LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula

[Storper]

Ok last time Around I whined about the fantastic amount of Ice and ocean worlds skewing balance in all sort of ways basically the races with an inherent ability to colonize them recieved a gamebreaking advantage. Well I´m happy to say that problem is gone in 1.04. Looking around with the editor in huge galaxies volcanic/ice/ocean worlds now seem to be a hell of a lot more rare. Problem is that nothing seems to have replaced them. Even with max colonization tech there seems to be about 1 or 2 colonizable worlds every 5 to 10 solar systems. Average solar system looks in one of three ways.

1. Nothing i.e empty
2. 1 or 2 gas worlds and nothing else.
3. Same as 2 but with 2-3 barren worlds added.

Was this intended because it makes any empire look very funky with huge distances between colonies. And what good is 1400 stars if you can only colonize 200 of them? I often see systems with 7-8 planets without anything that can be colonized even with max tech or any race.

Now I´ve tested only on biggest size so I suppose there could be some problems only on this size, perhaps others can give more info on that.

Now I wouldnt actually have any problems with the abundance of barren worlds if they were actually useful in other ways rather than mining but for that we need terraforming but as it looks right now I just get annoyed with the experience (possibly because I´m a bit of a turtler). So are the galaxy creation formula going to be tweaked or is it set at current numbers for now? Because if it is I think I´ll resume this game in a few patches or after an expansion. Its a shame because I really enjoy the other 1.04 changes.

[Anthropoid]

Hmmm. Do we really have any way of guessing what most systems "should" be? I know they've been discovering extrasolar planets like gangbusters, but maybe 2/14 systems with colonizable planets is "realistic?" Do they even know? I mean heck it could be 0.1/14 !?!

ADDIT: obviously a "galaxy" with only 1400 stars is off by a factor of about 150,000 (assuming 200,000,000,000 in Milky Way, which is middle of the estimates I see from 100 to 400b) so I guess the whole realism issue kinda goes out the window right there.

But it still raises the question of: what would be a good balance and range of variation in proportion of systems that are colonizable?

I tend to think that even half of systems with colonizable worlds is too many. I also tend to think that it should be _necessary_ to have fringe mines and space stations to fully maximize your Empire. This would make the "space is big" feeling even better: if you have to spread out and exploit even systems that you cannot colonize in order to hit optimal.

I think there were far too many resources in 1.02.

[HsojVvad]

You will have to through realism right out the window, because there would be way to many uncolonizable planets and that would make for a boring game

[Krelos]

When it comes to DW, I think of it as the game omitting the 99% of useless solar systems and only showing the ones that matter.
As a  way to rationalize there being only 1400 stars.

But yeah, if there's only 1/7th of the systems that have habitable planets... that's just not a good thing any way you look at it.

[lancer]

Goodaye,

I think realism is a moot point in the galaxy make-up. As pointed out above nobody knows the average planet density for stars although given that we do know that the majority of stars (70% roughly) are red dwarfs the frequency of 'colonisable' planets is likely to be extremely rare.

It matters a lot in game terms though.

The more heavily a galaxy populates itself with useable planets the easier the game becomes. As a colony automatically mines the resources on it's planets there is less need to build and protect mining bases. Your colonies are situated on a 'denser' grid, eg. closer together, and are thus easier to defend. You have a greater number of colonies which leads to bigger empires and consequently bigger everything else.

On the other hand when the galaxy presents with a sparser distribution of habital planets then the game becomes more challenging and more strategic.

You are forced to use mining bases to gather your resources, they - as well as your colonies - are more dispersed. This makes defending them a bigger ask than if they were all clumped together. Your overall empire size (in terms of colonies) is smaller and more managable. It is also more brittle. Factors such as interim staging starports, refuelling depots, force disposition decisions etc. now come into play. It becomes a more interesting game.

A simple analogy is the WW2 in the pacific. The entire theatre conflict resolved around capturing small chunks of strategic rock scattered throughout the vastness of the pacific ocean.

Imagine how it would have played out if the pacific ocean was instead more rock than water and that you could jump your way from one side to another. The war would have been over in a fraction of the time.

In summary I'm a big supporter of the current dispersed galaxy set-up (1.4 beta) as it provides you with a challenging, interesting experience that plays to the strengths of the game design.

To push the point even further I also think that by filling the galaxy up with colonisable planets all that you'd achieve is to turn DW into a typical RTS no-brainer clickfest.

Different people like different things, however, and perhaps an option setting at game start that determines the make-up of the galaxy would be something to aim for. I suspect, however, that this wouldn't be easy to program as the AI would have to be able to handle widely divergent galaxy set-ups.


Cheers,
Lancer

[JasmoVT]

I think if we ignore realism and simply look at game play there is an issue here. Every other time I have played I have averaged over one potential colony per system. I just started a new game that I have explored 50 systems and only found 4 colony locations and from the ones I have looked at, most have nothing in them (although I have about a dozen bonus research locations).

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: JasmoVT

I think if we ignore realism and simply look at game play there is an issue here. Every other time I have played I have averaged over one potential colony per system. I just started a new game that I have explored 50 systems and only found 4 colony locations and from the ones I have looked at, most have nothing in them (although I have about a dozen bonus research locations).

That does sound a bit sparse, but I think Lancer makes a great point: more sparse plays to the game design and will tend to require a more strategic and fun game, instead of the typical RTS clickfest.

Well said Lancer!

[Fishman]

Completely worthless systems seem to be a waste of the game's RAM, which is already experiencing issues. Perhaps the generator should decide "Why is this system even in the game?" before generating it, so that there aren't any purposeless systems that serve to simply waste space on the map and your RAM. After all, you've already pruned a galaxy down to about 700 stars (is 1000 and 1400 even playable to completion without the game dying horribly halfway through?), so clearly you're already aiming to discard the chaff. Most stars don't have anything around them in real life, but we can already tell this with current technology, and would thus not consider them interesting enough to ever visit if we could.

[Krelos]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Completely worthless systems seem to be a waste of the game's RAM, which is already experiencing issues. Perhaps the generator should decide "Why is this system even in the game?" before generating it, so that there aren't any purposeless systems that serve to simply waste space on the map and your RAM. After all, you've already pruned a galaxy down to about 700 stars (is 1000 and 1400 even playable to completion without the game dying horribly halfway through?), so clearly you're already aiming to discard the chaff. Most stars don't have anything around them in real life, but we can already tell this with current technology, and would thus not consider them interesting enough to ever visit if we could.

Precisely, if a system has no usable planets it shouldn't even exist in-game. There's a reason there are different galaxy sizes available. Having the majority of systems useless makes the 1400 size 700 in practice, at best, but still uses the memory of the 1400.

And yes, it is. [:)] My system can handle a 1400 galaxy with minimal problems.

[Wade1000]

I agree. There are billions of stars in our galaxy. A game like Distant Worlds having limited stars should represent the stars that are worthy while omitting the stars that are not worthy.
Thus, if many of the limited number of game stars are not worthy then the game seems odd and less fun.

ORIGINAL: Krelos

When it comes to DW, I think of it as the game omitting the 99% of useless solar systems and only showing the ones that matter.
As a  way to rationalize there being only 1400 stars.

But yeah, if there's only 1/7th of the systems that have habitable planets... that's just not a good thing any way you look at it.

ORIGINAL: Krelos

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Completely worthless systems seem to be a waste of the game's RAM, which is already experiencing issues. Perhaps the generator should decide "Why is this system even in the game?" before generating it, so that there aren't any purposeless systems that serve to simply waste space on the map and your RAM. After all, you've already pruned a galaxy down to about 700 stars (is 1000 and 1400 even playable to completion without the game dying horribly halfway through?), so clearly you're already aiming to discard the chaff. Most stars don't have anything around them in real life, but we can already tell this with current technology, and would thus not consider them interesting enough to ever visit if we could.

Precisely, if a system has no usable planets it shouldn't even exist in-game. There's a reason there are different galaxy sizes available. Having the majority of systems useless makes the 1400 size 700 in practice, at best, but still uses the memory of the 1400.

And yes, it is. [:)] My system can handle a 1400 galaxy with minimal problems.

[richieelias]

Well first off you cant just run a couple games and come to a conclusion that colonizable planets are few and far between. Sometimes you get a lot, sometimes you barely get any. Random chance is a huge factor here. In fact my latest game had me starting with far too many colonizable planets in my general vicinity, allowing me to pick just the cream of the crop so as not to overcolonize and tank my budget.

And second, the latest theory on planet formation that I've heard stated something to the effect that any planet that forms within a certain distance of its star (that being the "habitable zone") is almost garunteed to have liquid water due to water (in its various forms) being one of the most common elements in the universe. Still, a planet would have to form inside that range or you end up with a barren rock or an ice planet. Still, even with that I think the amount of planets out there that could be considered "suitable for life" is going to turn out to be quite high.

