I have question connected to this topic - will we be still (like in ES1) able to teraform gas giants into telluric planets and vice versa? I hope not... disabling this option would give little more meaning to "terrain" with gas giants as something like mines (plentifull IDS, but next to nothing F and second I, and very few population slots) or something more interesting.

Good lord, what you suggest makes so much more sense than the current implementation. 

Hilariously, Stellaris went through this exact same discussion, and they kinda-patched the game to make it better - but it still isn't as intuitive or logical as what you've suggested.  Good work.

The only suggestion is that you have 23 planet types and the game currently has 20.  Seems like you could lose a few and get a little creative with the naming and get it all to work out?

I agree, good suggestions.

Tectonic activity irl is related to the kernel temperature.

IMHO, it's not a scale that can do a fine 3rd dimension in your original table. A better one should be gravity, and if you are looking for a 4th one, you can add sun radiation.

The problem is always how to make a system that is realistic enough for suspension of disbelief while working out gameplay-wise as well.

Replacing humidity with activity could work well for extreme planets, though I still think that planets with medium temperatures are well labelled with humidity, since humidity and an atmosphere brings activity with it in medium temperatures.

Still, I like the idea of surface activity, I'm just not sure how it would be possible to fit it into the game by now.

XorUnison wrote:

Pejman wrote:

btw is molted suposed to be dry or wet (it's kinda wet with magma xD)

While not scientifically correct, I also think that's how the grid would and should look like.

The Humidity scale might have been a poor choice of words; it's more related to the activity at the surface. Planets with massive liquid oceans, tectonic activity, radioactivity or immense variations in temperature will have extreme weather effects which can be useful for lifeforms or industry, as it creates lots of ways to tap into the system's free energy (energy that's available for work, mechanical or chemical). By contrast, worlds on the 'drier' end like Barrens or Deserts are mostly uniform and devoid of local variations in temperature or composition and as such possess very little free energy. However, this also means that these worlds change very little over time and are likely to preserve anything left to decay there, be it Endless ruins or eons-old meteorite fragments. The scale should rate surface activity from Extreme to Dead (none).

With that in mind, an ash planet doesn't seem like the most 'dead' a hot planet can get, because it implies traces of tectonic activity and potentially complex molecules under the surface. If you think of Mercury however, that's pretty dead. The planet has been geologically inactive for most of its existence, it has the smallest tilt of any planet in the solar system and has no satellites or atmosphere. It rotates so slow around its axis that every year on Mercury is only one mercury-day and a half. In my opinion, you should just put Mercurial at Burning/Dry and lower the other planets by one row.

To be honest my main issue with telluric -> gas giants is mass difference, not necessarly gameplay. But there could be some gameplay build on locking planets type.

There might be even third type of planets - artificial (we know that there are artificial stars in the game) left by endless or other ancient ones (way beyond even top-tier in-game techs). This may be way to diversitate "terrain" with terraformable telluric planets with some fixed (or changable in theirs own category) gas giants and artificial planets. Ofcourse it may be to much and I don't think it is necessary (thou it would be nice), but I agree that some rework to current colonisation/climate/terraforming system is very much needed.

Slightly off topic perhaps but connected to this is the placement of planets types in solar systems. Not a burning issue but it would be nice to see at some point if possible that in systems with many planets rocky planets are closer to the star while gas giants tend to show up farther away (or hot Jupiter-type planets close to the star). Just for scientific accuracy's sake. As I mentioned, not a burning issue to be worked on immediately but if the tools are there to make this possible it would add to the immersion.

Pejman wrote:

btw is molted suposed to be dry or wet (it's kinda wet with magma xD)

While not scientifically correct, I also think that's how the grid would and should look like.

Drzewo wrote:

I have question connected to this topic - will we be still (like in ES1) able to teraform gas giants into telluric planets and vice versa? I hope not... disabling this option would give little more meaning to "terrain" with gas giants as something like mines (plentifull IDS, but next to nothing F and second I, and very few population slots) or something more interesting.

Hm... good question. In ES1 Tellur to Gas terraforming was the most difficult terraforming to achieve. Having no possibility to do that might have its merits though, I see your point.

So this thread contains my ideas and opinions on the planet grid that is currently in the game. I've made threads about this since a year ago but they're all in the VIP forums, so they're not visible to everyone. This is gonna be the official version that I can link in my according idea. The idea is here: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/ideas/2-rework-the-entire-planet-grid

Let's jump right into it. First, here's the current Planet grid for reference:

The issues in short are these:

1. There is only 1 'climate'. So a planet is either wet or cold, but not both. We end up with an Ice planet that is not classified as cold, and that's bad.

2. The system is extremely unintuitive, as names often don't explain their  at all. It's also drastically different from ES1 so old players will find additional confusion in it.

3. The terraforming system will make no sense whatsoever if implemented like in ES1. A single terraforming step from one tier to another and one climate to another will yield possible options like Desert→Ocean, Jungle→Arid or Lava→Arctic.

