A Limit on Habitats

[Bankipriel]

We need some kind of limit on Habitats.

Habitat spam is ruining the end-game of every game I play.

It leads to over population of the galaxy which increases lag.

It devalues planets too greatly, removing the need to eXpand/eXterminate, because every empire can just build 100 habitats.


The new habitats are great. I love them.

But there needs to be some kind of limit on how many habitats an empire can build.

I don't know what the limit should be, or how it should be determined, but the current situation is not good. It is bad.

Late game Habitat spam needs to be addressed.

 

[Tamwin5]

There is a limit in that habitats take up the megastructure build slot, and they also require a significant chunk of both alloys and influence.

 

[Bankipriel]

There is a limit in that habitats take up the megastructure build slot, and they also require a significant chunk of both alloys and influence.

Sure.

The problem though, I think, is that with 20 some odd empires churning them out, the galaxy gains 100+new "worlds" during endgame. With pop-lag and the micro necessary to manage worlds, it drives me to quit most games before the broken crisis even shows up. I mean, if you're not having a problem, great. I think it's terrible though, hence the suggestion thread.

 

[Pancakelord]

I mentioned something similar in another post the other day. The idea I had was to cap #habitats to the tier of starbase in the system, plus a few for voidborn empires.

Outpost (tier 0)	No habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starport (tier 1)	1 habitat (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starhold (tier 2)	2 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Star Fortress (tier 3)	3 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Citadel (tier 4)	4 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)

In the past, whilst habitat spam was always annoying (performance and micro aside, I hate assaulting systems with like a dozen habitats + colonies in them), I'd have been on the fence about adding a cap to them. But now that we can have tiers of habitats, and tier 3 habitats are pretty good, I think it's fair to set an upper cap like this.

Always found it odd that we could build a moon-sized orbiting city in a crappy backwater solar system with no trade links or solid infrastructure, makes more sense to not allow them to be built in outpost systems (voidborn are a special exception to this, having lived and worked on habitats for so long, of course).

 

[Bankipriel]

I mentioned something similar in another post the other day. The idea I had was to cap #habitats to the tier of starbase in the system, plus a few for voidborn empires.

Outpost (tier 0)	No habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starport (tier 1)	1 habitat (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starhold (tier 2)	2 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Star Fortress (tier 3)	3 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Citadel (tier 4)	4 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)

In the past, whilst habitat spam was always annoying (performance and micro aside, I hate assaulting systems with like a dozen habitats + colonies in them), I'd have been on the fence about adding a cap to them. But now that we can have tiers of habitats, and tier 3 habitats are pretty good, I think it's fair to set an upper cap like this.

Always found it odd that we could build a moon-sized orbiting city in a crappy backwater solar system with no trade links or solid infrastructure, makes more sense to not allow them to be built in outpost systems (voidborn are a special exception to this, having lived and worked on habitats for so long, of course).

I like your idea.

I wonder, though, if it would really make a difference. I usually build my habitats in systems with 5-10 orbiting planetary bodies along my trade route, which is all fortresses and citadels. I don't see your system making any impact on the 20-50 habitats I build by late game, or on the 10-30 habitats I see most AI empires build (and largely ignore, which is a different problem).

I don't know. Maybe the suggestions I've seen for a map generation screen toggle, to just remove habitat tech from the game, is the only way to really deal with the problem "until they fix the lag" lol ... which will probably never happen, so ... yeah, I don't know.

 

[Pancakelord]

I like your idea.

I wonder, though, if it would really make a difference. I usually build my habitats in systems with 5-10 orbiting planetary bodies along my trade route, which is all fortresses and citadels. I don't see your system making any impact on the 20-50 habitats I build by late game, or on the 10-30 habitats I see most AI empires build (and largely ignore, which is a different problem).

I don't know. Maybe the suggestions I've seen for a map generation screen toggle, to just remove habitat tech from the game, is the only way to really deal with the problem "until they fix the lag" lol ... which will probably never happen, so ... yeah, I don't know.

I definitely made the numbers generous but they could be tweaked, for example making it so you need at least a Tier2 / Starhold station to build 1 habitat, as you'll have all the station techs by then anyway.

Spoiler: e.g.

Outpost (tier 0)	No habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starport (tier 1)	No habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Starhold (tier 2)	1 habitat (+2 if voidborn origin)
Star Fortress (tier 3)	2 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)
Citadel (tier 4)	3 habitats (+2 if voidborn origin)

But there have been instances where I've assaulted binary and trinary systems (which usually have the most gravity wells) and been faced with 2-3 planetary colonies and then somewhere in the range of an addtional 10-15 habitats all with FTL inhibitors. Seeing them all clumped up together like that makes it a truly miserable experience during wars. Doubly so if even a handful of them have fortresses onboard.

Having a few scattered around wouldn't be as bad to deal with IMO, a general cap of 3 habitats would go a long way in mitigating this (remember, voidborn is pretty rare unless you force spawn it yourself it'll only appear for a single AI so seeing their higher cap of 5 wouldn't be too common).

Also setting a cap like this also sets a more reasonable total cap on the number of habitats in the galaxy, currently max habitats = #gravity wells (which scales massively with galaxy size). With a starbase-linked cap it would instead be #systems * 3 (or 5), to use the smaller numbers from above example. And you'll never get a case where every starbase has a maxed out station on it, so in reality this would mean a much lower number of habitats floating around.

The only other thing that might make sense is to make them count towards the starbase limit... but that will more than likely be way too peanalising without reworking how the starbase cap is calculated, which would probably itself introduce more problems lol.
Also, the other alternative, a counter with a hard "empire-wide Habitat limit" would probably be too contrived and feel like a step backwards to the old limits on how many colonies we could have (pre 2.0 I think).

 

[MordridBlack]

just remove habitat tech from the game

there are problems with this in its own right

habitats are useful tech to have if you end up getting squished between empires and have no real way to expand your boarders but need more planets for pops/resources


the "# of habitats = starbase level" is an interesting start, but not enough

although that added bonus might present a problem of more people running voidborne empires

there are some other fixes that could be introduced to help stem the flow of late game Habitat spam

whether these could actually be implemented is a different issue


1) Increasing Habitat Build Cost. This is pretty self explanatory, after a certain number of Habitats are built by an empire, the cost will increase. Influence will cap out at 1K per Habitat (as that is the max you can have) while Alloys will keep going up. This number can be different for Voidborne empires. Something akin to 10 for normal empires and 15 for Voidborne.

2) Habitat Sickness. A unique debuff that will only affect pops living on Habitats. Non-Voidborne empires will experience this much sooner and faster [Non-Voidborne 50 years per Habitat, Voidborne 100 years per Habitat]. Pop growth will be reduced on all effected Habitats [can be mitigated with edicts or planetary decisions but not entirely stopped]. Pops will choose to migrate to Habitable Colonized Planets more frequently [Planet must have 50% Habitability for a pop to migrate].

3) Decaying Orbit. Habitats will slowly fall towards the planet/moon they are built over, eventually crashing into the world [will cause Planetary Devastation and Tile Blockers to appear if applicable]. Pops will begin migrate off Habitat to other Habitable places 10-5 years before impact [optionally can be a unique situational log event requiring transport ships]. Any pops still left on the Habitat on impact will be killed, this includes both organic and robotic. New Habitats built in the same place will have base cost values for building.

 

[Bankipriel]

there are problems with this in its own right

habitats are useful tech to have if you end up getting squished between empires and have no real way to expand your boarders but need more planets for pops/resources


the "# of habitats = starbase level" is an interesting start, but not enough

although that added bonus might present a problem of more people running voidborne empires

there are some other fixes that could be introduced to help stem the flow of late game Habitat spam

whether these could actually be implemented is a different issue


1) Increasing Habitat Build Cost. This is pretty self explanatory, after a certain number of Habitats are built by an empire, the cost will increase. Influence will cap out at 1K per Habitat (as that is the max you can have) while Alloys will keep going up. This number can be different for Voidborne empires. Something akin to 10 for normal empires and 15 for Voidborne.

2) Habitat Sickness. A unique debuff that will only affect pops living on Habitats. Non-Voidborne empires will experience this much sooner and faster [Non-Voidborne 50 years per Habitat, Voidborne 100 years per Habitat]. Pop growth will be reduced on all effected Habitats [can be mitigated with edicts or planetary decisions but not entirely stopped]. Pops will choose to migrate to Habitable Colonized Planets more frequently [Planet must have 50% Habitability for a pop to migrate].

3) Decaying Orbit. Habitats will slowly fall towards the planet/moon they are built over, eventually crashing into the world [will cause Planetary Devastation and Tile Blockers to appear if applicable]. Pops will begin migrate off Habitat to other Habitable places 10-5 years before impact [optionally can be a unique situational log event requiring transport ships]. Any pops still left on the Habitat on impact will be killed, this includes both organic and robotic. New Habitats built in the same place will have base cost values for building.

I see your point about habitats being the only option for expansion in some situations. I don't really see this being a problem, though, for singleplayer games, and if it's a toggle, than people who don't want to turn them off can simply leave them active. Providing galaxy generation options is never a problem, because people who don't want to use them can simply not use them.

That being said, I would prefer to have them active and not broken in my games, and I think your idea of increased cost is pretty good. Escalating build cost and starbase limitations might just solve the problem.

I don't enjoy being penalized in 4x games, in terms of how a cost is presented. Just psychologically, I don't want to have a penalty slapped on my colonies. Plus, unless the penalty is ridiculous, the growth will still be worth the cost, unless something like your first idea is implemented.

Decaying orbits would be very immersion breaking from the otherwise displayed level of technical ability. If starbases can stay in orbit of stars, which have much greater gravitational wells then planets, modifying and maintain a planetary orbit would be nothing. Plus, if we had to lose and replenish habitats, it would just force players to move all the pops to other planets, and then move them back, because no one is going to let a full habitat of pops simply be destroyed. It would just add to the micro-hell of pop management.

I think your suggestion of scaling increased cost, though, coupled with building limits tied to starbases is the best suggestion I've heard so far about how to deal with habitats.

 

[mammonmachine]

I mentioned something similar in another post the other day. The idea I had was to cap #habitats to the tier of starbase in the system, plus a few for voidborn empires.

I like this idea, though an issue I can see is that it would be possible to downgrade the Starbase after the habitats are built. What happens then?

My suggestion is to require the production of habitat support modules at starbases to provide the necessary infrastructure for running habitats in that system - this is far more explicit as a game concept I think, and creates opportunity costs if you are using starbases for habitat support and not anchorages. You need one module per habitat to support it (perhaps more for larger habitats), and if you are short of modules you get production and growth penalties, perhaps in the region of 80% to both if no support is present? This penalties can be split if e.g. you have one module for two habitats, each gets a 40% penalty.

 

[Pancakelord]

I like this idea, though an issue I can see is that it would be possible to downgrade the Starbase after the habitats are built. What happens then?

Add a modifier to all habitats in the system
"Warning Insufficient infrastructure to support habitat - 50% job output + 50% pop upkeep & +50% sprawl for habitat districts and pops on the habitat"
And this would only go away when the starbase is rebuilt.

 

[mammonmachine]

"Warning Insufficient infrastructure to support habitat - 50% job output + 50% pop upkeep & +50% sprawl for habitat districts and pops on the habitat"

That would work as well. You'd want a warning as well when you press the downgrade button, of course.

 

[Tamwin5]

Habitats give empires who are trapped/want to stay small a way to still expand the amount of planets they have, and thus their economy. This is important, as it allows smaller empires to not just get completely run over by expansionist ones. Rather then just add some arbitrary limit to habitats or remove them altogether, the underlying causes of what makes habitats unfun/annoying should be addressed.

The first is FTL inhibitors. The solution is very simple: habitats can't build strongholds/fortresses. They weren't able to pre-2.2, but after the update they had them. I'm guessing it was just one of the many things that the devs didn't get a chance to update for the very rushed release. Make a special "habitat security" building giving 2 soldiers and one enforcer or something.

Next is planet micro. A simple template system (when pop #X grows, build this) would be the best solution imo. The ability to automate pop resettlement via a decision would also be super useful, but paradox doesn't want to add that.

One of the biggest reasons to build habitats is that planets grow pops. Every habitat you have is an extra line of pops being pumped out. Changing the way that pops grow to be global (or really just changing it all tbh) would allow you to make it so that habitats don't give any net increase in pop growth (possible exception for Voidborne), just extra space and jobs.

 

[Kayden_II]

Put habitats under the starbase-cap.

A "tall" play-style can also look like this: Habitat-techs-/traditions-/a-perls / whatever give you not only the ability to construct habitats, but increase your starbase-cap as well. This way a "tall" player can decide either to build more ( ordinary ) starbases or habitats or a combi of both.

And if that's not enough then there's still the possibility that some features ( like shipyards ) of ( ordinary ) starbases could be given to habitats as well. This way a habitat would function as a hybrid between a colony and an ( ordinary ) starbase.

I mean after the recent rework ( habitats in tiers / levels ), they're even more indifferent to ( ordinary ) starbases anyways and I've also the opinion that this habitat-spam is a problem that needs to get limited seriously.

 

[MordridBlack]

Put habitats under the starbase-cap.

eh
that'd just create a separate problem

having to choose between having a habitat (for pops and resources) and a way to defend your territory/build more ships/etc/etc would essentially break that part of the game

 

[Tamwin5]

eh
that'd just create a separate problem

having to choose between having a habitat (for pops and resources) and a way to defend your territory/build more ships/etc/etc would essentially break that part of the game

It would certainly need some more balance, increased/redistributed sources of cap, lots of testing, maybe buffing habitats, but I could totally see this working. It's a choice that the player has to make.

 

[Hecateus]

I mentioned something similar in another post the other day.

ping!

Hey there.

To recap the idea was to minimize management headaches from managing large numbers of Habitats, by treating all habitats as a single planet, which can be expanded to by adding to the virtual planet. Though I approve of Pancakelord's idea to limit more strictly the number habitats a system can have depending on the quality of the system Base. Either way, assaulting a system with habitats would be simplified too, as they would all be considered a single planet.

 

[MordridBlack]

the main worry about all habitats being considered one planet (rather than there own individual planets) is how it would work

each habitat can build 6 districts and has the same amount of tile space for builds that any planet has

converging all habitats into being considered a "single planet" might break the game; especially as some people would need to build them do to being closed off from the rest of the galaxy due to empire squish

like what if you already have habitats and then you build more? hell this would essentially break the entirety of Voidborne empires

 

[Hecateus]

the main worry about all habitats being considered one planet (rather than there own individual planets) is how it would work

each habitat can build 6 districts and has the same amount of tile space for builds that any planet has

converging all habitats into being considered a "single planet" might break the game; especially as some people would need to build them do to being closed off from the rest of the galaxy due to empire squish

like what if you already have habitats and then you build more? hell this would essentially break the entirety of Voidborne empires

I imagine that it would work similar to how planets already work. Each system has a total hypothetical number of habitat/districts/buildings; just like a planet has a hard limit. As it is, this is already the case as there are limit to the number of habitats in any given system, unique to that system; I just don't want to micromanage them all. The weird part would be the buildings. Which I would replace with a wide variety of districts....I never did like the Buildings.

 

[Tamwin5]

I imagine that it would work similar to how planets already work. Each system has a total hypothetical number of habitat/districts/buildings; just like a planet has a hard limit. As it is, this is already the case as there are limit to the number of habitats in any given system, unique to that system; I just don't want to micromanage them all. The weird part would be the buildings. Which I would replace with a wide variety of districts....I never did like the Buildings.

What about when habitats get occupied, or destroyed via colossus? What about system wide effects? How would events work, or rebellion? The idea of having all habitats be treated as one planet just makes very little sense, and while a solution to every problem *could* be added, it would be non-intuitive at best.

 

[MordridBlack]

What about when habitats get occupied, or destroyed via colossus? What about system wide effects? How would events work, or rebellion? The idea of having all habitats be treated as one planet just makes very little sense, and while a solution to every problem *could* be added, it would be non-intuitive at best.

not to mention the calculations the game would need to make on that super habitat