• 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.
Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Now that the 1.7.2 update is out, we can officially start talking about the next update, which has been named 1.8 'Čapek'. This update will include the reworked AI crisis and other changes to crises outlined in Dev Diary #72. More information will be forthcoming in future dev diaries on the exact nature and release date of 1.8, but for today we'll be going over some changes and improvements to Habitability and Terraforming coming in 1.8.

Habitability Changes
Ever since the changes to the habitable planet classes and habitability back in Heinlein we have continued to discuss habitability, and in particular, the frequency of habitable worlds in the galaxy. A general feeling among the designers has been that habitable planets are too common and do not feel special enough, but that reducing the base number of habitable worlds wasn't really feasible while most empires only had access to colonizing a third of them at the start. We also felt that the sheer abundance of habitable worlds that become available to you when you do achieve the ability to colonize/terraform other climate types also meant that there is little pressure to expand your borders - not when you can triple your planet count simply by utilizing the planets already inside your borders.

For this reason we've decided to make a number of fundamental changes to habitability. First of all, the habitability at which Pops can live on a planet was reduced from 40% to 20%, meaning that by default, most species will be able to colonize most habitable worlds in the galaxy from the very start. We have also changed the actual effects of habitability: Rather than acting as a cap on happiness, it now acts as a modifier on it (in addition to affecting growth, as before), with each 10 points of habitability below 100% reducing happiness by 2.5% (so at the base 20% habitability, a Pop would get -20% to their happiness). This means that while low-habitability planets are possible to colonize, it may not be a good idea to do so unless you have ways to compensate for the negative effects of low habitability.
OcmNsiP.png


With these changes, we have cut the base number of habitable worlds in the galaxy in half. For those that prefer to play with more (or even fewer!) habitable worlds, there is of course the habitable worlds slider in galaxy setup as before. Overall, the changes should result in habitable worlds and terraforming candidates feeling like more significant finds in the early game, and contribute to mid and late game friction as empires run out of worlds to colonize inside their borders.


Planetary Deposits
Along with the change to habitability, we have also changed the way resource deposits are generated on habitable worlds. Rather than all habitable worlds having the exact same chance to generate the different kind of resource deposits, we have now broken it up a bit by climate as follows:

Wet Climate planets (Continental, Ocean, Tropical) are more likely to generate food and society research deposits.
Frozen Climate planets (Arctic, Tundra, Alpine) are more likely to generate mineral and engineering research deposits.
Dry Climate planets (Desert, Arid, Savanna) are more likely to generate energy and physics research deposits.
Gaia planets are more likely to generate mixed deposits and strategic resources.

Of course, this does not mean that you will *only* find those types of desposits on such planets - it simply means they are more likely to be found there.
2017_06_15_1.png



Terraforming Interface Improvements
Also coming in 1.8 are a couple changes to improve Terraforming and Terraforming Candidates. First of all, we've introduced a concept called 'significant planetary modifiers'. This is a flag (accessible to modders) that can be set on any planetary modifier, and will result in that planet appearing in the Expansion Planner even if it not of a habitable planet class. For now, the only significant modifier is Terraforming Candidates (such as Mars), so you should no longer find a Terraforming Candidate only to forget which system it is located in, but we expect to make more use of this functionality in the future.
2017_06_15_3.png


We also spent some time cleaning up the Terraforming interface in general, hiding the button for planets where it is never applicable (such as non-Terraforming Candidate barren worlds) and improving the sorting and style of the actual terraforming window.
2017_06_15_4.png


That's all for now! Next week we'll be talking about some significant changes coming in the area of genetic modification.
 
Last edited:
I really like the sound of these changes. It gives the galaxy more of a sense of geography while also making you experience with your planets more personal as over all the are less of them.

I can see gene modding being good.
 
In relation to the happiness penalties (again), while I really don't think a higher happiness penalty is a good idea, I'm considering adding in a resource production penalty to represent the difficulties of extracting resources in a hostile environment. Going to see how the balance of that plays out.
Wonderful. That make sense.
And this will hurt not just egalitarians, but slavers too. And even hive minds.

Actually it is nice, that happiness will be not the only modifier for pops working.
 
Wet Climate planets (Continental, Ocean, Tropical) are more likely to generate food and society research deposits.
Frozen Climate planets (Arctic, Tundra, Alpine) are more likely to generate mineral and engineering research deposits.
Dry Climate planets (Desert, Arid, Savanna) are more likely to generate energy and physics research deposits.
This is the only part I don't like. As others have said already, this is bound to push empires with certain planet preference into certain directions.

With a frozen homeworld (and therefore, your initial colonies all being like that too) you are going to have more minerals than others. Thus enabling you to build more ships (especially with Naked Corvettes), as well as more buildings that give you even more minerals. And you get ship techs earlier than anyone else too. This seems like the standard example of snowballing, and I'm sure "take frozen worlds" would turn into the optimal minmaxing strategy.

Wet homeworlds have more food, so you get more people faster. You have more society research than any other research type, so it's likely that you'll get genemodding, uplifting, and tons of influence quicker than others.

Dry climate home equals more energy so you can afford harder colonisation efforts even in the beginning. The extra physics research basically means that you're more likely to use shields and energy weapons during early- and midgame.

It should also not be forgotten that if you get more deposits of one resource, the other resources will be *less common*. So this makes the difference in e.g. mineral production between frozen and wet/dry even higher.

Long story short: I don't think this change would be good for the game, as it would discourage roleplay even more. And certain planets would also be stronger than others, leading to a weird balance.
 
I'd worry that there would never really be a good reason to go for a wet/food starting climate.

You can either go for minerals for the early snowball or energy since having -20% happiness from habitability doesn't change much for robots/slaves
 
Terraforming Interface Improvements
Really like these interface improvements. Would it be reasonable to assume we are getting interface improvements in other areas too? (I'm still hoping for a list of unscanned anomalies in the situation log, as the galaxy map icons don't appear consistently, and even when they do, hunting out the icons is annoying.)

In relation to the happiness penalties (again), while I really don't think a higher happiness penalty is a good idea, I'm considering adding in a resource production penalty to represent the difficulties of extracting resources in a hostile environment. Going to see how the balance of that plays out.
That worries me, as it seems like it would make the species that naturally live on the planet type with mineral boosts far more powerful, while making the ones with food boosts far weaker. Being able to build more buildings and ships is far more useful than a miniscule boost towards pop growth speed.
 
In relation to the happiness penalties (again), while I really don't think a higher happiness penalty is a good idea, I'm considering adding in a resource production penalty to represent the difficulties of extracting resources in a hostile environment. Going to see how the balance of that plays out.

What about migration for empire whose most population with zero happiness? It hurts to try to expand and wait forever for your population to grow from one to full only because you can't have enough influence to fill them all via forced resettled.
 
Now that the 1.7.2 update is out, we can officially start talking about the next update, which has been named 1.8 'Čapek

What happened to not being done with 1.6? We were promised 1.6 fixes not a new update, was Jamor lying?

Hey all,

Bradbury/1.7.0 is NOT a new bug fixing patch. It was made by a separate team to beta test a new multiplayer system. Structurally it's exactly the same as 1.6.1. We're not done with fixes for 1.6.0 yet, so stand by.
 
1.7.2 contains the 1.6.2 fixes that were the promised fixes for 1.6.
 
Habitability already has a major effect on the time it takes for pops to grow.

Edit: I saw another one of your posts after I started writing this. Seems like you're going to try something. I hope it works out!

I'm not a game designer or anything, but maybe you *should* consider giving habitability's effect on happiness a little more punch. It's just easier to see that your pops' hatred of their crappy climate has greatly increased their Unrest than it is to calculate out that it'll take 20-50 more years to reach the pop cap. Maybe there's not much of a balance problem around keeping hab's effect on happiness low, but there is a perception of one. At least, there's a perception that habitability doesn't affect the game very much aside from being a barrier to colonization. You need to do a lot of math to get more than an abstract idea of how pop growth affects your empire. I don't think people want to do it.

I understand no numbers are final and that I am not a game designer, but I just think habitability could use some more "concrete-feeling" consequences.
 
Last edited:
What happened to not being done with 1.6? We were promised 1.6 fixes not a new update, was Jamor lying?

I'd guess things have moved on in the past month.

Lying suggests it was deliberate. More likely they've decided that since the 1.6.2 updates can be (and are) enfolded into 1.7.2, then they can safely jump to 1.7 as the major version number.
 
1.7.2 contains the 1.6.2 fixes that were the promised fixes for 1.6.

No, it doesn't. It contains a small list of fixes that were tested for a couple of weeks and still leaves a large amount of work to be done. Not to mention you pushed it live before fixing the crash on launch bug, what was the point of the beta if you aren't going to fix these things before releasing it.

If this is what you call being done with 1.6, this is what I call being done with Stellaris and any future DLC.
 
Is it just me or does this read like "landgrab being made easier"?

Seems less-easy. Purge everyone, get crap hab (and less resources) on all climates aside from your native type. Keep the aliens around, deal with their stupid factions and unrest and inalienable desire to be free. There's at least a choice now.
 
The devs are thinking about reduce the effectiveness of armies in reduce unrest?
In the print screen for exemple, we have a 14 tile planet with one pop generatint 1,24 of unrest because the pop have low habitability, 14 pops generating 1,24 of unrest = 17,36 of unrest that can be reduced to 0 with just 2 defense armies, rebalance unrest and armies are things in the dev's plans?
 
While I like that the hard colonisation requirements are mostly removed, I find it not a good idear to allow minmaximg with planet types. I mean if you go after what makes sense, sentient butterflies surely would be bad at mining. The freedom to be able to play said butterflies in any way you want is great though. Who cares about realism. I am really for not giving certain planets more of a resource. Takes away the freedom to roleplay. Maybe I want to play butterflies who are great at mining under water on an ocean planet. And with the changes this would be probably not as viabel.
 
No, it doesn't. It contains a small list of fixes that were tested for a couple of weeks and still leaves a large amount of work to be done. Not to mention you pushed it live before fixing the crash on launch bug, what was the point of the beta if you aren't going to fix these things before releasing it.

If this is what you call being done with 1.6, this is what I call being done with Stellaris and any future DLC.

Heres for hoping your attitude aren't injured by the door
 
No, it doesn't. It contains a small list of fixes that were tested for a couple of weeks and still leaves a large amount of work to be done. Not to mention you pushed it live before fixing the crash on launch bug, what was the point of the beta if you aren't going to fix these things before releasing it.

If this is what you call being done with 1.6, this is what I call being done with Stellaris and any future DLC.

What precise fixes were promised for 1.6 that aren't in 1.7.2?
 
Well I never experienced any major bugs in Stellaris. Just some minor stuff like inverted ringworld segments. The game is so so soooooo much more stabel than eu4. It even has hotjoin!!!!!!!