[EDIT:thisanswerwasoriginallytoMetalynx'sreplyabove-Frogsquadron]



Thanks for your quick answer.

This would probably have been relevant within the scope of the GDD itself. But guess I'll respond here anyway ^^

Can you move it to GDD3 thread??

The goal is to have colonization techs be based on one planet parameter - currently Temperature. So essentially a player may start with the ability to colonize all 'temperate' planets - then in one tech could get the option of colonization all 'warm' or another tech for all 'cold' planets.



We are also able to start a faction at a different starting point than Temperate, which means that different factions will be able to unlock slightly different planets at different times.

This bring new questions. Just don't trying to make you self-spoilers .

- If I understand correctly this means that a, for example, Tundra planet will be tier I for a faction staring on Terran and tier II for a faction starting on Arid? I'll like this way, and think that makes more sense than ES1, where planet tier has nothing in common with your faction homeworld.

- If this is like above, will you be able to choose your homeworld when creating custom factions?. I think this gives even more character to factions and like to see separated from affinity.

- Related to previos 2 questions. Have you tried? Having each faction different colonization options from the start affects gameplay?

- Will there be some system like "more wet-> more food vs more dry more dust // hotter -> more industry vs colder more science" to say in a way?

Sinnaj63 wrote:
But wouldn't it make sense that a planet with different could have different anomalies canceling out each other? Like if you had one thing lowering approval that would make the planet less nice for the population to live on, but you could still also have something else that highers approval because it makes the planet a better place to live. And there's already plenty of approval factors canceling out each other, like, if you think about it, planet approval effects and anomalies, as well as wonders and anomalies and planet approval. And, especially given how most Anomalies in ES affect approval, keeping anomalies cannceling out each other from being on the same planet would probably limit the number of anomaly combinations very much.

Unless what you mean by avoiding contradictory effects is that there won't be Tree of Worlds on Lava Planets anymore, which totally makes sense and wouldn't make that much of a difference.

The sense I see in allowing contradictory anomalies on one planet is that after fixing the negative one, you've got the effects of the positive. But I think that it will be similar to improving the planet in a way different from having anomalies.

Another option is that you've got anomalies affecting different things, like one affecting approval + science and other approval + industry, which will be close to having only one mixed anomaly affecting science + industry.



And yes, things like Tree of Worlds on lava looks very strange, but I think Amplitude will also "fix" this or make changes to make some anomalies planet-specific, and other forbidden to some kind of planets.

Sinnaj63 wrote:


Von Neumann(Who was that btw?) Probes would really be interesting, but I'd assume they'd either be OP or useless because they come too late. And having them would bring up the question why you can't weaponize them in some other form, like having Von Neumann Weapons Platforms that you put into a tasty uninhabitated Asteroid Belt to replicate and then assault the enemy. I suppose that would only work on low defense systems, but still.

And then they become the Xenon of the good old "X" Game series ;D





But drones could be a good alternative maybe

for carrier dependant fighters and bombers.

With regards to exploration, I am still unsure how much you are planning on modeling the heroes and quest system on Endless Legend, but if you are going to be inspired by it a lot, should we expect to find items through exploration and excavation that can be equipped?



Naturally, items like armor and weapons wouldn't mean much in the context of fleet battles, but things like insignia which boost the performance of a fleet might be interesting. In addition, perhaps finding ancient derelict ships could add a further incentive to exploration and make it more interesting.



It largely depends on your vision of the game though, and whether you want it to be more like Endless Space or Endless Legend. From what I understand, it seems to be leaning towards the latter.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
With regards to exploration, I am still unsure how much you are planning on modeling the heroes and quest system on Endless Legend, but if you are going to be inspired by it a lot, should we expect to find items through exploration and excavation that can be equipped?



Naturally, items like armor and weapons wouldn't mean much in the context of fleet battles, but things like insignia which boost the performance of a fleet might be interesting. In addition, perhaps finding ancient derelict ships could add a further incentive to exploration and make it more interesting.



It largely depends on your vision of the game though, and whether you want it to be more like Endless Space or Endless Legend. From what I understand, it seems to be leaning towards the latter.

Why would Insignia boost battle performance at all? They do nothing, except looking nice or not. Weapons and Armor on the other hand are important and can totally change the outcome of a battle.



I really hope it's going to stay much more Endless Space than Endless Legend, after all, this is Endless Space 2 we're talking about.

