Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
*First Glance*
"Sweet! Large Terran!"
*Upon further review*
"Ugh! Ultra poor High Gravity"
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=799512656
I mean, it isn't 9 out of 10 planets that suck, it is more like 19 out of 20...
Praise the Gods if you can find a Tundra Abundant with Normal Gravity...
Far as I can tell, star type has zero influence on what planets it has.
On the other hand, I'm still not clear as to what the seed number actually does. (There seems to be some confusion as to whether maps are table driven, like MOO3, or RNG.) It could be that High Density is just some percentage or multiplyer above whatever number of planets it would pick for each system at Normal Density.
Not sure why, but the first idea feels more likely. But, if I were designing a game like this, the second idea would likely be the route I'd take.