Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JAL28]

Right now, Water Worlds are just “Terran, but it can only have adequate farmland which can only be accessed by an objectively inferior industry” which makes them basically inferior to any other habitable world type, unless it happens to be paired with an otherwise amazing system that basically forces you to colonize it. With these changes, Water Worlds will hopefully be able to size up to Terran Worlds of the same category(same modifiers to production) instead of being objectively inferior.

Production Modifiers for Oceans

Right now, oceans only spawn with +0 modifier to production. Hopefully, we can have Ocean Production Modifiers which will work similar to how Farmland modifiers work on Farming production.

Barren Oceans(-1 production)

“[market]’s oceans are almost devoid of life, save for the occasional fish or crustacean. Almost all feedstock must be imported from elsewhere which severely limits profitable farming.”

Adequate Oceans(+0 production)

“[market]’s oceans support a meek but stable ecosystem. While a majority of feedstock must still be imported, limited harvesting of local sea-life reduces import costs and supports a modest farming effort.”

Plentiful Oceans(+1 production)

“[market]’s oceans are teeming with life, providing a considerable boon to fish farms which can profit further by reducing imports of feedstock. Modest amounts of marine snow can also be harvested to improve growth of plant-based aquaculture farms.”

Bountiful Oceans(+2 production)

“[market]’s oceans are a biological treasure trove, hosting a vibrant and burgeoning ecosystem. The seas swarm with colossal shoals of fish capable of feeding massive seafood farms, while copious amounts of marine snow provide ample fertilizer for aquaculture farms. Almost no feedstock is imported, while [market] itself is a major exporter of such feed.”

New Export: Seafood(if someone can suggest a better name by all means do so)

Basically, this item ambodies all of the seafood industry(fish, crustaceans that aren’t Volturnian Lobsters, shellfish etc). A secondary import of Aquaculture, it has a value higher than food but a lower production rate than food(1 unit at size 3, colony size -2 I guess). It is affected, like food production, by production modifiers given by oceans. The hope is that this additional export will offset the increased upkeep that Aquaculture has compared to Farming.

[Megas]

+0 is pretty good for the purpose of satisfying demand on your worlds.  Arid and Tundra worlds often have Poor farmland (which takes Industrial Planning or improvement to produce enough), and have the same hazard as a Water World.

Water World with +0 farmland and 100% hazard is a good (if not ideal) habitable world to colonize.  If it has high gravity (for 150% hazard) and lots of ores, it can be a good mining planet too.

New Export: Seafood(if someone can suggest a better name by all means do so)

While nice, could be folded into food already.  Also, even if you conquer and rebuild Volturn, you cannot export their blue lobsters like other commodities.

[JUDGE! slowpersun]

Yeah, super annoying about conquering Volturn for nothing.  I guess that luxury commodity items should get a pass before the 1.0 release, but that's still like 2 years away...

[JAL28]

+0 is pretty good for the purpose of satisfying demand on your worlds.  Arid and Tundra worlds often have Poor farmland (which takes Industrial Planning or improvement to produce enough), and have the same hazard as a Water World.

Water World with +0 farmland and 100% hazard is a good (if not ideal) habitable world to colonize.  If it has high gravity (for 150% hazard) and lots of ores, it can be a good mining planet too.

It may be sufficient for quelling demand, but I don't think we're all here to just quell demand. At least for me, I want my planets to actually make a decent profit from Farming, because it helps cushion the upkeep/hazard pay on small colonies and can earn a terrifying amount of money on bigger ones(Gilead earns ~40k off exporting food, while my bountiful 175% hazard colony exports 35k worth of food every MONTH). Compared to Terran Worlds which can profit as well as fulfill demand, Water Worlds are an objectively inferior choice here.

While Desert and Tundra Worlds don't usually come with good farmland, they do somewhat make up for this by being pretty cost efficient ways of volatiles production(low hazard x volatiles, which is something most gas giants/cryovolcanics don't come with and makes them good for piling no-req industries like Light Industry or Commerce). Again, Water Worlds don't have that.

The only thing Water Worlds have going for them is low hazard. While favourable, most, if not all habitable type worlds come with <175% hazard, which should definitely be an acceptable margin for a world and should not cause any major problems unless one decided to start on colonies with insufficient balanced(IE <2mil). In fact, despite being at the cusp of 2 mil, colonizing a 175% and 125% and almost dropping to poverty, they managed to make mad profits and now I am back at 1.5mil because my balance is now 150k/month. For those who save more, it should be perfectly reasonable to take the financial losses to a point any habitable colony can start making back its due. Basically, Water World's only perk isn't one that will make it shine out compared to the other habitables.

TLDR: Water Worlds are only decent. Can't get better than that without a miracle of RNG, an inferior choice compared to other similar habitables.

New Export: Seafood(if someone can suggest a better name by all means do so)

While nice, could be folded into food already.  Also, even if you conquer and rebuild Volturn, you cannot export their blue lobsters like other commodities.

