New world record - 192k resources at 2450!!
Varn
The subject says it all really, so I'll just mention the race design below:
The Aarth Hegemony
CA (no prizes for guessing that)
IFE, NRSE, TT, OBRM, ISB, NAS
grav 0.65 to 2.00
temp -56 to 96
rad 39 to 79
1 in 13 according to RW
20% pop growth
1/1000
14/8/16/3g facs
8/3/12 mines
Bio cheap, rest expensive, no box
0 points leftover
Test was in small, packed, max mins, acc BBS. I colonised 137 planets total.
All MM stopped at 2438.
Year Resources Biotech
20 4k 9
30 16k 13
40 60k 19
50 192k 26
I could have probably MM'd this a bit more and made 200k resources, but I
was sick of it by 2438. If anyone wants to see the game files for this,
email me.
Regards,
Varn
Grand Fromage
Well, I've realized how much I suck at this game compared to the rest of ya. I
took the exact same race and exact same universe conditions, and colonized like
crazy. Didn't scout enough, though. My result: 11k by 2450 and 31 planets.
:(
-
Grand_Fromage Level 33 Sorceror
Sir`Robin Level 16 Warrior
FromageBouleLOS Level 9 Sorceror
ChocolatFromage Level 6 Rogue
Creme_Fromage Level 5 Sorceror
Burn`Baby`Burn Level 4 Sorceror
My website got deleted off the server.. :(
Grand Fromage
that I unchecked the "Use signature" box. Oh well.
Asimov
and to all you doubters about 200K, you believe me now? heheheh
"Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:818uim$2h8q$1...@quince.news.easynet.net...
Boomer Lu
>
>and to all you doubters about 200K, you believe me now? heheheh
>
=)
Looks like ISB paid off big time. I would think so. Looks unplayable in a
standard game due to 8/3/12 mines. Never thought you'd get those points there.
For some strange reason, all my testbeds are non max minerals. MY personal
record (recall that I've only started playing Stars! in May of 1999) is a Grav
immune CA-HG at 40k resources WITHOUT max minerals but with Acc. BBS.
Hmm
I wonder when we'll start trying to get a really high resource count with
something that ISN'T a CA. Most likely candidates are IT, IS, AR, and JoAT. I
estimate that the most these can do is about 90 something k resources. I'm just
dying for somebody to prove me wrong. I do recall someone getting 100k with an
AR.
You should have MM'd it and you could have gotten 200k+. I personally think
100k is a lot.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Varn
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"
Canopus
When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
:-)
In article <818uim$2h8q$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>,
> Regards,
>
> Varn
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dan Neely
Canopus <cano...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
> immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still
> passes the J patch.
you disgust me.
--
So the universe is not quite as you thought it
was. You'd better rearange your beliefs then.
Because you certainly can't rearange the universe.
Asimov
i'd just like to take this chance to say fuck you, i personally dont give a
rats ass about your opinion
unlike your little twisted world, most of us DONT cheat, and who the fuck
would waste the time even attempting to set a record with a hacked race, what
the hell is the point? theres no compitition there just like theres no
comptition between a hack and a non-hacked race, too bad you suck at stars so
much you dont even realize that. i seriously doubt you have the balls to even
play a game WITHOUT a hacked race.
dont bother to reply, because i really dont care what you think, i'm just
stating my opinion
"Canopus" <cano...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81a3nq$vef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Hi!
>
> When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
> immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
Damon Domjan
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
>immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
>the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
>the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
>
>If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
>it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
>:-)
If all you can get at 2450 with the tri immune 20% is 200k you're
obviously at intermediate or below - when playing with the h patch
compatible tri immune hack I managed 220k...cutting off all MM in the
mid to late 20's.
Without the hack, Varn's performance is exemplary - and proves in the
end that Thomas Phister was a visionary :) He predicted 200k should
be possible a year ago *without cheating* *cough *cough*, when he
managed nearly 140k.
I just wonder where he is now...
Damon
Orca on #Stars!
--
http://dariasounds.home.dhs.org/
rdc
Are you a stars expert? If so, it looks to me like you just challenged
Canopus to a GRUDGE MATCH. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion
that a cheater must necessarily be a poor player. So go ahead, put
your rep on the line with this upstart, Canopus. I'd be interested in
seeing the outcome. For a game with an expert in it, I'd expect to see
the game over in about 30 years, so it shouldn't waste too much of
everyone's time.
200 Quatloos on the newcomer!
cheers,
rdc
PS. Just a quick point - you can get your message out more effectivly
without all the swearing - it really only degrades your own
creditability.
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 02:40:58 GMT, "Asimov" <asi...@oldwarez.com>
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>i'd just like to take this chance to say fuck you, i personally dont give a
>rats ass about your opinion
>
>unlike your little twisted world, most of us DONT cheat, and who the fuck
>would waste the time even attempting to set a record with a hacked race, what
>the hell is the point? theres no compitition there just like theres no
>comptition between a hack and a non-hacked race, too bad you suck at stars so
>much you dont even realize that. i seriously doubt you have the balls to even
>play a game WITHOUT a hacked race.
>
>dont bother to reply, because i really dont care what you think, i'm just
>stating my opinion
>
>
>
>"Canopus" <cano...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:81a3nq$vef$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> Hi!
>>
>> When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
>> immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
>> the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
>> the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
>>
>> If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
>> it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
>> :-)
>>
Canopus
ro...@127.0.0.1 (Damon Domjan) wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 00:45:46 GMT, Canopus <cano...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
> >immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still
passes
> >the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
> >the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
> >
> >If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
> >it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
> >:-)
>
> obviously at intermediate or below - when playing with the h patch
> compatible tri immune hack I managed 220k...cutting off all MM in the
> mid to late 20's.
No, you misunderstand. I didn't mean the 20% tri-immune hack. I meant
the 127% pop-boost hack, that still passes the J-patch check. You can
more than quadruple your score with it!
:-)
Actually, I only made about 70k with it, but the profile was very
similar to the one posted in this thread (but reduced). I just don't
see how 192k is possible without it. I'm not denying it, I'm just
saying the race and performance was similar to the hack.
Varn
Canopus wrote in message <81bgi8$tkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Actually, I only made about 70k with it, but the profile was very
>similar to the one posted in this thread (but reduced). I just don't
>see how 192k is possible without it. I'm not denying it, I'm just
>saying the race and performance was similar to the hack.
Canopus you must be what, 10 or 12 years old? I'm guessing here based on the
attitude and style of your posting. You said in another thread that you
there is no possibility of you winning a game of Stars unless you cheat.
That being the case, my advice to you is to stick with Quake and other less
mentally challenging games where you will blend in with the background much
more satisfactorily.
Just some free advice,
Varn
Kend182526
>
>When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
>immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
>the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
>the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
Yes Canopus, we all love you and respect your opinion. You are obviously an
expert because you can ALMOST equal what an expert can do using a hack.
HEHEHE. Keep posting with your various names. I love it!!! God, I can hardly
wait for the day you finally get a clue!!!
CiM
I can't take it anymore!
<plonk> rdc <plonk> Canopus <plonk>
This is going nowhere fast.
Away from me, l@/\/\@}{ }{@X3r b0y5!
(Bemused and pissed off) Charles
rdc <dc...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38392ae6....@news.flfrd1.on.wave.home.com...
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> When I saw the 20% growth and the performance of your race I
> >> immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
> >> the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
> >> the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
> >>
> >> If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
> >> it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
> >> :-)
> >>
Asimov
no, are you canopus?
> If so, it looks to me like you just challenged
> Canopus to a GRUDGE MATCH.
i wouldnt waste my time
> You seem to be jumping to the conclusion
> that a cheater must necessarily be a poor player.
you admitted himself that you sometimes lost EVEN USING THE CHEAT, my god,
anybody that cant win getting arm bb's in the 30's SUCKS at stars
> So go ahead, put
> your rep on the line with this upstart, Canopus. I'd be interested in
> seeing the outcome.
bite me canopus, right dead square on my hairy ass
> PS. Just a quick point - you can get your message out more effectivly
> without all the swearing - it really only degrades your own
> creditability.
really? lemme give you a hint, I DONT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK canopus
Tomster
dc...@home.com (rdc) wrote:
rdc, why do you keep talking about challenges. it is settled. You
cheat therefore you don't play with real players. Same goes for
Canopuss.
One question to the real players. Does Canopuss and rdc seem to play
tag team yakking?
most curious.
