Why not tie planet habitability to district availability?

[MrGuyPerson]

I think that tying planet habitability to district availability (e.g., 20% habitability means 20% of the districts are available) would make sense gameplay-wise and in terms of realism. Let's say a tropical species has 20% habitability on a tundra world. In the current system, this effectively means that the species has 20% habitability across the entire planet surface. To me, it's more realistic that this species could live happily on 20% of this planet; that is, the habitable zone is much smaller. It makes no sense that the climate would be completely uniform across the whole planet, or at least not on a planet similar enough to one's own that it is somewhat habitable. Rather, the overall temperature of the planet is lower, and therefore more of it is covered with tundra environments. But enough (20% of it), around the equator for example, would be adequate for your species to thrive.

Techs that increase habitability would be more valuable (open more districts) and their impact on the game would be more sensible (e.g., your species developed better climate controls in alien environments, allowing you to expand into previously uninhabitable areas; as opposed to 'your species now requires fewer grocery stores on your planets').

This might also help with the current situation in which habitability doesn't really matter. At the start of the game, tomb worlds would be completely uncolonizeable without some habitability trait, and small, low-habitability planets may not be worth colonizing at all (size 12 world with 20% habitability would yield 2 or 3 districts, depending on how rounding worked).

TL;DR. Tying habitability to districts changes the tropey planet classification to something that reflects reality without any major overhauls. It also addresses gameplay issues with the current habitability system.

What do you think?

 

[Derp]

so how does this work with multiple species with differing biome preferences

 

[MrGuyPerson]

so how does this work with multiple species with differing biome preferences

Since tiles are gone, it's more difficult to assign pops to a particular district per se. However, let's say you had an arctic species and a tropical species on a tundra world, the former with 60% habitability and the latter with 20%. Let's then suppose that habitabilities aren't additive. Rather, you have access to 60% of the districts in this case. Growth priority would go to the higher-habitability species. Jobs produced via districts would be capped by habitability on a per species basis. This would require a rework of species selection for growth, which the devs are supposedly already working on.

 

[AlanC9]

But then the number of districts would constantly gyrate, wouldn't it?

 

[MrGuyPerson]

But then the number of districts would constantly gyrate, wouldn't it?

I'm thinking that it would work like planet blockers. That is, planets would have base districts determined by planet size and features. Habitability would determine the percent of those that you could actually build, and the others would be grayed out until you increased your habitability through tech, gene-modding, or acquiring additional species. It would only trend upward unless you did something like resettling all of your high-habitability pops for some reason.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

so how does this work with multiple species with differing biome preferences

Average the habitability of the species?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Sounds like a confusing and unintuitive mess, no thanks.

 

[MrGuyPerson]

Sounds like a confusing and unintuitive mess, no thanks.

What's confusing and unintuitive about it?

Habitability being related to... well the amount of habitable space on a planet (which is represented by districts in this game) is perfectly intuitive. Much more so than the hand-wavy increase to amenities and consumer goods. As far as paradox math goes, a percent times a number < 25 is not particularly complicated. The effect from multispecies planets would be simple. Use the habitability of the species with the highest value, but cap the jobs species with low habitability can occupy so that their habitability is still accounted for.

 

[Spaceception]

It's not much different than the concept of the tidally locked modifier, which locks a portion of the districts. It was previously 50%, but they buffed it a bit so you have access to a bit more.

I don't know if it should be 1:1 But like, if habitability is above 75 or 80%, all districts are unlocked. at 50-75 (or 80)% say 2/3 are unlocked, and below that, at 50% and lower, 1/3 are unlocked. And the habitability techs can improve that once you reach a threshold in habitability.
It makes a little sense. You don't expect a tropical species to adapt well to the cold and vice versa. And you'd be cluttering it even more if you bring up technological workarounds like heaters, so a simple restriction like this could be good, and make terraforming very much worth it in every case.

 

[Knotw]

This doesn't actually address the core of what makes habitability largely not matter. The reason habitability isn't a meaningful obstacle is because you still get full pop growth on those worlds so you can just use them to rapidly accelerate the growth of your more habitable planets via resettlement.

A better way to fix this would be to give a species bonuses or penalties to its base growth rate based on the habitability of the planet it's on. There'd be bonuses on 81%+ habitability, normal growth on 80% worlds, penalties from 50-79%, no base growth on sub 50% worlds, and a natural decline on sub 20% worlds. They'd all still be usable this way, but climate mismatches would rely on immigration for growth and particularly poor planets like tomb worlds would need immigration boosts just to keep from failing. Poor habitability planets should generally be tough enough to make useful that unless you desperately need them for something it's better to either terraform it and come back later or get another species with good habitability.

 

[AlanC9]

I'm thinking that it would work like planet blockers. That is, planets would have base districts determined by planet size and features. Habitability would determine the percent of those that you could actually build, and the others would be grayed out until you increased your habitability through tech, gene-modding, or acquiring additional species. It would only trend upward unless you did something like resettling all of your high-habitability pops for some reason.

That's not how migration works ATM. In the long term pops sort themselves, but in the short term it's not uncommon to have lower-hab pops immigrate to a planet.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

This doesn't actually address the core of what makes habitability largely not matter. The reason habitability isn't a meaningful obstacle is because you still get full pop growth on those worlds so you can just use them to rapidly accelerate the growth of your more habitable planets via resettlement.

A better way to fix this would be to give a species bonuses or penalties to its base growth rate based on the habitability of the planet it's on. There'd be bonuses on 81%+ habitability, normal growth on 80% worlds, penalties from 50-79%, no base growth on sub 50% worlds, and a natural decline on sub 20% worlds. They'd all still be usable this way, but climate mismatches would rely on immigration for growth and particularly poor planets like tomb worlds would need immigration boosts just to keep from failing. Poor habitability planets should generally be tough enough to make useful that unless you desperately need them for something it's better to either terraform it and come back later or get another species with good habitability.

I agree, a growth modifier would be better. Would help with the wonky demographic growth weighting too.

 

[Derp]

or just like, make habitability increase housing requirements, then you need more cities to house the same number of pops

a hell of a lot simpler than this mess

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

I'm thinking that it would work like planet blockers. That is, planets would have base districts determined by planet size and features. Habitability would determine the percent of those that you could actually build, and the others would be grayed out until you increased your habitability through tech, gene-modding, or acquiring additional species. It would only trend upward unless you did something like resettling all of your high-habitability pops for some reason.

That's how Stars in Shadow handles it.

- Planets are made up of biomes, different classes of planet have different sets of biomes.
- Each species has a set of biomes that they can inhabit
- To fully utilize a planet's capacity, you need a selection of species that are suited to the biomes on the planet.

It's quite a neat & streamlined way of doing it, while maintaining some of the strategy & realism of population management.

 

[Magdaki]

The existing system (extra food and consumer good), plus a growth modifier would be the best approach I think. I really don't like the idea of modifying the number of districts at all because it could cause fluctuations in the number of districts. Being able to plan on X districts on a planet is pretty vital.