Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sendrien on January 04, 2019, 01:51:38 PM
-
In general, I have only praise for how Starsector has progressed through the versions. However, the recent additions in 0.9 have brought to light something that I didn't really notice earlier, but now is becoming painfully obvious.
Procedurally generated solar systems are somehow a) emptier; b) duller and/or c) less interesting than the hand-crafted ones in the Core Worlds.
For instance, the vast majority of habitable planets are found in simplistic systems which will include: 1 star, 1-3 stable points, 1-3 planets, 1 astronomical feature (ring system or magnetic field) and the accompanying jump points. In many cases, the system is completely empty! Just a star with no planets! I realize that this may be representative of the emptiness of space, but perhaps we should think of the sector map as a map of *interesting* systems? In terms of player experience, would it not be much more beneficial if each system were worth exploring?
Contrast this to the complex and extremely interesting features of practically every system in the Core Worlds! Some planets have multiple moons, asteroid belts, and a whole bunch of other quirky features that makes each location memorable.
It really kills the "Eureka moment" of finding a Terran planet when you realize that it is literally the only planet orbiting a completely empty system.
Is there some kind of memory limitation or limit on the number of planetary bodies that somehow requires the procedurally generated systems to be so simplistic? Otherwise, I would like to suggest that the parameters be tweaked so that most systems are more complex and contain between 3 and 18 planetary bodies, including moons.
Anecdotally, one of the most awesome moments of discovery I've encountered in Starsector was my first encounter with a Pulsar. Being pushed away by the Pulsar was wicked. Seeing the pulsar's beam of light be dissected by an orbiting planet...just awesome. You know what the big letdown of that system was? It was completely empty save for that one planet.
-
For instance, the vast majority of habitable planets are found in simplistic systems which will include: 1 star, 1-3 stable points, 1-3 planets, 1 astronomical feature (ring system or magnetic field) and the accompanying jump points. In many cases, the system is completely empty! Just a star with no planets! I realize that this may be representative of the emptiness of space, but perhaps we should think of the sector map as a map of *interesting* systems? In terms of player experience, would it not be much more beneficial if each system were worth exploring?
With the caveat that some of this is personal preference, I think it's actually quite important for a decent number of systems to be empty or relatively uninteresting. It establishes a baseline for something to be "interesting" in comparison to. If everything is "worth exploring", it'll take away a lot of the fun of exploration and make it feel more like a chore. Contrast that with finding a system that's actually worth exploring, after seeing a number that aren't.
There are also lots of ways the game steers the player towards the more interesting systems, from something relatively subtle (special names) to missions, warning beacons, etc, so the player is given tools to explore more (or less) wisely, which the less interesting systems make possible.
That's not to say procgen is perfect and might not benefit from a tweak here and there. I just disagree with the premise that everything needs to be "interesting"; if everything is, then nothing is, you know?
-
That's not to say procgen is perfect and might not benefit from a tweak here and there. I just disagree with the premise that everything needs to be "interesting"; if everything is, then nothing is, you know?
Agreed, the spice, the specials stuff should be special. As long as it's not super rare to the point where there is only 5 interesting systems in the whole game.
-
With the caveat that some of this is personal preference, I think it's actually quite important for a decent number of systems to be empty or relatively uninteresting. It establishes a baseline for something to be "interesting" in comparison to. If everything is "worth exploring", it'll take away a lot of the fun of exploration and make it feel more like a chore. Contrast that with finding a system that's actually worth exploring, after seeing a number that aren't.
I can see your point about interesting becoming normal. However, really special systems which contain habitable planets or other special features like Pulsars, perhaps could carry some kind of "Special" tag, so that the procedural generator gives them more substance.
Don't forget that the estimate of *average* number of planets per star in the Milky Way is around 8, with a low and high range of 2 and 80. (Source: https://www.universetoday.com/30296/how-many-planets-are-in-the-galaxy/ (https://www.universetoday.com/30296/how-many-planets-are-in-the-galaxy/))
I consider myself very lucky if I find 1 procedurally generated system in a given save with at least 6 planetary bodies (including moons) in Starsector.
What about giving systems denoted with the "Special" tag a 40% chance to generate 6 planets or more?
-
Hmm - just made a new game, randomly sampling a few systems, counting planets:
9, 2, 7, 1, 2, 6, 4, 1, 2, 7
Actually, I've got a thing that prints the overall stats, which I was using when fine-tuning procgen. So, for this just-now-generated Sector, we've got:
Systems: 190
Planets: 513
Habitable planets: 55
An average of 2.7 planets per system, but considering some are empty and it's a normal distribution otherwise, there'll be a fair bit of systems on the mid-to-high end.
The blue giant systems to tend to have more stuff, though, and less habitable worlds, so in general, a habitable world in a system that also has lots of other planets is less likely.
I consider myself very lucky if I find 1 procedurally generated system in a given save with at least 6 planetary bodies (including moons) in Starsector.
That seems like exceedingly bad luck! ... or, possibly, selective memory, if those systems didn't have much else of note going on :)
However, really special systems which contain habitable planets or other special features like Pulsars, perhaps could carry some kind of "Special" tag, so that the procedural generator gives them more substance.
...
What about giving systems denoted with the "Special" tag a 40% chance to generate 6 planets or more?
What's the gameplay reasoning here? I'm not saying this would necessarily be bad, but at first glance this seems like a fairly lateral change, if that makes sense - neither better nor worse, just different.
-
I suppose this is a subjective judgement, but for me, one of the reasons I love Starsector is the thrill of finding something special. Finding a Terran planet from which you can build a large population center for your faction is one of those moments. You might be hunting and exploring the whole game for that Terran planet in the Sector.
Since this is one of the implicit payoffs for the amount of time and effort put into extensive exploration, I feel like it's a letdown when the Terran planet is alone in an empty system, just orbiting a star.
(It would be interesting if you did the same sampling test on the systems with Terran planets (or even habitable planets). I'd bet your numbers would be much lower, and you might find that Terran planets are often found in systems with 3 planetary bodies or fewer.
-
Most of the interesting systems are the cooler stars that can have Terran or other low hazard worlds with all of the resources.
Big systems with mostly high hazard planets are... yuck! They are only good if planets have ruins (for tech mining) or have an abandoned station to loot.
-
Most of the interesting systems are the cooler stars that can have Terran or other low hazard worlds with all of the resources.
Big systems with mostly high hazard planets are... yuck! They are only good if planets have ruins (for tech mining) or have an abandoned station to loot.
From a strictly min-maxing perspective.
Don't let that one perspective cloud your vision of what a visually interesting system is, either. I find Blue Giant systems with loads of planets to be the most fun to explore - I wish more stars had larger planetary systems in them.
-
my only complaint about the procgen is that there's a lot of room for extraordinarily surprising stuff hidden inside systems that look like they should be boring but the current system only does... well, as you said Alex, aside from Empty it's mostly just Normal Distribution. The game feels like it needs the occasional outlier where the player can get rewarded above-grade for exploring systems that lack the possibility of colonization.
Like, a chance for exploration content in systems that are uncolonizable to be upgraded into even better/more interesting content just for being in a system that has no value for colonies, so that exploring nebulas and systems with no planets doesn't feel like such a waste of time.
-
I suppose this is a subjective judgement, but for me, one of the reasons I love Starsector is the thrill of finding something special. Finding a Terran planet from which you can build a large population center for your faction is one of those moments. You might be hunting and exploring the whole game for that Terran planet in the Sector.
Since this is one of the implicit payoffs for the amount of time and effort put into extensive exploration, I feel like it's a letdown when the Terran planet is alone in an empty system, just orbiting a star.
I guess I'm not seeing a fundamental difference. More planets potentially make the system more useful, but, I mean, it's already got a terran planet! Beyond that, just feel-wise, I think both are interesting, and I'm not really seeing "more planets" as a win in terms of feel or reward. I think maybe it is a subjective thing, since it seems like you are.
