Stars on Immense Maps

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 think this begs the question of why there are only 3 settings. I've always thought it would be nice to have a little more control, because I like tight clusters, but I don't like 90% of them all together. (hard to describe...)

Do you think there's any way a few sliders could be added to the game? (maybe just 1 more control to control how many main clusters there are)

I think a lot of folks out there would love a setting that gave each race it's own block of stars. I can see why the devs may not want that, but it would be a cool feature.

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...

You can make some of the people happy all the time.

You can make all of the people happy some of the time.


Some people will not be happy no matter what.



There are three settings to choose from - random, loose and tight.
And, there is Control-N if you don't like the starting grid.

Between those options you can pretty much set the pace.

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.

You can make some of the people happy all the time.

You can make all of the people happy some of the time.


Some people will not be happy no matter what Time it is

ok i`m do with that statement !!!

moose was just saying that there is always going to be something that someone does not like.
there actually four settings random, loose , tight and Scattered
So how would having a bar to move make it better??
unless you got a setting for in between loose and tight !!!
also Moose explain about the Control-N which will let you get another map !!
but with the Editors coming out soon we can make or own MAPS

Looks like I did a bit of both.

So, job well done?

Yes, someone already threw out that useless little quip. Do you have anything to add or are you just +1 posting?



3 Settings. Random selects one of the other 3. Questions work better then all but 1 post on the thread aren't direct answers to your question. Again, in case you missed it the first 10 times, a slider would give us something between the loose and tight clusters (which is really just tight cluster, as almost every time all the planets are in one cluster). Control-N lets you get another map, so we should all Control N 50x to get a map we like at all? I think everyones looking foward to the editors.

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.

Sorry, but I get tired of people complaining over stupid issues and wanting the devs to waste their time adding ever more sliders for things that don't make a bit of difference in the long run.

Hit Control-N and get the set up you prefer - simple.

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

Yes, because the shape of the galaxy makes no difference in how the game plays out. Seriously dude, its not like we are asking for a retarded graphics boost or something similar that adds nothing to the playability.

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

I guess it is a matter of opinion weather there is 3 setting or 4 !!! I really don`t care and YES you can sat i`m one up on Posting with my 2 cents in I too don`t see the need for a slider!!!But once again that is my opinion !!!
you are one of those that can not be please no matter what Time it is
the Control-N is the work around for what you are complaining about the Editor is the FIX,... then you can have all the maps you want your way!!
I`m now +2 post !! and BTW

Don`t try to out puke a Buzzard Because a Buzzard will out puke you Every Time

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.

CNTRL N is cheese. I don't use it. I'd rather have the map be generated something like I want. (With randomness obviously, and the chance to play from a bad spot too)

Further you can control N all you want, and you will NEVER get a galaxy with say 2 main clusters of stars/planets (with some distance). There is always 1 main, and some smaller clusters sprinkled around.

It just seems the options do not adequately provide the full spectrum of galaxy density that they should. Ideally if you play random, you should get a real crazy mix. That just isn't possible now.

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.