Stars
Mercury
Iladriel
The Lifebringer Clans
Brend
Open in chat • 4 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1
-
Mercury - Storyteller
We currently have 7 player systems with the following star choices:
* 6x Red / Orange Binary
* 1x Orange / Orange Binary
It appears as if Orange / Red Binaries are disproportionately popular, even with new players.
I understand why: Orange / Red is the cheapest combination with 2 goldilocks orbits and binary stars provide the most power in all orbits. That being said, it is also indicative that the current stats are not in balance. I do not think they are broken, but they do need a little bit of rebalancing.
First a note: should any changes on the level of stars occur, I will allow two options for existing players:
- they can keep their system as is without changing anything
- they can switch to the new star rules, which means they can move planets around or change star type depending on what's what, but it must thereafter fit with the new star rules
I think that is both fair and simple. If you don't want to bother, you don't need to do anything and you won't lose out, but if you do want to change, this is a good opportunity.
On to possible solutions.
Originally, Binary Stars were thought to be low-real estate, but high power / temperature while Giant Stars would be high real-estate / low temperature and Main Sequence flat in the middle.
As it turns out, orbital real estate is in far lower demand than expected, which makes binary systems exceptionally sweet.
A solution might be to reduce the number of orbits around various star types. This would reduce the total system power, which might be compensated by increasing the power per orbit, as necessary. It might however mean that players who switch would have to do some planetary remodelling.
What do people think of this?
On a mildly related note: Currently a lot of binary stars use the incorrect data format. Trinary Stars sort of exacerbate this problem as they are exceptional and strange. I will be adding a clarification for this soon and I will edit the Wiki so all systems follow the correct format. If you suddenly see a change in your system, that is why.
* 6x Red / Orange Binary
* 1x Orange / Orange Binary
It appears as if Orange / Red Binaries are disproportionately popular, even with new players.
I understand why: Orange / Red is the cheapest combination with 2 goldilocks orbits and binary stars provide the most power in all orbits. That being said, it is also indicative that the current stats are not in balance. I do not think they are broken, but they do need a little bit of rebalancing.
First a note: should any changes on the level of stars occur, I will allow two options for existing players:
- they can keep their system as is without changing anything
- they can switch to the new star rules, which means they can move planets around or change star type depending on what's what, but it must thereafter fit with the new star rules
I think that is both fair and simple. If you don't want to bother, you don't need to do anything and you won't lose out, but if you do want to change, this is a good opportunity.
On to possible solutions.
Originally, Binary Stars were thought to be low-real estate, but high power / temperature while Giant Stars would be high real-estate / low temperature and Main Sequence flat in the middle.
As it turns out, orbital real estate is in far lower demand than expected, which makes binary systems exceptionally sweet.
A solution might be to reduce the number of orbits around various star types. This would reduce the total system power, which might be compensated by increasing the power per orbit, as necessary. It might however mean that players who switch would have to do some planetary remodelling.
What do people think of this?
On a mildly related note: Currently a lot of binary stars use the incorrect data format. Trinary Stars sort of exacerbate this problem as they are exceptional and strange. I will be adding a clarification for this soon and I will edit the Wiki so all systems follow the correct format. If you suddenly see a change in your system, that is why.
Iladriel » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:21 pm
When I picked the red/orange binary star, I was attracted by the number of goldilocks orbits vs the gas cost.
I thought about taken a main sequence yellow star, but I didn't need those extra orbits. So the extra energy was a nice bonus.
I think that when it becomes possible to settle in new systems, the diversity will grow. Assuming that new systems are randomly generated.
But on the other hand, it is still to early to start settling in new systems. Mainly because you still have enough zones inside your starting system. And IC wise because your population isn't growing very fast, and so it would still fit easily in your starting system.
iladriel
I thought about taken a main sequence yellow star, but I didn't need those extra orbits. So the extra energy was a nice bonus.
I think that when it becomes possible to settle in new systems, the diversity will grow. Assuming that new systems are randomly generated.
But on the other hand, it is still to early to start settling in new systems. Mainly because you still have enough zones inside your starting system. And IC wise because your population isn't growing very fast, and so it would still fit easily in your starting system.
iladriel
The Lifebringer Clans » Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:22 pm
-
The Lifebringer Clans - Faction
I think the problem with Gas Giants is that while you have more room, you don't really have more real estate: you still have the same amount of rockmass to distribute, and I think most people went for a lot of zones in goldilocks orbits. The excess rock can be placed in the remaining orbits of a binary system just as easily as that of a gas giant system.
So yeah. I think this is something we've all noticed. I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
So yeah. I think this is something we've all noticed. I'm interested in seeing what you come up with.
Veolian Commonwealth » Wed Aug 17, 2011 11:25 am
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
My situation is similar to Iladriel's reasoning. I wanted to go with Main Sequence Yellow, but saw that I had some empty orbits, and just switched to having less orbits for less gas mass. This left me with more gas to use as rock or bio, and free power as a bonus.
A second observation I made during system building (which still holds): Although other star types give more room for real estate counted in zones (1), the rules put a lot of emphasis on the goldilocks zones. Since those have the best options for upgrading (corporations, large bonuses due to environment of oceans, natural life and Type I atmosphere).
I think that most people read the rules, and conclude (possibly by jumping to it) that goldilocks zones are worth that much more. I'm not sure whether goldilocks zones are actually worth more, but they do seem really good from reading the rules. Maybe the other orbits are good as well, but this is not reflected in the rules?
To give an example of this conclusion (this one is roughly what I concluded when I was building my system): Since you can build Tertiary Zones anywhere, you can only specialised zones in goldilocks orbits (through the Atmosphere I requirement), and the +10 to metals or gasses from the hot and cold orbits is not that impressive when compared to the available goldilocks bonuses, what should I care about orbit types other than goldilocks orbits?
I understand that from a biological, geophysical and astrophysical perspective goldilocks orbits are the actual useful orbits in a system -- but maybe the current problem (that orbits are not a scarce commodity) can be mitigated by giving the other orbits some more usefulness other then just a big chunk o' rock with zones.
Footnotes:
(1) For which you do not have the requisite rock mass IMHO.
A second observation I made during system building (which still holds): Although other star types give more room for real estate counted in zones (1), the rules put a lot of emphasis on the goldilocks zones. Since those have the best options for upgrading (corporations, large bonuses due to environment of oceans, natural life and Type I atmosphere).
I think that most people read the rules, and conclude (possibly by jumping to it) that goldilocks zones are worth that much more. I'm not sure whether goldilocks zones are actually worth more, but they do seem really good from reading the rules. Maybe the other orbits are good as well, but this is not reflected in the rules?
To give an example of this conclusion (this one is roughly what I concluded when I was building my system): Since you can build Tertiary Zones anywhere, you can only specialised zones in goldilocks orbits (through the Atmosphere I requirement), and the +10 to metals or gasses from the hot and cold orbits is not that impressive when compared to the available goldilocks bonuses, what should I care about orbit types other than goldilocks orbits?
I understand that from a biological, geophysical and astrophysical perspective goldilocks orbits are the actual useful orbits in a system -- but maybe the current problem (that orbits are not a scarce commodity) can be mitigated by giving the other orbits some more usefulness other then just a big chunk o' rock with zones.
Footnotes:
(1) For which you do not have the requisite rock mass IMHO.
4 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1