• 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!
 
Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.
- heh, chance of loosing explorer was a decision making material while also serving as reminder about dangers of unknown, so it was important from the sense of both immersion and strategy. So when you will remove other "ebil rng" from the game and finally make it gray squares vs gray squares, that apparently everyone so much desires?
 
Jump Drive uses Hyperlanes as well. Only Wormholes and Gateways could have the sability to lead into these isolated clusters.

Jump drives also allow to - well - jump from one system to another even if there is no direct hyperlane connection between them. It can't be done often and performing the jump will reduce efficiency of military ships (civilian ships generally don't care about the penalties incurred).
 
- heh, chance of loosing explorer was a decision making material while also serving as reminder about dangers of unknown, so it was important from the sense of both immersion and strategy. So when you will remove other "ebil rng" from the game and finally make it gray squares vs gray squares, that apparently everyone so much desires?

And please tell: when was there a chance to lose a Scientist exactly? Because the last time I checked, everyone delayed researching it until chance of losing the Scientist was minimal. The chance existed solely on paper.
And as said in the thread already: it does not actually remove the risks because the same can be accomplished via Special Projects and Events, and in a much more flexible fashion.
 
Those enormous multiple star systems look like they'll take a while to travel across to get to the other hyperlane. Is there going to be a way around that, or are they gonna be big ol' bottlenecks in getting fleets from A to B?
 
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?
 
And please tell: when was there a chance to lose a Scientist exactly? Because the last time I checked, everyone delayed researching it until chance of losing the Scientist was minimal. The chance existed solely on paper.
And as said in the thread already: it does not actually remove the risks because the same can be accomplished via Special Projects and Events, and in a much more flexible fashion.
- 5% Did you even played the game? I lost plenty of explorers even with this slim chance. And i loved it.
 
Are you kidding...total removal of the chance of failure on anomalies. Did Paradox get bought by Fisher-Price? What great idea is next, removal of ship destruction and instead the fleet gets a time out back at base. :rolleyes:
 
- 5% Did you even played the game? I lost plenty of explorers even with this slim chance. And i loved it.

Congrats on not noticing that I said "minimal" instead of "zero".
These 5% mattered not (and if we only count deaths, it's more akin to 1%). Once in a campaign you may lose a Scientist, but losing just one scientist in a campaign means nothing as by that point you have half a dozen equally skilled scientists. Increase it, and the player will just ignore anomalies altogether, so that's not a solution either.

And, I repeat even if you ignore, it does not remove actual failure risks as those can be done with different methods that allow more flexibility. Anomalies that are supposed to be deadly can still be that.
 
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..."
All current tool-using sapient life in the Stellaris galaxy consists of oxygen-breathing liquid water users, or highly advanced robots built by oxygen-breathing liquid water users to function well in oxygenated atmospheres at temperatures where water is liquid.

I don't see why them all reaching a similar conclusion about fleet logistics is such a terrible shock.
 
And, I repeat even if you ignore, it does not remove actual failure risks as those can be done with different methods that allow more flexibility. Anomalies that are supposed to be deadly can still be that.

So after one playthrough you know which anomalies can be deadly and just skip those?
 
Then how do you change Discovery tradition's bonus?

It does something else. What else exactly? Developers have most likely no decided yet because the release is weeks if not moths away.
 
So after one playthrough you know which anomalies can be deadly and just skip those?

Which, at worst, is the same was now.
The point is that you can still have the same risks as before, but using different mechanisms to accomplish it (instead of Anomaly Failure Risk, you use special Projects and Events). The mechanisms of this kind are used on Enigmatic Fortress and the Horizon Signal, and modders already use the same mechanisms to make not only dangerous anomalies, but large quest chains with multiple resolutions that can decide the fate of your entire Empire.
 
I'm not a huge fan of the new hyperlane generation system. It's not terrible but it seems to me that it's never going to be able to generate wide and open "fronts."
Like currently if I come across a starbase that I don't want to deal with, I can do a big detour if need be. There is no detour on these "highways." You'll just have to fight 3 starbases in a row if you want to make it to the next sector
 
I'm not a huge fan of the new hyperlane generation system. It's not terrible but it seems to me that it's never going to be able to generate wide and open "fronts."
Like currently if I come across a starbase that I don't want to deal with, I can do a big detour if need be. There is no detour on these "highways." You'll just have to fight 3 starbases in a row if you want to make it to the next sector

The screenshot shows that you can enter most clusters visa at least two lanes, and this screenshot seems to have been made under smallest hyperlane density.
 
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.
Look like exist a trend in modern game desing about reduce/remove negative outcomes.
Instead positive and negative outcomes we have only positive and less positive outcomes. The theorical thinking make sense, peoples are less annoyed by a small bonus than by small penalties.
No judgement if this trend is good or bad, personally like a player I dont like this, but other peoples like.