• 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 #306 - Habitat Experiments

Hi everyone!

I hope your summers have been going well! I got a bit sunburnt, but today we’re back and ready to talk about some of the promising experimentation we’ve been doing with the Habitat system.

We’ll be going through the entire development process in this dev diary, so there’s going to be a lot of ideas that were interesting but were subsequently discarded for various reasons.

Why Are You Looking at Habitats Again?​

The Stellaris Custodian team looks to three primary categories when deciding what to pursue:
  • Directives: Things dictated by me, the Game Director, usually for long term strategic reasons.
  • Community: Things you ask for. Pain points, quality of life improvements, bug fixing, and other good ideas from the community.
  • Passion: Things the individual developers really want to do.

Conveniently, a lot of times all of these align quite nicely.

Let’s start by looking at the history of Habitats in Stellaris.

Habitats were introduced way back in the 1.5 ‘Banks’ update in Utopia.

In 2.3 ‘Wolfe’, alongside Ancient Relics, we removed the Voidborne requirement to build Habitats, adjusted their habitability a little bit, and gave them varying districts based on what they were built over.

The 2.7 ‘Wells’ patch made the next major change to Habitats, adjusting their costs, requirements, and adding multiple tiers.

Since then, we’ve added a couple of special Habitat variants, and various other reworks have shifted their fortunes up and down in the overall balance of the game. Recently, there have been many requests from the community to review the tendency of AI empires building dozens of Habitats when they’re otherwise unable to expand.

Due to how production and population work in Stellaris, this led to an interesting quandary - it is theoretically “correct” for the AI to create many Habitats if it was blocked in, but it was tedious as a player to deal with invading up to a dozen Habitats per system. (The current interactions with population growth have also always been troublesome on the game balance side.)

Habitats were feeling far too common, were too good at certain things, and weren’t capturing the base fantasy that we were looking for. They’re the central pillar of a very popular playstyle that we wanted to preserve, though, so this made them a perfect target for “summer experimentation”.

Everything in this dev diary is considered experimental, and may or may not make it live.
All numbers are placeholders for prototyping purposes only. There is no set release date for any of these changes at this time, but we welcome community feedback.

Different Takes​

One of the most common requests from the Community was to add a Galaxy slider to restrict the use of Habitats. Options could have ranged from banning Habitats entirely, to “Nobody (except Void Dwellers) can create Habitats”, requiring the Ascension Perk to build them again, restricting only the AI, or placing (hard or soft) limits to the number of Habitats that could be built.

We also discussed “what if Habitats cost fractional Starbase Capacity to build” - with Void Dwellers and the Voidborne AP granting discounts to this value. This was more appealing, since the soft cap would control AI use of Habitats nicely without significantly hindering players that wanted to go all-in on them.

These discussions led to some questioning about whether Stellaris Habitats were satisfying the general fantasy well enough, and whether Habitats should be more “hard sci-fi”, with lower habitability bases or even ceilings for those accustomed to planetbound life, and whether we could make changes that would address balance challenges like Hive Void Dwellers.

A More Complex Take​

We made a list of some of the current challenges caused by the existing Habitat system, and this led to the idea of “what if all the Habitats in a system were linked?” We could retain the interesting expansion of Habitats across a system while reducing the burden when seizing the system, and potentially address some of the other problems introduced by an excess number of Habitats in the galaxy.

Alfray threw together an incredibly hacky and utterly unshippable version of this, and continued iterating on it during the Summer.

Under this variant, the first Habitat built within a system is the Central Habitat Complex. Additional Habitats are Support Habitats that add additional space and versatility to the Central Complex. A reminder, many values are grossly unbalanced placeholders in the following screenshots.

At this point I went on vacation, so I’ll turn this over to Alfray to talk about his investigations.

Once More Into the Alfray​

Keep in mind that the numbers shown in the below screenshots are never intended to be the final values, but were used purely for testing purposes of how the systems felt to use and play with.

Firstly, to counteract the expected changes that with minimal Support Habitats, the Central Complex would be small, cramped and overall not great to live on, I gave Void Dwellers extra districts and building slots as a unique modifier (This saw further refinement in a later prototype).

An early version of Void Dwellers

Support Habitats as Megastructures:​


The first iteration of these prototypes made use of Support Habitats as additional megastructures.

