Go here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12409-draft-proposed-balanced-map-generator

Personally I'm less bothered by the composition of nearby/home systems (I'd like to see a balanced option but it doesn't feel crucial) than I am with the current player start locations relative to each other.



I just played a game in which my home system was literally on the other side of a string from the Hissho homeworld. :P Having the Hissho right next door from turn 1 does not make for an enjoyable or fruitful game. Meanwhile other players has vast swathes of uncontested space to expand in.

I actually don't care so much about the "no terran/jungle" starts as long as there are a fair amount of tundra and arid nearby. The ones that I've actually had more consistent issues with are when you start with 3 systems total behind your wormhole, with 2-3 planets in each, and a goodly chunk are asteroids and barren...while your opponent has 8 systems behind his wormhole with minimum 4 planets per system, sometimes 6 with a good mix of early development planets (don't even have to be the ungodly terran/jungle/ocean combos when there are 3 tundra and 2 arid in the same system that's still a powerhouse system...). Mind you, I HAVE seen in just my last game what I feel to be the most unbalanced start yet (Large Tundra with Garden of Eden and Virtual Artifacts, Tiny Ocean with Coral Reefs and 3 Hyperium, Medium Ocean with Concrete Artifacts, Small Tundra with Strong Mag Field and Mercurite, Small Ocean with Poor Soil and Antimatter - all in the same system 2 short warps from his homeworld, and only one of his 7 systems did not have at least 2 tundra/arid or better in it, many of them large or huge. Meanwhile I had 3 systems behind my wormhole, comprised of a total of 2 asteroids, 1 barren, 1 hydrogen, 1 lava, 1 arctic, 2 arid and 1 desert aside from my terran homeworld, all but the huge hydrogen and a medium arid were tiny or small, and my only strategic resource was 1 titanium on my homeworld - though I did have a good assortment of artifacts and gems... The only thing which gave me even a slightly fighting chance was fast tech to get to the center, and having started with 20% food bonus and max level crowded planets, so actually the tiny and small worlds were even better for me than had they been mediums...but even the custom sophon faction with max scientists and running 15% taxes he still vastly out-teched me with UE as soon as he got that monster system up and developed. By turn 49 I was solidly last place on the tech ranking, and consequently quickly last at everything else too...

This would be best added as an option, IMO, as generally games like this really are most fun when you're playing with people you like and are friends with, in which it is infinitely more fun to play with a lopsided map rather than a completely even one, whereas in a competitive setting it would probably be better for an even map

Agreed, and in most cases I actually like "slightly lopsided"...though even added as an option for "very balanced" starts, I'd still prefer to see minor balancing to even the "non-balanced" starts to prevent the extreme cases (like the one I described above). As an example, using some of the "points" systems outlined for balancing: assuming an "average" start was 100 "points" worth of systems/planets, I'd like the "balanced" start (option checked) to keep all starts within say, 90-110 points. But even with the option unchecked, I'd like to see the distribution be in the range of 50-150 points, rather than the current possibilities of 20-200 points...that still leaves a potential imbalance of 3:1 but prevents the "hopeless" situations of 10:1.

There should be an option to make the games more fair. It is no fun at all, if the systems are so unfair, that the winner is clear within the first round, because his system is just so much superior.



I do see, that it can be fun, to just cope with the situation, but in a multiplayer environment, which is not cooperative, it is more fun if the conditions for the players are similar / balanced.

Map balancing is sorely needed.

They could solve this one or several ways, the best being an selectable option for the player to choose betwen different types of solutions.



Several possibilities (both from reading here and my own thoughts)

1) The random->copied map is obviously an extremely simple but sub-optimal solution.

2) The increasing randomness from start point (first jump planets all have to contain at least 1 tier 1 planet, second jump contain at least tier 2, further away = completely random.) is another option.

3) In maps with wormholes, the area within each wormhole has the same number of planets per tier as every other area. But the planets position/size etc can vary. This can also include same number of overall positive and negative anomalies.

4) Each planet type, anomaly, resources, planet size, moon and proximity to player is assigned a "map value", after dividing the map into segments belonging to each player or nobody. The segments for each player must be equal in map value, but otherwise random.

Eg. tier 1 planets could have a value of like 10, tier 2 of 6 and tier 3 of 3, and the remaining ones, 1. Each moon can add like +1 or something. Anomalies and resources I"m not certain if they should be additive or multiplicative. Proximity to the player should be a small multiplyer.



*Edit* - also the draft posted above is not bad either.



Most importantly though is to add in SOMETHING to balance quickly. I would suggest option 1, random map segment copied to every player as an extremely simple and quick fix untill something better comes along. (As in allow us to select this as opposed to completely random, I'm sure some people would still prefer completely random to this.)

