Districts and Planetary Features

[SobanRe]

Hi,
maybe I'm really unlucky, but i run into a problem/annoyance.
In my last games I found many planetes with features don't matching there districts. For example a world with high quality minerals and only two mining districts and on the otherhand a world with low quality minerals and 11 mining districts and only 3 in farming and energy, a bleak world with 10 farming 3 energy and 2 mining.
Before you could build around this by ignoring the tile yield, but now you either make a urban wolrd out of this, what is problematic if ypu don't find a farming world, or your specialised recource plantes get -25% on recource their are specialised into.
I think planetary features should have an influence on the district ration. A planet with rich minerals should have more mining districts and a planet with low quality minerals shoud have less and a bleak world realy shoudn't have so many farming districts like the last couple I ran into, is kind of immersion breaking.

 

[Blurb]

No, these discrepancies should remain, as they give rise to meaningful choices in terms of planet development.
Why are you opposed to this?

 

[sillyrobot]

Because they are two ways of describing the same thing that as likely to end up at odds as they are supporting each other.

I need minerals badly so I look at a high-quality mineral world -- only to discover it can only support 2 mining districts. What about this world invokes high-quality minerals again compared to a world that can support a dozen mines?

This other world is mineral-rich, but bleak and little grows, but over half the surface is "perfect" for farming and only a few mines can be built! Umm, what? Let's strip mine those "perfect" farmlands then. Oh, we can't because *mumble mumble*.

 

[SobanRe]

I don't know if you understand what I mean. You find a planet with low quality minerals giving you -25% of mineral production but this planet only has mining districts. Not much choice in my view, either you make it a urban wolrd or a pointless mining world. What I mean is, that such a modifier changes the district distibution depending on the modifier. Low quality minerals reduce the amount of mining districts but increase the amount of energy and farming districts.
For exampel:
low quality minerals -4mining districts +2 energy and +2 farming districts
high quality minerals +4 mining -2 energy -2 farming
and so on

edit: too late just like sillyrobot says

 

[draqsko]

Mineral quality doesn't necessarily have to be tied to mineral quantity and vice versa. I'll give you a real life example, there's still thousands or even millions of tons of gold and silver still in the Rocky Mountains, but because it's mostly bound in low quality deposits (usually bound to iron pyrite) nobody is really bothering to dig it out.

 

[SobanRe]

Mineral quality doesn't necessarily have to be tied to mineral quantity and vice versa. I'll give you a real life example, there's still thousands or even millions of tons of gold and silver still in the Rocky Mountains, but because it's mostly bound in low quality deposits (usually bound to iron pyrite) nobody is really bothering to dig it out.

And that the reason why these mountains aren't a mining district, but in this game they would be.
Why should have a bleak world more farmland than a lush one?

 

[draqsko]

And that the reason why these mountains aren't a mining district, but in this game they would be.
Why should have a bleak world more farmland than a lush one?

More land area, versus less land area. Just because the climate isn't the greatest, doesn't mean people can't grow food, look at Patagonia.

 

[Gans]

I had a high quality minerals planet with zero (Yes, none whatsoever) mining districts. Question is, how did they know they are high quality if they are nonexistent. hmmmmm.

 

[PirateJack]

I had a high quality minerals planet with zero (Yes, none whatsoever) mining districts. Question is, how did they know they are high quality if they are nonexistent. hmmmmm.

There should be a trigger in planet generation to prevent this kind of thing, I agree. Otherwise it's just the RNG being awkward with you.

 

[SobanRe]

More land area, versus less land area. Just because the climate isn't the greatest, doesn't mean people can't grow food, look at Patagonia.

Yeah, but the low quality minerals of the Rocky Mountains and the climate of Patagonia does not influence the whole planet but is just less usable land for a specific purpose.
And I don't mean that this modifier lose their - or + 25% percent of something, it would be just neat if this modifier give you at least the chance to use them or build around them by additionally changing the district distribution.

 

[draqsko]

Yeah, but the low quality minerals of the Rocky Mountains and the climate of Patagonia does not influence the whole planet but is just less usable land for a specific purpose.
And I don't mean that this modifier lose their - or + 25% percent of something, it would be just neat if this modifier give you at least the chance to use them or build around them by additionally changing the district distribution.

That's not what your OP said though, you said you wanted the modifier to influence the amount of districts, which I disagree with. Quality doesn't necessarily indicate quantity and the two shouldn't be tied together. It should be possible to have both a large quantity with a low quality and a small quantity with a high quality.

And it's pretty easy to explain low quantity but high quality and high quantity but low quality. A world with low quantity probably has low levels of tectonic activity and therefore less metals are pushed out of the mantle closer to the surface for mining but those deposits are better quality because the planet itself is rich in metals. A world with high quantity but low quality is mostly made of silicates however there's a large amount of tectonic activity and therefore what little metal it does have is easily within reach of the surface.

