Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

How should we do Habitability?

Poll ended at Mon Sep 09, 2019 1:41 pm

Keep the current system: a single tech directly unlocks habitability for all metabolism types
5
56%
A single tech which unlocks multiple habitability policies for different metabolism types
1
11%
Multiple techs that directly unlock habitability for different metabolism types
3
33%
Multiple techs that each unlock a single policy for different metabolism types
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 9

Message
Author
User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

#16 Post by Krikkitone » Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:06 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 7:16 pm
I think we can't use policies for stuff like unlocking environments, because that could lead to micromanagement or shoots on one's foot. If you unlock say poor environments, they should be unlocked for good.
Same could happen with targetPopulation increases, although to a lesser degree.
I don't particularly see why...
Why would we have to unlock ALL environments of a certain "quality" as opposed to environments of a certain type.

They would be "unlocked for good" (for all species ideally)

Its just a different approach, no more micromanagement than unlocking adequate/poor/hostile

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

#17 Post by Oberlus » Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:04 pm

I didn't explain myself enough.
If I apply a policy that let me colonise a certain set of planets (irrelevant here if that is "poor planets" or "swamp planets" or whatever) and I colonise some of those planets and reach certain population level on them, and then I remove that policy (to apply something else not related to habitability, or that concerns different planets/environments/species), those colonised planets are no longer habitable and then their populations start going down until they revert to outposts (shoot in the foot) or I reapply the policy (micromanagement). I see that as a problem.
It's similar to what happens when you colonise some planets thanks to setting growth focus on a special planet, but here I'm talking specifically about "unlocking" a environment (a new concept in FO, different than applying a bonus to population).
Pleasepleaseplease, join fifth multiplayer slow game!

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1504
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

#18 Post by Krikkitone » Wed Aug 21, 2019 10:56 pm

OK, so the idea of habitability policies.... That I can see as micromanagy.. I was assuming the others would just be techs for different environment groups

Sorry I missed a word in your original post.


So... different techs by environment OR different techs by metabolism

Policies could still work for Terraforming or Population boosts.

User avatar
labgnome
Vacuum Dragon
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

#19 Post by labgnome » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:59 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:04 pm
I didn't explain myself enough.
If I apply a policy that let me colonise a certain set of planets (irrelevant here if that is "poor planets" or "swamp planets" or whatever) and I colonise some of those planets and reach certain population level on them, and then I remove that policy (to apply something else not related to habitability, or that concerns different planets/environments/species), those colonised planets are no longer habitable and then their populations start going down until they revert to outposts (shoot in the foot) or I reapply the policy (micromanagement). I see that as a problem.
I don't really see this as a problem. I don't think players are likely to shoot themselves in the foot with habitability policies.

Also if we do environments by tech and metabolism by policy, which is how I am thinking, you could easily avoid completely shooting your self in the foot, if you've researched the appropriate environmental survival techs already. Now if we do this the way I am thinking you'd still take a hit, but you wouldn't be shooting yourself in the foot by completely loosing your colonies.

Since players won't be shooting themselves in the foot there is little reason to micromanage the policies in this area. Certainly no-more than in any other area.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5002
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Poll: Habitability Techs/Policies

#20 Post by Vezzra » Sun Aug 25, 2019 4:06 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:42 pm
Re. immersion:

How come we can avoid invasion of a planet thanks to some clouds or volcanic ashes? That totally breaks me.
Me too. And there are other things where I think the fluff is in dire need of fixing. However, it's not a priority.
If we split environment improvement among different metabolisms (and then, why not between different species? some of them are really different from others, e.g. Cray and Beigegoo)...
Because there is a relevant substantial difference between having extra habitability improving techs for ~5 metabolisms or dozens of species. The latter would be obviously too much. A couple of metabolisms on the other hand might be manageable.

Post Reply