Tomster
rdc
You are a very rude individual, Mr. Asimov. Why don't you try to make
a point, rather than a personal attack?
Peace.
cheers,
rdc
PS. I am still not Canopus.
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:39:32 GMT, "Asimov" <asi...@oldwarez.com>
wrote:
David Moen
>
> No, you misunderstand. I didn't mean the 20% tri-immune hack. I meant
> the 127% pop-boost hack, that still passes the J-patch check. You can
> more than quadruple your score with it!
> :-)
Did you find that hack yourself?
If not where di you get it?
Who are you plannng to share it with?
--
David Moen
(to reply by e-mail truncate the last part of the address)
Joseph Oberlander
Need to try out CA a bit...
> > The Aarth Hegemony
> > CA (no prizes for guessing that)
> > IFE, NRSE, TT, OBRM, ISB, NAS
> > grav 0.65 to 2.00
> > temp -56 to 96
> > rad 39 to 79
> > 1 in 13 according to RW
> > 20% pop growth
> > 1/1000
> > 14/8/16/3g facs
> > 8/3/12 mines
> > Bio cheap, rest expensive, no box
> > 0 points leftover
Looks good.
One question:
Is it possible to make weapons and/or con normal and do a ARM BB test?
I bet this would make a record.
> > Test was in small, packed, max mins, acc BBS. I colonised 137 planets total.
Let's see... AR with 136 planets generating an average of 500 resources per
planet(really low estimate, as that's only forts): 68K+2(HW with Deathstar)
= 70K. Theoretical max would be well over 150K.
With a lot of planets, most races can do very well.
Can someone test this in a standard testbed(40-ish stars)? I wonder what it
would get.(Genuinely interested - no flame)
Canopus
"Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Canopus you must be what, 10 or 12 years old? I'm guessing here based
on the
> attitude and style of your posting.
No, I'm well into my teens. Based on your posts, you are what? 5?
> You said in another thread that you
> there is no possibility of you winning a game of Stars unless you
cheat.
> That being the case, my advice to you is to stick with Quake and
other less
> mentally challenging games where you will blend in with the
background much
> more satisfactorily.
So people who play Quake are stupid? What a pompous, egotistic,
arrogant comment that was!
> Just some free advice,
It was worth what I paid for it.
Canopus
David Moen <dgm...@ibm.net.hormelless> wrote:
> Canopus wrote:
> >
> > No, you misunderstand. I didn't mean the 20% tri-immune hack. I
meant
> > the 127% pop-boost hack, that still passes the J-patch check. You
can
> > more than quadruple your score with it!
> > :-)
>
> Did you find that hack yourself?
>
> If not where di you get it?
>
> Who are you plannng to share it with?
It's been freely available for over a year. It was posted on this
group, which is where I found it. Anyone who wants it can search for it.
But, it's not any good for games STARTED with the j-patch. It only
passes the check going from i to j. There are lots of people using it.
Loren Pechtel
>immediately wondered if you were also using the hack that still passes
>the J patch. I got very similar results when I tried this test using
>the hack. But, you managed even better than I did.
>
>If you didn't use the hack, it's a very good result! Even if you did,
>it's a pretty good result! Congradulations!
>:-)
It's not a hack--I'm experimenting with the race myself.
Schnobs
> I just don't
> see how 192k is possible without it. I'm not denying it, I'm just
> saying the race and performance was similar to the hack.
Alright, I'll give it a try in peace...
Do you really want to know how it can be done without a hack?
--
remove "nowhere" and dots for email
Varn
Canopus wrote in message <81coih$sbm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <81boj0$1gkg$1...@quince.news.easynet.net>,
> "Varn" <va...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Canopus you must be what, 10 or 12 years old? I'm guessing here based
>on the
>> attitude and style of your posting.
>
>No, I'm well into my teens.
Just as I thought, a retarded teenager :)
>Based on your posts, you are what? 5?
Ooh I almost cut myself on the sharpness of your wit. You should consider
becoming a comedian when/if you ever grow up.
>So people who play Quake are stupid? What a pompous, egotistic,
>arrogant comment that was!
Just as I though, a retarded teenage Quake player :)
Your sort are just so damned predictable.
>> Just some free advice,
>
>It was worth what I paid for it.
>
Which is probably about as much as you've ever paid for anything in your
entire life you sad little ball of snot. Now toddle off and play Quake
before mummy spanks you for hogging the phone.
Varn
David Moen
Oh, I misinterpreted you. When you said it 'passes the J-patch check' I
thought you meant the check that is performed at the start of the game.
No, switching a game in progress to j won't turn up that particular hack,
but I would think that any competent host would take the racefile you
submitted and use it to generate a test game with j, to see if the
race passes the start-up test.
Varn
Joseph Oberlander wrote in message <383A2D9A...@loop.com>...
>Awesome result. And I thought 40k-ish(44 or 46 IIRC) for AR was awesome.
I've had 70k with an AR, but that was also under unrealistic test
conditions. ;)
>Need to try out CA a bit...
Spare yourself - CAs are damned boring compared with AR.
>> > The Aarth Hegemony
>> > CA (no prizes for guessing that)
>> > IFE, NRSE, TT, OBRM, ISB, NAS
>> > grav 0.65 to 2.00
>> > temp -56 to 96
>> > rad 39 to 79
>> > 1 in 13 according to RW
>> > 20% pop growth
>> > 1/1000
>> > 14/8/16/3g facs
>> > 8/3/12 mines
>> > Bio cheap, rest expensive, no box
>> > 0 points leftover
>
>Looks good.
>
>One question:
>Is it possible to make weapons and/or con normal and do a ARM BB test?
>I bet this would make a record.
Well you could make weapons cheap and bio normal I guess, but since I
wouldn't even consider using a race with such crap mining ability in any
real game, I don't really see the point.
>> > Test was in small, packed, max mins, acc BBS. I colonised 137 planets
total.
>
>Let's see... AR with 136 planets generating an average of 500 resources per
>planet(really low estimate, as that's only forts): 68K+2(HW with Deathstar)
>= 70K. Theoretical max would be well over 150K.
>
>With a lot of planets, most races can do very well.
Yep, the advantage of CA is simply that they get their totals faster, due to
instant terraforming. Capacities are no better than any other race (HE
excepted).
>Can someone test this in a standard testbed(40-ish stars)? I wonder what
it
>would get.(Genuinely interested - no flame)
By 2450? I would guess about 75k resources with max mins and acc BBS.
Regards,
Varn
Matt Barber
> Asimov, I'm afraid your glorious reign is over ;)
Dang, I spent all week working my way up to 157K resources @ 2450 just
to read this? Ah well, back to the drawing board...
Anyway, seeing as I can now count myself amongst the advanced
testbed-bashers and just for the hell of it, my race design was as
follows:
Adjustoids
CA
IFE TT NRSE CE OBRM NAS
0.62-1.92, -60-92, 35-75 (1 in 14)
20%
1/1000
15/9/17/y
10/3/10
Bio Cheap, all others Exp@3
BBS, Max Minerals and Galaxy Clumping were selected. I also used a
medium packed universe, although I didn't inhabit it all. Anyone who
wants the game files, just send me an e-mail.
Comments:
CA Monsters rule. I've never even got above 50K with another race, and
this just tripled that. Except in extreme conditions, or just for fun
is there any reason to play another PRT?
I could have done with ISB. Not only did building all those space
stations slow my early factory building, they were micromanagement
hell with the lead time of 4-5 years in the queue.
Although CE is liveable in a testbed, I wouldn't like to have to use
it in a real game. Ditto for NAS, although the points are always
tempting. Other than that, I'd stick with the rest of my LRTs.
I could probably trim the hab a bit more yet. When the testbed got to
2440 there was hardly a red planet to be seen. It'd require some
rather more vigorous early scouting though. As it was I pretty much
just built a scout a year from 2402 until 2411 when it was looking
pretty much as though I'd never be short of worlds.
Cost 8 factories would have been good as planets took ages to max out
in the early game. Could probably pay for them by making the mine
settings a bit more frugal. Not something you'd want to do in a real
game, but in the testbed I was swimming in minerals and only needing
to build the odd colonizer.
As for the research, I think I made a few mistakes. Going with Medium
Freighter colonizers early on slowed my factories down a bit, and
maybe a quick sprint to Privateers would have been a more judicious
use of early resources. Similarly, I didn't always time my biotech
research to best advantage. Just letting it run on leftovers until
you've got a population squeeze and doing a quick burst to time it so
that just about all your planets will be at 25% when you hit the next
level of TT would seem the optimal route.
Also, for a real game, I'd have to take weapons cheap. Even a 200K
monster race is going to get outgunned if it's at weap 6 like mine was
when 2550 came up.
Finally, I gave up on micromanagement at 2440 and just genned from
then on. I'd concur with others that 200K is definitely possible and
hazard a guess at someome making 250K in the right conditions even.
Bye,
Matt
overw...@my-deja.com
Joseph Oberlander <oberl...@loop.com> wrote:
[snip CA and AR stuff]
> Can someone test this in a standard testbed(40-ish stars)? I wonder
what it
> would get.(Genuinely interested - no flame)
>
One of my earlier CA testbeds with a somewhat similar race stayed on
fewer planets (~50) and hit 122K by 2450. More planets with maxed pop
and factories, but probably not the route for hitting record resources
unless true HP-like factories are used.
I also wonder whether the "ton-o-planet" strategy would benefit from a
tradeoff of something in exchange for 1/900 pop efficiency.
FWIW,
- Kurt
--
"I don't pay attention to what men say, I just watch what they do."
- Andrew Carnegie
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
- Groucho Marx
Damon Domjan
wrote:
>Comments:
>CA Monsters rule. I've never even got above 50K with another race, and
>this just tripled that. Except in extreme conditions, or just for fun
>is there any reason to play another PRT?
Because CA's are dangerously boring. Even more boring than JoAT's.
You don't see many CA's at the advanced/expert level for precisely
that reason...
re over 50k. William Butler took an AR to ~75k. I'd say that's
pretty indicitive that any other race should be able to perform
similarly (granted William's an excellent player and one of our
resident AR gurus, but it shows the potential). I've hit 60k with a
one immune IT I posted awhile back, and that was only colonizing from
the HW - so better is certainly possible. After the recent spate of
200k pushing CA's, I feel fairly confident in declaring that at least
100k is possible using another PRT (JoAT or IS most easily).>Finally,
I gave up on micromanagement at 2440 and just genned from
<big snip>
>then on. I'd concur with others that 200K is definitely possible and
>hazard a guess at someome making 250K in the right conditions even.
300k anyone? :)
Canopus
What razor-sharp wit!
> Just as I though, a retarded teenage Quake player :)
> Your sort are just so damned predictable.
What a nimble mind! What mastery of the English language!
> Which is probably about as much as you've ever paid for anything in
your
> entire life you sad little ball of snot. Now toddle off and play Quake
> before mummy spanks you for hogging the phone.
I stand in awe of your greatness. Clearly, you are a superior human
being, possessing amazing intellectual skills and powers of persuasion.
We are all enhanced by your mere presence.
Matt Barber
> Because CA's are dangerously boring. Even more boring than JoAT's.
> You don't see many CA's at the advanced/expert level for precisely
> that reason...
Like I said "just for fun".
In any case, I don't see many expert/advanced games going on where a
CA monster would have the space to be at its most effective. In a tiny
packed universe it's just a one-world wonder with bad mine and
research settings, hence the "extreme conditions" clause.
> re over 50k. William Butler took an AR to ~75k. I'd say that's
> pretty indicitive that any other race should be able to perform
> similarly (granted William's an excellent player and one of our
> resident AR gurus, but it shows the potential). I've hit 60k with a
> one immune IT I posted awhile back, and that was only colonizing from
> the HW - so better is certainly possible. After the recent spate of
> 200k pushing CA's, I feel fairly confident in declaring that at least
> 100k is possible using another PRT (JoAT or IS most easily).
I'd concur, but having to additionally manage the terraforming by hand
(let's face it, there's no optimal production queue to cover all
circumstances) would make such an effort micromanagement hell. Unlike
with a CA, you can't just pump up the biotech research when you need
it. Anyone care to have a go with one?
> >then on. I'd concur with others that 200K is definitely possible and
> >hazard a guess at someome making 250K in the right conditions even.
>
> 300k anyone? :)
Take a centred one-world-wonder CA in a huge packed universe. Scout
like crazy from the off, be lucky enough to find a few greens. Balance
pop for optimal growth all the way to 2450 and burst on the biotech
research whenever you run out of worlds... and you might just do it.
I've not got that sort of time on my hands myself though...
Bye,
Matt
Asimov
> CA Monsters rule. I've never even got above 50K with another race, and
> this just tripled that. Except in extreme conditions, or just for fun
> is there any reason to play another PRT?
for fun? :)
> I could have done with ISB. Not only did building all those space
> stations slow my early factory building, they were micromanagement
> hell with the lead time of 4-5 years in the queue.
exactly the same experience i had
> Although CE is liveable in a testbed, I wouldn't like to have to use
> it in a real game. Ditto for NAS, although the points are always
> tempting. Other than that, I'd stick with the rest of my LRTs.
>
> I could probably trim the hab a bit more yet. When the testbed got to
> 2440 there was hardly a red planet to be seen. It'd require some
> rather more vigorous early scouting though. As it was I pretty much
> just built a scout a year from 2402 until 2411 when it was looking
> pretty much as though I'd never be short of worlds.
i had the whole small sparse (well, baring the odd planet here and there)
scouted by 2425, i think i made 3 on thefirst turn, 4 the turn after, then 3-4
the next
> Cost 8 factories would have been good as planets took ages to max out
> in the early game. Could probably pay for them by making the mine
> settings a bit more frugal. Not something you'd want to do in a real
> game, but in the testbed I was swimming in minerals and only needing
> to build the odd colonizer.
yea, with a max min's testbed, you really dont need much in the way of mines
> As for the research, I think I made a few mistakes. Going with Medium
> Freighter colonizers early on slowed my factories down a bit, and
> maybe a quick sprint to Privateers would have been a more judicious
> use of early resources. Similarly, I didn't always time my biotech
> research to best advantage. Just letting it run on leftovers until
> you've got a population squeeze and doing a quick burst to time it so
> that just about all your planets will be at 25% when you hit the next
> level of TT would seem the optimal route.
similar to what i did, but i pushed bio when i could get to the next level of
terra in 2 years or less
> Also, for a real game, I'd have to take weapons cheap. Even a 200K
> monster race is going to get outgunned if it's at weap 6 like mine was
> when 2550 came up.
well, do keep in mind that even with wep expensive, with a 200K monster race,
you can grab jihads in... well, i dont know exactly, but about a year
> Finally, I gave up on micromanagement at 2440 and just genned from
> then on. I'd concur with others that 200K is definitely possible and
> hazard a guess at someome making 250K in the right conditions even.
250..... hm... maybe with a very very good planet draw
asimov@efnet
asimov@starlink
Matt Barber
> similar to what i did, but i pushed bio when i could get to the next
> level of terra in 2 years or less
I'm pretty sure there must be an optimal point to throw your resources
into biotech research. Exactly when it is, and what the factors
involved are, seems hard to tell other than by trial and error though.
> > Also, for a real game, I'd have to take weapons cheap. Even a 200K
> > monster race is going to get outgunned if it's at weap 6 like mine was
> > when 2450 came up.
>
> well, do keep in mind that even with wep expensive, with a 200K
> monster race, you can grab jihads in... well, i dont know exactly,
> but about a year
If I got such a race to 2450 covering as much ground as I did, without
being molested, it'd most probably be game over. I'm more worried
about an earlier attack, possibly from a horde race. While it's true
you could throw your resources into weapons, they'd be diverted from
the biotech research and you'd most likely end up running out of
planets to dump your excess population on.
While cheap weapons wouldn't quite let you have your cake and eat it,
it'd make your race much more flexible against that sort of occurance.
> > Finally, I gave up on micromanagement at 2440 and just genned from
> > then on. I'd concur with others that 200K is definitely possible and
> > hazard a guess at someome making 250K in the right conditions even.
>
> 250..... hm... maybe with a very very good planet draw
I'd think it eminently possible. My race was doubling its resources
about every five years and I was distinctly slack with some of the
management. I got 157K in a medium universe and I didn't even scout
out half the planets, let alone colonize them. Just think of what
someone who put in the legwork could get in a huge...
Bye,
Matt
Damon Domjan
wrote:
>> 300k anyone? :)
>
>Take a centred one-world-wonder CA in a huge packed universe. Scout
>like crazy from the off, be lucky enough to find a few greens. Balance
>pop for optimal growth all the way to 2450 and burst on the biotech
>research whenever you run out of worlds... and you might just do it.
>I've not got that sort of time on my hands myself though...
The Superons can hit 35->50k fairly easily, but I doubt anything over
75k or so is possible, even with optimal MM. You really need the
starting hab to be at least halfway decent - like the 1/14 centered
hab that ends up being full hab.
Matt Barber
> >> 300k anyone? :)
[snip]
> The Superons can hit 35->50k fairly easily, but I doubt anything over
> 75k or so is possible, even with optimal MM. You really need the
> starting hab to be at least halfway decent - like the 1/14 centered
> hab that ends up being full hab.
Looking back at my race that got 157K, 1/14 (1/6 including intial CA
biotech) was probably too wide for the hab. I didn't need to scout
that much at all to find planets and that was just in a medium
universe. If you go to a huge universe and start building 2-3 scouts a
turn from the off, you could get away with less than that. Quite
possibly a lot less, although taking it all the way to
one-world-wonder proportions might indeed be a little extreme.
Looking at it more closely: A one world wonder CA (1/93) is equivalent
to about a 1/20 hab. That'd equate to around 50 green worlds in a huge
packed universe. This would be enough to keep you going for a while
assuming you could find enough of them quickly, of course. This would
be the difficult part.
You'd a huge amount of luck, as well as some extremely aggressive
scouting to do this. But just assuming you could, I'd imagine it'd be
plain sailing all the way to 300K once you start getting the biotech
research going. There's also the issue of the distance between worlds
that starts to become a factor once you're going for extremely small
hab ranges. Since this strategy would require throwing away huge
numbers of testbeds after 20 years or so until you got exactly the
right start, I'd say it'll probably remain in the realms of the
theoretical though.
The optimal answer probably lies somewhere in between the 1/14 and
1/93 habs. To anyone going for a new record, I'd be inclined to trim
it bit by bit until you find out how little you can get away with.
Bye,
Matt
Parallax
I remember when 50K was broken, and people redefined the monster.
I remember when 100K was considered the most you could ever get, until
it was broken.
Then, there was a pause.
Suddenly, someone broke 150K and people redefined the maximum to be
200.
Now, we're on the verge of breaking 200K and people are thinking that
250 may be the maximum.
OK, just so we know what we're looking at here, I made a little excel
spreadsheet with pop growth and pop/factory settings, to see what the
theoretical maximums are. The absolute best you can do at 2450 is
7,864,526,717 (Or over 7.8 billion) resources with a 20% growth HE
(Doubled to 40%) with the best factory and pop settings.
More realistic settings:
19% growth max fact: 2.3 million
19% growth normal fact: 1 million
Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
(1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
but the more accurate the better.
Then we can find out the _real_ maximum resources, and start shooting
to beat it :)
--Parallax
---------------------------------------------
Why do they call it Alcoholics Anonymous when
the first two things you tell people is your
name and the fact that you are an alcoholic?
Gary Seven
Parallax wrote:
>
>
> Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
> (1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
> on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
> see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
> need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
> pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
> Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
> to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
> but the more accurate the better.
>
> Then we can find out the _real_ maximum resources, and start shooting
> to beat it :)
A few things... your spreadsheet seems to assume unlimited germanium
(hard not to) and unlimited HW capacity (since all pop grows at the best
growth rate). To get a more meaningful number, you need to build in some
of the following factors:
When the HW reaches 25% of pop maximum, the pop has to be offloaded into
freighters. Freighters cost resources which dont get to build factories.
Each colonist over 25% level spends ~1.5 years in a freighter or colony
ship. (except for IS) they do not grow in space. CE spends ~2 years.
Colonists generally do not grow at their maximum rate on new colonies
(except tri-immunes). Try assuming a lower non HW average growth rate...
say 35%... or you could calculate one with real data if you would like.
-Gary Seven
Asimov
news:383af7ea....@news.apk.net...
> Now, we're on the verge of breaking 200K and people are thinking that
> 250 may be the maximum.
>
> OK, just so we know what we're looking at here, I made a little excel
> spreadsheet with pop growth and pop/factory settings, to see what the
> theoretical maximums are. The absolute best you can do at 2450 is
> 7,864,526,717 (Or over 7.8 billion) resources with a 20% growth HE
> (Doubled to 40%) with the best factory and pop settings.
ACK!@!, you mean with 15/x/25 fact's? or with the max fact's you could get
with a 20(40)?
> More realistic settings:
>
> 19% growth max fact: 2.3 million
> 19% growth normal fact: 1 million
ACK!@! again...
> Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
> (1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
> on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
> see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
> need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
> pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
> Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
> to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
> but the more accurate the better.
>
> Then we can find out the _real_ maximum resources, and start shooting
> to beat it :)
what i'm wondering is what the jeff's had in mind as a theoretical "max" res a
race could get, and if that has been exceeded, and by how much. also, if they
still truely consider CA "balanced"... NOT asking them to change it - i know
they have already said they wouldnt, and, well, as much as i would like to see
that, i can see reasons not to
asimov@efnet
asimov@starlink
Schnobs
>
> OK, just so we know what we're looking at here, I made a little excel
> spreadsheet with pop growth and pop/factory settings, to see what the
> theoretical maximums are. The absolute best you can do at 2450 is
> 7,864,526,717 (Or over 7.8 billion) resources with a 20% growth HE
> (Doubled to 40%) with the best factory and pop settings.
Ouch.
The two latest records both had an actual growth rate of
more than 13%; assume 14.5% as the maximum of an CA race.
for non-CAs its harder to estimate but I think it is a great
result if they can stay over 12.5%.
Also, be careful with factories; i haven't seen the turnfiles,
but assume that you can build only some 75-80% of your maximum.
cu,
Schnobs
Jeffrey Hoyt
www.crosswinds.net/~novabase/ca_record.zip
Hopefully we can take the load off the poor guy who put in the time to set the
record.
Jeff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This one's mental."
"Eccentric."
"What's the difference?"
"A bag of cash."
Varn
Parallax wrote in message <383af7ea....@news.apk.net>...
<snip>
>Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
>(1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
>on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
>see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
>need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
>pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
>Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
>to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
>but the more accurate the better.
In terms of achieved pop growth up to 2450, you can only expect to get
within about 1-2% of the value in the RW if you use a tri-immune race. Since
these are only viable for HE races, due to the low growth rate you are
forced to take in order to pay for tri-immunity, they can be eliminated from
contention, since the most a tri-immune HE can ever get as about 80k at
2450. Note that before the patch change which adjusted a race's starting pop
by 5k for each 1% of it's growth rate above or below 15%, a low growth race
would have been more viable, and high growth races like a 20% CA would have
had 25% less pop to start with and thus almost 25% less maximum resources at
2450.
With a non-immune race, you are doing well if you achieve about 57% of the
growth rate given in the RW up to 2450, assuming a typical growth rate of
about 17-18% and average 1 in 4 or so hab. That basically means about 10%
achieved growth for an 18% race up to year 50. Obviously the higher that RW
growth rate is, the harder it is to achieve such a fraction because you
start running into crowding/moving problems sooner. Same applies to a
narrower initial hab. With a CA you have the advantage of instaforming,
which results in less lost growth on lower value worlds. When I hit 192k
resources in 2450 with the Aarth, I had 67.25 million pop, which equates to
about 13.5% achieved growth, or 67% of the growth rate in the RW. That was
with 20% RW growth and a 1 in 13 starting hab (really 1 in 7 with the
initial TT instaforming available). The other 125k resources were from
factories, which means factories were being operated by 83% of the pop at
2450.
In conclusion, my opinion is that 250k might be achievable, but only with a
very narrow hab 20% growth TT CA and an extremely lucky hab draw :)
FWIW,
Varn
Varn
Regards,
Varn
Jeffrey Hoyt wrote in message
<19991123225445...@ngol08.aol.com>...
David Moen
>
> With a non-immune race, you are doing well if you achieve about 57% of the
> growth rate given in the RW up to 2450, assuming a typical growth rate of
> about 17-18% and average 1 in 4 or so hab. That basically means about 10%
> achieved growth for an 18% race up to year 50. Obviously the higher that RW
> growth rate is, the harder it is to achieve such a fraction because you
> start running into crowding/moving problems sooner. Same applies to a
> narrower initial hab.
Hmm. I was toying with a 19% 1in3 non-immune -f IT, just for fun. The best
I got was 11.07% achieved pop growth, which is a bit over 58% of the growth
rate. With an IT I would expect to do better than other races, but as you say,
the 19% makes it a bit harder due to speed at which crowding is reached. I'm
not sure how the 1in3 should affect things - the higher number of greens is
offset by a lower average value. In 2450, I had colonized 35 of 40 planets,
of which 12 were still yellow. All but 5 of the greens were fully terraformed.
No planet other than the HW made it to 100%. The average planet value in the
universe was only 37% at that time, including the negative values of reds and
yellows.
I'm going to try again with a 1-immune variant. I expect to do better.
CiM
Parallax <para...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:383af7ea....@news.apk.net...
<snip for bandwidth's sake>
Charles
----------
ct.o...@spammers.die.virgin.net
CiM on csir.zanet.org.za (IRC)
ICQ 40685874
People who design things to be foolproof underestimate the ingenuity of
fools.
- Mike Atkinson
To reply by email please remove "spammers.die."
Varn
David Moen wrote in message <383BD0...@ibm.net.hormelless>...
>Varn wrote:
>>
>> With a non-immune race, you are doing well if you achieve about 57% of
the
>> growth rate given in the RW up to 2450, assuming a typical growth rate of
>> about 17-18% and average 1 in 4 or so hab. That basically means about 10%
>> achieved growth for an 18% race up to year 50. Obviously the higher that
RW
>> growth rate is, the harder it is to achieve such a fraction because you
>> start running into crowding/moving problems sooner. Same applies to a
>> narrower initial hab.
>
>Hmm. I was toying with a 19% 1in3 non-immune -f IT, just for fun. The best
>I got was 11.07% achieved pop growth, which is a bit over 58% of the growth
>rate.
Pretty good. If it hadn't been -f, and instead had say 12/9/16 facs you
would probably have had about 50k resources instead of what, 20k?
>With an IT I would expect to do better than other races, but as you say,
>the 19% makes it a bit harder due to speed at which crowding is reached.
I really don't think the IT advantage is worth very much in this regard -
reduced loss of growth in transit once gates are up, but since the majority
of growth is lost through lower planet values and crowding is a very
marginal gain - certainly no more than 1% difference to the % of RW value
achieved. IOW 58% would be right for an IT.
>I'm
>not sure how the 1in3 should affect things - the higher number of greens is
>offset by a lower average value.
You are still better off with the wider hab, since narrower hab races will
often have to put some of their pop on reds/yellows which would be green
with more width.
>In 2450, I had colonized 35 of 40 planets,
>of which 12 were still yellow. All but 5 of the greens were fully
terraformed.
>No planet other than the HW made it to 100%. The average planet value in
the
>universe was only 37% at that time, including the negative values of reds
and
>yellows.
>
>I'm going to try again with a 1-immune variant. I expect to do better.
Yep, 1 immunity is usually worth an extra 1% RW growth in terms of achieved
growth to year 50, even though the other two fields will likely be narrower
and overal initial hab might only be about 1 in 8 on average. So figure 60%
achieved growth as being a good standard for those rather than 57%.
Regards,
Varn
Kalizec
You can't gain more factories each year the number of res the previous year.
So starting with 100res total you could build 100/factory cost + factories
already build = factories next year.
Using this you can easily catch the maximum.
I myself use a spreadsheet to check the growth of HW and stuff. It should be
possible to use it for multiple planets.
Parallax <para...@apk.net> wrote in message
news:383af7ea....@news.apk.net...
> I remember back when 25K by 2450 was broken, and the monster was born.
> I remember when 50K was broken, and people redefined the monster.
> I remember when 100K was considered the most you could ever get, until
> it was broken.
> Then, there was a pause.
> Suddenly, someone broke 150K and people redefined the maximum to be
> 200.
> Now, we're on the verge of breaking 200K and people are thinking that
> 250 may be the maximum.
>
> OK, just so we know what we're looking at here, I made a little excel
> spreadsheet with pop growth and pop/factory settings, to see what the
> theoretical maximums are. The absolute best you can do at 2450 is
> 7,864,526,717 (Or over 7.8 billion) resources with a 20% growth HE
> (Doubled to 40%) with the best factory and pop settings.
>
> More realistic settings:
>
> 19% growth max fact: 2.3 million
> 19% growth normal fact: 1 million
>
> Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
> (1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
> on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
> see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
> need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
> pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
> Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
> to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
> but the more accurate the better.
>
> Then we can find out the _real_ maximum resources, and start shooting
> to beat it :)
>
Thomas Harley
>spreadsheet with pop growth and pop/factory settings, to see what the
>theoretical maximums are. The absolute best you can do at 2450 is
>7,864,526,717 (Or over 7.8 billion) resources with a 20% growth HE
>(Doubled to 40%) with the best factory and pop settings.
You realize this costs 2575 race wizard points, right?
>
>More realistic settings:
>
>19% growth max fact: 2.3 million
>19% growth normal fact: 1 million
>
>Of course, these are obviously impossible to reach in a real game
>(1000K resources by 2450 with the Humanoids!). Anybody have any ideas
>on how we can make the numbers a little more realistic? I'd like to
>see, basically, what the REAL maximum is for any race? I basically
>need a paring down factor of growth/year for population (19% growth of
>pop total means what in reality for a real good MM worker? 15%? More?
>Less?) and a way to figure out how many factories a race would be able
>to build by 2450, 100%, 50%... The simpler the formulas, the better,
>but the more accurate the better.
>
Well, all right, I'll try this out.
With a race like the following:
JoAT
IFE TT NRSE OBRM NAS
All hab right-shifted 3 clicks, 38 wide (1/16, I think)
20% growth rate
1/1200
15/x/25/3g
10/3/12
All tech expensive, don't start @4
And assuming:
~70% of growth rate achieved (14%)
~80 planets
Planets at ~75% capacity (in factories, not pop)
Then:
Population in 2450: 105,034,900
Resources from pop: 87529
Resources from factories: 297000
Total resources in 2450: 384529
So, maybe, with TONS of MM and a really good player, over 300 or even 350k
could be possible -- but it would not be easy.
Thomas Harley
tha...@aol.com.no.spam
<remove .no.spam to reply via e-mail>
Varn
Thomas Harley wrote in message
<19991124110706...@ng-fe1.aol.com>...
>Well, all right, I'll try this out.
>
>With a race like the following:
>
>JoAT
>IFE TT NRSE OBRM NAS
>All hab right-shifted 3 clicks, 38 wide (1/16, I think)
>20% growth rate
>1/1200
>15/x/25/3g
>10/3/12
>All tech expensive, don't start @4
>
>And assuming:
>
>~70% of growth rate achieved (14%)
Not a cat's chance in hell with this race :)
If you achieve 55% of growth rate you'll be doing well with that narrow hab
and no instaforming.
>~80 planets
>Planets at ~75% capacity (in factories, not pop)
>
>Then:
>
>Population in 2450: 105,034,900
Not likely to get more than 30 million. Besides which, you can't even
support that much pop with 80 planets.
Even assuming every planet was 100% value (which they wouldn't be with 1 in
16 hab and expensive bio) you'd have to have every one filled to 100%
capacity. Seriously, there isn't a non-CA race that can even come close to
150k resources, never mind 200k.
>Resources from pop: 87529
>Resources from factories: 297000
>
>Total resources in 2450: 384529
Well, go test it and tell me how you did. If you can get even 38k resources
with this race I'll be impressed, never mind 384k :)
>So, maybe, with TONS of MM and a really good player, over 300 or even 350k
>could be possible -- but it would not be easy.
With a non CA race, it's simply not possible to get more than about 100k
resources - they terraform too slowly. With a CA, 225k is probably just
within the realms of possibility. 250k? Only if you take extremely narrow
hab and literally win the lottery when it comes to hab draw :)
Regards,
Varn
Thomas Harley
>If you achieve 55% of growth rate you'll be doing well with that narrow hab
>and no instaforming.
>
Well, yes, I see now. Then the acheived growth would be ~11%, giving around
27.6M pop. If it could be done (and still on the 80 planets I mentioned
earlier), then each planet would be about 25% industralized, giving only about
121k. Oh well, back to the drawing board. I was hoping JoAT's +20% planet
size would help, but it's still no match for a CA. (Maybe that explains why my
CA record is 47k whlie my JoAT record is only 25k?)
>>~80 planets
>>Planets at ~75% capacity (in factories, not pop)
>>
>>Then:
>>
>>Population in 2450: 105,034,900
>
>Not likely to get more than 30 million.
See above.
Besides which, you can't even
>support that much pop with 80 planets.
Yes, you can. (99.46% capacity with OBRM JoAT, assuming all 100% planets
(which, I admit, is _extremely_unlikely))
>Even assuming every planet was 100% value (which they wouldn't be with 1 in
>16 hab and expensive bio) you'd have to have every one filled to 100%
>capacity. Seriously, there isn't a non-CA race that can even come close to
>150k resources, never mind 200k.
>
Again, I guess I was overestimating a JoAT's powers. Gotta use CA to get
anything really high.
>>Resources from pop: 87529
>>Resources from factories: 297000
>>
>>Total resources in 2450: 384529
>
>Well, go test it and tell me how you did. If you can get even 38k resources
>with this race I'll be impressed, never mind 384k :)
Really, I'd be impressed if I could get 20k with it. I'm only a low
intermediate.
>
>>So, maybe, with TONS of MM and a really good player, over 300 or even 350k
>>could be possible -- but it would not be easy.
>
>With a non CA race, it's simply not possible to get more than about 100k
>resources - they terraform too slowly. With a CA, 225k is probably just
>within the realms of possibility. 250k? Only if you take extremely narrow
>hab and literally win the lottery when it comes to hab draw :)
Which does not happen very often :-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Varn
Wilbur07
>150k resources, never mind 200k.
>
You're right about the 200K, but 150 is reachable with an IT who can gate
colonists around like nobody's business. That means only 1 turn spent not
breeding so that means overall growth rate can approach 14-15%. With 150K
starting population (they get 2 planets), that means over 100 million
population by turn 50, or 100+K resources due to population alone. Give
another 0.5 points per thousand due to factories and you break the 150K barrier
easily. I've even demonstrated this (although I only reached 127K, it is
easily seen that I could have gotten more in another testbed -- my hab only got
me 78 out of 240 planets and you need around 100 or more planets to hold 100
million pop).
Mark Constantino
Varn
Wilbur07 wrote in message <19991128121253...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
My statement was based on the assumption that people weren't going to be
pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
without scouting. With that method, yes it's fairly easy to get >150k with a
non CA and >250k with a CA. To be honest though, I consider such results to
be about as meaningful as doing them with a hacked race, since in both cases
you are giving yourself an advantage that you would never have in a real
game (prior knowledge of the entire universe, in this case).
Regards,
Varn
Boomer Lu
>pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
>without scouting. With that method, yes it's fairly easy to get >150k with a
>non CA and >250k with a CA. To be honest though, I consider such results to
>be about as meaningful as doing them with a hacked race, since in both cases
>you are giving yourself an advantage that you would never have in a real
>game (prior knowledge of the entire universe, in this case).
>
Consider this, you give yourself advantages in a testbed that you would rarely
or never have in a real game either. Things like no enemies, Maximum minerals
(although some people choose it), low mine settings for the points, lots of
expensive research except Bio for CA, LRTs that make playing the offense a pain
but are great point mines when you have no enemies. Although I think
pre-scanning is worse than some of these, testbed results are only useful for
determining theoritcal maximums in ideal conditions, and not for what a race
can do in a REAL game with BRUTAL human players.
All IMHO ofc.
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"
Boomer Lu
>pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
>without scouting. With that method, yes it's fairly easy to get >150k with a
>non CA and >250k with a CA. To be honest though, I consider such results to
>be about as meaningful as doing them with a hacked race, since in both cases
>you are giving yourself an advantage that you would never have in a real
>game (prior knowledge of the entire universe, in this case).
>
In addition to my previous statement I will add:
Once while watching Primetime World records (If I remember the name correctly),
I witnessed somebody attempting the full body burn record. I assumed that he
would be unprotected. Boy was I wrong. That guy tried out a bunch of different
gels and suits to make sure he got the optimal time.
I thought that wasn't a valid test. Later, I still thought it wasn't a valid
test, but it was a valid record. A record is a record, no matter its validity
in realistic circumstances. Sure, testbed circumstances might be real, but not
realistic. They are real because somebody has used them (just like the stuff
used to attempt the record), but not standard. Oh boy, I feel another
philosophical debate coming up.
Wilbur07
>pre-scanning is worse than some of these
And why is that? You generate a universe, find that you have no greens within
one turn of your HW, so you generate again. This is exactly the same thing,
except that instead of wasting a few turns finding out that you don't like the
universe, you prescan the whole thing to see if it is *possible* to reach your
benchmark for the testbed. All this crap about "cheating" is really dumb
because it's a testbed after all. You state your initial conditions and go
with that. People are free to play with different initial conditions.
>testbed results are only useful for
>determining theoritcal maximums in ideal conditions, and not for what a race
>can do in a REAL game with BRUTAL human players.
>
This goes without saying. Nobody is claiming that testbed designs are useful
for anything else but the testbeds. But it is a useful exercise in determining
optimal colonization strategies for a given PRT and set of LRT's. If I had the
time I'd go play a real game, but I only have a few evenings off where I can
play, and this type of contest is perfect for me as I can play when I want to
and not be forced to wait for other players. Like the card game Solitaire,
testbedding can be fun in and of itself. The game is Stars! so I don't see any
reason why I can't post about it here, especially since I'm not the one who
started this topic!
This is *not* IMO, humble or not, this is the reality of this game -- I'm not
hurting anyone and I'm using my copy of Stars! perfectly legally. Some people
just have to be spoilsports I guess . . . "Oh, he got 251K but he prescanned
the universe -- that invalidates the whole testbed". Sure, without prescanning
he gets 240K, big deal. Everyone else is free to prescan (or should be) --
nothing except some opinions of people on the newsgroup are stopping you, if
that means anything to you.
I know when Jason says congratulations, I feel good about it!
Thanks Jason (name drop, name drop).
Mark Constantino
Wilbur07
>pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
>without scouting.
But you do scout when you Pre-Gen! :-) But seriously, when I first started I
didn't know where the best planets were, and then I didn't hit the benchmarks
for year 10, so I started again. So I knew where the best planets were in a
200 ly radius -- eventually not hitting the year 40 benchmark allowed me to see
the whole universe when I started again. Should I have regenerated the
universe when I was testing for certain colonization strategies? I wanted to
compare resource curves for both, and I needed a static universe as a control.
Eventually, I went with the policy of pre-scouting a universe so I wouldn't
have to waste time later restarting a whole new universe.
ATTENTION EVERYBODY
I'm learning a lot about the optimal expansion strategy with this exercise, so
I don't think it's useless at all.
I think prescanning should be allowed for this type of testbed, because max
minerals is also allowed. We're testing for base expansion potential and we're
seeing how the PRT's affect this potential. So far we see that free
terraforming beats all other PRT's hands down, but now we're seeing that
expanded gating also gives an advantage over, say, larger planets or transport
breeding (I think -- haven't tested IS yet).
If you don't think the exercise has any merit, than that's fine. But many of
us think it's kinda fun (I do), knowing that a player game is a completely
different thing. That's why I named my race "The Munchkins" after all. So
don't be a downer and complain that we're all a bunch of cheaters like Canopus
-- none of us has actually hacked into a race file. And then again, who are
you to make the rules for something that *we* do for our entertainment? We're
not affecting any games that you play (unlike Canopus), nor are we stating that
we're better players than anybody else (I *know* I'm not). So what's the
problem?
I'll continue playing Stars! the way I like to play it and post here because
this is the Stars! newsgroup. After all, I paid 35 bucks for it like everybody
else . . .
Mark Constantino
Schnobs
>
> My statement was based on the assumption that people weren't going to be
> pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
> without scouting.
Could someone, please, explain in detail the benfits?
As I said, in my approach the scouts were at all times
ahead of my people, so I see no valid point there.
But on the economic side I only can make assumptions, and
would like to hear the opinions of people who know.
Wilbur07
>realistic. They are real because somebody has used them (just like the stuff
>used to attempt the record), but not standard.
And another thing, why should you go about the trouble with enforcing a stupid
standard when everybody is free to do the same thing. For me, once you say
"max minerals" the question of reality has gone out the window. It's not a
realistic testbed anymore. Therefore, in that spirit, prescanning should also
be allowed, because it's inevitable, and because it's hard to enforce
otherwise. It's just one of the set initial conditions you have for the
testbed.
>Oh boy, I feel another
>philosophical debate coming up.
Some people have fun spoiling everybody else's fun :-) Now that's stuff for a
debate/flame-altercation . . .
Anyway, with a Non-CA, you get a real nice hab rating anyway, so an optimal
universe is statistically more likely and so you pregenerate universes much
less than when you do a CA with a low hab. I just wanted to note that -- one
of the advantages of a good hab.
Mark Constantino
Schnobs
> But you do scout when you Pre-Gen! :-) But seriously, when I first started I
> didn't know where the best planets were, and then I didn't hit the benchmarks
> for year 10, so I started again.
Pre-genning the hard way....
No seriously, everybody who had a new record admitted he had a lucky
draw,
and pre-genning to force the "lucky" thing is alright. At least noone
has
complained about THAT.
The problem is that some people suspect the last record may have been
made without building any scouts.
IMO thats a big step towards cheating, but yet I suspect it doesn't
alter
the outcome much, if at all.
cu,
Schnobs
Dr. Dot
>This is *not* IMO, humble or not, this is the reality of this game -- I'm
not
>hurting anyone and I'm using my copy of Stars! perfectly legally. Some
people
>just have to be spoilsports I guess . . . "Oh, he got 251K but he
prescanned
>the universe -- that invalidates the whole testbed". Sure, without
prescanning
>he gets 240K, big deal. Everyone else is free to prescan (or should be) --
>nothing except some opinions of people on the newsgroup are stopping you,
if
>that means anything to you.
>
It is a valid record attempt (heck I could not do it), but pre-scanning the
universe makes it a very different record than that of a non-scanned. With a
pre-scanned universe the record becomes more a contest of patience and work
than actual skill in maximising econ growth. If I wanted I could create a
JoAT 1WW and "just" pre-scan the universe until I found one with only
greens, the resuting record would be quite impressive. The workload would be
enormous and could not be compleated in a lifetime, but the same could be
done with a wider hab and less work.
Dr. Dot
Asimov
> >determining theoritcal maximums in ideal conditions, and not for what a
race
> >can do in a REAL game with BRUTAL human players.
> >
>
> This goes without saying. Nobody is claiming that testbed designs are
useful
> for anything else but the testbeds.
i'll say this, i'll even show you, wanna play a game?
only change i'll make from the testbed races is normal bio/start at 3 (if it
takes extra points, i'll take it out of hab)
Asimov
> draw,
> and pre-genning to force the "lucky" thing is alright.
nope, when i got 156 it was an average draw - nothing special at all
> The problem is that some people suspect the last record may have been
> made without building any scouts.
> IMO thats a big step towards cheating, but yet I suspect it doesn't
> alter
> the outcome much, if at all.
same here, the effect is negligible long term, from experience of building ~10
(with ife) to scan the universe compared to 20-25 (without ife) to scan. it
doesnt make any apprciable difference, at least with my play, for one main
reason, on the HW initially, its a breeder, as long as i can make 2 ships a
year, i'm fine and dont care what the factories produce, they will be green
soon enough anyway
Schnobs
> doesnt make any apprciable difference, at least with my play, for one main
> reason, on the HW initially, its a breeder, as long as i can make 2 ships a
> year, i'm fine and dont care what the factories produce, they will be green
> soon enough anyway
Its not that easy... if your HW has a higher production capacity
it can build a few more ships for your breeders too - thus saving
them some precious resources on their first few turns, making them
ramp up considerably faster.
I didn't testbed this, but I expect if you add it all up you will
reach TT10 at least one turn earlier, maybe even two...
The question is: how many more people will this extra turn of better
terra give you in the long run? I can't even make a guess, to be true.
In another post I said max 5%, but I wouldn't bet too much money on it.
Wilbur07
>useful
>> for anything else but the testbeds.
>
>i'll say this, i'll even show you, wanna play a game?
I would but I have no time. I think the testbed designs don't have enough
mining capacity at all -- *and* they're building factories so that you don't
have any germanium to use. Depends on how you play them.
Mark Constantino
Wilbur07
>pre-scanned universe the record becomes more a contest of patience and work
>than actual skill in maximising econ growth.
Right you are! It becomes more of a question of patience and work which is
what MM is all about! Skill in maximising econ growth is something that
handles all initial conditions, which can probably never be covered in a
testbed. But still, you know more of what kind of strategies are available if
you do testbed, and it helps you in a real game.
>If I wanted I could create a
>JoAT 1WW and "just" pre-scan the universe until I found one with only
>greens
I see your point, and it is well-taken. But some leeway is probably in order
because of statistical variation. Some universes are just plain going to be
better for a given design than others. Why not choose one of the better ones
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.
>but the same could be
>done with a wider hab and less work.
>
The higher your hab is, the more statistically likely it is that you get an
amenable universe. Here, non-CA's get an advantage because they have to up
their hab just to compete.
Mark Constantino
Asimov
"Wilbur07" <wilb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991129014002...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
honestly, i forgot all about the mines being as low as they are in most of
these... mine used 10/3/10, and for a game.... questionable, even if i got
live everywhere
i'll be happy to play one in a game... but i'm afraid i'll have to ask for
higher number of planets per player. i'd also like to be able to keep the
spirit of this race, but change a few things, like the tech as i said, and the
minerals... can live with the rest i believe
Cody Hatch
>
> Wilbur07 wrote in message <19991128121253...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
> >>Seriously, there isn't a non-CA race that can even come close to
> >>150k resources, never mind 200k.
> >>
> >
> >You're right about the 200K, but 150 is reachable with an IT who can gate
> >colonists around like nobody's business. That means only 1 turn spent not
> >breeding so that means overall growth rate can approach 14-15%. With 150K
> >starting population (they get 2 planets), that means over 100 million
> >population by turn 50, or 100+K resources due to population alone. Give
> >another 0.5 points per thousand due to factories and you break the 150K
> >barrier
> >easily. I've even demonstrated this (although I only reached 127K, it is
> >easily seen that I could have gotten more in another testbed -- my hab only
> >got
> >me 78 out of 240 planets and you need around 100 or more planets to hold
> >100
> >million pop).
>
> pregenning for the optimal universe then going straight to the best greens
> non CA and >250k with a CA.
Fairly easy? I'd have to quibble with THAT! If it was, we'd probably
already have someone who'd reached >150K with a non-CA, or more than one
that reached 250K with a CA. I've never broken 100K with ANYTHING, so
it can't be "easy". :-) Besides, as others have pointed out, you
usually have the time to scan before you colonize anyway, and the
resource penalty for building scouts is fairly small.
> To be honest though, I consider such results to
> be about as meaningful as doing them with a hacked race, since in both cases
> you are giving yourself an advantage that you would never have in a real
> game (prior knowledge of the entire universe, in this case).
I'd have to respectfully say: Nonsense! Testbeds have ALWAYS taken
place in conditions you'd never have in a real game. What's the
standard test? Answer: One with maximum minerals, lots of space, and
no opposition! That's never happened to ME in a real game. :-) If we
accept results in a Max Mins universe as valid (and we do), then we
might as well accept pre-scanned universes.
The key here is that it's only cheating if you break a rule. In a real
game, the rule is that you don't pre-scan (since you assume other
players aren't doing so, it gives you an unfair advantage). But in a
testbed, that's only a rule if you make it one, and no ones done that
(yet). IOW, as long as it's stated, a pre-scanned result is as "valid"
as any other.
Cody
Boomer Lu
>>JoAT 1WW and "just" pre-scan the universe until I found one with only
>>greens
>
>I see your point, and it is well-taken. But some leeway is probably in order
>because of statistical variation. Some universes are just plain going to be
>better for a given design than others. Why not choose one of the better ones
>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.
As I have posted before:
"That which is not explicitly forbidden is guaranteed to occur." - The Physics
of Star Trek by Lawrence M. Krauss.
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.
>
>>but the same could be
>>done with a wider hab and less work.
>>
>
>The higher your hab is, the more statistically likely it is that you get an
>amenable universe. Here, non-CA's get an advantage because they have to up
>their hab just to compete.
Advantage? CAs use it as a point mine (some at least). I'd say it's a
disadvantage to HAVE to up it to compete. Well, we're just getting more and
more OT aren't we?
Cody Hatch
>
> >With a
> >pre-scanned universe the record becomes more a contest of patience and work
> >than actual skill in maximising econ growth.
>
> Right you are! It becomes more of a question of patience and work which is
> what MM is all about! Skill in maximising econ growth is something that
> handles all initial conditions, which can probably never be covered in a
> testbed. But still, you know more of what kind of strategies are available if
> you do testbed, and it helps you in a real game.
An excellent point. A race that gets a lucky draw will do better than
one who gets a worse draw. Since there's no way to "cap" the amount of
luck you get, the only solution is for all races participating in a
contest to try and narrow the band as much as possible by discarding
poor universes. If 300K is the maximum achieved with the best possible
universe (obtained through looking at thousands of universes and
choosing the best), then that's likely to be an absolute "best". OTOH,
if a race gets 300K from the first universe generated, it's quite
possible that MORE than 300K is possible, since the universe was almost
certainly not even close to otimal for that race.
Besides, good luck will happen no matter what. You can't stop it
happening (and thus skewing the results), but you CAN ensure that it
does happen, thus making the results more reliable, for the purposes of
comparison between other such results. The ideal solution would be some
sort of "max hab" option (to go with Max Mins), which gaurentees (if
it's a single player game) that all planets will be 100%. We don't have
it, so prescanning is the next best thing.
Cody
Jim Oly
Boomer Lu <boom...@aol.com.nospam> wrote:
[...]
>>Why not choose one of the better ones
>>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. ;)
>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.
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.
Needless to say, I don't expect to see any testbeds having all green
planets for a 1WW.
[...]
>Well, we're just getting more and more OT aren't we?
And now even more OT. :) Hope this wasn't too boring.
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_
wilb...@aol.com
boom...@aol.com.nospam (Boomer Lu) wrote:
>
> 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.
Actually, the chance is (1/171)^238 to get all greens with a 1WW (2
planet IT or PP) in a small packed universe. On my pocket calculator,
that comes up as ZERO! It's hardly capable of handling such a small
number. On the Windoze calculator app, the result is "Result too small"
(overflow on a 32 or 64 or 128 bit register -- dunno what it uses). The
age of the Earth is about 4 billion years, or 1.26144e+17 seconds. If
you generated *and* prescanned a universe once every second, it would
take you on the order of 1e+221 or so times the age of the Earth to gain
such a result. That is still a mind boggling number, since you can
square the age of the Earth and still spend over 1e+187 times that
result finding your dream universe for your 1WW. Okay, pregenerate and
prescan a universe once every nanosecond, then you only spend 1e+178
times the age of the Earth squared finding that all green universe. Of
course, the fastest computers available run, maybe at 1 Gigaflop per
second or 1 floating point operation per 1e-9 second (nanosecond). How
many flops does it take to generate a Stars! universe? A few thousand
at least? Do you think God had that problem pregenning and prescanning
*our* universe?
The chance in this case is absolutely mind boggling!
Or not! I would say that that chance is, for all practical purposes,
ZERO, which is very easily understandable.
:-) Stars! players, or number crunchers by nature, should know this!
>
> >
> >>but the same could be
> >>done with a wider hab and less work.
> >>
> >
> >The higher your hab is, the more statistically likely it is that you
get an
> >amenable universe. Here, non-CA's get an advantage because they have
to up
> >their hab just to compete.
>
> Advantage? CAs use it as a point mine (some at least). I'd say it's a
> disadvantage to HAVE to up it to compete. Well, we're just getting
more and
> more OT aren't we?
>
> Boomer
>
Of course I use the term "advantage" loosely. Of course it's an overall
disadvantage, but regarding avoiding pregenning a universe for optimal
results, it is a relative advantage over the low hab of the CA. Context
is important when you read what someone says!
OT? What? We're discussing Stars! related activities? What's so OT
about that?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wilb...@aol.com
jame...@cs.uiuc.edu (Jim Oly) wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Needless to say, I don't expect to see any testbeds having all green
> planets for a 1WW.
>
Ahhh, someone else beat me to the punch! And gave an even *better*
reason for the chance of 1WW wonder universes being ZERO. We were even
discussing pseudo-random number generators on the
rec.games.roguelike.angband newsgroup a little while ago, and I wonder
why I forgot this very point! Okay, for my explanation, the
number-cruncher you use has a quantum bit generator based on the
probability of a photon with a given polarization passing through a
diffraction grating at a 45 degree angle to the photon's polarization.
Therefore, each photon has exactly a 50% chance of passing through and
generating a 1 for each bit in the array. So with this true random
number generator (indeed, I think this is like the perpetual motion
machine -- never achievable but perhaps approachable) you can keep
generating true random universes at a rate of 1 per nanosecond. Make
the universe tiny sparse, or 40 planets and use a PP 1WW. Then, it
would only take you about 1e+11 times the age of the Earth to get your
desired result!
> [...]
> >Well, we're just getting more and more OT aren't we?
>
> And now even more OT. :) Hope this wasn't too boring.
>
> 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_
>
Ahh! Check out the David Brin mailing list people! Very interesting
conversations . . . and very OT of course.
Parallax
Why stop there, the age of the galaxy is somewhere around 20 billion
years, and there are 200 billion stars in the galaxy. Let's say there
are 10 inhabited planets circling each star and all of those planets
are full of 100 billion people who play Stars! (Is your mouth watering
yet, Jeff?)
These people have been generating universes since the galaxy was
formed, at the rate of 1 per second.
OK, 631,152,000,000,000,000 seconds have gone by (6.3e+17)
We've got 200,000,000,000 stars and 2,000,000,000,000 planets, so that
means we have 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people (2e+23)
Multiply these together, we have 12.6e+40 or 1.3e+41 universes.
Not even scratching the surface!
I love scientific notation.
--Parallax
Parallax
>Why stop there, the age of the galaxy is somewhere around 20 billion
>years, and there are 200 billion stars in the galaxy. Let's say there
>are 10 inhabited planets circling each star and all of those planets
>are full of 100 billion people who play Stars! (Is your mouth watering
>yet, Jeff?)
>
>These people have been generating universes since the galaxy was
>formed, at the rate of 1 per second.
>
>OK, 631,152,000,000,000,000 seconds have gone by (6.3e+17)
>We've got 200,000,000,000 stars and 2,000,000,000,000 planets, so that
>means we have 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people (2e+23)
>
>Multiply these together, we have 12.6e+40 or 1.3e+41 universes.
Oh, BTW, there are somewhere around 100 billion (1e+11) galaxies in
the universe, putting us at about 1.3e+52 if everybody in the universe
did this.
--Parallax
Jason Cawley
Parallax wrote in message <38441407...@news.apk.net>...
putting us at about 1.3e+52 if everybody in the universe
>did this.
Und, by zee vay, 1/171 ^ 238 is 3.52310613493e-532, as Mathematica informed
me in about 1/2 a second :-) That's if you want the numerical
approximation. If you want the actual *integer* math result, then that is -
1/28384044127550889545086898664944484879371148036620173187265649271468466714
61
5398169941284445728884130118149181869616560400397223596193583125074693689222
67
6054772800270257955834933639578427954323677013436283530780031395864900020710
05
4741390385590241738488639447717700123935573019539979955870952088322605128955
45
9999821203771379343761543645505652220495852146711705363572422351297557817262
74
5529149741902506666788292955867381597950088640004838005947319011980160953002
82
325825739801192600046417297109843341851663674233478810847816825161
Try that on your slide rule :-)
On a completely unrelated topic ('cept via general geekiness ;-), I thought
some folks here might be at least mildly interested in the following link -
http://cannon.sfsu.edu/~gmarcy/planetsearch/planetsearch.html
That's the webpage of the main guy finding all those extra-solar planets
these days. They have found 1 as close as 15 LY away, around Gliese 876.
They also confirmed their method against brown-dwarf and variable-star
doubters by some interesting methods, the most spectacular of which was
correctly predicting the dimming of one star by a partial eclipse by its
planetary companion (HD 209458). Pack up your bat-scanners, Robin, we are
going straight to Snooper 320s :-)
Sincerely,
Jason Cawley
Alberto BARSELLA
> An excellent point. A race that gets a lucky draw will do better than
> one who gets a worse draw. Since there's no way to "cap" the amount of
> luck you get,
Actually there is.
Choose one universe (you fix the generation #) and use this one as
testbed.
Sure, people will fine-tune hab to that universe, but so what?
Generating multiple universes has the SAME effect, but just takes much
longer....
Bye,
Alberto
--
Alberto BARSELLA
PGP fingerprint = 13 3F 22 D2 0B 0A D3 25 F1 89 FE B5 82 AD 75 2A
** Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing... **
Loren Pechtel
>planet IT or PP) in a small packed universe. On my pocket calculator,
>that comes up as ZERO! It's hardly capable of handling such a small
>number. On the Windoze calculator app, the result is "Result too small"
>(overflow on a 32 or 64 or 128 bit register -- dunno what it uses). The
>age of the Earth is about 4 billion years, or 1.26144e+17 seconds. If
>you generated *and* prescanned a universe once every second, it would
>take you on the order of 1e+221 or so times the age of the Earth to gain
I just tried crunching it with a higher range (the full
capability of the coprocessor in these machines). 1 in 2.83e+531
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. ;)
>
>>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.