The issue with habitats in 2.2 and some proposed tweaks.

[Marek15]

Preparing for my first tall empire in 2.2 i did some simplified math to figure out the most efficient way, in terms of empire sprawl, to generate science.

As a baseline i used a less efficient planet with both tier 3 labs and gas refineries in case of stingy rng generating too little exotic gas deposits.
I included amenities but excluded consumer goods, energy credits and food from my equations since those all affect each others consumption and i didn't feel like spending hours calculating the perfect ratios (i'm well aware of my laziness).

Getting to the point:
I calculated that a 8 district habitat would generate roughly 60% the science per empire sprawl compared to the planet baseline... 40% LESS!
That's... abysmal. Especially considering the investment of 2 ascension perks and the high influence cost (200 for 8 districts compared to a ringworld's 300 for 200 districts).

'What about the ecumenopolis?' some might wonder. Those generate over 120% the science per empire sprawl compared to the planet baseline, 2 additional planets for minerals and gas refineries were included in the equation.
No wonder everyone loves to use them, ton of pops per district along with powerful leisure, alloy and consumer goods districts that don't require any strategic resources.


And so i would like to propose some tweak to make habitats worth using:
1. add 2 housing to all non-housing districts (same as planets)
2. add 2 jobs to the research, leisure and trade districts. Gestalt's reactor district is fine as is, being equal to a planet's generator district with the +2 housing tweak.
3. reduce the influence cost by 50-100 points. Maybe a small reduction to the alloy cost as well.
4. increase the upkeep of research, leisure and trade districts by 1 or 2 energy.

This should make habitats equal or slightly more efficiency than ordinary planets when factoring in that they consume no strategic resources. Also they come with some spare building slots that can be used for other things.

Spoiler: Notes from the calculations.

======================================
normal planet 16+ (75+ pops)

10 housing (+2 housing from tech)
6 mining

1 research institute
6 advanced research complexes
6 exotic gas refineries
2 hyper-entertainment forums

1 science director + 48 researchers
679.65 total science (inc 15% from research institute)
37.75 science per empire sprawl
======================================
habitat (with master builders)

2 housing
5 science
1 leisure

1 research institute

1 science director + 15 researchers
224.25 total science (inc 15% from research institute)
22.42 science per empire sprawl
======================================
ecumenopolis + 2x mining world

8 housing
2 leisure

1 research institute
14 advanced research complexes

+ 2x
2 housing
7 mining
(x other districts)

1 hyper-entertainment forums
7 exotic gas refineries

1 science director + 112 researchers
1562.85 total science (inc 15% from research institute)
45,96 science per empire sprawl
======================================
changed habitat

2 housing (10 housing)
5 science (2 housing + 5 researchers)
1 leisure (2 housing + 3 entertainers + 2 culture workers)

1 research institute

1 science director + 25 researchers
362,25 total science (inc 15% from research institute)
36.22 science per empire sprawl
======================================

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Heres a question: why is housing/work integration so much more efficentwhen taking an existing plannet and plating it in artificial structures, than taking those same artifical structures and wrapping them in life support and environmental controll? I mean I know the doylist reason but whats the whatsonian? Why can we not take the ecumenopolis foundy schematics and just build from those plans, in a habbitat?

 

[WhiteKyubey]

To make habitats work you should stack all -housing possible and get alternative housing as much as possible.

Every normal empire can be 0.8 small (trait+civic), adaptability tree and bio ascension give another 0.1. Another 0.05 from event is unreliable. So 0.55 for free pops at best, or 0.6 without event.
Instead of free pops slaves can be used - then it'll be something like 0.5. Or robots - 0.4. And we also have servants, who take just 0.2 or 0.15 space.

First we'll build 14 fortresses for 42 housing. And we have our main building for 5. It's enough for around 90 (on average, as some will be servants) of our small pops without any districts. As you are speaking about tech habitat, then let's build 8 research districts. And our last building will be research institute.

Now - jobs. 42 soldiers, 24 researchers, 1 research director, 2-3 rulers, everyone else can be a servant. Get as many servants as needed for max amenities bonus.

Sure thing, 25 researchers is not that many, when planets can support around 100. But as secondary function it's ok I guess. Btw in this build master builders can be ignored.

 

[tobias.mb]

Habitats are fine as they are right now. You are no longer meant to spam them.
Late game they are indeed abysmal at research and you can only really use them as refineries or military bases.

However, they are quite good at boosting your research in the mid-game (when you unlock the perk).

A planet will eventually produce a lot more science than a habitat. But getting there takes a long time. Before planets can produce any meaningful amount of science, they need to grow to 40 pops, mainly to upgrade labs, but also because you likely want to use the first 1-2 building slots on growth / amenities buildings rather than labs.
At this point a science habitat is long fully grown; and a habitat can start producing science from the start - no need to wait for building slots etc. So you have ~50 years where a habitat is better than a planet would be!

Since the habitat is filled up very quickly, it will also start to contribute emigration. In the mid-game, when you likely have only filled your first 2-3 planets and still have a lot of growing planets, this is very valuable!

Then there is the gases cost for planetary labs. Sure, this is a non-issue in the late-game, but in the mid-game it still matters that you can get more research without having to build more gas-refineries.


Lastly, habitats never compete with planets. Habitats compete with leaving that space empty. So why does it even matter, that planets are better than habitats? They were always something mostly for tall empires, that have already settled all planets in their space.

 

[defekt]

Do Habitats make more efficient use of Sprawl capacity compared to planets?

 

[Typee]

I calculated that a 8 district habitat would generate roughly 60% the science per empire sprawl compared to the planet baseline... 40% LESS![/SPOILER]

Wait, so you compared a planet with 75 pops to a habitat with 16 pops ? It would seem like it makes sense for the planet to produce more science.
That's only half the districts too, so hald the empire sprawl.

Not to mention each habitat is a baby factory, so if you build 5 of them they will all fill up in 1/5th of the time it will take for the planet to fill.

 

[Retry]

Wait, so you compared a planet with 75 pops to a habitat with 16 pops ? It would seem like it makes sense for the planet to produce more science.
That's only half the districts too, so hald the empire sprawl.

Might want to re-read the OP again. That's 40% less Science/Sprawl, not 40% less science overall.

 

[permeakra]

Do Habitats make more efficient use of Sprawl capacity compared to planets?

For gestalt empires habitats are fair as energy producers since they offer 3job/distric and CAN host gestalt housing buildings like hive warrens or drone depot. This is at least as good as planetary district, but you don't need to claim new systems to build them. For MEs they are probably better as energy producers then planets since they host more jobs per district with same maintenance as planetary districts.

For normal empires they are meh.

Their housing district offers more housing than normal city district. Meaning from 1 housing + 1 trade you get 5 employed clerks and 5 unemployed pops to fuel two buldings. On the other hand we might compare 5 fully upgraded planetary city district, which houses 40 pops and 10 clerk jobs, which actually pretty much emulates combination of 4 habitat housing districts and 2 trade district. So, cities are better for housing pops, and this gives us clear answer:

Yes, habitat are worse for sprawl than planets and their most obvious use is to spam planetary-unique buildings like unity and population growth with occasional refinery.

Except! you can spam habitats in same system, while going wide you shall need to pay sprawl for useless systems. Unfortunately, with sprawl-per-colony cost, the advantage is not all that great. But still,

At low count of habitable worlds habitats might beat planets at usefulness per sprawl as long as you have minerals from elsewhere.

 

[Bouchart]

Habitats are fine as is. They create living space and building slots out of nothing, and are 100% habitable for everyone. Fill them with refineries, or strongholds, or trade districts for extra energy. Fill them with livestock slaves!

 

[Typee]

Might want to re-read the OP again. That's 40% less Science/Sprawl, not 40% less science overall.

My bad.

 

[admiral-krause]

I think it should be possible to get Habitats earlier, sometimes the damn Starbase tech doesnt show up.

 

[Arcvalons]

It would be better if there were more habitat types with specialized districts. A military habitat, academic habitat, an urban habitat with ecumenopolis districts, an industrial habitat with solar panels and astromining bays, etc. + special habitat buildings which are more efficient.

As it is now, the only purpose of voidborn is to unlock master builders to unlock galactic wonders. Maybe to put biotrophies in, but there's no servitor morale so meh. They're never worth the alloys, which you can just use to build a fleet and conquer planets, much better investment.

 

[Marek15]

Habitats are fine as is. They create living space and building slots out of nothing, and are 100% habitable for everyone. Fill them with refineries, or strongholds, or trade districts for extra energy. Fill them with livestock slaves!

The problem is that their selection of buildings is limited. Pretty much all just give 1 or 2 jobs and half of them can be built only once.
This means if you build 7 housing districts and can't/don't use slavery you end up with a ton of unemployed pops as well as a lack of amenities.

Also just because players have found an exploit to make habitats useful does not mean it's "fine as is".
I don't think cramming a habitat or even a planet full of 0.15-0.25 housing slaves to unlock all buildings without using any districts is how the developers intended habitats/planets to be used.
It would not come as a surprise if this exploit were to be patched out once the more significant balancing changes roll out. And what use do habitats have once slaves are nerfed? none.
EDIT: one use slipped my mind, fortress world... but that's it. And once again i doubt the devs intended for that to be the habitat's only use.

 

[Losttruppen]

My biggest gripe is their price. At 200 influence, 3000 alloys, and 2 ascension perks it just doesn't seem worth it no matter how efficient they are. Either they need to be mediocre and cheap or expensive and useful.

They are also only "free" of opportunity cost for a wide empire as the only way to produce enough food and minerals for CG is to claim more planets, so they don't even help tall empires who I feel are the ones who should actually use them.

 

[MisterDisaster]

At 200 influence, 3000 alloys, and 2 ascension perks it just doesn't seem worth it no matter how efficient they are.

Pretty much sums it up. Also the building choices are awful. Why can't I build housing buildings? Why can't I build research buildings? This combined with very low base number of districts makes habitats simply not worth the hassle.

 

[permeakra]

They are also only "free" of opportunity cost for a wide empire as the only way to produce enough food and minerals for CG is to claim more planets, so they don't even help tall empires who I feel are the ones who should actually use them.

This is profoundly wrong. Food can be produced on hydroponic farms you CAN build on habitats and which are reasonably efficient. Amenities, energy and CG can be produced on mineral-free basis via trade you also can run from habitats. Furthermore, given small size of habitats, they are efficient hosts for 1-per-planet buildings.

Also, the cost of 3 thousand alloys is fairly low by mid-game as it is merely 2-3 battlecruiser and by that time a reasonable empire shall keep fleet with tens of them.

In theory, the amount of habitats you can keep is mostly defined by alloy upkeep, as everything else they need can be produced on-board.

 

[Yaskaleh]

The main cockblock of habitats are the extreme influence cost. 200 influence for something as minor as a habitat. It is not worth the hassle unless you're Life-seeded or going very tall.

 

[wundte]

This is profoundly wrong. Food can be produced on hydroponic farms you CAN build on habitats and which are reasonably efficient. Amenities, energy and CG can be produced on mineral-free basis via trade you also can run from habitats. Furthermore, given small size of habitats, they are efficient hosts for 1-per-planet buildings.

Also, the cost of 3 thousand alloys is fairly low by mid-game as it is merely 2-3 battlecruiser and by that time a reasonable empire shall keep fleet with tens of them.

In theory, the amount of habitats you can keep is mostly defined by alloy upkeep, as everything else they need can be produced on-board.

No, the maximum amount of habitats is caped by influence, since from late midgame you need to build stargates, then wonders, maybe do mastery of nature and then wonders. And also you want to do claims. And in the lategame paying 200 for them just feels bad.

 

[karimjebari]

The advantage of a habitat is that you get as many building slots as a planet (16), and that its residential district gives you 10 housing. If you mix your specialists with servants (housing need 0.25) or livestock (0.25) you can open up all the slots with just 6 sprawl.

This is a screenshot from my current game. This is a 1-sprawl habitat producing 140 food, 116 unity and 28 naval capacity.

 

[Marek15]

The main cockblock of habitats are the extreme influence cost. 200 influence for something as minor as a habitat. It is not worth the hassle unless you're Life-seeded or going very tall.

Like i mentioned in my original post, habitats generate less science/sprawl, thus making them useless for tall empires. And like you mentioned the 200 influence cost makes them useless for wide empires.
The only use i can think of is as a fortress world (even though habitats can't specialize like planets). It is possible to get a -75% reduction to bombardment damage by combining the planetary shield (-50%) with the adaptability tradition tree (-25%). This at least makes habitats useful roadblocks against invaders, unless they come with a colossus.

The advantage of a habitat is that you get as many building slots as a planet (16), and that its residential district gives you 10 housing. If you mix your specialists with servants (housing need 0.25) or livestock (0.25) you can open up all the slots with just 6 sprawl.

This is a screenshot from my current game. This is a 1-sprawl habitat producing 140 food, 116 unity and 28 naval capacity.

With tech and traditions the housing districts on planets can generate 8 housing, just 2 less than habitats.
Also i have seen people manage to unlock all building slots without using a single district. Keep in mind that this strategy is essentially an exploit and will most likely be patched.