Orbital rings and habitats are the same thing

[st360]

My biggest problem with orbitals rings is the developers sold people habitats twice.

"Hey look, you can build a orbital ring instead of a orbital habitat, NEW MECHANIC!! The difference? Well its 50% easier to build but produces 50% less stuff."

Hell, even ring worlds are conceptually reeeealy close to habitats. Both orbital rings, habitats and ring worlds are all "spend alloys to make population jobs".

Orbital rings aren't a new mechanic, they are just habitats with proportionally lowered numbers and a new UI.

 

[HFY]

Orbital rings aren't a new mechanic, they are just habitats with proportionally lowered numbers and a new UI.

- No extra colony sprawl.
- Higher pop productivity (especially for alloys).
- Bonus carpal tunnel syndrome from clicking to replace 60 defense platforms for every planet.

 

[Lorenerd11]

My biggest problem with orbitals rings is the developers sold people habitats twice.

"Hey look, you can build a orbital ring instead of a orbital habitat, NEW MECHANIC!! The difference? Well its 50% easier to build but produces 50% less stuff."

Hell, even ring worlds are conceptually reeeealy close to habitats. Both orbital rings, habitats and ring worlds are all "spend alloys to make population jobs".

Orbital rings aren't a new mechanic, they are just habitats with proportionally lowered numbers and a new UI.

They are literally nothing like habitats mechanically. They aren't colonizable the way habitats and ringworlds are. They are closer to planetary starbases if anything.

 

[Calvax]

"Hey look, you can build a orbital ring instead of a orbital habitat, NEW MECHANIC!! The difference? Well its 50% easier to build but produces 50% less stuff."

You're forgetting a few key differences there.

- Orbital rings can only be built around colonised worlds
- Orbital rings do not contribute to empire sprawl
- Orbital rings are not colonisable themselves
- Orbital ring buildings and modules buff the encircling planet, and/or system starbase
- Orbital rings also act as a starbase, capable of housing weapons and defense platforms

A habitat is an artificial world that can act as a colony, with some unique differences. An orbital ring is a way of enhancing and further specialising a well developed world. They're not the same by any stretch of the imagination, beyond "they both get built around planets"

 

[Verx90]

Let me correct it for you .


they took starbases pre-2.0 , sprincle it with bonuses for pops and sold it to us.

but if you have such a cinical view of life, you are not going to enjoy much in life.

 

[Sinister2202]

My biggest gripe about orbital ring is that there are only 2 building slots, and the benefits feel a bit weak. The fact that it has habitation that increases district is okay for a tall-player like me, I suppose...

 

[Methone]

My biggest gripe about orbital ring is that there are only 2 building slots, and the benefits feel a bit weak. The fact that it has habitation that increases district is okay for a tall-player like me, I suppose...

I dunno, the buildings look REALLY strong to me. +2 minerals per miner? Even MORE alloys per metallurgist for my fleet? Without even taking up the +1 District Slots for my Cityworlds? Yes please.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Not going to judge the value of the DLC right now, but in terms of mechanics the orbital rings stuff is exactly whats needed to provide a buff to stacking many pops on a single planet.

Notice I'm not using the word tall because it feels like 99% misuse the term tall anyway when talking about Stellaris. Either way some people might enjoy stacking a lot of pops on 1 planet. These changes make this more powerful and now there is more incentive to do it. Although obviously you still want as many planets/habitats as possible for pop growth reasons. But resettlement is going to be a much bigger part of minmaxing now, so thats a new change to playstyle.

Its also going to make War a little more interesting since players are incentivized to stack a lot of pops on specific planets, so this might shift conquering priorities somewhat.

 

[Methone]

Its also going to make War a little more interesting since players are incentivized to stack a lot of pops on specific planets, so this might shift conquering priorities somewhat.

Especially with the Quantum Slingshot. "Oh, that's a nice Industrial Cityworld with maxed-out Orbital Ring and loaded with pops you bought out of slavery... be a shame if a Colossus appeared on top of it..."

 

[Verx90]

Especially with the Quantum Slingshot. "Oh, that's a nice Industrial Cityworld with maxed-out Orbital Ring and loaded with pops you bought out of slavery... be a shame if a Colossus appeared on top of it..."

When we will notice that you can't send multiple with 1 jump, so they will mostly end up in different systems and the colossus end up on a bastion alone.

 

[st360]

- No extra colony sprawl.
- Higher pop productivity (especially for alloys).
- Bonus carpal tunnel syndrome from clicking to replace 60 defense platforms for every planet.

So different numbers is all it takes for something to become a feature?

So what if next DLC the developers where to take shipyards, rename them as "mega production assemblers" make them buildable directly on planets and make them use 20% less alloys but take up a job slot?

I guess that would be welcomed as a cool new feature too? Ships that can destroy planets are a feature. The crisis is a feature. "We took a starbase, renamed it and now it produces -50% minerals but +50% trade" isn't a feature.

 

[Vorpaliminal]

So different numbers is all it takes for something to become a feature?

So what if next DLC the developers where to take shipyards, rename them as "mega production assemblers" make them buildable directly on planets and make them use 20% less alloys but take up a job slot?

I guess that would be welcomed as a cool new feature too? Ships that can destroy planets are a feature. The crisis is a feature. "We took a starbase, renamed it and now it produces -50% minerals but +50% trade" isn't a feature.

I can see what you mean to an extent, but Orbital Rings will add something to planetary management, giving us a way to further enhance core worlds. Also keep in mind that this is a midgame tech option, so it will be relevant before Mega-Engineering comes up, serving to bridge mid and lategame content in a similar way to the Hyper Relays.

The examples of features you gave could amount to different "numbers" before we got them. Colossi could be approximated by a giant fleet on Armageddon bombardment. Becoming the Crisis was just a matter of manually killing everyone else.

 

[Verx90]

So different numbers is all it takes for something to become a feature?

So what if next DLC the developers where to take shipyards, rename them as "mega production assemblers" make them buildable directly on planets and make them use 20% less alloys but take up a job slot?

I guess that would be welcomed as a cool new feature too? Ships that can destroy planets are a feature. The crisis is a feature. "We took a starbase, renamed it and now it produces -50% minerals but +50% trade" isn't a feature.

So, any strategy game is always the same, everything is always the same. If we follow your logic train, that ignore the fact that something is completely different from something else, apart that is build in space and around planets (not all planets for the orbit ring)

Why don't you denunce that all habitability is the same, that all ships are the same, that strategy games are the same, why don't you just play chess, oh wait, all chess pieces are the same, it only change the numbers.

Why don't you considerate all countries as copycats, watch them all having only different numbers..

 

[Ryika]

I agree with one thing, which is that Orbital Rings are quite derivative of things we already have, and don't really add any new mechanics, just reframe them into something new. That seems a bit uninspired to me, but then again, they're not the focus of the DLC, just something that adds more variety to the choices you can make.

However, to claim that they're the same as habitats is the same as saying that Germany is the same as the USA, because they're both countries that have governments. It's not that this statement is incorrect, but that kind of logic only works if you intentionally and exclusively look at the very big picture and leave out all the nuances that differentiate the things you're comparing.

 

[Jordedude1234]

I agree with one thing, which is that Orbital Rings are quite derivative of things we already have, and don't really add any new mechanics, just reframe them into something new. That seems a bit uninspired to me, but then again, they're not the focus of the DLC, just something that adds more variety to the choices you can make.

However, to claim that they're the same as habitats is the same as saying that Germany is the same as the USA, because they're both countries that have governments. It's not that this statement is incorrect, but that kind of logic only works if you intentionally and exclusively look at the very big picture and leave out all the nuances that differentiate the things you're comparing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Orbital Rings are uninspired (beyond the fact that they seem similar to some stuff from Gigastructures). You're not always gonna have a game-changing update, as reflavoring the existing content in new ways to keep the game fresh is what Paradox often does.

 

[Ryika]

I wouldn't go so far as to say Orbital Rings are uninspired (beyond the fact that they seem similar to some stuff from Gigastructures). You're not always gonna have a game-changing update, as reflavoring the existing content in new ways to keep the game fresh is what Paradox often does.

"seems a bit uninspired to me" and "are uninspired" are two very different statements though. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it's also not some kind of revolutionary thing. Not that it has to be, but it could be and isn't. Which is fine, but worth acknowledging.

On a scale of "This is extremely boring and the same as everything that came before.." to "This is absolutely amazing and unlike everything I've ever seen.", I would rate the Orbital Ring as "Yeah, that exists now, it looks cool, and I'll probably be able to use it in some interesting ways." Not bad, not exceptional, just pretty alright.

 

[Verx90]

"seems a bit uninspired to me" and "are uninspired" are two very different statements though. I'm not saying it's bad, just that it's also not some kind of revolutionary thing. Not that it has to be, but it could be and isn't. Which is fine, but worth acknowledging.

On a scale of "This is extremely boring and the same as everything that came before.." to "This is absolutely amazing and unlike everything I've ever seen.", I would rate the Orbital Ring as "Yeah, that exists now, it looks cool, and I'll probably be able to use it in some interesting ways." Not bad, not exceptional, just pretty alright.

revolutionary ? ... what is revolutionary ?

things are done well, or badly. look at espionage , it was done badly . but evrything the spystuff does , was already in the game .

are megastructure something that was "revolutionary" ? because they did nothing new, evrything megastructure do was already in the game .

this whole comment section seems to be nothing more than criticizing for the love of criticizing . empty words .

 

[Ryika]

revolutionary ? ... what is revolutionary ?

I think City Worlds were quite revolutionary when they were introduced. Being able to escape the building slot limitations was a fantastic feeling that really changed how your empire played once you had them.

things are done well, or badly. look at espionage , it was done badly . but evrything the spystuff does , was already in the game .

I mean... no?

Intel, Encryption, Codebreaking, building a spy network, etc... all examples new mechanics added around the spy system. Covertly manipulating relationships, stealing technologies, dethroning the galactic emperor, sending the crisis against your foes... all things completely new to the spy system.

are megastructure something that was "revolutionary" ? because they did nothing new, evrything megastructure do was already in the game .

No, most Megastructures aren't particularly revolutionary either. Which again isn't an issue, but they could make megastructures more interesting if they were more of a focus.

this whole comment section seems to be nothing more than criticizing for the love of criticizing . empty words .

If that's still referring to my post, then I think you need to calm a little. I already said the Orbital Ring is fine for what it is.

 

[Verx90]

I think City Worlds were quite revolutionary when they were introduced. Being able to escape the building slot limitations was a fantastic feeling that really changed how your empire played once you had them.

they are not revolutionary . all the concept were already in the game . they added nothing.

I mean... no?

Intel, Encryption, Codebreaking, building a spy network, etc... all examples new mechanics added around the spy system. Covertly manipulating relationships, stealing technologies, dethroning the galactic emperor, sending the crisis against your foes... all things completely new to the spy system.

you could already see those information, those were all things already present in the game , they simply made a meccanic to "hide" it. nothing new.

If that's still referring to my post, then I think you need to calm a little. I already said the Orbital Ring is fine for what it is.

criticism for the love of criticism . i'm doing what you did, its lovely isn't it?

 

[Ryika]

they are not revolutionary . all the concept were already in the game . they added nothing.

I don't agree with the idea that concepts must be new to be revolutionary.
I think if something significantly alters the way you can play the game, then that's enough of a change for me to call it revolutionary.

You're free to disagree of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it's how I evaluate what I would call "revolutionary".

you could already see those information, those were all things already present in the game , they simply made a meccanic to "hide" it. nothing new.

This sentence seems self-contradictory. If they added a mechanic to hide information, then clearly they added something new, did they not?

You also ignored all the other things I listed.

criticism for the love of criticism . i'm doing what you did, its lovely isn't it?

No, I was just giving my honest thoughts on the new megastructure, and came to the conclusion that while it's not as revolutionary as it could be if they really wanted it to be the focus of the expansion, it's fine the way it is.

What you're doing is completely overreacting to a post that wasn't even meant as criticism.

Anyway... I'll just assume you're having a bad day and leave it at that.