Standardized Reporting - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Standardized Reporting

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Standardized Reporting

MCinBigD posted 07-14-99 02:13 PM ET
It is impossible to distinguish between truthful boasting and bragging by cheaters. I welcome a standardized reporting structure to identify how quickly a goal was obtained on a specific level as a specific faction with and without cheating, reloads and options.
Please add to and modify my proposal:
Year/Level/Version/Faction/SizeOfPlanet/PlanetSettings/ResearchBlind/Cheats/Reloads
So the question "What's your fastest time to Transcend?" would be answered as follows:
2300/TI/V4/UoP/Huge/Weak/Off/Yes/Yes
Thoughts?
MC
Beta1 posted 07-15-99 12:06 PM ET
Whats wrong with just describing the game settings rather than reducing it to a line of variables.
If I read:
2300/TI/V4/UoP/Huge/Weak/Off/Yes/Yes
My first thought would be WTF?
Perhaps you should suggest this in the game forum - they seem to be big on challanges and boasts over there
Rudebw0y posted 07-15-99 12:31 PM ET
I am a great supporter of standarized reporting, and believe that such an idea should be extended to ALL replies on these message boards, particularly when one is analyzing a proposed idea.
I suggest that rather than merely giving one's opinion to a proposed idea, one should respond via a series of five numbers, ranging from 0-100, indicating the following:
a) the novelty/originality of the proposed idea
b) the excitement level generated in the respondant by the proposed idea
c) the practicality/ease-of-use of the proposed idea
d) a sliding scale of the quality of this idea, compared to others of its type (i.e. within this thread/message board)
e) a sliding scale of the overall quality of the idea compared to all other content found on this and other SMAC message boards.
For instance, I score McinBigD's idea as follows--
27 : 8 : 3 : 39 : 4.35
(note that I have used a colon as a field seperator, which has the advantage of allowing fractional values if one is so inclined).
Responses welcome, preferably using the above form.
Series II posted 07-15-99 02:01 PM ET
I agree with Beta: WTF
MCinBigD posted 07-15-99 09:59 PM ET
In retrospect I agree with Beta1 as well ... too difficult for all to decipher (and I appreciate Rudebw0y's parody of my post). I do believe everyone should, instead, include the information in sentence form (as Beta1 suggested).
In all seriousness, however, is no one else concerned with the claims and achievements in the absence of defined settings or am I just a cynical purist?
MC
Krushala posted 07-15-99 10:29 PM ET
I still haven't figured out how you guys get these fast transcends. I can win at transcendence level some of the time, but usually play thinker. Even with UOP and a ****load of artifacts I can't clear 200 years. I'm building science cities maximizing energy and everything. I do a little better with the peacekeepers but not much. I know I concentrate on conquer techs too much, and I do research those 7 techs not needed for transcendence. I might be able to shave another 10 years off but probably still couldn't clear 200 years.
Anyway I'm sure I got the record for slowest transcendence.
Jim posted 07-16-99 02:26 PM ET
Why race for Transcendence? Frankly I enjoy kicking the other factions butts once I finally break out on top. Don't get me wrong, I've tried the fastest Transcendence style game too but I also like to try new things.
Currently I have a transcendent level game (playing as the Gaians on a huge map) where I'm trying to see just how large a population I can get. I'm also trying to see if I can plant fungus on ALL of the land squares. Last time I checked I had something like 80 or so super formers in speeder chassis.
I'm turning out 4 orbital nutrient producers a turn so all of my bases grow at the rate of 1 size per turn. My new bases go into population boom as soon as I create then since at this point I have all of the special projects except the last 2 - I don't want Yang to start on the Transcendence route before I cripple him)
I know I have at least 1 base that is size 43 and my population is around 1900 right now. Of course it goes up about 75 each turn so that number will soon be much higher. If I remember correctly I also have a little over 100 turns to go in the game.
I'll let you know if I succeed in breaking the game but this is more of an ongoing project. It takes too $*&%* long to run a turn for me at this point to spend all my time working on this particular game.
In theory I should be able to get about a size 140 base, and over 10,000 population if I stick with this. It all depends on whether or not I hit some sort of built in limits on the number of orbitals, number of cities, number of bases, or total population.
Since I know someone will ask - I have absolutely NO eco damage. All of my bases (even my original core empire) have been completely re terraformed to ALL fungus. Since I'm turning out something like 7 or 8 orbital installations a turn and my fungus squares are yielding 3/3/3 each I don't need any special eco damaging enhancements on the planet.
I've got about 40 bases producing orbitals. I get at least 4 nutrient and 2 energy per turn with roughly 1 defense pod and 1 mineral producer too. I think I'm going to shut down the mineral and defense pod producers soon because I have more then enough mineral production and can easily handle a wave of 30 planet busters
Ah well - I just realized I've rambled on for too long. Has anyone else tried an unusual style of victory like this?
Beta1 posted 07-16-99 06:58 PM ET
Good to see sarcasm still flourishes around here.
Jim - the idea is get to a sort of pre transcendent point then change to conquer style right? I normaly cant resist voting myself sup ruler at this sort of point.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Standardized Reporting
MCinBigD	posted 07-14-99 02:13 PM ET It is impossible to distinguish between truthful boasting and bragging by cheaters. I welcome a standardized reporting structure to identify how quickly a goal was obtained on a specific level as a specific faction with and without cheating, reloads and options. Please add to and modify my proposal: Year/Level/Version/Faction/SizeOfPlanet/PlanetSettings/ResearchBlind/Cheats/Reloads So the question "What's your fastest time to Transcend?" would be answered as follows: 2300/TI/V4/UoP/Huge/Weak/Off/Yes/Yes Thoughts? MC
Beta1	posted 07-15-99 12:06 PM ET Whats wrong with just describing the game settings rather than reducing it to a line of variables. If I read: 2300/TI/V4/UoP/Huge/Weak/Off/Yes/Yes My first thought would be WTF? Perhaps you should suggest this in the game forum - they seem to be big on challanges and boasts over there
Rudebw0y	posted 07-15-99 12:31 PM ET I am a great supporter of standarized reporting, and believe that such an idea should be extended to ALL replies on these message boards, particularly when one is analyzing a proposed idea. I suggest that rather than merely giving one's opinion to a proposed idea, one should respond via a series of five numbers, ranging from 0-100, indicating the following: a) the novelty/originality of the proposed idea b) the excitement level generated in the respondant by the proposed idea c) the practicality/ease-of-use of the proposed idea d) a sliding scale of the quality of this idea, compared to others of its type (i.e. within this thread/message board) e) a sliding scale of the overall quality of the idea compared to all other content found on this and other SMAC message boards. For instance, I score McinBigD's idea as follows-- 27 : 8 : 3 : 39 : 4.35 (note that I have used a colon as a field seperator, which has the advantage of allowing fractional values if one is so inclined). Responses welcome, preferably using the above form.
Series II	posted 07-15-99 02:01 PM ET I agree with Beta: WTF
MCinBigD	posted 07-15-99 09:59 PM ET In retrospect I agree with Beta1 as well ... too difficult for all to decipher (and I appreciate Rudebw0y's parody of my post). I do believe everyone should, instead, include the information in sentence form (as Beta1 suggested). In all seriousness, however, is no one else concerned with the claims and achievements in the absence of defined settings or am I just a cynical purist? MC
Krushala	posted 07-15-99 10:29 PM ET I still haven't figured out how you guys get these fast transcends. I can win at transcendence level some of the time, but usually play thinker. Even with UOP and a ****load of artifacts I can't clear 200 years. I'm building science cities maximizing energy and everything. I do a little better with the peacekeepers but not much. I know I concentrate on conquer techs too much, and I do research those 7 techs not needed for transcendence. I might be able to shave another 10 years off but probably still couldn't clear 200 years. Anyway I'm sure I got the record for slowest transcendence.
Jim	posted 07-16-99 02:26 PM ET Why race for Transcendence? Frankly I enjoy kicking the other factions butts once I finally break out on top. Don't get me wrong, I've tried the fastest Transcendence style game too but I also like to try new things. Currently I have a transcendent level game (playing as the Gaians on a huge map) where I'm trying to see just how large a population I can get. I'm also trying to see if I can plant fungus on ALL of the land squares. Last time I checked I had something like 80 or so super formers in speeder chassis. I'm turning out 4 orbital nutrient producers a turn so all of my bases grow at the rate of 1 size per turn. My new bases go into population boom as soon as I create then since at this point I have all of the special projects except the last 2 - I don't want Yang to start on the Transcendence route before I cripple him) I know I have at least 1 base that is size 43 and my population is around 1900 right now. Of course it goes up about 75 each turn so that number will soon be much higher. If I remember correctly I also have a little over 100 turns to go in the game. I'll let you know if I succeed in breaking the game but this is more of an ongoing project. It takes too $&% long to run a turn for me at this point to spend all my time working on this particular game. In theory I should be able to get about a size 140 base, and over 10,000 population if I stick with this. It all depends on whether or not I hit some sort of built in limits on the number of orbitals, number of cities, number of bases, or total population. Since I know someone will ask - I have absolutely NO eco damage. All of my bases (even my original core empire) have been completely re terraformed to ALL fungus. Since I'm turning out something like 7 or 8 orbital installations a turn and my fungus squares are yielding 3/3/3 each I don't need any special eco damaging enhancements on the planet. I've got about 40 bases producing orbitals. I get at least 4 nutrient and 2 energy per turn with roughly 1 defense pod and 1 mineral producer too. I think I'm going to shut down the mineral and defense pod producers soon because I have more then enough mineral production and can easily handle a wave of 30 planet busters Ah well - I just realized I've rambled on for too long. Has anyone else tried an unusual style of victory like this?
Beta1	posted 07-16-99 06:58 PM ET Good to see sarcasm still flourishes around here. Jim - the idea is get to a sort of pre transcendent point then change to conquer style right? I normaly cant resist voting myself sup ruler at this sort of point.