Fenrakk101 wrote:
I was just thinking; after all, the major complaint players had about the unbalanced starting positions is that they were often surrounded by systems they could not colonize. If the systems contained more Type I planets, it would be less likely to find a system you can't colonize; but as long as you CAN colonize with a degree of system approval, it would be easier to go from there and take advantage of the lava/arctic/etc planets available to you, balancing the game. At least, in theory.

The issue with that becomes that the maps are far far too easy.



The goal is to have everyone begin on (nearly) even footing, and then allow the PLAYER to dictate the outcome of the game.



I admit there is something to be said for the luck of the draw. However, in an 8p game where the goal is to have a diverse game of many players, it's patently asinine to know that every game you play is going to generally have 2-3 horridly disadvantaged players on any settings worth playing with that many people. I mean really, with the rate of dropouts within 20-30 turns in nearly EVERY GAME, 8p games might as well be 5p vs. 3 AI. Having a few extra players to babysit some sh!ttae starting areas until someone shows up to knock them out of the game within the first 30 turns is asinine.

Pretty sure this has been discussed before, best idea I've heard is to do a mirrored random. Generate one starting area and copy/paste it to other players. That way it's random, but fair.

DarkSchemo wrote:
In a board game its the same system.See monopoly or risiko(same name in english?)

A littel bit influence of luck make the game exciting.If you norm all you destroy a part of the game, the same is with heroes/admirals.If you have luck you become 2 Industrial heroes.But sometimes you have not one from him.will you set now the heroes for all at a standard start configuration too?I have no pleasure that this game go the same way like the big rest of strategie games.one tactic are very useful to win, if u dont use them you have no chance.

this game base on concept of influence.If you will change something at this attributes you must handle with care, thats all what i said.

It's funny because a Monopoly reference proves you completely wrong. In Monopoly, all players have the same board. Endless Space is like giving 5 players a regular Monopoly board, and then giving three more players modified Monopoly boards where every other space is a "Go To Jail" space. Would anyone take such a board game seriously?

In a board game its the same system.See monopoly or risiko(same name in english?)

A littel bit influence of luck make the game exciting.If you norm all you destroy a part of the game, the same is with heroes/admirals.If you have luck you become 2 Industrial heroes.But sometimes you have not one from him.will you set now the heroes for all at a standard start configuration too?I have no pleasure that this game go the same way like the big rest of strategie games.one tactic are very useful to win, if u dont use them you have no chance.

this game base on concept of influence.If you will change something at this attributes you must handle with care, thats all what i said.

More fairly distributed planets, systems and resources would certainly not harm the game, especially in MP.

DarkSchemo wrote:
Iam a german, english is not my language.It is sometimes difficult for me to describe what i think and it read fpr sure a littel bit crazy sometimes for an american or english person.but this not a reason to talk with me at this level kiddy.

He didn't even make any comment on your grammar. he said that argument was entirely backwards. You can't play a game where one player could have the upper hand ten minutes into the game purely due to map generation and still call it "balanced." Do you like having a game like that? Good, play it, enjoy it, but don't you dare call it "balanced." And don't act like we're the people who don't know how to play games just because we like to have a fair chance in a game. I've played Dark Souls, Super meat Boy, and many other hard, hard games - but I never once said those were unbalanced. Why? because the game was entirely determined by player skill. I'm sure there are people who beat Dark Souls on their first time through without a single death, and that's because the game is perfectly balanced. Endless Space is completely unbalanced, and you can't say otherwise just because you happen to like it.

However, in its current state, I'm definitely seeing a huge drop off in the number of high level players. Because the randomness is just so extreme, and you would have to waste like 20 turns (which is probably a good hour of play?) before realizing that and leaving the game.

Ahh a leaver yes...

DarkSchemo, that has to be among the most ridiculously flawed logic I've ever read in a post. And considering this is the internet, that's saying a lot.



Just because you think it's ok that the random map generator can completely screw you, does not mean the game is balanced in any way.

As others have said, 8p games generally have 3p who cannot compete. End of story.

appropriate level for a leaver.



Iam a german, english is not my language.It is sometimes difficult for me to describe what i think and it read fpr sure a littel bit crazy sometimes for an american or english person.but this not a reason to talk with me at this level kiddy.

DarkSchemo, that has to be among the most ridiculously flawed logic I've ever read in a post. And considering this is the internet, that's saying a lot.



Just because you think it's ok that the random map generator can completely screw you, does not mean the game is balanced in any way.

As others have said, 8p games generally have 3p who cannot compete. End of story.



Furthermore, whether you have fun or not does not mean the game is balanced.

You like the random generator? Fine. Whatever floats your boat.

But don't say it's balanced because you like it, because it is not.



The suggestion has pretty much come down to offering an option for balanced maps. You don't want balanced maps, then just don't turn on that option.



However, in its current state, I'm definitely seeing a huge drop off in the number of high level players. Because the randomness is just so extreme, and you would have to waste like 20 turns (which is probably a good hour of play?) before realizing that and leaving the game.

I see no problem in the random system configuration.Sometimes you have luck, sometimes not.Hows the problem?Difficult system near the startregion need a other tactic like easy systems.You must can handel both situations.



If you nerf all in this game and set all as well uniform it made the game uniteresting and the start will have all the time the same pattern.Some small balancing the game needed in this point, all Strings must have the same system number as exampel.But i have fun if i have sometimes some hardder systems, it sucks if you have a very good enemy as neighbour and he has more luck with his systems but thats the game.I have no problem to lose then.A player with lower skill dont beat you why he have more luck with his systems...the game iss very good balanced in this point, over a long playtime or over a short time its no reason to lose or win a game.

mogthew wrote:
Pretty sure this has been discussed before, best idea I've heard is to do a mirrored random. Generate one starting area and copy/paste it to other players. That way it's random, but fair.

The problem I have with this is that it doesn't work for games with more than 2 players. In an eight player game, you would see the same exact pattern copy/pasted eight times. This also means you would know exactly where all of your opponent's home planets are. You would also know which systems were likely made into forge worlds, which systems had valuable resources, and you can basically map out exactly how to handle each enemy - something that isn't so trivial in a random game.



But for two players, it's definitely more of a viable option.

M11xStryker wrote:
In theory, that would simply make type I planets more abundant. However, that does not necessarily mean everyone get the same amount of planet I's. Of course, if you compound this with many planets per system and bigger planets and other settings, this could provide some amount of evening out. At least in theory.

I was just thinking; after all, the major complaint players had about the unbalanced starting positions is that they were often surrounded by systems they could not colonize. If the systems contained more Type I planets, it would be less likely to find a system you can't colonize; but as long as you CAN colonize with a degree of system approval, it would be easier to go from there and take advantage of the lava/arctic/etc planets available to you, balancing the game. At least, in theory.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I'm a little late in bringing this up, but if you use a Young galaxy instead of the default then won't the starting positions be more balanced? Or, better wording: fair?

In theory, that would simply make type I planets more abundant. However, that does not necessarily mean everyone get the same amount of planet I's. Of course, if you compound this with many planets per system and bigger planets and other settings, this could provide some amount of evening out. At least in theory.

I'm a little late in bringing this up, but if you use a Young galaxy instead of the default then won't the starting positions be more balanced? Or, better wording: fair?

The map engine should at the very least give even-ish starting constellations. While fids will be similar for all players in the early game, when players begin expanding outside of their starting constellation, they will have had a good start to deal with more random systems found outside of their home constellation. Of course if you set constellations to low, this would present an issue but I still think it would be a good idea.



Ideally however, we could get more options in the lobby to mess around with galaxy generation settings. As mentioned earlier, settings for random vs balanced and others could help to customize settings to players tastes.

Shivetya wrote:
for them they would. You missed the point. The current system they have is not flexible to have true race variety and the cool factor something like this would present. There is no reason why a race could not have custom XML entries defining what each planet and anomaly does for them. Why not have a race whose worlds must be lava (tholians anyone). Nothing means that what is indicated as FOOD in FIDS has to be the kind served on a plate

Food doesn't make sense for some races, e.g. sowers. They would be a prime candidate for this kind of system.

Efyian wrote:
How about making this an option in the map generator?



A simple check box that offers the option of 'balanced maps' vs 'random maps'



When that option is checked off, each side shouldn't be completely identical, but they should get similar types of planets/bonuses (e.g. same 'class' of planets, but variability in the actual planet like terran/ocean/jungle and the bonuses/penalties found on those planets).

I'm pretty sure I said this before, but even if I didn't, this seems like the best solution.

Shivetya wrote:
Take a chill pill dude. I said nothing about wanting to completely change the game. I simply said it should be no problem to define the rules via XML so that one particular race or any number of races receives different numbers from a planet. Sheesh,

Your comments in other areas sort of imply you want radical changes. And I say again, if it's so easy, then go do it yourself. The devs aren't going to do it, at least not right now. And they fully support modding anyway, and for this exact reason.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
There is a reason: It doesn't fit in with the vision the devs have for the game (not yet, at least). You want the devs to completely change their approach to the game just to suit what you want from the game. It's not going to happen just because you're aggressive about it. Go play another game that already did that, instead of expecting this game to be more like that. This is a different IP, a whole different game, and at the moment they're trying to finish the game features instead of designing a whole new race from scratch just to satiate your brand new idea. If it's so easy to make a new race, then go do it; there's a whole modding community for the game at your disposal.

Take a chill pill dude. I said nothing about wanting to completely change the game. I simply said it should be no problem to define the rules via XML so that one particular race or any number of races receives different numbers from a planet. Sheesh,

How about making this an option in the map generator?



A simple check box that offers the option of 'balanced maps' vs 'random maps'



When that option is checked off, each side shouldn't be completely identical, but they should get similar types of planets/bonuses (e.g. same 'class' of planets, but variability in the actual planet like terran/ocean/jungle and the bonuses/penalties found on those planets).

mogthew wrote:
Pretty sure this has been discussed before, best idea I've heard is to do a mirrored random. Generate one starting area and copy/paste it to other players. That way it's random, but fair.

this can only work in a spiral system then.Do anybody now how the galaxy creator create a game.I think me must understand the system before we can talk over solutions.it is possibel that the galacy and hero creator based on a point system that distribute different points to each category but in summary all become the same points in total?



i have sometimes the feeling that if i become crap systems near my start region i become a nice homesystem and generals.But i observed it not really in any game.

The optimal way to do it is to calculate a very basic FIDS aggregate from each player's home system and first jump systems, and then average the distribution to within say, +/- 15% of each other. This way you preserve a bit of the luck-of-the-draw, but it's at least nominally fair as far as basic starting ability is concerned. That's the basic way to do it.



If they're clever...erm, competent...they'll also take into consideration anomalies and strategic resources.



Again, we're not aiming for EQUAL we're aiming for FAIR.



FAIR =/= EQUAL.



We just need to eliminate the bullshiat of someone getting shoved into the a$$hole of the universe while someone else gets reborn into Shangri-La.