[Gertjan]

Perhaps we need something like in Galciv2, where you can decide the amount of stars, planets and habitable planets.

[Fishman]

ORIGINAL: Krelos

And yes, it is. [:)] My system can handle a 1400 galaxy with minimal problems.

You playing the 1.04? And how far? In 1.03, the game will eventually choke and die as it hits the 1 GB-ish RAM cap, even though even win32 lets you use 2. Did this get fixed in 1.04?

[Krippakrull]

I like the distances and empty systems personally, as not every system is full of usable stuff, the ones that are feel all the more precious. I would personally loathe a 700 planet game where each and every system had a colony or precious gas giant in it, and if I just decreased the number of systems the galaxy would feel empty instead. I'm not sure if building a trading port in an empty system in a major intersection between key resource systems is worth it currently, if it isn't it probably should be. Though I can't imagine having a setting in the game setup that increases the number of habitable planets being a huge thing to implement, just as long as they keep a standard setting that's like the current, seemingly wildly random algorithm.

[Krelos]

ORIGINAL: Fishman

ORIGINAL: Krelos

And yes, it is. [:)] My system can handle a 1400 galaxy with minimal problems.

You playing the 1.04? And how far? In 1.03, the game will eventually choke and die as it hits the 1 GB-ish RAM cap, even though even win32 lets you use 2. Did this get fixed in 1.04?

I hope it is fixed in 1.04, but no, I use 1.03 still. But I've never had that happen since after 1.02.

[jscott991]

In general, empty systems are a waste of PC resources.

[Alex Gilbert]

I think there are 2 related issues here:

1. Systems totally devoid of planets/asteroids- I personally like them--it makes efficient exploration important since you may have to hit several stars to find one that you want, but if they can be removed to streamline performance, I think that outweighs the "I like it" argument.  However, I wonder if these stars are there for possible future expansions-- note that clicking on the stars gives a whole bunch of information about energy output that currently is of no importance in the game-- perhaps this is being worked into future expansions where a high energy star provides some value even in the absence of planets....

2. Systems without immediately colonizable planets-- I would argue more strongly to keep these.  I like the expansion dynamic of a first wave of expansion to just a single type of planet leaving "holes" in the territory.  It puts a premium on incorporating independent colonies to gain their ability to colonize other types of planets.  I know I have burned 5-6 colony ships trying to get some independent desert world (with a hostile population) to join the empire because once I have them, I crank out colony ships from there than can colonize all the desert worlds I could not get to before this.  It also increases intermixing of the empires as they settle in the "holes" in my territory.  Frustrating? A bit, but it also guides my strategy over who to ally with and who to kick out of "my" space.

[Storper]

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I think there are 2 related issues here:

1. Systems totally devoid of planets/asteroids- I personally like them--it makes efficient exploration important since you may have to hit several stars to find one that you want, but if they can be removed to streamline performance, I think that outweighs the "I like it" argument.  However, I wonder if these stars are there for possible future expansions-- note that clicking on the stars gives a whole bunch of information about energy output that currently is of no importance in the game-- perhaps this is being worked into future expansions where a high energy star provides some value even in the absence of planets....

2. Systems without immediately colonizable planets-- I would argue more strongly to keep these.  I like the expansion dynamic of a first wave of expansion to just a single type of planet leaving "holes" in the territory.  It puts a premium on incorporating independent colonies to gain their ability to colonize other types of planets.  I know I have burned 5-6 colony ships trying to get some independent desert world (with a hostile population) to join the empire because once I have them, I crank out colony ships from there than can colonize all the desert worlds I could not get to before this.  It also increases intermixing of the empires as they settle in the "holes" in my territory.  Frustrating? A bit, but it also guides my strategy over who to ally with and who to kick out of "my" space.

Alright I´ll give you number 1. As for number 2 that might have been pre 1.04. IN 1.04 a starsystem is usually nothing but barren and gas worlds. Perhaps you can show me where I find the tech/races that can colonize that?

And its not just one such system here and there. I´d argue that a majority of systems with planets in them are like that atm. [:-]

[BigWolfChris]

Tbh, I think the better solution would be what has already been suggested
Planet number and habitability options, where you [the player] can choose the amount of systems that must have planets, and then how many of those planets must be in the colonizable range

That, for those of us who like a few empty-ish star systems here or there can have them
And those of us who like to be able to have a colony in every system, you get that too
And it caters for all those between the two as well

[freeboy]

and then there is an editor