Tight clusters will result in fewer stars overall and more gaps. Try playing on a different clustering setting and you'll find you get more stars overall.

I was about to ask the same thing!

I like clusters because it gives a feeling of borders - it really irks me when you have planets mushed inside influence boundaries left and right, and it looks like a patchwork quilt. However, tight clusters is just ridiculously pathetically cramped and empty at the same time.

Loose clusters is what I'm looking for, but almost feels TOO loose sometimes. I'd like an intermediary one.

Scattered is just annoying.

What we need is both star SPACING and star CLUMPING abilities. Star clumping would determine how likely stars are to be closer together and leave open gaps, star SPACING would adjust how far (optimally) individual stars could / should be from each other. A tight clumping but loose spacing would give the effect I'm looking for precisely.

And yes 'equal starting points' would be phenomenal. When I spawn in the middle of 4 other races, and the last race has half the galaxy to himself, I just ctrl-N that. Or, as you said, some poor race trapped in a corner with 3 planets...

Were you trying to be helpful at all or just trying to piss people off?

Btw I agree with the OP (and other posters, excepting the one quoted above). I'd love a setting where I could set little clumps of tightly clustered stars. Gives the feeling of having actual empires rather then a mishmash of clustered stars and mixed planets.

Looks like I did a bit of both.

So, job well done?

Congratulations, you can be an obnoxious twit over the internet. You are now the equal of a 12 year old. When you have absolutely nothing to add to a thread in the future just pass it over.

The final TA will have a map editor. So I guess then we can manually generate all the maps we like.

Anyone know if a custom map will work with the Metaverse (and not get a cheat flag)?

I thought the differences between the individual games were supposed to be one of the strengths of Galciv - a sort of "never the same game twice" kind of approach. This way you have to adapt your strategy for new and interesting circumstances. So say you've got one power that has a nice big cluster to itself while the rest of you are fighting over the same space in another corner of the map - the challenge then is in either rushing out colony ships to compete for space in the big cluster or trying to bring together your corner to attack the larger power.

It's not important that a game of Galciv be perfectly balanced, particularly a large one, because part of the challenge is adapting to difficult situations. Besides that, every game is inherently unbalanced because one of the players gets to use a squishy lump of electrified gray meat to calculate their moves instead of silicon.

I would agree that the upcoming map editor in TA might be an indirect solution to the "default settings/options" oxymoron.
But, i think, Seth Gaines may have had a valid argument against Tight/Loose/Scattered Limitations for a few reasons;

- No matter how much randomized a map gets created, there is always the probability a weird setup could make the game "almost unplayable" to some and funny (or challenging) enough to others. As it was pointed out on many posts above. Key issue being that total control over conditions MUST be somehow interactive and yet, add a relatively high variable such as the universal and common Unknowns.

- Even if the setup screens should have more than three options, i doubt the overall effects would be sstisfactory enough since, for the greatest part of any, the slight variations are just that - partial or not so obvious to the naked eye.

- The mathematical logic dictates that the most efficient way to spread stars evenly (or more accurately, in a fair manner to all) on any given map size is to actually create it from scratch. Thus, the obstacle(s) begins to creep when one realizes the game is suddenly repetitive and/or predictable - boredom sets in. Frustration ensues.

- In contrast, the average players would settle for anything that's thrown at them. Be it, tight or loose - the gamble is IN the variety experienced.

So, in conclusion... i'd recommend a few thoughts.

a) If any "new" stars/distribution/schema is required or implemented, does it actually ADD a truly needed dimension to gameplay while providing good context, or is it different enough from the actual defaults that it HELPS to enhance the experience? My answer would be; YES.

What type of changes exactly? As suggested above, a middle-tier between tight/scattered would surely create an interesting map. But i'd have a few more to propose...

-- The pseudo 3D ramble; a modulo formula which calculates distances and or proximity based on indirect algorithms like the "graphic filters" found in drawing programs as plugins. In these, you'd have control over variable grids which declares specific features as if they were fixed both in sizes and shapes. (Squares, rectangles...)
Something like below...
X----X-Z-X----X
--X----Y----X--
-Y--Y-Z-Z-Y--Y-
---XZY---YZX---
etc.

-- The percentages of empty space; Complex but feasible. Would work like this.
An IF THEN ELSE basic type of parser picks a relative figure based on map size and the number of races.
Then, determines a fixed value of empty/space spheres which can be squeezed into a 10% or boosted at 85%, even completely randomized (which IS the actual principle behind scattered, in fact), etc.
Then, calculates a series of habitable planets (refering to options selected) as it compares with the exact location of any given races homeworld WITH the empty space ratio available nearby. Tough to illustrate... but very simple to code in. (Again, this IS not that far from the tight option, also)

-- The template resources; A sort of pre-defined "general" schema which may be selected from a list created by the user. Configurable assets, designed to the specifications declared as parameters. Somehow, a pre-made grid with variable values and which molds into the map size while sticking to an indirect template as much as possible. Not far from the custom maps premise, but sector based and/or applied TO randomized starting points.

In conclusion, all i can say is that whatever needs to be done or changed SHOULD be an obvious step towards increased variety rather than barely fiddling with the current options.

- Zyxpsilon.