[Dev Team] Astral Planes and Stellaris 3.10.0 "Pyxis" Preliminary Release Notes

[mrt1212]

I understand and yes, exploit-y tactics with countless mini-vassals need some overhaul. I merely think that a solution to a problem should tackle the problem itself, not take a detour and negatively impact legitimate approaches along the way.

Why not introduce diminishing returns, if you get certain buffs/gains from the same source? For example, having the first 3 Ministries of Truth give full benefits, the 4th starts to drop off etc. Or have the building output scale with subject size, realizing full gains if the subject has at least 300 empire size or so. Just to throw out the idea how balancing could look like.

Now? Legitimate players having several normal subjects won't be able to use loyalty anymore, while 20 Ministries of Truth from 20 micro-vassals still do their job like before. In the end nothing was done about the problem, nobody gained anything, the decision didn't make vassal management more fun, nor did it cut back on micro-vassal spam.


Then take Diplomatic Corps and remove the civic once you get extra envoys from somewhere else.

You can never take APs back, that is the fundamental problem here. The slots are limited, so they ought to give you something for the rest of the game.

I know, some are stronger early on and some are stronger later on. Be it as that may, +2 envoys just doesn't cut it at any point in the game. Not when you compare it to the things you don't take instead, like a permanent research speed bonus for the rest of the game, extra unity (which translates to faster traditions and later directly into edicts, making it better than Executive Vigor). It doesn't compare to the ability to build powerful megastructures, having access to the Total War CB, to ascending your entire race, unlocking stealing pops.

Perhaps a more elegant way to handle the influence from Ministry of Truth is that its half effect when built (and for microvassals that are either self created after colonizing or are those 7 pop habitats mid/late, this means basically nothing for a while), and full effect if you're Improving Relations via envoy. Obviously this is optimized to working vassals that can serve up the maximum output, but...you only got so many envoys so sure, 15 envoys on 15 vassals for 15 influence is one way...but you're giving up a lot of other potentials simultaneously just for 15 influence. Side benefit is a little hocus pocus that 'The propaganda worked!'

 

[Masked Ermine]

Well that's the thing about it - despite the lures to care about leaders, I'm still basically still indifferent to them, little bonus fellas that come as they do and leave as they do. So a negatrait like Paranoid II stinks on the oligarch (and this just happened in my most recent), but what am I gonna do about it but wait it out and adjust accordingly to the -10% research hit by maybe breaking off some backfill techs I've neglected or stealing a couple techs or something to bide the time in an impaired state?

Sure it's flimsy reckoning in one way where I'm not consciously focused on them yet still enjoy their benefits, but every time someone births a calf about negatraits, I'm simply more affirmed in my half stoic half ascetic engagement with leaders as a sub system of the game. Hard to be put out about bad things if you had barely any feels about them in the first place. The show goes on and half my council being addicted to pills is pretty on theme for pirates.

What if we got event chains for our leaders? Ones that both took into account their negative and positive attributes, and those event chains then would give the player (or player empire) buffs or debuffs depending on the outcome? Or is that just too Crusader Kings for this sort of thing?

 

[Masked Ermine]

I mean, world conquest gets penalised by empire size, not to mention the limiters to pop growth
And huge fleets kill your economy (and are capped by naval capacity)
And while vassals in theory had such a safety net as well it was too easy to avoid, so they fixed that

Arguably it's not that hard to overcome 'empire size debuffs'. And if you are large enough even naval capacity is a bit of a non-issue, especially if you're a large empire...because you can just inflate your nav cap with fortresses and such. Though to be honest that starbase capacity is a bit of a hard hitter...never have I been punched in the gut so much than when I accidentally built one too many starbases....go from 1K energy a month to -100...and you're like 'Damn, you 'pensive starbase'.

 

[mrt1212]

What if we got event chains for our leaders? Ones that both took into account their negative and positive attributes, and those event chains then would give the player (or player empire) buffs or debuffs depending on the outcome? Or is that just too Crusader Kings for this sort of thing?

I would be one of the most smitten kittens in the whole galaxy and would purposefully choose the high risk high reward options just to see if I get away with it that time, lol. There's not really 'Too Much Crusader Kings' possible in my book because all things being equal, I really like a space frontier/sci-fi setup a lot more than 789 AD-1453 AD, but by the time they put an end to developing for CKII, they had developed one the most enjoyable games I've ever played whether it was straight or you goofed around with dueling and bloodlines and warrior lodges to make demi gods that couldn't lose a duel but were easily subdued by measles.

Hell, I'd be all about negatraits just coming from High Risk High Reward failures for Leader Situations. Don't want a negatrait, take the safe option with a baby bonus. Willing to risk taking Zro in capsules for an edge in the challenge succession coming up? Well maybe you can't stop taking those Zro capsules so easily once its over. IDK exactly on stories and hookpoints to the game system, but I want em and I want to see all of them

 

[Calvax]

What if we got event chains for our leaders? Ones that both took into account their negative and positive attributes, and those event chains then would give the player (or player empire) buffs or debuffs depending on the outcome? Or is that just too Crusader Kings for this sort of thing?

