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.

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.

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.

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.

That's all for now! Next week we'll be talking about some significant changes coming in the area of genetic modification.

 

[Talt1991]

Hi,

a question about the Terraforming candidate marker. Is it a bug that some worlds after the Prethoryn Scourge have been cleansed, still have the marker but are unable to be Terraformed? As i can see the new expansion planner becoming overwhelmed with these planets.

Or is it working as intended and i am missing tech?

 

[chrisjwmartin]

Hello everyone and etc etc

Wiz, it's just great that you're posting on the forums again.

 

[Red192]

while I really don't think a higher happiness penalty is a good idea,

I agree, Not only for balancing, but also for realism:
"I live on an arid planet, and I would find myself better on a lush planet, I moved here for work / my will ...it's a government blame!"

less Happiness is a malus of convenience, in waiting to have more plausible malus. Making it more difficult for the population to grow and make it less appetizing for migration is a good start

 

[BlackPrince]

With a bit of Krakatit Terraforming should be much easier

 

[petruxa]

Guys, Arid planet should have a mineral/engineering bonus, of course. And Physics for Frozen - because extremely cold temperatures are good for experimental physics.

 

[Setho]

Base habitable planet count is going even lower you say? Sounds like habitats and ring worlds are getting indirect buffs.

 

[Darrien]

The happiness penalty is meaningless to Hivemind empires so they will basically be able to colonize without penalty then or is something changed for them for this?

 

[hadaev]

Nice buff to slavers.

 

[AresOfThrace]

"Everyone is complaining about the extremely boring combat mechanics and useless defensive stations. Let's change habitable worlds and climate."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<logic

I mean, when they're working on combat mechanic changes as well at the same time, why don't they show some of that in their Dev Diary? I think there would be less negative criticism overall then.

 

[AlazkanAssassin]

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.

Instead of making one climate type generally better (due to having more production), I would rather see this used to differentiate WITHIN each climate type.
Minerals and Engineering from Arid, Continental, and Alpine.
Energy and Physics from Desert, Ocean, and Arctic.
Food and Society from Savanna, Tropical, and Tundra .
This would result in more variety of planets to consider for colonization priority.

As it is described in the Diary, there would be 4 types of planets. (which is still better than the three we have now)
1: Home-world type Biome (with minerals for example) [1/9 of the worlds, ignoring Gaia and Tomb]
2: Same Climate (with minerals) [2/9 worlds]
3: Bad climate for me, but has energy [3/9 worlds]
4: Bad climate for me, but has food. [3/9 worlds]

If it is used to differentiate WITHIN a climate, then we have:
1: Home-world type Biome (with minerals for example)[1/9 of the worlds]
2: Nice climate, but with food [1/9 of the worlds]
3: Nice climate, but with energy [1/9 of the worlds]
4: Bad climate for me, but has energy [2/9 of the worlds]
5: Bad climate for me, but has food. [2/9 of the worlds]
6: Bad climate for me, but has minerals [2/9 of the worlds]

For added complexity, the research bonuses could stay as described in the Diary, but change just the minerals/food/energy to the above. This would give 9 actually different options to choose from when selecting your home-world type and in colonization decisions.

Desert: Energy and Physics
Ocean: Energy and Society
Arctic: Energy and Engineering
Arid: Minerals and Physics
Continental: Minerals and Society
Alpine: Minerals and Engineering
Savanna: Food and Physics
Tropical: Food and Society
Tundra: Food and Engineering

As it is described in the Diary, I can see a lot of my custom races living in the cold.
[Edited to incorporate Miesha's Alpine-Tundra Swap]

 

[Heavenly Serpent]

Instead of making one climate type generally better (due to having more production), I would rather see this used to differentiate WITHIN each climate type.
Minerals and Engineering from Arid, Continental, and Tundra.
Energy and Physics from Desert, Ocean, and Arctic.
Food and Society from Savanna, Tropical, and Alpine.
This would result in more variety of planets to consider for colonization priority.

As it is described in the Diary, there would be 4 types of planets. (which is still better than the three we have now)
1: Home-world type Biome (with minerals for example) [1/9 of the worlds, ignoring Gaia and Tomb]
2: Same Climate (with minerals) [2/9 worlds]
3: Bad climate for me, but has energy [3/9 worlds]
4: Bad climate for me, but has food. [3/9 worlds]

If it is used to differentiate WITHIN a climate, then we have:
1: Home-world type Biome (with minerals for example)[1/9 of the worlds]
2: Nice climate, but with food [1/9 of the worlds]
3: Nice climate, but with energy [1/9 of the worlds]
4: Bad climate for me, but has energy [2/9 of the worlds]
5: Bad climate for me, but has food. [2/9 of the worlds]
6: Bad climate for me, but has minerals [2/9 of the worlds]

For added complexity, the research bonuses could stay as described in the Diary, but change just the minerals/food/energy to the above. This would give 9 actually different options to choose from when selecting your home-world type and in colonization decisions.

Desert: Energy and Physics
Ocean: Energy and Society
Arctic: Energy and Engineering
Arid: Minerals and Physics
Continental: Minerals and Society
Tundra: Minerals and Engineering
Savanna: Food and Physics
Tropical: Food and Society
Alpine: Food and Engineering

As it is described in the Diary, I can see a lot of my custom races living in the cold.

I really like this idea - make each world type different. I saw someone suggest it could be based on access to Water/Temperature axis.

Tropical - Wet/Hot
Ocean - Wet/Temperate
Arctic - Wet/Cool

Savannah - Moderate/Hot
Continental - Moderate/Temperate
Tundra - Moderate/Cool

Arid - Dry/Hot
Desert - Dry/Temperate
Alpine - Dry/Cool

One of the things I like about the changes being proposed is that it reduces the incentive to go to war just to get some extra habitable planets.

 

[mergele]

I know it's a bit off topic, but I would love it if we got a whole selection of uplift traits that gave more specific functionality to a species (like "excellent pilots", +3 evasion for empire while a species of empire) representing specialized biological niches

That sounds actually like an interesting concept. Maybe put it in the suggestions forum?

 

[Miesha]

Instead of making one climate type generally better (due to having more production), I would rather see this used to differentiate WITHIN each climate type.

...

As it is described in the Diary, I can see a lot of my custom races living in the cold.

removing the wall of text as this thing is right above me so just go check it out. I just have a suggestion to the suggestor: Swap Alpine and Tundra. Tundra worlds are better for food production (lots of flat land) and Alpine worlds should be better for minerals (lots of mountains)

I've always seen the separation as 6 categories. Wet, Dry and Cold as we're explained but within there we have Flat, Rocky and Lush. Flat worlds have a smoother landscape suited for energy generation (Desert, Ocean, Artic), Rocky worlds have lots of mountains and hills suited for mining (Arid, Continental, Alpine) and Lush worlds have a lot of life comparatively to its other partners, more suited for food production (Savannah, Tropical and Tundra)

 

[Ex Mudder]

Play Authoritarian / Dry, send your proles to harvest minerals and food on Cold and Wet.

Play Materialist, use Robots the same.

Play Egalitarian, write off utopian living standards as a colonization subsidy.

Will make happiness harder to keep up, as you are at -5% happiness at 80% and -10% happiness at 60%, so factions become more important.

 

[Nippleworthy]

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.

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.
View attachment 276408


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.
View attachment 276409

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.
View attachment 276410

That's all for now! Next week we'll be talking about some significant changes coming in the area of genetic modification.

That sounds fantastic!

 

[Nippleworthy]

Honestly the change to resource distribution really only limits your choices. I mean who really wants a planet with lots of food? Food rarely is an issue. In particular for slavers and people with robots. Please dont take away my freedom to choose any planet I like.


Edit: And yes if yoh can minmax of course you will. And it was really nice to be able to choose freely. Quiet frankly its the most fair if everyone gets the same resources

Then, the only thing you need is a trade DLC. Freighters etc. That would be a cool thing.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

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.

Ooh, nice. Čapek brought the word robot to the English language, but after reading his basic bio for the first time, I see his work includes stories about when servants+robots rise up and the remaking of society (AI crisis rework, of course), I see a story about immortality (so more genetic modification stuff), and some other works related to the "study of intellect" or our understanding of perception? Not sure how that set of "noetic"? works will show up as game features, but they have done a good job getting inspiration from the patch namesake into the game.

"The absolute at large" looks like an interesting book to read...

 

[Willem de Wit]

Looking forward to having a reason to pick one planet type over another, but share the concern about min/max leading to one planet type always being picked over another.

It seems most/all players list the resources in the priority minerals>energy>food. Maybe the bonus resources that each planet type may or may not give should be revealed after a delay, with the food bonuses having the shortest delay, followed by energy, and finally minerals. That doesn't remove the min/max effect, but at least add another layer.

I imagine an Ocean world providing additional food resources in the form of fish, which can be harvested immediately, but an Arctic world not providing additional mineral resources in the form of rare minerals until proper excavations into its core are finally completed. The delay mechanic could take different forms: requiring specific technology (arctic drill expedition, deep sea fishing platform) to first be researched, tile events ala anomalies where the potential bonus resources of a tile are not revealed until the tile has been worked for X years (which could trigger rebuilding structures to make use of those bonuses), or a simple timer.

 

[Dalinski]

Frozen Climate planets (Arctic, Tundra, Alpine) are more likely to generate mineral and engineering research deposits.

While I find the idea positive, won't this just make every one choose Frozen Climates over any thing else due to the greater significance of minerals. Perhaps making the food/energy/research modifiers more significant than minerals would help to lure people to other climate types.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

While I find the idea positive, won't this just make every one choose Frozen Climates over any thing else due to the greater significance of minerals. Perhaps making the food/energy/research modifiers more significant than minerals would help to lure people to other climate types.

It's been suggested a few times to make them vertical rather than horizontal.