Real stars vs "non-real stars"

[nakorkren (OP)]

It seems like a lot of people use the "real stars" option. If that's you, why do you prefer the real stars setting?

[nuclearslurpee]

For me, both have pros and cons, and my dream system generation would be a mix of both.

Real Stars, aside from the "realness" of actual constellation names and other famous star names, I prefer the style of system generation that leads to many or most systems being smaller stars with few bodies to exploit. This makes systems that have even just decent territory for colonization feel more meaningful, and the really good systems are relatively more rare and thus more valuable to colonize, contest, and control. It's also nice to be able to set the starting NPR distance from Sol and know that after exploring so many light years or about X number of systems I will run into most or all of the opponents. Real Stars, IIRC, is also the only setting that will generate black holes which makes it objectively the cooler setting. 

Random Stars offers superior control of the jump point network topography, primarily in that I can tweak the settings to get more loops. The system generation also tends to be more varied, but also more plentiful so that most systems you explore are exploitable. The latter point to me feels a bit at odds with how I see Aurora's gameplay, in part because if so many systems are good then few are truly worth an exceptional effort, and in part because exploration tends to outpace exploitation even with low survey speeds far more quickly and with a bigger gap compared to Real Stars games.

My dream generation would basically be Real Stars with player control of jump point network topography, as I'd love to see more frequent loops (though not to the degree of utter spaghetti that some people have generated) to the point where the typical border with another developed empire consists of several jump points rather than 1-2 locations that can be exclusively fortified.

As an aside, historically Random Stars has not been stable and I have even had DB corruption from using it. Most of these bugs seem to be fixed now, but old habits may die hard for many players who have been burnt in the past.

[LuuBluum]

For me, both have pros and cons, and my dream system generation would be a mix of both.

Real Stars, aside from the "realness" of actual constellation names and other famous star names, I prefer the style of system generation that leads to many or most systems being smaller stars with few bodies to exploit. This makes systems that have even just decent territory for colonization feel more meaningful, and the really good systems are relatively more rare and thus more valuable to colonize, contest, and control. It's also nice to be able to set the starting NPR distance from Sol and know that after exploring so many light years or about X number of systems I will run into most or all of the opponents. Real Stars, IIRC, is also the only setting that will generate black holes which makes it objectively the cooler setting. 

Random Stars offers superior control of the jump point network topography, primarily in that I can tweak the settings to get more loops. The system generation also tends to be more varied, but also more plentiful so that most systems you explore are exploitable. The latter point to me feels a bit at odds with how I see Aurora's gameplay, in part because if so many systems are good then few are truly worth an exceptional effort, and in part because exploration tends to outpace exploitation even with low survey speeds far more quickly and with a bigger gap compared to Real Stars games.

My dream generation would basically be Real Stars with player control of jump point network topography, as I'd love to see more frequent loops (though not to the degree of utter spaghetti that some people have generated) to the point where the typical border with another developed empire consists of several jump points rather than 1-2 locations that can be exclusively fortified.

As an aside, historically Random Stars has not been stable and I have even had DB corruption from using it. Most of these bugs seem to be fixed now, but old habits may die hard for many players who have been burnt in the past.

If you don't mind me asking, what settings do you generally turn on for random star settings? Also, at least according to the original post, there should be some percentage chance of spawning a black hole system in random stars settings (I think 1.5%?).

[nuclearslurpee]

If you don't mind me asking, what settings do you generally turn on for random star settings?

Usually I use 60/12 (in place of the default 50/15). Generally, the larger the first value the more frequently loops form, and the smaller the second value the smaller loops will tend to be, although these are of course only statistical descriptions.

Also, at least according to the original post, there should be some percentage chance of spawning a black hole system in random stars settings (I think 1.5%?).

TIL, thanks.

[alex_brunius]

My dream generation would basically be Real Stars with player control of jump point network topography, as I'd love to see more frequent loops (though not to the degree of utter spaghetti that some people have generated) to the point where the typical border with another developed empire consists of several jump points rather than 1-2 locations that can be exclusively fortified.

As an aside, historically Random Stars has not been stable and I have even had DB corruption from using it. Most of these bugs seem to be fixed now, but old habits may die hard for many players who have been burnt in the past.

I would love some more controls to be able to tweak the frequency mainly of minerals rich systems as I find the Real Stars have too few of them for my liking and Random Stars to have too many. (Similar as we can tweak Ruin and NPR generation chances).

