Terraforming is too easy

[maxk94]

Hey devs, hey community,

I think Terra forming is too easy, you get the tech too early with a too high chance and then it's too cheap also the OP-Ascension Perk to terraform Gaia-Worlds and makes it also cheaper.

This all tends to make the climate-type of planetes very wayne in the later game. I think it's almost too much that Relict Worlds, Gaia Worlds, Habitates and Ring Worlds are at high a Habitability for all.

Change my mind.

 

[Aeroclub]

Change my mind.

No can do, you're absolutely correct.

Maybe the easiest way to fix this would be to make terraforming not just change the planet type into the one you want, but rather add 5 or 10 % to it's habitability rating per terraforming "session", with a cap of 50 or so.

 

[Pancakelord]

Hey devs, hey community,

I think Terra forming is too easy, you get the tech too early with a too high chance and then it's too cheap also the OP-Ascension Perk to terraform Gaia-Worlds and makes it also cheaper.

This all tends to make the climate-type of planetes very wayne in the later game. I think it's almost too much that Relict Worlds, Gaia Worlds, Habitates and Ring Worlds are at high a Habitability for all.

Change my mind.

completely agree. I'm usually swimming in energy credits so the 5-10k cost to set up a terraformed world (even a gaia one) is basically non-existent.

They ought to bring back Terraforming Liquids & Gasses spawning in nebulae and make it part of the cost again, alongside EC (its easy to do as a mod but it ought to be part of the base game again) and up the terraforming time, at least that way there is some scarcity to terraforming.

 

[Mastikator]

So using tens of thousands, possibly a hundreds of thousands of energy credits, two to three perks you can make habitability a non-issue late game?

I don't see the problem with that. If I spend a perk on World Shaper it better give me the option to turn my planets into super planets, otherwise why take the perk?

 

[Pancakelord]

So using tens of thousands, possibly a hundreds of thousands of energy credits, two to three perks you can make habitability a non-issue late game?

I don't see the problem with that. If I spend a perk on World Shaper it better give me the option to turn my planets into super planets, otherwise why take the perk?

You dont need the perk IMO, it feels like an empty pick. That is the problem. 25% less EC is 25% less of an already largely irrelevant resource by midgame by lategame youre struggling to find places to put the EC lol I usually buy dark matter as "gold" for cash storage.

Also, go get a ringworld, or a Ecumenopolis or even just habitats, they all do Gaia worlds but better/carry more useful bonuses. And you can terraform to anything but Gaia worlds without world shaper

• So if you are playing a mono-empire of continentals, converting to continental planets is "good enough" till you get ecumenopoli etc
• And if you're playing a xenophile with a billion species, Gaia is nice to have but not really ground breaking, but usually you stop caring and just dedicate some backwater colony to CG output to offset everything. It's also diminished by the zroni chain (like 1/5 games with one of the DLCs) that rains Gaia worlds on you.

Terraforming without WS is far too cheap and fast, make low habitability hurt more, make it cost more (ideally scarce resources like terraforming gas/liquids) - and then make world shaper make those problems disappear - and do something with district caps (maybe unlimited mines or farms idk).

 

[Mastikator]

You dont need the perk IMO, it feels like an empty pick. That is the problem. 25% less EC is 25% less of an already largely irrelevant resource by midgame by lategame youre struggling to find places to put the EC lol I usually buy dark matter as "gold" for cash storage.

Also, go get a ringworld, or a Ecumenopolis or even just habitats, they all do Gaia worlds but better/carry more useful bonuses. And you can terraform to anything but Gaia worlds without world shaper

• So if you are playing a mono-empire of continentals, converting to continental planets is "good enough" till you get ecumenopoli etc
• And if you're playing a xenophile with a billion species, Gaia is nice to have but not really ground breaking, but usually you stop caring and just dedicate some backwater colony to CG output to offset everything. It's also diminished by the zroni chain (like 1/5 games with one of the DLCs) that rains Gaia worlds on you.

Terraforming without WS is far too cheap and fast, make low habitability hurt more, make it cost more (ideally scarce resources like terraforming gas/liquids) - and then make world shaper make those problems disappear - and do something with district caps (maybe unlimited mines or farms idk).

Gaia adds happiness and production bonus. And they're not mutually exclusive with ring worlds, ecumenopolis and habitats. By 2300 I tend to have all of those, I only bother terraforming my planets into gaia worlds because they're so good.
Gaia worlds are expensive because of the World Shaper perk. I only get 8 perks, 2 is used to turn my pops into perfect synths, 1 is for galactic wonder, 1 for void born, 1 for world shaper, 1st one for technological ascendancy. If I don't find an abundance of relic worlds I'll take Arcology Project, that leaves only space for 1 other perk.

This is not an either or situation. However since you're ONLY talking about terraforming every planet into a single non-gaia class that's not something I bother doing, so I have no comment on that either way, besides disagreeing that it's disproportionately easy and powerful. Early game it's a waste of energy, late game it's the wrong terraforming type.

 

[Sute]{h]

Well... terraforming needs to be a viable alternative to just getting pops from every empire you happen to run into. In most of my games by the time I get around to terraforming I can pretty much settle everything anyways because of the different pops within my empire.

 

[joe9594]

Since they have added the archeology system to first contacts maybe they should do the same thing with terraforming. Assign a scientist and a bunch of resources to terraform the planet and then have stages with potential decisio nto make which will alter the final outcome (and make the terraformed planets feel a bit more special).

 

[MrGuyPerson]

Hey devs, hey community,

I think Terra forming is too easy, you get the tech too early with a too high chance and then it's too cheap also the OP-Ascension Perk to terraform Gaia-Worlds and makes it also cheaper.

This all tends to make the climate-type of planetes very wayne in the later game. I think it's almost too much that Relict Worlds, Gaia Worlds, Habitates and Ring Worlds are at high a Habitability for all.

Change my mind.

I'm not really sure that terraforming is an issue. There are numerous ways of getting around habitability: playing as robots, turning into robots, playing as lithoids, conquering species with different habitat preferences, the slave market, migration pacts, habitability techs.... By the time you can spam ringworlds, ecumenopolis, or habitats (unless playing as void dwellers, in which case this discussion is irrelevant), terraforming doesn't really matter that much, so I'm not sure that that is a valid comparison. I think it's just another tool for dealing with habitability and doesn't need to be any more complicated or difficult than it already is, unless you have a suggestion that improves the system without adding needless micromanagement. If you dive into terraforming early in the game on a large scale, then your economy is likely still in a state where you are doing terraforming at the expense of paying for something else. Saying that it's irrelevant late in the game when most other things in the game are also irrelevant doesn't make the case that it needs to be changed.

 

[Thinghunter]

For me terraforming is not too easy, but i agree that it could be expanded- I would consider it a huge improvement if it were possible to detect more terraforming candidates later in game (e.g. by additional ascension perks or technologies). Additionally i would like to be able to expand the size of planets via terraforming. Of course, this should be lategame only, but it would buff to tall gameplay as youd only need few systems and/or planets to stay competitive.
In my opinion you should feel a need to decide between artificial planets (ringworlds, habitats) and natural worlds (gaia planets/arcologies).

 

[Pancakelord]

Gaia worlds are expensive because of the World Shaper perk. I only get 8 perks, 2 is used to turn my pops into perfect synths, 1 is for galactic wonder, 1 for void born, 1 for world shaper, 1st one for technological ascendancy.

Wait you're not taking synths and world shaper together are you?
Synths don't get the happiness buff from Gaia worlds as the Gaia modifier is "biological_pop_happiness" - which synths arent affected by.

And ecumenopoli pump out +10% more output than Gaias too.

The only real benefit I could imagine getting out of that Synth/Gaia setup is slightly more efficient mines

• As you won't really need normal planets for farms anymore.
• And energy is ludicrously abundant already, so +10% technician EC on a world is nice ... but if you're hitting your stockpile cap ... meh.

IMO it's better to just take mastery of nature on a regular world as +2 mine districts = 4 jobs each receiving additive output benefits (even if they are 10-15% lower than with a gaia world) this will overall lead to more output than with a Gaia in all but the most extreme cases. The same goes for voidborne and mining habitats (though the ROI is less clear-cut there). Honestly worldshaper is one of the best perks you can get lol.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to take those 3 APs (synth ascension and Worldshaper), unless I'm missing something?

Taking world shaper for Gaia planets (I say that like it offers anything else lol) isn't worth it if:

• You synth ascend
• You get Zroni
• You are Gestalt
• You go full slaver / biological ascension (happiness bypassed with lobotomies)
• Go habitat/Ecumenopoli or mega-structure heavy.

Really the only time world shaper / Gaia is worth it (for lack of a better term) is when you go spiritualist as you can make a few Gaia consecrated world without having to find one. And spiritualist/psy ascension is already the weakest of the 3 so... meh.

If terraforming with world-shaper unlocked all primary districts (i.e. hive-world style) that'd make it a great pick. If terraforming also cost "terraforming resources", not just EC, then it's cost reduction would actually be relevant, too.

 

[Mastikator]

Wait you're not taking synths and world shaper together are you?
Synths don't get the happiness buff from Gaia worlds as the Gaia modifier is "biological_pop_happiness" - which synths arent affected by.
View attachment 658495View attachment 658493
And ecumenopoli pump out +10% more output than Gaias too.
View attachment 658486View attachment 658487
The only real benefit I could imagine getting out of that Synth/Gaia setup is slightly more efficient mines

• As you won't really need normal planets for farms anymore.
• And energy is ludicrously abundant already, so +10% technician EC on a world is nice ... but if you're hitting your stockpile cap ... meh.

IMO it's better to just take mastery of nature on a regular world as +2 mine districts = 4 jobs each receiving additive output benefits (even if they are 10-15% lower than with a gaia world) this will overall lead to more output than with a Gaia in all but the most extreme cases. The same goes for voidborne and mining habitats (though the ROI is less clear-cut there). Honestly worldshaper is one of the best perks you can get lol.

So it doesn't make much sense to me to take those 3 APs (synth ascension and Worldshaper), unless I'm missing something?

Taking world shaper for Gaia planets (I say that like it offers anything else lol) isn't worth it if:

• You synth ascend
• You get Zroni
• You are Gestalt
• You go full slaver / biological ascension (happiness bypassed with lobotomies)
• Go habitat/Ecumenopoli or mega-structure heavy.

Really the only time world shaper / Gaia is worth it (for lack of a better term) is when you go spiritualist as you can make a few Gaia consecrated world without having to find one. And spiritualist/psy ascension is already the weakest of the 3 so... meh.

If terraforming with world-shaper unlocked all primary districts (i.e. hive-world style) that'd make it a great pick. If terraforming also cost "terraforming resources", not just EC, then it's cost reduction would actually be relevant, too.

When I synth I let biologicals thrive, only when a single species are extremely numerous do I assimilate it.

Synths still benefit from a +10% bonus to production. Most planets can't be converted into a 25/25 mineral or 25/25 energy planet, so they usually end up having a few alloy plants, industrial plants or research labs. Only about 1/3rd of my higher resources come from my 8 tech ring world segments and 3-4 ecumenopolis.

Sometimes I get so good at making alloys I end up having to take mining guilds just to ensure that I'm still making minerals (yes that includes permanent omnifarious acquisition and a matter decompressor). But then we're talking many thousands of naval cap, many millions of fleet power and many crying CPU cycles.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

In most of my games by the time I get around to terraforming I can pretty much settle everything anyways because of the different pops within my empire.

Yup. For me, Terraforming comes too late to matter, and makes too little difference to be worthwhile.

By the time I get terraforming, i have usually:
- have already researched a bunchg of +5 hab techs
- already got access to other species
- can gene-engineer a species if i need to
- may have got the Zroni gaia world life-seed thingy (yay, free slaves) EDIT: Baol. Thank you.
- am more interested in build ecus, ringworlds.
- or am bout to go synth ascension in which case it doesnt matter.


All of these serve to diminish the value that terraforming could have.


I also suggested something a while ago, that each +5 tech should not instantly change your hab (too easy), but should rather a unlock a mini project you could run on selected planets to fix specific issues (in the same way you remove blockers), and that cumulatively these would serve to terraform your planet, maybe with a final push at the end. However, most considered this too much effort.

 

[Shadowstrike]

I think the OP's point is meaningful - it *is* too easy to terraform a planet - but the other point is that it is also way too easy to work around that. It's way too easy to culturally assimilate alien pops under your rule, build synths, etc. Those things shouldn't be so easy - it should be harder to hold onto worlds populated solely by alien migrants (who may not feel very culturally attached to your nation), etc.

 

[Ragnarok Ascendant]

may have got the Zroni gaia world life-seed thingy (yay, free slaves)

You mean the Baol?
That's the Gaia one. Zroni gives you Psionic stuff.

 

[Kinkness]

No can do, you're absolutely correct.

Maybe the easiest way to fix this would be to make terraforming not just change the planet type into the one you want, but rather add 5 or 10 % to it's habitability rating per terraforming "session", with a cap of 50 or so.

I like this.

Basically a complete re work of the terraforming mechanics currently, that work more like the relic mechanics. With "sessions" which ramp up over time, and slowly builds up for each section. It could also in extreme cases, critically fail if you cannot upkeep the costs or have to abandon it half way through or something which could end up causing the habitability to drop by 20% or something.

 

[Gilbert95]

I agree with the OP, but I would add it is also too simple. Press a button, spend some EC and wait a few years. it doesn't feel like the massive undertaking it should be. I like the suggestion to use the archeology (and now first contact) style interface to make this more interesting, with some variable outcomes.

 

[Orphalesion]

First of all I will say I like terraforming so I want to continue to have the option to turn lifeless worlds into the already implemented planet classes. And I don't want to spend hundreds of years to do so either, since by then the game is pretty much over anyways.

But what I could be on board with is restrictions in what kind of planet type you can change terraforming candidates into; like if a terraforming candidate is at the very edge of a solar system with a cold star type you can only change it into a cold planet type (and the same with planets that are closer to a hot star)
Or maybe something like terraforming in stages. Mars first becomes a desert world before you can further terraform it into a wet climate planet.

 

[Hansatron]

As generally already stated, over time we have gotten increasingly easy access to 100% hab planets.
Ecumenopoleis and now relic worlds are a huge source, so is the Baol relic. The pile of +5% habitability techs also mitigates a lot of stuff, and the way migration treaties work allows anyone not hellbent on a pure gene pool to pretty much totally circumvent the problem in the first place.

So really, habitability is too easy to get.
I'm also not sure if you look at gestalts, their uniform desire to turn all their planets into hive/machine worlds, that that is a good fit with habitability, but that's for another day.

 

[DanielPrates]

No can do, you're absolutely correct.

Maybe the easiest way to fix this would be to make terraforming not just change the planet type into the one you want, but rather add 5 or 10 % to it's habitability rating per terraforming "session", with a cap of 50 or so.

This is good. The current mechanic could remain unchanged, prices and time and all, but it only brings the planet one tier closer to your species' preference. Another tier would require another round of terraforming.

Would fix the contradiction where it is the same effort to upgrade an almost-perfect planet and an absolute shitte planet.