I guess the question is one of basic philosophy. Do you think that every planet in every galaxy, or near enough so, should be able to be a profitable colony, or should planets capable of being a profitable colony be rare and exciting to find, and a challenge to string together to form a coherent team territory?

I think I would rather have a vast Wild Space with great planets few and far between, than a compacted small Wild Space where every single galaxy has several great planets.

I think most planets should be coloable after a lot of effort in terraforming. Reducing the amount of 100% colos was a great idea, they are 0 effort colonies which is a little silly. Reducing the overall amount of colos and spreading them out more is just an annoyance factor no one wants to face. I have a number in my head that I will get to no matter what, making it harder for me to achieve that number just causes severe apathy on my end.

When I run into a galaxy of 15~ 28% or less planets I am strongly discourages, what sucky ass luck that 15 planets and an entire galaxy is useless.

The argument here is that certain players are making a lot of money from colonies. What is not being addressed is that you need at least 2 account, more like 3, a very strong drive and great knowledge of the game in order to make a large number of successful colonies. Anyone can make 4, 10 is doable, 20? 30+? The amount of people who do this is fairly small and they have laid down a strong support base in order to accomplish it. They are also the only ones being hurt by it.

The trouble with that philosophy is that even if there's a galaxy with absolutely nothing worth building on in it, you STILL have to build in it. Connectors suck and are often painful.

Better to have more tight clusters of galaxies that an annoyingly spread out teamspace. It's just not fun otherwise.

Why not make it galaxy ownership can happen within 2j of an alrady owned gal. That way you dont need as many connectors but your sacrificing space that could possibly be used by the enemy to launch an attack?

Unless you have a mass of T21 ships, galaxies can be made impenetrable to conventional attack squads.

Just tested my teammate's galaxy. I put out more or less 75k dps with my MTR, compounded by the T20 kit's weakness, and still didn't do much of a dent. And the kit was being healed...

Having more attackers is balanced out by the fact my team outnumbers the enemy 3 to 1.

The whole border is like that.

yeah out of the 3 galaxies I own there's only 1 baobabs above a lot, which is BS. But according to jeff this is random.

ALTHOUGH aren't baobabs and space oats LESS likely to be on low suitability planets? this would explain it... and it has always seemed this way to me. That temperate planets have the organics. So by decreasing 100% planets there are less baobabs/space oats.

I have a full galaxy worth of noxious/blistering, more than 10 planets. Built there anyways because saw something moderately useful, but would be nice to want to make colonies... I don't when there's no baobabs/oats

I don't really mind that they show up more on high suit planets since, as I said, I personally use 37%+. Last uni however I think 22 out of 36 colos had Bao on them. This uni I have 1 source atm, I'll actually need to lay an Ada kit to secure a planet that has loads ^^

Extremes are no fun.

I wouldnt because a player generally takes a group of galaxies that are joined together. they dont take 4 gals but 4 good ones ones dotted here and there

under this distribution you get one mediocre gal and 2-3 connectors..load of crap

Yeah topbuzz is correct. If I found one very decent galaxy this universe, it was surrounded by a ton of terrible galaxies. Which is why I right now own an outpost 10 jumps away from the rest of my team space.

You need to get rid of the fact that people almost spend half their StM gear and slots on connector kits just to connect their two main galaxies.

This is a painful example of an idea looking sound on paper but in practicality it blows.

Have to agree with the StM bit. Though I still agree with owning needing to be connected, connecting needs to be easier... or something... Even if it means they'd be easier to destroy by players. An anti-termite base now requires either ambrosia Y or higher gear on a non-stm base connector.

I didn't really find a problem with finding galaxies together that completely sucked but more with ones that didn't have baobabs/oats

What would be the point of having a universe full of garbage? Where could the player actually make an interesting decision (or a mistake) if say perhaps, 99% of the universe is utter trash, and 1% is an absolute no-brainer that you take? Your idea is one that provides a setting that in my oppinion does little to improve the depth and skill in the game. The universe already *is* quite vast with multiple layers, making it more devoid of resources does very little to improve the game.

Here is basically what the last 10-15 gals ive scanned (ENIAC) has looked like:

The overall level of quality of commodities on planets is fine, their suitability is a bit lower, but I am not bothered by it. But as others have said, the empty galaxies are extremely annoying. Empty galaxies make travelling length longer, exhaust station slots, and in general makes the game feel empty.

If I wanted to play a game where the world felt vast and empty I would try EVE Online, not Star Sonata. It would be more enjoyable for the average player and make the game feel faster-paced/exciting if buildable space was a bit tighter and of a somewhat higher quality.

Also, anyone find it slightly amusing that a galaxy/system can have literally butt-fuck nothing in it?