• 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!
 
Red supergiants were mentioned - I hope we haven't seen these yet and that they'll get the visual impact they deserve, after all they can be as large as an entire normal solar system!
 
Also worth noting that I didn't put in the DD is that it is no longer possible to get the same anomaly twice for the same empire in 2.1, and that we have reworked the anomaly back-end to be easier to work with, so modders will have an easier time adding anomalies to the game.
 
Nice. But hopefully exploration will be expanded even more. Imo every anomaly should offer a choice between multiple options and the exact options should depend on traits, ethos, technology or personality (give each character a personality trait in addition to their expertise) of the researcher as the initial Stellaris promos promised.
 
I wonder how the worm (end of the chain event) interacts with 3 celestial body systems ?
Same with ringworld creation that destroy everything that is not the star.
Basically all events that mess up with the system.
 
Also worth noting that I didn't put in the DD is that it is no longer possible to get the same anomaly twice for the same empire in 2.1, and that we have reworked the anomaly back-end to be easier to work with, so modders will have an easier time adding anomalies to the game.

The Gods of Immersion smile on you, dear Wiz!
Thanks!
 
This actually already exists since release if i am not wrong ;) Or it was added later, but it is there atleast.
Oh nice! Yet another thing I still have to discover in another play through.

Kudos to you guys, as one of the great things about the game is the sheer variety. Each play through brings something different and unique to it
 
Coooool Any chance that we'll seesome disconnected parts ot the galaxy that can only be accessed via wormholes?
 
Also worth noting that I didn't put in the DD is that it is no longer possible to get the same anomaly twice for the same empire in 2.1, and that we have reworked the anomaly back-end to be easier to work with, so modders will have an easier time adding anomalies to the game.
Is there not a danger that we will "run out" of anomalies to get after some time?
I remember when playing an explorative empire, that I see many similar anomalies, and there are a finite number of them I think?
 
Also worth noting that I didn't put in the DD is that it is no longer possible to get the same anomaly twice for the same empire in 2.1, and that we have reworked the anomaly back-end to be easier to work with, so modders will have an easier time adding anomalies to the game.
Can this be extended to events as well? I've gotten the shroud event for psionic shields three times in the same game (just haven't gotten around to researching them yet). Would be helpful if it either couldn't happen if you already had the tech research, or if you already have the tech option give you something like +10% to its progress
 
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.
View attachment 359403
(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.
View attachment 359402

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.
View attachment 359404
(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.
View attachment 359406
View attachment 359407
View attachment 359405

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!

Why does randomized events and results so threaten you in regards to your design decisions? It always has. You think something is lost in the unknown chance of failure when it isn't; it correctly simulates unforeseen variables in occurrences. Your design philosophy is akin to removing the dice roll in Tabletop RPG's.
 
The last picture with the asteroid belts looks really nice.

Could we have the ability to agglomerate those asteroids to create planets? Compared to creating ringworlds or dyson spheres it shouldn't be that difficult.
 
Could we have the ability to agglomerate those asteroids to create planets? Compared to creating ringworlds or dyson spheres it shouldn't be that difficult.

I liked that you could to that in MOO2. Blow up ugly planet led to asteroid belt which you could then reassemble to new planet.
 
I'm really liking the new changes y'all are implementing. Glad to see the addition of binary/trinary stars as core content. Would be even awesomer if you could add particle effects for stars that are too close to black holes.

+1M for anomaly tracking in the situation log!!! <3

Speaking of anomalies... I like your idea about no fail chance due to low char level, and instead just increasing time for researching it. But even as frustrating as it was, sometimes failing those 5% failure risks, I really enjoyed the risk my scientists took investigating those anomalies. I might have read the DevDiary too quickly, but I don't recall seeing anything about the risk/reward for researching anomalies under the new system. Will you be keeping with the original concept by having anomalies still be hazardous in some way, or is it still too early in development for clarification?
 
Why does randomized events and results so threaten you in regards to your design decisions? It always has. You think something is lost in the unknown chance of failure when it isn't; it correctly simulates unforeseen variables in occurrences. Your design philosophy is akin to removing the dice roll in Tabletop RPG's.

Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.
 
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.

Would you also add Class O Stars? We already have B A F G K and M, but O does not exist in game yet.
 
Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.

I respectfully disagree. In a space game of which a large component is the unknown, a frontier, cutting-edge technology, the chance of failure in any action (especially early on) adds plenty to gameplay. Do you spend the time to send the science ship out there, knowing you may fail, or do you play it safe and keep exploring?

You shouldn't keep catering to the crowd of, "well I'm upset because that failed instead of succeeded and now I lost time waahhh."
 
All of this looks so cool. :)

I guess it makes sense that starbases are limited to one per system, though I still miss the concept of shared system ownership of earlier game versions. I wonder if we will be able to pick the star we want to "put the hat on", or will the game automatically nominate one to be a system's main star and treat the others as if they were inhospitable planetoids?

The change to Anomaly Discovery is also welcome. I didn't even consciously think of it as a problem, but the planned functionality is a considerable improvement, as it really was just a case of putting Anomalies on the back burner with no real incentive to actually risk it earlier.

On the topic of Anomalies, however: Will time-critical events receive a balance pass to account for the increased travel times that were introduced with 2.0? It's already happened three times that an Anomaly requiring a Constructor (e.g. the Ancient Auto-Miner) or a Troop Transport (e.g. Smuggler Hideout) auto-failed simply because it was impossible to get the required ships there in time.

Do you spend the time to send the science ship out there, knowing you may fail, or do you play it safe and keep exploring?
I get where you're coming from, but there was really no point in taking the risk. It's not like the player was under any kind of time pressure here.

To actually result in the kind of gameplay you're thinking of, they would have to make these Anomalies disappear if you choose no, but the way the game works right now, 90% of the time people just automatically click no and return at a later date.

If people are clicking a button in their sleep, it does not constitute a good example for choice, but just redundant busywork.
 
Last edited: