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.

 

[YF-23]

Are there going to be accompanying changes to border projection to compensate for the reduced coloniseable planet count? The reduced count will probably result in a good few more stretches of space with no planet you can settle, which will increase demand on border stations, whose supply is limited pretty strongly by influence.

 

[yiome]

Just a slight warning. Changing the way terraforming works, when it appears, etc., and changing the number of habitable planets result in different income of energy and minerals, and this directly affects whether an empire can or cannot fight off the end crises.

I think the devs should also think about that aspect of the game, if they haven't already. But, overall the changes don't seem too bad, I like the latest changes to habitability and happiness.

Why would it affect end game crisis? With trading enclave around after early game usually you can change excessive energy into minerals easily and tbh mid game I could be as easily energy starved because war forcing me going over fleet cap than mineral starved. And I assume by end game you can terraform every planets you encountered at well or at least gene mod your species.
I have role played a fanatic spiritualist with all my planets terraformed into gaia worlds (except my holy capital) and crushed the crisis. So I really don't see any of this a late game problem.

 

[DeusFurore]

Im not a big time forum poster because I'm too busy playing Stellaris which is far and away the best Space themed GSG i've played to date. I appreciate the constant balancing and content additions. Keep up the great work. Know it's off topic, but I would like to see a ship type larger than battleship though, even if it was bloody expensive to field more than 1 or 2 of. Would make those pesky Ascendant Empire's less terrifying towards the end game.

Good job Men! Carry on Smartly.

 

[halloween20]

Generally Pops won't migrate to low habitability worlds still, but they won't migrate away either unless forced away (<20% habitability) or the planet is getting full.

what about hive mind migration... ?
is it as it is wanted that hive mind dont migrate even if they get the "forced away" mark do to low habitaility ?

 

[C0ldSn4p]

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:

If I terraform a planet, does it reshuffle the deposits or switch some or do they stay exactly the same as before the terraformation?

 

[Foefaller]

I'm wondering if Adaptive/Highly Adaptive are going to get their costs/bonuses tweaked now that they no longer necessarily mean colonizing new worlds earlier than otherwise.

...Though I guess we'll probably get that answer next week with gene modding dev diary.

 

[Antiochus V]

I worry slightly that the habitability changes will lead to problems with the AI, either it will colonise planets that cause it problems with happiness. Or the AI will need to cheat to deal with the happiness problems caused by colonising unsuitable worlds, and the downsides of doing so will become a human player only handicap.

 

[Milten]

So there are less planets to settle overall in 1.8, how much less are we talking: 10%, 20%, 25%, 33%?

With these changes, we have cut the base number of habitable worlds in the galaxy in half.

 

[Birdy123]

On one hand I like the idea that planet types are more unique this way, but on the other hand it might perhaps force people to pick a certain 'starting type' just for the numbers. Will need to see how it plays out.

What is the intended difference in deposit spawns? Are we talking about a few percent which is a nice lucky bonus (or unlucky, I guess) or is it intended to a huge difference?

 

[Peko?]

So there are less planets to settle overall in 1.8, how much less are we talking: 10%, 20%, 25%, 33%?

With these changes, we have cut the base number of habitable worlds in the galaxy in half.

Edit: Too slow.

 

[mwyeoh]

Some really interesting changes there with the types of resources you will find in specific planet climates. I wonder if we will see some impacts on playstyle and empire development in the following games.

As a suggestion: Currently, government civics focus exclusively on the government ethics. What about civics which rely on an empires starting climate type?

 

[Lys91]

Sorry if I was a bit brash there. Every single dev diary there's always several posters who rush to exclaim their disappointment that the dev diary isn't actually about something else, and it gets a bit tiresome.

Not to be harsh, and I love your game and the work you are all doing at Paradox, but maybe if you were fixing the bugs that people are reporting the atmosphere in the forum will be better. I am certainly not the only one feeling bad about 1.7.2 being released in its current state. some people cannot launch the game, that you are going to fix it ASAP does not make it ok for release, AI starving its planet again etc.... It is not saying you are not working on those things, but it goes beyond working on it, and it is also a big PR issue, and the way you communicate about the game.

EDIT for the down voter: they rolled back their patch.... They are indeed having a major problem in their process.

 

[ross-g]

Planetary Deposits

Do you have plans for this update to contain new forms of unique planetary deposits? (ie Betharian stone, Alien pets...) It's always cool to find a planet with unique surface tile resources, but there are only two varieties of them. It feels like this system is underused.

 

[Jolly Reaper]

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

With the number of habitable planets halved, min-max the mineral output by just colonizing frozen planets isn't really viable. Besides, anybody can colonize those worlds from the start now, just with some penalty, and most can build robots. So I don't think it does really matter as far as balance is concerned.

Homeworlds are another thing. If you can get extra minerals there, then the choice of planet type is kinda obvious. It'd be best if these rules didn't apply to them.

 

[Sian]

As others have said, I think it would be better if you split the specailizations the other way, so One from each class of Planet type (say, Alpine, Desert and Continental for Minerals, Tundra, Savannah and Tropical for Food, with Arctic, Arid and Ocean for Energy (or some variant), with the habitaility somewhat following this schematic.

So if you for an example start out as Continental, You get 80% on Continental, 50% on Ocean, Tropical, Apline and Desert, 20% on Tundra, Arctic, Savannah and Arid.

An related quesiton ... Terraforming Candidate seem dreadfully rare, any chance that this could be upped a bit so there at least is a reasonable chance that you find one in your starting area?

 

[Weedes]

Edit: Too slow.

Early in the morning I tend to say profoundly stupid things or make obvious observations with all in earshot being dumber for having heard them.

 

[Sian]

With the number of habitable planets halved, min-max the mineral output by just colonizing frozen planets isn't really viable. Besides, anybody can colonize those worlds from the start now, just with some penalty, and most can build robots. So I don't think it does really matter as far as balance is concerned.

My initial idea from reading it was to make a Syncretic Race that was always enslaved and lived on the Food/Mineral planets (and as slaves their Happiness doesn't interfere with productivity), while my primary race was at home on Energy planet, to get the most out of the happiness bonuses to get as much energy as possible (and pay off the needed Armies for keeping the slave planets pliant)

 

[Weedes]

With these changes, we have cut the base number of habitable worlds in the galaxy in half.

Are Crises fleet sizes adjusted to match with the reduction of the base number?

 

[bronze Void poison]

@Wiz
could we at some point may be 1.9 could we have more types of celestial bodes (stars and planets) and more events to go with them?
A little bit of spice can go a long way.

 

[Marconius]

I'm happy to see the slight improvements to the terraforming interface, but it doesn't address my main problem: it's really hard to find planets that can be terraformed AND are inside your borders. The Expansion Planner shows all planets, there is no way to set it to Empire only; for colonies you can just use the "Colonizable" check for that, but it obviously doesn't work for terraforming.

I like the habitability changes in general, though I'm not sure how screwed Nonadaptive species will be. My main issue is changing the effects of habitability to be additive to happiness and not a cap: I don't think the effects are nearly strong enough, -20% at pretty much the worst planet you can be on is not at all severe, considering you'll likely have most pops at 70% or more happiness unless you're running your empire really terribly. If a planet is 20% habitability, living on it should pretty much be hell, but really you can just plop down a building or get Harmony traditions, and you're pretty much fine; I'm basically worried this'll just mean that pretty much any habitable planet you can just colonize without too many worries, especially mid/late game; and at that point terraforming, or gene modification or all the other stuff you can do kinda just become a nice bonus you don't really need to bother with necessarily.

I'm also not sure about the changes to resource spawning: it seems it will introduce too strong a bias depending on what kind of species you play as; like, if I start as Arid preference, am I just gonna be swimming in energy, but have a lot of trouble with food and minerals? And early game I likely won't want to colonize all the other planet types (later on it's fine), or at the very least I'll want to prioritize planets of my own type, so it just seems like it'd unfairly slant resources you can find. I also don't like the fact it encourages min-maxing at species creation, such as choosing Frozen climates for species that want to focus on industry. So far your choice of planet type was purely cosmetic, which I liked; if planet types being different is now a core part of the game, then it should be indicated clearly on species creation, like "this planet type has lots of minerals!", so you can treat it the same as choosing species traits and it's not just some hidden variable only people who read dev diaries know. Alternatively, maybe slice it horizontally instead of vertically? Like, in each climate group have one type that's minerals, one that's energy and one that's food; that'd make it mostly fair for all species. Also slightly worried about Gaia worlds having a slant for special resources, which presumably means other planet types get less; if that's the case, it might be a good idea to make Gaia worlds just a bit more common.