{Issues} Random Map Generator

hmmm.... i don't know... i mean that  IS the point of a  random map, but i've had random map frustrations too.  maybe the devs can "fix" the randomness of a map so that you have at least one asteroid in front of your homeworld?

I know maps need to be random, and really, the map generator as it is now makes me happy about 1/2 the time. 1/4 of the time I'm slightly annoyed, but overall content. The last 1/4 is where I'm going bat shit crazy.

When playing a random map, my thought process should be "Ok, let's see what my map looks like", not "Ok, come on, don't let me be map screwed"

I know the maps need to stay random, but my issue is where it goes from "random" to "heavily favoring one player over another". It's that point where skill/experience means nothing. One guys has 2 roids, 3 lavas, and ice, a desert, a couple neutrals, and meanwhile the other guy has 1 roid, 1 ice, a magnetic cloud, two dead asteroids, a terran 3 jumps from his homeworld, and a partridge in a pear tree.

The problem with this is that if it is hard coded that certain things will always happen, then the game (at least the beginning) will become almost formulaic: Do this, then this, then this...

If anybody plays supreme commander, then you know that symetrical maps get reeeealllly boring after awhile since the same things happen in every game. I know that symetry is not what is being promoted here, but on small random maps, if these things are implemented then a large portion of the map will be the same each time it is played.

The map is random, so let it be random.

Wormholes are marginally useful, but only if you control both sides, or it leads past your enemy's defenses.

One phase lane starts are annoying, but pretty useful for defense.

Amish, you have great points, but i am reluctant to mess with the randomness too much...

i agree more with captainaanderson here. in space, you will end up with things that are completely useless. it just makes the game a little more realistic. i can understand about magnetic clouds, but wormholes open up some good (or bad) tactical options, but can still change the game directly militarily

I should stress this is my main point. I think the entire post boils down to this fact. This problem exists. It's not too common, but it's still common enough that it bothers me. I don't mind losing because someone's better. If that happens, so be it. Live and learn. What I hate is losing because of something that I had no control over.

I totally agree with you.  These are massive issues.  Particularly 1-lane and no-asteroid starts need to be addressed, because these should be hardcoded.  Exception granted for those rare lightly guarded terrans or deserts (which otherwise are massive advantages) these are nearly assured losses.  In fact, that is another issue you should address.  Massive militia versus little militia can be absolutely brutal (although in the long-run lots of militia can give you a valuable source of xp, so it can even out)

Beyond that, I strongly believe your "local" empire (everything within 3 jumps of your homeworld) should be equalized with the other players to a certain degree.  After the map's been generated, the computer should evaluate how strong each player's start location is and then tweak accordingly.  Nothing tremendous, just adding more lanes, changing the number of extractors, reducing militia, etc.

As for your issue regarding neutrals wasting space, it isn't necessarily a map having too many of them, but rather too many being too close to your homeworld (particularly if they're empty or almost empty).  I frankly think maps with lots of neutrals (provided they aren't magnetic clouds) are fun and exciting. 

Finally, I totally agree about magnetic clouds!  These things need to change, because currently they're not working.

Everyone gets screwed by the map now and then, it happens. But in large MP games, you have teamates to help you with this.

Eaqualization would be nice, it's just that random maps are supposed to be random. It's not so much the idea that is bad, it really is a good concept, but it might be over-generalized.

If everyone starts with the same few planets round them, ok, but how long until people start complaining that the planets past that inital ring are unfairly distributed? Or that the planets that are close to you are inferior in resource production to your opponent's? Too much standardization is not good...

Changes to the game can, and possibly will, lead to overly-changing the game.

Magnetic clouds are better than the storms that prevent strikecraft launch, except those have extractors. I think research should be added that allows abilities in magnetic storms. This would allow them to have neutrals, and only be annoying in the ealry game. (like dead asteroids are).

You know what? The only two standardizations I'm really looking for is to actually have the hard code of 1 asteroid and 1 Ice/Lava at least be standard, and get 1-2 neutrals per grav well, not 0-3. We have neither.

Magnetic clouds can be dealt with. I get that. But seriously. Are you going to defend and say you're perfectly ok with having say 4-5 neutral containing systems that have NO neutrals?

