|
The habitat nerf seems like a response to the complaints that Mastery of Nature sucked and was underpowered compared to habitats, so now habitats suck just as much as MoN 
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Is there a mod out there that lets you sabotage a habitat to drop it on the world it's orbiting? Say to quell unrest or perhaps as a faster alternative to orbital bombardment? Asking for a friend. Disregard the avatar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
Extending that direction then habitats should be a way to continue building a planet “upwards” at increasing cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
I've always been a firm believer that when you allow "realism" or at least some sort of internally consistent in-game definition for what is "realistic" for the setting guide your design you get much more consistent and automatically balanced results. When you have to start adding more and more arbitrary costs or penalties onto things in the name of "balance" something has gone wrong with your design on a higher level than the specific thing you're trying to buff/nerf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
I greatly used habitats in my recent life seeded run to basically create some ways to get more population in the mid-game before I could terraform into gaia planets. This wouldn't have changed much for that playthrough (since I was fanatic purifier and was already trying to keep somewhat small), but for any other type of species build, I wouldn't see a reason to use them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Guilliman I did not know you made a ship parts mod: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=690350384 I was just looking for one and hell yes I'm trying this one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
I think part of the issue with habitats and small worlds not feeling worth it is that there's no problem in just not expanding at all until you have an expansion that you deem an effective investment. Population growth just magically stops long before it becomes unsustainable or even a significant drag on the economy, and overpopulation is never a thing. It might be interesting if pop growth continued after all tiles are settled on a planet, with the new pop either immediately going to any free tile on another planet that it could migrate to under normal circumstances, or else stacking onto an existing pop and causing a happiness/other penalty (small at first, but scaling up as more pops stack on a tile). It would either push you to settle new worlds to keep up with growth, or pursue other options to mitigate it; such as any happiness-increase to offset the penalty, or species rights/policies available to certain goverments/from techs that mitigate the penalty for overpopulation (perhaps even to the point where it could be turned into a net gain for an empire focusing on building tall). Slashrat fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I think part of the issue with habitats and small worlds not feeling worth it is that there's no problem in just not expanding at all until you have an expansion that you deem an effective investment. Population growth just magically stops long before it becomes unsustainable or even a significant drag on the economy, and overpopulation is never a thing. I like this a lot, gives more weight to the decision whether or not to enact population controls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
I dont understand why the penalty to tech and unity costs is a flat rate. Why shouldnt it be, instead of 20%, 5% +1% per tile.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I dont understand why the penalty to tech and unity costs is a flat rate. Why shouldnt it be, instead of 20%, 5% +1% per tile. I think there's a per pop cost which is basically the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
It used to be based on your population count but that got taken out for some odd reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
Meanwhile pop count still give a fleet cap bonus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I think habs were a mistake, and I say this as guy who desperately wants a realistic space empire builder where planets are mostly useless and everyone realistically lives in space colonies. A big design point of Stellaris was that you'd never get to the point where every planet is colonizable, but habs basically do this by letting you essentially convert every single non-moon non-asteroid planet into a size 12 habitable planet. I say put a hard or soft limit on the locations you build habitats. So it's effectively an additional wave of colonisable locations that require an ascension perk to unlock. Either hard "This location is gravitationally stable enough for a moon-sized habitat" locations, or give certain planets major benefits to orbiting habitats (like from Guilli's mods) and building them elsewhere only slightly above self sufficient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Arrath posted:Meanwhile pop count still give a fleet cap bonus. an almost imperceptible amount but yes, an amount
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
I think the idea is that faster tradition and tech progression is a reward for empires that contain themselves to a small number of worlds, rooted in the concept that fewer worlds allow for the population to more easily remain united and able to exchange information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I think part of the issue with habitats and small worlds not feeling worth it is that there's no problem in just not expanding at all until you have an expansion that you deem an effective investment. Population growth just magically stops long before it becomes unsustainable or even a significant drag on the economy, and overpopulation is never a thing. pops do push out to empty tiles on other planets right now, at least in my experience and i don't think i have any mods that touch that that is, full planets have extremely strong emigration modifiers; you can test this by building a habitat when you have a bunch of full planets. the habitat will be full within months, and your planets will be growing replacement pops. expansion does actually snowball somewhat because of that, so expanding early is better than expanding later. however a more detailed pop system like what you propose sounds great. migratory flock AIs could be really irritating (as they're supposed to be, i think) if pops weren't always a net positive without some effort to make them positive
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I think part of the issue with habitats and small worlds not feeling worth it is that there's no problem in just not expanding at all until you have an expansion that you deem an effective investment. Population growth just magically stops long before it becomes unsustainable or even a significant drag on the economy, and overpopulation is never a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:I think part of the issue with habitats and small worlds not feeling worth it is that there's no problem in just not expanding at all until you have an expansion that you deem an effective investment. Population growth just magically stops long before it becomes unsustainable or even a significant drag on the economy, and overpopulation is never a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Also I think the entire idea of tech and unity cost penalties are flawed because it can lead to a situation where expanding actually hurts you. A new colony should always be good, just give diminishing returns. There's a big difference between increasing costs and diminishing returns though. When costs and increased by a flat percentage per X, you will reach a point where the output of one more X isn't enough to not put you behind from the percentage cost increase. Civ (or at least the ones I've played, up to 4) I think handled this much better with their corruption mechanic. The more cities you had, the more corruption you had which was a city-wide drain on trade and production (but not food!). But this wasn't a flat rate applied to all cities, it was applied on a curve based on their distance from the capital, and distance itself caused corruption too. So your 4 cities in a tight clump might not have any significant corruption, but the 5 cities you conquered on another continent might see half their trade and production drained away. You could build more cities and they'd never apply any empire-wide penalty, so your capital and core cities were always safe, but the newest and farthest away cities would begin to suffer more and more. Different government types had different levels of corruption, with the idea being that you'd pick certain ones based on your empire at the time and play style. You could also build courthouses and other government infrastructure that decreased these local penalties. If Stellaris moved to a model more like this it would open up so much potential fun new mechanics. A sector could act as a corruption/inefficiency reducing entity. You could have government traits and reduced it. You could build sector-capitals that could act as a local capital in terms of corruption distance reduction. Now that we are 100% hyperlane, calculating distance-from-capital is much easier and more consistent too. I also think that a civ style corruption system is much much more intuitive as a player to understand, you don't need a spread sheet to do the math on if that new colony is "worth it". A tech will always cost roughly the same, research output totals will always be comparable. I was collecting 30 engineering, now i'm collecting 60 engineering so I can safely know I've doubled my engineering research rate, no spreadsheets involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Gadzuko posted:The habitat nerf seems like a response to the complaints that Mastery of Nature sucked and was underpowered compared to habitats, so now habitats suck just as much as MoN Sounds about right. How about changing MoN edict from influence to credit cost. would fix it 100 influence for habitats is allready too much :/
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Looks more like a nudge towards actually using ring worlds. I don't think I ever did when I could just spam habitats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
In case anyone else is having trouble working it out, the Galaxy Centers mod conflicts with and breaks No Clustered Starts, as they both replace Stellaris/map/galaxy/base.txt The workaround is to extract Galaxy Centers to your mods folder (and dick around getting the .mod file correctly set) and merge in No Clustered Starts' changes to base.txt
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Habitats are hilariously powerful for power and science generation as they are, so I'm not really going to complain about them getting nerfed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Looks more like a nudge towards actually using ring worlds. I don't think I ever did when I could just spam habitats. Habitats don't count towards the megastructure building cap so you are free to spam out habitats as you build ringworlds
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
quote:* Claims no longer give opinion penalties between vassals and overlords (both ways) Thank Blorg, that was my biggest gripe about 2.0
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Is there any reason to use missiles after researching torpedoes?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Wait, they can't even live on them? Yeah, this was fun to learn when I made my home planet a machine world then watched all my cyborgs go poof. At least it wasn't a big deal, since I've been playing assimilators "wrong" I didn't have any other cyborgs to worry about in my machine empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Is there any reason to use missiles after researching torpedoes? Only if you can't get the better version of torpedoes researched. My current game I have missiles 5, but still torpedoes 1 because the next tier just hasn't come up yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
200 influence for an 8 tile habitat. 300 influence for a 100 tile ringworld in 4 segments 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
Missiles work a bit better against corvettes but it's harder to justify it with the massively increased damage from torpedoes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Whats the deal with Swarmer Missiles? Designed to overwhelm PD?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Sloober posted:Habitats don't count towards the megastructure building cap so you are free to spam out habitats as you build ringworlds Demiurge4 posted:200 influence for an 8 tile habitat. 300 influence for a 100 tile ringworld in 4 segments I'm not sure where people who talk like this about deciding between habitats and ringworlds (and today's nerf) are getting all their minerals, because Christ, if you're in a game state where non-influence resources matter so little why do you even care about the balance just build whatever makes you happy? Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Habitats had to be nerfed, it was trivial to create an infinite spiral of energy and minerals with resource replicators. The only limiting factor in building more habitats was the micro involved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Patch Notes posted:* When ordering a ship to move to a system, the ship will now automatically enter orbit of the star instead of just idling near it I'm not actually all that bothered by 200 influence habitats. I played a couple games with different styles, and I found I was just rolling in influence in the game where I purposely stayed small. You can easily get too much influence for edicts to use it all up, and if you're not claiming/settling new systems, there's not much to do with it. Habitats seem like they're being positioned as an alternative to expanding laterally, which is fine. I think the idea is that you won't have enough influence to claim or settle new systems if you go hard for habitats, and if you're using your influence for anything else habitats will be too expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Whats the deal with Swarmer Missiles? Designed to overwhelm PD? Yes, they have signfiicantly better durability than normal missiles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also I think the entire idea of tech and unity cost penalties are flawed because it can lead to a situation where expanding actually hurts you. A new colony should always be good, just give diminishing returns. There's a big difference between increasing costs and diminishing returns though. When costs and increased by a flat percentage per X, you will reach a point where the output of one more X isn't enough to not put you behind from the percentage cost increase. I haven't played Civ 4 in ages and I didn't play it all that much, but I seem to remember corruption mechanics being super opaque, which is an issue I generally take with non-linear penalties. There's no way of calculating ahead of time how much production a distant colony will lose from being distant, let alone if you start adding in factors like sector capitals or gateways or jump drives. Stellaris, in spite of its complexity, is based on fairly simple math that is readily available. Personally I've never bothered with that degree of optimization, but I'd always pick a system that requires spreadsheets to optimize over one that takes spreadsheets to understand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:I haven't played Civ 4 in ages and I didn't play it all that much, but I seem to remember corruption mechanics being super opaque, which is an issue I generally take with non-linear penalties. There's no way of calculating ahead of time how much production a distant colony will lose from being distant, let alone if you start adding in factors like sector capitals or gateways or jump drives. Stellaris, in spite of its complexity, is based on fairly simple math that is readily available. Now, when they model needing to ship minerals around, then we'll be into proper sperg territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:I'm not sure where people who talk like this about deciding between habitats and ringworlds (and today's nerf) are getting all their minerals, because Christ, if you're in a game state where non-influence resources matter so little why do you even care about the balance just build whatever makes you happy? Depends on who/what you play as, if you're pacifist or less war-frenzy it's quite easy to build up huge mineral numbers, and part of late game is figuring out how best to abuse replicators. It also depends on if you actually settle on a lot of worlds or not. My current game has me at +1500/month without even taking my sectors full income into account, and i let them go hog wild on settling planets FWIW i don't much care about habitats being made less useful, since voidborne was just a perk i had to take to get ringworlds and i largely did not build them even then, in part due to the influence requirements. I'm not sure what they're trying to actually /do/ with them though since as mentioned 12tiles is just not that much for 200 inf. I'd still build if i had nothing better going on but again 'nothing better to do' doesn't give them value. While ringworlds are slightly less efficient per tile i still greatly prefer them because well ringworld.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Honestly, I find my fun with mods that remove penalties for expanding. The curve is a bit too steep for my personal taste, particularly given that I have a bunch of crazy tradition/tech mods on. In terms of vanilla: I don't have the numbers, so I can't say anything definitively, but it definitely feels like you hurt yourself more than you help yourself in terms of technology and unity by expanding now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:I'm not sure where people who talk like this about deciding between habitats and ringworlds (and today's nerf) are getting all their minerals, because Christ, if you're in a game state where non-influence resources matter so little why do you even care about the balance just build whatever makes you happy? I also wish we could build more then one megastructure at once. Only thing that is limiting on large maps is influence. Started to build a dyson sphere, but im now upgradeing a ringworld instead. up to 26 habitats spam so far. but stopped because of "bored" Im at 2400 and sitting on 2k minerals a month, with max fleet cap. and 6 sectors with 150k minerals waiting to be spent. All vanilla, no mods.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2018 21:24
|
|