Should asteroids be even smaller?

[Farsight]

After finishing off a game in Spaced Out! smallest asteroid size, with a fully self-sufficient base and everything in the system tamed, I realized that with all the asteroids I had room for about 50x as much stuff as I had any reason to build.

My main base wasn't full, yet supported about 50 dupes with huge morale boosts and ample supplies of everything else they'd ever need. Every other base was essentially empty besides volcano tamers, launcher setups, and leftover structures from when dupes used to live there.

It seems like a setting for much smaller asteroids could really add a new challenge and make the gameplay more steered towards multiple active colonies. The current sizes seem designed for a game where you can have hundreds of dupes, but the game's performance and work requirements don't really support that. Not only would the game slow to a crawl long before I filled my bases with the maximum # of dupes I could support, but 90% of them would never have anything to do.

If asteroids were greatly reduced in size, the push to space would be even more urgent, as creating extra fully functioning colonies would be nearly required to support larger numbers of dupes and more varied projects. It would likely make it neccessary to focus each asteroid on a specific task or industry. It would also make taming renewable resources and rocket mining even more important, as the amount of resources from digging out the map would be reduced as well.

It might require some other tweaks, like fewer but more powerful geysers/volcanoes, but I think overall it'd make for a more interesting game with much more varied system multi-base designs.

[SackMaggie]

While I do like the small base but there are many people who love big base as well, It's not like push a button make it smaller or bigger and everyone happy.

At this point a map size change can consider a major issue since the game is already released. You can't really gauge out how much people like or hate it, Even voting can't decide on that because there are a lot of silent voices. So if there would be a change for all player it should be optional to make everyone happy.

For example you know care package in the printing pod right? It existence alone make many players unhappy even though it can be disabled.

For now map size change can be done locally (for yourself) since you can edit the xml file.

[FenrirZeroZero]

Adding a (or two) new size OPTION: Sure why not.

Making all options smaller: Nope 

I like to build mega bases with. Logistik and performance are also "challenges" that can be worked with.

[gigamoi]

I see what you mean. Funnily enough, some have asked for the exact opposite recently. I really depends on which aspect of the game we each prefer or dislike.

Fortunately, worldgen is fairly easy to modify for yourself in this game as it is mostly config file parameters. I did so myself recently to get the somnium synthesizer to spawn where I wanted. If you ever come up with something you deem interesting, consider making a mod out of it for others to enjoy.

[Gurgel]

I like large starting asteroids and still reasonable sized target ones. Yes, technically I do not need them, but the situation were space to build things turns into a problem is just not for me. 

3 hours ago, FenrirZeroZero said:

Adding a (or two) new size OPTION: Sure why not.

Making all options smaller: Nope 

I like to build mega bases with. Logistik and performance are also "challenges" that can be worked with.

Exactly. Fortunately the "I like XYZ, please force it on _everybody_" crowd has been nicely ignored by Klei.

15 hours ago, SackMaggie said:

For example you know care package in the printing pod right? It existence alone make many players unhappy even though it can be disabled.

The people that do this will not be happy until everybody is restricted in exactly the way _they_ want. They have some control/dominance thing going on that is completely unacceptable. How I like my games is _my_ decision and anybody that thinks differently can go straight to heck. I have absolutely no problem with tons of options to make things harder for anybody that likes that but forcing everybody to play that way is just defective. 

[babba]

Related thread ...In that thread I also posted a screenie from a user asking for tiny tiny maps.

Lots of map size options for everyone = Happiness for everyone

Nano > Micro > Tiny > Small > Medium > Big > Giant > Bigmac Megasize Deluxe

I would also welcome it if players had the option to play just one map in the spaced out dlc, without any existing colonies.

So dlc content, no colonies, but with space exploration and space resource mining.

I normally don`t play with mods, as the vanilla game sometimes crashes - So I`m hoping for more map and play options, from Klei, for the basic game ( dlc and non-dlc ).

21 hours ago, Farsight said:

...

If asteroids were greatly reduced in size, the push to space would be even more urgent...

...

If map size options could be also configured/selected for all colonies in the world generator, that would also be great

[Farsight]

I did say a -setting-. I know some people like having as much space to build as possible.

I just find it odd that Spaced Out! seems to be designed around the idea of having multiple colonies... yet the game doesn't really push the player to do that, and instead actively penalizes them for splitting things up into multiple colonies (through all of the extra work & logistics required).

Some asteroids seem tailored specifically to use as secondary colonies (the water and moo worlds come to mind), but because space and resources are so abundant elsewhere, there's little reason to use either.

When I retire a colony with 1 75% filled base of 50 dupes (and already hitting framerate issues), and 9 empty colonies shooting resources back to that 1 base (plus a completely untouched regolith world, because F meteors  ), it doesn't feel like things have turned out the way the original design intended.

[Gurgel]

4 hours ago, Farsight said:

I did say a -setting-. I know some people like having as much space to build as possible.

You did. My apologies. I still get a bit triggered from experience with all those people that wanted to force something on everybody. 

[ALCRD]

Have you tried the Moonlet start?

Sounds like something you are looking for. Tiny asteroids smaller than SO! start and much much smaller than Classic start.

[babba]

16 hours ago, Farsight said:

...

When I retire a colony with 1 75% filled base of 50 dupes (and already hitting framerate issues)...

The ONi frame rate - I built a new ONi PC, its weight is ~20 kilos. I need to try it with the game, but first I need to recover my health from building it and need to have something to eat

  The new ONi system - Today

Coming from the i7 7700k, nv asus strix 1060 6gb, 32gb ddr4 2133 to: ryzen7 7600x , nv rtx 4070ti 12gb, 32gb ddr5 5100 my general energy consumption playing games in 2K is lower than with the old system . Its a hanging, open system and has only 2 glass panes as decoration windows. I wanted to fix my fat 2 kilo air cooler on to the cpu, but I didnt do it as its all hanging sideways ( the gpu is 1,5kilo and the small cpu cooler 350 gramms ). I fitted a big metal back plate under the board backside, but its would be too much pulling force and board strain.

When I will try out my 4K display with 3x 2K displays in the next weeks with ms flight sim 2020, then its probably all banana fritters though !!!

Gaming is such a great hobby and time waster

I want to use the system for the next 6 years, the only future upgrade change will be swapping the am5 socket cpu to the latest big fat new one in 3 years or so.

I wish everyone a nice time I`m so exhausted...Sweepy needs to brush me away

P.S.

This is how my old system looked like until yesterday:

The Christmas tree on top is wearing glasses all year round, so it can see better

------

World of Warships, everything on max, with 2K display, capped at 60 fps = Total system power consumption ~160 Watts. ONI: Also ~160 Watts with my save file.

------

ONI - Fully built up big classic map, normal speed

Changing the gtx 1060 6gb to the 4070 ti 12gb, as last pc build step, has further improved the FPS to a rock solid 54-56 on my large map at normal speed Swapping the graphics card had a good impact for stable frame rates in the game.

With all my old hardware I had 12-18 FPS.

Its currently only ~20 dupes at cycle 10000 + a 2nd half built up colony...I have tested so much that most of the dupies are in heaven now

Below: Zooming fully out reduces the frame rate by 50%, to around 27 FPS on my system. Maybe it has to do with the simulation stuff going on in the invisible neighbour colonies on the map

This would be a great single map size for me, as option in the games world generator

Klei, I would like to play this map size as a colony, with dlc content, but no available colonies. If you can make this possible in the game ? I would love to play on such a big single map That would so make it feel like the original game you made.

Its around three times the map size I used to play with at the beginning of the games development, when I changed the map tile size in the single file. It would be very nice for players which like to go big in a single map with a good computer Just issue an FPS warning to the player choosing such a map size, to avoid player complaints

It also would be great if tiny map fans can have also new world generation options, as example custom tiny map colonies and such. Many thanks. May the dupe be always with you...

[Farsight]

14 hours ago, ALCRD said:

Have you tried the Moonlet start?

Sounds like something you are looking for. Tiny asteroids smaller than SO! start and much much smaller than Classic start.

Yeah, that's what I've played on since SO! came out. The asteroids are still really big! My last main base had enough room for a nuclear reactor, a 45 saturn trap + beeta farm, 7 full critter farms, 2 full pacu tanks (no cramping), enough wheat and blossoms to make mountains of berry sludge, a full industrial block, two volcano tamers, housing for 48 dupes with a full rec room of nearly every morale building, a spaceport, and all the water/cooling/power/shipping infrastructure to support it... and there was still quite of bit of room left to build in!

I've never seen anyone's game where they built real, populated bases on more than 1 or 2 worlds. It seems like everyone digs out the other worlds, grabs the plants/critters they want, sets up tamers and shipping, and leaves an automated, empty colony. Certain worlds like Moo are almost always ignored. It leads to very samey, boring endgame designs and game play. Because anything else is more work for a less functional base.

If that's the intended design, why are the other asteroids so big? That's -so- much digging just to build a little automated supply depot and leave 90% empty space. A bigger starting asteroid, and -tiny- other asteroids would make more sense.

If the intended design is to have a bunch of interacting colonies, all asteroids should be smaller (as an option, of course), to make that the optimal way to build. Otherwise, the only people who will build multiple colonies are masochists.

I just think it'd be really interesting to see what designs people would come up with if each asteroid were say, 1/4th of the current size. If the player wanted one world to be their "farm world", nothing else would fit.

Call it "Real Estate Not Included"

[6Havok9]

1 hour ago, Farsight said:

I just think it'd be really interesting to see what designs people would come up with if each asteroid were say, 1/4th of the current size. If the player wanted one world to be their "farm world", nothing else would fit.

Call it "Real Estate Not Included"

If the small asteroids were any smaller I'd be forced to dig them out in order to build anything, so I'd avoid them. Goes against my current "take only what you need" approach.

If you simply do not dig out an asteroid completely, leaving interesting natural features and barriers intact, suddendly available space becomes a concern. I find that even quirky 2/3 dupe colonies look interesting when they sit in the natural environment, while large bases in an empty map are... just large bases in an empty map to me.

 

But if you feel the urge to dig out everything (l did for a LONG time), then sure, a "even smaller" setting for world generation would provide that "space is precious" feeling while still allowing you to pillage and plunder asteroids to your heart's content. 

It would also be the better option from a performance perspective. Small bases blending in a larger environment strain the CPU much more than small bases filling a small empty map, while providing you with nothing but an aesthetically pleasing location. But hey.... you should also please the eye! 

[babba]

If Klei, as example, would offer a...lets say...true 64x64 tile map option to players ( Raspberry Pi users ), the game would run at insane speed for everyone. Mapping all the colonies together and simulating them all, has caused a lot of player FPS complaints in the past two years. I do hope we get more map options someday from Klei, to please whatever map wishes the players have

[ALCRD]

On 1/25/2023 at 1:38 PM, Farsight said:

Yeah, that's what I've played on since SO! came out. The asteroids are still really big! My last main base had enough room for a nuclear reactor, a 45 saturn trap + beeta farm, 7 full critter farms, 2 full pacu tanks (no cramping), enough wheat and blossoms to make mountains of berry sludge, a full industrial block, two volcano tamers, housing for 48 dupes with a full rec room of nearly every morale building, a spaceport, and all the water/cooling/power/shipping infrastructure to support it... and there was still quite of bit of room left to build in!

I've never seen anyone's game where they built real, populated bases on more than 1 or 2 worlds. It seems like everyone digs out the other worlds, grabs the plants/critters they want, sets up tamers and shipping, and leaves an automated, empty colony. Certain worlds like Moo are almost always ignored. It leads to very samey, boring endgame designs and game play. Because anything else is more work for a less functional base.

If that's the intended design, why are the other asteroids so big? That's -so- much digging just to build a little automated supply depot and leave 90% empty space. A bigger starting asteroid, and -tiny- other asteroids would make more sense.

If the intended design is to have a bunch of interacting colonies, all asteroids should be smaller (as an option, of course), to make that the optimal way to build. Otherwise, the only people who will build multiple colonies are masochists.

I just think it'd be really interesting to see what designs people would come up with if each asteroid were say, 1/4th of the current size. If the player wanted one world to be their "farm world", nothing else would fit.

Call it "Real Estate Not Included"

Yea that doesn't really sound like something i would be interested in.

I like it big i hate struggling with build space and resources that run out in blink of an eye.

Edit: Also fun fact even in Classic start other asteroids in the star map are much smaller than your starting point.

So this mechanic is kind of there.

Anyway if Klei ever decides even smaller asteroids i do hope it will indeed be an optional start and not changing the size of existing maps. Cause that would suck.

[Sasza22]

13 hours ago, ALCRD said:

Anyway if Klei ever decides even smaller asteroids i do hope it will indeed be an optional start and not changing the size of existing maps. Cause that would suck.

I don`t see a reason they`d change the existing map size if they can just add more variants to the map select. I wonder how many planetoids could a single map support. There probably is a minimum size the starting planetoid needs to be to allow a base to survive but the other ones could be really small. Maybe there could be even a mechanic removing a planetoid once you mined it out completely. Then replacing them with a resource field. A non start planetoid could be basically a single biome with some geodes sprinkled in.

[NNOUS]

I can agree on different astroid map format. Could Introduce some new map maybe being more deep like water asteroid, or wilder to let it close to surface.

[SGT_Imalas]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:19 PM, Sasza22 said:

I wonder how many planetoids could a single map support.

as many as your cpu can support.

the grid size is set dynamically at world generation once all planets have played their game of Tetris so thats not limiting

the main pproblemwoth performance comes from calculating all that extra space once the planet has been discovered.

If you look at the mod "Other cluster" f.e., one map may contain 15 planets instead of the usual ~7 to 8.

for the same reason you will find that certain asteroids are much smaller on a "Classic Start" compared to a "moonlet start".

in theory it could be possible to create a world generation containing a large amounts of tiny bases with an increased starmap size (although that would cause performance issues on the star map without fast track mod for some very ugly reasons)