• 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!
 
Thats probably the Patch/dlc i am looking forward the most... multiple/unlimited resources (modders.. i'm counting on you)

i hope there will be some logistic action on resource gathering/trade also.. e.g. no instant transport but tradefleets, blockades, pirate raiding etc. especially between empires.. no safe trade with empires on the other side of the galaxy...
 
all good 4X games are at least a bit messy and muddled because those qualities are inherent to the concept. it's an entire civilization, how can it not be messy?
 
I'm going to point to the ethics wheel for a moment and note the shiny little pacifism option.
Straight up "Never go to war, ever, under any circumstances" is stated to be a valid thing to do before you ever actually play the game.
So yeah, as long as pacifism is an ethic. War CAN NOT BE required or without alternatives.
I agree. The Pacifism ethic is nonsense and shouldn't be in the game.

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.
There's a looooooooooot of water between "The rubble-pile of extraneous mechanics we have now" and "Generic 4X with 5 win conditions".
CK2 is a good example. No win conditions at all - even fewer than Stellaris - but there's a lot more scope for players to self-impose objectives because there are more "big picture" events: healing the Schism, Roman Empire, pagan reformation, Saoshyant, invade China, Norse India, etc.
If Stellaris had some of those, to actually give your empire a bit of teleology, we might be getting somewhere.
 
I agree. The Pacifism ethic is nonsense and shouldn't be in the game.
How are you missing the point this badly?
 
Enjoying your goldfishing Inward Perfection game, are you?
No?
QED.
Yes, actually. Why? So again. How are you missing the point this badly?
 
I would like the opportunity to paint the map in more ways than just military might, so you swap to the economic/diplomatic/cultural map modes and find that empires are falling under your sphere of influence in multiple domains.

Enjoying your goldfishing Inward Perfection game, are you?
No?
QED.
I prefer the term navel-gazing. It seems bizarre, in a strategy game, to have playstyles which are built completely around little to zero interaction with the other actors.
 
There's a looooooooooot of water between "The rubble-pile of extraneous mechanics we have now" and "Generic 4X with 5 win conditions".
CK2 is a good example. No win conditions at all - even fewer than Stellaris - but there's a lot more scope for players to self-impose objectives because there are more "big picture" events: healing the Schism, Roman Empire, pagan reformation, Saoshyant, invade China, Norse India, etc.
If Stellaris had some of those, to actually give your empire a bit of teleology, we might be getting somewhere.

Stellaris can never be CK2 because it's a 4X (or Fourecks as it should be known). In CK2 you start in an already developed world full of characters. In Stellaris the game starts empty.
 
There's a looooooooooot of water between "The rubble-pile of extraneous mechanics we have now" and "Generic 4X with 5 win conditions".
CK2 is a good example. No win conditions at all - even fewer than Stellaris - but there's a lot more scope for players to self-impose objectives because there are more "big picture" events: healing the Schism, Roman Empire, pagan reformation, Saoshyant, invade China, Norse India, etc.
If Stellaris had some of those, to actually give your empire a bit of teleology, we might be getting somewhere.

Ultimately, I just want to play a deep grand strategy space game. Leading species, or multiple ones, towards my vision chosen for that particular campaign.

Metaphorically, it is like painting a picture. The more mechanics I have at my disposal, the more colors, brushes and other tools I have to actualize my vision in all detail. Economy, warfare, diplomacy, customization options, it is all good. All of these mechanics offer goals in themselves in addition to making the gameplay more versatile and interesting. I've never had teleological problem formulating my own long-term obscure goals, especially with all the opportunities and inspirations that various mods provide like building an asteroid low-G nation. Same with CK2. Large events are nice for inspiration, but I am also just as fine doing my own thing like recreating Switzerland (harder than you think).

As I've said before, I understand that Stellaris is also a 4X game, that a lot of people like to play it in straightforward manner and just paint the map. I understand why they are frustrated, since as a hybrid Stellaris does not provide optimal 4X experience. Just like it does not provide optimal grand strategy experience, to be honest. It is the price of compromise and we have to live with that. The game is, what, more than 2 years old at this point, too late to stop the experiment. I, and others like me, play the game in one manner, others play it in another, no issue there.

My issue is specifically with people who explicitly call for reducing Stellaris to map-painting only, disregarding interests of major part of the playerbase.

I guess my point is that there SHOULD NOT BE an alternative to war.

The Pacifism ethic is nonsense and shouldn't be in the game.

If your posts in this thread were actually implemented, it would ruin a game for me. Instead of a canvas Stellaris would be turned into a coloring book. Here is the pre-determined goal, here is your brush. But hey, you can choose the color! Not my cup of tea. If I wanted that, I could just play Endless Space 2, a game specifically designed for 4X experience. There you have warfare as the cornerstone, clear victory conditions, comprehensive lore, pretty interesting faction-specific goals to pursue. You can even have limited customization on top of custom nations themselves. But I am not interested in that, I am interested in Stellaris.

Going through with your, and not only your, suggestions would mean that a lot of people would be alienated from Stellaris, inevitably stoping supporting it financially, leading to declined revenue and prematurely ended game development cycle. All you would be left is a product of inferior quality compared to the one produced by a competitor. Basically it would mean a lose-lose situation for everyone: grand strategy fans, 4X fans, developers.
 
