The Toxic Gas modifier that adds flat amenities usage that also scales on planet size is absolutely absurdly brutal. I have a size 18 world with it and it's giving +2.4 amenities used per pop! That adds it regardless of stratum (including slaves) and since it's a flat modifier it then gets multiplied by the habitability penalty, which even on ideal planet classes in the early game would be +20%. On this world I mentioned even the slaves are using a ridiculous 4.158 amenities each, I have to dedicate every building slot to entertainers just to keep it from collapsing.

Also, in general I have to say that I am not a fan. Big planets are already best by definition, and having this active just widens the gap even further. I disable it in all my games now because it can make the planet RNG even more punishing.

Well, I like the idea, It adds a lot of flavor since now you have even more reasons to colonize (or avoid) a world, so it's nice. Altough obviously it still can use some more balancing, there are some modifiers that doesn't do almost anything on small worlds, and like the other guy said, other modifiers can make an otherwise nice world into a hellhole (which is nice, but in some cases isn't the point)

Cheers for the feedback, I'm going over the modifiers to see where they are a bit too harsh or where they dont make sense.

I'm also testing changes with how the scaling works. Right now it scales 10% per planet size but I'm not liking the weird numbers you sometimes get, I'm testing 25-50% steps in the scaling atm

Scaling table:
Planet size < 12 = factor 0.50
Planet size 12 to 15 = factor 0.75
Planet size 16 to 19 = factor 1.0 (default values)
Planet size 20 to 23 = factor 1.5
Planet size > 24 = factor 2.0

Some modifiers definitely shouldn't scale so I'm picking those out

I find the idea of scaling the modifiers (or some of them) very nice and it's a subtle addition which add a lot of sense to the game.
However I am also not liking the weird numbers you get sometimes (like 4,5% and so on). I thought it was a bug at first. Mainly it's the decimals who are killing it, I'm fine with round numbers.

yeah I'm changing things around so round numbers are vastly more common. There's still some edge cases (especially with happiness since I cant put that too high). Some modifiers will also no longer scale (in new games) where it doesn't make sense.

Could we have inverse scaling, so smaller planets have a larger bonus?

If I get a size 10 planet with something that should be special, like +x energy per technician, it's already not great since I have very few technician slots on that planet relative to what a larger planet could support.

Inverting the scaling means that it's actually worthwhile to use the bonus on a smaller planet, rather than just ignore it.

Originally posted by doctornull:

Could we have inverse scaling, so smaller planets have a larger bonus?

If I get a size 10 planet with something that should be special, like +x energy per technician, it's already not great since I have very few technician slots on that planet relative to what a larger planet could support.

Inverting the scaling means that it's actually worthwhile to use the bonus on a smaller planet, rather than just ignore it.

I agree!
I generally find the idea of scaling interesting, but currently I feel like it just makes big planets even better and tiny planets even less interesting.
I'm not sure if inverse scaling would be the best solution, but at least that would alleviate the issue with the current system.

I'm very much in favor of inverse scaling where it makes sense but I'm having to keep in mind not to make it a too confusing feature. KISS principle really applies here considering modifiers can have complex bonuses.
I'll have to look at it per modifier. If it makes obvious sense that a modifier should be better on smaller planets I can inverse scale it.

For simplicity, how about a few discrete tiers of bonus, maybe like:
+3 energy per technician on planet size 1-9
+2 energy per technician on planet size 10-15
+1 energy per technician on planet size 16-20
+0.5 energy per technician on planet size 21-25
+0.25 energy per technician on planet size 26+

One more scaling idea: just make it random.

Then you'll get some large planets with good scaling, some small planets with good scaling, and some horrible Bleak / Toxic Fumes / etc. planets with great scaling.

You won't be double-punished for finding small planets, nor double-rewarded if you get large ones, and the scaling will work correctly even if I install a mod that forces all planets to be smaller, or allows unusually large planets (e.g. Planetary Diversity's Superhabitable biome).

I'll have a think on the scaling. I dont want to make it too random, but some randomness would be cool. I also have to be careful with values so the scaling numbers aren't too "ugly"; Eg I like to keep % bonuses rounded to the nearest 0 or 5 (0.5, 1, 1.5) and not get weird numbers like 0.73%, or 1.01%

It's surprisingly challenging :P

Am I correct in interpreting that scaling also affects un-colonizable celestial bodies? It seems to me that research and alloy bonuses (especially those granted by Away Teams when playing a Materialistic empire) are quite hefty when scaling is turned on. Particularly with more than one modifier allowed. I've resorted to scaling off and 0-1 modifiers, which puts balance closer in line with a vanilla experience but with greater variance.

A thought regarding Scaling and bonuses.
If we offer better bonus rewards more OFTEN on smaller worlds, with less variance as the key element, in exchange for less bonus districts it might make more sense
Such as:
<9 +2-4 per job +4-6 districts
<15 +1.5-4 pJ +5-8 disctricts
<20 +1-3 pJ +6-10 districts
<25 +0.5-2 pJ +7-12 districts
25+ +0.5-1.5pJ +8-14 districts (inconsistency because offering less than half a mineral as a bonus in a tooltip seems disappointing)


In this manner small worlds make more resources with less jobs, while large worlds get massive opportunities for raw output thanks to specialisation. Although thanks to randomness, it is possible to have a size 20 world with a greater per job bonus than a low roll size 9.

If there was any way to test the basic planets starting districts and scale the maximum mineral districts to hit the planet cap, we would seem to see more randomisation in the modifier, and we would get less ugly empty disctricts on fully populated worlds.

I once saw like 8 empty districts of mining because the world was only size 12.

I have planned to go over the scaling and do it on a per modifier basis. So some modifiers will scale with larger planets, others will scale in reverse (bigger bonuses on smaller planets) and some wont scale at all. It'll depend on what the planet modifier is and how it "affects" the planet story wise.

I definitely agree it can currently feel bad to get a cool big modifier on a small planet.