Wow! It's physically possible to live there. Surely this translates to thriving colonies of billions of contented beings.
Better Planet Types
- Thread starter SacremPyrobolum
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Humans can survive but not thrive in every biome. The worlds in Stellaris are divided by the temperature and the amount/state of water located on the world. Dry being hot and having little water, wet being what Humans consider average/comfortable temperature with plenty of liquid water, and Frozen being cold with the water being found in the form of ice/snow.
We aren't thriving in the Arctic or in Antarctica, as anyone in those locations needs supplies from warmer areas regularly delivered. Consider in northern Canada, where it doesn't ever really get warm, so many people don't want to live there. Farming isn't an option, and they don't really produce much of anything on their own, so planes fly supplies there rather regularly. Those supplies are then rather expensive when sold in stores because of all the effort it takes just to get them there. Arctic, Tundra, and Alpine worlds in Stellaris are essentially completely like this, and Humans would only be able to make extremely limited use of them. Now imagine a cold-blooded reptile trying to stay warm there...
Now think of the people living in areas of the world that are Deserts, and consider that they are mostly what the world considers third-world countries. The ability to grow food in the desert isn't nearly as good as in other areas. Additionally, our biology isn't well suited to the temperatures found in deserts, we have to take great care to avoid dehydration and too much time in the heat in those places. Humans live in these places because they grow up there and learn to manage it, but realistically, if the entire planet were green like they are in Stellaris then people would be much happier living in the more comfortable average temperatures. A Plantoid species native to an Arctic world would be well adapted to growing in the cold, but would not be able to handle the 'high' temperature found on a Wet type world, let alone a Dry Desert.
The only way the planets could be changed to what you would view as more realistic, would be if all the species types were individualized to have their own advantages and disadvantages (especially based on planet types). That of course has been covered by the devs, who said (rightly so) that they don't want to limit players choices of portraits by play style, so they leave each portrait and species type as a purely cosmetic choice to allow for player freedom.
If anything, the 'solution' to the problem you're having would be that any world can be colonized, but if it isn't the type of world your people are native to then they can't use the whole planet without research. Basically, give each tile a temperature marker that would make a 'Dry planet type' species only able to use the Hot tiles, while a 'Frozen planet type' species would only be able to use Cold tiles, and 'Wet planet type' species would use the 'average' tiles. This would allow players the option to deny another empire from colonizing a system, but would also place you at a disadvantage if you don't have better suited species in your empire or technology to negate temperature. You'd be locked to only a small number of tiles, limited essentially to a small settlement.
That's the only sort of realism you could get without starting to truly limit players.
We aren't thriving in the Arctic or in Antarctica, as anyone in those locations needs supplies from warmer areas regularly delivered. Consider in northern Canada, where it doesn't ever really get warm, so many people don't want to live there. Farming isn't an option, and they don't really produce much of anything on their own, so planes fly supplies there rather regularly. Those supplies are then rather expensive when sold in stores because of all the effort it takes just to get them there. Arctic, Tundra, and Alpine worlds in Stellaris are essentially completely like this, and Humans would only be able to make extremely limited use of them. Now imagine a cold-blooded reptile trying to stay warm there...
Now think of the people living in areas of the world that are Deserts, and consider that they are mostly what the world considers third-world countries. The ability to grow food in the desert isn't nearly as good as in other areas. Additionally, our biology isn't well suited to the temperatures found in deserts, we have to take great care to avoid dehydration and too much time in the heat in those places. Humans live in these places because they grow up there and learn to manage it, but realistically, if the entire planet were green like they are in Stellaris then people would be much happier living in the more comfortable average temperatures. A Plantoid species native to an Arctic world would be well adapted to growing in the cold, but would not be able to handle the 'high' temperature found on a Wet type world, let alone a Dry Desert.
The only way the planets could be changed to what you would view as more realistic, would be if all the species types were individualized to have their own advantages and disadvantages (especially based on planet types). That of course has been covered by the devs, who said (rightly so) that they don't want to limit players choices of portraits by play style, so they leave each portrait and species type as a purely cosmetic choice to allow for player freedom.
If anything, the 'solution' to the problem you're having would be that any world can be colonized, but if it isn't the type of world your people are native to then they can't use the whole planet without research. Basically, give each tile a temperature marker that would make a 'Dry planet type' species only able to use the Hot tiles, while a 'Frozen planet type' species would only be able to use Cold tiles, and 'Wet planet type' species would use the 'average' tiles. This would allow players the option to deny another empire from colonizing a system, but would also place you at a disadvantage if you don't have better suited species in your empire or technology to negate temperature. You'd be locked to only a small number of tiles, limited essentially to a small settlement.
That's the only sort of realism you could get without starting to truly limit players.
It might be, but also not really economical. It is cheaper to build in more temperate climates than in what we would consider extreme ones. Even physics breaking technology would not make colonizing such a planet worth the effort unless there is some lucrative resource you couldn't get anywhere else cheaper.
*shrug* Having life bearing planets be differentiated only by the color of their fauna or an invisible gas is boring, and boring trumps stupid.
The planet climate abstraction is a gameplay mechanic that has more to do with your species than your planet. You pick a habitability where your species THRIVES and planets represent a dominant climate for those worlds. Of course there are other biomes on that planet. Of course the Jungle world that the Dixie-Pig Confederacy has colonized has deserts, oceans, a temperate ring. But it's dominant climate is Jungle, and since that is where the Dixie Pigs thrive, that is where they colonize.
I understand what you're asking for, but it's not going to happen anytime soon for this game. As has been mentioned - the 'planet as whole biome' thing works for several, non-realism reasons.
1. It gives you immediate, visual feedback on where you can colonise: Shouldn't have to explain this further. It's even partially colour coded.
2. It works as an easy shorthand for additional planets you can colonise ie: you come from a wet planet? Congrats, you live on other wet planets.
3. Your not bothered by having to look too hard for where to settle. Your more focuses on what resources are a available, instead of needing.to check a barometer to see what's feasible for your species.
1. It gives you immediate, visual feedback on where you can colonise: Shouldn't have to explain this further. It's even partially colour coded.
2. It works as an easy shorthand for additional planets you can colonise ie: you come from a wet planet? Congrats, you live on other wet planets.
3. Your not bothered by having to look too hard for where to settle. Your more focuses on what resources are a available, instead of needing.to check a barometer to see what's feasible for your species.
Pretty sure they mentioned pre-release that they tried iterating on the "multiple biomes per planet" and scrapped it pretty quick because it just wasn't fun due to too much micromanagement (cKnoor said something like 'I don't want to realize only after I've colonized a planet that all of the food I saw is on tiles I can't use'). I can think of some ways to offset this in addition to what you suggest - like mandating a 2-tile radius from the center that has to be the primary biome so it's easier to tell at a glance what you will initially have to work with. But, still more trouble than it's worth.
Aside from gameplay concerns OP's argument is misguided for two reasons:
1) Arguing realism for realism's sake in a game with space dragons isn't going to get you far
2) As OP admits, defining planets by biome (desert, ocean, continental) rather than by atmosphere is a common sci-fi trope. This game is built on sci-fi tropes, as homages to other series - that's largely the point. It's more a celebration of sci-fi as a genre than a realistic simulation of space colonization.
As I said in a later post, if they were going to put some work into that, that's a reasonable approach, but the current system works just fine, so I don't expect it happening anytime soon.
The problem you mentioned would not really be an issue if a planet was required to have a minimum number of tiles in its primary biome. A 16 tile continental planet would for example have a minimum of 12 continental tiles and could possibly have up to four tiles of a different biome in the same group. A 25 tile planet would have At least 16 tiles of the main biome and could have up to 6 tiles of biomes in the same group and up to 3 tiles of a completely different group. And an 11 tile planet would only have 0-2 tiles of a biome in the same group.
Add to that the ability to terraform tiles after colonization, to research tech that allows you to settle in unsuitable biomes and using gene modding or other species to fill up the unsuitable tiles, as well as fewer blockers that are more likely to spawn in secondary biomes. And it stops being a frustrating feature, or at least not more frustrating than the tile blockers.
I want to make megacity planets too :/ like 40k Hive cities.
also at OP, it's like this because the game is Space opera memes come to life.
probably stellaris already have such technology - terraforming.
also with highly adaptive and some buildings\tech you can live on any planet without issues.
to the OP:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=819148835 - mod that adds huge amount of planet types. probably you may like it if you want more planet types (27 iirc)
Ew, really? 40K just made me feel so gross, almost everyone lives in grimdark squalor. I mean I guess given some people's playstyles that would fit in quite well, but still.
Although I do like the idea of a megacity/ecumenopolis type planet, I doubt the devs will be working on it any time soon. I'm actually pretty sure I saw a thread about that a few days ago.
There's a huge difference between living in a desert biome of a continental world and living on a desert planet. It would be even dryer, and probably have larger temperature differences between night and day - and such. Extending Sahara to a worldwide scale would due to natural processes, turn into something worse than Sahara. Then mind how people already have problems living in such areas unless they are near water, which is quite rare on desert worlds.
Why does this game need to ne 100% realistic to be enjoyable? I personally think the planet system is fine as is, and a pretty good system. But if you wanted this game to be realistic, than no FTL, everyone would either be much more advanced then you or very weak compared to you, as it would be really rare to have someone at the same tech level as you, the Hive Minds coming in 1.5 couldnt exist unless it was mechanical, it would take years for ships to travel from on end of a solar system to another, you get what im trying to lay doqn here? Just cuz something is "more realistic" doesnt mean it adds to your game. A certain degree of realism should be applied, but in the case of planet types, its really not needed.