• 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.
Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today, we're going to start talking about the Planetary Rework coming in the 2.2 'Le Guin' update - the complete redesign of the planetary management system and replacement of planetary tiles. This is going to be a really big topic, so we're spreading it out across four dev diaries, with today's dev diary being about Deposits, Buildings and Districts. Please bear in mind that everything shown is in an early stage of development, and there will be rough-looking interfaces, placeholder art, non final numbers and all those things that people assume are final and complain about anyway no matter how many of these disclaimers I write. :p

Planetary Rework
Before I start going into details on the actual rework, I just wanted to briefly talk about the reasons and goals that are behind this massive rework, and why we're removing tiles and building a new system instead of iterating on the existing systems. For me, getting away from the constraints of tiles has been my single most desired long-term goal for the game. It's not that I think the tile system is inherently a bad system - it works well to visualize your pops and buildings and for the early game it works well enough in giving the player some interesting economic management decisions. However, the tile system is also very constrictive, in a way I feel is detrimental to the very core concepts of Stellaris. The hard limitation of one pop and one building per tile, as well as the hard limitation of 25 tiles/pops/buildings to a planet, it severely limits the kind of societies and planets that we can present in the game.

Do we want to make city-planets, with enormous numbers of pops concentrated onto a single world? Not possible. Do we want to have a fully automated post-scarcity empire where robots do all the actual work? Can't be done without losing out on valuable building space. Sure, we could fundamentally alter the tile system in a such a way to allow these, by for example making it so each tile could support several sub-tiles with additional pops and buildings, but by doing this we will inevitably lose the easy visual presentation that makes the system attractive to begin with, and even then we would continue to be held back by the limit of one pop per building. In other words, we'd end up with something that superficially might resemble the old tile system but offers none of its main advantages and continues to be held back by most of its drawbacks.

When designing the new planetary management system we set out a number of design goals:
- The new system should be able to simulate a wide variety of different societies, to build on the roleplaying and diversity in play-throughs that is such a fundamental part of the Stellaris experience
- The new system needed to offer more interesting choices about how to develop your planets, while simultaneously reducing the amount of uninteresting micromanagement such as mass-upgrading buildings
- The new system should make your planets feel like places where Pops actually live their lives, as opposed to just being resource gathering hubs
- The new system had to be extremely moddable, to make it easier both for us and modders to create new types of empires and playstyles

We believe that this new system that we have created will not only vastly improve many of the features in the game that we couldn't get working properly with the tile system, but together with the resource rework discussed in the last dev diary will also make it possible for us to create truly weird and alien societies that play entirely differently from anything the game currently has to offer, or would ever have to offer if we had remained constrained by the tile system.

Deposits
Under the old tile system, deposits were simply clumps of resources placed on a tile, which would be gathered by a pop and determined what kind of buildings were most efficient to place there. Under the new system, deposits are more akin to planetary terrain and features. Every habitable planet will have a (semi-randomized) number of deposits, with larger planets usually having more deposits. Deposits represent areas on the planet that can be economically exploited, and most commonly increase the number of a particular District (more on this below) that can be build on the planet. For example, a Fertile Lands deposit represents various regions of fertile farmland, and increases the number of Agriculture Districts that can be built on the planet, and thus its potential Food output.
2018_08_16_0.png

(Note: All deposit pictures shown here are placeholders, there will be new art for them that isn't done yet)

Not all Deposits affect Districts however - some (such as Crystalline Caverns or Betharian Fields) are rare deposits that allow for the construction of special Buildings (more on this below) on the planet, while others yet may simply provide a passive benefit to the planet, such as a spectacularly beautiful wilderness area that increases happiness for Pops living on the planet. Deposits can have Deposit Blockers that work in a similar way to the Tile Blockers of old, cancelling out the benefits of the Deposit until the Blocker is removed through the expenditure of time and resources. A planet can have multiples of the same Deposit, and there is no hard limit to the number of Deposits that a planet can hold (though there is a cap to how many will be generated under normal circumstances). The types of Deposits that can show up on a planet is affected by the planet class, so where an Ocean World might get its Agriculture from Kelp Forests, an Arctic World would have Fungal Caverns instead.
2018_08_16_1.png

(Note: All deposit pictures shown here are placeholders, there will be new art for them that isn't done yet)

