Stellaris Dev Diary #132 - Ecumenopolis and Megastructures

[The_Meme_Man]

Ecuminopoli can still provide jobs in scientific research and soldiering, right? That way I can have a science ecuminopolis or a barracks world?

 

[Lasagna Star Empire]

I kindly request a design rework of the megastructures available with MegaCorp. Especially the Mega Art Installation and the Interstellar Assembly. It would be awesome if you can make them more nice looking. Thanks.

 

[Daoko__]

Anyone else think the art megastructure would look better by taking ques from the fallen empire ship and station design aesthetics?

YES, so much this. Anything is better than the design we have for it right now, these megastructures are giving me Humanoid species pack vibes (and we all know how they turned out). They could've done a design similar to the Louvre pyramid, maybe that would've been better.

 

[Bruno Ptc]

Is there a unique model for a ecumenopolis Earth?

 

[Dr_Harnsaft]

Could something like a planetary blockade become a thing? Like, cutting off an ecumenopolis from all supplies from the outside so you don't have to invade it and can watch the people starve and fall into anarchy?

 

[TheDungen]

Spoiler: loads of replies

Is there anything for the foolhardy race that destroys their homeworld's ecosystem by converting it into an ecumenopolis? Losing access to the library of biological creatures using the same chemistry and general makeup as themselves should make colonizing new worlds and reacting to new diseases and biological problems on old ones much more difficult. There should be a similar permanent penalty for races who's homeworlds are outright destroyed.

EDIT: Damn! Not a terribly popular idea, might have to be a mod only feature than or something that's only enabled on game start.

You do realize that the -ology in arcology stands for ecology right? Architecture+ecology. I dare say the concept is not inherently destructive.

I think are wrong here. Agrarian idyll would allow you to make world that is super good at producing basic resources, while the ecumenpolis would be super good at making these basic resources into more complex stuff.

Because the “city” districts in a ecumenpolis is not real city districts, then you wouldn’t have to suffere the negative consequenses of agrarian idyll, which is worse city districts.

Wiz have said on twitter that the two are mutual exclusive though, so we will never know.

What if switch out of agrarian idyll then build an Ecuminopolis then switch back? That said I can see why they would be exclusive, they are opposed mindsets when it comes to countries.

It would make more sense for the Matter Decompressor to mine Neutron stars. A spoonful of their matter is worth a mountain, and Black holes already have special uses with the observatory and the L-gates.

Maybe they could be used to mine anything which can't have a dyson sphere. Though it would rather the science nexus be made black hole specific then.

Is anyone else a tiny bit sad that the Interstellar Assembly doesn't look like Babylon 5?

As are the people who could have sued if it did.

The very idea of an ecumenopolis seems incompatible with environmentalism.

Like I said above an Ecuminopolis is filled with arcologies arcology is a merger of the words architecture and ecology. Doesn't sound incompatible to me. Though it would b awesome if there was special names and description for stuff if you are a ecologist having one.

Ecuminopoli can still provide jobs in scientific research and soldiering, right? That way I can have a science ecuminopolis or a barracks world?

I think we should nip this in the bud, it's Ecuminopolises or Ecuminopoleis not Ecuminopoli. -i is only plural in masculine form in latin, the -polis suffix is from greek.

Could something like a planetary blockade become a thing? Like, cutting off an ecumenopolis from all supplies from the outside so you don't have to invade it and can watch the people starve and fall into anarchy?

Global pacifier.

 

[Lanrete]

Is there anything for the foolhardy race that destroys their homeworld's ecosystem by converting it into an ecumenopolis? Losing access to the library of biological creatures using the same chemistry and general makeup as themselves should make colonizing new worlds and reacting to new diseases and biological problems on old ones much more difficult. There should be a similar permanent penalty for races who's homeworlds are outright destroyed.

EDIT: Apparently this isn't a terribly popular idea, might have to be a mod only feature than or something that's only enabled on game start.

1) There is enough eco-propaganda in games already ( in Spore, cities blow up, only because the last baby seal on the planet got killed, lol) I, myself, was turned into a deep anti-environmentalist because of this stuff. Me, a big (ex) fan of different species, artificial ecosystems, and colossal aquatic animals. So, by this eco-propaganda, the ecologists are actually doing themselves bad service.
2) Destroying an ecosystem is not "foolhardy". It is a logical step, in replacing a flawed "natural" ecosystem, with a much more robust and effective technosystem.
3) The library of biological creatures can be created even if there is no ecosystem around. Laboratories can host mice and lice even if the lab itself is somewhere in the Arctic of in deep space. And on late stages of gene engineering, reliance on other-species-genes, instead of creating new ones from scratch, is illogical. You can't create immortality this way in most scenarios, for example, as there is no universal "immortality gene" for all species.

