Stellaris Dev Diary #143 - Changes to megastructures

[Sifer2]

This makes sense. Also gives a bit more endgame tech besides repeatables. I have been thinking for a while it makes more sense to have two tiers of megastructures at this point. One's that are so big they change the systems they are built in, and the one's that are just space station sized buildings. Seems like that is what you did with the tech unlocking the truly big one's. Though I wonder if Master Builders should be rolled up into the perk or not. You could also maybe create more mid game cheaper megastructures like the warp gates now that they are tech based.

 

[Borgratz]

This isn't really the Megastructure update I was hoping for (they should be accessible before the game is basicly over, there should be more ways to distinguish different kinds of empires from each other and so on), but it seems like you guys have just started thinking about some possible ways to make mid/endgame more interesting and, while I was hoping for more after that pretty long "silence" this is a good balance change.

Hope we get to hear more about multi-tier habitats (and maybe multi-tier megastructures that unlock earlier?) soon. Maybe throw in more interesting Terraforming and some PSI related wonders for the Empires that arent into Engeneering so much.

Would definetely be a DLC I would be interested in.

 

[Emperor_Vindicare]

My favorite suggestion I read for megastructures was ‘megastructure building’ jobs that you could allocate pops to. It would give more a feel of the grand scale of creating such massive works, and being an interesting option for dealing with unemployment. There would also be more to building on of these structures than just having tons it alloys because you maxed out your navy.

A system would need to be introduced that decided how many and which pops were ‘taken’ for these jobs. The player could customize this to their particular needs and capabilities (do you prioritize miners over farmers to work on the ringworld or only use unemployed workers, how many?). If angry or oppressed pops were working maybe they could even sabatoge construction (maybe enemy empires could encourage this somehow).

 

[TerrorSnail]

Stellaris' interest curve falls off a cliff around 30-50 years into the game. Building megastructures lets you shape your space-civ. The activity is fun, and interesting. Pressing the galactic wonders ascenscion perk to enable building mega structures will always be an infinately better pick than any other ascension perk pick while it is a route to having fun again. I feel that adding extra research time gates is following a design philosophy of "lets make this experience s**t and frustrating so it's nolonger fun." The result of which is taking out one of the sources of interest re-engagement in the game, and is bad for Stellaris. The better design philosophy would be to seek to make voidborn -> master builders -> galactic wonders be merely the cleanest, most predictable path to unlocking all the wonders, and having all the wonders unlockable by alternate, more convoluted means, and on a similar timescale if you're looking for one specifically.

 

[Kayden_II]

I've trouble to appreciate such inconsequent / half-baked design-decisions ...
Altough all megastructures are now proper technologies, ( which is the good / reasonable change ), some of them, including habitats, still need an a-perk to be unlocked ?! ...

Additionally:
01. Why no mutually exclusive decisions like ring-worlds vs. habitats or matter-decompressor vs. dyson-sphere ? ...
( Ring-Worlds are stellar rings, but why no smaller versions of them (lunar / planetary rings) to (better) compete with habitats ? + Why no bigger versions of habitats to (better) compete with ring-worlds / stellar rings ? ) ...
( Why shouldn't count stellar / lunar / planetary rings as well as habitats as (better) starbases to buff them (since they get the buildable modules / buildings, defences and shipyards of the (better) starbases) and to (finally) restrict their numbers in a reasonable manner ? ) ...
02. It's really worth to consider to link the megastructures to the tradition-trees: discovery + science-nexus, diplomacy + interstellar-assembly, supremacy + strategic-coordination-center, harmony + mega-art-installation, prosperity + mutually exclusive decision between matter-decompressor vs. dyson-sphere, domination + sentry-array and expansion + mutually exclusive decision between stellar / luner / planetary rings vs. habitats.

 

[BrokenSky]

Why not assign different wonders to different perks or to tradition tree finishers, rather than Techs?

 

[klopkr]

I would like to have multiple levels of habitats, but that also requires more planning since you want the visuals to also reflect that. I can't promise anything more than saying I like the idea.

It would be cool if we could start with tiny habitats similar to a better version of the ISS.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I've trouble to appreciate such inconsequent / half-baked design-decisions ...
Altough all megastructures are now proper technologies, ( which is the good / reasonable change ), some of them, including habitats, still need an a-perk to be unlocked ?! ...

Additionally:
01. Why no mutually exclusive decisions like ring-worlds vs. habitats or matter-decompressor vs. dyson-sphere ? ...
( Ring-Worlds are stellar rings, but why no smaller versions of them (lunar / planetary rings) to (better) compete with habitats ? + Why no bigger versions of habitats to (better) compete with ring-worlds / stellar rings ? ) ...
( Why shouldn't count stellar / lunar / planetary rings as well as habitats as (better) starbases to buff them (since they get the buildable modules / buildings, defences and shipyards of the (better) starbases) and to (finally) restrict their numbers in a reasonable manner ? ) ...
02. It's really worth to consider to link the megastructures to the tradition-trees: discovery + science-nexus, diplomacy + interstellar-assembly, supremacy + strategic-coordination-center, harmony + mega-art-installation, prosperity + mutually exclusive decision between matter-decompressor vs. dyson-sphere, domination + sentry-array and expansion + mutually exclusive decision between stellar / luner / planetary rings vs. habitats.

Mutually exclusive paths make no sense. Why should building ringworlds make it impossible to build habitats? Why should building a matter decompressor make Dyson spheres impossible?

 

[Tavior]

I see. In that case I completely disagree with you regarding perks being bloated. Except for Interstellar Domínion, Galactic Wonders and two Ascensions, I find every one to be filler or situational.

I absolutely agree about rarity, however. I want more differentiation but I also want them to be more than lategame/vanity projects.

By bloated I meant like if you want to go for a tall heavy research build, then you have virtually no room for anything else.

Then your ascension picks look like this in order of first to last: Technology Ascendancy (really help with rare tech like mega-engineering and now those new ones too), Imperial Prerogative for higher admin cap, either Mastery of Nature or Voidborne depending on if you manage to get star fortress tech early enough then the other one after, Master builders, Galactic wonders.

That is already 6 picks gone. I have no room for other semi-filler ones such as Galactic Contender or Defender of the Galaxy and two of the ascension path perks. Forget about stuff like Arcology project or galactic force projection or even any of those extra population trait perks and what not.

By splitting the ascension perks into two group it become much more clear what is supposed to be filler perk and what is much more than just a filler perk. Then you have to pick only filler perks for filler slots and game changer perks for game changer slots. You just have to look at the Stellaris' list of ascension perks to see how bloated it is. As not all of those ascension perks are available to all govt like Shared Destiny is disabled if your govt is one of Inward Prefection or Corporate or Genocidal. One Vision is visible if you are machine intelligence.

Heck, I can't even remember the last patch they actually took out an ascension perk out of that list ever since tradition were introduced.

To put this into perspective, back in 1.5 there was total 20 perks according to one of the earliest dev diary I could find introducing ascension perks. Since 1.5 patch there has been 4 major expansion (not counting Distant Stars). There is now 33 perks which is little over new 3 ascension perk on average per expansion...

I am trying to figure how you don't think it is bloated right now and failing.

 

[LystAP]

Would Empires that take Galactic Wonders have additional bonuses to represent the fact that this Empire should be able to build the lesser megastructures more easily, since they can build the more powerful ones?

They should merge Galactic Wonders and Master Builders together.

 

[Make Victoria 3]

An empire with 3000 pops should have a lot more of those "skilled engineers" than one with 100 pops so please simply remove that cap for building megstructures already.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Between "link megastructures to other Ascension Perks" and "link megastructures to Tradition trees", I think I prefer the sound of the former. I'll have filled out most if not all the Traditions by the end of a game, which means I'd always have access to the same Megstructures if it was done that way. Tying them to other perks would introduce a little variety between empires, at least.

 

[bobapes]

This is a step in the right direction. Could you take a look at the way edicts work as well? I liked them more before they changed. They used to be long term investments to customize your empire. Now it's just spending a lump of resources to get a bonus for 10 years.

 

[methegrate]

Being completely honest, this is underwhelming. It's been more than 4 months since the release of 2.2 and Megacorp. In that time, the only real updates have been mechanical changes to sectors and now some changes to how empires acquire megastructures. Aside from that it has been near radio-silence.

I understand that post-2.2 patching has taken a while, but at the same time a Paradox product is an ongoing experience. We don't buy in for the game as-is, we buy in for the changes, expansions and community both now and to come. It's almost like a single player MMO in that way. But at the moment I, at least, get the impression that creative development has all but ground to a halt. Dev diaries happen less than once per month and the ones which we do get announce nothing more than tweaks to the existing formula.

Could we start getting some more creative direction updates? What are the substantive changes you guys have in mind? Where are you hoping to take the game next? I mean, agree or disagree with the changes from 2.0 and 2.2, they were at least exciting. The game was taking big new steps at each iteration. I'm not saying each update should have that kind of scope (no need to keep blowing everything up), but it's hard to stay excited about a game direction that emphasizes minor implementation changes.

 

[JohnnyBravo40]

I agree that it is too much of a must for that ascension perk, but it still kind of is if you have to get it to unlock the ability to build a dyson sphere at all. I think it would be better to have all of the techs available without a perk, and rather than have the perk unlock the tech, it could allow them to be built faster, or multiple at one time, or perhaps increase effectiveness of megastructures, say for instance without a perk you can only upgrade them to level 2, or perhaps without the perk each level gets a 50% penalty to output as it is not yet optimised. These are just some ideas

 

[LystAP]

Will they be looking at civics? Like Philosopher King, which is nearly useless with all the boosts in-game.

 

[KopiG]

How about a Mega shipyards tech? Limit of 1 in your empire, providing a full Star-base worth of shipyards (6) for the space of one.

Thats useless lol. Why would you waste your Megastructure build limit on just 6 shipyards? If not at least 18 dont even bother with it.

 

[Evangeline]

Since you're buffing mega-structures and adding more techs for them: could you please give us back upgrades for science buildings which focus on a particular type of tech *other* than society research? Currently I can build so much that buffs society research and nothing that focuses specifically on engineering.

 

[Tavior]

Since you're buffing mega-structures and adding more techs for them: could you please give us back upgrades for science buildings which focus on a particular type of tech *other* than society research? Currently I can build so much that buffs society research and nothing that focuses specifically on engineering.

The infamous society research slant...

They did sorta of fixed it for machine empire, coordinator used to give only society but was split up, but unfortunately overall society is still bit too high for my taste.

Accordingly, I support this proposal for this reason if nothing else!

 

[Nahadoth]

I agree that the Ascension perk was bloated and had turned into a no-brainer pick and something should be done about it. I don't really think that leaving 3 of the more powerful Megastructures in the perk makes it much less of a mandatory pick though.

I'm fine with the idea of turning them into research techs, but personally I really like the idea of linking then to other Ascension perks (Science Nexus being unlocked by picking Technological Ascendancy, Strategic Coordination Center with Interstellar Dominion, adding Ringworlds to Voidborn and such). That would mean a significant buff to several perks, and would also make a real strategic choice as to which Megastructures you want to build and how late in the game you can access them.