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.

 

[Exterous]

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.

I like this idea - mostly because I think its a bit odd that a species that evolves in a dry climate suddenly gets a ton more food from a planet type they didn't evolve on (wet).

The production cap makes sense since otherwise robots, slavers and hive will see a big jump in benefits as they can just throw a bunch of robots\slaves\hives that don't care about happiness down on any planet with minimal side effects compared to everyone else. Alternatively what about a new tile blocker based on your species' level of habitability on a planet. The lower the habitability the more of those blockers on the planet. To remove it you would need to devote more resources than regular blockers signifying the need for more domes\temperature control\air production etc. If thats too hard just a cap on total population based on habitability?

 

[Dalinski]

Currently no one is able to join any multiplayer matches, the list appears empty, it doesnt matter who hosts. 20 + ppl have tried, its not possible to join or find a game. Joining via steam also does not work.

Has that happened in the last few days?

 

[Dalinski]

I like this idea - mostly because I think its a bit odd that a species that evolves in a dry climate suddenly gets a ton more food from a planet type they didn't evolve on (wet).

Not unusual at all, the Opossum which is endangered in its native Australia is the plague in New Zealand due to the abundance of food it finds here.

 

[The Shacks]

Going off Proccessual Thought, life and culture would seem to thrive better in relative adversity, move somewhere where you know you can gain more fertility in food production later is perfectly viable

 

[Mann42]

Looks fine, especially since we can (hopefully) still change the number of habitable planets in the settings.

My initial criticisms/questions are:

• Planet Resources: Food is not a very worthwhile resource for a starting planet. Are there plans to improve the effects of food surplus, or create food-sinks that provide other benefits? Energy, and especially Mineral planet starts are going to inherently snowball faster. As it is, I feel like I'd need to change all my custom races to Hot or Cold planet starts in order for the AI to remain competitive.
• Habitability: Are there plans to replace the Habitability bonus for Hive Minds? Since happiness has no effect for them and they can colonize at 20% anyway now (like everyone else), it's useless. Similarly, are you going to re-balance the point cost for Adaptable and Extremely Adaptable perks? Their current costs are grossly high for the minimal benefit that habitability bonuses now provide.

 

[Exterous]

Not unusual at all, the Opossum which is endangered in its native Australia is the plague in New Zealand due to the abundance of food it finds here.

I am under the impression Opossums are not generally specialized towards a particular climate. I am no expert but I would think that that would make them an ill fitting example for a species that evolved on a desert planet. I would think that plants and crops would likewise face significant difficulties moving from a place like tatooine to a planet covered in a rain forest

 

[Willem de Wit]

The costs of colonizing a planet likely hazardous if not outright deadly without proper equipment could be an increase in initial cost (creating the gear), increase in maintenance, and/or decrease in return. Upon terraforming the planet, the gear is stripped to minerals.

 

[BeCause]

I really don't like this. To be able to colonize everything, you should either have to conquer zenos who can, research habitability tech, build habitats, terraform, or invest in habitability for your species. I'm gonna have to hope that someone makes a mod that puts it back.

 

[Axe99]

Cheers for the DD Wiz . Interesting changes, and definitely more depth potential there. Maybe also make buildings cost more as well? The idea being that low habitability planets would only be colonised for important resources, strategic reasons, or because overcrowding or technology has got to the point some people want more space, even if it's on a pretty rough place to live. Just a random thought, sorry if already covered off.

Am a big fan of the QoL improvements as well - with the terraforming candidate worlds now showing up in the Expansion Planner, I'm pretty sure that's the last 'pen and paper' task for Stellaris moved into the UI - much appreciated .

 

[System Lord Ra]

Just in case you guys don't know Capek has another meaning it's translated from Sumatra Languange as " Tired " lmao

 

[Marconius]

Will the warscore you gain from invading a planet change? If there are only half as many planets, it'd make sense they'd be worth more.

 

[Sorbo]

Couldn't you get both by adding a negative trait?

Without the irradiated, sure, but not with it. I double-cheked just to be sure and it's exactly one point too much. Theoretically this would work if there were multiple negative traits that cost two points, but the only one is unadaptive which is the opposite of robust.

 

[Bluegrass Geek]

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)

Tundra is actually terrible for producing food if you're referring to crops or livestock. You can only go a few inches down in the soil before hitting permafrost, so nothing can put down deep enough roots to grow tall. Which means very little grassland for livestock and virtually no staple crops can be grown.

 

[Jorrhast]

The production cap

Wait, what? There's nothing like that in OP. Was there an update somewhere in the thread?

 

[Risa]

Planet Resources: Food is not a very worthwhile resource for a starting planet. Are there plans to improve the effects of food surplus, or create food-sinks that provide other benefits? Energy, and especially Mineral planet starts are going to inherently snowball faster. As it is, I feel like I'd need to change all my custom races to Hot or Cold planet starts in order for the AI to remain competitive.

I believe this is overreaction. Home planet has 13 tiles with pre-defined resources, so there are only 3 ~ 7 tiles left for random. In such small sample size RNG will have more influnce than deposit weight, in my opinion.

Overall I think deposit weight change will be less impactive than people imagine. For a size 20 (non-homeword) planet, I bet the difference of average amount of a resource kind between favored and unfavored will most probably less than 10, and quite possibly less than 6.

 

[Deggial]

Wiz, I really would love to read about your thougths regarding the "vertical distribution proposal". Personally, I am quite in favor of it, too.
(The actual distribution is interesting to discuss, but just a flavor issue at the end of the day. The only meaningful argument would be balance, imo, as food is definitely the least important ressource of the three and should be supported by the most sparse research benefits.)

While I can somehow agree with the argument that planet type choice would be more impactful during the species generation, the effect would probably be too strong due to the caveats mentioned in multiple posts already. Additionally, due to the current "the first three nearby planets rule", choosing a planet type would still be way more meaningful in contrast to the current game.
What do you think - are you open to these ideas or are there reasons not discussed / overlooked so far that makes it mandatory to link ressources to the temperature?

 

[Glacier87]

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.

I think that would be a great idea!

 

[MaaRa]

What about combined these two ideas?

CNightwing: "The grid is currently just three columns of differing water availabilities. Why not make Continental, Alpine and Savannah go together in the Food/Society group, Desert, Ocean and Tundra together for Energy/Engineering, which leaves Arid, Arctic and Tropical for Minerals/Physics? Also it feels more correct to have Energy with Physics, and Minerals with Engineering."

and

Wiz: "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."

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.

 

[Red192]

a consumer goods penalty(for extra supplies and infrastructure)

good idea

 

[Wizzington]

Without the irradiated, sure, but not with it. I double-cheked just to be sure and it's exactly one point too much. Theoretically this would work if there were multiple negative traits that cost two points, but the only one is unadaptive which is the opposite of robust.

View attachment 276718

I'll lower the cost to 6.