| Author |
New Sagittarian Layout draft |
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
|  Posted: 2010-06-16 12:03
So I've been in some discussions with players (ICC in particular) about a new layout for Sagittarius. I'm posting this here to get additional player input before I finalize the details.
First off, a layout:
This new layout provides a buffer system between any two factional "home" systems, an improvement over the current version of ICC-Kluth adjacency.
The home systems (R33, BD, Eri) will be slightly changed from the existing versions, but keep their same basic form. (R33 will be compacted slightly, BD gain a Terran.. not sure what Eri needs) I'm shooting for about 25 planetes per system.
The central transfer systems (luyten, cin, new) will have about a dozen planets in a couple clusters. Luyten has gained a couple planets. Cin lost a few (including a terran). The new one follows the same setup.
The rim systems have about half a dozen planets and are relatively boring.
As I said, a few changes were made to the existing systems to make all the levels a bit more consistent - more planets in Luyten and Kaus, fewer in Cin, a smaller R33. BD was clustered a bit differently.
(The resourcer doesn't have a good overhead view like the old Editor did, but I can try to paste a few screenshots of the nav map when I test them)
What I'm looking for is:
- General feedback
- K'Luth feedback on Eri, as I got some feedback on the other systems but no specific comments on Eri shortcomings
- Jumpgate placement preferences: near a planet, near clusters, alone and afar, etc. I think the last version we tried to have them within IT range from clusters so the cluster owners could get a "defense" bonus of having the planets shoot at anyone coming through. I'm flexible about this.
There have been suggestions to link the rim systems to the center systems (ie, kaus to cin), but I feel like there are a lot of jumpgates already. Preferences on this are welcome (another option is a wormhole link, potentially sporadic, so consider that)
[ This Message was edited by: Shigernafy on 2010-06-16 12:06 ]
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Rebellion
Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: June 20, 2009
Posts: 730
From: sol
| Posted: 2010-06-16 12:23
looks good..maybe twist it around a bit to make it look a bit more natrul but other wise it look Very good and im happy to hear we are going to get a terren
[ This Message was edited by: Fleet Admiral CRAZY45 *TO* on 2010-06-16 12:26 ]
_________________
\"War does not decide who is right, but who is left\"
\"I stopped fighting my inner demons we're on the same side now\"
|
DarkCloudd
Grand Admiral
Joined: June 20, 2005
Posts: 85
From: Iowa
| Posted: 2010-06-16 12:31
I like it, looks good and would provide for more action in different locations. You should make it so that the Kaus and rim system that heads to Rogen's should be mostly controled by the MI and Pirates respectively, not just one planet in that system, and the AI counts for those should be upped to make it more interesting if you head in there. Also I cheer for a Terran in BD for ICC!!
_________________
|
Katejina
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: February 13, 2010
Posts: 73
From: katejina
| Posted: 2010-06-16 12:35
Quote:
|
On 2010-06-16 12:03, Shigernafy wrote:
The rim systems have about half a dozen planets and are relatively boring.
|
|
Why not fill them with AI....
_________________
|
Lark of Serenity
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 02, 2002
Posts: 2516
| Posted: 2010-06-16 12:41
just mind the WH distances. the current map is also annoying because kluth and ICC systems are within WH distance of eachother, and all the UGTO systems are in WH distance of one another, but kluth and ICC have to WH 3 times to get to UGTO.
otherwise, id let it take me on a date.
[ This Message was edited by: Lark of Serenity on 2010-06-16 12:42 ]
_________________
Admiral Larky, The Wolf
Don't play with fire, play with Larky.
Raven Division Command - 1st Division
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2010-06-16 12:59
ICC and K'Luth been fighting a lot lately due to the adjacency.
One thing though Shig.... trying to make the systems look too symmetrical is a tad unrealistic. How about just 2 systems in the center instead of 3. Otherwise 3 factions... each one system... it's just too balanced. I rather have 3 factions war over 2 systems.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
| Dark Hiigaran |
Chief Marshal
Joined: July 07, 2007
Posts: 425
From: Slovenia (Europe)
| Posted: 2010-06-16 13:11
Quote:
|
On 2010-06-16 12:23, Fleet Admiral CRAZY45 *TO* wrote:
... maybe twist it around a bit ...
|
|
I like the map
_________________
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2010-06-16 13:42
Quote:
|
On 2010-06-16 12:59, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
ICC and K'Luth been fighting a lot lately due to the adjacency.
One thing though Shig.... trying to make the systems look too symmetrical is a tad unrealistic. How about just 2 systems in the center instead of 3. Otherwise 3 factions... each one system... it's just too balanced. I rather have 3 factions war over 2 systems.
|
|
omg yeah luth have been so far up iccs arse lately its like were popping out lobsters.but back to the topic map looks alright maybe make it look more "natural". the terren planet in BD is a nice addtion to keep icc on par with both luth and ugto.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-06-16 14:00
You should make it so that the Kaus and rim system that heads to Rogen's should be mostly controled by the MI and Pirates respectively
They will - those systems are already AI-designated (also hence the link to the AI servers) and will have an AI presence.
Why not fill them with AI....
They will be. I just meant boring in that they're not very large or complex. From a system-design standpoint, they're kind of boring.
I will probably just set the AI to have one or maybe two planets, because magic revolting is sort of annoying and, as it turns out, slightly exploitable. Plus, I want it to be possible for players to be able to use it as a refueling point or whatever -- not being able to control planets would be a bad thing in my opinion. But there will be AI there.
just mind the WH distances.
I actually had a request to make the edges of two given maps roughly a WH away. I can check on the exact spacing. I also computed the total x and y distance across all the systems and can tell you that Cin is the widest, so it probably is pretty close to Kaus in this layout.. I'll have to check that in alpha testing.
Also, I should point out that the locations on that map are accurate, though the size of the circles is not to scale. I mapped the coordinates onto the canvas and put the circles where the systems really are in my draft layout.
trying to make the systems look too symmetrical is a tad unrealistic
Well, this is a game. I'd rather have a good layout that provides nice challenges and balanced systems than have something "realistic". That said, I don't want a giant hexagon in space either. I wanted to keep the jump gate links reasonable (that is, not crossing others) while managing the space between systems, and that's how it ended up. Feel free to play around in paint if you think another layout would look better though.
How about just 2 systems in the center instead of 3. Otherwise 3 factions... each one system... it's just too balanced. I rather have 3 factions war over 2 systems.
I agree to a point. The problem with going to two systems is keeping the number of connections "fair" -- you'd have to have all three outer systems linked to both inner ones in order to have all 3 factions have the same number of hops to other systems and the same number of options of approach (ie, a backup route, and one hop routes). That gets us back to the same problem as now where Kluth and ICC can easily fight eachother but it is harder for UGTO to find them; alternately, UGTO has an easier time defending its (larger) territory. It is "too balanced," and makes the MV look boring, but it also makes it more fair.
Again, if you have a layout you think would look better -- or more natural -- feel free to play around in Paint or whatever and I'll see what I can do. I just went with the most logical, symmetrical and fair setup I could, plus a bit of shifting around to not make perfect triangles.
[ This Message was edited by: Shigernafy on 2010-06-16 14:02 ]
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Necrotic
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 19, 2002
Posts: 378
| Posted: 2010-06-16 14:19
i like the map presented. i always wanted cin as a buffer system as its one of the best battlegrounds there is its current position on the other side of ugto doesnt promote more fighting.i disagree with needing the map to be realistic only if its functional . shigs map is about everything we would want in a mv.
_________________
No matter how hard they have tried. They havnt figured out how to nerf skill yet :P
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2010-06-16 15:11
9 clusters are too many, I believe. Should have 6 cluster with Eri, R33 and BD as the big triangle, while Cin, Luy and Kaus as the small triangle.
Cluster suggestion:
- Luyten between r33 and BD. In Luyten: rogens gate, a pack of pirates: 1 nautilus, 2 cruiser, 3 des, 1 sup. Pirate's minimum number of planets is 4.
- BD (the old BD, not the current) between Eri and Cin. In BD: ursa gate, a pack of gaifen, christal, energy.
- Kaus between Eri and R33. In Kaus: Proc gate, a pack of MI: 1 node, 2 long head, 4 cruisers (2 + 2), 1 sup. MI's minimum number of planets is 4.
- In BD, there should be 3-4 planets close about 1000-2000gu to each other. ICC don't want to be jumped, and need the perfect range to spam missiles, that's why. 2 suns would be best.
- In R33, there should be 2 planets 3000gu to each other.
- In Eri, the planets should seperate, the farther the better. Orbit any planet can jump to all planets.
The transfer gate should be in the center of the cluster. And better has a safe zone, to prevent gate camping.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-06-16 15:27
Thanks for the feedback, Diep. I'll consider it in more depth when I next get to updating the maps, but for now just a quick couple comments.
BD (the old BD, not the current) ...
Unfortunately I'm not sure which BD you mean, as the MV has changed a fair few times and I don't know how many iterations BD has been through. But we also don't necessarily have copies of them all... you'll have to be a bit more specific.
In BD, ... 2 suns would be best.
Do you mean a binary star, or a second star as the anchor to a cluster? (Instead of a gas giant, for example)
In R33, there should be 2 planets 3000gu to each other.
I assume you mean per "cluster" (or in this case, pair)?
And better has a safe zone, to prevent gate camping.
We consider spawn gates eligible for safe zones, but don't always add them.. I'll have to consult with other devs. If intersystem transfer gates had safe zones, they'd be small - just to give a few seconds of reaction time, not so large to be able to mass a fleet within their safety.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-06-16 16:03
The only shortcoming I can think of for Eri is that solar generators can't be used. That leads me to a suggestion: Make solar generators useful in at least the "home" systems. Useful generally means over +150 power each when in direct light.
Not saying they'll always be built due to bombing and RAZE issues, but the option is there, vs now where they supply too little energy in at least Eri.
As far as jumpgate placement, I personally prefer jumpgates that don't have too many objects in the way of each other. In the previous Sag map it could be a real hassle going thorugh Eri because two jumpgates were directly opposite the star and it messed up autopilot. I also recall a problem going from Eri to Luyten to maybe Kaus where it put the star in your way, vs the original 1.5 map where it was a clear path.
I'm fine with paths between jumpgates going near planets or through clusters, but it's annoying when the paths go through stars like in Eri, or through obstacles like Luyten.
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2010-06-16 16:11 ]
_________________
|
0stego
Fleet Admiral
United Armed Corps
Joined: October 04, 2008
Posts: 153
From: Sol System, Earth, Canada, AB.
| Posted: 2010-06-16 16:04
Looks pretty cool to me. 
Suggestion:
What about adding a system in there somewhere that has no jump gates to it and say...5-10 planets spread out? Could be some sort of strategic stronghold for what ever faction or AI's capture it as it would take a fair amount of jump fuel to reach making it hard to attack/capture unless you brought an armada of ships with you.
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2010-06-16 16:06
sounds good. maybe a system in the middle of the inner ring? would make a interesting "cauldron"
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
