Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Home of SOLAR STARFIRE, 6th edition, rules based on the upcoming history of the Terran Solar Union.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Tue 03 Feb 2015 18:07

Lomn wrote:At the risk of straying into the "hyper-optional" portion of the rules....

I've been coding the GG5 life forms into the solar spreadsheet and noticed that Super Terran populations have a different population cap in GG5 (Table GG5.06) than they do in the standard rules (Table L1). Is that intentional?

Specifically, GG5 increases:
Benign from 3000 + 250*EL to 3500 + 250*EL
Hostile from 750 + 150*EL to 750 + 200*EL
(T population limits still match the L1 data)


This is intentional... there are some differences in the world types, asteroid, types, etc. with T races as well, as compared to the "basic race" presumptions presented in Section L.

tkinias wrote:But while we’re on GG5 typos, GG5.06.10.1 Initial PU Placement refers twice to “I” races having “F” homeworlds. I think that should be F races, and the note about “G” races should probably refer to both “G” and “I” races.


That's strange... I'm pretty sure we made changes to that rule in the last update. I'll take a look and see what happened... and if nothing else, make the changes again. But you're correct on both counts.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Tue 03 Feb 2015 20:05

Cralis wrote:
Lomn wrote:At the risk of straying into the "hyper-optional" portion of the rules....

I've been coding the GG5 life forms into the solar spreadsheet and noticed that Super Terran populations have a different population cap in GG5 (Table GG5.06) than they do in the standard rules (Table L1). Is that intentional

This is intentional... there are some differences in the world types, asteroid, types, etc. with T races as well, as compared to the "basic race" presumptions presented in Section L.

T looks identical to me, at least with respect to the optional use of extreme AST belts.

(reason for whine: spreadsheeting "standard L-type ST" vs "optional GG-type ST" population caps is a job I'd rather be handwaved away -- asteroid belts have a natural workaround of "list every belt as desolate" vs "use AST-H / AST-F"; ST and T is less elegant)
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Tue 03 Feb 2015 20:38

Oh I didn't say they were large. But let's be honest: you don't want to be an ST race in the standard rules. You just won't have the opportunity for growth. And that's why they are different here.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Tue 03 Feb 2015 21:19

Wait, why not? Planet distribution is two parts T to one part ST, with T being further divided 50/50 by habitability index (assuming you don't tweak the HI range for a race). So both T and ST should see an even split of Benign / Harsh / Hostile planets, and all the other real estate is identical between them.

If it's just that T races can increase their Benign worlds by tweaking HI, that seems rather to argue that the HI customization is miscosted in K3.

(Also, if you want this conversation out of the typo thread, by all means carve it off. I understand)
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Sat 07 Feb 2015 16:32

Lomn, sorry I missed this response. When I calculated the total PU over the entire universe, along with how long it took to get there, T beat ST by something like 5-10%. I don't recall the details, but if I get some time I'll try and dig up the old spreadsheet I used to see what it was.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Lomn on Sun 08 Feb 2015 17:52

Assuming that your spreadsheet was a big bulk statistical data collection, it sounds like you happened to get one of the statistical outliers. Distribution across all planet types is directly solvable in principle, I'm sure, but I'd certainly do some sort of empirical test.

Just T vs ST, though, is simple to do directly. Their populations are identical except for T and ST worlds, so we ignore those. T and ST worlds are always rocky liquid-water-zone planets, so we don't need to worry about the distribution there, either. The differentiation is when you roll for mass: 1-25 (one part) gives neither, 26-75 gives mass 2 T (2 parts), 76-100 gives mass 3 ST (1 part). So, exactly twice as many T as ST.

HI then divides the T set in half -- 1 part is within 2 of HI (call it A), and 1 part is not (B). Each of these parts is the same size as the 1 part ST (C) from the preceding distribution.

Thus a T race has A Benign, B Harsh, and C Hostile, while an ST race has C Benign, A Harsh, and B Hostile. But since A=B=C, they're the same numbers.

The last thing is considering twin planets. According to W7.05.1, "...the moon is treated as a planet, with the same mass as the other planet." If that's the case, then the ratio of T worlds to ST worlds is maintained (minus a very small shift to account for ST worlds having a slightly better moon quantity modifier than T worlds -- but note that this makes ST worlds slightly more common).

However, according to Table W6.04.2, note a (and matched in that table as found in EE), "except: 85% of T/ST twins are instead the opposite type world". If that's the correct interpretation, the balance tilts further towards ST (85% * 2 parts from T + 15% * 1 part from ST, vs 15% * 2 + 85% * 1 for T -- 1.6 ST twins for every T twin). That will be somewhat abated by the lesser likelihood of twins generated from T worlds, but not by enough to make T twins more numerous. Either way, though, ST-native real estate is not only not less common than T-native real estate, it's slightly more common (though not, I think, enough to matter).

Regardless of this particular discussion, I think it would be good to clear up the W7 vs Table W6 language.

---
Detailed moon math follows:
A T world is 10% 0 moons (0% twin), 55% 1 moon (1% twin), 30% 2 moon (2% twin), and 5% 3 moon (3% twin). Weighted, 1.3% chance.
An ST world is 55% 1 moon (1% twin), 30% 2 moon (2% twin), and 15% 3 moon (3% twin). Weighted, 1.6% chance.

So, under the W7 interpretation, ST worlds are 0.3% more common than either half of the T world divide (there are still ~twice as many T worlds, but the "within 2 HI" and "not within 2 HI" parts are each slightly smaller than the ST part).

Under the W6 interpretation, ST is .013 * .85 * 2 + .016 * .15 * 1 (chance of twin * chance of mass * parts), while T is .013 * .15 * 2 + .016 * .85 * 1. ST worlds in this scenario are 0.7% more common across the universe than each part of the T worlds.

For what these numbers say the GG5.06 table should look like, if different caps are desired, here's a ~0.5% difference:
Code: Select all
Hab                T               ST
Benign      3015+252*EL         3000+250*EL
Harsh       1508+201*EL         1500+200*EL
Hostile      754+151*EL          750+150*EL
User avatar
Lomn
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2012 08:19
Location: MSFC, Alabama

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Sun 08 Feb 2015 20:23

Lomn wrote:Assuming that your spreadsheet was a big bulk statistical data collection, it sounds like you happened to get one of the statistical outliers. Distribution across all planet types is directly solvable in principle, I'm sure, but I'd certainly do some sort of empirical test.


I ran calculations against the statistics calculated by Elminster's sysgen application, over 20 iterations, for 10,000 systems per iteration. Two of the iterations were more than 10% different from the rest, so I threw them out and averaged the remaining 18. It is possible that I could have gotten 18 bad results and 2 good ones, but I don't think so.

Having said that, we haven't redone the numbers for the most recent sysgen results. There are some changes between the first revision and this one. We intended to do it right before re-releasing v6.03 to re-balance them.

The other issue is that I want to try and get a better handle on the vital points. I only balanced against maximum population in the universe and a value I calculated to determine the cost to colonize. I'd like to try and add a few more calculations like time to grow and such. But I haven't gotten there yet.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Vandervecken on Wed 18 Mar 2015 00:45

Just a heads up on an earlier point. It seems as if some scientist still use and call it the "Titius-Bode" law. here is a link to an interesting article on exoplanets. Maybe the ol' law is making a comeback,eh ?

see ...

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-planets-ha ... stars.html
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1214
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby igycrctl on Tue 24 Mar 2015 09:17

Not sure if this is a typo, or just an inconsistency, but in W6.01 there is no mention of "White-Yellow" stars. White stars generate planets out to 300 LM, but in table W6.04 the "ice zone" for White stars is listed as 281-350 LM.
igycrctl
Lieutenant JG
Lieutenant JG
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue 15 Apr 2014 12:45

Re: Typo Submissions for Solar Starfire v6.02.2013.07

Postby Cralis on Thu 26 Mar 2015 11:35

igycrctl wrote:Not sure if this is a typo, or just an inconsistency, but in W6.01 there is no mention of "White-Yellow" stars. White stars generate planets out to 300 LM, but in table W6.04 the "ice zone" for White stars is listed as 281-350 LM.


W6.01 is wrong and is already set to change. It had been previously marked for edit and we somehow overlooked it...
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10201
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Solar Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests