Social Engineering: how much effect on gameplay does each value have

[BFG]

At one point, I tried to set up a series of AI-only games using the 5 stock map sizes to answer the question of which faction (at least in the AI's hands) is most powerful.  Sadly, after about 3 games I grew tired of the effort, since AI-only still requires the player to sit there and hit "Enter" over and over again.

[Earthmichael]

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.

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.

[BFG]

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.

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.

Given that I've NEVER played a SMAC multiplayer game (gasp), I'm just going to take your word for it
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?

[Green1]

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.

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.

Given that I've NEVER played a SMAC multiplayer game (gasp), I'm just going to take your word for it
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?

Do not worry. I would say a good 60 to 70 percent of us do not do multiplayer. For all 4x games, the figure is that 10 percent do. That figure is from Kael at CFC. However, T_ras and them did want me to try to join them at some point and I may if I can get over how damn long it takes to do MP and all the headaches I need to go through to set it up.

AI is where it is at. I agree. And the AI is being worked on. At least I still find it somewhat challenging on Thinker/Transcend.

[Earthmichael]

I think everyone should play AI until transcend is a cakewalk.  It is lots of fun, and you learn lots about the game.  Even after you master one faction at transcend, you have 13 more to go.  Then you can also vary planet size and attributes, and which factions are in the game.

BUT, after you have done that until you are bored, then multiplayer is the way to go.  You never know what to expect from humans!

What I would suggest at first is a 1 on 1 multiplayer game with another player inexperienced with MP.  A 1 on 1 game typically proceed at least 5 times as fast as a 4 player game.  Check some of my 1 vs 1 game threads to see the difference.

Another interesting varient I like are two players each playing 2 factions.  It has the speed of a 1 on  1 game, but the extra factions add some variety.  To keep the speed up, make sure each player plays both factions in a row, before exchanging turns again.

[Yitzi]

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.

That actually might not be that accurate, as beyond +2 gives a commerce boost (which might not seem that impressive on first glance, but when you've got two or three pact brothers and Global Trade Pact passed, is extremely good.)

[ete]

hm, right. I was unsure how significant the commerce rate boost was, but let's see...

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.
^( 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.

(CommerceTech+1) / (TotalCommerceTech+1)

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.

[Yitzi]

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.

Yeah, 1v1 is really a different game entirely.