Sinnaj63 wrote:
Why would Insignia boost battle performance at all? They do nothing, except looking nice or not. Weapons and Armor on the other hand are important and can totally change the outcome of a battle.



I really hope it's going to stay much more Endless Space than Endless Legend, after all, this is Endless Space 2 we're talking about.

Because when you are on a ship, what weapons and armor a hero wears are irrelevant. Insignias on the other hand can be imbued with dust magic to boost performance or something, as was the case in EL.



In any case, I'm just asking if there will be items to be found through exploration or not.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
Because when you are on a ship, what weapons and armor a hero wears are irrelevant. Insignias on the other hand can be imbued with dust magic to boost performance or something, as was the case in EL.



In any case, I'm just asking if there will be items to be found through exploration or not.

Ohh, I thought about ship weapons and armor, not hero one. That makes sense then, though the Insignia thing still wouldn't fit Endless Space.

Metalynx wrote:
Trying to clear up some questions!

I sort of agree. It entirely depends on how we decide to feedback effects related to these parameters.

If we say '+X on Humidity: Dry planets' it will be a little wierd to say '+X on Humidity: Gas planets'

But if it simply says: '+X on Dry planets' or '+X on Gas planets' it doesn't really make a lot of difference. The image visualization is an representation to explain the system - it will not appear in the game.

Note that the 'Gas' section was recently added. We will re-evaluate the name for the category as it may not be as applicable anymore. Maybe atmosphere?

It seems, it may be a nice idea, to add atmosphere as distinct parameter for existing ones: {size, temperature & humidity}.

For example, atmosphere parameter may have 3 values:

• "0" - no atmosphere
• "1" - "normal"
• "2" - "giant" (which turn planet to gas giant)
  
  

Possible atmosphere values may be depended on the planet size:

• Ice giant, is the planet class, which commonly separating from gas giant planets, for reason of very different structure and composition.
• Gas dwarf, is the other planet class, separated form gas giant and ice giant, and appear as transitional class between terrestrial and gas planets.
  
  

Possible arbitrary definition of "size" parameter may be: (correct me if i am wrong)

• "Tiny" - [2500-5000km] - (Moon sized)
• "Small" - [5000-8000km] - (Mars sized)
• "Medium" - [8000-14000km] - (Earth sized)
• "Large" - [14000-20000km] - (Super-Earth or Gas dwarf sized)
• "Huge" - [20000-30000km] - (Super-Earth / Gas dwarf sized)
• "Medium giant" / "Ice giant" - [30000-50000km] - (Neptune sized)
• "Giant" / "Gas giant" - [50000-200000km] - (Jupiter sized)
  
  

* Two other "size" values added to the Endless Space classical ones, which may be better represents gas giants in the game.



* The justification of these rules provided from table, concludes from real world facts:

• tiny sized planets can't have thick atmosphere due to low gravity.
• small or medium sized planets may have normal (lvl."1" ) atmosphere, but can't have lvl."2", because gravity not strong enough to hold hydrogen or helium. (which giant atmosphere can only consist of)
• ice giant or gas giant planets can have only lvl."2" atmosphere, due to strong gravity, that nearly always lead to absorption of large amount of hydrogen and helium, and forming giant atmosphere.
  
  

"Atmosphere level" itself can defines other parameters, for example - "Humidity".

Dependence of humidity from atm.level, can be simple rule:

• "if atm.level is 0, humidity can have only "Dry" value".
• "if atm.level is 1 or 2, humidity can have any value".
  
  

* The justification of this rule, concludes in the fact, that planet with no or very thin atmosphere loses almost of it water. (like Mars was do)

* If will be exist terraforming process, wich alters atm.lvl, than in case of terraforming planet to atm.lvl "0", must leads to turning humidity parameter to "Dry" value. (losing all water due to rule listed above)



Table that show dependency of planet class from different parameters: (size, temperature, atmosphere, humidity)

[spoiler][/spoiler]

This stuff sounds great. I especially like the idea of special links between nodes. in addition to the black links perhaps there could be event-based links? Like how in ES1 some events would place random anomalies on planets that did not already posses them. But instead of anomalies perhaps a new wormhole could be formed linking two or more systems across the galaxy. So if you were at war with a faction or were trying to explore a certain part of the galaxy, there could be a chance that a system you control could suddenly become connected to a system in enemy territory or unexplored space.

I would like to hear the idea of the nodes in a bit more detail. I know we are not talking about the combat system yet but we can assume some kind of similar version to ES with an emphasise on planning beforehand rather than micromanagement in a battle situation.



With the above in mind and what was lacking in ES was tactical and strategic use of the map other than choke points with lots of fleets on blockade (Which was not fun). If I am understanding correctly, a system or map point will be a central point and there will be nodes around it that are somehow linked or travelled to.



Does this mean you effectively blockade or choose defensive positions in the selected nodes with Sub nodes before an enemy fleet could then enter the system? If I have understood this correctly then I would like to see these nodes or staging areas with different effects on fleets, this adds strategy to defending certain areas of the map or forcing players to find different routes via perhaps advancing in the exploration research path to find new ways into an enemies area or face a costly battles against an entrenched enemy.



I am not sure about the colonising of these nodes and if this will cause more headaches with players and understanding the difference between colonising a star system and then colonising the nodes. Unless the colonising of nodes is more like adding fortifications such as a star base, repair stations, research facility or trade station, this then makes a hit and run raid on specific nodes likely without the need for a ground force to attack the star systems planet, probes then become more useful as sending a scout probe in or setting up production orders of scout probes to keep an eye on enemy nodes on your borders could show when a star base or trade port is being constructed and to raid before it becomes online.



Could you order fleets in the node so that if one fleet is destroyed the enemy can then attack into two other nodes, forming some kind defensive line. The ability to potentially put fleets in adjacent nodes into a reserve role so that if the primary first line of defence fleet takes casualties in a battle could gain reserves from them. I am getting a bit far ahead of myself but the idea of the node as a separate battle zone with map effects for bonuses and minuses around it I think would make ES2 much more tactical.



The constellation idea I think is great and I would like to see the heroes govern a constellation rather than a specific system to govern. The same would go for fleets you could create battle fleets that encompass X amount of fleets rather than one or two fleets out of 100 with a hero who gives huge bonuses.

On Planet types:



There should be 2 supercategories:



* Natural

* Artificial



A natural planet is what we had in ES1 100% of the time.

The new supercategory of artificial planets introduces superstructures which are not necessarily built by the players, nor the Endless. Nevertheless they survived the test of time (or not) and may be found in variable states of maintenance.



Natural Planets are already covered in the concept. On to the Artificial planets:



All artificial planets have a much lower cost in time and resources for 'terraformation' from biome type to another, given that they are synthetic with controllable atmospheres. The biome bonuses are not as large however. Artificial worlds have lower masses and thus cost less movement points to get through - i.e. ships get a movement bonus when traveling in/out of these systems. An artificial planet can have its biome converted, but cannot be terraformed into a natural planet.



Discworld: A discworld had all the major planetary masses of the system processed and converted into a huge starbase encircling the star. With a low spawn probability, a discworld is defined when the system is created. the number of planets would result in the size of the discworld. The discworld would be sectioned into several colonizable parts, one for each planet. A discworld would have great benefits for defense, being a huge continuous mass equippable with defensive battlestations in its whole circumference. It would be harder to cultivate food due to the frailty of the artificial biomes.



Broken Discworld: A Discworld which its spinal structure and life support systems have mostly broken down, and it has since split up in very big chunks. In practice, it's as if each piece is a planet orbiting the star. The chunks have a very large mass, enough for them to suffer tidal compression (gravity forces turn large masses into spheroids), but the discworld collapsing is too recent, and not enough time has passed for them to become spheroid structures. Because of this, those 'planets' are highly unstable 'geologically'. Broken discworlds are great production facilities, since they can be scrapped for materials and have large portions of rare and refined metals/minerals.



Artificial World: worlds which have been built/synthetically created. Think Death Star, but bigger. An ancient broken discworld may have suffered tidal compression for a long enough time that it is already spheroid. Artificial worlds tend to have a much lower mass, being low-gravity makes them easier passage stations, boosting trade.



Derelict field: A discworld or artificial planet(s) which collapsed catastrophically, in small enough piecesand scattered enough that do not allow planetary mass reforming. These are like asteroid fields, but are composed almost exclusively of huge amounts of ready-made parts. They are rich sources for parts and pieces and scavenger hunting.

* Ships built may have lower cost or unique bonuses

* Will always have one rare resource at least, but it changes every X turns, as the element caches expire and new ones are found amongst the derelicts. At least one race should have specialized units or buildings which can extend/shorten the time of a resource or look for a specific type.





One more thing ...



Victory Condition: Build a Discworld



It should be possible to have end-game technology to build a discworld, converting all planets on a system into one discworld.



A victory condition of building a discworld could be present, with restraints:



* The player must colonize a system with the max. number of planets.

* The system must have an endless derelict or more.



The player would start building the discworld from the inside to the outside, consuming planets one by one. It would take progressively longer as the number of planets is gradually reduced.

Frogsquadron wrote:


Black hole: sometimes with planets? (even if unrealistic). Fleets can orbit and might be used for teleporting.



A lot of discussions about black holes and if planets can orbit them. And going through black holes, how realistic that is.

People do see a lot of potential in teleportation through anomalies/black holes, as it could shake up early game and exploration. (Including Vaulter built warp-gate talk). Especially mentioned is teleporting to ‘unconnected systems’ – which people find interesting.

Please no teleporting through black holes. There are many old theories about black holes and the area surrounding them, only one of them suggests any sort of "traversal" being possible, and it's to the same point in a different universe, not somewhere else in the same galaxy. That theory depends on singularities, but there are no singularities in quantum physics. Black holes are solid objects with very high density and gravity, like a small dark planet. The universe doesn't fall apart around them.



If you want that sort of gameplay mechanic, use something else like unstable wormholes.



Planets trapped in orbit around one would be unlikely but possible, they would not be a nice place to hang out on.



Pretty much everything else sounds great. I was kind of hoping planets would be their own locations/entities on the map, rather than attached to the star, but after watching the gamescon video it seems like the system is still just one "node," though you can see the planets on the map, so I guess half there. Also moons, not really happy about what was mentioned with them. The distinction between planet and moon is simply a matter of what they orbit, Ganymede is larger and more viable for colonization than Mercury, and one of the most likely places to find life in our solar system. I think they should be their own thing, another "planet" to colonize, but I guess you have to limit how much can be going on in one system.

Astasia wrote:




Pretty much everything else sounds great. I was kind of hoping planets would be their own locations/entities on the map, rather than attached to the star, but after watching the gamescon video it seems like the system is still just one "node," though you can see the planets on the map, so I guess half there. Also moons, not really happy about what was mentioned with them. The distinction between planet and moon is simply a matter of what they orbit, Ganymede is larger and more viable for colonization than Mercury, and one of the most likely places to find life in our solar system. I think they should be their own thing, another "planet" to colonize, but I guess you have to limit how much can be going on in one system.

I am very much with you on the issue of moons. I'd frankly abandon the idea of actually colonizing a gas or ice giant per se. It makes much more sense to colonize any moons it has and mine the giant for special materials. I'd treat planets and their moons as systems within a system. Because this would tend to mean an expansion in the number of colonizable bodies, it would require some additional streamlining so that colony management doesn't become a micromanagement hell.

I think the idea of moons around a gas giant is a really good one. Moons would all have the same vanillia stats like 1 across the board for fids but depending what type of Gas giant they are orbiting they get extra bonuses/improvements you can build and of course you could get anomalies, moons orbiting a gas giant could get more of them to make up for them being more mundane stat wise and would fit with what we know about moons around gas giants currently.



The other options would be to have moons which were active, volcanic, Ice, Barren and give them their own subset of planet types. From what the Devs are talking about though they want anomalies to make more sense and have a physical efect on what the planet looks like, there could be a special subset of anomalies saved just for moons, keeping the vanila base moon rather their own sub set of planet types but making it so every moon has between 1-3 anomalies or a very small chance of none. I feel this would make finding a gas giant node quite special as you then see a myriad of different looking moons and special features, wondering if you will find an IO type moon or Enceladus.

vega wrote:
It seems, it may be a nice idea, to add atmosphere as distinct parameter for existing ones: {size, temperature & humidity}.

For example, atmosphere parameter may have 3 values:

• "0" - no atmosphere
• "1" - "normal"
• "2" - "giant" (which turn planet to gas giant)
  
  

Possible atmosphere values may be depended on the planet size:

• Ice giant, is the planet class, which commonly separating from gas giant planets, for reason of very different structure and composition.
• Gas dwarf, is the other planet class, separated form gas giant and ice giant, and appear as transitional class between terrestrial and gas planets.
  
  

Possible arbitrary definition of "size" parameter may be: (correct me if i am wrong)

• "Tiny" - [2500-5000km] - (Moon sized)
• "Small" - [5000-8000km] - (Mars sized)
• "Medium" - [8000-14000km] - (Earth sized)
• "Large" - [14000-20000km] - (Super-Earth or Gas dwarf sized)
• "Huge" - [20000-30000km] - (Super-Earth / Gas dwarf sized)
• "Medium giant" / "Ice giant" - [30000-50000km] - (Neptune sized)
• "Giant" / "Gas giant" - [50000-200000km] - (Jupiter sized)
  
  

* Two other "size" values added to the Endless Space classical ones, which may be better represents gas giants in the game.



* The justification of these rules provided from table, concludes from real world facts:

• tiny sized planets can't have thick atmosphere due to low gravity.
• small or medium sized planets may have normal (lvl."1" ) atmosphere, but can't have lvl."2", because gravity not strong enough to hold hydrogen or helium. (which giant atmosphere can only consist of)
• ice giant or gas giant planets can have only lvl."2" atmosphere, due to strong gravity, that nearly always lead to absorption of large amount of hydrogen and helium, and forming giant atmosphere.
  
  

"Atmosphere level" itself can defines other parameters, for example - "Humidity".

Dependence of humidity from atm.level, can be simple rule:

• "if atm.level is 0, humidity can have only "Dry" value".
• "if atm.level is 1 or 2, humidity can have any value".
  
  

* The justification of this rule, concludes in the fact, that planet with no or very thin atmosphere loses almost of it water. (like Mars was do)

* If will be exist terraforming process, wich alters atm.lvl, than in case of terraforming planet to atm.lvl "0", must leads to turning humidity parameter to "Dry" value. (losing all water due to rule listed above)



Table that show dependency of planet class from different parameters: (size, temperature, atmosphere, humidity)

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Gravity is only one of the few variables. To be exact, the real term should be escape velocity. Escape velocity depends on a planet's Gravity, Mass and Radius. And then the surface of temperature gives us how fast gasses move. If they move faster than the escape velocity of a planet then that planet can not have atmosphere. Gas Giants are simply huge, meaning they have really high escape velocity but they are also cold, making gases move slower than they should. This is why they are Gas Giants because gases simply couldn't run away. This is why they have so dense atmosphere. Hot Jupiters, meaning hot Gas Giants, usually have very dry atmosphere.



This graph almost perfectly shows atmosphere already.







Don't really need to add anything else.

Who will have more galaxies ES 2 or No Man's sky? ^_^

rockmassif wrote:
Gravity is only one of the few variables. To be exact, the real term should be escape velocity. Escape velocity depends on a planet's Gravity, Mass and Radius. And then the surface of temperature gives us how fast gasses move. If they move faster than the escape velocity of a planet then that planet can not have atmosphere. Gas Giants are simply huge, meaning they have really high escape velocity but they are also cold, making gases move slower than they should. This is why they are Gas Giants because gases simply couldn't run away. This is why they have so dense atmosphere. Hot Jupiters, meaning hot Gas Giants, usually have very dry atmosphere.



This graph almost perfectly shows atmosphere already.



[SPOILER][/SPOILER]



Don't really need to add anything else.

Don't understand: "Hot Jupiters, meaning hot Gas Giants, usually have very dry atmosphere" - Yes, but they still have dense atmosphere too.

Conclusion of the problem is not in needing or don't additional parameters like "atmosphere", but how represent gas giants in existing system (or it's slightly different version) presented in this GDD.

Frogsquadron wrote:
Planet/Anomaly Generation

• Some questions/doubts/concerns regarding planet generation and how it would work and what the benefits are.
  
  
  • The planets are generated from two parameters: humidity and temperature. The value of these two parameters will define the FIDSI values of the planets. For now, we're thus focusing on the transparency behind the value. It might be a bit rigid but we want to explore where this leads first and make it evolve if it doesn't end being as interesting as we expect.
  • These parameters will affect exploitation of luxuries / strategic resources; meaning terraforming will have consequences beyond changing FIDSI gains.
  • In addition to gameplay benefits, this approach gives us a wider set of planet types. Combined with anomalies, we want to deliver a large variety of visual and make the discovery of new systems as unique as possible.
  • After the feedback, we decided to add more gas planets. Now gas is considered as an humidity level to allow the planet to fit with the default system.
    
    
• There are some ideas regarding moons: having several moons around planets and tying moons into the basic FIDSI output of planets. As we're going to consider moons as anomalies; both will be the case.
  
  

Metalynx wrote:
Essentially the entire temperature + humidity part is primarily a way to simplify tooltips (i.e. +X bonus to temperature type, as opposed to specific planet type) and it is also a way to create a logical understandable system for terraforming. Moving up in temperature is a production for science tradeoff and moving down in temperature is a science for production trade off for example.



[HR][/HR]

Gamescom was before we made adjustments to the representation of gas giants. They should in the current iteration be: 'Frozen and Gas' or 'Hot and Gas' for example. I.e. humidity will simply say Gas. Note that these sort of things could always change depending on feedback.

Maybe retain existing system as it is (2D space-like as opposed to ES1, which was not space-like but graph-like), but just simply rename "humidity" parameter to something else ?



Some ideas how gas giants may be represented in this system:



[SPOILER][/SPOILER]

* Note that [dry;cold] desert not same as the [dry;hot] desert, according to the system presented in GDD, planet stats (FIDS) defining by it's parameters (temperature, humidity, size), not by planet class itself.



Second version, with additional values of "humidity" single parameter (which names is not nice, but i didn't come up with something better) and it's dependence of the planet size (possible ranges is arbitrary, and just for demonstration purposes):

[SPOILER][/SPOILER]

The Justification of rearrangement of gas giant classes in this table:

• Hydrogen is more likely than helium to be escaping from atmosphere at big temperatures.
• Methane is quickly decomposes due to ultraviolet radiation, when planet not far enough from star.
  
  

*The main mean of adding 6th value of size parameter - "giant", is for style purposes, like "Giant Gas Hydrogen".



Third version:

[SPOILER][/SPOILER]

I love the news about constellations, temple families, and new types of nodes and strings.



I do wonder about how Moon's will be handled, though. Are they an anomaly and replace another anomaly, or are thy a separate category so a planet can have several anomalies and a moon.

On that note, I'd love to see planets with multiple moons. Higher bonuses from "explored moon" improvements, better chance of a temple, but no other fancy effects.

That could also tie into the gas giants. As others had suggested, Gas Giants don't exactly have a lot of room to inhabit, so they could have a very low base population limit, representing stations in orbit (Just don't call it Sevastopol), and then an improvement gives them bonus population limit for each (explored) moon.



Also, while the discussion about gas giants was interesting to read, I would like to remind everybody that the GDD said "composition" is one of the categories listed in the GDD. To me that means that there might be a whole "humidity-temperature" table for gas giants, or whatever other possible planet compositions exist, if the devs decide to go that far (which I hope).



P.S. If there is a space station orbiting a black hole, it should definitely have a robot named Maximilian.

I can believe in gas giants having colonies, that live upon floating platforms in atmosphere or smth. But when i see gas giant anomalies and wonders in ES1, like "Corrosive Soil", "Swamp World", "Komatiite Volcano", "Polaris Workshop" and so on, which literally make no sense, that makes me very sad.

Can ES2, please, be more restrictive on these things, so I could really believe "gas giant" isn't just words, but an actual huge ball of turbulent and dense gas?

If anything, maybe gas giants could have their own set of anomalies and wonders? That will add to diversity and solve above mentioned problem.

Sublustris wrote:
I can believe in gas giants having colonies, that live upon floating platforms in atmosphere or smth. But when i see gas giant anomalies and wonders in ES1, like "Corrosive Soil", "Swamp World", "Komatiite Volcano", "Polaris Workshop" and so on, which literally make no sense, that makes me very sad.

Can ES2, please, be more restrictive on these things, so I could really believe "gas giant" isn't just words, but an actual huge ball of turbulent and dense gas?

If anything, maybe gas giants could have their own set of anomalies and wonders? That will add to diversity and solve above mentioned problem.

Agreed. Additionally, gas giants could have their own unique anomalies such as:



Perma-vortex - Planetary gas currents maintain a hurricane vortex of continental proportions permanently (think jupiter red spot). when properly harnessed, it becomes a huge energy source. The eye of the storm is also an area of calm in a convoluted atmosphere, which can be set up to base operations to mine the energy and dust from the atmosphere.

+ max pop, + industry, + dust



Helium 3 - the planet atmosphere is rich in helium-3, which can be used to power fusion generators. Spaceship fueling costs are diminished since this planet is an abundant source.

+ industry, + movement on lanes touching this system proportional to industry



Dust gaea - This planet's atmosphere is a dust-powered sentience. It was discoverd how to communicate it by means of light wavelengths and artificially producing atmospheric effects. A simple diplomatic arrangement was made where we keep bringing dust to it, and it uses its vast processing power to further down technological advancements of our interest.

- % dust income on system, ++% science income on system proportional to planetary population.