PSA: Industrial center

[FrankJones]

I doubt anyone is doing an SP power plant to play hackers. Let's evaluate it using 7 MC for power production (power plant, geothermal power, giant space mirrors, etc.).

[jaymc1130]

I doubt anyone is doing an SP power plant to play hackers. Let's evaluate it using 7 MC for power production (power plant, geothermal power, giant space mirrors, etc.).

You doubt but I see it from 1900s at times… it truly baffles the mind.

[dessp7]

OK, I am not understanding this calculations quite weel, because of that investment/inflation (kinda newbee, not used to therms). But in simple word: if you have spare energy, that you dont have use for, and it can be stolen from the opponent, why not invest in hackers and make that 4 MC difference? Huge hit on opponent in early game.

[xspuipuke]

Can you give more details here? why hackers bad?

The baseline evaluation for Hackers in terms of scoring efficiency is quite poor. 3 to keep, 3 to play, 11 for sp power. That’s 17 credits, or 42ish end game value credits assuming gen 1 of an 11 gen 2p game. Roughly 6 points of purchasing power at either stage of the game. For that investment you get back 33ish credits in end game value over the course of the game, a negative vp, and a lost heat bump for a net loss of 4ish points compared to the expected value of those 17 credits in gen 1. This is really awful. Even with efficient power that evaluation is 13 gen 1 credits with 33ish end value returning 33ish by game’s end scoring 2 net less points than expected due to lost heat bump and the negative vp. This is still pretty bad. We need truly free power or truly free Hackers for this to be profitable.

Hackers can still be a play, like any niche card, but you ought to look at the card like it says “-5 vp” on it rather than the -1 it displays in general and only be willing to play it when you know it will be crippling for an opponent AND it comes at basically no up front investment cost in a game you need to ensure goes long for your optimal scoring.

Unfortunately, I think your post is quite useless to anybody outside the people who don't need that sort of advice anyway. Could you explain the math behind what you write first? Throwing numbers around is not helpful, IMHO.

I mean no disrespect here (hopefully my words don't sound antagonizing—that's not my intent). I'm happy that long-time online players like yourself chime in and want to help others.

[jaymc1130]

Unfortunately, I think your post is quite useless to anybody outside the people who don't need that sort of advice anyway. Could you explain the math behind what you write first? Throwing numbers around is not helpful, IMHO.

I mean no disrespect here (hopefully my words don't sound antagonizing—that's not my intent). I'm happy that long-time online players like yourself chime in and want to help others.

This isn’t “throwing numbers around”, it’s a template for how to calculate the scoring efficiency of a given play. Using that template you can see how any given potential play compares to the theoretical efficiency rate required (on average) to score well enough to win games. When you spend 18 credits to play Vesta gen 7 (roughly 3 points of purchasing power at that stage of the game) and it produces titanium for 3 gens you extract about 10 credits of value from it’s production (about 1.4 points of purchasing power in the final gen) and score the 1 point from Vesta and ultimately those 18 credits acquired less than the expected 3 points those 18 credits could theoretically have acquired in gen 7 if spent efficiently (and this is assuming you have a titanium target to play the final gen that can score a point). Consistently making plays that yield a lower return on investment than what would be expected if that money was spent efficiently is going drag down scores and reduce winning chances. Making several such plays over the course of a game can cost 10, 20, even 30 points by games end. You want to be buying your points for something like 3.5-4.5 credits per point acquired to give yourself good chances to win games. The template for scoring efficiency can help you evaluate plays at any stage of the game to see if it’s going to yield profitable returns and keep your scoring efficiency rate in that 3.5-4.5 credits per point acquired range. We can also calculate that Vesta gen 7 play in combination with Earth Cat, or with Earth Cat plus Outpost plus Anti-Gravity, or with Jov Mults, or any other combination of card(s) conceivable. This is how high level players calculate every play, all game long, every game, every play.

[xspuipuke]

And where does one find this template? Because, again, the numbers you state aren't self-explanatory to most players. That's what I meant with "throwing numbers around". Like, for instance, how does one come to the conclusion that 17 MC early-game money are about 42 MC late-game money as you said in the previous post?

I know intuitively which plays to make but would be glad to understand the math that you apply to those plays. For now, I cannot follow, and that's how those numbers, at the moment, are not helpful.

BTW, intuitively I strive for a scoring efficiency of 3.5 to 1, so at least I don't seem to be far off that magic formula.

[jaymc1130]

OK, I am not understanding this calculations quite weel, because of that investment/inflation (kinda newbee, not used to therms). But in simple word: if you have spare energy, that you dont have use for, and it can be stolen from the opponent, why not invest in hackers and make that 4 MC difference? Huge hit on opponent in early game.

This just takes practice. You can do a google search for an inflation calculator and play around with it to evaluate some plays (This can be a little tedious at first, until you get used to it instinctively).

Try Titanium Mine as an example, using a 10% per gen inflation rate.

That would be a 10 credit investment, and let’s assume you play it gen 1 of an 11 gen game and it produces for 10 generations.

What is the end game value of those 10 credits, and how many credits of end game value can be extracted from Titanium Mine’s production? What is the difference between those values?

[jaymc1130]

And where does one find this template?

I’m providing it, though apperently not well…

17 credits compounded generationally by 10% yields 42 credits after 10 iterations of compounding. (Again, an inflation calculator can be useful until one gets used to doing these calculation in one’s head)

In any case, what we see from doing this is that both credit counts have essentially the same point purchasing power despite being at totally different stages of the game and could theoretically be used to acquire roughly 6 points at either stage based on the average cost of a point at those game stages (gen 1 or gen 11). This would mean that in order to give yourself good winning chances you want to spend those 17 gen 1 credits to acquire 6 points at a minimum. If you spend 17 credits on a play that nets 10ish less end game value credits than expected (a bit shy of 2 full points of value) while also scoring a negative VP and costing a heat bump point then instead of purchasing 6 points for those 17 credits you wind up with only about 2.5 points, a net loss of almost 4 points compared to how many points those 17 credits should theoretically have been able to acquire.

Evaluating for the cost an average efficient power and 13 credits for the same play improves the yield, but it still winds up netting a credit less in end game value than expected while scoring a negative vp and costing a heat bump point, so 2 less points than would be expected.

If we evaluate with truly free power (power generation prelude and we intend to play both quantum and mass in our opener in a timely manner) then we can get to a net positive yield evaluation for a gen 1 hackers play and it should theoretically yield more than the 2 points of purchasing power (by game’s end) those 6 gen 1 credits theoretically could have acquired. Compounding profitable yield plays really help ramp up your score and this helps win games.

[FrankJones]

Jay, I think Xspuipuke is suggesting you explain it in a way that would be easier to follow for less- experienced players who are trying to improve. Having played many games against xspuipuke, I can say that he intuitively or mathematically understands how to value cards. I don't think he's saying you're wrong, rather, that the explanation might not be as helpful as it could be to other players.

[jaymc1130]

Jay, I think Xspuipuke is suggesting you explain it in a way that would be easier to follow for less- experienced players who are trying to improve. Having played many games against xspuipuke, I can say that he intuitively or mathematically understands how to value cards. I don't think he's saying you're wrong, rather, that the explanation might not be as helpful as it could be to other players.

If I made for a good professor they’d have me teaching university classes, lol.

I work with what skills I got.