Galaxy map generation and graph cycles?

[db48x]

Shame... I had starting nprs, but deleted them later to stop aurora from becoming loading screen simulator, but as I peeked at their maps, they gave indeed the same impression.

Why is that a shame? It proves that Earth is not uniquely placed in the galaxy. The jumpgate network is definitely non-euclidean, so it feels weird to us. Specifically, I think you’re worried about the number of routes from point A to point B that go through your starting system. There are whole regions of your map that are inaccessible from other regions except for a single route through Sol. However, that’s equally true of every node in the graph. Every part of that non-euclidean space looks as odd to us as every other part.

Also, the longer you explore the more loops you will find and the larger those loops will be. Here’s a screenshot from one of my games where I discovered a loop with about three dozen systems in it:


http://db48x.net/Aurora/conventional start in 2020 with v1.11/galaxy map 2232.png

Most of the gates on the right–hand side of that map were built by NPRs. Sol was also on an eight–system loop, as you can see in the middle of the map, and two of the NPRs were also on an eight–system loop at the bottom left (partly off–screen). There is also a four–system loop right next to Sol, and a couple more minor loops off–screen.

The maps can get extremely complex, but it’s also quite random. Here’s a map from another one of my games:


http://db48x.net/Aurora/rediscovery: conventional start in 3000 with v1.12/seriously?.png

You can see that Sol only had two jump points, one of which was a dead end. The other was partly blocked by a precursor fleet, making exploration difficult. And then the next 7 or 8 systems after that were completely barren…


http://db48x.net/Aurora/galaxy map 4102.png

Here’s one with two moderately large loops that share an edge, and an NPR on the same two loops as me. Plus my fleet in Alpha Centauri is having a spot of difficulty.

Another way to look at it is that if the number of systems in the game universe is bounded, then every system will either be part of a dead end or part of a loop. Because it’s fairly rare for systems to have only one jump point, that makes it more likely that systems will be part of one or more loops. It also means that most of those loops will be really large. In a 1000–system game you’ll mostly be finding loops near the end of your exploration. Thus, any local view of that universe will look like a tree, and the global view will be of lots of closed loops. I’m not sure how many systems you can get in a Real Stars game; it only has data for a finite number of systems, but it could easily start throwing in randomly–generated systems to give you an infinite universe. In that case, you’ll never have a global view, only an increasingly–large local view that keeps finding larger and larger loops.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

Why is that a shame? It proves that Earth is not uniquely placed in the galaxy.

So what? Every other space game that uses some sort of star network manages to prove it while having an interesting network with many branches and frequent cycles.

The jumpgate network is definitely non-euclidean,

Hehe, if you ever looked at my AAR you'd know I basically threw all the Aurora official lore into a trash bin because it didn't appeal to me at all. I don't care about what jumpgate network is supposed to represent, hate the concept and just want a decent galaxy with many unique routes like in any other game.

you’ll mostly be finding loops near the end of your exploration

And that's the problem. I need lots of small loops, a few really big ones I''m going to find only after hundreds oh hours aren't gonna cut it.

Also, you refer to some pictures but there are none attached.

[tobijon]

I think that if you limit your game to a small number of systems you will find more loops, you can always try starting with a hundred system limit and as you discover more increase the limit using sm mode.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

For whatever reason any galaxy setting doesn't apply to real stars, not to mention small number of stars is pointless for me. SM... I know all those problems can be fixed by SM, but ehhh... I'd rather have the game generate it for me rather than struggle with balancing it all myself...

[serger]

I'm also feeling itchy enough to make some small tool, that will generate JPs net with "closest stars only" (without long-jump spikes) and "more system mass - more JPs" principles of generation (real stars), but I'm quite poor programmer, so it will be risky even without inevitable rule not to report bugs after making such intrusion in the DB.

[StarshipCactus]

I had a VB6 game with a pretty large loop, it was around 30 jumps, idk how many light years, maybe 40 to 50? I had explored over 140 systems by then. I had about 6 or 7 other loops by then.

[db48x]

Why is that a shame? It proves that Earth is not uniquely placed in the galaxy.

So what? Every other space game that uses some sort of star network manages to prove it while having an interesting network with many branches and frequent cycles.

So you just want a map that is flat, rather than positively or negatively curved.

The jumpgate network is definitely non-euclidean,

Hehe, if you ever looked at my AAR you'd know I basically threw all the Aurora official lore into a trash bin because it didn't appeal to me at all. I don't care about what jumpgate network is supposed to represent, hate the concept and just want a decent galaxy with many unique routes like in any other game.

Non-euclidean has nothing to do with the lore of the game, it's just a fact about the topology of the maps that it generates. They don't follow the rules of Euclidean geometry, because they have curvature. It prevents the maps from ever lying flat on a 2D surface, and often causes them to look more like trees than graphs (to use your terminology).

you’ll mostly be finding loops near the end of your exploration

And that's the problem. I need lots of small loops, a few really big ones I''m going to find only after hundreds oh hours aren't gonna cut it.

Then you need to play in a smaller universe. Try a random stars game with 50 systems. Once you've explored most of that, turn the system limit up and SM mode to add a few new jump points. Use a random number generator to decide what systems to put them in, so that you don't give yourself an unfair advantage over the NPRs.

This is exactly what SM mode was intended for, to customize the game beyond what Steve originally envisioned.

Also, you refer to some pictures but there are none attached.

Curious, the images worked when I was previewing the post. I see that they are now loaded through a proxy, but the proxy has a self-signed certificate which all browsers reject by default. Basically, there are image tags but our browsers aren't loading them.

