Uncouple Planet Quality from Colony Prevalence please

[Anexgohan]

As it is right now I cannot generate a galaxy which has low number of habitable colonies but good quality. At Colony Prevalence Very abundant there are countless colonies all 60-90% quality and if I set Colony Prevalence to Very rare every habitable colonizable planet has a quality of less then 30% not even joking entire galaxy will generate with sub 30% quality.

Just separate the Colony Prevalence from Planet Quality/Suitablity so I can have a galaxy where habitable colonizable planets are hard to find but generally good quality.

[AKicebear]

Strongly agree

[Scott2933]

As it is right now I cannot generate a galaxy which has low number of habitable colonies but good quality. At Colony Prevalence Very abundant there are countless colonies all 60-90% quality and if I set Colony Prevalence to Very rare every habitable colonizable planet has a quality of less then 30% not even joking entire galaxy will generate with sub 30% quality.

Just separate the Colony Prevalence from Planet Quality/Suitablity so I can have a galaxy where habitable colonizable planets are hard to find but generally good quality.

I requested the same during the beta. Less is more (fewer to be specific).

[fullhouse]

Slightly tangential to this but relevant.

If you set independent colonies to the lowest setting, the game still stuffs them down your throat.

[btd64]

I have noticed this as well but at least there are fewer....GP

[MichaelJ007]

+1

Or at the very least, if you cant reduce the number of generated planets, keep the upper bound for quality, and reduce the lower bound. On the rarest settings all planets just suck, rather than having a few nice ones.

[OrnluWolfjarl]

Slightly tangential to this but relevant.

If you set independent colonies to the lowest setting, the game still stuffs them down your throat.

I believe independent prevalence is tied to the number of available colonizable planets in the galaxy. A certain percentage of them becomes independent. I've noticed that at higher colony prevalence, there's also more independents (if the independent setting isn't changed).

I've also noticed that there seems to be a minimum amount of independents, who usually spawn near starting empires or near certain special systems.

These two observations might just be confirmation bias though.

[fullhouse]

I always play with minimum amount of colonisable worlds and indys.

I still always get indy planets shoved down my throat.

[OloroMemez]

If you're open to using mods, I wrote one a while ago to address this very issue.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9&t=382877

[zgrssd]

I agree.

Modifying the average Quality based on Colony Prevelance was a quick hack, that should not be used.

[Anexgohan]

Please devs this is a game killer for my, I want a very few planets, in DWU this was a separate slider yet I don't understand why was this merged into one in DW 2

[MichaelJ007]

Personally I don't mind doing the terraforming game. I pretty much always choose very rare colonisable planets in a very large galaxy. So I have no problem with lower quality planets. By mid-late game you have a gazillion decent colonies anyway.

A decent way to do it might be to change the formula for randomising the quality of planets to have a lower median but a larger standard deviation, so you still have a chance to find a gem of a world.

The riskier method would be to change the prevalence of different planet types, as that could affect mineral distribution. I.e., having fewer volcanic planets could result in shortages of minerals that occur on volcanics.

[Anexgohan]

Personally I don't mind doing the terraforming game. I pretty much always choose very rare colonisable planets in a very large galaxy. So I have no problem with lower quality planets. By mid-late game you have a gazillion decent colonies anyway.

A decent way to do it might be to change the formula for randomising the quality of planets to have a lower median but a larger standard deviation, so you still have a chance to find a gem of a world.

The riskier method would be to change the prevalence of different planet types, as that could affect mineral distribution. I.e., having fewer volcanic planets could result in shortages of minerals that occur on volcanics.

Even I would love to play with the extremely rare colonizable planets setting, but the issue is with that setting it generates 15-25 quality planets, which are just not profitable up until the very late game.

[Jorgen_CAB]

Yes... lower the median quality of planets but increasing the standard deviation is a good solution.

I don't like to have too many colonizable planets in the early to mid game so I also reduce the quality of planets accordingly. But it would still be good if the ones I can colonize early on do have decent to good quality once they are found.

In general I don't have an issue with low quality planets... not sure how good the AI is at terraforming planets though... might be an issue, not sure.

[OrnluWolfjarl]

I don't like this design either, but there's an obvious problem here:

Some necessary construction resources are ONLY found on colonizable planet types (like Hexadorium or Tyderios only found on Ice biome planets). If you reduce the number of actual planets of that type, then the player (let alone the AI) will have real trouble getting their empire started.

A good solution would be to:

a) Use more extreme values for quality at rarer settings. E.g. at "Rarest" Colonies, only a few worlds over 80% and most worlds under 10% quality. That will allow for sufficient mining of resources, but still having a few good colonizable worlds around.

b) Prevent the AI from colonizing worlds of borderline good quality (like +2 or +5 habitability), which means you have to conquer them and deal with a shitty colony the rest of the game (not to mention the economic strain that puts on the AI).

c) Already colonized worlds at game start (i.e. Independent colonies, player/AI starting colonies) should not count towards the limits set by Colony Prevalence.