4. The tech tree just won't feel right. There's one tech per planet and it's always coupled to some other tech. You always need to set priorities between the planets to colonize and the additional tech advantage, and this is a factor that might unbalance the game when a player ends up needing one tech for his/her empire but another tech for this or that planet type repeatedly.

And here are the issues in more detail:

Topic 1 - Temperature versus Humidity

The whole idea of temperatures and humidity as distinct traits has been brought up by Amplitude in the GDDs, and quite frankly I liked the idea back then, and I still like it. To give you a quick reminder what it was about, based on a document provided by one of the devs back then I made a suggested grid:

As mentioned the suggested grid above was based on what the devs initially posted, but I filled in the blanks and made a couple other changes here and there.

The rules are simple, and names mostly relatable.

Cold=

Hot=

Dry=

Water&Temperate=

Influence is missing here, because the grid above is outdated, but it is safe to assume that Planets with more  yield more Influence as well.

Planets also had 2 traits earlier, one for humidity one for temperature. Fortunately I have an old screenshot lying around:

Now it looks like this:

So... where do I even begin? There are 2 glaringly obvious issues here.

1. Planets either have an humidity trait OR a temperature trait. So a dry or a water planet has no temperature. And a planet with a temperature trait has no humidity value.

An Ice planet has water, but apparently it's not cold... And a barren planet isn't dry either.

This has a directly negative impact on gameplay. Like this there is one, and just one, optimal task for every planet.

A single climate dictates what the Planet is useful for. Even though an Ice planet should be cold, it is utterly useless for . It can be used for  and nothing else, robbing the game of depth.

If every planet had 2 values that'd add more depth to how players can use systems and planets. It's not even recurring micromanagement since you drop the exploitation once.

Having only 1 trait makes exploitation choices for planets much less interesting and meaningful in the later game.

2. Gas is a separate trait and they also don't have their temperature as a separate trait. It again breaks a system that is already inconsistent at too many places.

Topic 2 - It's unintuitive

There isn't much more to add here. An Ice or Tundra planet isn't cold, an Ash or Barren planet isn't dry... the list goes on. Connecting a planet name to it's climate and thus the  is often much harder than it should be. And it is much harder than it would be with the grid the devs suggested initially or my grid. Or any other grid that has been suggested by the VIPs since the earliest months.

Topic 3 - Terraforming makes no sense

Like, it literally makes no sense. Moving within a climate is almost okay but even here there are gaps and schisms. Ash→Jungle for example.

Once you add moving between climates it escalates completely. Ocean→Desert is the perfect example of this, and it is once again the reason each planet should have humidity AND temperature.

I grid like that would place planet types that don't belong together far apart. Going from Ocean to Desert would require multiple jumps in both temperature and humidity.

The initial grid that's been mentioned in the GDDs was in part developed to prevent exactly this.

Topic 3 - Researching for colonization feels clunky

Currently there is one tech per planet type and it is always coupled with another technology, like probe range, expedition strength and such. Add on top the fact that tech costs always scale upwards with each technology researched, so you can't skip something for a while and push it in between like you could in ES1.

Say you need to upgrade you expeditions (and you will need to do that) but you have no planet of the according types in your vicinity, half of the research ends up useless.

That's not a problem until some other planet can upgrade his/her expeditions AND get more choices to colonize.

I realize this thread isn't perfectly organized but it should give you a rough feeling of what I'm getting at. Migrating all of my thread content from the VIP forums would end up making this thread colossal without pushing the point further.

btw is molted suposed to be dry or wet (it's kinda wet with magma xD)

lo_fabre wrote:

Good stuff here. I think it may work very well together with my suggestion using GDDs system. It solved the points I missed, even before I wrote the post.

If you don't mind I'll put a link and update my proposal to be coherent with some of your ideas.

Sure go ahead. And well, I had over an year now or so to think about the GDDs, was one of the first non-Amplitude people to take a look at it.

That being said, you also definitely have better coverage on the tech part, I might add a link to your thread later as well.

Good stuff here. I think it may work very well together with my suggestion using GDDs system. It solved the points I missed, even before I wrote the post.

If you don't mind I'll put a link and update my proposal to be coherent with some of your ideas.

This is a fantastic idea! Also, you could have "Greenhouse" where Volcanic is, and move the other two down a slot.

Put this is the ideas section so the devs can see it, it would actually be a massive Quality of Life improvement.

mixerria wrote:

Regarding Topic 3 I'd like to link lo_fabre's topic here, he has some excellent ideas regarding colonization tech progression: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forum/66-game-design/thread/21582-suggestion-new-colonisation-tech-system

I've taken a quick glance at it earlier and so far I liked what I saw there as well. Especially considering I only put a bit of detail into the tech issues, and spent most of my time on the planet types themselves. When I have more time I'll take a closer look at it though.

Thanks for adding this proposal to the public forums.

Your idea of organizing the planet types makes much more sense than the current categorization. Also, two planetary traits should really be displayed.

Regarding Topic 3 I'd like to link lo_fabre's topic here, he has some excellent ideas regarding colonization tech progression: https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/forum/66-game-design/thread/21582-suggestion-new-colonisation-tech-system