Changing low planet density even lower

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
LGM-Doyle
Programmer
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:37 pm

Changing low planet density even lower

#1 Post by LGM-Doyle » Sun Mar 20, 2016 1:21 pm

I've been playing with the different options to start new games.

I tried the low planet density options and I couldn't tell the difference from the medium
density option. I checked the file where it is defined and the difference is
between medium 70% chance of no planet in an orbit to high 77% chance of no planet in an orbit.
I changed it to 85% and got closer to the sparse galaxy that I was hoping for.
I might even change it to 90% and play a game.


The file is default/python/universe_generation/universe_tables.ps
The line to change is line 56.

I've posted a pull request #550 with the 85% number in case people want to try and comment on the change.

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#2 Post by MatGB » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:00 pm

It doesn't massively effect the chance of a system having a planet, it reduces the number of planets in most systems.

I'd prefer not to make it even harder in this way (especially given the AI has problems with this sort of thing on the existing settings). I would be happier if we reduced the chance of a star in a given system, but only if we also ensured that all systems with stars (including black hole and neutron stars) include at least an asteroid belt if not more.

Deep space is one thing, empty stellar systems annoy me.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

LGM-Doyle
Programmer
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:37 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#3 Post by LGM-Doyle » Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:28 pm

Most of the AIs fared well enough. All 8 reached and colonized the colonizable planets in their section of the galaxy.

I understand your point that in the real world most stars probably have enough debris to form a gas giant or two.
However, the label on the box says low planet density, so I expect low planet density realistic or not.

Part of my point is that with the steps high density 50%, medium density 70% and low density 77%,
the difference between low and medium density is imperceptible. If there is an option it should
make a game difference, even if it violates real world mechanics.

What I was trying to do was setup the game to be more difficult, by making the resource distribution
more sparse. This brings me toa second point un-related to my first point.

The website receives many reports from beginners. At a very rough cut they range between.
a. An experienced 4X player, who quickly and enjoyable figures out an optimal path through research tree
, understands that colonization is race and then complains that the AI is inadequate.
b. A novice to the genre who is over-whelmed by the learning curve, and has set themselves up for failure and frustration.
Some of these players don't read the Pedia, as they assume it just adds color and not critical information.

We need to clearly indicate to all players which options add difficulty.

dbenage's beginner's hints are a good thing, along these lines.

I have played some games that seemed to have a perfect learning curve. They introduced mechanics
just after I started to understand the first mechanic, but before I was bored. I think that some of
them cheated and detected some indicators of user frustration and used that to dial up/down the
difficulty.

Other games allow you to turn mechanics off and clearly indicate that these add difficulty.
We can't do that with most mechanics, except on the galaxy generation screen.

I was thinking a bar of presets across the top of the galaxy setup screen,
ranging from cakewalk (small galaxy, 1 passive AI, no specials of any kind, no fog of war) to the current defaults.
The intent is tutorialesque without have to write scenario code.

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#4 Post by MatGB » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:24 pm

Medium

Code: Select all

2016-03-20 20:06:58.747112 [debug] Server : Galaxy Setup Data:
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747128 [debug] Server : ...Seed: 0
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747143 [debug] Server : ...Size: 150
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747158 [debug] Server : ...Shape: disc
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747172 [debug] Server : ...Age: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747186 [debug] Server : ...Starlane Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747200 [debug] Server : ...Planet Density: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747214 [debug] Server : ...Specials Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747228 [debug] Server : ...Monster Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747242 [debug] Server : ...Native Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:06:58.747258 [debug] Server : ...Max AI Aggression: maniacal


2016-03-20 20:07:00.842862 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:07:00.842955 [debug] Server : ##             Universe generation statistics             ##
2016-03-20 20:07:00.842970 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843655 [debug] Server : Planet Count Distribution: planets_in_system | num_systems | % of systems
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843708 [debug] Server : 			 0  |    67 | 44.7%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843725 [debug] Server : 			 1  |    34 | 22.7%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843742 [debug] Server : 			 2  |    27 | 18.0%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843758 [debug] Server : 			 3  |    19 | 12.7%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843773 [debug] Server : 			 4  |     2 |  1.3%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843789 [debug] Server : 			 5  |     1 |  0.7%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843800 [debug] Server : 
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843833 [debug] Server : Planet Size Distribution: size | count | % of planets
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843850 [debug] Server : 		tiny         |    10 |  6.3%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843865 [debug] Server : 		small        |    26 | 16.5%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843880 [debug] Server : 		medium       |    54 | 34.2%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843895 [debug] Server : 		large        |    14 |  8.9%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843909 [debug] Server : 		huge         |     2 |  1.3%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843924 [debug] Server : 		asteroids    |    26 | 16.5%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843938 [debug] Server : 		gasGiant     |    26 | 16.5%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.843952 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844324 [debug] Server : Planet Type Summary for a total of 158 placed planets
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844342 [debug] Server : swamp         8.9%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844362 [debug] Server : toxic         7.6%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844377 [debug] Server : inferno       7.0%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844391 [debug] Server : radiated      7.0%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844405 [debug] Server : barren       10.8%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844419 [debug] Server : tundra        5.1%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844433 [debug] Server : desert        8.9%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844448 [debug] Server : terran        4.4%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844462 [debug] Server : ocean         7.6%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844476 [debug] Server : asteroids    16.5%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844490 [debug] Server : gasGiant     16.5%
2016-03-20 20:07:00.844503 [debug] Server : ############################################################
Low:

Code: Select all

2016-03-20 20:10:10.491829 [debug] Server : Galaxy Setup Data:
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491850 [debug] Server : ...Seed: 0
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491866 [debug] Server : ...Size: 150
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491881 [debug] Server : ...Shape: disc
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491896 [debug] Server : ...Age: medium
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491911 [debug] Server : ...Starlane Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491926 [debug] Server : ...Planet Density: low
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491942 [debug] Server : ...Specials Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491956 [debug] Server : ...Monster Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491975 [debug] Server : ...Native Frequency: medium
2016-03-20 20:10:10.491989 [debug] Server : ...Max AI Aggression: maniacal


2016-03-20 20:10:12.488692 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:10:12.488712 [debug] Server : ##             Universe generation statistics             ##
2016-03-20 20:10:12.488726 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489255 [debug] Server : Planet Count Distribution: planets_in_system | num_systems | % of systems
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489291 [debug] Server : 			 0  |    68 | 45.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489312 [debug] Server : 			 1  |    32 | 21.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489331 [debug] Server : 			 2  |    36 | 24.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489349 [debug] Server : 			 3  |    12 |  8.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489369 [debug] Server : 			 5  |     2 |  1.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489381 [debug] Server : 
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489398 [debug] Server : Planet Size Distribution: size | count | % of planets
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489415 [debug] Server : 		tiny         |     7 |  4.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489435 [debug] Server : 		small        |    29 | 19.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489469 [debug] Server : 		medium       |    58 | 38.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489489 [debug] Server : 		large        |    10 |  6.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489506 [debug] Server : 		huge         |     0 |  0.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489526 [debug] Server : 		asteroids    |    19 | 12.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489544 [debug] Server : 		gasGiant     |    27 | 18.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489562 [debug] Server : ############################################################
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489934 [debug] Server : Planet Type Summary for a total of 150 placed planets
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489957 [debug] Server : swamp         4.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489977 [debug] Server : toxic         6.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.489994 [debug] Server : inferno       5.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490014 [debug] Server : radiated      8.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490031 [debug] Server : barren       10.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490050 [debug] Server : tundra        9.3%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490067 [debug] Server : desert        8.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490085 [debug] Server : terran        8.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490102 [debug] Server : ocean         8.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490120 [debug] Server : asteroids    12.7%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490136 [debug] Server : gasGiant     18.0%
2016-03-20 20:10:12.490153 [debug] Server : ############################################################
The crucial difference being 45.3/21.3/24.0/8/0/1.3 for Low compared to 44.7/22.7/18.0/12.7/1.3/0.7 for medium giving differences of +0.6/-1.4/+6.0/-4.7/-1.3/+0.6

Obviously this is one simplistic test based on default settings, but it accords with my experience of playing.

You're looking at "Low Planets" as number of systems with planets in. I'm looking at Low Planets as being number of planets in any given system. We are thus comparing apples and oranges.

I would be very happy to see a different setting for %age of empty/deep space systems, which appears to be what you want. I play Low planets most of the time, Medium is too many for my preferences, and the AI does struggle with it more than with Medium (it's a lot better than it was a year or so ago).
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#5 Post by Vezzra » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:27 pm

MatGB wrote:The crucial difference being 45.3/21.3/24.0/8/0/1.3 for Low compared to 44.7/22.7/18.0/12.7/1.3/0.7 for medium giving differences of +0.6/-1.4/+6.0/-4.7/-1.3/+0.6

Obviously this is one simplistic test based on default settings, but it accords with my experience of playing.

You're looking at "Low Planets" as number of systems with planets in. I'm looking at Low Planets as being number of planets in any given system. We are thus comparing apples and oranges.
Comparing number of systems with planets in it and number of planets in any given system might be comparing apples with oranges. However, according to these numbers, even when looking at the number of planets in any given system the difference between low and medium seems to be marginal. I've calculated the total number of planets placed, and that gave me 150 planets on the low and 158 planets on the medium setting. I think the difference should be a bit more distinct. However, instead of reducing low even more, maybe consider raising medium a bit?

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#6 Post by MatGB » Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:53 pm

Possibly, yes. The difference was more pronounced when I jumped it up to 500 systems, and we ought to test with multiple seeds/shapes, I think the "low" results on seed zero are higher due to a random chance 5 planet system—which I didn't get at all on the 500 system test.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#7 Post by Vezzra » Fri Mar 25, 2016 12:43 pm

MatGB wrote:we ought to test with multiple seeds/shapes
Yep, that's true. But I really don't have the time for that right now, and most likely not in the foreseeable future. My FO todo list has been skyrocketing for quite some time now, I don't even come anywhere near to "keeping up" currently... :(

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#8 Post by MatGB » Fri Mar 25, 2016 2:18 pm

Vezzra wrote:
MatGB wrote:we ought to test with multiple seeds/shapes
Yep, that's true. But I really don't have the time for that right now, and most likely not in the foreseeable future. My FO todo list has been skyrocketing for quite some time now, I don't even come anywhere near to "keeping up" currently... :(
Yup, that's why I started that thread, I can basically find time to test others work or do my own, as we've lots of contributors these days, getting them to do work and testing it is more fun because I can play more.

What I'd like to see: a check in the generation code such that every planet placed has a star and every star placed has a planet (or at least asteroid belt), that removes some annoying inconsistencies and means "deep space" means empty, anything else is usable.

If we then have more deep space systems, I'm good with that as long as the AI can handle it, which they're OK at currently. However, that's way beyond me. If anyone else wants to script it, I'll be happy to run iterative tests.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Kassiopeija
Dyson Forest
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Black Forest

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#9 Post by Kassiopeija » Thu May 05, 2016 7:09 pm

Could it be possible to introduce a maxcap to the number of planets available into a single system?
If that is tight into the planet density setting, let's say on low no more than 2 planets per system (as an example), then the total number of planets available to the galaxy could maybe savely reduced a bit without the AI having to face some problems with bottleneck map placement (or several empty voids somewhere posing as natural barriers) because it would mean that the planets are dispersed more homogenous throughout the map.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5066
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#10 Post by Vezzra » Fri May 06, 2016 1:22 pm

I think the better approach in general would be to have two separate settings: "Star System Density" and "Planet Density". The former determines the ratio of star systems versus empty deep space "systems", the latter determines the amount of planets in star systems. And all star systems will have at least one planet (or asteroid belt).

With that approach, you will have far more flexibility: you can have maps with a high number of empty deep space nodes and only a few star systems in between, but those few star systems that are there can still have a high number of planets - or vice versa: only few empty deep space nodes and many star systems, but only a very low number of planets per system.

This will also take care of the issue Mat has brought up repeatedly, having star systems without any planets, which can get annoying in later game (because you have to click on the system to see if there are any planets in it, and once you're dealing with many systems...). Although, to address that issue, we probably should add some visual indicator on the map if a system contains any planets or not.

Teensy Juggernaut
Space Krill
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#11 Post by Teensy Juggernaut » Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:07 pm

Sorry for the long-dead necro, but it's the same. I'm guessing it's discussed in dozens of places.

I would love to be able to create an sparsely populated endless void type scenario, where while a ~2500 system seems ludicrous and everyone's already thinking of how with 8 AIs the turn time will be late game (whose up for 5 minute waits? anyone?) -- but imagine that was mostly dead space, and in that arbitrary 2500 sector map, there's 8 or 10% or so, ~250 systems with stars, maybe 200 of those systems have planets asteroid belts gas giants, 150 have the possibility of multi-planet systems, and maybe 2x per race have a high possibility of a "utopian" system, 3+ large and huge planets, an asteroid belt, and a couple gas giants...

Yes, I can forsee an AI having decision-making problems handling scouts that have to venture dozens of sectors away and still never finding anything to scout, running out of fuel, waiting for refill, moving 1 sector at a time, blah blah blah... And my initial worry is gameplay becomes entirely protectionist, that in most of these games it would be all end-game nothing-left-to-research fleets of hundreds or thousands of ships, guarding their "frontier" planet sectors, with 5 empty sectors out all having ~50k attack power armadas waiting for that first race to cross the empty void and find you.

And going back to my 5 minutes joke, of course I worry that we'd hit a turn count in the thousands; when there's nothing to fear, why upgrade anything? why build any offensive vessels once you've dealt with the monsters and natives? Max out and then only build flagships of death, who cares if they're now costing 20M each because you've build so many?

Ahh, but, assuming people weren't turtling their turns away, could this scenario be fun? Am I making it better in my head than what it would play out like? I know I'm missing important reasons not to, hence my post. I wonder if it would stop the player who quits and rerolls the second they see an enemy before they're "ready" whatever that means, because they could easily be 100 turns in before seeing anyone! I know it happens, they sure post about it enough.

Anyway thanks for reading.

User avatar
JonCST
Space Kraken
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 4:28 am

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#12 Post by JonCST » Sun Nov 17, 2019 1:58 am

Teensy Juggernaut wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:07 pm

[...] who cares if they're now costing 20M each because you've build so many?
This would certainly require thorough research of fuel parts. Recent fuel changes mean SGH and larger hulls can't carry enough fuel to jump even medium sized gaps between supply.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1019
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#13 Post by The Silent One » Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:31 am

Teensy Juggernaut wrote:
Sat Nov 16, 2019 10:07 pm
I would love to be able to create an sparsely populated endless void type scenario, where while a ~2500 system seems ludicrous and everyone's already thinking of how with 8 AIs the turn time will be late game (whose up for 5 minute waits? anyone?) -- but imagine that was mostly dead space, and in that arbitrary 2500 sector map, there's 8 or 10% or so, ~250 systems with stars, maybe 200 of those systems have planets asteroid belts gas giants, 150 have the possibility of multi-planet systems, and maybe 2x per race have a high possibility of a "utopian" system, 3+ large and huge planets, an asteroid belt, and a couple gas giants...
You could mod universe_tables.py here:

Code: Select all

# These following tables are as above, but for planet sizes rather than star
# types. The star types are now the givens, and the planet sizes are being
# rolled for.
#
# Note that for these purposes, Asteroids and Gas Giants are a size of planet.
#
# This checks what you chose for galaxy planet density:
DENSITY_MOD_TO_PLANET_SIZE_DIST = {
#                                none  tiny  small  medium  large  huge  asteroids  gas giant
    fo.galaxySetupOption.low:   ( 85,    0,     0,      0,    -5,  -10,         0,         0),
    fo.galaxySetupOption.medium:( 70,    0,     0,      0,    -5,  -10,         0,         0),
    fo.galaxySetupOption.high:  ( 50,    0,     0,      0,    -5,  -10,         0,         0),
}
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Teensy Juggernaut
Space Krill
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#14 Post by Teensy Juggernaut » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:24 pm

hmm. well looking at the code around that bit you pasted, it'll require more than that, else it'll be a scattered smattering of occupiable space... and there'll be issues with star deployment. I guess to the idea would be to form multiple mini globular clusters... dead space, more dead space, still more dead... ohh! a star! oooh! another star! this one's got a planet! etc. Look! Many stars with many planets!! wow! I wonder how far this goes!? (moves 5 systems out) Oh. I guess to here.

But logistics aside, I was more interested in how the gameplay would go. Why put any effort into a bad idea, right? :-)

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1686
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Changing low planet density even lower

#15 Post by Oberlus » Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:44 pm

Teensy Juggernaut wrote:
Sun Nov 17, 2019 5:24 pm
hmm. well looking at the code around that bit you pasted, it'll require more than that, else it'll be a scattered smattering of occupiable space... and there'll be issues with star deployment. I guess to the idea would be to form multiple mini globular clusters... dead space, more dead space, still more dead... ohh! a star! oooh! another star! this one's got a planet! etc. Look! Many stars with many planets!! wow! I wonder how far this goes!? (moves 5 systems out) Oh. I guess to here.

But logistics aside, I was more interested in how the gameplay would go. Why put any effort into a bad idea, right? :-)
If your goal is to have "normal" clusters of star systems, with "usual" planetary densities in them, and then say 30+ hops over empty spaces before reaching any other cluster of planets, then you're probably right and changing that table won't get you what you're looking for.
However, I would never play in such a scenario. It means the following: trying to go for another cluster is utterly ineffective until you get the zero-point generation fuel part (infinite fuel), because you require say 80+ turns to get anywhere (by that time, they will be stronger than whatever you were sending). So this means to play as if you have no enemies (i.e. maximise meters and expansion, then get last tier weapons and parts, including the infinite fuel) then go search for some enemies. If you do this against an AI, there is no way at all you can lose or feel any form of challenge. And I would not participate in a multiplayer game with this setting because in the same time I could play 50 regular games.

Post Reply