Playing on an immense galaxy, checking out the new map changes. Abundant stars. Ok, so where are the stars? Abundant scattered stars looks like rare scattered clusters from last build.
Agree 100%, Even though I'm against what Stardock did in this situation, I also understand where they are coming from and why they did it. Don't get me wrong I have been very vocal in this post about the change, however, after all said and done I understand why. Now hopefully, this changes as I never believe modding (cheating) is an answer.
I like to play the game as intended, not to mention that way any issues I'm having be fully supported especially in long games as it takes 10-20 hours of game play to bring most issues to light. There is nothing more that I hate is start a game and create a ticket and have it come back saying this isn't supported either because of a mod or because of a version issue.
MapSizeDefs
[code]<MaxHabitablePlanets>600</MaxHabitablePlanets>[/code] [code]
MapSetupDefs
<InternalName>Abundant</InternalName> <Stars>1.00</Stars> <PlanetFrequencyExp>0.5</PlanetFrequencyExp> <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets> <ExtremePlanets>0.25</ExtremePlanets> <Asteroids>0.45</Asteroids>[/code]
I could have this wrong but the way i see it is is that MaxHabitablePlanets is the Cap don`t go any higher! the HabitablePlanets tells siad insteand of 100% of 2000 use 40% which would be 800 the cap being 600 the game will not use the extra 200. by moving the HabitablePlanets .60 it give you more planets.
the MaxHabitablePlanets would have to be added to in order to see more on the map MaxHabitablePlanets 2000 .
Is this right or helpful???
Unless you're suggesting that a disporportionate percentage of people who play offline also play the largest maps.Look, just change the XML if you want bigger maps than what we provide. I've said what I mean to say on this topic.
While I don`t agree, I respect your point of view. Guess I just have to suck it up. I do agree that most people have lower specs, i have no problem with that. But I won`t go online and be spied on while playing. I don`t give my consent to that. Good game anyway.
RavenX,
I agree with you on the ram thing. However the people on this thread (just us) probably have machines with at least 6 gigs of ram if not more (16 for me). However the VAST majority of people who play games are slightly below the cure in their computer specs. Many many people probably have machines with just 4gigs or play on laptops with shared video memory and have only 16gigs.
Also keep in mind in at least a year if not a bit further out, we (may) get our game optimized for DX12/Vulcan. I say MAY..but it has been hinted about.
Frogboy has data which shows how much ram players have via Steam Statistics. I suspect we are the minority compared to everyone else.
MapSizeDefs[code]<MaxHabitablePlanets>600</MaxHabitablePlanets>[/code] [code]MapSetupDefs<InternalName>Abundant</InternalName> <Stars>1.00</Stars> <PlanetFrequencyExp>0.5</PlanetFrequencyExp> <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets> <ExtremePlanets>0.25</ExtremePlanets> <Asteroids>0.45</Asteroids>[/code]I could have this wrong but the way i see it is is that MaxHabitablePlanets is the Cap don`t go any higher! the HabitablePlanets tells siad insteand of 100% of 2000 use 40% which would be 800 the cap being 600 the game will not use the extra 200. by moving the HabitablePlanets .60 it give you more planets. the MaxHabitablePlanets would have to be added to in order to see more on the map MaxHabitablePlanets 2000 . Is this right or helpful???
Yes your correct in how the MaxHabitablePlanets works. I just tested it out.
I played around with the MapSetupDefs for a bit.
<MapSetup> <InternalName>Abundant</InternalName> <Stars>1.00</Stars> <PlanetFrequencyExp>0.5</PlanetFrequencyExp> <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets> <ExtremePlanets>0.25</ExtremePlanets>
If you change the Stars line it is multiplied by what you set the base at. So if base is 20 you get 20 stars. Change the line in the mapsetup to 2 instead of 1 and you get 40 stars on your map.
Planet Frequency seems to work a bit differently. No matter what number i set it to i could not get every star on the map to have planets. So setting it to 1.0 wont give you a 100% chance for planets at each star.