I don't want an overly huge change to the game. Most of the shit I said isn't crippling. You can get over it because odds are your enemy has some of it too. The stuff that has to be fixed is the stuff that DEFINITELY puts one person in a heavy disadvantage.

This includes single phase lane starts and the complete randomness of neutrals. I get it. Neutrals need to be random. Game's too standard if they're not. Because of random though, they can, and about 1/2 of the time end up favoring one player or the other. I said 1/4 of the time i'm screwed by the neutrals. Well, 1/4 of the time I'm the guy with the advantage. Obviously I'm gonna be happy then, but that doesn't make it fair for the other guy.

I'm a fan of some of the randomness.  It can add depth to a game, an element of uncertainty (not all empires started out nice and easy).  I do see you point though, here are my thoughts.

Starting Phase Lanes:  I agree, an empie should start out with at least one easy asteroid.

Mag Clouds: Yes they are worthless.  In galaxy forge I use them to 'frame' the areas of space, or to force trade routes a certain direction during gameplay (think herding the AI).  On map-designered (?) maps though I leave them off.  In theory the abilities disability forces battling fleets into a "by the numbers" contest.  Perhaps if they have extractors, and the abilities 'crew extractor' and 'construct starbase' were unaffected they would be better.

Dead asteroids: The name implies 'spent'.  All metal and crystal has been long mined out, and the boom town is dying.  I think they should have room enough for a single logistic slot, and maybe half, or 2/3 the population of a normal asteroid.  This way it still has 'nothing', but is at least worth colonizing.

Wormholes: Major potential here.  Increase starbase build limit to 2, and increase mine build limit to 250.  It still won't survive attack by a large fleet, but it will take the wind out of their solar-sails.  This would decrease the severity of a back-door attack, but still leave it as a option to consider.

really the magnetic clouds and empty nutral grav wells add some randomness to the game. For sure you shold always get a roid and a volc or ice planet beside your HW but magnetic clouds should still be in the game.

Part of getting good at sins is learning how to adapt to the map.

Now after saying that there has been times where i have been messed up by the random map generator. Once i had 4 jumps to the nearest planet. Things like taht need to be fixed but the random elements of the map need to stay in to add flavour.

If you and your opponent each start with one neutral in your backyards, these are the breakdowns of possibilities:

not accounting for magnetic storms:

• equal number of extractors:  25%
• 1 extractor difference:  37.5%
• 2 extractor difference:  25%
• 3 extractor difference:  12.5%

accounting for magnetic storms

• equal number of extractors: 28%
• 1 extractor difference:  32%
• 2 extractor difference:  24%
• 3 extractor difference:  16%

If we consider the former two outcomes "fair" and the latter two "unfair", then a very large proportion of games is unfair towards one or the other player.  Moreover, as we can see magnetics actually increase the chance of unfair outcomes by a small margin (the "equal number" scenario becomes more likely because of the 4% chance both players will get magnetics, ensuring no one gets any neutral extractors). 

Planets outside that initial ring don't have anywhere near the impact on the game as your initial position.  Moreover, you have a lot more time to plan and prepare to accommodate your position in the long term than you do for your initial starting position.

Here's a clue about wormholes: Stop thinking of them as BACK doors!

If you come across a gravwell with a lane to an enemy world, you treat it as the "front line", and either secure your gravwell or advance to secure the gravwell on the other side.

What makes wormholes any different?

Either secure your side of the wormhole, secure the other side of the wormhole, travel through the wormhole and secure the connected enemy territories, or all three.

It's really no different than having your empire connected to the enemy empire by a string of two empty gravwells.

If you're getting attacked through a wormhole but don't have wormhole jump technology yourself, then please die quietly and make way for the technologically superior race. Thank you.

Really, wormholes are one of the FUN things about the game. Stop thinking linearly.

If the developers would enable auto-downloading for custom, Galaxy Forge-made maps for online multiplayer, we wouldn't need to worry about the Map Designer and its quirks anymore.

First of all, they do not open until late game.  Obviously it's foolhardy to invest in defending a closed door.  On the other hand, the door could open at any time.  In other words, it's difficult to know whether defending that location is a waste of your time and resources or critical.

Secondly, normal phase lanes have a certain locality.  Nearby planets connect to nearby planets, meaning that chances are all your front-line worlds are nearby each other and one fleet can defend them.  This is not true of wormholes, which connect to the other side of the solar system.  For anything short of a tiny empire, this automatically creates an extra "front", which is a supreme tactical disadvantage if it's right in the middle of your economic area.

Both are extremely expensive.  Moreover even strong defenses can be bypassed relatively easily, and if your fleet isn't nearby you're in big trouble.

Neutrals and militia are still a problem.

Raging, I don't know if any of this will ever get addressed.  Blair told me he was going to work on the 1 phase lane bug, but that was more than a year ago.  (https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/327283  see reply #3).

3. Dead Asteroids

They provide no income, yet are colonizable. Tell me. How is this useful? If I can't build a frigate factory (ok, TEC can) on a "tactical" planet, what good is it? I don't think I've ever had a good enough reason to spend the money on colonizing at one of these. I always put up tactical defenses somewhere that I can put up frig factories too. Otherwise, i just don't see the point of them.

I'd like 1 metal mine in these grav wells. Gives them something that makes them appealing.

Raging, dead asteroids are awesome.  Here's why:

No one is expecting you to colonize it, so they don't sccout it.  So what you do is colonize it, put a PJI, a few repair, and a SB and trap him with the grav bomb + PJI combo.  I can't tell you how many times I have caught people by surprise by colonizing these worthless roids.

I'm actually reserved on dead asteroids.  In some respects, I agree with you Howdidyoudothat.  Last night I won a game because I colonized a dead next to an enemy homeworld, put up some repair bays, and then proceeded to slaughter him from this vantage point.  On the other hand, this may only strengthen RA's argument; that dead asteroid was a massive liability to the player it spawned next to, offering a critical weakness his enemy used to attack and ultimately kill him.  Because it lacked economic incentive, he couldn't afford to colonize it early and this was the opening I needed.

Dead asteroids have uses, the TECs devlopment mandate research gives them an economic importance (ok, one trade port isn't exactly a HUGE bonus...). And for the other raes it can be used as a trap.

They shouldn't spawn near HWs and not at all on smaller maps, just becuase they are only useful in larger games where you can afford a world that gives you very little economically.

I just recently played a game where there were magnetic clouds all over the place (there were 2, but it seemed like a lot) and they are really annoying. They should be removed or the effect changed to be something like a PJI or ANYTHING other than ability killing

I just played a random 4 player medium map - and it had 6 magnetic clouds.  6!  And 4 of them were within 2 jumps from one of players starting planet.  He also had a volcanic, one asteroid and an earth planet... that was all he could get, The rest were clouds.

That is the ultimate map screw....

Worst I've seen? Having only one phase lane that leads to an allies homeworld. That's the ultimate map screw....

Your points about dead asteroids aren't lost on me. I get it. I just hate it when everything near you just absolutely bones you. It's no fun. It's like being told to run the 400 meter dash after getting whacked in the shins with a metal bat. You can still do it, and probably will do it out of pride, but there's someone up in the stands just going

"Jesus, why the hell does he keep going?"

@_@ wow I didn't know that was possible.  I thought there was a minimum distance between homeworlds.

Was I in that game?  I had a game last night with two adjacent magnetic clouds and my Advent ally kept getting screwed over because he couldn't get past them but couldn't use his abilities in those wells.  That map was just filled with empty neutrals, and one Advent player (an enemy, go figure) got literally half of all the colonizable planets and he could defend them from a single choke.

I can't speak for Eadtaes or Mindseye, but my mod guarantees neutrals in everything but magnetic clouds. I may tone it down a bit. (I put 'em in black holes too...that might have been excessive). Still, it's a start.

Black Holes?

I have only run in to one of those while playing sins and that was forever ago, i thought they were removed in a patch.

The ultimate map screw would be a one phase lane start that leads to a black hole...

I think so; stylistically they don't look like they should support neutrals, nor do I think they need to.

Nah, RA's example was worse.  At least there would be something else beyond that black hole to colonize, whereas in RA's case your ally could have taken all that for himself anyways.  Now, a pirate base outside your homeworld, on the other hand...

One phase lane to a pirate base, and one phase lane past that to a black hole, and then a magnetic cloud...

God i hope that's not possible...

but it would be fun to make a 6-player map set up for #5/6 to be AI, and have that setup for those two (evil grin on face from messing w/ AI factions, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA)