| Galaxy Legion Forum http://galaxylegion.com/forum/ |
|
| Planet descriptions http://galaxylegion.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4111 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Kaos [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Planet descriptions |
When describing a planet we should have some kind of shorthand system. Something on a 1 to 10 scame. For example "My planet DanDaManus is a 7/7/4/9" The first number is size, then mining, then artifact, then research. I am sure one of you guys can think of a better way but its a start. |
|
| Author: | Darth Flagitious [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Planet rating |
I came up with a formula for the overall quality of a planet for a discussion about organized wars. It's lost in an old thread, but the basic idea was something like this: 1 point for each increase in size starting with Very Tiny=1 1 point for increases in rarity with Common=1, Uncommon=2.... 1 point for each of the 3 resources with Nothing=0, Extremely Sparse=1, Very Sparse=2... PQI (Planet Quality Index) = Size + Rarity + Mining + Artifact + Research Or something like that IIRC |
|
| Author: | SpoonyJank [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Planet rating |
I don't think basic parts of the game need to be made more complex... for the sake of the noobs. A lot of people probably don't even start off knowing the difference between "abundant" and "rich". There should probably just be numbers beside the resources and size like "Mining: Abundant (+15%)" and Very Large (57 spaces). If there were a planet rating, it should probably just be one number like the number of spaces multiplied by its best resource. I don't know if the tutorial implies that you should probably scan more than one planet and not settle crap planets, but it probably should. The learning curve of this game has gotten a lot more steep since I started playing and that is porobably one of the bigger turn-offs for new players. Well, that, and the geek factor. |
|
| Author: | Iolo1 [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Planet rating |
When I started out I rated planets by taking the number of available spaces and multiplying by the highest resource bonus. An Average size planet with Average resources would score a 45, whereas a Large Rich planet would be worth 102. I considered a rating of 100 or higher worthy of colonization. A constructed Dyson rates 750. Exotica comes in at 328. My brother and I have since adopted a more complicated system that weights better for well rounded planets and requires the use of a spreadsheet. |
|
| Author: | Kaos [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 4:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Planet descriptions |
I didn't do a very good job with this one. More than a grading scale, I meant a shorthand description. I updated my original thread to show that. The purpose is to replace having to type out "I have a very large metallic with rich mining, sparse artifacts and very rich resources" with something like "I have a metalic 7/7/2/8" or something like that. |
|
| Author: | FerrusManus [ Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Planet descriptions |
Just use the initials, G/VL/N/N/EA would be a Gas, Very Large, Extremely Abundant Research, no artifact or mining ("N" for "none"). Exotica would be E/VL/11x/9x/10x, Exotic Very Large 11x Mega Rich mining 9x Mega Rich artifact 10x Mega Rich research. I chose that order because that's the order they're in on the planet. Also, Terras would be Te and Toxics would be To, because they both start with T. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|