• 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 #10 - The Spaceport and rare resources

Good news everyone! We are back with another dev diary! This time we’ll look at the spaceport.

Spaceports are permanent off-world installations that, depending on size, may support thousands of crew and inhabitants, acting almost as a city in itself. As the main hub for anything moving planetside it becomes a natural focus for interstellar trade and production as well as a vital strategic point in any conflict. All types of ships are built and serviced in the spaceport, from smaller vessels like science ships to enormous battleships. As it is too large for a construction ship to build, the spaceport is instead constructed by an established colony. When finished, the spaceport orbits the planet offering basic off-world defenses and the ability to construct and repair ships. The spaceport starts out small and can be upgraded in steps, a total of five times, where each upgrade adds additional toughness, damage output, the ability to build larger ships and most importantly additional module slots.

stellaris_dev_diary_10_01_20151123_station_modules.jpg


Modules are attachments that can be added to spaceports, allowing further specialization or utility. Like many other things in Stellaris, some modules may only be available to empires of a specific ethos while others may be the result of a rare scientific breakthrough. Their effects can range from additional defenses (Reinforced Hull Structure for added toughness, Fighter Squadron to combat raiders), benefits to economy (Hydroponic Farms to grow additional food, Solar Panels to gather energy) and ship support (Crew Quarters for lowered upkeep of ships while docked) as well as refining and utilizing different rare resources. This all comes at a cost of course. A fully upgraded and equipped spaceport is a huge investment and the loss of one may alter the course of a war.

A rare resource is any resource showing an abnormal or useful behavior when processed. The uses can range from financial to destructive and some resources offer multiple effects depending on their use. A source of Engos Vapor could either be used to boost the thruster speed of all ships built within the spaceport or be pumped into the local atmosphere to soothe the local populace. Monopolizing a few of these resources offers great potential for a trade empire to flourish, or a warlike one to take whatever else they desire.

stellaris_dev_diary_10_02_20151123_exotic_resources.jpg


We’d like for spaceports to be something players customize and develop according to their playstyle, either by covering weak areas or further enhancing their strengths. The decision where, when and with what modules to build a spaceport will also be heavily influenced by the planet it orbits and how close it is to potential danger.
The rare resources should ideally provide a source of power and tension in the game. We’ve seen some players go for strategies based on controlling specific resources while some players prefer a more opportunistic approach, adapting to whatever they might happen upon. Others simply prefer to grab everything they can to better control where, and by who, they are used. Why risk the uncertainty of war when supplying both sides with the means of destruction ensures profit regardless of outcome?

(We’ll discuss further details on trade at some point in a future dev diary.)

P.S. I forgot to mention, next weeks dev diary will cover the technology system!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 111
  • 45
  • 1
Reactions:
Those spacesports are cool but they have a problem of scale. If it's gonna be this big on the map, it needs to look much more detailed, other wise it looks really odd next to the planet itself. And i hope modules show up on the 3D model. Like if i have a very military-oriented spacesport it should look different than a trade-focused one.

And again i'm definetely not fan of magic resources and this "Toxic world" mumbo-jumbo. wtf is a toxic world ? What does toxic even mean ? This is supposed to be sci-fi not fantasy in space :(
 
  • 17
  • 4
Reactions:
wtf is a toxic world ?

It's a world, and it's toxic.

What does toxic even mean ?

toxic
ˈtɒksɪk/
adjective
poisonous.

"the dumping of toxic waste"
synonyms: poisonous, venomous, virulent, noxious, dangerous, destructive, harmful, unsafe, malignant, injurious, pestilential, pernicious, environmentally unfriendly
 
  • 20
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
And again i'm definetely not fan of magic resources and this "Toxic world" mumbo-jumbo. wtf is a toxic world ? What does toxic even mean ? This is supposed to be sci-fi not fantasy in space :(
Sci-fi is also Fantasy in space. I still don't understand how anyone could have seriously expected realism from a Sci-fi videogame.
 
  • 18
  • 3
Reactions:
Looks awesome, thank you for the dev diary! Looking foward to next week!
 
Well, obviously the model has to be larger than what would be realistic, otherwise you wouldn't really see it. Just like with the ships.
One advice for "realistic" feel: use a series of smaller stations or platforms around the planet, rather than that huge one, and show different modules on different platforms, like shipyard and artillery. The max lvl station could be a connected ring around the planet. Or just use Wargame style icon for oversized stations, only show small structure when focused on.

Also, the 140 fleet limit seems far too large. I hope it won't be too easy to fill it with anything larger than destroyer, or fleet spamming can be really annoying, cause game delay and performance problem for AI commander.Maybe something like Wargame's icon system for ships and squadrons to solve delay problem?

As far as fighters are confirmed, I hope you can handle it well. May we be able to design a zero fighter or a tomcat in space?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I find it a tad impractical to build ships on a space port where (since there are no raw materials on an artificial installation) you have to ship its materials from a nearby celestial body. It would be much easier/cheaper to build the ship on that planet where materials and industry are plentiful. Will this be reflected in the game?
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't think building ships on planets is a very good idea.
 
  • 15
Reactions:
I don't think building ships on planets is a very good idea.
It's what we have been doing our entire history my friend, and it's a much stranger idea to ship the materials to build the ship of to space to be assembled there when you could just assemble it where all of the materials are ready and available.
 
  • 20
  • 1
Reactions:
It's what we have been doing our entire history my friend, and it's a much stranger idea to ship the materials to build the ship of to space to be assembled there when you could just assemble it where all of the materials are ready and available.
Except it isn't. It is significantly less use of resources through a Space Elevator to do large scale construction in space vs creating it on earth, having to build it to survive atmospheric escape, use of fuel resources, etc.

Space port construction is how construction would occur, given that you have to bring the various resources from across the planet anyway; it isn't much more effort to bring it to say, a specialized space elevator designed to bring such resources out of the atmosphere. Not to mention, building within the atmosphere would restrain both the size and power of a spacecraft dramatically vs building it in space :D
 
  • 16
  • 1
Reactions:
Do you know anything of ships at all (no offense intended!)? Any fan of a Sci-fi franchise knows you build them in space (SG is excluded their ships are just so damn small compared to star-wars sized ships.) Kuat and correlia are 2 good examples of Orbit ship manufacturing.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Thanks for another interesting DD!
How many different types of rare ressources will be in the final game, or could you tell us for how many do you aim?

Some criticism: My god, the scale of the spaceport looks so off. It is as big as the planet itself and stands in no correlation to the artwork in the same screen.
I would suggest to scale it down to atleast 25% of the planet´s size.
I know the art team put alot of effort into the model and it would be a shame to waste it. Is it still possible to adjust the zoom level for the final build, so we can enjoy the details of the models and still have a more "realistic" size level like in Star Ruler 1 and SoaSE?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Except it isn't. It is significantly less use of resources through a Space Elevator to do large scale construction in space vs creating it on earth, having to build it to survive atmospheric escape, use of fuel resources, etc.

Space port construction is how construction would occur, given that you have to bring the various resources from across the planet anyway; it isn't much more effort to bring it to say, a specialized space elevator designed to bring such resources out of the atmosphere. Not to mention, building within the atmosphere would restrain both the size and power of a spacecraft dramatically vs building it in space :D

This depends on what you mean by "Build". If you mean, "assemble" then yes, that will occur in space in the future, infact quite possible we may start doing final assembly of ships in space within this century if/when we start building ships meant to be in space only. However, It would be inadvisable to build them from scratch in space and i know I've heard several engineers/scientists discuss this hypothetical. It is significantly more difficult to construct sensitive electronics and deal with heavy metals in a zero gravity environment than it is on a planet, there is also a lot more that can go wrong and having exposed electronics in space or trying to smith various metal components or the chassis in zero gravity can result in damage and severe defects in the finished product.

Unfinished ships in space would also be vulnerable to micro-meteorite impacts which could compromise the construction. Unless you're trying to house the entirety of a large vessel *inside* a space station, which would have a whole slew of its own issues and require a massive space station. Also trying to house a large amount of engineers, electricians, and construction workers from *several* industries including electronics, avionics, et-cetera would be far more difficult than just ordering the necessary components/chassis from the planetary industries/corporations which once finished are brought up to a dockyard/shipyard in orbit to be assembled by a much smaller crew that works at the orbital dock.

Even today, a plane or ship isn't built in a single location, the various parts (including sections of the hull) are built separately in factories across the country(sometimes globe), sometimes even examined in a separate location, and then shipped to a final location where all sections/parts/electronics are assembled, after which it is investigated once again before being sent to the order destination. It's simply far more cost effective and efficient to have the various components and hull sections built planetside in various factories and then have them sent up a space elevator to a dockyard to be assembled. It also doesn't require a death star in orbit to house massive interior shipyards, crew quarters, etc. instead you could have several exterior assembly area's, a storage area for the unassembled sections, and a crew area that could be not much larger than the ISS since you don't need as much crew for only assembly/repairs. Way cheaper that way.

I also have to agree that the station looks way too big at the moment, it really stick's out in contrast to the planets/map and pulls you out of the game, being half(or 1/4th) the size of your average planet would probably look better and still be readily visible.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a world, and it's toxic.



toxic
ˈtɒksɪk/
adjective
poisonous.

"the dumping of toxic waste"
synonyms: poisonous, venomous, virulent, noxious, dangerous, destructive, harmful, unsafe, malignant, injurious, pestilential, pernicious, environmentally unfriendly

Ok here is an actual definition of toxic which is not using a synonym, from wiki :

  • Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism.[1] Toxicity can refer to the effect on a whole organism, such as an animal, bacterium, or plant, as well as the effect on a substructure of the organism, such as a cell (cytotoxicity) or an organ such as the liver (hepatotoxicity). By extension, the word may be metaphorically used to describe toxic effects on larger and more complex groups, such as the family unit or society at large.


Which can refer to lots of phenomons. Is it the atmosphere that is toxic ? the water ? the soil ? Is it radioactivity ? Bacteriological ? Corrosive ? Even if we're simply talking about toxic gas in the atmosphere, it would certainly depend heavily on the species.
We measure toxicity by using an arbitrary measurement called Lethal Concentration, which is I think, measured on how fast do a same quantity of gas kill rats, and by extension this apply to humans too.
Do we assume that all the species in the universe function as humans and rats does ? This is pretty boring and restricted as far as Sci-fi goes. It would mean every species is water/carbon based lifeform breathing oxygen and that the conditions for life are mostly the same as earth.

Even Mass Effect which is an AAA RPG with a fair deal of space magic and like 10 different species goes deeper than this.

TL;DR : It's not a matter of being realistic, I'm on the same page as Wiz and most Paradox people on this. And i'm not arguing for realism sake's. I'm just saying it's a waste if you're making a Sci-fi game if you're not going to put Science into it. It's like making a historical game without actually basing it on History.
Just as in for instance EU4 and HOI4 what Paradox is best at is making good game mechanics inspired by dynamics of the real world.


Here's some more of my thoughts for those who are interested :

We don't know a lot about planets. We only watched them from a distance and sent out some probes. Much about them is still a mistery to us. But we understand the basics already, and what we usually do is define a planet by its composition.

This is another game which has a procedurally generated galaxy. It's a space combat simulator not a strategy game, but notice all of these details :

EliteDangerousSystemMap.jpg


Ok this might be too much unnecessary details from gameplay perspective. Especially in a Space Combat simulator, most of this data is irrelevant (especially the orbital parameters, which is mostly there to actually generates planets and their orbit).
And yet the basic stuff is still relevant for gameplay. The rare planets that are habitable for humans (there is sadly no other species in that game) usually have better economy in their systems both in demand and supply, which ties in with the trade system. Likewise planets that are metal rich tend to produce much more metallic resources and planets that have metal-rich rings are a good spot to mine asteroids or do some pirating on those miners.