The Same is true for the next line. Setting the HabitablePlanets to 1.0 wont make every planet Habitable and increasing the numbers beyond 1.0 seems to have no effect
It also seems like 4 is the most planets that a single star can have. Habitable or not.
Just read through the steam reviews and since GC3 was launched there is negative, after negative review, mainly down to constant crashing in one form or another.
This is not good for future sales of GC3, a lot of steam users are swayed into buying or not buying based on those reviews. Already GC3 is at mostly mixed.
Well I understand, a lot of players on this forum want to play insane galaxies with as much as possible, it might be better for the long term success of GC3 if the number of stars/planets was reduced and thus the sheer number of players having crashes was reduced.
Whatever happens Stardock need to prioritise making GC3 more stable, less of a HUGE resource hog so players can actually play the game.
OK, there was some useful stuff on this in today's devchat in a couple of different parts of it.
One, as I already suspected, the <Base> bracket doesn't just set the baseline for number of stars, but also for nebula, relics, and other things in some fashion or another. So when messing with the <Base> tag we should also keep an eye out on the percentages for everything else so we don't get a crazy map with BLEEP-tons of relics everywhere or crowding out the map. Alternatively, the <Base> bracket could be kept the same, and just crank up the number of planets in a game via percentages.
Also, the percentage values go something like this:
Base number of stars * percentage of planets * percentage of colonizable planets = number of colonizable planets.
Furthermore, the standard star systems themselves were played with as they were giving a few more planets than Paul intended. Once the replay goes up (if it does, as they were having stream troubles again), I'll replay the two sections where this was talked about the most to get the exact details.
But the main upshot is confirmation that base doesn't cover JUST stars, so it's something to keep in mind as we hammer at this.
Yes your correct in how the MaxHabitablePlanets works. I just tested it out.I played around with the MapSetupDefs for a bit.<MapSetup> <InternalName>Abundant</InternalName> <Stars>1.00</Stars> <PlanetFrequencyExp>0.5</PlanetFrequencyExp> <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets> <ExtremePlanets>0.25</ExtremePlanets> If you change the Stars line it is multiplied by what you set the base at. So if base is 20 you get 20 stars. Change the line in the mapsetup to 2 instead of 1 and you get 40 stars on your map.Planet Frequency seems to work a bit differently. No matter what number i set it to i could not get every star on the map to have planets. So setting it to 1.0 wont give you a 100% chance for planets at each star.The Same is true for the next line. Setting the HabitablePlanets to 1.0 wont make every planet Habitable and increasing the numbers beyond 1.0 seems to have no effectIt also seems like 4 is the most planets that a single star can have. Habitable or not.
If I do so, I'll probably put in the May 11th files and the 1.01 that I redownloaded as well as the file that governs star system generation.
I suppose if I do this, others can then do the heavily lifting of figuring everything out.
I'm not actually signed up to any hosting services. Might sniff around Dropbox and see if I like it. Or maybe I'll just use my ISP temporarily.If I do so, I'll probably put in the May 11th files and the 1.01 that I redownloaded as well as the file that governs star system generation.I suppose if I do this, others can then do the heavily lifting of figuring everything out.
Ugh. Haven't used my ISP to host files in, literally, years. Don't want to waste the time now to figure it out, so I fired up my Google Drive account.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0By8Y969dyvLHcDF1WHo4dm9KekE/view?usp=sharing
The above link SHOULD contain a zip file with four directories of four files each. To download the file click on the thing that looks like this in the top bar:
The four files are:
GalCiv3MapDefs.xmlMapSetupDefs.xmlMapSizeDefs.xmlStarSystemDefs.xml
The four directories are:
XMLs - 1.0.1XMLs - 1.0.2XMLs - Beta 5XMLs - Beta 6
The XMLs for Beta 6 were rather late in the Beta (made May 11th). The XMLs for Beta 5 were made on April 22nd, but I don't remember when that was in the Beta.
The XMLs for 1.01 are the current non-opt in ones. The ones for 1.0.2 are the most current ones as of a half an hour ago.
I have the ENTIRE XML tree for those dates, BTW, so if people want/need other files, let me know and I'll get them eventually.
Ok, this is the first time I am posting on any stardock forums.
