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.

 

[DutchTheGuy]

That made me laugh ! I can imagine it is just the sand in their eyes that makes them unhappy vs the lack of water, scarce food and extreme heat

It's always in the eyes.
This also makes sense with reproduction, that sand makes you unable to see anybody aswell!

 

[Red192]

It's always in the eyes.
This also makes sense with reproduction, that sand makes you unable to see anybody aswell!

ahahahahahah

 

[HAL.9000.1]

Tomb worlds are one of the few that actually have a lot of events and event chains associated with colonizing them. You'll find yourself flooded with those event if you start colonizing tomb worlds on-mass (likely to happen if you get an irradiated species or start sending out robot colonies).

EDIT: They also either have a very high chance of triggering at least one event on each tomb world colonized or are guaranteed to do so.

Please define "very high chance" and "flooded". I have probably colonized 20 or so tomb worlds over the course of the last 4 or 5 games, and to the best of my recollection nothing interesting or useful has ever happened.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Please define "very high chance" and "flooded". I have probably colonized 20 or so tomb worlds over the course of the last 4 or 5 games, and to the best of my recollection nothing interesting or useful has ever happened.

In my current game, I colonized 6 tomb worlds in 5 years. I was informed about two derelict space stations, two cases of sever radiation zones, an underground vault event chain, and a subterranean race event chain. Most planets I colonize do not trigger any events, which is why I thought that tomb worlds either have a much higher chance or a guaranteed chance to trigger planet events or event chains. I still get periodic updates about the subterranean diggers.

 

[Willem de Wit]

I've gotten the Tomb vault event three times over the last week or so. (with different outcomes)

 

[HAL.9000.1]

In my current game, I colonized 6 tomb worlds in 5 years. I was informed about two derelict space stations, two cases of sever radiation zones, an underground vault event chain, and a subterranean race event chain. Most planets I colonize do not trigger any events, which is why I thought that tomb worlds either have a much higher chance or a guaranteed chance to trigger planet events or event chains. I still get periodic updates about the subterranean diggers.

Well, your luck of the draw seems to be better than mine. I've never seen a derelict space station or severe radiation zones. I do remember a subterranean race event chain that happened in my first game after Leviathans came out, but haven't seen that since. I did get a sinkhole recently (boy was that exciting!), but just researched the relevant tile blocker and filled it in because there were no other options. Do not remember if that was on a tomb world, however.

 

[fetusthebard]

But reworked *how* though?

 

[jju_57]

My concern is that the game will be almost completely dependent on RNG's. So the first thing you do is save it then send out scout ships to all nearby worlds. If you get a bad RNG that creates 20 & 40% worlds you just start over. This was aproblem that plagued Galactic Civilizations.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that size now is super important. Who wants size 12-15 planets? It seems resources will now be much less available as the vast majority came from colonies.

 

[Longu]

My thought is that for the planets having different resources is that rather than having them have a higher spawn chance of those resources instead have them have more of that resource per tile. As in all food tiles (for example) would have a +1 food on all their natural tiles on wet worlds (although I do prefer AlazkanAssassin's idea for the 9 different planet bonuses). This then would mean that your home world could still receive the buff with-out changing the current spawning mechanics. It also means that the resources your planet isn't buffed for would still appear with their current balance. I think that this way would be a good way to give planets variety, and give people a leg up while also not shooting the others in the knee cap.

 

[DutchTheGuy]

My thought is that for the planets having different resources is that rather than having them have a higher spawn chance of those resources instead have them have more of that resource per tile. As in all food tiles (for example) would have a +1 food on all their natural tiles on wet worlds (although I do prefer AlazkanAssassin's idea for the 9 different planet bonuses). This then would mean that your home world could still receive the buff with-out changing the current spawning mechanics. It also means that the resources your planet isn't buffed for would still appear with their current balance. I think that this way would be a good way to give planets variety, and give people a leg up while also not shooting the others in the knee cap.

In any form of max efficiency plays, and I do mean ANY, you would take the frozen EVERYTIME. Because 2's turning into 3's and 3's into 4's etc is really good early game with minerals. That would be such an advantage or leg up to have any opposition early game from other players they also would need to get frozen home planets, even if their species was intended on a dessert world.
The idea of somebody to divide all of these into 3 different sections equally to the 3 main climates. Like Jungles, Dessert and Arctic getting more Minerals/Energy/Food instead so it gives a bit more options of roleplaying with max efficiency.
This also makes more sense as Jungles don't provide much food once the trees are gone, it gets very stale very fast.

 

[Red192]

It seems resources will now be much less available as the vast majority came from colonies.

In fact the stations should start having a little buff, Against a malus for colonies. Now that most of the planets we will colonize will not be of our preference, we would have a constant malus in production (which could also be intensified), which can be overcome by giving more emphasis to extraction stations

I personally build stations only ultimately, after completing the initial expansion

 

[Yves Santos]

an idea that i have is add the Kardashev Scale,just a random thing but this is a good idea

 

[The_Sorrowful]

R.I.P things that increasce habitality such as Hive mind and 'Adaptive' trait.



Now they will become semi-trash...........

QQ

 

[Peko?]

an idea that i have is add the Kardashev Scale,just a random thing but this is a good idea

Why?

 

[Longu]

In any form of max efficiency plays, and I do mean ANY, you would take the frozen EVERYTIME. Because 2's turning into 3's and 3's into 4's etc is really good early game with minerals. That would be such an advantage or leg up to have any opposition early game from other players they also would need to get frozen home planets, even if their species was intended on a dessert world.

I know what you mean but at the same time the mechanics that the diary says are to be implemented would also do just that, but in a different way. Adding mineral tiles could potentially add even more minerals then adding them to individual tiles, because then you'll also get the extra mine(s) and its bonus.

I think it really comes down to just how much the resources are biased. If the bias for them is small I agree with you that it's good to keep it that way, but if it's a large bias then I'm sticking to my guns.

 

[Peko?]

then you'll also get the extra mine(s) and its bonus.

Which could be built on any tile regardless of tile bonuses.

 

[Longu]

Which could be built on any tile regardless of tile bonuses.

Yes, but there's still the tile bonus underneath it.

 

[Peko?]

Yes, but there's still the tile bonus underneath it.

Which is the relevant part when balancing this, the yield from the mine isn't.

 

[legofreak97]

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with wet climates having a better food production. To me it makes a lot of sense from a lore point of view - a harsh and icy world just isn't all that friendly to plants (and life in general).

The one problem that arises with this though (as many have noticed before): food as a resource is not as attractive as energy or minerals.
But why is that?

1. The food consumption of an empire is relatively low, compared to the need for the other two resources
2. Once you cap out on food, you have no way of spending or using it. The best you can do, is increasing your storage capacity to be better prepared for a war. But then again: If you defend well enough you likely won't need this.
3. Ultimately there just isn't much you can use food for actively. At some point rather quick after the beginning of the game it's just there, sitting around at max. capacity

So I simply suggest creating more interactions with the resource in general, thus making it more useful and in turn more desireably for the player.
As some quick ideas (that each may very much have their own problems):

1. Adding a food upkeep to fleets. It's only natural if you think about it: soldiers need to eat too and they usally perform better, when nourished well. This would make food more relevant even for someone who wants to go militaristic. Maybe it's even a way to combat the naked corvette-spam, since the food-upkeep shouldn't be based on the tech-level of the ships but purely on the size and their numbers. This would likely also make more advanced ships favorable compared to outdated designs.
   
2. Creating a way to actively spend food. Simple things like special edicts, that consume food (i.e. a "Harvest Festival" which boosts happiness and growth), would already make a fine addition.

Hm, yes that's about it. I'm too tired to think of anything more refined right now

 

[terrycloth]

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with wet climates having a better food production. To me it makes a lot of sense from a lore point of view - a harsh and icy world just isn't all that friendly to plants (and life in general).

The one problem that arises with this though (as many have noticed before): food as a resource is not as attractive as energy or minerals.
But why is that?

1. The food consumption of an empire is relatively low, compared to the need for the other two resources
2. Once you cap out on food, you have no way of spending or using it. The best you can do, is increasing your storage capacity to be better prepared for a war. But then again: If you defend well enough you likely won't need this.
3. Ultimately there just isn't much you can use food for actively. At some point rather quick after the beginning of the game it's just there, sitting around at max. capacity

So I simply suggest creating more interactions with the resource in general, thus making it more useful and in turn more desireably for the player.
As some quick ideas (that each may very much have their own problems):

1. Adding a food upkeep to fleets. It's only natural if you think about it: soldiers need to eat too and they usally perform better, when nourished well. This would make food more relevant even for someone who wants to go militaristic. Maybe it's even a way to combat the naked corvette-spam, since the food-upkeep shouldn't be based on the tech-level of the ships but purely on the size and their numbers. This would likely also make more advanced ships favorable compared to outdated designs.
   
2. Creating a way to actively spend food. Simple things like special edicts, that consume food (i.e. a "Harvest Festival" which boosts happiness and growth), would already make a fine addition.

Hm, yes that's about it. I'm too tired to think of anything more refined right now

Growth rate is actually very important for developing colonies, because they usually grow more slowly than you can build mines on them, so the faster your pops grow the more minerals you get.

Early food has a big effect on growth rate. It's only later on that that fades (because it gets diluted from all your existing pops).

Still, point for point a mineral bonus is probably still better. But you can fix that by making it not be point-for-point.

eg, +1 -> +2 for minerals
+1 -> +3 for energy
+1 -> +4 for food

Or something, until it's balanced.