• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #58: Habitats

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is going to cover a feature coming in the (unannounced) expansion accompanying the 1.5 'Banks' update: Habitats. As before, I still can't say anything about the release date of the update/expansion other than that you're in for a bit of a wait.

Orbital Habitats (Paid Feature)
One of the things we have stated that we want to address is the lack of options for building 'tall' in Stellaris: Even if you're playing pacifist xenophiles that have no interest in conquering others, sooner or later your empire is going to have their borders closed in on all fronts, all the habitable planets in your space will be terraformed, and your only option for further expansion is to grow your space through conquest. When we say that we want to enable building tall, however, this doesn't mean we're going to make being a five-system empire just as good as being a fifty-system empire: There should always be an incentive to expand your borders, but for those who do not want or simply cannot do this, we want there to options other than just stagnating.

Orbital Habitats is one of our solutions to this problem: Instead of expanding to new systems and colonizing new planets, you create new, artificial 'planets' for your Pops to live on. Orbital Habitats are massive space stations that function like small (currently size 12, though this may not be the final number) planets that (like Gaia Planets and Ringworlds) have 100% habitability for all species. They can be built around any non-habitable planet (not asteroid or moon) in your space, and there is no limit to the amount you can build other than the number of such planets you have to build them around. Habitats function exactly like a planet: They can be colonized with whatever Pops you want to live there, they can be worked for resources by constructing buildings there, and they count as a planet for the purpose of empire research costs. In order to build a habitat, you need to have researched the maximum level of spaceport technology and picked the 'Voidborn' Ascension Perk (for more info on Ascension Perks, see dev diary 56)
2017_01_26_2.png


Habitats mostly do not have tile resources with the one exception that if the planet they are orbiting has a resource that could otherwise be worked by a mining or research station, that resource will be present on one of the Habitat's tiles. Instead, Habitats have their own, unique set of buildings distinct from the normal planetary buildings. Overall, Habitats are efficient when it comes to research and energy general, but do poorly when it comes to food and mineral production. These buildings are 'single-stage': they have a fairly large upfront cost and high immediate research production, but cannot be upgraded. The reason for this is to allow for easier management of systems with several habitats in them.

Graphics-wise, Habitats use different models depending on which ship set you have selected, and each ship set (including Plantoids) has its own habitat model. They also have their own planet icon and will get a unique planetary graphic and tile set (that is still a work in progress and thus not shown below), emphasising the ways in which they differ from regular planets.
2017_01_26_1.png


That's all for today! Normally, this is where I'd tell you what next week's dev diary is going to be about, but this time I have to keep it a secret for the time being... so all I'm going to say is that it's going to be big.

Very big.
 
  • 205
  • 45
  • 2
Reactions:
You can easily win a game before you research battleships
Providing you play on a tiny galaxy and min/max to the extent that the play style is more exploit than fun, sure.

Battleship isn't too late in my opinion. It'd be nice if they unlocked sooner, yes, but given the potential power of 12 tile planets being generated at will, I can see why they aren't.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
It unlocks once you finish researching all the Spaceport tiers- so yeah, when you unlock battleships, which usually happens fairly early since you'll usually be racing to keep your fleet cap up to fend off AI aggression.

How many years is typical in a game (say endgame)? I've only I think twice managed to make it 100 years in (updates, can't keep playing, dead, etc). My current one at 100 years in is only just starting to research battleships. If that timescale is just the beginning then it would explain why I'm thinking Habitats are too far into the tech tree.

Though yes, at this point in my game Habitats would be perfect since all space is claimed by someone at the moment.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Providing you play on a tiny galaxy and min/max to the extent that the play style is more exploit than fun, sure.
Uh, no, you can do it on medium and if you're even more aggressive than I am, probably on large or even huge.
 
Honestly, if you look at other games with tall mechanics (Civ5 for example), their whole purpose is to provide alternate avenues of game victory by providing mechanics that support compact playstyles in a directed manner. Culture or diplomatic mechanics and victory in Civ.

This is where people's thoughts on Stellaris and tall mechanics get muddled. Currently the victory conditions are one of the most underdeveloped aspects of the game, to the point that it could easily be argued that the point isn't even seeing the victory screen to begin with. All of Paradox's games have a sandboxy 'make your own adventure and decide when to quit' vibe. Because of that, tall in Stellaris shouldn't currently be about creating mechanics that optimise victory paths, but rather, allow for the creation of engaging gameplay to accommodate a wider range of playstyles. That said, I am not going to complain at all if they add more formal victory options.

To use an inappropriate metaphor, Stellaris currently plays like an RPG that offers warrior, rogue and mage classes when all of those options are functionally just warriors wearing different hats. The habitat mechanics are a good first step to addressing that because the rogue now has a dagger to play with and a backstab crit. Yes the warrior could also pick the dagger up, but why would they when the sword is easier to use?
Well its obvious that you have a very narrow idea what Stellaris should be. According to you rapid military conquest should be the one strategy to rule them all and everything else should only receive some token scraps for some roleplay game.
And to correct your analogy, the habitats allow the rogue to have a dagger, but also the warrior to glue two daggers onto his sword and backstab crit for twice the damage than the rogue, making him even more powerful in relation to the rogue than he was before.

As sade consumer goods for one, lets wait and se it in action before condemning it.
That only really has an effect when good consumption scales non-linear as otherwise both the wide and, to use General Retreat's idea how they should be labelled, loser empire are hit equally hard by it and lose, random number, 30% of its minerale income which in the end does not change the relative strength between those empires one inch.
 
  • 13
Reactions:
How do habitats interact with the current victory conditions? Does building a habitat increase the number of inhabitable worlds by one, so that colonising four out of 10 planets (40%) is roughly equivalent to building seven habitats (7 out of 17 ~ 41%)? Have additional VCs been confirmed yet for Banks?
 
Overall, Habitats are efficient when it comes to research and energy general, but do poorly when it comes to food and mineral production.
Does this mean we get a new mechanic to import food from planets to the habitats, or will we simply have to live with crappy food production on the habitats

Also, from what you wrote it sounded like habitat-specific buildings are unlocked alongside with habitats. Doesn't this make conquering habitats extremely bad, if you haven't unlocked them yourself?
 
Does this mean we get a new mechanic to import food from planets to the habitats, or will we simply have to live with crappy food production on the habitats

Also, from what you wrote it sounded like habitat-specific buildings are unlocked alongside with habitats. Doesn't this make conquering habitats extremely bad, if you haven't unlocked them yourself?

The buildings aren't tech-gated at all, actually, but can only be built on habitats so are effectively tech-gated by that unless you conquer one.
 
  • 16
  • 2
Reactions:
Im really hyped for the new update and dlc cant wait to try it myself

When i was reading the post here. A lot people asked why you cant distroy them or remove them and even Wiz allready explained why i might write it again with some details he didnt told and i just assume of my base knowlege how the game work.
The habitatas count as planets so they cant be distroyed so they will most likey treaded as plants in peace deals or other dip or for victory conditions. Ifyou wonder why its because only plantes are capable of having pops so the easyst way to creat new conted is to use the exisitng content so gamewise the habitats are artifical planets/or contected to the planet they are build over like if you build one over jupiter it count as jupiter and not as a space station so you wont be able to get rid of it because you cant get rid of jupiter with the current vanilla mechanics. I guess you just invate and bomb them like planets for that reason.
 
The buildings aren't tech-gated at all, actually, but can only be built on habitats so are effectively tech-gated by that unless you conquer one.

Speaking of conquering one, how do they factor into warscore and wargoals? Also, I can see it making war a PITA (Pain In The behind, if you're not familiar with it) when fighting an empire that has lots of systems that have habitats in them because you'd have to include THOSE in the wargoals as well as the planets. I forget if you guys also said that you'd be overhauling the warscore/wargoal system at the same time, which seems like a neccessity with these.
 
Well its obvious that you have a very narrow idea what Stellaris should be. According to you rapid military conquest should be the one strategy to rule them all and everything else should only receive some token scraps for some roleplay game.
And to correct your analogy, the habitats allow the rogue to have a dagger, but also the warrior to glue two daggers onto his sword and backstab crit for twice the damage than the rogue, making him even more powerful in relation to the rogue than he was before.
Wot. Where'd that conclusion come from? The point I was angling at is that it's totally irrelevant whether a mechanic leads to some optimal path to victory - as intangible as that concept is with Paradox - or even if multiple playstyles have access to the same tools. What matters is creating engaging opportunities across multiple runs. Locking this behind a fairly specific perk does that just fine, as a wide empire can certainly make use of voidborn for flavour (you might call it a RP scrap in that context), but that would be thoroughly unappealing to the hardcore optimiser.

As for my personal preference? My ideal hypothetical empire would actually be a compact merchant state that could obtain hegemony through trade and diplomacy. I imagine it would probably make heavy use of habitats. The combat mechanics are rather bland at the moment, but I have faith that they'll age like fine wine with future patches.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
I was going to complain about no moons, but then I was going to ask if you were modifying system generation to make sure thigs aren't super crowded.

I realized that's why you can't use moons. Well done!
 
What matters is creating engaging opportunities across multiple runs. Locking this behind a fairly specific perk does that just fine, as a wide empire can certainly make use of voidborn for flavour (you might call it a RP scrap in that context), but that would be thoroughly unappealing to the hardcore optimiser.
You cannot create multiple engaging opportunities when one path, rapid military expansion, is so much better than everything else (unless you depend on the AI to be passive and stupid which it sadly is at the moment but you are then not allowed to improve it at all, to allow you to play whatever you want and easily win).
And you fail to provide any reason why for a wide empire voidborn would be unappealing as because of their size they will have a lot of uninhabitable systems they can build habitats on which will increase their population by a substantial amount, much more than what a small can gain by habitats because of the relation of uninhabitable to habitable planets.

You can of course assume that there are even better perks for wide empires. But then when wide empires would already fare batter than small empires when taking a perk designed for them, how much more powerful will they be when taking a perk which is designed for wide empires? All this just reinforces the superiority of the one true strategy instead of providing alternatives.

Habitats were one opportunity to give tall empires a chance to be on roughly equal footing than wide empires (although you can argue that something like that should not be a paid feature). But this opportunity has been missed as constructing habitats is in no way an alternative to conquering planets. It just rewards the empire with the most uninhabitable planets (the wide one) even more.
Sadly with it being a paid feature it is unlikely habitats will be improved in the future.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
@Wiz what is the possibility that enclaves will become these non-destroyable habitats so that they don't get destroyed whenever the light guardians pop up? That's the one reason why I immediately console kill them whenever they spawn
 
One thing the game needs is a way to disable a station without destroying it so that you can actually capture it.

Will Enclaves be considered habitats retroactively?
 
  • 2
Reactions: