Limits of megastructures

[bobucles]

The point of that limit is to restrict wide empires. Your suggestion contradicts the initial reasoning.

Megastructures are too expensive for tall empires. They might have the influence but the resources simply aren't there. Square pegs don't fit very well into round holes, not even with special rules. Habitats are much more useful for building up tall since they can maximize the power of a small territory. However they aren't the magic tall pill either because habitats also benefit whoever has the most resources to throw into them.

Playing tall only makes sense if you can conquer the map without necessarily having to personally paint the map. The most appropriate mechanics for tall play is from building alliances, boosting trade and gaining influence over empires. If those options are too weak, then tall ends up being too weak. There is no megastructure that helps you boost trade, build alliances or conquer empires. There is no megastructure that requires you build an alliance, get help from other factions or be a galactic beacon for anything but yourself. Habitats aren't too bad, but everything under megastructures and their benefits are absolutely biased towards making wide empires better. It's pretty safe to say that megastructures just don't accomplish their goal of going tall and it's pretty silly to think they should, at least as they are currently.

 

[VoidEmperor]

Just make megastructure cost living metal/special resources in high amount and add an upkeep. And remove restriction on building more than one.
If it costs you 1 living metal of upkeep per non-habitat megastructures, you won't be able to make much unless you produce living metal in large quantities. Which may be possible perhaps, but it will limit you ENOUGH, because you would propably need to build large amount of industry devoted to make living metal.

too rng dependent. living metal exclusively spawns from events. ive seen playthroughs where ive conquered the galaxy without even getting one living metal.

 

[John Rusher]

too rng dependent. living metal exclusively spawns from events. ive seen playthroughs where ive conquered the galaxy without even getting one living metal.

Make living metal producible thru living metal factories...

I mean : how did the fallen empires produce living metal to begin with? Cmon.

 

[Person012345]

With planet cap replaced by empire size, I'd like to see the restrictions on megastructure numbers done away with again and instead have it affect something like empire size, maybe even take pops to run them, or whatever (with the structure being like a large planet or habitat, without districts per se but providing X number of jobs producing their resource).

 

[metalosse]

Megastructures are too expensive for tall empires. They might have the influence but the resources simply aren't there. Square pegs don't fit very well into round holes, not even with special rules. Habitats are much more useful for building up tall since they can maximize the power of a small territory. However they aren't the magic tall pill either because habitats also benefit whoever has the most resources to throw into them.

Playing tall only makes sense if you can conquer the map without necessarily having to personally paint the map. The most appropriate mechanics for tall play is from building alliances, boosting trade and gaining influence over empires. If those options are too weak, then tall ends up being too weak. There is no megastructure that helps you boost trade, build alliances or conquer empires. There is no megastructure that requires you build an alliance, get help from other factions or be a galactic beacon for anything but yourself. Habitats aren't too bad, but everything under megastructures and their benefits are absolutely biased towards making wide empires better. It's pretty safe to say that megastructures just don't accomplish their goal of going tall and it's pretty silly to think they should, at least as they are currently.

Have you ever played tall? Tall empires have those resources.

Why do they build habitats? To finance the more efficient science nexus, and chain build ring worlds in early 2300.

Megastructures are the milestone of tall play.

 

[bobucles]

Have you ever played tall? Tall empires have those resources.

Why do they build habitats? To finance the more efficient science nexus, and chain build ring worlds in early 2300.

Megastructures are the milestone of tall play.

I haven't done much tall, but I've done wide. Wide can chain build ring worlds in early 2300 and still have a massive leftover economy to conquer the galaxy at the same time. Wide empires can get even more megastructures than tall once they start absorbing Sanctuary, the random freebies and even gobble up FEs, which a tall empire will NEVER do.

Tall empires don't bring anything special to the table when it comes to megastructures. Both sides of the coin can do it except for the tall side it's essential while the wide side does it for fun.

 

[Palillo]

The point of that limit is to restrict wide empires. Your suggestion contradicts the initial reasoning.