The reason why Seafood is separated from Food as a whole is to offset the increased upkeep of Aquaculture(which should not be removed because it is certainly logical to have such a facility cost more to run and the game explains it quite well).

And regarding the whole Volturnian Lobster thing, the fact that you can't financially exploit them in vanilla is likely why I know of at least 3 mods that add the capability to add Volturnian Lobster Pens to your water worlds and hence financially exploit them.

[Megas]

Most habitables do not have Volatiles, and those that do have only -1 or 0.  One advantage Arid can get is mild weather, which puts it on par with a stock Terran, provided the Arid has enough other things make it worth colonizing.  For meeting demand of ores and volatiles, habitables that do not have Heavy Gravity generally do not produce enough to meet demand.  (You need at least 0 and have both Industrial Planning and colony improvements to meet demand for ores and volatiles.)

Yes, Water Worlds may not be the best, but sometimes, you take what is given if the rest of the system has something good, like great other planets, close to core worlds, and/or a gate.  They are good enough.

In few games, I have taken worse, a habitable with Poor farmland as the farming planet, because location and everything else in the system was good.

[JAL28]

Most habitables do not have Volatiles, and those that do have only -1 or 0.  One advantage Arid can get is mild weather, which puts it on par with a stock Terran, provided the Arid has enough other things make it worth colonizing.  For meeting demand of ores and volatiles, habitables that do not have Heavy Gravity generally do not produce enough to meet demand.  (You need at least 0 and have both Industrial Planning and colony improvements to meet demand for ores and volatiles.)

Yes, Water Worlds may not be the best, but sometimes, you take what is given if the rest of the system has something good, like great other planets, close to core worlds, and/or a gate.  They are good enough.

In few games, I have taken worse, a habitable with Poor farmland as the farming planet, because location and everything else in the system was good.

The issue is, the only reason why you would take a water world over another habitable is if the system is good. But even in that context, that doesn't make them superior to other habitables since a player would even take a poor farmland 175% hazard habitable if the system is good. In fact, if the habitable is a barely habitable rock that only just barely qualify as habitable and the system is good a player would probably still take it for the overall value. All habitable worlds score similarly here, water worlds aren't the exception here.

Water Worlds, unlike other habitables that can have vastly differing uses to a player, usually stay constant at "Won't choose this if there's a better option, but will take it if the system is good", which is probably somewhat higher than the crappiest tundras/arids. The changes would make them more like other habitables in that aspect, possibly being awesome or crap, instead of all being average planets with a few outliers.

[intrinsic_parity]

I specifically want my habitable worlds to not have rare ore or volatiles so I can use the farming item. If the farming item cannot be used with the water world food industry, then water worlds are just not worth colonizing IMO. If they can use that item, then they are basically the same as any other habitable, at least from my perspective. I personally am way more interested in having a world with good volatiles and ores, as well as a no-atmosphere world. Habitables are kinda not that important anymore IMO.

[Megas]

My point is if the Water World has 100% and nothing else bad, it is good enough for the job of feeding my other colonies, and will colonize if there is nothing better.  Of course I would take a better world if available (like a nice 50% hazard Terran with Mild climate and +2 food), but not every game will give a better world; or they offer a better farm world in a much worse system (like far from core worlds, far from a gate, or only planet in the system with no other good systems or planets nearby).

[Thaago]

Can confirm - while my current save has had a number of lucky things (Thanks Historian for that Enforcer XIV blueprint! Thanks plentiful contacts for cheap ships!) it has no 'great' worlds within close distance to the core. I'm settling on a 175 hazard with heavy gravity arid because its the only habitable world I've found in the first ring of constellations. It does have all 4 resources, but that means I can't use the farming items on it. It will be a 'good enough' world, but I would absolutely settle a nice water world if I could find one.

[Hiruma Kai]

I'm personally OK with water worlds as is.  Given not all worlds are already not created equal, it feels like it is meant more as a diversity of world type than a balancing mechanism.

Given we already have luxury goods and domestic goods, adding sea food feels redundant for personally controlled colonies, and adding another resource globally traded is just going to increase overall potential profits, given how the % of market and total trade works.  If anything, just make it produce food and luxury goods rather than inventing another trade resource.

Making water worlds vary like farmlands doesn't feel like a very pressing change, but I would merely shrug if it was implemented.  I don't think it add much to the game, but doesn't really hurt anything either.

I specifically want my habitable worlds to not have rare ore or volatiles so I can use the farming item. If the farming item cannot be used with the water world food industry, then water worlds are just not worth colonizing IMO. If they can use that item, then they are basically the same as any other habitable, at least from my perspective. I personally am way more interested in having a world with good volatiles and ores, as well as a no-atmosphere world. Habitables are kinda not that important anymore IMO.

