KNC wrote:
I was already somewhat sure that's what he thought, though in the end, to improve the small ones you spend nothing more than 3 Dust, because all the others affect all types.

I was comparing a fully improved small/tiny to an unimproved huge, read next time. They cannot be in the same system or this example would not work. Endothermic Structures (-3) + Psychological Insulation (-5) + Self-Replicating Habitats (-12) = -20 dust per turn to create a tiny planet with similar pop levels to an unimproved huge. If they are in the same system, then huge automatically is more useful at 4 more pop. Late game with lots of improvements, 1 pop can add something like +40 FIDS. x4 = +160 FIDS.

Added to summary list under GamePlay > General > Population/Planet size

Ketobor wrote:
Larger planets are better, but why is it that you are so determined to see them as massively better?



There is a clear and important trend in how small planets function. While these planets look such smaller on the images, the are clearly within an easily habitable threshold and not massively different than the larger planets.





There is just no need for the low-end crusade you seem to be on. It barely effects gameplay except to marginalize the research choice implications of systems you have and just sorta congeal them into an unremarkable mass.

Well I'm bothered by it a lot but crusade is taking it a bit too far. And obviously there's not much difference apart from the size, but I don't know if you have a picture of how huge the difference between a planet with 1000km diameter and 5000km diameter is. Big planets also don't have to be that massively better but just enough that I feel myself giving bigger planets priority, just like it should be. One of my main points is that Tiny/Small/Medium planets are all the same later in the game (which actually isn't even 20 turns later, in a game of far over 100 turns) and that just doesn't work at all I think. It would really bother me to have a game with such ridiculous unrealism, a little in the right spots is okay and for a sci-fi game even necessery but not there and most certainly not that much.

I'm gonna go slightly off topic here, but hopefully you'll see why!



I'm sure i saw a poll around whether people felt the universe is real/diverse/alive enough and the overriding feeling was that it isn't.



With that in mind it seems to me that the universe, including planets, needs to be brought to life more. Inclusion of gravity and different atmoshperes for example would increase the variety of planetary possibilities.



This in turn would probably require empires that specialised on certain types of planet type/gravity/atmosphere combinations and depending upon the empire and what their specialisation is would dictate the max population for a particular planet.



So what i'm basically saying is that - yeah population size needs sorting out but i think the underlying lack of diversity in the universe needs sorting out first.

Larger planets are better, but why is it that you are so determined to see them as massively better?



There is a clear and important trend in how small planets function. While these planets look such smaller on the images, the are clearly within an easily habitable threshold and not massively different than the larger planets.





There is just no need for the low-end crusade you seem to be on. It barely effects gameplay except to marginalize the research choice implications of systems you have and just sorta congeal them into an unremarkable mass.

I added some details and fixed a few bugs.



This poll is soon 7 days in existence and then ready to be added to the list but there need to be more votes.

I agree there should be a change but it should be something like a fully upgraded Tiny should be half of a Huge. So making huge more important is the answer. As reducing the Tiny and small would hurt too much their usefulness. I also find that the improvements should cost something more, but should not be a killer.

Ghost73 wrote:
You should be more careful when bringing realism into a discussion about a science-fiction game set in a universe with 8 independently evolved sentient races where the laws of modern physics are broken. I don't see why their sci-fi tech couldn't find a way to make small planets as populated as large ones.

Okay, only one question then. If I can use the technology to poulate a small planet as much as a big one, why can't I use it vice versa to put even more people on big planets?

KNC wrote:
Of course that's the point. If we turn everything into a holy grail of FIDS we don't need differences between planet sizes at all. We could make all planet types the same as well, can't imagine much people to be happy about that though.

I think making smaller planets less useful than bigger planets can only benefit the game, in terms of gameplay, balance and making it realistic. Having tiny planets being as good as big ones just takes being unrealistic several steps to far.

You should be more careful when bringing realism into a discussion about a science-fiction game set in a universe with 8 independently evolved sentient races where the laws of modern physics are broken. I don't see why their sci-fi tech couldn't find a way to make small planets as populated as large ones.



I'm not really sure how it would help balance at all. Gameplaywise, it might add a little bit of depth when choosing colonies, but not much, gotta colonize 'em all as it stands anyways. As the game stands now, the population disparity between planet sizes is a non-issue. I would rather the devs concentrate on actual gameplay problems.

Zenicetus wrote:
Large planets will naturally have more resources to work with, but large size also means higher gravity.

I thought about the gravity of bigger planets recently but totally forgot about that here, thanks for bringing it up.

Theoretically with gravity it could be turned around, in the beginning it'd be hard to settle on big planets but later you get the technology to properly do that. Currently high gravity is an anomaly and it can be fixed, so why not?

KNC wrote:
I think making smaller planets less useful than bigger planets can only benefit the game, in terms of gameplay, balance and making it realistic. Having tiny planets being as good as big ones just takes being unrealistic several steps to far.

