Concern about the 7 planet types and a proposed solution

[Exemplar Voss]

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?

Even numbers, I think, and brute forcing types into a three by three grid whether they actually fit the pattern or not, which leads to hot continental worlds, moderate desert worlds and an additional planet type (with no in game art resources) just to fill a space in the grid.

 

[Eldorian]

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.

1) that's not what I'm proposing, because that puts continental at the center and therefore it's favorable, when my idea puts continental as just another part of the circle so all planets are equal.

2) No, I'm not. Picking biomes and then deciding where they should go without having a criteria for why those biomes were picked leads to inconsistencies like arid natives preferring arctic over continental or continental natives preferring arctic over tundra. The descriptions of those planets don't line up well because they're not based on underlying criteria like water or temperature.

3) I've read all the replies, and most of them don't understand what I wrote, and seem to be thinking I'm saying ditch the circle and use a grid, when I'm saying create a circle based on a grid so that it has underlying logic.

4) Honestly I'd find 7 acceptable instead of 8 if the 7 were also based on some underlying system, like a plane with water and temperature as axes. For example, if you took my listing and collapsed ice and tundra into a single planet type, and kept the order, you'd get continental preferring wetland and savanna over ocean and desert over tundra and glacial.

 

[Eldorian]

Even numbers, I think, and brute forcing types into a three by three grid whether they actually fit the pattern or not, which leads to hot continental worlds, moderate desert worlds and an additional planet type (with no in game art resources) just to fill a space in the grid.

Hot here means above freezing, not all deserts are hot, and yes I got an additional planet type that would need art. You could get it back down to 7 if you collapsed any two adjacent planet types into a single, but it would still require reordering planets in the circle, and some new descriptions would help.

 

[Admiral Howe]

1) that's not what I'm proposing, because that puts continental at the center and therefore it's favorable, when my idea puts continental as just another part of the circle so all planets are equal.

2) No, I'm not. Picking biomes and then deciding where they should go without having a criteria for why those biomes were picked leads to inconsistencies like arid natives preferring arctic over continental or continental natives preferring arctic over tundra. The descriptions of those planets don't line up well because they're not based on underlying criteria like water or temperature.

3) I've read all the replies, and most of them don't understand what I wrote, and seem to be thinking I'm saying ditch the circle and use a grid, when I'm saying create a circle based on a grid so that it has underlying logic.

4) Honestly I'd find 7 acceptable instead of 8 if the 7 were also based on some underlying system, like a plane with water and temperature as axes. For example, if you took my listing and collapsed ice and tundra into a single planet type, and kept the order, you'd get continental preferring wetland and savanna over ocean and desert over tundra and glacial.

The link was provided as an example that topics like this have come and gone in hopes you'd understand that the format you're wanting isn't going to happen.

2) Actually, yes you are. Try to dress it with explanation all you want but it's all coming from your preconceived notions and biases, ergo it's not logical. Just stop trying to use that term as an appeal to authority and you'll be better off.

3) You deny an accusation that you're trying to force the circle into a grid then immediately admit to trying to force the circle onto a grid. Stop for a moment and deeply ponder that level of madness.

4) (out of my original 3) It's a game, it's a gameplay decision to use the circle which is easy for new players to grasp and free of extraneous/under-the-hood fluff. I have no problem with it as either a game player or a geologist or even a sci-fi nerd.

J) Now, for another question, why are you adding ice/glacial? It's not analogous with arctic and incredibly unlikely to host any form of ecosystem, at least on a scale to support a civilization thriving enough to get into space.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I think I understand your idea: you want to introduce some form of symmetry to this, by being able to classify a planet by its values on two axes as if it were a Dungeons & Dragons alignment. Symmetry is beautiful to many people. I understand this. I have sympathy for what you're attempting. However, I feel that your attempt to increase beauty by introducing symmetry is in fact decreasing beauty because it makes several horrible nonintuitive situations:

Your system requires that savannahs be hotter than deserts. I come from Johannesburg, which is in the savannah latitudes. The desert latitudes are north of us (that is, a hotter climate.) Yes, deserts are cold at night, but their average temperature is higher.​

Your system requires us to separate Ice from Glacial planets and to accept that these are as different from one another as Tundra and Desert planets, or Ocean and Glacial planets.

Your system places Tundra closer to Savannah than to Continental, despite the issue that intuitively Savannah means "a planet halfway between Earth and Tattoine" and Tundra means "a planet halfway between Earth and Hoth." Surely they should be equidistant from Earth?

Your system makes Ocean dwellers uncomfortable on Continental planets like Earth despite Continental planets being mostly ocean. The vanilla system, where they are next to one another, avoids this issue.
​

Those are the intuitive, aesthetic issues I came up against. Separately to that, your system also has a gameplay issue which Oscot raised and which you seem to have dismissed out of hand. Let me see if I can restate it in such a way as to make it easier to understand. I'll number my steps so that if you disagree it's easier to point at exactly which step you disagree with.

1. The game concept of a Gaia world is that it be equally welcoming to everyone who goes there. This makes them desirable and worth fighting over, sparking conflict and creating interesting multiethnic populations.

2. Under your system such a planet is indeed "one step away" from their home planet type for the natives of Desert, Continental, Ocean and Ice planets: it differs only by one point on only one axis. This makes a Gaian planet as desirable as those species' second choice for planets. All is well so far.

3. However, such a planet is "two steps away" for dwellers of Wetland, Savannah, Tundra and Glacial planets: it differs by one point each on both axes. This makes a Gaian world as desirable as those species' third choice for planets. Since this makes them less desirable than almost half the planets in the galaxy, there's no particular reason why such species would feel strongly about such places.

4. As a result, only half of species will particularly want Gaian planets. Their game purpose - to spark conflict by being something that everyone wants - is thus lessened.

 

[Knotz]

I'd be surprised if there was a an elegant solution to this that was both logical and balanced.

 

[Gaussia]

I actually think the graph is quite pretty. Especially how you fit Gaia in the middle. The addition of Hot/Cold and Wet/Dry scales also helps motivating why the selected types were choosen, as well as why the relation is like it is.

Whats the reason that Savannah and Desert havn't switched place?
I would also use "Arid" instead of "Savannah", better to re-use the names Paradox have
Also the entire "Cold" axis is a bit un-pretty. I would put Arctic as Cold-Dry (Antarctica is after all our largest desert).
Then Tundra and whatever as Moderate and Wet (can't come up with something good gere)
(Maybe when could compare "Glacial" to our Antarctic, Dry. And then Anrctic to our Arctic, "Wet".
Tropical seems like a better fir for Wet/Hot (then you don't need to introduce new/remove types, which I think is good).

Finaly you would have to say how you want to put the Tier System (http://www.stellariswiki.com/Worlds). Either you put
T1: 2
T2: 2
T3: 3 (So Dry/Cold is T3 for Wet/Hot)
Or you split of a new T4 for thoose that are opposites.

FInal note: While there are things I do not understand with the planet system I don't think it is in immediate need of change. However If one wanted to change it around I think I could with relative easy improve upon it a little. In such a case you have some clever ideas.

 

[Cruxador]

Yeah, the vanilla seven planet types are utterly dumb. I suspect (hope) that there will be a good DLC to fix this eventually, but for now modding is probably the way to go.

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?

You do realize that we already know everything there is to know about the relationship between the seven starting world types, right? I mean, it's not that complicated. Which, perhaps, is the source of the problem.

it divides into a perfectly logical criteria based on the design goal decided upon by Paradox.

If the criteria is logical but only apparent to the people who literally designed it, then it's not clear or good design.

I'd be surprised if there was a an elegant solution to this that was both logical and balanced.

I suspect one exists, but not necessarily an obvious one. Remember that balance can be adjusted by tinkering with the planet seeding algorithms too, the system doesn't have to be balanced in a vacuum.

 

[Cruxador]

I would also use "Arid" instead of "Savannah", better to re-use the names Paradox have

"Arid" is kind of a bad name to begin with, since it includes deserts and tundras and is so broad that it tells you nothing really about the planet other than that it lacks water.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Remember that balance can be adjusted by tinkering with the planet seeding algorithms too, the system doesn't have to be balanced in a vacuum.

NOOOOOOOOO

If we alter relative frequency of seeding of different planet types, then all that happens is that people will stop playing as species who are at home on the less common planet types.

The vanilla system works from a gameplay perspective because it says that there are X types of planets, none objectively better than any other, and all the species are distributed more or less evenly across them.

You might have issues with the flavour descriptions of these planets, but sacrificing the basic gameplay concepts that underlie them is a terrible idea.

 

[Eldorian]

I think I understand your idea: you want to introduce some form of symmetry to this, by being able to classify a planet by its values on two axes as if it were a Dungeons & Dragons alignment. Symmetry is beautiful to many people. I understand this. I have sympathy for what you're attempting. However, I feel that your attempt to increase beauty by introducing symmetry is in fact decreasing beauty because it makes several horrible nonintuitive situations:

It's actually less about symmetry than it is about underlying criteria.

Your system requires that savannahs be hotter than deserts. I come from Johannesburg, which is in the savannah latitudes. The desert latitudes are north of us (that is, a hotter climate.) Yes, deserts are cold at night, but their average temperature is higher.

The gobi and antarctic are also deserts. The description of a desert world would mention that it has cold polar regions. Desert is about dryness with both extremes in temperature. Savanna worlds are hot and dry​

Your system requires us to separate Ice from Glacial planets and to accept that these are as different from one another as Tundra and Desert planets, or Ocean and Glacial planets.

Yes, a concern is too many cold types. Glacial description would include mentions of global oceans and equatorial wetlands, Ice would have smaller oceans, and tundra would have deserts.

Your system places Tundra closer to Savannah than to Continental, despite the issue that intuitively Savannah means "a planet halfway between Earth and Tattoine" and Tundra means "a planet halfway between Earth and Hoth." Surely they should be equidistant from Earth?

Tundra isn't a good word, but the planet that is cold and dry would have cold deserts, and the hot and dry savanna world would also have cold deserts at the poles. They're not single biome worlds.

Your system makes Ocean dwellers uncomfortable on Continental planets like Earth despite Continental planets being mostly ocean. The vanilla system, where they are next to one another, avoids this issue.

Yes, this is sort of going to be an issue. In MoO2 for example, aquatic races loved pretty much any planet with an ocean and it was a powerful perk. The idea here is that the wetland planet has more water coverage and the glacial planet has more floating ice in it's oceans, and the people from the ocean planet might be used to living in the polar regions.
​

Those are the intuitive, aesthetic issues I came up against. Separately to that, your system also has a gameplay issue which Oscot raised and which you seem to have dismissed out of hand. Let me see if I can restate it in such a way as to make it easier to understand. I'll number my steps so that if you disagree it's easier to point at exactly which step you disagree with.

1. The game concept of a Gaia world is that it be equally welcoming to everyone who goes there. This makes them desirable and worth fighting over, sparking conflict and creating interesting multiethnic populations.

2. Under your system such a planet is indeed "one step away" from their home planet type for the natives of Desert, Continental, Ocean and Ice planets: it differs only by one point on only one axis. This makes a Gaian planet as desirable as those species' second choice for planets. All is well so far.

3. However, such a planet is "two steps away" for dwellers of Wetland, Savannah, Tundra and Glacial planets: it differs by one point each on both axes. This makes a Gaian world as desirable as those species' third choice for planets. Since this makes them less desirable than almost half the planets in the galaxy, there's no particular reason why such species would feel strongly about such places.

4. As a result, only half of species will particularly want Gaian planets. Their game purpose - to spark conflict by being something that everyone wants - is thus lessened.

Forget about Gaia on the grid. It's a circle of 8. You can put Gaia on the center and note that everyone likes it.

 

[Admiral Howe]

If the criteria is logical but only apparent to the people who literally designed it, then it's not clear or good design.

Perfectly clear to me, and I'm neither. But not being an even number shouldn't be mistaken as illogical.

 

[Kliwarrior]

I'd be surprised if there was a an elegant solution to this that was both logical and balanced.

No we can't have it. Let me explain the reason why.
Here we have two conditions we would like to have satisfacted at the same time:

1. Give a random race it must have the same number of preferred , second choice, unabilable worlds of every other species. This is a game requirement. Period.

2. Every classificazione of planets, using *every* parameters you can find (temperature, humidity, percentage of landmasses, gravity, etc.. etc.. ) will create an "hotspot" near the center. Planets around or quite near the center have "average" values, so they will be always preferred. And if your homeword is "away from the center" you will find very few worlds "acceptable for living".

So every " logical" classification breaks rule 1.

We could discuss if rule 1. is valid in "reality" (but how imany aliens do you know?) or just a game mechanism, but we cannot have it without breaking any "classification"

 

[KonradKurze202]

No we can't have it. Let me explain the reason why.
Here we have two conditions we would like to have satisfacted at the same time:

1. Give a random race it must have the same number of preferred , second choice, unabilable worlds of every other species. This is a game requirement. Period.

2. Every classificazione of planets, using *every* parameters you can find (temperature, humidity, percentage of landmasses, gravity, etc.. etc.. ) will create an "hotspot" near the center. Planets around or quite near the center have "average" values, so they will be always preferred. And if your homeword is "away from the center" you will find very few worlds "acceptable for living".

So every " logical" classification breaks rule 1.

We could discuss if rule 1. is valid in "reality" (but how imany aliens do you know?) or just a game mechanism, but we cannot have it without breaking any "classification"

This is essentially the problem. You can either have a balanced set of planets & habitability ratings, or you can have a realistic set of planets & habitability ratings, but not both.

 

[Eldorian]

Hmm, perhaps the cold dry planet should be called Steppe and the cold planet Tundra... The arctic planet is just an ice ball. Glacial would have a world ocean, in image and description.

 

[Eldorian]

No we can't have it. Let me explain the reason why.
Here we have two conditions we would like to have satisfacted at the same time:

1. Give a random race it must have the same number of preferred , second choice, unabilable worlds of every other species. This is a game requirement. Period.

2. Every classificazione of planets, using *every* parameters you can find (temperature, humidity, percentage of landmasses, gravity, etc.. etc.. ) will create an "hotspot" near the center. Planets around or quite near the center have "average" values, so they will be always preferred. And if your homeword is "away from the center" you will find very few worlds "acceptable for living".

So every " logical" classification breaks rule 1.

We could discuss if rule 1. is valid in "reality" (but how imany aliens do you know?) or just a game mechanism, but we cannot have it without breaking any "classification"

The solution to 2. is to call those hotspot planets "Gaia" and make them no one's home planet. Not that Gaia planets are logical, but that they fill the hole with something.

And 1 is almost certainly illogical. But I agree it's good for game balance.

 

[SanguineGus]

I'd be surprised if there was a an elegant solution to this that was both logical and balanced.

Habitability rings anyone?

http://www.moo3.at/game/features/ecogloss.php

 

[Kliwarrior]

The solution to 2. is to call those hotspot planets "Gaia" and make them no one's home planet. Not that Gaia planets are logical, but that they fill the hole with something.

And 1 is almost certainly illogical. But I agree it's good for game balance.

Forget Gaia, it has 100% habitabily for everyone for some "magic mistery".
What you may do would be, for example, mod the game in order to
- increase the percentage of "extreme" planet , to respect rule.1
- add some bonus to "extreme homeworld" to compensate the rarity of similar planets
- forget rule.1 : did you born in a very hot ocean world? Bad luck, there aren't around, you have to die
- mix and match all the above as you like

 

[RgZera]

I dont understand what is so hard to comprehend in this...

1, the system is not about how you name anything it is about preference in temperature and humidity.
It is obvious that given that a planet meets their preference to some degree they will like that planet. So how you name the planet type has no importance here.

2, its not a grid... its a circle based on a grid. What difference does it make? Well in a circle gaia is exactly 1 step from any planet. But it is not a 2nd class planet coz its 100 % habitability so just imagine it in 3D being above the whole circle (not planar) like some godly shit hovering over the rest of the planets. This solves terraforming. You can terraform any planet into anything next to it in the circle with 1 terraforming but never gaia. Coz in a technical sense it is next to none of the planets and yet any can colonize it.

3. The in game system IS weird and you cant deny it. Trying to reason using what the devs said is invalid. Yes because no matter how many planet types there are you can still use their logic UNLESS this number is less than the original 7. So any planet directly next to the planet on our circle of planets is 60% habitability and so on. With the home planet type being 80% and the home planet itself being 100%. Planets too far (region across home planet type) are inhabitable. And this makes more sense in his system. A race that likes hot medium humidity would not like cold dry. And there is always a clear contrast between planets across in his circle. BUT also the definite similarity between planets next to each other on the CIRCLE (remember its a circle BASED on a grid? And not a grid based on a circle)

 

[KonradKurze202]

I dont understand what is so hard to comprehend in this...

1, the system is not about how you name anything it is about preference in temperature and humidity.
It is obvious that given that a planet meets their preference to some degree they will like that planet. So how you name the planet type has no importance here.

2, its not a grid... its a circle based on a grid. What difference does it make? Well in a circle gaia is exactly 1 step from any planet. But it is not a 2nd class planet coz its 100 % habitability so just imagine it in 3D being above the whole circle (not planar) like some godly shit hovering over the rest of the planets. This solves terraforming. You can terraform any planet into anything next to it in the circle with 1 terraforming but never gaia. Coz in a technical sense it is next to none of the planets and yet any can colonize it.

3. The in game system IS weird and you cant deny it. Trying to reason using what the devs said is invalid. Yes because no matter how many planet types there are you can still use their logic UNLESS this number is less than the original 7. So any planet directly next to the planet on our circle of planets is 60% habitability and so on. With the home planet type being 80% and the home planet itself being 100%. Planets too far (region across home planet type) are inhabitable. And this makes more sense in his system. A race that likes hot medium humidity would not like cold dry. And there is always a clear contrast between planets across in his circle. BUT also the definite similarity between planets next to each other on the CIRCLE (remember its a circle BASED on a grid? And not a grid based on a circle)

The problem is you are replacing one circle with another, just forget Gaia exists, it is irrelevant to the discussion and is clouding some of the issues.

If you make it 7 planets, 8, 9, 6, there will always still be issues. I don't know what circle your proposed system has, but it will have just as many incongruities as PDS' system.