maledict wrote:


The rankings for single outputs for solid worlds go:



Science: Arctic > Barren > Ocean



Note: yes, arctic is above barren at all stages and produces more overall FIDS. This makes Barren worlds categorically worse than Arctic. As this is different to all the other planet types, and seemingly breaks the main goal of the FIDS changes, I presume it will be patched at some point. The issue is every star system science improvement gives the same bonus to arctic as well as barren.



6) none of this is taking into account the end game techs or the techs that convert industry into science. Going to pull those up tonight but that will change things around. Sowers obviously have a bunch of specialised stuff, and I know Sophon have a 50% industry to science tech which may put Ocean worlds ahead of Arctic once I crunch the numbers.



7) the extra population you get from higher Tier worlds doesn't change these results and was factored into the calculations. Whilst an Ocean world may have more people than an Arctic world, Arctic now gets such a substantial bonus to science it still edges it out on science (whilst being way behind on overall FIDS).



Basically the changes have opened up a bunch of options and allow you to specialise now. Tier 1 worlds remain the best for overall output and growth, but if you wanted a system to just churn out fleets constantly you might want to consider terraforming everything to lava and focus purely on production in that one system.

You couldn't emphasis the highlighted point enough!



In my late game playing as a sheredyn flavoured Custom faction I found Barren to be better than Arctic for science focused systems. I'm going to double check mind you if this is definitely the case; since I was just trying out different planet types last night to see how much of an effect the extra pop with better tier planets could have an effect when moons/anomolies/resources (lux/strat), IND/SCI/DUST conversions and improvements are considered. From my notepad terra forming one planet in said system from Arctic (pop 8, no moon/anything else) to Barren (pop 7) saw an increase of 17 science points, with Helium simply pumping science out like there was no tomorrow. I'm interested to see what your results will turn out.

I posted a big analysis and the spreadsheet I knocked up for people to use in the main forums if you're interested:



/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/10286-fids-new-planetary-values-and-analysis-which-planet-is-best!



Thought it would get more traffic there given how the forums work,

I know anytime I refer to wiki and the values are wrong, I try to fix them.

It's a really interesting change - as planets get less hospitable they get more specialized now as a general rule. Specialization can give HUGE gains, but at the cost of sacrificing nearly all other aspects of FIDS production and incurring heavy penalties. It's actually one of my favorite changes with Disharmony now that I better understand it, it gives you a TON of options in late game rather than just making every system full of ocean planets for / terran for (once you're converting surplus -> ).

Finally posted my table and analysis. Feel free to find faults and let me know!



/#/endless-space/forum/27-general/thread/10286-fids-new-planetary-values-and-analysis-which-planet-is-best

maledict wrote:


2) Class 1 worlds all have the highest overall FIDS output.



3) Lower class worlds have a lower overall FIDS output but a higher specialised output. E.g. Without any upgrades other than planetary exploitations, a medium Jungle world gives 48 industry and 96 total FIDS whilst a Tundra world gives 55 industry and 85 FIDS.

I don't understand your numbers. A medium size Jungle has 6 Population, giving 24 Industry and 72 FIDS total without upgrades. A medium Tundra has 5 Population giving 30 Industry and 60 FIDS total. What kind of planetary exploitation are you referring to?

maledict wrote:


Basically the changes have opened up a bunch of options and allow you to specialise now. Tier 1 worlds remain the best for overall output and growth, but if you wanted a system to just churn out fleets constantly you might want to consider terraforming everything to lava and focus purely on production in that one system.

I guess it kind of makes sense that the planets you have to research technology to colonize are in a sense "better", that is more specialized. This way, your research effort is rewarded.

Yeah, I have to say my Sophon test game approval seems not to matter basically. Not sure whether it's because its too easy to lower the tax rate, but approval in all systems was ecstatic from a fairly early point.



Also quick point - the dust systems are slightly weird. Unlike the other three resources the system wide improvements for Dust generally affect every world in the system, or every world with a moon. The only one that doesn't is the very initial Xenotourism building which gives a flat +8.



What that means practically is that whilst Terran gives more dust than ocean or jungle, it only gives a very small amount more because there are no dust boosters that depend on planet class. So you may not want to bother with Terran at all as its a really small amount of Dust you gain for the science / industry trade off. I would expect this to be patched as well as its a bit strange that there are no system wide improvements for dust that care about planet type.

Nice one Theodemir!

Thanks Maledict, thats a big help

Igncom1 wrote:
How'd the approval on that system turn out?

Approval was fine, had enough 'happiness' building improvements to cover the dislike and keep the Ecstatic bonuses.

How'd the approval on that system turn out?

Hello,



have the FIDS values of planets changed with Disharmony? For example, a Barren planet used to have 0, 1, 4, and 0. Starting a new game as Hisso (which I presume don't get any special FIDS bonuses) I find a Barrend planet with 0, 1, 0, and 12 per pop. (The planet does not have any special resources). I find similar changes to the other planet types as well. Is the official wikipedia article outdated? I find this confusing, as not only the FIDS values of each planet were adjusted, but also the flavor of a planet type was changed.



