005 17:03 |
|
| velvetthroat57 |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 111
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
| crr65536 wrote on Wed, 06 July 2005 14:05 |
I think he's not saying that you get 10% more planets (which is true in it's own right), but rather that the planets are 10% better
<snip>
velvetthroat, am I misreading your description?
|
That is correct. I colonized everything both times (240 worlds) with default orders set to 'max terraform' and put a large freighter of colonists over every world. (Also no random events.) Then I genned it until everything stabilized and compared the resources each race got from the universe.
The rad immune got 10% more than the grav immune although it actually had more than an additional 10% worlds green. Lots of small greens evidently. It is only one test and I may try it again when I feel like more mindless clicking.
Kotk, I have never been in a game aside from a tiny sparse where all terraforming research wasn't completed well before the game was decided. That is why I consider the final worth of the planets important.
CAL
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 22:11:22 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
It has been always same for gravity and temperature. 
