Space in 2.2

[ZomgK3tchup]

Dude, please read all of my posts in this thread. I made 2 suggestions of how this could be changed, very similar to your ideas. So please stop judging if you are not willing to take all information into account. That is trump-style.

What? The quoted post wasn't directed at you at all. The post you quoted was directed at Evangeline, hence why I quoted that person and not you.

The second thing is: My 2nd and 3rd post described the present system and how it might break down realtiy under possible assumptions made. It says NOTHING about what is realistic or might be a possible solution. Which brings me back to: read the stuff presented to you more carefully and do not make up your mind too quickly.

I didn't read your second post. I also don't care what it says since my comment was neither directed at you nor referenced anything you said.

 

[Linusz]

Ok, I cited wrongly. Referred to your other post. Still holds true. You pick the information you like and make it the only relevant one, not taking into account the hole picture. My statements validify Evangeline in some ways.

 

[Hyomoto]

The words "because balance" need to show up in this increasingly silly debate. The technologies that boost space output aren't meant to pace planetary developments because they are free: an extra 10% for no additional upkeep. Besides, planetary districts get the same benefit, but they also have modifier buildings.

Which brings us back to upgradeable stations. It would be nice to have an option: there is a huge space between mining station and Dyson sphere and having some sort of upgraded station would be a good in-between. That said, stations are a big fire-and-forget situation. Without an expansion planner to make it easy to find and Mark suitable candidates for upgrades, this would be annoying. It might be time to have star base buildings that can fulfill this role.

 

[gja102]

Which brings us back to upgradeable stations. It would be nice to have an option: there is a huge space between mining station and Dyson sphere and having some sort of upgraded station would be a good in-between.

Alternatively, you could have a mechanic where the systems themselves get upgraded over time. New mid-game techs which let you discover much larger base deposits, that kind of thing. That would also shake up the map a bit, as new resource hotspots emerge. A "second survey" tech might also give scientists something to do mid-game besides assisting research.

 

[Ezumiyr]

Space is the only place where you can find some of the rare ressources. For me the problem isn't that space production was nerfed (which isn't a necessarily bad thing btw, and it seems like a great idea to make development happen dynamically on planets rather than statically in space), it's more that:

- there are way too few space ressources
- those ressources are almost useless
- space (aka the environment) isn't enough empire-defining

If space could lead you to unique research paths, combat styles and so on, it would be great. But a simple buff to space production? Meh. It's both too random (like OP said, doubling your science production just because of a lucky start... imo it's not a good thing), and too boring. Maybe the tech deck should interact more dynamically with your environment, unlocking different techs depending on what you find in space (including black holes, other empires, space life, unique ressources etc). It's already the case to some extent but it could be much more. And it would be even more interesting now that we have a galactic market.

 

[Nighzmarquls]

What I've noticed as a trend is what defines an empire in the 'landscape' of space is mostly rare deposits and what space wild life and anomalies you encounter. This gives you different empire wide boost options (space wild life study paths and techs) or opportunities (having curators in your vicinity can be a huge boon) likewise precursor home worlds can make for huge shifts in what is available.

Also I feel like all this talk of upgrading systems overlooks the obvious mechanism of system infrastructure upgrade we already have.

That is literally what starbases do. I think we could use a bit more depth added to the starbases and it would improve all of this without adding extra complexity. Trade helps a lot with that but I think maybe also things like having them able to boost mineral or energy production of nearby systems with their infrastrucutre would be good. Or building 'civilian' starbase retinue that take up defensive platform slots but provide resource percentage boosts for their current or neighboring systems.

Seems like the natural progression honestly.

 

[Evangeline]

Also I feel like all this talk of upgrading systems overlooks the obvious mechanism of system infrastructure upgrade we already have.

That is literally what starbases do. I think we could use a bit more depth added to the starbases and it would improve all of this without adding extra complexity. Trade helps a lot with that but I think maybe also things like having them able to boost mineral or energy production of nearby systems with their infrastrucutre would be good. Or building 'civilian' starbase retinue that take up defensive platform slots but provide resource percentage boosts for their current or neighboring systems.

Seems like the natural progression honestly.

Agreed. By the way, black holes that were mentioned as now no longer giving anything special: you can now research a starbase building (Black Hole Observatory) which, when built in an upgraded starbase around a black hole, gives you 10 physics research per month at base. The same applies to other starbase modules and buildings. As I said, I agree that now that planets have become much more interesting, it's time to make space more interesting, as well. But I also believe that some of the posters seem to have never actually gone deeply into the mid/late game options that open up for them in terms of space structures in 2.2.

 

[Losttruppen]

Black hole observatories have been in since at least the starbase patch and still only provide a little more than a third of what a single job produces on a planet. Habitats and Megastructures do not factor in until close to 2300, and in order to have the research and unity to acquire them, not to mention the manufacturing base to build them, you need to focus entirely on colonizing. You also need to own DLC for most of these mid to late game "solutions".

This is where I have a problem, the only way out of the early game in a competitive way is to colonize all possible planets to start your snowball early. Just try a game on Life Seeded or with a bad selection of planets in your vicinity and you will see the limitations of this new system.

I also find it really strange that the vast majority of your strategic resource production in the mid-late game comes from synthetic production on planets. Having a starbase centralized UI to distribute jobs and manage space resources would be great thematically, would complement the new planet system, and allow a variety of new events/options to fully make use of your entire star systems.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

I agree on the sentiment. The space has all the space to build stuff, so why can't we? One should be able to expand mining stations, there is no logical reason not to.

Lets take an energy station producing energy from a star. If an empire built one station there, they can probably build another nearby and can probably build as much as their economy can enable. And the empire can just keep building them until they blot out the star. (Its called a Dyson Swarm, which is an alternative of Dyson Sphere). We are doing this same thing to our planet. See pic.

Imagine this, but around the star. It can't be built quickly, but it can be incrementally built over a long period of time comparable to developing a colony into a 40 pop world.

Similar logic goes to mining stations on asteroid belt. There is the space of an entire solar orbit to build stations. There is also a lot of local resources to use for station construction. However, one thing that should be implemented in that case, is the possibility of the asteroid belt depleting.

Only station that should not be upgradeable are the science stations.

 

[Armed Avacado]

I'm mostly neutral on this debate, but I do want to say...

2.2 celestial resources do seem rather sparse compared to how they spawned in 2.1. I don't understand why they couldn't be kept at the 2.1 spawn rate, considering how costs across the board have seen a bit of inflation.

 

[Hyomoto]

There's a place between practicality and realism I think this punches through. If we could just build a thousand energy collectors around a star, how do you balance that when a single one produces 3.

Realism really doesn't matter at all, especially at the scale we play Stellaris at. So, since a realistic solution is silly, what solutions do you suggest that compliment the tools the game already has?

 

[Losttruppen]

Every single star, planet(colonizable or not), asteroid, etc has almost the exact same UI frame as a regular populated planet, right down to decisions and pop/army/corporate tabs at the bottom.

Just use the existing space station as the visual hub and add a few districts, features, and blockers to each stellar body dependent on its qualities and quantities. A building slot for the primary station with an auxiliary slot for defense structures, slave pens, or something. For stars just have the main station hub and 2 building slots for either science or energy production.

Have pops come from the nearest habitable planet or structure and I think we would actually see some of the organic growth that was one of the coolest features of early Stellaris before starbases even if it was a nice gameplay change. You could have incredibly lucrative asteroids or planets balanced with poor or hazardous work conditions. Balance tall and wide empires using our new favourite thing: pop growth. Give growth modifiers based on population concentration on the galaxy map, allowing you to stretch your border to get that special system or planet and build up from there hoping that boon would be more worthwhile than concentrating and expanding from a more stable base.

This would make habitats and several megastructures something of an upgrade to a basic station to represent it changing from the backwater mine it began as into the thriving hub of population, production, or research it might become. I think this accurately represents how human towns and cities evolve, around a place of importance in resources, trade, or just a nice area to live.

I have to admit I've seen a number of complaints that 2.2 did not solve the strain on late-game play speed and performance, and this suggestion would only compound those issues; however, I would gladly play on smaller galaxies if this was the depth you could find in a single system. I would even play with 1x habitable planet modifier as you wouldn't be so beholden to them for everything. There are plenty of mods that increase the scope of galaxy size, but I don't think it would hurt to look smaller.

 

[Jorrhast]

The words "because balance" need to show up in this increasingly silly debate.

They did, but my post was deleted

 

[Nighzmarquls]

I do agree that major space infrastructure should probably be a drain on pop growth, this would indeed balance out the wide empires a bit and even make habitats a useful tool as well. You could use them as population / habitation stores for the drain of space industry on your other worlds.

 

[BaronIronmaggot]

There's a place between practicality and realism I think this punches through. If we could just build a thousand energy collectors around a star, how do you balance that when a single one produces 3.

How it balances out? It is leagues easier and cheaper to build stuff on a habitable planet. A habitable planet already provides comfortable temperature, breathable air, soil for food, water, energy sources and mineral sources. On an orbital station, you need to bring those yourself. Thus, orbital stations balance themselves out by being very expensive.

 

[Hyomoto]

How it balances out? It is leagues easier and cheaper to build stuff on a habitable planet. A habitable planet already provides comfortable temperature, breathable air, soil for food, water, energy sources and mineral sources. On an orbital station, you need to bring those yourself. Thus, orbital stations balance themselves out by being very expensive.

I agree with that, but right now the cost of a station is minerals and an energy upkeep. So, what's this cost? As it stands, orbital structures are cheaper. You can get 5 minerals for an initial payment of 100 minerals and 1 energy upkeep.

That's what I mean. What would you change or add that makes this concept work?