That’s an interesting idea. I like that leaders are more complex now but they still don’t quite feel like characters so much as collections of stats. Narrative events related to them could help flesh them out.

 

[Critical Ethics]

That’s an interesting idea. I like that leaders are more complex now but they still don’t quite feel like characters so much as collections of stats. Narrative events related to them could help flesh them out.

I was running a hive mind empire and picked up a paragon leader. At some point they developed the hoarder trait, immediately crashing my economy with their lust for baubles the hive neither possessed nor understood. I ended up setting a standing order for 3 pallets of singleton knick-knacks to keep his insatiable tchoke-madnes from destroying me from within.

This is the only time I have ever cared about negative traits in the sixish years I've been playing this game and I'm 50% sure it was a bug. So that's the level of impact they're going to need for me to actually enjoy them.

 

[mrt1212]

Arguably it's not that hard to overcome 'empire size debuffs'. And if you are large enough even naval capacity is a bit of a non-issue, especially if you're a large empire...because you can just inflate your nav cap with fortresses and such. Though to be honest that starbase capacity is a bit of a hard hitter...never have I been punched in the gut so much than when I accidentally built one too many starbases....go from 1K energy a month to -100...and you're like 'Damn, you 'pensive starbase'.

I wanted to respond to this too, shoot.

One of the funnier things about this playing as a Large Megacorp is there's a calculus where going slightly over your Starbase Cap with a full kit of Anchorages is preferred because the Alloys and ECs from going over Naval Cap is worse, and luckily you're flush enough with ECs to cover it. 36 Naval Cap a pop for a marginal increase in ECs is fine. Also, because of the behavior of calculating the overages, the higher your cap limit, it hurts less to be over it. 25/20 is far less awful in time and place than 5/4 or 10/8, but also because you're getting 36 Naval Cap for it in time and place (like retrofitting conquered bastions to be anchorages). And certainly 25/20 is far less worse than being 15/10 as the penalty for going over is calculated, so there's always a reason to boost your cap but the stiffness of the penalty diminishes as you do.

This is more pronounced in Naval Cap simply because you can see the swings directly so easily in alloy output after maintenance - 1500/1200 is manageable, and even two fully kitted Anchorages or 4 Pirate Havens BO slots and a fully kitted Anchorage gets you back into better form at 1500/1272-1276.

I am generally loathe to build fortresses just because that could be anything else that serves a productive capacity, and the advantage of being spammabale and upgradable compared to military academies is obviously true, but if you have enough planets/habs, you might not need to spam them and upgrade them, and just rock spam one academy and snag the little bonus that military academies give to armies produced there. I'm also a total cheapskate in that I don't like having to use motes/gas/crystals if I don't absolutely need to for buildings. Alloy Megaforge upgrades is my one exception where I will gladly do so but otherwise I'm asking for the next alternative.

Edit: One of the reasons this doesn't really pan out with a smaller empire is you simply don't have posts to put a starbase after a certain point. It's straight up BOs and internal Cap relief mechanics which can do a helluva lot and have their own benefits to boot but...yeah...getting beyond a certain point if you don't have starbases or room for fortresses, and are running out of BO opportunities for any number of reasons (I've found in recent playthroughs with a minimal amount of settling its been around 1600+ that I start running out of easy gets for more naval cap. Command Center Megastructure and Galactic Senate measures are not exactly easy gets because of time but that's where the big gains come from late.)...that big empire is just going 'ploop, 36 naval cap here, ploop 36 naval cap there'

 

[Foxosaur]

You made a noticeable impact to our game as part of the custodians, @MonzUn - I only just managed to read this DD properly.

Thanks for everything and look after yourself

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Apologies if these have been asked and answered, I'll read the entire thread later, so ignore if they have.

Can commanders be governors without instigating martial law?

Will a commander with starting "general" traits and a commander with starting "admiral" traits be more likely to get more of the same on their first few level ups before picking a veteran class?

If the job a leader is doing has more influence on what traits are available on level up, how much influence will their veteran class have. Say for example I have an explorer scientist and I make them a governor after exploration is done but before astral rifts start appearing, will they continue to have access to the advanced explorer traits or will they only have governor traits at level up during their "domestic" tour of duty? It would be quite ironic if we finally had a use for those high-level explorer traits but no longer had access to them because their governor job only allowed them to pick governor traits.

Does inward perfection suffer the penalty for not having a minister of state? In all honesty, I would probably choose not to have that council position anyway and accept the related penalty when playing inward perfection, but it seems pretty limiting to not even give the player the choice.

Considering the different types of governors now and the fact that we will have more of them, any chance of allowing some freedom in designing districts. I mean, you probably want an administrator in charge of a district but what if a tech world is the only logical place to put the sector capital within the restrictions of the game? Should I really be required to put half a dozen worlds under martial law simply because the district capital had an uprising?

 

[TranscendentalDragon]

Considering the different types of governors now and the fact that we will have more of them, any chance of allowing some freedom in designing districts. I mean, you probably want an administrator in charge of a district but what if a tech world is the only logical place to put the sector capital within the restrictions of the game? Should I really be required to put half a dozen worlds under martial law simply because the district capital had an uprising?

