I get it. You want to add orbital deposits on habitable planets

[Attitude Adjuster]

Colonised a rich minerals world earlier
Pre colonisation it had a normal complement of districts, after colonisation only the +4 mining districts were left.

Is this related to this do you think?

 

[sillyrobot]

"* Several planetary modifiers now force a good mineral or energy deposit to spawn"

It's the last item under # Balance on the 2.2.4 notes.

Thank you! That makes me feel better!

You know, I went back a reread the changelog twice looking for an applicable entry. I somehow missed it anyway.

 

[Iosue Yu]

Colonised a rich minerals world earlier
Pre colonisation it had a normal complement of districts, after colonisation only the +4 mining districts were left.

Is this related to this do you think?

We are talking about this all along.

 

[Iosue Yu]

"* Several planetary modifiers now force a good mineral or energy deposit to spawn"

It's the last item under # Balance on the 2.2.4 notes.

Yes. But this change also includes wanting to add some orbital deposits onto habitable planets. And therefore I don't get it.

 

[Iosue Yu]

As far as I can tell from searching for the keyword 'orbital' in vanilla events, there is no longer a distinction between orbital and non-orbital deposits. Therefore, habitable worlds are apparently not able to have orbital deposits now.

I can forgive it. The amount of deprecation in the 2.2 update is frustrating. I guess the scripters are trying to catch up along with the modders and are equally as confused as we are.

edit - It was the release rush, I suspect. A bunch of stuff probably wasn't documented well internally and here's an example of the consequences.

From what I can tell.

Deposits have been distinguished by is_for_colonizable at their definitions. The adding method is the same regardless. And Somehow this check doesn't actually mean anything as you can see, the orbital deposit has been added to a habitable planet and therefore getting features wiped by clear_deposits.

 

[Losttruppen]

I don't get it.

That quote was in reply to someone else's question.

What don't you get? Space resources have been nerfed repeatedly in the last few patches while the new economy demands more planets for minerals until the very late game. It's also weird that I can mine all other types of stellar bodies except ones that some space-worm might like to inhabit.

This seems like an attempt to balance the fact colonizing everything you can is the only source of minerals until Matter Decompressor or colossus. The only problem is how lame it is seeing the same +7 minerals on all these modifiers when even the best anomaly awards are +6. I don't think they were wrong to try, they just implemented it poorly. This is a game about space empires, managing planets should not be the only way to play.

 

[AlphaAsh]

From what I can tell.

Deposits have been distinguished by is_for_colonizable at their definitions. The adding method is the same regardless. And Somehow this check doesn't actually mean anything as you can see, the orbital deposit has been added to a habitable planet and therefore getting features wiped by clear_deposits.

add_deposit doesn't care. is_for_colonizable applies to galaxy generation. It's not a gate on the scripted effect.

 

[Iosue Yu]

add_deposit doesn't care. is_for_colonizable applies to galaxy generation. It's not a gate on the scripted effect.

Yes. But it gives us enough hint to read their intentions - they want to add orbital deposits onto habitable planets.

And somehow, they need a new method to add it as now it just breaks the planet.

 

[AlphaAsh]

Orbital deposits on habitable planets has been deprecated and the scripter didn't realise that.

It is possible for some non-habitable planets to generate these modifiers. So either much more complex scripting is needed, or habitable_planet = no needs adding to the events.

We don't know the actual intent, so can debate in circles ad infinitum. What we do know is that currently, adding these deposits to habitable planets breaks them. And is therefore wrong.

I think the scripter just forgot habitable_planet = no.

 

[Iosue Yu]

Orbital deposits on habitable planets has been deprecated and the scripter didn't realise that.

It is possible for some non-habitable planets to generate these modifiers. So either much more complex scripting is needed, or habitable_planet = no needs adding to the events.

We don't know the actual intent, so can debate in circles ad infinitum. What we do know is that currently, adding these deposits to habitable planets breaks them. And is therefore wrong.

I think the scripter just forgot habitable_planet = no.

I agree to a certain degree. But would still think they want to add orbital mining to habitable worlds.

First, it has been there before Le Guin.

Second, if we look at the chosen modifiers to add the energy-7 deposit, we can see it right away that Hazardous Weather, Strong Magnetic Field, Unstable Tectonics, Ultra Rich, Mineral Rich and Asteroid Impacts are all modifiers of habitable planets. So after excluding anomaly 6663 to not target habitable worlds, the whole event does absolutely nothing in the whole game, because its only choices contradict with the exclusion.

Although I have no idea why Unstable Tectonics, Ultra Rich, Mineral Rich and Asteroid Impacts are both chosen in adding mineral-7 and energy-7, and even if they both work, running energy-7 after adding mineral-7 will override the mineral-7 due to "clear_deposits = yes".

Very interesting.

 

[Roddo]

I wonder why even bother to add modifiers like chthonian_planet if it was gonna be used for nothing at all.
I recall coming across it a lot of times before on planets with no deposits at all for a LONG TIME.

So... I kinda like they went this way, feels more like a long delayed fix, even if it's somewhat borked.
Also, do you all realize that the new economy consumes FAR MORE basic resources than the old one, so it's kind of needed for space resources to skyrocket..

Still, a little disheartened to learn they will always get +7, was it so hard to add a random assigner that ranged from +4 to +8?...

Look....as it stands now, with risk removed from anomalies and all exploration seems weaker than ever. I don't even bother to read the description in the anomalies at all. And this is JUST AROUND THE CORNER of the latest exploration expansion.

 

[Losttruppen]

I don't even bother to read the description in the anomalies at all. And this is JUST AROUND THE CORNER of the latest exploration expansion.

Yeah this is a big problem for me that just keeps getting worse. I only take the few anomalies that grant technologies, otherwise I leave them until I've run out of room to expand. This is just wrong, not only because distant stars is paid content, but because in my opinion the early game exploration is one of the best things about Stellaris and it's a primary focus of the game. The store page description's first line is "Explore a vast galaxy full of wonder... an evolution of the grand strategy genre with space exploration at its core" and the first Main Feature is "Deep and Varied Exploration" and the third is "Explore Anomalies with your heroic Scientist leaders". I haven't felt that since 1.0, and not just because I've played the game to the point I know what to expect, but because space resources just aren't worth the time investment in some cases unless you are roleplaying. I should not have to ignore parts, or play at a disadvantage to enjoy a major feature of the game.

Space resources got huge nerfs when resources were removed from colonizeable worlds, then again with 2.2 dropping a lot of anomaly awards by upwards of half, on top of the 2.2 economy making the value of tech and basic resources a fraction of what it was before. I just want to see things that get added in mesh better with what is already there and not supplant them in viability. The last few major content drops have broken as much as they have fixed and a lot of problems in the game right now stem from those half-baked fixes. This topic shows that trend has not been addressed in their DLC/patching process.

 

[AlphaAsh]

I agree to a certain degree. But would still think they want to add orbital mining to habitable worlds.

First, it has been there before Le Guin.

Second, if we look at the chosen modifiers to add the energy-7 deposit, we can see it right away that Hazardous Weather, Strong Magnetic Field, Unstable Tectonics, Ultra Rich, Mineral Rich and Asteroid Impacts are all modifiers of habitable planets. So after excluding anomaly 6663 to not target habitable worlds, the whole event does absolutely nothing in the whole game, because its only choices contradict with the exclusion.

Although I have no idea why Unstable Tectonics, Ultra Rich, Mineral Rich and Asteroid Impacts are both chosen in adding mineral-7 and energy-7, and even if they both work, running energy-7 after adding mineral-7 will override the mineral-7 due to "clear_deposits = yes".

Very interesting.

The better solution is to do a new planet feature for the deposit to spawn on relevant habitables. Spawn the other deposit in orbit of non-habitables. Actually not so complex, now I think about it. This would achieve what may have been the intent. Or not. I just know that right now, habitables cannot have orbital deposits anymore.

 

[GreatSword]

Thanks for the explanation. I was wondering what's going on.