Habitat Central Complex, v1
Support Habitat v1
Expanded Support Habitat v1
Advanced Support Habitat v1

In this prototype, we had the maximum amount of each type of resource collection district (Energy, Minerals, Research) limited by the size of the deposits the habitats were constructed over, similar to how buildings for Strategic Resources are limited.

Support Habitats provided additional Districts, Building Slots, and Housing to the Habitat Central Complex, while reducing the Habitability (to reflect the civilian traffic between habitats) as they are upgraded. The final tier also allowed the Habitat Complex to use deposits on moons of their orbited planet.

On the surface, this prototype seems to satisfy our initial requirements and more:
  • Conquering systems with Habitat-spam was easier due to there only being one functional “planet” per system.
  • Constructing multiple Habitats per system felt rewarding as it upgraded your existing colony.
  • The removal of multiple starting colonies removed one of our main concerns for allowing Hive-Minds to have access to the Void Dweller origin - their high pop growth rate due to excessive numbers of spawning pools in the early game. (Iggy had some thoughts on this that he’ll be mentioning in a future Dev Diary).

A Void Dweller Habitat Complex with way too many districts

A Void Dweller Habitat Complex.

A very cluttered system

The rather cluttered system said Habitat Complex is in.

However, the Support Habitats couldn’t be interacted with outside being upgraded, which felt like a major downside. Enemy ships would happily fly past and ignore the Support Habitats, they couldn’t be specialised or downgraded.

All things considered, this prototype showed that making habitats into a single logical planet spread across many entities in a solar system felt good, but megastructures were not the path forward.

Support Habitats as “Starbases”:​


Keep in mind that the numbers shown in the below screenshots are never intended to be the final values, but were used purely for testing purposes of how the systems felt to use and play with.

The below screenshots feature placeholder art and the default art for starbases, their buildings and modules.


The second iteration of this prototype investigated treating Support Habitats as special Starbases (much like Orbital Rings).

In this prototype, the districts available to Habitat Central Complexes depend on the configuration of any Support Habitats in the same system. Thus construction of a Habitat Central Complex would automatically build a neighbouring Support Habitat in orbit of the same planet.

When built, a Support Habitat would start with a module that matches any deposits on the planet it orbits. Each <District> Module on a Support Habitat, gives +3 Max Districts of that type to the Habitat Central Complex.

Upgrading the Support Habitats, still provides the same modifiers as shown in Megastructure Prototype. Additionally each tier of the Support Habitat allows construction of an additional Support Habitat module and the second and third tiers allow construction of a Support Habitat building.

Expanded Support Complex v2

The starting Habitat Central Complex and its neighbouring Support Habitat for a Void Dweller empire.

New Habitat Complex v2

A newly constructed Habitat Central Complex, completely unspecialised.

Allowing the choice of which districts the Habitat Central Complex has access to via specialisation of the Support Habitats brings some interesting changes to how Habitat-dependent empires play.

Due to the nature of the prototype, the buildings for Support Habitats haven’t seen much investigation yet, but would likely include buildings much like those on an Orbital Ring, the lunar extraction support that Advanced Support Habitats experimented with in the Megastructure Prototype above and other such buildings.

Research Habitat Complex, v3 or so?

A Research Habitat Complex, using some of the district capacity to provide hydroponic districts.

Due to the nature of summer experiments, we can’t say if or when this prototype might make it into the live version of the game, but it’s something that we’re interested in exploring further.

…But the fourth one stayed up!​

Thanks, Alfray.

That variant listed achieved a lot of the goals we were looking for, but was cobbled together out of the scripting equivalent of sticks and twine as a quick and dirty implementation. It also required a lot of back and forth clicking that we really weren’t too fond of. So after that one burned down, fell over, and sank into the swamp, we came up with another iteration.

My feedback: Simplify things.

The latest variant we’ve been playing with has been especially promising. In this one, we turned the “Starbase” style Support Habitats into single tiered “pre-specialized” units (renamed to “Orbitals” for UX purposes) rather than requiring Modules to be built on them - so you could build a Mining Orbital, Research Orbital, and so on.

This dramatically simplified the flow of building out Habitats while simultaneously improving the implementation.

It's an Orbital!

Pre-Specialized Research Orbital.

Habitat Transit Hub. Hey wait, Maintenance DRONES?

Unique buildings on the primary habitat complex can increase the effects of the orbitals.

Upgraded Habitat Transit building.

