My workplace generates a large amount of waste paper from unneeded prints. I take a small fraction of that wasted paper home and cover it with tiny scribbles.
Also a large number of spreadsheet files, screenshots and so on. I even have Sudarsky's paper on gas giant classification in .pdf form and vitally important copies of the TTA books for reference.
@ratlan - yes, I think it's a shame that gas giants with life have such low values.
This Orlov diagram (credit value for mass) shows values specifically for the gas giants with life that I've seen, plus water giants.
While there aren't enough values to be certain, it's interesting to look at - because the temperature of a gas giant generally increases with mass, and because higher temperature gas giants in this range will be Class II (water clouds) and colder ones will be Class I (ammonia clouds, with a water cloud layer underneath) it looks like the ammonia-based life can only be at the lower part of the mass range, but water-based can be the whole range.
(Would be interested in anything that confirms or disproves this, so if anyone knows of a really massive gas giant with ammonia-based life...)
@Granite - and yes, it would be nice if distance travelled and systems visited count; someone mentioned upthread that they'd seen the rank "tick up" while they were out exploring so perhaps it does count.
This diagram shows a slightly-cleaned up version of the data I have for valuable worlds.
It looks like there's no distinction in value between Water Worlds (Candidate for Terraforming) / Water Worlds (Terraforming in Progress) and Earth-like Worlds. Which makes sense.
Also no distinction between High Metal Content (CFT) and High Metal Content (TIP) worlds.
