It wouldn't be a significant change from how it is now, it would just mean that certain anomalies wouldn't spawn on certain worlds. The list wouldn't be diminished and, depending on how you play in terms of galaxy size, it might actually creative more diversity.



Plus, the game needs more negative anomalies anyway, and most of those would be unaffected

Quinevis wrote:
I like the idea of implausible structures existing, but I don't much care for the idea of impossible structures existing.

"Hello! Quinevis? Oh good, this is Door to Infinity speaking..."



You make a valid point though.

I like the idea of implausible structures existing, but I don't much care for the idea of impossible structures existing. I say apply the barest minimum of requirements to the more ridiculous wonders, but beyond that, the randomness is entertaining.

Good post, but not at all related to what I stated in terms of mathematical randomness.

They would still exist as an entirely random factor, changing the band of their occurrence would actually make them more random. Basic mathematical reasoning supports this.

In fact, that agrees with what I stated about the entire idea in general.

A limited set of anomalies would be affected by this, and many positive anomalies would actually be buffed because of their relation to appropriate planets.

Furthermore.

This change would actually make those anomalies more accessible, not less.

Waylander1982 wrote:
Not what my original argument was, I'm aware your responding to Sparks, but it does contain something I'd like to address in the context of this suggestion.



This should not act contrary to positive anomalies, they would still exist at roughly the same comparative ratio to negative anomalies right now.

They would still be powerful bonuses that could be fought over.

They would still exist as an entirely random factor, changing the band of their occurrence would actually make them more random. Basic mathematical reasoning supports this.

A limited set of anomalies would be affected by this, and many positive anomalies would actually be buffed because of their relation to appropriate planets.

Who said anything about removing GoE's from Lava? You did

I'm absolutely certain that they're already doing this, and that the more ridiculous associations of anomaly-planet can only occur through bugged events. What I'm asking is that they do it more and apply pre-reqs, or at least significant probability adjustments, to some Wonders also.

Actually that was Sparks.



And why should we adjust the wounder and anomaly's? Logic isn't a factor because of the whole setting of the game can handwave away the reasons, all that needs changing is the descriptions, possibly on a basis of the planet the thing is on.



All this does is reduce the good-anomaly chance on bad worlds, the ones who actually need it.



This is a good part of the game's fluff as well, showing up as evidence of the Endless tampering of the galaxy.

If I started next to three systems with cold planets, Barren/Arctic only discounting Tundra as I'd never be that lucky, I'd cry with joy and rush second tier science exploitation and just power ahead of everyone. Don't try and make an argument for or against this based on an assumption of other peoples opinions, express your own.

Considering the things that the MP community quit over, its not an assumption, its a logical conclusion.

Or better yet, prove me wrong about what I said earlier in terms of the math supporting this being more random, not less.

In terms of math? OK then lets use an example, Garden of Eden: +1 pop, +20 approval, +2 food, +1 industry, +1 dust, +1 science.





Approval / Food / Industry / Dust / Science / Population on medium world.

Terrain: 0 3 4 2 2 6

Jungle: 0 3 2 4 2 6

Ocean: 0 3 2 2 4 6

Arid: -5 2 2 5 1 5

Tundra: -5 2 1 2 5 5

Desert: -10 1 5 0 1 4

Arctic: -10 1 0 1 5 4

Lava: -15 0 4 1 0 3

Barren: -15 0 1 4 0 3

Asteroids: -20 0 4 4 4 3

Methane: -20 0 10 1 1 3

Hydrogen: -20 0 1 10 1 3

Helium: -20 0 1 1 10 3





Lava/GoE: +5 2 5 2 1 4

Mathematically, it is better to have this anomaly as random because the worse planets benefit more from its effects, taking full advantage of its approval bonus to turn T4 worlds into sudo T1 or T2 planets.



Something that completely changes the game for these worlds, and allows colonization for them long before you get the appropriate support structures in the system.

Igncom1 wrote:
Whats wrong with it now? Any anomaly that gives you a benefit in an area a planet isn't good at is the equivalent to getting a better planet.



Lava worlds with garden of Eden? Similar to a jungle world in stats, but without the population space.



You didn't plan for it, got a better result, and you complain that it doesn't make sense for it to be there mechanically? That makes no sense to me, none at all!

Not what my original argument was, I'm aware your responding to Sparks, but it does contain something I'd like to address in the context of this suggestion.



This should not act contrary to positive anomalies, they would still exist at roughly the same comparative ratio to negative anomalies right now.

They would still be powerful bonuses that could be fought over.

They would still exist as an entirely random factor, changing the band of their occurrence would actually make them more random. Basic mathematical reasoning supports this.

A limited set of anomalies would be affected by this, and many positive anomalies would actually be buffed because of their relation to appropriate planets.

Who said anything about removing GoE's from Lava? You did

I'm absolutely certain that they're already doing this, and that the more ridiculous associations of anomaly-planet can only occur through bugged events. What I'm asking is that they do it more and apply pre-reqs, or at least significant probability adjustments, to some Wonders also.

GoEDesc wrote:
"Lush and pleasant, with a single year-round season of pleasantly moderate temperatures, life is good on this planet. Everyone benefits from its natural wealth: Residents, tourists, businessmen, and scientists."

It barely fits on lava, and removing it would increase its rarity, but it does somewhat. Much more than it does on Asteroids or Gas Giants.



The argument I'm making isn't so much "ANOMALIES SHOULD BE HIGHLY RESTRICTED BECAUSE REALISM!", as much as it is "Statistically I'd rather get more of a long term benefit from an anomaly that is appropriately placed on a terrestrial planet than one slapped on a Gas Giant or Asteroid belt."



This change would actually make those anomalies more accessible, not less.

Igncom1 wrote:
Specialization is for the player to decide, worlds that do the opposite of what they are designed to do prevents players from classifying planets, and thus systems into degrees of usefulness before the game even begins.



"3 systems near me have cold world instead of hot ones? So poor production? quit." multiplayer already has problems like this with players quiting before the game has pased even 50 turns, why add to the effect?



Anomaly's are the sprinkle of randomness that keeps the galaxy generator from completely screwing players over with the world types, and allows players with many T4 or worse a chance at changing the odds, and following a strategy based on them rather then the generic ones.

If I started next to three systems with cold planets, Barren/Arctic only discounting Tundra as I'd never be that lucky, I'd cry with joy and rush second tier science exploitation and just power ahead of everyone. Don't try and make an argument for or against this based on an assumption of other peoples opinions, express your own. Or better yet, prove me wrong about what I said earlier in terms of the math supporting this being more random, not less.

I agree with the OP. Nutty anomalies don't fit in the game, especially when you look at tech descriptions, which are relatively realistic.

Sparks wrote:
A fair comment. But there should be logic behind the planet anomalies. The same way there is an inbuilt logic into the planet spawns and system compositions. If everything is possible then a lot of the game mechanics become RNGlite instead of leaning towards a planned strategy.

Whats wrong with it now? Any anomaly that gives you a benefit in an area a planet isn't good at is the equivalent to getting a better planet.



Lava worlds with garden of Eden? Similar to a jungle world in stats, but without the population space.



You didn't plan for it, got a better result, and you complain that it doesn't make sense for it to be there mechanically? That makes no sense to me, none at all!

It's not so much that you make anomalies predictable, or non-random. But you remove some of the outlying chance events that do not make sense thematically or mechanically. Rich soil on a gas giant. Garden of Eden on a lava world. That sort of thing.

Any by that you make them predictable, no one expects a good anomaly on a gas giant, so its great when it is there.



By controlling it, or reining it in, they you by effect destroy the anomalous nature of an anomaly.

Not only do the stats not line up (meaning, instead of a powerful high point in your empire you end up with everything averaging out a little). Overcoming the inherent deficiencies in some planet types instead of enhancing already existing strengths, which is what wonders should do.

Specialization is for the player to decide, worlds that do the opposite of what they are designed to do prevents players from classifying planets, and thus systems into degrees of usefulness before the game even begins.



"3 systems near me have cold world instead of hot ones? So poor production? quit." multiplayer already has problems like this with players quiting before the game has pased even 50 turns, why add to the effect?



Anomaly's are the sprinkle of randomness that keeps the galaxy generator from completely screwing players over with the world types, and allows players with many T4 or worse a chance at changing the odds, and following a strategy based on them rather then the generic ones.

Igncom1 wrote:
But BOOOOOOORING!



So boring, if anything the random anomaly's is what is keeping the game fresh, if you remove that element then you remove much of the point of the galaxy generation.

A fair comment. But there should be logic behind the planet anomalies. The same way there is an inbuilt logic into the planet spawns and system compositions. If everything is possible then a lot of the game mechanics become RNGlite instead of leaning towards a planned strategy.



It's not so much that you make anomalies predictable, or non-random. But you remove some of the outlying chance events that do not make sense thematically or mechanically. Rich soil on a gas giant. Garden of Eden on a lava world. That sort of thing.



Not only do the stats not line up (meaning, instead of a powerful high point in your empire you end up with everything averaging out a little). Overcoming the inherent deficiencies in some planet types instead of enhancing already existing strengths, which is what wonders should do.

In terms of what planets, or indeed stars, can have what.



No Ice10 on Gas Giants for instance, similarly no Long Season on Asteroids.

But BOOOOOOORING!



So boring, if anything the random anomaly's is what is keeping the game fresh, if you remove that element then you remove much of the point of the galaxy generation.

anomalys on planets that makes sense would be welcome

Lets agree to disagree.

I agree with Waylander1982... You should work harder to get better anomalies... Or at least that's how I would like it.

Arguing that the best bonuses should be the easiest is a wee bit fallacious. There should be no circumstance whereby colonising a Gas Giant should be immediately beneficial or without some penalty, those bonuses should be more and more difficult to achieve, not easier.



Too opinion based to be worth an argument beyond that. I feel that Anomalies should have pre-reqs, particularly the positive ones as the less common they are they better.

They are supposed to be OP!



While I kinda agree with you a little on the descriptions.





But whats not to love about OP planets and systems? You fought to get there, you deserve the benefits.

Because at the very least it would reduce the propensity of anomalies to stack in odd, and possibly overpowered ways. Similarly to have Rich Soil on an Asteroid or having a GoE on a Methane, both are mind-numbingly overpowered due to the inherent stat imbalance.



And thats before you start considering the fact that the text description is way off, not that I care much beyond determining what the stat bonuses are but I imagine there are people out there who are irked by it.

Why not?



I love how ES has an extremely quirky universe, as it stands as a testament to civilizations past.