hopefully something as simples as "Max number of planets" option in the next beta

That's ridiculous. You're suggesting that there's no difference between a tiny galaxy with 50 worlds shoved in it and an immense one?

Engine techs, sensor techs, life support techs, weekly maintenence, starbases, all deal with DISTANCE, not how many planets you have.

Ok...I'll try again...very SLOWLY this time. For about the 7th time on this thread...

There are these areas on the screen when you create a game that you can click on. They change the characteristics of the galaxy being created.

If you want games with large DISTANCE, you merely have to adjust these areas to give you LESS than the maximum number of colonizable worlds. YOU ALWAYS HAVE THIS OPTION!!!! YOU CAN ALWAY ADJUST THINGS SO THE GAME PLAYS THE WAY YOU ENJOY!

How I enjoy playing the game deals with larger empires. When I create an immense galaxy now, and I am only getting ~60% of the number of colonizable worlds than I had with DA in gigantic, it's limiting my fun. It feels like a nerf.

There are several reasons why the only measurement that matters in this discussion is the number of colonizeable worlds.
1) Immense is 'larger' than gigantic. By that they mean map area. They are already giving you more distance.
2) In game creation you can select settings that result in LESS than the maximum possible number of colonizable worlds. This gives you MORE distance.
3) The current map results in a nerf from the previous versions, from a maximum world standpoint.

In summary, there are ways built into the game to give you the type of game you wish with the long distances. There is NO WAY, SHORT OF ME EDITTING A CUSTOM MAP EVERY TIME I START A GAME, to even approach the number of colonizeable worlds I had available in a gigantic DA map, let alone exceeding it, which should also be implied in a 'larger' mapsize. (again, with the understanding that the point might be moot, as the size might be beta-capped) Players who like to play with large distances are getting what they want through mapsize and game settings. Players who like to play like I do are getting nerfed, for no apparent reason. (the more colonizable maps worked fine in DA after all) THAT is why the only measurement that matters IN THIS DISCUSSION is number of colonizable worlds.

Have I FINALLY explained my position well enough?

Oh, and by the way...



Since I have not ONCE mentioned any map sizes beside Immense and Gigantic, it should be obvious I don't think that way. I understand the role distance plays.

My whole point this entire thread is "you can get what you want, but without uncapping, I can't get what I want" I have to question why you would even ask that question unless you were trying to be deliberately provocative.

All his posts are deliberately provocative unfortunately. Which is a shame since the discussion on these boards is usually good natured.

Best avoided.

I'm sorry I'm ruining your forums. Now would you like me to show you the door or do you know your own way out?

lawltastic! Why can't some people accept that if they scale the number of planets on immense to what it should logically be with everthing set on normal that they will still be able to play a galaxy with a lot of empty space. Granted they will have to change a few options as default will no longer have large areas of empty space anymore....some space, yes....as much as right now, no.

Uh, hey, go back and read my first post on this.

I said that the PHYSICAL SIZE of 'immense' didn't feel very immense. I didn't really notice a significant increase in map size. I never said that they should remove planets, I simply asked if the physical SIZE was getting bigger.

Then the other guy started running his mouth about how I like to play "doesn't matter" and only how he likes to play is the yardstick to which the game is measured in 'galaxy size', and I said that was stupid.


I want maps where each empire will get around 10-15 'good' planets and a smattering of sub-quality planets (pq8-). And I want the stars on a map spaced out to the point where life support upgrade are actually pretty necessary, and engine speed is more than just a tool of lame.

There's no combination of any settings that lets you do that, because immense isn't immense, it's still physically small in size. The closest I can get to those settings is 'tight clusters' with stars set to 'very rare', except I now only get TWO planets for my empire, not a modest amount at 10 or so.

The only thing "lawltastic" here is what a fool you just made of yourself in your pathetic attempt to be a bandwagoning smartass.

In what way did I bandwagon? Do you know why the number of planets is caped in the current beta? It's because there is a lot of memmory problems with the immense galaxy sizes. The larger the galaxy, the larger the mommory problems, and thats why there isn't a map that makes "life support Udgrades necessary" as you say. Now when the senario edior comes out you can edit the life support technologies so that they aren't as good (I imagine im not sure at what lenghts you can edit things). This won't give you more space, but it will make that space more significan't.

BTW


This is your actual first post and it is in a responce to a post about stardock limiting the number of stars/planets in immense while they work out the aforementioned memory issues, so forgive me if your complaining is a little vague. The reason you think Im "bandwagoning" is because your the only person in here whining about the physical size of the immense galaxy.

--Now im sorry your fun with this game depends on the usefullness on a single tech, but the other 99.9% that can get over that would like to avoid being flammed for practically no reason. Your just going to have to find a Mod, or Mod the game yourself, but in the mean time could you try not being so rude?

P.s. your the only one in here being a smartass

I keep double posting for some reason, sorry everyone.

Did you just say that? Did you just REALLY say that? Hah!

No. That you had the gall to write what you did and then ask me to "not be rude" was insult enough for me to just decide you're just one of those morons who is mostly illiterate, intellectually challenged, and logically impaired, and as such, I really don't see a reason to treat you like anyone I respect.

