feat(content): Core System Changes (Extracted from 6439) #8751
Conversation
|
In-game map, with uninhabited systems visible: The system geometry (the arragnement of connections by hyperlink) looks good to me, I don't think any of that needs changing. Right away, my first thought is that Alpha Hydri should be moved upwards slightly so the name doesn't overlap with Alpheratz. The rates of pirate spawns in some of these uninhabited systems are far too high. These don't feel like abandoned backwaters, they feel like war zones. Also, I'm really not sure about Noitakt having no system objects - it looks like a bug, and it creates one specific system where ramscoop doesn't work, without the background or notoriety of Sagittarius A*, which shares that feature. |
Co-authored-by: Quantumshark <thedup.adg@gmail.com>
Danke
Good catches, not sure where Alpha Hydri's new coordinates got lost but I dug them back up out of my old files.
It actually fits the galaxy image even better than it used to, so I'm inclined to disagree here. As it currently stands there is a gradient out along the lines of the major spiral structures, and a clearer drop-off where it transitions into the inter-arm medium. That feels geographically appropriate to me. Additionally, the step-wise change up gives it a certain thematic delineation between the broad and disparate Republic, and the highly centralised and controlled Syndicate. So I actually think that the more abrupt cut-off on that section of the boundary is beneficial to the in-universe feel of the place.
I readily admit that I generated all the loose systems randomly and then just did one or two passes over them to fix obvious issues and to copy-paste in whatever fleets from nearby systems seemed the most appropriate.
I concur this system should be filled, I don't know why it's not, and there's no filled version in my old files but it's definitely not intended. |
MasterOfGrey
added
the
content
|
Reposting the review of star names I sent you back in January
Pleiades
You can find a list of additional Pleiades stars, and their spectral types (remember to check for binary systems) here Merope - B6 |
|
I agree that Tau Ceti shouldn't be used here. Also: "Beta Lyrae" has 257k hits on google while Sheliak has 130k. It might be a better solution to use the less known name here and save the better known one for a near Earth expansion mentioned above |
I'd rename the systems to something like these. I tried my best to include systems closer to the galactic core in constellations that are in that dirction (Sagittarius, Ophiuchi, Scorpii), so I think they should fit better than the names already there.
Happy to change any if there are any better ones.
|
Co-authored-by: Quantumshark <thedup.adg@gmail.com>
I will just make a few points which we should keep sight of (after which, feel free to suggest the changes directly - with their explanations - and I am happy to push them through):
Edit: For clarity, I'm setting these notes as guidelines because I don't want to have people arguing over a name and have me changing it back and forth several times. Let's stick to a consistent approach here. So regarding suggestions, so long as:
Then I encourage you to use the That goes for everyone - once you make it an actual suggestion then any discussion can happen on the actual suggested change. Please suggest changes on the actual lines to be changed, not in general comments. |
I was going to, but I didn't have enough time to go through and change every name and link yet. I will tonight when I do have time. It will probably have to be a PR to your branch? |
That would be undesirable, as I'd like to keep the discussions around choices for changing in this actual thread - please use the "add a suggestion" and "start a review" functionalities: |
|
Devil-Run is really close to Polaris. This is max zoom. |
Yes, it will need relocating accordingly at some point. |
|
@bene-dictator I have temporarily resolved all the comments that are just changes to links, so that the discussion around systems can be held without clutter - I'll reopen and re-check them once relevant discussions are finalised. If you get a chance - please add an explanation of why to each of those name changes so we can understand the rationale. @Azure3141 when you get a chance I'd be keen to see your comments on those (and any others). |
After writing this, I know I've made a couple mistakes in my suggestions and there could be some changes made to stick some stars closer to each other (for example, the new Sagittarius stars) and other stars that are further away from the Core (Ara, Libra, Cetus). I can make a new map and review but that might be later today or tomorrow. |
Co-authored-by: Quantumshark <thedup.adg@gmail.com>
| fleet "Small Core Pirates" 3000 | ||
| fleet "Small Core Merchants" 2000 | ||
| fleet "Large Core Merchants" 4000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@Quantumshark pushed this suggestion as-was because it was certainly good.
I wonder though if it might be worth, as a bit of a surprise, dropping a rare Marauder spawn in here?
Being a 'safe' system, but also not the direct route system, it would be a good place for a well equipped marauder to ambush someone isolated and make off before anyone showed up to witness it or intervene.
As a kind of backwater that's also directly under the Syndicate's nose, it'd be a good place for marauders to have a secret resupply base for their most clandestine, deep-range expeditions. Especially since other, less competent, pirate elements who might loiter around looking for such things are actively suppressed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just doing hazards for now, as I'll look at the star systems in Quyykk's editor.
