Stellaris Dev Diary #218 - Plantoids Gameplay

[Connacht]

I understand what you mean, but 1) aren't we talking about plantoid pops in habitable planets, with sun exposition, rather than crews on space vessels that are away from sunlight, and 2) wouldn't this imply that non-plantoid pops don't use lightbulbs at home (since they don't need energy upkeep besides buildings)?

 

[drawar]

Fungi are a kingdom apart from animals, even if yes they are closer to animals than plants.

Energy cost is to mean the need for artificial lighting to provide the light needed in societies where pops are not exposed to enough natural light.
After, in my opinion, this should be basic for plants, but it is not necessarily inconsistent, not all plants do photosynthesis, and we can imagine that intelligent plants with a higher metabolism and few surfaces contact have evolved to become primarily "predatory" to meet energy needs.

Finally, I have already given my opinion here, even if the reactions are more than mitigate...

Ultimately, I hope that each species class will have their own particularity.
It would even be a plus when we play multispecies empires and maybe also differentiate a little the utility of the planets, certain types of planets being possibly more favorable or less to certain types of species, which makes me think that it is sad that lithoids cannot colonize certain "extreme" planets, such as volcanic worlds or particular rocky planets, or even that they might be "hydrophobic", therefore lithoids would not tolerate humid planets and less temperate planets ...
In the end, I would like an overhaul of the planet system, but I am not going to expand here as this is not the place and I already have a topic for it.

If necessary, we can put an option for a free choice of portrait for those who prefer to choose a portrait independently of the characteristics of the species.

 

[Commander Tobe]

Could also adjust habitability for cold planet types (less sunlight) and increase it for warm planets (desert, savannah, tropical).

Very good thinking! This just makes a ton of sense to me.

 

[aiakira]

They can bring organic ships to Plantoids and they can heal themselves.

 

[Connacht]

I know very well that Fungi is a kingdom on its own, thanks. Plants not exposed to enough sunlight are already a thing on Earth, as they compete for it and other resources, showing numerous adaptive traits like becoming taller through generations (at the expense of investing more nutrients in growing tissues, as evolution is made of compromises; some insights here or here to be googletranslated), seedlings being transported away from the parent plant (by the wind, oceanic currents or animals), trees forming a canopy.
Again, I am cutting short a lot and simplifying, but I hope to give ideas for updates and mods, as there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamed by science fiction and fantasy novels.
In some cases there are plants that became parasitic (e.g. Orobanchaceae), growing at the expenses of other plants or even fungi. But in this case, photosynthesis is often (but not always) completely lost, since it's not required anymore: the means for sustenance are exploited from other organisms. And that's also why plants on Earth didn't evolve animal-like movements.
In my opinion, it is better to represent plantoids as sapient creatures that developed some form of very strong symbiotic association with photosynthetic organisms, which can be represented with a trait that causes a reduction in food upkeep, rather than requiring artificial light to grow (which might be already included in building upkeep). Members of a hypothetical photosynthetic civilization would keep the distance and spread, especially before they invent artificial light for buildings.
Another possibility is a planetary decision, or an empire edict, that could turn 50% of food upkeep into energy upkeep, which I think could be consistent as some kind of particular situation.
I would also introduce something to differentiate the types of photosynthesis, or the conditions in which it evolved (e.g. red algae or anything specialized to absorb more at different wave-lenghts), or other forms or phototrophy that isn't photosynthesis. However, as I already said, such a symbiosis could be portrayed for other creatures as well.
But in the end this is only a videogame, and whatever makes a playthrough fun, distinctive and balanced is okay then.

 

[Archael90]

I understand that this has more mechanical and balance sens, but more logical would be that those species (phototrophic) has reduced food upkeep, and PRODUCE energy (or increase technician job output) based on star class (Black holes decrease output or req additional energy upkeep, and pulsars produce 0,5 energy per pop with that trait).

 

[Mímisbrunnr]

Phototrophic does seem awfully weak. You are spending trait points really to just switch around what you upkeep type is - which isn't that great of an advantage in most cases, often a wash or even a drawback - even if it has some niche uses.

I'd buff it to make it more worth using.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Phototrophic does seem awfully weak.

Thats because it is. It would be fine if it was a 0 cost and not take up a trait slot.

 

[Mímisbrunnr]

Thats because it is. It would be fine if it was a 0 cost and not take up a trait slot.

That would be a fine solution. A free trait to toggle on something that is mostly neutral (sometimes a wash, sometimes a slight drawback, sometimes a slight benefit) with regards to its effects.

I also generally agree with what @Ferrus Animus wrote in post #156 https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-218-plantoids-gameplay.1484906/post-27717408.

 

[majikero]

I feel like reduced food cost has benefits. Food doesn't really need massive surplus. Doesn't matter if you have +1 or +100 as long as you produce more than you consume. Yeah energy has more demands but there is also more sources to get them. Energy production is much more efficient and you can get more from trade. As a 1 cost trait, it has a small impact of shifting your starting pops into more energy dependence. As a 1 point trait, it actually changes thing more than other 1 point traits.

It's why food-to-alloy is a significant game changer. Unlike minerals and energy, you don't really "spend" food stockpiles. Having food is a YES or NO question, you only need to produce as much as you need to keep a positive output.

0 point traits has significant game effects. Phototrophic doesn't have enough game changing effects both positive and negative to be worth a 0 point trait.

 

[Limbojack]

Is there any chance of you adding plantoid/fungoid building icons too?

 

[Objulen]

I tried using One Vision but its not worth it. Yes stacking reduced amenity usage is good. But its not worth an Ascension perk, atleast not early on. Tech Ascendancy is just too good to pass up. Or +2 Edict Capacity, which is way stronger than One Vision anyway. Because you want all those 3 ressource edicts running for that 50% base output bonus. I have added One Vision as one my last Ascension perks but when you compare all your income and science output the Ascension perk is not a huge deal compared to Tech Ascendancy and +2 Edict Capacity.

In case you are using Stefan's balance mod, which we consider mandatory to be able to enjoy Stellaris in singleplayer aswell, then Tomb World Origin is useful for Hiveminds. Because in Stefan's balance mod, Tomb World Origin is actually a good origin, providing a reduction in Amenity usage and increasing Job output overall.

I don't get One Vision right away. Usually it's Tech Ascendancy and Edict Capacity first - you're 100% correct that the bonus 50% to two resources is much better. Mixing in Hive Worlds, Mega Structures (2 perks), and Bio Ascension (2 perks) leaves a slot open to fill with One Vision, depending on how your perk to tech requirements advancement falls. HMs generally produce more Unity than they need.

EDIT: I looked over Become the Crisis - it seems that you don't get Armageddon Bombardment until you unlock the 3rd tier, which I doubt is going to be an early-game accomplishment. Alas, poor Yorik.

 

[Objulen]

Budding is just a worse Fast Breeders from what I can tell. For 3 points each pop on the planet gives +0.02, while Fast Breeders at 2 points gives +0.3, and with optimized planet carrying capacity gets another +50% to be +0.45. So considering Budding costs 50% more points it needs to hit between +0.45 and +0.675 growth to break even. This means an average of 22 to 33 pops per planet. How long is that going to take? A pretty long time, lets be honest. How much longer to make up for lost growth? Way too long. No one invests in late game growth with their starting traits.

It's fine later on, and you could do a gamey move where you make 99% of your pops budding and then disable their growth so fast breeders are growing with the budding bonus.

Budding gives 0.02 pop construction per pop working as a slave or better - so anyone who's not a criminal or unemployed, basically. Base starting pops is 24, so that's 0.48 pop construction per month, which is better than 0.3, and increases with pop growth.

 

[Maethendias]

meanwhile, gestalts

 

[Mímisbrunnr]

Budding gives 0.02 pop construction per pop working as a slave or better - so anyone who's not a criminal or unemployed, basically. Base starting pops is 24, so that's 0.48 pop construction per month, which is better than 0.3, and increases with pop growth.

That is better for the capital but worse for the initial colonies, so that's a tradeoff in the early game, as well as for new colonies. Highly populated worlds like it a lot.

 

[Kaoru Sen'nin]

Phototropic is so bad it should be a negative trait at -1.

You are trading a low essential ressource for the most essential.

Sure the Flavor is good but we are talking about mechanical game design here.

 

[Objulen]

That is better for the capital but worse for the initial colonies, so that's a tradeoff in the early game, as well as for new colonies. Highly populated worlds like it a lot.

For a time, that's true, but it doesn't take too long to build up pops to 15+. Fast Breeders probably has an advantage over Budding during part of the early game, but it'll go away by the mid-game, since Budding is equal to Fast Breeders on any planet with 15 pops.

 

[majikero]

Why not both? Fast Breeder is only 2 trait points. Sounds pretty good for a hive now that I think about it.

 

[Objulen]

Why not both? Fast Breeder is only 2 trait points. Sounds pretty good for a hive now that I think about it.

Of you want to swing the extra 3 points for Budding, it will get you pops quickly.

 

[Golden-Darkness]

little thing, the radiotrophic should also work for lithoids in some way, because the radiation could let minerals grow faster?