• 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 #120 - New Economy System

Hello and welcome back to the Stellaris dev diaries! Today we're going to start talking about the next major update, which we have dubbed 2.2 'Le Guin' after Ursula K. Le Guin. Right now we're not ready to reveal anything about the precise nature of the update or whether it is accompanied by any DLC, other than to say that the Le Guin will have focus on trade and the economy, and that its release date is far away. Today's dev diary is going to be a bit on the foundational side, going over the new economic back-end we've implemented for 2.2.

New Economy System
The original economy system for Stellaris has always been something of a limitation for us. It's a sort of hybrid system, with resources being both scripted (and thus accessible to modders) and hard-coded (and thus inaccessible) in about equal measures. For example, under the old system ships would always cost minerals, as the code was set up for them to always cost minerals, and the only thing you could change was the amount of minerals they cost. Similarly, most things in the game that had an upkeep were hard-coded to use energy for upkeep, and again, only the amounts were able to be changed. A few things (such as for example Resettlement or the precise resources produced by a building) were more open than this, but generally the system made it quite hard to introduce new resources or change the way a particular empire might use a particular resource. The old system was also quite performance-intensive.

When we decided that we wanted to make the next major update be about the economy, the first thing we knew that we needed to do was to rewrite this system entirely. For the new system, we set out a number of goals:
1: The new system should make it easy to add new resources and swap the way resources are used
2: The new system should be as open to modding as we possibly could make it
3: The new system should improve performance

From this, we've created a new system that we call Economic Templates. Where previously there would be a jumble of different systems for how cost, production and maintenance of the different features in the game would work, there is now one unified system. Any single object in the game that can be owned by an empire and have an impact on the economy is called an Economic Unit. In the database files, an Economic Unit looks like this:

Code:
resources = {
    category = armies
 
    # Normal empires pay for armies with minerals
    cost = {
        trigger = {
            owner = { is_hive_empire = no }
        } 
        minerals = 100
    }
 
    # Hive Minds pay for armies partially with food
    cost = {
        trigger = {
            owner = { is_hive_empire = yes }
        }     
        minerals = 50
        food = 50
    }     

    # If Barbaric Despoilers, produce Energy while on enemy planets
    produces = {
        trigger = {
            owner = { has_valid_civic = civic_barbaric_despoilers }
            planet = { owner = { is_at_war_with = root.owner } }
        }
        energy = 3
    }     
 
    # Normal empires pay army upkeep with energy
    upkeep = {
        trigger = {
            owner = { is_hive_empire = no }
        }     
        energy = 1
    }
 
    # Hive Minds pay army upkeep with food
    upkeep = {
        trigger = {
            owner = { is_hive_empire = yes }
        }     
        food = 1
    }     
}

For those who cannot read our scripting language, this is an example I just created of how the new system can be used. It's for a regular assault army, which normally costs 100 minerals to build and has an upkeep of 1 energy, just as before. However, if your empire is a Hive Mind, the army will instead cost 50 minerals and 50 food, and costs 1 food in upkeep instead of 1 energy. Additionally, if you have the Barbaric Despoilers civic, armies that are located on enemy planets will produce 3 energy/month, paying for themselves and then some through wide-scale looting. This isn't an actual example from the internal build, but something I just created while writing this dev diary to show the possibilities that the new economic system opens up for for both us and modders - we could have fully biological empires that use food instead of minerals to build infrastructure, ships that produce research while in certain systems, leaders that give Unity... the possibilities are endless.
2018_08_09_1.png


Advanced Resources
With this system in place, we've been able to add several new 'advanced' resources to the game. They are as follows: Alloys, Rare Crystals, Volatile Motes and Exotic Gases. These resources are either manufactured from basic resources or found in rare planetary deposits (or both!) and are used to construct more advanced things in the game, such as ship components, megastructures, certain buildings and so on. There is also still a number of strategic resources such as Dark Matter and Living Metal that provide unique benefits, though precisely how many of these we will keep and how they are used is something we're still in the process of figuring out.

As part of these changes we're also in the process of reworking the top bar. Since we will now have rather too many resources to show them all, the top bar will now only show individual entries for resources that are important for your empire to always keep track of, with the rest shown as a consolidated entry that can be tooltiped for greater detail. Science is also consolidated into a total output of all 3 sciences, with tooltip showing the individual production of each. We're going to ensure that only relevant resources are shown individually, so most Machine Empires wouldn't have Food appear as an individual entry in the top bar, for example. We're also considering letting the player manually override this and decide which precise resources they want to keep track of within the available topbar space.

(Please note that the new topbar is nowhere near final and will have some ugly graphical issues. This is not how it will look on release)
2018_08_09_2.png


That's all for today! I know this dev diary was rather technical and perhaps primarily of interest to modders, but I felt it was important to explain the fundamental changes that have taken place in the game's back-end, both in relation to the changes coming in 2.2, and the possibilities that this opens up in the future for having empire types with radically different approaches to resource production and consumption. Next week we're going to finally start talking about the new Planetary Management system. See you then!
 
I don't see why painting the map should be any particular goal at all. In fact I think that achieving just 50% of the galaxy should be an incredible feature that should be almost impossible to do given the games time span. One of the goal should be to just survive one of the end game crisis. Painting the map or even making it possible is not really good game balance in my opinion. The only thing this promotes are warlike behaviors... eliminating all competition is by definition the most efficient way of surviving in a binary environment.

I do hope they soon scrap this ridiculous victory conditions... I really can't ever see myself play the game long enough to ever reach them to begin with... soo boring. What they need to do is make the game interesting and things always happening and mechanics to always interact with.

You should be able to play anything from a flesh eating hive to a peaceful xenophobe and have things to do until that crisis hit and you survive it intact.

When it comes to reason for playing I hope they will soon add some interesting mechanic that make each games focus different. More like individual mid term goals and things that can change during a game depending on what happens around you... perhaps a system where you somehow can choose what focus you want to take and when you reach it you get some ability and can choose a new one... perhaps it might also be a contest with others trying to do the same.

Personally I think that's just too complicated to make for a good game. It feels like one of those things we want in theory, but would be unhappy with if we got it. In practice it would, I suspect, feel more chaotic than fun. Indeed, I think Stellaris currently tries for that "anything goes" sandbox approach and it's a major reason why the game still feels so muddled. There are many systems, but few serve a particular purpose because no purpose has been articulated.

This is why we have win conditions in games, so that both players and designers know what to do with each and every mechanic. It allows you to build for elegance. It's like chess. Your goal is always simple and straightforward: capture the king. And your mechanics aren't overly complex. There are really only six major rules, one for each piece. The way it all comes together, though, is so complex and emergent that the game has resisted solution for thousands of years. The game allows for many, many different play styles because the rules can interact well.

That would be my best version of Stellaris, a game with straightforward goals but many different ways of achieving them. "Survive in a relentlessly hostile galaxy, and paint the map your color" feels straightforward. Then, players can choose how they want to achieve that.

Having that clear-cut goal would give the game more focus. Each new mechanic and system could be thought through from that perspective. I think we would find, then, that a lot of the game would begin to feel more cohesive and interesting. I do agree with you completely that the game gets quite boring by the middle, but I think that's because they keep adding spare parts without purpose. Stellaris has lots of mechanics and game systems, it's just that few of them actually have much of a role in gameplay. Many feel like they're there just because they felt neat. Giving the game more focus would help with that a lot, because then we could review everything from factions to edicts to species rights from the perspective of one, clear-cut question: How does this help the player survive and expand?
 
Last edited:
Personally I think that's just too complicated to make for a good game. It feels like one of those things we want in theory, but would be unhappy with if we got it. In practice it would, I suspect, feel more chaotic than fun. Indeed, I think Stellaris currently tries for that "anything goes" sandbox approach and it's a major reason why the game still feels so muddled. There are many systems, but few serve a particular purpose because no purpose has been articulated.

This is why we have win conditions in games, so that both players and designers know what to do with each and every mechanic. It allows you to build for elegance. It's like chess. Your goal is always simple and straightforward: capture the king. And your mechanics aren't overly complex. There are really only six major rules, one for each piece. The way it all comes together, though, is so complex and emergent that the game has resisted solution for thousands of years. The game allows for many, many different play styles because the rules can interact well.

That would be my best version of Stellaris, a game with straightforward goals but many different ways of achieving them. "Survive in a relentlessly hostile galaxy, and paint the map your color" feels straightforward. Then, players can choose how they want to achieve that.

Having that clear-cut goal would give the game more focus. Each new mechanic and system could be thought through from that perspective. I think we would find, then, that a lot of the game would begin to feel more cohesive and interesting. I do agree with you completely that the game gets quite boring by the middle, but I think that's because they keep adding spare parts without purpose. Stellaris has lots of mechanics and game systems, it's just that few of them actually have much of a role in gameplay. Many feel like they're there just because they felt neat. Giving the game more focus would help with that a lot, because then we could review everything from factions to edicts to species rights from the perspective of one, clear-cut question: How does this help the player survive and expand?

We already know that the win conditions is a placeholder system and that it will be removed for something else. Something more individual and story focused I think was mentioned.

So... no... I don't think they are mandatory at all. Most other Paradox products don't have them either.

I do agree that having some focus to strive for is good... but it could be more individual goals rather then a way to "win" the game.
 
Personally I think that's just too complicated to make for a good game. It feels like one of those things we want in theory, but would be unhappy with if we got it. In practice it would, I suspect, feel more chaotic than fun. Indeed, I think Stellaris currently tries for that "anything goes" sandbox approach and it's a major reason why the game still feels so muddled. There are many systems, but few serve a particular purpose because no purpose has been articulated.

This is why we have win conditions in games, so that both players and designers know what to do with each and every mechanic. It allows you to build for elegance. Personally, I think the best games all have a clear-cut goal with many different ways of achieving it. It's like chess. Your goal is always simple and straightforward: capture the king. And your mechanics aren't overly complex. There are really only six major rules, one for each piece. The way it all comes together, though, is so complex and emergent that the game has resisted solution for thousands of years. The game allows for many, many different play styles because the rules can interact well.

That would be my best version of Stellaris, a game with straightforward goals but many different ways of achieving them. "Survive in a relentlessly hostile galaxy, and paint the map your color" feels straightforward. Then, players can choose how they want to achieve that.

Having that clear-cut goal would give the game more focus. Each new mechanic and system could be thought through from that perspective. I think we would find, then, that a lot of the game would begin to feel more cohesive and interesting. I do agree with you completely that the game gets quite boring by the middle, but I think that's because they keep adding spare parts without purpose. Stellaris has lots of mechanics and game systems, it's just that few of them actually have much of a role in gameplay. Many feel like they're there just because they felt neat. Giving the game more focus would help with that a lot, because then we could review everything from factions to edicts to species rights from the perspective of one, clear-cut question: How does this help the player survive and expand?

Sorry, but turning Stellaris into a generic 4X is a horrible idea, especially this late into the development cycle.

1) You are going to kill the major marketing pull of this game: an experimental mix of grand strategy and 4X. Meaning less sales by default.

2) There are dozens of classical 4X games like Endless Space available on the market. All of these games are specifically designed from the ground up to provide best 4X product possible. Turning Stellaris into one is just going to result in an inferior product since the game was initially not designed for that task. Meaning less sales and bad experience for most players.

3) You are going to antagonize a huge proportion of the existing playerbase, including myself, who like grand strategy aspects of Stellaris. Meaning a PR disaster, inferior product for a lot of people and less sales.
 
Last edited:
With this being the Le Guin patch, I wonder if a pre-FTL civilization rework is also in the offing? Many of her Hainish novels cover pre-FTL worlds and their experience coming into contact with the wider galactic community.
 
Sorry, but turning Stellaris into a generic 4X is a horrible idea, especially this late into the development cycle.

1) You are going to kill the major marketing pull of this game: an experimental mix of Grand Strategy and 4X. Meaning less sales by default.

2) There are dozens of classical 4X games like Endless Space available on the market. All of these games are specifically designed from the ground up to provide best 4X product possible. Turning Stellaris into one is just going to result in an inferior product since the game was initially not designed for that task. Meaning less sales and bad experience for most players.

3) You are going to antagonize a huge proportion of the existing playerbase, including myself, who like Grand Strategy aspects of Stellaris. Meaning a PR disaster, inferior product for a lot of people and less sales.

Maybe. But then again, fans are notorious for not knowing what we actually want. Often what we think will make a property better and what actually makes it good are two different things. (Consider, for example, the tragic, sloppy mess that Community became as its writers decided to listen to the fans who wanted more meta weirdness.)

Personally, I think elegance in design would serve Stellaris well. And in my opinion, a lot of what's currently wrong with the game (the midgame slog and many mechanics that serve no purpose) is because the game has a whole mix of systems with no coherent purpose. A clear, stated goal would let the designers pull many of these seemingly random mechanics together. Indeed, it's why warfare is the most developed mechanic in the game, because each piece of gameplay there can serve an articulable purpose, so each relevant mechanic can be designed from that perspective.

And as to a PR disaster with fewer sales... The game already has win conditions, this would just put those to better use. And people have been crying "PR disaster no more sales!" for quite a while now. If the game is improved, it will do fine. And I think this design philosophy would improve it.
 
Personally I think that's just too complicated to make for a good game. It feels like one of those things we want in theory, but would be unhappy with if we got it. In practice it would, I suspect, feel more chaotic than fun. Indeed, I think Stellaris currently tries for that "anything goes" sandbox approach and it's a major reason why the game still feels so muddled. There are many systems, but few serve a particular purpose because no purpose has been articulated.

This is why we have win conditions in games, so that both players and designers know what to do with each and every mechanic. It allows you to build for elegance. It's like chess. Your goal is always simple and straightforward: capture the king. And your mechanics aren't overly complex. There are really only six major rules, one for each piece. The way it all comes together, though, is so complex and emergent that the game has resisted solution for thousands of years. The game allows for many, many different play styles because the rules can interact well.

That would be my best version of Stellaris, a game with straightforward goals but many different ways of achieving them. "Survive in a relentlessly hostile galaxy, and paint the map your color" feels straightforward. Then, players can choose how they want to achieve that.

Having that clear-cut goal would give the game more focus. Each new mechanic and system could be thought through from that perspective. I think we would find, then, that a lot of the game would begin to feel more cohesive and interesting. I do agree with you completely that the game gets quite boring by the middle, but I think that's because they keep adding spare parts without purpose. Stellaris has lots of mechanics and game systems, it's just that few of them actually have much of a role in gameplay. Many feel like they're there just because they felt neat. Giving the game more focus would help with that a lot, because then we could review everything from factions to edicts to species rights from the perspective of one, clear-cut question: How does this help the player survive and expand?

The trouble with this idea is that (with the current mechanics) leaving it to the players choice means they're going to go for the choice that achieves that goal. This is largely why purifier types are so popular, with xenophobe militarists a close second. These options currently give you the best results towards the only goal - conquest and expansion.

Cutting victory conditions, whilst expanding mechanics to play other ways as LeGuin seems to be aiming for is where Stellaris will stand out from similar games in this genre.
 
Maybe. But then again, fans are notorious for not knowing what we actually want. Often what we think will make a property better and what actually makes it good are two different things. (Consider, for example, the tragic, sloppy mess that Community became as its writers decided to listen to the fans who wanted more meta weirdness.)

Personally, I think elegance in design would serve Stellaris well. And in my opinion, a lot of what's currently wrong with the game (the midgame slog and many mechanics that serve no purpose) is because the game has a whole mix of systems with no coherent purpose. A clear, stated goal would let the designers pull many of these seemingly random mechanics together. Indeed, it's why warfare is the most developed mechanic in the game, because each piece of gameplay there can serve an articulable purpose, so each relevant mechanic can be designed from that perspective.

And as to a PR disaster with fewer sales... The game already has win conditions, this would just put those to better use. And people have been crying "PR disaster no more sales!" for quite a while now. If the game is improved, it will do fine. And I think this design philosophy would improve it.

Look, based on our interactions in several threads I understand you prefer very focused, defined game experience where you are given a clear goal, clear tools and you achieve your task with what you're given, mastering technique over time. That's the core idea behind 4X genre, which, as you said, is a videogame equivalent of chess. Simple goal, simple rules, complex execution. I understand you like it.

