Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary will be focusing on the road ahead after Cherryh and Apocalypse, and our long-term priorities going forward.

Cherryh Post-Release Support
As mention in last week's dev diary, the immediate priority for the team is post-release support for Cherryh and Apocalypse, fixing bugs, addressing balance/feature feedback, and working on quality of life and performance improvements. We are maintaining a running 2.0.2 beta patch which we will continue to update every few days or so until we are happy with the state of the game.

The Post-Apocalypse
Apocalypse and Cherryh were an expansion/patch focused almost exclusively on war, and with it out, we are now going to be moving on to other, non-war related priorities for future updates, expansions and story packs. To give you an idea of what's coming, we're going to revisit the list of long-term goals for Stellaris I made and updated for Dev Diary #50 and Dev Diary #69. This time, we're going to organize the goals into the ones we feel have been delivered on, old goals that were added to the list before 2.0, and new goals that we have set for ourselves after 2.0 (there is no prioritization difference between goals based on when they were added or whether they are considered old or new for this particular list).

As before, the list is NOT in order of priority, and something being considered completed NOT mean we aren't going to continue to improve on it in future updates, just that we consider it to be at a satisfactory level.

As before, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE OR FINAL LIST, NOTHING NOT ALREADY COMPLETED IS CERTAIN TO HAPPEN AND THERE ARE NO ETAS

Completed Goals

• Ship appearance that differs for each empire, so no two empires' ships look exactly the same.
• More potential for empire customization, ability to build competitive 'tall' empires.
• Global food that can be shared between planets.
• Ability to construct space habitats and ringworlds.
• Factions that are proper interest groups with specific likes and dislikes and the potential to be a benefit to an empire instead of just being rebels.
• Ability to set rights and obligations for particular species in your empire.
• Buildable Dreadnoughts and Titans.
• Deeper mechanics and unique portraits for synthetics.
• Reworking the endgame crises to be more balanced against each other and the size/state of the galaxy.
• Reworks to war to address the 'doomstacks' issue and make the strategic and tactical layers of warfare more interesting and less micro-intensive.
• Superweapons and planet killers.

Old Goals

• A 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.
• Deeper Federations that start out as loose alliances and can eventually be turned into single states through diplomatic manuevering.
• More story events and reactive narratives that give a sense of an unfolding story as you play.
• More interesting mechanics for pre-FTL civilizations.
• 'Living systems', making empire systems feel more alive and lived in

New Goals

• Less micromanagement and more focus on interesting choices in regards to planets, the ability to grow planets beyond current fixed size.
• Empire trade mechanics and trade agreements.
• A galactic market where resources and strategic resources can be imported and exported.
• Espionage and sabotage mechanics.
• Improved galaxy/hyperlane generation with better placed systems and dangers.
• More anomalies and unique systems to explore.

That's all for today! Over the next few weeks, dev diaries will continue to focus on post-release support. Feature dev diaries will resume when we have new features to talk about. Finishing off this dev diary is a screenshot of how we're reworking difficulty modes in the next update to the rolling 2.0.2 beta:

 

[WhiteKyubey]

I just don't get this difficulty approach with 5 settings that "give AI more stuff".
Better give AI some brains! And I'm not about some super complex stuff, just teach him to build buildings!

 

[-Marauder-]

On the other hand, considering robots and hiveminds can basically colonise everything right off the bat, and get a system cap boost as part of the ethos, I'm still not convinced hiveminds and robots are really strong even with these techs missing... Getting resources from fast planet spam and expansion still seems to be the most effective, with techs coming in moreso as a later game minor efficiency improvement...

You should run the actual numbers for resource production and the likes. Let's just say, Machine Empires and Hiveminds are not particularly good. In case of Machine Empires they're terribad to the extent that Authoritarians are capable of drawing even/beating them where anything slaves can produce is concerned on 20% hab worlds. Machine Empires are also harmstrung early game by the prohibitive cost of actually filling planets.

Come mid and endgame, their production is laughable, their leaders never get ascension traits etc. Habitability is awesome, IF YOU CAN UTILIZE IT, Machine Empires cannot actually do so. Which means it's very much a red herring. Neither Hiveminds nor Machine Empires are in a good place right now.

 

[Alblaka]

Awwwww.. I was really looking forward to Space HRE.
Ah well, guess I'll have to settle for Space Vicky then.

 

[Heradite]

I just don't get this difficulty approach with 5 settings that "give AI more stuff".
Better give AI some brains! And I'm not about some super complex stuff, just teach him to build buildings!

View attachment 343543

I've seen the AI build buildings in most cases. Finding some planets without buildings doesn't prove anything (unless your running the beta patch and that's a bug). As for giving the AI some brains, that's an ongoing process that's going to take a long while and people will never be satisfied with. Giving the AI more stuff meanwhile can help the AI play the game in the short-term.

People act like making a smart AI is an easy task that any idiot should be able to do despite the fact that like every complicated strategy game out there people complain about bad AI.

 

[Hype]

I've seen the AI build buildings in most cases. Finding some planets without buildings doesn't prove anything (unless your running the beta patch and that's a bug). As for giving the AI some brains, that's an ongoing process that's going to take a long while and people will never be satisfied with. Giving the AI more stuff meanwhile can help the AI play the game in the short-term.

People act like making a smart AI is an easy task that any idiot should be able to do despite the fact that like every complicated strategy game out there people complain about bad AI.

Making the AI smart isn't an easy task that any idiot should be able to do obviously. Making the AI build buildings on inhabited planets when they have resources to do so certainly is, yes this will potentially cause problems elsewhere. For example if the AI is stockpiling resources for building up fleets instead of expanding its infrastructure. While they have gotten better at deciding to actually build up their planets they still have issues with it sometimes.

 

[Spectra Twilight]

Having been lurking around these forums for a while, I see there's a large voice from the players asking for reduction in micromanagement, which...hm.

I personally really like micromanagement mechanics, but I understand that that is not a popular opinion. I'm hoping that in reducing micromanagement that a degree of interactivity is kept for those of us, such as myself, who enjoy playing in an isolated, pacifistic manner with a focus on the improvement of our empires without compromising other empires. From the work I've seen done on the game so far by the development team, I believe that this is possible and I trust that the team can achieve a solution that appeases most players, whatever it may be.

 

[Harle]

I'm glad to see that trade and cooperative (positive politic) systems are going to get some love.

It's been hard to not notice how there are plenty of interesting and deep systems for being a garbage empire, with lots to do, but comparatively little has been added for empires that want to prosper through trade and good relations. The whole economic side of the game needs a lot of love. I'm not sure that energy/minerals is really sufficient to work with in making trade interesting.

I've been toying with the idea of introducing currency to the game as a thing that some empires use, both internally and as a trade device, and gives some unique benefits (and costs) to empires that choose to use it. Basically, every empire could partake in coming trade systems, but empires that use currency would have some additional options to use trade to benefit their overall production economy.

But it's not fully fleshed out, and this isn't the place for it.

 

[wundergoat]

Having been lurking around these forums for a while, I see there's a large voice from the players asking for reduction in micromanagement, which...hm.

I personally really like micromanagement mechanics, but I understand that that is not a popular opinion. I'm hoping that in reducing micromanagement that a degree of interactivity is kept for those of us, such as myself, who enjoy playing in an isolated, pacifistic manner with a focus on the improvement of our empires without compromising other empires. From the work I've seen done on the game so far by the development team, I believe that this is possible and I trust that the team can achieve a solution that appeases most players, whatever it may be.

I think a lot of the micromanagement reduction requests are for options to limit clicking, particularly in the mid-late game. Things like autobuild stations, autoupgrade buildings, and shift-queuing multiple buildings of the same type don’t inhibit micromanagement, but make setting up your 5th research habitat or ring world a bit less of a chore. Especially when your economy is so huge you really don’t care if it’s micromanhed to perfect efficiency.

 

[klopkr]

I love all the trade talk. I really want to see something like 'caravans' of important trade goods flying from market to market giving boosts to the empires they arrive to safely.

 

[Tim_Ward]

For you and me sure, but some people are really bad at the game and may want an easier setting. Why would anyone care if there are easier settings anyway? It's not like it takes away the other more difficult settings. Let people play the game how they like.

Look at the post I was responding to.

 

[Bellicosity]

Where on the new goals is having machine empires start counting from 0? I brought it up here and I think I speak for the community when I say this should be priority number 0.

 

[Zenicetus]

What I don't like about Civ Vs UN is how in-evitable it is. The world is a bunch of brutal warmongers? UN happens. Half a dozen religions vying for dominance? UN. A bunch of technocratic microstates going for Alpha Centauri? UN.

Yeah, that's one of the two things in the post-2.0 goals that worry me. A "Space UN" shouldn't be inevitable in every game. It's also something that will only be attractive for players to join with certain playstyles and ethos choices. My machine empire or hive mind isn't going to be interested, except insofar as it's another big Federation to deal with. It seems like it's tossing a cool feature in the game for just one playstyle and type of stellar empire.

The other thing that worries me is espionage and sabotage. I know this is popular, and many players want it. But players usually think about this in terms of how much fun it is to deploy against others, and not what it's like on the receiving end. I hate playing "whack a mole" by killing spies sabotaging my infrastructure in other games like TW Rome 2. It becomes a mini-game within the game. Espionage for gathering information on rivals is different (signals intel), and that can be extremely useful and not too annoying to defend against.

So I hope whatever they come up with is mainly signals intel to spy on what other empires are doing, maybe steal a tech here and there, and not outright sabotage.

 

[Hype]

Look at the post I was responding to.

I did, when I read your post as you had quoted it. I also read it again just now. What exactly are you trying to say as apparently I'm not getting it. Really I don't even see how your comment addressed what you were replying to in the first place.

I was merely disagreeing with your statement that if the AI doesn't get bonuses there will be no "see what happens." For people who aren't as good at the game or want to more heavily RP their empires there absolutely will be that aspect to the game at easier difficulties where the AI has no advantages. Will I play those difficulties? Probably not, but that isn't a reason to not include them.

 

[mergele]

That difficulty setting seems be screaming for 2 sliders. Scaling/constant and who high the end-boni should be.

 

[Bellicosity]

That difficulty setting seems be screaming for 2 sliders. Scaling/constant and who high the end-boni should be.

What we need are more sliders. Sliders that control how many sliders we are shown as well. Sliders for sliders. Sliders on sliders.

Until its sliders the whole way down.

 

[Umega]

Ok, so there will be a broader difficulty system soon, but I still want a difficulty option that gives ME bonuses. Like me, not everyone is competent at this game...

 

[kgptzac]

I don't think a more in depth federation system means "Space UN". Of course by UN I mean the actual supranational or even inter-federation type of deal where all nations in the galaxy participate and vote on issues... that makes no sense in Stellaris.

 

[mergele]

What we need are more sliders. Sliders that control how many sliders we are shown as well. Sliders for sliders. Sliders on sliders.

Until its sliders the whole way down.

That sounds like you are beeing a bit sarcastic, but yeah, absolutley correct.

 

[Heradite]

In Wiz I trust.

 

[Spaceman78]

Love the new 2.0 and thank you for sharing the updated goals!

I wonder how the trade and export of strategic resources can be implemented. Currently they give bonuses; nice to have, but not critical.

In Civ5, strategic resources are critical if you wish to build specific building or units. Perhaps with Stellaris, this means that the resources are crucial if wanting build certain ships or having more emphasis on certain components; one empire focuses on lasers or has better lasers, while another has great shields etc. Not sure if this is the way to go.

Whatever the case might be, strategic resources should be important enough to be fought over. Lack or inclusion of these resources create tension. If the strategic resource can be accumulated that is even better; cutting off would mean running dry and mean conflict. Standard resources do not create tension, because there are alternatives; if you have too much energy, you can trade or use resource replicator.

Withdrawal of such a resource may lead to war and smuggling create even more opportunities for gameplay; internal unrest, rebels, friction between the empire that sells/smuggle the resource vs the empire that prohibits. If there is a smuggling enclave, there is a conflict between destroying them and thus losing access to the resources or to tolerate them and watching them becoming bigger and thus becoming a bigger threat.

Strategic resources thus may also mean embargoes, not selling them as they are too important or even selling too much of them and leading to anti dumping sanctions.