Higher oxygen levels, from what I know of it- insect respiration has a fairly hard cap on how big a creature it can support for a given concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere.
- 4
Should Gaia worlds be removed ?
- Thread starter Es57
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
There are two (similar) theories. One saying they grew larger because of the higher oxygen concentration, and the other saying they grew larger to avoid poisoning due to excessive oxygen.
What do you mean with "all the planets have the same air"? That's absolutely not true. It may be abstracted in the game, but arguably it is playing a role in habitability.
Considering how rare they are, I don't care either way.
The only gaias I've seen in my latest three ironman games were holy planets, and after seeing the fallen empire wipe out a couple of AIs for trying to colonize those... I'm not too keen on trying to claim those for myself.
It would be nice to have more multi-climate planets.
In my latest game I tried to create a multi-cultural empire, but it turned out to be kind of boring. Ended up with three types of planets: one set of aliens on Frozen, another on Wet, third on Dry. Not much mingling going on.
Would be nice if we could occasionally find planets with combined climates. Such as Ocean + Arctic, Continental + Alpine, or Tropical + Savanna. Maybe that could be handled with new random planetary modifiers.
The only gaias I've seen in my latest three ironman games were holy planets, and after seeing the fallen empire wipe out a couple of AIs for trying to colonize those... I'm not too keen on trying to claim those for myself.
It would be nice to have more multi-climate planets.
In my latest game I tried to create a multi-cultural empire, but it turned out to be kind of boring. Ended up with three types of planets: one set of aliens on Frozen, another on Wet, third on Dry. Not much mingling going on.
Would be nice if we could occasionally find planets with combined climates. Such as Ocean + Arctic, Continental + Alpine, or Tropical + Savanna. Maybe that could be handled with new random planetary modifiers.
All habitable planet types in Stellaris are described as having an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, and since any species in-game can live on any habitable planet given the right habitability boosts, we can reasonably conclude that all eleven habitable planet classes (the main 9 + gaia and tomb) have a similar ratio of constituent gases to Earth's atmosphere.
And what distinguishes continental from gaia, I think, is the predominance of temperate plains and forest climates among much of the former's habitable landmass, while gaia, in theory, though done more as telling than showing, which is poor form, has a greater amount of other climates, such as tropical and tundra regions available.
I'm also of the opinion that gaia worlds are only even "possible" as engineered worlds resulting from advanced terraforming processes that few species ever successfully develop, and such planets do not arise naturally.
- 5
If this is the case, it would be nice to see an acknowledgement in-game. Maybe an event or anomaly on the first Gaia World you find.
I did, for the first time today, get an anomaly on a gaia world that discussed how it must have been engineered that way. And it gave the science officer the expertise:new worlds.
- 1
Really? That must be new, then. I've never seen it before.
Was it the first Gaia World you found in that save?
Differences in atmosphere make-up aren't reflected in the game anyway.
- 3
But they should be. Variable habitability, even on preferred's, anyone?
Or does the flat (read:boring) current system of absolute baseline habitability from the triangle add so much more strategic depth?
No, I think it was the third one. It was anomaly.3020 "GAIA_CHECKERED_CAT".
I have learned a lot about how planet habitability works (and doesn't work) in Stellaris in this thread. So thanks to those of you who have paid more attention to planet descriptors and the like than I have.
I have to say, though, that the more I have learned, the less I actually like the habitability system in Stellaris. All the justifications I've heard for why Gaia planets make sense in the context of Stellaris, have only made me disappointed in the lack of variety the game presents. Which is kind of sad for me.
One of the things I like about space games is how diverse life can theoretically be. It's strange that Paradox went through so much trouble to represent some pretty interesting and diverse visual appearances without actually making them very biologically diverse. I sincerely hope this changes over time, because things like 'every world is oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere' honestly just disappoints me, and almost seems worse than Gaia worlds not making sense in a galaxy full of diverse atmosphere. Okay, Gaia worlds make more sense (though I still think they contradict other things), but ultimately at the cost of the galaxy seeming very simple and samey.
Obviously that is a very subjective thing. I'm not trying to say it's not a valid way of doing things.
I have to say, though, that the more I have learned, the less I actually like the habitability system in Stellaris. All the justifications I've heard for why Gaia planets make sense in the context of Stellaris, have only made me disappointed in the lack of variety the game presents. Which is kind of sad for me.
One of the things I like about space games is how diverse life can theoretically be. It's strange that Paradox went through so much trouble to represent some pretty interesting and diverse visual appearances without actually making them very biologically diverse. I sincerely hope this changes over time, because things like 'every world is oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere' honestly just disappoints me, and almost seems worse than Gaia worlds not making sense in a galaxy full of diverse atmosphere. Okay, Gaia worlds make more sense (though I still think they contradict other things), but ultimately at the cost of the galaxy seeming very simple and samey.
Obviously that is a very subjective thing. I'm not trying to say it's not a valid way of doing things.
- 5
There are all sorts of things about the way the planets work right now that make very little sense at all. I cannot comprehend why default humans, who favor continental planets, find a jungle planet to be habitable while a savanna planet is not habitable. I think that most people would prefer to live on a savanna than in a jungle.
- 7