Habitats are nerfed to irrelevance?

[Apollysis]

I may be using habitats wrong but it seems like two housing districts is just not enough. Am I supposed to build them on systems with an inhabited planet? I just built mine in some random system.

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

Habitats are less powerful in the sense that you don't want to just spam them everywhere anymore - at least, as long as you don't have access to quasi-infinite Minerals (Machine Worlds, Hive Worlds, Matter Decompressor).

That being said, they are still quite good. Their primary use is to provide you with more building slots, which allows you to move your manufacturing industry off-world and synergizes well with the fact that you can easily get high amenities on a Habitat by building a few Trade Districts (which gives you high stability and thus a significant job yield bonus).

Trade Habitats are also quite solid - it's not uncommon to get 120+ TV from one, which means you'll generate a decent surplus of Energy and Consumer Goods for the rest of your empire (which in turn reduces M consumption, by allowing you to remove some of the CG factories).

There is also a chance that they might get slightly reduced build cost and upkeep in the future. I did lobby for it. But no guarantees.

Something can be both good and consistently inferior to alternative options at the same time; however, as you have surely played more 2.2 than I have, how do Habitats compare to Ecumenopoli? They both seem to be good at TV/consumer goods while both contributing to administrative cap in an efficient manor. By this standard, Habitats seem to be the cheaper, quicker, but ultimately inferior versions of Ecumenopoli. Short term profit vs long term profit and all that jazz. Given the huge number of AP options compared to the only 8 AP slots, you have to consider what is ultimately the superior choice, even if the inferior ones are still technically good.



I thought districts cost 1 admin cap. Is this not the case?

I am pretty sure districts increase empire size by 1, not 2.


Disclaimer: Due to my playstile (tall + Agarian Idyll), I am not a big fan of Ecumenopoli and I do prefer Ringworlds over them.
That being said: They serve very different purposes.

Ecumenopoli have two functions: (1) To provide living space for pops and (2) to provide manufacturing capability.
The idea here is to squeeze as many pops into each bit of planet size as possible. The manufacuring districts look great on paper, but are, ultimately, just a low-maintenance no-slot-use version of the regular buildings. What many people overlook is that to get the Ecumenopolis, you have to give up ALL deposits on a planet. So you lose resource production to save some resources. Don't get me wrong - they have their place. They are great for an empire that has access to lots of M and they are okay at keeping empire size down.

Habitats have two functiions as well: (1) To provide living space and (2) to provide building slots. That is a completely different niche than the Ecumnopolis and caters to small and medium sized empires that want to maximize efficiency.

Curiosity: What if someone made a TV Eucenopolis in a System adjacent to the Capital World, then surrounded that with lots of TV Habitats to make a hell of a lotta TV from one single System that furthermore was sitting there giving Pirates the middle finger...?

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Doesn't even need to be adjacent - if you fully upgrade the Starbase of your capital system, it will collect in a 6 system radius.

 

[HamHamJ]

Ringworlds can house *a lot* of pops now - they have to come from somewhere.


An Ecumenopolis is a great way to produce lots of alloys without having to pay the special resource cost from using regular alloy / CG factories.

...however, to get there you have to give up all deposits on a planet. Every M deposit you forfeit is equal to the upkeep cost saved by at least 1 (probably more like 1.5 to 2 in the late game) special Ecumenopolis districts.

If you have a planet with terrible deposits or an infinite M source (Decompressor, Machine Worlds, etc.) - sure, go ahead. Otherwise, it's probably better to retain the deposits and use regular fabrication.

Deposits don't do anything without districts and pops to work them. And you don't have infinite pops. So the question is is it more efficient to have two planets with mineral districts and alloy buildings on each, or one planet with mineral districts and one planet with alloy districts.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

So the question is is it more efficient to have two planets with mineral districts and alloy buildings on each, or one planet with mineral districts and one planet with alloy districts.

I don't see how you could possibly be ahead in the second case if you have to give up half your mineral districts.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Deposits don't do anything without districts and pops to work them. And you don't have infinite pops. So the question is is it more efficient to have two planets with mineral districts and alloy buildings on each, or one planet with mineral districts and one planet with alloy districts.

Unless you have unlimited M sources, the answer is definitely two planets with Mining districts.

 

[Zetesofos]

Habitats are less powerful in the sense that you don't want to just spam them everywhere anymore - at least, as long as you don't have access to quasi-infinite Minerals (Machine Worlds, Hive Worlds, Matter Decompressor).

That being said, they are still quite good. Their primary use is to provide you with more building slots, which allows you to move your manufacturing industry off-world and synergizes well with the fact that you can easily get high amenities on a Habitat by building a few Trade Districts (which gives you high stability and thus a significant job yield bonus).

Trade Habitats are also quite solid - it's not uncommon to get 120+ TV from one, which means you'll generate a decent surplus of Energy and Consumer Goods for the rest of your empire (which in turn reduces M consumption, by allowing you to remove some of the CG factories).

There is also a chance that they might get slightly reduced build cost and upkeep in the future. I did lobby for it. But no guarantees.

Oh wow, I never thought of that

Remember guys, the question isn't "Are Habitats better than normal planets?" The question is "Are Habitats better than other available APs?" Your mileage may vary. The "best" choice in the long run is sometimes the one that pays off the fastest, but then again, sometimes it's not. Still, I am of the opinion that Habitats have no right to call themselves an Ascension Perk. As a useful mid-game tech yes, but not as an AP.

I guess I'd really like to see Habitats moved to a Tradition unlock. I think there is room for a new tree, stuff that focuses on space construction, and I'd stick habitats in there.

 

[FiddleSticks96]

Unless you have unlimited M sources, the answer is definitely two planets with Mining districts.

The issue with that statement is that, now that Galactic Wonders unlocks a whopping 8 megastructures, one of which provides 1k minerals/month and another of which is better than Grasp the Void, Eternal Vigilance, and Galactic Force Projection combined (no, I am never letting this go, at least not until the aforementioned APs get a buff/rework), there is never a reason not to take it. Yes, it is still technically a "choice" to take Galactic Wonders, but the choice between getting 1 million dollars with no strings attached or getting a swift kick to the groin by Walker Texas Ranger is still technically a choice, but one of the choices is obviously better 100% of the time. Since this is the case, how is taking Galactic Wonders not essentially mandatory now?

 

[Zetesofos]

The issue with that statement is that, now that Galactic Wonders unlocks a whopping 8 megastructures, one of which provides 1k minerals/month and another of which is better than Grasp the Void, Eternal Vigilance, and Galactic Force Projection combined (no, I am never letting this go), there is never a reason not to take it. Yes, it is still technically a "choice" to take Galactic Wonders, but the choice between getting 1 million dollars with no strings attached or getting a swift kick to the groin by Walker Texas Ranger is still technically a choice, but one of the choices is obviously better 100% of the time. Since this is the case, how is taking Galactic Wonders not essentially mandatory now?

I think what would make Gal Wonders more balanced then is that when you take the perk, it UNLOCKS a rare tech for each wonder. So, you take the perk, and you get access to the potential of all the wonders, but then you have to choose which one you're going to focus on. And I imagine you would loose a lot of research in the near term if you try to do all 8, so by forcing you to pick one, you minimize some of the problems the perk bloat.

 

[FiddleSticks96]

I think what would make Gal Wonders more balanced then is that when you take the perk, it UNLOCKS a rare tech for each wonder. So, you take the perk, and you get access to the potential of all the wonders, but then you have to choose which one you're going to focus on. And I imagine you would loose a lot of research in the near term if you try to do all 8, so by forcing you to pick one, you minimize some of the problems the perk bloat.

That wouldn't resolve the current balance problem of APs. Galactic Wonders would ultimately still unlock the same 8 megastructures. This solution just adds an additional barrier. The value doesn't go down without a truly unreasonable amount of research time and since the megastructures are already gated behind both an AP and huge resource costs/build times, further gating them would only cause issues. The problem doesn't lie in Galactic Wonders itself per-say, although the megastructures themselves either need to be distributed amongst existing APs or not be in an AP at all and instead each be their own late game tech with a high research cost. After that, some existing APs need to be reworked so they aren't irrelevant. Seriously, some of them are so inferior by comparison to other APs that they aren't a "choice" they are a trap.

 

[Zetesofos]

That wouldn't resolve the current balance problem of APs. Galactic Wonders would ultimately still unlock the same 8 megastructures. This solution just adds an additional barrier. The value doesn't go down without a truly unreasonable amount of research time and since the megastructures are already gated behind both an AP and huge resource costs/build times, further gating them would only cause issues. The problem doesn't lie in Galactic Wonders itself per-say, although the megastructures themselves either need to be distributed amongst existing APs or not be in an AP at all and instead each be their own late game tech with a high research cost. After that, some existing APs need to be reworked so they aren't irrelevant. Seriously, some of them are so inferior by comparison to other APs that they aren't a "choice" they are a trap.

It seems like what your implying then is that each wonder needs its own AP. The problem with that is, at least currently, you can only have one megastructure per type. Which means you'd need to spend ALL your AP's to get even a handful of them.

All the AP's are useful depending on the circumstance you're in when you research them - it's easy to see some as better than others when you consider them in a 'white room', but most are circumstantial.

Building a megastructure seems like something that should be gated behind an AP, as it's a monumental leap ahead in both skill and ambition. If you then put each seperate wonder behind a tech (which you're kind of agreeing with, kind of not), what you're doing is distributing the total cost of the output over a more diverse time frame.

There's no reason you couldn't adjust the cost/time to build a megastructure against this new research cost to get back to where you started, and keep it even.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Another thing that we might stress with habitats or colonies in general is that the more places you have to grow POP the faster you grow POP. POP don't grow as they would realistically in Stellaris so it is more important to have many places to grow them than really large populations in a few places.

This is another benefit of Habitats, getting more places to grow your POP, especially if you have no more good planets to settle in the vicinity.

Another important thing might also be the habitability... many planets might not be full habitability and means you get penalties to POP upkeep, this also stack up over time.

 

[FiddleSticks96]

It seems like what your implying then is that each wonder needs its own AP. The problem with that is, at least currently, you can only have one megastructure per type. Which means you'd need to spend ALL your AP's to get even a handful of them.

All the AP's are useful depending on the circumstance you're in when you research them - it's easy to see some as better than others when you consider them in a 'white room', but most are circumstantial.

Building a megastructure seems like something that should be gated behind an AP, as it's a monumental leap ahead in both skill and ambition. If you then put each seperate wonder behind a tech (which you're kind of agreeing with, kind of not), what you're doing is distributing the total cost of the output over a more diverse time frame.

There's no reason you couldn't adjust the cost/time to build a megastructure against this new research cost to get back to where you started, and keep it even.

[your is a possessive and implies ownership, you meant you're, which is a contraction of "you are"] The issue is one of relative balance. Having all 8 megastructures behind a single AP makes Galactic Wonders the single best perk in the game by far. It is so superior compared to the others that it wins 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place and still managed to lap the others in the balance race. That is why the perk needs a serious rebalance. While I am loathe to suggest that I shouldn't get access to every single megastructure in the game via a single perk (save for Habitats), from both a balance and lore perspective it makes sense.

Consider that the Utopia trailer implied that a huge war broke out between a dozen empires because of a single ruined Dyson Sphere. These structures are supposed to be very rare, very special, and indicative of the path the building empire took. That is not how it works out with the current version of Galactic Wonders. There is no meaningful choice. Galactic Wonders is mandatory. Since that is the case, the options are to either:

a) Make ALL megastructures a late game tech WITHOUT needing an AP, with each megastructure having its own tech and all of these techs having mega-engineering as a prerequisite. Since Galactic Wonders is essentially mandatory anyway, it shouldn't even be a perk. Or...

b) Distribute them more evenly amongst other existing APs, some of which need a rework anyway to become relevant again. The perk would give you some immediate bonuses and also unlock an appropriate megastructure(s). For example, Enigmatic Engineering and the Sentry Array are perfect for each other, as are Technological Ascendancy and the Science Nexus. This makes the megastructures more meaningful and special. You might actually have a reason to go to war with another empire just because they have access to a megastructure you don't.

I'm not saying these are the only possible solutions. They are just the most obvious.

@GAGA Extrem I am very curious as to your thoughts on this.

 

[tobias.mb]

If you have a planet with terrible deposits or an infinite M source (Decompressor, Machine Worlds, etc.) - sure, go ahead. Otherwise, it's probably better to retain the deposits and use regular fabrication.

Just curious, but how would you get an ecumenopolis and a machine world?

Also, kind of off topic, but are Habitats supposed to be that far away from planets? I just build my first in 2.2 and it ended up outside the system border, since I wanted to build it around the outermost planet in the system.

Edit: After the Habitat has finished construction, it is where it is supposed to be - over the planet. Maybe only a bug while it is under construction?

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

[your is a possessive and implies ownership, you meant you're, which is a contraction of "you are"] The issue is one of relative balance. Having all 8 megastructures behind a single AP makes Galactic Wonders the single best perk in the game by far. It is so superior compared to the others that it wins 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place and still managed to lap the others in the balance race. That is why the perk needs a serious rebalance. While I am loathe to suggest that I shouldn't get access to every single megastructure in the game via a single perk (save for Habitats), from both a balance and lore perspective it makes sense.

Consider that the Utopia trailer implied that a huge war broke out between a dozen empires because of a single ruined Dyson Sphere. These structures are supposed to be very rare, very special, and indicative of the path the building empire took. That is not how it works out with the current version of Galactic Wonders. There is no meaningful choice. Galactic Wonders is mandatory. Since that is the case, the options are to either:

a) Make ALL megastructures a late game tech WITHOUT needing an AP, with each megastructure having its own tech and all of these techs having mega-engineering as a prerequisite. Since Galactic Wonders is essentially mandatory anyway, it shouldn't even be a perk. Or...

b) Distribute them more evenly amongst other existing APs, some of which need a rework anyway to become relevant again. The perk would give you some immediate bonuses and also unlock an appropriate megastructure(s). For example, Enigmatic Engineering and the Sentry Array are perfect for each other, as are Technological Ascendancy and the Science Nexus. This makes the megastructures more meaningful and special. You might actually have a reason to go to war with another empire just because they have access to a megastructure you don't.

I'm not saying these are the only possible solutions. They are just the most obvious.

@GAGA Extrem I am very curious as to your thoughts on this.

I'm still a fan of the idea of buffing EE by having it also hide your Ship Loadout from other Empires's Sight/Sensors... Exchanging EE's +Sensor Range & Hyperlane Detection for ability to build the Sentry Array might be an interesting idea to try... especially since I tend to take EE as my 2nd Perk now... & the Stellaris Meta can kiss my Shiny Glitch Ass on that.

Another possible idea: Strategic Coordination Center, Eternal Vigilance, & Galactic Force Projection all rolled up into one AP? (Galactic Force Projection could perhaps be its name since I think it'd do the best job of the 3 Names at encompassing all of them into one unified Name.) Buffing your Navy Power, Defensive Power, & Ship Speed all in one AP... now THAT'S how ya Project Force on a Galactic Scale!

 

[Swordy_]

Ecumenopoli have two functions: (1) To provide living space for pops and (2) to provide manufacturing capability.
The idea here is to squeeze as many pops into each bit of planet size as possible. The manufacuring districts look great on paper, but are, ultimately, just a low-maintenance no-slot-use version of the regular buildings. What many people overlook is that to get the Ecumenopolis, you have to give up ALL deposits on a planet. So you lose resource production to save some resources. Don't get me wrong - they have their place. They are great for an empire that has access to lots of M and they are okay at keeping empire size down.

I used Arcology and habitats as a major part of my militarization.

Once you get into the 75+ pop range, you're going to want to start using the buildings that give the +10 jobs anyway and those tend to be the higher strata buildings (generally). I only used Ecumenopolis because at that point I had demolished so many resource districts for the housing growth on my capital world that it only required a small hit. So to keep away from mass unemployment/crime, the choice is a culture planet or an alloy planet - and if you're going alloy planet then Arcology is the more efficient way to do it.

 

[Less2]

The admin cap is a joke and irrelevant. Bigger is always better. Habitats are an extra source of pop growth. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

The admin cap is a joke and irrelevant. Bigger is always better. Habitats are an extra source of pop growth. That's really all there is to it.

Another thing that we might stress with habitats or colonies in general is that the more places you have to grow POP the faster you grow POP. POP don't grow as they would realistically in Stellaris so it is more important to have many places to grow them than really large populations in a few places.
This is another benefit of Habitats, getting more places to grow your POP, especially if you have no more good planets to settle in the vicinity.

Maybe in your games pop growth is an issue, but I've never really had an issue where my pops weren't growing fast enough. My issue is generally that my production is too small to support my population which tends to explode, so for my inward perfection agrarian idyll build, I don't really think that I'll need the additional manufacturing provided by "outsourcing" it to habitats. Generally my early game planets become the manufacturing core and I expand into more planets to fill the manufacturing needs instead of expanding manufacturing when I don't have nearly enough raw materials to be gluttonous like that.

 

[Tyrax Lightning]

Maybe in your games pop growth is an issue, but I've never really had an issue where my pops weren't growing fast enough. My issue is generally that my production is too small to support my population which tends to explode, so for my inward perfection agrarian idyll build, I don't really think that I'll need the additional manufacturing provided by "outsourcing" it to habitats. Generally my early game planets become the manufacturing core and I expand into more planets to fill the manufacturing needs instead of expanding manufacturing when I don't have nearly enough raw materials to be gluttonous like that.

Speaking of this... I just learned a real important thing from ASpec in a Vid he just made... we gotta be careful not to exceed available Specialist Jobs compared to current Pop Number cause Specialist Jobs get filled OUT of the Worker Pops that generate the Basic Resources... so if we have too many Specialist Jobs & not enough Workers working, we can accidentally metaphorically shoot our Economy in the foot...

I wonder if Habitats are gonna be similar, where building too much Habitation without enough Pops to fill them could end up another way to shoot our Economy in the foot...?

 

[FiddleSticks96]

Speaking of this... I just learned a real important thing from ASpec in a Vid he just made... we gotta be careful not to exceed available Specialist Jobs compared to current Pop Number cause Specialist Jobs get filled OUT of the Worker Pops that generate the Basic Resources... so if we have too many Specialist Jobs & not enough Workers working, we can accidentally metaphorically shoot our Economy in the foot...

I wonder if Habitats are gonna be similar, where building too much Habitation without enough Pops to fill them could end up another way to shoot our Economy in the foot...?

I knew 2.2 would be like this, at least initially. By removing the player's control of their own economy and entrusting it to whatever nightmarish portion of the AI that controls sectors the economy was doomed to be bad from the start. 2.2 is a vast improvement of the game's economy but was shot in both kneecaps when player agency was vastly reduced. It's like a new shiny Ferrari with no tires or steering wheel.