• 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!
 
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?

Can confirm, I do replay old saves from time to time for the similar reasons.
 
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?

To me winning requirement are 2 stuff.

1. All other nations are my federation members, loyal subjects, or dead.

2. Both crisis is defeated, or the 50 years passed since endgame.

The roleplay behind it is to create a position in the galaxy where your race is safe from outsider threat.

I don't like the tech. victory stuff, and economic win in certain games. You ascend into an another dimension. Then what? The old galaxy got rid of you, and someone(s) still end up as winner, and you may or may not be in a better place. By this logic your race could commit a mass suicide reaching the other world.

Economic victory also bullshit, because certain nations are self reliant, and for spacecrafting nations that's entirely possible. You can't beat those with global economy who are not part of it. Also any spacecrafting nation is capable to reach self reliance, if they need it to be.
 
To me winning requirement are 2 stuff.

1. All other nations are my federation members, loyal subjects, or dead.

2. Both crisis is defeated, or the 50 years passed since endgame.

The roleplay behind it is to create a position in the galaxy where your race is safe from outsider threat.

I don't like the tech. victory stuff, and economic win in certain games. You ascend into an another dimension. Then what? The old galaxy got rid of you, and someone(s) still end up as winner, and you may or may not be in a better place. By this logic your race could commit a mass suicide reaching the other world.

Economic victory also bullshit, because certain nations are self reliant, and for spacecrafting nations that's entirely possible. You can't beat those with global economy who are not part of it. Also any spacecrafting nation is capable to reach self reliance, if they need it to be.

I find good old Alpha Centauri handled victory the best. You could defy the will of the planetary council and keep fighting after a diplomatic victory. Transcendence did not remove you from the planet storywsie and I guess you take total control with psi powers. The progenitor victory ended with a giant fleet warping in.
The economic victory was maybe a bit bullshit but it cost about as much as using probes to mind control every base one the planet.
 
I find good old Alpha Centauri handled victory the best. You could defy the will of the planetary council and keep fighting after a diplomatic victory. Transcendence did not remove you from the planet storywsie and I guess you take total control with psi powers. The progenitor victory ended with a giant fleet warping in.
The economic victory was maybe a bit bullshit but it cost about as much as using probes to mind control every base one the planet.

So the diplomatic victory just united the galaxy against those who were disagreed with? Like forming a federation? Oh wait that's in game.

The Trasncendence is an interesting idea. It would demand psionic ascention, and lots of tech to take control of ME empires, and synth advanced people. Or it could be, that since synth ascention already mess the brain by transforming organic data into synthetic they could achieve it as well. Biology might be a little forced, but they also study the brain as it is in such difficulty. Yeah i would make it allow with 2 ascention perks fulfilled, and lots of technology. Also neutrals would be warned, if you try doing it, and would reduce opinion to -1000. It would make the most sense, if only gestallt could have it, and psionic, and synthetic ascended races would get a chance to become gestallt. Biology ascention could not have it, so they would need to get some serious buff in return. Like the perfection trait, and bio ships+bio components.

This progenitor victory seems some story based stuff to me. I would not put it into game.

Economic victory also bullshit. If espionage would be in game, then we could use that for victory, but it isn't. Yet.
 
So the diplomatic victory just united the galaxy against those who were disagreed with? Like forming a federation? Oh wait that's in game.

The Trasncendence is an interesting idea. It would demand psionic ascention, and lots of tech to take control of ME empires, and synth advanced people. Or it could be, that since synth ascention already mess the brain by transforming organic data into synthetic they could achieve it as well. Biology might be a little forced, but they also study the brain as it is in such difficulty. Yeah i would make it allow with 2 ascention perks fulfilled, and lots of technology. Also neutrals would be warned, if you try doing it, and would reduce opinion to -1000. It would make the most sense, if only gestallt could have it, and psionic, and synthetic ascended races would get a chance to become gestallt. Biology ascention could not have it, so they would need to get some serious buff in return. Like the perfection trait, and bio ships+bio components.

This progenitor victory seems some story based stuff to me. I would not put it into game.

Economic victory also bullshit. If espionage would be in game, then we could use that for victory, but it isn't. Yet.

Alpha Centauri involoved only on planet.

Yeah those conditions worked for Alpha Centauri because it was story heavy for a 4x. Unlike the blue jeans or lets city states vote victories of civ 5.

There were two alien factions in the addon to Alpha Centauri which were survivors from alien scout ships. That way calling home to send the proper military made sense.
 
This discussion has me thinking. Is a victory actually a victory? For example, the Soviet Union dissolved but did the US win? Time always moves forward so new challenges could always arise. Could it be that there is no reason to actually have a victory in single player mode? The game, with enough content, could actually go on indefinitely if that was what the developers and the community wanted to do. Federations dissolve. Fallen Empires could be created. Events could cause the entire game to reset from the endgame back to the beginning but with interesting twists.

Just a thought. Maybe I drank too much coffee.
 
He understood what you wrote perfectly well, and he's being sarcastic. No points were missed.
Given his other arguments here, I'm not so sure of that.
 
This discussion has me thinking. Is a victory actually a victory? For example, the Soviet Union dissolved but did the US win? Time always moves forward so new challenges could always arise. Could it be that there is no reason to actually have a victory in single player mode? The game, with enough content, could actually go on indefinitely if that was what the developers and the community wanted to do. Federations dissolve. Fallen Empires could be created. Events could cause the entire game to reset from the endgame back to the beginning but with interesting twists.

Just a thought. Maybe I drank too much coffee.

Well that could work by introducing new "endgame events". For example let multiple crisis roll out one by one, or maybe even together? Would be interesting to see the swarm fighting the unbidden. Empires in reality always broke through outside influence. However in Stellaris, if you conquer everything, then there is no outsider influence. The US. did not won by the way. The USSR lost, but the US. does not, and never controlled Earth. Not even 40% of it. The west block was more like a federation, or a bunch of vassals, than part of the US.. But even if we consider part, then it's still not even 40% of the planet.

The SC. won before WW1. started, and it still holds absolute power over all authority on earth. Even if we don't see it.
 
omfg how did I miss this dev diary?
 
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).

The core trouble I have is that, while this is the vision, it's not the reality.

I don't have any objection to open world games. Indeed, in other threads I've suggested that the right direction for Stellaris might be more like Dungeons & Dragons, a game system which players can populate with stories, lore and characters through the mod community. Or perhaps a strategy Elder Scrolls, a huge open world in which you can get around to the victory conditions whenever you feel like it.

However even in that context, for me the missing piece is how few of Stellaris' many components actually impact the state of play.

In an open world game your decisions still have consequences. In D&D I can write any stories I want, play any adventure, but my choices still matter because the game responds to what I do. Choose to develop a rogue vs. a fighter and you have a very different game. In Stellaris most of my choices don't matter because the game responds to very little of what I do. If I choose a democracy or an oligarchy I still have the exact same game. There are a ton of buttons to push, just almost none of them actually affect the state of play.

For me, mechanics like factions, policies, species rights, politics and government, all of those innumerable incremental technologies, etc., they don't make the game more versatile and interesting because they don't have any consequences. These mechanics don't create new challenges or solve existing ones. They don't give me new options. They sometimes nudge numbers, but never enough to notice.

To borrow your painting a picture analogy, it's as if half the paints in my box didn't leave any mark on the canvas. Imagining a splash of blue doesn't work, nor does just engaging in elaborate head canon and calling it role play. I don't need a computational box to daydream. It's why warfare is the most developed and satisfying system in the game, because this is one of the few things you can do that actually has a tangible, noticeable impact on the game board.

This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Stellaris is packed with options and choices that you can completely ignore, and every single play through is exactly the same. That has to be fixed. Each mechanic should have meaning, and I'm not entirely certain it's possible without changing something about the game's current half-grand strategy/half-4X/half-role playing philosophy.
 
The core trouble I have is that, while this is the vision, it's not the reality.

I don't have any objection to open world games. Indeed, in other threads I've suggested that the right direction for Stellaris might be more like Dungeons & Dragons, a game system which players can populate with stories, lore and characters through the mod community. Or perhaps a strategy Elder Scrolls, a huge open world in which you can get around to the victory conditions whenever you feel like it.

However even in that context, for me the missing piece is how few of Stellaris' many components actually impact the state of play.

