Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 13:51

posting this from my cell phone on the ski slopes of switzerland!

You lucky Pea!

I'm seeing snowed mountaincaps here, too, but it's not quite the same!

Quote:

just wondering: is there any link between different hab environments. e.g. if planet has high temp is it more likely to have high grav?

IIRC, this same question has been asked before. No conclusive studies resulted, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote:

i remember creating a race which had some habs high and others low and had probs finding greens.

Same here with a race having everything centered and 1 in 4 hab.

Quote:

or was this my imagination?

More likely lack of oxygen and/or cold up there.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 15:00

Quote: just wondering: is there any link between different hab environments. e.g. if planet has high temp is it more likely to have high grav? IIRC, this same question has been asked before. No conclusive studies resulted, if I'm not mistaken.

There have been studies! Massive studies. Some forgotten science field has probably had less studies.
There are no such correlations. Correlations exist with rad hab and mineral concentrations like alan kolaga studied out:
http://members.cox.net/alan.kolaga/

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 15:19

Quote: IIRC, this same question has been asked before. No conclusive studies resulted, if I'm not mistaken. There have been studies! Massive studies. Some forgotten science field has probably had less studies. There are no such correlations.

That's what I meant.

Quote:

Correlations exist with rad hab and mineral concentrations like alan kolaga studied out: http://members.cox.net/alan.kolaga/

I'm afraid I had forgotten about those extremely interesting graphs. I gather they mean higher hab settings bring higher minconcs, right? But I wonder if there's some optimum band or the minconcs simply grow linearly with hab settings until right edge is reached.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 17:21

I'm afraid I had forgotten about those extremely interesting graphs. I gather they mean higher hab settings bring higher minconcs, right? But I wonder if there's some optimum band or the minconcs simply grow linearly with hab settings until right edge is reached.

I dont understand your question. Hard to call anything there "linear"? The 10 rad clicks at edge have some sort slight bonus ... thats all the graphs show.
Basically if the planets rad value is in 10 clicks from edge it has:
average probability to have 1 to 30 conc
less than aveage probability to have 31 to 70 conc
bigger than average probability to have 70 to 100 conc
average probability to have over 100 conc
All probabilities are quite odd themselves so nothing linear i see.

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 16:37

I dont understand your question.

Huh. Now that you mention it, I can't quite understand it either.

You seem to have answered what I had meant to ask, anyway.

Quote:

The 10 rad clicks at edge have some sort slight bonus ... thats all the graphs show.

No wonder I couldn't quite fathom it. My statistical wit seems to have rusted quite a bit in recent years...

Quote:

Basically if the planets rad value is in 10 clicks from edge it has: average probability to have 1 to 30 conc less than aveage probability to have 31 to 70 conc bigger than average probability to have 70 to 100 conc average probability to have over 100 conc

So, I gather it's only/mostly Rad, then? And someone designing their hab around these values will have only a small chance of actually getting over-ripe minerals in a few places, right?

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 19:00

So, I gather it's only/mostly Rad, then?

Yes its only radiation. Other habs get probability penalty at edges (that the first 2 diagrams at given link illustrate).

Quote:

And someone designing their hab around these values will have only a small chance of actually getting over-ripe minerals in a few places, right?

Not a small chance, but fair chance to get small, random improvement at places with extreme radiations. Usual average concentration is about 60, at Radiation edge its maybe ~65. So it does feel like having mine efficency 10.5 instead of 10 there or something like that.
Its just another little reason to have:
a) Radiation immune or
b) Radiation quite narrow.
Or maybe another reason not to have:
Radiation wide and centered.
Depends how you look at it.

[Updated on: Tue, 28 March 2006 12:05]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Kotk wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 19:01

Not a small chance, but fair chance to get small, random improvement at places with extreme radiations. Usual average concentration is about 60, at Radiation edge its maybe ~65. So it does feel like having mine efficency 10.5 instead of 10 there or something like that.

Interesting! Thanks for the explanation!

Report message to a moderator

LEit wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 06:31

There is a bit of code that tries to see how habitible the universe is for your hab settings, and charge points accordingly, I think it's got an endpoint problem.

IIRC, that bit of code was as ugly as it gets. It would be very desirable to rewrite/refactor/beautify it so it gets more readable/understandable. I had only limited luck in shifting things around so it looks slightly less obscure, but perhaps someone else has managed to clean it?

Report message to a moderator

yoey wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 04:25

if i may point out, we never answered the question: is there any link between different hab environments? we heave established the results on mineral concentraions of different habitability ranges, which Kotk accurately summarised.

I believe in his post before the one you mention, Kotk also answered the main question.

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 10:16

yoey wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 04:25 if i may point out, we never answered the question: is there any link between different hab environments? we heave established the results on mineral concentraions of different habitability ranges, which Kotk accurately summarised. I believe in his post before the one you mention, Kotk also answered the main question.

Kotk indeed said: "There are no such correlations." He did not refer to any studies or links proving so.
He did however point to the graphs of alan kolaga as an example of _other_ collerations. The alan kolaga graphs don't show the answer to the original question. That might have been confusing, leading to think that the alan kolaga graphs _did_ hold the answer ...

mch

Report message to a moderator

ty Micha for clarifying my confusion


does anyone have the data that originally went with those graphs? or does anyone have any planet data accumulated over time?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

PricklyPea wrote on Tue, 28 March 2006 12:51

just wondering: is there any link between different hab environments. e.g. if planet has high temp is it more likely to have high grav?

I think the effect may be more psychological.
i.e. when you take habs that are at opposite ends then you just take more notice of planets that have habs the same end.
No idea why that should be the case though.

Surprised that nobody hasn't checked the code that creates the planets for the initial universe file.
Must be simpler than, say, the hab calculation.

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

mazda wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 16:15

Surprised that nobody hasn't checked the code that creates the planets for the initial universe file. Must be simpler than, say, the hab calculation.

That's not true. Old programs random number generators have a lot of quirks in that if they are used for regular data generating (like a number of stars with their stats), they may produce regular patterns. You cannot find that out by looking into the code

Report message to a moderator

Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 14:08

I got, however, really a lot of times "clustered" picture of my empire (Galaxy Clumping was off). It means that for narrow hab, I got green planets in one area and no a single green planet in another - something like a "clusters" of green planets. Usually I get this in the medium or large universes, and when taking habs shifted to right edge with one field immune. So, if you like a solid clusters of green planets in small territory to minimize transporting between them and mine laying to defend them, it seems better to take all higher hab ranges.

I don't think this is restricted to higher hab ranges.
In my experience any small habset will tend to get planets that are grouped together rather than randomly spread throughout the galaxy.
Again, it would seem like a lot of hard work to generate the galaxy in this manner (for little gameplay benefit).
So maybe it is just a visual statistical illusion.

Report message to a moderator

mazda wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 16:23

Tomasoid wrote on Wed, 29 March 2006 14:08 I got, however, really a lot of times "clustered" picture of my empire (Galaxy Clumping was off). It means that for narrow hab, I got green planets in one area and no a single green planet in another - something like a "clusters" of green planets. Usually I get this in the medium or large universes, and when taking habs shifted to right edge with one field immune. So, if you like a solid clusters of green planets in small territory to minimize transporting between them and mine laying to defend them, it seems better to take all higher hab ranges. I don't think this is restricted to higher hab ranges. In my experience any small habset will tend to get planets that are grouped together rather than randomly spread throughout the galaxy. Again, it would seem like a lot of hard work to generate the galaxy in this manner (for little gameplay benefit). So maybe it is just a visual statistical illusion.

You may be right. I'm using high narrow hab ranges most of the time, so it only looks like that for me. However, in some games I get clear equal distribution throughout the space, and in other games I get clear clustering. So it certainly depends on something. It may be just another random number generator correlations pattern, and in such case it depends only on the game starting conditions. It would be good to know for sure though, and also would be good to know how often you can expect to get clustered empire vs equal spread through space.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 03 April 2006 13:11

I graphed the distribution of Temp over Rad, Grav over Rad, and Temp over Grav. The graphs show that there is no correlation between any pair of habs. I used a sample of 1,000,000 planets from Alan's data file of 10,000,000 planets. When I go home from work I'll leave my office computer generating a completely fresh set of 10,000,000 planets and graphing these, just to be sure.

10,000,000 planet sample confirmed the result. Each hab value has has no effect whatsoever on the others.

As a seperate issue, I can also confirm that the mineral concentration advantage seen at extreme high rad is NOT matched by an advantage at the extreme low rads (the graphs on the website listed above do not discriminate between them.) Over a sample of 1,000,000 stars (non-ACCBSS,) rads of 90+ had an average concentration of 61.2 in each mineral, compared to an average of 57.2 for normal rad values and an average of 57.2 for extreme low rad values. So you not only get more points by taking rad high rather than low, you get noticably more minerals too. Of course if everybody uses this there isn't much room left for hab sharing

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Tue, 04 April 2006 02:20

10,000,000 planet sample confirmed the result. Each hab value has has no effect whatsoever on the others.

Outstanding work!

Quote:

As a seperate issue, I can also confirm that the mineral concentration advantage seen at extreme high rad is NOT matched by an advantage at the extreme low rads

Any idea why the universe-generating code would have such a quirk?

Perhaps it could be interesting to (ab)use the option for some scenario games, if it could be tied to "special" hab settings and not just hi-Rad.

Report message to a moderator

[email

m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Tue, 04 April 2006 19:07]Outstanding work!

Alan Kolaga did the hard bit. All I did was understand what he did years ago, then apply the same techniques to find out what I wanted.

Quote:

Quote: As a seperate issue, I can also confirm that the mineral concentration advantage seen at extreme high rad is NOT matched by an advantage at the extreme low rads Any idea why the universe-generating code would have such a quirk?

No idea. Although after I told him, Alan said he is considering hiring bodyguards to protect himself against all the players over the years that took races with extreme *low* rad thinking they were getting a mineral concentrations advantage

Quote:

Perhaps it could be interesting to (ab)use the option for some scenario games, if it could be tied to "special" hab settings and not just hi-Rad.

I think there are a few people around capable of customising the stars in any given universe. Making an identical change to all stars is obviously easiest (i.e. all planets ideal for OWW, all planets are HW,) but there's no reason something more complex couldn't be done. I daresay you'd want something 'scriptable' though.

(i.e. It shoulds plausible that you could make universe where the habs were inter-related (i.e. high rad makes grav more likely etc.) You'd just make a new algorithm for determining habs, then generate a random set of stars, then apply that data as a block to replace the hab information in a universe.)

[Updated on: Tue, 04 April 2006 18:18]

Report message to a moderator