List of (potential) bugs with the planet entity files

I believe that TerranHome's Social Upgrade bonus was intentionally cut down.  For the price of about 3-4 carriers you were getting an upgrade that made you spit out >40c/s more than you otherwise would have.  Given that you would not frequently lose that planet until the game was over anyways, it was a pretty permanent boost.  Compare that with a terran world in 'neutral territory' - harder to hold onto.

3) The zeroing out is likely not a bug, just a case of they are guaranteed to have another asteroid type.

5) I believe the desert home has always had 4 asteroids (likely to make up for the lower population of desert homes compared to terrans)

Hmm, not sure I see the "concern" on needing to reduce the bonus (I'm assuming you're talking about the population) seems you only ever own (typically) 1 of the "home" versions (barring screwing around with a map in Galaxy Forge or capturing a defeated players HW).  And while I'm not going to sit here and go "this should be changed!" (it ain't that big of a deal), I wonder (if it was that much of a concern) if instead of reducing the pop bonus, if increasing the upgrade cost (making it so it's harder/takes longer to obtain) would've been better?

Right, I figured that might be the case, so... why aren't other Desert planets afforded the extra resource asteroid?  I understand balancing of the "home" versions, but I fail to see any unbalance/game breaking by having the other two Desert worlds given the "balance" as well.

Edit: Sorry for the double posts.  Was composing my first when the second replied, then forgot myself there and just hit for another post. :/

EDit2: Oh, and by the way, I'm kind of playing "devil's advocate" with my replies, in case you can't tell.

The fair versions are a strange beast in my opinion. Fair uncolonizeables guarantee you'll get one asteroid type and leave it at that just because it's, well, fair.

I agree there's no reason for the spawning probabilty of a certain extractor to be zero in an uncolonizeable gravity well but I also think there is no reason to change it. It needs to be limited in some way and this is a fine way.

While that statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me... oh well.  Doesn't matter.  I'm not advocating any changes, actually.  I was just bringing these up to the dev's attention for their own notice and review.  And as I said above, just felt like playing Devil's Advocate on the responses of "this is why it is that way" from folks guessing at the dev's motives.

For what it's worth, I think (1) is a bug: "Fair" Oceanic/Ferrous/Greenhouse having a variable number of extractors seems to contradict the notion of "Fair" that stems from the other planets.

Having said that, the randomly generated maps even with the truly "Fair" (constant-resourced) planets generate a huge amount of map luck/randomness by connections' length and more so by complete lack thereof, far exceeding what luck/randomness may come from variable resource counts on the planets close to the star (Oceanic/Ferrous) or in-between players (Greenhouse).

There are some fixed [non-random] "Competitive" maps using Fair planets too, but those aren't popular on ICO, so I've only looked at a few of those. And those that I've looked at lacked Oceanic/Ferrous/Greenhouse altogether, so I can't draw any [additional] conclusions from that.

Hehe, I think a "Fair" planet and a "Fair" map system are little different... especially when you consider you are generating a "random" map.

Normal asteroids allow specialization while "fair" asteroids do not...I'd assume it is an oversight...

Who knows... That one I could say was more likely deliberate. It's also on fury's list at his (ahem) second "1" (half-way down in his OP where he restarts the numbering.) It's a bit sad the devs gave no feedback on any of this. Most of these points aren't complex issues that would take hours of debugging...

Actually, Oceanic/Ferrous/Greenhouse (Fair or not) aren't explicitly used at all (except indirectly via randomization) in the galaxy files that come with the game. They also don't have specific icons in GF, but use the default one. So, they were probably a late[r] addition to FW, and there wasn't enough time to get everything right about them, perhaps including their Fair variants.

But why?  Obviously it looks as though they could've purposely deleted the upgrades out of there, but to what end?  We already have a "dead" asteroid and none of the other "fair" versions got this treatment.

I think it's more likely that they created the "fair" versions (or at least in this case) based on the original asteroid file before the social/industrial upgrades were added and then this one was forgotten about.

Correct.  Because the first "half" was for resource asteroids specifically.  The second "half" was on the social/industrial upgrades.  I probably could've done something to better mark the "dividing line", but it is what it is.

I wouldn't read too much into what it means by there being no reference's to fair versions of these 3.  After all, if there's even 1 reference and the entity doesn't actually exist, the game has a minidump on your desktop.

Besides, if it was truly a time issue (which I do not believe considering it took me all of 5 minutes to create all 3 of these in a personal "fix" mod I created), then they could've fixed/released an update for it at a later time to add them in... which they did not.

Fury, I guess you don't know anyone (personally) who works in the game industry... The pressure/rush to release stuff is quite something.

Respawned, first, this was a DLC that was released a year after the game proper.  While I'm sure there was still an internal deadline, the pressure for this would not have been so much that they didn't have time to do a copy/paste of 3 files, rename them to add "Fair" at the end, change 2 values located within, then update GalaxyDefs so that these 3 appeared in the appropriate groups.  Again, it took me a whole of 5 minutes to do all 3.

Second, even if time constraints somehow did prevent them from doing it in time for release day, it does not prevent them from fixing it in a later patch.

Given similar petty issues like this in GalCiv2, I'm inclined to think it is more a manpower issue....if you look at some of the dev posts in regards to this game and GalCiv2, it seems that some bug fixes and balance changes were done off the clock, which points to a lack of resources/manpower...this isn't the same as rushing a game, it's more a resource allocation issue, something that smaller companies really suffer from...

Right, and forgive me, I'm not trying to cast blame around.  And of course, rereading my post, I realize, too, I'm mixing a couple issues together.  The "fair" versions of these 3 worlds already existed (and without the game files in front of me, want to say they are in GalaxyDefs), they just didn't have their values corrected.

Regardless, the excuse of "time" is weak in this case because, at the least, it's been over a year since the DLC was even released.  If they were aware of such bugs (and actually considered them as bugs), then that has been plenty of "time" to fix them.  That's really all I'm trying to get at.

Either way, these issues all seem confined to GalaxyScenarioDef. I suggest you make a mini-mod for the ones you think should be fixed (eg. the TerranHome Social one does have a valid reason).

Not quite that as one has to design/decide what the Fair versions of Oceanic etc. should be and write those files (by copypasta+tweak, of course.)

Erm, while some of them do cross over with GalaxyScenarioDef, none of them are actually confined to it?  Several of these issues, in fact, have nothing to do with that file (like the TerranHome Social).

For myself, I already have.  However, actual true bugs are better solved in the game proper, especially considering how modding works in this game.  It's too easy for multiple mods to be incompatible with each other unless you create yet another mod to support each at the same time.

*devil's advocate* Is it, though?  While yes, Homes are generally the ones you hold all game and if you lose it then you've probably lost the game, but it's also the only one you'll ever have (again, barring screwing around with Galaxy Forge or capturing a defeated player's home, which should be a perk on its own, yes? :)).

On the other hand, I've played maps where there have been multiple Terran worlds that have randomly spawned.  In some cases they may be highly contested, but in others, not so much (due to proximity).

So, the way I see it, it could've gone one of two other routes... increase the expense of the Home upgrades (but that would only be a "static" effect), or decrease the bonus of the other Terran worlds to match the Home version.  If it's too powerful for the homeworld, then in a sense, it is too powerful for the outlier worlds, too.

/devil's advocate

Sorry... I'm not a "fan" of arbitrary balance numbers.  And by that, I refer (in part) to things like this, where you have 2 identical objects that are then given different numbers for the sake of "balance".  To me, if you have to do that, then the object wasn't designed right in the first place (or the stats on one of them is too high, regardless).

Sins is essentially two different games: one on smaller maps and a different one on larger ones. Based on how Social and Industry upgrades are "balanced" against each other, the fact that each lab gives one tier of research regardless of map size, the fact that Titans unlock at tier 4, how the whole 1.80 open rebellion triggering thing was not noticed until after the patch had gone live, and how longest trade route bonus can stack to ludicrous levels, I'm guessing the game was originally designed and tested with smaller maps in mind. A lot of these seemingly arbitrary numbers might be the result of this type of balance: on smaller maps, there will usually only be one or two non-homeworld terran planets, often contested between players. Forcing all Terran planets to have the low cap that TerranHome has would pretty much make Oceanic the only planet type where social is ideal (save maybe for some odd Advent culture strategy), not to mention significantly decrease the value of holding Terran planets on smaller maps where trade is not as lucrative, whereas having TerranHome match Terran's numbers would make it a go-to on smaller maps, since you don't have as much room for longest trade route and your homeworld is the only Terran planet that's never contested.

I do not know about the Barren vs. BarrenFair thing, but Ferrous and FerrousFair's higher numbers are because of a similar reason: on smaller maps, they are usually contested planets, and since they can only have metal extractors, the higher rate is to put it on even footing with other contested planet types that might have crystal extractors and a higher population cap.

Number three (inexplicable zeroed out neutral extractors) are probably to put uncolonizable gravity wells on even footing. You'll notice that all uncolonizable gravity wells with fair versions are subject to the zeroed out thing. Asteroid Belts are both fairly common and are easy to traverse, so they get one metal. Gas giants have a giant planet in the middle of the well in addition to the whole passive explosion thing and being larger wells overall, so they get two metal. Space Junk is similar to Asteroid Belt, but is usually much rarer on smaller maps or is deliberately put in contested areas, so it gets one crystal. Plasma Storm does not allow launching of strike craft, making it a lot easier to steal extractors without sacrificing ships (especially for Vasari), which is why it gets two crystal.

