252k by 2450, is it a valid test?
Varn
the validity of the result. Even though he seems unwilling to provide the
history file for this test, it is still clear from the m file that he didn't
build a single scanner equipped scout at any point, hence I can only assume
he scanned the entire galaxy in an earlier test, then restarted.
I just wonder, how many of you consider it acceptable to prescan the
universe, then start again and colonise the best planets straight away
knowing where they all are?
Regards,
Varn
MaikGeduhn
schreibt:
==> It愀 not o.k. in the name of the test. Sure.
But how sure can you be about no building scouts? It愀 easy to delate the
scoutdesign if you got no more need.
Maik
P.S. what is the exact meaning of "lol"?
Michael Birke
>I just wonder, how many of you consider it acceptable to prescan the
>universe, then start again and colonise the best planets straight away
>knowing where they all are?
Well, I do not take any of those Resource records serious. In a real
game, most of these races would have problems even to survive.
I think it is legal what he did. It is not much more unrealistic than
playing a testbed with no enemies.
And as Asimov said, the best race/testbed creators must not be the
best players, too.
The economics model is very important for Stars!, but imagine a fight
between a CA or JOAT against an IT opponent, who can gate everywhere
he wants. The IT has strategic advantages that make up for the lack of
ressources.
Those specialized Monsters work only in optimized universes.
I would prefer to hear of designs that can perhaps rack up only half
the ressources, but are actually able to win in a normal game. :)
For testbed records, I think his prescanning was ok.
cu
--
Mail: Michae...@gmx.net
IRC: Longasc - ICQ: 8624167
Wilbur07
>game, most of these races would have problems even to survive.
>
That's quite true. In order to optimize for the testbed you often take all
tech expensive, NAS, and only enough mining capability to build factories
(10/3/7 + OBRM). This is a death knoll in a player to player game because you
need to get your tech high enough early enough to defend yourself -- mine
enough minerals to be able to build ships, and have the scanning ability to
tell what's on a planet. Frequently, minerals are the bottleneck to building
warfleets, and with OBRM and low mining capability you're dead in the water.
A more realistic testbed is x resources by 2450, plus y tech levels, plus z
minerals. If you can build a given warfleet by 2450, then you're in good
shape. This usually means about 50K resources, 60K minerals or 300 cruisers,
15-20 starbases, and 10-14-11-9-7-3 tech levels minimum (but better if you have
14-16-12-12-11-4) in a no max minerals setting.
If these monsters we've been developing can be assured to be left alone for the
first 50 years and have enough space to expand, then 150K resources will get
them the advantage in tech and probably war capability -- but it's a great
gamble for sure.
A decent -f race will have a warfleet by 2430 that will be able to destroy any
of these testbed monsters with a blitz attack (before the monster can research
and then build a warfleet) because HG's lack the Germanium to build enough
ships, and they have most of their economy in a few key planets near their
homeworld, which, when knocked out, will seriously cripple them. The key to
early and rapid economy building is to concentrate your pop on the juiciest
worlds; decentralization to avoid making fat targets limits the rate of
economic advance (both in breeding and building factories).
A factoryless race will want to decentralize very early of course, and so
aren't susceptible to a blitzkrieg attack because they present a whole lot of
little targets instead of a few big fat and juicy ones.
But actually, the key element in a player to player game is diplomacy. If you
can convince your neighbors to leave you alone, then as an HG or HP, you have a
great chance of doing well in the game. But if you're neighbors are HG's or
they are -f races, then the chances of them leaving you alone are smaller
because in the first case you're competing for the same planets, and in the 2nd
case your neighbor is out for blood early (or should be, because that's the
whole point of a -f race).
>And as Asimov said, the best race/testbed creators must not be the
>best players, too
The best players don't waste their time in testing useless scenarios like no
enemies and max minerals. Needless to say, I'm not one of these people! I
like the exercise as a conundrum that needs to be solved.
>The IT has strategic advantages that make up for the lack of
>ressources.
I've just shown that an IT can get 130K resources by 2450, which combined with
their strategic advantage will be more than a match for that 250K CA.
>For testbed records, I think his prescanning was ok.
>
There's not much difference in prescanning than in building 5-6 Smaugarian
Peeping Toms in the first turn and scanning the universe that way (which is
what you do when you prescan). Although I prescan because I'm counting the
number of starting greens in a given universe (not enough, I regenerate the
universe) -- so it's pretty much automatic that you would do this for this kind
of testbed.
