Concern about the 7 planet types and a proposed solution

[Eldorian]

Reading over the planet types, I'm not quite happy with them. Mostly because you get situations like continental natives preferring arctic to tundra, but it seems like humans would prefer the tundra, or arid natives preferring tropical to continental.

So the idea I had was to increase it to 8 planet types by default, based on two axes, wet vs dry and hot vs cold.

So the circle would look like ocean, wetland, continental, savanna, desert, tundra, ice and glacial, then back to ocean. Wetland could be substituted as swamp, though swamp kinda implies forest in most usages, tho it's got a lot of leeway in English. And I'm not particularly happy with ice, but I couldn't think of a better, evocative term for the cold planet. Other than just cold, or frigid, or some synonym. I'm trying to avoid names that are inspired by particular latitudes on Earth, like arctic or tropical.

Maybe this will work in a mod since the game is coming out so soon?

edit: It seems people aren't understanding what I wrote (or not reading it, or I'm unclear). It's a circle of 8 with Gaia in the middle. Continental is the hot world. Hot here means above freezing.

edit again: A chart to help people.

------------- | --- Hot ------ | - Temperate - | --- Cold ---
Wet ------- | Wetland---- | Ocean ------- | Glacial
Moderate | Continental | Gaia----------- | Ice
Dry --------| Savanna--- | Desert--------- | Tundra

 

[Admiral Howe]

This is actually been gone over a number of times and I think Paradox won most people over with their explanation.

It works out that your homeworld has a habitability of 100%...after all it is your home.

Now worlds of the same type but not your home have a -20% penalty...giving you a max of 80%.

The two types adjacent to that are near enough that they only have another -20% penalty (if I recall correctly). Sp 60% max.

The next two are removed enough to warrant something like -40, so a 20% max.

And the final two are simply inhospitable to your people barring major planetary engineering.

To do this simple of a system requires an odd number of planets. An even number breaks up the whole paradigm and requires something else.

 

[Eldorian]

This is actually been gone over a number of times and I think Paradox won most people over with their explanation.

It works out that your homeworld has a habitability of 100%...after all it is your home.

Now worlds of the same type but not your home have a -20% penalty...giving you a max of 80%.

The two types adjacent to that are near enough that they only have another -20% penalty (if I recall correctly). Sp 60% max.

The next two are removed enough to warrant something like -40, so a 20% max.

And the final two are simply inhospitable to your people barring major planetary engineering.

To do this simple of a system requires an odd number of planets. An even number breaks up the whole paradigm and requires something else.

Don't see how this is an argument against what I wrote. You could divide the planet types into 5 tiers instead of 4, of Ideal, close, far, farther, opposite.

My point is that the current system with 7 doesn't seem to divide into logical criteria, like temperature or amount of water like my proposed system. Which is why you get humans preferring arctic to tundra, when from the descriptions the arctic is basically snowball, and tundra is ice age.

 

[barny]

This is pretty much a gameplay/balance>reality thing. You have to balance it out in such a way, that all home world types are equally valid.

A species from a continental world would sit right in the middle of such a " wet vs dry and hot vs cold" axis system, giving it substantial advantages by being able to go into both directions on those axis.

A species that would be from the ends of the axis (like a hot and dry home world) could only move in one direction on the axis, effectively cutting their available planets that somewhat suit them in half compared to the continental dwellers.

 

[Eldorian]

This is pretty much a gameplay/balance>reality thing. You have to balance it out in such a way, that all home world types are equally valid.

A species from a continental world would sit right in the middle of such a " wet vs dry and hot vs cold" axis system, giving it substantial advantages by being able to go into both directions on those axis.

A species that would be from the ends of the axis (like a hot and dry home world) could only move in one direction on the axis, effectively cutting their available planets that somewhat suit them in half compared to the continental dwellers.

You didn't read my post, because it's Gaia that sits in the middle, and continental is the hot world.

 

[Oscot]

Don't see how this is an argument against what I wrote. You could divide the planet types into 5 tiers instead of 4, of Ideal, close, far, farther, opposite.

