@Wiz
It's about 4:30 in the morning as I start writing this post, and I've been lying awake in bed for the last two and a half hours, unable to sleep because I'm compulsively devising a better planetary habitability system for Stellaris.
Planetary habitability in Stellaris has always irritated me. It was bad as originally designed, and still bad when redesigned. I understand that a simple grid of traits with falls in habitability for steps away from the starting point is bad from a balance point of view (because it heavily favours preference for planets in the middle), but I've finally had a eureka moment that fixes everything I hate about the current (and old) system while also completely retaining balance.
Originally I started thinking about a 3x3 grid, rating planets from hot to cold and from wet to dry. Species would prefer a single setting on each axis. Planets matching both settings would be good; planets matching one setting would be okay, and planets matching neither setting would be terrible. So a hot/wet preference would be okay on planets that were either hot or wet, and terrible on planets that were neither. That was fine for balance, but Gaia planets ruined the believability of the system for me.
Then I hit upon the crucial element: water. Water stabilises climates. Temperature varies less the more water there is. Dry deserts may be scorching hot during the day, but they also freeze at night. What Stellaris needs is not a square grid, but a 4x4 triangle, with Gaia planets in the middle. We need this arrangement:
This triangle varies from coldest on the far left to hottest on the far right, and from driest at the top to wettest at the bottom. For sentient life, the centre is inherently the most habitable, and the three points the least habitable. Let's say the centre, Gaia, has a base habitability of 80%, the ring is 60%, and the points are 40%.
All sentient species have one of six climate preferences, corresponding to the points on the ring around the Gaia centre. They receive +20% habitability on this planet type (so starting at 80%). All adjacent points in the triangle have base habitability. Every additional step they're removed, habitability falls by 20% (deducted from its inherent base). Additionally, the species' own homeworld has +20% habitability, for a total of 100%. Note that in this system, Gaia worlds have 80% habitability for all species, not 100% (unless that Gaia world happens to be their homeworld, eg Sol III / Earth for humans; a Gaia homeworld should be an option for any playable empire, but very rare for randomly generated AI empires). This isn't really a nerf to Gaia worlds, because technology will easily raise their habitability to 100% in the mid-game and they're still the sweet spot for species coexistence.
So what does each hex on this triangle represent in terms of a named planet class? At the top is the Desert planet. Below Desert, we have left to right something like Boreal and Savannah. Below these, something like Glacial, Gaia (or Terran or Terrestrial which are basically synonyms), and Jungle. At the bottom are the wettest planets; something like Ice, Arctic, Ocean and Cyclone. All the specific names are really up for debate and I'm not too invested in the ones I've come up with, but the wet planets range from a mostly frozen one to a hot and stormy one (as a hot ocean world should have quite turbulent weather). Sentients will never have Ice preference or Desert preference or Cyclone preference and these can't be selected during empire creation, but presentients might (and would thereby be terrible for uplifting and settling other planets with, but them's the breaks). Sentients aren't really likely to evolve on worlds like these. Conversely, they're very likely to evolve on Gaia worlds, and Gaia worlds should really be inhabited by some kind of species to begin with as a general rule, as long as they haven't been cleansed in the distant past by a Holy Guardian.
So let's look at humans. Yes, Earth is a Gaia world, but humans don't have Gaia preference because there's simply no such thing, and it's not as if all climates on Earth are inhabited equally. Besides, all life prefers Gaia worlds in Stellarisverse. So which climate do humans actually prefer? Given our evolutionary history in the interior of Africa and the fact that we're land animals, I'm going to say relatively warm and dry, so the climate I've called Savannah. This means they have 100% habitability on Earth; 80% on Savannah and Gaia; 60% on Boreal and Jungle; 40% on Desert, Glacial, Arctic and Ocean; 20% on Cyclone, and 0% on Ice. Considering Antarctica is the region on Earth least inhabited by humans, this seems reasonable to me. I think humans should probably have the adaptable racial trait, though ... which makes sense, having evolved on a Gaia world!
Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?
Can we have this for Banks?
EDIT: Arguably this should go in "suggestions" rather than the main forum, but I think it would benefit from some debate.
It's about 4:30 in the morning as I start writing this post, and I've been lying awake in bed for the last two and a half hours, unable to sleep because I'm compulsively devising a better planetary habitability system for Stellaris.
Planetary habitability in Stellaris has always irritated me. It was bad as originally designed, and still bad when redesigned. I understand that a simple grid of traits with falls in habitability for steps away from the starting point is bad from a balance point of view (because it heavily favours preference for planets in the middle), but I've finally had a eureka moment that fixes everything I hate about the current (and old) system while also completely retaining balance.
Originally I started thinking about a 3x3 grid, rating planets from hot to cold and from wet to dry. Species would prefer a single setting on each axis. Planets matching both settings would be good; planets matching one setting would be okay, and planets matching neither setting would be terrible. So a hot/wet preference would be okay on planets that were either hot or wet, and terrible on planets that were neither. That was fine for balance, but Gaia planets ruined the believability of the system for me.
Then I hit upon the crucial element: water. Water stabilises climates. Temperature varies less the more water there is. Dry deserts may be scorching hot during the day, but they also freeze at night. What Stellaris needs is not a square grid, but a 4x4 triangle, with Gaia planets in the middle. We need this arrangement:
This triangle varies from coldest on the far left to hottest on the far right, and from driest at the top to wettest at the bottom. For sentient life, the centre is inherently the most habitable, and the three points the least habitable. Let's say the centre, Gaia, has a base habitability of 80%, the ring is 60%, and the points are 40%.
All sentient species have one of six climate preferences, corresponding to the points on the ring around the Gaia centre. They receive +20% habitability on this planet type (so starting at 80%). All adjacent points in the triangle have base habitability. Every additional step they're removed, habitability falls by 20% (deducted from its inherent base). Additionally, the species' own homeworld has +20% habitability, for a total of 100%. Note that in this system, Gaia worlds have 80% habitability for all species, not 100% (unless that Gaia world happens to be their homeworld, eg Sol III / Earth for humans; a Gaia homeworld should be an option for any playable empire, but very rare for randomly generated AI empires). This isn't really a nerf to Gaia worlds, because technology will easily raise their habitability to 100% in the mid-game and they're still the sweet spot for species coexistence.
So what does each hex on this triangle represent in terms of a named planet class? At the top is the Desert planet. Below Desert, we have left to right something like Boreal and Savannah. Below these, something like Glacial, Gaia (or Terran or Terrestrial which are basically synonyms), and Jungle. At the bottom are the wettest planets; something like Ice, Arctic, Ocean and Cyclone. All the specific names are really up for debate and I'm not too invested in the ones I've come up with, but the wet planets range from a mostly frozen one to a hot and stormy one (as a hot ocean world should have quite turbulent weather). Sentients will never have Ice preference or Desert preference or Cyclone preference and these can't be selected during empire creation, but presentients might (and would thereby be terrible for uplifting and settling other planets with, but them's the breaks). Sentients aren't really likely to evolve on worlds like these. Conversely, they're very likely to evolve on Gaia worlds, and Gaia worlds should really be inhabited by some kind of species to begin with as a general rule, as long as they haven't been cleansed in the distant past by a Holy Guardian.
So let's look at humans. Yes, Earth is a Gaia world, but humans don't have Gaia preference because there's simply no such thing, and it's not as if all climates on Earth are inhabited equally. Besides, all life prefers Gaia worlds in Stellarisverse. So which climate do humans actually prefer? Given our evolutionary history in the interior of Africa and the fact that we're land animals, I'm going to say relatively warm and dry, so the climate I've called Savannah. This means they have 100% habitability on Earth; 80% on Savannah and Gaia; 60% on Boreal and Jungle; 40% on Desert, Glacial, Arctic and Ocean; 20% on Cyclone, and 0% on Ice. Considering Antarctica is the region on Earth least inhabited by humans, this seems reasonable to me. I think humans should probably have the adaptable racial trait, though ... which makes sense, having evolved on a Gaia world!
Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions?
Can we have this for Banks?
EDIT: Arguably this should go in "suggestions" rather than the main forum, but I think it would benefit from some debate.
