• 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!
 
I honestly think that the change your suggesting has the opposite effect..

I used to play Stellaris a lot because unlike most strategy games it didn't feel like a standard spreadsheet management game, there was always a level of uncertainty, and randomness, that made each new play through different. Anomalies are, by design, random events that give the game flavor. If one player gets 10 exceptionally good anomalies/events in a row and another gets 10 bad anomalies/events in a row that's no better or worse than having one guy succeed and another fail.

The vast majority of Anomalies don't present you with a choice, and they don't have different successful outcomes, so the choice is whether you risk a scientist early or wait until they're almost guaranteed to succeed. There's always a small chance of failure, and it's that little bit of uncertainty that makes the game-play interesting. If anomalies have a 100% chance of success, and the rate is based entirely upon your scientists skill, I feel like anomalies will feel less like special events and more like another build queue players will have to manage.

This change seems to follow the theme from 2.0, more management less decisions. If you think that a chance of failing an anomaly is not an interesting choice, or outcome that's fine, but let me tell you I personally find the idea of trying to organize which anomalies my scientists research 100x less interesting. It's no longer about the choices, or possible outcomes, it's entirely about how fast you achieve a specific outcome, and that's not why I play this game.

I can understand that.

I wonder if instead of a fail chance from discovering them (that doesn't really feel nice), having some anomalies working like the shroud would not feel more rewarding.
We could keep the new time based system for discovering anomalies but when discovered some anomalies would let you choose path and have a chance of success from each, ranging from garanteed to impossible. It would be even better if so traits had effect on those. Like rocketry boosting your chances of detonating something successfully. Some choices could be dangerous, risking destroying the vessel and/or killing the scientist.

It would look something like that the way I see it :

The science ship discovered a very small automated vessel of unkown origin inside the asteroid belt. When the ship approached it, the drone reativated and rushed through the asteroid field. What are your orders ?

-Try to follow it (unlikely, very dangerous, bonus: carefree)
-Focus on analysing the trail and lost parts (garanteed,safe)
-Try to hack it remotely (very hard, safe, bonus: computing)
-Try to calculate it's path and find a shortcut (hard, slightly dangerous, bonus: voidcraft)

That would give some use to the expertise traits for explorers, allow to control the risks taken and rewards.
 
I'm not entirely sure what is "No more repeat anomalies" good for.

Right now, this can be controlled by a simple flag. If your anomaly is fairly generic, no need to put it. If it's something you only want to allow once per game per country or even at all, you can do it easily.
 
I like it.The game will begin to have the universe diversity of Master of Orion with more different systems and unique system guarded by a powerful entity.
(Even if leviathans already exists in Stellaris)

What would be awesome is to have more different anomalies and chain events quests, because Stellaris is light on that vs Endless space 2.
And why not an event with all the others players/AI to be the first to fight a very powerful entity guarding a isolated system for some new, uniques and very powerful end game technologies rewards and a +5 max titles gaia planet in this system, like Master of Orion.

Thanks for this Dev diary. Stellaris becomes better and better, slowly but certainly.
 
Last edited:
Anomaly rework makes sense given the lack of meaningful risks/benefits they had.

Wiz I had a question related to hyper lanes. Would you consider making some sort of mega lanes that offer increased movement speed to create a sort of conflict zone over strategic routes?
 
(...) allowing us to find actual chokepoint systems and avoid placing Leviathans and other powerful space monsters there(...)
But maybe placing Leviathans or powerful monsters at the entrance of a mysterious, hidden cluster?!?

(...) 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(...)
Any changes in sizes or orbits - especially now with new little brown dwarven and mighty super-giants? ... please please please...
 
I'd very much like to see screenshots of galaxies with multiple levels of hyperlane generation using this new algorithm. Lowest, default, and highest if possible.

I also hope this "L-Cluster" is going to be an isolated cluster of stars accessible only by a wormhole. The El Dorado cluster, full of valuable things that empires viciously fight each other for control over.
 
Thank you adding binary and three star systems, it’s always annoyed me at how the Alpha Centauri system was a single star system and I think it’ll make those systems seem a lot more special than the classic ones if not at least cooler.
 
Anomalies are going to lose their sense of wonder.

The early game was my favorite because It truly felt like star trek, bodly going where nobody has gone before, finding weird shit.

Now stellaris is becoming just another 4x.

Gameplay wise it makes sense, but flavor wise this is terrible. Exploration is no fun without a risk attached.

Currently 90% of stellaris gameplay is waiting for you to have enough minerals or influence to claim something or build a mining station. This change just adds another thing to keep track of.

I do not like this change, it rids the game of that sense of discovery.
 
Anomaly rework makes sense given the lack of meaningful risks/benefits they had.

Wiz I had a question related to hyper lanes. Would you consider making some sort of mega lanes that offer increased movement speed to create a sort of conflict zone over strategic routes?

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?
 
Anomalies are going to lose their sense of wonder.
Gameplay wise it makes sense, but flavor wise this is terrible.
Exploration is no fun without a risk attached.

I feel the same. I like all other new stuff but this makes me wonder if all "negative" results will be completely removed from the annomalies or not.
If they are removed then finding one annomaly is always gonna be good, which is not really appealing to me.
 
Will we be getting more types of space monster, and a slider to control how many spawns there are at any point? I feel like recent games I hardly ever see them, and I've only ever seen a couple of leviathans.
 
This diary is pretty exciting. I'm suprised that clustering is actually making it into the main game; but I think I could enjoy the 'organization' of it. I do hope we allow for some chance of leviathans to spawn at choke points, such 'natural hazards' change the game dynamically in intersting ways.


My only concern is the research update; While outright failing an anomoly sucked, I hope it is not decided that there should be deprecation of 'lesser rewards'. Having a chance to win greatly (or gain very little) adds some nice flavor.
 
I think the removal of the "we just spent 6 months staring at a shiny rock... oh wait, it's nothing" would be best.

That's separate to "we looked at a shiny rock, and successfully identified it as an dormant defence station... just as it opened fire.", or at least it should be.

I'm not sure about making all the anomalies once only though. Some easily make sense to reoccur, like the space dung, the grimacing world, the mining beacon, and most of the plus science ones. Even the vault full of uploaded or recorded brains could be a multi-shot deal, since more than one alien race could have tried it.

Only one Dathnak per universe would be nice though. Ideally less than that.
 
That should seriously be written in at least one meter high letters in every room where games are produced, in every company.
Important to remember though, different people have different ideas of interesting.

Like, all those people complaining about the 25% chance for abandoned terraforming to turn your planet toxic, no matter what you do? To me, it's perfect. Risk and reward. I usually take the risk. But, I cut my gaming teeth on old roguelikes, where you drop through a pit and a minotaur bashes your face in and that's game over.

The level based fail chance didn't make for interesting choices, the time impact might.

But, having an inherent immutable 5% fail risk on all anomalies? That would still make for interesting outcomes for me. So what if it's random? I understand strategy gamers have a problem with rng, but life ain't fair :p
 
I can understand that.

I wonder if instead of a fail chance from discovering them (that doesn't really feel nice), having some anomalies working like the shroud would not feel more rewarding.
We could keep the new time based system for discovering anomalies but when discovered some anomalies would let you choose path and have a chance of success from each, ranging from garanteed to impossible. It would be even better if so traits had effect on those. Like rocketry boosting your chances of detonating something successfully. Some choices could be dangerous, risking destroying the vessel and/or killing the scientist.

It would look something like that the way I see it :

The science ship discovered a very small automated vessel of unkown origin inside the asteroid belt. When the ship approached it, the drone reativated and rushed through the asteroid field. What are your orders ?

-Try to follow it (unlikely, very dangerous, bonus: carefree)
-Focus on analysing the trail and lost parts (garanteed,safe)
-Try to hack it remotely (very hard, safe, bonus: computing)
-Try to calculate it's path and find a shortcut (hard, slightly dangerous, bonus: voidcraft)

That would give some use to the expertise traits for explorers, allow to control the risks taken and rewards.

I would absolutely love that, that's exactly the sort of choice I'd like to be making, but I think as long as there's more than one reward, and even if you min/max there's still a tiny chance of failure on any of those choices, there are a few people that wouldn't consider that system any better than the current one.

I feel like the problem is Stellaris has walked a fine line between being a traditional 'hard' strategy game, where you concentrate on micromanaging your buildings, resource base and forces, and a 'fluffy' strategy game, which concentrates on story telling and world building. To me 2.0 felt like it pushed the game more into the 'hard' strategy side of things, and removing the consequences on anomalies continues that trend. It makes anomalies become less about building the world and more about building your empire.

Some people hate loosing a scientist, and that's fine, I personally think that the chance of failure adds a lot more to the game than the base text in a lot of these encounters. I lost count of how many times I just accepted an anomaly research project without reading it, only to take notice and read the event because one of my scientists was eaten by a sheep or some non-sense.

It doesn't feel like a discovery, or adventure, without a hint of danger.
 
It rarely happens that a DD hypes me! This is all pretty cool stuff :)
 
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.
Sounds like you're laying the groundwork for that whole "isolated islands reachable only by Wormhole or Jumpdrive with hidden goodies or dangers" feature you talked about when the FTL rework was first announced.
 
Like the idea of removing binary succeed/fail. Would like to see that worked into multiple possible results to prevent it becoming stale and just another time management exercise. Tie it to skills of scientist on the ship or something. I too like the sense of wonder exploring in the early game of Stellaris gives. I really enjoy the uncertainty, especially on second and third etc play throughs. Would like that extended, not reduced.

Just 2c.