Suggestion - Planet values - Long term

There’s not much wrong with planet values how they are currently implemented.
As it is one can see that values are randomised between 100-150 in gal 1 and 80-110? in neighboring gals. With planet sizes equally bigger/smaller between gal 1 and other gals.

Here are some arguments about changing the way these numbers are generated. Some of them are based on how our own solar system looks like, others on the impact on the game.

  1. energy is solar power themed, so the distance to the star in the system should be relevant.
  2. Food isn’t implemented but if it was: the value for food could be correlated to our own solar system where “earth” is the sweet spot for food production and planets closer and farther away from the sweet spot should have gradually decreasing food values.
  3. As it is right now planets in gal 1 will always be better than planets in other gals, which promotes conflict in gal 1 but makes the use of scanning a lot less relevant.
  4. Having every planet in one galaxy bigger than every planet in another galaxy is a bit…strange. Even stranger is that in each galaxy all planets are about the same size.


  • Implement a value “star brightness” for each individual system. (for example a range between 70% and 129%) (these values are chosen carefully, see food section calculations)
  • Calculate output for energy producing facilities like this:
    $default_output * $star-brightness * (1.3 - ($planet_system_index/10))
    Example: Solar generator on 4th planet in a system with star brightness 90%
    100 * 0.9 * (1.2 - (4/10)) = 81
    Worst case scenario: 100 * 0.71 * 0.6 = 42 // Best case scenario: 100 * 1.29 * 1.1 = 141.9
  • food related:
    the sweet spot for food could be calculated on star brightness. With max value the last planet and least value the first planet. The others should gradually lower.
    Star brightness 0.70 till 0.79 => first planet gets 120% food production, last planet 60% with a 12% decrease per planet.
    Star brightness 1.1 till 1.19 => fifth planet gets 120% food production, first planet 72%
    This could be combined with a fertility factor for each planet for planet based production centers (it doesn’t make sence to have it in space)
    This could be between 80% and 120% for example
    Farm would then be $default_value * (1.2 - Math_Absolute($planet_index - (Math_Round_down(($star_brightness*10)-6))) * 0.12) * $planet_fertility_index

powershell example:
$default_value = 100
$planet_index = 6
$star_brightness = 0.79
$planet_fertility_index = 1.2

$output = $default_value * (1.2 - [Math]::Abs($planet_index - ([Math]::truncate((($star_brightness * 10)-6)))) * 0.12) * $planet_fertility_index

For space based food production just drop the fertility index.

  • to add more variation in the planets available in the galaxies and to make scanning more relevant I would make the randomization boundaries not value bound but planet bound.
    So instead of having each individual value between 100 and 150 in gal one i would propose to vary between 50 and 150 in all galaxies but instead have the sum of these values as a limit to differentiate between galaxies AND get more variations on planets.
    The SUM in gal 1 should then be minimum 300 for example.
    The extreme factor then being one value 50 and the other 2 between 100 and 150 These extremes also make for perfect metal/mineral planets (150 metal, 50 mineral, 100 energy for example) but you could also get a very different planet (75 metal, 75 mineral, 150 energy) which would promote this planet for production for example.
    (this is for the current metal-mineral-energy setup ofcourse, if one would use the fertility index/star brightness as stated above then other number generating options should be used.)

Planet sizes could then be generated in a similar way. So you could end up with a low planet size, huge space size planet with the 2nd example from above or a huge planet size low space size planet with extreme metal or mineral values for optimum production.

This would make planets in gal 1 generally better, but it could be you find a “better empty planet” in another galaxy than a remaining empty one in gal 1.

This would make scanning planets a lot more important AND would promote conflict over the “best” planets.

It’s a long read, some of you might not even get the calculations and I apologize up front.

1 Like

Actually a very interesting concept. My worry is that it might make the game less accessible for new players even though its a more natural approach.

Bring back fusion reactors!

An interesting way to diversify the planet distribution.
Especially the planet based total points, based per galaxy is nice.

An extension of this could be that rather than each planet having X points to distribute, the system could have X points to distribute over all planets. With gal 1 then having a higher value to distribute per system, creating more potentially good and specialist planets there, while still able to have crappy ones there.
Inversely, outer galaxies could have a lower points per system, but there might still be very good planets between them.

Also I agree that the base sizes being universally better for gal 1 is odd.

As for accessibility to new players, I don’t see the problem? As long as the end result is clearly stated that shouldn’t be a problem? So gal 1 has a better chance for good planets, and other gals can have just as good planets, but overall less good (or with the extension idea, equally good but less likely).