Here is a list I compiled. If it is confirmed, I will update the Wiki.

(food,industry,dust,science,approval)

Terran 4,2,2,4,0

Jungle 4,4,2,2,0

Ocean 4,2,2,4,0

Arid 2,2,6,2,-5

Tundra 2,2,6,2,-5

Desert 1,1,9,0,-10

Arctic 1,0,1,9,-10

Barren 0,1,0,12,-15

Asteroids 0,5,5,5,-20

Helium 0,1,1,20,-20

Hydrogen 0,1,20,1,-20

Methan 0,20,1,1,-20

There's been substantial changes to planet outputs, plus category changes for a couple of planets, plus racial techs that make some worlds better than others for some races (e.g. tundra for sowers).



I have a full chart and everything I can post this evening, but a quick summary of the details is:



1) Class 1 worlds all produce the same amount of food now. After that, Ocean gains a bonus to science, Terran to dust and Jungle to industry. This will change the end game 'food into industry' tech results.



2) Class 1 worlds all have the highest overall FIDS output.



3) Lower class worlds have a lower overall FIDS output but a higher specialised output. E.g. Without any upgrades other than planetary exploitations, a medium Jungle world gives 48 industry and 96 total FIDS whilst a Tundra world gives 55 industry and 85 FIDS.



The rankings for single outputs for solid worlds go:



Industry: Lava > Tundra > Jungle

Dust: Desert > Arid > Terran

Science: Arctic > Barren > Ocean



Note: yes, arctic is above barren at all stages and produces more overall FIDS. This makes Barren worlds categorically worse than Arctic. As this is different to all the other planet types, and seemingly breaks the main goal of the FIDS changes, I presume it will be patched at some point. The issue is every star system science improvement gives the same bonus to arctic as well as barren.



4) Star system improvements and planetary exploitations never change this order - so you don't need to worry about buildings changing this order. Lava will always produce more industry than Tundra and Jungle, but less overall FIDS.



5) Gas Giants produce insane amounts of their specialised output and once you can settle them are the best specialised worlds in the game by a long way. Due to how high their specialised outputs get their overall FIDS is quite high as well but that's thanks to how high that be stat is. For comparisons sake, a basic Tier 1 world has a FIDS output of 12 (4 food, 4 secondary focus, 2 in the other stats). A basic gas giant has a FIDS output of 23 - 20 in the base stat and then 1 in each other the others with zero food output.



6) none of this is taking into account the end game techs or the techs that convert industry into science. Going to pull those up tonight but that will change things around. Sowers obviously have a bunch of specialised stuff, and I know Sophon have a 50% industry to science tech which may put Ocean worlds ahead of Arctic once I crunch the numbers.



7) the extra population you get from higher Tier worlds doesn't change these results and was factored into the calculations. Whilst an Ocean world may have more people than an Arctic world, Arctic now gets such a substantial bonus to science it still edges it out on science (whilst being way behind on overall FIDS).





Basically the changes have opened up a bunch of options and allow you to specialise now. Tier 1 worlds remain the best for overall output and growth, but if you wanted a system to just churn out fleets constantly you might want to consider terraforming everything to lava and focus purely on production in that one system.

The problem as I saw it, and I believe the dev's saw it was, that by the end of the game, every planet would be exactly the same.



Now there are reasons to do it and to not do it.



As a UE player, Taxes are my thing so I'll still be terraforming to terran worlds for max tax potential!

TBH I liked the idea of T1 planets being better then the rest

It took technology & turns when the system could of been producing ships or even dust/science



It seemed like a reward for the player for doing well was to have all these nice looking worlds that produced a bit better then everyone elses

Apart from a new race (Which I havn't tried) I would like to go back to standard ES

The idea was to promote the idea that you don't always need to go to the T1 planets.



If it might not be an advantage in FIDS, and you don't need the approval, then don't!

For those of us that are rather poor at graphs

What is the new best planet for each fid?

& I assume Terran is still the best once the waste food into industry tech is researched?

It does look like it is not worth to go to class 1 planets anymore, because you cannot get as much bonus from having more population as you can from having a specialized planet.

I updated the wiki. The new question is what this change means. With the new system lower class planets (Jungle etc.) can be worse than their higher tier counterpart. For instance, a Medium size Jungle yields only 24 Industry (4 base Industry times 6 Population opulation, whereas a Tundra planet of the same size yields 30 Industry . What is then the reason for ever terraforming a Tundra into a Jungle planet?

Assuming that vanilla ES's numbers were not also changed, don't just replace the numbers on the wiki, but add both sets, since both will be valid.

Hey,



I cannot find the dev's post about this, but yeah, the planet's FIDS values have changed. The wiki is outdated, and as you say, the planet type's flavor have changed too, although they merely changed the secondary value of a planet (science for tundra, or Dust for barren for instance) to match the exploitation they intended at the start.



Shubb



(sorry if the english is not right )