Mark Constantino
Andre' Connell
: Having just seen the files for Andre Connell's 252k test, I have to question
: the validity of the result. Even though he seems unwilling to provide the
: history file for this test, it is still clear from the m file that he didn't
: build a single scanner equipped scout at any point, hence I can only assume
: he scanned the entire galaxy in an earlier test, then restarted.
: I just wonder, how many of you consider it acceptable to prescan the
: universe, then start again and colonise the best planets straight away
: knowing where they all are?
I'll send you the .h and .hst files too if you so wish. Perhaps the fact
that I colonised 239 planets and had far fewer privateer colonisers built
should have tipped you off that I deleted some designs midway through the
testbed. Notably: a medium freighter coloniser, medium freighter cargo ship
and scouts. If you'd have asked for the .h and .hst files I'd have sent them
to you and you wouldn't have had to publicly call my name into question, dickwad.
Andre
Hope I see you in a PBEM game soon...
David Moen
>
> There's not much difference in prescanning than in building 5-6 Smaugarian
> Peeping Toms in the first turn and scanning the universe that way (which is
> what you do when you prescan).
I think I would have to disagree. Building many scouts on the first turn gives
your growth curve a big hit. You should use those resources to compound the
growth of your economy, and build the scouts just in time that they start
finding planets just as you reach 25% of capacity on your HW.
By building scouts on turn one, you are essentially delaying the growth of
your economy by a portion of one year. The portion being the amount of your
total resources you spend on those scouts. If you delay construction until
just before you need them, the same nubmer of scouts will cost a smaller
portion of the production level you will have, thereby delaying your economy
by a smaller portion of a year. When you consider the number of resources a
monster gains from 2449 to 2450, losing 1/2 of that one year's growth can be
significant.
--
David Moen
(to reply by e-mail truncate the last part of the address)
Varn
>Varn <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'll send you the .h and .hst files too if you so wish. Perhaps the fact
>that I colonised 239 planets and had far fewer privateer colonisers built
>should have tipped you off that I deleted some designs midway through the
>testbed. Notably: a medium freighter coloniser, medium freighter cargo
ship
>and scouts. If you'd have asked for the .h and .hst files I'd have sent
them
>to you and you wouldn't have had to publicly call my name into question,
dickwad.
I did ask for the h file - about 5 minutes after you sent the other files,
hence it's you that's the dickwad :)
To be perfectly frank I have little doubt that you pregenned until you got
an optimal universe then used the scan info from a previous test to optimise
your early colonisation strategy. There's simply no reason to delete your
scout design, other than to hide the fact the you never built any :)
>Andre
>
>Hope I see you in a PBEM game soon...
Mmm yummy, more fodder ;)
Varn
Oroboros
Yes, I'm quite convinced he cheated with the pre-scan. Also, he likely
cheated with a race hack. There's a very common hack that boosts your
initial population to about 600,000 colonists. It can't be detected
using verion "i", and it can't be detected using "j" except for the
very first turn by the host. Since he hosted, he could easily use the
race hack and you would never see it even if you have his .h, .m, and
.hst files.
His attitude is that of a cheater, too. The only way to be sure is to
have him give you the .m file for *every* year. Check those early
turns, to make sure he's not getting too many resources or pop in the
early part of the game.
Dr. Dot
Oroboros wrote in message <384044a9...@news.sprint.ca>...
>Yes, I'm quite convinced he cheated with the pre-scan. Also, he likely
>cheated with a race hack. There's a very common hack that boosts your
>initial population to about 600,000 colonists. It can't be detected
>using verion "i", and it can't be detected using "j" except for the
>very first turn by the host. Since he hosted, he could easily use the
>race hack and you would never see it even if you have his .h, .m, and
>.hst files.
>
>His attitude is that of a cheater, too. The only way to be sure is to
>have him give you the .m file for *every* year. Check those early
>turns, to make sure he's not getting too many resources or pop in the
>early part of the game.
Cool down. I know everybody on this NG is pretty obsessed with cheaters at
the moment, but as you say yourself you do not know if he used a hacked
race. There is no reason to start suspecting everyone of beeing a cheater
just because it is the current theme on the NG. I think it is very rude to
accuse anyone of cheating without proof or something that clearly indicates
cheating. Having doughts about pre-scanning is ok, but accusing somone of
using a hacked race just because you cant see it is a little paranoid.
Dr. Dot
Kalizec
the first year and it also records his race-file.
That way you just look at the starting res. and compare it with what's
possible n year 1 with that race.
Oroboros <orob...@mail.kmsp.com> wrote in message
news:384044a9...@news.sprint.ca...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 20:13:24 -0000, "Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Andre' Connell wrote in message <81pbav$4v7$1...@news.adamastor.ac.za>...
> >>Varn <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>I'll send you the .h and .hst files too if you so wish. Perhaps the
fact
> >>that I colonised 239 planets and had far fewer privateer colonisers
built
> >>should have tipped you off that I deleted some designs midway through
the
> >>testbed. Notably: a medium freighter coloniser, medium freighter cargo
> >ship
> >>and scouts. If you'd have asked for the .h and .hst files I'd have sent
> >them
> >>to you and you wouldn't have had to publicly call my name into question,
> >dickwad.
> >
> >
> >I did ask for the h file - about 5 minutes after you sent the other
files,
> >hence it's you that's the dickwad :)
> >To be perfectly frank I have little doubt that you pregenned until you
got
> >an optimal universe then used the scan info from a previous test to
optimise
> >your early colonisation strategy. There's simply no reason to delete your
> >scout design, other than to hide the fact the you never built any :)
>
Asimov
> scout design, other than to hide the fact the you never built any :)
i did - and i didnt pre-gen, and didnt scan everything first. why? so i
wouldnt be distracted by the scouts sitting idle around the universe, thinking
they were priv's that needed moveing...
as far as scouting the uni first.... i can see both sides of the issue, i dont
think its particulaly fair when nobody else has been, but i dont think its
particularly worse than taking max-min/no enemys in a testbed
asimov@efnet
asimov@starlink
Joseph Oberlander
> game, most of these races would have problems even to survive.
Most balanced designs built for actual play max out around 50K-ish,
which is nonetheless quite powerful.(with CA a bit higher)
Schnobs
>
> You'll only need the H-file, since that on records the # of resources he had
> the first year and it also records his race-file.
> That way you just look at the starting res. and compare it with what's
> possible n year 1 with that race.
I'm not sure whether a graph scaled to 250k still shows
any difference between 100 or 600 resources...
Nevertheless, as now the Djinn seems to be out of the bottle,
the only way I can think of to get rid of it, would be for Andre
to produce an early turnfile. Turn 10 or 12 should suffice.
Apart from that, IMO its perfectly alright to pre-scan several
universes. I think we can all agree that you need a lucky draw
to stand a chance at all - I see no flaw in the argument that
it saves a lot of frustration to FIRST check some universes until
you find one thats worth a try. I wouldn't like to start over ten
times, spending one or two hours for each attempt.
But again IMO it would be not alright not to use scouts then.
just my 5 bratwurst.
--
remove "nowhere" and dots for email
Oroboros
<fo020...@here.forchheim.baynet.de> wrote:
>
>I'm not sure whether a graph scaled to 250k still shows
>any difference between 100 or 600 resources...
>
>Nevertheless, as now the Djinn seems to be out of the bottle,
>the only way I can think of to get rid of it, would be for Andre
>to produce an early turnfile. Turn 10 or 12 should suffice.
Yes, that would probably do. Is there a way to check to make sure that
the early turn file actually belongs to the same game as the turn
2450? He could generate the same universe using the same random seed.
Or, he could use the same universe, but space pop in turn 2401 or
something. It would be interesting to see all the turnfiles, just to
see how the resource curve ramps. (Not just to check for cheating, but
just out of interest.)
>Apart from that, IMO its perfectly alright to pre-scan several
>universes. I think we can all agree that you need a lucky draw
>to stand a chance at all - I see no flaw in the argument that
>it saves a lot of frustration to FIRST check some universes until
>you find one thats worth a try. I wouldn't like to start over ten
>times, spending one or two hours for each attempt.
>
>But again IMO it would be not alright not to use scouts then.
Agreed.
Wilbur07
>your growth curve a big hit.
Right -- so how else would you penalize a player for prescanning the universe?
Force them to build those scouts the first turn in exchange for knowing where
the juiciest planets are from the beginning, because if you force it your way,
you'd have to examine every year's files to prevent "cheating". Otherwise,
just allow prescanning as one of the perks of the testbed (my rule!).
Mark Constantino
pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam
>Having just seen the files for Andre Connell's 252k test, I have to question
>the validity of the result. Even though he seems unwilling to provide the
>history file for this test, it is still clear from the m file that he didn't
>build a single scanner equipped scout at any point, hence I can only assume
>he scanned the entire galaxy in an earlier test, then restarted.
>I just wonder, how many of you consider it acceptable to prescan the
>universe, then start again and colonise the best planets straight away
>knowing where they all are?
If all you're trying to do is see how many resources you can get, you'd
probably never use that race in a real game, so ISTM that regular rules
don't necessarily apply, so prescanning would be acceptable.
My opinion, ofc.
--
pixelATshoreDOTnet - http://www.shore.net/~pixel
Assistant Forum Manager, MSN IE forums
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
Stephen Donald
I haven't read anywhere that Andre prescanned the universe or that he used a
hacked race. All I know is that the resource total is correct at year 2450.
I don't yet have the h file from Andre, but I am willing to believe the guy
until proven otherwise. Why wouldn't I?
In my opinion prescanning is valid, if we are made aware of the fact in the
result.
Remember, the whole purpose of going for a record is to maximise the
favourable conditions to see what is possible. For a pbem game, you optimise
your race to suit the game conditions. For a blitz game you optimise for
blitz and so forth.
For heaven's sake guys, it's all supposed to be fun!
Regards,
Stephen Donald.
<pi...@shore.net.death.to.spam> wrote in message
news:6p004.239$3N2....@news.shore.net...
Schnobs
> >Nevertheless, as now the Djinn seems to be out of the bottle,
> >the only way I can think of to get rid of it, would be for Andre
> >to produce an early turnfile. Turn 10 or 12 should suffice.
>
> Yes, that would probably do. Is there a way to check to make sure that
> the early turn file actually belongs to the same game as the turn
> 2450? He could generate the same universe using the same random seed.
> Or, he could use the same universe, but space pop in turn 2401 or
> something. It would be interesting to see all the turnfiles, just to
> see how the resource curve ramps. (Not just to check for cheating, but
> just out of interest.)
No prolem, in both cases:
the 'same' universe has identical X,Y and planet stats, but different
Planet names - easy check.
And jetisoning his pop will surely be seen on the small scale of
turn 10's resources. ("hey, why did ya resources DEcrease in turn 1?")
Or is turn0 not logged? I'm quite sure it is, but then again...
too lazy to check this myself. Thats the problem of the guy(s) who
started this thread.
cu,
Schnobs
Schnobs
> In my opinion prescanning is valid, if we are made aware of the fact in the
> result.
Fine for me; I'd also accept this if you mean prescanning as to build no
scouts.
While, btw, I'm not sure about the impact of building no scouts.
I tried it myself, you know (come on, guess why I didn't publish MY
result).
My universe was "select-prescanned", I still built & sent scouts.
The scouts were well ahead of my colonization effort at all times;
so even if I had remebered the position of the big green dots, my
scouts still found them before I needed to go there.
So I see no benefit on that field.
Now, for the effect of not building scouts...
It basically only helps you with the development of your HW; of course
this can spill over to your first few colonies if you can build all
required
ships at home, thus giving the kids more time to grow.
But this test mostly checks your population managment over 50 turns;
and I do not see how the few early resources you may gain will alter the
outcome by much. I expect that the best you can get is to have TT10 2
years
earlier, and maybe TT15 by one turn.
If you're able to make perfect use of it, this three turns you win
might give you a 5% increase by turn 50. Yes, in this case it would be
more
than 10k difference... but the fact that someone has come considerably
beyond
200k remains the same.
(and somehow I have the feeling that the 5% are faaaar exaggerated)
Back to the point:
I think the famous "lucky draw", and ones own capacity of MM, have
so much more influence on the output that building no scouts becomes
almost irrelevant.
Russ Lewis
> scout design, other than to hide the fact the you never built any :)
(duck head in the door)
I delete obsolete designs both to clean up my queue dialog, and so that I don't
stupidly build an already obsolete ship. As for the rest, I leave to the rest
of you to debate the merits...
(duck out the door, not wanting to get hit in the crossfire)
David Moen
>
> just my 5 bratwurst.
I hadn't realized that a sausage had become an accepted currency.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the Euro?
Anyway, if this had been introduced in the late 20's and early 30's,
perhaps we could have avoided all that unpleasantness a decade later.
