EE Labor Camp Changed in Host 212a
Lord Lancelot
now.
http://planets4.hood-net.org/wiki/index.php/Host_212a
http://planets4.hood-net.org/wiki/index.php/Labor_Camp
They can still make 4X more income than other LC race, by doing 4X
more camps for the same numbers of prisoners.
They need 25 prisoners per camp instead of 100.
So the build 4X more camps for the same 100K prisoners. (so they still
have 4X more income witch is as it should be).
They have a lot more deaths (more camps more deaths), and it take a
lot longer to make the supply needed for 4000 camps instead of 1000
(for 100K prisoners).
This mean even if you get huge amount of prisoners early (like let say
1M) you need a lot of times to build camps and a big part of the money
from camp, will be to build new factory, pay for the factory to
produce supply, and pay to build new camps.
So we have a more balanced EE, no more instant win if you get a nice
amount of prisoners, you will get the same income as before but it
will take time to reach it high peak.
EE will also need more prisoners arrival due to the increase death
rate.
Lord Lancelot
Kaos
really exist because of a few complaints of hypothetical situations.
I think that while the original problem was never as bad as certain
people would make out, this is a double whammy against a race that
isn't played very often and rarely wins.
So they have the 25% bonus which allows them 4x the income (at 4x the
outlay for a race who's growth rate and income levels are laughable).
But to maintain the extra 10% death rate. To get this 25% bonus the
death rate is already higher as the rate is based on the number of
camps. So lets use the magic 100k figure thrown around here and work
this out. The EE has 100k prisoners, at 4000 camps that a death rate
of 31% for there now 12k. Compare that to anyone else with 1000 camps
they get 3k at a whopping death rate of 6%. Now these rates stay the
same because the rate is dependant on the camps and not the people in
them, so while the EE funds all but dry up in 10 turns for a TOTAL
income around 50k, the others get 42k over 30 turns. Now triple that
for labour mines and tell me where the problem is. BTW - I believe a
lizard with 100k colonists would get 43k after 10 turns and 58k after
20 and 63 after 30 turns.
Perhaps the original EE figures where a bit high, but this has created
a bigger problem, the master slaver race is no more it is now barely
average and still has its huge problems. To worry about races with
huge bonus's but also huge weaknesses whilst others have no problem
with either is just silly.
Now I might not have been around as long as some others but wasn't the
EE income increased for a reason in the first place. Maybe no one
ever played them because there ships cost the earth and there income
is rather lame. But while people keep complaining about hypothetical
problems, that in reality don't exist, then we will get no where
fast. But hey maybe they are loosing to a EE player right now and
have there reasons. So if your plan was to ruin the EE, job done.
Kaos
Black No.1
*can* happen
and I'm really glad if something has been done.
Regarding your example: if you wait 30 turns to get the money out of your
prisoners, well...
As EE you want the money *fast* and at all costs to build a force that will
capture/kill the the
next one.
Sure EE has weaknesses, especially in late game - so you'll have to take out
your enemies before.
Let's just see how this works out (and also for the new combat routines that are
to come in the
near future (at least I hope so)). If the EE needs a boost again, this can be
done in *snall* steps.
Cheers,
Jochen
"Kaos" <kade...@bigpond.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:372af5da-2199-4f3f...@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
rumata
> I have been both on the receiving and dealing end, so I guess I might know what
> *can* happen
> and I'm really glad if something has been done.
So how many games did you win, where the capture of the single farm
world meant you were unstoppable? Also, do you feel you could have
pulled it off if your first victim (or the rest of the players) would
have been as skilled as you?
Again, I don't really have an opinion for or against the rule change,
I'd just rather see arguments backed up with game experience than
calculations. You see, according to my game experience the EE doesn't
need a tone down.
> Regarding your example: if you wait 30 turns to get the money out of your
> prisoners, well...
> As EE you want the money *fast* and at all costs to build a force that will
> capture/kill the the
> next one.
Yep, getting your reward fast is a _huge_ advantage. Kaos ignored
that. However, you are ignoring that the EE has a much higher up-front
investment. 4k supplies and 12k mc (to stay with the example) is _not_
easy to come by, especially not for an EE.
> If the EE needs a boost again, this can be
> done in *snall* steps.
I'd rather have liked to see evidence that the tone down is needed at
all.
Cheers,
Michael
Myflowers
> > done in *snall* steps.
>
> I'd rather have liked to see evidence that the tone down is needed at
> all.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
Indeed, tuning down a race to see if they "needs a boost again" isn't
a good strategy. I really wonder where this change come from... and
why. Surely from someone who has been killed early because he didn't
build up good defenses. How many game do you know has been won by the
EE in the last time???... In any case, I would have removed the 25%
thingy instead of the 12MCs per LC.
We are all Beta Testers, and I really amazed about how a few poeple
can influence to change things in this game.
Kaos
that races with labour mines are getting the same amount of money as
the EE without the initial overlay *or* the significant death rate and
they generally don't need this income anywhere near as much as the EE
does.
Your statement about having to take everyone out before late game
because the EE is useless has just been made much harder. It also
doesn't cut much mustard with whines about the Scavengers being
overpowered. When the reply is simply take them out early.
Kaos
Lord Lancelot
> doesn't cut much mustard with whines about the Scavengers being
> overpowered. When the reply is simply take them out early.
>
> Kaos
That I would like to see, I'm available as a good Scav player for a
1-1, to see how you can kill them early, they are very strong early.
For the EE, I played them 2 times got a win and a second place, they
are extremly hard to play late game, but can be quiete powerful if
played right.
I'm now playing them with the Reduced income & increase death rate I
will tell you my input after the game finish.
My early view is they should get normal death rate like all other
slaver races.
Lord Lancelot
Lord Lancelot
players).
Lord Lancelot
Kadesh
> I agree the income coming fast is a huge bonus but lets not forget
> that races with labour mines are getting the same amount of money as
> the EE without the initial overlay *or* the significant death rate and
> they generally don't need this income anywhere near as much as the EE
> does.
The mechanic for labor mines was changed. They are now dependent on
ore,
to get a good amount of money the planet needs to be at the edge of
explosion.
If I remember right before this change the EE get a double bonus 25%
prisoner/LC and 12 MC/LC. To remove one advantage was necessary,
which is a matter of opinion.
EE still get a bonus on LC compared to other races.
Kadesh
Black No.1
news:5396d4eb-47be-4fb2...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > If the EE needs a boost again, this can be
>> > done in *snall* steps.
>>
>> I'd rather have liked to see evidence that the tone down is needed at
>> all.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>
> Indeed, tuning down a race to see if they "needs a boost again" isn't
> a good strategy. I really wonder where this change come from... and
> why. Surely from someone who has been killed early because he didn't
> build up good defenses. How many game do you know has been won by the
> EE in the last time???... In any case, I would have removed the 25%
> thingy instead of the 12MCs per LC.
Agreed, having more income would have hurt less as they now have to build more
labor camps - this together with the higher death rate may be a bit much.
> We are all Beta Testers, and I really amazed about how a few poeple
> can influence to change things in this game.
Of course we are ;) And I highly appreciate people looking at things from
several positions.
Cheers,
Jochen
Magik
> Indeed, tuning down a race to see if they "needs a boost again" isn't
> a good strategy. I really wonder where this change come from... and
> why. Surely from someone who has been killed early because he didn't
> build up good defenses. How many game do you know has been won by the
> EE in the last time???... In any case, I would have removed the 25%
> thingy instead of the 12MCs per LC.
I did just remove the 25% thingy, but unfortunately because of the
math involved, the bonus income is linked directly to it, which is why
I put it there in the first place. I'll have to figure out some other
math to make sure that the LC's are filled up 100% and still get the
income bonus.
Anyways, I'm not sure what is up with my diff program that I used to
let everyone know the release notes, but it wasn't my intention to
"sneak this in" by any means. Also, because of the faulty diff, I
didn't continue to work on the LC code before releasing it because I
knew that it was broken upon making that change.
Magik
Sebastian
> doesn't cut much mustard with whines about the Scavengers being
> overpowered. When the reply is simply take them out early.
Scavengers have to be killed in mid game.
Sebastian
Lord Lancelot
Witch races in your opinion have the economy and the tools to do
this ?
I do not agree with HYP being major threat, well not more dangerous to
the scav that any other race without Gravs defense.
Lord Lancelot
GFM GToeroe
> I do not agree with HYP being major threat, well not more dangerous to
> the scav that any other race without Gravs defense.
