|
Post by Crimson on May 22, 2014 20:58:48 GMT -5
I noticed this before but the planet density for each map is alot different.
36*36/26(number of planets) = 50 spaces / planet
100*100/62 =161 spaces / planet
150*50/62 =121 spaces / planet
64*64/42=98 spaces / planet
These are pretty vast differences in density.
Crimson
|
|
|
Post by johndramey on May 22, 2014 21:21:20 GMT -5
Actually, good point. I'm sure we are only getting a couple maps for the alpha, but will there be any kind of filter for the map selection process? Like, maybe different filters for "Dense/Sparse" and "Large/Small?"
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 23, 2014 16:47:11 GMT -5
This is very keen analysis.
Which density did you like best? It has been a question we mean to ask.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson on May 23, 2014 17:12:24 GMT -5
Cory TreseI liked the highest density. I like to focus on planet building though. It also helps with economies. When looking for synergies
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 23, 2014 17:24:29 GMT -5
I find that with more than 1 Xeno enemy, 50 density is too high.
The map I most often win on is the 120 density, but it is also rectangular which helps defense.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson on May 23, 2014 20:16:29 GMT -5
Cory TreseI think the #of enemies is determined more by map size more than by planet density. If i had a 400x 50 or even 500 x 500 you could have more enemies. 1000 x1000 map would be a nice game as well. Would make for a long game. Even the example of the 150 x 50 if the density was 25 or 50 would make for exciting building. Crimson
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on May 31, 2014 18:52:10 GMT -5
Cory TreseI think the #of enemies is determined more by map size more than by planet density. If i had a 400x 50 or even 500 x 500 you could have more enemies. 1000 x1000 map would be a nice game as well. Would make for a long game. Even the example of the 150 x 50 if the density was 25 or 50 would make for exciting building. Crimson We will make sure to include a crazy huge variety of maps for Elite, and I'll be adding them regularly in updates. They are pretty easy to make so we might even hold contests and collect some from the alpha-elites.
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 12:39:47 GMT -5
This thread rules =)
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 14:38:27 GMT -5
New Maps I made this morning:
32x64 with 31 worlds 32x64 with 44 worlds 64x64 with 64 worlds
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 15:12:50 GMT -5
100x50 with 25 worlds 100x50 with 35 worlds 100x50 with 50 worlds
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 15:34:46 GMT -5
100x100 with 60 worlds 100x100 with 90 worlds
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Jun 4, 2014 15:43:05 GMT -5
So you can make a couple maps in a half hour? Cool.
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 16:04:03 GMT -5
So you can make a couple maps in a half hour? Cool. Yeah, looks like I can knock out the rough cuts of them in about 20 minutes for a big one. However, the testing will probably take many hours each, fine tuning distances and anomalies. it's a good sign though, they take about 5% as much time as a finished HoS map does. =)
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Jun 4, 2014 16:19:57 GMT -5
Nice. Now, how long does a tech take to iron out?
|
|
|
Post by Cory Trese on Jun 4, 2014 16:29:42 GMT -5
Nice. Now, how long does a tech take to iron out? That one is harder to measure, it depends on if you count all the pre-planning or just the actual asset (art, text, etc) or if you want to include the content development (ships, weapons, armor, gear, politics)
|
|