Building slots should scale with Planet size

[SarahGabriella]

It makes no sense that every planet has variable district slots but only 12 building slots. Make both of them scale with planet size for a little bit more realism.

 

[grommile]

for a little bit more realism.

I think you mean "for a little bit more movement back towards 'small planets are trash'"

 

[Kapitalisti]

"Realism" has nothing to do with this. Districts already scale on how much "natural" space a planet has while buildings represent more advanced development.

 

[Bayes]

I think you mean "for a little bit more movement back towards 'small planets are trash'"

Why is it a problem that it moves towards "small planets are trash"?

 

[GloatingSwine]

Buildings are supposed to scale with urbanisation but it's too easy to get them without having to urbanise much at all.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Stellaris isn't and doesn't try to be a realistic game, so "realism" isn't a good reason to make a change to how it works.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Why is it a problem that it moves towards "small planets are trash"?

Tell us what you think we think is the problem

 

[Quinzal]

I'm pretty sure building slots being static is mostly a balance thing. Why care about habitats and ringworlds, when you could get lucky with a 25-slot planet and fill it with research buildings?

 

[Bayes]

Tell us what you think we think is the problem

I have no idea

 

[GloatingSwine]

The problem with small planets being inherently less good is that it makes less of the galaxy interesting to interact with.

In the current system large planets can be used for extraction and refining, small planets can be urbanised and have lots of buildings.

But of course you can fully urbanise any planet for like 2 cities if you take Functional Architecture and Adaptabilty. 3 if you just can't stomach Adaptability. And since industrial capacity was moved to a district as well, it's only really science and bureaucracy that small planets are optimal for.

 

[Me_]

It makes no sense that every planet has variable district slots but only 12 building slots. Make both of them scale with planet size for a little bit more realism.

Why? I checked and it seems even if Earth was half it's size it could fit thousands of research labs.

 

[firenze419]

Why? I checked and it seems even if Earth was half it's size it could fit thousands of research labs.

But you're talking realism again. Realistically, necrophages aren't a thing, ftl is probably impossible, and definitely won't be achieved by dozens of civilizations simultaneously, among thousands of other things.

Gameplay > Realism

 

[Quinzal]

Why? I checked and it seems even if Earth was half it's size it could fit thousands of research labs.

We also don't know exactly how large any one 'building' in Stellaris is. They could be the size of a coffee shop, the size of a Walmart, an industrial park, or massive sprawling complexes that rival current-day cities in size.

My guess is on the last one, since if a single pop can range anywhere from thousands to millions, billions or trillions of individuals, and a Research Lab gives 2 pop jobs, then you're probably not going to be able to fit them all in anything smaller than something you can see from orbit.

 

[Me_]

But you're talking realism again. Realistically, necrophages aren't a thing, ftl is probably impossible, and definitely won't be achieved by dozens of civilizations simultaneously, among thousands of other things.

Gameplay > Realism

You misunderstood me. My point is precisely that realism is completely impossible to apply as the OP implies, because in a "realistic" setting buildings wouldn't work the way they do in Stellaris (there would be thousands of them).

In other words

Gameplay > Realism

 

[Ryika]

The problem with small planets being inherently less good is that it makes less of the galaxy interesting to interact with.

In the current system large planets can be used for extraction and refining, small planets can be urbanised and have lots of buildings.

But of course you can fully urbanise any planet for like 2 cities if you take Functional Architecture and Adaptabilty. 3 if you just can't stomach Adaptability. And since industrial capacity was moved to a district as well, it's only really science and bureaucracy that small planets are optimal for.

I find the idea that every planet must be capable of doing something with ultra-high throughput to be rather boring.

In my opinion, a galaxy where you have large planets that you want to grow into huge population centers, small planets that don't have much use other than be resource-collection hubs for whatever resources they have (a truly rural planet), and medium-sized planets that are somewhere in-between would make for a far more interesting setting. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the smallest backwater planets that don't have any significant resources worth exploiting would grow into the biggest population centers of them all.

For me the problem really only comes into play when small planets are not worth colonizing anymore, as was the case in earlier versions of Stellaris. I know some people like that, too, but for me that's where game mechanics get in the way of the "fantasy".

 

[MordridBlack]

I find the idea that every planet must be capable of doing something with ultra-high throughput to be rather boring.

In my opinion, a galaxy where you have large planets that you want to grow into huge population centers, small planets that don't have much use other than be resource-collection hubs for whatever resources they have (a truly rural planet), and medium-sized planets that are somewhere in-between would make for a far more interesting setting. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the smallest backwater planets that don't have any significant resources worth exploiting would grow into the biggest population centers of them all.

For me the problem really only comes into play when small planets are not worth colonizing anymore, as was the case in earlier versions of Stellaris. I know some people like that, too, but for me that's where game mechanics get in the way of the "fantasy".

You just kind of contradicted yourself


If we make it that every planet has a different amount of building slots determined by the size of the world, you effectively make it that small planets are not worth colonizing anymore because why would anyone build on a size 10 world that might only have 5-7 build slots? [a theoretical example, but this should give you the idea]

By having it that each colony supports the same amount of build slots, it gives players the freedom of choice

I can choose to ignore that size 10 world, not because it has less build slots than that size 25 world in the next system, but I can ignore it because of some other reasons: Less Habitability, Less Districts, No Desire to Colonize it at this moment, etc etc



Also I don't know what you mean, even in older patches of Stellaris, I would often colonize smaller worlds frequently because I had need of them in some capacity. That could have just been a you thing thinking that the smaller planets weren't worth colonizing outside of "extra resources" or something to that affect

 

[Franton]

While I agree that planet size currently has too little effect, in the end it doesn't really matter. I'd say there are a lot of more important things that should be improved and fixed.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Also I don't know what you mean, even in older patches of Stellaris, I would often colonize smaller worlds frequently because I had need of them in some capacity. That could have just been a you thing thinking that the smaller planets weren't worth colonizing outside of "extra resources" or something to that affect

Depends on the version. For quite a while the opportunity cost in tech and tradition penalty was the same no matter how big the planet was, so smaller planets would slow down your tech rate without giving enough return on investment and smaller planets couldn't have their capitals upgraded all the way so they would always produce less than others.

For quite a long time in the 1.n days you ignored anything under size 16 because it wouldn't get a max level capital building.

 

[Ryika]

You just kind of contradicted yourself


If we make it that every planet has a different amount of building slots determined by the size of the world, you effectively make it that small planets are not worth colonizing anymore because why would anyone build on a size 10 world that might only have 5-7 build slots? [a theoretical example, but this should give you the idea]

Because that's 5-7 building slots that you wouldn't have otherwise, plus any resource districts the planet may have.
On the flip side, there's the initial investment, and then the admin cap penalty, both the planet will produce enough to become a net positive in both regards.

Those planets may not be the first choice to colonize, but you'd still benefit from them eventually.

By having it that each colony supports the same amount of build slots, it gives players the freedom of choice

I can choose to ignore that size 10 world, not because it has less build slots than that size 25 world in the next system, but I can ignore it because of some other reasons: Less Habitability, Less Districts, No Desire to Colonize it at this moment, etc etc

All of these choices are still there. The only thing that changes is what the planet will be seen as. "Damn, that small planet has no districts. Oh well, tech world!" vs. "Damn, that small planet has no districts. Oh well, it's going to be a rural backwater planet whose growth fuels my larger worlds."

Both models work in the end, and I don't fault anyone for preferring the version where they can turn that small world into a highly productive tech world, but I personally prefer the rural version.

Also I don't know what you mean, even in older patches of Stellaris, I would often colonize smaller worlds frequently because I had need of them in some capacity. That could have just been a you thing thinking that the smaller planets weren't worth colonizing outside of "extra resources" or something to that affect

No, that's just how things worked out because of how tech penalties worked.

Each planet used to increase tech costs by a certain percentage independent from its size, so a planet did require a certain size to be a net positive for your overall economy even at its peak. A size 8 planet is not worth colonizing if you need to add, let's say, 12 labs to overcome the additional tech costs it adds, since if you hadn't colonized the planet, those 12 additional labs could have been 12 resource collecting buildings while maintaining your current tech acquisition speed, whereas after colonizing you only have 8.

That's a very simplified example of course, but to my knowledge it was widely accepted that from a point of efficiency one should not colonize small planets unless one had a good reason to.

 

[Verx90]

realism ? a planet is.... big... a planet is a realy big space object .... you can build almost evrywhere , from underwater to km high ...

the fact that there is a "building limit" even if "building" in this case mean a infrastructural effort more than anything else , i think stellaris try to be quite realistic about it.

you always have to considerate pops and building not as numbers but as " significant " . it is not like there are districts that have ONLY industry for alloys and housing for ppl, there is a whole system inside of them that ultimatly (on a space society scale) have the result to produce alloys and consume minerals .

same thing for buildings , you add a certain ammount of said "building" like research labs, you simply try to add as many research lab as possible inside those " districts " . more than considering the building as a limit of " planets " you should probably considerate buildings as a limit of how many you can build in a "district" .

i know, this goes against the "planet limit" buildings , but if you accept the fact that there is a limit of districts buildable on a planet, you have surely to accept that there are planet limited buildings.

edit: to sumamarize , buildings are things that are builded in all districts. what you could ask , is to be able to differentiate from a district to another , but considering the balance that we have right now in the game , thats impossible.