Public Review: Star system/planet generation

Past public reviews and discussions.
Message
Author
jbarcz1
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:33 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#16 Post by jbarcz1 » Sun Jun 29, 2003 3:53 pm

I think I prefer Drek's system.

My one objection is that I dont like the idea of planets orbitting neutron stars or black holes, since these are generally the result of catastrophic events that should wipe out any planets near them. You might find asteroids or debris orbitting one, but I think that actual, full-fledged planets should be extremely unlikely. Especially around black holes, since these would pretty much destroy any planet that comes near them.


JB
Empire Team Lead

User avatar
Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#17 Post by Nightfish » Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:06 pm

I don't understand your complaint, Aquitaine. Drek's system has percentages just like mine, only that his aren't obvious at first sight. If you let a mathematic run over his table, I think he'll be able to tell you the exact percentage for each size / environment. The difference is, that drek's numbers are less obvious.

drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#18 Post by drek » Sun Jun 29, 2003 4:42 pm

planets orbiting black holes and nuetrons are very rare, and will probably even more rare once i get the numbers hammered out in my spreadsheet.

Scientists have detected earth sized extra solar planets in orbit around pulsars (nuetrons). We also know that main stage stars orbit blackholes--by extension planets might also orbit holes. Possibly the planets were captured into orbit after the supernova that formed the nuetron or blackhole?

In any case, we don't need to sweat the realism too much, so long as it makes a little sense.

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#19 Post by Aquitaine » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:32 pm

The numbers are obvious enough to me. The numbers in your system are arbitrary and based solely on user preferance; they're whatever we make them. The connection is user-->numbers-->galaxy. With drek's system, the connection us user-->several levers and buttons-->numbers-->galaxy. I want that layer of mystique in the middle. You can modify the numbers directly in both systems if you want to, but it feels more like galaxy generation to be able to modify meta-data that is then used to generate a galaxy rather than modifying the galaxy directly.
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

theCarlinist
Space Krill
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Sore wa himitsu desu! ^_^

Here's my take on the subject

#20 Post by theCarlinist » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:47 pm

Forgive my armchair analysis,but here's what I think:

There are inherent advantages and disadvantages to both systems. Here's a point-by-point breakdown:

Modability:
With NF's system,it's easier to "tweak" the numbers in a fashion that's easily understandable to your "garden variety modder" (i.e.,someone who didn't major in math or statistics in college :mrgreen: )

However,with drek's system,it's easier to add categories,for those who want to have their realism,and play it,too.

Perhaps some fusion of the two might be possible solution.

Environmental Preferences:
I'm not really sure that EP is really relevant to a discussion of galaxy generation. My understanding is that EP just tells how desirable a race might find a planet for colonizing. The only way that EP might be related to galaxy generation would be as an effect of said generation (i.e., what hand fate deals a race in regards to desirable planets close by).

Those seem to be the two main points of discussion,so I'll stop there. In short,I'm ambivalent about which system we choose. As long as it provides good entertainment value and modability,I'm happy. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#21 Post by Nightfish » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:48 pm

It's a matter of preference I guess. I absolutely hate these indirect things. No matter if it's the viceroy AI building the stuff it thinks I need or if it's the galaxy generation where I can't really tell what I'm generating. I want to affect things more directly in a straightforward way.

I think I just noticed something you misunderstood: The user would never even see my table unless he edits it outside of the game. It's nothing I'd show at game start. At game start I'd use something like MoO2 with young / average / old galaxy.

theCarlinist
Space Krill
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Sore wa himitsu desu! ^_^

A comment on drek's system specials

#22 Post by theCarlinist » Sun Jun 29, 2003 5:58 pm

This should probably wait for the public discussion on system/planet specials,but I thought it was worth mentioning since it came up in drek's galaxy generation model.

One of the system specials listed is "sputtering starlanes." Assuming this makes the cut for system specials,what would happen if a ship/fleet is in transit to the affected system when the starlane "shuts off"? Would it continue on to its destination at ponderously slow "off-road" speeds,or would it simply be destroyed outright (crushed by the collapse),or something else entirely?

You don't have to answer this since its not relevant to the discussion,but it is something to ponder should we decide on this for system specials.

User avatar
tzlaine
Programming Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:33 pm

#23 Post by tzlaine » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:50 pm

I favor the drek method. Everything has already been said, so I'll just leave it at that.

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#24 Post by Aquitaine » Sun Jun 29, 2003 7:56 pm

Just as a side note to NF...

There's a lot to talk about with the MOO3 Viecory model, but if you haven't played MOO3, how can you hate it?
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

User avatar
Nightfish
FreeOrion Designer / Space Monster
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:07 am

#25 Post by Nightfish » Sun Jun 29, 2003 8:01 pm

It was just an example. I don't like my decissions made for me or if I have to control A by fiddling with B. Like controlling a build qeue by setting some general directions for the viceroy. I was just trying to make a point, not to bash MoO3. There's plenty of that at the IG boards. (Cool, isn't it? It's been since march and they are *still* at it.)

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#26 Post by utilae » Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:44 pm

Ok, with Dreks system, flexibile, but difficult, we could let the modders get familiar with it, how long would it take. Although I too do not like indirect methods of doing things, like Moo3 development plans.

I dont care if it gives a little mystery, that just means that the modder won't know what they're doing, more fiddling around in the dark.

If both systems could be combined, to have flexibility and ease of use, it would be great.

Also in NightFishes I like how you can say the percentage of environment type planets around different stars. So you could have warmer planets around orange, yellow and red stars and colder planets around white and blue stars. It is indeed very easy to modify. I never did like point systems, because they require too much effort to balance the game and it depends on your scale.

I do however like the idea of planets orbiting neutron stars and blackholes, as long as neutron stars turn into blackholes and blackholes cause great trouble for orbiting colonies. Still wish we had the ability to have more than one sun, that would be cool.

Right now, however flexibility over ease of use, so I vote Dreks.

jbarcz1
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:33 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

#27 Post by jbarcz1 » Sun Jun 29, 2003 9:54 pm

Funny, when I looked at the two, I thought Drek's was easier to understand. I dont see why everyone thinks his is more incomprehensible than nightfishes. Maybe it was just the way they were described.

I think that a serious modder would probably not have too much trouble figuring out how Drek's system works, and it would be a better system for modding because it provides tighter control over how the planets will tend to be generated.

The main difference I see is that Drek's allows more fine-tuning, and more tightly restricts the locations of planets relative to stars (i.e. radiated is closer than tundra).

EDIT: Another thing to point out. This isn't going to be something that's in-game. THis is something external to the game that the modders can tweak if they like. So I dont think there's a problem with it being a little complex and tougher to grasp. These parameters are only going to be tweaked by developers and people who seriously want to change things, not by the average user.
Empire Team Lead

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#28 Post by utilae » Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:32 pm

jbarcz1 wrote: I think that a serious modder would probably not have too much trouble figuring out how Drek's system works, and it would be a better system for modding because it provides tighter control over how the planets will tend to be generated.

Another thing to point out. This isn't going to be something that's in-game. THis is something external to the game that the modders can tweak if they like. So I dont think there's a problem with it being a little complex and tougher to grasp. These parameters are only going to be tweaked by developers and people who seriously want to change things, not by the average user.
This is true, the modders who mod any other game often do so against the intentions of the game developers (ie no modding ability built into the game, but modders mod them anyway).

User avatar
PowerCrazy
Creative Contributor
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Location: Texas

#29 Post by PowerCrazy » Tue Jul 01, 2003 6:08 am

Hmm, Indirect Control. sounds like an oxymoron to me. I like Nightfishs system in that I can easilly create a galaxy of all Huge Gaia Planets if i choose. Now I realize i could do the same with dreks, but.... I'm a little disturbed by both proposals, about Gaia's being impossilbe to create etc. But that is just fluff thrown in for the descripitions. Also planetary enivronments are unimportant in Galaxy creation. We haven't decided what bonuses or minuses to include with the various environments.

It seems to me that galaxy creation should consist of equal precentages of generic environment A-G and equal generic size 1-5. This way we can adjust each percentage for the planet specifics when the planet specifics are decided.

As the only difference between Nightfish and dreks proposal is the way environments are handled. It becomes inconsequential. So a generic Spreadsheet with the above percentages as well as a differentiation for planet sizes similiar to Nightfish's will work well. Also as far as star color is concerned, why not just make it random? Star Color has no bearing on how many planets or quality of planets. Each star is given a random color upon generation.
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)

User avatar
utilae
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 2175
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

#30 Post by utilae » Tue Jul 01, 2003 9:22 am

Doesn't the colour typically represent the age, size and amount of generated heat for the star.

Locked