Point system for balancing factions

[Mark123jansen]

Has anybody ever tried to make a point system a la MOO2 for making new factions? if not, we should try to make one, based off the most balanced factions from SMAC & SMAX, assigning a point value to attributes (+1 effic costs 2point, +1 Econ costs 5 points, free recycling tanks 3 points etc.)

Making a list of point values like this for all attributes could help rebalance some of the original factions (by making sure their net point spending arrives at 0 or +10 whatever we choose as beginning value) and making new (balanced) factions would be much easier (die networknode uberfactions )

[Sikander]

I think this has been done, but I don't recall where I saw it.

[Chaos Theory]

One has been made, but it's not very good. It's hard to assign point values to individual attributes when synergy is so important. For example, -1 Econ is a trivial penalty, unless Wealth is also disallowed. Aversion to Planned hurts much more when pop booming would otherwise be easy. A penalty to research is more than made up for by a bonus to Econ, in most cases. Free rec commons are very nice, but less so if the faction has some other drone-mitigating ability.

[Mark123jansen]

we could make a program that would account for such synergy, although that would imply a lot of rules,

And if anybody could post that old system, we would have something to start from.

[#endgame]

Well looking at SE choices from a pointwise perspective:

FM : +2 -3 -5 = -6

Which would imply that it is rubbish, which is clearly false.

[Mark123jansen]

that would only work for seperate SE points, like domai's +2 Ind and -2 Research, but obviously some points are more valuable then others as illustrated by free market, the +2 econ very much balances the 8 negative points

[Mark123jansen]

thats acutally a nice place to start our point table:

+1 econ point is -4 from your spending points
-1 Police is +1point
-1 Planet is +1point

(all open for discussion)

[Flubber]

I agree with Chaos theory in that it is very difficult to assign points. The inpact of going from 1 to 2 to 3 on anindicator is rarely incremental.

For instance I would value getting from +1 ECON to +2 more than I would the jump from 0 to +1.

Growth-- getting to +5 is nice but +6 is magic

etc etc

Then opf course there is the question of what size world we are talking about. Tiny and I start valuing morale more and efficiency a little less. Huge and perhaps I don't care so much about morale since the chance of early war is smaller but I want that high efficiency.

I'm not saying it can't be done . . . but since this community has never agreed on the relative merits of the factions, I see any system as being the source of endless bantering and debate.

It could be fun to try some totally unbalanced combos

How about the "Lovers"

Growth +2
Probe -2
Morale-2
Police -1

Aversions to Police State and Power

Believe in the expression of human sexuality. This leads to a a very high birth rate. The population is very open with their information to outsiders and very opposed to things military. Average in industrial capacity .

My view-- Probably too strong-- +2 Growth means that you are always faster to plant bases and you can pop-boom in FM. I probably should saddle them with a more significant negative like -1 industry.

[Chaos Theory]

I don't think the Lovers are necessarily too strong. +2 Growth is substantially better than the penalties are bad, but most factions are that way. They can pop boom in Free Market the same way Morgan can get the benefits of Free Market while running Green. More importantly, this faction can pop boom without children's creches. If the faction is too strong, that is why.

[livid imp]

Re: Point system for balancing factions

Originally posted by Mark123jansen
Has anybody ever tried to make a point system a la MOO2 for making new factions?

Yes, and it was an absymal failure. It listed the University and Morgan as extremely weak and the Believers and Planet Clut as strong.

Originally posted by Mark123jansen
Making a list of point values like this for all attributes could help rebalance some of the original factions (by making sure their net point spending arrives at 0 or +10 whatever we choose as beginning value) and making new (balanced) factions would be much easier (die networknode uberfactions )

It just doesn't work. Making balanced factions is more art and less science. You just have to have a mind for spotting potential exploits in designs. As long as there is no exploits, really any faction design would be acceptable. After all, no one has to use a faction they consider too weak. A weak faction is only an issue if you plan on them being used for AI.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
I don't think the Lovers are necessarily too strong. +2 Growth is substantially better than the penalties are bad, but most factions are that way. They can pop boom in Free Market the same way Morgan can get the benefits of Free Market while running Green. More importantly, this faction can pop boom without children's creches. If the faction is too strong, that is why.

I made them up here on the spot . .. I think you may be underestimating the power of +2 growth early. Bases will get to size 2 faster and an ICSer would have a lead on other ICSers.

Booming without a creche is nice-- but so is booming without while staying in FM.

As for the penalties, does anyone care that often what their probe rating is?? Morale matters most early. The police one hurts a little bit

[Flubber]

Re: Re: Point system for balancing factions

Originally posted by livid imp


Yes, and it was an absymal failure. It listed the University and Morgan as extremely weak and the Believers and Planet Clut as strong.

Feel the wrath of the cult

muwahahahah muwahahahaha

[Chaos Theory]

+2 growth is nice, but the Hive starts with +1, and the Angels, Uni, and Cyborgs can run Planned as soon as they can scrape together 40 credits. Having +2 growth early isn't unmatched. Booming in FM is nice, but not a large advantage, since switching to Planned for a few turns doesn't hurt much. The penalties are small, but would hurt them in war, and I'm not arguing that the penalties match the bonuses.

Originally posted by Flubber
I made them up here on the spot . .. I think you may be underestimating the power of +2 growth early. Bases will get to size 2 faster and an ICSer would have a lead on other ICSers.

Booming without a creche is nice-- but so is booming without while staying in FM.

As for the penalties, does anyone care that often what their probe rating is?? Morale matters most early. The police one hurts a little bit

[H.Humpel]

I just know about 2 point systems:

one can be found in the faq-tool. It's not that bad to get a rough idea about the factions strength, but of course you really have to play it to figure it out. Nice thing: the values for the standard ACAX factions are given. And if you are way out of their range of points something seems to be mis-balanced....

another one can be found at "Les Guetteurs" direct link here . Well, this one is FACTest version 0.1, doesn't seem to have seen any update in years or at all, it just deals with SMAC Factions and is in French.
And the fact, that all 7 SMAC factions will score 100 points here should make you wonder about the quality of this test I guess .

Anyway, I guess any point test won't be able to tell you anything about the actual strength. None of the test so far does even consider the planet factors (imagine the impact of the factors water and fungus for Gaians vs. Pirates) , so they all could only be used for a rough guideline.