Thoughts about advanced planet classes (Gaia, Ecumenopolis, etc)

[Roddo]

Habitability makes no sense at all for ecu, it's a city-wide planet... what do you think would happen to earth's climate if we just covered it all with cities? Of them all, ecu is the most broken because of that, AND because you can get districts that permit you to bypass a game-restricting mechanic such as the usage of "strategic" resources to get 2nd tier resources.

Overall all special planets are overpowered to some degree. But I don't mind that really, the problem is that you can just SPAM THEM everywhere everytime.
It would be better if the perks that allow creating these super planets came with a limiting factor, like... can create one every 100 years, or you can only create two max (chace of finding them and adding does not influence max-creation limit).

 

[Karmonger]

Also Hive worlds synergize with Hive Minds. Hive Minds get 33% extra jobs from districts.

25 planet would be 25 districts + 33% + 5% from planet specialization + 25% building + anything else I'm forgetting. When a hive world is fully specialized, it's like turning that 25 world into a 40 world (25+63%). That's huge compared to just 20%(plus what ever ) bonus that Encums get.

Encums are overrated. They just look so awesome because they reach higher pop caps. But the jobs not as much efficient as hive worlds.

Hive Minds get +50% jobs from resource districts. If we follow your logic, then 1 ecumenopolis district has +400% jobs. So 25 ecumenopolis becomes what, 125 ecumenopolis? Seems overpowered to me.

 

[CrowScape]

That could free up ALL of the alloy foundry buildings in all of your other planets and still have more production than any empire could ever need.

This is actually the weakness of the Ecumenopoli. As you only really need one, it's not worth it to go for the tech to make it. Instead, find one and take it. Use your AP for something else.

I personally think the hive world should be the gold standard, meaning a nerf of some kind to the ecumenopolis and a buff to gaia worlds is the medicine we need.

No. Stellaris is not balanced around 1:1 equivalences. If you think non-gestalts should get gestalt-like worlds, then should gestalts get non-gestalt like trade value?

 

[LeanneKaos]

Since the 2.2 dev diaries I felt that the new update will bring huge imbalance into this aspect of game. I've wrote about it in multiple separated threads and now I'd like to structure my thoughts on the topic as well as get some insights from the community.

Machine World


+10% Resources from Jobs
0% Habitability
No Agriculture Districts.
Generator and Minig Districts Unrestricted by Features

Introduced in the synthetic down, these worlds are meant to be gaia analog for machine empires. They sacrifice the habitability for extra resource acces. The problem with the machine worlds is that now they have to somehow compete not only with gaias but with ecumenopolises as well.

Ingame tooltips claims they give a -10% housing usage as well, but I never thought to verify if that was accurate the last time I built one.

For a pure machine-build the only real competition with the Gaia world is that -33% cost you get from world shaper (or if you're relying heavily on bioreactors and/or food resale value to keep your energy up.) Otherwise, you lose nothing that matters in exchange for unrestricted Districts.

I'm not quite so sure about the two mixed-machine types, Assimilators and Servitors, though; I'm sometimes tempted to burn the extra perk to get both.

 

[Mastikator]

This is actually the weakness of the Ecumenopoli. As you only really need one, it's not worth it to go for the tech to make it. Instead, find one and take it. Use your AP for something else.

No. Stellaris is not balanced around 1:1 equivalences. If you think non-gestalts should get gestalt-like worlds, then should gestalts get non-gestalt like trade value?

They should be equally good, doesn't mean they have to be good in the same way at the same thing. Please sir put the straw man away.

 

[CrowScape]

They should be equally good, doesn't mean they have to be good in the same way at the same thing. Please sir put the straw man away.

I'm not sure where the straw man is. What is the "they" there? Gestalts and non-gestalts? Yes, absolutely. Perfectly agree. Hive worlds, gaia worlds, and ecumenopoli? No. Don't agree. Again, should non-gestalt trade value be equally as good as (non-existent) gestalt trade value? No straw in that question.

 

[Mastikator]

I'm not sure where the straw man is. What is the "they" there? Gestalts and non-gestalts? Yes, absolutely. Perfectly agree. Hive worlds, gaia worlds, and ecumenopoli? No. Don't agree. Again, should non-gestalt trade value be equally as good as (non-existent) gestalt trade value? No straw in that question.

What does trade value have to do with this? Nothing, it's another straw man. Don't answer that question and instead focus on the topic at hand. Gaia planets, hive/machine worlds, ecumenopolis. The first one is not good enough, the second is just right and the third is too good. They don't have to be 1:1 (and nobody suggested that except you so please stow it), just be within the goldie lock zone.

 

[LeanneKaos]

No. Stellaris is not balanced around 1:1 equivalences. If you think non-gestalts should get gestalt-like worlds, then should gestalts get non-gestalt like trade value?

You could have stopped at "not balanced" and skipped the rest.

Nobody (well, maybe some but not many) is asking for 1:1 equivalences, just a bit more parity. And actually, Hives *did* got something in compensation for not having trade value: 3 jobs to a district. That's not a "1:1 equivalence," but it's something you can at least make a rough comparison with. What did machines get?

Reduced value on their 100% Habitability trait, slow early-game pop growth, and a bioreactor that uses up a building slot to let them burn food instead of just selling it. (Granted its a better rate than putting the food on the market, and makes shifting to a Manufacturing focus a bit easier, but it still burns up a precious building slot.)

 

[permeakra]

Don't need those slots. A size 25 ecumenopolis with 25 foundry arcology districts will have 250 housing and 250 metalurgist jobs converting a total of 3000 minerals into 1500

Yes you do.
Ecu districts don't do science. For science you need either habitats (that are, reportedly, quite bad at that) or buildings. As for buidlings you want as little upgraded buildings as possible because rare resources use minerals you could use better for alloys or robot assembly or consumer goods.

A single 25 size ecumenopolis with only foundry or industry districts will free up 32 building slots on your other planets.

And three ecus with total size 25 would save same 32 building slots, but also have extra 32 building slots on their own. Gee.

With current system you want your planets to have total population of 75 pops and no more, since pops are quite valuable.

 

[LeanneKaos]

With current system you want your planets to have total population of 75 pops and no more, since pops are quite valuable.

Not exactly. 75 pops will open up all the building slots, but they won't work all the jobs. And the buildings aren't worth much if you don't have pops actually working in them.

 

[CrowScape]

What does trade value have to do with this?

Because you are saying that features across empire types should be as good as each other. So, the question: why shouldn't gestalt trade value be as good as non-gestalt. If that confuses you, should non-Purifier ships be just as good as Purifier ships? After all, purifier ships are just flat better. Not saying the ships should be the same, just equal.

Nothing, it's another straw man.

Your initial statement that you couldn't see what trade value has to do with the discussion would indicate that the term you are looking for is "red herring." I take it "straw man" is just your shorthand for an argument you don't grasp.

Don't answer that question and instead focus on the topic at hand. Gaia planets, hive/machine worlds, ecumenopolis. The first one is not good enough

You haven't demonstrated that. You have only shown that Gaia worlds are not as good as Hive in a vacuum. To show that Gaia worlds are not good enough--period--you would have to demonstrate that it's not worth teraforming them, which no one has stated here. To say that Gaia worlds aren't as good as Hive worlds in the game, you have to show why non-gestalts need them to compete with gestalts.

What did machines get?

Screwed, basically.

 

[Methone]

I agree City Worlds are kinda silly, but they're not 'all around' better than Gaia worlds simply because Gaia worlds can actually make food and minerals. A certain bug with districts aside, there's no downside to making everything Gaia, but making everything a City World is... ill advised.

 

[permeakra]

Not exactly. 75 pops will open up all the building slots, but they won't work all the jobs.

Most basic buildings host 2 jobs at most, except for commercial zone that hosts horrible clerk jobs. You don't actually want upgraded buildings because they use limited minerals inefficiently except for 1st upgrade of temple (4 jobs) and system capital (8 jobs). meaning that all buildings will host total of 2*14+4+8=40 jobs at most. And you have 35+ extra pops to work in districts.

... what did you say about working all the jobs? I think typical planets have around 14-18 districts, i.e. about 28-36 jobs from districts so it works just nice =).

 

[Mastikator]

@CrowScape did you know that if you repeat the same straw man three times in front of a computer screen the straw boogeyman will visit you when you sleep?

Yes you do.
Ecu districts don't do science. For science you need either habitats (that are, reportedly, quite bad at that) or buildings. As for buidlings you want as little upgraded buildings as possible because rare resources use minerals you could use better for alloys or robot assembly or consumer goods.


And three ecus with total size 25 would save same 32 building slots, but also have extra 32 building slots on their own. Gee.

With current system you want your planets to have total population of 75 pops and no more, since pops are quite valuable.

32 Alloy buildings freed up on other planets = 32 new slots for tech buildings or whatever you want on those other planets. For science you do not need habitats, the most efficient way of generating science is regular planets with as many labs as possible. Researchers need consumer goods and there's a district in the ecumenopolis that is better than any building in all categories
I've already spent two posts asking for honest engagement in this thread and I'll spend my final one for you. Please do not bring up irrelevant stuff or misrepresent people. It immediately creates a rift between you and everyone else that is not easy to mend.

A single big ecumenopolis (or two small) is so good it can replace all of your foundry worlds and industry worlds, then you can turn those into mining or tech worlds. Having a big ecumenopolis is enough because it makes all of your other planets better through a VASTLY more efficient economy. That is the point.

 

[CrowScape]

@CrowScape did you know that if you repeat the same straw man three times in front of a computer screen the straw boogeyman will visit you when you sleep?

So, you don't actually have anything to respond with, you just keep using terminology you don't understand.

K. Blocked.

 

[permeakra]

I've already spent two posts asking for honest engagement in this thread and I'll spend my final one for you.

I pointed three times that ecus are overrated. They are good, but not THAT good. You completely ignored my points and continue to say the same.

Please do not bring up irrelevant stuff or misrepresent people. It immediately creates a rift between you and everyone else that is not easy to mend. Thank you.

 

[Subcomandante]

but they're not 'all around' better than Gaia worlds simply because Gaia worlds can actually make food and minerals. A certain bug with districts aside, there's no downside to making everything Gaia, but making everything a City World is... ill advised.

Which makes all the difference. Ecus without normal planets are worth nothing, apart from exploitative market schemes, while Gaia planets without Ecus are completely viable, bugs aside. You can make every planet a Gaia planet, which would be more or at least as beneficial for the empire. Maybe even a few suffice.

Ecus are actually best with tall corporations, this is likely what they are meant for.

Many people talking about the alleged overpoweredness of Ecus are actually basing that on rerolling their game until they are in the First League area.

 

[RoverStorm]

You don't actually want upgraded buildings because they use limited minerals inefficiently except for 1st upgrade of temple (4 jobs) and system capital (8 jobs). meaning that all buildings will host total of 2*14+4+8=40 jobs at most.

ehrm.....why?

Strategic resources are not terribly hard to get. Natural sources are pretty painless to harvest. If your economy is amazing, you can just buy them from the market. Barring that, mining and generator worlds don't really use their building slots, so those are excellent targets for refineries. Or inversely a refinery world will have a ton of unemployment unless you use rural districts.

Now maybe I'm biased as I usually always max mining districts, and frequently sit with an income of several hundred minerals at all times, so sinking a few thousand per month into refineries isn't a big issue for my playstyle. Even trade contributes to the minerals indirectly with consumer benefits. Worst comes to worst, I sell food to buy minerals, but usually I'm in a positition to sell minerals, C.G., and alloys before anything else.

 

[Ikael]

Ok, let me try!

Machine world: Add unique buildings / districts that increase robot assembly speed / decrease robot costs empire wide. Now you can have your Cybertron and solve one of the machine empire's main weaknesses in one fell swoop!

Gaia: Give Gaias unique, powerful terrain features akin to anomaly features that greatly increases certain job outputs in addition to the number of districts. It is a random, capricious bonus, but alas, such is nature

Hive world: I think that it is one of the best special worlds, but it is still worse than the ecumenopolis. Perhaps an additional bonus to housing would help it to incrase the whole "strenght in numbers" theme of the hiveminds.

 

[permeakra]

ehrm.....why?
Strategic resources are not terribly hard to get. Natural sources are pretty painless to harvest.

1)minerals are limited 2)refineries use building slot and 3)refineries consume minerals. This means that tier-3 buidlings might appear to be slot-efficient, but in practice their efficiency is not spectacular, it's just moderately above what tier-1 provides. They are, however, mineral-inefficient and minerals are needed to keep population happy (consumer goods) and fleets big (alloys).

I can see advanced buildings working for a megacorp with tons of branch offices and few planets, but regular empires? not so much. In fact I had a few games with no advanced buildings and was better than Glavius AI on commodore. But in a game where I tried to run advanced buildings, I hit mineral deficit hard and fast (with maxed mining districts).

Barring that, mining and generator worlds don't really use their building slots, so those are excellent targets

For extra soldier jobs. BTW, what do you mean "don't use" ? Maybe it's more like you didn't find options to house extra population to work buildings? There are solutions to that. And most planets still do have place for several city districts even after maxing their basic resource production.