Is the game bugged with minimum and maximum quality ranges?

The Galaxy Lives On! Distant Worlds, the critically acclaimed 4X space strategy game is back with a brand new 64-bit engine, 3D graphics and a polished interface to begin an epic new Distant Worlds series with Distant Worlds 2. Distant Worlds 2 is a vast, pausable real-time 4X space strategy game. Experience the full depth and detail of turn-based strategy, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game.

Moderator: MOD_DW2

Post Reply
OloroMemez
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2022 1:47 am

Re: Is the game bugged with minimum and maximum quality ranges?

Post by OloroMemez »

Well, while I expected the distribution to be bell-curved, per Erik's comment, that's not what I found.
An unusually high number of planets were at the minimum quality (Normal difficulty * minimum quality of 10 for Carbonaceous gives 8.5 and gets rounded to 9.

A sample size of 150 I chose because you tend to be able to observe a normal distribution pretty well around that size.
I boosted the number of Carbonaceous planets that were in existence by massively increasing the OrbType chance to 0.4.

Image

Erik, can you confirm whether this is expected behaviour? Unless there's some hidden correction behind the scenes where it skewed the quality due to sheer number of Carbonaceous planets, idk what to think.

What's more bizarre is those massively out of range planets - I observed three planets that were far in excess of the normal quality range of Carbonaceous worlds.
Top
zgrssd
Posts: 5105
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:02 pm

Re: Is the game bugged with minimum and maximum quality ranges?

Post by zgrssd »

OloroMemez wrote: Sat Apr 02, 2022 5:09 am Well, while I expected the distribution to be bell-curved, per Erik's comment, that's not what I found.
An unusually high number of planets were at the minimum quality (Normal difficulty * minimum quality of 10 for Carbonaceous gives 8.5 and gets rounded to 9.

A sample size of 150 I chose because you tend to be able to observe a normal distribution pretty well around that size.
I boosted the number of Carbonaceous planets that were in existence by massively increasing the OrbType chance to 0.4.

Image

Erik, can you confirm whether this is expected behaviour? Unless there's some hidden correction behind the scenes where it skewed the quality due to sheer number of Carbonaceous planets, idk what to think.

What's more bizarre is those massively out of range planets - I observed three planets that were far in excess of the normal quality range of Carbonaceous worlds.
The 3 at 50+ might have been Homeworlds or similar Questspawned systems.

I am pretty sure that any planet with quality 15 or less would be poorly habitable or outright uninhabitable for every species.
The best bonsues I could find are:
Boskara +10/40 Treshold
Shandar +20/45 Treshold

Technology can only add +10.
Terraforming only has effeect if the planet is already 0 or more, because otherwise you can not place it.

So any Carbonaceous under Quality 15 would be inherently uninhabitable anyway.
Maybe change the habitable planets count to see if that changes something?
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 2”