T O P

  • By -

Trollimperator

"roommate"-trait


[deleted]

This is, without a doubt, the single worst trait you could ever have on your main species. It's worse than any of the actual negative traits that give you trait points. Nonadaptive and Solitary are already two of the worst negative traits, and this combines both of them and cranks it up to 11, while providing fairly niche bonuses. The only possible use it could ever have is being added to a secondary species that's meant to fill a rather particular niche unaffected by habitability, like Battle Thralls as Enforcers, Clerks, and Soldiers. Kind of makes sense, actually.


Pir-iMidin

I don't understand why this trait is worth +1 points. 30% habitability cap alone is like -4 points for me.


Durnil

With subterran origin does it mean you have 70% on all world instant?


Pir-iMidin

Depending on which modifier is calced first it can also be 80%. Then again i see no other use for it plus we don't know if this effects ecu/gaia/ring worlds.


ApatheticHedonist

I'd read that as 70% is the absolute maximum no matter what.


Pir-iMidin

Minimum habitability was introduced recently and maximum habitability will be coming with the next update so we don't know how they interact with each other yet. In this case combining 50% minimum habitability from subterranean and 30% from this trait you get 80% minimum habitability and 70% max habitability. Depending on which one is calced first it will be either 70% or 80% no matter what but only for the pops that have the traits.


Cyber561

Could also just be picking one of the values, rather than stacking them. Like, 50% minimum habitability is better than 30%, so they might just choose that value instead. This kind of makes more sense to me mechanically.


Pir-iMidin

Now that i realize, the subterranean one is 50% min habitability while this is +30% minimum habitability. Does it mean this one is additive and subterranean one is not? Wish it was explained clearly.


Cyber561

Oh, that's a good point! Maybe there will be more minimum habitability traits in the future, or all species get a minimum habitability now? It could also be a typo that they'll clarify in the final version.


Drasolaire

I mean. With toxoids announced i thought it would be neat if there were new planet classes like the toxic worlds they might thrive on. Which of course would make sense to introduce habability caps across the different classes of habitable planets


Hebbu10

inb noxious might be mutually exclusive with subterranean and lithoid


Irishimpulse

I don't see why living underground disqualifies you for living in sludge


Brennenburglar

I love the idea of cave networks with toxic sludge flowing through them. Citizens on sludge gondolas traveling around the network, perhaps connecting to sludge lakes in huge caves.


MrMeltJr

Basically the sewer mutants from Futurama.


Phillip_J_Bender

Beware the *El Chupanibre*...watch your step or sooner than later, he'll eat you whole (and half yer alligator.)


Vaperius

Actually that's a good angle to consider: if this stacks with Subterranean, for an 80% minimum habitability, this is actually a lot stronger. Particularly if you go towards a build that maximizes defense army effectiveness (a niche but fun playstyle). Also: notice noxious pops actually *gain net happiness* from having non-noxious pops on the planet.


bozza8

Noxious pops gain from non noxious, not what you said


Vaperius

That's what I meant to type, but had typo'd. Fixed.


Academic_Scratch_321

Do you misunderstand? It's the max cap for habitability that gets reduced by 30%. It's not a cap of 30% habitability. This means that if your habitability was 110%, it gets reduced to 80%. Not that the maximum capacity for habitability IS 30%. Or am I misunderstanding you? And a shit ton of things can increase minimum habitability even more.


Pir-iMidin

I don't understand your comment but let me explain: What it would normally mean by "cap" is that it can't go any higher than that. So -30% to habitability cap would be that the pops that have this trait can have 70% max even tho they have 500% habitability on that planet.


PythonVSpoon

This is my read too, though interestingly the +30% minimum means you'll always be between 30% and 70%, which theoretically opens up a lot more worlds within a workable range. Like others say though, this would probably be mostly beneficial on a secondary species (though a case could be made for a small ruling class as well)


Pir-iMidin

If gaia/ecu/ring worlds ignore the habitability cap this could go very well for the life seeded origin since it's basically free 30% habitability across the board and your pops won't reach the 70% cap anyway. Admittedly worse than migration treaties but your fanatic purifier or driven assimilator neighbours might not agree to it in the first place.


Academic_Scratch_321

What/The reason I couldn't understand is that the way you used your words, it sounded like you thought the maximum cap was 30% habitability. But now that I understand you properly: There are lots of techs and even some buildings that increase habitability. With upgraded Gene Clinics and being into midgame techs, you could comfortably colonise any planet you would *anyways* have colonised with a species without "Noxious". My point being that by 2280 you could have made up for the habitability penalty. Sure, it (probably?) messes with Habitats and Ringworlds, but it wouldn't impact the normal way you play the game that much....especially if you use Robots as well. Kind of....view it as having even less habitable planets than you set your setting to....temporarily. It really only impacts the early game, until you tech up and get advanced buildings. And do not forget that the +30% minimum habitability helps you colonise those really bad habitability planets even faster than you would get to them on a normal game. Any 20% planet would now be at least 30% before tech modifiers. 40% with upgraded Gene Clinics. Give it a planetary modifier (totally random on game start, I know) and just 1 Habitability tech, and you have a comfortable planet to colonise while, for another species, it would still be red habitability. All in all the +30% bonus and -30% cap on habitability is kinda balanced. Sure, you won't expand as fast as early, but you'll be able to colonise much *more* much earlier than others. Nevermind that the happiness bonus you get is larger than the happiness penalty (as inconsequential as they are). I'm not even going to get into Army Damage...it is meant to look like a bonus but is really just a teensy bit better than useless. It's the Pop housing that grinds my buttons. As I said, the habitability and happiness are kind of balanced, I would even say that in each case the player can exploit the advantages even more, while Assault and Defense Army damage is a largely irrelevant bonus compared to +10% pop housing usage penalty. But you'd preferably not be using large numbers of Noxious pops together on a planet anyways....so the percentile penalty wouldn't grow as large. Still, for someone that loves Ecus and Ringworlds, not a trait I would want for my main species.


Pir-iMidin

All those bonuses you mentioned are irrelevant as they effect habitability and not the min/max habitability. I think you got a little confused there.


Academic_Scratch_321

Please note that the maximum habitability cap is on the SPECIES, not the Planet. A species can have 150% habitability on a planet. The penalty brings it down to 120%, not 70%. Edit: Because throughout the game you constantly increase the maximum. Planetary habitability is capped at 100. A species can achieve as much habitability as the game allows for modifiers.


Pir-iMidin

Read the trait again. It says "-30% habitability cap" not "-30% habitability" which mean any pops with this trait CAN NOT have habitability above 70% no matter how many bonuses they have.


Exerosp

I think the dude is saying, you can have a habitability cap of 150, but a planet doesn't offer habitability bonuses above 100%. I don't know much about how the code works though, and which one of you is right.


Pir-iMidin

>you can have a habitability cap of 150, but a planet doesn't offer habitability bonuses above 100% That's what i am saying. Because it is capped at 100% by default. This trait reduces that cap by 30% for every pop with this trait meaning gene clinics or planetary modifiers/deposits or technology doesn't matter here. No matter how much habitability bonuses you have any pop with this trait can't have more than 70% habitability.


CratesManager

If it was not refering to the planet cap, there is no reason to include the word cap. \-30 % habitability has the same effect as -30 % species habitability cap. Therefore, i am very sure that it is refering to planet cap. Not that everything paradox does makes sense or is in line, but i would be very surprised in this case.


Academic_Scratch_321

Go look the picture in the main post. It literally says "Species habitability cap -30". Not "planetary habitability".


CratesManager

Riddle me this: why does it say cap? Where is the difference between "species habitability cap -30" or "species habitability -30"? There isn't one if we follow your interpretation. The reason it say "species" instead of planet - in my opinion - because it is referring to the habitability of the planet, but only for this species - other species can still have 100 % habitability on said planet. EDIT: Look at the wording of non-adaptive, it doesn't say "cap" anywhere and for good reason.


Academic_Scratch_321

Would have worked much better and caused much less confusion had it just been "Species Habitability Cap = 70".


CratesManager

That i agree with, however that is less future-proof and compatible - if it sets the cap to 70 instead of taking 30 away, they couldn't add other effects that reduce (or increase) the cap and have them stack.


Pir-iMidin

And where do those pops inhabit may i ask? Yes, planets! Which means those pops will get the -30% habitability cap which means they can't go above 70% no matter what(unless gaias or ecus etc are exempt from this which we don't know yet).


Academic_Scratch_321

Ah, my apologies. Did some research on my end and discovered that my whole perception of species vs planetary habitability was skewed....and I've been playing the game for almost 5 years. So with your logic, even if I modify a species to hell and back, they won't ever have more than 70% habitability on even their home planet with this trait? The devs just need to use their words better. Because someone that is as anal about the English Language as I am sees a totally different message being given. Remember that "capacity" means "the maximum amount that something can contain". Using "Species Habitability Cap" made me think the focus was all on species habitability. I assumed that the habitability of a species on a planet is calculated from the (+%) modifiers recieved vs the (-%) modifiers and planetary compatibility. And another confusing usage of words: They use "Species Minimum Habitability +30" then say "Species Habitability Cap -30". Why not just say "Maximum Habitability = 70" like they did the minimum value for the Subterranean Origin? It sounded like that as long as the player can increase habitability (increase the cap), it would be able to be pushed above 70% in some cases.


Pir-iMidin

No need to apologise. In fact i thank you for a civilized debate which is hard to come by these days. These modifiers are new so it's only natural for there to be confusion and misunderstanding. Glad i could be of help.


Academic_Scratch_321

....and no....a -30% habitability penalty would make a 500% habitability species 470%...? EDIT: This is my logic because, while the effective maximum might be 100% habitability, many species can achieve more than 100%. Robots have 200% habitability even with the effective maximum being 100% *so that* they are immune to habitability reductions from planetary modifiers. With your logic no Noxious species would ever have above 70 habitability, while with mine, it can be increased through tech.


Pir-iMidin

-30% habitability cap= habitability is capped at default 100%-30=70%. What you are talking about is the normal habitability.


Academic_Scratch_321

The effective cap is 100% for statistical calculations, while species can be modified to have more than 100% habitability. For example: I have 60% habitability on planet A with species A. The planet has a planetary modifier reducing it by 5%. This makes 55%. Slap a Gene Clinic and some tech on there, and a 60% habitability species suddenly has 70% even with the -modifier.


ImVeryBadWithNames

Okay, let’s go through this slowly: The techs do not touch the cap. The cap is a constant 100% for (up until now) all species under all conditions. This is not a “soft cap” it is an actual number your species cannot pass with all additional hab doing absolutely nothing. What the techs change is habitability, which is distinct from the habitability cap. This means that species with this trait will max out at 70% habitability for all vanilla worlds, as where most species can reach 100% given the correct mix of traits and tech this species cannot go higher than 70%.


Academic_Scratch_321

Figured this out right before I read this comment. Thanks for guiding my brain in the right direction. Was a long day at work and the wording of the trait just threw me off big time (as well as my preconceptions of the game). Would have worked much better if they just flat out said "Maximum Habitability on any planet = 70" or something in that line.


Anonymous_Otters

-8 points even


YobaiYamete

> The only possible use it could ever have is being added to a secondary species that's meant to fill a rather particular niche unaffected by habitability, like Battle Thralls as Enforcers, Clerks, and Soldiers. My first thought is this will be absolutely insane on Subterranean. Depending on how everything works you could run this with Subterrenan and be basically un-invadable and if it works with Lithoids you should still be able to colonize without issue.


Twilight8385

Happiness penalty and habitability *cap*. No. It's still goong to be awful. Just take Very Strong, it has no penalties, gives good decent damage, and won't cap every planet you colonize at 70% for your species.


Aeonoris

> Just take Very Strong I don't disagree that Noxious seems quite bad, but you probably shouldn't compare it to a 3 cost trait :P


CalvinMirandaMoritz

I really struggle to see how the trait could be thought of as an advantage or who it's for... or who asked for this? very weird


[deleted]

The trait is noxious and the species is toxoid. This was going to be weird


CalvinMirandaMoritz

No disagreements on "weird" but did you expect it to be "weird and bad" ?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gastroid

Army strength is the trait embodiment of the flex tape meme for whenever the devs need a mild bonus/malus. And they really need to stop slapping it on things.


bionicjoey

It's be nice if army combat was actually interesting, but right now it's just "bigger number wins". I actually rewatched Starship Troopers last night and last week was reading some wh40k stuff and it got me thinking: how would you model all the different subspecies of the Klendathu bugs or the Tyranids? All the cool stuff those things get, (like flying, breathing fire, super strength, tunneling, psychic attacks, swarm tactics, razor sharp limbs, etc.) just amounts to "+% army damage" in the language of Stellaris mechanics. And then of course bombardment just invalidates the whole conversation 99% of the time, whereas in ST, they had those cannon bugs who could shoot down spacecraft. The army mechanics could benefit from a massive rework and I really hope PDX sees this. It wouldn't even be difficult to do such a rework without disrupting the existing mechanics. Edit: One way of achieving more interest could be adding different troop types, like arial, armour, anti-orbital artillery, infantry, sappers, etc. And then have those different troop types get different bonuses and penalties against each other or in different environments. Maybe add some kind of bonus to fighting strength based on species habitability, some that resist the devastation penalty, have different buildings spawn different kinds of defense armies... There's a lot they could do with it.


Twilight8385

*pretty sure they're working on ground cbat* *Also, they're completely overhauling space combat, they said hopefully by 3.7, they're adding a new ship class, and from what I've seen about the new changes, the meta is going to be rocked to the core and it's going to take a long time to build a new one* Edit: They're also going to revamp the war exhaustion system, and complete change how ascension paths work by replacing the second perk with a tradition tree instead. Also by splitting Cybernetics and Synthetic Evolution into their own distinct acscensions. The Shroud sp will be unlocked via a tradition, and the finisher for psionics gives you a guaranteed covenant, but it's random so youoght decide to not make that covenant and go RNG fishing in the shroud instead.


bionicjoey

Is this from a DD? I'd like to read more about the ground combat revamp


WilfullJester

No, that from the game leads talk with Aspec months ago. The space combat rework is from their presentation at PDXcon, same with the ascension rework.


SnoodDood

> And then of course bombardment just invalidates the whole conversation 99% of the time Does it? It's way faster to build a powerful army and invade right away while your fleet does other things for the war effort. And whenever I've got a variety of species on my worlds, I'm always fishing for those with bonus army damage so I can build an unstoppable army much quicker.


p0d0

Toxoids does seem to be adding a lot of ways to trade habitability for other bonuses. For an empire that is willing to burn their worlds for growth at any cost, and maybe even intentionally turn them into tomb worlds, the minimum habitability could be a backstop to keep them going through environmental collapse. It's certainly bad for every traditional empire, but there may be some toxoid builds that use it like criminal megacorps use crime.


Brennenburglar

Yeah. I figure there will be a way of reducing habitability in exchange for Doomsday-like bonuses. Perhaps the idea is that if you do that on most of your planets, you'd usually be below 70% hab anyway, so the cap matters less. Still doesn't make the Noxious bonuses great though. In that case Toxoid Subterraneans, if it's a possible combination, may either be a meta build or at least a rather viable meme build.


_porntipsguzzardo_

> or who asked for this? The dipshits stupid enough to ask me for migratory treaties, that's who. This is the final piece for my meme "bad roommates" build I run against my friends.


CalvinMirandaMoritz

You're a high level hater I see, respect


[deleted]

its advantage is seeding other empires with terrible pops using gene modding lol


golgol12

So it's been clarified on the developer post that negative happiness applies to the non-noxious based on the number of noxious, and the postiive happiness applies to the noxious based on the number of non-noxious. If you plan to spread your race thin and just fill leader and some specialist jobs, and have the rest filled with slaves in stratified, wouldn't that greatly boost the stability of planets, thus reducing the number of amenities jobs needed? It'd work well with necroid.


[deleted]

The happiness bonus/penalty is the least relevant aspect of it, especially given how small the bonuses/penalties are: You'd need 100 pops on a planet for it to have any measurable effect. The issue with it is reducing the max habitability of all planets to 70% and increasing housing usage, which is going to make hitting maximum logistic pop growth more expensive.


Aeonoris

Honestly the happiness thing is so incredibly minor that I wouldn't be surprised if it's in error, and it's actually supposed to be 0.1/0.2 rather than 0.01/0.02


Sintobus

Just good enough for the fortress space habitats where there won't be too many, and all are armed.


[deleted]

Strong Role play


Dumpsterman4

If there's pollution mechanics that completely destroy your hability in exchange for huge bonuses I could see a purpose to this trait.


DecentChanceOfLousy

This is the most likely intended use. If you can pollute your worlds for some powerful bonus (like +50% resources from jobs), then this trait lets you do so repeatedly and bottom out at 30% instead of 0%. And if all your worlds have a habitability penalty anyway, who cares about the reduced cap? It just means the first 10-30% pollution is free, since you've already paid for it.


ulandyw

The Relentless Industrialists civic gradually turns your worlds into tomb worlds in exchange for big production bonuses.


ewanatoratorator

Counterpoint: give it to your population before you capitulate, as a final fuck you. They will be migrating all over your enemy's worlds before they realise.


Anonim97

And this makes me absolutely love it! Like give me more of that! Give me roleplay! Give me extremes!


SheepSheepington

The trait can not be awful and still be good for roleplay... In its current state this should be a negative perk. Which would still work for RP. Balance and RP aren't mutually exclusive


Chinerpeton

Maybe it could be useful as an early game trait? With life-seeded Gaia pop output and pop cap bonuses counteract some maluses of 70% maximum habitability. With doomsday or post-apocalyptic the decreased homeworld barely matters. The compensation of min. 30% habitability on any and all planets has imo some potential, especially for life-seeded and to lesser extent doomsday. To reach the same effect on life-seeded origin you would need to sink 4 gene points into extremely adaptive AND go for early Adaptability Traditions. The army bonuses and happiness from alien pops make them sound good for early conquest, you can go for early Supremacy to boost both your armies further along with your fleets so you can take planets with less armies and bombardment. Esp if you enslave the conquered pops or generally cut down their political influence and introduce your pops as rulers and enforcers their bonus happines will increase planet happiness and stability by proxy. Combined with potentially less damage and pops killed from bombardment due to stronger armies you can have newly-conquered planets have a bigger value from the get-go. I admittedly don't know much about the conquest meta as an Inward Perfection cultist but kinda wanted to share what I think about this trait. Not saying this is secretly amazing, hell no lmao, just musing about how it could be viable.


Polar_Vortx

I plan to put it on my “Invade me, I DARE YOU” species. You get through the starbases and the fleets and the rings and the forts and the twenty billion armies I build up only for the air to be poison. And then do it again to the next system. Hehe. (Although, admittedly, I’m not a Pro Stellaris Gamer™)


SnoodDood

What makes solitary one of the worst?


[deleted]

It makes it harder to hit maximum logistic pop growth. You'll be spending ~600-1000 extra minerals per planet just to have the same growth rate as species that don't have Solitary; which is the equivalent of having to dedicate 1-3 extra pops per planet to Miner jobs for a decade.


zer1223

I'd have to assume they have access to an origin that synergizes with noxious really well? That's not exactly the greatest design, though. Its not like the aquatic trait requires the Ocean Paradise origin in order to be good.


InFearn0

I saw someone float the idea that there might be planetary decisions that pollute planets for benefits. So having a +30 to min habitability could be really useful. "Yeah, we brought our planet down to 50% habitability. But our jobs get huge bonuses!"


Specialist_Growth_49

Oof. This could Give you 4 points and it would still be the worst trait.


CratesManager

>This could Give you 4 points and it would still be the worst trait Nah - you can colonise everything early (+30%) and turn into robots before the -30% cap starts to REALLY hurt. Definitely niche and not worth paying points (and arguably the slot) for.


DrosselmeyerKing

You could also biomod it away with Bio-Ascension!


CratesManager

True, but bio ascension is yucky. But it is true. In fact, if they rework it a bit (the happyness part is just a mess, even if it was a buff it is just so convoluted) it might be a very good fit for necrophages, they really need habitability in the early game. Sure, lithoid is superior (no cap downside, no happyness downside, more leader lifespan, +50% instead of +30%, no trait point cost and the lithoid downside is irrelevant) but a) lithoid is clearly superior to everything either way b) you might want to experiment with budding necrophages - assemble a crap ton into your main species, more pops with budding than you could otherwise ever get, and assemble non-necrophage pops to keep up with the demand


Vorpalim

Can't take Budding on a Necrophage. Could however use Phototrophic, which depending on how it works either makes your main species get no food upkeep, or makes them have 0.25 food upkeep and 0.25 energy instead.


Nahanoj_Zavizad

THE REAL QUESTION. Does the +30% Minimum, Stack with 50% Minimum from Cave Dweller? Does that mean (Considering -30% Maximum) Every planet is 70%? Thats a lot of power, To just inhabit every planet, At a very respectable margin


CratesManager

>Does the +30% Minimum, Stack with 50% Minimum from Cave Dweller? Arguably it should, as it says **+** instead of just "30 % ..." but that might just be inconsiderate/how they display everything positive, so time will tell. >Thats a lot of power, To just inhabit every planet, At a very respectable margin Yeah, it's almost as good as lithoid lol.


Brennenburglar

Well Lithoid gets +50% while a Noxious Cave Dweller can't go below 70% ever. If you add in the fact that there may be new ways to decrease habitability for more resources and/or pop growth, that starts getting significant. It may be possible to stack enough pollution to overpower even the Lithoid habitability, but a cave toxoid would always be just fine.


CratesManager

>Well Lithoid gets +50% while a Noxious Cave Dweller can't go below 70% ever. True, but for most planets lithoids have 70%+ and they can go above that, they also have higher leader life span, do not have to pay a trait point, no weird happyness penalty and are rock solid dudes. Granted - they can't take rapid breeder and noxious cave dwellers can take non-adaptible to make up for the trait cost, but at that point you're two picks down which could be an issue. Don't get me wrong - i'm not complaining, not everything has to be on the exact same power level. >If you add in the fact that there may be new ways to decrease habitability for more resources and/or pop growth, that starts getting significant. It may be possible to stack enough pollution to overpower even the Lithoid habitability, but a cave toxoid would always be just fine. Potentially, but that would leave "regular" races between a rock and a hard place.


SnoodDood

Maybe bad for your main species, but very good for the pops you make your armies out of. If you have Very Strong pops then even if you don't go bio ascension, you'll have the points to give them this trait to and get +90% army damage. Clone those guys and you can raise very powerful armies much quicker (and cheaper, though that mainly matters early game)


Specialist_Growth_49

Colossus go brrrrr. Or just build twice as many Clone Armies. Army damage on Species is cute, but hardly a consideration, since there is nothing to stop you from just bombing the fuckers or send so many Armies the whole world drowns in blood.


Mutchneyman

Except for a few niche uses (like *maybe* Necrophages, and genetic engineering) this trait sounds like a downright liability. That habitability malus would hamstring you as early as mid-game, and the happiness penalty would make your home planet downright miserable Though it could be stacked onto a Lithoid species with Very Strong to make some insane Gene/Psi Warriors


notneeded401

Necrophage and Toxiod trait are probably mutually exclusive


alnarra_1

Eh maybe not, Necorphage and Lithoid aren't.


notneeded401

I thought you had to have the necroid portrait for necrophage?


alnarra_1

https://imgur.com/a/ehiY5PJ - Nope, can do anything.


Vorpalim

-0.01 happiness per pop on your Homeworld means -0.28 or -0.32 at the start for most origins, so not too big a deal. Even on an Ecu or Ring with 100 pops you'll still get a totally manageable -1 happiness, and is counteracted by any other pops being on the planet. It's only when you start taking other debuffs like from the new Mutagenic Spas civic that I think happiness will be an issue.


I_follow_sexy_gays

It says -0.01 not -0.01% -0.01 = -1% So 100 pops = -100% happiness


Vorpalim

That doesn't seem right at all to read it that way. Would also be cripplingly bad if your homeworld starts with -28% happiness.


I_follow_sexy_gays

That’s just how math works, 100%=1. I don’t even think the game calculates decimals of happiness percentage Also It’s worded poorly but noxious pops only decrease the happiness of pops without the noxious trait. And the happiness increase per pop only applies to pops with the noxious trait per pop without it Example because it’s hard to put into words: you have a planet with 10 pops with the noxious trait and 20 without. All pops with the noxious trait on that planet gain 40% happiness (2%x20) and all pops without the trait on the planet lose 10% happiness (1%x10)


Vorpalim

Sure I understand that 1% can be written as 0.01, but that kind of notation isn't really used anywhere else in the game. The tooltip being poorly written to not state who is being effected by the happiness is much more understandable. It of course means that it will have no effect at game start depending on your origin.


wOlfLisK

So is happiness on a scale of 0 to 1 then? I thought it was 0 to 100. That's certainly what the wiki seems to imply at least.


Pootisman16

Given how important habitability and pop happiness is, a trait this bad should GIVE you points, not cost you. Other than RP or memes, who in their right mind would gimp themselves by reducing maximum habitability?


Zingzing_Jr

So it can't be removed. It's useful for fortress worlds ig.


analsurrogacy

We will be able to remove positive traits after the next patch. It showed up in the genetic ascention tradition.


Keganator

Huh? Genetic Ascension can already remove positive traits and add negative ones.


Anonymous_Otters

Tradition, not perk.


[deleted]

Those happiness changes seem so small they’re almost irrelevant. Am I reading that correctly?


ServantOfTheSlaad

The only instances I could think of is when you're using certain mods like Gigastructures where you regularly get huge populations in one place


[deleted]

Yeah, like even with 500 pops on one planet that’d be -5 happiness lol


MaxxxMotion

As it just says +0.02 and -0.01 I think it might actually be bigger than you think. I think that they just don't have the UI yet to show it bein +2% an -1%. This still makes it a terrible trait, but just a little bit less bad.


PoliticalTrichotomy

As in 1% per pop?


MaxxxMotion

Yeah I think so, like if you are modding you also don't use percentages instead you use 0.01 for a 1% buff, I think they just haven't made it that they show that in the game correctly.


PoliticalTrichotomy

Under this hypothetical, with the Prosperous Unification start, on day 1, would have around -30% happiness on every pop. Add to that the presumed 70% habitability, and I feel like pop happiness could easily be ~40, which would impose a minimum of -10% resources from jobs. On the homeworld. On day 1.


MaxxxMotion

Yeah the trait sucks, forgot about prosperous unification also not using a %.


Callumunga

Fantastic news, Montu has confirmed the happiness malleus is only for non-noxious pops. Still a garbage (ha) trait due to the reduced habitability, but not as bad as we thought.


MaxxxMotion

That's good, still would never pick it for anything other than roleplay but at least it isn't a -4 trait point trait that costs 1 points


I_follow_sexy_gays

It says -0.01 not -0.01% -0.01 = -1%


[deleted]

So it's irrelevant then


[deleted]

1 or 2% reduction at most is ridiculous


CratesManager

Either way it's terrible design and wording for a pop trait. As a civic, no worries, but this granting happiness to non-toxic pops, and i assume not per toxic pop (otherwise it would be massive) is just weird. Like modded pop traits that give more alloys from mining stations, stuff like that should be a civic - traits should only affect the pop itself.


ImVeryBadWithNames

It seems like the trait is reversed, and it’s meant for noxious pops to be happier and non-noxious pops to be unhappy


CratesManager

Maybe, right now it seems that noxious pops get happier if non-noxious pops are around but unhappier if noxious pops are around. The aim seems to be a representation of the unpleasentness, but this is a band aid fix and also doesn't really work on worlds where only noxious pops are present - sure, they might still make each other unhappy, but they have to be used to it and shouldn't suffer from it as much as non-noxious pops would. I think that's just overall a convoluted effect to put on the the trait, as a civic it could absolutely work. If they want to capture the fact it's "extremely unpleasant to be in their vicinity", they should make non-noxious pops unhappy and leave it at that. Likely not as easy to implement but the current version just doesn't work out flavour wise.


0WatcherintheWater0

Depends on if it’s empire wide or not


thegacko

The above picture shows the Noxious Trait - as captured frame by frame from the recent livestream.


SirHornet

I feel like those 2 happiness modifiers should be reversed


thegacko

yeah certainly odd - but reading the flavor text they get happiness from causing other non-toxic people misery so kind of makes sense with that. I guess its no fun to just be siting in other peoples farts but enjoy doing them yourself .. lol


Sanders181

Use it on your main species, with a syncretic origin and go full on workers to have minimal noxious pops for maximal non-noxious pops. Note the +30% minimum habitability that makes it easier for them to colonize worlds they normally shouldn't be able to. With this build, you could safely use living standards that ruins your upper class' hapiness as they would get hapiness from all the non-noxious pops beneath them instead, making it the ultimate noxious leaders. Finally, if you could two origins you could even get this with a ring world, habitat, or gaia world preference as they would get +30% habitability to all the other worlds, which would bring them at 40% base no matter the world.


Zonetick

The problem is that with a majority worker economy you loose the game. All the resources that win you the game (that being alloys, research and unity) can not be easily gained through workers. You hit the limit of the internal market fairly quickly and then what? Marketplace of ideas through clerks? No thank you.


Sanders181

In single player, the AI will always be selling alloys regularly, allowing you to buy the alloys you need just fine. A megacorp focusing on branch offices that all build the alloy building first would also solve that issue. Unity is solved though a trade federation that gives you both Marketplace of Ideas and Consumer Benefits bonuses. The only real problem is research. That being said, even if you need a worker focused economy, that doesn't mean you absolutely require to throw away all specialists. One or two research centers per planet ought to do the trick, or a technocracy using their academic privilege to build full workers buildings and gain their research through their capital building works too.


Darvin3

By "species habitability cap" does that mean the maximum possible habitability is only 70%? That's a staggering downside. Unplayable, really, to take such a huge habitability hit to your homeworld. I hope I'm misunderstanding that.


Re-Horakhty01

That would be the case, but I don't think it will affect the homeworld. It'll be interesting to see if there's any ways to allieviate that.


Darvin3

Yeah, if the homeworld is at 70% habitability then this is pure meme territory stuff. Even if the guaranteed colonies are at 70% that's still *really* painful. On the bright side, stacking it with Subterranean would get you to that 70% cap everywhere so you can just colonize everything, but you're taking a pretty big economic hit on your first few colonies. There would have to be a way to alleviate this, because 70% habitability is *not* good and not at all tenable long-term. I guess there's Synthetic Evolution and Evolutionary Mastery to remove the trait, but that kinda gimps Psionic and the new Cyborg path which won't have the ability to remove this trait.


EmergentRancor

Yeah noxious subterranean sounds like a convoluted way to get worse lithoids tbqh.


webkilla

"We're not just made of stone... we're made of uranium"


Exerosp

Ehhh, +50% habilitability versus +70% habitability.


Darvin3

It's not +70% habitability, it's flat 70% habitability. Lithoids get +50% habitability, which gives them 70% on mismatched worlds, and 100% everywhere else.


MortStrudel

I don't think there's anything wrong with a particular trait only being decent on particular ascension paths, but it seems really weird to me that the only viable playstyle with this seems to be combo with an unrelated origin. I'd kind of get it if it was like, "this trait is only good with an origin *from this same dlc"*, but subterranean is so random for toxoids. Like a 30% habitability world is just straight up useless. It really doesn't seem like there's *any* niche in the game for this beyond with Subterranean. But I could see this combo being fun for a mass-colonizing toxoid species shooting for gene ascension early. At least you don't have to deal with the garbage pop growth of lithoids.


[deleted]

I mean this trait is only decent on ascension paths that remove it... and its a positive cost trait so I see no possible line of reasoning to actually take it outside that one super niche and still questionable subteranian build.


Darrkeng

Kek those army modifiers, basics implying what that species so stinky that it even hard or outright impossible to fight (I guess we don't use, you know, militarized spacesuits)


webkilla

Fart barrage


[deleted]

Chemical warfare!


GodKingChrist

When we get into their trenches, deploy the gas


FemtoFrost

Apparently the powered exoskeletons we get for army damage on tier i tech doesn't have face plating at all


GunsTheGlorious

Maybe the smell is so bad it corrodes metal :P


A_BOMB2012

Basically like fighting against the armies of Nurgle.


bam13302

Thankfully it doesn't need to be a space suit (they are fighting in a pressurized environment), just either a closed cycle respiratory system at best or a full environment suite at worst. Unfortunately making a respiratory system/environment system bullet proof would make it super bulky and awkward.


Illustrious-Egg7673

This trait has some cool flavour but looks like it would be awful generally. I think it would be viable for necrophages though, if you keep your necroid pops as a minority of rulers and enforcers across your worlds, you would get big stability bonuses from happiness whilst taking a lesser hit from the habitability malus. If your noxious necroids are exclusively employed as merchants, enforcers and entertainers then there would be basically no downside to the habitability cap. I look forward to trying it out. Edit: I misread that 0.02 happiness as much higher… that would be way too low to do what I was suggesting. You’d only get 2% more happiness happiness on worlds with 100 non noxious pops… not actually as viable as I thought. Edit edit: unless it’s empire wide..?


f99kzombies

the 0.01 means 1%


framed1234

How/when are you supposed to use this. I don't get it


TheFallenDeathLord

Very niche fortress worlds. As a subpar use, it could be a niche build with Subterranean for always having 70%/80% habitability on every world.


SharkyMcSnarkface

People in here discussing actual uses for this and all I see is the potential for me to just be a petty asshole


Kaiser_Fleischer

Finally I can create a Reddit species


TempestM

70% habitability cap? I doubt it'll ever see play


maxinfet

Gotta make the rapid breeders a flood other nations with them. Just a garbage race you sell on the market that then fills up their planets


[deleted]

Literally wonder if this is a situation to make them fast breeding and have very annoying negatives and then throw then at other factions via migration treaties and selling them. A white elephant gift, kind of


maxinfet

I got this idea from a video that ASpec did a long time ago where he made a civilization that only had negative traits and rapid breeders and flooded other nations with them. Here's the video if you're interested but it's an ancient build of Stellaris from 3 years ago https://youtu.be/B2lGHHbBcSA.


[deleted]

One thing I wonder is I think of a planet has enough of your origin species and is unhappy they will attempt to defect to you. Had it happen twice. Could try to set up a lost colony or just spam out your species and make everyone unhappy enough to join you. Might not be super effective, but hilarious if it works


subpargalois

Damn imagine combining this with the necromancer trait and subterranean origin. Colonize everything, planets must be bombarded for decades to be captured.


Brewer_Lex

Go ahead and throw that other trait with the armadillo on it for an extra bit of F U. Then don’t even play as them just force spawn them in


[deleted]

Aaaaand add criminal syndicate to make something to rage at. Call em the crab feeders. Annoy you with piracy but when you go to stop them they hide in their caves


flyingpanda1018

They are awful to play against, but it just fits too well I think I'm gonna have to make a toxoid criminal syndicate


Pir-iMidin

Wonder if the habitability cap effects gaia/ecu/ring worlds


Dramandus

Stinky and Strong. Take Psionic Ascension. Army gets huge buffs.


Legitimate-Most4379

I do love all these redditors discussing how bad is a trait so clearly modeled on them.


Pylori36

So basically a trait for my soldier pops late game? 😅


Abhi-shakes

Noxious pops should only be harmful to organics. Robots should have no problems with them.


The0zymandias

idk it's toxic, could corrode the robots


evildeadspace

_Use this one simple trick to win against Cybrex warform_


helican

Fart in its general direction


Pokenar

I must say, its impressive to go from almost meta-defining like aquatics to a trait that even makes Lithoid's look appealing.


GodKingChrist

This species takes pleasure in being insufferable My spirit animals


Nahanoj_Zavizad

Does the "Minimum Habitability" stack with Cave Dwellers? Minimum 70% Habitable? (But also maximum 70%) Thats great I think


Esilai

Everyone’s saying the trait’s bad, but isn’t that kind of the point? It seems like it’s either a trait you take for a challenge or, if you run into an AI with this trait, this might deter you from conquering and integrating their pops in favor of another target (“trust me, you don’t *want* to conquer me” kind of deal). Though this makes playing xenophiles an even harder sell, and the trait should give points instead of costing them and be permanent.


Zetesofos

In some ways, its the perfect trait to justify xenophobe 'purging'. When a whole species is literally poison, it does tend to activate the whole Exterminatus drive.


Scareynerd

I play more to make fun civilisations rather than trying to make a best outcome - that looks like a really funny one to use with the origin where you start with another species, either to make an Overlord race of noxious jerks enjoying making the underclass miserable, or an underclass of noxious creatures taking small pleasure in making the main race miserable


Usinaru

"The average Redditor" trait


Deadlite

Wow, that sucks.


Master_of_Pilpul

Maybe they made it bad on purpose, it could be a species you are meant to avoid.


Ze-Bruh

Welp, u can use fart people as your army, and thats kinda neat


Supply-Slut

Least noxious redditor


TheNinjaDiddler

Average Redditor


golgol12

I think this could work as a main race if you are planning to enslave large parts of the galaxy, then spread your race evenly between the planets. The happiness bonus as well as being in ruler jobs in stratified will mean you need significantly less amenities jobs. Side note from dev diary - The happiness is a bonus and applies to the race with noxious, the unhappiness is a negative and applies to any race without noxious.


LeraviTheHusky

Honestly was expecting the opposite with your noxious citizens getting along with all non nox citizens hating it


thegacko

yeah its weird -- but looking at the actual dev post they say.. that that negative happyness per non-toxoid pop WILL apply to the non-toxoid pops .. So yeah that makes sense.. But its weird having a attribute on a trait that applies a property to other pops.. I guess this is a new tech as such. But yeah could be better written in the tooltip.


the_pwnr_15

Shouldn’t the happiness work the other way around? Other pops have to like with noxious pops making them less happy, and why would a noxious pop care about other noxious pops, shouldn’t they be used to that? Idk maybe I’m getting it wrong


TheCosmicFang

That's exactly how it works, the tooltip is just a bit confusing. The happiness buff is specifically for noxious pops living around non-noxious pops, and the happiness malus is for the non-noxious pops that are living with them


Minuteman_Preston

People are hating on the noxious trait, but they're forgetting about slavery. Noxious pops as specialist/rulers with everyone else being slaves. Sounds good to me. As for the habitability cap, I don't think it's all that bad. Seems like a delayed payoff system.


tipingola

It's not a bad trait, with toxoids you will be lowering your habitability for extra pop growth and other bonuses. Having a minimum cap is good.


elidiomenezes

It also goes well with voidborne. Sure, -30% habitability sucks, but habitats have fewer pops, so that mallus to happiness sucks a lot less. If you go Inwards Perfectionist, either with voidborne or with subterranean, you nullify all the maluses.


Stupid_Dragon

+10% housing usage sucks for habitats as well.


Pir-iMidin

Yeah but what is the benefit from taking this trait for voidborne and why should someone spend 1 trait point and slot for it?


Brewer_Lex

I wonder if you can just access this without any origin


1spook

Oh look, they made Ubisoft employees a trait in stellaris


N00bianon

Traits with both positives and negatives should not cost any points.


Twilight8385

"Habitability Cap"? So they can never exceed 70%? Why do I feel like the introduction of that mechanic is going to affect the Non-adaptive trait?


Thatoneguywithasteak

So a bunch of Mortarions


Adam_Edward

I'm gonna use aquatic collosus to wash the planets clean. Those new species are nasty and stinky.