Doesn't it make a difference if one has at least one turn more time?
GFM GToeroe
protomatter
i disagree, a hypership can be at a place in one turn to pose a
threat, simply by performing 1 single jump. with no warning or actie
track or scanners and no time to prepare defensive measures.
essentially a surprise attack.
wheras a non hyper race would require several turns to arrive in a
position to become a threat. and that arrival can be detected by
scanners over severals turns allowing the defender to prepare.
it is this surprise element without the time to prepare, that is
threatening.
its not just the EE its basically any hyperrace that has this
advantage of surprise. and in the early game even races with the
ability to deter hyperraces (grav mines), can be caught off gaurd. but
its the fact of the game, and i can can accept it.
Proto
Lord Lancelot
Yes Hyp attack have a surprise and fast movement is a great advantage,
but this is vs all races (with no grav well or grav mines) and not a
perticular (unique) weakness of the Scavenger.
The simple fact that their only potential weakness is from a HYP
attack from afar should make one think about the balance of the scav.
A standard HW defensive fleet can be build by any race to defeat even
the dangerous turn 9-10 EE attack. At turn 1 you know their is Hyp
races in your game you can start building a defensive fleet before
expanding to other planets.
Further more we have zillion race with counter to HYP races (Grav
mines and well just to name a few). But I see no real threat to the
scavenger beside the Crystal having a very strong defense.
Planets is a rock, paper, scisor, with many races having an advantage
of a few specific, but when you throw Rock, Paper, Scisor and
Scavenger with equal player skill, my money is on the scav.
I am willing to prove it in game if text is not enough.
Lord Lancelot
Sebastian
> Witch races in your opinion have the economy and the tools to do
> this ?
Have I really tell you which races are strong in mid game?
Tools have all races.
Sebastian
Sebastian
> Further more we have zillion race with counter to HYP races (Grav
> mines and well just to name a few). But I see no real threat to the
> scavenger beside the Crystal having a very strong defense.
Hmmm, hyp races, clockers, boarding races, fighter races, there are
enough that can face a scav. Of cause you will argue that Scavs have
good fighter defenses, yes they have, but when you're fighting with
fighters you can loose a battle without the Scavs getting stronger by
that. You must not loose a battle if you come with ships.
So if you can convince me that a Scav have good defenses against
clockers and boarding races you could convince me that there's need for
a big Scav change. Well, and consider that the Scavs has no Allie (
otherwise any comparison would have some traps) and has to work hard for
getting the device upgrades.
Up to them I still do suggest to limit they wreckage gathering feature
to 250ly only.
Sebastian
Lord Lancelot
* Reducing the wreck pod gathering to 200-250ly, is a good one.
* Their minefield immunity should not work when they turn ON their
cloaking device.
The 2 changes above are the most important.
* I would like the inamorata to have some weakness either vs ship or
wings.
A possible solution would be by lowering their defensive bonus, wings
could be used vs them. Right now their only trouble if they end in a
barbatic minefield and they are uncloaked (by combat or other mean).
Lord Lancelot
Kaos
income been cut by 1/4 but my supply output has been also.
Excellent, another kick in the guts.
I guess Ill have to play the UEA next game like everyone else.
Whine, whine, whine....
Kaos
Lord Lancelot
When the EE has 25% of the prisoners needed like 25K for a 1000 camps
base they produce 3mc per camp. Witch is ok since only 25%.
Now put 100K in the same camp and you get 13mc per camp, so all is ok
and no further changes are needed.
EE has a 2 options.
Lord Lancelot
Lord Lancelot
http://planets4.hood-net.org/wiki/index.php/Labor_Camp
Lord Lancelot
Magik
Kinda weird how you came up with this. I believe this missed the
point. Here is the logic that camps go through, so you can see that
this change was beneficial if you use them with the EE bonus in mind.
1. Count up the number of prisoners held by the EE from all races at
the base.
2. Discard bot and borg
3. Divide the result by 100
4. If that is more than the # of camps then just use the number of
camps for future calculations. Regardless, call this value vCount.
5. Death rate is calculated: 1 - ((vCount / 100) * .005) where vCount
is the # of camps from the result above.
6. EE death rate increases by subtracting .1 from the result above.
7. Limits are put on the death rate from .3 to 1.0
8. Each type of prisoner for each race is run through: coloinsts, then
crew, then troops, and HG.
9. Dead prisoners = (1 - death rate) * prisoners + vCount.
10. After everyone suffers then the cash and supplies come in.
11. The original # of prisoners is used in the calculation.
12. EE multiplies this # by 4.
13. Then divide by 100.
14. Again, this is limited by the number of camps.
15. gain supplies = effective camps * .2
16. gain cash = effective camps * 3
17. EE gain another: effective camps * 10
Let's use a number example. You have 1000 camps and 25000 prisoners.
Capacity is 100k prisoners. So in the death rate calculations the
number used is 250. When it gets to the supplies/money the 25k is x4,
which is 100k. Compare that to the # of camps and it is equal. So
you get 13 mc x 1000.
Now if you had 25k prisoners and 250 camps...the death rate calc uses
250. You get to the sup/mc calc and are limited by your camps of
250. So you only get 13 mc x 250. You lose your x4 EE bonus.
So the EE only need to populate 1/4 of your camps or have 4x the camps
than prisoners because the death rate doesn't change, but the money
gained does.
Magik
Lord Lancelot
25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 3000 mc <====
100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
Before host 212A
25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc <====
100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
I did not check the death rate, but the money income for the EE is now
correct, before 25% and full EE income was over the top.
Lord Lancelot
Lord Lancelot
With Host 212A
1 000 0000 prisoners in 10 000 EE LC = 620 000 Death | 380 000
prisoners remaining
Is that high death rate what is expected ?
Lord Lancelot
Magik
It should be 610000, but yes that is expected.
Magik
GFM GToeroe
But what's about this what Lancelot wrote:
With Host 212A
25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 3000 mc <====
100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
Before host 212A
25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc <====
100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
Your algorithm implies, that a EE, which have 1/4 of the PoWs of what
others need to fill N camps, should get 13*N mc
Gabor
Gabor
Magik
> But what's about this what Lancelot wrote:
>
> With Host 212A
>
> 25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 3000 mc <====
> 100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
>
> Before host 212A
> 25 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc <====
> 100 000 prisoners in 1000 EE LC give me = 13000 mc
>
> Your algorithm implies, that a EE, which have 1/4 of the PoWs of what
> others need to fill N camps, should get 13*N mc
From what I have stepped through in the code, it should be the way
that I described; not the way LL did. I haven't gotten around to
testing it further. Can someone else run some simulations?
Magik
Black No1
I think it should be 610.000 according to the formula, but maybe I got
something wrong there.
Cheers,
Jochen
Black No1
What did you try to change in Host 212a?
Why don't you simply drop the 1/4 rule for EE and keep the rest.
Result:
* EE get approx. 4x the money
* prisoners die faster
If they need only 1/4 of the prisoners we have the following picture
for 10.000 labor camps (if I got it right):
normal: 1.000.000 prisoners -> 510.000 dead
EE: 250.000 prisoners -> 155.000 dead
So in fact, prisoners die more slowly in (big) EE camps?
Cheers,
Jochen
Gabor Törö
"Black No1" <keineah...@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a37876ab-87b7-4a03...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> So in fact, prisoners die more slowly in (big) EE camps?
I think so:
Let's P denote the PoWs and C the number of camps. According to what Magik
described the change of PoWs is
dP1=-(1-MAX(0.3;0.9-MIN(P/100;C)/20000))*P-MIN(P/100;C) for an EE
and
dP2=-(1-MAX(0.3;1-MIN(P/100;C)/20000))*P-MIN(P/100;C) for an non EE
"At the edge" a EE runs C camps with P=C*25 and where a non EE needs P=C*100
PoWs. So we have the death rates
r1=dP1/P=-1.01+MAX(0.3;0.9-C/80000)=-0.11-C/80000
r2=dP2/P=-1.01+MAX(0.3;1-C/20000))=-0.01-C/20000
(if C is sufficiently "small"(<10000))
Both are negative and a greater (less negative) value is the better one:
r1>r2 -> C>8000/3=2666.666...
So 2667 camps or more lead to a smaller death rate for EE than for non EE if
they run the camps "at the edge".
Gabor
Magik
it. So it'll be as I stated in the next host release.
Magik