Habitability plausibility

[Technotopia]

It seems very weird to me now. Difference between tundra and jungle isn't that much to prohibit tundra people from settling in jungle. Actually all these climates are present at Earth and single race used to inhabit all these types of climates without any advanced technology.
So, I think habitability difference should be about serious things like atmosphere gases (oxygen, methane, ammonia). Atmosphere density. Temperature too, but in wider range. Temperature difference between tundra and desert isn't that big. In space, much more drastic differences can happen, there are planets hot as hell and freezing cold.

Of course, it is not for gameplay, it is for scifish flavor, yet in this kind of game it is important.

What it could be:
Breathing chemical preference.
Temperature preference.
Atmosphere density preference.
Gravity preference.

If all met - 100% habitability. For every mismatch - deduce 30% from habitability. So air-conditioning or wearing gas masks is acceptable it yields 70% - still good yet not very happy. But if you can't go out without heavy life support suit, then the planet is crap for your species.

 

[Azuraal]

To what end?
If they were to implement this, while keeping current balance, the only thing that would change
is that you would no longer be able to tell how useful planet is at a glance.
I like realism in games but realism for the sake of realism is pointless.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

To what end?
If they were to implement this, while keeping current balance, the only thing that would change
is that you would no longer be able to tell how useful planet is at a glance.
I like realism in games but realism for the sake of realism is pointless.

This. The climate system works well- you can generally guess how useful a world will be as soon as you encounter it. Readability is an important aspect of mechanics.

(I also feel like people are complaining an awful lot about the way habitability is "unrealistically handled" for a game that does not try to be terribly realistic in the first place.)

 

[praftd]

People need to stop comparing Earth biomes to alien ones. Just because a planet says "desert", doesn't mean they are as habitable as Earths deserts. Could humans live in a desert world where the average temperature is 280 degrees and there is virtually zero water? Along with massive dust storms and violent fauna?

Could humans live on a planet like Tuchaka unaided by tech?

Biomes gives you a general sense of what the planet is like; they do not give you the whole strory. While the habitability system is flawed, it isn't nearly as implausible as people say.

 

[Technotopia]

To what end?
If they were to implement this, while keeping current balance, the only thing that would change
is that you would no longer be able to tell how useful planet is at a glance.
I like realism in games but realism for the sake of realism is pointless.

These are just thoughts, not proposals for next patch, beacause it changes so much and there is no itching reason to do it now. Maybe for Stellaris 2.

 

[zukodark]

Even if the habitability system could be changed for the better I don't think it should be on priority right now. It works fine game-wise and has already been changed, other stuff is more important right now.

Anyways, there are flaws to your system. Firstly, it goes against the portraits, I don't think it would feel right to have methane-breathing cats. I know we already have desert-molluscoids and such, but that at least doesn't feel impossible. Then, it is difficult to visualize so you can see at a glance, and how to even visualize it in startup-menu?

You mention how there are temperature differences could be much larger than between tundra and desert. That is irrelevant as long as it is in the game's science/lore that creatures normally doesn't evolve there. Even if it's possible, you might argue it is at least much less likely, meaning you are the crossroad between accuracy and game balance - in yet another way.

 

[zukodark]

People need to stop comparing Earth biomes to alien ones. Just because a planet says "desert", doesn't mean they are as habitable as Earths deserts. Could humans live in a desert world where the average temperature is 280 degrees and there is virtually zero water? Along with massive dust storms and violent fauna?

Could humans live on a planet like Tuchaka unaided by tech?

Biomes gives you a general sense of what the planet is like; they do not give you the whole strory. While the habitability system os flawed, it isn't nearly as implausible as people say.

Yes, this. In addition, I'd argue in some of the fields he mentioned, there is just that likely for there to be differences, that they aren't even worth mentioning. If you look at it as if every planet is different in regards to atmosphere density for example, then it would be the addition of climate differences that could make it inhabitable. Humans would be more happy to live in wet, temperate planets with hostile atmosphere than extremely dry, warm planets with hostile atmosphere...

I have myself tried coming up with habitability systems similar to the OP just to come to the conclusion that it doesn't really improve anything.