My point is that the current system with 7 doesn't seem to divide into logical criteria, like temperature or amount of water like my proposed system. Which is why you get humans preferring arctic to tundra, when from the descriptions the arctic is basically snowball, and tundra is ice age.

We have already kinda jumped off the top of the logic diving board by having Single Biome Planets.*
So the whole discussion is of the lipstick-on-a-pig variety. No point trying to push Believable Worlds on a system which already has none for entirely different reasons.

* A decision which I in fact support because, while it does require your brain to take a holiday, it also is an effective way of encouraging species diversity, and thus adds more to the gameplay than it takes away.

 

[Eldorian]

We have already kinda jumped off the top of the logic diving board by having Single Biome Planets.*
So the whole discussion is of the lipstick-on-a-pig variety. No point trying to push Believable Worlds on a system which already has none for entirely different reasons.

* A decision which I in fact support because, while it does require your brain to take a holiday, it also is an effective way of encouraging species diversity, and thus adds more to the gameplay than it takes away.

Actually, if each planet is based on it's location on a plane, with Gaia at the center, and the two axes temperature and water, then it's not "single biome planets" but something logical that is easily expressed in a short hand way as a single biome.

 

[barny]

You didn't read my post, because it's Gaia that sits in the middle, and continental is the hot world.

Now that wouldn't be realistic, would it and that would only change one axis.

A continental world would still be closer to the middle, I would presume? Or are there only "not frozen - Gaia - frozen"?

In the end the system in Stellaris is a compromise and a simplified model. Could it be more realistic? Yes of course. Would that make the game better? I don't know honestly. I would guess that PDX has tested a more diverse system during the design phase and found it not particularly interesting.

 

[Koplin]

Sigh...

I think we table all of these "concern" Threads until we actually play the game. Is it me, or are the number of "concerns over X" threads inversely proportional to the days remaining to launch?

 

[Oscot]

Actually, if each planet is based on it's location on a plane, with Gaia at the center, and the two axes temperature and water, then it's not "single biome planets" but something logical that is easily expressed in a short hand way as a single biome.

Saying that everywhere on the body is "Hot 81%, Wet 96%" is proof you're treating your girlfriend right exactly as much a single-biome planet as is saying that everywhere on it is "Tropical".

 

[Eldorian]

Now that wouldn't be realistic, would it and that would only change one axis.

A continental world would still be closer to the middle, I would presume? Or are there only "not frozen - Gaia - frozen"?

In the end the system in Stellaris is a compromise and a simplified model. Could it be more realistic? Yes of course. Would that make the game better? I don't know honestly. I would guess that PDX has tested a more diverse system during the design phase and found it not particularly interesting.

Heh, it's only the introduction of a single extra habitable planet type. It's barely less simple than the current system, with the added feature of having a logical basis. And yes, the cold v hot axis looks like ice, gaia, continental. I think people are getting hung up on the axes, when it's really just the same circle of planets with an 8th in there and a logical basis determining near vs far. To avoid humans preferring arctic vs tundra.

 

[Eldorian]

Saying that everywhere on the body is "Hot 81%, Wet 96%" is proof you're treating your girlfriend right exactly as much a single-biome planet as is saying that everywhere on it is "Tropical".

I didn't propose giving every planet a number out of a hundred on two axes. I proposed giving every planet a integer from -1 to 1. 8 total planet types. Plus Gaia.

edit: And the axes exist only as a means of helping identify what sorts of planets there should be, namely a hot, wet planet, and a cold planet, and a cold dry planet, etc. It plays a roll in helping make the near and far make sense, so that humans don't prefer arctic over tundra.

 

[KonradKurze202]

You didn't read my post, because it's Gaia that sits in the middle, and continental is the hot world.

Gaia is 100% for everyone, it isn't on the chart.

I think PDS 'circle' is good enough.

Each planet type is divided along the two axis you suggested (I made a proposal along the same lines twoish months ago).

------------- | --- Hot --- | - Temperate - | --- Cold ---
Wet ------- | Tropical - | Ocean ------- | Arctic
Moderate | ------------ | Continental -- | ------------
Dry --------| Desert --- | Arid ----------- | Tundra

As you can see we are currently missing:
1) moderate water & hot (something along the lines of a 'Savanna World' where there is a large desert along the equator, but a great deal more interesting land expanding out from there, plains and savannas mostly.
2) Moderate water and Cold, which is pretty much tundra, but with great lakes along the equator.

Even adding in these two world types you end up with the problems listed above: Continental is directly adjacent to 4 other planets, while Desert, Arctic, Tropical, and Tundra are adjacent to only 2. You could divide it up so that each planet has 4 others within 1 'unit of distance' so that as long as 1 variable doesn't change it is 'ok'. So Desert would be adjacent to Arid, Tundra, Tropical and Savanna. However this allows you to colonize too many worlds, making over half the worlds 60% habitability (or making 1 world type 80% and 4 50% with the remaining 4 being 20% which is also silly as it means you can only effectively colonize one world type).

PDS's solution means every species can colonize 3 world types with pretty good efficiency, leaving 4 worlds at poor or terrible habitability. The order of the worlds isn't perfect, Tropical next to Desert would lead to health problems in the desert pops moving to Tropical world (severe health problems, as the over abundance of water in the air would cause severe respiratory problems). However, there is no 'perfect' way to do this.
Switch Tropical and Continental and things look 'better', but having Continental next to Desert is far from perfect (even if it seems more 'realistic' than Tropical -> Desert). All in all I'm fine with PDS' approach. Until/unless PDS goes from a Planet preference to a Water Level/Temperature preference I think theirs is the best solution.

 

[Eldorian]

Gaia is 100% for everyone, it isn't on the chart.

I think PDS 'circle' is good enough.

Each planet type is divided along the two axis you suggested (I made a proposal along the same lines twoish months ago).

------------- | --- Hot --- | - Temperate - | --- Cold ---
Wet ------- | Tropical - | Ocean ------- | Arctic
Moderate | ------------ | Continental -- | ------------
Dry --------| Desert --- | Arid ----------- | Tundra

As you can see we are currently missing:
1) moderate water & hot (something along the lines of a 'Savanna World' where there is a large desert along the equator, but a great deal more interesting land expanding out from there, plains and savannas mostly.
2) Moderate water and Cold, which is pretty much tundra, but with great lakes along the equator.

Even adding in these two world types you end up with the problems listed above: Continental is directly adjacent to 4 other planets, while Desert, Arctic, Tropical, and Tundra are adjacent to only 2. You could divide it up so that each planet has 4 others within 1 'unit of distance' so that as long as 1 variable doesn't change it is 'ok'. So Desert would be adjacent to Arid, Tundra, Tropical and Savanna. However this allows you to colonize too many worlds, making over half the worlds 60% habitability (or making 1 world type 80% and 4 50% with the remaining 4 being 20% which is also silly as it means you can only effectively colonize one world type).

PDS's solution means every species can colonize 3 world types with pretty good efficiency, leaving 4 worlds at poor or terrible habitability. The order of the worlds isn't perfect, Tropical next to Desert would lead to health problems in the desert pops moving to Tropical world (severe health problems, as the over abundance of water in the air would cause severe respiratory problems). However, there is no 'perfect' way to do this.
Switch Tropical and Continental and things look 'better', but having Continental next to Desert is far from perfect (even if it seems more 'realistic' than Tropical -> Desert). All in all I'm fine with PDS' approach. Until/unless PDS goes from a Planet preference to a Water Level/Temperature preference I think theirs is the best solution.

Finally...

You get what I wrote basically, but I'm saying Gaia is the center that everyone likes, and it's continental that's the hot one that's not too wet or too dry. Hot meaning "above freezing".

------------- | --- Hot ------ | - Temperate - | --- Cold ---
Wet ------- | Wetland---- | Ocean ------- | Glacial
Moderate | Continental | Gaia----------- | Ice
Dry --------| Savanna--- | Desert--------- | Tundra

I'm gonna borrow your chart with my modifications for the first post.

edit: This idea would use exactly the same sort of "circle" of planets idea that Paradox came up with (a good idea) but with 8 instead of 7 planets, with the 8 planets defined by temperature and water so that it makes just a bit more logical sense.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Finally...

You get what I wrote basically, but I'm saying Gaia is the center that everyone likes, and it's continental that's the hot one that's not too wet or too dry. Hot meaning "above freezing".

------------- | --- Hot ------ | - Temperate - | --- Cold ---
Wet ------- | Wetland---- | Ocean ------- | Glacial
Moderate | Continental | Gaia----------- | Ice
Dry --------| Savanna--- | Desert--------- | Tundra

I'm gonna borrow your chart with my modifications for the first post.

The thing is is that Gaia is some special planet that somehow doesn't fall on the chart (a little strange, but maybe it has ancient terraforming equipment that works to make the planet perfectly habitable for whoever inhabits it?).
Even with all 9 slots filled in there are the issues others listed, Gaia or Continental (whatever occupies the center) has 4 adjacencies, while Tundra, Glacial, Wetlands, and Savanna have naught but 2. There could be ways to make it 'work', by altering planet frequency, so the corners were more common to account for the fact that their preference has fewer alternatives, and the centered types have lower occurrences. I don't think that is a great solution, however. I don't think there is a way that is better than the one PDS has now, at least not one that is balanced.

 

[Admiral Howe]

My point is that the current system with 7 doesn't seem to divide into logical criteria, like temperature or amount of water like my proposed system.

it divides into a perfectly logical criteria based on the design goal decided upon by Paradox. That it's an odd number is immaterial.

 

[Eldorian]

The thing is is that Gaia is some special planet that somehow doesn't fall on the chart (a little strange, but maybe it has ancient terraforming equipment that works to make the planet perfectly habitable for whoever inhabits it?).
Even with all 9 slots filled in there are the issues others listed, Gaia or Continental (whatever occupies the center) has 4 adjacencies, while Tundra, Glacial, Wetlands, and Savanna have naught but 2. There could be ways to make it 'work', by altering planet frequency, so the corners were more common to account for the fact that their preference has fewer alternatives, and the centered types have lower occurrences. I don't think that is a great solution, however. I don't think there is a way that is better than the one PDS has now, at least not one that is balanced.

Gaia is the center and isn't a possible homeworld. The other 8 planets form a circle around Gaia, preferring neighboring planets, with Gaia being a special world that everyone likes. The EXACT same system currently, but with the 8 planets (instead of 7) having a more logical basis for differentiating them so it makes more sense.

Look at my chart. Say you're native to a continental world, which is the hot one. Then you'd consider wetland and savanna to be tier 1, ocean and desert to be tier 2, glacial and tundra tier 3, and ice to be tier 4. Gaia is the special one that everyone likes.

I get the feeling that a lot of people reading this either aren't bothering to understand my point or simply don't care to question the current setup.

 

[lemmox]

I get the feeling that a lot of people reading this either aren't bothering to understand my point or simply don't care to question the current setup.

People don't seem overly fond of your idea, Paradox isn't going to adopt it, and you're likely free to mod it in if you'd prefer it to the current system; not to mention none of us have played the game. What exactly is this argument about again?

 

[ahhheygao]

No, we just don't care for your insistence on putting Gaia world in the mix and especially as the Moderate Temperate center, when it's supposed to be a sci-fi magic world.

Continental is THE Moderate Temperate center, not Moderate Hot. How is Desert world Temperate when it'd have the most extreme temperature changes between night and day? Ocean world as Moderate is also problematic... open ocean is really damn cold.

 

[Admiral Howe]

I get the feeling that a lot of people reading this either aren't bothering to understand my point or simply don't care to question the current setup.

No, what's going on here is three parts.

1) Your idea/appeal is an old one around here. It's been rejected in many forms, most decisively because it runs afoul of Paradox design goals.

2) You are woefully confusing "logical" for what is your own personal opinion. You essentially forfeit the argument in totality by taking such a flawed position.

3) You yourself are disregarding/ignoring responses or labeling them as people 'not reading' your screed. If you actually read the replies you were getting you'd see that's another error on your part.

Right now you're coming across as simply someone unhappy with a septagon instead of an octogon. Won't elicit much support that way.