FreeOrion

One idea that could make the game more interesting/fun is the option change how the length of the starlane between two systems relates to the distance between the stars. E.g., when setting up a galaxy, the player would have the option:

Starlane Length

• Distance Proportional: The length of the starlane between two stars is exactly proportional to the distance between them. In other words, a given ship will take twice as long to reach a star that is twice as far away.
• Distance Related: The length of the starlane between two stars increases with the distance between the two stars, but not by a 1-to-1 proportionality. For example, it might take a given ship three times as long to reach a star twice as far away.
• Constant: All starlanes have the same length, so a given ship takes the same amount of time to travel between any two stars that are connected by a starlane.
• Distance Inverse: The length of the starlane between two stars decreases the farther apart those two stars are. For example, a given ship could take twice as long to reach a star that is half as far away.
• Random: The length of the starlane between two stars has no relationship to the distance between them.

The advantage of this option is that it lets a player chose whether they want an intuitive system of starlane travel (the "distance proportional" option is obviously intuitive, and the "constant" option shouldn't be too hard to figure out either) or a system that might have a bit more depth or encourage more exploration (e.g., under the "distance related" or "distance inverted" options, a detour-filled path between two systems might be faster than a straight shot, depending on the path).

Seems to me the ratio of

space taken up on the galaxy set-up options, vs
variety introduced to gameplay

isn't very favorable.
I mean some stars will still be a short distance a way, and some will still be far.

All options increase the cost of maintaining and debugging the code-base, besides the initial time to code them. I don't see these options adding enough replayability to justify either.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—

There is no "Distance" in this game. The only "distance" there is, is defined by the number and lenght of the starlanes it takes to travel from one system to the other. Apart from that, the notion of "distance" has no meaning whatsoever.
Therefore, your suggestion actually does nothing at all.

The suggestion would, if I understand correctly, make apparent / on-screen distance not necessarily equal to travel-time-determining distance. This would be something (ie. not nothing).

This probably doesn't address the coding issue, but what about different drive systems then? E.g., a ship with a Mk. I Hyper-Warp Drive takes 2 turns to travel to a star 5 units away and 4 turns to travel to a star 10 units away, but a ship with a Mk. I Quantum-Fracture Drive takes 3 turns to travel along any starlane. That way, the space isn't on the galaxy set-up, but on the ship design menu - potentially even inherent to the hull-type.

Nevertheless, the main reason that this is probably still a bad idea is because, at least with the example of the Hyper-Warp vs, Quantum-Fracture, the bulk speed of the two drives should average out to be the same, when the entire point is to make drives that are distinct.

True, but that isn't what I'm trying to get at. The main idea that I'm trying to figure out how to suggest is a set-up where, given two stars of relative importance, the player generally has a choice between a relatively strait shot between the two stars (e.g., 3-4 jumps) that would take a long time or a long detour (e.g., 7-10 jumps) that is faster for any ship with enough fuel because the jumps on the detour are significantly "shorter" than the jumps on the straight shot.

Would multiple types of starlane be easier?

For example, you might have standard starlanes and "fast" starlanes; the standard starlanes work just like the current starlanes, while the "fast" starlanes give ships traveling along them a speed boost, but aren't visible until you've scouted both ends and might require more fuel to traverse. Alternatively or additionally, there could be "slow" starlanes that slow down any ship traveling along them, but require little to no fuel to traverse.

Of course, the problem there is that it raises a path-finding issue. For example, what if the AI automatically selects the fastest path between two stars and sends the ship on the standard starlane detour, even if you want the ship to take the fuel-saving "slow" starlane that connects the two stars? Conversely, what the AI automatically selects the route with the lowest fuel consumption and sents the ship on the standard starlane detour when you want the ship to take the fast starlane that connects the two systems?

I recall someone saying something about the possibility of having starlanes that represent a different amount of distance than normal a long time ago - in the general case, something like that might be useful for implementing stargates (something like creating a starlane with a "Distance Ratio" of 0, or something like that).

_________________
Warning: Antarans in dimensional portal are closer than they appear.

With all the difficulty ahead maintaining/building a semi-competent AI, i don't think we should add to it, by making getting from point A to point B a judgement call.

I would like to see star-gate/wormhole travel, which shouldn't complicate pathfinding much unless we try to add a cost per use or something.

_________________
—• Read this First before posting Game Design Ideas!
—• Design Philosophy
—•— My Ideas, Organized —•— Get an Avatar —•— Acronyms —•—