I don't understand.



Are you saying that the start locations is unbalanced in a game with a uneven number of players? The number of systems?



So where players are clustered together, the odd number player is by themselves? Yes?



Otherwise I don't get what you are saying.

I once had a game where I was surrounded by asteroids and gas giants, and the only colonizable planets almost universally had negative anomalies (i.e. Strong Gravity, EM Radiation).



I understand people like randomness, but sometimes people like fairness and the idea that if they win, it's because they were better, not because the opponent got screwed. They want to lose because they made a mistake, not because they had Irradiated where the other guy had Hadoplegic Life.



I really like the premade map idea, but maybe it would be a good idea in general to have a "mirror" option - for example, a spiral galaxy with perfect radial symmetry. Everyone has exactly the same stuff (minus home planets, which are dependent upon race).



There also REALLY needs to be an option for each player to spawn in a unique constellation - anytime two players start in the same constellation, they're both pretty much guaranteed to lose the game.

We are not disscussing to make the universe fair. We are discussing to add the option for it thats a huge difference.

It is funny how we are discussing how to make the universe "fair" and "easy." I like full random and imbalance because it creates are more realistic style. If there is one empty arm than everyone should be racing for it and not complaining.



But that is my personal feelings.

Ideally allowing numbers from 1 to 16

To be clear, the primary issue is the map layouts and constellations. You can get 4 or 8 constellations (or 1 if unique) - we need the ability to have #constellations = # players



so instead of "many" or "few" we would like it to be say 1 to 8 - or at the least offer an option for 6 (spiral 6 or ovoid 6 is good)



so YES, a more robust galaxy generator!

I agree, I don't know how long ago it was implemented, but a while ago I played a game with a couple friends vs... 1 or 2 AI. Me, a friend and an ai were in one constellation, the other friend was by himself in a second, and the last ai in a third constellation.

Steph'nie wrote:
players all have about the same numbers of planets available to them.

Except, that's not the case. It guarantees every constellation is within 1 of the average number of systems, but it guarantees nothing about number of planets, quality of planet, or indeed, number of systems. We've had "perfect" balanced games (8 spiral) where one or two players have 8 systems, one has 7, and the rest have 6. If those 6 systems are all 2-3 planet systems with a prevalence of T3/T4 planets, and the 8 systems have several 5-6 planet systems with lots of T1/T2 planets, that still fulfills the "perfect" balancing of the galaxy generator.



Yes, "perfect" balancing is a vast improvement over what was there before, but it's still in no way balanced.

Steph'nie wrote:
Hmm, when you create a game, do you set the "system balancing" option to perfect (in the advanced galaxy settings)?



We implemented this a while ago because MP players were complaining about this and with the balancing set to "perfect", players all have about the same numbers of planets available to them.

this setting sadly doesnt affect the distribution of (empty)constellations, also the different settings of "whormholes" or the setting of the numbers of constellation you have always some empy constellations or what is comperable worse(when you set less whormholes and less constellations)...some players start alone...and some others start together with another on in the same constellation.



i realy tryed all possibiltys out with an amoeba race on Ovoid, Twin, Disk, Disk 4 well and the spirals are self explaining...if not the same amount of players as spirals -> empty constellations.





@Ingcom1: it is mostly but not only at odd numbers, we have also the problem with 6 players.



the number of systems is not that a big deal and mostly the same with the "perfect" Setting.



my point is that for example on an ovoid galaxy with 6 people....



every player gets 3 whormwholes there.



The Player on the north and South got whormwholes to

...another Player,( to their right and a another payer to their left)

,and the third whormwhole leeds to the center.





But the Player in the Northeast(and Northwest,aswell as Southwest and Southeast) got also 3 whormwholes....but only One of the whormwholes leads to an other Player, the second leeds to center, and the third leeds to an completely empty constellation rdy to be colonized.

Sovereign wrote:
(PS: that is NOT only a problem for the MP but also for the SP cause it gives some AIs an Major advantage thats why i post this here)



Dear Devs



I just got a an little disscusion with some players in my last MP match and we all agreed that the galaxys are almost ALWAYS imbalanced.

Hmm, when you create a game, do you set the "system balancing" option to perfect (in the advanced galaxy settings)?



We implemented this a while ago because MP players were complaining about this and with the balancing set to "perfect", players all have about the same numbers of planets available to them.

stasik28 wrote:
Hmm, since when was "balance" and "fairness" part of warfare?

When you added the word game to this software's description You could remove the queen from blacks side in chess too if you wanted to be realistic, but i'm guessing not many people would play it.

(PS: that is NOT only a problem for the MP but also for the SP cause it gives some AIs an Major advantage thats why i post this here)



Dear Devs



I just got a an little disscusion with some players in my last MP match and we all agreed that the galaxys are almost ALWAYS imbalanced.



there is NO Galaxie setting which can create an far an balanced start position for Player numbers smaller then 8! (for example 7,6,5,3)



Only with full 8(and 4,2 maybe on some shapes) Players it is possible that every player starts in his constellation alone and no empty constellation are open.



with every other settings (regardless of galaxy shape) there are always some (mostly 2) empty constellations left...which gives for example 2 out of 6 playern a big disadvantage cause they have no whormhole to an empty constellation, when we have 7 Players 2 Players got an clear disadvantage cause they got acess to en empty constellation.



OR putting some but not all people together in one constellation which is the automatic death if a peacfull race comes in the same corner with a rusher race.

And another player got his whole constellation for himself.



This is an huge problem imo! cause

1. Not everyone likes to play with 8 Players

2. with 8 players the turn ending loads much longer

3. Desyncs are more common the bigger the player number.

4. It destroys the competition cause its gambling and destroying the fun.



5. Even if u like to play with 8 Players...its rare to gather 8 PPl in a acceptable amount of time.



i think it isent that much of work to altering the galaxy generator but its very crucial for the Multiplayer cause besides systems and resources this is the most imbalanced part of the MP which reminds me to much on gambling in the casino.



iam sure other Mplers will agree with me.



The Galaxy has to be fair if the players want it to be so.

The problem arent the amount ressources or planets or systems the diversity there is acceptable.



the empty contellation are the problem we get ON ALMOST EVERY GALAXY TYP ON EVERY SETTING.



if someone like this okay a fair option setting just would add something and doesnt take anything from the game.





ps: and the empty constellation are fixed players on the "east" and "west" got the advantage the players in the "north" and "south" get always the disadvantage

I suppose then that infers the ability to make more of different worlds, which is surprisingly what they are doing with the planets in the expansion.

Hmm, since when was "balance" and "fairness" part of warfare? All is fair in love and war. Say... we, on Earth: we are located in what appears to be the only inhabited planet in the galaxy, with the nearest planets being gas or unsuitable and the rest being unknown or too far away. But on the other side of the galaxy is another race we don't know about that has 3 habitable planets and another... say 7 near it. We do not create the galaxy, we can't know what to expect. And this is a 4X, eXpand, eXPOIT, if you have a higher amount of usable planets, EXPLOIT it.

StriderV wrote:
The problem is when there are not 8 players. Say, 7 players, and the system sets it up in 4 constellations. So, 1 person has a constellation all to themself. That is a problem

Really?......................For the love of what ever god I believe in!



If that is a problem, don't play on that map type!



Just like in RTS games, if you deliberately play on a map that gives one player an advantage, then this should be expected.



Edit: All right, so let me get this straight, do you want the galaxy generator to generate starting clusters with a proportional amount of stars per player?

I personally believe that there should be premade maps as an option for games.



Starcraft, considered by many to be one of the most balanced and competitive games ever made, owed a lot of that success to a series of balanced maps. I would have no issues with a "competitive play" option in MP, that turned off random events, and gave you a list of premade maps to play from.



Its not for everyone, igncom's point is valid, many like randomness and the variety it brings, but as an option I can select i have no issues with it.

I agree with the general balance concerns. But, some randomness is needed in this sort of game.



