It really needs improvements an yours seem good, closer76

I like the Wet/Dry division suggested by Closer76 would be fine, but coupling that with racial traits to mix things up would be good as well, in my opinion. As to terraforming being scientifically implausible, I very much disagree on the subject. Science is an incredibly powerful and versatile tool that has overcome many limitations that we were and were not aware of, and I expect no less if humanity became an space-faring species.

Slar wrote:
What I am saying, real world has limits, so the game should.

Why - its a game not a simulation.



In this game there is faster than light travel, wormholes, unlimited power/fuel for the ships, your population can survive on a multitude of planets (presumably some of them would have hostile atmospheres) etc.



Its a game with game mechanics that are designed to make it fun - and if something makes it more fun then it goes in (and we make up a background scenario to accept it) or if it isnt fun it doesnt.



What is important is whether the game is fun to play, not whether it is scientifically feasible.

Cyclical with benifits to some races for certain types of planets sounds the best way to go. with either lava or barren at the bottom terran at the top of the "circle"



-------Terran

Jungle-------Ocean

Arid----------Tundra

desert------Arctic

------Barren

-------Lava

[[Edit] charged from spaces to - since it didn't display right ]

lava to barren; barren to desert or arctic (hot/cold planet gets slightly more water) etc.

some races would have a large bonus for thier 'home' type and the nearest type to that gets a small bonus

No home planet should be barren or lava as these planets are hostile to 'life'.

Im thinking the same with arctic or desert but it is possible to get life to evolve there, maybe keep it off for game purposes?

Im discounting silicoids or mechanical here but they should get a bonus all round and not care where they are.



agree to green thumbs victory sounds like a cool idea.

also leaving the cost and the way of doing it the same that way you can build up the planet then terraform it or do it in reverse, maybe have a penalty on 'bad' planets.

i could keep going but im sure people get the general idea.



Tonberry

Slar wrote:
Power etc doesn't matter. If I understand it correctly, there are zone around a sun, ie: too close planet will be hot, too far away planet will be too cold, then of course the goldilocks zone, where things are just right.

So, if a planet is in the too hot zone, even if you were able to add water, it would still evaporate, etc.

That is quite an trivial problem for a species with any terraforming technology at all, set up an array of reflecting satellites to increase/decrease the received solar radiation and you'll have an ocean world right in front of the sun and a lava planet far away.

Slar wrote:
What I am saying, real world has limits, so the game should.

I agree, but don't forget what level of technology we're talking about.

I agree with the closer76's idea but with Francech's idea too. A terran planet sould be the best planet - for a terran race. The bonus and malus should change by race as it said before.

A barren planet should be easily transformable into an artic or into a lava planet, a terran planet should be easily transformable into an ocean or a jungle planet : it should be cyclical.

I agree with the idea of terraforming should be a victory condition.



Anyway i feel strange that barren planet have a +1 food bonus - for terran race.

Power etc doesn't matter. If I understand it correctly, there are zone around a sun, ie: too close planet will be hot, too far away planet will be too cold, then of course the goldilocks zone, where things are just right.

So, if a planet is in the too hot zone, even if you were able to add water, it would still evaporate, etc.



What I am saying, real world has limits, so the game should.

Zplintz wrote:
If you have the power and technology to terraform in the first place, I cant see why it matters whether it was a lava planet you transform into a wet planet or a desert planet into a water planet.



Who is to say your terraforming doesnt involve drawing hydrogen and oxygen out of compounds found in the lava and combining it to make water and then producing the right environment to make it cold enough to freeze?



That isnt to say that the tranformation system couldnt be improved - I just dont think the justifaction for the mechanics should be based on whether its thought to be logical or not.



The terraforming is a part of the game because the devs want to give you the option of researching a skill to be able to change a planets type - the physics be hind that are irrelevant.



Your proposed system is neat and tidy and I can see why you are suggesting it, but it seems to me that having to spend the time terraforming a planet four times to get from Lava to Artic probably wouldnt produce benefits that outway other more productive improvements you could have been running.



Perhaps a simpler solution would be to just have the process/improvement take longer depending on what you are going from and to?

If you have the power and technology to terraform in the first place, I cant see why it matters whether it was a lava planet you transform into a wet planet or a desert planet into a water planet.



Who is to say your terraforming doesnt involve drawing hydrogen and oxygen out of compounds found in the lava and combining it to make water and then producing the right environment to make it cold enough to freeze?



That isnt to say that the tranformation system couldnt be improved - I just dont think the justifaction for the mechanics should be based on whether its thought to be logical or not.



The terraforming is a part of the game because the devs want to give you the option of researching a skill to be able to change a planets type - the physics be hind that are irrelevant.



Your proposed system is neat and tidy and I can see why you are suggesting it, but it seems to me that having to spend the time terraforming a planet four times to get from Lava to Artic probably wouldnt produce benefits that outway other more productive improvements you could have been running.



Perhaps a simpler solution would be to just have the process/improvement take longer depending on what you are going from and to?

i would like to add that Terran should be still very good planets to have. You can easy produce on a lava planet but costs and possibilities to have a high population rise a lot. So let's say that a lava planet produces 5-10 industry. But it can sustain only 2-3 population. A terran planet that produces 3-5 industry but has a population cap of 8 then it's clear that in the end a terran planet should be better.



Also i think that terran planets are good as they are the natural environment of certain species where they do not require special technology to survive.¨



As for getting out the most we already have this in the game in the form of the carvers that exhaust planets.



I agree that every race should have their ideal "terran" planet. A example could simply be water life forms that consider ocean as terran.



The nice thing is that should remain is that planets give good bonus so that you can keep planets in a certain form to maximize one resource type.

Terraforming: This is a big one I think needs improving. This should be in order of the two types of planets: Dry and Wet. It should go: Barren-Arctic-Tundra-Top Tier and Lava-Desert-Arid-Top Tier. It just doesn't make sense that I can turn a Lava planet into an Arctic planet. It takes me out of the game. I know it's SciFi, and I know there's strategy as to what planet to have, but I feel it should be more logical. I want to really feel like, through my effort, research, and time, I am turning a lava ball first into a desert, then into an arid planet, and then into a living planet. As of right now, you don't need all of the terraforming techs, because I can turn any Tier 4 planet into a any Tier 3, and so on. I feel it should be more of a straight shot upwards, with the Dry planets emphasizing Production and Dust, while the Wet planets emphasize Research and Food. Further, it requires alot of research and time to get the final terraforming techs, but I don't think it makes as much of a difference. Once you have a planet on Arid or Tundra, the extra research it takes to get the Tech to give you the Resource you need, and then to research the tech to get the Terraforming, and then to do the actual terraforming, the difference isn't significant enough. Terran, Ocean, and Jungle planets should be paradises compared to the other planets, gems your yearning to find, and their bonuses should be different enough that it makes me want to make one one or one the other. Right now they look too much alike (IMHO). I think Ocean should be paired with the Wet planets (for obvious reasons) and therefore should give great food and research, while Jungle planets should give great Dust and Production. Terran would be a mix. Here's how it might look (this is from the top of my head):



Wet

Barren: -15 happy, +1 Research, +1 Food (BTW, Barren is in the Wet because it is a frozen ball, it just has no water yet. Once you add the water, it would become a frozen ball, making it an Arctic)

Arctic: -10 Happy, +2 Research, +2 Food

Tundra: -5 Happy, +3 Research, +3 Food, +1 Dust, +1 Production

Ocean: +4 Research, +4 Food, +2 Dust, +2 Production (It makes sense the Ocean is here, because now, all the Water has melted)



Dry

Lava: -15 Happy, +1 Production, +1 Dust

Desert: -10 Happy, +2 Production, +2 Dust

Arid: -5 Happy, +3 Production, +3 Dust, +1 Research, +1 Food

Jungle: +4 Production, +4 Dust, +2 Research, +2 Food (it makes sense that Jungles are in this chain because A: their in hot climates and B: they are notoriously bad soil for crops, meaning the lesser food)



Terran would be: +3 Production, +3 Dust, +3 Research, +3 Food, basically, your all-around good planet. One of the reasons I like this idea is because, right now, I don't think Lava and Barren planets are 'tough' enough to settle. Lava give pretty darn good Production, so they start off pretty nice. I feel like Terraforming should really be encouraged, and I think it should be a Victory condition, maybe called the Green Thumb Victory: Based on the size of the galaxy, get X points from Terraforming. Here, you would get points based on how many planets you've brought to Tier 1 (Ocean, Jungle, or Terran), and the harder the terraforming was, the more points you get. The big points here would be for bringing Tier 4s (Lava and Barren) into Tier 1s. I think this would be a fun, peaceful way to win.

KNC wrote:
Why is a tech park on a barren planet especially effective? Because the lack in atmosphere allows for easily build huge space observation points without the atmosphere interfering. Try that on any world with an atmosphere, there are reasons we have most advanced telescopes in space, not on the earth itself.

I definitely see your point, and agree. Mirroring what you said, I would like to see two things:

A) Race Specific bonuses for planets, meaning some races would prefer some planets over others. (Examples: AI Race likes Lava for production and Barren/Arctic for cold, but Terran planets cause their circuits to deteriorate faster; Jovian = Gas giant; Silicoid = Asteroid (Thanks PolytheistGoat).

B) A victory condition for terraforming (Dependent on what type of planet your species prefers). Thus, while each planet would have specific bonuses (as it is now, which, I do have to admit, I like) this would give incentive to the player that desires to terraform everything into Terran/Ocean/Jungle. Thus, while it is not the norm (normally you would just leave planets where want them (such as Barren for Science), but, if a player wants to, they can terraform the galaxy and win that way. You could even have a race that views this as their sacred mission (maybe a semi-religious zealot race?) and this is their cheif form of victory.

I basically agree on the ideas, though I think they need to be fine-tuned for the game itself. Also voting for different species getting different bonuses on different planets. And while some planets should be generally better than others it shouldn't the planets shouldn't be too linear as every type of planet has its own advantages. The system should motivate you to prefer some planets, not to completely purge all lower ones.



Why is a tech park on a barren planet especially effective? Because the lack in atmosphere allows for easily building huge space observation points without the atmosphere interfering. Try that on any world with an atmosphere, there are reasons we have most advanced telescopes in space, not on the earth itself.

DracuSRL wrote:
i agree with the initial idea of linear Terra-forming but include an option based on tech to jump from t1 to t4 because it would be tedious to spend 4 to 10 turns with a malus on system FIDS just to terra-form a few planets

Not system FIDS, I'd put the malus on the planet FIDS. And making it a background event means the system can contribute other things to the empire besides just terraforming. I mostly dislike terraforming being decided purely on raw Industrial output. As if mega-industrializing a planet is enough on its own to turn it into a literal jungle or ocean!



Don't mistake my idea for the original poster's, either... I'm being slightly tangential in my wishes.

i agree with the initial idea of linear Terra-forming but include an option based on tech to jump from t1 to t4 because it would be tedious to spend 4 to 10 turns with a malus on system FIDS just to terra-form a few planets

I personally feel that terraforming should be a background process, not something that the system pushes its entire industrial production into. Pick your terraforming target and go. Terraforming upwards towards a better world saps FIDS while the terraforming project sucks resources away and requires extra restrictions, but terraforming downwards towards a worse world boosts FIDS temporarily as your people consume resources from the planet. Turning a Terran or Jungle world into an Arid world should be wonderful for Production. Gee, all that heat and pollution you had to expensively contain before, you can just dump. All question of sustainable resource harvesting goes out the window, too. Go ahead, exhaust those soils, it's not only permitted, it's policy!



That's not even getting into the crazy amount of available and even exotic minerals that should come to the fore while you're busily liquefying an arctic or desert world into a lava world.



I would say that 'wet' terraforming (arctic, tundra, ocean) should sap dust and industry due to expensive logistical concerns, while 'dry' terraforming (desert, arid, jungle) should sap research and food as your people redesign the planetary ecosystems. Hauling in massive amounts of water and greenhouse gasses to make a planet warmer and wetter is expensive. Meanwhile, farms dedicated to creating and then replanting locally-specialized plants may be farms investing in future food production, but they are not farms producing food right now. The exact balance of costs would be dependent on which planet you're moving from and which one you're moving to. Arid-Jungle is mostly a food cost with minor research cost (we already have an eco-system, let's make it overgrown) while Desert-Arid would've been mostly a research cost with minor food cost (how can we create an eco-system from nothing that will survive on local resources?). The terraforming completes when the project finishes.



I'm not sure what penalty Barren+ or Lava+ projects should have, but my gut tells me they should probably be the most expensive projects. Especially Barren+. You're creating EVERYTHING from scratch on a world like that.



Terraforming across the paths within the same tier (arctic to desert, arid to tundra) should be as expensive as a 'positive' transformation would be. Since the effort wouldn't even have the payoff of the world becoming more habitable at the end, it might be justified to have a special happiness penalty during such projects.



I don't see why terraforming across the paths upwards or downwards should be penalized, though. It would make sense that an arctic world hit with streams of gravitons and massive gravitational sheer forces would become extremely volcanically active. Contrariwise, the primary step in turning a lava world into something else will be to stabilize its crust. If you liquefy an arctic world into a lava world, and then reterraform it into an arctic world again later, what have you done aside from rip apart the crust and then reform it? While it may have vented a lot of greenhouse gasses during its volcanic interlude, if you have the technology to create an arctic world you presumably have the technology to remove those.



No, what really bothers me is that you can turn the planet nearest the sun into an arctic world and the planet farthest from the sun into a desert. In the same system!

I'll have to agree with this one, as it just makes sense that one shouldn't be able to transform a planet into its polar opposite. Sure, it might be possible with some absurd amounts of technology, but it's just... odd for you to be able to freeze a desert planet over.



It should be simple enough to change which planet types can be turned into what others. However, there should also be some degree of information regarding that in the terraform tooltips, just so you don't accidentally research, say, Tundra Transformation while thinking about working on that one Desert planet.

Just logging in briefly to say that I strongly support this; if not for a priority tweak, as something to adjust over time. I love to feel that I've made a planet more 'habitable', and of course for races that live/prefer other kinds of Planets, you could simply reverse the order; Jovian races would try to terraform towards Gas Giants, Silicoid races might have a stellar bore that makes asteroid belts... Anyway, more thoughts for down the road. I'm a goat, and I approve this message!