[snip]

> I will have to play around with these values myself and see how
they go, but
> I think they are probably a pretty good solution for climate
terraforming
> projects. I would personally prefer a longer time period to affect
such
> changes, and would consider incrementing the cost to some degree --
probably
> 4x the listed cost. That means that a Climate Variance 15 Adaptable
world
> with a Carrying Capacity of 8 would cost 8 x 12 + 20 = 116 to
adjust a
> climate rating by 1. However, if I paid 25 EP in by the end of the
year, I
> would have 25 / 116 = 21% chance of completing the terraforming
project.
>
> Any thoughts?

I definitely like the idea of the completion of a terraforming
project based on how technological advances work and I don't think
that the 4x cost from above is a bad starting point. Considering
that it might take years to get a fairly decent Climate Variance on a
world (since the max you can do is 2 points of Climate Variance per
year), it represents an ongoing choice to fix those large worlds with
horrible living conditions.

I guess my issue with terraforming is the technological advancements
needed to begin the actual work without damaging the ecosystem of the
world should be quite high (my thoughts always draw to the Outpost 2
PC game when talking about terraforming). But than again, I've
always assume that the RAW value of a planet is much more than just
mineral riches on the planet. I mean, a terraforming project that
goes bad could be a real issue.

-Bren