Talk:List of top mineral planets - Revision history

Zeracles: /* Take 2 */

2011-07-02T00:45:59Z

Take 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 2 July 2011
Line 143:		Line 143:

	It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)		It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
	:I agree, considering this more, the subjectivity is in the measure's arbitrariness. Arbitrariness in the specifics and in how sophisticated to make the measure. Not only is the player's skill not taken into account, but also the level of lander upgrades and the ''number'' of hostile bios. Additionally, I suspect that the ranking of risk ~~values~~ could change depending on the upgrade levels. For example, increased lander mobility reduces the hazard from mobile bios but not so much from, say, the carousel beast. So I move that the biorisk column be excised from [[List of planets]], along with the derivative overall hazard column. Having said that, it would be possible to include more facts by simply saying what bios are present (most efficiently done as a string for each planet, I'd suggest) and let the player decide how it looks. Good work with the rest of that page though! Anyone else have an opinion? --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)		:I agree, considering this more, the subjectivity is in the measure's arbitrariness. Arbitrariness in the specifics and in how sophisticated to make the measure. Not only is the player's skill not taken into account, but also the level of lander upgrades and the ''number'' of hostile bios. Additionally, I suspect that the ranking of bios by risk value could change depending on the upgrade levels. For example, increased lander mobility reduces the hazard from mobile bios but not so much from, say, the carousel beast. So I move that the biorisk column be excised from [[List of planets]], along with the derivative overall hazard column. Having said that, it would be possible to include more facts by simply saying what bios are present (most efficiently done as a string for each planet, I'd suggest) and let the player decide how it looks. Good work with the rest of that page though! Anyone else have an opinion? --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Zeracles: /* Take 2 */ problem with arbitrariness

2011-07-02T00:40:26Z

Take 2: problem with arbitrariness

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 2 July 2011
Line 143:		Line 143:

	It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)		It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
			:I agree, considering this more, the subjectivity is in the measure's arbitrariness. Arbitrariness in the specifics and in how sophisticated to make the measure. Not only is the player's skill not taken into account, but also the level of lander upgrades and the ''number'' of hostile bios. Additionally, I suspect that the ranking of risk values could change depending on the upgrade levels. For example, increased lander mobility reduces the hazard from mobile bios but not so much from, say, the carousel beast. So I move that the biorisk column be excised from [[List of planets]], along with the derivative overall hazard column. Having said that, it would be possible to include more facts by simply saying what bios are present (most efficiently done as a string for each planet, I'd suggest) and let the player decide how it looks. Good work with the rest of that page though! Anyone else have an opinion? --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Svdb: /* BioRisk */ other page?

2011-06-27T19:09:07Z

BioRisk: other page?

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 27 June 2011
Line 141:		Line 141:
	:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
	::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

			It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Elestan: /* Take 2 */ Maybe...one less?

2011-06-26T16:13:34Z

Take 2: Maybe...one less?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 26 June 2011
Line 140:		Line 140:
	:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
	:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
			::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Shiver: comment

2011-06-26T15:32:10Z

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 26 June 2011
Line 139:		Line 139:
	:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
	:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
			:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Elestan: /* Take 2 */ Tweak

2011-06-25T18:22:58Z

Take 2: Tweak

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 25 June 2011
Line 89:		Line 89:
	* Sessile/Wanderer: Base of 3		* Sessile/Wanderer: Base of 3
	* Slow Hunter: Base of 4		* Slow Hunter: Base of 4
	* ~~Moderate~~ Hunter: Base of 5		* Medium Speed Hunter: Base of 5
	* Fast Hunter: Base of 6		* Fast Hunter: Base of 6
	* Weak (HP 1-2): -1		* Weak (HP 1-2): -1

Elestan: /* Take 2 */ Split section

2011-06-25T18:20:42Z

Take 2: Split section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:20, 25 June 2011
Line 82:		Line 82:
	::I'd be inclined to keep it at 4, just because it's actually trying to collide with the lander. Not real dangerous if you can see it coming and are undistracted, but I think that makes it more dangerous than say, the Bubble Vine, which has the same stats but moves randomly. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)		::I'd be inclined to keep it at 4, just because it's actually trying to collide with the lander. Not real dangerous if you can see it coming and are undistracted, but I think that makes it more dangerous than say, the Bubble Vine, which has the same stats but moves randomly. Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			===Take 2===
	Okay, I made another pass through this, to try to come up with good rules for assigning values algorithmically, rather than ad hoc. The rules I ended up with are:		Okay, I made another pass through this, to try to come up with good rules for assigning values algorithmically, rather than ad hoc. The rules I ended up with are:

Elestan: /* BioRisk */ Already scaled, I think

2011-06-25T18:12:00Z

BioRisk: Already scaled, I think

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 25 June 2011
Line 137:		Line 137:
	\|}		\|}
	:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
			:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Zeracles: multipliers?

2011-06-25T17:31:08Z

multipliers?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 25 June 2011
Line 22:		Line 22:
	::Nice. I'd only suggest renaming the first column to constellation, with a link to [[List of constellations]]. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)		::Nice. I'd only suggest renaming the first column to constellation, with a link to [[List of constellations]]. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 16:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

			== BioRisk==
	How about also adding a column to note the danger from life forms? Looking at the [[Table of bio types]], I would suggest the following '''BioRisk''' values:		How about also adding a column to note the danger from life forms? Looking at the [[Table of bio types]], I would suggest the following '''BioRisk''' values:

Line 135:		Line 136:
	\|[[VUX Beast\|ZEX's Beauty]]\|\|bgcolor="black" align="center"\| [[Image:Lifez.0.png]] \|\| Hunter \|\| High \|\| 15 \|\| 15 \|\| Fast \|\| EXTREME \|\| 8		\|[[VUX Beast\|ZEX's Beauty]]\|\|bgcolor="black" align="center"\| [[Image:Lifez.0.png]] \|\| Hunter \|\| High \|\| 15 \|\| 15 \|\| Fast \|\| EXTREME \|\| 8
	\|}		\|}
			:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Elestan: A more algorithmic approach

2011-06-25T03:53:37Z

A more algorithmic approach

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 |[[VUX Beast|ZEX's Beauty]]||bgcolor="black" align="center"| [[Image:Lifez.0.png]] || Hunter || High || 15 || 15 || Fast || EXTREME || 8
 |}
 Rationale:
@@ Line 79: / Line 80: @@
 :That also looks excellent. I would personally go so far as to lower the Deluxe Blob's hazard level to 3 using the same rationale you did. The Crazy Weasel's value might be worth decreasing as well, but my memories of planet crawling with that critter involved are very hazy so I'm unsure. So far so good in any case. --[[User:Shiver|Shiver]] 23:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 ::I'd be inclined to keep it at 4, just because it's actually trying to collide with the lander.  Not real dangerous if you can see it coming and are undistracted, but I think that makes it more dangerous than say, the Bubble Vine, which has the same stats but moves randomly.  Let's see if anyone else has an opinion.  --[[User:Elestan|Elestan]] 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:09, 27 June 2011
Line 141:		Line 141:
	:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
	::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

			It seems to me that such a classification would always remain subjective. I'm actually in favour of keeping this page with just the facts. This classification could then perhaps find a place in the [[Walkthrough]]. — [[User:Svdb\|SvdB]] 19:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 26 June 2011
Line 140:		Line 140:
	:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
	:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)		:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
			::Maybe, but remember that these threat ratings are vs. an unimproved lander, against which Carousel beasts can be pretty nasty; they do swarm you, and you can't shoot fast enough to keep a herd of them at bay. And while you can still outrun them, you're not so fast that they won't catch up to you fairly quickly. Maybe reduce "Slow Hunters" by one? --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 16:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 26 June 2011
Line 139:		Line 139:
	:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:Interesting. Some of those properties look to me like they would have a multiplicative (rather than additive) effect on their BioRisk. For example, a critter with twice the hit points will last twice as long and have the potential to inflict twice as much damage on the lander. The danger value could be used the same way. Actually, now that I think about it, probable damage to lander could be used as a basis for an objective BioRisk value. But I'm sure there are other good ways to describe the risk. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 17:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
	:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)		:: I agree about the multiplicative effect, but I think that the 1-8 hazard scale is already nonlinear (i.e. an 8 is more than twice as dangerous as a 4). That's why harmless and cowardly critters don't get any further modifiers at all, and speed only matters for hunters, since the others aren't trying to move toward the lander. I think probable damage would be pretty hard to calculate, since the skill of the player enters into it a lot, as would any enhancements to the lander. --[[User:Elestan\|Elestan]] 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
			:Carousel Beasts aren't ''that'' dangerous. --[[User:Shiver\|Shiver]] 15:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)