In a strategy game what is relevant for us and the gameplay you can make out of it would be obviously different. For instance when you want to define if a planet is habitable for your species the most relevant information is the atmosphere composition and pressure, the gravity, the existence of volcanism activity, composition of the crust and surface temperature. Additional useful information is the mass and radius of the planet. This could be simplified with just a handful of parameters and modifiers. Most relevant would be Atmosphere Composition, Crust Composition and Temperature.

And this my friends would allow the game to be a lot deeper and scientific as well as making species truly interesting. May be your mushroom people are actually an ammonia based life form and prefer those rare ammonia-rich planets that everyone else ignore. Or maybe the high gravity on this colony made its population stronger giving them a bonus to production. Presence of water ice on a planet without atmosphere would quicken the terraforming process for all water-based species etc.
This is what i'd expect from a serious strategy game set in a sci-fi setting, in Space.

With such a system based on actual planetary science you don't have to invent magic properties or resource on your planets to make them unique and interesting. Instead the right mix of different elements would make them interesting.
See it like the provinces resources in EU4. A gold province will be interesting because it has gold which gives you lots of money. You wouldn't want to see instead something like "magic fantasy metal" instead, right ? Even better if you can find a farmland province which would somehow produce gold (i don't know if that's possible in EU4 but you get the idea). The mix of several elements make it very interesting.
Here it's the same a 80% metal planet would be rare and would give a bonus for resource production if you managed to exploit it, and if somehow that planet was also already suitable for your species it could also become a very important and rich colony. No need to involve magic stuff invented for the only purpose of creating game mechanics around it. You can just use what we know about the universe and then add some fantasy stuff if you want to add stuff that has not been covered by science.

Our universe is already so deep and interesting, so i really really don't see the need of relying on magic and fantasy fluff to replace things we already understand somewhat. If you have gameplay elements that you can't explain by current science, just add some fantasy stuff here as you like. For instance almost every "light" sci-fi setting would use a fantasy power-source or technology to explain how we managed to obtain FTL travel in the first place.

TL DR : It's not about realism in itself, it's about taking inspiration from reality to make interesting game mechanics and setting.
 
Last edited:
  • 17
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
It's what we have been doing our entire history my friend, and it's a much stranger idea to ship the materials to build the ship of to space to be assembled there when you could just assemble it where all of the materials are ready and available.
One word: gravity. A spacecraft with enough fuel to travel to Mars would need to be constructed in space. If it was constructed on Earth it would be too heavy to leave Earth's atmosphere. Of course, in order to construct such a craft in space we first need a bigger space station. And now you know why we haven't traveled to Mars yet :)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Paradox, please take this feedback seriously.

The planet looks fairly pathetic next to such a massive space port. I do hope there's some more thought into rescaling the models.

But... Scale those stations down. Seriously, guys. They don't need to be larger than the friggin planets to be visible. 1/2 or 1/3 of the size will be perfectly functional too, and much more pleasant to the eye.

I think the size of the spaceport could be a little toned down - currently its nearly the size of the planet its orbiting. That looks almost immersion breaking.

I think it'd be good if they did a 'size relative to zoom' mechanic, where the closer you zoom in on objects, the smaller they get in relation to astral bodies. That way if you're zoomed right in on a planet, the station won't look so huge, but if you're zoomed out, you can still see the thing and easily click on it.
 
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
No it will be like DistantWorlds so nowhere near as spammy as GC3.

Yes I got it this way too. I don't understand the GC3 comparison. The mechanics description is quite clear and gets us more on the DW side of things (which is good).
Spaceports are a massive investment of planetary and empire-wide effort, the true backbone of our space infrastructure and the source of our far-reaching projection of power. Losing a major hub to a war or another "event" could and should mean a severe setback of your nation. I don't see the station spam of GC3 here.
I like it :)