• 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 #58: Habitats

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is going to cover a feature coming in the (unannounced) expansion accompanying the 1.5 'Banks' update: Habitats. As before, I still can't say anything about the release date of the update/expansion other than that you're in for a bit of a wait.

Orbital Habitats (Paid Feature)
One of the things we have stated that we want to address is the lack of options for building 'tall' in Stellaris: Even if you're playing pacifist xenophiles that have no interest in conquering others, sooner or later your empire is going to have their borders closed in on all fronts, all the habitable planets in your space will be terraformed, and your only option for further expansion is to grow your space through conquest. When we say that we want to enable building tall, however, this doesn't mean we're going to make being a five-system empire just as good as being a fifty-system empire: There should always be an incentive to expand your borders, but for those who do not want or simply cannot do this, we want there to options other than just stagnating.

Orbital Habitats is one of our solutions to this problem: Instead of expanding to new systems and colonizing new planets, you create new, artificial 'planets' for your Pops to live on. Orbital Habitats are massive space stations that function like small (currently size 12, though this may not be the final number) planets that (like Gaia Planets and Ringworlds) have 100% habitability for all species. They can be built around any non-habitable planet (not asteroid or moon) in your space, and there is no limit to the amount you can build other than the number of such planets you have to build them around. Habitats function exactly like a planet: They can be colonized with whatever Pops you want to live there, they can be worked for resources by constructing buildings there, and they count as a planet for the purpose of empire research costs. In order to build a habitat, you need to have researched the maximum level of spaceport technology and picked the 'Voidborn' Ascension Perk (for more info on Ascension Perks, see dev diary 56)
2017_01_26_2.png


Habitats mostly do not have tile resources with the one exception that if the planet they are orbiting has a resource that could otherwise be worked by a mining or research station, that resource will be present on one of the Habitat's tiles. Instead, Habitats have their own, unique set of buildings distinct from the normal planetary buildings. Overall, Habitats are efficient when it comes to research and energy general, but do poorly when it comes to food and mineral production. These buildings are 'single-stage': they have a fairly large upfront cost and high immediate research production, but cannot be upgraded. The reason for this is to allow for easier management of systems with several habitats in them.

Graphics-wise, Habitats use different models depending on which ship set you have selected, and each ship set (including Plantoids) has its own habitat model. They also have their own planet icon and will get a unique planetary graphic and tile set (that is still a work in progress and thus not shown below), emphasising the ways in which they differ from regular planets.
2017_01_26_1.png


That's all for today! Normally, this is where I'd tell you what next week's dev diary is going to be about, but this time I have to keep it a secret for the time being... so all I'm going to say is that it's going to be big.

Very big.
 
  • 205
  • 45
  • 2
Reactions:
I like this idea but I am not certain it will actually help address the building tall problem. It is essentially an end-game tech, so only those empires that have already expanded into their neighbors mid-game will likely get access to it. The lack of peaceful expansion problems appear for most empires mid-game. I don't think players will want to sit around 100 years of game play to finally tech up and get the opportunity to build tall.

Just think of them as a means to increase your Fleet Cap (beyond the 10% card pull) after ALL the habitable planets have been grabbed, you're in a Federation with 3 other "Pathetic" Empires and you just want to make it look like you actually had a hope before the "end" comes. LOL!
 
  • 1
Reactions:
About habitats being destructible: Yes, it would make perfect sense for a habitat to be able to be bombed to pieces. However, it would also make perfect sense for a planet to be able to be bombed to pieces, particularly since pre-FTL civilizations are capable of this in-game. The reason you can't do this right now are purely gameplay related, it's not a question of realism.
I follow your logic but I think it will hurt immersion. I can do some mental gymnastics to kind of justify preventing us from bombing a planet to pieces but a space station would presumably be much more fragile. Plus, if we conquer a system with a habitat are we then forced to keep it? Even the curators space station can be destroyed.

All this being said, still very excited about this expansion. Good stuff.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
In the new expansion will we be able to have just farming planets? It would be cool to ship the food to my orbitals so I don't have to waste tiles on food in an orbital, which is bad at food apparently.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Why not making It so that when just built the habitat has only 1 (Or another small quantity) free tile and the rest have an expensive to remove blocker? It would be like "Expanding the habitat"
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm torn on this. On one hand it's a cool idea, but on the other It's going to make war a grind with every system having 5+ planets/Habitats.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey @Wiz , a thought, would it be possible for moons to provide their resources to the habitats or maybe have the habitats provide a boost to resources on moons? Or have the presence of moons provide some kind of bonus. editwhiletyping: Oh, and, will planet modifiers also apply to the orbital? Because there are some which are never found on habitable worlds.

I'm torn on this. On one hand it's a cool idea, but on the other It's going to make war a grind with every system having 5+ planets/Habitats.

I agree with the making war a grind, though I was mainly thinking of having to include the habitats in wargoals rather than having to conquer each one.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
About habitats being destructible: Yes, it would make perfect sense for a habitat to be able to be bombed to pieces. However, it would also make perfect sense for a planet to be able to be bombed to pieces, particularly since pre-FTL civilizations are capable of this in-game. The reason you can't do this right now are purely gameplay related, it's not a question of realism.

The reason you can't do this right now are purely gameplay related, it's not a question of realism.
I'm liking the implications of that "right now". >:) (The forum really needs an evil grin smiley.)


You cannot create multiple engaging opportunities when one path, rapid military expansion, is so much better than everything else (unless you depend on the AI to be passive and stupid which it sadly is at the moment but you are then not allowed to improve it at all, to allow you to play whatever you want and easily win).
So, what you are saying is "there is a single optimal way to play the game, so long as the AI also plays in this way, which it does not, as it is instead stupidly roleplaying its ethoses when it should instead be playing optimally and preventing all other playstyles but the optimal one." Correct?
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I follow your logic but I think it will hurt immersion. I can do some mental gymnastics to kind of justify preventing us from bombing a planet to pieces but a space station would presumably be much more fragile. Plus, if we conquer a system with a habitat are we then forced to keep it? Even the curators space station can be destroyed.

All this being said, still very excited about this expansion. Good stuff.

He already said that death stars and weapons of mass destruction will come to the game, along with a rework of ground and space combat.

I think we can survive some time with indestructible space stations if this means that in the end we will have a consistent and balanced experience when everything is in place.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm liking the implications of that "right now". >:) (The forum really needs an evil grin smiley.)



So, what you are saying is "there is a single optimal way to play the game, so long as the AI also plays in this way, which it does not, as it is instead stupidly roleplaying its ethoses when it should instead be playing optimally and preventing all other playstyles but the optimal one." Correct?

The AI should never "play optimally" in a strategy game. At least not 4x games, where there is a certain amount of roleplaying involved.

EDIT: Although I think we are agreeing here.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
What happens if the Prethoryn Scourge invade a Habitat? I assume it can't become "infested" like a regular planet, but if they can't be destroyed either...

Maybe it just fills up with a special tile blocker until it's bombarded back to normal?
 
Cheers for the DD Wiz :). Orbital habitats are a great addition, and a good angle on the tall/wide thing :).

Wide empires can do it, of course, but there are other tradeoffs and balancing levers (such as consumer goods) that make it more worthwhile for a smaller empire.

And again, as I said, this is more about ensuring that small empires don't run out of options. Big empires *should* be stronger than small empires, the question is just how much and in which ways.

I'd agree that big empires should be able (assuming more spaceports/planets) be able to field larger fleets than small empires, but I would argue there's no clear case for them being technologically more powerful (there have been plenty of large but technologically backward nations historically, and in science-fiction writing as well). The tech cost increasing with planet size does a good job of managing this mind (as far as I can tell, I'm not on top of Stellaris' mechanics enough to be 100% on this), not suggesting there's a need to change from the general approach in-game now, just arguing that larger =/= more powerful (but larger = larger, so you can have a big but technologically backwards fleet). Of course smaller =/= more technologically advanced or powerful either. These things should be more than a product of size.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
That's all for today! Normally, this is where I'd tell you what next week's dev diary is going to be about, but this time I have to keep it a secret for the time being... so all I'm going to say is that it's going to be big.

Very big.
Blorg sumo pageants DLC confirmed!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So, what you are saying is "there is a single optimal way to play the game, so long as the AI also plays in this way, which it does not, as it is instead stupidly roleplaying its ethoses when it should instead be playing optimally and preventing all other playstyles but the optimal one." Correct?

So what you are saying is "it is ok to have one strategy which is superior to everything else, you just need to make the AI extra dumb so that even when it role plays its ethos it is never a challenge to a even remotely competent player, then you do not need to spend the effort to actually offer several different ways of playing that are, each in their own way, equally valid and powerful", Correct?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions: