Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Primary Racial Traits » AR » Wide + narrow vs all average habs
Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 08:50 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 Mon, 09 January 2006 11:33

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

IMO it is nothing wrong with your playing style, I too test races with regard to critical tech levels. The size of the universe is wrong. Two days, and you still haven't finished test of the first race... Rolling Eyes

Well, a beginer should master pop and mineral management, but from your post I'd say you're already above that level. I'd rather suggest you to join an intermediate PBEM game. It's much more fun. Cool
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 09:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

iztok wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 15:50


Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 11:33

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

IMO it is nothing wrong with your playing style, I too test races with regard to critical tech levels. The size of the universe is wrong. Two days, and you still haven't finished test of the first race... Rolling Eyes


Well, The size of universe is the same as mine - medium packed, as I see in the posts...

I actually have previous tests (just played for fun several AR and non-AR races in the same universe), but after posts here I see these tests are not very reliable to send a results from, so I started new tests after all recommendations.

I plan to finish race 2 tests during next weekend. Then 2 JoAT races with the same habs on the same universe. Then AR and JoAT with equal % of green planets with equal hab ranges (comparing with the same race 1). In general, it would take a while...


[Updated on: Mon, 09 January 2006 09:55]




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 12:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
crr65536 is currently offline crr65536

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 180
Registered: June 2005
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 09:48

iztok wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 15:50


Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 11:33

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

IMO it is nothing wrong with your playing style, I too test races with regard to critical tech levels. The size of the universe is wrong. Two days, and you still haven't finished test of the first race... Rolling Eyes


Well, The size of universe is the same as mine - medium packed, as I see in the posts...

I actually have previous tests (just played for fun several AR and non-AR races in the same universe), but after posts here I see these tests are not very reliable to send a results from, so I started new tests after all recommendations.

I plan to finish race 2 tests during next weekend. Then 2 JoAT races with the same habs on the same universe. Then AR and JoAT with equal % of green planets with equal hab ranges (comparing with the same race 1). In general, it would take a while...



You're using medium packed? I thought people use small packed at the largest, and usually tiny packed - to approximate the amount of space one could hope to get in a real game.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 12:25 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're using medium packed? I thought people use small packed at the largest, and usually tiny packed - to approximate the amount of space one could hope to get in a real game.



I used medium for following reasons:

1. Small/tiny universe have different average distanses between planets. Is not it? At least, it is very noticeable when you compare large and huge - in huge, average distances between closest planets is way much bigger than in large universe. I thought there is similar difference for medium vs small/tiny, so I did not tested there.

2. On a medium I have more planets, that would mean better testing - there would be less planet hab/mineral oddities (i.e. average hab % or % of green planets is more reliable).

3. On a medium, I can have as much growth as possible and not very limited by boundaries. It would mean that difference between race 1 and race 2 development over time will be bigger and thus more noticeable for comparison.

I'm not sure in the last one, probably, it is true only for race growth after year 40-50.



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 14:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 11:25


1. Small/tiny universe have different average distanses between planets. Is not it?


No. From the old Faq.
 Density of stars (#stars/10000ly^2)
       Sparse  Normal Dense Packed
T/S/M    1.5    2.00  2.50  3.75
Large    1.5    2.00  2.50  3.55
Huge     1.5    2.00  2.35  2.36 

Quote:

At least, it is very noticeable when you compare large and huge - in huge, average distances between closest planets is way much bigger than in large universe.

There is only a 5 planet difference between a Huge dense and huge packed.


Quote:

2. On a medium I have more planets, that would mean better testing

But unrealistic expansion.

Quote:

3. On a medium, I can have as much growth as possible and not very limited by boundaries. It would mean that difference between race 1 and race 2 development over time will be bigger and thus more noticeable for comparison.

Not especially useful for testing real game situation. Limited space, with no war, is valid. You should also use a fairly even seed universe for testing similar races.

-Matt




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

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 09 January 2006 16:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 12:33


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?

Sure i took yellows etc.
I havent done so large tests long time. Wanted to see what it feels like. It sucked. Wink Once i had about 100 planets i simply stopped colonizing ~y40.
Yes there were more juicy greens visible but i got bored of the MM. Jihads? I got Juggers ~y45. P9 is must to have because more important than having ability to build missiles everywhere is to have ability to build 300/500 gate everywhere. Wink AR has not much to do with its resources. AR can not build factories and Energy after N16 gives no much notable effect. Miners i built from y30 as soon as ultras started to pop up.
Quote:

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

Only thing i see your post that you use 33% cap at breeders. Why not 25%? That extra 32% of pop there produces only 15% more viral mining, 13% more resources and 5% more growth. Dropping it to empty 40% value planet from 100% planet immediately produces double everything and at yellow it is not much worse, only growth is negative. Also you are slow with terraforming if you got so lot of yellows like you describe, that also indicates you do not put much pop on yellows. I put at least 500kt as soon i see one. Yellows turn into greens too that way about y50 i had only few yellows left.
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Kotk wrote on Mon, 09 January 2006 23:03


Quote:

Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. Shocked

Only thing i see your post that you use 33% cap at breeders. Why not 25%? That extra 32% of pop there produces only 15% more viral mining, 13% more resources and 5% more growth. Dropping it to empty 40% value planet from 100% planet immediately produces double everything and at yellow it is not much worse, only growth is negative. Also you are slow with terraforming if you got so lot of yellows like you describe, that also indicates you do not put much pop on yellows. I put at least 500kt as soon i see one. Yellows turn into greens too that way about y50 i had only few yellows left.


Agree.
Well, 33% was "the highest" for me, and 25% was normal Smile. Most planets for me were below or only slightly above 25%. Only during Death Star development era (year 40-45) I had somewhat too many of planets above 25% cap, but it is usual if not expanding too far away from HW. Also, keeping people at 33% is sometimes needed to boost up research, at least temporarily.

Sure, you must do a lot of MM to put 500K pop on yellows. No wonder you're bored so quickly. And you should build some better starbase as soon as planet turns green to have better growth there. Because resources are usually low, it is hard to build it. Also, yellow kills more people out of 500K than out of 100K. It does not help much to send more people because square root formula. It ends up that you have a lot of green, yellow-in-the-past, planets, with low hab%, tons of people and more than 70% cap, still teraforming so no investment into research from them. Need to build SB or even Ultra there, that usually lasts for 3 years which you could use for teraforming. Yes, you teraform it slightly quicker, but you lose this benefot either on long building of better starbase or lose it because almost no people growth... Is not it waste of resources? Well, 500K on yellow dig up more minerals, so, might be good from that POW as well...

I usually send to yellow a col
...




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 09:20 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 Tue, 10 January 2006 10:58

I usually send to yellow a colonizer and 2-4 fully packed MF or Priv, sometimes more of there is big death rate.
...
I wonder where did you get minerals to build all the transports and colonizers.

The core transport for AR is Large Freighter, esp. when you start exporting 80k+ pop from Ultra Stations, or 120k+ from Deathstars. Check "Start colonization help" thread for few hints how to play starting turns with an AR.
BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 09:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Quote:

The core transport for AR is Large Freighter, esp. when you start exporting 80k+ pop from Ultra Stations, or 120k+ from Deathstars. Check "Start colonization help" thread for few hints how to play starting turns with an AR.



Sorry, if you read accurately, I re-use returning transports. They are usually MF or privateer Very Happy If no returning transport, of course, I build LF.



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 12:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 11:58

Sure, you must do a lot of MM to put 500K pop on yellows.

Nay ... i said at least 500kT. That usually means i suck 550-600kT into a LF and shoot it. Very Happy Seems you do same. No difference there.

Can be you scout slowly? What mineral problem? I have usually other problem. From where to take all that damn pop? Especially when cluster of greens is suddenly scouted i am in trouble. I avoid taking pop level below 1000kT at place where i pick pop, so that means there must be at least 1550kT at start. Nod

Quote:

I think it would be good to exchange our test files. (Still did not finish mine - will bring tomorrow...) So you would be able to look at it (I did backup for each 5 years) and tell what I did wrong that not having 150K at 60th. Maybe, just did not expand too far?

If you want so. Unfortunatelly I did not make backups, just wrote down what i had. I did not maybe pay attention to play it in a very realistic style. Medium packed ground itself is utopy. So ... I wanted to see where your "worse" race gets. I suspect you must not worry, 40k or 59k @2450 whats the difference? Both are too big to be fun.

I think of AR as more or less playable PRT in dense or packed galaxy with 35-40 planets per player and at least one ally allowed. It means from medium/dense 10 players upto large/dense 16 players. Deal Such games are mixedly considered edge of playable/too big. Who joins got at least to know the guys around are of sturdy sort, otherwise half of them drops out. Such a game gives access to only ~70 planets territory without hostilities. What hostilities if you say you dont have minerals for colonizers? I have won some even smaller games with AR so it must be doable for others too. Not worse than to play HP i think.

Now to the realistic testbeds: Tiny packed alone, there are 60 planets. Small dense with artifically limited territory to closest 70-80 planets is also OK test. I am not saying that you get ultimate AR perfomance that way, but these are close to reality
...

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 12:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Kotk wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 19:13

Now to the realistic testbeds: Tiny packed alone, there are 60 planets. Small dense with artifically limited territory to closest 70-80 planets is also OK test. I am not saying that you get ultimate AR perfomance that way, but these are close to reality where you find the race in real game. Wink Otherwise you drop dead of frustration how bad it performs in real game. Very Happy



Yeah, I know. That's for testing of a single race whether it is good or not in a real game. The goal of my test is to clearly see a difference: how much
(AR race 2 year 60 resources) - (AR race 1 resources)
is bigger than
(JoAT race 2 year 60 resources) - (JoAT race 1 year 60 resources) with a more or less realistic critical tech levels reaching playing, and with not expanding really too far from HW.

Also, I'm using medium to do not depend on oddities of planet habs. 60 planets in tiny have too much oddities for planet habs. With larger number of planets, all habs are more or less averaged, and that is what is needed for my test (I'm testing habs).



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 10 January 2006 15:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 19:33

Also, I'm using medium to do not depend on oddities of planet habs. 60 planets in tiny have too much oddities for planet habs. With larger number of planets, all habs are more or less averaged, and that is what is needed for my test (I'm testing habs).


Not that its my business what test you do and how ... but think. Sherlock Your one test in medium takes you half a week like we see on attached picture. Confused Even for me it took whole day and from about y35 i was getting sick of its boring monotony. Wink Quick test in a tiny i run 1 hour. 60 planets to scout (fire & forget 5 scouts) and ~30 to colonize, very simple thing. Even if one tiny takes 2 hours with you ... you are running 10 different tiny tests with your race instead of one, medium test. You get both overview of your races goodness in real situation and the range of deviations that any oddities cause. Nod If you think 10 tests is too lot then run only 5 tests and you can test other race too in same timeframe. Wink

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 12 January 2006 06:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Kotk wrote on Tue, 10 January 2006 22:18

Not that its my business what test you do and how ... but think. Sherlock Your one test in medium takes you half a week like we see on attached picture. Confused Even for me it took whole day and from about y35 i was getting sick of its boring monotony. Wink Quick test in a tiny i run 1 hour. 60 planets to scout (fire & forget 5 scouts) and ~30 to colonize, very simple thing. Even if one tiny takes 2 hours with you ... you are running 10 different tiny tests with your race instead of one, medium test. You get both overview of your races goodness in real situation and the range of deviations that any oddities cause. Nod If you think 10 tests is too lot then run only 5 tests and you can test other race too in same timeframe. Wink


Might be a good idea for other races. Not for AR. AR Economy development is really dependent on numebr of planets, techs development etc. In a tiny, I would not be able to simulate what I need for my testing - complete economy development.



WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 12 January 2006 08:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Tomasoid wrote on Thu, 12 January 2006 13:50

I need for my testing - complete economy development.

How big econ you need for that? Rolling Eyes I usually get above 25K@2450 resources in tiny packed. Nod

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Mon, 30 January 2006 18:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orange

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA
(I am having a hard time tracking what topic you guys are onto)

Back to the original question - To answer Tomsaoid's question:

All average habs will start slower because the avg hab % will be lower due to higher avg distance to a race's optimum hab. However, it has higher potential over the long run because more planets are habitable for a given universe i.e. the race is able to take advantage of more hab space.

Wide + narrow will start faster because the avg distance to a race's optimum hab is smaller due to the narrow hab.

This is the effect for a given amount of raw points. Neither is "better". The preference depends on your game parameters.



Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Tue, 31 January 2006 03:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Tomasoid is currently offline Tomasoid

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 182
Registered: December 2005
Location: Ukraine

Quote:

All average habs will start slower because the avg hab % will be lower due to higher avg distance to a race's optimum hab. However, it has higher potential over the long run because more planets are habitable for a given universe i.e. the race is able to take advantage of more hab space.

Wide + narrow will start faster because the avg distance to a race's optimum hab is smaller due to the narrow hab.



I agree, but only partially. I almost done AR tests and half of JoAT tests. AR Race 2 starts almost equally because more green planets means also more of them close to HW, and they are slightly better - better early start so have a bit more resources for teraforming. In my test, race 2 is only 1 year behind in development of ultra station and death star. However, as I thought, race 2 incredibly improves when it develops Energy 16. While race 1 is struggling against tons of yellows, race 2 uses remaining 4 teraformings usually on the green planets that are already with Ultras or even Death Stars. About 10% hab improvement makes a big difference for such large planets. Race 1 usually stops at the center if it's narrow range and Energy 16 tech gives no much difference for it.
Race 2 ends either with more resources spent or research or with more "capital ship building" planets, despite 16% growth rate.

Anyway, once again, the goal of tests not to just compare narrow+wide vs equal.

The goal is to compare parameter "difference (narrow + wide) - (equal)" - how much it differs between AR and JoAT PRT. IMO, there is a big difference between AR and JoAT here - whle AR benefits from equal ranges, JoAT loses because 16% growth.

Will see. I think I'll finish in 2 weeks or so (got a lot of work, so making 2 turns/day between year 40-60).


[Updated on: Tue, 31 January 2006 03:24]




WBR, Vlad

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 11:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orange

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA
Tomasoid wrote on Tue, 31 January 2006 03:22

I agree, but only partially. I almost done AR tests and half of JoAT tests. AR Race 2 starts almost equally because more green planets means also more of them close to HW, and they are slightly better - better early start so have a bit more resources for teraforming.


I see what you mean. AR spread econ advantage with more green planets. Although your "slight better" concerns me, AR Race 2 (I am assuming that this is the equal case) may have had a better planet draw which could affect the end result. AR Race 2 should have had a slightly worse set of initial planets.

[Mod edit: fixed quote]


[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2006 06:20] by Moderator


Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 14:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Orange wrote on Tue, 31 January 2006 01:16


All average habs will start slower because the avg hab % will be lower due to higher avg distance to a race's optimum hab.
...
Wide + narrow will start faster because the avg distance to a race's optimum hab is smaller due to the narrow hab.


BS my dear Apple! Real tests show that there is no such long run effects like you describe. Confused Only what seems that narrow radiation gives (very little) advantage. Nod To illustrate it i put here few calculations (done with the tool ... posted url somewhere here) for immune/wide/narrow immune/equal/equal and immune/narrow/wide. All 1 in 5 hab and all had same rw point cost:
                                HABITABLE PLANETS
 RACE                           Perfect   Good  Fine  Useful Marginal
 immune/-128 to 128/16 to 46  
                0%/0% terra:    HW        6%    7%    8.4%   1.3%
                7%/7% terra:    HW+2.6%   14.8% 10.9% 10.2%  1.3%
              15%/15% terra:    HW+10.8%  25%   15%   9.9%   0.8%
 immune/-112 to 64/16 to 60
                0%/0% terra:    HW        5.9%  7.2%  8.4%   1.4%
                7%/7% terra:    HW+2.5%   14.2% 10.5% 10.4%  1.4%
              15%/15% terra:    HW+10.8%  23.3% 15.3% 12.2%  1.1%
 immune/-96 to 24/16 to 78
                0%/0% terra:    HW        5.9%  6.5%  8.1%   1.4%
                7%/7% terra:    HW+2.7%   14.2% 10.2% 9.9%   1.5%
              15%/15% terra:    HW+10.5%  24.9% 14.5% 12.5%  1.4%

Okay... narrow rad seems to have best greens in long run and narrow energy seems to have most greens in long run. Wink


[Updated on: Wed, 01 February 2006 19:52]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 17:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
multilis is currently offline multilis

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 789
Registered: October 2003
Location: Edmonton, Canada
IMO when you test a race you should aim for same number of planets as your share in real game. So if medium dense in real gme with 8 players, you should aim for 1/8 as many planets in your territory... more if you have a -f or other early power, and less if you have a slow starter/hard to defend (like AR without a friend).

