Identical colonies: all players get the same immediate natives
It makes too big a difference if someone gets two nearby planets with excellent natives, while someone else gets none within 162LY. With this option, when the universe is created, the first ten or so planets are rolled randomly as usual but are the same for all players. Either all get good natives or none does.
-
snork commented
I still don't care for the idea. Maybe have the outer quadrants run with balanced starts for the noobs, but please don't make it the default. If you regulate what is near the HWs, then there will soon be calls to regulate what is far from them. As soon as someone discovers an uninhabited ice ball outside of the core zone while someone else finds 10mil unity Bovinoids, the grumbling will start.
Part of the allure of the game are the inequities. Even with the tweaks over the years, the fighter races are still perceived to have an advantage over torp races. Most of the experienced players that I know gravitate towards the torp races because of the added challenge. When was the last time you heard of the Crystals winning a game? I don't think that I ever have, but people still play them.
People who like the game, like the game for what it is. I would rather see a system that *rewards players for not dropping games*, rather than a system designed to placate players who otherwise would. This type of player, that would drop from a game due to a bad start economically, will also be the first to drop a game if things start to go poorly militarily regardless of the state of his economy. That is something that I find even more frustrating, because they often leave valuable ships littered about and planets generating supplies and money. It becomes a big windfall for their neighbours, which is unfair to the rest. Even more so with an enhanced core.
Because of these inequities, the game will never be totally fair, but that is where skill comes into it. If we keep trying to "fix" every little issue, we'll end up playing on a symmetrical map with everyone's empire having identical planets/natives and everyone playing the same race (that was said tongue in cheek, but I hope you get my drift). That isn't a direction I want to start heading in. The problem isn't the game, the problem is the players who drop out.
Me, I like the adversity. Back in the day, playing Squad Leader, Star Fleet Battles or any one of a number of other board games, the scenarios were rarely balanced. Snatching victory from the jaws of defeat was always the goal if you were the under dog. If I die early, I start a new game. Simple as that. I cut my teeth on strategy games by having my ass handed to me when I should have won. Equality doesn't matter as much as people might think because skill is the great equalizer.
With regards to the Gravatonic and HYP races, I imagine what Baer was getting at was that they are not as constrained in the opening rounds of a game and have a much greater range, therefore having a beefed up core might be considered advantageous to them. I would think this might apply to a lesser degree to the cloaking races as well, as they can travel unseen through voids that would otherwise give away another race. So, if that is an accurate assessment, this balanced start idea might actually work against the Robots, Colonies, Federation, Empire and Crystals. I'm not saying it necessarily would, but I can see the potential.
I could go so far as to maybe climbing on board with bell curving the number of planets in the core area, but I think the natives should be random. People will still drop games if they don't like the planets they come across first outside of the core, so why go through the bother in the first place for 4-8 planets? As mentioned above, you will only serve to create windfalls for the neighbouring races. If people are going to drop from the game, the earlier the better.
-
Finn commented
Snork, we have lots of problems with players quitting very early in the game. A feature like this would go a long way to reducing this behavior while improving - yes improving - the experience overall.
We are not going to all agree on where to draw the line between a useful change and the kind of change that hurts the fun of what made the game great in the first place. But this one really seems like a no-brainer.
-
snork commented
I don't care for this suggestion. Bad starts are part of the game. Improvise, adapt and overcome. The last game I completed, I finished first. I am about to be the first eliminated in another. Both situations are/were largely due to the start. That's the way the cookie crumbles. If you have a shitty start, best put on your best diplomatic hat and make friends.
-
coldsteel commented
I don't like having identical starting spots in a default game but I like Finn's idea of a Gaussian distribution normalized about some average (so there's still some randomness but fairer starting conditions). There's also been a bug reported with problematic starting positions, so if you assign the homeworlds area first this would be a good way to ensure they are not too close.
-
veldan commented
This would require a revamp to how they create universes (which I'm not against, just elaborating how much of a change you are asking for.) Based on the info Joshua has let slip about how the Master works. The entire Universe is created, populated with natives, minerals, etc. Then the home worlds are added.
What you are suggesting is to create the planets, wedge in homeworld distribution, and then populate the universe with natives and minerals taking into account their proximity to the homeworlds.
I don't find it to be an unreasonable suggestion. There's no reason to ensure that everything is equal, but it should ensure that there are decent minerals concentrations, natives, etc, that make each races starting spot competitive.
-
Finn commented
Baer, could you elaborate? I can't imagine what you mean.
-
Baer commented
I feel this would give a big advantage to Hyperjumping or Gravatronic ship races. I am a no on this, it is the roll of the dice.
-
Finn commented
I do not like the idea, as I think it is boring any time you change an unknown feature of your opponents to a known. You don't really know WHAT they have - and that is a key feature of the game.
BUT
I like the idea of a bell curve, as I have mentioned somewhere before. Right now, all planets are determined randomly for all aspects. What I propose is to use a different engine for determining planets within 81 LY of each player's homeworld.It works like this:
The chances of getting 8 planets within 81 LY and of getting 0 planets within 81 LY of your homeworld are both zero. But 1 or 7 is a small chance. 2 or 6 is a greater chance, and so on, with 4 planets being the most likely - or some variation of this. Do the same with everything else too, but only on these first planets. Everything can be measured, so you curve the likelihood of natives - not on an individual planet, but as the first group as a whole. First, the master program determines how many planets you have within 81 LY. Then, if you have, say 5 planets, there is a zero chance of no natives on any of your planets or all having natives, followed by a relatively small chance of 1 or 4 having natives, and a better chance of 2 or 3. Do the same with government, minerals, and temperature. Native race is almost a wash, so I don't care about this. Then, once the initial planets are determined, the master program goes to its usual algorithm for figuring the other planets. I bet there will be some issues with planets immediately surrounding the initial zone, but nothing that can't be handled. The only problem I see is if Joshua and company wrote the master program in such a way that it can not spot spacial zones of this sort. It may have to be rewritten nearly from scratch. -
coldsteel commented
I think this could be a great mod.