Lack of fair versions for DLC uncolonizables is likely an oversight.

Max extractors left at 3 for DesertFair and TerranFair is likely an oversight. DesertHome having 4 extractors instead of 3 is not a problem at all, you are simply looking at it the wrong way: while other Desert and Terran types can spawn deliberately, DesertHome needs to be explicitly defined, otherwise TerranHome will be used for homeworlds. You should not look at DesertHome as a Desert planet that happens to be a homeworld: instead, it's a homeworld type that leans towards resource production instead of credits and happens to be Desert only because Desert is the planet type that is one step below Terran in terms of tax credits. Making DesertHome extractors stand on even footing with either TerranHome or other Desert planets defeats the purpose of having a special, second type of homeworld for maps where you want to direct players towards certain playstyles.

Once again, too high max allowable resource asteroids on certain planet types is both an oversight and has no in-game effect. At worst, it can be considered a "dirty" setting.

No idea about the whole social vs. industry thing outside of the TerranHome one. My guess is that both DLC's were slightly rushed, supported by how the majority of changes in patch 1.82 were to DLC additions and that projects in the games industry tend to be rushed in general.

Now that I'm at home with the game files in front of me....

Perhaps.  But it's also a great way to limit how absurdly crazy things can get "late game" on smaller maps, especially when you consider smaller maps won't have the economy to properly support all the stuff you can get at the higher tiers.  To me, it would seem weird for a research lab or trade port to give me more at the same planet on a small map than a large.  That's supposed to be the benefit of a larger map with more space to expand.  So this, frankly, seems fine to me.

EDIT: Eh, I think I misread most of that point.  Agreed, they probably could've done most of the balancing on small maps.  They probably only had small teams testing and they probably didn't play full, long games with the AI.  It's also possible the larger maps were added in after.

You are actually correct on the boosting of the TerranHome's numbers.  I hadn't considered the smaller maps with that previously.

However, I believe you are wrong on lowering "regular" and "fair" versions of Terran.  Consider:

1) Oceanic's bonus caps at +375... TerranHome is 420.  The trade modifier penalty is the only thing that is better with the Oceanic.

2) Out of the 10 "different" types of colonizable rocks with Social/Industrial upgrades, 6 of them double their Max population with full Social.  Exceptions:

• Ferrus - ~64% increase (+90 onto a base of 140... Assuming FerrusFair is bugged, otherwise that one is even less)
• Barren - ~122% increase (+110 onto a base of 90)
• Oceanic - 150% increase (+375 onto a base of 250)
• Terran - ~321% increase (+900 onto a base of 280... using TerranHome's numbers, we'd actually be at 150% increase, same as Oceanic)

And personally... I almost think they should've stuck with doubling the pops of each world with full Social Spec'ing.

I don't quite buy that on Ferrus seems both Volcanic and Ice are limited to 1 specific resource each yet don't receive the increased extractor rate.  But actually, after discovering Ferrus' numbers, I was more inclined to think that BarrenFair was the bugged world.  I'm ok with different worlds having different extraction rates... goes to show how rich or poor they are in resources.  However, for Barren to have one set of numbers and BarrenFair to have another doesn't make sense, especially when that is not repeated to Ferrus.

EDIT: Another slight misread, I think, but on this I can simply point to the number of resource asteroids Ferrus has compared to the other single resource focused worlds.  Additionally... Volcanic pop: 70.  Ice: 160.  Ferrus: 140.  So Ferrus is in no way suffering in population, here.

Yes, of the 4 they actually made "fairs" of, all 4 have one resource type zeroed.  And yes, if you total the resource asteroids of the 4 systems, you get 3 metal and 3 crystal.  However, if they'd actually made "fair" versions of all the uncolonizables with resource asteroids, they'd not only no longer have to do something slightly "silly" such as taking a system that leaned metal and make it crystal in the "fair" version (AsteroidSpaceJunk), but they wouldn't have to cut out several systems from being able to spawn in the "fair" versions of the randoms in GalaxyDef.

I think you misunderstood me with the Desert worlds.  I have no issue with DesertHome at 4.  It balances out the lower population compared to TerranHome.  However, there's no reason why the "regular" Desert can't be given the extra resource asteroid, either, based on that same reasoning (spawn chance 1-2 for both metal and crystal).  This would not unbalance things and would actually further differentiate a "regular" Desert from a "regular" Terran.

Then you have the "fair" versions of both Desert and Terran having only 1 asteroid each that spawn?  That doesn't feel right to me.

Yes, and I noted that.  But pointed it out anyway seems I was digging around and found all the other related stuff.

Agreed, but it's been a while and they're still not fixed, so I'm wondering if they're even aware at this point.