Dev Diary #91: Starbases

[Ursul]

This is something we're currently sorting out, I'm currently leaning towards giving the empire who owns the system of the spacefaring primitives the choice between making them a protectorate and ceding the starbase or stopping them from becoming spacefaring altogether.

Not sure how I feel about that. Those shared ownership gave a touch to the game I think. Contested zone, point of diplomatic contention and so on.

 

[Tavior]

Important notice one thing. That it is a "straight" line and doesn't extend above and below. It would take trillions upon trillions upon trillions to just put up beacon all around a solar system never mind a "line" from a to b.

Also the movie was mostly a joke with how apparent realistic it was and that line was just one of those silly things.

 

[razaron]

Outposts owning space makes perfect sense for me. They're essentially state funded supply depots that make system exploitation economically viable for the civilian sector.
Once the civilian sector get's involved, other empires entering that space means they are interfering with your civilians livelyhoods. Which is a valid reason to have border permissions, wars and other mechanics to enforce border control.

The new border mechanic's going to forbid multiple owners per system but I'm quite confident that's for programming reasons, not design reasons. With an overhaul, coming out with a working and fun first-pass is better than a bug-ridden clusterfuck.
I assume later when they release the diplomacy expansion* they'll introduce shared borders and other fancy borders, which will be much easier to design and implement with the new border mechanic.
The current system uses essentially heatmaps, which are great for visualizing data but are inflexible** and shit for everything else.

I would actually love it if they used heatmaps for some view modes. For example, a military strength view mode where green means neutral/friendly, red means enemy and intensity represents fleet power.


* The devs have mentioned several times there will be (initially) 3 expansions fleshing out war, diplomacy and internal stuff. We've already got internal stuff (Utopia) and know war is next, so it's obvious diplomacy will be third (with a story pack inbetween).

** Heatmaps are the reason we don't have secondary colours in the borders or border change predictions for placing frontier outposts. While both are technically possible under the current system, the first would be too inflexible from an artists point of view and the second - from what I understand - would be too computationally expensive and unreliable (things change while the outpost is building).

 

[CrowScape]

That it is a "straight" line and doesn't extend above and below. It would take trillions upon trillions upon trillions to just put up beacon all around a solar system never mind a "line" from a to b.

 

[Spleenman]

The old border system makes no sense. I saw someone compare it to Africa, which is absurd. Africa is a landmass, humans are a land dwelling species. Space is space, and every empire in Stellaris are solar system dwellers. If we want an analogy comparing Stellaris to humans on Earth, each solar system is an island about 1km wide, and between each island is a stretch of ocean 10 000km wide. No matter how developed that island is it doesn't exert control of neighbouring islands.

Do you have a door on your home? Do you lock it? Why? Probably because you don't want squatters there.

If you think that just because man attains an interstellar empire they will give up their instinctive desire to "own" territory or not to jealously protect what they claim as their own, then you are far more optimistic about others than I.

Borders aren't the issue. It's the ability to have unlimited range right off the get go of the game that is hugely unbalancing. In MOO, that feature was a technology available only fairly high up on the tech tree. In this game, all spacefaring races start with it, which is a little too OP if you ask me.

 

[Ursul]

Huh, I feel the complete opposite. For me it completely makes sense that borders in space would be system focused and I'm excited to play a game in which empires aren't just giant blobs of systems that realistically they have little claim to. Why should an empire arbitrarily get a system they don't have a single asset in just because it's near them?

Yes and no.
If I do have some colonies, a gigantic star citadel, a big fleet, well, I can easily make the law in the neighborhood. After reading a lot of comment on the subject and thinking about it, I feel that an hybrid system migth be the solution. You only truly control system with outpost in it, but colony and major starbase should give you an influence over close system. allowing you to exploit it. But since it is not claimed, rivals could come and snatch it from you in theory, even if the influence cost would be big.

 

[Riftwalker]

Yes and no.
If I do have some colonies, a gigantic star citadel, a big fleet, well, I can easily make the law in the neighborhood.

only if the people are willing to listen, if not it's war, and well, then you just take their outposts...

I view the outposts as the necessary infrastructure to exploit the region and a good way to claim "boots on the ground" for a given system. you can still claim systems in-game, just not through mechanics. if someone takes your claims, insult them and prepare for war.