No, I'm not being a smartass, I'm being an asshole now, because you pissed me off. I try to remain pretty civil, but if you start with the insults, hidden or blatant (and you clearly started with the subtle kinds), or begin saying things that are profoundly stupid (which I find insulting), the gloves come off and civility can kiss my ass.



Did you even read the first four replies to your own thread? That's four people right there saying that they LIKE having a lot more space, and nothing about how their ideal game is a moronic glut of 400 planets making 80,000 bc/week, because that's CLEARLY how the developers intended the game to be played completely, everything less than that is just 'filler' for us 'slow folks' who can't handle how 'XXXTREME BATTLESHIPZ ARE!!!!!111'

Furthermore, given that this thread isn't exactly humorous, don't think I misinterpreted your "LOL"s and "LAWLTASTIC"s as anything but a sarcastic eye-rolling.



Where'd you get that number from, you moron? Was it this thread? Let me make a tally.
Number of people who clearly state that they like a BILLION planets for "teh ez moed": 2 (PS: One of them is you).
Number of people who clearly state that they like more space: 8.

Wowee. Sounds like you're in the minority there. I suspect that your sarcastic post about us being 'dolts' who 'can't adjust galaxy settings', you were more than a little dismayed that only one other person actually complains about there not being 5 Class 15 planets around every god damn star.

By the way, let me point out something significant in your first post:



Yeah, there's no way ANYONE could misinterpret THAT. You ramble without even clearly stating your point. I've heard more coherent thoughts from my grandpa with alzheimers. Your inability to name a conclusive point with that post implied a complaint about the amount of space BETWEEN clusters. Not the amount of shit *IN* the clusters.

By the way, if any of this post and my explanations "CONFUSED" you and were "TOO VAGUE", please PM me for a clarification so I can curtly blow you off.

Oh, and hey, sorry everyone that isn't this bozo, that his thread had to degrade into flames. I find it easier and more effective to blame him for it though.

My issue with tight clusters has always been that you get like 3 total clusters and you end up sharing that space with like 3 other civs... and your all close enough to hate each other because of influence...

I'd love a setting like "Small Tight Clusters" where each group could get a few tight clusters of planets, where invasions actually require you travel a ways. Sadly I don't think we'll get it. The A.I already has enough issues waging wars in Tight Clusters when your right on top of each other. Having to cross the map with its military would be a joke.

As a side note, is there any way to change the way the A.I. leaves like... 9/10ths of their fleet in orbit of their planets? Seriously, I've had A.I.'s with 50x my military rating lose to me because the majority of their fleet is in orbit of planets that are tactically and strategically useless.

Add me to the list of people who would like to have a game with 5000 possibly habitable planets. I love building and running gigantic empires. As an old Star Fleet Battles and Battletech player, the combat in this game simply doesn't hold my attention. This game has very good exploration and expansion mechanics, but the tqactical combat challenge is pretty low. I play other games for that.

Building and running a huge empire is the challenge here for me. That's why I always play the largest galaxy with the most habitable planets possible. It presents the most play value for me. Sorry, but I find the smaller or sparcer galaxies with their constant conflict boring as you would probably find my slow, month long thinking games.

Scincerely,

[email protected]

I'd like a 'sporadic' setting. You get some tight clusters, some loose clusters, a few stars in between the 'open space'... I like the idea behind tight clusters as, like I said, I sort of like the breathing room, but this also has the downside in that it means every time you fight an AI, you're engaging their empire directly.

Im shaking in my boots! lol your funny.



My point was clear. I stated that I like alot of habbitable planets, but that on Tight clusters even with abundant star/habbitable planets Immense seemed empty compared a Gigantic map of comparable settings. Loose clusters on the other hand has near no empty space, which I don't like either, and mearly stated there was currently no happy medium. Sorry if you didn't understand that!




Thats a fine tally, but you might need to reajust you numbers and split that category -
Number of people who like alot of space, and are thus mostly pleased with the current cap on habbitable planets: 7
Number of people complaining that immense isn't big enough: 1 (thats you!)

Did YOU actually read those first replies to the thread? If so you should be able to notice you are the only one who has a problem with the number of tiles in Immence. With those new categories looks like your the minority lol, sorry!I guess you read them about as closely as the thread itself, so I can again understand the confusion!

P.s. Was there really need to quote the same thing twice? Seems like you could have saved yourself some time, and space!

You can't even read. That's not what I said.

I said the way you like to play is acheivable by altering the settings, which is a far cry from claiming your playstyle doesn't matter, and the way I like to play is nerfed. The only one belittling another's playstyle here is you...

Oh, and BTW, last night I loaded an immense galaxy with tight clusters and abundant planets, then dispelled the fog of war. Final count was 127 class 10 or above planets, and the clusters were well away from each other.



So this is just wrong.



Oh yeah, you don't insult anyone. Right. And for your information, it's not easy mode. I test my opening gambits in small and tiny galaxies, and I win there easier than I do in the large ones. It's easy mode cause I don't have to put as many support systems on my ships? When was the last time you had a system assaulted by 200 ships in one turn? (I've had that happen in DA more than once)