[Map] Core Rework #9867
[Map] Core Rework #9867
Conversation
bene-dictator
added
the
content
|
Just for fun, stars in the Core before and after 
|
|
Why? |
|
This PR adds multiple backdoor areas and routes through uninhabited systems that reward a player for traveling beyond inhabited systems, especially for pirate or smuggling gameplay styles where avoiding authority ships might be desirable. With these changes, you can travel between any of the Core pirate worlds while only ever flying through uninhabited systems. |
|
From my personal experience of attempting pirate gameplay, I don't think long runs of uninhabited systems are actually something that would really help it. What would be helpful is uninhabited landables, which could just as easily be in existing systems as new ones, so you don't have to constantly bribe local governments or return to the handful of pirate systems every time you want to save.
Do they reward a player? In what way? They don't seem to offer particularly good mining spots, there isn't anything interesting and/or unique to discover like there is in other large uninhabited regions like Korath space or the Umbral Reach. |
This has been a request for a while from the Pirates team, and I believe the plan is to add smuggling bases and such in these uninhabited systems that wouldn't make sense to exist in Syndicate controlled ones.
They should still have less frequent Syndicate ships.
It does mean that government ships entering the system will do so from further away, versus taking off from a planet closer to the center of the system (where you'd want to ramscoop at), and justifies lower spawn rates for Syndicate ships that wouldn't make as much sense in inhabited systems.
I don't think they need to be uniquely powerful. This is, after all, human space. There are a couple good mining systems, but the main purpose is to provide back routes between the pirate worlds that a pirate player could both use to travel and hang out in to prey on merchant ships with less fear of retaliation (especially in the northern uninhabited systems). |
|
I like the concept, because pirates, but also because lore-wise the core has a relatively low population density compared to the near-Earth region but fewer uninhabited systems. However, I think this is pushing it too far. Syndicate space has suddenly turned into a maze where you can fly through eleven uninhabited systems in a row. Even in the northeast, you can only go through seven in a row, and there's a good lore reason for such a long run existing there. Nowhere else can you go through more than four, and that's in the dirt belt, which has a far lower population density than the core, and even then it's only four because of the Hope disaster. I wouldn't suggest a run of more than two in the middle of the Syndicate. In fact, I'd cut out all but four of the new uninhabited systems. Maybe keep Asterope, Schemali, Titawin, and Homam? Or maybe just pull out all the current ones and add four new ones more evenly spread out. |
|
The fact that it is just a 1-wide chain of systems that runs all the way through is, I think, an argument against it. It strongly raises the question of why, if it's an actual security problem, the Syndicate doesn't simply break the chain. These issues are not present in my own PR (8751 as linked in the description) where:
Nevertheless, I commend Azure for expanding the discussion on this matter. |
I don't think it's a maze. Navigating between destinations isn't any more complex than before. And you only fly through a chain of uninhabited systems if you're specifically trying to, which is the entire goal.
Whether or not uninhabited systems are linked together isn't really relevant. It's about the overall density, which isn't particularly worse in the Core than elsewhere (which it really should be, considering the habitability of systems closer to the galactic core).
This defeats the purpose of allowing pirate players to navigate between pirate worlds while avoiding authority systems.
It isn't a one system wide chain unless you choose to draw a line through it that way. There are plenty of alternative routes and branches depending on how many risks you want to take.
This is an argument to be made against the presence of pirate planets near Syndicate space at all. The implied canon answer is simply that the Syndicate doesn't care because it ultimately controls and benefits from limited pirate activity as a front for their own illegal activities. |
|
Sure, this is a boost for pirates, but the problems we've been mentioning still exist. To reiterate:
Okay, so the Syndicate suffers the existence of pirates because they can use them. That's different from giving them a corridor right through the centre of Syndicate space where now they'll be plundering every single vulnerable merchant convoy that passes through, and taking out half the Syndicate's legitimate revenues in the process.
Maybe maze was the wrong word. But that doesn't change the fact that now there are a whole bunch of dead ends, winding paths, etc.