Going through with your, and not only your, suggestions would mean that a lot of people would be alienated from Stellaris, inevitably stoping supporting it financially, leading to declined revenue and prematurely ended game development cycle. All you would be left is a product of inferior quality compared to the one produced by a competitor. Basically it would mean a lose-lose situation for everyone: grand strategy fans, 4X fans, developers.
Taking the "IT'LL LOSE BUSINESS, YOU LOVE THOSE $$$ DON'T YOU PARADOX, DO IT MY WAY OR YOU'LL LOSE THOSE $$$" route is beneath all of us, even me.

For one, you are not Magical Market Research Man and your gameplay ideas are not more profitable than mine just because you say they are.

For two. going straight for the capitalist jugular whenever anyone makes a suggestion you don't like only serves to drag us all down into the stinking morass of Candy Crush 17: Call of Fifa.
 
While not in the game yet, this will open the way for things like silicoids that eat minerals instead of food, or even an energy being/psychic race that makes its buildings out of energy.
I know, but is this something that is planned for base game, or just a cool feature and help for modders?
 
Winning Stellaris, at least in single player mode, for me has seemed to be more about when I believe I have the galaxy the way I want my species to inhabit it. Fighting through the mid-game and end games crisis, finishing off adversaries who oppose me, annexing what parts that I want to use, and then taking a step back to marvel at my creations. Actually reaching a "You Win" screen isn't that important to me anymore. I often fire up games I consider "won" and play on for a bit just for the lolz.

Does anyone else do the same?
 
Taking the "IT'LL LOSE BUSINESS, YOU LOVE THOSE $$$ DON'T YOU PARADOX, DO IT MY WAY OR YOU'LL LOSE THOSE $$$" route is beneath all of us, even me.

For one, you are not Magical Market Research Man and your gameplay ideas are not more profitable than mine just because you say they are.

For two. going straight for the capitalist jugular whenever anyone makes a suggestion you don't like only serves to drag us all down into the stinking morass of Candy Crush 17: Call of Fifa.

This response is incredibly disappointing.

Instead of challenging my main point, that your suggestion is going to alienate large proportion of playerbase, you try to invalidate the criticism by accusing me of mercantilism.

For one, it means that you either are not sure of your position or you are indeed alright with disregarding playstyles of other people. Which, in the latter case, is just callous.

Two, your rage against capitalism does not even work as an argument. Stellaris and its ongoing DLCs are commercial products made for profit. These are made for customers to buy and enjoy. If customers do not enjoy the products, those won't be produced anymore. That's just a reality repeatedly acknowledged by developers themselves who constantly ask players to provide the feedback, so the customers are satisifed and the development team can make profit. It is a honest business relationship. That's why financial aspects of your suggestion should absolutely be considered and discussed. Pretending like it is a lowly topic is just disingenuous.

Three, laws of basic microeconomics suggest that if you radically change nature of your product, your customer base is going to be put into a calamity (inevitable losses). The same laws also suggest that abandoning your unique niche and entering a highly competitive field is not a good idea.
 
This will go a long way towards making me "forgive" Paradox for removing alternative FTL drives :p . Looks wonderful in every respect.

I prefer the term navel-gazing. It seems bizarre, in a strategy game, to have playstyles which are built completely around little to zero interaction with the other actors.
As someone who sometimes enjoys just building up their own empire and colonising strange new worlds and whatnot, without doing too much of that mean and wicked invasion stuff, this almost made me chuckle.

Sure, right now the game is about warfare and "map painting", first and foremost, and I agree this makes the pacifist ethos really out of place at the moment.

I also believe, though, that there should be things to do during peace-time, and that it should be possible to play and win the game without expansionism. It just requires some mechanics that are balanced and also genunely interesting and fun to play with, while not getting too much in the way during wartime.

How are you missing the point this badly?
He understood what you wrote perfectly well, and he's being sarcastic. No points were missed.
 
Last edited:
Taking the "IT'LL LOSE BUSINESS, YOU LOVE THOSE $$$ DON'T YOU PARADOX, DO IT MY WAY OR YOU'LL LOSE THOSE $$$" route is beneath all of us, even me.

For one, you are not Magical Market Research Man and your gameplay ideas are not more profitable than mine just because you say they are.

For two. going straight for the capitalist jugular whenever anyone makes a suggestion you don't like only serves to drag us all down into the stinking morass of Candy Crush 17: Call of Fifa.

You could always go play Command & Conquer if you want a straight up war game...Sins of a Solar Empire if you want something space themed.
 
I agree. The Pacifism ethic is nonsense and shouldn't be in the game.

I always go warmonger, but the option to do otherwise should be there, and acceptable. Normal pacifism could also mean, that peace by force if must be. The federation builder by liberating everyone to be precise. I would only change it, that in case of partial liberation the liberated nation gets 10 claims on all the old nation's territory, or simply gets it in next war. That way you would get less, but bigger nations, than now.

The fanatic pacifist is about not waging any war at all unless being attacked. But that is why "fanatic". I would change it in 2 ways.

First allow liberation wars for unrestriced policy so militarists can do it as well. A sort of "space USA". First you conquer the old fashioned way to become strong, then at midgame you change it to liberation to erase the claim costs. Right now you can only do this if you are not militarist, neither pacifist. If you are militarist, then making it to liberation wars will cause a hell of an unrest.

Second is allowing liberation wars for fanatic pacifists too. Yeah yeah then why take normal pacifist? The same reason you take normal etho from any type. So you can take something else as fanatic, or have 3 normal.