Map RNG and ways to make it better

Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

first off the new randomized stats for maps is horrid, when the lifetime of your map is determined by a RNG stat, there is no reason to buy anything but the best and doing anything other then that actively penalizes you.

the 2 options is make it so each map size has static stats and capacity, so small maps have 1500 capacity and 4000 genmat but med maps have double that capacity and 5000 genmat and large have tripple that with 6000 genamt


you make every outpost have the same lifetime no matter the size, so small, med and large are all 6000 genmat

i brought a few maps and then the sheer frustration of finally getting a map with good gemmate location and bedrock spawn, finding i accidently brought a 750 capacity map and i can barely build anything. all this dose is stifle creativity and cause player frustration.

moving onto the next part, all maps should spawn with their max capacity and at the cost of reducing your capacity you can remove bedrocks, and if you added another build menu tab for 'foundation blocks' where you can place large bedrock pre assemblies to gain capacity. this would add a layer of depth and really help with the ######### map RNG that seems to not have been addressed since alpha

example below:

(yes this is from alpha but you still get alot of maps like this and you just feel like you wasted points on a map)


  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    i would honestly rather have a selection of handmade maps made instead of the current rng based generation. i get these are ment to be ruins or something but half the time it looks like someone just dumped trash in a square

  • clownkrieger
    clownkrieger Member Posts: 121

    If that map RNG prevents you from building an ugly concrete cube for cheese traps, it does its job very good :D

    I am mainly builder and really LOVE the RNG feature, each plot is a new challenge to mess with and to build around, the random nature of available paths and the random distribution of tombs lets you think of something new every time.

    With your suggestion we would have even more bad designs that are factually the same.

  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    but the current design dosn't stop anything, people just delete that map and try again, thus all that is being added to the game is something that annoys players and a loss of resources and time.

    if the issue is boxes full of cheese traps, thats an issue with the core game, not the map

  • clownkrieger
    clownkrieger Member Posts: 121

    If you cant bring up the creativity, improvisation and patience to make something unique out of what is given to you, you gotta pay for it, makes sense to me.

    And no boxes full of cheese traps is not a game issue, its a "gamer" issue. Your suggestion would just lead to more uniformed min-maxing and stale metas.

  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    i dont think that you (the exception to the rule) finding the plots fun to build around is not a good argument to justify how it currently works when the majority of players, myself included dislike loading into a map and seeing bedrock spam. i am making an objective statement that the current system is bad. if maps capacity was determined by how much bedrock was in it or in general there was some kind of trade off, then sure, however that is not the case, you can get maps that are an empty hole in the ground and then maps with more bedrock then space, there is no trade off. a map with less bedrock map is just the superior player experience with no downsides vs a map filled with it has no upsides.

    your opinion of "ugly concrete cube for cheese traps" is not representative of the player base and the comment of "If you cant bring up the patience and creativity" is a argumentative fallacy, in fact most good builders dont do guard spam bases or big cubes cos they are only effective against unskilled players so they instead choose to focus on tight bottlenecks and trap combo setups

  • noggieB
    noggieB Alpha Surveyor Posts: 63

    I don't mind the current RNG. I enjoy working with the existing bedrock, rather than having an idea in mind before I start building. And to level up specific advisors, I can either raid, or wait.

    Also, I don't think the randomisation is so bad? It seems like you either get capacity, or you get lots of genmat, or you have to pay to get both. Like, the randomness is balanced? And even if it's not, you can spend a little synthite to reroll.

    Giving builders the ability to add or remove bedrock is an intereting idea, but probably too much work for the developers to consider.

    So let's try to make it easy for the developers. What one simple change could they make, to make you 80% happier?

    1. 1 in 4 burial sites has minimal bedrock, and they advertise it on the selection screen
    2. Rerolls are cheaper
    3. More burial sites are on offer, so you are more able to find what you are looking for
    4. 1 in 4 burial sites get the static stats you suggested (doing it for all of them would be too boring)

  • clownkrieger
    clownkrieger Member Posts: 121

    And i am just reminding you that they have to do something against repetitive building experiences and outposts shrug.

    "a map with less bedrock map is just the superior player experience with no downsides vs a map filled with it has no upsides"

    For the builder to build or for the player to play the outposts that are build on it? Your statement is not as objective as you think...

    "some kind of trade off"

    There is a tradeoff, if you want an easy plot to build whatever base (i didnt meant to attack you with the cheese box argument btw, sorry if it seemed that way) you might have to spam some plots.

    Also especially bottlenecking and trap combos dont need open space on plots, the bedrock always has enough corridors/passageways/holes to do exactly that, with the upside that its super easy to confuse the player and add some holocubes that arent super obvious.

    Being able to manipulate a plot at will serves only repetitive designs/layouts from builders side. Thats my point, i dont know if that is "objective" or an "argumentative fallacy", but im sure you gonna tell me :)

    Have a nice day, im done here.

  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    easier for devs? ok:

    1. show a preview of what ur buying b4 u buy it, u cant see everything but it gives u an idea of what your getting.
    2. rerolls arnt an issue
    3. being able to toggle between the burial site size you want so you see 8 or however many options
    4. in alpha the stats were static and no one complained, just revert it to how it was. it made sence, small maps had less genmat and took less investment to build up compared to larger maps that had more genmat to make up for the extra time needed to build them up. in general its just nicer to have more capacity to work with and same with having more genmat, having more time up means more chances for your base to be raided, the whole point of the game.

    if i had to pick one of these options, it would be option 1

  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    "For the builder to build or for the player to play the outposts that are build on it? Your statement is not as objective as you think..."

    i never commented on tombs or genmat location, they are often the main things people build around

    "Being able to manipulate a plot at will serves only repetitive designs/layouts from builders side"

    so my example of manipulating the terrain was structures, so the large clusters of bedrock with machinery spanning multiple blocks in it, so you could have large clusters of bedrock structures that you could add in exchange for increasing capacity. depending on how these structures are made (they would all have to be premade forms) would determine how much of an inconvenience they provide, there could be other requirements like said structure has to be touching bedrock so you can just have it floating out of the way. larger maps would have larger structures that would be more inhibitive to add and smaller maps would have smaller ones.

    for example, when i say a structure for a small map, im imagining something thats like 10 blocks high and maybe 5 wide and 8 deep. something of a size that u cant just put somewhere out of the way and choosing to include it would be a hindrance to some degree

  • Viktoriusiii
    Viktoriusiii Member Posts: 36

    Okay hot take:

    Let us preview the map before spending currency on it. That is at least shortterm a far easier solution. Maybe I want a base with 30% bedrock... invisible blocks are stronger than ever :D

  • Mellcor
    Mellcor Alpha Surveyor Posts: 39

    people still get frustrated working to get synthite that drops 100% slower then the amount you need, only to buy a map thats useless from them.

    no it dose not promote people to build interesting bases, becuase they know there are other maps where they dont have to deal with bad bedrock spam so it just causes frustration

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 8,139
    edited April 9

    This is definitely the simplest option. Doesn't even need to be a full preview, just give us the thumbnail, it's enough to gauge general bedrock distribution, whether there's a load above ground or not, and it's general shape. Make the genmat a very obvious bright red so you can see if that is above ground level as well.

    I've really wanted to build a tower with the genmat right at the very top, but so far every outpost has given me a sub-level genmat.