This is like saying that "Murder isn't bad unless you choose to look at it that way." To be fair, this isn't nearly as bad as murder, but I don't think your argument holds up here. What I (and, I believe, Grey) are trying to say is this: you shouldn't be able to see it as a one system wide chain at all. A couple other points: Your main reasons for this PR seem to be that the pirate team wanted it, and that empty systems would justify a lighter Syndicated Security presence in the reason. But, we haven't really heard anything from the pirate team, and it seems to me that the Syndicate would increase security in these very vulnerable systems rather than decrease them. I still stand by my earlier proposal of four-ish systems, with maybe two uninhabited/pirate stations between the four, to make being a pirate slightly more bearable without launching an overhaul of human space. Also, more uninhabited planets as suggested in #9879 might solve some of the issues for the player. Even #8751 is pushing it for me, and that PR has far fewer of the issues which haunt this one. |
|
The increased danger of transits to/from Syndicate space, as well as on the periphery on both sides, is in my view an intended aspect that justifies a) the current levels of piracy in those systems, and b) the fact that all human governments think it is a good idea to allow completely unrestricted and unmonitored possession, equipping, and use of military-grade weaponry as a matter of course. Beyond that, not only are civilians allowed to do so, they are expected to do so, with most ships coming standard equipped with it. That is indicative of a very low security environment, and indicates a general acceptance by human regulatory bodies that they simply cannot provide what most civilians would consider an acceptable safe environment for trade, commerce, and travel. So in this case, the map is playing catch up with the security realities as they exist in-game and as implied by the lore and accessibility of weaponry. As for other areas... Yes, expansion of the other areas is planned.
They can do this. I would expect them to. I would also expect them to not want to bother with the cost of doing so on a permanent basis. If they are there half the time, that's going to catch and/or inconvenience a large number of pirates and add risk for them, without the cost of being there 24/7. Which still leaves half the time that a smuggler can get through. This is effectively explaining how we come to have so many pirates in systems without (currently) any kind of access to uncontrolled space.
That is an aesthetic thing, and I think stems largely from the fact that there is far, far too few uninhabited systems in the game. Massively too few. I consider this rework to be a very strong step in the right direction, but probably not the end state.
Yes. Note that this is the "Core" rework. It is anticipated that there will be a similar rework done for every other region. Currently, in vanilla, there is little to no meaningful separation between regions. My own experience is that I can drift from syndicate through core, paradise, and into the Deep with zero sense of change and no sense that I have crossed any boundaries. The only real hint is that Syndicate space has syndicate colored ships in it. Other than that, there's effectively little-to-no boundaries. Operating on the theory that borders of regions often correlate to geographic realities and that the Republic isn't going to let an entire region just become semi-autonomous without good reason, this provides that reason. Physical separation by means of a high-risk corridor and higher security risks/problems within Syndicate space create an environment where the Republic would be encouraging the formation of local security force and semi-autonomous control in order to mitigate the threats present and avoid the necessity of diverting Navy resources back during the early years when they had less resources. (Those Republic people not getting kickbacks from the Syndicate in the present day probably regret this decision, but are stuck with it)
The galactic map is unnatural. I think it's a bit too much so, but fundementally, archons have been pruning the map to create pockets for various species, and the pug have been messing with things too. The map is not natural, and the area covered by human space alone has upwards of tens of millions more systems in it than we have access to. Maybe even hundreds of millions.
Probably increased risks and the ocassional better scanner ship. That being said, I suspect it will end up at the same levels of broken-trade-snowballing that regular trading does, so it's about equal in the end. If either is ever fixed, I suspect both will be.
Perhaps more to the point, as a time and effort conservation measure when ES was originally populated, very few uninhabited worlds were create at all, anywhere. ES is, effectively still in Alpha development, and part of that involves fleshing out the galaxy, so whereas it was created with just the important details, now the background needs to be filled in, and part of that means a lot more uninhabited planets. Realistically (and I am not suggesting we have to reach realistic levels, just putting it up as a detail to be acknowledged) there ought to be dozens of uninhabited planets for ever one inhabited one. (not counting asteroid and mining colonies that are effectively stations built on uninhabited places). But it is to be expected that we probably reach at least 1:1 parity between inhabited and uninhabited planetary bodies, probably more likely somewhere on the more uninhabited than inhabited side of things. This doesn't really have any impact on ES lore; and worth noting that ES is effectively in Alpha stage of development. We have a ton of engine changes happening semi-regularly, only the bare minimum plot, and a lot of the AI systems are functionally at the bare minimum to have a playable game. It's impressive what has been achieved, but it's nowhere near even being in Beta yet, let alone an almost-ready-for-release game. Change is to be expected.
