Right now, the 7 different habitable world types differ mainly in average global temperature and humidity/water content. They all have oxygen-nitrogen atmospheres, gravity does not seem to play an important role in determining the habitability, nor do the presence/absence of certain trace minerals/other substances in the biosphere or a number of other factors. Thus those two factors should determine their habitability.
According to the information available to us, habitability of those 7 planet types is determined by their placement in 3+1 tiers with regards to a species: Those worlds of the same type as their homeworld have the highest habitability, followed by 2 world types in tier 1 with slightly lower habitability, followed by 2 types in tier 2 and so on.
The 'wheel of habitability' determines the habitability of a world type by their position on the wheel with regards to the homeworld type of a species. If a species has a continental world as a homeworld, oceanic and tropical worlds land in tier 1, desert and arctic in tier 2, and arid or tundra worlds in tier 3. If the homeworld is a tundra planet, arctic or arid worlds would be tier 1 worlds for that species and so on.
This is certainly an elegant solution for the problem, that all species should have an approx. equal chance of finding suitable colony worlds, given that all habitable planet types are going to be found in a more or less equal distribution over the map. However it leads to - at least for me - somewhat jarring inconsistencies such as in the above example, where arid and tundra worlds are less habitable than arctic or desert worlds for a species that developed on a continental world, even though the temperature gradient and/or difference in humidity compared to continental worlds should be less steep according to the description of those world types.
No matter how you sort the habitability wheel, those inconsistencies always seem to pop up, so my suggestion would be to develop a grading system where the placement of worlds in the tiers is determined solely by the difference in temperature and humidity and make that determination individually for each planet type. As an example, continental world species could keep tropical and ocean worlds in tier 1, but have arid and tundra worlds in tier 2 and arctic & desert worlds in tier 3. However, for species from desert worlds, arid and continental worlds could be tier 1, tropical and tundra tier 2, and arctic and ocean worlds tier 3.
To ensure equal starting chances the probability of certain world types appearing on the map should be influenced by how habitable those worlds are to species with homeworlds of a different type.
For example if continental worlds are tier 1 or 2 habitable for species from all other planet types, they should be more rare than desert worlds, if they are predominantly tier 3 habitable except for species from arid (tier 1) or tropical worlds (tier 2).
Of course this won't be implemented in the game at this stage of development, but maybe one of the (hopefully many) DLC expansions can replace the current system with one that is similar to one described above.
According to the information available to us, habitability of those 7 planet types is determined by their placement in 3+1 tiers with regards to a species: Those worlds of the same type as their homeworld have the highest habitability, followed by 2 world types in tier 1 with slightly lower habitability, followed by 2 types in tier 2 and so on.
The 'wheel of habitability' determines the habitability of a world type by their position on the wheel with regards to the homeworld type of a species. If a species has a continental world as a homeworld, oceanic and tropical worlds land in tier 1, desert and arctic in tier 2, and arid or tundra worlds in tier 3. If the homeworld is a tundra planet, arctic or arid worlds would be tier 1 worlds for that species and so on.
This is certainly an elegant solution for the problem, that all species should have an approx. equal chance of finding suitable colony worlds, given that all habitable planet types are going to be found in a more or less equal distribution over the map. However it leads to - at least for me - somewhat jarring inconsistencies such as in the above example, where arid and tundra worlds are less habitable than arctic or desert worlds for a species that developed on a continental world, even though the temperature gradient and/or difference in humidity compared to continental worlds should be less steep according to the description of those world types.
No matter how you sort the habitability wheel, those inconsistencies always seem to pop up, so my suggestion would be to develop a grading system where the placement of worlds in the tiers is determined solely by the difference in temperature and humidity and make that determination individually for each planet type. As an example, continental world species could keep tropical and ocean worlds in tier 1, but have arid and tundra worlds in tier 2 and arctic & desert worlds in tier 3. However, for species from desert worlds, arid and continental worlds could be tier 1, tropical and tundra tier 2, and arctic and ocean worlds tier 3.
To ensure equal starting chances the probability of certain world types appearing on the map should be influenced by how habitable those worlds are to species with homeworlds of a different type.
For example if continental worlds are tier 1 or 2 habitable for species from all other planet types, they should be more rare than desert worlds, if they are predominantly tier 3 habitable except for species from arid (tier 1) or tropical worlds (tier 2).
Of course this won't be implemented in the game at this stage of development, but maybe one of the (hopefully many) DLC expansions can replace the current system with one that is similar to one described above.
- 9
- 6
.png){kind=avatar}