I also really like @bene-dictator's suggested name changes, and would like to iterate off those, so I'll probably refrain from making changes to the system names / contents until those are pushed (if Grey approves of them)
| "strength" 0.65 0.85 | ||
| "range" 50000 | ||
| weapon | ||
| "burn damage" 0.06 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "burn damage" 0.06 | |
Not sure we should be using burn damage when heat damage will do the same thing, without creating potentially annoying status effect particles.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The burn is explicitly intentional.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What purpose does it serve? Give that this is heat from stellar irradiance near the core, it doesn't make sense for it to be a persistent agent, and mechanically it isn't going to be meaningfully different from heat damage at these levels either.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is a slightly abstract approximation for the effect of radio-thermal spalling (thermal spalling triggered by the presence of X-rays, and other high-energy radiation types) which does have a persistent effect that takes a bit to wear off.
And yes, it is a small effect on this hazard, it's a larger effect on the other, more severe, hazard which is exclusive to the Xapleaux PR (because it's not used in any of these systems).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you referring to cosmic ray induced spallation of nuclei? Because I've never heard of thermal spalling induced by x rays, nor can I think of why that would cause a persistent effect (I'm assuming you aren't referring to mechanical spall either, because that wouldn't make any sense).
I still am not seeing how this is mechanically different from an equivalent amount of heat damage, given that an amount of burn damage will create an equal amount of heat over its lifetime as it decays, and hazards constantly apply the damage.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you referring to cosmic ray induced spallation of nuclei?
No.
It is mechanically different because if you are approaching the limit, you might then jump out of that system, and be temporarily disabled on the other end of the jump.
It applies a small risk to jumping from one bad situation into another if you don't think about where you're going properly, which is an intentional part of the hazard.
This is a novel gameplay experience that is not currently simulated elsewhere.
Which leads me to reprise a statement I've made a few times: Just because something is not necessary is not intrinsically an argument against it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The values of burn damage presented here are so low that it would decay almost instantly, so I don't think there actually is a mechanical difference. The realism justification also doesn't seem to stand up either.
A burn damage hazard seems much more appropriate for something outside human space, such as Xapleaux space or the Ember Waste.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having a minor transition into relevantly dangerous burn damage is a far better way to introduce both the concept and the risk it poses.
If these values are too low to do that, then the proper response is not to nix them, but to instead change the balance point in these introductory systems to more obviously do so. Ie: buff it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
FYI Sheratan has the Core Sheltered Heat hazard. But I like that, it suggests there's more to the area. I don't want to get involved in which systems have what hazards though, I'm not fussed about whether Sheratan has the hazard or not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(low burn damage does not mean it boils off quickly, it's exponential decay and dissipates at the same rate at all times- the amount present is cut in half approximately every 69 frames. It'll have a low impact, but it'll still linger for the exact same amount of time as any other amount of burn damage)
| "strength" 1 3 | ||
| "range" 50000 | ||
| weapon | ||
| "relative heat damage" -0.002 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has the potential to actually cool a ship off more than normal (i.e. outside the Core), as its base values are both higher than the heat produced by the Core Sheltered Heat hazard and it has a strength of between 100% and 300%, as opposed to the 65-85% range of the Core Sheltered Heat hazard.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, that is intentional. It needs to add a significant cooling off amount to achieve the desired effect. It is not used on its own.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense, given that a passing shadow shouldn't cool a ship off more than if it wasn't exposed to the heat source in the first place.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The actual hazard implementation in a system should never be set up to have that much of an effect, but the hazard definition needs to be capable of this or it actually just doesn't work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm just not sure this is needed at all for Syndicate space. We shouldn't be adding heat hazards strong enough that they can overheat a player ship and softlock them in human space. That kind of thing should be reserved for the Xapleaux PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd have to agree with Azure on this one. We shouldn't be doing any sort of system-wide hazards like that in human space, at least space that is accessible to the player early on. It seems much better reserved for uninhabited core + xapleaux systems rather than creeping into humans'.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's only applied very gently to the one system (Polaris or Sheratan, I forget which) where the planet description calls out how much brighter and closer to the core it is. It's not implemented at a level that's remotely capable of soft-locking anyone in human space.
It is however used for the uninhabited systems beyond that that are included as part of the overall core system package.
Which again, is not meant to be set at a level capable of softlocking anyone who's ship outfitting isn't already running way way too hot to be doing anything safely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To me this just means the additional complexity of the shadow hazard is unneeded in human space entirely.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is not in human space. Look at the map file.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Human space having a gentler version of more dangerous hazards further out in space is a good way to introduce the player to the possibility that these hazards could possibly even exist out there in space. It depends on the actual geography of the galaxy, but I would want a fairly gradual change from no heat to significantly dangerous bouts of heat, and it should occupy multiple systems, especially over the entirety of at least one route between two inhabited systems. I think that would inoculate the player to the notion of "significant heat can come from the space you're sitting in, too."
Co-authored-by: Azure_ <42621251+Azure3141@users.noreply.github.com>
If you would like to iterate off them - comment those iterations on the relevant suggestions. I am not pushing any of them until ya'll have sorted out the final versions you're happy with. Have the discussions on each system, on the relevant suggestion comment thread for each system. |
What I meant is that I don't want to be coming up with new versions of the system internals (which will be based on the star type) until the names are actually finalized, as in they're approved by you. I don't want to spend a bunch of time coming up with a system that fits a B type star (accounting for habitable range, orbital periods, etc) only to have to make an entirely new version because a different name (and thus star) was decided on instead. |
|
There is a very visible difference, with a clear line of delineation. |
|
The most obvious gap in the new arrangement of systems that would cause discontinuity is Sol – Caph; arguably, this one was already there before this PR, but the higher concentration of systems can make it stick out more than it had before. A system between them might help with the discontinuity if you all think it's necessary. |
|
For one, the systems in the core are dense enough that you have a lot of name overlap going on. I don't know if this was the case before the system renames, but it does show that the density is abnormally high beyond what works well from a UX perspective.
Secondly, the "gap" you've outlined is really only in the North, and contains the Paradise Planets (so it's hardly as though it's an empty region of space). The discontinuity in system density is also very sharp to the point of looking artificial, unlike the gradual change in brightness in the northern area.
Additionally, the worst offender as far as the density discontinuity goes is in the southern part of Syndicate space, by Earth. This is made worse by the gap created by Deneb, but the underlying sprite is essentially continuous in brightness, with a slight decline that isn't very reflective of what the sprite actually looks like.
It's important to realize that the sharpest disconnect is along this region, where there is a very noticeable difference in system density (with a big gap in the middle) despite the underlying background being both very similar and smoothly transitioning between brightnesses. For obvious reasons the gap in the middle can't be connected around Deneb, but the region around Earth and its immediate surroundings, including the southern Paradise Planets, should have a much smoother transition into the Core region.
Lastly, the discontinuity being found along government lines creates a harsh border between Syndicate and Republic space, which makes Syndicate space look essentially artificial, as though it was something tacked on afterward. This is made more evident by the new uninhabited systems being arranged in dense chains, which while an interesting design choice that could definitely be used elsewhere, does not really fit well with the structure of the rest of human space from a purely aesthetic viewpoint. While it might be desirable to make the Core region denser and emphasize its differences, the degree to which it's done here (and the borders that were chosen for it) are too extreme, and highlight that there was a large modification done to Syndicate space and not the rest of human space. Adjusting the system locations and deleting maybe 3-4 of the filler ones to make this transition more gradual (while still being more abrupt in certain areas, such as the Northern part of Syndicate space as is done on the current map) would help reduce the artificial appearance and make the geography look more natural and less hand crafted. |
|
Just a quick mockup but I think this flows much better, using the suggestions I put on discord
|
|
Since you doubled up on Discord I'll post the same response here as I did there: The problem with your proposed changes is that they have lore impacts. If there was any change I was likely to do for aesthetics, it would be to move Delta Capricorn and Markab south a bit to visually stretch out the systems you highlight a bit more. Re other points:
From the Original PR: You are meant to need to zoom in as you get closer to the core. Zoom exists for a reason...
Arguably Sol is the southern tip of the gap I outlined, you've elected to minimise it in your illustration rather than accurately reflecting what I posted...
Arguably this is a problem with the lack of density in the near south around Rasalhague and Zeta Aquilea, which I would not be opposed to changing, it was just a little out of scope. Highlighting the continuous brightness through that section is not an argument against being denser than the north/paradise regions of the Republic, but for adding more systems to the south.
As mentioned, I would not be opposed to stretching that out to the south somewhat, but...
This is just objectively wrong, those systems are sitting on top of some very visible star clustering in the sprite, and to pretend otherwise is dishonest.
From the description: To achieve this I have broken the Syndicate into 7 clusters of habitable systems. I have then filled in the gaps with chains of uninhabited systems that allow someone to move from one cluster to another without passing through the intervening clusters. However, if you look closely at the map above you will notice that the shortest distance from any Syndicate world to any other Syndicate world still goes through exactly the same systems it did before. Avoiding the inhabited clusters is always the long way around. This also now fills things out enough that the Syndicate doesn't look like the poor afterthought in the design of human space. This separable clustering is an intended feature of specifically Syndicate space. A reasoning for why the Syndicate is empowered to maintain centralised control of this region, but not other regions - because Syndicate governance serves a purpose in an area of space that is not like other parts of human space. And the existing lore around the routes through Syndicate space would need to be changed with fewer new systems, since the shortest routes between existing points would then change, potentially impacting the FW plot and others - which are all things I didn't want to do. Conclusion / TLDR:
|
Sending you specific suggestions and ideas to discuss in a more freeform format than PR comments isn't exactly doubling up, but ok.
Shifting system positions to make transitions smoother does not affect this at all.
The map looking cohesive is a purpose.
That isn't a reason to have overlapping names on the map. As far as I'm aware this has been a design principle that has existed for years, and zoom levels aren't a reason to ignore it. "You are meant to need to zoom in" is not an intent stated by any of the developers, or a community opinion as a whole, it's just yours.
Yeah this is just an arbitrary distinction, if anything I'd say Sirius is the farthest extent of the darkish area you could reasonably say is part of the same cohesive whole. Accusing me of being dishonest isn't helping either.
Regardless of whether you think the South needs more systems as well, the fact remains that it's a discrepancy and doesn't fit well with the existing map. If we want to update the map piecemeal rather than all at once (both of which have merits), each part should at the very least fit with the others.
Again, just look at the image. As I said, the core is brighter, but along the outlined ribbon the transition is very much gradual and doesn't excuse having a sharp area where the system density suddenly doubles. And yet again, please stop accusing me of lying.
This governance reasoning isn't stated anywhere in the original PR or this one, or in the highlighted passage, nor is it implied anywhere in the game. We, and the players, cannot tell what your "intended" reasoning is, especially when the first time it comes up is in a PR comment to explain why part of the map doesn't fit with the rest.
That doesn't make the point a good one.
There is practically no lore regarding the exact shortest route between specific Syndicate planets. As long as certain features like the Deneb gap and major routes are preserved, there is nothing special about the exact current layout or your proposed one that would require any lore changes. |
As I said, the key block you complained about can be stretched out.
What makes something "cohesive", is subjective, so it's only a purpose if it has deeper reasoning than aesthetics.
Correct, it's mine, it's a key part of the overall philosophy.
The point on my map is slightly below Sol. Your line did not reflect my line in your argument against my line.
That statement all on its own is a totally subjective one.
You're conflating the point about the specific group of stars you circled (which are sitting on a very visible clustering in the sprite), with the point about the general trend that runs through into the south.
It's in comments somewhere. I've explained it a couple of times, even if it didn't make it into the Description - in any event, it's reasoning being provided now - doesn't make it less worthy of consideration.
Even so, if you want to change the map so that there are shorter routes, then you need to answer the question: There is no neutral here. There are two options, each which must stand on its own merits. Just because you may not see the merit in the current option doesn’t mean the other becomes the default, it must still prove itself; -more- so if you want me to adopt your side of things. Convince me of the gameplay benefits of the new routes that would be created by your changes. |
It isn't a single "key block," it's multiple regions and transition points.
Except that your personal opinion does not matter when it comes to the established design principle, which is that names should not overlap.
I don't particularly care about the line on your map, the diagrams I drew reflect brightness gradients on the actual map sprite, as part of my own argument. Accusing me of lying or being lazy does not help your case in the slightest and I would appreciate it if you stopped that line of argument promptly.
Please review my comment, and realize that there are multiple problematic areas I have been pointing out.
Inventing new background lore about why the Syndicate system of government is specific to your map layout is incredibly significant. Being solely present buried in a PR comment somewhere does not make it meaningful lore that is part of the game in any way.
I have already stated the issues with your proposed map's system density and layout.
Removing two or three systems in a single chain does not delete the benefits to pirate gameplay. And ignoring what I have talked about with regards to cohesion and transition states because you find it "subjective" is not an argument either.
It seems like you are assuming the current state of this PR is the default, and the burden of argument is on me to find an alternative. As it stands, the reasoning for the dense, twisting chains of systems has serious flaws when it comes to fitting in with the rest of the map, which you have not convinced me have benefits that outweigh these downsides |
|
Since apparently everything said has to get repeated both here and in Discord: Your core argument boils down to this being a divergence from established design principle. And so on that point, your disagreement is noted - but clearly we're not resolving this. Arguing that I shouldn't propose an alternative principle to a principle that exists, simply because it exists, isn't an argument. Things I can do:
Things I will do:
Things folks can help with: |
|
Chiming in here for the sake of clearing something up -
Although it was never a truly "formal" thing, and it's partly due to our current lack of documentation, the design philosophy still is to have it so that system names do not overlap other names at the max readable zoom, more than anything else that currently does at that level, no matter where it is on the map. There was a chat about this the other day, in which we aren't really convinced about giving the Core special treatment to this. Now there's room for debate, but it's not that this principle is a "suggestion". That's not to say what's presented here can't change for the better in that respect, but I wanted to clarify that it is important to keep this aspect in mind and not have it disregarded because it was never a "true" aspect. Your alternative design aspect can be discussed as well, but the above philosophy still is relevant here. |
I thought we had a contributor's guide somewhere in the repo. Failing that, this should be put in the Endless Sky wiki, in the contributing or modding section. |
|
We plan on having documentation for development guidelines/the vision of the game as with other documentation like the Manifesto, we just have yet to get to it and collect some information for that. As for this PR though, we can get to system discussion once we start reviewing it for 0.10.5. |
And that's fine. I expect it to be discussed. The merits of one have to outweigh the merits of the other. The existence of one is not a counterargument against the other all by itself. |
Yes, moving Kor Nor'peli in particular messes with plans for the Korath Campaign. It is currently, and should remain, the southernmost Korath system and the jumping off point to Parca (or perhaps an uninhabited system between it and Parca) |
Co-authored-by: Lia <31712538+ravenshining@users.noreply.github.com>
Easy swap, yep |
MasterOfGrey
added
the
waiting on dev
Refer to #6439 for relevant additional context.
Summary
As there is now interest in these systems for their own sake, here they are PR'd separately.
I wasn’t going to pull them out just for the sake of it when the main Xapleaux stuff didn’t make sense without them - as I am not exceptionally invested in the core systems on their own.
Now that there is a stated desire for the core systems expansion entirely for their own sake - that’s a whole different matter.
Per the discussion on the Stream, here they are @Amazinite, happy to work with adjustments to this (some notes on my thoughts below).
Details
Copied from the OG PR:
Full scope of map changes:
Separation of Syndicate space into sectors with uninhabited systems breaking them up.
One thing that the pirate campaign peeps noted is that there's no way to get around human space that doesn't involve slipping past the cops in damn near every system you enter. That informed the method used to expand the Syndicate map according to the issue posted and for the purposes of expanding the core concept area.
To achieve this I have broken the Syndicate into 7 clusters of habitable systems. I have then filled in the gaps with chains of uninhabited systems that allow someone to move from one cluster to another without passing through the intervening clusters.
However, if you look closely at the map above you will notice that the shortest distance from any Syndicate world to any other Syndicate world still goes through exactly the same systems it did before. Avoiding the inhabited clusters is always the long way around.
This also now fills things out enough that the Syndicate doesn't look like the poor afterthought in the design of human space.
Addition of some Pirate systems.
These two systems are from the Korath expansion and are desired by the pirate campaign group. It made sense to accommodate them here.
Relocation and addition of some relevant Exile systems.
This change firstly relocates the Exiles into the Yellow zone where life as we know it is unpleasant but possible, and out of the zones where their ships could never operate without overheating.
Note on the Yellow zone from the issue:
They gain a few filler systems mostly for flavour, but also to provide them something a little more to work with than their own heavily crowded systems, or raiding. This also preserves an easy pathway to the Ember Wastes which is naturally essential for Zitchas' work.
It is intended that all systems in the vicinity of the waste will get significantly reduced jump range attributes, as well as slapping a general reduction on most of the core so that existing jump barriers aren't suddenly overcome by this change.
Addition of filler Korath systems.
This change is many-fold. Firstly it helps to address the thoughts behind #4893 by adding some empty disconnected star systems mostly in the vicinity of where the Archons keep the exiles separated from their brethren. (Which could easily have been disconnected by the Archons.)
Further these provide material for anyone wanting to make stories about Korath relics or other in-between events. They were named by HMS Hood using automata naming conventions.
These systems are not locked-in though. The point of these systems is to fill a gap as it presently stands, and to provide flexibility. Future creators should feel free to relocate these systems to other places around the fringe of Korath space (or delete them entirely) if they need to eat into the space they occupy for something else. (Look at the Pirate campaign here.)
Updated map image courtesy of @bene-dictator :
Additional notes:
Chill stuff:
Details I care about: