pandora update

[BlaneckW]

The game developers.

[Geo]

Then they're stupid to have even started it! 

[BlaneckW]

They didn't, they're programmers paid by a company that makes generically named wargames. 

[BlaneckW]

I hope that they will begin marketing it as a moddable shell rather than try to sell a loreless AI-less Civ with no governmental aspect.

[Geo]

They didn't, they're programmers paid by a company that makes generically named wargames.

Okay. Have to tone down my response then. Thank for clarifying.

[Petek]

Pandora beta tester Gfurst has posted a preview on Youtube:

Pandora: First Contact Beta Preview

[Yitzi]

Other designers would not have been able to make as intelligent factions.  The expansion cybernetics faction is a failure; the negative growth makes it a bunk faction.  The expansion also tried to include an industrialistic democratic socialist faction, but mostly it just ends up spamming synthemetals unless it gets a lucky position.

That's strange; Drones and Cyborgs are two of the top contenders for "strongest faction", from what I've heard.

Angels is pointless, it's function easily replaceable by believers and morganites

I'm not so sure...techshare could be fairly powerful in a 7-player game if exploited to its fullest...

[Mart]

I think, weakness of Cybernetic C. and Drones is here presented due to AI playing style. What I think, was meant here...

Human players can make quite a use of these factions.

And this gives me an idea of a competition. Whether a faction is strong or weak depends on what map/terrain is used, game settings, AI capability to handle it, or who is playing it, what skills a player have, or maybe playstyle fitting a given faction.
Competition would be multiple human players, AI player and in various setting.

[Yitzi]

You mean have a lot of games with people and AI playing different factions on a wide scale of maps, and see how the various factions do on each sort of map with various players?  That would work, but would take a lot of playing to get a decent sample size if we don't make use of already-existing data...

And even there, you forgot to list a few other important factors that affect faction strength, such as difficulty level, and the features (faction, player skill, player playstyle, and difficulty level) of the other factions in the game.

[Mart]

You mean have a lot of games with people and AI playing different factions on a wide scale of maps, and see how the various factions do on each sort of map with various players?  That would work, but would take a lot of playing to get a decent sample size if we don't make use of already-existing data...

Yes, exactly that. I think the process of playing and making the ranking will be very interesting. And it can be sort of continuous process.

And even there, you forgot to list a few other important factors that affect faction strength, such as difficulty level, and the features (faction, player skill, player playstyle, and difficulty level) of the other factions in the game.

Yes, these factors too. Difficulty level would be stressed on transcend. I have impression most people quickly migrates to the highest level, if they are going to play SMACX longer.

[Geo]

Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend.

[Mart]

Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend.

You mean, you always win on transcend?

[Yitzi]

Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend.

I don't think I ever played a game on Transcend (other than one of the GotMs just to see what it was like, but not for long).

[Geo]

Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend.

You mean, you always win on transcend?

IIRC, I have never won a game at Transcend.

[Mart]

Ok, so on which level you usually play and win?
We have:

1. citizen
2. specialist
3. talent
4. librarian
5. thinker
6. transcend