(It would be interesting if you did the same sampling test on the systems with Terran planets (or even habitable planets). I'd bet your numbers would be much lower, and you might find that Terran planets are often found in systems with 3 planetary bodies or fewer.
I'm sure you're right, as I was saying, the larger planet-count systems tend to be blue giants, which are less likely to get habitable worlds.
(Actually, not that hard to check: maximum of 4 planets in a system with a terran in the current save slot. But it's not super representative, probably, since there's only 2 terrans total in this one.)
-
I guess I'm not seeing a fundamental difference. More planets potentially make the system more useful, but, I mean, it's already got a terran planet! Beyond that, just feel-wise, I think both are interesting, and I'm not really seeing "more planets" as a win in terms of feel or reward. I think maybe it is a subjective thing, since it seems like you are.
Is the goal to have balanced utility between systems? If yes, perhaps the current approach is the way to go.
However, if we acknowledge that blue star systems are mainly going to be used for exploration, whereas the player will likely jump at the opportunity to colonize a terran planet wherever practical and possible, then from a pure gameplay perspective, those systems in which the player invests the most time and resources building up should absolutely be more visually interesting, more expansive and content-rich.
It's the same reason the Core Worlds were hand-crafted. It's the same reason in some MMOs, player hubs and boss fights are extremely well fleshed out, whereas a random filler dungeon may be a rehash of an earlier dungeon.
To take an extreme example, imagine there was only 1 Terran world in a particular save. And the procgen made that Terran system literally 1 star + Terran planet + jump points. You could certainly argue that the mere existence of the Terran planet in that otherwise empty system is what makes that system special. But even the most novice Starsector player would know that such a system is seriously boring compared to the likes of Corvus or Askonia or even Canaan.
And since building colonies seems to be the endgame up to now, wouldn't it make sense that the endgame content has a bit more sparkle than 1 star + 1 planet in some cases?
(To clarify, I'm not saying the procedural generator is bad. Far from it. It's one of the things that make Starsector fresh each time I play.)
-
However, if we acknowledge that blue star systems are mainly going to be used for exploration, whereas the player will likely jump at the opportunity to colonize a terran planet wherever practical and possible, then from a pure gameplay perspective, those systems in which the player invests the most time and resources building up should absolutely be more visually interesting, more expansive and content-rich.
Very good point. I'll give this some thought - maybe not for the .1 release, but I'll definitely keep this in mind in general as an axis that could be used to potentially spice up the lategame.
-
That is all I can ask for. Thank you!
By the way, I definitely am not suggesting that Terran worlds should somehow be handcrafted. Perhaps one possible approach would be to give systems containing a Terran planet a "minimum level" of detail, e.g. at least 15 features, 3-8 of which are planetary bodies. Or something similar.
Given how elegant and refined your solutions to the economy have been, I trust you will find something equally impressive to spruce up special star systems. ;D
-
I have a system with three 125% hazard rating worlds...
It was very special and felt good, but there didn't seem to be much benefit to having three colonies in the same system, which diluted it a bit.
Right now in my very late game I base system quality for colonization off whether there's an original comms relay or stable hyperpoint for comm relay. I don't know, maybe something more flavorful like having a ring of nebulae around the system give it a protection bonus would be nice.
-
Very good point. I'll give this some thought - maybe not for the .1 release, but I'll definitely keep this in mind in general as an axis that could be used to potentially spice up the lategame.
In my opinion, if you'd like to keep to the "habitable planets are rare" archetype of sci-fi setting, then perhaps any system containing a Terran planet would have one for a reason - be it a massive terraforming effort, or a particularly lush system. Speaking of lush systems - rocky planetoids that actually have just the right amount of water to only partially cover the surface seem to be an extreme rarity in the more sensitive exoplanet scanning results of late. It seems they're MUCH more common as moons to saturn/super jupiter sized bodies.
It'd be nice to see some more systems with desirable moons clustered in a habitable zone, whereas any of the nice planets would be likely to be the result of geoengineering, so in warning beacon systems or suchlike. Lots of other ways they could be spiced up, but I personally am always super tickled by the 'Ancient Relic' archetype, so I'd love to see more of that intentionally crafted in the procgen.
I think another avenue of adding interest to systems would be 'system-wide industries' that can be constructed once you've staked claim with a colony. Constructing asteroid mining operations, Belt Habitats, dropping Sun-Skimmers into the central star - some of the large scale megaengineering the domain was doing that's fallen into disuse under the splintered factional strife of the current Sector.
-
By the way, I definitely am not suggesting that Terran worlds should somehow be handcrafted. Perhaps one possible approach would be to give systems containing a Terran planet a "minimum level" of detail, e.g. at least 15 features, 3-8 of which are planetary bodies. Or something similar.
Yep, I gotcha. The implementation details would need some looking at, in particular since "how many things" gets figured out before "what things"; will just have to see how that goes!
... dropping Sun-Skimmers into the central star - some of the large scale megaengineering the domain was doing that's fallen into disuse under the splintered factional strife of the current Sector.
I'll just say that I'm partial to those kinds of things as well, and could totally see adding an odd bit of content in that vein here and there.
-
I agree with pretty much everything Sendrien said here.
When exploring, the thing I care the most about a system is how it looks. The Core Worlds are all cool and fun to explore. Empty systems are necessary, sure; but any system with less than 3 planets is just boring and I don't even want to explore it, I just leave immediately. That may be what was intended, but when half the sector is like that (Maybe I am just unlucky?), well, half the time spent exploring is just boring.
When building a colony I don't settle for anything other than Jungle/Terran Eccentric/Terran worlds right now, so I really like the idea of marking the systems that contain worlds with life as "special" (they already are, right? Just the fact there's life is awesome!) also have other interesting things in it, like an asteroid belt, a nebula, maybe at least 3 other planets, a gas giant with three moons, etc. Those worlds can all be 250% accessibility for all that matters. I just don't want the system to be... empty.
-
The neatest system I've set up shop in was actually back in the very first vanilla run I played; it had a close-in desert planet with light ruins (habitable, 150 hazard rating, no farming though), a further-out tundra world with vast ruins and literally every resource (albeit almost all at 'poor' levels) - also 150 hazard rating, and a gas giant with three moons, two of which also had ruins (175 & 200 hazard rating, though). On top of that it was right next door to the core worlds, with a +25 accessibility bonus for proximity, had a full set of domain-tech buoys, a weapons cache with a handful of blueprints, a research station, two equipment caches (one with a tempest blueprint, at least as long as you haven't skilled-up your salvaging), and a handful of assorted derelict vessels that were, in the end, just so much scrap material. Oh, and, okay, it was also a warning beacon system... but the entire 'threat' consisted of maybe six remnant frigates split out among almost as many fleets.
If you want to take a look: MN-1912144308577010012 - make sure you're pure vanilla; mods like console commands are okay, but anything that adds systems will mess up the procgen - and head east to Chird Bogotanma. Bring plenty of crew so you can just drop a settlement down immediately, and then use that for storage as you loot the rest of the place.
@Alex: And, by the way, this is what people mean when they say they don't see the value in the salvaging skill. If you go in with it at level three, that tempest blueprint just... isn't there. It is -not- a good feeling to test different skill levels and find that -increasing- your skill makes you -miss out- on some very valuable items. We -know- that the items in a given cache/ruins/whatever are fixed based on game seed; it really shouldn't be that hard to keep the stuff you'd get from unskilled, and just add -more- with more skill points.
Alternatively, how about making it so that the salvaging skill doesn't have -any- impact on rare loot from exploration - but instead improves the output of tech mining operations; that would have the secondary advantage of making it so that you can take the skill partway through a game run without feeling like you missed out on earlier opportunities.
-
@Alex: And, by the way, this is what people mean when they say they don't see the value in the salvaging skill. If you go in with it at level three, that tempest blueprint just... isn't there. It is -not- a good feeling to test different skill levels and find that -increasing- your skill makes you -miss out- on some very valuable items. We -know- that the items in a given cache/ruins/whatever are fixed based on game seed; it really shouldn't be that hard to keep the stuff you'd get from unskilled, and just add -more- with more skill points.
... yeah, I guess I might as well do that; there. From an in-universe point of view, it does make more sense to keep the stuff you'd get from an unaltered roll and just add more; I think I was more focused on the part where it makes no sense to compare the results of two random rolls from a technical/probability point of view, but that's not really what's going on here.
-
@Alex - By complete accident, one of the best constellations I've ever found was called Kardashev. By the very fact that this name is in your name generator, I know that you know its significance. So I needn't elaborate further.
But it got me thinking - here is humanity having spread its wings beyond our own solar system, perhaps even to a new galaxy, we're not sure. And yet none of the relics of a bygone era are a Dyson Sphere?
How awesome would that be for a point of interesting exploration!!
-
@Alex: And, by the way, this is what people mean when they say they don't see the value in the salvaging skill. If you go in with it at level three, that tempest blueprint just... isn't there. It is -not- a good feeling to test different skill levels and find that -increasing- your skill makes you -miss out- on some very valuable items. We -know- that the items in a given cache/ruins/whatever are fixed based on game seed; it really shouldn't be that hard to keep the stuff you'd get from unskilled, and just add -more- with more skill points.
That is my biggest problem with Salvaging. In my first game, I had the best loot for unskilled. Had I taken max Salvaging, I would have missed out on pristine nanoforge, and I all I would get in exchange are blueprints for Eagle, Astral, and one other ship or weapon. Most of the extra loot was unwanted junk like more pirate and ludd packs and corrupted nanoforges - yuck! More loot in Salvaging should not reroll loot, but simply add a chance for more loot on top of unskilled loot. Now, I avoid Salvaging like the plague unless I want the level 1 ability. Also, if I want more rare loot skill, better to spend it at Planetary Operations so I do not need to bring so many marines to raid markets (plus I can effectively govern one more colony at level 3).
Wyvern explained it better than I did a month or two ago.
-
Well, i do not actually like "level scaling", but...but this game actually need some form of level scaling to keep player from reaching "endgame" under single hour of game play.
Also i do not like seeded based loot, there are no reasons to use seeds instead of actually preplacing all loot directly, to support "looting skills", additional sections may be generated and stored, additional sections can be used by mods, or for story content.
As for story and progress, instead of just trying to explain, i will provide link to "live" implementation of system:
http://wogen.wikia.com/wiki/Gothic_3_Unique_Chests
TLDR, "chests" have 3 sections, first section is level scaled loot, that depend solely on level of player, at moment of chest opening, second section, is random scaled loot that depend on chest location (area level), third section is "list" of weapons that appear in specific order, ignoring player level and position of chest in the world.
This system can be used in SS to prevent player from getting paragon from first research station, perfect world inside very first yellow star system ever entered, and at same time, may be used to ensure, that perfect system and paragon will eventually spawn, no matter how unlucky player is.
As for planets, as long as player not actually entered system (or performed full survey), world feature may stay unfinalized, world is "habitable" but it's type and planetary features are not picked from list.
This can be used to delay "good" planets by picking "bad" modifiers from list, and later, reverse effect, by picking "good" modifiers from list, it may ever be used to spawn "gaia" world in exactly very last yellow star system explored by player.
This kinda kills "rogue like" spirit, but, it will provide smooth and rewarding gameplay, instead of spiky and jiggly "curve" of happiness and frustration (mostly frustration).
-
When exploring, the thing I care the most about a system is how it looks. The Core Worlds are all cool and fun to explore. Empty systems are necessary, sure; but any system with less than 3 planets is just boring and I don't even want to explore it, I just leave immediately. That may be what was intended, but when half the sector is like that (Maybe I am just unlucky?), well, half the time spent exploring is just boring.
When building a colony I don't settle for anything other than Jungle/Terran Eccentric/Terran worlds right now, so I really like the idea of marking the systems that contain worlds with life as "special" (they already are, right? Just the fact there's life is awesome!) also have other interesting things in it, like an asteroid belt, a nebula, maybe at least 3 other planets, a gas giant with three moons, etc. Those worlds can all be 250% accessibility for all that matters. I just don't want the system to be... empty.
I do not mind a system with only one planet if that one planet is special, like say a 75% Terran planet with great resources. May not be ideal colony since one colony alone may have trouble repelling all expeditions, but it would be a nice place anyway.
I remember one game where one of my first pirate bases was in a system with only one 100% Terran eccentric. It is a decent colony candidate, and eventually became colony two. (Colony one with 175% hazard water hole, which could have been 150% had I known Birdy's Decivilized removal trick at the time.)
But too many bare systems with useless planets is not very fun. Just something to examine quickly for rare loot before moving on.
The systems I like the least are huge systems with lots of junk planets and no rare loot to be found, possibly nebula to slow down fleet travel as well.
-
When exploring, the thing I care the most about a system is how it looks. The Core Worlds are all cool and fun to explore. Empty systems are necessary, sure; but any system with less than 3 planets is just boring and I don't even want to explore it, I just leave immediately. That may be what was intended, but when half the sector is like that (Maybe I am just unlucky?), well, half the time spent exploring is just boring.
When building a colony I don't settle for anything other than Jungle/Terran Eccentric/Terran worlds right now, so I really like the idea of marking the systems that contain worlds with life as "special" (they already are, right? Just the fact there's life is awesome!) also have other interesting things in it, like an asteroid belt, a nebula, maybe at least 3 other planets, a gas giant with three moons, etc. Those worlds can all be 250% accessibility for all that matters. I just don't want the system to be... empty.
I do not mind a system with only one planet if that one planet is special, like say a 75% Terran planet with great resources. May not be ideal colony since one colony alone may have trouble repelling all expeditions, but it would be a nice place anyway.
I remember one game where one of my first pirate bases was in a system with only one 100% Terran eccentric. It is a decent colony candidate, and eventually became colony two. (Colony one with 175% hazard water hole, which could have been 150% had I known Birdy's Decivilized removal trick at the time.)
But too many bare systems with useless planets is not very fun. Just something to examine quickly for rare loot before moving on.
The systems I like the least are huge systems with lots of junk planets and no rare loot to be found, possibly nebula to slow down fleet travel as well.
Yeah I dislike huge systems with nothing of interest too. I'm talking about making systems that already have something of interest that you're 100% sure the player will want to colonize (Like Terran worlds or systems with a sleeper ship) less empty and more interesting.
I'm pretty sure you had a moment when you found an awesome system and you felt super good; it's a reward for the player.
A single Terran world that is the only single object in the whole system beside its star is... well, rewarding too because they're so rare. But my reaction would be "uh, nice I guess", not the "THIS IS SUPER AWESOME" I would have if the system had even more planets, a ring system and a few moons. Or even better; two stars!
I can't find the words to explain it if you don't understand me, sorry. xD
-
Ensuring that there are at least a few procedural systems of significant value and interest would set a good base for factions fighting with each other over it, too.
-
A humble system with a single excellent planet (that is ideal primary colony criteria) is an awesome find. Well, maybe not ideal since some expeditions can beat defenses of a single colony. They probably cannot against two large colonies in the same system. It is less of a good find if system does not have a point for comm relay. (I will smash Domain nav and sensor relays if it is the only way to get a comm relay in the system I want to claim.)
Terran planet with 75% hazard and all of the resources and not too far from core is an awesome find, regardless of system. Some games do not even have 75% hazard Terrans, or they have a 75% Terran with bad resources and bad location (far from core).
Two stars are (mildly) annoying, especially if they make the system bigger. I had that for my primary colonies in two of my games and wished they were only a single star.
Rings (asteroid belts) are annoying if I need to travel through them.
I dislike nebulas, especially if they overlap a jump gate.
I prefer my systems to be minimalist. The best system for me is a small one with two great colony planets (two is enough to repel all expeditions, and more slows the game down), two or three points for relays, and nothing else. Oh, and jump point near one of the planets.
-
My main system at present is a 100% hazard arid with minimal resources orbiting a yellow star... that also has a black hole as a companion. No other planets, but it does have a domain comm relay and nav beacon and space for a third. Overall a nice world in an interesting system.
-
A humble system with a single excellent planet (that is ideal primary colony criteria) is an awesome find. Well, maybe not ideal since some expeditions can beat defenses of a single colony. They probably cannot against two large colonies in the same system. It is less of a good find if system does not have a point for comm relay. (I will smash Domain nav and sensor relays if it is the only way to get a comm relay in the system I want to claim.)
Terran planet with 75% hazard and all of the resources and not too far from core is an awesome find, regardless of system. Some games do not even have 75% hazard Terrans, or they have a 75% Terran with bad resources and bad location (far from core).
Two stars are (mildly) annoying, especially if they make the system bigger. I had that for my primary colonies in two of my games and wished they were only a single star.
Rings (asteroid belts) are annoying if I need to travel through them.
I dislike nebulas, especially if they overlap a jump gate.
I prefer my systems to be minimalist. The best system for me is a small one with two great colony planets (two is enough to repel all expeditions, and more slows the game down), two or three points for relays, and nothing else. Oh, and jump point near one of the planets.
While a system with asteroid belts, nebulas, and a binary might not be the best, min-max optimal system, that is what makes a system interesting, both visually and gameplay-wise. I genuinely hope Alex does not change the proc gen system to favor anything near as bland as that.
-
imho, game should not throw "best" planets at player with some exceptions, each planet should have something "bad" about it and no planet (with exceptions again) should be perfect.
getting 100% planet with low gravity and all resources just 1ly away from core is game over.
-
While a system with asteroid belts, nebulas, and a binary might not be the best, min-max optimal system, that is what makes a system interesting, both visually and gameplay-wise. I genuinely hope Alex does not change the proc gen system to favor anything near as bland as that.
It is only visually interesting if it is unusual and player likes unusual. Otherwise, all of the extra stuff in a permanent colony system can be an eyesore or unwanted clutter at best, or lag the game at worst.
I never said I want all systems to be my ideal colony system. After all, the most planets I can colonize without alpha cores is eight, if I have all of the colony skills in Leadership and Industry. In my current game, I have more than eight good planets to colonize (and I already colonized two), and picking which ones I want is torture.
Turns out having lots of nebula and several stable debris field is a slowdown magnet. In my current game, I was almost ready to colonize my desert system next to core worlds until I noticed three or so stable debris fields slowed down the game. That will be a problem if I get size 8+ colonies later then expeditions to slow down game even more due to more fleets and junk scattered around. Since I have several more good colony candidates, I probably will pass that system up for others.
imho, game should not throw "best" planets at player with some exceptions, each planet should have something "bad" about it and no planet (with exceptions again) should be perfect.
getting 100% planet with low gravity and all resources just 1ly away from core is game over.
I have no problem with great planets. They do not happen in every game. Also, planets with everything may not be much use if we have industry slot limits.
What is the big deal about low gravity? Not sure if +10 accessibility is worth +25 hazard.
-
In my current game, I was almost ready to colonize my desert system next to core worlds until I noticed three or so stable debris fields slowed down the game.
I'm sorry, I'm confused by what you mean with "slowing down the game". Are you talking about performance issues? I didn't think about that at all considering I never had any. I thought you were put off by the small travel speed debuff of asteroid belts and stuff. Gameplay wise I never lost against any expedition even with a single planet in a system, my patrols always win, I don't even need to be there (vanilla game, no mods); I'm only bothered with the visuals.
I'm not talking about making every system home to 6 planets with 3 gas giants, rings, moons and stuff. I'm talking about making those systems a little more common; from my experience, a good half of the sector is exactly what you want, almost empty systems with maybe five astronomical objects in it.
-
In case of desert system, game lag due to too many things (probably debris field). I would stop there to at least refuel and resupply. I do not want too much lag just to visit my system.
For the other examples, it is just taste.