Planets are not ordered "properly" in type when displayed on the system view screen. Your just as likely to have an arctic planet as the first planet from the left; next to the sun; as any other.



Could the order of representation be improved? There are some basic rules that should always apply. namely - uh, no snowballs next to the sun.

Well there are many things to consider when it comes to planets.



That snowball could have been created for nuclear war or a massive volcanic eruption.



And the Lava world could have massive amount of tectonic pressure.

Igncom1 wrote:
Well there are many things to consider when it comes to planets.



That snowball could have been created for nuclear war or a massive volcanic eruption.



And the Lava world could have massive amount of tectonic pressure.

There still needs to be logic to it though, having a few odd ball planets in the mix is way different than every solar system having every odd ball planet mash up.



Having a (sun) Terran, Gas, Ice, Barren, Ice, Terran, Volcanic setup is just crazy. There is no way you can put any logic into that order when that system has not even been populated yet (which is even further proven when all moons have no sign of life on them).



There should be -some- type of order to it. (Distance should also play a factor), same with type of planet.



Certain planets could in essence, be anywhere. Volcanic, gas, asteroids, etc. could be anywhere, as close, or far in the system, since you can logically explain it easily in any order. Terran, ice, however, you cannot. They should form some sort of order. (Ice always being after the "Terran" place holder, in the system).



I actually have a formula for how this can work.



since "Terran" type planets need a near "perfect" natural distance from the sun to create the "perfect" atmosphere,(This is without another race's influence/science in the mix). You make "Terran" the middle ground.



Now when it randomly generates a solar systems, it decides where/If there will be a "terran" planet. Lets give a few examples:



System 1: 5 Planets: (sun) Barren, Lava, Gas, Terran, Ice,

System 2: 3 Planets: (sun) Terran, Arctic, Ice,

System 3: 5 Planets: (Sun) Volcanic, Gas, Terran, Ice, Gas

System 4: 6 Planets: (Sun) Terran, Asteroids, Ice, Arctic, Asteroids, Barren

System 5: 3 Planets: (sun) Gas, Ice, Ice,

System 6: 5 Planets: (Sun) Lava, Volcanic, Barren, Gas, Asteroids,



As you can see from the examples, some planets can be anywhere, and it makes sense, others cannot. Terran being the middle ground.



Terran doesnt always have to be there, it can "skip" the Terran, but it marks "where" the terran "would" be if it was there, Thats where the switch from (close) planets, to (far) planets is put in, and it also throws in some (random) planets, which can be placed anywhere in the mix and make sense, such as Barren, Asteroids, Gas, etc.



Edit: As the OP said (No snowballs next to the sun), In my example, an Ice could come first, but the game knows that thats a (far) planet, so it will only place (far) planets after the Ice, such as Arctic, or a (random) type planet.

It seems like a lot of thought and work for something most people don't even pick up on.

So all you're *really* saying is that Arctic shouldn't ever be to the left of Terran.



This could be the most pointless change ever

Proper Planetary Alignment



This suggestion is not without merit. Those who value the immersion, notice these sorts of things. Those who don't, don't care...



I, for one, see the value in this suggestion. It provides for a more realistic experience. But, I value the immersion.



Many will complain at this suggestion, as some of you already have, and even the devs might find this a "too picky" suggestion.



This suggestion will certainly require a decent amount of work to implement. And will effect the amount of time needed to generate a galaxy. (which will possibly garner even more complaints...)



It comes down to 6 of one & half-dozen of another.

Velaux wrote:
So all you're *really* saying is that Arctic shouldn't ever be to the left of Terran.



This could be the most pointless change ever

Theres alot more to it than that. Read my post above for explanation

Velaux wrote:
So all you're *really* saying is that Arctic shouldn't ever be to the left of Terran.



This could be the most pointless change ever

It is called immersion, that is a very very important concept in many games, particularly 4X and MMO games. When you blow simple every day mechanics it does not help the game

I agree, the proposal to order the planets in a logical sequence is not without merit. It may not be the most important issue to be addressed at the moment (in my view) but perhaps it could be done at some point, shouldn't be too difficult programming-wise (I hope!)...

This has already been suggested here: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12243-type-of-planet-depending-on-the-orbit-and-star-type

This thread has been linked to the former and is moved to the archives.