Beef with habitats

[stumason]

Like most things in Vanilla Stellaris, they're a bit bland and boring. If you're not hung up on achievements or Ironman, there are a fair few mods out there that really do help, with new buildings etc - I can suggest some if you're interested. Along with other mods which add planetary benfits to orbiting habs, they really can become very useful.

But if you only have 1 mod, I'd recommend one that allows you to build special Urban/Megalopolis buildings, they provided 10/20 housing each, meaning you can concentrate more on providing jobs rather than homes. It might be a tad OP, if I'm honest, but I use them all over my Empire and means I am not wasting valuable districts on building homes/cities. They work on habs too.

 

[LeanneKaos]

I think the main problem people have habitats is they used to be really powerful, especially for research or energy bu have been repeatedly nerfed.

That being said, they have their uses. I think their main utility is either fortresses for extra fleet cap, resource silos for extra storage or production of strategic resources, so your can free up slots on your planets for research complexes, etc. Or maybe some extra farming, but I never needed to do that. All of which are of limited value unless you are playing fairly tall.

They can also be used for alloy / cg production if you don’t have archology yet.

Or are a gestalt and therefore can't have arcology at all

It's just goofy that hive minds and machine integrations are able to build housing buildings on them, but default empires can't. Makes no sense at all to me.

Logically speaking, you're right. I mean, I could probably come up with a semi plausible (for me at least) post-hoc rationalization for it but it'd be stretching a bit.

But since gestalts don't get Arcologies (unless they luck out on the precursor chain or steal one) I don't really mind that we get slightly better use out of habitats.

If I keep taking planets I will never need to make Habitats.

I guess with the AI in it's current state that's not really *much* of an "if." But against more competent opposition, it's not an option you can so easily take for granted. And if you *are* in a position where you can take it for granted... you've effectively won already, and the rest is just going through the motions.

The option with the lowest cost and highest gain always wins, and Habitats are high cost and low gain compared to the many other options available to me. That being the case, there is never a reason to pick Voidborn because there will always be a better AP for me to pick.

Like... what?
It might be different for a regular empire, but I usually wind up eventually picking Voidborn with my Machine empires because I've already picked all the better options and none of the remaining options seem all that great either.

 

[Secret Master]

Every single thing I've heard that Habitats can do, a size 10 planet can do but better, cheaper, and faster.

You can build size 10 planets anywhere you want in your empire?

Or are a gestalt and therefore can't have arcology at all

Gestalts can take Fen Habbanis.

 

[YellowGelni]

Habitats are not as bad as many on the forum claim. (but hey the forum regulary fails at middele school math so what can one expect) What is ture is that compared to pre 2.2 habitats were nerfed in to the ground but for pre 2.2 the answere to "Do I want habitats?" was yes and to "How many habitats do I want?" the answere was all. Therefore pre 2.2 habitas should not be the benchmark for rating 2.2 habitats. The true problem for habitats 2.2 introduced are ecumenopoli which perform almost the same job as habitats (consumergoods and alloys production) but doing it better ... according to the forum. (I have not seen a different opinion yet)

Some little rundown on the comparison between habitats + and ecumenopoli - :

+ Ascension synergy, habitats go realy well with Galactic Wonders and Master Builders which run an internal synergy on their own and are rather strong right now.
+ Habitats boost pop growth since they open a new planet and especialy in the early game you are limited by the amount of pops which can work jobs not the amount of potential jobs.
+ Habitats have the better spot in the techtree since the station tech helps defensive play which again helps for the habitat setup while the housing tech required for the ecumenopolis is rather useless. (might be wrong on this point tho)
+ Habitats are not limited by the amount of habitable planets available.
+/- Habitats are cheap/influence if you go by the base convertionrate of 2 : 1 you can build 3,3 habitats for the 20k minerals the ecumenopolis costs but only one habitat if you go by the 200 influence cost.
+/- The upkeep cost, this one is tricky since an habitat does not cost any potential districts on any planet but some alloy per month while an ecumenopolis can cost a lot of resource districts but there are also rather empty planets out there.
+/- Habitats are small in size so in combination with the low oportunity cost you can easiely fit in another one if needed while an ecumenopolis is a bigger comitment
+/- Habitats utilize slaves and other housingcost reductions realy well helping them unlock buildingslots and gain power, ecumenopoli only do so to a lesser extend.
- Ecumenopoli do not rely on other ascension perks
- Ecumenopoli are more efficient (specialisation bonus and lesser ac cost)
- Ecumenopoli are the new cool toy. We already had habitats before and many players want to test out the new city planets which will fill the role the habitats could have.
​

tl:dr Habitats have a role in Stelaris 2.2 which they fulfill but currently they are outshined by ecumenopoli due to their partial superiority and easier use but lets be honest you would be realy disapointed if it were the other way around.

If you just need some setups for working habitat layouts just ask. I am sure some users will have a few working ones.

 

[Riftwalker]

you can put fortresses on them right? they kinda become a place a hard to remove ftl inhib wherever i want without needing to use a space station cap on it.

 

[CrowScape]

The answer: Livestock, my lad. Put livestock on your habitats.

In all seriousness, habitats can be a good place to put livestock for certain kinds of empires (hive minds in particular). Even more efficient if you ran biological ascension and you nerve staple the livestock. Then they don't generate tons of unhappiness.

Eh, not really. You really only need a single planet for that, while voidborn takes a whole ascension perk.

It did make sense before 2.2, when you needed a free planetary slot for every pop. It could reduce a lot of microhell when you turned large swaths of conquered territory into ghost systems overnight, denying the enemy the hope of ever freeing their now-delicious pops freshly relocated deep in your territory. But post 2.2 it's unnecessary.

The true problem for habitats 2.2 introduced are ecumenopoli...

Don't have megacorp so don't have ecumenopoli. I can vouch that habitats are still useless.

 

[Kayden_II]

So, the purpose is, that habitats are supposed to support a "tall" play-style ? ...

Sorry, but if I think about playing "tall" then I relate this to A. my empire-sprawl (and B. my administrative capacity and C. my empire cohesion): A. Empire Sprawl ("ES") is influenced by the number of star-systems (+2 "ES" per one), colonies (+2 "ES" per one), branch-offices (+2 "ES" per one) and districts (+1 "ES" per one). B. Administrative Capacity ("AC") is influenced by (specific) ethics, civics, authorities, techs, traditions and a-perks. C. Empire Cohesion ("EC") is influenced by the number of star-systems (+1 "EC" per one), (better) starbases (+3 "EC" per one), outgoing hyperlanes (-1 "EC" per one) and isolated star-systems (-3 "EC" per one). So, if habitats are supposed to support a "tall" play-style then isn't it rather a question how the "ES" (and the "AC" and the "EC") should be affected by habitats ? ...

01. As far as I know, a habitat still counts as a colony, so that we still get +2 "ES" per habitat, but this could be changed, that a habitat could count as a (better) starbase instead. ( This would even restrict the total amount of them in a "reasonable" manner since they would be tied to the starbase-capacity ). ( And yeah, I know, that it's a big deal, that habitats = (better) starbases ). 02. As far as I know ( and in contrast to districts ), buildings don't increase the "ES", so that it could just be allowed to build buildings on a habitat. ( And come on: It's already an artificial structure + It's already called a "habitat": Just grant it XX housing right from the start ( without any buildings ( or districts ( currently ) ) to be needed ). 03. I haven't really a clue how the "ES" from the number of star-systems should be affected by habitats. ( And yeah, I know, that it's "ingenious" to build as many habitats as possible in as few star-systems as possible ). 04. Dito as above in regards to the "ES" from the number of branch-offices ...

05. I don't really want to force a rather unintuitive connection between the "AC" and habitats ...

06. In reference to my point 01, each habitat would increase the "EC" (+3 "EC" per one) since a habitat would count as a (better) starbase, but I haven't really a clue how the "EC" from the number of star-systems, outgoing hyperlanes and isolated star-systems should be affected by habitats ...

Long story short:
To support a "tall" play-style, it's maybe a better idea to look for possibilities how the "ES" or / and the "AC" or / and the "EC" could be affected by habitats.

 

[DeathSheep]

My personal opinion is that post-2.2, one of the best uses for habitats was gaming sector creation. This isn't so much the case now that sectors extend three jumps from their capital instead of two, but before that change was made, a well-placed habitat could be the difference between having three one-planet sectors or having one sector with three planets and a habitat.

 

[klopkr]

I thought the point was to just offload everything that can be built on the habitat and turn your cities into agritopias.

 

[VanguardKing]

I generally take voidborn every game just for the unlock of master builder and mega-engineering, and I can tell you they are utter garbage barring a handful of fringe uses.

I can stick sanctuaries on them for my bio-trophies is the only legit good use I've found for them. If you mod both bio and tech for reduced hab, you can get an extra four housing and an extra three building slots per upgraded sanctuary. You can completely ignore the districts if you like and just use it as a 2 admin cap planet. Also frees up planets to Machine world.

My personal opinion is that post-2.2, one of the best uses for habitats was gaming sector creation. This isn't so much the case now that sectors extend three jumps from their capital instead of two, but before that change was made, a well-placed habitat could be the difference between having three one-planet sectors or having one sector with three planets and a habitat.

Been using them for that too. Can't say using them to get around the generally bad sector system is a use justifying the ap tho. On a side note, needing to abandon and resettle planets to redraw the borders is utter nonsense, particularly after conquering with a total war CB variant.

 

[Defiler99]

Imagine if they didn't take an AP slot to unlock. I think we'd still be having discussions about whether they were good enough to bother building.

 

[Millbot]

Imagine if they didn't take an AP slot to unlock. I think we'd still be having discussions about whether they were good enough to bother building.

True, but I think at that point, if someone proved the value of some of the niche work arounds. There would probably be less discussion about them because at the end of the day, if you don't like them or don't pick the right setup. You don't have to use them and, maybe outside of the research costs, it's not a terrible loss to see it sitting there uselessly in your construction ship build options.

Biggest issue is that it's costs a perk slot and there are no take backs. So it feels rather crappy for a new player that doesn't know the in & outs of how to use them. Though I'd argue, for most, even once they figure out the best setups for them, they still feel like a crap choice. Sure some of the alternatives aren't mind blowing, but I feel like I get more mileage out of them for far less effort.

Can't help but feel part of the issue, is the devs don't quite have a solid vision on what habitats should be, nor does it help that they can be spammed. Now whether it's a good idea or not, is another thing, but does make it hard to justify giving them a good niche. I'd argue from a performance stand point, it would be better to put a cap on them (solves the issue of the AI spamming them, without having to lock it out of the perk) and make it easier to give it a niche. As a perk, if I can pick it with my empire type, there should be an obvious floor point where I feel the investment is worth it. Once that's in it can have a ceiling that is contingent on player knowledge, skill and empire type. Like it's fine if it ends up being better for certain empires and is still not in the top 10 for others. Right now it's crap for some and requires a ton of research and/or trial and error to make work.

 

[Yandersen]

To justify true value of habs we may try to imagine they were removed from the game completely. Now, in what situations we feel cornered lacking for that option?

Honestly, right now I wish them gone, since I don't build any, but AI spams overpopulated habs, and there is no option to destroy them. But buying the Apocalypse DLC just for that... Oh well...

 

[Slynx]

They do also work well as giant FTL inhibitors - put an upgraded Fortress on them, add a Shield Generator, fill the remaining slots with Strongholds and watch the enemy fleet despair as it has to bomb 50+ defence armies into submission. Meanwhile you'll also get a decent amount of Fleet Capacity from all the soldier jobs.

this is just devious (especially since you can build multiple habitats in a choke points.

If I keep taking planets I will never need to make Habitats.

but why don't you just do both? capture 5 planets while building 5 habitats. and develop them simultaneously.

 

[Xshu]

I think the bottom line for habitats is that, whatever Paradox is trying to make them into, it's clear the player base doesn't want them to be that. You can list all of the reasons they're great until the cows come home, but the players aren't building them because — whatever they're supposed to do — they're just not fun anymore.

I mean, Christ, the ascension perk is called Voidborne. Do these niche-use habitats sound like the kind of thing a species which considers space its home would build?

 

[Urza1234]

I think the bottom line for habitats is that, whatever Paradox is trying to make them into, it's clear the player base doesn't want them to be that. You can list all of the reasons they're great until the cows come home, but the players aren't building them because — whatever they're supposed to do — they're just not fun anymore.

I mean, Christ, the ascension perk is called Voidborne. Do these niche-use habitats sound like the kind of thing a species which considers space its home would build?

Interesting insight. What direction would you suggest?
From what you're saying, I can almost infer that you would want Voidborne to be some sort of Ascension path that modifies your main-species habitability or something, which could be interesting.

 

[Xshu]

Interesting insight. What direction would you suggest?
From what you're saying, I can almost infer that you would want Voidborne to be some sort of Ascension path that modifies your main-species habitability or something, which could be interesting.

I do think that would be interesting, but I don't think it's necessary to go that far. Just let the districts provide their own housing for jobs like every other district in the game does, and stop needlessly limiting what buildings can be created there. Yeah, I can see why I can't mine or farm on a habitat, but is there some reason I can't build a lab or fancy apartment building on one? And why did they lose their ability to make asteroid mining bays?

The most fun part of using habitats, to me, was doing a Life Seeded run and then spreading out from my homeworld to become a species that lives primarily on structures of its own creation. This is now utterly impossible, and Paradox seems to have decided that a Voidborne species should really only make a handful of specialized habitats and that mass producing them is dumb. You should only make a lot of habitats if the total blandification of the Rogue Servitors didn't stop you from playing them, in which case they still make good bio-trophy homes.

 

[Urza1234]

I do think that would be interesting, but I don't think it's necessary to go that far. Just let the districts provide their own housing for jobs like *every other district in the game* does, and stop needlessly limiting what buildings can be created there. Yeah, I can see why I can't mine or farm on a habitat, but is there some reason I can't build a lab or fancy apartment building on one? And why did they lose their ability to make asteroid mining bays?

The most fun part of using habitats, to me, was doing a Life Seeded run and then spreading out from my homeworld to become a species that lives primarily on structures of its own creation. This is now utterly impossible, and Paradox seems to have decided that a Voidborne species should really only make a handful of habitats and that mass producing them is dumb.

Well, Habitats, like half of everything else in the game, had to be reworked somewhat for 2.2 I guess. Perhaps the Devs simply missed the mark, but are not married to this new version of them.

They buffed Machines back up when the community complained loudly enough.

 

[208]

The answer: Livestock, my lad. Put livestock on your habitats.

Your answer to the OP's beef with habitats, is habitats with beef?

 

[Cahokia]

I think people underestimate the value of additional place to grow pops. Pops are king in 2.2, nothing else comes close to the value of pop growth and additional places to grow pops. Habitats are fantastic for growing pops and relocating them to different worlds, even if you are egalitarian (which I usually am) taking that happiness hit from the law change is worth it (it balances out to them being meh which means no effect). There is nothing that comes close to growing your empire faster economically and militarily than pop growth/additional places to grow pops. You snowball out of control very easily the more pops you have.

I have played many games where I limit myself to less than 20 systems for the challenge and I still am on a magnitude larger scale than any other empire in the game with more pops than the next 5-10 largest empires on the harder difficulties as I hit late game. And its all thanks to habitats and then later ringworlds that can fill up multiple ecumenopoli with the needed pops (and the AI having difficulty but that's another matter). They allow you to have almost the same number of "planets" to grow pops as a good player conquering wide which means you are growing at almost the same rate. Yes you can grow faster by conquering if you are good but not much faster honestly since the bottleneck for both is influence. In my hive mind games I play exclusively wide and I average a stronger empire but it largely depends on the RNG of what empire types spawn nearby. (Also the best way to play wide is gestalt consciousness for those uncapped resource districts yes please)

As other evidence look at the Tarkadian Utopia in the dev clash. They were trailing the USSR yes but not by much at the start of the game which is incredibly impressive since the USSR used absolutely broken mechanics that were ridiculously overpowered to grow pops which were later patched but not before the damage was done. He would have easily outgrown the Kaiser had the Kaiser not done that, which goes to show you how good tall play is in this game. His habitat rush payed off very well and its his habitats, not his early ringworld that allowed him to grow at a faster rate than everyone else (excluding cheating USSR). And honestly the Tarkadian Utopia could have grown a lot bigger had he not given away so many resources to the other players (for instance the Cyber horses who have now surpassed him thanks to his generosity).

All this to say I think habitats are in a very good place right now, you have more building slots (which are more valuable than resource deposits in my opinion) and can build them to be a net benefit to your economy not even counting the additional pops that grow there. So I would say they are the key feature which allows a tall empire to keep up with wide empires, and depending on the players, surpass them. They are not meant to be used in a wide play style since additional planets/systems are worth more there, but the efficiency they give to tall play styles allow them to punch well above their weight/empire size.