I dunno.... I think a counter-argument can be made, if we're going to drag realism into it.



Large planets will naturally have more resources to work with, but large size also means higher gravity.



It's easier to colonize and expand in a lower-gravity environment. It costs less energy to move stuff around, and industry works better in lower gravity. It's probably easier to grow food in low to medium gravity environments too, compared to high gravity (although I suppose floating cloud farms would work).



Unless your species developed in high gravity, it may be more difficult to convince your population to move to a higher gravity planet just because it's so darned uncomfortable. In other words, it could be a malus built into the planet size similar to that of an acid rain planet. There may even be biological factors related to reproduction in high gravity.



Gravity issues aside, it's more efficient to grow population when your cities are close together, compared to being spread out over a large area. Although, I think gravity is the winning argument for why smaller planets should have higher population caps than huge ones.



Anyway, just a different perspective. However it's handled, I wouldn't like to see all planets having the same population caps.

Ghost73 wrote:
If they are in the same system, then huge automatically is more useful at 4 more pop.

And that is what renders your example largely useless There's this 1 in 100 systems where you actually only feed a bunch of small planets in a system (except you set the planets to small, that would waste the point again though). In almost all other cases the improvements will affect larger planets as well, so you wouldn't be paying specifically for the small ones.

Intel_4_Life wrote:


•Huge: 50+

•Large: 39+

•Medium: 20+

•Small: 9+

•Tiny: 2+

Your other question has been answered already I see.

As for this, it looks realistic but quite extreme, maybe I wouldn't go that far in putting them apart by size. It still has to fit in the game balance. But in my opinion that still would be better than the way it is right now.

I might come up with a more detailed example for the revamp later.

Intel_4_Life wrote:
...

Does population impact the resources harvested from a planet? Or is one population unit enough to harvest all the planetary resources?

...

Yes, the yields of a system depend on population. Just look at all the +2 Science/Industry/Food/Dust per population per planet.

KNC,



Really good points. I had noticed that there was not a lot of difference, but with the planetary improvements, I see it was worse than I thought.



I would suggest that Gas Giants and Asteroids should have almost no population and no upgrades to them. The difficulty of supporting a large population of these stellar bodies would not be cost effective or even possible in some cases. Then on large bodies I would suggest having nearly limitless populations, but it takes time to build that population up.



Does population impact the resources harvested from a planet? Or is one population unit enough to harvest all the planetary resources?





•Huge: 50+

•Large: 39+

•Medium: 20+

•Small: 9+

•Tiny: 2+



with serious negatives for inhospitable environments.

I've been pondering about this topic for a while and decided I'm not satisfied with a certain number of things concerning the possible amount of population per planet. While I do think a game can be unrealistic to a certain amount the current system is really odd on some points.



1. The possible amount of population units per planet is somewhat unbalanced in favor for small and tiny planets. Let's look at a list of possible population on Terran/Ocean/Jungle worlds:

• Huge: 10
• Large: 8
• Medium: 6
• Small: 5
• Tiny: 4
  
  

So a huge planet barely fits in twice as much population as a small planet. Somewhat unrealistic but something that wouldn't be that bad on its own.



Now with Psychological Insulation (+1 pop, +1 pop per moon [ignoredinthisthreadthoughsinceit'sbasicallyanotherobject]) and Self-replicating Habitats (+2 pop):

• Huge: 13
• Large: 11
• Medium: 9
• Small: 8
• Tiny: 7
  
  

Now a huge planet doesn't even fit half the population of a tiny planet. Did the huge planet shrink or did the smaller ones grow? No, the upgrades have the same effect for each planet size, which is already somewhat bad.



2. But this second point makes everything worse, Endothermic Structures (+2 pop on tiny, +1 pop on small). First I'll have to say I really like the idea of Endothermic Structures, basically they take most of their energy from the heat/radiation outside, making power plants largely useless, thus more space, easier to construct cities, bigger population. So far in endless space it only affects tiny and small planets though.

Hence a comparison between no upgrades and all upgrades looks like this:

• Huge: 10/13
• Large: 8/11
• Medium: 6/9
• Small: 5/9
• Tiny: 4/9
  
  

Well... just NO. Not just is there no difference between Tiny/Small/Medium planets anymore, the gap to the bigger planets is largely irrelevant. Why look for a huge planet when you can have 2 smaller ones. And what defines huge here? Even if the size displayed in the game is somewhat correct a huge planet would have to fit a LOT more population. If we can just use technology to fit as much people on small planets as on big ones why don't we crack up the planets then to make several tiny planets. And actually if we can use technology like that we can obviously use it as well for more population on bigger planets. It all just doesn't make sense like that.