You can already edit sectors down to a single system, with the stipulation that new sector cannot be within 4 hyperlanes from existing sector capital.

 

[Ajacoba]

Does inward perfection suffer the penalty for not having a minister of state? In all honesty, I would probably choose not to have that council position anyway and accept the related penalty when playing inward perfection, but it seems pretty limiting to not even give the player the choice.

Inward perfection got it's penalty on diplomatic strength reduced, but in addition to that does also not have the minister of state, so both penalties stack up to the previous value of just inward perfection

 

[shadow737]

The one question I have is the issue with Lost Colony.

Does the random chance of a lost colony spawn in galaxy creation for your empire also still spawn yet another still more advanced empire than yours?

Because currently if you play UNE for instance you'll get the Commonwealth of Man, plus a random additional much more advanced empire of the same race as if the UNE was also a lost colony. But the same thing can randomly happen to any empire in the game meaning that any lost colony spawn also currently has the potential to spawn not just one but two different more advanced empires with different civics, the problem being that sometimes the most advanced is significantly more advanced than any of the normal AI starts and with the wrong civics, purifier for instance, you can watch a nightmare of nations just getting rolled over by two fleets of sixty or a one hundred warship fleet in an era where most powers can barely have forty to sixty ships with that even pressing their limits of energy production and alloy creation.

The only relief from this possible wackiness is if you chose to play a lost colony origin from the start, then you only get one more advanced empire also in the game.

 

[Ikael]

I am really happy to see how ethics bonuses/maluses have been rebalanced and moved onto authority types instead, that is a much-welcomed change. Truly glad to see Custodians tackling those types of minor (but not really minor) balance changes. Minor adjustments, but tons of gameplay impact! Heck, they even remembered that Philosopher King Civic and Mastery of Nature sucked, and buffed those!

However, people here are discussing vassals and research tech speed, so I am clearly out of the loop again. Still, I would also like to see it clarified what"one vassal exempt from divided loyalty" means exactly. I do hope that it is still a major effect, meaning that divided loyalty penalties don't start to count until 3 vassals.

As for the science speed conundrum: less "science is useful for making more science" (aka research speed modifiers gated by tech), more techs & beefier, costly late-game techs.

 

[Alex in Tokyo]

Still, I would also like to see it clarified what"one vassal exempt from divided loyalty" means exactly. I do hope that it is still a major effect, meaning that divided loyalty penalties don't start to count until 3 vassals.

I have no priveledged knowledge, but I would kind of assume that it reduces your vassal count by one for the purposes of calculating it.
So at -1 with one vassal, you have an effective vassal count of zero: no problems. With two vassals, you have an effective count of 1, so still no problems.
When you get your third vassal, then you have an effective count of two, so penalties start to apply.

I would also assume that at this point the penalties apply to all vassals, but I guess it's possible that "exempt from" might indicate that your first vassal doesn't suffer them.

 

[Eladrin]

I have no priveledged knowledge, but I would kind of assume that it reduces your vassal count by one for the purposes of calculating it.
So at -1 with one vassal, you have an effective vassal count of zero: no problems. With two vassals, you have an effective count of 1, so still no problems.
When you get your third vassal, then you have an effective count of two, so penalties start to apply.

This is correct. It increases the number of vassals you can have before running into Divided Patronage penalties by 1.

 

[A2ch0n]

This is correct. It increases the number of vassals you can have before running into Divided Patronage penalties by 1.

I really would appreciate some more +1 effects by traditions, leader trait or other AP's (beside shared destiny) that increase that number. I really like the new system and Feudal Society is in a better spot then ever. I bet there could be some opportunitys for this (maybe even an enhancement for Imperial Authority?) or technologies later on.

 

[Gilbert95]

Does anyone actually enjoy negative traits as a mechanic though?

I do.
One, leaders with negative traits are much more memorable. "Stop snorting alien dust!"
Two, they create ingesting choices. Do I put this high level scientist on the council even though they have a negative council trait? Like the absent minded renowned leader that lowers encryption.

 

[Ajacoba]

There's also that renowned admiral leader, the baron, who gets some fleet related
Pretty cool guy nonetheless

And when recruiting generic leaders there's often a special candidate with a higher level but a bad trait in exchange
Those are often worth the penalties

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

This is correct. It increases the number of vassals you can have before running into Divided Patronage penalties by 1.

That's a strange wording, then, as the functionality is that you until you exceed the number of vassals determined by 1 plus how many of this modifier you stack, NO subjects are subjected to Divided Patronage penalties, and once you exceed it ALL subjects are.

At no point does it actually do what it says: Exempting 1 subject from the Divided Patronage penalty, i.e. freeing a subject from an obligation (the Divided Patronage penalty) that other subjects have.

 

[pikasnoop]

This is correct. It increases the number of vassals you can have before running into Divided Patronage penalties by 1.

Does it also decrease the scaling of the Divided Patronage? I.e. if you only have Shared Destiny and 3 vassals, do they all get -1 loyalty or still -2?