Stellaris Dev Diary #132 - Ecumenopolis and Megastructures

[Retry]

As I said, we are speaking about different regenerators then. Turning some non-02/none0 stuff into o2 stuff is generating, but turning an o2/o stuff into a proper air-gas is actually REgenerating, as it "returns" the o2 into it's airy ''default'' condition.

We are speaking about different regenerators because the regenerators you are referring to don't exist.

Part of the problem is "O2 stuff" is so unscientific and nebulous that it's worthless and entirely impossible to understand what you're actually referring to. Is O2 stuff just O2, the diatomic gas? Or do you consider any compound that includes any oxygen at all (CO2, CO, SO4, etc) to be "O2 stuff"?

"O2/O stuff", if you mean the diatomic compound, is already gas at STP. No further refinement is needed to "return" diatomic oxygen into its gaseous state on Earth. At most you could remove the excess gases (like nitrogen) and concentrate the oxygen if you wanted to, but a machine that does that is not a regenerator, that's an oxygen concentrator.

If by "O2/O stuff" you instead mean every single compound that includes even a scratch of oxygen (CO2, CO, SO4, H2O, etc), these require chemical processes to decompose the products into useful reactants, such as O2. One example of such a process is electrolysis, which decomposes 2 water molecules into 2 H2 and 1 O2. As previously stated, some submarines use these and the machines that do these are not called regenerators, but generators. It should then come as no surprise that other machines that do these are also called oxygen generators.

And if you mean by "non-O2 stuff" you meant any compound without even a shred of oxygen in it (CH4, H2, NaCl, etc), that's another thing entirely. Actually physically changing something from one element to another is called nuclear transmutation, and it's extremely difficult to do, and requires somehow adding or subtracting protons to the mix to get it to the correct element (8 protons in the case of Oxygen). This would be the most difficult and energy-expensive process of the three (Oxygen concentrators being the least), and a theoretical machine of this type would be called an oxygen transmutator.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Most Empires could be expected to want to retain at least some of each world's natural environment, either for nostalgia, religious purposes, or research purposes. I think the conclusion that they are inevitable is wrong-footed and shallow.

Their homeworld's biosphere would be especially important to preserve, as all the biology related stuff to their own physiology that they need to support their entire civilization must originate from it. If you need to change something related to your food supply, they need to base it on biology from the homeworld. If a vital bacteria is all dying off on your space stations, the best place to find a replacement is from your homeworld. The ecumenopolis depicted in the game is a full replacement of the world with a city, not just a series of archologies. A dead world is a better place to build one than a living one, but most empires should at least be smart enough to know that they shouldn't make one of them out of their homeworld unless they've built a full size replacement/preserve for it. At that point though, why not make what you intend to be the replacement the city world? Alternatively, a ringworld could serve as a replacement for the homeworld's biosphere and then you convert all other worlds into cities.

 

[James Fire]

A dead world is a better place to build one than a living one,

So you're telling me we should be able to do it to barren worlds?

 

[Don Wing]

Is there any way this MEGA CITIES produce minerals, energy or food? it seems quite unrealistic it produces none ( agree that the idea is to differ from common planets with comon districts, but at least it should produce 30% of the consumption)

 

[James Fire]

While I'd like for this to be more clearly represented in-game, and perhaps some flexibility for Empires with highly developed core worlds and terrible outer planets, I think the penalties are pretty clearly founded in both realism and better game balance.

Something that could be done for that is that only *built* districts count, not your district cap. From the sounds of things, that is how it is going to be, otherwise planets are going to be a huge drag when you first colonize them.

 

[sortulv]

Is there any way this MEGA CITIES produce minerals, energy or food? it seems quite unrealistic it produces none ( agree that the idea is to differ from common planets with comon districts, but at least it should produce 30% of the consumption)

There is at least a building (using a building slot) that produces food.

 

[Jularbo Kizn]

Maybe they and Hives could get some kind of Central Mind World?
Other than that, loving it all.

Oh yes, like the Zerg in Brood War, your post made me want to reinstall SC1 and playthough the campaign agan for hundred time

 

[Yaskaleh]

So you're telling me we should be able to do it to barren worlds?

Depends on what you mean with a dead world. A tomb world can be considered a dead world. If you're a FP and your xenoscum neighbour got a sweet 25 planet of the wrong type near you in a very profitable location then you should just burn it, clean it up a little and then turn it into a Eucomenopolis.

Even better if you're a post-apocalyptic survivor. Grab any 25 tomb world you find with the same condition as above and get to work. Would be even easier.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

So you're telling me we should be able to do it to barren worlds?

I could see a project to convert a terraforming candidate directly into a eucomenopolis, though you can't indiscriminately convert any barren world into one and the game doesn't distinguish that well between which uninhabitable worlds would be suitable or not for planet wide cities with artificial atmospheres.

 

[Ancillary]

I could see a project to convert a terraforming candidate directly into a eucomenopolis, though you can't indiscriminately convert any barren world into one and the game doesn't distinguish that well between which uninhabitable worlds would be suitable or not for planet wide cities with artificial atmospheres.

I don't think that's likely, since you have to max out a planet with city districts before it can be an ecumenopolis.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I could see a project to convert a terraforming candidate directly into a eucomenopolis, though you can't indiscriminately convert any barren world into one and the game doesn't distinguish that well between which uninhabitable worlds would be suitable or not for planet wide cities with artificial atmospheres.

Unlikely, as we don’t have direct conversion to Gaia. 99.9% sure you will have to get the atmosphere going then build the cities up.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Unlikely, as we don’t have direct conversion to Gaia. 99.9% sure you will have to get the atmosphere going then build the cities up.

It could just be an RP thing then. If you want to say your race only uses dead worlds to make an ecumenoplis, you only do it on planets that were originally terraforming candidates, since that world has an artificial biosphere anyway.

Also, such a race would want to avoid terraforming in general too, since that is a hugely disruptive process to existing biospheres. It's comparable in some senses to paving over the planet to make one big city.

 

[Ralsei]

Paradox continues to slowly turn all of the mods I have installed into vanilla features. Terrifying, but also exciting to see how big the overlap between what I think would be fun to have in the game and what you think would be fun to have in the game.

Next expansion: Special Gaia Worlds from Planetary Diversity, and Automated Strip Mines from Gigastructural Engineering!

Keep up the excellent work!

 

[ShakenBake]

There is at least a building (using a building slot) that produces food.

That seems like a fair compromise to me.

I think the ecumenopolis restrictions (and the purpose of districts in general) are much like zoning in real life. It wouldn't make sense to zone large swaths of extremely valuable urban land for agricultural use when there is cheaper more productive land elsewhere that can be designated for agriculture. You can have a smaller hydroponic operation on an urban planet, but it costs a building slot that could have been used for research, trade, etc.

 

[Devanor]

Paradox continues to slowly turn all of the mods I have installed into vanilla features. Terrifying, but also exciting

Wait what? That should be the best thing ever shouldn't it?

 

[Lanrete]

We can discuss balance for any two comparable affects, regardless of scale. One AP purchase is arguably ideal for this; the cost-benefit analysis is super straightforward, as the cost is identical for all but a few Ascension Perks (one point) and has very clearly defined outcomes.
Theory aside, it's pretty clear that while some of the affects are exaggerated for the purposes of gameplay, there's no real evidence behind 'larger = better' being more logical in the real world either. There are many comparatively small countries that have done very well for themselves through strong, centralized institutions, such as pre-Empire Britain, Japan or Venice. The large empire costs on Unity and Science are pretty clearly supposed to represent the very real costs of decentralizing your institutions.
As an example, if you had 15 scientists in one building, aware of each others' research and capable of bouncing ideas off of each other, or the same 15 scientist spread out among 15 different planets, who do you think would have more success in their research?
While I'd like for this to be more clearly represented in-game, and perhaps some flexibility for Empires with highly developed core worlds and terrible outer planets, I think the penalties are pretty clearly founded in both realism and better game balance.
The argument that not all game styles don't need to be balanced against each other is not a good one for reasons you have already talked about: the expected way for you to make your experience more or less difficult is to adjust the game settings, not to play tall or wide. Those decisions should be cost-neutral (so the playstyles are balanced), as they're not the design levers used to govern the difficulty of your experience.
Also, you know, you should be able to play how you like without feeling like you're shooting yourself in the foot.
Ecumenopolis are also supposed to be representing a cultural movement (thus they're a Unity outcome), not just an outcome of industrial output. Arguably, I'd expect strong pressures on migration (A New Life Awaits On The Off World Colonies!) rather than perpetual urban sprawl. Most Empires could be expected to want to retain at least some of each world's natural environment, either for nostalgia, religious purposes, or research purposes. I think the conclusion that they are inevitable is wrong-footed and shallow.

>We can discuss balance for any two comparable affects, regardless of scale. One AP purchase is arguably ideal for this; the cost-benefit analysis is super straightforward, as the cost is identical for all but a few Ascension Perks (one point) and has very clearly defined outcomes.
So it is straightforward for a multiple purchase/ number of separate straightforward purchases.
>Theory aside, it's pretty clear that while some of the affects are exaggerated for the purposes of gameplay, there's no real evidence behind 'larger = better' being more logical in the real world either.
There is actual evidence that larger is better. Having a larger amount of resources, a more advanced scientific base, a larger and better equipped military, a large commander pool to choose the best from, does make you stronger. A heavy tank with powerful armour is "stronger" than a small tank with the same 'technological' level.
>There are many comparatively small countries that have done very well for themselves through strong, centralized institutions, such as pre-Empire Britain, Japan or Venice. The large empire costs on Unity and Science are pretty clearly supposed to represent the very real costs of decentralizing your institutions.
We are not speaking about life levels or freedom ratings, no, we are speaking about "power" of a civilisation. And a difference between a small country/large country on a planet scale (on which, a political doctrine or a superior military tactic can help a small nation defeat a larger one, and a technological renessance- to grow more powerful economically)- is incomparable to a difference between a 1 planet empire, and an empire spanning 1000 planets. The quantity also increases in quality with the rise of quantity, as the civilisation uses it's resources and pools to upgrade and advance, for example. Basically, if we take two nations (regardless, planetery of space ones), with same quality and leaders,same conditions, but different quantity of land/planets, the bigger one wins. Yes, a bigger one can have mediocre leadership and a smaller one will have a genious, yes, a bigger one can have a period of stagnation, and a smaller one has a scientific upheaval, yes, there can be a miracle, like a comet hitting the home world/ a meteor falls on a capital, but the larger is the size difference- the more miracles and bad leaders you need to have a small empire>big empire result.
And, you know, a sucessfull empire grows, like an organism. So, a small empire that is sucessfull, would in most cases annex planets'lands and get new resources. And it will stop being a small empire.
>As an example, if you had 15 scientists in one building, aware of each others' research and capable of bouncing ideas off of each other, or the same 15 scientist spread out among 15 different planets, who do you think would have more success in their research?
If we have more worlds and pops- we have more scientists, no? And who said, that they should be spread out? And who said, we cant support effective comms?
Here: you can have a nation that has 100 people, and can spawn 1 mediocre scientist and can support with ALL OF its money only the most primitive lab. Or, you can have a nation with a population of 1345^863, that has a chance of a new genious being born each day- 99%, and even a 0,0000001 of the nations economy can support interstellar-size superlabs.
>While I'd like for this to be more clearly represented in-game, and perhaps some flexibility for Empires with highly developed core worlds and terrible outer planets, I think the penalties are pretty clearly founded in both realism and better game balance.
They are not founded. A small empire can have the same ineffective methods as a large empire. It is not immune, actually, the whole "big corrupt country trope" is far from reality, and there is a larger % of corruption in small states, as they have to be much more effective to develop with their meager resources and tech, which, in turn, leads to degradation and corruption.
>The argument that not all game styles don't need to be balanced against each other is not a good one for reasons you have already talked about: the expected way for you to make your experience more or less difficult is to adjust the game settings,
Yes, but, a large empire is a sucessfull empire- the empire, that manages to expand. The game is about some level of expansionism, after all. And what you say- we should just make expansionism irrelevant, so that some person who was unable to expand (or didn't want to play OP for some rp reasons)- would be equal to a person who is sucessfull and plays OP
>not to play tall or wide. Those decisions should be cost-neutral (so the playstyles are balanced), as they're not the design levers used to govern the difficulty of your experience.
The tall-wide dychotomy is not real. And even the game's debuffs for large empires stop making this dychotomy real midgame. I manage to both fully upgrade all stuff AND get maximum new stuff, and still have the resources in their maximum cap. And such a system represents a realistic imperial quality increases quantity and quantity increases quality "singularity".
>Also, you know, you should be able to play how you like without feeling like you're shooting yourself in the foot.
So we should just shooy in the foot all the players, by adding xtra unrealistic debuffs on large empire, and make them even more unrealistic by not adding them to the small empires, supporting the "small-efficient" trope?
>Ecumenopolis are also supposed to be representing a cultural movement (thus they're a Unity outcome), not just an outcome of industrial output. Arguably, I'd expect strong pressures on migration (A New Life Awaits On The Off World Colonies!)
>pressures on migration
We can produce pops without migrating from other empires. We can even produce pops on the same planet where the ecumenopolis is built, without pops coming from other planets of our Empire.
>off world colonies
>a colony that is heavily urbanized, and is basically like a part of the metropoly
> rather than perpetual urban sprawl. Most Empires could be expected to want to retain at least some of each world's natural environment, either for nostalgia, religious purposes, or research purposes. I think the conclusion that they are inevitable is wrong-footed and shallow.
For "research purposes" it's enough to have some bioorganisms stuffed in biolabs. We don't need forests to study biology of trees. Not all religions are about nature worship. Actually, IRL, only a few (including the modern trend of "atheistic nature worship") are such. Nostalgia? If we talk about feelings, how about the fact, that the species/nation can embrace its technofuture, and actually hate the nature of old? It's as possible as the nostalgia thing, if not more. And I can bring a dosen of other examples (just as you could bring yours). And all of these scenarios have a right to live, so, why should we define the game by one scenario, instead of allowing the players/AI to choose how to play and what to play?

 

[Lanrete]

Their homeworld's biosphere would be especially important to preserve, as all the biology related stuff to their own physiology that they need to support their entire civilization must originate from it. If you need to change something related to your food supply, they need to base it on biology from the homeworld. If a vital bacteria is all dying off on your space stations, the best place to find a replacement is from your homeworld. The ecumenopolis depicted in the game is a full replacement of the world with a city, not just a series of archologies. A dead world is a better place to build one than a living one, but most empires should at least be smart enough to know that they shouldn't make one of them out of their homeworld unless they've built a full size replacement/preserve for it. At that point though, why not make what you intend to be the replacement the city world? Alternatively, a ringworld could serve as a replacement for the homeworld's biosphere and then you convert all other worlds into cities.

>Their homeworld's biosphere would be especially important to preserve, as all the biology related stuff to their own physiology that they need to support their entire civilization must originate from it.
Nope, you calculate what you need to support via ''medical'' science, not a "nature-study". And all studies end, so, at some point, the homeworld biosphere would become scientifically irelevant in any case, the same is related to the stuff below.
>If you need to change something related to your food supply, they need to base it on biology from the homeworld.
Ehm, we can store "bology from the homeworld" in labs. And, once again, no, it is not based on biology from the homeworld, but on "medical" study of what does the body need. This is the logical and practical way, just the same as wis the support stuff above. To know what the body wants- you study the body that requires the oxygen, and what is oxygen, not the tree that generates the oxygen. And we can store a tree in a box, instead of having billions of forests everywhere.
>If a vital bacteria is all dying off on your space stations, the best place to find a replacement is from your homeworld.
Or in a lab bank. Or by creating new bacteria via gmo and medical study of the body. Or from other stations. And if it dies on all planets and stations- it will die on the homeworld, realistically, as it is some apocalyptic event-stuff. Hell, we speak about psyonic immortals and cyborgs here, some bacteria is nothing to Stellaris super-science.

 

[Lanrete]

We are speaking about different regenerators because the regenerators you are referring to don't exist.

Part of the problem is "O2 stuff" is so unscientific and nebulous that it's worthless and entirely impossible to understand what you're actually referring to. Is O2 stuff just O2, the diatomic gas? Or do you consider any compound that includes any oxygen at all (CO2, CO, SO4, etc) to be "O2 stuff"?

"O2/O stuff", if you mean the diatomic compound, is already gas at STP. No further refinement is needed to "return" diatomic oxygen into its gaseous state on Earth. At most you could remove the excess gases (like nitrogen) and concentrate the oxygen if you wanted to, but a machine that does that is not a regenerator, that's an oxygen concentrator.

If by "O2/O stuff" you instead mean every single compound that includes even a scratch of oxygen (CO2, CO, SO4, H2O, etc), these require chemical processes to decompose the products into useful reactants, such as O2. One example of such a process is electrolysis, which decomposes 2 water molecules into 2 H2 and 1 O2. As previously stated, some submarines use these and the machines that do these are not called regenerators, but generators. It should then come as no surprise that other machines that do these are also called oxygen generators.

And if you mean by "non-O2 stuff" you meant any compound without even a shred of oxygen in it (CH4, H2, NaCl, etc), that's another thing entirely. Actually physically changing something from one element to another is called nuclear transmutation, and it's extremely difficult to do, and requires somehow adding or subtracting protons to the mix to get it to the correct element (8 protons in the case of Oxygen). This would be the most difficult and energy-expensive process of the three (Oxygen concentrators being the least), and a theoretical machine of this type would be called an oxygen transmutator.

"Part of the problem is "O2 stuff" is so unscientific and nebulous that it's worthless and entirely impossible to understand what you're actually referring to. "
The O2 i refer to is the same as the unspecific "oxygen/air" you refered to, in it's unspecificness.

"f by "O2/O stuff" you instead mean every single compound that includes even a scratch of oxygen (CO2, CO, SO4, H2O, etc), these require chemical processes to decompose the products into useful reactants, such as O2. One example of such a process is electrolysis, which decomposes 2 water molecules into 2 H2 and 1 O2. As previously stated, some submarines use these and the machines that do these are not called regenerators, but generators. It should then come as no surprise that other machines that do these are also called oxygen generators."

But if the oxygen gas was "degenerated" into C02, turning it back into a 'pure' O2 gas, is REgenerating. As I said, we are speaking about different terminologies (from different branches and different levels of support by the consensus/ qualities of different consensus that support/do not support such an interpretation" and different regenerators here. Your oxygen regenerator- does not exist. "My" oxygen regenerator- is the stuff that you refer to as a generator.

 

[Retry]

"Part of the problem is "O2 stuff" is so unscientific and nebulous that it's worthless and entirely impossible to understand what you're actually referring to. "
The O2 i refer to is the same as the unspecific "oxygen/air" you refered to, in it's unspecificness.

I intentionally kept "air for consumption" fairly vague because "air for consumption" in this case could mean many different things. For plants it would be CO2. For Animals on Earth (obviously including Humans) it's O2. It doesn't matter whether I'm generating consumable air for you, an Evergreen, or a Blorg, the machine that does so is called a Generator.

The general term "air" itself is understood very well by the scientific community and various engineering disciplines to be the general composition of Earth's atmosphere. If you're asked to make an air-standard analysis of an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine), no one's going to get confused and accidentally use Mars's or Venus's atmospheric composition instead.

But if the oxygen gas was "degenerated" into C02, turning it back into a 'pure' O2 gas, is REgenerating. ..."My" oxygen regenerator- is the stuff that you refer to as a generator.

The machine is referred to as an oxygen generator, as it generates pure oxygen as a byproduct (among others) from a chemical reaction of an oxygen-containing compound. If you really want to split hairs, it is impossible to actually know whether that O2 molecule was even an O2 molecule at the beginning of the universe, it could have started out as a CO2 particle, then degenerated into an O2 particle + byproducts 2 billion years ago, and then reformed into a CO2 particle 1 billion years ago, in which case its "default state" was as CO2 all along, as if that means anything at all.
I refer to oxygen generators as oxygen generators because that is the correct terminology for them. We're not speaking of different terminologies, you just insist on using the wrong one.

 

[grommile]

it is impossible to actually know whether that O2 molecule was even an O2 molecule at the beginning of the universe, it could have started out as a CO2 particle,

On the contrary: it is possible to be pretty much absolutely certain that at the beginning of the universe, it was a bunch of unbound protons and electrons, which then became hydrogen, which then became the fuel mass of a gravitational confinement fusion reactor.