 

[Xendance]

I don't understand why you want the game to always roll a dice in favour of you, the player. Sometimes you get shafted, you just have to learn to deal with it.

 

[Blurb]

Not much choice in my view, either you make it a urban wolrd or a pointless mining world.

Compare your suggested alternative with the current situation.
Currently, you must consider if the mining districts with a reduced output are worth building (and if so, is it short- or longterm plan?).
With a high-yield planet, you must similarly consider how the few mining districts (with high output) detract from the planet's intended specialization, and whether the increased output is worth it.

With your suggested alternative, you have a guarantee that resource bonuses also include districts that can exploit it.
What choice is there aside from doing the obvious and making use of the plentiful districts with their output bonus?

Because they are two ways of describing the same thing that as likely to end up at odds as they are supporting each other.

Increased yield per job and increased maximum number of jobs are not "describing the same thing".
Sure, in the end they'll both increase total output from that type of jobs, but they do so in different ways and both have their own limitations.
Quality vs. quantity is an ageless dichotomy, and I see no reason why it should be removed.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Actually it makes a certain amount of geological sense. I'm seeing post glacial aluvial plains, all the rock is eroded and sedimented, weatherd to hell and back. The Ore is crappy, weatherd into a kalideoscope of oxides, but the land is useless for anything else and the ores are accessable.

Also bear in mind that 6 mines at -25% will be better than 4 on no bonus. Quantity has a quality all its own.

 

[SobanRe]

Maybe my viewpoint of this matter comes from the fact, that i usally play with the planet slider at 25% and if your only avialable farming and mining world have -25% prodution modifier it is kind of annoying. And why can't I just put solar panels on top of that useless farmland o a bleak world?

 

[the glory of plain]

these 15% buff of debuff are much less important then before
but yes it was weird
shouldn't feature incorporate most of these buff and debuff?
like metal boneyard give 10% society

 

[Quizzical]

Hi,
maybe I'm really unlucky, but i run into a problem/annoyance.
In my last games I found many planetes with features don't matching there districts. For example a world with high quality minerals and only two mining districts and on the otherhand a world with low quality minerals and 11 mining districts and only 3 in farming and energy, a bleak world with 10 farming 3 energy and 2 mining.
Before you could build around this by ignoring the tile yield, but now you either make a urban wolrd out of this, what is problematic if ypu don't find a farming world, or your specialised recource plantes get -25% on recource their are specialised into.
I think planetary features should have an influence on the district ration. A planet with rich minerals should have more mining districts and a planet with low quality minerals shoud have less and a bleak world realy shoudn't have so many farming districts like the last couple I ran into, is kind of immersion breaking.

I’ve never found low numbers of districts/ features to be a problem, features/anomalies in particular are just bonuses you can always work around it by just making small highly specialised planets with only a few focused buildings (like mineral processors) and they can still have a reasonable output...

Or you specialise in a completely different area that isn’t better supported and now use the market to make up the shortfall. Plus if your really limited gives you a reason to forcibly try to expand into other richer territories...

That’s yet my opinion mind

 

[Tindalosihound]

Mineral quality doesn't necessarily have to be tied to mineral quantity and vice versa. I'll give you a real life example, there's still thousands or even millions of tons of gold and silver still in the Rocky Mountains, but because it's mostly bound in low quality deposits (usually bound to iron pyrite) nobody is really bothering to dig it out.

Of course, with the new feature system, many times quantity is connected to quality.
A bleak world is one where life struggles to survive, except you've still got lush jungles, fertile lands, and fungal forests.

I'd think the Lush/Bleak, Poor/High/Exceptional Quality Minerals, Irradiated, Asteroid Impacts, Hazardous Weather, Wild Storms, and Hostile Fauna modifiers could be better turned into blockers and features. Maybe requiring more extensive alteration of a planet to correct, such as Soil Enrichment on Bleak Worlds. Certainly, Generator and Mining district granting features could do with some more variety, since they've far less compared to Agriculture districts.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Of course, with the new feature system, many times quantity is connected to quality.
A bleak world is one where life struggles to survive, except you've still got lush jungles, fertile lands, and fungal forests.

I'd think the Lush/Bleak, Poor/High/Exceptional Quality Minerals, Irradiated, Asteroid Impacts, Hazardous Weather, Wild Storms, and Hostile Fauna modifiers could be better turned into blockers and features. Maybe requiring more extensive alteration of a planet to correct, such as Soil Enrichment on Bleak Worlds. Certainly, Generator and Mining district granting features could do with some more variety, since they've far less compared to Agriculture districts.

If they put Blockers in the same place they put features presently, that'd go some way to making worlds a little more destinctave.

 

[Tindalosihound]

If they put Blockers in the same place they put features presently, that'd go some way to making worlds a little more destinctave.

And also, some things like Wild Storms could become a rare feature, like Betharian Fields and Isolated Valleys, providing a special stormwatching building to provide the research the modifier once did.