Should we just start a Gestalt thread? (2024)

Not to take away from the fun we’re all having in the “Elephant in the room” thread, but it seems like people have pretty varied opinions of how Gestalts and esp. Hive Minds even work.

I’m pretty firmly of the opinion that hive minds do not need a unified consciousness, or at least one that resembles a human mind, which would open them up to all sorts of unique internal conflicts between different parts of the hive mind. Others seem to think internal conflict should be impossible in a Gestalt. What do you think?

I think it's very frustrating when you have lots of housing, but not enough jobs. For example on a Ringworld.

Gestalt pops shouldn't have any penalty for unemployment, especially if they're all the same mind, just with lots of body parts. After all, you don't say your right hand is employed and your left hand is unemployed, right? It should be the same with gestalt entities. You either have lots of things you can still do (open jobs) or you're currently doing everything you need to do (all jobs filled).

Maybe have pop growth for gestalts tied to either available housing or available jobs, whichever is lower?

Ohirra said:

After all, you don't say your right hand is employed and your left hand is unemployed, right?

Click to expand...

But we do say that the devil makes work for idle hands (or at least Thoreau did).

Some random thoughts about hiveminds:

- Hiveminds needs more flavorful, more powerful civics asap, in order to compensate for their lack of ethics bonuses & mechanics. This has been an issue for a long, long time
- Make differences between hiveminds more pronounced. Making hivemind civics other than a palette swap of "regular" civics could be a start. The mod "forgotten queens" have a ton of good ideas in that regard
- That being said, I do miss some kind of symbiotic or benevolent type of hivemind that can engage in diplomacy and peaceful assimilation
- Another poster suggested making gestalt pops generate 1 unity each, instead of having a specialized unity job. Some other posters crunched numbers, and it seems that it would be the equivalent of having 100% faction approval. That might be a really cool way of further differentiating hiveminds from regular empires, as well as overcoming one of (yet another) feature that hiveminds don't have (factions yielding unity). Not to mention that each individual hivemind pop generating unity feels extremely "on brand"
- Be less afraid of creating unique mechanics for gestalts in general, rather than just removing them. Why can't we custom-build robot leaders if we are a machine empire? Where are my hivemind bioships? Asymmetry is good!
- Regarding the "but how could hiveminds have internal politics", I think that making drone deviancy a major issue that can end up with an independent "rogue queen" could be a really good alternative to dealing with factions. An empire that can expand into a billion star systems with little sprawl penalties and no internal squabbling, but that can fail due to "tall problems" seem very hivemind-y to me

Ikael said:

- That being said, I do miss some kind of symbiotic or benevolent type of hivemind that can engage in diplomacy and peaceful assimilation

Click to expand...

I think its like Empathic or something, its a civic that helps the hivemind malus and gives you more envoys.

Doesn't feel like it does enough since hives inherently have issues with diplomacy, and the AI seems to particularly enjoy bullying AI-controlled empires with the civic for some reason, even when they too are xenophiles.

There's a real tension between creating new Gestalt-only gameplay paths (i.e. through a new Gestalt DLC), and somehow having Gestalts also share mechanics with non-Gestalt empires (which seems to be the case with most DLCs). It would be really cool to have new Gestalt-only options, but that might have less impact on Stellaris as a whole versus say espionage or diplomacy changes.

The real question is how should internal politics DLCs play out in Gestalts? It feels like it would be difficult to create two (or three) different systems for normal empires vs Gestalts (or even hives and machines separately). But it would also really suck if Gestalts are locked out entirely of internal politics changes entirely, and the compromise to have reskinned versions of the one for normal empires might feel thematically weird. On some level, we really need a new Gestalt-based DLC, but that might be a hard sell since not everyone plays them all the time.

Shadowstrike said:

On some level, we really need a new Gestalt-based DLC, but that might be a hard sell since not everyone plays them all the time.

Click to expand...

Definitely not. DLCs for DLC is not a good idea.

Janx14 said:

I think its like Empathic or something, its a civic that helps the hivemind malus and gives you more envoys.

Doesn't feel like it does enough since hives inherently have issues with diplomacy, and the AI seems to particularly enjoy bullying AI-controlled empires with the civic for some reason, even when they too are xenophiles.

Click to expand...

Yup, that's one of the most egregious examples of "regular civics shoehorned into hivemind ones". Default hiveminds have a ton of problems with diplomacy by design (not a bad thing per se), but its "diplomatic civic" does not take those limitations (such as lack of pop xeno assimilation right out of the bat) into account, it just copies the regular empire civic (diplomatic corps) with a minor bonus, and calls it a day.

Ikael said:

more powerful civics asap, in order to compensate for their lack of ethics bonuses & mechanics. This has been an issue for a long, long time

Click to expand...

No, they don't.

Currently hivemind is more than powerful enough, actually it is one of the most powerful form of government in Stellaris as of current patch.

So no they don't need even more buff.

DurianKing said:

I’m pretty firmly of the opinion that hive minds do not need a unified consciousness, or at least one that resembles a human mind, which would open them up to all sorts of unique internal conflicts between different parts of the hive mind. Others seem to think internal conflict should be impossible in a Gestalt. What do you think?

Click to expand...

If gestalts have internal conflicts, then how are gestalts any different from regular empires? It's already a bit of a problem that leader and crime - excuse me, "deviancy" - mechanics extent to them. I say leave internal politics out of them, both to differentiate them and also because that leaves the players who want to focus on external politics - or just map painting - a way to do so.

Ridixo said:

Many people may think hive-minds being many drones forming a single consciousness, but it's a single consciousness with many bodies. Same way a person got a single mind but many parts, legs, hands, fingers, feets and such the hive-mind got many bodies doing stuff, but they got a single mind. No matter how much drones there are, there is a single mind and some animals on some planet of the galaxy. Then when the hive-mind goes beyond their homeworld they can find new species and civilizations to feats upon and no longer being that lonely

Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Hive minds, like a lot of things in stellaris, are left to be interpreted by the player. Take a look at the hive-minded trait description:

This species is made up of semi-autonomous individuals slaved to a single, unfathomably vast consciousness

This only tells us that drones lack free will not necessarily that they are singled-minded. I also wouldn't call my fingers or body cells "individuals."

Lastly, if all of stellaris hive minds were single-minded why would they have a civic called 'one mind'?

mammonmachine said:

But we do say that the devil makes work for idle hands (or at least Thoreau did).

Click to expand...

That's why you should

be using at least one of your hands to do crime.

Crime keeps one hand busy, which keeps the devil away.

Hiveminds need more civics in general and more access to Origins. Look how long it took to get Necrophage working for Hiveminds. Next DLC will add 5 new Origins but only 1 of them is available for Hiveminds. So once again the options for non-Gestalts are expanded while Gestalts lack behind.

Right now we have a civic thats more peacefull for diplomatic weight, but the civic is weak and not worth picking unless you enjoy wasting civic slots. Hiveminds need something like Technocracy for their Natural Neural Network civic. They need their Warrior Cult-like civic updated to match that of non-Gestalts. Same for Machines of course. They need access to Mining guids equivalent. And it would be nice if they had access to civics like Masterful crafters which change some of the jobs. In general the updated Warrior Culture and Masterful crafters are good examples for how to create civics which are interesting and impactful.

Machine empires just got a huge buff for Rogue Servitors so thats nice.

Hiveminds however are still waiting for that Psionic Ascension for years.

In the recent Disasters dev diary I merely asked if this disasters feature would be open to all empires, not just non-Gestalts and I was promptly downvoted. Not sure by whom but apparently there are people who think having unequal events and content is fine? That made me sad.

DurianKing said:

Not to take away from the fun we’re all having in the “Elephant in the room” thread, but it seems like people have pretty varied opinions of how Gestalts and esp. Hive Minds even work.

I’m pretty firmly of the opinion that hive minds do not need a unified consciousness, or at least one that resembles a human mind, which would open them up to all sorts of unique internal conflicts between different parts of the hive mind. Others seem to think internal conflict should be impossible in a Gestalt. What do you think?

Click to expand...

It all should depend on type of gestalt. The problem here is that in Stellaris there is only one type of organic gestalt consciousness which, namely "swarm", despite of different civics, its always the same, zerg-like, swarm. There is no "one mind" there is no "collective mind", there is no "hive", nothing except swarm mind.
And in swarm mind internal politics is (in my opinion) takien quite good - deviancy within hive, and deviancy-seeker drones, which became less, and less effective the bigger the planet, but remain quite same effectiveness withing whole swarm "empire".

Haltin said:

If gestalts have internal conflicts, then how are gestalts any different from regular empires? It's already a bit of a problem that leader and crime - excuse me, "deviancy" - mechanics extent to them. I say leave internal politics out of them, both to differentiate them and also because that leaves the players who want to focus on external politics - or just map painting - a way to do so.

Click to expand...

I dunno, I prefer Gestalts to be interesting and different with their own challenges, and not just “easy mode”.

DurianKing said:

Not to take away from the fun we’re all having in the “Elephant in the room” thread, but it seems like people have pretty varied opinions of how Gestalts and esp. Hive Minds even work.

I’m pretty firmly of the opinion that hive minds do not need a unified consciousness, or at least one that resembles a human mind, which would open them up to all sorts of unique internal conflicts between different parts of the hive mind. Others seem to think internal conflict should be impossible in a Gestalt. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Hell, I have internal conflict in my own brain, and I'm just a regular guy. Like, I've got one faction that really feels like Taco Bell is a great idea, and another that thinks it's super gross. I've got one faction that demands that I eat pastries in the morning and another that hates being a fat guy. And there are legitimately different chunks of the human brain that make me feel these contradictory ways. In an entity that distributes it's intelligence across many brains I would be unsurprised to learn that different individuals within the hivemind have differences of opinion as stark as the ones I have in my own head.