Increased Colony costs for "flavor"

[Suicide Junkie]

I know that, and you know that, Fyron.
But Geo just said:

As far as empire setup goes there is really no basis for choosing between rock or ice over other than personal taste or role play or whatever. The choice between Rock/Ice and Gas Giant does make a difference, but that's not to say one is better than the other. They simpley require slightly different strategies as Gas players will tend to have fewer but larger, and presumably better defended planets, while a rock/ice player will have more planets but be more widely dispersed

In fact, Ice worlds have between 35% and 40% LESS of EVERYTHING compared to rock.

Compared to rock, gas gets slightly more population, but fewer facilities and even lower construction rate than ice; half what rock gets.

[geoschmo]

Suicide Junkie said:
In fact, Ice worlds have between 35% and 40% LESS of EVERYTHING compared to rock.

I think hardly the shift of one sector type from methane ice to methane rock would cause that drastic of a change. I'd have to have some more information about how you are calculating your percentages to comment on it. Are there some more factors that aren't generally well known causing such a discrepancy?

[Suicide Junkie]

The rock/ice methane bug in sectortypes.txt does indeed make only a small effect.

The systemtypes.txt is where the huge issues crop up.
Far too many Rock/Any calls, not enough Ice/Any calls.
Rock/None is also far more common than Ice/None in the systemtypes.

The map analyser covers the effects from everything:
- sectortypes.txt
- systemtypes.txt
- quadranttypes.txt (choose one quadrant to analyse)
- settings.txt (the population modifiers to SY rate and resources)
- planetsizes.txt (facilities, population, domed planet modifiers)

[geoschmo]

Suicide Junkie said:
The systemtypes.txt is where the huge issues crop up.
Far too many Rock/Any calls, not enough Ice/Any calls.
Rock/None is also far more common than Ice/None in the systemtypes.

Are we talking about stock SE4 here? I was not aware that there were any system type entries specifying the composition as rock. The only planets specified at all that I am aware of are the tiny/none same as entries for the moons. Those can be any composition, but will always be rock or ice since there are no none/gas giant worlds.

I did a check just now and what I thought was correct. No composition specific entries at all in the system types file. Unless I'm blind SJ? Are you working with something other than stock files there? Maybe that was an anylsis of Fyron's Quadrant mod?

[Suicide Junkie]

Hrm. There are no calls there in stock. Must have been thinking of FQM indeed.

However, those stats ARE for stock, and the bugs are indeed in the sectortypes.txt

From the count of entries in sectortypes.txt:
tiny: 0 gas, 27 rock, 18 ice
small: 0 gas, 27 rock, 18 ice
medium: 8 gas, 27 rock, 10 ice
large: 16 gas, 19 rock, 10 ice
huge: 24 gas, 11 rock, 10 ice

[geoschmo]

Well I stand corrected. I was not aware the discrepancies were that great. The only one I ever heard of was that one methane ice. I had never heard this mentioned before in any of the conversations we had about this issue.

I wonder if Malfador intended for this discrepancy to exsist? It wouldn't be a problem if the game would pick a composition and a size and then pick a sector type to match that instead of randomly choosing from the list of all sector types. Maybe that's what he intended and so he never bothered to make sure the rock and ice worlds appeared an equal number of times in the sector types file.

[Phoenix-D]

Or maybe they aren't -supposed- to be equal, on the assumption that more players will have the Rock planet type than the Ice planet type.