• 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!
 
@Wiz

If there are (making this up) 78 anomalies in the game, then I am going to reach a point in game play where I regularly discover all 78 of those every game. The only difference from game to game will be which ones were discovered in what order. I do think that the exploration/colonization sub system of Stellaris is already its strongest sub system, so I am hopeful these changes will improve it even further.
Some possible answers would be to expand anomalies by adding more, expanding ethos-based individuation, adding more post-research choices (instead of making them simply pass/fail), and varying the post-research choices so that they aren't all click-through TLDRs.
A'course, any/all of the above are gonna be work and'd benefit RP-based immersion over Strategic Game Mastery but Niven does seem to be shaping up to be the Exploration update.
 
For circumvening chokepoints, would it be possible to re-introduce Warp in 2.1? Either at least for modders (like a line/command in the component templates that says "ignore hyperlanes = yes"), or possibly reverse-engineerable during mid-game (for example some quest/event from studying the "Biodrives" of space creatures?).

I am pretty sure you can get the Jump Drive by studying the Dimensional Horror.

Also, we will see in future diaries, but they are not removing the Natural Wormhole which would still be some kind of backdoor.
 
@Wiz I got to say I am curious as to what kind of creature paradox has cooked up for those new systems. I always felt that space borne organisms and monsters didn't have enough presence in the game. Are they simply jumbo sized creatures we already know like the space amoeba or the void cloud or are they something completely new.
 
Instead of randomness punishing players, have you considered adding a system whereas more skilled scientists or scientist with specific traits have a chance of getting exceptional successes for their anamolies (this is already in place in some anamolies that have a chance of 'better' outcomes depending on variables)? This would make it a lot more worthwhile to actually pay attention to anamolies and maybe hold off researching specific ones for later. It would make add choice/skill to the randomness and make interesting gameplay.
 
Plenty of tabletop RPGs do not use dice, or use them in ways that create more interesting decisions.

Random numbers serve a purpose. They provide "friction" and an unsolvable game state, for example.

The point Wiz is making (which I think I agree with) is that the end result of the percentage chance of failure only really served as a time delay on exploring the anomaly. That means that the RNG in this case isn't actually adding anything to game, or any interesting decisions around it. Replace that with the system as mentioned, and you're exchanging "do I risk a 10% chance of failure" for "can I afford to spend x months exploring this, rather than exploring new systems", which is definitely a small upgrade in terms of meaningful choices.

Because it was too easy to get from "chance to fail" to "no chance to fail" so the choice was obvious. If you couldn't fairly easily get that fail risk to 0 then it becomes an interesting choice-take the chance now at 33% fail or come back in a few years at 15%-trade potential benefits from early investigation against reduced but still real failure risk is a non-obvious choice. Trading a little time for a sure thing is pretty much a no-brainer...
 
HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGHHHHHH

Two of my biggest requests are being fulfilled!! BINARY STAR SYSTEMS AND MORE ANAMOLIES. I'd break into the classic Snoopy Dance if I knew how to do it.
 
Minor nitpick:
Is the tertiary star system realistic? I know Alpha Centauri has AB close together, and C is very far away (.2 lightyears) and orbiting the other two. But in the image has two stars orbiting the center star, relatively equi-distant. It just doesn't look stable to me.
 
To be honest, I save scum failed anomalies away. If there were more interesting and dynamic results from failed anomalies aside from losing a scientist or nothing happening then maybe I wouldn't, but as it stands, I like the idea of removing the fail risk as a game mechanic since, in its current state, it contributes nothing to the game beyond an annoyance factor.

@Wiz Didn't see any dev post in this thread regarding this question so I'll ask, how will the new binary and trinary star systems interact with megastructures? I've seen ringworlds lose their s*** when placed in a binary star system with the Real Space mod (they look more like a swirl than a ring). Will multiple ringworlds be possible in these new systems? Why about Dyson Spheres? How will they interact with these new systems? Will they still cause planets to become Frozen/Barren worlds even though there are other stars in the system to provide heat? Do you get to choose which star to build around? What about building a sphere around each star? What happens then? I'm very curious about all this.
 
Why about Dyson Spheres? How will they interact with these new systems? Will they still cause planets to become Frozen/Barren worlds even though there are other stars in the system to provide heat? Do you get to choose which star to build around? What about building a sphere around each star? What happens then? I'm very curious about all this.
Speculation going on about potentially lifting those arbitrary limits related to megastructures.
 
Speculation going on about potentially lifting those arbitrary limits related to megastructures.

I stopped letting the growing pile of arbitrary limits in stellaris so I wouldn't go batshit crazy. I hate arbitrary limitations on an almost instinctual level, but fortunately for me and those of us who share a similar nausea towards the subject, Stellaris is modifiable enough that I can always expect a day 0 mod patch to lift such infuriating designs.

It's not like Stellaris is bad anyway, at least, I can't claim to think that since it is my most played game on steam. Nobody spends 1,000+ hrs on something they don't enjoy. I have many more good things to say about this game than bad things, but the forums exist as a way for fans to swap stories and give feedback on the game as a whole, so that is why I "speculate" about these sorts of things.
 
oh man i have an interesting idea. what if we have a group of hyperlanes that make one really long line, and more civilian traffic will follow this hyperspace-highway allowing for colonies within systems along this highway to develop faster and receive immigrants and whatnot? kind of like the Super-highways that runs along the length of the Star Wars galaxy? the planets in the Core where these Super-Highways meet are much richer and more populous than planets along the galactic rim.
 
Last edited:
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.

Actually, speaking of that... could we get a rare tech, once you can build Gateways, to install some kind of inhibitor on them, to make it so said crisis either cannot enter our space through them, or at least gets penalized for doing so? I mean, if the Eldar were able to cut parts of the Webway off from the Necron using Dolan Gates to hop into it, why can't we do the same?

I like the idea of hyperlanes being affected by tech and environment; it adds depth to a core mechanic of the game and makes speed of travel less of an arbitrary limitation imposed by the game (which works better than warp, IMHO; this is not a criticism of the well-worn only-hyperlanes decision in the 2.0 update) and more of a choice of terrain and fleet tech.

Another change to hyperlane mechanics could be to have the origin/destination star type, mass and spin affect how they work, making galactic terrain count for the primary activity you can undertake with a vehicle that moves in that terrain. The quality and number of lanes from black holes would be different than for a red giant or a white dwarf; they would have more lanes, some even reaching systems that would normally be a couple of hops away, but only ships with high enough engine/sensor/compute tech could take them. Rapidly spinning pulsars would slow down incoming/outgoing lanes, wreaking havoc with hyperspace field manipulation.

In general, it’s probably best to come up with a self-consistent story of fake physics than to individually craft rules for every kind of star: you could say that larger/denser masses are more likely be hyperlane endpoints, mass ratio between lane endpoints affects lane length, and density/spin affect lane conditions. I like this particular set of rules because it makes black holes, neutron stars and pulsars into strategic systems you need to defend and gives you naturally useful systems worth fighting for for something other than their planets.

Once you have this richer mechanic for travel between stars, you can take advantage of it to differentiate ships and fleets, adding depth. Ships with small hulls/engines at a low tech level would not rate high enough to travel through the treacherous terrain of a rapidly spinning pulsar, but better sensors and computers may help. Maybe, only the end-tech level large battleships and titans would be able to use the galactic core to jump to the other side of the galaxy. A large swarm of corvettes may find it harder to coordinate travel through a lane and may end up exiting it over a few days divided into smaller groups, making them relatively easy pickings for defenses on the other side. A fleet with a higher command/ship ratio, on the other hand, would manage to keep better form and manage a coordinated exit, making for a more effective attack force.

You could simplify the mechanic by assigning each lane a rating, and only allowing fleets with a computed rating equal or above the lane rating to travel though.
 
Yes please improve on the galactic terrain, make the wormholes actually connected and visible and rare and not going through the entire map rather than interconnecting formerly unconnected clusters. Right now its a nightmare the bigger the map is...you cannot forsee the crazy interconncted routes this creates, you cannot control much anymore...with these ideas you present here and some tweaks galactic terrain might actually make sense
 
Yes please improve on the galactic terrain, make the wormholes actually connected and visible and rare and not going through the entire map rather than interconnecting formerly unconnected clusters. Right now its a nightmare the bigger the map is...you cannot forsee the crazy interconncted routes this creates, you cannot control much anymore...with these ideas you present here and some tweaks galactic terrain might actually make sense
While I'm obviously excited about the new map gen, what are you talking about re: wormholes?

Default wormhole generation is pretty reasonable, but you can always turn it down if its too much.

Also, displaying wormhole routes would be ugly. It shows you when your fleets are set to use them- that's good enough, considering its not difficult to memorize which wormhole goes where and to check manually if you really need to.
 
will anomalies apear during gameplay or will they stay the equivalent of the "goody huts" from civ4?