• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #144 - Megastructures, Habitats and Minor Artifacts

Hello everyone!

First of all, I’d like to follow up on last week’s dev diary by sharing some more things we’re trying out with Megastructures (and habitats!).

After all of that, we also have something new to talk about!

Let’s start from the beginning – which of course leads us to the Mega-Engineering technology itself.

As always, numbers may not be final and temporary things may be sighted.

Mega-Engineering
Mega-Engineering is still a rare technology, but will now be more likely to appear as you build more Habitats and Citadels. This means it is way more likely to appear if you are performing actions in the game that would lead you towards the route of building larger and more powerful structures.

Master Builders
The Master Builders ascension perk no longer unlocks mega-engineering or adds size to habitats, but instead increases the number of megastructures you can simultaneously build by +1. What about increased habitat size you ask? Well, keep on reading!

upload_2019-4-18_11-41-43.png

Habitats & Voidborne
Habitats are no longer locked behind the Voidborne ascension perk but is rather a technology that branches off from the Star Fortress technology. Habitats now have a default of 80% habitability. We’re also experimenting with that some of the habitat’s districts will depend on which planet they are built over. In case you build one above a planet with mining deposits, this could happen:

upload_2019-4-18_12-11-1.png

upload_2019-4-18_11-42-33.png

Voidborne ascension perk now increases habitat size by +2 and increases Habitat habitability by 20%. This should mean it becomes more of a choice for specialization, rather than feeling it is a non-choice.

As a final note on habitats, it might be worthwhile to reiterate my thoughts that I eventually want to add different levels/sizes to habitats. It is however not something for the immediate future, but a little further down the road.

Ring Worlds
We didn’t quite like how Ring Worlds ended up feeling like a vast farm, so we’re making some changes. Instead of being a size 50 with regular districts, we’re changing it to a size 5 with a unique type of districts – segments. A Ring World, as you know, has 4 planets. Each planet can now build 5 segments, which are very powerful districts with many jobs and a lot of housing.

upload_2019-4-18_11-48-37.png

Minor Artifacts
upload_2019-4-18_11-46-59.png

Some of you might recognize the icon for what was supposed to become arcane technology, that partially got into 2.2. It was something that I was personally working on, but that didn’t work out as I had imagined it, and that I didn’t get enough time to finish with other things taking priority.

In the next upcoming DLC, you will be able to come across Minor Artifacts. “Minor Artifacts” is a broad term that includes any smaller and nameless artifact left behind by ancient civilizations. They are never gained passively every month, but will rather have to be found.

What are they used for, I imagine you asking? Well, the basic functionality is that they can be consumed in so-called artifact actions. There are a bunch of different actions that can be performed by consuming Minor Artifacts, with varying effects for each.

Some of these actions will be locked behind a technology, which some may also recognize.

upload_2019-4-18_11-45-27.png

Arcane Deciphering allows you to consume Minor Artifacts for a random technology-related bonus.

upload_2019-4-18_11-45-47.png

------------

That’s it for this week! Happy Easter everyone! Next week we’ll be back again :)

P.S. Attaching an Easter present

upload_2019-4-18_11-49-27.png upload_2019-4-18_11-49-45.png
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Have we looked into purging the 'Galactic Wonders' Ascension perk and tagging megastrutures to specific ascensions (and making the unlock condition to use them the 'mega-engineering' technology')?

Picking (for example) Technological Ascendancy and having the Science Nexus become unlockable later when having finally researched mega-engineering could make the pick more meaningful; as opposed to its one off boost (and increased rare-tech chance)
 
Ok, I like the fact that problem of "most expensive farm in the Galaxy" is finally addressed. But, I can't but wonder - what are we going to do with new districts, as a machine/synthetic empire? They don't need food, after all, but they need energy. Gestalt consciousness also doesn't need consumer goods either. So, question is - what are we going to do as such empires?
 
Can't you make these 4 "planets" into 1, so why not a sequence like this: You build the 01. ring-world-section, 5 segments become available, 5 segments are builded, the 02. ring-world-section becomes available, the 02. ring-world-section is builded, 5 segments become available, but you get a consolidated colony of 5/10 segments, ... repeat this until the ring-world is finished ...
That would be good only if combined ringworld also has the building slots of the 4 separate ringworlds.
Though those segments will then have to be made even stronger to make up for the loss of building slots.
AfaIk, that's just an UI-problem, so that I would probably change the "1 building-slot for 1 building"-relation since currently, if you've built (for example) 4 alloy-foundries then 4 alloy-foundries are displayed in 4 building-slots, but instead, why not to display just 1 alloy-foundry with a "4" in one of its corners in 1 building-slot ? ( The sequence would function like this: You have (for example) an alloy-foundry on a colony, this colony gets +5 POPs, so that a building-slot is unlocked, so if you build an other alloy-foundry then this building-slot is locked (again), but the first alloy-foundry gets a "2" in one of its corners ). Long story short: Unlimited buildings, just limited different buildings.
 
Awesome Diary! I love these changes, they're moving in the right direction. The next patch/dlc are looking very promising.
 
Mmm, that is true. ^^

It leads way open to improving maruaders with homeworld habitat if think about it, imagine? a start where you prefer the habitats and living space instead settling the planets if habitats could be improved to nice size and they had different slots districts depending on the planet? i wonder if type of planet and size affects the habitat too?

Like what could add is a trait to go with voidbourne and got yourself new type of race start? *has just woke up but loves idea of it.. needs more coffee x3*

But also reading some replys, my friends struggle alot when comes to the ai.. certainly in start where the ai throwing rivarlys about with ideoglys or at player which has the same/simlar ideolgy and with fleets moving round. You mention dev clash? it was an eye opener the amount of firepower they throwing about by 2350, like.. omg. Midgame spend most my time trying to keep the economy afloat and hoping can hold off marauders. Just my thoughts atm, mmm. *shy nods*
 
Why are you restricting the size of habitats?
Wouldn't it make sense to be able to extend it manually with enough resources ? Give the extensions a scaling cost and higher maintenance
 
Your point being? I never talked about balance, I talked about esthetics -mainly- and about flexibility. I don't care how overpowered those 5 districts are, it stay just 5 districts.
My point is that the main thing changed was efficiency, those 5 districts are as powerful as 50. Yeah, the number is smaller, but it has the exact same function as now.
Sure, I agree, but 5 is too few. It means no modularity at all, and yes, at some points ethetism does matter, Stellaris is still very barebone in a lot of area, it needs a better ambiance.
Okay? But
I'm not quite sure about the ring worlds, I get the idea, but can't you find a middle between 50 and 5 districts? 5 seems very limited and will make it look like a buffed habitat.
You're making it sound like you thought they nerfed Ringworlds when they were actually buffed a bit.

Sure, I could see there being 8 or 10 of these districts instead, and increasing the building slots to 24 or 32 (<-- same for Ecumenopolii), but the current change wasn't bad.

Did you think 50 districts was very limited? If so, I can see why you're commenting on this, if not, then why are you commenting on this?

--------

I can't add quotes while editing (at least on mobile)

@Ingros
I think that's what they're talking about, with habitats. This seems like a temporary fix.

@Belamu
I like that, it could work. Mega-engineering could work as a multi tiered technology. Personally, I could see the mid-game version of that letting you build the 1st stage of a megastructure, the 2nd tier (a late mid-game tech) letting you build the second stage, and the 3rd tier (early late-game) letting you finish the last 2 stages. But that's what I thought of when I read your post.
 
Last edited:
While we are already making changes to Mega-Structures:

Ever thought about making "Mega-Engineering" a midgame technology, but make each stage of a megastructure require a new technology that scales up in time and effort?
Because my main problem with megastructures that I don't really need them any more when I can finally build them, having already researched all of the non-repeatable tech or completed every tradition-tree for example.
 
If though they increase the penalties of habitability which they stated is sth they consider then will habitats still be worth building without Voidborne? They are kinda weak already.
I would hope the main appeal of Habitats should be the districts and buildings. I don't think Habitat = tiny Gaia world would be a very interesting approach... kinda makes Habitats too appealing, in my opinion.

But my point was mainly directed at the fact if the base is 80%, and tech already brings it up to 100%, then the bonus in Voidborne is pointless.
 
Ok, I like the fact that problem of "most expensive farm in the Galaxy" is finally addressed. But, I can't but wonder - what are we going to do with new districts, as a machine/synthetic empire? They don't need food, after all, but they need energy. Gestalt consciousness also doesn't need consumer goods either. So, question is - what are we going to do as such empires?
Habitats already solve this- non-gestalts get a "Trade" district on them, gestalts get a generator district. Presumably a similar swap is entirely possible for Ringworlds.
 
You're making it sound like you thought they nerfed Ringworlds when they were actually buffed a bit.

Sure, I could see there being 8 or 10 of these districts instead, and increasing the building slots to 24 or 32 (<-- same for Ecumenopolii), but the current change wasn't bad.

Did you think 50 districts was very limited? If so, I can see why you're commenting on this, if not, then why are you commenting on this?.
I'm not quite sure how words like feelings and buffed could make it sound like I'm complaining about nerfing, but I apollogise for the confusion.

As for the fifty district, no, it's not limited and yes, it's probably too much. Hence me asking for a middle ground, 10-15 sounds like a sweet spot to me. It allows for modularity and it's more then what the habitats have.
With 5 district, the ring world would have about the same number of district as a regular habitat, just with a super boost. To give a idea of what I don't like about this, just imagine if the ring world's sections had only one district each. A super district with ton of housing and production, but just 1.
 
I wish ringworlds would be one planet and not four which adds clutter and more micro.
Fewer buildings in that case. The point is to buff ringworlds. Besides, the four sections thing is neat.
 
I'm not quite sure how words like feelings and buffed could make it sound like I'm complaining about nerfing, but I apollogise for the confusion.

As for the fifty district, no, it's not limited and yes, it's probably too much. Hence me asking for a middle ground, 10-15 sounds like a sweet spot to me. It allows for modularity and it's more then what the habitats have.
With 5 district, the ring world would have about the same number of district as a regular habitat, just with a super boost. To give a idea of what I don't like about this, just imagine if the ring world's sections had only one district each. A super district with ton of housing and production, but just 1.

Starting from the bottom, a single super district doesn't make much sense, because you can't choose any mix of jobs that can be worked. 5 works okay imo though.

But 50 districts now is too much? I'm assuming you're talking about the raw number of districts, not what they do, which is fair. I can agree with that.

At 10 districts, you could fit 200 pops on without buildings. At 15, that's 300. And at that point, you'd really need to expand the possible buildings you can get.
I think it could be raised to 8 or 10, increase the possible buildings, and that would work fine to me. But to each their own.
 
Habitats already solve this- non-gestalts get a "Trade" district on them, gestalts get a generator district. Presumably a similar swap is entirely possible for Ringworlds.
I hope, devs think about this. While Dyson sphere is a pretty good thing now to have, I'd still prefer my ringworlds in case I go synthetic, to produce something useful for me, not just spam living space.
 
Sure, I agree, but 5 is too few. It means no modularity at all, and yes, at some points ethetism does matter, Stellaris is still very barebone in a lot of area, it needs a better ambiance.

To be honest modularity is pretty much not needed by the time you are able to build ringworld. Usually I'm having loads of one resource and big deficit in other, so in my eyes it is totally the opposite, I really like lesser amount of sectors so I dont have to click like moron to build 50 of them. Plus, I guess they are much more effective empire-sprawl wise.

Also, about connecting ringworld to one planet, would be probably cool but as it is right now it is pretty much impractical. Biggest reason I see is resticted building interface (solution would be maybe to have fewer but OP buildings for ringworld?).
 
Also, about connecting ringworld to one planet, would be probably cool but as it is right now it is pretty much impractical. Biggest reason I see is resticted building interface (solution would be maybe to have fewer but OP buildings for ringworld?).
I actually quite like the four distinct segments?

It makes Stellaris ringworlds unique/memorable, and from a game design standpoint its a LOT simpler to get working.
 
AfaIk, that's just an UI-problem, so that I would probably change the "1 building-slot for 1 building"-relation since currently, if you've built (for example) 4 alloy-foundries then 4 alloy-foundries are displayed in 4 building-slots, but instead, why not to display just 1 alloy-foundry with a "4" in one of its corners in 1 building-slot ? ( The sequence would function like this: You have (for example) an alloy-foundry on a colony, this colony gets +5 POPs, so that a building-slot is unlocked, so if you build an other alloy-foundry then this building-slot is locked (again), but the first alloy-foundry gets a "2" in one of its corners ). Long story short: Unlimited buildings, just limited different buildings.

As I'm thinking about it, this is pretty much awesome idea. Not only for ringworlds, but also for every planet and habitat.

UI would be cleaner, you could orient yourself quicker and there would be more total space availible for buildings. I guess I dont really need to see 10 same factories in row...
(if they even end up in row and not scattered around the building screen)
 
Last edited:
Have we looked into purging the 'Galactic Wonders' Ascension perk and tagging megastrutures to specific ascensions (and making the unlock condition to use them the 'mega-engineering' technology')?

Picking (for example) Technological Ascendancy and having the Science Nexus become unlockable later when having finally researched mega-engineering could make the pick more meaningful; as opposed to its one off boost (and increased rare-tech chance)


Please not this idea again. For those players that want to have a broad selection of mega structures this means that you lock them into only taking one specific set of APs. If choosing Tech Ascendancy isn't meaningful enough by itself then I would recommend different changes similar to what the DEVs have started doing. If you want the MS to have "flavor" then tie that to TRADITIONS instead of APs. For TA buffs specifically I think the +10% research speed should instead be a 10 or 20% reduction in tech cost. In terms of buffs nothing I'm aware of actually lowers tech costs so that bonus would be more impactful for the game as the TA buffs won't get lost in the shuffle.

The MS solution proposed, while not perfect, encourages a more diverse pick of APs which in itself could lead to modifications in game play. In addition this may allow for an easier path for the AI to get MS which would potentially help it compete better in mid-late game.