It justifies it both ways, in my opinion. The Syndicate is big enough, as an entity, that uninhabited space lanes need to be sufficiently significant that the Syndicate can't just occupy them all and be done with it. Otherwise, they would. At least when it benefits them. As such, it needs to add enough dangerous systems that the Syndicate cannot control them all, and instead encourages the fairly beefy security we already see in much of the rest of Syndicate space. Thus I see this change as justifying the existing situation within Syndicate systems, as opposed to necessitating any change to them. As for the asthetic of being a chain across space... I personally think it could stand to have a couple more uninhabited systems added to it to make it 2-wide in a place or two, or add a dead-end off it, or something. It could be diversified a little, but I suspect that once the other areas are also expanded and separated out a bit it will fade into the background. |
Either we let players smuggle one way or another or we don't. You could just as easily make this argument against adding uninhabited landables, and say "the Syndicate would just patrol those moons/asteroids/planets/whatever," so I don't see this as a useful argument.
I don't see it.
For one, yes, as stated in the PR description, this is part of a series of PRs to add to the map. No, I am not going to double the systems in human space. There isn't a need to exaggerate. There doesn't really need to be a lore reason for uninhabited systems in general, but if you care about it the Pleiades (which constitute the northern uninhabited cluster) are all B type stars, which are poorly suited for habitable planets. The rest are just in positions that happen to be linkable via hyperlane, same as the chain with Ultima Thule and the Hai wormhole.
Again, it's only a chain if you choose to draw a line through those systems. They're embedded within the map and well-connected to neighboring systems to break up Syndicate space into regions, it isn't as though this is a line floating out in space.
I don't think anyone is going to seriously argue that piracy will be too powerful with this PR.
Uh, no? No planets were "suddenly rendered uninhabitable." And again, there's no need to exaggerate and use wild hyperbole. Adding a handful of systems in no way requires that we rewrite human lore, let alone rewriting the game engine or redoing all of the graphics.
How is this a nerf at all to Syndicate space? The new systems don't affect trade or jobs at all, and you can avoid pirates by just... not flying into those systems.
Again, stop with the wild exaggerations. They aren't helpful.
Why would merchants be using these links? They aren't shorter routes between major hubs.
There are maybe two dead ends in this entire network, if you count Asterope and Merope. Hardly a winding path or a "bunch of dead ends."
Ignoring the exaggerated comparison, yes, if you draw a line through only these new systems, you will see a chain of them. That is true of literally any network possible.
You're free to ask them. I'm going by my DMs with Lake and in public conversations on the ESC discord.
I mean, this is true of literally any pirate system in the game. Realistically you can argue that there shouldn't be any pirates at all because blockading a handful of systems with one hyperlink connection to the rest of the galaxy is trivially easy. But enabling gameplay for players is more important than making arguments like this that aren't even consistent with the existing game.
Yes, more uninhabited landables would certainly help. But it is very limiting to only add them to existing systems, as most current uninhabited systems are in dead ends that aren't convenient to traverse, and placing pirate outposts in inhabited, Syndicate controlled systems would be weird. Adding stopovers to the new systems in this PR would be a welcomed addition, and something certainly to look at in a follow up PR.
I'm confused as to how you can say this given that 8751 has a much more winding chain of systems with more single-line chains in it, which don't connect with the surrounding systems very much. |
The difference between uninhabited planets and empty systems is, you can put a war fleet in the middle of a system but you can't send out ships to scour every uninhabited planet in the galaxy.
Matter of taste, then, I guess.
Sorry, I guess this is a bit of an exaggeration. But, it is a 50% increase in systems, if not quite doubling.
What I'm saying is, Syndicate space shouldn't be broken up into regions by this line. No other part of human space (except the northern pirates) are divided into regions solely by a barrier of uninhabited systems.
Well, a chain of systems that allow you to get from one end of the galaxy to another with a ramscoop, which Syndicate ships barely patrol and which every long major trade route crosses sound pretty powerful to me. Granted, piracy would still be very hard in other ways. But this chain would let you get to pretty much any nearby destination for smuggling missions with a very low chance of hitting patrols, and would also let you raid merchants without too much intervention and without having to hide out along the fringes of space. That would knock out the balance. Even if piracy wasn't too OP, it would still be very unequally balanced internally.
I'm saying that this doesn't look random and is right in the middle of everything. A random smattering of systems which are in out of the way locations can be expected to be uninhabited. Beyond that, ES terraforming tech is pretty much magic, so there is no real reason to avoid colonizing all but a few of the most out of the way, useless, or hostile planets. In this case, we're also talking about the Syndicate, who cracks open whole planets for their mining operations and so would happily inhabit a planet with a hostile climate but good mineral reserves in order to turn a profit. So, all those systems (a) have no easily inhabitable planets, (b) have no planets rich in natural resources for the Syndicate to plunder, and (c) weren't colonized hundreds of years ago? Sounds pretty unlikely to me, which is why human lore would need reworking. The part about the game engine and graphics was a joke, but I do think that this would require a sufficiently large lore change that, even if it would still be ES, it would be a vastly different game from what it currently is.
You haven't tweaked trade prices in surrounding systems, which now means that a 1-jump trade route across that line is now a 2-jump trade route (half the profits per day). Also, there's now more uninhabited systems there, which means that jobs are less likely to offer, because their conditions won't be met as often. And, you can't avoid those systems, because they cut the Syndicate directly in half. Avoiding them would mean confining yourself to about six or seven systems.
Again, I don't believe this is a wild exaggeration. "Full economic rework" means we have to look at the trade prices of the twenty or so nearby systems and rebalance them. Probably buff them, since with more uninhabited systems in this region, there's more risk of being ambushed by pirates.
No, they're the only routes between the near-Earth and core Syndicate regions. They also slice the Syndicate neatly in half, with a pretty even division of major population and production centres between the two halves.
There were previously about forty hyperspace links in Syndicate space. Now I think there's about seventy. If you're using the computer to plot your route for you, that's fine. Otherwise, it's a very high density of systems connected in new and unexpected ways. Before, Alnair and Matar were frontier buffers against pirates, now they're dead ends (Matar properly, Alnair in spirit). I guess the winding path is more just whether you can see the grey snake or not.
What I'm saying is I don't think a network is a good idea.
Fair. I've been pretty disconnected from ES lately, so I guess I've missed most of this conversation.
The difference is that trade doesn't flow across frontiers, but it does flow across your line of uninhabited systems. The near-Earth and Core regions are probably the two most industrial regions in the entirety of human space. When they're divided by the Pug, that is a matter of galactic emergency. Thus, even if piracy doesn't break the links like the Pug do, it's still a major threat in that region. Quite frankly, no one cares what happens to the Free Worlds, or to the northern anarchists who are pretty much blockaded in by the Navy anyways, or to the pirates in the core that are basically the pawns of the Syndicate. People would care if the pirates suddenly controlled this high-population, high-economic value border.
Agreed. But I don't think we'd need this many uninhabited systems to be able to do that.
Of course, I do still have problems with 8751. They're just not as big problems. I think the biggest issue I have with this PR is that it has a very narrow focus on addressing one specific issue at the cost of others. This PR would give the pirates a much-needed boost, but it also introduces complexities with trade, lore, and balance. Part of my eagerness to find fault with this is that I haven't seen any plans for addressing these issues. Whereas Grey touched on a few of the potential issues in 8751 and had adequate workarounds, what I've seen here is more a case of you rejecting these issues' existence. Perhaps I've been a bit too harsh in my criticism, and I plead guilty of hyperbole in a couple of instances. But I think that if you're going to change the face of ES' map this much, you should at least have good answers for all the inflexible traditionalists like me who can't help but see an ugly blob, or an ignored security threat, or a breakdown of natural randomness. I don't think these answers should be "I don't see any problem." |
Do you think it would be better to have uninhabited systems forming the borders of the various regions? The fact that there are these uninhabitable areas would then be the reason in lore that the regions have developed separately. And it would also go some way to solving one of the other issues you brought up, namely...
...because it wouldn't be a long, straight run, it would be twisting and winding and smugglers (etc.) would need to very deliberately navigate along it to receive the benefit. It would also hopefully look more 'natural'.
These kinds of issues would definitely need to be considered, with extensive testing, but they can definitely be resolved. Is it worth the effort? I think so, but that's just my opinion. For what it's worth, I completely agree with Zitchas' comments in regards to the relative density of habited versus uninhabited systems; I think we should have a lot more uninhabited systems to fly through in general. It would add to the feeling of space being BIG, give lots of opportunities for mysteries and random encounters, and would just feel more real and organic. |
|
I think if this were a realtime strategy game, it would be good to have way more uninhabited systems. Like, 10x more. |
Worth noting that human space has previously been inhabited by at least two other sapient species, and then covered up with terraforming, editing, and possibly just vanished systems in order to make fresh areas for new species to live in. Entirely possible those planets have already been stripped. Sports the deepest lore fairly well. |
Fair point, actually. Maybe some sort of lore regarding an ancient Hai-Sheragi war or something would address this. But that would still be a pretty major change. |
|
We don't need lore changes to add a handful of uninhabited systems. |
|
Yes we do, because this is not a "handful" of systems. It's a border that divides the core from the rest of the galaxy. |
|
More generally, I think this PR oversaturates Syndicate space with hyperlanes. |
I don't believe that's an accurate assessment of the changes in this PR. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, that wasn't a reply to you, but rather moctave's "Yes we do, because this is not a "handful" of systems. It's a border that divides the core from the rest of the galaxy." (I think we posted at around the same time) I'll edit and add the quote I was replying to in my comment. |
|
I'd propose something like this for moving the nuke fleets, which just requires 1 additional fleet to cover all exits. This also keeps them away from the edge of Syndicate space, and biases placement towards uninhabited systems (where I believe the Syndicate would want to place them to avoid the use of nuclear weapons being seen if possible). |
|
I think that Quantumshark's stats pretty accurately summarized what I meant by dead ends (the increase in 1-hyperlink systems) and mazes (the increase in 4-and-5-hyperlink ones), probably much better than I did in my comment.
