Problem is, the system has to be somewhat simple or it will be hard to follow.That is not an issue. I will create a spreadsheet and wiki template which auto calculate everything, no one using the formula needs to understand or follow it unless they're trying to improve it. A complex formula is not a notable disadvantage, and large amounts of complexity are fine if it improves the accuracy and reliability of the formula.
Now, not all SE choices are equal, but with some builds it is powerful.Yes, we will. Only simple additive systems are unable to prevent this, correctly scaled disadvantages with synergistic info added should be near impossible to significantly game with a dump stat. This is one of the main reasons I'm not using a primarily additive system.
In RPG terms, someone could use what we call a dump stat to mathematically get around in a point buy system. What that is is that in tournaments they would take negatives in something that did not matter to make a more important stat uber. In Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition and greater, that stat was Charisma except for certain builds that required charisma. Or it was Intelligence.
No matter what equation, we will not be able to stop this.
One flaw I see is using a +10 to -10 system. Some of the negatives are far worse than the positives for some social stats, and for other social stats, the positives are far more important than the negatives. For example, low Police ratings that starts generating drones for any aircraft or out-of-area military units is HUGE.As stated in the opening post, I will handle that scaling in a separate part of the equation. There will be one scaling for above zero and one for below. All I'm looking for here is the importance of each negative rating relative to other negative ratings of the same parameter, and the importance of each positive rating relative to other positive ratings of the same parameter.
So I think we need to scale according to the biggest bonus/drawback. That may mean we have a -10 to +6 rating for some area, or maybe a -4 to +10 rating for some other area.
Science is going to be hard to figure. The percentages are only a small part of the total bonus/penalty for the research rating. The reason I say that is that the percentage affects what gets accumulated, BUT it also affect how many points must be accumulated for a breakthrough. Does anyone know how to figure out how to how the rating affects the required points for a breakthrough?Ah, that is a good point which I had not considered. If someone could find the formula for that it would be excellent.
Once we get done with this, I am interested in the relative power rating of these factions:
Buster's Uncle's SupaNoobs - Designed to be way overpowered.
The Ominiscient Antimind of Antimind- Not broken, but extremely tough. I would say tougher than Caretakers or Usurpers.
Conqueror Marr of the Manifold Usurpers- Perhaps the toughest of the canon factions.
Captian Svensgaard of The Nautalis Pirates - MP guys say it is an unfair advantage.
Chairman Yang of The Human Hive - Forum opinion from Apolyton, WPC, and CFC over a decade of posts say this is most powerful of human canon factions.
CEO Morgan of The Morganites - I sometimes disagree, but 10 years of forum lurking says Morgan is the weakest of the human canon factions.
The only thing you find out using AI is how the AI handles things, which is nothing like what human players do. So you do not gain much multiplayer wisdom there.Given that I've NEVER played a SMAC multiplayer game (gasp), I'm just going to take your word for it :)
FYI, the vets map (original or rebalanced) is a large map set up with places for 4 starting factions. It is great for team games 2x2, or free for all, or 1 vs 1. But being a large map, it is a builders map, not a momentum map.
Prophets just stink on any size map. Worst faction; even with abundant native life, Gaia is better.
The only thing you find out using AI is how the AI handles things, which is nothing like what human players do. So you do not gain much multiplayer wisdom there.Given that I've NEVER played a SMAC multiplayer game (gasp), I'm just going to take your word for it :)
FYI, the vets map (original or rebalanced) is a large map set up with places for 4 starting factions. It is great for team games 2x2, or free for all, or 1 vs 1. But being a large map, it is a builders map, not a momentum map.
Prophets just stink on any size map. Worst faction; even with abundant native life, Gaia is better.
Still, such a setup might be useful to Yitzi and/or Kyrub to locate AI bugs or otherwise strengthen AI. But I agree, it wouldn't tell you anything about the factions' strength in the hands of human players.
EDIT: Purely out of curiosity, do you ever use the Firaxis faction?
As part of the aim of creating a faction rating formula, I need numeric wieghts to the benefits and disadvantages of each value for each social engineering characteristic. Simple formulas do not match up to the complex effects, for example +1 Economy is nice, but +2 Economy is many times more useful, then +3 is only somewhat more useful.
To simulate this, I need your help. Please read the instructions carefully:
Rate each value of each social parameter between 10 and -10, with ten being the best, zero the middle, and -10 the worst. For the Economy example I'm using, I would put the numbers like:
Econ Rating
0 0
+1 1.5
+2 7
+3 8
+4 9
+5 10
This indicated that a rating of +2 is several times better than that of +1.
Commerce is computed base by base between factions with
$LINK<Treaties=4> and $LINK<Pacts=3>, as follows:
^
^(1) First, all bases for each faction are ranked from top to bottom
by Energy output.
^(2) Bases are paired off from top to bottom. If one faction has extra
bases, these are ignored.
^(3) For each pair of bases, sum the combined economic output and
divide by 8, rounding up.
^(4) Double this value if a Global Trade Pact is in effect.
^(5) Now, for each individual base, the commerce formula is as follows:
^ (ValueFromStep4) * (CommerceTech+1) / (TotalCommerceTech+1)
^(6) CommerceTech is the total # of economic technologies discovered,
plus faction & social bonuses.
^(7) TotalCommerceTech is the total # of economic technologies in the game.
^(8) Now, using the value from step 5, divide by 2 if no Pact (e.g. only a Treaty)
^(9) Add +1 if you are $LINK<Planetary Governor=28>.
^(10) Reduce to zero if sanctions are in effect against either faction.
as a multiplier, so at low commerce ratings each step up is very significant % wise. I'll run some simulations, but you're probably right that the commerce boosts should be taken as much more significant. Though I guess in 1v1 games commerce is irrelevant. Probably not worth dealing with all the complexities raised by that till the basic formula is done.