Less planets and moons?

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

Post Reply
HsojVvad
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:21 pm

Less planets and moons?

Post by HsojVvad »

ORIGINAL: RViener

I agree in principle but there is probably a limit to the program's functionality. But as long as you limit the number of stars and planets it may be doable.
Bob Viener
After reading this post in my other thread I made about different size galaxies, another idea came to me. [X(] I know me thinking, everyone duck! [:D]

While at first it was awsome to have a system with 12 planets and 20 moons, but now I am finding I am no using all these planets. Because of maintenance costs and what not, once I colonize or mine the resources I need I don't use the other planets, either because I don't need them, or I already have them.

So I was thinking, do we really need that many planets and moons in a system? Maybe limit it to 5 planets and 10 moons, or all together of 10 or so? Maybe we can even have options to leave it as is, or cap a systems, to what we put in.

I also beleive this would speed up our systems at the end game, since there will not be as many planets and moons for the computer to compute.

Again while I love having a system with lots of planets and moons, now that I know how the game works, I see that I am bypassing them or having on or two mines in the system and not using the rest. Maybe if we had technology to be able to colonize these sytems, or at least do something else with these planets, I just find them a waste because I don't need them. If we don't need them, maybe we shouldn't have them in the game, to make the game run faster then. Use up less memory, every little bit helps no?

So what do you guys and gals think? Should we have less planets and moons in a system and cap them?
User avatar
lordxorn
Posts: 768
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:18 am

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by lordxorn »

Well I don't see nothing wrong with a setting allowing user to pick.
Astorax
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 10:50 pm

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by Astorax »

Well, personally, I like it to look "busy". But, like LordXorn, I wouldn't care if there were some slider or somesuch to control this, especially if it affected performance.
User avatar
Webbco
Posts: 693
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:15 am

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by Webbco »

I think this is a great idea. Personally, I don't think it would have too much of a negative effect on gameplay, whilst it may well increase performance substantially late in game, especially if you add a slider for it into the options menu. I wonder what the devs/erik thinks?
jam3
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 1:22 pm

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by jam3 »

I would like to see some gas giants near the sun in a few systems, we have pretty good proof this happens, actually kind of shocked astronomers a few years ago when they figured this out.
taltamir
Posts: 1290
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:51 am

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by taltamir »

i would like to make a correction... those planets and moons are far from useless.
The main source of income is taxation, the more planets and moons you have, the more tax revenue you get... with 1.0.4.4 it has now been set that a colony can get development from population alone, up to 50%... so a colony with no trade, no nothing except population will still be providing you with income.

plus, EVERY colony automatically mines all resources on it for free (aka, no need for a mining station) and colonies are immune to pirate attacks... so the only risk really is invasion by other civilations...

so those planets and moons are very useful and should be colonized by you.
that being said. If you want an option to set a max number of planets / moons / planetoids in systems / how likely those are to be colonizable... well... I have no complaint here. It could be interesting... And I think it would contribute to scale.

due to practical limitations I currently limit myself to a small galaxy (400 stars)... I think if I could scale down colonizeable planets/moons per system to be 1/4th its current value, then I would be able to play the largest galaxy (1400 stars). (I play a 400 star galaxy because it takes too long to load/save otherwise and eats up too much ram)
I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.
HsojVvad
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:21 pm

RE: Less planets and moons?

Post by HsojVvad »

Tlatamir, you said I should colonize those moons and planets useful to me. I do, the thing is tha there is not many moons and planets I can colonize. Then when I do find a planet I can colonize I just think it very unrealistic I would travel 1/4 of the galaxay and by pass 10 star systems to coloinize that moon or planet. I hate saying why am I not bothering with all those 200 or more planets and moons, I don't bother with. If I don't bother with them, why really have them there and use up CPU and memory so all they do is go round and round for just one or two mining ships that you have no control of anyways.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”