I'll edit my post, but in the mean time here are the links to the images:

• http://db48x.net/Aurora/conventional start in 2020 with v1.11/galaxy map 2232.png
• http://db48x.net/Aurora/rediscovery: conventional start in 3000 with v1.12/seriously?.png
• http://db48x.net/Aurora/galaxy map 4102.png

[nuclearslurpee]

In the start-of-game setup there are two settings that are supposed to influence the rate of loops formation. Do these not work to adjust the galactic topography? My understanding is that they are exposed to the user for precisely this purpose, but I'm seeing some posts that suggest it can work and others complaining that nothing works and the galaxy is beyond our meager human influence.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

So you just want a map that is flat, rather than positively or negatively curved.

It prevents the maps from ever lying flat on a 2D

What the hell are you even talking about, I feel so confused. The map is 2D. Period. I see you attempt some mental gymnastic to say that it's meant to represent a 3d space map on 2d (whatever "positively or negatively curved" is supposed to mean), but... Does it matter? Well, in practice, for gameplay purposes it's still a 2D map, and a particularly bad one. I feel like what you've said is irrelevant to the problem.

Non-euclidean has nothing to do with the lore of the game, it's just a fact about the topology of the maps that it generates.

Well, jump point network has a lot to do with Aurora lore, euclidean or not. That's what I had on mind.

Then you need to play in a smaller universe. Try a random stars game with 50 systems.

How many times do I have to state I play real stars? No, this is not going to change, love real stars too much for it (although it baffles me as to why galaxy settings can't be changed for real stars but whatever), besides, starting a new game is not a question - invested way too much time for this already.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

In the start-of-game setup there are two settings that are supposed to influence the rate of loops formation. Do these not work to adjust the galactic topography? My understanding is that they are exposed to the user for precisely this purpose, but I'm seeing some posts that suggest it can work and others complaining that nothing works and the galaxy is beyond our meager human influence.

This "start-of-game setup" explicitly mentions THESE SETTINGS DON'T AFFECT REAL STARS.

[nuclearslurpee]

In the start-of-game setup there are two settings that are supposed to influence the rate of loops formation. Do these not work to adjust the galactic topography? My understanding is that they are exposed to the user for precisely this purpose, but I'm seeing some posts that suggest it can work and others complaining that nothing works and the galaxy is beyond our meager human influence.

This "start-of-game setup" explicitly mentions THESE SETTINGS DON'T AFFECT REAL STARS.

Oops, I missed that tooltip. Always something new with this game...

[serger]

I don't know why db48x uses those terms, but it seems for me that I understand what they want to say about 3D to 2D projection. It's really a problem, and not an Aurora problem, but a problem of any space game: there is really no tecnology to make usable 3D map. It's not even a problem of screens and tables: even our visual cortex is not completely adaptant to full 3D! Our ancestors have had no need nor much opportunity to see in depth of objects through the last handreds of million years of our evolutionary history, so we (our visual perception and working memory) can operate with 3D surfaces, but not with 3D volumes. And star maps are not surfaces, they are volumes, they need a perception and memorization with depth values of ALL points, not only SURFACE points (that is semi-3D or expanded 2D). With flat screens and simple graphics it's worsening. It's plainly mathematically impossible to show isotropic everywhere-dense 3D star map without catastrofic losses or distortions. Simple graphics, preferred by Steve, makes this even worse, but really it's not an issue of JP graph parameters, it's an issue of our vision. So, really, if you want to playe at real stars - forget about isotropic everywhere-dense JP net.

[Stormtrooper (OP)]

What you are talking about honestly in the context of this problem makes no sense at all. I can't see a single reason why galaxy with multiple connections and cycles, allowing me to freely travel across the stars, without feeling limited to traversing endless branches.

I don't see why I (or everyone else) should give a damn about what you've said, I just wish cool maps would get generated nicely because somehow other space games don't have problems with that and if they're 2d, well, they're 2d, who cares?

Tl;dr being limited to a 2d plane isn't an excuse to generate poor star map with little to no connections between them and then try to come up with some ridiculous explanations about "porting 3d space onto 2d" or whatever you wanna call it

[serger]

You can have cool map (that will be flat) or can have real stars (that are deep in volume). You have no option to have both simultaneously, that's mathematics.
Other games you mention - it's first option, they have no real stars maps.

[TheTalkingMeowth]

What you are talking about honestly in the context of this problem makes no sense at all. I can't see a single reason why galaxy with multiple connections and cycles, allowing me to freely travel across the stars, without feeling limited to traversing endless branches.

I don't see why I (or everyone else) should give a damn about what you've said, I just wish cool maps would get generated nicely because somehow other space games don't have problems with that and if they're 2d, well, they're 2d, who cares?

Tl;dr being limited to a 2d plane isn't an excuse to generate poor star map with little to no connections between them and then try to come up with some ridiculous explanations about "porting 3d space onto 2d" or whatever you wanna call it

To make this more concrete, what "other space games" are you referring to? Because, yes, Aurora's jump point net generation rules are different from other games.

Stellaris, for example, places its stars in 2D space (they have a z component, but the spread is all in 2D and then the 3rd dimension is just for visuals...2.5D I guess) and then makes connections with systems that are near each other. As I understand it, they have some "special sauce" rules designed to make an "interesting" map with periodic choke points.

The latest MoO does something similar.

Aurora (Real Stars), by contrast, places its stars in 3D space and then makes connections with systems that are near each other. But the special sauce rules that make Stellaris geography "nice" are not present.

An important thing to note about these commercial games is that the map is generated wholesale, rather than being built as you go. That makes it possible to do checks and refine the map to achieve the "prettiness" you seek.

Basically, in summary, yes Aurora JP networks tend to be uninteresting. But I seriously doubt Steve's likely to make big changes; it would be pretty hard I think.