The wide empires in the new update are already going to have penalties for the size of the empire. In addition, if the upkeep depended on strategic resources as someone have suggested it would be limited in a natural way, only empires that made a great deal of effort in manufacturing or obtaining those strategic resources could have more mega-structures, this would avoid spam. The choice to base your empire on mega-structures would be a possibility, but you would have to sacrifice other things.

 

[Palillo]

too rng dependent. living metal exclusively spawns from events. ive seen playthroughs where ive conquered the galaxy without even getting one living metal.

With the new update 2.2, the strategic resources, in addition to being able to manufacture them, the deposits although infrequent, will surely be more frequent than now.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

I haven't done much tall, but I've done wide. Wide can chain build ring worlds in early 2300 and still have a massive leftover economy to conquer the galaxy at the same time. Wide empires can get even more megastructures than tall once they start absorbing Sanctuary, the random freebies and even gobble up FEs, which a tall empire will NEVER do.

Tall empires don't bring anything special to the table when it comes to megastructures. Both sides of the coin can do it except for the tall side it's essential while the wide side does it for fun.

I don’t think you are following, you build the chain ring worlds in the 2300s *after* 2-3 of the others are built ... which you start 75 or so years into the game. (Earlier or later depending on resources and tech draws). If you landed a fast ascension theory you can pop out the unity ambitions to make it even faster. This makes the smaller ones 10 yrs and the Dyson 27.5 yrs.

 

[Shirasik]

I know that it is moddable and I have the mod that removes the limit to megastructures. But I think the base game should have the features that a lot of people like. Currently that I have seen there are approximately at least 20,000 people subscribed to mods that remove the limit to megastructures. I do not know if there would be more people who would like it to be so if they were given the option.

Also, I believe that any feature that increases the variety makes a game experience more fun than setting rigid and unnecessary limits. For those who say that it is for the balance of the game, you can balance a game while maintaining a logical lore, and even more so with the 2.2 update, which will allow a wide variety of options. That maybe most prefer it as simple as possible, I do not know. But that's why I'm asking here, in any case I'll use mod to play as I think it's more logical from the lore's point of view.

First of all, pushing those changes into the core means manhours of devteam. And as a result, you will find those who want to keep the limit, well, maybe even raging.
Second. Construction limit as an option? Core game. Check. Limitless construction? Mods. Check. So removal of the limit will swap the places of one option and another, leaving both present. I.e. change nothing.
Third. About variety. Modifiability of Stellaris (also with 2.2 changes) represents rule 0 of tabletop RPGs. Meaning core rules are nothing but guide about basics of the game - players could rewrite rules, add new, remove some of them; core rules has to be relatively primitive and straightforward. And Stellaris's executables is your GM, you just need to push the modifications you want, to your GM. Via mod files. I don't want to say "shut up and go forge mods", but only what there has to be some core rules. So, basically, I read "construction limit" not as "strictly only one", but as "recommended to be means to limit construction, suggested 'only one' as the start". Another example - not rare oral agreement between players in multiplayer to destroy trade enclaves on sight (this rule used to be before TE rework), because the game didn't allow to simply switch trade enclaves off. You are allowed to play this game as you wish to, even in multiplayer, core rules isn't obligatory.

 

[Palillo]

First of all, pushing those changes into the core means manhours of devteam. And as a result, you will find those who want to keep the limit, well, maybe even raging.
Second. Construction limit as an option? Core game. Check. Limitless construction? Mods. Check. So removal of the limit will swap the places of one option and another, leaving both present. I.e. change nothing.
Third. About variety. Modifiability of Stellaris (also with 2.2 changes) represents rule 0 of tabletop RPGs. Meaning core rules are nothing but guide about basics of the game - players could rewrite rules, add new, remove some of them; core rules has to be relatively primitive and straightforward. And Stellaris's executables is your GM, you just need to push the modifications you want, to your GM. Via mod files. I don't want to say "shut up and go forge mods", but only what there has to be some core rules. So, basically, I read "construction limit" not as "strictly only one", but as "recommended to be means to limit construction, suggested 'only one' as the start". Another example - not rare oral agreement between players in multiplayer to destroy trade enclaves on sight (this rule used to be before TE rework), because the game didn't allow to simply switch trade enclaves off. You are allowed to play this game as you wish to, even in multiplayer, core rules isn't obligatory.

I agree with what you say. Of course, this issue I consider something secondary, there are other issues surely more urgent than this. I only suggest it, taking advantage of the fact that 2.2 is approaching, where a lot of things about the economy are going to change. At least it seems interesting to me to know what people think and see what ideas come to people, so have a list of possible mods for the future in case nothing is changed.

I understand that currently megastructures have this limit, I just want to show the possibilities that 2.2 offers to make a more dynamic and "realistic" gaming experience. And in case the developers have time, I would love to see what ideas could occur on this topic.

 

[Tim_Ward]

It's supposed to be for balance purposes, but I just think that's silly.

Like, are the hardcore multiplayer min-maxing meta-gaming crowd going to be all "my god, this new waiting until 2400 and spamming dyson spheres meta is dynamite. i can't wait to pwn some n00bs with that one"? No, they aren't because the game is decided by then.

If people want to go nuts and cover the entire galaxy in dyson spheres because they want to be a type 3 civilisation, I say let them have their fun.

 

[Mastikator]

The good news is there's a mod that uncaps how many megastructures you can build in total and simultaneously. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1140780022

It gets wild when you have 12 ring worlds and 10 science nexuses. Then it get really wild when you out-tech the awakened ascendancy and you can't even rival them because they are pathetic compared to you.

 

[EvilKnievel82]

First of all, pushing those changes into the core means manhours of devteam. And as a result, you will find those who want to keep the limit, well, maybe even raging.
Second. Construction limit as an option? Core game. Check. Limitless construction? Mods. Check. So removal of the limit will swap the places of one option and another, leaving both present. I.e. change nothing.
Third. About variety. Modifiability of Stellaris (also with 2.2 changes) represents rule 0 of tabletop RPGs. Meaning core rules are nothing but guide about basics of the game - players could rewrite rules, add new, remove some of them; core rules has to be relatively primitive and straightforward. And Stellaris's executables is your GM, you just need to push the modifications you want, to your GM. Via mod files. I don't want to say "shut up and go forge mods", but only what there has to be some core rules. So, basically, I read "construction limit" not as "strictly only one", but as "recommended to be means to limit construction, suggested 'only one' as the start". Another example - not rare oral agreement between players in multiplayer to destroy trade enclaves on sight (this rule used to be before TE rework), because the game didn't allow to simply switch trade enclaves off. You are allowed to play this game as you wish to, even in multiplayer, core rules isn't obligatory.

"Does not matter, you can mod it" is always a non-argument. The question is if it would better to change the mechanics for megastructures or not. If the limitation is worse for gameplay than no limitation, then why would anyone say keep the worse option because you can mod it?

My experience already is, that I rarely build all different megastructures because the game is mostly over by then. I particular in huge galaxies the limit seems very arbitrary... I mean I have like 100 colonies and enough minerals to instantly buy two ring worlds but no, your empire that is overflowing with resources has to wait until it dies of boredom. Now I finally know where the fallen empires come from.

I really do not see it as a balancing issue... if you can spam megastuctures you have won the game already. Not the other way around. Now the number of megastrucures that you cannot build at the same time is doubled... so another 100 years of lategame wait?

There are a lot if ways to introduce a soft cap that dissuades spamming megastructures, I am sure they can come up with one that allows you to use your huge pile of resources if you have them.

P.S.: If I can spam ecumenopoli in 2.2 that probably hold more max pops than a ringworld section, why can't I spam ringworlds if I can afford it?

 

[Shirasik]

"Does not matter, you can mod it" is always a non-argument.

Let me say my words in your terms: "If it matters for you, you could mod, replace or remove it. It's allowed by game rules.".

The question is if it would better to change the mechanics for megastructures or not.

What? Better? ??? Stop confusing me. Are you looking for a proper way to play a videogame? Such a way don't exist.

If it's better for your personal UX, then change it. Not? Then not. Simple.

There are a lot if ways to introduce a soft cap that dissuades spamming megastructures, I am sure they can come up with one that allows you to use your huge pile of resources if you have them.

Who is "they"? Developers? Modders? What's the difference since limit isn't hardcoded?

 

[John Rusher]

Let me say my words in your terms: "If it matters for you, you could mod, replace or remove it. It's allowed by game rules.".


What? Better? ??? Stop confusing me. Are you looking for a proper way to play a videogame? Such a way don't exist.

If it's better for your personal UX, then change it. Not? Then not. Simple.


Who is "they"? Developers? Modders? What's the difference since limit isn't hardcoded?

I don wanna.

 

[Mastikator]

[snip]
I really do not see it as a balancing issue... if you can spam megastuctures you have won the game already. Not the other way around. Now the number of megastrucures that you cannot build at the same time is doubled... so another 100 years of lategame wait?
[also snip]

That's only true if you're doing it 50-100 years before everyone else.

Imagine if you will a scenario where you and this other player are evenly matched, you've been evenly matched from the start of the game but now you pick mega structures early while they go transcendence, you finish your first ring world section as they've been tapping into the shroud for 10 years.
Suddenly their coven is going to seem a tad weak compared to your new 25 (soon to be 50) size world, and you have 3 more to go.

Now imagine you did all simultaneously and you also have a science nexus and sentry array coming too. Uncapping megastructures is insanely powerful. And anyone who does not believe me on that point I beg you, use the mod to uncap them and try it for yourself. Building 2 full ring worlds at the same time is 8 times as powerful as building 1 full ring world, it's not about the energy or minerals here it's about the science and unity you produce. You're vastly increasing your tech and tradition rate when you make a whole bunch of ring worlds.

 

[CheesUs_Our_Lord]

The biggest problem I have with this limit is that it makes every lategame the same. You can have one of every megastructure, so that is what you do.
There is no room for decisions or specializing on one playstyle agaginst the other.
I would love to start a game and say hey I want to go full out on this or that. Of course this is harder to balance - but also makes a better game

 

[Typee]

I have always felt that the limits to the number of megastructures that you can have and build simultaneously is very artificial and meaningless. Why can not you build more than two megastructures at the same time or have more than two Dyson spheres? There is no logical reason behind this decision, just try to avoid abuse by players. But these limits are artificial, it would be better to avoid abuses of playable mechanics through negative effects or limits dependent on values of your empire, as for example it happens with the number of titans you can have and your naval capacity.

With the new update 2.2 this is now easier than before. Not being able to build several megastructures simultaneously is justified with the fact that your empire does not have enough logistics to do it. But now there are values like Administrative Cap that measure just this capacity of your empire. It could be done that for example you can build a megastructure more simultaneously for every 100 or another value of Administrative Cap.

For the limit of megastructures of a type that your empire may have, it could be limited by increasing maintenance costs. The Dyson sphere does not currently have any maintenance costs, but you could have a cost in alloys or minerals to simulate that your megastructure should repair parts over time. The other megastructures could also have these maintenance costs of alloys or minerals, and not only energy. And make these maintenance costs high enough to make it difficult for an empire to have many megastructures. It could also be limited by a value of your empire as your Administrative Cap, just as before. Anything better than an artificial limit without justification.

Another limit that does not have logics is the number of colossi. As before, increase the cost of maintaining the colossus or make it dependent on your naval capacity, number of a certain building or some value of your empire. But do not do that you can only have one just for the hell of it.

I think that all the artificial limits of something should be changed and avoided in the future to prevent abuses by players, other formulas should be used. A proof that these limits are usually quite annoying is that the mods that eliminate or change them are usually quite popular.

What do you think about it?

A bit like you said, ideally instead of having a cap, it should have an opportunity cost. I don't think adding maintenance to the Dyson Sphere is gonna solve anything. After all either the megastructure is beneficial enough to be built (maintenance included), in which case you should build as many as possible, or it's not, in which case you shouldn't even build one.

Matter decompressors already have a natural limit in them: how many black holes you control.
The Dyson Sphere could have a cost similar to what ringworlds do already but better: in order to get the material to build it, you'd have to sacrifice all planets and asteroids in not one, but maybe 5 or 10 sectors. It is a Dyson Sphere after all.
That's be a big cost, the sphere would still be worth it, but building more than 2 or 3 would start to seriously put a dent in your available space.