Should Gaia worlds be removed ?

[Es57]

Personally, I never liked the idea of Gaia worlds, since I find it contradictory with the very concept of habitability used in the game.

Habitability reflects the fact that different species have different life requirements based on the habitat they developped in, so some species will develop better in hot, desertic environments, or aqueous environments, or arctic environments, and each of those environments could not suit the next species.

And then you have Gaia worlds which suit absolutely everybody, whether they come from a desert planet, or an ocean planet.

That doesn't really make sense from a biological point of view, IMHO, and I think maybe they should be removed for realism's sake.

Thoughts ?

 

[artemis667]

I'm comfortable with them in.
"An ideal, temperate world with a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere and a resilient ecosystem. Optimal conditions for all known higher forms of life at different latitudes."

I'm not sure how realistic a science fiction space strategy game needs to be.

 

[Muramasa]

Realism? Really? If it adds to gameplay it should be there. Finding a size 25 gaia planet is great moment in game and i would be sad if they took it out for "realism"

 

[Sarius1997]

I dislike them the way they currently are. The "Garden of Eden" planet certainly has its place in the game, but the current Gaia planets feel strange.

 

[dying0d]

I'd rather have something like aurora, where you have habitability factors to meet with planets and Terra forming involves making planets move to those factors.

Sure you can live in zero atmosphere or wrong atmosphere/temperature/gravity environments, but at a cost.

Think that's the best of both worlds, Gaia being almost perfectly habitable world for anyone (little to no modification needed) if one is found.

But I think this may over complicate the game too much, unless somehow it is simplified and you could set target numbers for Terra forming to occur

 

[laptor]

Habitability reflects the fact that different species have different life requirements based on the habitat they developped in, so some species will develop better in hot, desertic environments, or aqueous environments, or arctic environments, and each of those environments could not suit the next species.

I am with you. I do not think something like a perfect planet for everything may exist.
And it has no benefit for gameplay, right?!
You come from rain forest? Search a jungle world, dude!

 

[Malecord]

I tend to imagine Gaia worlds like sort of "better distributed" Earths.

Earth actually contains all biomes of the games at different latitudes. From deserts to tropical jungles, from oceans to alpine regions. If the planet was actually more balanced, with less oceans, more land near the poles and so on it would be like a Gaia world.

Then regular planets are planets which surface are for the majority made of a single biome.


Let's say that if we really wanted a sensible habitat mechanic we should have planets with different biomes per tiles. Like a planet could have like 5 tiles desert, 5 jungle and 10 ocean for instance.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Personally, I never liked the idea of Gaia worlds, since I find it contradictory with the very concept of habitability used in the game.

Habitability reflects the fact that different species have different life requirements based on the habitat they developped in, so some species will develop better in hot, desertic environments, or aqueous environments, or arctic environments, and each of those environments could not suit the next species.

And then you have Gaia worlds which suit absolutely everybody, whether they come from a desert planet, or an ocean planet.

That doesn't really make sense from a biological point of view, IMHO, and I think maybe they should be removed for realism's sake.

Thoughts ?

Real life Earth is a "Gaia planet" by game terms.

 

[scaper12123]

don't tell me you don't like the idea of an epic, rare, extremely useful planet that you either have to conquer, create, or be ultra lucky and stumble across. 90% of the time the only gaia worlds in the galaxy are owned by fallen empires, who no doubt created them in the first place.

 

[praftd]

No.

Finding Gaia worlds is really fun, plus it is the biological equivalent to ring worlds.

We meed more fun, rare things to doscover, not less.

 

[Kayden_II]

"Should Gaia worlds be removed ?" ...
As Long as I can't terraform Worlds into a Gaia-One, I haven't Anything against the few Ones within the Galaxy.

 

[Nyrael]

It makes sense from biological perspective: Gaia worlds are practically Earth!

Though honestly, I'd wish that these biomes would work better as tiles.

 

[Milten]

To imitate plurality of opinions I'll agree that Gaia worlds don't make much sense. Not as self-sustaining system at least, as artificially controlled and isolated biomes - why not.
But they are there to stay, so suggesting to remove them is kinda pointless.

 

[Harle]

I have never been happy with the biome-approach to habitability, I always hoped for a habitability system based on temperature(average/extremes), atmosphere, and possibly water presence.

So no, obviously Gaia planets (especially as implemented) don't make any sense to me. No one planet could be ideal for everyone, biome presence or not.

I realize some people don't 'get' the realism angle, why some people might be looking for a game that errs toward more accurate even if it doesn't fully get there. But it's a little strange seeing the attitude that nobody should want that, given this is Paradox we're talking about. Grand historical simulator giant.

I think there's room for leaning toward harder sci-fi.

As is, the only thing that would make sense for Gaia worlds right now is if they actually did have all of the biomes on a large map and happiness reflected that. In order to fully exploit a Gaia world you would need multiple species, which I think would be a fun challenge.

 

[safe-keeper]

I'm of two minds here. Evidently the species in Stellaris aren't all that diverse if they can all technically co-exist on the same planet.
Then again, Stellaris isn't a "hard sci-fi" game, and I kinda like that it doesn't always take itself too seriously.

Also, having planets that are good for everyone to live on is great for gameplay, as it makes these planets worth fighting over.

 

[Brent15]

I'm going to agree with the original poster. I think it would be better if each species had a special class planet, then it is that they all share this type as an ideal planet type. I prefer the term garden world. While I think its fun to find these it is hard to get over the idea that all species can find a planet so suitable.

 

[dying0d]

I think, by realism, the op and others mean failing in suspension of disbelief.

The way habitability is now, it doesn't fit. Even the hand woven description is crap for it tbh. If they were exclusively 5-9 tile world's, it would make sense as that would play into the description, and simulate the species specific habitable biomes on the planet.

But to have a 25 tile world everyone can colonize seems daft. Maybe planets need a size integer attached we all can see, that denotes planet size (as in how much volume of the sphere the planet has) and then represent biomes on a per tile basis (even preferred planet types aren't a homogenous biomedical, so some could be of other types)

And earth fits continental planets more than Gaia, it's mostly water but the land is actually wedged mostly in the temperate zones stretching g across tropical areas with some deserts thrown in too.

Most the ice is located at the poles and some alpine regions exist.

More evidence tiles should have a biome than an entire planet.

 

[schedim]

I'm not in favour of the one biome planets to start with and Gaia worlds are kind of the peak of that trope. So I think they could be ditched even without changing the rest of the trope-ish biomes.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Biome-based tiles sounds like a micromanagement nightmare.

 

[schedim]

Biome-based tiles sounds like a micromanagement nightmare.

Or dream, depending on your inclinations... I think it actually would ease up some of the AI problems as it would make the difference between tiles on planets larger, ie easier to write algoritms ...