In an open world game your decisions still have consequences. In D&D I can write any stories I want, play any adventure, but my choices still matter because the game responds to what I do. Choose to develop a rogue vs. a fighter and you have a very different game. In Stellaris most of my choices don't matter because the game responds to very little of what I do. If I choose a democracy or an oligarchy I still have the exact same game. There are a ton of buttons to push, just almost none of them actually affect the state of play.

For me, mechanics like factions, policies, species rights, politics and government, all of those innumerable incremental technologies, etc., they don't make the game more versatile and interesting because they don't have any consequences. These mechanics don't create new challenges or solve existing ones. They don't give me new options. They sometimes nudge numbers, but never enough to notice.

To borrow your painting a picture analogy, it's as if half the paints in my box didn't leave any mark on the canvas. Imagining a splash of blue doesn't work, nor does just engaging in elaborate head canon and calling it role play. I don't need a computational box to daydream. It's why warfare is the most developed and satisfying system in the game, because this is one of the few things you can do that actually has a tangible, noticeable impact on the game board.

This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Stellaris is packed with options and choices that you can completely ignore, and every single play through is exactly the same. That has to be fixed. Each mechanic should have meaning, and I'm not entirely certain it's possible without changing something about the game's current half-grand strategy/half-4X/half-role playing philosophy.

I agree, except that rather than there being little impact, almost each and every impact that you can influence is geared towards warfare and the accumulation of resources (for warfare)
 
Well that could work by introducing new "endgame events". For example let multiple crisis roll out one by one, or maybe even together? Would be interesting to see the swarm fighting the unbidden. Empires in reality always broke through outside influence. However in Stellaris, if you conquer everything, then there is no outsider influence.

That is an excellent idea! Or, perhaps an end/beginning game where another entire galaxy becomes available. Maybe they could be handled like instances in a MMO for performance issues and limit what you can take back and forth. Man, so many ideas!

Oh, my USSR example wasn't a very good one. I apologize if I offended anyone. It was just the first "empire" that jumped in my head the sort of fell but their power never really wained. My bad.
 
The core trouble I have is that, while this is the vision, it's not the reality.

I don't have any objection to open world games. Indeed, in other threads I've suggested that the right direction for Stellaris might be more like Dungeons & Dragons, a game system which players can populate with stories, lore and characters through the mod community. Or perhaps a strategy Elder Scrolls, a huge open world in which you can get around to the victory conditions whenever you feel like it.

However even in that context, for me the missing piece is how few of Stellaris' many components actually impact the state of play.

In an open world game your decisions still have consequences. In D&D I can write any stories I want, play any adventure, but my choices still matter because the game responds to what I do. Choose to develop a rogue vs. a fighter and you have a very different game. In Stellaris most of my choices don't matter because the game responds to very little of what I do. If I choose a democracy or an oligarchy I still have the exact same game. There are a ton of buttons to push, just almost none of them actually affect the state of play.

For me, mechanics like factions, policies, species rights, politics and government, all of those innumerable incremental technologies, etc., they don't make the game more versatile and interesting because they don't have any consequences. These mechanics don't create new challenges or solve existing ones. They don't give me new options. They sometimes nudge numbers, but never enough to notice.

To borrow your painting a picture analogy, it's as if half the paints in my box didn't leave any mark on the canvas. Imagining a splash of blue doesn't work, nor does just engaging in elaborate head canon and calling it role play. I don't need a computational box to daydream. It's why warfare is the most developed and satisfying system in the game, because this is one of the few things you can do that actually has a tangible, noticeable impact on the game board.

This is the problem I was referring to earlier. Stellaris is packed with options and choices that you can completely ignore, and every single play through is exactly the same. That has to be fixed. Each mechanic should have meaning, and I'm not entirely certain it's possible without changing something about the game's current half-grand strategy/half-4X/half-role playing philosophy.

Now I believe I understand your perspective better. Thank you.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you just want the game to provide more direct feedback to you, rely less on abstraction and implication and more on explicit, visible stuff.

As a quick aside note, I wouldn’t call it “tangible” or “real” approach, though, because definition of “reality” is really murky when it comes down to videogames. The actual reality of the situation is that a representative of Homo Sapiens is staring at visual display unit that radiates light of different wavelengths produced by chemical reaction between electrodes and xenon. Occasionally the Homo Sapiens moves a device known as “mouse”. So, videogames, as virtual entities and simultaneously works of fiction are inherently unreal and require at least nominal level of willing suspension of disbelief to be processed. Since it is all make-believe essentially, and decision to wage a war is as “real” as decision to build a farm-only nation, the more accurate dimension to view the topic of the discussion is “explicit” vs “implicit” gameplay feedback. Moving on.