 

[elandread]

don't make me show the maths again. the hundreds of systems is so far beyond a hyperbole i don't know why people keep saying this.

largest map is 1000

hundreds is minimally 200 stars

that's 20% of the map captured by you without conquest.

that means the average 15 remaining AI have only grabbed 5% on average of their surrounding each, meaning you have 4 times the average output of other empires.

being able to do that consistently is highly improbable. this isn't even including FE taking up space and taking up more space when they become AE.

edit: also 36 pages in 24 hours, cool.

It's certainly not "so far beyond a hyperbole".

For instance in my last game I heavily focused on peaceful expansion, and yes, I controlled about 20% of my 1000-star galaxy in the end, with only minor gains due to conquests. I agree that I was somowhat lucky that I managed to achieve this, but expanding to 100-150 systems is pretty realistic even if you're not so lucky. And 150 instances of building outposts using the current space construction interface is quite tedious.

 

[Peko?]

Just some random thoughts from a new player here. Been playing about a week. Now I hear a complete re-write is coming. Ugh.

It's not going to be a complete re-write.

- unlimited fleet range. Needs hit hard with a nerf bat. If the Dev's would change this, I believe a lot of issues with wars, in your face AI, etc. would disappear. It's silly to have resources in the game that either aren't strategically important to increase your range or ship capabilities for warp. Add a fuel tech tree, limit range. This will force players and AI to act strategically, and not just build punk stacks that mysteriously show up with zero warning right after you throw your fleet at that ringworld. A second thing this does is give new players a chance to manage their growing empire without fatal consequences by year 100. Getting some time to "build up" isn't always a bad thing.

I believe there's a teapot in orbit around the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars.
It's unclear how limiting ranges would prevent/lead to any of the things you mention. Either way FTL changes will be explained Thursday, there might be something you like there.

- wars and influence. I really, really, really wanna hit someone with a nerf bat on this one. In your face AI as soon as you run into them. Added random antagonistic computer for addition fun. First battle is crucial. Lose it, and you're likely to get CONSTANT influence demands, that eventually will lose you the war. Silly. Successful attacks or defenses should simply gain or lose influence. War is fluid and demands and strategy change over time for various reasons. A computer losing should not be able to make influence demands, especially not 100 at a time. Go look at MOO and you'll see computer's that sued for a few credits, conceding one system, etc. You shouldn't get your clock constantly cleaned since the aggressive AI (even when set non-aggressive) forced you to attack it. What they should have done is a kind of influence tug of war. A larger empire would have more influence, therefore is a more daunting opponent and would be less likely to get attacked for the heck of it. Consequently, a larger empire would be able to take a serious influence beating, whereas smaller ones, not so much. Set victory conditions to something like a loss of 50%-60% of your total influence. Loser would probably have forced government reform, loss of some key systems or limits on ability to wage war for a time, etc.

The AI can only send demands when you're at negative warscore ie losing. Their demands are also in relation to how much you're in the red meaning they sometimes sue for peace just asking for a colony or humiliation (much like your MOO example).
Why should influence be gained or lost by space combat?
Larger empires are already more daunting opponents, they don't really need to be made more so. How would this system be an improvement on the current warscore system (that's also getting an update, fyi)? What you're describing are essentially wargoals but for some reason with influence instead of warscore. And as influence gain is pretty even between large and small empires right now you'll have to completely rework that, and then how do you adjust all the things that cost influence now? Hard to imagine how that would be an improvement.

- Empire Borders. One aspect of the game I actually like and think is great. Now you're changing it entirely. Facepalm. Huge mistake getting rid of this feature. Some of us enjoy our empire having a "fence". If you fixed the other two issues, borders as is would be fine. They help one act strategic without actually having to pop a starbase or outpost at every location.

You'll still have your fence, it's just moved. Unclear how "fixing" the first two would do anything about the problems of the current system.

- Tech tree. Silly if you have a researcher that is good at physics but his/her only research options are biology. Likewise, how can one develop proton torpedoes before even developing the torpedo? I see that the devs may want a little randomness, but apply some logic here. There seems to be little ability to guide your tech tree in a certain direction. You might need your physics guy to research powerful lasers to fight that new empire that just got in your face, but instead your options are research improvement and hydroponic farms II. Ugh. Should have techs broken down into three or four areas, physics/social/engineering, with the ability to have sub areas of improvement like weapons, construction, etc. Maybe it's done randomly now? Need to be able to guide it more. Also, primitive techs cost more if developed later just because you might have "more systems". Silly. The more complicated the tech costs the more expensive it should be, and vice versa.

Then you should probably put your researcher that's good at physics in the physics slot.
What researcher you put where affects the weighting of the different techs so you can guide your research, to a point. Your suggested improvement is essentially how it works now.
Tech costs going up with empire size is a classic 4X mechanic, without it you basically force all empires to blob as much as possible or fall behind not just in economy but also in technology. Wide and tall doesn't need to be equally viable but it's nice if tall isn't completely thrown under the bus. If you'd like a "realistic" motivation then we can say that it's more difficult to coordinate research over a huge empire, there will be more unnecessarily duplicated research etc.

- Sector Management. I like this feature a lot, but what I don't like is not being able to see physically the boundaries I've set to my sectors at the galactic map level. Please consider changing this.

You can already do this.

Shame that an entirely new way of doing things is coming. This game only needed a few minor tweaks to improve it, but now we're getting what looks like a massive change. Let me lay some advice on you devs: If it ain't broke, don't "fix" it.

Thus never improving on anything that isn't "broken".

Let's go through some topics to improve the game without a total rework, shall we?:

To sum up, you don't like the revamp of the border system but would like complete revamps of a number of other systems. Because when you want it it's not a complete rework but when you don't it is

 

[Riftwalker]

It's certainly not "so far beyond a hyperbole".

For instance in my last game I heavily focused on peaceful expansion, and yes, I controlled about 20% of my 1000-star galaxy in the end, with only minor gains due to conquests. I agree that I was somowhat lucky that I managed to achieve this, but expanding to 100-150 systems is pretty realistic even if you're not so lucky. And 150 instances of building outposts using the current space construction interface is quite tedious.

cool, still not hundreds. people were acting like people were gona have to build 500 outposts to cover a 1000 star map and didn't realize that you would gain the vast majority of your space-flags from conquest.

 

[Mytheos]

@Wiz

Just keep going the direction you are going...Starholds/Starbases sound amazing and I cant wait for the game to have better borders, defense and all of the potential strategic depth these changes will bring!

I'm sorry to say but if people are bothered by "clicking" a few times for added content/strategic depth, they really didnt show up to play a 4x game and there is nothing you can do about it.

You simply cant make a "Strategy / Management" game for people that want Strategy / Management and for people that want to do as little management as possible and want the strategy to be as shallow as possible...

You can only choose to make a game for the 4x / Grand Strategy players that showed up to play a 4x / Grand Strategy game!

 

[methegrate]

I'm actually super alright with having to build hundreds of outposts. It seems like it will slow down border expansion.

It does seem thematically off for a lot of Stellaris' inspiration. There are many stars in Federation space that don't have specific installations after all. But from a gameplay perspective, the old system has a way of making the galaxy feel crowded and small. This system feels like it might slow down border expansion, leave more blank space on the map, and make you think about each star as a significant asset, and I'm super excited about that. (I noted in my earlier comment, I also think it opens up the potential for an entire system of wildcat colonies in unclaimed space if they wanted to do that, with potentially cool diplomatic and mechanical implications.)

 

[Spaceninjanate]

I'm looking forward to this next update! Sounds like there's a good sense of priority about what needs to get done.

I wonder if it changes the "close borders" ability. Having my fleet vanish because someone closed borders to me, not being able to reach someone I'm at war with or most recently, having a colony completely surrounded by closed borders and cut off from the rest of my territory is disappointing. Closed borders should be more of a diplomatic mechanic than an in game force that magically repels fleets that haven't declared war.

Great job with the updates and patches! My friends and I are looking forward to more!

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

So, the old border system made as much sense as any other aspect of diplomacy.

Of course you can claim a system without building anything there. You just say, "I claim this". How you enforce it is another question.

Other than FE, why can't a big powerful empire violate your closed borders and dare you to go to war with them? Why can't someone just plop a colony ship down next to your colony? Why can't you declare war within 10 years of the previous war ending? Who enforces any of these rules, and how?

Clearly, in Stellaris, everyone (even purifiers and devouring swarms) abides by a gentleman's agreement to follow the space rules. And the space rules include, whoever yells loud enough from their colonies and outposts owns a system. And some things let an empire yell louder. And even an FE will acknowledge it, if someone is yelling loud enough.

The thing is, someone giving up a system, to a potentially weaker empire, just because they claim it, is very unrealistic. But, it is similarly unrealistic that I can't say "this is mine" about any system I please. And whether anybody decides to abide by it, or isn't afraid, or calls my bluff, is up to them.

The current border system kinda simulates that; these are the systems you are "strong enough" (or loud enough) to claim, and people will follow the space rules. That simulation is gone. Though, maybe it'll be replaced by an ability to "warn off" other empires manually, like an FE? Or the ability to demand a system that was just claimed, but you considered yours? Sure there's war, but what if it's an ally that claimed it? They'd probably have listened if you could tell them, somehow, "these systems are going to be mine", or maybe give them up for some compensation.

But now we're getting into things the current system can't do either. The new outpost system gives just as little actual justification for why an empire accepts your claim. Sure, a level 0 outpost can scare off a civilian ship, but why doesn't he move a sufficiently large fleet in there with it and say "you wanna stop this colony, then make me"? Space rules, that's why. The only thing this improves is that now you'll actually have the sensor coverage to know if someone were to violate your claim, which they can't anyway

Now, actually gathering resources from a system you can't reach, where some other empire previously built mining stations? That doesn't make sense. Of course, I'm sure it'll still be possible, even if the FTL system changes. Whether some systems are not hyperlane accessible but you claimed one from a more technologically advanced empire, or they're cut off by closed borders. But, wiz did leave the possibility open that it will come with penalties, at least.

 

[Ashen Rain]

@Wiz First I just want to say how awesome this looks. I've been keeping an eye on Stellaris as it developes, promising myself I'll come back when warfare becomes a deeper experience. It looks like this will be my time! I have a question, and a suggestion/idea:

Q: Will one available Megastructure be some sort of "super station"? Essentially a level 6 station, perhaps limited to 1 per empire, capable of nigh impregnable defenses? Or will the strength of citadels be balanced to the point where this would be not needed or over the top?

Suggestion: What if collection of resources and trading between empires had to occur along trade lanes? Resources from any given system could be sent to the nearest station (upgraded outpost), and then funneled along trade lanes back to the empire's capital star base. Trade lanes would appear over the course of the game between star bases as they are constructed, and would create points of strategic interest on the map outside of targeting star stations: for instance you could try to force an engagement with your enemy by blockading their trade lanes and starving them of resources, forcing them to come out and face you.

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

Ticking was score

Enough said

 

[CalDom]

So here's my question: If Starbases are replacing Frontier Outposts, and FOs have to be placed on stars, will Starbases also have to be placed on/around a system's star? If so how will they defend our poor vulnerable worlds when aweful aliens come to invade them?

 

[CrowScape]

If so how will they defend our poor vulnerable worlds when aweful aliens come to invade them?

It's not like starbases defend worlds now. They just kinda blow up when the enemy fleet gets in range.

 

[Spleenman]

It's not like starbases defend worlds now. They just kinda blow up when the enemy fleet gets in range.

yep. Computer with less stars and resources? No problem. He'll just show up with a doomstack twice as big as your fleet and chew through defensive numbers twice his own size like they are butter. Literally just experienced this as a 1.2k starbase, a 350 defense station AND a fleet of 1.2k couldn't stop an attacking force of only 1.9k.

Beginning to really dislike this game.

 

[Ursul]

only if the people are willing to listen, if not it's war, and well, then you just take their outposts...

I view the outposts as the necessary infrastructure to exploit the region and a good way to claim "boots on the ground" for a given system. you can still claim systems in-game, just not through mechanics. if someone takes your claims, insult them and prepare for war.

I think you misunderstood me.

If a system is empty and you've got infrastructure in the nearby system, building a civillian outpost (mining station, scientific station) should be possible. Even if you don't have military control of the system, you're the one paying the workers salary, so yes, they will do what you say without the presence of a small millitary outpost nearby.
But doing so does indeed expose you to the risk of another nation coming and gaining control of the system. Afterall, you do not control it, you just exploit it.

I really disliked the fact that in Stellaris, only claimed system could be exploited. Economic and scentific developments are big motor for expension and are in fact the most common one. We should start with the exploitation of rssource and then securing it.
No sense in having an heavy border defense when as far as you know, you are the only intelligent race out there.