2022-01-13 FYI

[Wincil]

As I said earlier to you folks on Discord, I'm one for that feeling of endlessness of space. But even I am forced to admit the current map is way too wide. Which is why I wholeheartedly agree with Martianant above. This is something on which a great deal of optimisation could actually be done: removing the other galaxies would already make the game hella smoother (I remember the Box being a rather fluid experience, compared to previous instances of online SoH). Shrinking down the SoH galaxy, furthermore, seems necessary to me as well. It would still leave us with a gigantic area.

Lorewise, the SoH galaxy being cut off from the others could easily be justified as a part of the Ringworlds' activity, considering those can generate portals if I remember correctly. The Ringworlds' energy would have started interfering with the Shores of Hazeron galaxy core, making its trespassing impossible and fatal for an undetermined amount of time (some sort of cycles that can very well last from years to centuries, a part of the "galactic weather" being somehow affected by the remnants of an ancient, yet powerful technology). Hell, that could even be the plot for a player Adventure!

A disclaimer to conclude on my post: I am not in favour for a return to the good ol' "Box". I simply agree with shrinking down the playable area to reduce the distance between players, while having the map retain some sense of wideness and void. Compromise. And, I believe, a fair one, from which Diplomacy and overall player/empire interactions would benefit greatly. That's what it's all about, and for that reason, I can only support Martianant's point on that regard.

PS: Wincil, I don't get why you keep disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I don't believe you've ever seen a limit to the playable area in Shores of Hazeron. Me neither, by the way, it's just a way to say this: shrinking down the map will literally have no real visible effect as far as the player's perception towards the map's limits is concerned. Changes that could be noted in game would likely be:
- Performance increase. The game would be more fluid, bugs and crashes less frequent, since there would be much less space for the server to handle.
- More lively galaxy. Empires would be closer to one another. Sure, it would be a bit less safe, but it would also be more interesting, more epic. More diplomacy, more wars, more treaties, more trade, maybe, who knows? Wincil, you keep saying size isn't the problem, that the issue is that there aren't enough people. Well, we can't magically make thousands of players interested in a game all of a sudden. But a map resize would be extremely simple to perform. As Martianant stated in his post, it would likely be easy to include another galaxy if space came to lack, which I highly doubt will happen even with thousands of players considering the size of that hypothetical shrunk galaxy.

Ultimately, it's up to you, Haxus. Our experiences as players have shown that having a galaxy too wide tends to kill the activity, and that bringing players closer to one another has made the game much, much more lively. The map, even reduced to a smaller, single galaxy, can still retain that sense of giantness you want to give to the playable area.

My experience as a player haven't shown that having a galaxy that wide doesn't seen to kill the activity I don't think the map size has to be shrunken down I wouldn't be in favour for that wouldn't having players closer together increase the chance of noob stomping? It is his game you know he can do whatever he wants with it. Ngl haveing a smaller galaxy map would put me off shores of hazeron. "He usually states his opinions to contradict someone else's statement, without bringing any concrete argument or solution to" I don't and I wouldn't agree with Martianant tbh that's just my opinion. I don't think some players would agree with the galaxy or universe being shrinked down down. And btw I wasn't disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I agree with what Graydog said down below.

[Greydog]

I don't really see a need for a smaller map. How close or far empires are from each other is already a function of where you choose to spawn. Haxus would really only need to tweak that to bring those that choose to, closer together. Personally, I prefer to start in the frontier regions anyway.

[Wincil]

I don't really see a need for a smaller map. How close or far empires are from each other is already a function of where you choose to spawn. Haxus would really only need to tweak that to being those that choose to, closer together. Personally, I prefer to start in the frontier regions anyway.

Tbh I would agree with you

[Yurk Embassy]

As I said earlier to you folks on Discord, I'm one for that feeling of endlessness of space. But even I am forced to admit the current map is way too wide. Which is why I wholeheartedly agree with Martianant above. This is something on which a great deal of optimisation could actually be done: removing the other galaxies would already make the game hella smoother (I remember the Box being a rather fluid experience, compared to previous instances of online SoH). Shrinking down the SoH galaxy, furthermore, seems necessary to me as well. It would still leave us with a gigantic area.

Lorewise, the SoH galaxy being cut off from the others could easily be justified as a part of the Ringworlds' activity, considering those can generate portals if I remember correctly. The Ringworlds' energy would have started interfering with the Shores of Hazeron galaxy core, making its trespassing impossible and fatal for an undetermined amount of time (some sort of cycles that can very well last from years to centuries, a part of the "galactic weather" being somehow affected by the remnants of an ancient, yet powerful technology). Hell, that could even be the plot for a player Adventure!

A disclaimer to conclude on my post: I am not in favour for a return to the good ol' "Box". I simply agree with shrinking down the playable area to reduce the distance between players, while having the map retain some sense of wideness and void. Compromise. And, I believe, a fair one, from which Diplomacy and overall player/empire interactions would benefit greatly. That's what it's all about, and for that reason, I can only support Martianant's point on that regard.

PS: Wincil, I don't get why you keep disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I don't believe you've ever seen a limit to the playable area in Shores of Hazeron. Me neither, by the way, it's just a way to say this: shrinking down the map will literally have no real visible effect as far as the player's perception towards the map's limits is concerned. Changes that could be noted in game would likely be:
- Performance increase. The game would be more fluid, bugs and crashes less frequent, since there would be much less space for the server to handle.
- More lively galaxy. Empires would be closer to one another. Sure, it would be a bit less safe, but it would also be more interesting, more epic. More diplomacy, more wars, more treaties, more trade, maybe, who knows? Wincil, you keep saying size isn't the problem, that the issue is that there aren't enough people. Well, we can't magically make thousands of players interested in a game all of a sudden. But a map resize would be extremely simple to perform. As Martianant stated in his post, it would likely be easy to include another galaxy if space came to lack, which I highly doubt will happen even with thousands of players considering the size of that hypothetical shrunk galaxy.

Ultimately, it's up to you, Haxus. Our experiences as players have shown that having a galaxy too wide tends to kill the activity, and that bringing players closer to one another has made the game much, much more lively. The map, even reduced to a smaller, single galaxy, can still retain that sense of giantness you want to give to the playable area.

My experience as a player haven't shown that having a galaxy that wide doesn't seen to kill the activity I don't think the map size has to be shrunken down I wouldn't be in favour for that wouldn't having players closer together increase the chance of noob stomping? It is his game you know he can do whatever he wants with it. Ngl haveing a smaller galaxy map would put me off shores of hazeron. "He usually states his opinions to contradict someone else's statement, without bringing any concrete argument or solution to" I don't and I wouldn't agree with Martianant tbh that's just my opinion. I don't think some players would agree with the galaxy or universe being shrinked down down. And btw I wasn't disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I doubt Haxus would scale down the galaxy and reduce the number of galaxies I think Haxus can do what ever he wants to do with the game so its not in our place to say.

You're literally just disagreeing right now. I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings in any way, pal. I'm inviting you to take notice of it and reflect upon it. You did bring up noob stomping however, and to this I will reply: if you want to play an online game where there are no rules of engagement and no Geneva Convention, you're gonna be exposed to some degree of risk. The point of playing an online game is for player interactions to actually occur. Of. Course. There are going to be risks involved. Every unknown empire you encounter is a potential partner, ally, enemy. That's the whole point of playing a game like SoH online: meeting other players/other empires. Now, a good way to be safe is to simply engage in diplomacy wisely by signing alliances or becoming a powerful empire's vassal, between others (hence the advantage of being reasonably close to other empires, otherwise they won't even be able to protect you), or by simply joining an existing empire (that way, you're already backed by the very structure of the empire you find yourself in).

When it comes to your "It's Haxus' decision, its not in our place to say." point, I will soberly dismiss it as I haven't spoken otherwise myself. As I wrote near the end of my previous post: "Ultimately, it's up to you, Haxus." He's the one calling the shots. But we, the community, are free to make suggestions, and debate them.

I don't really see a need for a smaller map. How close or far empires are from each other is already a function of where you choose to spawn. Haxus would really only need to tweak that to being those that choose to, closer together. Personally, I prefer to start in the frontier regions anyway.

I mean, in my opinion the question shouldn't be whether or not making the map smaller would be necessary or not, but rather: do we even need that much space in the first place? The playable area as of now is exceedingly huge, and making it reasonably smaller would not change anything for the endless-space enthusiasts, of which I am quite the partisan, believe me. However, it would certainly optimise the game quite a lot and allow it to fulfill the very core of its multiplayer experience. Even, say, four millions star systems would be absolutely titanic, and the frontier regions would likely still be acceptably remote. But with such a change, empires who actually want to engage in politics, diplomacy, war, and so on, would be enabled to actually do so without travelling ridiculously long distances. As I said, it's about compromise--the game has to fit various playstyles and incite players who want to interact to do so, otherwise it might as well remain a solo game.

[Deantwo]

Everyone keeps talking about how to fix the problem with weird over complicated solutions like "Safe space" or "civilized space" and a bunch of NPC empires that would end up introducing weirdness mechanics wise.

The bottom line is combat and war need to be fixed. War needs to take longer. It should have some kind of lead up period, so the defender can rally allies/friends. It needs to take time to actually take a system, so the defender and friends can field a fleet. There can be no epic battle stories if the battles take play within hours while everyone else is offline.

If people can live near by other people and not fear total destruction while they are asleep, if they can have some kind of guarantee that the friends they live near by could actually help defend them, then they would probably live near each other! We don't need to have an artificial reason for a civilized space to exist. And I don't want to speak for Haxus, but I feel like he would rather see this kind of space develop organically by players with player empires interacting.

Yes, this is exactly what Staines and I were talking about. And somewhat the topic of my old idea thread that I linked to.

You want to conquer a solar system, you park a big warship in the solar system and give it the order to siege. The ship will defend its area and broadcast propaganda on the Hail channel. Cities in the solar system (regardless of owner) will then start requesting help on the Friend channel. Once the solar system has been under siege this way for a week or so, the solar system enters a "contested" state that allow the attacker to invade, capture or bombard the cities.

Defender thereby have a whole week to try and stop the sieging ship with whatever means. Be it attacking it directly, requesting help from neighbors to deal with it, or even negotiate peace with the attacker. This would slow down war a lot, but I am not sure that we have ever wanted war in Hazeron to be super fast.

The time needed to siege a solar system is a little hard to decide on. Maybe basing it on the amount of population in the solar system and/or capital statuses of the cities.

I am not sure how this would work with the noncombatant system. You should probably be able to siege a system even if the owner(s) are offline, but then even once the solar system has been contested the attacker likely has to wait for them to come online to proceed with the attack.

The Idea thread isn't long, but I like not having all my ideas only mentioned in forgettable update threads.
So, here: (Idea thread) Conquest of Solar Systems

I also think having 20 galaxies is way too much. Especially given the player counts. One galaxy is plenty of space, and if there was ever a case where it wasn't then adding another galaxy would be pretty easy.

I don't have much to say on the topic of universe size. I am sure that the problem will fix itself as more reasons for player interaction and cooperation are implemented. The biggest issue we seem to have with multiple galaxies is the weird rush to get there first, and then those players get bored once they are too far from other players.

I will however say that it is easier to expand the universe later than it is to reduce it.

[Wincil]

As I said earlier to you folks on Discord, I'm one for that feeling of endlessness of space. But even I am forced to admit the current map is way too wide. Which is why I wholeheartedly agree with Martianant above. This is something on which a great deal of optimisation could actually be done: removing the other galaxies would already make the game hella smoother (I remember the Box being a rather fluid experience, compared to previous instances of online SoH). Shrinking down the SoH galaxy, furthermore, seems necessary to me as well. It would still leave us with a gigantic area.

Lorewise, the SoH galaxy being cut off from the others could easily be justified as a part of the Ringworlds' activity, considering those can generate portals if I remember correctly. The Ringworlds' energy would have started interfering with the Shores of Hazeron galaxy core, making its trespassing impossible and fatal for an undetermined amount of time (some sort of cycles that can very well last from years to centuries, a part of the "galactic weather" being somehow affected by the remnants of an ancient, yet powerful technology). Hell, that could even be the plot for a player Adventure!

A disclaimer to conclude on my post: I am not in favour for a return to the good ol' "Box". I simply agree with shrinking down the playable area to reduce the distance between players, while having the map retain some sense of wideness and void. Compromise. And, I believe, a fair one, from which Diplomacy and overall player/empire interactions would benefit greatly. That's what it's all about, and for that reason, I can only support Martianant's point on that regard.

PS: Wincil, I don't get why you keep disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I don't believe you've ever seen a limit to the playable area in Shores of Hazeron. Me neither, by the way, it's just a way to say this: shrinking down the map will literally have no real visible effect as far as the player's perception towards the map's limits is concerned. Changes that could be noted in game would likely be:
- Performance increase. The game would be more fluid, bugs and crashes less frequent, since there would be much less space for the server to handle.
- More lively galaxy. Empires would be closer to one another. Sure, it would be a bit less safe, but it would also be more interesting, more epic. More diplomacy, more wars, more treaties, more trade, maybe, who knows? Wincil, you keep saying size isn't the problem, that the issue is that there aren't enough people. Well, we can't magically make thousands of players interested in a game all of a sudden. But a map resize would be extremely simple to perform. As Martianant stated in his post, it would likely be easy to include another galaxy if space came to lack, which I highly doubt will happen even with thousands of players considering the size of that hypothetical shrunk galaxy.

Ultimately, it's up to you, Haxus. Our experiences as players have shown that having a galaxy too wide tends to kill the activity, and that bringing players closer to one another has made the game much, much more lively. The map, even reduced to a smaller, single galaxy, can still retain that sense of giantness you want to give to the playable area.

My experience as a player haven't shown that having a galaxy that wide doesn't seen to kill the activity I don't think the map size has to be shrunken down I wouldn't be in favour for that wouldn't having players closer together increase the chance of noob stomping? It is his game you know he can do whatever he wants with it. Ngl haveing a smaller galaxy map would put me off shores of hazeron. "He usually states his opinions to contradict someone else's statement, without bringing any concrete argument or solution to" I don't and I wouldn't agree with Martianant tbh that's just my opinion. I don't think some players would agree with the galaxy or universe being shrinked down down. And btw I wasn't disagreeing with everything people say without bringing proper arguments onto the table. I doubt Haxus would scale down the galaxy and reduce the number of galaxies I think Haxus can do what ever he wants to do with the game so its not in our place to say.

You're literally just disagreeing right now. I'm not saying that to hurt your feelings in any way, pal. I'm inviting you to take notice of it and reflect upon it. You did bring up noob stomping however, and to this I will reply: if you want to play an online game where there are no rules of engagement and no Geneva Convention, you're gonna be exposed to some degree of risk. The point of playing an online game is for player interactions to actually occur. Of. Course. There are going to be risks involved. Every unknown empire you encounter is a potential partner, ally, enemy. That's the whole point of playing a game like SoH online: meeting other players/other empires. Now, a good way to be safe is to simply engage in diplomacy wisely by signing alliances or becoming a powerful empire's vassal, between others (hence the advantage of being reasonably close to other empires, otherwise they won't even be able to protect you), or by simply joining an existing empire (that way, you're already backed by the very structure of the empire you find yourself in).

When it comes to your "It's Haxus' decision, its not in our place to say." point, I will soberly dismiss it as I haven't spoken otherwise myself. As I wrote near the end of my previous post: "Ultimately, it's up to you, Haxus." He's the one calling the shots. But we, the community, are free to make suggestions, and debate them.

I don't really see a need for a smaller map. How close or far empires are from each other is already a function of where you choose to spawn. Haxus would really only need to tweak that to being those that choose to, closer together. Personally, I prefer to start in the frontier regions anyway.

I mean, in my opinion the question shouldn't be whether or not making the map smaller would be necessary or not, but rather: do we even need that much space in the first place? The playable area as of now is exceedingly huge, and making it reasonably smaller would not change anything for the endless-space enthusiasts, of which I am quite the partisan, believe me. However, it would certainly optimise the game quite a lot and allow it to fulfill the very core of its multiplayer experience. Even, say, four millions star systems would be absolutely titanic, and the frontier regions would likely still be acceptably remote. But with such a change, empires who actually want to engage in politics, diplomacy, war, and so on, would be enabled to actually do so without travelling ridiculously long distances. As I said, it's about compromise--the game has to fit various playstyles and incite players who want to interact to do so, otherwise it might as well remain a solo game.

I don't think travelling ridiculously long distances remain in a solo a game called elite dangerous did something like that even though it's just one galaxy. I think it would be much easier to expand the universe later than it is to reduce it tbh. I'm pretty much used to traveling ridiculously huge distances.

[martianant]

I am not sure how this would work with the noncombatant system. You should probably be able to siege a system even if the owner(s) are offline, but then even once the solar system has been contested the attacker likely has to wait for them to come online to proceed with the attack.

With that kind of system, you don't need "offline protection" at all because the defender has plenty of time to respond.

[Deantwo]

I am not sure how this would work with the noncombatant system. You should probably be able to siege a system even if the owner(s) are offline, but then even once the solar system has been contested the attacker likely has to wait for them to come online to proceed with the attack.

With that kind of system, you don't need "offline protection" at all because the defender has plenty of time to respond.

Yeah that is somewhat my conclusion too. The new protection that Haxus has been implementing for noncombatant feature could just be there by default until a solar system is contested. But this of course all assume that you login once per week (or whatever length of time a siege might be for tiny outpost systems) in order to notice you are under siege.
I don't think it is impossible to have both this type of conquest mechanic and the noncombatant protection at the same time though, but it might be a little weird if the defender can just refuse to login so the siege goes on forever.

The noncombatant feature does seem like it fits nicely for an adventure player at least. That is when we are talking about just a single ship owned by a captain and he has parked it in a safe harbor.

[Yurk Embassy]

What's your point you trying to get across here? I think this would kinda would change anything for the endless-space enthusiasts why would travelling ridiculously long distances remain in a solo game? a game like elite dangerous did something like that even though it's just one galaxy. in my opinion the question should be whether or not making the map smaller would be necessary or not.

I mean, CPU and server performance are important as well. I myself see absolutely no point of having an universe so huge it's never going to be explored to even 1% of its entire volume when these resources could actually be saved for better InGame performance. That's just a waste. Martianant made a thread a good three hours ago in which he presented accurate calculations to determine the approximate number of star systems in different galaxies and in the whole universe, based on the galaxies' size.

https://www.hazeron.com/mybb/showthread....12#pid8612

1,724,064,000 star systems total in the playable area. That's more than one billion and a half. We do not need two BILLION star systems for the game to feel endless and huge. At this point we're talking numbers so high changing them won't even make the map's size feel any different for the average spacefarer. This is unnecessarily gigantic, and it still would be unnecessarily gigantic for a good 10,000 players--in fact, even with that many players, I'd be surprised if even a thousandth of it all got explored by 2025. A thousandth. Do you even realise the absurd scale of it?

[Deantwo]

I mean, CPU and server performance are important as well. I myself see absolutely no point of having an universe so huge it's never going to be explored to even 1% of its entire volume when these resources could actually be saved for better InGame performance. That's just a waste. Martianant made a thread a good three hours ago in which he presented accurate calculations to determine the approximate number of star systems in different galaxies and in the whole universe, based on the galaxies' size.

Just to get this misconception out of the way. The number of galaxies or size of said galaxies doesn't matter from a performance point of view. Hazeron only generate a solar system when it is visited for the first time, and if the solar system is left empty with no visitors for an extended period of time it is deleted and can be re-generated again later when revisited.

So server resource wise, only inhabited space matter. There might be a slight spike in server resource usage when a lot of exploration is going on, but it will automatically be cleaned up again after a while.