Not to mention Endothermic Structures are about temperature, I see no relation to planet size at all. Endothermic Structures would be great on a lava planet because it would make all power plants unnecessary, building would be fast and cheap and the surplus of habitat energy would power the industry easily.

Yet on a Barren/Arctic/Tundra planet there would be barely any much heat energy to harvest, and radiation energy isn't that plenty either.

Deserts and arid planets would be somewhere in the middle.

Using that realistic would turn the tide in favor of hot planets, probably not good for balancing as well.



A medium planet is bigger than a tiny planet and it should be that way in the game as well. Just as a huge planet should be something really valuable especially if it is habitable.



Then again if the planet size would afflict the effect of +pop improvements it would become unbalanced really fast because of the population units, can't have anything add +1,5 population limit.



And I'm not even finished:

3. There's also a population issue with gas giants and asteroids, concerning all the possible upgrades (Endothermic Structures, Self-replicating Habitats, Psychological Insulation, Living Habitats).

• Huge: 4/8
• Large: 3/7
• Medium: 3/7
• Small: 2/7
• Tiny: 1/7
  
  

Here apart from now Small/Tiny/Medium/Large being the same, huge is barely 1 population unit ahead. So size doesn't matter here at all, it is pretty much completely irrelevant.



4. Then there's the fact Horatios get +1 pop limit on Small/Tiny/Medium. While I think they should keep their ability for more population, with that they manage to fit more people on a small gas giant/asteroid belt than on a large one (though I think there are no small/tiny gas giants but that's beside the point). And EVEN that isn't the end of a story full of ridicule, the Crowded Planets trait on level 2 gives +2 pop on small/tiny and +1 pop on medium.

To visualize how that would look like with no/all upgrades while having this trait:



Planet (still Terran/Ocean/Jungle):

• Huge: 10/13
• Large: 8/11
• Medium: 7/10
• Small: 7/11
• Tiny: 6/11
  
  

Asteroid Belt/Gas Giant:

• Huge: 4/8
• Large: 3/7
• Medium: 4/8
• Small: 4/9
• Tiny: 3/9
  
  

The planets already look stupid but having tiny and small Asteroid Belts/Gas Giants being actually more valuable than huge ones? This isn't even ridiculous anymore it just makes me cry



Basically I love the idea of population units, it is easy to understand and works kind of great so far, but I think it really needs a revamp. It's so far the first big bad point of Endless Space which leaves a bad aftertaste, and I'd love to see it get fixed.



A fast way and my idea for a revamp would be to increase the amount of population by 3x and reduce the FIDS output by x0.33 (or x2/x0.5, whatever works best in the end). That way the end result is the same but population growth and size could be a lot more realistic, without unbalancing anything. Actually it would do a lot of work to balance the population system in terms of planet size in the first place.

In order to counter the fact new colonies would have third (half) the FIDS output with 1 population unit, just put 3 (2) population units in one colony ship.

Then the techs to affect planets by their size. Like giving Psychological Insulation +1/2/3/4/5 on the planets according to their size and Self-replicating Habitats +2/4/6/8/10. The numbers are just examples, I'd be willing to work something out I think might actually work if this idea is well enough received.



As for Endothermic Structures... The idea is too great to just take it out, but have it stay in the game with a 100% unrealistic effect isn't cool either. Let it affect planets by their size or make it do something else like giving a bonus on hot planets I suggest.



Edit: Something else I noticed, terraforming costs the same for every planet size, that should be fixed as well.



Another Edit: The Crowded Planets trait can make it even worse.



I'll directly make a poll to get some more opinions on this.

SomethingBlue wrote:
The easiest and most likely way for the developers to fix this is to make the cost of the population improvements more. The will most likely not want to rewrite the code of an already workable system.

That's what I hope is not the case.

SomethingBlue wrote:
Endothermic structures (3) + Self-replicating Habitats (4) + Psychological Insulation (6) = how much dust? (13) (note: he must of added living habitats as well, which is 5, which would come to 18, close enough to 20)

Having these improvements makes a tiny planet have slightly less population than a huge planet with no benefits. But the difference is, these are bonuses for the entire system, so it would work for the huge planets in the system as well.

I was already somewhat sure that's what he thought, though in the end, to improve the small ones you spend nothing more than 3 Dust, because all the others affect all types.

SomethingBlue wrote:
Right now, smaller planets are less useful that bigger planets. They hold an overall less population, and have less FIDS. Only when you invest dust and time, you can turn them into planets with potential for population and FIDS. They become more useful, but the large planets do not lose their usefulness.



I, for one, like the idea that the planets I loath to colonize early game can become useful endgame. And you can make all the planets the same if you like, its called Terraforming.

3 Dust for an improvement which I can get within the first 30 turns isn't exactly an investment. I agree on the point it is good that you can improve them, but it's just plain out of any proportion.



As for the terraforming... that was a half joke, as in "If we have no differences between planet sizes, lets remove the planet types as well in favor of holy FIDS grails everywhere".

Ghost73 wrote:
...



For me though it comes down to whether or not it is good for gameplay. Creating a larger disparity between big and small planets doesn't do anything except make smaller planets less useful, and even more so in the long term.

It does make the game more interesting. Right now when I discover a system I will assess its value as a colony according to the following steps:

1. How many planets does the system have? 1 planet systems are garbage, 2 and 3 is OK, 4 is good, 5 is very good and 6 is amazing.

2. What type are the planets of?

3. Is the planet combination good? A system with 4 barren planets and 2 asteroid belts is annoying to get running.

4. Do the planets have resources? If yes, which?

5. Do the planets have anomalies? If yes, which?



6. How large are the planets? It does not really matter if they are small because it requires only a small infrastructure investment to get them up running. The only time when a small planet is a setback is when it's the only good colonizable planet close to your homesystem because then you might end up getting population capped.



I think it is sad that the size of a planet is so irrelevant. A huge ocean planet should be worth its weight in silver. A huge ocean planet with a positive anomaly should be worth its weight in gold. A huge ocean planet with a positive anomaly and a resource should be worth its weight in diamonds (compared to a small ocean planet). As it is now that is not the case.

KNC wrote:
Honestly I don't think the money balances anything. You will likely pay for most +pop improvements regardless of the presence of small or tiny planets. The absolutely miniscule amount of Dust (3) spend on keeping Endothermic Structures online isn't balancing anything really as well, it'd have to cost a lot more and that's not the point at all. I'm not talking about spending more money to balance it but rather to make a difference between planet sizes.

The easiest and most likely way for the developers to fix this is to make the cost of the population improvements more. The will most likely not want to rewrite the code of an already workable system.

KNC wrote:


Actually Endothermic Structures costs 3 Dust per turn, how do you get 20?

Endothermic structures (3) + Self-replicating Habitats (4) + Psychological Insulation (6) = how much dust? (13) (note: he must of added living habitats as well, which is 5, which would come to 18, close enough to 20)

Having these improvements makes a tiny planet have slightly less population than a huge planet with no benefits. But the difference is, these are bonuses for the entire system, so it would work for the huge planets in the system as well.

KNC wrote:


Of course that's the point. If we turn everything into a holy grail of FIDS we don't need differences between planet sizes at all. We could make all planet types the same as well, can't imagine much people to be happy about that though.

I think making smaller planets less useful than bigger planets can only benefit the game, in terms of gameplay, balance and making it realistic. Having tiny planets being as good as big ones just takes being unrealistic several steps to far.

Right now, smaller planets are less useful that bigger planets. They hold an overall less population, and have less FIDS. Only when you invest dust and time, you can turn them into planets with potential for population and FIDS. They become more useful, but the large planets do not lose their usefulness.



I, for one, like the idea that the planets I loath to colonize early game can become useful endgame. And you can make all the planets the same if you like, its called Terraforming.

I'm astonished I never noticed this before but you're absolutely right! Guess i'm going to appreciate the tiny planets more often now :P. I think the population system does need a bit of an overhaul and a lot of your points are valid, so lets hope the devs look into this during Beta.

SomethingBlue wrote:
Perhaps more focus should be placed on the negative effects of an extremely overpopulated tiny planet vs. a normally populated Huge planet, if it is not already happening with the overpopulation - happiness system. What ghost says is also correct: the improvements cost money, so it balances. The most probably thing that will happen to balance out this is to make the improvements cost even more money.

Honestly I don't think the money balances anything. You will likely pay for most +pop improvements regardless of the presence of small or tiny planets. The absolutely miniscule amount of Dust (3) spend on keeping Endothermic Structures online isn't balancing anything really as well, it'd have to cost a lot more and that's not the point at all. I'm not talking about spending more money to balance it but rather to make a difference between planet sizes.

SomethingBlue wrote:
...and your numbers on Gas Giants are not correct, as Self-replicating Habitats, Psychological Insulation, and Living Habitats add 4 population.

You are right, fixed it.

Ghost73 wrote:
Another thing is in order to create a small/tiny planet with the same pop as an unimproved giant, -20 Dust per turn is required.

Actually Endothermic Structures costs 3 Dust per turn, how do you get 20?

Ghost73 wrote:
For me though it comes down to whether or not it is good for gameplay. Creating a larger disparity between big and small planets doesn't do anything except make smaller planets less useful, and even more so in the long term.

Of course that's the point. If we turn everything into a holy grail of FIDS we don't need differences between planet sizes at all. We could make all planet types the same as well, can't imagine much people to be happy about that though.

I think making smaller planets less useful than bigger planets can only benefit the game, in terms of gameplay, balance and making it realistic. Having tiny planets being as good as big ones just takes being unrealistic several steps to far.