I adored galciv2 and have high hopes for this game, especially now that it has multiplayer. On the topic at hand though, I do understand the need for less powerful systems to be able to run it and be stable. However, those who don't spend any significant money and effort into the hobby should not be rewarded at the expense of those who do. At least, not to the point of gimping the absolute largest and most expansive of the game modes. Frankly someone who is playing on some 5+ year old machine with only 4gb of ram and integrated graphics should have -no- expectation of running this game and this style of game on the largest and most demanding extremes.
While those of us who are serious about it should have the option built into the game for said extremes and should not be punished because we invest in our hardware roughly the same or even less than most people pay for cable or a slightly nicer cell phone plan. The best way I think to do this is to offer more in game options. This way no one feels cheated and you ensure update, mod and multiplayer compatibility. The notion that we have to go in an manually edit and exchange multiple xml files that could break at any time because of this seems a very poor way of resolving the issue. I am enjoying the game so far, and the patches have brought many positives. I also look forward to the expansions and dlc to polish it up and make it something truly epic and memorable. Please take this to heart as grand strategy and rpg games are the only ones I play and the market for grand strategy games is very small. This company, and this game in particular being one of the only real contenders in that scene to my mind and it therefore means a lot to me.
Alright, as I compare just the MapSizeDefs XMLs from Late Beta 6 to 1.0.2, here are some preliminary findings:
Tiny: No difference except for inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>16</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Small: No difference except for inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>32</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Medium: Base changed from 128 to 110, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>55</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Large: Base unchanged, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>75</MaxHabitablePlanets> (<----- CORRECT AMOUNT EDITED IN - THANKS FOR THE CATCH, BRAD )
Huge: Base changed from 250 to 200, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>125</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Gigantic: Base changed from 512 to 400, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>200</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Immense: Base changed from 768 to 600, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>300</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Excessive: Base changed from 1000 to 800, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>400</MaxHabitablePlanets>
Insane: Base changed from 1600 to 1200, inclusion of <MaxHabitablePlanets>600</MaxHabitablePlanets>, a setting in <GlobalCombatMods> was changed from <Value>1.0</Value> to <Value>1.1</Value>
===
That is the summary of all changes in MapSizeDefs (not including indenting changes).
Analysis, if needed, of other files later.
Looks like something is iffy about Large if it's base is 75 now.
Changes in MapSetupDefs, Late Beta 6 to 1.0.2:
For "None", <HabitablePlanets>0.05</HabitablePlanets> changed to <HabitablePlanets>0.1</HabitablePlanets>
For "Rare", <HabitablePlanets>0.1</HabitablePlanets> changed to <HabitablePlanets>0.2</HabitablePlanets>, <ExtremePlanets>0.1</ExtremePlanets> changed to <ExtremePlanets>0.05</ExtremePlanets>
For "Uncommon", <ExtremePlanets>0.15</ExtremePlanets> changed to <ExtremePlanets>0.10</ExtremePlanets>
For "Occasional", <ExtremePlanets>0.20</ExtremePlanets> changed to <ExtremePlanets>0.15</ExtremePlanets>
For "Common", <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets> changed to <HabitablePlanets>0.35</HabitablePlanets>, <ExtremePlanets>0.35</ExtremePlanets> changed to <ExtremePlanets>0.20</ExtremePlanets>
For "Abundant", <HabitablePlanets>0.50</HabitablePlanets> changed to <HabitablePlanets>0.40</HabitablePlanets>, <ExtremePlanets>0.5</ExtremePlanets> changed to
<ExtremePlanets>0.25</ExtremePlanets>
Just looking at the above, I don't think the change of .5 to .4 should be making THAT much of a difference. Though if we test it with the old values, I'm game to see what happens. Instead, I suspect something is also going on with the way star systems are generated. Paul talked about this on the stream, but I don't recall exactly what he said. Gonna have to wait till I rewatch it to see just what he was talking about and which XML files to poke about to see what we can play with.
Good catch still looking forward to some additional tweaking?? okay well I was hoping anyways, you still do great work Frogboy
Whooops. I think I copied over the wrong value there, Brad. The mistake of manually typing.