Districts
Districts are at at the core of how planets are developed in the Le Guin update. Districts represent large areas of development on the planet dedicated towards housing or resource gathering. For most empires, there are four basic types of Districts: City Districts, Mining Districts, Generator Districts and Agriculture Districts. There are exceptions to this (such as Hive Minds having Hive Districts) but more on this in a later DD. The total number of districts you can build on a planet is equal to its size, so a size 16 planet can support 16 districts in any combination of the types available to you. Additionally, the resource-producing districts (Mining, Generator and Agriculture) are further constrained by the Deposits on the planet, so a planet might only be able to support a maximum of 8 Mining Districts due to there simply not being any further opportunities for mining on the planet. City Districts are never limited by the deposits on the planet, so you can choose to forego a planet's natural resources and blanket it entirely in urban development if you so choose.

The effects of each District is as follows:
  • City District: Provides a large amount of Housing for Pops, Infrastructure for Buildings and Clerk Jobs that produce Trade Value and Luxury Goods
  • Mining District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Mining Jobs that produce Minerals
  • Agriculture District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Farming Jobs that produce Food
  • Generator District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Technician Jobs that produce Energy Credits
There will be more details on most of the concepts mentioned above coming in the other dev diaries. For now, suffice to say that the way you develop your planets with Districts will shape that planet's role in your empire - a heavily urbanized planet will be densely populated, supporting numerous Buildings and specialist Pop Jobs such as Researchers and providing Trade Value for your empire's trade routes (more on this in a future DD), but at the expense of not being able to produce much of the raw resources that are needed to fuel your empire's growth and manufacturing capacity.

A planet's Deposits and Planetary Modifiers may influence this decision - a large planet with High Quality Minerals and numerous Mining Deposits will certainly make for a lucrative mining world, but what if it also sits in a perfect spot to make a heavily urbanized trade hub? No longer are choices regarding planets simply limited to 'Where do I place the capital for the best adjacency bonuses?' and 'Should I follow the tile resource or not?' but will be fundamental choices that create diverse and distinct planets that each have their own role to fill in your empire.
2018_08_16_3.png


Buildings
In the Le Guin update, Buildings are specialized Facilities that provide a variety of Jobs and Resources that are not suitable to large-scale resource gathering. For example, instead of having your scientists working in a Physics Lab on a Physics Deposit (whatever that is supposed to be...) you now instead construct a Research Labs building (representing not a single laboratory but rather an allocation of resources towards the sciences across the planet) which provides a number of Pop Researcher Jobs that conduct research for your empire. Buildings are limited by the planet's Infrastructure, with one building 'slot' being unlocked for each 10 Infrastructure on the planet. Some Buildings are also limited in the number you can build on a planet, while others can be built in multiples (for example, a planet can only support a single Autotchton Monument, while you can have as many Alloy Foundries as the slots allow). Buildings can still be upgraded to more advanced versions, but generally there will be far fewer upgrades to do and those upgrades will often require an investment of rare and expensive resources, so it's more of an active choice than something you simply have to click your way through after unlocking a tech.
2018_08_16_5.png


Infrastructure comes primarily from constructing Districts, with City Districts giving much more Infrastructure than resource gathering districts do (6 as opposed to 2 in the current internal build, though non final numbers and all that). In addition to unlocking additional Building slots, a higher Infrastructure level also makes some Buildings more efficient, as the number of jobs they provide is fully or partially determined by the planet's Infrastructure level. For example, in the current internal build, Research Labs and Alloy Foundries both have the number of jobs they provide determined by the infrastructure level, meaning that concentrating your research and manufacturing to your heavily urbanized planets is generally more efficient than trying to turn your agri-worlds into science hubs. In addition to Buildings that provide resource-producing Jobs, there is also a wide variety of buildings that provide for the material and social needs of your Pops, such as Luxury Housing for your upper class Pops, Entertainment Buildings to make your populace happy and Law Enforcement to quell unrest and crime. Densely populated planets tend to require more such buildings, as the need for Housing and Amenities scales upwards with Pops and Infrastructure.
2018_08_16_6.png


Whew, that was a lot of words. Still, we're only just getting started on the Planetary Rework and next week we'll continue talking about it, on the topic of Stratas, Pop Jobs, Housing and Migration.
 
