Lousy galaxy generation/player placement

[pathfinder]

yeah, mebbe ya'll ate too much skonk chili

hehe,

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

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

[Codo]

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

[Suicide Junkie]

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!

[alasyr]

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.

[Ubik]

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...

[DirectorTsaarx]

quote:

---

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.

---

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

[Suicide Junkie]

"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.