Habitability is a bit boring

Interesting idea but it does not factor in the planet size.... I am pretty sure one industrial district on a size 10 planet would affect the climate more than one industrial district on a size 20 planet.  

NotAYakk said: More friendly per person. Not more friendly per km^2.

Districts represtent km^2.

Not necessarily.... districs are an abstract of an entity providing space and/or workspace for a set number of pops. This can be either a 1 story building or 100 story building which can then be of variable height based on the average height of the pop species. Some of these could even be subterranean or underwater.  

NotAYakk said: Districts are limited by the size of the planet. Size is literally size, larger planets are larger on the system view.

They are converting a certain (usable) area of the planet to that purpose, be it factories, forges, urban spacespace, rural farming, mining or power plants.

At least, that appears to be what the rest of the game is telling us.

So, you can have a different belief, but mine is that districts represent actual space used on the planet.

You'll still have some suburban and lower density areas around cities and the like. Converting to a planet city is like going from a planet of new jersey suburban sprawl to a planet of hong kong high rises everywhere.

Ok... let's go by "each district is fixed amount of space". Since each district provides the same amount of jobs, living space and jobs regardless of planet size, they must be of a constant size. This also makes the ecological ruination of one district on a larger planet less impactful to average habitability than on a smaller planet since there is a lot more space to go around. Mathematically it is quite easy by factoring in the total number of districts into the formula instead of just assigning a flat malus per disctrict.

But while we are at it: How is habitability to be factored when we a speaking of artifical environments like habitats and ringworlds? In these system there is no ecosystem to speak of since all harmful things would be filtered out in the atmosphere.

To take it even one step further: Does a subterranean city have the same ecological impact on the ecosystem has a surface city? Does a water turbine powerplant has the same impact as a gas powerplant? What about planets tomb worlds which have a low habitability because the atmosphere itself is more toxic that anything you could throw at it by production?

The basic question also is: what benefit is there in adding a mechanism to a game and therefore consuming system resources if it is just there to have "habitabilty telling a story"?  

NotAYakk said: I mean, the entire point of a game like Stellaris is to tell a story in an enjoyable manner.

What is the point of it telling a story? That is the entire game.

And an industrial space station devoted to converting ores into high tech alloys *should* feel polluted by default, moreso than a station devoted to trade, entertainment or farming.

This is just an attempt to hook into the habitability mechanics to provide that feeling. Which in turn provides hooks to enrich habitability mechanics.

Life support in a space game is a rich subject area for a game, and stellaris doesn't use it for much. Habitability is boring, there is next to nothing interactive about it.

I am not quite sure if a sandbox 4X space-themed grand strategy game is about telling a story.

Habitability as it is depicted in game might feel boring to you but to state "habitability is boring" is a gross overstatement and undue generalization.

For others it is just a mechanism that shows that not all races prefer and thrive in the same climate and therefore either need to live with drawbacks or terraform the planet more to its liking.

However since the game is moddable including the effects of districts you are of course free to mod that factor in to your liking.