I'd like to look at some stats on this as well, actually. So far, I think we've just been arguing lore and gameplay and getting nowhere. Perhaps I'm wrong, and if so they would help show me that my comments above were indeed exaggerations. |
|
I don't know what 'stats', if any, would be appropriate to assess that point. Certainly this PR is, objectively, adding a continuous line of uninhabited systems that runs down the middle of Syndicate space. Don't need statistics to prove that. |
|
These uninhabited dead-end systems all seem to have spectacularly poor ramscoop values. Merope in particular stands out, being three jumps away from any inhabited system and with only 0.51 solar wind, and only connecting to Pleione which itself has fairly poor ramscoop effectiveness. Is this a deliberate attempt to 'trap' new players, or just an unintended consequence of sticking to accurate star types? I certainly don't think it's a positive for exploration. |
Suggestion, if Azure doesn't want to depart too far from reality: Most of these are big stars in a star cluster. They're practically bound to have nearby red dwarfs, which would drag up the ramscoop values nicely. The only issue is avoiding having too many multiples.... |
It runs through the middle and is intermeshed with Syndicate space, it isn't a border cutting the core off from the rest of human space as was claimed.
I don't think the endpoints of systems need to necessarily be good for ramscoops. Syndicate space has enough areas good for ramscooping that I don't think it's an issue any more than the existing backdoor chain into Syndicate space or to Ultima Thule.
I'm not really concerned with a realistic star distribution, that ship has long since sailed. I just want to avoid oversaturation with systems or overly long chains that lead nowhere. |
Content (Map Rework)
Summary
This PR is part of a series of PRs intended to enhance the exploration aspect of the game by reworking parts of the map, one section at a time. This PR in particular focuses on Syndicate space as well as the Core, linking up the various pirate worlds attached to Syndicate space while also creating more room in the galactic core for future species such as the Xapleaux. A chain of uninhabited systems allows for travel between Gienah and Alcyone without ever entering a Syndicate controlled system, and in particular the uninhabited space around Alcyone has been transformed into a representation of the Pleiades (I also swapped Alcyone from binary M dwarves to a proper B type star). I also have a nice blue haze in #9172 that we could use to add the famous Pleiades blue color if desired, and we could add a light fuel hazard (or use the system specific ramscoop multipliers) to the Pleiades system to represent the reflection nebula the star cluster is embedded in.
A few of the systems (Tau Ceti and Van Maanen's Star, minus the changes to planets and stations) from the Near Sol Expansion (#9754) were also included in order to make things line up a bit better. I also included (with @Saugia's permission) the Nashira system from #9863 in a similar toplogical position (with respect to its hyperlane connections), though not any of the other content of that PR.
Exile space has also been moved outwards from the Core a bit, though it retains its jump drive connections to appropriate Syndicate worlds as well as the Ember Waste. They could be moved even further out if desired (such as to add even more space for the Xapleaux), but I think there's also potential for perhaps expanding the southern three Exile systems into a proper uninhabited cluster of a half-dozen systems, if the Korath team ends up wanting additional systems to hide mysteries in. Sagittarius A* remains accessible through Bunrodean space, though we could add a temporary bridge system linking it to Korath space as well if that's desired before the Xapleaux are merged.
All systems have, where possible, accurate star classes, and in accordance with MZ's (soft) methodology were clustered together according to constellation, though there are a few areas in vanilla with mixed constellations that I just rolled with.
This can be seen as an alternative to #8751, which I talked with @MasterOfGrey about before deciding to open this. This PR attempts to go a bit lighter on the changes to Syndicate space, and with a lower and more gradual density, but does not preserve shortest-distance connections between different parts of Syndicate space as Grey's PR does.
Screenshots
Before (uncool and uncore)
After (cool and core member)
Testing Done
Checked that densifying the galactic core wouldn't cause the Milky Way to collapse into Sagittarius A*
Save File
PerhapsNo.Performance Impact
What were you expecting?
N/A