 

[Kravoka]

You can't create immortality this way in most scenarios, for example, as there is no universal "immortality gene" for all species.

It's conception inside the time vortex.

 

[ShakenBake]

But it is not logical and pragmatic, and it means sacrificing stuff, only to save 'matha nature', regardless of what you think. Even those parts of environmentalism that are claimed to be "for the benefit of the people" are just the same deep environmentalism, masked.

I gave specific benefits, but you'd rather just assume I'm advocating "deep environmentalism"? (Whatever that's supposed to mean) I'm not applying any spiritual significance to nature (I'm a materialist), and nature isn't the beneficiary of any of the benefits I listed.

Ehm, nope. Nature by definition is not 100% habitable.

I never said it was, only that pollution can make it less habitable, which is obvious. There are many examples of chronic exposure causing health problems (the water in Flint, the air in New Delhi), and even some examples of acute health effects. You seem to be denying that pollution affects people and that environmentalism is just about some metaphysical view of nature. Would you therefore say that Chernobyl is just undeveloped real estate, or did human activity affect its habitability?

Resources aren't finite in real world too. Most of them don't get vapourized after getting used, and if we use up all the ore- we can invent some ne material from pressed earth or smth, for example. All matter is a resource pil

I'm starting to think you're trolling. Do you just assume that all chemical reactions are reversible? That entropy doesn't exist? That we could just separate and sort elements at the atomic level? That materials don't have different chemical, physical, thermal, and electrical properties? Are you being serious?

Obviously Stellaris is science fiction and it's necessary to bend the laws of physics for the sake of making a good space opera (teleportation, FTL travel, etc), but if you're taking about the real world, finite resources absolutely exist.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Why should there be smth for the envir? Not using resources and space, only because "mother nature muh motherly and so muh more important than us", is not a pragmatic and logical choice. It is more of an RP decision, not an optimal gameplay one, and the fact, that it has some bonuses already is a bit unrealistic. Self-limitations (in the context of limiting "progress" and expansion) should not be rewarded at all, me thinks, and instead, should be a conscious "I sacrifice stuff and get nothing in return" decision.

Agreed. Modern environmentalism is incompatible with progress on an interstellar scale. Disassembling planets to build megastructures is hardly a 'green' position.

 

[Lanrete]

It's conception inside the time vortex.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Will it be possible to mod the appearance of Megastructures so that they appear different for each of the Ship Appearances?

Mods can already do this. In the Asari Republics mod habitats are Mass Effect Citadels. They look awesome.

 

[ShakenBake]

Ecuminopoli can still provide jobs in scientific research and soldiering, right? That way I can have a science ecuminopolis or a barracks world?

Those jobs are provided by buildings. In the stream the other week, when the planet was upgraded to an ecumenopolis none of the buildings were changed or removed, so I doubt any of the corresponding jobs will be removed or that construction of these buildings would be prohibited.

 

[Lanrete]

I gave specific benefits, but you'd rather just assume I'm advocating "deep environmentalism"? (Whatever that's supposed to mean) I'm not applying any spiritual significance to nature (I'm a materialist), and nature isn't the beneficiary of any of the benefits I listed.



I never said it was, only that pollution can make it less habitable, which is obvious. There are many examples of chronic exposure causing health problems (the water in Flint, the air in New Delhi), and even some examples of acute health effects. You seem to be denying that pollution affects people and that environmentalism is just about some metaphysical view of nature. Would you therefore say that Chernobyl is just undeveloped real estate, or did human activity affect its habitability?



I'm starting to think you're trolling. Do you just assume that all chemical reactions are reversible? That entropy doesn't exist? That we could just separate and sort elements at the atomic level? That materials don't have different chemical, physical, thermal, and electrical properties? Are you being serious?

Obviously Stellaris is science fiction and it's necessary to bend the laws of physics for the sake of making a good space opera (teleportation, FTL travel, etc), but if you're taking about the real world, finite resources absolutely exist.

>I gave specific benefits, but you'd rather just assume I'm advocating "deep environmentalism"? (Whatever that's supposed to mean) I'm not applying any spiritual significance to nature (I'm a materialist), and nature isn't the beneficiary of any of the benefits I listed.

I didn't assume that you were advocating anything. I just stated, that most eco stuff is deep, and I stated that the "specific benefits" are not actual benefits of the eco path.



>I never said it was, only that pollution can make it less habitable, which is obvious. There are many examples of chronic exposure causing health problems (the water in Flint, the air in New Delhi), and even some examples of acute health effects. You seem to be denying that pollution affects people and that environmentalism is just about some metaphysical view of nature. Would you therefore say that Chernobyl is just undeveloped real estate, or did human activity affect its habitability?

But nature is uneffective in fighting pollution, compared to a technosphere. So, technosphere>ecosphere.



>I'm starting to think you're trolling. Do you just assume that all chemical reactions are reversible? That entropy doesn't exist? That we could just separate and sort elements at the atomic level? That materials don't have different chemical, physical, thermal, and electrical properties? Are you being serious?

Yes, we can just separate and sort, and most chemical reactions are reversible, if we do not speak about higher systems, like DNA. And I wasn't speaking about such levels of tech, no. I was speaking about the basic stuff, like applying a lot of heat and pressure to a pile of soil, to create a super-dense armour plate out of it.

>Obviously Stellaris is science fiction and it's necessary to bend the laws of physics for the sake of making a good space opera (teleportation, FTL travel, etc), but if you're taking about the real world,

>finite resources absolutely exist.[

1) You do not have enough information, to state categorically such things.
2) Finite resources do not exist. All matter is one big pile of resource, and energy is just a form of matter. Anything that can be interacted with, can be used for smth, and stuff that can be used, is a RESOURCE. And space-time? Can be used too.

 

[Nester64]

Will we have the option make a habitat a ecumenopolis? (I mean, they're already big artificial structures, I'm just wondering about the corner case)

As far as Rogue Servitors are concerned, will they be able to build an sanctuary ecumenopolis for their bio-trophies, or will they have to put them in standard city districts?

I ask because when I'm playing as a Servitor, I like to set aside planets/habitats for my trophies' exclusive use, but I do appreciate the ability to pack them in as tight as possible so my bots can actually support my empire

 

[James Fire]

In a typical game I would have 5-10 planets, and 30-50 starbases! Planets are at least different/unique. Starbase are mostly the same, and extremely tedious.

I was really hoping that this 2.2 update was aimed at reducing repetitive micro-management, but here you're adding:

- 5-15 more starbase to micro-manage!
- 8-24 more clicks per starbase (depending on def platform size)
- All which need to be upgraded every time I research a new tech

If you don't overhaul starbase then please change these bonuses to something like:

Naval Capacity: 75/150/225
Starbase HP/Trade Value: 15%/30%/45%
Defense Platforms Damage Bonus: 15%/30%/45%
Sublight Speed: 5%/10%/15%

Why are you building all the defense platforms on every starbase? That's your fault, not the game's.

>I don't think environmentalism can't be logical and pragmatic, and I certainly don't think it's true that environmentalism means sacrificing land and resources and getting nothing in return.

But it is not logical and pragmatic, and it means sacrificing stuff, only to save 'matha nature', regardless of what you think. Even those parts of environmentalism that are claimed to be "for the benefit of the people" are just the same deep environmentalism, masked.

>There are a lot of possibilities. Environmentalists could have recycling centers, increased habitability (reflecting health benefits of dramatically reduced air pollution and safer water), maybe increased leader lifespans, etc.

Ehm, nope. Nature by definition is not 100% habitable. There is bad weather, toxins, dangerous beasts, etc. Nature can't support extremely large amounts of population. Protecting nature and populating everything- is exclusive. Changing nature by killing all dangerous predators instead of ignoring all the murdered pops as "irrelevant", upgrading the weather, replacing the "low-02-generating" rainforests that can support only 1trl pops with powerfull air-factories that are able to support 99999 trl pops, etc etc- is not environmenalist.


>Resources aren't finite in Stellaris, so that benefit can't be modeled,

Resources aren't finite in real world too. Most of them don't get vapourized after getting used, and if we use up all the ore- we can invent some ne material from pressed earth or smth, for example. All matter is a resource pile, but even so an environmentalist empire should have extremely efficient recycling tech and shouldn't need to mine as many resources, should benefit from a healthier environment to live in, should have happier populations due to easy access to outdoor recreation, and should have more opportunities for biological research. Any of these benefits could be modeled in the game, and could be balanced by reduced capability to develop a planet.

Except there is a limited amount of matter, and energy, in the universe. Plus there's the limit of how much we can process at once.

1) There is enough eco-propaganda in games already ( in Spore, cities blow up, only because the last baby seal on the planet got killed, lol) I, myself, was turned into a deep anti-environmentalist because of this stuff. Me, a big (ex) fan of different species, artificial ecosystems, and colossal aquatic animals. So, by this eco-propaganda, the ecologists are actually doing themselves bad service.
2) Destroying an ecosystem is not "foolhardy". It is a logical step, in replacing a flawed "natural" ecosystem, with a much more robust and effective technosystem.
3) The library of biological creatures can be created even if there is no ecosystem around. Laboratories can host mice and lice even if the lab itself is somewhere in the Arctic of in deep space. And on late stages of gene engineering, reliance on other-species-genes, instead of creating new ones from scratch, is illogical. You can't create immortality this way in most scenarios, for example, as there is no universal "immortality gene" for all species.

Propaganda? Really? You deny human-accelerated climate change too?

>I gave specific benefits, but you'd rather just assume I'm advocating "deep environmentalism"? (Whatever that's supposed to mean) I'm not applying any spiritual significance to nature (I'm a materialist), and nature isn't the beneficiary of any of the benefits I listed.

I didn't assume that you were advocating anything. I just stated, that most eco stuff is deep, and I stated that the "specific benefits" are not actual benefits of the eco path.



>I never said it was, only that pollution can make it less habitable, which is obvious. There are many examples of chronic exposure causing health problems (the water in Flint, the air in New Delhi), and even some examples of acute health effects. You seem to be denying that pollution affects people and that environmentalism is just about some metaphysical view of nature. Would you therefore say that Chernobyl is just undeveloped real estate, or did human activity affect its habitability?

But nature is uneffective in fighting pollution, compared to a technosphere. So, technosphere>ecosphere.



>I'm starting to think you're trolling. Do you just assume that all chemical reactions are reversible? That entropy doesn't exist? That we could just separate and sort elements at the atomic level? That materials don't have different chemical, physical, thermal, and electrical properties? Are you being serious?

Yes, we can just separate and sort, and most chemical reactions are reversible, if we do not speak about higher systems, like DNA. And I wasn't speaking about such levels of tech, no. I was speaking about the basic stuff, like applying a lot of heat and pressure to a pile of soil, to create a super-dense armour plate out of it.

>Obviously Stellaris is science fiction and it's necessary to bend the laws of physics for the sake of making a good space opera (teleportation, FTL travel, etc), but if you're taking about the real world,

>finite resources absolutely exist.[

1) You do not have enough information, to state categorically such things.
2) Finite resources do not exist. All matter is one big pile of resource, and energy is just a form of matter. Anything that can be interacted with, can be used for smth, and stuff that can be used, is a RESOURCE. And space-time? Can be used too.

1. Neither do you.
2. Yes, they do. Matter, and energy is limited, as is our intake of them.

 

[James Fire]

I think we should nip this in the bud, it's Ecuminopolises or Ecuminopoleis not Ecuminopoli. -i is only plural in masculine form in latin, the -polis suffix is from greek.

Except this is English. Not Latin or Greek.

 

[TheDungen]

Agreed. Modern environmentalism is incompatible with progress on an interstellar scale. Disassembling planets to build megastructures is hardly a 'green' position.

Actually it kind of is, if it means you take lifeless rocks and make from them a home in the stars then you can leave the life bearing planet alone.

Except this is English. Not Latin or Greek.

Hence why my first suggestion was ecumenopolises.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Actually it kind of is, if it means you take lifeless rocks and make from them a home in the stars then you can leave the life bearing planet alone.


Hence why my first suggestion was ecumenopolises.

If you leave a planet intact in your Dyson Swarm/Ringworld system you're eventually going to have a bad time. Civilizations capable of such undertakings would not care if they demolished a garden world or two for their projects any more than we do bulldozing an ant hill. If they were a bit sentimental they would take enough samples of the life on that world and dedicate an area of the ringworld as a museum preserve.

 

[Zeelilus]

Anyone else think the art megastructure would look better by taking ques from the fallen empire ship and station design aesthetics?

I'm actually quite against the idea that all the younger races should have their greatest achievements be emulations of the decadent and dismissive failed empires you find scattered around the galaxy. New art > rehashing the "classics" imo.

>5-10 planets

Are you playing for like 20 years each "typical game" or are you describing your early-early game stage? For even the most mediocre AI empire in my games manages to get 20+ planets, and my FP axis-like neighbouring buddies have hundreds of planets.

As much as I disagree with the person who literally is counting clicks between patches in his/her never ending crusade against the evils of micro, your numbers mean nothing and the insinuation they're bad for their lower numbers isn't helpful at all. As someone who plays on medium and small galaxies with habitable planets on .25, the idea of anyone suggesting that I should have 100's of planets is laughably absurd.