I'm pretty sure if you have two habitable worlds, one with farming + farming item + mine (for say, ore and organics), and another with farming + mine (ore,rare ore, volatiles, and organics), the rare ore + volatiles makes more profit and doesn't require finding an exploration item, nor increases your Pather interest.  Even with volatiles-1 and rare ore-1, by colony size 4 it should be producing more units of volatiles+rare ore than the food item adds.

Now, the global market share for food is ~264,000 in an unmodded game.  Global market share for volatiles is ~130,000 and rare ore is ~124,000, so any given market share for food is roughly the equivalent rare ore plus volatiles with the same market share in the base game.   Given how market share is seems to be roughly production * access / (sum of all (productions * accesses), and that  there is far more food production than rare ore/volatiles, means the same number of units of rare ore or volatiles produces a much larger market share.

Not to mention scaling better with AI core and story point investments (increasing market share in 4 categories is generally better than just 1).

This matches what I see in game using my last run (admittedly modded with an extra faction, VIC). It includes a ore-1,rare ore-1,volatiles-1,oragnics+0, farming-1 world.  It's supplying my 3 worlds with all raw materials necessary, and is a Farm/Mine/Light Industry/Commerce.  Farming (with VIC +4 farming mod item) is pulling in 134,000 (95,000 without item, so roughly +40,000 boost for +4 food).  My volatiles and rare ore are pulling in 65,000 and 60,000 respectively, with organics and ore pulling in another 65,000 and 38,000. 

So volatiles-1 and rare ore-1 at colony size 6 is pulling in over 3 times as much as what the farming item would pull in (at least with VIC added into the mix), and even just one of them would still be pulling in more.  So in the case of a world where you were going to drop a mine anyways, the presence or absence of rare ores or volatiles doesn't lower your end game profit.

[intrinsic_parity]

My habitable worlds are usually not my highest income worlds, so I'm just trying to satisfy demand with them. I guess the item doesn't really matter, but it feels bad to not use it . I personally don't really care much about habitable worlds, as long as they satisfy in-faction demand. A high hazard mining world with the item will make a lot more money, and a nice 150 hazard barren world with industry boosted refining+fuel production will also make more money. I'm looking for systems with those things, and then any habitable world that has enough production of food/organics to meet demand is good.

Also, you need +2 volatiles to supply fuel production for a same-size world with no items, so I need to find either a perfect cryovolcanic world or a nice gas giant. That habitable world will never be good enough. My mining worlds also tend to corner the market on ores, so ores on other worlds are less valuable.

[JAL28]

Making water worlds vary like farmlands doesn't feel like a very pressing change, but I would merely shrug if it was implemented.  I don't think it add much to the game, but doesn't really hurt anything either.

Well, that is true. Nowadays, habitables are valued more for their hazard rating and mere presence of otherwise unobtainable commodities(food, organics) rather than if they can profit from said commodities.

To be honest, when writing this suggestion I was writing from the persepective of a player who wishes to profit from their habitables rather than simply fulfill demand of food for their other colonies. Water worlds would be poor choices in their eyes, as the locking to +0 export bonus would hamper profit-making.

But when thinking from a player who simply needs to fulfill a demand for organics/food to reduce reliance on other factions, such a world is good; no chance for inferior(-1) farming stats, while higher upkeep and demand are supplied by nanoforge-bolstered Heavy Industries and money makers in the high 100ks. In such a case, any downfalls of a Water World would be mitigated by other colonies' advantages, while still providing a decent farming output that cannot be matched by some other arid/tundra worlds.

[SCC]

I would rather have water worlds be unable to have volatiles or rare ores, but be really good at making food, to differentiate it from other habitable planets.

[JAL28]

I would rather have water worlds be unable to have volatiles or rare ores, but be really good at making food, to differentiate it from other habitable planets.

I mean, to a certain extent that is what Terran Worlds do, except they tend to have rare ores too. Unless you mean adding additional modifiers, like a +3 food modifier.

[Serenitis]

Comparing Water and Terran worlds is not that useful. They are not the same.
If you want to compare Water worlds, compare them to planets in the same category (cat3): Arid, Tundra, Jungle, Eccentric.

All of these are habitable and are guaranteed to have some food production capablility, and a semi-decent hazard rating.
But all of them have 'quirks' that make them less ideal than a Terran world would be.

• Arids are always hot and tend to have poorer farmland, but are otherwise unremarkable.
• Tundras are just cold Arids.
• Jungles are always hot and have a high chance to have bad weather or funky biosphere, but tend to have good farmland.
• Eccentrics always have 'poor light' but are otherwise 'normal'.
• Waters always have a 'water surface' and a high chance for bad weather, along with a 10x modifier for having no (standard) ores at all. But are guaranteed to always produce exactly 1 more food than you need to meet demand (population requires size-1 food), and 2x the chance of having +1 or better organics than any other cat3.

Water worlds are okay as they are tbh.