For example. If all players have between 6 and 8 systems in their starting constellation, that is "fair" enough.



The problem is when there are not 8 players. Say, 7 players, and the system sets it up in 4 constellations. So, 1 person has a constellation all to themself. That is a problem!



In the game setup it doesn't let you set the number of constellations directly, just "many", "few" generic terms that most people wouldn't know what it relates to, but even if you do, it doesn't give the type of customizability that would be required to fix this problem.

We've (finally) resorted to adding a spiral-6 and spiral-5 to the galaxy generator and ditched the AI which were previously filling the empty arms. It still doesn't give us particularly even starts but we're getting closer (and it prevents players getting easy trades out of the AI or an easy kill).



It'd be helpful to have a bit more balancing available - a spiral with identical arms (bar home systems) would be helpful for balance, but just something as simple as getting the same number of T1/2s or the same overall population (before Crowded Planets gets factored in) would at least cut down on the non-viable starts. A way to cap number of moons in systems might be useful (getting a 5-or-6 planet system, all with moons, can be rather broken, especially if you get more than 1 temple on them).



We've previously discussed having a "minimum viable constellation", but unfortunately couldn't come up with any hard-and-fast rules - we had to have two sets of rules, one for "I start with an admin" (and therefore can make a slightly less good start work fine) and one for "I have no admins" (in which case we had a minimum of 3 medium-or-larger T1/T2 planets with no negative anomalies, including home planet). The problem is, that "minimum viable constellation" can still leave you massively disadvantaged when one player gets 6-planet systems with gardens of eden and redsang monopolies in their constellation and you barely pass the requirement.

Igncom1 wrote:
(For the sake of argument, that or because I am a sadist)



Why should it be fair? Players playing different races, with different starting homeworlds already have different start bias's, so why not let the map generate in a way that has players playing differently to each other then by the most efficient strategy every game?



That sounds boring as hell to always play the same every game, and don't go telling me that, that is because of the games balance, because you guys have-already ripped the improvements to pieces in the name of your holy balance because you guys want a perfectly symmetrical game.



If you want a perfectly balanced game, go play chess as the closest a game can get to 'balanced'.



(For the sake of argument, that or because I am a sadist)



A symmetrical map could be a cool addition for the MP guys, but I am QUITE uneasy about the amount of 'balance' you guys are going on about, when I would prefer a revision of many of the systems you claim are unbalanced first.



(There are times when I feel it could be cool to replace system improvements with branching planetary improvements, and build up systems with a more complex version of that, and leave the system wide stuff for mega projects like HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE shipyards and orbital rings, as well as fleet support/management and later hopefully defence (Although a fort type planetary improvement would be awesome!) to top of the higher level stuff that are strategic in nature.)



(Note to modder Igncom1 or others, mod about more complex planetary improvements and other stuff listed above.....and rework resources to be more strategically important (Did a test other day, making every luxury resource monopoly bonus as +50% empire dust made gaining monopoly's a hugely viable strat for economic victory's mid-late game when competing with industrial military empires, making trade more important proved elusive, will conduct more testing. (Sophons with 3 monopoly's cascaded hugely with the bonus and won around turn 90-130(Not sure) at fast speed)) lots of thoughts today Ign....lots.)

well the many players and especialy the MPs did not want to dice everything random and to play gambling games it should be possibility for those wo want it balanced to be able to make the galaxy balanced trough certain settings.



did you think i want all the current settings removed

no



i want that there is an option for those who want it to set it to an well balanced galaxy and you can if you want so sett the galaxy still so random and imbalanced as you want.



players should always be given the choice.

and i didnt see why that should be excluding your suggestion in any way.



AND ITS JUST A FACT THAT PLAYERS WITH AN EMPTY CONSTELLATIONS WILL BE MOST LIKELY SUPERIOR TO PLAYERS WIHTOUT THEM NO MATTER WHAT RACE THEY PLAY.





PS: and if i should go playing chess you can go playing roulette

but we should have the freedom of choice.