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.

 

[Longu]

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

I'd say they're both relevant as they work as a whole.

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.

That's a good idea.

*edit: premature posting

 

[Bluegrass Geek]

There's more (and better) mixed deposits that can spawn there now, but I don't disagree regardless. Any ideas for what that buff might be?

What about a unique Tile Blocker which lets you choose the resource under it when removing it? Maybe even allowing choices that normally aren't available on a planet, like Unity.

Or perhaps owning a Gaia world grants Influence, since it becomes such a major draw for tourism/entertainment throughout the galaxy.

 

[Lexo]

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.

Im the worst for doing this i have to admit and i formaly apologise.

 

[The_Sorrowful]

To change habitality system, in my opinion, other things that affect habitality such as strategic resources like engos vapor, species traits like robust, technologies like Hostile Environment Adaptation, traditional like Dynamic Ecomorphism, and ethos like hive mind should be revised too.


If those things are not revised too, the balance about them would be annihilated.

 

[Red192]

Creating a way to actively spend food.

Simply increasing the food demand of the population?
However the idea of starting to put events consuming food stocks is not bad, in the first versions it was not foreseen and so there are none

 

[fleetothemoon]

Sort of, in the sense that you can settle more planets by default, but there's less planets overall to settle, and the penalties are more severe than if you were to say play a very adaptable species in 1.6.

Does this mean that very adaptable species will be able to colonize everything at the start, including 0% habitability planets? If not (which it should not without major balancing), I think the trait cost of adaptive/veryadaptive should be toned down a bit

 

[Red192]

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.

The demand for food, however, is enough.
Its function must be just to not ignore the problem of food outpouring, And challenge only in extreme cases of difficulty, such as a particularly intense war

 

[Bluegrass Geek]

To change habitality system, in my opinion, other things that affect habitality such as strategic resources like engos vapor, species traits like robust, technologies like Hostile Environment Adaptation, traditional like Dynamic Ecomorphism, and ethos like hive mind should be revised too.


If those things are not revised too, the balance about them would be annihilated.

Check out the 1.8 teasers thread. Hive Mind is apparently being reworked, so I expect they're considering these things.

 

[Garfazz Steamfang]

Does this mean that very adaptable species will be able to colonize everything at the start, including 0% habitability planets? If not (which it should not without major balancing), I think the trait cost of adaptive/veryadaptive should be toned down a bit

Yes that why i ever be concerned at. Just take extremly adaptable and pick the +20% habitability techs (the 5 ones which give you +5% every time) and you gain +40% habitability. With this you can just colonize everything without ever having the needs to terraform planets... This thing and the genemodding climat change (which is cheaper and faster than terraformation) are wasting the terraformation mechanic. Even if they want to down the number of habitable planets by two if genemodding climat change and those habitability perks remain terraformation is going to stay useless as it ever was since the start of the game.

I still thinking that terraforming should be the only way for you to adapt habitability for your pops... I mean is that what the game does in every 4x, conveniance terraformation for production or pops.

The Habitability techs need to go and, maybe genemodding would be a way to give your pops traits like: adaptable, extremly adaptative or robust for a massive habitability gain and bypass the need of terraformation mechanics... For exemple you can only pick adaptable when you create a specie but can upgrade it to extremely adaptable with genemodding and to robust with bio ascension. It would be a way to gain up to +30% habitability and have, at least 50% habitability on every planet, making a way to bypass the need of terraforming without need to have a climat change option... I dunno.

For exemple the Bio ascension path give you 6 or 7 new traits and upgrades of some (extremely adaptative,rapid breeders...) maybe we can use genemodding in general for this: enhance your specie. For exemple make some talents unique to genemodding tech, like they have done for the bio one. Like this it would be an important tech without the need of climat change. Adaptable is really a strong talent that make you able to bypass habitability inconveniance so... my guess is, like i said before, you can pick it during specie creation but can only upgrade it to extremly adaptable with genemodding and to robust with bio ascension. It would stay the same but give the player the opportunity to bypass terraformation needs with investissement in gene technology. Unique traits (like nerve stapple or delicious) accessible only with genemodding and bio ascension would be an opportunity to to make the tech truly usefull and quite unique without having the need to research it for climat change and better terraformation mechanic.

 

[LordKevster]

Please, please, please introduce an anomaly overview where all unresearched anomalies are easily found since they sometimes disappear from the star map.

 

[Rezca]

What about a unique Tile Blocker which lets you choose the resource under it when removing it? Maybe even allowing choices that normally aren't available on a planet, like Unity.

Or perhaps owning a Gaia world grants Influence, since it becomes such a major draw for tourism/entertainment throughout the galaxy.

Whatever it is, I'd like it to extend to Gaia worlds you terraform yourself too, since the 100% habitability is a great thing if you stumble upon an unguarded one in the wild, but to me doesn't seem like something that - on its own - is worth spending generations converting a planet into one.

In MoO2 Gaia Worlds were better at producing Food than other planets, but maybe something a little more? Influence (or even a trickle of Unity) like you suggested perhaps.

 

[NemoRow]

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.

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.
I mean, at this point, with major habitability changes anyway, perhaps rethink those world types?

I think it's better to have all 3 groups (Food/Minerals/Energy; Society/Engineering/Physics) within each of the planet climate groups as @CNightwing have proposed. This way any species have a good-enough habitability candidate for their needs. Otherwise for a long period of game race is 'stack' to some kind of those minor bonuses and there is no strategical possibility to use those differences.

As an example Continental species need more Energy so it colonies Tropical world with habitability of 60%. (Instead of going for another group with habitability 20-40%)

Also I propose a different habitability calculation mechanism: we connect our grid of 9 climates into a sphere and for movement inside of columns we pay 20% of habitability, while for movement between the rows we pay 40% habitability.
Example: Origins is Continental. Both neighbors within the same column (Ocean and Tropical) are movements within a column thus habitability is 60%. (80-20)
Neighbors within row are Alpine and Savannah with habitability of 40%. (80-40)
The furthers ones are Arid, Desert, Tundra, Arctic with habitability of 20% (80-40-20)

I can see no reason why for Continental Species within the same class of planets Tropical is more/less habitable then Ocean. and so on. The way I propose it I think it corresponds to our natural feelings about habitability - how much common do we have with another type of worlds.

 

[Keltosh]

I have not read all 17 pages, so I don't know if these concerns have been voiced already.

I am however extremely worried by the "halved number of habitable planets" change. In theory it's a neutral change because it affects everyone, but it's not really so. Not when a fallen empire awakens, and you have half the fleet cap as you had before because you have half the worlds you had before. Say hello to the 1 million fleet strength doomstack.

Theoretically this could be adjusted, but until it has been done I will be worried about this.

 

[Artaios Greybark]

I like the new direction. Thanks!

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

I have not read all 17 pages, so I don't know if these concerns have been voiced already.

I am however extremely worried by the "halved number of habitable planets" change. In theory it's a neutral change because it affects everyone, but it's not really so. Not when a fallen empire awakens, and you have half the fleet cap as you had before because you have half the worlds you had before. Say hello to the 1 million fleet strength doomstack.

Theoretically this could be adjusted, but until it has been done I will be worried about this.

Yup I agree with this. Playing on an 800 star galaxy, 0.5x the number of habitable worlds, the game quickly became waiting for research to finish because colony expansion and development reached their limit. Very boring gameplay. Really highlights the flaws in the current mechanics.

 

[Mavkiel]

I actually love the proposed changes, I play the bare minimum of habitable planets possible on a 1000 star map.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they haven't discussed doing away with the slider, its just the default will be lower then where it rests currently, and lower then it could be set to manually. In other words, you could still just push the slider to the right and get the same experience.

 

[Yves Santos]

Why?

well,this idea comes from another game that i was playing in this game called Cosmos Quest you have the Humanity,and you envolve into an Posthuman from the posthuman you "Ascend" into a level of Creator

 

[Peko?]

well,this idea comes from another game that i was playing in this game called Cosmos Quest you have the Humanity,and you envolve into an Posthuman from the posthuman you "Ascend" into a level of Creator

Alright. But what would the Kardashev scale do in this game? Why would the game be better if you introduced it? Is it just a measure? Now you're at I, then you're at II, and then you never reach III.

 

[Longu]

I actually love the proposed changes, I play the bare minimum of habitable planets possible on a 1000 star map.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they haven't discussed doing away with the slider, its just the default will be lower then where it rests currently, and lower then it could be set to manually. In other words, you could still just push the slider to the right and get the same experience.

Yeah, I agree, I already play on x2 habitable world games so I'd just bump it to the x4. I do however think that due to this they should double the slider amount just so we can continue to have the feel of the absurd x5 with a new x10.

 

[Mavkiel]

Yeah totally not opposed to that, different strokes for different folks. One thing I wish they would add though is a tomb world setting. Its somewhat annoying to have to manually edit txt files to tweak that to my personal preferences.

I like lowest amount of uninhabitable worlds, with a fair number of tomb worlds sprinkled in. To give the galaxy the look like its been through the grinder a few times. And it makes finding a nice planet that much more enjoyable. It also gives the galaxy the sort of babylon 5 feel, with fallen empires here and there and abandoned worlds.

Lastly, I somewhat loath the current sector system (which explains my preferences). Having more systems feels like a punishment rather then a good thing. Negatives to unity/research I could at least live with. The inability of sectors to build their own fleets to defend themselves with is another thing. I *hate* having to police areas I get little benefit from.

Side note: How neat would it be for sectors to build their own fleet, and if the population becomes unhappy enough to revolt and form their own empire. Taking all the tech and toys you paid for.