We’re still doing some experimentation with this model, but so far we’re liking what we’re seeing. Technologies can add special Orbital types or buildings that can modify the primary Habitat Complex, and it’s very easy for us (or modders) to add new types.

We've been looking at jobs per districts too - the Complexes have different challenges from the older Habitat system, and further updated the Voidborne Ascension Perk. Void Dwellers will start with its effects (similar to how Teachers of the Shroud empires effectively start with Mind over Matter).

Void Dwellers Final Text
Voidborne Ascension Perk v3.final.final(2)

Void Dwellers get Habitat Build Cost reductions in Traditions.

What’s Next?​

For now, I’d like to get some of your thoughts on what you’ve seen today, which we’ll bring into our internal design discussions. It would also be great to get feedback on whether you like this sort of diary, where we go through the overall process (including the failures).

Next week I'd like to talk about a Summer Experiment relating to leaders that didn’t pan out quite so well, and our plans on how to proceed with that.

See you then!
 
  • 125Like
  • 44Love
  • 16
  • 7
  • 6
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I really love that we will finally be getting building slots from habitat districts, I've been suggesting that for a while now. ❤️

Currently we've only got this for Void Dwellers and empires that take the Voidborn AP, so if you don't specialise into using habitats, you can't reap the full benefits.

I posted this back in June, within a thread discussing AI Habitat spam:

"I can imagine a system where you can upgrade a starbase into a system Habitat and add district types and cap to it via Habitation Modules orbiting planets."

Did you have time to try it with Starbases?

All experiments sound great though, very happy to see things going in this direction!

At one point with the "Habitats as Starbases" prototype I tried "what if the central habitat had to be built by the star", but that didn't feel right so it was scrapped after around 30 minutes or so.

Unifying all habitats in one system is very good idea, but maybe instead of building seperate orbitals, the type and quantity of additional districts could depend on orbital deposits in system?

E.g., if a system has 3 mineral deposits, habitat gets 3 to max districts and can build up to 3 mining districts.

We still want the player/AI to need to invest something in making use of the deposits for jobs, hence the orbitals. Having tried the "max district amount is linked to deposit size" it got pretty frustrating when you couldn't find a system with large enough deposits. Currently we have the max district amount = 2 + (NUM_HABITAT_ORBITALS × CAPITAL_BUILDING_TIER).

How about introducing a habitabilty module to increase habitability for a specific kind of habitabilty type, e.g. continental. I remember that there is s similar thing for oceanic pops.

I like this idea! Will investigate it and see how tricky it is to communicate to the player.

Also, I don't see this in the diary, but orbitals could grant jobs to the hub. So research orbitals could (in addition to granting the ability of constricting research districts) grant some amount of research jobs.

One example of an idea we've got on the drawing board are Hydroponic Orbitals that add additional jobs to Food Processing Facilities.

Fascinating read. Please do keep this going.

I actually liked the first approach, but the last one seems to make things easier.


What I would love to see is the possibility to dismantle habitats especially as a Conqueror.:)

In the final prototype, Orbitals can be attacked by fleets and will be disabled at 5% HP, when disabled they no longer provide their benefits to the Central Complex. This can lead to districts being destroyed, buildings being ruined and more!

The owner of Orbitals can freely choose to dismantle them, much like any other orbital station, but the Central Complex can only be destroyed by a Colossus.

Once again the Dev team and myself were thinking on the same lines, albeit this time I've been beaten to the punch. xD

A few thoughts. First, to smooth creation of the support habitats and to enhance the flavor of space boonies mining and research stations eventually developing into major population centers, could a button be added to stations to give them the option to 'upgrade' to the support complexes?

Second, while habitats are finally getting a much deserved overwork ever since they got butchered, could there be some work to making habitats above your colonies have some affects upon one another? Or at least 'feel' like they're an extension of one another?

Finally, can we get Orbital Rings and Habitats over the same planet to tie into the above? Its a bit weird that being an Empire with massive orbital infrastructure... prevents you from having a massive population occupying that infrastructure.

(Also, there is a thought that to further go along that direction, Population could be tracked upon a System scale instead of a planet scale...)

I'll have a chat with our UX designers about the flow for building Orbitals and see what they think of the idea of "upgrading mining stations".

Will bring up habitats/planets/orbital rings in the same system affecting each other to the other designers.

(Tracking population on a system scale sounds like a massive rework, but an interesting idea)

This is so much better than I expected. I agree that something needs to change with habitats, but I wasn't a fan of the community suggestions I saw. Good job, guys. You're definitely on the right track.

One suggestion: instead of decreasing habitability, adding more habitats to a system should increase pop upkeep. I know decreasing habitability does that, but it seems weird to me that the adaptive trait would somehow counteract the logistical inefficiency of constantly transporting people and materials across the system.

You're right that decreasing habitability was a shorthand of increasing upkeep and decreasing productivity and that traits overcoming it was odd. Gonna see what I can do to amend that.

This a very nice insight into the development an thought process and I also like the results. Please move on with this ideas, this could be a great rework and a nice chance to bring life to systems with no planets at all with getting it to complex or overpowered.

I appreciate the look behind the scenes!

Thanks! We were worried there might be a reaction of "WHY DID YOU CUT X, IT LOOKS GREAT", but wanted to give the community another opportunity to have a peek behind the curtain.
 
  • 36Like
  • 10Love
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Totally not a habitat-builder but this seems nice. I think the thought process and motive behind this really puts contexts around it all, so for me the structure of the dev diary is very complimentary to its content. Thank you
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
We still want the player/AI to need to invest something in making use of the deposits for jobs, hence the orbitals. Having tried the "max district amount is linked to deposit size" it got pretty frustrating when you couldn't find a system with large enough deposits. Currently we have the max district amount = 2 + (NUM_HABITAT_ORBITALS × CAPITAL_BUILDING_TIER).
Will the size of deposits still factor in somehow?

Right now there's this weird situation where it's best to build habitats around as small deposits as possible (so that you don't lose too many resources from the deposit itself).
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
If we're going to keep Habitats to one-per-system and just expand it out via Orbitals, why not just... stick the Central Habitat into the Starbase?
 
  • 9
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
How would we go about specializing habitats? Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow the making of habitats in one system? And the players can chose which habitat to expand on? the minus habitability and alloy upkeep is still throwing me for a little doozy.

o_O
 
What’s Next?
For now, I’d like to get some of your thoughts on what you’ve seen today, which we’ll bring into our internal design discussions.

A lot of interesting and promising things, though I'm not certain I'm clear on how the habitats scale by different systems.

I think the one-system-starbase principle is interesting, and definitely a promising route to go down for the quality of life and the starbase development over time dynamics. I especially like the idea that the modules could reflect the impacts of orbital rings.

I'm unclear but interested in the dynamics of how a habitat's potential scales with the broader system. Habitats in mega-systems with huge numbers of potential modules seem like they could be very potent (I think?), while habitats probably wouldn't be worth it in minor systems with varely any modules. That does bring an issue of some systems not being worth claiming or colonizing, but that's an old and minor problem.

For the modules, I appreciate the premise that modules reflect the resource underneath them, but I have to ask if they can get the benefits of the satellites of the planetoids they're built on. In the current system, one of the most annoying thing about science habitats is that most science deposits are on moons, not the planets, so that the habitats don't get the district despite a moon so close. This should be less of a problem with the modules, but it's one of those annoying ticks.

I would raise a concern on the dynamics of influence and tall-vs-wide. Presumably influence of habitats will need to go down if there's only one habitat growth point per system, or else void dwellers and such would be crippled if they focused on modules rather than new systems and new habitats in those systems. Given how critical the early game expansion phase is, this could be strategically crippling in meta-balance terms.

The impact on defense is unclear but could be interesting, depending on if those support module mini-starbases can be weaponized or not. Your placeholder art with a weapon makes me wonder if you could have a setup where a military-module provides soldier jobs in the main habitat and a weapon platform, with the soldier jobs remaining even if/when the module is occupied. That could help keep Habitat-defense systems relevant, especially if each of those modules could host their own defense platforms.

I'm curious if there's any thoughts on orbital ring impacts to a habitat in the new system. Since the orbital ring takes up a slot that could be a module, and costs the similar dynamic of alloys and influence, there could be some sort of appropriate synergy there so that you want to put habitats in, say, a multi-colony system for interlocking benefits, rather than feel that a habitat was having its potential gimped by the planets having orbital rings instead of hosting modules.




I think one of the more interesting implications of trying to make the Habitats more like altered starbases is if you considered the implications of the reverse: making starbases more like Habitats.

If Starbases were 'like planets' in that they could be occupied by armies like Habitats can, you could conceivably open up some interesting dynamics in warfare, including fleshing out the army / General system, where Armies could be used in lieu of fleets to siege / occupy starbases and outposts, or even that armies are required to 'hold' starbases.

One direction that could be taken is that you could introduce more Army-based 'nuisance-threats' that incentived early/more continual use of armies. Say that Marauders not only send fleets, but armies to assault and occupy your starbases/outposts. You could use fleets to destroy the starbase- at a higher cost of replacement- or send armies in to clear out.

Depending on how the systme is set up / incentivized, you could leverage the planet-starbase to create new roles/relevance for armies, and thus General leaders.




It would also be great to get feedback on whether you like this sort of diary, where we go through the overall process (including the failures).

I would like to strongly endorse this style of dev diary, even as I note that it will require more work / documentation.

After Paragons, I made a post regarding how I felt the communication strategy there had negatively impacted the player expectations and robbed a sense of engagement. This is absolutely the antidote of that. Understanding the various ideas, challenges, and why things didn't go forward from a design perspective are all helpful for grounding expectations.

This may be an especially good dev diary format for the Custodian team. For the DLC teams, this may or may not always be a good format (it might be awkward to have a 'here's what didn't make it in / what failed' post before release, or just after it), but the Custodian team, this could be a good format in any sort of lead-up to a Cudstoidan release on a topic. You could even make mini-series of it if you're looking for 'filler' diaries: a series of dev diaries going 'what was the history of this mechanic,' 'here were the flawed experiments,' and then a final 'and here's the new system reveal!' 3-part buildup.

Excellent effort all around!


Next week I'd like to talk about a Summer Experiment relating to leaders that didn’t pan out quite so well, and our plans on how to proceed with that.

See you then!

Indeed!
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
This is a really cool rework! I like that Hives will be able to use these changes too.

It looks like in many cases that your habitats would be be generalized due to the mix of resources in a given system, like planets, and because you'd want to build as many support habitats as possible to maximize housing/districts/buildings. Then over the game, you'd tend to specialize them to maximize those resources.

I was wondering about how food could be handled with building slots being consolidated, then I saw that habitats can get agricultural districts, so that's good.

I like the idea of unique buildings that help the whole habitat network. And for one of those, it could affect the moons of your system, so each deposit around a moon rather than planet grants +1 max district of a given type rather than +3 max districts like planets would give. So if you're in a situation where your system has a bunch of moons with resources with little planetary resources (which is especially noticeable with research deposits), you build support habitats on those planets, and can upgrade your building on the complex to use moon resources.

Edit, missed the screenshot for advanced support habitats.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Glad to see you guys back and I'm fascinated by the upcoming habitat rework. Really small nitpick though.

The owner of Orbitals can freely choose to dismantle them, much like any other orbital station, but the Central Complex can only be destroyed by a Colossus.
I dislike this decision. I think the owner should have the option to dismantle it. The most reason I use console command in my game is to destroy all the habitats I conquered. Yes, you can destroy it with Colossus, but that is a kinda long way to go and need special preparation.

If it's not possible, then:
One of the most common requests from the Community was to add a Galaxy slider to restrict the use of Habitats. Options could have ranged from banning Habitats entirely, to “Nobody (except Void Dwellers) can create Habitats”, requiring the Ascension Perk to build them again, restricting only the AI, or placing (hard or soft) limits to the number of Habitats that could be built.
please consider implementing this in the upcoming patch. We can use mods to get a similar result but vanilla game supporting it has its own meaning IMO. When I want to limit myself and AI's blobbing planet and population, this feature is a major setback for me.

Thanks for reading.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I wonder if this could be tied more into the general way space resources are handled. The game has a big focus on planets while space resources are neglected. Space holds many base resources but ingame planets are the powerhouse in base and advanced resource production. I think a bit of a divide where space is good for things like energy/minerals/rare resources while planets are good at food and manufacturing would feel better and give systems value. Currently i dont care about 90% of my systems because there is nothing in it except some few energy and minerals. All systems combined give you an okay amount of resources, yet i dont like that the resources just appear without any pop working it. Which means these space deposits cant be meaningful increased if they continue to produce resources without pops.

I too are in favour of a system that merges the central starbase with the habitat complex and adds an economic planet tab to the starbase UI. Mining/research stations should become the lowest tier of the orbitals and work without pops. Offering the option to upgrade the mining station to orbital with more resource potential but requiring pops to work and produce them. The techs for passive increase of space station output should be removed and be replaced with tech to build better orbitals.
Orbitals should get the option to offer military support, like orbital rings. Why do we need a habitable planet in the system to build more space cannons? With proper investment every choke point should be able to be fortified without being limited to habitable planets for more orbital rings.

If every system has potentially a economic productive unit planets themselves could be integrated into that and work similar to a orbital. A gigantic very valuable orbital but mechanics wise the same. The economic gameplay would happen on a system basis instead of on a per planet basis. If using the idea of limiting the system complex units in some form of starbase cap it could work similar to the CK3 personal holdings.

When looking how to use space resources one could also adjust the availability of space rare resources. I think those are from a time when we needed significantly less as an empire demand. Having the option to fulfill ones empires demand of it if owning the correct systems would be nice. Instead we need to use synthetic refinement regardless if we own space rare resources or not.
 
  • 6Like
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
You're right that decreasing habitability was a shorthand of increasing upkeep and decreasing productivity and that traits overcoming it was odd. Gonna see what I can do to amend that.

I think raising pop and habitat upkeep is fair, but I think decreasing productivity per pop will be a bit too far, even if they seem like the same thing. It will feel really bad if the more you specialize a habitat for a thing, the worse it gets at doing that job, to the point that you ask why you have the pop there in the first place instead of a less developed, but less penalized, habitat.

One of the key advantages of habitats in the current- and presumably the coming- system are the ability to be specialist centers. Habitats can be great industrial factories that leave your planets free to be basic resource providers, but habitat-science-districts in particular are flat upgrades to your planetary-based science capability. Barring planet modifiers, the habitat's designation bonus makes the pops more valuable for producing science in the habitat than on a planet.

If stacking science modules for more science jobs starts to make the scientists worse and worse at that, the value of 'more jobs' will fight with player considerations of 'pop efficiency', which has been one of the key principles since the pop growth rework at the start of 3.X. I don't want to do less of the job I'm trying to do the more I do it.

I think raising habitat upkeep per module is perfectly fair, however, not least because it's a lateral shift in costs. If you, say, increase the alloys per extra science job, that's functionally a productivity loss- each science is costing more alloys- but it's a conversion I'm considering when I add per new job. I don't mind paying upkeep per module- I expect to pay upkeep after building things. I don't expect to be making my scientists worse the more science infrastructure I build for them to do their jobs.
 
Last edited:
  • 16
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a completely random though, but given the way the Habitats are being changed, I thought that maybe the Enigmatic Fortress could be made into an unique Habitat, once defeated (I always felt like its carcass is a bit of a waste of cool asset) and maybe Enclave habitats could become actual Habitats.
 
  • 23Like
  • 5Love
  • 5
Reactions:
If we have only one habitat per system, why not make habitats the orbital ring equivalent for starbases? And give them some unique districts and buildings that interact with the starbase modules and buildings.
 
  • 6Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like others have pointed out that this leads to the question 'why not just make them Starbase parts', which I think is valid, but I think the same question could be asked about Orbital Rings.

The approach you're taking seems to be really cool, but also super narrow in focus - I appreciate that this helps ship times/QA/not bloating stuff, but I feel like the fact we have three systems for space infrastructure and we're reworking one of them seems like a missed opportunity.

Is there anything preventing Habitats and Orbital Rings remaining Megastructures* while abstracting the management to a system-wide window in the Starbase? Building Habitats would add districts/district types to the Starbase, per the 'Central Habitat' model you've already assembled, and building Orbital Rings could add Starbase slots and then specialized buildings like they already do.

It also means that you would have split upgrade paths for Starbases between upgrading Habitats and the core Starbase, which is already present (in opportunity cost) but not explicit. This could lead to military Starbases and civilian Starbases being significantly mechanically different. Potentially Orbital Rings could have their own upgrade paths as well instead of being tied to Starbase size as current.

Having all of this on one layer seems like it could make having one hyper-industrialized system less of a pain in general, and lead to it feeling like one set of infrastructure, rather than independent entities (and also minimize the number of clicks).


*It really annoys me that they're called Megastructures but don't count towards the tech or APs related to the 'real' Megastructures, like Dyson Spheres/Mega Shipyards. Feels like they should be called Macrostructures or something instead, but this is the smallest possible complaint.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Instead of having to upgrade all mining and research stations in a system or building some kind of orbitals we could have habitat districts that offer jobs that boost resource production and research output of all stations system wide.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Love this type of DD so please continue to share experiments!