I'd also suggest throwing in some competition and pretend the AI players are smarter so you build defences/warships at same sort of times you would if they were humans. Setting up AR orbital forts all over your border with few defences is like a big kick-me sign in a real game unless your diplomacy is good or you have strong friends.

If you think you can intersettle, then factor in how well your race intersettles, a 1i will intersettle better than 0i.

Pop growth wise a 1i tends to get better greens especially in the beginning, which means a 1i with 15% pop growth rate may have more pop mid game than a 0i with 17% growth.






[Updated on: Wed, 01 February 2006 17:36]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 20:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Kotk's figures are pretty interesting. If it's from the tool I think it is, then it's based on a random sample (1000 planets) so the very small % differences seen here don't really prove any of the habs are better than the other, assuming terraforming was instant at each step.

Looks like race wizard is pretty well scored in terms of planet balance.

There's one kicker though. As mentioned before in this thread, each click of terraforming done in a narrow field tends to have a higher % effect on hab than the same click in a wide field. When you are done terraforming both fields the result will be the same, but your early terraforming will bring results a little faster as you will usually terraform the narrow field first. (e.g. if you have terra 7 in all fields, your first 700 resources spent in terra will have a bigger effect than the next 700, even though the end result after all 1400 is the same.)

Also having a narrow hab tends to be better for diplomacy as well.

Strikes me as a no-brainer. I think the skewed results in the practical testing done is due to RW growth rate differences and/or the randomness of different generated universes.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 20:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
I think the only time I wouldn't take a narrow hab, would be if I was pushing so many points into habitability that I couldn't take a narrow hab without making the other hab(s) so wide that they are within 10 clicks of the edges.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 20:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 02 February 2006 03:21

If it's from the tool I think it is, then it's based on a random sample (1000 planets) so the very small % differences seen here don't really prove any ....

Tool is:
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml
Gens up to 50000 planets if you want. I made on 20000 planets, accuracy of such statistics is better than it displays and i posted results with rounded accuracy anyway. Very Happy

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 23:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Kotk wrote on Thu, 02 February 2006 12:51

Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 02 February 2006 03:21

If it's from the tool I think it is, then it's based on a random sample (1000 planets) so the very small % differences seen here don't really prove any ....

Tool is:
http://home20.inet.tele.dk/craebild/hab_range_tool/habcalc.h tml
Gens up to 50000 planets if you want. I made on 20000 planets, accuracy of such statistics is better than it displays and i posted results with rounded accuracy anyway. Very Happy



That is indeed the tool I was thinking of, but it seems to be much upgraded from last time I looked! (When I last looked I had to manually hack it to get some nice big planet counts to work with, but now it's got a nice box to choose the quantity!) Very Happy

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Wed, 01 February 2006 23:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dogthinkers is currently offline Dogthinkers

 
Commander

Messages: 1316
Registered: August 2003
Location: Hiding from Meklar
Kotk, set to 20000 planets I'm still commonly seeing varations of up to 0.4% by rerunning the tool multiple times... We probably need to hack it to do something like a million to get numbers tight enough to actually call a difference between the values you suggested. Shocked

Report message to a moderator

Re: Wide + narrow vs all average habs Thu, 02 February 2006 02:30 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Kotk

 
Commander

Messages: 1227
Registered: May 2003
It will probably sit few days when sorting 1 000 000 planets. Laughing Most important is that there is no reason to hope any REAL long or short term advantages in available planets or their values for any of the schemes. Whatever accurate we make the tool we get only insignificant differences, such like i posted. Cool Bottom line is that narrow+wide has terraforming speed and intersettle advantages and no disadvantages compared to medium+medium. Very Happy

Report message to a moderator

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


Current Time: Mon Aug 19 19:08:41 EDT 2019