Base for Large is 150 (which as I check is unchanged), It is MaxHabitablePlanets which is 75. Let me fix that now. Thanks for the catch!
POST UPDATED WITH CORRECT VALUES
ah good! Was about to do a checkout to fix it in the code.
I'm looking over StarSystemDefs.xml, and hoo-boy, yeah, there are changes in there alright. Lots and lots of them. Far too many for me to summerize right off the bat.
This might be the biggest thing we need to look at. Worried though that the game might NEED those changes for it to work properly.
But I think blindly playing with base factors and percentages might not be enough to replicate old behavior. I mean, playing with the base and percentages is needed; it just might not be enough. Something to definitely look at, I think.
Looks the same to me I mean I took a fast look It seem the same I have one in my mod and I look at the new updated one Not sure what change you mean ??
I read i think somewhere on here that there was going to be a hot fix released today for 1.02. To try and fix the way large (insane) maps now have hardly any planets. Has it been released yet and is the news of a hotfix true.
Without putting in exact XML structures, here is the summary of what is going on StarSystemDefs.xml.
Yellow Star Systems (System00), "HabitableZone" was changed from 4 max planets to 3 max planets.
Purple Star Systems (System08), "OuterZone" was changed from 3 max planets to 2 max planets, Asteroids look to have been added.
White Star Systems (System01), "NoRandom" (???) had 0-2 planets added; "Habitable Zone" was changed from 4 max planets to 1, asteroids look to have been added.
Blue Star Systems (System02), "HabitableZone" was changed from 4 max planets to 2 max planets; "OuterZone" had 0-1 added, asteroids looks to have been added.
Red Giant Star Sytems (System04), "Habitable Zone" was changed from 3 max planets to 2 max planets
Yellow Star Systems (System05), Changed from "Orange Star", "NoRandom" (???) had 0-1 planets added, "HabitableZone" was changed from 1 max planet to 3 max planets (this one DID increase)
Orange Star Systems (System06), "HabitableZone" was changed from 3 max planets to 2 max planets.
White Star Systems (System07), "NoRandom" has 0-1 planets added, "HabitableZone" changed from 2 max planets to 1, two sets of asteroids look to have been added.
Blue Star Systems (System09), "HabitableZone" was changed from 4 max planets to 2, asteroids look to have been added to "OuterZone"
Red Giant Star Systems (System10), "HabitableZone" was changed from 3 max planets to 2
Yellow Star Systems (System11) Changed from "Orange Star", "NoRandom" (???) had 0-1 planets added, "HabitableZone" changed from 1 max planets to 3 (this one DID increase)
Orange Star Systems (System12) "HabitableZone" was changed from 3 max planets to 2.
Exact XML data stucture can be found in the files in my previous post
====
So, yes, this aside from the <Base> IS the main culprit. Many many star systems had their max habitable planets decresed. By, like, a lot. So if we want to mod things up, here is one area we'd better look at. Simply because putting in too many star systems might make the game unstable.
Nope, quite different as my prior posts shows. Luckily for me, I have a OS X program (TextWrangler) that can compare text files side by side and quickly show me the differences between them. Just go down the list, BANG BANG BANG. Even matches things which have been shifted by several lines. Makes checking XML files like this a breeze.
It's a godsend when it comes to comparing code, I tells ya.
EDIT::::
FWIW, GalCiv3MapDefs.xml looks to be unchanged.
I've done enough heavy lifting/uploading/anaylsis for now. I gots an old I/A/A/A game that still has tons of planets waiting for me to conquer it.
If anyone needs anything else, let me know and I'll pop it in/look for it later tonight.
Possibly MUCH later tonight. Planets won't conquer themselves*, after all.
* Unless one SOAKS. But where's the fun in that?
lol Nice BuckGodot +1 for you my friend. I'm going to drop these map xml's straight in the current build and see what happens.
Thanks. You very probably will need to add <MaxHabitablePlanets> to MapSetupDefs as at least one other poster noted it crashed without it. Make it something high, and you should be fine. But if you can get it to work without it, that'll be great news as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