I think the idea of representing a system's habitable infrastructure as one entity is excellent and I hope you move forward with that.

I'm not sure whether the add-ons should be megastructures, starbase-type objects, or something else. My first instinct is that they are just planetary decisions off the main 'Sol Orbital Habitation' planet. Like upgrading a habitat today. A decision that can be enacted for each valid orbital body in the system, with effects dependent on the properties of that body. Then decisions to expand the orbital infrastructure of each body.

Construct Mars Orbital, Expand Mars Orbital etc.

Represent the expanded infrastructure with models in the system view but without labels, since there is no interaction - they are purely for visual effect.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This was a fascinating dive into how the reworked Habitat system was approached. I really like seeing dev diaries that go deep into how everything went. This seems like a very refreshing approach to the concept!

Personally in my games, outside of void dweller, I'm not overly fond of playing with habitats as they currently are. Generally, I like to build tall and the current implementation of Habitats really hurts with their tiny size, low habitability, and huge increases to empire size. Plus building a ton of habitats is time-consuming and requires a lot of micro control to place them for a rather marginal benefit in production. I do like putting a defensive habitat in certain key locations to require the enemy to put more effort than attacking the starbase and moving past my border system into my territory, so I hope considerations like that will be taken in the new system. I was kind of fond of the "starbase" system having defense platforms because it harkened back to the old days where you used to build military stations manually and you could spread them out but I'm not sure how a system like that would work in the modern version with the combat changes.

As an aside, one thing about Stellaris I kind of was hoping for was some kind of fulfillment to the space nomad playstyle. I think there might be some potential here to work that in with the new habitat system. If we had some nomadic civics that decreased penalties for habitats or increased bonuses and reworked the nomadic and sedentary traits to play off that (especially since sedentary feels almost like a free negative pick due to how little of the game it realistically affects), I think that would be a really cool approach to that style.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm definitly in the mood of 'make starbases more like planets' and make them the central habitat complex train of thought.

I think players, especially new players, will more intuitively grasp the idea that the starbase in the center of a system is the 'administrative hub' of anything built in orbit around planets in a system - and having to build a whole seperate structure would be confusing.

I imagine this - each starbase that is upgraded from outpost now gets a new tab (like orbital rings) that shows the module tab and now a full planet tab (buildings, population, armies, holdings, etc). Even though its a lot more information, its not new information.

For most starbases, this planet system still doesn't have a lot - the capitol building is now the 'starbase complex administration', and where you would see bonuses to districts, now it is the building that gives the STARBASE its bonus modules. You could probably move starbase buildings to the 'planet tab', and just leave modules as their own single section (maybe starbases now can have up to 8 or 10 modules, and no buildings?)

From there, you unlock habitat technology to allow district construction on starbases (Voidborn start with this tech, and gain bonuses).

Instead of upgrading your starbase on the starbase tab, you instead should be able to upgrde it from the capitol building MUCH like you do system capitols. Such upgrade gives you more module slots, as well as more housing districts IF you have the technology.

From there, the 'orbitals' you build around the system symply serve to increase the effective planet size of the habitat complex, and give you access to the base resource construction (every mining/research station might give some base direct generation and then ALSO provides a new deposit on the complex that could have a district built for it (thus making systems with lots of small orbital deposits but no planets now potentially HUGE habitat systems

Also, whatever this option becomes, can one of the precursors (like the Vultam or Irrassians) get an abandoned fully upgraded habitat system with LOTS of orbitals that can be found at the end of their chain (so we have something comparable to the First League and Cybrex). I like the idea that each precursor has a Mega world at the end of the chain.


TL;DR - make starbases the central hub; make all starbases default be very small colonies that can be upgraded with tech (and ascencion perk). Make orbitals the means by which you increase the effective planet size of the complex hub.

Also, love the deep dive into game design - if it can be done more, highly approve (I think it helps the player base know what didn't work, so people don't waste time on bad suggestions).
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
It definitely looks intriguing. Given that a lot the problems from the leader overhaul came from the underlying UI not being caught up I would suggest keeping that in mind with something like this. From an RP perspective it's great to have systems feel full and alive once you start building habs in them, so with this change even something so small as insuring the names of the support habs are still visible in system view would go along way in making them not feel like glorified anonymous mining/research stations which would certainly detract from the feeling of a complex and active system.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: