Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Academy » Hello again Stars-Autohost! (Old-time player returns.)
| Re: Hello again Stars-Autohost! |
Tue, 17 January 2017 20:48   |
|
 magic9mushroom |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
ccmaster wrote on Tue, 17 January 2017 07:54And yes you have to get to weapon 24 and build ships. So the test is to see if you race could handle research and minerals in time.
Weapon have all races cheap or should have so it is a fix nummber you have to research you also could even the techfields but it will
not change the overall resources you need putting in resources.
Yes, it does. Because the weapons requirement is so much higher than anything else for Armageddon/Organic/Bear/BSC Battleships, taking non-weapons fields expensive does not appreciably slow their attainment.
Total resource requirement for weapons cheap rest expensive race = 452,480 tech + 118,400 ships = 570,880
Total resource requirement for WCN cheap L norm PB expensive race = 365,045 tech + 118,400 ships = 483,445
3.5 cheap gets only a 15% cost saving.
Compare the juggernaut case:
Total resource requirement for weapons cheap rest expensive race = 245,800 tech + 102,400 ships = 348,200
Total resource requirement for WCN cheap L norm PB expensive race = 158,365 tech + 102,400 ships = 260,765
Here it gets a 25% cost saving.
And for 100 omega nubians (TGD 5 omega 1 nexus 1 jam30 1 thruster 1 CPS 3 deflector):
Total resource requirement for weapons cheap rest expensive race = 2,678,125 tech + 80,700 ships = 2,758,825
Total resource requirement for WCN cheap L norm PB expensive race = 1,159,645 tech + 80,700 ships = 1,240,345
Here the 3.5 cheap race saves a mammoth 55%.
Basically, the W cheap rest expensive races get away with the expensive fields more easily in the Arm BB benchmark than they would with the more balanced targets of most phases of the game, so they place higher than they should (because the extra econ they bought with it isn't squelched, but the drawbacks are). That's what I mean when I say that it's biased (though not quite as much as I'd thought) and that more balanced tech on the benchmark ship would be better. I do wholly agree, though, about an aggregated-free-resources benchmark (such as tech + ship) being better than a snapshot-total-resources benchmark like Xk@2450 (which cannot sensibly compare factoried and factoryless races due to the absurdly-different "disposable percentage").
talkingbologna wrote on Tue, 17 January 2017 06:43Would a fair benchmark be, say, juggernaut BBs with bear shields(rs), supercomputers, and prop12 scoop or IS10?
I don't see why not.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Mon Apr 29 01:38:21 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
