Rework of terraforming tree

I write this terraforming tree on paper weeks ago too :D It seems we have the same one, i dont see any mistakes.

I think the developers want to have a terraforming tree, that has positive effects on gameplay as well be realistic. Your suggested tree is more realistic, but i like the idea too, that there is 1 or 2 planet types, that cant be terraformed (like ocean). It should be a good feeling for gameplay, if u are lucky and found this planet (otherwise its good for the difficulty of the achivment to colonise every planet type). Yes i think no terraforming for Gas planets is realistic and good gameplay. Maybe there should be a possibility to terraform from fertile to sterile (riftborn: sterile to fertile), that should be quiet expensive and in last Era, but possible for special systems (maybe 20k production costs + strategic ressources).

And here my new idea for Gas planet transformations: For Example u have a production gas planet. There is a transformation process, that has to be researched in the tech tree. Allowing to make a 100% production gas planet to a 50% production/50% dust gas planet. Or a 100% dust gas planet to a 50%dust/50%influence gas planet. Or a 100% science gas planet to  a 50%science/50%production gas planet. Scientific Explanation: A gas planet exists of different gas types. In the transformation process u burn/cold/add/removes/with pressure etc. the other gas types and now u have the chance to use the gas planet different with a new majority on gas types.

It makes it more difficult too, that the Riftborn terraforming tree should be inverted. But it isnt. Example: Normally u can terraform Lava to Desert, but the Riftborns cant terraform Desert to Lava (only Arid). Its the same with Barren to Arctic, but the Riftborns cant terraform Arctic to Barren. Its very complicated. Arid to Lava is possible for the Riftborns, but Lava to Arid is not a normal terraforming way for others.

I am a fan of terraforming processes in games and in cinema. So please developers help us to get a perfect terraforming system. Its the most fun for me and the reason i bought Endless Space 1 in the past.

Thanks for sharing ! 

I only did this tree recently because before that i tried and updates after updates, some stuff changed, so I decided to wait for live version, the famous 1.0 ^^.

I haven't taken the time to play the riftborn yet but what you say makes sense. I hear you when you say that some world can't be terraformed which is usually the worlds that are the most suitable for the race (ocean, forest, etc ...). But these world depends on the race, which explains the differenciation between Empire and Riftborn. We could push that even further. It seems that the sophons like cold planets (for science). Maybe for them cold planets should be the "non-terraformable" and bring the most BINS (but it imply a very hard mechanic to implement for each race). 

BTW I did make a mistake in my tree, i forgot the link between Arctic and Steppes ...

The thing that made me post is when I saw transition Arid to Jungle and then to Atoll. I hardly see how you can transform a rocky hot planet into a fertile tree planet and then fload that and have an atoll. It feels wrong ...

I hope that others will share their ideas about this.

I feel like there should be side-side and even backward terraforming based on your tree too. It shouldn't always have to go up. From a gameplay perspective this could be nice too, trying to optimize your system for what you're wanting. like turning that hot/fertile jungle planet into a cold/fertile boreal so i.e. your pilgrims can really crank out the science.

Actually, if you study the benefits of terraforming in a matter of FIDSI, going up is always more interesting (it seems). Why ? 

Because of the population and approval. In fact A planet producing 6 of Industry with 9 slot of population on it is always better than a planet producing 12 of Industry but with only 4 people on it. Moreover, the approval for the planet with 6 of Industry has often 0 or +5 Approval Modifier where the planet with 12 of industry has a -15 approval modifier.

Which makes it pretty sad, since it proves that you should always terraform up all your systems and end up with systems that all look the same ...

I'll post my numbers later.

I ran some numbers just now and if you want food/industry and I'm pretty sure for dust too, Ocean/Atoll with their starting 20FIDSI reign supreme. I think for Science you could make an argument for Boreal or maybe Tundra over them. Might be close though with 100% food going to production and then doing a 50% conversion to science. 

As promised, here are the numbers :

To sum-up, here are the overall increase of FIDS (not detailled by category) :

That's when you realise that you have no point to keep a Toxic planet or a Monsoon if you can terraform it for example.

I'd actually prefer something along the lines of being able to terraform most types direclty to some other type - only the cost and/or duration increases depending on how much 'further' from the original environment the target environment is. Or, being able to strip a planet quickly back to something basic, like barren or lava (which is surely easier than life-seeding) and then layering a planet with the desired terrain, liquid(s), flora and fauna.

Surely if you can terraform a planet from, say, snow to steppes then you could also transform it back to ice, or even melt it into an ocean or something? I really like terraforming and even as non-Riftborn species I have sometimes wanted to turn some backwater planet into a mining powerhouse, with a few displaced pops on it. The flexibility just isn't there at the moment.

As much as I like the idea of a terraforming 'matrix' like what currently exists, I really feel like there's no reason not to have something more flexible -- naturally, I'm only talking mechanically and theoretically here; I have no idea what kind of enormous programming job that would be.