Igncom1 wrote:
I disagree, and care little about how it can screw you over.

the point of a generate is to generate a map, what you are suggesting might as well mean that we just design set maps for people to play on, and that's boring as hell.



Disagree

/Signed.

you missed the point entirely.



what we need is that all players get roughly equal starting conditions, that means their consteleation should be of roughly equal value and utility. The rest of the map can be as ♥♥♥♥ed up as the generator makes it, conquering that is part of the game.





But having to go uphill in a mp match just because the random map ♥♥♥♥ed you - that is not fun. its the antithesis of fun.





This needs to be fixed and soon.

In the upcoming Automatons Add-on, we implemented a galaxy balancing option that will allow you to have homeworld constellations almost perfectly balanced in terms of number of systems.



It will range from "random" balancing to "perfect"...so look forward to the Rise of the Automatons!

LordReynolds wrote:
you missed the point entirely.



what we need is that all players get roughly equal starting conditions, that means their consteleation should be of roughly equal value and utility. The rest of the map can be as ♥♥♥♥ed up as the generator makes it, conquering that is part of the game.





But having to go uphill in a mp match just because the random map ♥♥♥♥ed you - that is not fun. its the antithesis of fun.





This needs to be fixed and soon.

Equal starting positions is just as boring.



This needs to be left alone.

Igncom1 wrote:
This needs to be left alone.

Please read what loicus wrote: a galaxy balancing option. You don't want it, you don't use it. There are dozens of threads of people complaining of this, even if you don't want it.

Igncom1 wrote:
Equal starting positions is just as boring.



This needs to be left alone.

When your playing MP it is anything but boring. While some people may accept a handicapped starting positions many others will not. So anything that keeps people from abandoning games in the first few turns is a great addition. Since its option, all the water cooler Endless Space experts can feel smug never choosing that option.

LoiCus- wrote:
In the upcoming Automatons Add-on, we implemented a galaxy balancing option that will allow you to have homeworld constellations almost perfectly balanced in terms of number of systems.



It will range from "random" balancing to "perfect"...so look forward to the Rise of the Automatons!

This is great news. Glad to hear it.



I'm hoping that there are gradations from Random to Perfect, because while I think that starting positions need to be FAIR, I personally don't feel they need to be 100% perfectly balanced.



However, this is still wonderful news, and I'm sure it will greatly increase everyone's enjoyment of the multiplayer experience.



EDIT: also, you just said "in terms of number of systems." However, really the biggest issue is that the planets are so insanely skewed from being fair it's not funny. Are there ANY efforts at all yet to balance planetary types/anomalies/strategic resources?



Please answer.

in a multilayer match i ended up starting trapped with only 2 systems with extremely bad planets 2 wormholes that went in different directions both on the other side of them where other players who had over 6+ systems with good/descent planets in a 6 player match i was amoeba at the time so i basically just rage quit was a massive unfun waste of time

Shivetya wrote:
get back under your bridge.

Igncom1 wrote:
I am sorry?

Please, people. Try not to start an argument or insult each other...

Shivetya wrote:
get back under your bridge.

I am sorry?

there is nothing requiring fixed maps, all that is required that each player within their starting area have an equal chance of discovering worlds they can make use of without needing to research technology. There is nothing boring about this, it is about maintaining a competitive and entertaining game for all involved.

So everone is going the have the same starting area? that is boring.



And the idea that fighting a losing battle is not entertaining probably means the party involved is not a good sport.



Competitively from the map is created with unfair starting conditions, pushing player beyond their comfort zone and making them actively participate in the game then rather playing sim city in the starting sector that is the same for every game they generate, and would also help to promote a player who is good at the game over someone who is not, thus ruining the entertaining factor for both sides.

chromodynamics wrote:
Well balanced multiplayer maps is a good plan, but leave the single player random in my opinion. I love discovering a horrible start, its an extra challenge.

You want an extra challenge? Play the hardest SP mode against 7 cravers.

Well balanced multiplayer maps is a good plan, but leave the single player random in my opinion. I love discovering a horrible start, its an extra challenge.

Igncom1 wrote:
I disagree, and care little about how it can screw you over.

the point of a generate is to generate a map, what you are suggesting might as well mean that we just design set maps for people to play on, and that's boring as hell.



Disagree

/Signed.

get back under your bridge.





there is nothing requiring fixed maps, all that is required that each player within their starting area have an equal chance of discovering worlds they can make use of without needing to research technology. There is nothing boring about this, it is about maintaining a competitive and entertaining game for all involved.

I disagree, and care little about how it can screw you over.

the point of a generate is to generate a map, what you are suggesting might as well mean that we just design set maps for people to play on, and that's boring as hell.



Disagree

/Signed.