[Steve Walmsley]

My dream generation would basically be Real Stars with player control of jump point network topography, as I'd love to see more frequent loops (though not to the degree of utter spaghetti that some people have generated) to the point where the typical border with another developed empire consists of several jump points rather than 1-2 locations that can be exclusively fortified.

As an aside, historically Random Stars has not been stable and I have even had DB corruption from using it. Most of these bugs seem to be fixed now, but old habits may die hard for many players who have been burnt in the past.

I would love some more controls to be able to tweak the frequency mainly of minerals rich systems as I find the Real Stars have too few of them for my liking and Random Stars to have too many. (Similar as we can tweak Ruin and NPR generation chances).

A major impact on mineral generation is System Abundance. This is generated randomly, but is significantly affected by the age of the star. Younger systems will generally have better mineral deposits. The first thing I always check on a new system is the age of the star and I prioritise younger systems for geological survey.

There are six system abundance values from 1.5 to 0.25 in decreasing 0.25 increments. There is a roll of (D10 + D10 + System Age), with the abundance assigned on results equal or less than 12, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 30. The abundance is used as a modifier to the existence of minerals in general and the existence of each mineral type on a body. The amount and accessibility are based on body size.

So, a simple way to change the amount of minerals in real stars games would be a modifier (+1, +2, etc.) to the System Abundance roll.

[alex_brunius]

A major impact on mineral generation is System Abundance. This is generated randomly, but is significantly affected by the age of the star. Younger systems will generally have better mineral deposits. The first thing I always check on a new system is the age of the star and I prioritise younger systems for geological survey.

There are six system abundance values from 1.5 to 0.25 in decreasing 0.25 increments. There is a roll of (D10 + D10 + System Age), with the abundance assigned on results equal or less than 12, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 30. The abundance is used as a modifier to the existence of minerals in general and the existence of each mineral type on a body. The amount and accessibility are based on body size.

So, a simple way to change the amount of minerals in real stars games would be a modifier (+1, +2, etc.) to the System Abundance roll.

Thanks for the insight into mechanics. Is abundance values (1.5 to 0.25) here just a straight modifier on quantity of minerals found only? (or does it impact chance of each mineral appearing and acc. level rolls too?). And doesn't younger systems having more abundant minerals imply that a lower roll is better? (why would you then add +1 or +2 to it?)

Is there also a reason for limiting it to real stars? It could be interesting to be able to play a non-real stars game with less minerals also for me (if the modifier works both ways ranging from for example -4 to +4 or which levels seem reasonable). Ideally there should always be a small chance of having the highest system abundance.

Either way adding something for this would help alot! I would greatly appreciate if you can consider adding a dropdown or some way to tweak it next time your fiddling with game creation settings

[Steve Walmsley]

A major impact on mineral generation is System Abundance. This is generated randomly, but is significantly affected by the age of the star. Younger systems will generally have better mineral deposits. The first thing I always check on a new system is the age of the star and I prioritise younger systems for geological survey.

There are six system abundance values from 1.5 to 0.25 in decreasing 0.25 increments. There is a roll of (D10 + D10 + System Age), with the abundance assigned on results equal or less than 12, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 30. The abundance is used as a modifier to the existence of minerals in general and the existence of each mineral type on a body. The amount and accessibility are based on body size.

So, a simple way to change the amount of minerals in real stars games would be a modifier (+1, +2, etc.) to the System Abundance roll.

Thanks for the insight into mechanics. Is abundance values (1.5 to 0.25) here just a straight modifier on quantity of minerals found only? (or does it impact chance of each mineral appearing and acc. level rolls too?). And doesn't younger systems having more abundant minerals imply that a lower roll is better? (why would you then add +1 or +2 to it?)

Is there also a reason for limiting it to real stars? It could be interesting to be able to play a non-real stars game with less minerals also for me (if the modifier works both ways ranging from for example -4 to +4 or which levels seem reasonable). Ideally there should always be a small chance of having the highest system abundance.

Either way adding something for this would help alot! I would greatly appreciate if you can consider adding a dropdown or some way to tweak it next time your fiddling with game creation settings

Min Abundance is used in both real and random stars. Min generation is better in the latter because there are more luminous stars. Stellar Types F, A and B, plus giant stars tend to be younger, so better minerals. Yes, should be -1, etc. for improved minerals.

Abundance Roll is as described above. Abundance is doubled for bodies in the life zone. The life zone in AU is between= 0.75 * Luminosity^0.5 and 1.4 * Luminosity^0.5
Any Radius below 100 km is treated as 100 km.

The percentage chance of a body having minerals is Abundance * ((Body Density * 10) + (Radius / 100.0)).

An Earth-sized planet in the life zone would be: Abundance * (10 + 60) * 2. A Mars-sized planet outside the life zone with 0.7 density would be: Abundance * (7 + 34).

If a body has minerals, each individual mineral is checked, based on: Density * Abundance * 30 (constant). So Earth would be 30 * Abundance for each mineral. Mars would be 21 * Abundance. Duranium has a x2 modifier for this check.

For each mineral that exists, the amount and accessibility is randomly generated with greater radius improving the former and decreasing the latter.

The only downside to having an Abundance Modifier in game settings is explaining its effect. I guess it could be done in description terms instead of -1, -2, etc. Improved Minerals, Abundant, Scarce, etc.

Another option would be having a 'younger stars' modifier, instead of an abundance modifier. Same effect, but easier to understand.

[GodEmperor]

It seems like a lot of people use the "real stars" option. If that's you, why do you prefer the real stars setting?

Personally it depends what im doing :
If im doing a hard-sf Earth based run with something like UNSC or UN or Expanse like theme i use real stars for that flavour and those settings are close to the home.
If im doing some form of post collapse ( ala Starsector ) custom start, some "diaspora/exodus" run i lean towards random stars because then i mostly theorize im in some distant corner of the galaxy so weird unknown stars make sense.

[kyonkundenwa]

I play Real Stars exclusively these days because Random Stars are just too far apart: my experience is that Random Stars tends to generate much larger systems compared to Real Stars, such that a journey of a couple jumps in Random Stars might be 2-5 times greater distance in km than Real Stars. The stars also tend to be higher mass (which I assume is actually the driving factor: higher mass = bigger system) which means the JPs take longer to survey. So now every system has JPs which take longer to survey and are much further apart: this makes the game a slog for me at the default starting RP values, both in terms of exploring the galaxy and exploiting/colonizing new systems.
If there was a way to tune Random Stars toward less dense stars closer to what I see in Real Stars, I would consider playing Random Stars again. But Real Stars gives me what I want without issue so I don't see much need for it.

[Garfunkel]

With Earth/Sol start, I play exclusively Real Stars games. I just can't get into it the same way if I don't find the local stars.

[Akhillis]

The only downside to having an Abundance Modifier in game settings is explaining its effect. I guess it could be done in description terms instead of -1, -2, etc. Improved Minerals, Abundant, Scarce, etc.

Another option would be having a 'younger stars' modifier, instead of an abundance modifier. Same effect, but easier to understand.

Sample size of one here, but I'd find something like "Additional Mineral Abundance" more descriptive than "Younger Stars".

Another option that comes to mind would be having a % Modifier that directly affects the system abundance values. Less elegant, but it would be consistent with the various other existing modifiers like difficulty, research, survey, etc.

[Steve Walmsley]

With Earth/Sol start, I play exclusively Real Stars games. I just can't get into it the same way if I don't find the local stars.

Yes, this is my reason too. I know those stars are there, so it just seems weird if I don't encounter them.

[Steve Walmsley]

The only downside to having an Abundance Modifier in game settings is explaining its effect. I guess it could be done in description terms instead of -1, -2, etc. Improved Minerals, Abundant, Scarce, etc.

Another option would be having a 'younger stars' modifier, instead of an abundance modifier. Same effect, but easier to understand.

Sample size of one here, but I'd find something like "Additional Mineral Abundance" more descriptive than "Younger Stars".

Another option that comes to mind would be having a % Modifier that directly affects the system abundance values. Less elegant, but it would be consistent with the various other existing modifiers like difficulty, research, survey, etc.

On reflection, the 'younger stars' idea won't work anyway, as it would only ever increase minerals, not decease. Maybe something like multiple levels of abundance, with the middle one the current level and the others in +2/-2 increments. Percentage is also an option instead, by just increasing the calculated chance of minerals by that %.

[skoormit]

On reflection, the 'younger stars' idea won't work anyway, as it would only ever increase minerals, not decease. Maybe something like multiple levels of abundance, with the middle one the current level and the others in +2/-2 increments. Percentage is also an option instead, by just increasing the calculated chance of minerals by that %.

What about a "Star Age" setting, centered on 100 (like the existing "xxx Speed" settings)?