• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #111 - Anomaly Rework & Expanded Exploration

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today, we're going to start talking about the 2.1 'Niven' update, which will be the next major update after 2.0. At this point I cannot give you any details on the exact nature of the update or when it's arriving, but I *can* talk about some changes we're making and new features we're introducing in regards to exploration, galaxy generation and anomalies.

Anomaly Changes
In 2.1, we're changing the way anomalies work in a few ways. First and foremost, we are removing the concept of failure risk - we found that the possibility to fail on anomalies added little to the game in terms of interesting choices, and mostly frustrated players or made them wait with researching said anomalies until their chance of success was maximized. As such, instead of making it so that anomalies have a failure risk based on scientist skill level, we've instead made it so that the time it takes to research an anomaly is heavily dependent on the scientist skill versus the level of the anomaly - researching a level 2 anomaly with a level 2 scientist will be a comparatively quick affair, while attempting a level 10 anomaly with the same scientist can take a very, very long time, and might mean that it is better to return to it later with a more skilled scientist, so not to hold up your early exploration.
2018_04_19_2.png

(Note: Not final numbers, etc)

As part of this we've also added an anomaly tracker tab to the situation log. The anomaly tracker will keep track of anomalies that you have discovered but not yet researched and easily let find and you return to them.
2018_04_19_1.png


Hyperlane Generation
Another thing that is changing in 2.1 is the way the Hyperlane network is generated. Rather than simply attempting to connect stars to nearby stars, we've created a new generation algorithm that builds up 'clusters' of stars with a high degree of internal connectivity, that are connected to each other by thinner 'highways' which form natural chokepoints. These chokepoints are also registered as such by the game, allowing us to find actual chokepoint systems and avoid placing Leviathans and other powerful space monsters there, as well as improving the AI's ability to detect suitable spots for defensive starbses. The hyperlane connectivity setting will determine the level of connectivity between clusters, and thus how frequent and easily circumvented chokepoints are.
2018_04_19_3.png

(Note: Image is not final. We're still working on the algorithm)

As part of this it will now also be possible for modders to easily generate systems and clusters of systems that are not connected to the main hyperlane network.

New Stars & Systems
Lastly for today, we've added a bunch of new system and star types to the game. First out are binary and trinary star systems - systems containing more than a single star. These systems come in a variety of configurations, and will often contain more planets and resources than conventional, single-star systems. We've also added some new star types to the game in the form of Brown Dwarves (not technically stars, I know) and Class M red super-giants. We've also made it possible to generate more than a single asteroid belt in a system, and created some new mineral-rich asteroid-heavy systems. Finally, there are some new unique systems to find with large amounts of resources in them, guarded by powerful space creatures.
2018_04_19_5.png

2018_04_19_6.png

2018_04_19_4.png


That's all for today! Next week we're going to be talking about something just a little bit mysterious called the L-Cluster... see you then!
 
Risk vs Reward.

When you remove the risk, you also remove the value and excitement of getting the reward...

Ofcourse up to you if you want to remove excitement from the game, but I think it's a silly design choice to do so.

Easy.

The new "risk" is the time it takes your science ship to explore the anomaly, which based on the information that we have level 10 anomalies coming can be quite a long time. Every day your science ship is not exploring/surveying new star systems risks losing them to another empire that puts their own anomalies on secondary priority. It also lowers the possible number of anomalies you can discover. So there is still a risk vs reward, it's just more subtle and not tied to RNG.
 
We are going to need a lot of new anomalies. Exploration phase is already too short, it feels like you get maybe a decade or two before your borders start to hit your neighbors, and most definitely before your science ships start running into systems already surveyed. Now with no dupe anomalies exploration is going to be really fast and... sadly boring.

I really think we should be able to get anomalies even after other empires have surveyed those systems or gotten them. It makes sense even lore wise. Think how often in say Star Trek they come across strange things... I would say the vast majority of times it happens in systems/planets already owned and "known" to others. In many cases in well traveled regions of space.

I get that there could be some issues with anomalies that add resources to planets... but I'm sure there are workarounds that can be programmed. I want to be exploring... seeking out strange new worlds and events for most of the game. Of course now that communications automatically give survey data that makes it even harder. Perhaps a complete rework of how anomalies work needs to be in the cards, because as it stands now they are getting squeezed more and more into irrelevance, which is unfortunate. And if 2.1 appears to be the "exploration" update it seems like if not now, when?

I'd like to see multiple layers to anomalies. Like, you research a technology called "Improved Sensors I" and now your exploration ships can find a whole new level of anomalies, even in systems that were surveyed one time. Maybe now you can survey the interior of planets, and you discover intelligent lava-beings or that one moon is actually hollow and there are primitives living inside it. Or you can find things connected to where another dimension touches yours (shroud?).
 
Easy.

The new "risk" is the time it takes your science ship to explore the anomaly, which based on the information that we have level 10 anomalies coming can be quite a long time. Every day your science ship is not exploring/surveying new star systems risks losing them to another empire that puts their own anomalies on secondary priority. It also lowers the possible number of anomalies you can discover. So there is still a risk vs reward, it's just more subtle and not tied to RNG.

But by that logic, does a lvl 10 anomaly provide superior bonuses to surveying and claiming new systems? If it doesn't, then the anomaly meta is the same as it now (wait until later) without the immediacy in excitement of the 'win/lose' scenario.
 
With the hyperlane generation being reworked, I would honestly also like this feature, that some stars are cut off are accessible only by progressing in technology (either wormholes, or higher tiers in hyperdrives). This would mean that borders would clash early in the game, but more room becomes available even maybe in your empire space later in the game.
 
But by that logic, does a lvl 10 anomaly provide superior bonuses to surveying and claiming new systems? If it doesn't, then the anomaly meta is the same as it now (wait until later) without the immediacy in excitement of the 'win/lose' scenario.

It just might. Some of the anomalies give better bonuses than base systems or turn poor systems into something worth claiming earlier.

Anomaly meta? I doubt that many players do more than green (i.e. 5%-10% risk) to minimize risk over gain. That's a very predictable and boring way to play. At least this change turns it from watching the fail risk to deciding when to do it over system exploration.
 
Finally, my scientists won't die in the first 5 years of the game!

I'm not sure if anyone has answered this question yet, but will you now be able to construct multiple megastructures in binary star systems?
If so, please also allow us to build multiple ones at the same time. I often find myself with too much minerals starting early late game. I'd rather spend these minerals trying to cover entire galaxy with dyson spheres than building ships over the fleet cap.
 
The cosmologist in my tells me that this is probably an abbreviation for the local cluster (more commonly known as the local group) of galaxies (Milky Way, Andromeda, Magelanic clouds etc.). That could mean we get maps with several galaxies that are only connected by wormholes / gateways (and in some cases via jumpdrive).
I WOULD HAPPILY PAY FOR A DLC THAT GIVES THE ABILITY TO HAVE MULTIPLE GALAXIES.

Ahem, I got a bit carried away there.

I'd like to go so far as to ask if the Hyperlane Registrar Starbase Module could be used to affect a number of systems within range of the starbase, and not JUST it's system, so we can manufacture highways? Maybe something equal to the Sensor Range of the station, so it improves with time, and a Listening Post would let you boost it even further. Plus, tack on a second module that would link the starbases together that have the prerequisites for it, so it doesn't just boost it out in ALL directions from a given system. That way you have value in making a string of starbases across your space, letting you redeploy much faster to a flank in a defensive war. Just a way to build infrastructure in the earlier game before you can start dropping Gateways all over the place, which have their own inherit flaws when dealing with endgame crisis.
You may be interested in this https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1330477389

Gateways are virtually identical to Mass Relays

You may be interested in this https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1315017527

Risk vs Reward.

When you remove the risk, you also remove the value and excitement of getting the reward...

Ofcourse up to you if you want to remove excitement from the game, but I think it's a silly design choice to do so.

(HEAVY SARCASM INCOMING)Yes, let's have a risk that we have no way of controlling. Great idea. (HEAVY SARCASM)

Sliders does not make everything better :/

How would you like to be crucified?
 
(HEAVY SARCASM INCOMING)Yes, let's have a risk that we have no way of controlling. Great idea. (HEAVY SARCASM)
I actually have no problem with this, as a non-sarcastic suggestion. See abandoned terraforming equipment, which you actually can avoid, and still how much people complain that there's a chance of a negative outcome that can't be eliminated.

Deal with it! :p

I agree (after being convinced by those in the forums) that waiting for a higher level scientist before researching an anomaly wasn't an interesting choice. But, as I've mentioned already, just a hidden unavoidable 5% fail chance on all anomalies? Thumbs up for that from me.
 
Wow the anomaly changes are the type of change I never knew I needed until you proposed it. :)

Is it possible to send extra inexperienced sciencetists to quicken the time with the a potential risk of delay past a certain threshold due to “too many cooks”?
 
Last edited:
How about using the yes/no buttons and type of scientist you send to explore anomalies with to control the level of risk? ( no sarcasm, just common sense ingame advice )
We can already do that. And it isn't very useful.
 
i think that only 86 days for something 2 levels above him is a bit eh, not sure if its too little or just right. but i like it and what your planning with the hyperlans anyways. i saw some people asking about it and i personally think that in multi-star systems the "main" start should get the regular starbase and the other stars should get like mini-starbases or something, they definitely should be empty and unused.
 
Yesss.
Manticore confirmed.

Will it be possible to start in a binary system?

Also as a future idea.
Will ut be possible like in EU IV to get a Starsystem creator? Like getting a wormhole from the beginning or a damaged gateway?
 
Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.
Removing the random outcome is a fair approach, but randomisation with different interesting outcomes can also be good. Will it still be possible to mod "failures" that are interesting, but not the same as successes (e.g. that lead to clues or experience rather than clear boons)? I guess you could always use "random_list"?
 
just expressing some random thoughts

a lot of people are of the opinion that anomaly fail risk is not interesting,
but to me the fail risk is an important part of how i percieve anomalies, the fail risk is its identity
the only thing thats sets it apart from all the other projects that are solely time-based.
while interconnected projects that are important for a bigger picture are the projects without fail risk.

i came up with a midway solution, have the research time be based around scientist skill-level like planned at the moment,
but have a constant failure risk that is tied to the anomaly itself, in other words eacht anomaly has a standard fail risk that doesnt change over the course of the game.

it might satisfy both sides of the conflict