LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series



Message

Storper -> LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/23/2010 11:23:46 PM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/23/2010 11:52:40 PM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 12:12:29 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 12:48:42 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 1:19:01 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 1:32:08 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 2:33:21 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 3:45:12 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 4:27:07 AM)


quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 6:23:20 AM)

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.

quote:

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.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Krelos


quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 6:46:30 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 7:35:45 AM)

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



Fishman -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 8:57:10 AM)

quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 1:48:11 PM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 1:58:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 4:26:50 PM)

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



Alex Gilbert -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 5:28:03 PM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/24/2010 5:46:48 PM)


quote:

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 12:35:43 AM)

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 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 2:15:02 AM)

and then there is an editor



Erik Rutins -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 2:29:54 AM)

In the long run, we are planning to put some of this on a slider and also provide 64-bit support to allow huge and densely colonized galaxies. For now, what we did was decrease density a bit at the largest levels, not much on the smaller galaxies, to make sure that folks would not hit the limit on 32-bit systems.



RViener -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 5:15:28 PM)

There need to be less than optimal systems in the mix otherwise there is a reduction of the variable search requirement which in my opinion adds a great deal to the randomness of the galaxy over just having all systems colonizable by all. That is also a way different species can have advantage or disadvantage.
Bob Viener



Dadekster -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 6:01:08 PM)

That is wonderful news.

I would myself enjoy a large map with a bit of space around my colonies and the option of maybe upgrading certain planets/moons at extreme cost for added flexibility in planning an empire. Even then I would not want the colony to be anything but slightly subpar in that respect. Grade AAA planets and even rarer moons, imo should be few and far between as that should be central to whatever plans you have be it conquest or economic domination. But giving people the option of how dense they want their map would be the best thing.



Fishman -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 6:57:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In the long run, we are planning to put some of this on a slider and also provide 64-bit support to allow huge and densely colonized galaxies.
I think it may be useful to consider revisiting exactly where all this RAM is going in the first place. Colonies shouldn't actually be informationally dense objects, given that have very few attributes that can actually be manipulated in any way, so you'd think they would amount to only a few bytes of data on top of a planet. Yet somehow, they chew up an immense amount of RAM, probably in memory leaks, as data from a game is clearly persisting even when you exit back to the main menu.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

For now, what we did was decrease density a bit at the largest levels, not much on the smaller galaxies, to make sure that folks would not hit the limit on 32-bit systems.
Doesn't this essentially defeat the point of a larger galaxy, since having a larger galaxy which is filled with unusable crap is basically the same as not having those systems at all, so the amount of stuff is basically the same?



Mus -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 8:34:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

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


IMO only very colonizable systems with good resources should be represented in game, the millions/billions of other systems should be abstracted.



ASHBERY76 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 8:37:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

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


IMO only very colonizable systems with good resources should be represented in game, the millions/billions of other systems should be abstracted.


No the exploration part of the game should not be predictable.Master Of Orion and all other 4X games agree with my view.



Mus -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 8:44:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

No the exploration part of the game should not be predictable.Master Of Orion and all other 4X games agree with my view.


Well most 4x games are crap and Master of Orion, while a good game in it's time, is approaching 20 years old now, and doesn't even come close to approaching the complexity and scale of Distant Worlds, so I don't know that I would be claiming that as proving the validity of an opinion.

Having a realistic proportion of inhabitable planets in proportion to the different environmental tolerances basically every system in a Distant worlds galaxy should be inhabitable, or have something unique about it that makes it worth representing out of the countless stars in a galaxy.

Otherwise what is the point of representing it?

And as for exploration becoming predictable, in a galaxy with so many stars there has to be something observable that made it worthy of exploration in the first place, some kind of unique emission, observable bodies within the band of having liquid water (or whatever the species doing the exploring prefers), etc.

This is the only way these kinds of abstractions make sense. To represent a system that is empty, not colonizable by any species in the game and has nothing unique about it is stupid.




jscott991 -> RE: LeSigh at the galaxy creation formula (4/25/2010 9:58:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

In the long run, we are planning to put some of this on a slider and also provide 64-bit support to allow huge and densely colonized galaxies. For now, what we did was decrease density a bit at the largest levels, not much on the smaller galaxies, to make sure that folks would not hit the limit on 32-bit systems.


I would focus on getting the current game to run at a reasonable speed before I would try to make things bigger.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.921875