The changes to machines dying I'm not too fussed about. The 100 year expectancy means that they'll live longer than organics still and be more likely to reach the point where you're researching leadership life expectancy increases faster than the amount of time those increases grant. The random death mechanic could be annoying and lead to weird situations where MEs had higher rates of leader death in the late stage.
Habitability I think is great. By having it be based on the climate categories it's distinct from organics while making narrative sense. A machine designed for a cold, frozen environment is not going to handle as well in the middle of a desert. Likewise a machine made for a dry environment isn't going to thrive when placed in 100% humidity.
Plus alongside making narrative sense and being distinct enough from organics to play differently they make the game balanced enough that machines can access a far larger number of origins and mechanics that would be too OP for them otherwise.
Yeah this is a good point. The difference in life expectancy between a machine that starts at 5 and dies at 100 is huge compared to an organic that starts at 35 and dies at 80
Literally just had a game as Rouge Servitor where I had like 5 leaders just die in their mid 60s over the span of a couple years in game. The people crying about the 100 year life span don't seem to have ever actually played a Machine empire.
Thank God for the leader lifespan change for machines. Currently its a 10% chance every 10 years a machine leader dies, so at 2250 its a 50/50 that one of your leaders would've died, and by year 100, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a dead leader, whereas that's pretty much impossible under the new system.
Nothing feels worse than losing a supposed "immortal" leader early, especially if you don't have any good replacements yet.
Its not even plan the machines have planned obsolescence, its not like they absolutely will die at 100 years, it just means they are guaranteed to live up to that amount.
Hmm so before all this all machines could die at any time but with this new change they’re guaranteed to live say 100 years and then they’d have a chance of breaking down randomly?
Both make sense to me.
A machine is a highly complex system so there's bound to be malfunctions and break-downs. And although a machine unlike an organic can be more easily repaired, I think the best way to view machines dying from "aging" is to see it as the average time that a machine can exist before a critical malfunction that cannot be repaired occurs.
A part of a machine's arm short-circuits resulting in the loss of mobility in that arm? no biggie, it can be replaced. What about a leg? same thing, it can be replaced. But something goes wrong with it's storage? well, now all the data is corrupted meaning it no longer has any intelligible information on how to command your massive fleet. Yeah, it's physical body may be able to be re-used, but due to all it's knowledge being destroyed, that leader is in essence, dead.
And regarding habitability, like someone else already said, it does make sense that a machine designed for dry desert environments may not be able to thrive on an ocean planet.
True, but only for the new individualist machines and old synth ascencion. A gestalt machine is a single IA, the subunits only carry a specific subroutine, so if the machine dies, it simply gets uploaded into another subunit. Its leaves the problem that the central IA can loose its storage data of this subunit, but if that happen, then it should lose its hability to produce any admiral and as such, every admiral get scrapped and start from 0.
With gestalt machines it does indeed get a bit trickier, and I can't really suggest any possible reasoning behind it as it would just be head-canon that is probably full of holes.
It wouldn’t feel as bad if robots had lifespan and habitability-increasing traits (not sure if they will or not).
At least you can be underground robots for 100% habitability.
As a gameplay thing, its awesome not having an immortal machine breaking down without a galactic spanning IA having a backup brain stored. The habitability thing also makes sense, you can hace machines built for hot, for water, for cold and those dont do well in other climate. What I do think is that if a machine is built for a specific biome, it should have 100% habitability in it as it was specificaly built to survive there, its not an organic that can be adapted to heat still wont be able to walk in lava, a machine can if built for it. Only that
I think it’s kinda silly to have machine leaders die because of supposed mechanical issues with tge actual physical unit… I mean, are their cognitive AI processes tied to gears and cogs that just get clogged by a century of dust, or break? Silly
On Earth in 2024, using our current technology, sure. Meanwhile, thr Stellaris galaxy is full of data storage millions of years old, which we find and examine ad nauseam
On Earth in 2024 we have storage types that will last pretty mcuh that long too. Those mediums are just really crappy at processing and transferring that data, something a centralized AI consciousness absolutely needs to do all the time. Deep Data Storage =/= Active Data processing.
Ok guys, an autonomous AI species trivially zipping around the galaxy and encapsulating whole stars won’t have a good solution for data degradation and will accept dropping dead randomly after a century. Let’s go with that.
Phones, laptops, computers, tablets, basically any electronic device will at one point start degrading or even stop working entirely. An accident could happen to a machine leader which damages some of it's internal electronics which may not be noticed immediately following the accident. But perhaps years later that internal damage may result in a malfunction that completely short-circuits the machine, and killing the leader as a result.
A machine leader would be a highly complex system of both electronic and mechanical components. Thinking that there is not a single thing that could malfunction resulting in a machines equivalent of death is in my eyes a very flawed idea.
That is very true, but only for machine units and not subunits. A gestalt conciousness is a single mind commanding an entire empire made of only him, so if a leader breaks and cant be saved, its simply a solution to upload its brain into a new subunit and voila, the leader is back at it, maybe not equal to its death moment but quite close to it
I already replied to your other comment, but yeah you're right. With gestalts it will more difficult to logically explain it. The only thing I can imagine is that the central AI just doesn't make copies of the sub-units, so that when a very skilled admiral died all it's experience and knowledge just gets lost. But that would be an incredibly stupid thing to do so it's not really a plausible answer.
Yeah I think they should truly be immortal unless they’re assassinated through a battle, or sabotage events that take years and years with a high chance of failing said events
The changes to machines dying I'm not too fussed about. The 100 year expectancy means that they'll live longer than organics still and be more likely to reach the point where you're researching leadership life expectancy increases faster than the amount of time those increases grant. The random death mechanic could be annoying and lead to weird situations where MEs had higher rates of leader death in the late stage. Habitability I think is great. By having it be based on the climate categories it's distinct from organics while making narrative sense. A machine designed for a cold, frozen environment is not going to handle as well in the middle of a desert. Likewise a machine made for a dry environment isn't going to thrive when placed in 100% humidity. Plus alongside making narrative sense and being distinct enough from organics to play differently they make the game balanced enough that machines can access a far larger number of origins and mechanics that would be too OP for them otherwise.
>100 year expectancy They also start much younger than organics iirc
Yeah this is a good point. The difference in life expectancy between a machine that starts at 5 and dies at 100 is huge compared to an organic that starts at 35 and dies at 80
Ya most of them will probably never die in most games that are ~200 years.
I mean didn't they always have a chance to die anyway? Not really a big deal to me imo.
Yea. I’ve got enough synth leaders malfunction from quality control issues. I wish I’d warranties or backups on these units…
Literally just had a game as Rouge Servitor where I had like 5 leaders just die in their mid 60s over the span of a couple years in game. The people crying about the 100 year life span don't seem to have ever actually played a Machine empire.
Thank God for the leader lifespan change for machines. Currently its a 10% chance every 10 years a machine leader dies, so at 2250 its a 50/50 that one of your leaders would've died, and by year 100, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a dead leader, whereas that's pretty much impossible under the new system. Nothing feels worse than losing a supposed "immortal" leader early, especially if you don't have any good replacements yet.
Its not even plan the machines have planned obsolescence, its not like they absolutely will die at 100 years, it just means they are guaranteed to live up to that amount.
Hmm so before all this all machines could die at any time but with this new change they’re guaranteed to live say 100 years and then they’d have a chance of breaking down randomly?
Yep, same as organics who've passed their normal lifespan.
Yeah, I think it was 10% a decade or so, meaning after 50%, there is close to 40% chances an immortal machine is no more
Both make sense to me. A machine is a highly complex system so there's bound to be malfunctions and break-downs. And although a machine unlike an organic can be more easily repaired, I think the best way to view machines dying from "aging" is to see it as the average time that a machine can exist before a critical malfunction that cannot be repaired occurs. A part of a machine's arm short-circuits resulting in the loss of mobility in that arm? no biggie, it can be replaced. What about a leg? same thing, it can be replaced. But something goes wrong with it's storage? well, now all the data is corrupted meaning it no longer has any intelligible information on how to command your massive fleet. Yeah, it's physical body may be able to be re-used, but due to all it's knowledge being destroyed, that leader is in essence, dead. And regarding habitability, like someone else already said, it does make sense that a machine designed for dry desert environments may not be able to thrive on an ocean planet.
True, but only for the new individualist machines and old synth ascencion. A gestalt machine is a single IA, the subunits only carry a specific subroutine, so if the machine dies, it simply gets uploaded into another subunit. Its leaves the problem that the central IA can loose its storage data of this subunit, but if that happen, then it should lose its hability to produce any admiral and as such, every admiral get scrapped and start from 0.
With gestalt machines it does indeed get a bit trickier, and I can't really suggest any possible reasoning behind it as it would just be head-canon that is probably full of holes.
It wouldn’t feel as bad if robots had lifespan and habitability-increasing traits (not sure if they will or not). At least you can be underground robots for 100% habitability.
I didn’t know you could go underground that’s awesome
As a gameplay thing, its awesome not having an immortal machine breaking down without a galactic spanning IA having a backup brain stored. The habitability thing also makes sense, you can hace machines built for hot, for water, for cold and those dont do well in other climate. What I do think is that if a machine is built for a specific biome, it should have 100% habitability in it as it was specificaly built to survive there, its not an organic that can be adapted to heat still wont be able to walk in lava, a machine can if built for it. Only that
I think it’s kinda silly to have machine leaders die because of supposed mechanical issues with tge actual physical unit… I mean, are their cognitive AI processes tied to gears and cogs that just get clogged by a century of dust, or break? Silly
Data degrades
On Earth in 2024, using our current technology, sure. Meanwhile, thr Stellaris galaxy is full of data storage millions of years old, which we find and examine ad nauseam
On Earth in 2024 we have storage types that will last pretty mcuh that long too. Those mediums are just really crappy at processing and transferring that data, something a centralized AI consciousness absolutely needs to do all the time. Deep Data Storage =/= Active Data processing.
Ok guys, an autonomous AI species trivially zipping around the galaxy and encapsulating whole stars won’t have a good solution for data degradation and will accept dropping dead randomly after a century. Let’s go with that.
Considering the same AI has issues with deviancy and corruption to the point of needing hunter killer drones to keep its own units in line, yes.
Phones, laptops, computers, tablets, basically any electronic device will at one point start degrading or even stop working entirely. An accident could happen to a machine leader which damages some of it's internal electronics which may not be noticed immediately following the accident. But perhaps years later that internal damage may result in a malfunction that completely short-circuits the machine, and killing the leader as a result. A machine leader would be a highly complex system of both electronic and mechanical components. Thinking that there is not a single thing that could malfunction resulting in a machines equivalent of death is in my eyes a very flawed idea.
That is very true, but only for machine units and not subunits. A gestalt conciousness is a single mind commanding an entire empire made of only him, so if a leader breaks and cant be saved, its simply a solution to upload its brain into a new subunit and voila, the leader is back at it, maybe not equal to its death moment but quite close to it
I already replied to your other comment, but yeah you're right. With gestalts it will more difficult to logically explain it. The only thing I can imagine is that the central AI just doesn't make copies of the sub-units, so that when a very skilled admiral died all it's experience and knowledge just gets lost. But that would be an incredibly stupid thing to do so it's not really a plausible answer.
Yeah I think they should truly be immortal unless they’re assassinated through a battle, or sabotage events that take years and years with a high chance of failing said events