If I understood you correctly, then I get your frustration. As a space-civilization-simulating grand strategy game, where possibilities of things that could happen are nearly unlimited, Stellaris has to leave a lot to abstraction, implication and active imagination. That’s the price you have to pay to allow a player an option to, well, play out space civilization simulation in a form of grand strategy. You have to account for all possibilities, from fanatic purifier food-focused materialist humans to federation building pacifist voidborne mammalians, and that’s why you have to use implicit feedback, vague and abstract mechanics that could work for each scenario. With time and effort you can add more details to make things less vague, which is what happens with DLCs. Personally, I would love to see more mechanics, more stuff that makes large impact, more decisions to make, more choices, more consequences. So I am interested what developers are going to do next. But at the end of the day abstraction is part of the course for the genre. This makes me believe that paints you used for the picture left the mark after all, but you perceived those as too dim to notice. And that’s totally fine, people have different perceptions.

Turning to other genre, 4X has a very limited and focused scope. It knows exactly what scenario it provides and it has resources and options to make feedback as explicit as possible. I keep returning to Endless Space example, because I find it to be a good 4X game that knows what it is doing, and so I will use the example again. There is constant stream of feedback thrown at you that is highly dependent on what you chose to do. There are special events for specific situations caused by players. It is possible because the scope of the game is limited, number of scenarios is limited and developers could foresee a lot of these situations, so they could prepare for those.

It is really apples and oranges. But what we have is fruit salad.
 
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.

This would be a neat feature. I have a screen resolution/monitor that gives me a lot of empty topbar space and having options for making use of that space would be very nice. Maybe other neat bits of info like research progress and ETA to next Ascention Perk (in the form of a small % completion bars that fill up as progress is made with a month ETA in the mouseover tooltip) would be nice options for those who want to customize their topbar.
 
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.
I'm not saying warfare should be the only mechanism for interacting with other empires - I'm saying there should be multiple ways to interact with other empires, even during peacetime, but that designing systems which are wholly isolated from the rest of the game seems weird.
There are in fact single player strategy games.
In fact the original win conditions in CIV were "Kill everyone" and "Science", the second being I quote "Navel-gazing".
Sure there are, but we're not talking about those games. Often, however, even those games have black swan events etc. to throw spanners in the works.

Stellaris is a multiplayer strategy game - there are multiple agents playing the game as well as the player, even if you are offline, in the form of simulated opponents
 
Stellaris is a multiplayer strategy game - there are multiple agents playing the game as well as the player, even if you are offline, in the form of simulated opponents
That was the same in his Civ example.
 
Really loving the direction this is going, one thing that rustled my jimmies with the tile system was that for my playthroughs I would set my species up with a specific play style in mind and would give them traits to best suit that, as a result I never really ever wanted to create a multi species empire since I would find it rare for other species to have trait combinations I would deem beneficial to the empire I was creating since they would take up a tile I could have used for one of my own species, with the exception to this rule being biological ascension and syncretic evolution as I could choose traits and min max (again depending on particular playthrough / strategy) which both limit you in other ways (locked out of other ascension paths, civic point). Since the new system could result in potentially hundreds (maybe even thousands on larger developed planets) of pops with incentives to increase migration to your own planets to boost growth, it could now be far more practical, desirable even to create a multi species empire, especially if species with traits that affect resource production in the different job roles are automatically assigned to their best job role if its available with a periodic check to reshuffle if a more suited job became available, this would also lessen the burden on micromanagement and min maxing if some system like this was implemented, though it would also be wise to allow a manual override to this. To counterbalance the potential advantage this would give multi species empires, xenophobes who will not be seeking to build a multi species society could get a resource production bonus similar to the pacifist ethos, (though this would mean potentially changing the pacifist ethos) or alternatively buff the inward perfection civic / create a new civic for this type of empire, either way I'm sure whatever comes out of the new system will be balanced as needed and we will likely get a greater insight into the workings of the system in a future dev diary. Overall though incredibly excited to get more information from future dev diaries, only problem now is I don't want to play the game until the updates out.