Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Anybody else feel that the way SE4 generates the galaxy and places players needs a MAJOR overhaul?

MM borrowed quite a few ideas from Starfire, but did not borrow the balanced start. IMHO, this was a major mistake as the game can be won/lost on your starting location the way it is now.

I'm in one PBEM where I started with 1 breathable planet and about 6 colonizable planets within 2-3 jumps of my start. Another player with the same planet/atmosphere choice started with 5 breathable and an unknown number of colonizable planets within 2 jumps (and I've only seen 3 of his systems). To make matters worse, the one breathable I found 2 jumps away was 1 jump from the other player's home system. There is virtually no way I can compete against him (especially since trading for another colony tech only gave me 2 medium breathable planets and another 5-6 colonizable).

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Yeah, I've had some pretty bad starts too.
I wish they would spread you out more. How can you be in a large quadrant with 5 other players and run into one them 10 turns into the game? That happens to me quite a bit.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

yep, it sucks. I have a game going that took about 5 restarts to get started because of race file resubmissions and whatnot. each time the game restarted I was holding my breath. first time, i was pretty happy. second time, i knew i was screwed and would be completely unable to compete. third time, i knew i would be untouchable. it kind of went back and fourth like that.

the 'all players evenly distributed' option does not seem to do doink. with it checked, some players were directly adjacent, others were completely isolated. this certainly does need work, and I dont even think it cares at all about what planets are near to you.

at least they fixed the thing with players starting in black hole systems, man that sucked (your ships right out of orbit).

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

I think what you mention can be easily mitigated by choosing to have 5 or 10 planets at start. With this many planets, there is always waypoints to other good systems.
I am all in the full randomization of the process as it is.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Yes, it can be somewhat mitigated by choosing 5 or 10 planets. What if I just want everyone to start with 1 planet and have a roughly equal starting position. The only option right now is to start a game with 5 or 10 planets, then go in and abandon all except 1. This causes problems as you loose the research point bonus from the first turn.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Hey, Ubik http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

What you're asying is very true, but a large start like that makes for a very different game experience from a single-planet start.

I think you and I should come up with a new Facility, the Large-Scale Intergalactic Portugese Software Pirate facility. It wouldn't actually do anything, but your opponents' planets would become unhappy due to paranoia about the possibility of software piracy http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

Hmm, then again, maybe it should be an Intelligence Operation...

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

you really should not say things like that Possum. Its highly inconsiderate. I nearly pee'd myself, and that would have gone over very poorly for me since I am at work right now. next time, warn me first with a little disclaimer at the top of the post.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

On a somewhat similar topic.

Why are home planets not Optimal?

I started a game with a race that had no maintenance, and gave myself 91% reproduction as compensation.

My home planet was something below 'mild', and had ZERO pop. growth.

Fortunately, there was a nearby optimal planet, whose atmosphere I couldn't breathe. I could get 1% growth over there.

Shouldn't every home planet be optimal, seing as you're evolved for it?

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Shouldn't every home planet be optimal, seing as you're evolved for it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're making some huge assumptions:
1) Evolution is true.
2) Every race evolved on its "home" planet.
3) Every race reached optimum.
4) The planets are uniform.
5) Each race doesn't have to compete with other lifeforms.
6) Each race hasn't had to compete for long enough for evolution to take that into account.
7) Ability to breed quickly is the main driving force of evolution.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Maybe your homeworld is Unpleasant because your large population is overwhelming the ecosphere. Pollution problems might be what's driving your race into space.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

yeah, mebbe ya'll ate too much skonk chili http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

hehe,

Earth itself isn't always so pleasant...hurricanes...deserts...etc..

[This message has been edited by pathfinder (edited 28 February 2001).]

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

A very good comment on those assumptions. One only has to look at our own planet and ask it what way is it 'Optimal' for human life? To me, optimal would be the ability for me to walk around in a pair of shorts on any square inch of this planet and not worry about the environment get to me. I don't think I'd Last long in the Sahara or the Antarctic in just my skivvies....ergo, Earth is not optimal for humans. It is most likely good, but not optimal... (Well, maybe Hawaii is!!!!)

Codo

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Those are some good points, everybody.

It always helps to rationalize why things are.

Thanks, I guess I'll just settle in for trench warfare and wait for my Condition improvement plants to kick the planets up enough for the pop to grow.


Q) Since gravity obviously has no effect (huge rock worlds vs. moons), shouldn't any domed colony be treated as having Optimal conditions?

Under the dome, you can have whatever atmosphere, temperature, lighting, radiation, etc that you like!

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Well even in domes outside events affect inhabitans.I mean wouln't you feel more comfortable at the planet that has nice calm atmosphere (not breatheble though) without severe storms or other unpleasent activities, planet with not to many errupting volcanos, earthquaques and similar misfortunes.

Suicide Junkie

On the reproduction issue,I think that you made a bad trade of.I don't know wheter you lowered your enviromental resistance (not sure that I get the name right) but if you didn't that would be much better candidate for gaining points as it reduces your growth by 1% for every 5 points taken away while reproduction decreases growth by one for every point taken away.

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

Hey Possum!

We must be wary of counter intelligence operations!

The greatest asset of our secret "organization" is that its infamous members (us!) are notoriously known for their capacity to take a laugh at the expense of ourselves!

From now on, you must call me by my real name:
Ubik "the pegleg"
;-)
-----------------------

About the starting planet not having optimal conditions, it is probably possible to have an option in the game setup to take care of that.

I think what you are asking for is a "Quadrant Editor" where you can make a Quadrant the way that suit your whims.
I prefer by far the randomness in the game because it always keep me on my toes. And after all, even if MM think about controling planet placement, someone will probably start complaining about his side of the quadrant being less defensible (more warpoints, for instance) than his neighbours... which would led us to a VERY undesirable end: abolishing the random factor in the game setup.

Overall, I think MM should concentrate on more important issues than doing a Quadrant Editor...

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by suicide_junkie:
Thanks, I guess I'll just settle in for trench warfare and wait for my Condition improvement plants to kick the planets up enough for the pop to grow.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Anyone know how long it takes Condition Improvement Plants to fix "Deadly" conditions? Or if "Deadly" can EVER be fixed?

Re: Lousy galaxy generation/player placement
 

"deadly" conditions are just conditions with a negative % (or maybe just really low like 0% to 15%) So, ten CI 3s should be able to boost that up 30% to 'harsh' or so over a year.
Whatever you do, It'll take a long time. I suggest throwing up a single CI3, and shuttling colonists over. Or, alternatively, destroy the planet, and rebuild it. Asteroids might not keep track of conditions.

-------------
As for the race:

I knew it was gonna hurt reproduction badly when I chose it. I wanted to make the game harder without resorting to big AI bonuses.

Now, my pop grows by 50M people per turn Empire-wide, and I have to shuttle them around, and back to my homeworld.