Stellaris Dev Diary #58: Habitats

[praftd]

Awesome stuff, but I agree with some people that they should be upgradable. Or maybe just reduce the pop cap. 12 seems a bit high to me. Maybe 9 woyld be a good size. Twelve is the size of a small moon. Which is an insanely large space station.

Of course, I'm totally cool with insanely large space stations, but I think it would be better to work up to that I.stead of just B-line to that tech level. Maybe go from 6 -> 9 -> 12. And adjust build/upgrade cost accordingly.

Or just reduce. the size and build cost along with it.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Let's cut the personal attacks and insults.

 

[Brent15]

There is no diplomatic mechanism, nor policy, nor combat balance, there is absolutely nothing in the game now that can sustain consistently the destruction of a planet with 12 pops. {Edit

The funny thing about game mechanics is that they don't exist until they are created. I would rather have good mechanics before we introduce a space station we can't destroy.

Just my opinion, but that's why I'm here. Expressing my opinion about the direction I'd like to see this game take.

 

[Smiles_]

I dabbled very early on in Stellaris, but withdrew to wait for more development. I look forward to picking it up again once some more stuff comes out.


Smiles

 

[safe-keeper]

Big = Huge = Yuge = SPACE WALLS!

This DLC will cost $20, but we'll make Mexico pay for it.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Big = Huge = Yuge = SPACE WALLS!

This DLC will cost $20, but we'll make Mexico pay for it.

A ringworld could definitely be described as a space wall.

 

[safe-keeper]

But more seriously, I too am of two minds when it comes to when this is introduced. I would be interested to see early- or mid-game settlements that had only four tiles or perhaps even less. You would start small and grow from there.

I can kinda see the logic behind it, though, since we already have frontier outposts, so I guess we can look at Habitats as a mid- or late-game upgrade to frontier outposts.

 

[terrycloth]

But more seriously, I too am of two minds when it comes to when this is introduced. I would be interested to see early- or mid-game settlements that had only four tiles or perhaps even less. You would start small and grow from there.

I can kinda see the logic behind it, though, since we already have frontier outposts, so I guess we can look at Habitats as a mid- or late-game upgrade to frontier outposts.

Which means we need to be able to build them in orbit of stars and black holes.

Having only one size of habitat is a bit of a disappointment, but really the main concern is that it seems like a seriously game-changing thing to attach to an Ascension Perk (in that it's likely to eventually quadruple your empire's output, admittedly with a really long ramp-up since you have to build and colonize them).

Are the rest of the perks going to be just as good in different ways, or is to going to be a must-take for everybody?

 

[Zarpaulus]

Which means we need to be able to build them in orbit of stars and black holes.

Only time I've built frontier stations in planet-less systems was in between two mineral-rich systems.

It sounds like ideally an Orbital replaces a mining or research station, after that you can scrap the system's Outpost (if any).

 

[Kat Tsun]

Big = Huge = Yuge = SPACE WALLS!

This DLC will cost $20, but we'll make Mexico pay for it.

Drumpf Sphere when.

 

[Medicine Man]

I like these new mechanics for vertical development. I think the idea of advanced orbital habitation, plus the terriforming of marginal barren worlds that was teased, are good things on their own merits.

I don't think they are stand alone solutions to the dominant "bigger is better" state of Stellaris right now though. At least they aren't so long as warfare strategy is dominated by massing tonnage over all other concerns and fleet support is determined primarily through expansion/ownership of systems. Better vert helps, but is only part of the solution.

 

[Ramiel]

In regards to the destructibility of habitats, I think the question belies a fundamental flaw many people seem to have regarding Stellaris - a sense of the game's scale.
Look at it this way, habitats have a max population of 12 POPs. I don't want to get into the argument over how many people a POP represents exactly, as it could obviously vary greatly by species, but for this argument I'll just go with a simple human standard. Given the starting POPs on your homeworld, and the fact Earth today has just under 7.5 billion people, it seems a reasonable, simple estimate to say 1 human POP = 1 billion humans. That means these habitats can house up to 12 billion humans, over 50% more than the entire population of modern day Earth.
For comparison, the Death Star in Star Wars had a crew compliment of about 2 million (according to Wikipedia), and was 1/25 the size of Luna. Now that's a military structure, a civilian structure that size would likely have a far larger population, but even that'd be what? 10 million? 100 million? Still only a percentage of a single POP. Even at 100 million people, you'd need 120 Death Star-sized structures (4.8 Lunas!) to equal one of these Habitats.
Now obviously the Death Star is a fictional entity and likely far off from the size/pop. density ratio an actual structure would have, but even if the numbers were a few orders of magnitude off you're still looking at something several times larger than it. Even 5x that size would be 20% the size of Luna. At that size we're not talking about 'glorified space stations', we're talking about small artificial planets. It makes perfect sense that conventional weapons would only do superficial damage, and nothing short of a planet-killing weapon could outright destroy it.

 

[Zarpaulus]

I'm thinking that a POP is an abstract number comprising the segment of the planet's population that is available for government work.

Which explains why POP growth slows down as the population increases while in real life population growth tends towards exponential.

Also, by 2200 the world population has been expected to reach anywhere from 10 to 30 billion, depending on how much food we can grow.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

in real life population growth tends towards exponential.

That's... simplifying things.

Remember that in developed nations (which the game seems to assume the entire planet has developed into by the time you make it into space as an empire), population growth slows and eventually reverses- the wealthier a population, the less they seem to focus on having children. That's one of the driving factors behind immigration initiatives in the West, to keep up population growth despite the native population trending towards net shrinkage.

 

[kalauer]

Any concept on how to roleplay-justify that only one habitat per planet is allowed and that you have to build it around a planet at all?

I mean, I don't need one for myself but I know someday, someone will come asking. And while "gameplay beats realism every time" still works like a charm, you might still want to come up with something?

 

[faljen_isus]

i dont know if anyone asked or answered, but my question is, can you build habitats over colonized planets?

 

[Wartraveler]

Some things.

1.
Will Habitats be Destructible or only Conquerable ?

2.
How about you add another Ascension Perk which allows to Settle an Habitat Base ON the Planet rather than in Orbit.
Which will have its own Set of Buildings but more Mineral Production
Or another way would of course be to make the Production Efficiency dependent on the Planet Type.

I mean a Frozen Planet Provides alot of Water. So it should be good for a Habitat that Produces Food.
An Molten Planet is likely to be an Real Mineral Monster
So why not give it an Boost for Mineral Production.
Barren Rocks which provide neither would of course not have these Bonuses and thus be pretty Ineffecient except for Energy.

3.
PLS
Dont Forget to also make Starports etc upgradable properly.
So we can Equip Outposts and Star Ports with Weapons like we can for Defense Platforms.

4.
How about making Habitats growing their Size depending on the Capital Building on the Habitat ?
It could start out with 5 Tiles (minimum for Ship Shelter to Grow)
Then 12 Tiles.
And finally 16 Tiles ?

5.
I think that at least Smaller Habitats should be possible earlier in the Game.
Not only after reaching Ascension Perks which seems to be Endgame.

I honestly said Hoped for Deep Space Habitats which Orbit the Sun directly but in a wider Range.
(Meaning only 1 or a set Number Possible for each System)
This one could then be an Ascension Perk because its a much bigger Feat to Construct one in Far Orbit of the Sun. Than to do it around an Planet

 

[Zarpaulus]

That's... simplifying things.

Remember that in developed nations (which the game seems to assume the entire planet has developed into by the time you make it into space as an empire), population growth slows and eventually reverses- the wealthier a population, the less they seem to focus on having children. That's one of the driving factors behind immigration initiatives in the West, to keep up population growth despite the native population trending towards net shrinkage.

Regardless, more people means more potential breeders, and I expect an interstellar empire colonizing several planets and encountering several hostile alien races would encourage its' people to procreate.

Yet, each POP increases the threshold at which a new POP appears on the planet.

Oh, and the Commonwealth of Man developed from a single colony ship loaded with 250,000 colonists launched just over a century before the game, yet Unity has the same number of POPs as Earth. It's unlikely that small a starting population isolated from their homeworld could multiply to 7 billion in that short a time, with a constant stream of immigrants from the homeworld maybe, but with how regimented Commonwealth society seems it's possible that the ratio of government employees:civilians is much lower than the UNE.

 

[terrycloth]

Regardless, more people means more potential breeders, and I expect an interstellar empire colonizing several planets and encountering several hostile alien races would encourage its' people to procreate.

Yet, each POP increases the threshold at which a new POP appears on the planet.

Oh, and the Commonwealth of Man developed from a single colony ship loaded with 250,000 colonists launched just over a century before the game, yet Unity has the same number of POPs as Earth. It's unlikely that small a starting population isolated from their homeworld could multiply to 7 billion in that short a time, with a constant stream of immigrants from the homeworld maybe, but with how regimented Commonwealth society seems it's possible that the ratio of government employees:civilians is much lower than the UNE.

They'd need 11% yearly growth, which is believable for a society with heavy government incentives. The highest real-world growth rate is 9% but that probably includes immigration.

If you force every woman of child-bearing age (that is, older than 12) to have one kid per year, you can hit 7 billion people after 48 years.

 

[Mitchz95]

Any concept on how to roleplay-justify that only one habitat per planet is allowed and that you have to build it around a planet at all?

I mean, I don't need one for myself but I know someday, someone will come asking. And while "gameplay beats realism every time" still works like a charm, you might still want to come up with something?

Raw materials, maybe? Not much point of a colony if it's entirely dependent on outside resources for survival.