David Moen
>
> Is there a way to check to make sure that
> the early turn file actually belongs to the same game as the turn
> 2450?
Each game file contains a "unique" Game ID string, which is displayed
by the utility STARSTAT.EXE. I don't know if the string can be hacked
by simple substitution with a hex editor.
Gaël Eichler
Michael Birke <Michae...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:ngNAOBsgCT+wDZj3oMNkz=41l...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 1999 13:55:15 -0000, "Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
Re: varieties that can win in real games.
There are 1 immune varieties that regularly achieve TB results with little
to no MM of 90k+ and have reached 110k (with serious MM, could probably hit
130k).
These are single immune, weapons cheap CAs.
They tend to blow the f##k out of a large percent of the galaxy early, on
but will often get their @$$es kicked by races with more cheap techs (more
likely in slow tech games), as they will be hard pressed to reach nubians by
the time a race with slightly decreased front end ramping and increased
cheap tech (and greater mid-game ramping).
Sample race: Shrikes/Lords of Pain
CA
IFE, NRSE, NAS (can actually work w/out NAS and 1 in 11 hab) OBRM (LSP is
optional)
19%
grav immune
both other attributes 16 and 14 clicks from the edge 1 5 wide, 1 4 clicks
wide (I think)
comes out to 1 in 10 hab.
12/9/16
G
10/9/14 or so?
W cheap,rest expensive starts@3
This isn't an exact race. I'm more or less pulling htis out of my @$$ on
prior experience, but something like this will hit a good 110k+ and be
something more than viable in a real game (I've only actually played it once
in a blitz--just boring if you ask me--hit 40k w/ no MM and missing several
turns (force genned 4 at a time as well).
The version I used and hit near 100k (no MM after 25) had pen scanners--40
some or 55 planets?
--
-G
"I know it sucks, but I still dig the earth."
Damon Domjan
<sgxe...@oberlin.edu> wrote:
>Sample race: Shrikes/Lords of Pain
>
>CA
>IFE, NRSE, NAS (can actually work w/out NAS and 1 in 11 hab) OBRM (LSP is
>optional)
You forgot ISB - this is looking more like my varient on it ;) (LSP
if you want ISB and no NAS)
>19%
>grav immune
>both other attributes 16 and 14 clicks from the edge 1 5 wide, 1 4 clicks
>wide (I think)
>comes out to 1 in 10 hab.
>12/9/16
>G
>10/9/14 or so?
10/3/12 on the ISB version, 10/3/15 (maybe 16?) on the non ISB one.
Damon
Orca on #Stars!
--
http://dariasounds.home.dhs.org/
John
I think the problem is that you see this as a contest, while others
just want to see what is thoretical possible.
For a testbed, anything that could theoretical happen, like just
colonising the right planets by chance, or all planets having hugh
mineral concentrations, are ok.
OTOH, a contest is pontless if everyone wont keep the rules. And if
someone else gets better results, I understand if you feel cheated if
he haven't played by the same rules.
I just think it's different ways of thinking on it. And if someone
don't want a competion, they don't have to. So i think your side lose.
,John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Varn
John wrote in message <81vrpe$see$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
At no time have I ever tried to impose any standard by which testbeds should
be played. If people want to test with prescanned galaxies or hacked races
then good luck to them - I hope they find whatever they are looking for. If
they want to post their results as well, then I think they should at least
be honest about how they achieved that result, whether it was by standard
testbedding, optimised pregenning and/or prescanning, or through the use of
a hacked race.
My objection was merely to the claim by the guy that got 252k that he built
scouts and didn't prescan, when in fact he did. 252k would be an amazing
result without prescanning, but is only an average result with it, hence my
annoyance at his dishonesty.
Regards,
Varn
Michael Birke
Hello Varn!
>be played. If people want to test with prescanned galaxies or hacked races
(...)
>My objection was merely
... and so on.
I think your accusations against him were not right at all, blaming
him openly was even worse.
I think you should excuse yourself, really.
MaikGeduhn
>I think the problem is that you see this as a contest, while others
>just want to see what is thoretical possible.
==> hm, thats a good point. I believed it was a contest, too. See all the
messages before (for all records) and you might join this idea.
People who got a new record told their winningconditions. I miss THIS winning
condition (prescan) at his letter.
>I just think it's different ways of thinking on it. And if someone
>don't want a competion, they don't have to. So i think your side lose.
==> why? Varn is right. See above.
Only my thoughts, of course
Maik
Schnobs
> At no time have I ever tried to impose any standard by which testbeds should
[...]
agreed so far.
>
> scouts and didn't prescan, when in fact he did. 252k would be an amazing
> result without prescanning, but is only an average result with it,
Why? I tried to guess twice and heard no reply from noone,
now I'm asking you:
What exactly can one win without building scouts,
apart from forcing a good universe?
Varn
Schnobs wrote in message <38448B...@here.forchheim.baynet.de>...
>
>Why? I tried to guess twice and heard no reply from noone,
>now I'm asking you:
>
>What exactly can one win without building scouts,
>apart from forcing a good universe?
Maintenance of high growth rate in the early stages, and getting lots of
high value breeders to exporting size by about 2415 is the major advantage
of prescanning. You get to send off 100k pop to a planet 300 ly away safe in
the knowledge that it's 95% and will enable you to full up every planet
within 200 ly of it to decent levels by 2450. You can plan not only your
entire growth strategy for the game before you even start, but also tweak
your hab range and other factors to suit the optimal universe you have
scanned. On top of that, you get quicker resource ramp and faster tech (the
latter also giving you more resources from earlier bio breakthroughs) from
not having to build any scouts in 2400 and 2401. Makes >250k resources
child's play in comparison with getting 200k without prescanning.
FWIW,
Varn
Alisha's Addict
Varn <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:81onpk$27pb$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
> Having just seen the files for Andre Connell's 252k test, I have to
question
> the validity of the result. Even though he seems unwilling to provide the
> history file for this test, it is still clear from the m file that he
didn't
> build a single scanner equipped scout at any point, hence I can only
assume
> he scanned the entire galaxy in an earlier test, then restarted.
You could almost say that I prescan the galaxy for my test beds - seeing as
I use exactly the same galaxy each time I run a testbed.
> I just wonder, how many of you consider it acceptable to prescan the
> universe, then start again and colonise the best planets straight away
> knowing where they all are?
As said - I use the same seed for all my test beds. I view this as essential
in order to remove random galaxy variance from the test bed. The only
variable should be the race itself and the tactics used to exploit that race
/ galaxy.
You could say - same seed = prescanned galaxy.
But - I can't be bothered to remember the galaxy for each test bed - I
remember the worlds that tend to be big yes... I do however play each test
bed with the build, explore, colonize, consolidate sequence. I always scout
planets before colonizing. (expect triple i's of course :-)
In fact, I reckon that all record attempt test beds should be run with the
same seed. Small differences in world hab close to the HW could result in
large differences in breeder growth and capacity, leading to skewed records.
So how about it ? All valid resource and BB building records should be done
on the same seeded universe ? I could sign up to that :-) Of course - cos
the seed is known, the galaxy is effectively prescanned. And why not :-) The
point is to get the highest number of resources possible. If normal game
strategy is bypassed for that aim - why not ?
--
pe...@lilleyman.nospam.freeserve.co.uk
remove nospam to reply
Joseph Oberlander
> its actually released.... in advanced options, have a setting for "testbed" so
> EVERYBODY can use the exact same universe for testing
One very very important change, though - you would have to make the starting
planet random, otherwise certain designs would always do far better, every time.
Asimov
> same seed. Small differences in world hab close to the HW could result in
> large differences in breeder growth and capacity, leading to skewed records.
agreed, i'd love to see a standardized testbed, but will the same seed make
the same universe on every computer, even when using different races/hab's?
Emery
IIRC the question was how many resources can you get with a CA by 2450 (if
he used a hacked race then it is invalid get the .m file and hit F8)
if it is a valid CA race then the answer is 252K if you do not like the
answer do better
emery
PS
yes I also tried but by the time I broke 157K some fool had 193K so:Ş
Alisha's Addict
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote in message
news:38461DE0...@loop.com...
> > on a 2nd thought, i wonder if it would be possible to get that into SN
before
> > its actually released.... in advanced options, have a setting for
"testbed" so
> > EVERYBODY can use the exact same universe for testing
>
starting
> planet random, otherwise certain designs would always do far better, every
time.
The problem is - the race would be optimised for that galaxy ... you might
be tempted to make your race as good as possible for the test bed - which
could be counterproductive when the race goes into the real game.
But - we're talking about record breaker testing :-)
Something like - you find out the hab distribution of all the planets in the
galaxy and trim the race hab to fit...
It's a serious point - using the same galaxy for all testbeds. Someone
tested one of my races in an identical setup (except seed) and got 25% more
resources than me at 2450. I'm hoping that wasn't all down to my play :-)
Alisha's Addict
Emery <eth...@redlance.tus.primenet.com> wrote in message
news:826pds$l86$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> ...
> PS
> yes I also tried but by the time I broke 157K some fool had 193K so:Þ
I tried also but I'm not publishing my results cos its way too embarrassing
!
Boomer Lu
>>>for your testbed? A 1WW will, over the course of 240 planets, get more
>than
>>>a
>>>handful of greens in the very best case. So if you choose a universe where
>>>you
>>>get, say, 3, then it should be alright. It violates the statistical
>>>probability, but not in the way that if you >got 100 greens would.
>>It is a statistical *chance* not something certain.
>>As I have posted before:
>>
>>"That which is not explicitly forbidden is guaranteed to occur." - The
>Physics
>>of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss.
>
>While it's possible that Bill Clinton walks into my apartment tomorrow
>at noon, it's not guaranteed. I don't think >it's even likely. ;)
Well, I assumed that that quote means with enough "tries".
>
>>If you generate a million universes, there's bound to be one with all greens
>>for a 1WW. Although the chance IS 1/171^however many planets there are, all
>you
>>have to do is generate that many universes and even more just to be sure.
>
>For a tiny packed universe (40 planets IIRC), that's over 10^89
>universe generations before you have a 50% chance of seeing it happen.
>Much worse for anything larger. The million (10^6) universes you
>mention are not nearly enough.
Ok. Point taken. However, just generate the universes....even if it takes years
=).
>
>And it might not be possible at all because the numbers Stars! uses
>are only pseudorandom, not truly random. It depends a lot on the
>quality of the random number generator. If you ask for a sequence of
>random numbers from the computer, eventually the sequence starts
>repeating. The length of the sequence before it repeats is its
>period. I don't know what generator Stars! uses (a standard one
>provided by the compiler or a custom-built one), but the
>quick-and-dirty one on my workstation has a period of about 2^16. A
>better one is available which has a period of about 2^48. If Stars!
>used that generator (and I'd be very surprised if the Jeffs used a
>custom one with a longer period), it could only generate 2^48 unique
>universes of a given size. This is less than 10^15 possible
>universes, and you need more than 10^89 to have an even chance of all
>greens. 10^15 gives you about a 10^-74 >chance.
True.
>
>Needless to say, I don't expect to see any testbeds having all green
>planets for a 1WW.
True, but it IS a possibility, no matter how unlikely. Even if it has a
10^-99999999999 power, it is still a possibility. And heck, luck comes in here.
>
>[...]
>>Well, we're just getting more and more OT aren't we?
>
>And now even more OT. :) Hope this >wasn't too boring.
It wasn't.
>
>Jim
>--
>"You don't have conversations with microprocessors. You tell them what to
> do, then helplessly watch the disaster when they take you literally."
> -- David Brin, _Startide Rising_
LOL.
Boomer
-
"But I canna change the laws of physics, Captain!" - Scotty to Kirk,
innumerable times
"It's difficult to work in a group when you are omnipotent," - Q, upon joining
the crew of the Enterprise, in "Deja Q"
Jim Oly
Boomer Lu <boom...@aol.com.nospam> wrote:
[...]
>>If Stars!
>>used that generator (and I'd be very surprised if the Jeffs used a
>>custom one with a longer period), it could only generate 2^48 unique
>>universes of a given size. This is less than 10^15 possible
>>universes, and you need more than 10^89 to have an even chance of all
>>greens. 10^15 gives you about a 10^-74 chance.
>True.
>
>>
>>Needless to say, I don't expect to see any testbeds having all green
>>planets for a 1WW.
>True, but it IS a possibility, no matter how unlikely. Even if it has a
>10^-99999999999 power, it is still a possibility. And heck, luck comes in here.
>
I think the difference here is that we have a low one-time chance of
Stars! ever being able to generate a 1WW wonder universe. If we fail
that chance (because of how the random number generator is set up), it
doesn't matter how many universes we generate. If in fact the
generator does allow Stars! to generate such a universe, then you can
keep generating universes and have a 100% chance of eventually
generating the right one. It all depends on that initial chance, and
it looks like an awfully low one.