• 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!
 
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.

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.
 
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.

It's the uniformity he forces into his design choices that's so off-putting. "If you investigate an anomaly, it will succeed." "Every system must have an indestructible starbase."

I get this isn't his game from inception, but forcing universal conditions in a game that's supposed to be about the unknown is silly.
 
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."
Given that there's absolutely zero incentive to risk the chance of failure, why would anyone ever pick the first option you gave, and not just always play it safe?

I'll agree that just removing the failure option doesn't really help, as really, it doesn't appear to impact the core issue, namely that people were just waiting for a higher level scientist to research the anomaly. Maybe add a time limit to begin research on the anomaly?
 
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.

Can we get a new tutorial on how custom clusters are made and connected?

Also, will custom system initializer trees be capable of generating a series of connected clusters?
 
@Wiz, when you stablished a minimum 5% failure risk, many of us were against it, and many voiced and explained that it was bad RNG.

Today marks the day I see our voices heard, so thank you!

Keep moving the strategy and good RNG to where it is needed.
 
Given that there's absolutely zero incentive to risk the chance of failure, why would anyone ever pick the first option you gave, and not just always play it safe?

I'll agree that just removing the failure option doesn't really help, as really, it doesn't appear to impact the core issue, namely that people were just waiting for a higher level scientist to research the anomaly. Maybe add a time limit to begin research on the anomaly?

How is there zero incentive, to potentially and even likely get the knowledge and/or benefits of the anomaly? That's like saying there's no incentive to the stock market, or the lottery.
 
How is there zero incentive, to potentially and even likely get the knowledge and/or benefits of the anomaly? That's like saying there's no incentive to the stock market, or the lottery.
But you do get them anyways, just a few months later.

The rewards from Anomalies were never so good that you were under any kind of pressure to "do this now, immediately". And even if they were, it'd just be an even bigger incentive to wait until you could be sure to succeed.

To use your example: If you had the choice between investing in the stock market now, with a 30% chance to make a profit ... or wait a few weeks, knowing that your profit would be guaranteed -- what would any sane person do?
 
How is there zero incentive, to potentially and even likely get the knowledge and/or benefits of the anomaly? That's like saying there's no incentive to the stock market, or the lottery.
I never said there's no incentive to research the anomaly itself, I said there's no incentive to not just wait to research the anomaly until you have a scientist with a high chance of succeeding. Pretty big difference
 
But you do get them anyways, just a few months later.

The rewards from Anomalies were never so good that you were under any kind of pressure to "do this now, immediately". And even if they were, it'd just be an even bigger incentive to wait until you could be sure to succeed.

I get that; I'm saying the impact of the decision should be magnified, not tossed altogether for more guaranteed knowledge. It's like in EUIV where they eliminated diplomatic chance and made everything clearly a success or failure of potential action all the way down to the numbers. It shatters immersion and realism in the unknown.
 
i was just asking for updating the galaxy generation, makes it so hard to be angry at wiz and his team for some bad decisions and dumbingdowns, if he follows up with good ones...

i am also quite happy about anomaly risk removal. it indeed added little, in an afterthought. and binary/trinary systems.
i actually also hope the fog of war hyperlane system will become default.

i am still a bit annoyed by the status quo of how the game made offensive undiplomatic play with focusing on brainless mineral income expansion too powerful, and quite disappointed about the mechanic of the surrender button or the desyncs, so i do hope some attention also goes to quality of life in mp, and how social interactions should be in this game.
 
I get that; I'm saying the impact of the decision should be magnified, not tossed altogether for more guaranteed knowledge.
This sentiment I can kind of agree with. For sure an element of science-fiction - the dangers of the unknown - feels reduced.

Ultimately, all I'm saying is that the change Wiz mentioned is, in my opinion, an improvement to the status quo.
So would be to despawn Anomalies if the player chooses to not pursue them immediately (ideally with a higher chance for Anomalies to spawn in order to compensate for the inevitably higher amount of failures).

It's just that the way the game works now, there really is no point in not waiting until you can be sure. Which makes the choice meaningless, or not-a-choice.
 
Which makes the choice meaningless, or not-a-choice.

And he's okay with that, and as a consumer it bugs me. It's downright corny to encounter aliens from across the galaxy with such consistencies as indestructible starbases. "Why hello Earthling, come let us talk on this indestructible base we've built here just like you because that's obviously what you do..."

Again, it's like when it happened in EUIV (and I'm pretty sure he was behind that too). "No, don't send the alliance request to King George; it will fail because the negative variables add up to 70 while the positives are only 66."
 
Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.
Part of the problem of this was that:
A) Ignoring an anomaly for a long time had no cost/risk. This could be solved with having anomalies time out...
B) Failing an anomaly was a disaster - there could be a negative event, but even if not, there was a huge loss in the loss of the long-term bonuses provided by an anomaly. The easiest counter to that is reducing the long term impact of anomalies, or having the anomaly reappear at some point. Most would be quicker to risk losing a scientist and ship, than losing the bonus granted by an anomaly...
 
I got an interesting question. When a system has 3 stars, will we be able to build 3 starbases?? ultimate defense system?

Why do people as this question? If PDS wanted you to be able to build more than one starbase in a system, they would have allowed it even without binary and trinary star systems.

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.

It doesn't threaten them, they just realized it is pointless because players will rarely fail, and never now that they have all anomalies listed in one window.
If need be, you can still lose your scientist randomly while exploring an anomaly, but now it just won't be related to special mechanics but to pure events.

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."

Nobody cries like that because everyone but newbies has enough brains to never get into this situation. That is, this is a pointless mechanic that nobody who played game for more than 3 hours will feel.

Anomaly Failure Chance in general is one of those features that sounds great and logical on paper, but once you put it into the game you realize that it doesn't at all work as you thought it would.

What about clusters without hyperlane connection ?
You can reach those clusters with jump drive
What do you think guys ?

Jump Drive uses Hyperlanes as well. Only Wormholes and Gateways could have the sability to lead into these isolated clusters.

How is there zero incentive, to potentially and even likely get the knowledge and/or benefits of the anomaly? That's like saying there's no incentive to the stock market, or the lottery.

This has nothing to do with the change. What you say can be gained in this system so that researching an anomaly unlocks a special project which makes it clear that this is a risky undertaking and the Leader taking it risks their life. No need for Anomaly Failure Chance at all. Actually, this is better because you can now use non-scientists, armies, and even decide failure chance by other modifiers than just a Scientist's Skill.
 
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.

With the usual exceptions, I assume? Terraforming candidates and Pre-Sapients.
 
Please actually DO put space monsters in the chokepoints though. Having chokepoints blocked off by 'natural hazards' is an interesting, dynamic way to control the politics of empires, and it's an interesting mid/late-game question when you'd actually remove a barrier like that (or have it removed by an enemy empire).


I'd like to echo this sentiment. Some of my most interesting and fun games have occured when I've been blocked off by a Leviathan and the future of my expansion and the focus of my society became centered around what to do about the Leviathans.

As for Anamoly fail risk, removing it will make the game less frustrating simply because that in this sort of exploration based game TIME is a valuable research. Failing an anomaly is absolute loss of time and resources, and is not interesting and no amount of skill can overcome it. Another way to approach this, which might satisfy some is to make failures still garner some rewards, even if minimal. Even if you end up not finding the Irassian Artifact you thought was out there, you should still get data from exploring the planet it was on. That said, I prefer the Niveh version. It makes the +Anomaly research speed scientists a lot more potent, as I feel that there was very little value in them before.