But Stellaris is NOT just a 4X. It is in equal measure a grand strategy, a cousin to Vicky 2, CK2, EU4, whole other genre with its own qualities, and one of the key defining characteristics of the genre is absense of clear goals. There is no way to objectively, definitively win in grand strategy because there are no objective defined goals set for you. You, as a player set your goals for yourself. Want to conquer everything? Feel free to do that, although it is not going to be easy. Want to stay small and tune your nation to what you prefer? Feel free but prepare for struggle. There is nominal score to keep track of your success and maybe some optional achievements to give you some inspiration, but the core idea is that you do what you want. Playing long grand strategy campaign is similar to painting a picture, it is not about objective victory but about personal one.

As I've said, Stellaris is a hybrid game. It attracted a lot of people who like space-sim 4X games and it also attracted a lot of grand strategy fans. Developers want to please both and that's why there is a lot of confusion going on, since the game sends mixed signals. On the one hand it wants you to embrace 4X simplistic optimization because you are indeed going to need minerals and naval capacity to beat the Crisis. On the other hand, the game wants you to customize and fine-tune your nation in grand strategy fashion. Stellaris forces you to constantly expand in 4X style but also keeps telling you that constant expansion is bad, in grand strategy style. That's actually why the gameplay feels muddled.

Is this coexistence model working? Personally, I'd say that is not doing that great. Elements of game design clash with each other. But you can't just write one of the sides from the existence without horrible consequences. Just like how removing everything you like to make Stellaris into a pure grand strategy would also be less than ideal at this point. Although it is going to be very hard, developers should find a way to integrate genres, not gut things.
 
Is this coexistence model working? Personally, I'd say that is not doing that great. Elements of game design clash with each other. But you can't just write one of the sides from the existence without horrible consequences. Just like how removing everything you like to make Stellaris into a pure grand strategy would also be less than ideal at this point. Although it is going to be very hard, developers should find a way to integrate genres, not gut things.

I think this is the basis of my argument. Certainly I don't mean to discount the way you like to play the game, but I also think the current model just isn't working. (Although tbh, I'm not sure I see as much daylight between grand strategy and 4x as you do either. They seem more compatible to me than not.)

But ultimately, yes, this is where my thinking comes from. There is a problem that has to be fixed. The game is still muddled, it feels like it's trying to be some of all things and all of none. Many, many elements of Stellaris feel irrelevant or tacked on. I literally can't remember ever paying attention to things like factions, policies, edicts, leaders, species rights, etc. It aggressively relies on headcanon to give player actions meaning because so little of what you do in the game actually influences the state of play.

While I don't necessarily need my games to be that focused, I think that in this case a clear focus would help with this central flaw. It would allow the designers to tie game systems to an overarching purpose which the player can't ignore.

This isn't necessarily the only answer. There may well be other, even better, approaches. It's just that something has to give. The current approach doesn't really seem to be working all that well.
 
Last edited:
I think this is the basis of my argument. Certainly I don't mean to discount the way you like to play the game, but I also think the current model just isn't working. (Although tbh, I'm not sure I see as much daylight between grand strategy and 4x as you do either. They seem more compatible to me than not.)

But ultimately, yes, this is where my thinking comes from. There is a problem that has to be fixed. The game is still muddled, it feels like it's trying to be some of all things and all of none. Many, many elements of Stellaris feel irrelevant or tacked on. I literally can't remember ever paying attention to things like factions, policies, edicts, leaders, species rights, etc. While I don't necessarily need my games to be that focused, I think that in this case a clear focus would help with this central flaw. It would allow the designers to tie game systems to an overarching purpose which the player can't ignore.

This isn't necessarily the only answer. There may well be other, even better, approaches. It's just that something has to give. The current approach doesn't really seem to be working all that well.

We can agree that the game is not as enjoyable as it could be and that something has to be done to fix it. But we have so different perspectives of the game that we are unlikely to agree on much else because we approach the game from entirely different perspectives, as it belonged to two different genres.

And THAT is the real problem that outclasses any other issue. In fact it is so important that we can’t even agree on what the problems of the game are. For example, I don’t find lack of clear goals to be the problem since I like to formulate my own. I don’t find game’s systems to be irrelevant because I find intrinsic value in them. My problems with Stellaris actually lay in 4X sphere and map-painting.

So, returning to idea of doing something, we first should acknowledge that Stellaris is in this weird situation and that we should keep it in mind while suggesting things.
 
This isn't necessarily the only answer. There may well be other, even better, approaches. It's just that something has to give. The current approach doesn't really seem to be working all that well.

I seem to recall a large group of people rejecting the idea that 2.0 FTL changes might have been unhealthy.

Only to be here today. One can only wonder what Stellaris would been like if the FTL didn't changed.
 
I think you quite misunderstand the notion and concept of dark matter. Astronomers and physicists very much do not know what it is and make no claim to do so. That is why its coined "dark". It simply denotes: We do not understand this yet. Same deal as dark energy.
That dark matter is real is beyond despute. Just google rotation of galaxies and the bullet cluster.

AFAIK it's called "dark" simply because it does not emit light. It doesn't seem to absorb light either, which implies it doesn't interact electromagnetically, which in turn implies it's not composed of quarks and electrons like our everyday environment is, hence all the speculation about exotic particles.

However, we know that General Relativity is incomplete - it predicts singularities can form but cannot predict what happens to matter falling into them, and is not compatible with Quantum Mechanics - so it's still possible that dark matter and energy go join phlogiston once quantum gravity rolls around.
 
Personally, I think the right answer is somewhere in the middle.

I like Stellaris as a war game in the sense that it challenges you to survive in a hostile galaxy and to, eventually, occupy all of the map. I think this works because it makes your goal clear. As a player, I know that to survive and win this game I have to build a strong empire.

At the same time, I think you're right in that the player should have a wide variety of ways to do that. You should have ways to grow strong beyond mere conquest. Alliances, economic development, technological superiority, resource monopolies all should be viable paths, and you should be able to paint the map either as a conqueror or as a diplomatic envoy of peace.

That's at least the best case vision I would have for the game: A clear, simple purpose with complex ways of achieving it.

I'm assuming beating the endgame crisis as a condition for victory in all cases.

Conquering the galaxy is a reasonable goal for a militaristic empire. But what about Purifiers? Their victory condition should be exterminating all filthy xenos, or just organics if they're Exterminators. Devouring Swarm? Eat everyone and build a fleet to go feast on the next galaxy. Assimilators? Assimilate everyone, obviously. Pacifists? Fight no wars - not even defensive ones - for 100 years (alternatively, nobody has a Casus Belli on you). Inward Perfection? Population and production density (total / star systems in empire) is over some very high treshold. Rogue Servitors? Every biological pop in the galaxy - whether in your empire or not - has a happiness over 90%. Spiritualists? Convert all the heathens. Materialists? Technological singularity (however depicted).

Even if your goal is galactic domination, having your opponents have different ones means more variety in the situations you encounter. And, in all honesty, I don't think "victory conditions", at least zero-sum ones, really make sense in a grand strategy game. History doesn't end until everyone's dead.
 
My problems with Stellaris actually lay in 4X sphere and map-painting.

Map-painting is a problem because it eliminates opponents, leading to a game over for the painted and boring game for the painter. I suggested in another thread that Stellaris empires should have a more detailed structure: you only directly rule your core sector (limited by the distance to your capital rather than number of colonies) and the rest is divided into separate political entities of various levels of independence and integration (sector -> state -> vassal -> satellite) so getting conquered would simply mean you now have an overlord and might actually be a good strategy in some cases, and conquering an enemy means they're subjugated, not eliminated, and can still cause you trouble if you don't watch out (and obviously give wide empires new vulnerabilities for tall ones to exploit).

It's the 4th X that's the problem. Replace eXterminate with Subjugate and a lot of issues go away and new possibilities for federations and things like the Feudal Society civic open up.
 
I seem to recall a large group of people rejecting the idea that 2.0 FTL changes might have been unhealthy.

Only to be here today. One can only wonder what Stellaris would been like if the FTL didn't changed.

Funny enough, I seem to recall an even larger group of people who thought the opposite.

Without that change, 2.1 would not have happened and likely a lot of future updates. Or at worst, it would have taken double of time.... Or triple.
 
Funny enough, I seem to recall an even larger group of people who thought the opposite.

Without that change, 2.1 would not have happened and likely a lot of future updates. Or at worst, it would have taken double of time.... Or triple.

Exploration is not directly tied into FTL changes. Maybe L-gate at the most and even then there are other way to make it unreachable by warp/wormhole. Impassible terrain to name but one.

Tile-less change depend on 2.0 FTL change? Not really. Future Trade changes? Probability yes. However, not everything is directly tied into the FTL change like exploration manager/fleet manager/etc...


Also at those who disagree with me in my earlier post. You do realize you are proving my point right? Right?


The only reason why I am bring it up now is because if no one is going to speak of our desire to bring warp/wormhole back then no one will. So I am carry torch for those who want them back. Disagree all you want because it will not discourage me from doing so.
 
I love the fact that the developers actually try to make modding easier for modders, I personally play without any mods but still, compared to most other companies where they try to effectively "ban" modding. it is extremely awesome that they let people lots of freedom with their game. I hope that this mentality will become more widespread soon again.

The new resource system looks great, seems like it will add lots of depth to the game and make conquest as well as diplomacy more interesting, and if I remember correctly, wasn't there some kind of new trading system announced too? Maybe you can then really play as some kind of trade federation, surpressing other empires over the market making them depended on you.

Also, I am really interested in the performance part of the new resource system, I wonder how much of a performance boost it will make, maybe the late game runs bad because of the current resource system? I didn't even think of the fact that it might cause it, I alwas thought it were the bigger fleets that caused the FPS to drop a lot.
 
I really hope they will also do significant upgrades to the AI. Already now without some tweaking and mods the AI just can't compete with human player, especially with the DLCs - the AI just doesn't know how to specialize, prioritize etc. Now with the new economic AI there seems to be so many new combinations of whats possible, but that could also means AI will have even more difficulty navigating the choices. So I hope Paradox will give it a good thought. I so hope they will at least dedicate one Dev chapter to how the AI will be enhanced. I would so like to see that different AI empires will actually start behaving differently and utilizing their economic differences to their advantage.
 
Personally I think that's just too complicated to make for a good game. It feels like one of those things we want in theory, but would be unhappy with if we got it. In practice it would, I suspect, feel more chaotic than fun. Indeed, I think Stellaris currently tries for that "anything goes" sandbox approach and it's a major reason why the game still feels so muddled. There are many systems, but few serve a particular purpose because no purpose has been articulated.

This is why we have win conditions in games, so that both players and designers know what to do with each and every mechanic. It allows you to build for elegance. It's like chess. Your goal is always simple and straightforward: capture the king. And your mechanics aren't overly complex. There are really only six major rules, one for each piece. The way it all comes together, though, is so complex and emergent that the game has resisted solution for thousands of years. The game allows for many, many different play styles because the rules can interact well.

That would be my best version of Stellaris, a game with straightforward goals but many different ways of achieving them. "Survive in a relentlessly hostile galaxy, and paint the map your color" feels straightforward. Then, players can choose how they want to achieve that.

Having that clear-cut goal would give the game more focus. Each new mechanic and system could be thought through from that perspective. I think we would find, then, that a lot of the game would begin to feel more cohesive and interesting. I do agree with you completely that the game gets quite boring by the middle, but I think that's because they keep adding spare parts without purpose. Stellaris has lots of mechanics and game systems, it's just that few of them actually have much of a role in gameplay. Many feel like they're there just because they felt neat. Giving the game more focus would help with that a lot, because then we could review everything from factions to edicts to species rights from the perspective of one, clear-cut question: How does this help the player survive and expand?

I feel like your understanding of game design is highly limited. First off there is nothing wrong with an "anything goes" sandbox game design, it just need proper design implementations, Witcher 3 is a perfect example of this executed perfectly for example. That aside the win conditions are useless and don't describe any game design objective, claiming it represents something is another lack of design sight in my opinion here. Game design isn't necessarily about giving the player an objective to complete, it can be, there are plenty of games that do this and you can achieve this, but this isn't always the case, Skyrim, CSGO, Garry's Mod, these games don't actually have a fundamental objective for the player to achieve, in the least that isn't principally why players play them and why they're popular. (as much as I hate Bethesda game design there is a point to be made that they do a good job isolating the player from the objective the game wants to give you) Instead just as many games rely on giving the player a wide amount of things to do and letting them choose what to do, this is why GTA is always so popular over other games with better focused systems. To be blinded in this manner of design is narrow and shallow, weak in design methodology and always will lead you to a very secluded view of games. Look at it this way, a game can have multiple gameplay loops and a game can be mechanically divergent and still serve a core principal of design. At the end of the day its purely about serving the player's sense of engagement, and if allowing the player to execute actions in the system how they want can serve that there is no reason that shouldn't be done. As a game designer, if I can manage to make multiple mechanics that can serve each other but yet serve multiple different gameplay loops I would execute them because it opens up the flexibility of my game to multiple players and playstyles and gives them a large degree of expression in the game. There are logical extremes this could be taken to but I'm gonna leave off my critique of this post here.
 
Personally I agree that the current victory conditions are pretty useless and more of a chore to complete. I feel like they are really there because many aspects of the game; economy, colonization, society, internal and external politics just aren't very engaging right now.

Not that I'm against somebody wanting to paint the galaxy, but in my ideal Stellaris there would be enough to do that I could completely occupy my gaming time just with colonizing, innovating, and just all around building the best empire I possibly can.
I'd even love a game mode where I could take a really slow approach to expansion without the worry of being boxed in by the stupidly fast expanding AI Empires (which also all just happen to be clustered around mine) or some gameplay mode where I wouldn't even run into AI Empire for the first one or two centuries, but could just like build up planets, internal trade and resource transfer between colonies and the homeworld and create a stable economy and culture.
 
But ultimately, yes, this is where my thinking comes from. There is a problem that has to be fixed. The game is still muddled, it feels like it's trying to be some of all things and all of none. Many, many elements of Stellaris feel irrelevant or tacked on. I literally can't remember ever paying attention to things like factions, policies, edicts, leaders, species rights, etc. It aggressively relies on headcanon to give player actions meaning because so little of what you do in the game actually influences the state of play.

The bolded part is what makes Stellaris what it is, IMO, and on the whole it's a good thing.

While I don't necessarily need my games to be that focused, I think that in this case a clear focus would help with this central flaw. It would allow the designers to tie game systems to an overarching purpose which the player can't ignore.

This isn't necessarily the only answer. There may well be other, even better, approaches. It's just that something has to give. The current approach doesn't really seem to be working all that well.

What they should do is double down on the way they're going, and keep adding stuff to the game and revising what is already there, so that we get more things to do and a more varied gameplay. The problem is the 4X influence there, Stellaris can't be as intricate as say CK2 or even Europa Universalis as you start out from nothing and go bigger. In PDS's other games it's easy to set personal goals (survive as Ulm, conquering those bloody french with war elephants, make sure that cousin of yours dies and take his genius daughter as a wife), but in Stellaris you only have expansion, and by extension, warfare. Because that is its 4X heritage. I'd say it's working pretty well as Stellaris go, and it's a whole lot more to do now than it was at release, but they should keep focus on different things to enhance them. It's not easy, as you don't want to force people into having to care for, say, edicts, but you still have to make them so powerful they will be benificial to the game, but maybe not essential. Factions can be important to juggle around if you want to keep the influence income up, but you probably don't want to make every single faction interaction game breaking (as in, ignore it and die).

In short, balance is important, and personally I think the devs are doing a decent job of it, and they keep getting better. The game keeps getting tighter and tighter while expanding and improving, and that is not an easy thing to pull off.

And again, I really think scenarios would make for a very decent DLC, in which you start in a developed (either fully or semi) galaxy and you have a set of clear goals. One of the best expansions for any game I think is Civilization III's Conquest, which had this exact thing. The game has to be improved a lot in many ways if it's to work properly, but still.