I like this concept a lot better than the tile system. So, that's a good thing.

But why this ongoing obsession with the totally fallacious idea that interstellar trading as modern trading will be a thing?

Seriously guys, if you want to know what interstellar trade will really be in the future...read Saturn Run by John Sandford. And read it quick, because that would be a much better addition to the game than your current proposed trade models.

It's bad enough you ridiculously shoe-horned in "choke" points...in a 3-dimensional void, but seriously, do we HAVE to do this with "trade" too?
Stelaris has never been, and never will be, "Realistic", and even if it was trying to be gameplay will(or at least should) always trump any other aspect of a game.
 
I like this concept a lot better than the tile system. So, that's a good thing.

But why this ongoing obsession with the totally fallacious idea that interstellar trading as modern trading will be a thing?

Seriously guys, if you want to know what interstellar trade will really be in the future...read Saturn Run by John Sandford. And read it quick, because that would be a much better addition to the game than your current proposed trade models.

It's bad enough you ridiculously shoe-horned in "choke" points...in a 3-dimensional void, but seriously, do we HAVE to do this with "trade" too?

Remember, you're talking about a game where the FTL technology for interstellar empire and war exists, and trade is easier than empire or war as a matter of transport technology. There is no way in Hell Rome and China could have gone to war with one another, but trade still happened. If you want a game without interstellar trade, that logically implies also no interstellar empire- and a lack of interstellar empire sinks the basic game premise.
 
I like this concept a lot better than the tile system. So, that's a good thing.

But why this ongoing obsession with the totally fallacious idea that interstellar trading as modern trading will be a thing?

Seriously guys, if you want to know what interstellar trade will really be in the future...read Saturn Run by John Sandford. And read it quick, because that would be a much better addition to the game than your current proposed trade models.

It's bad enough you ridiculously shoe-horned in "choke" points...in a 3-dimensional void, but seriously, do we HAVE to do this with "trade" too?
if the game was realistic there wouldn't be interstellar trade. or war. or basically interstellar anything other than probes.
 
But why this ongoing obsession with the totally fallacious idea that interstellar trading as modern trading will be a thing?

Seriously guys, if you want to know what interstellar trade will really be in the future...read Saturn Run by John Sandford. And read it quick, because that would be a much better addition to the game than your current proposed trade models.

It's bad enough you ridiculously shoe-horned in "choke" points...in a 3-dimensional void, but seriously, do we HAVE to do this with "trade" too?
Your comment is based on a few assumptions.
1. That Stellaris is a realistic game. It isn't.
2. That Saturn Run is a documentary. It isn't.

Out of everything unrealistic about Stellaris trade is your issue? That is incredibly arbitrary. What about interstellar war? What about mass migration from planets in different systems? What about almost everything else?

Stellaris is a soft science fiction universe where the right technology exist to make FTL travel relatively easy an efficient.

Choke points were r"idiculously shorned in" because the developers and many fans agree that they make for better strategic gameplay. Stellaris is a strategy game.
 
I like this concept a lot better than the tile system. So, that's a good thing.

But why this ongoing obsession with the totally fallacious idea that interstellar trading as modern trading will be a thing?

Seriously guys, if you want to know what interstellar trade will really be in the future...read Saturn Run by John Sandford. And read it quick, because that would be a much better addition to the game than your current proposed trade models.

It's bad enough you ridiculously shoe-horned in "choke" points...in a 3-dimensional void, but seriously, do we HAVE to do this with "trade" too?
I'm torn with how to vote this comment.

Because on the one hand I agree with you that the constant calls for "Muh trade routes" in Stellaris are stupid. Trade is boring and I don't care about it. I care about tachyon weaponry and singularity planet busters and a billion Fanatical Purifier xenomorph armies being HALO'd onto the Peace And Love Federation's capital ecumenopolis. Conversely "Xardox Empire set up a 1 Betharian Stone trade route between Tau Ceti III and Alpha Centauri IXb" is just yaaaaaaaaaaawn.
We don't need trade routes and anyone who keeps asking for them should go play Microsoft Excel instead, because that's what they really like.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND you're making a realism argument about a game where time-travelling black hole worm poets fall in love with cybernetic mushroom technocracies, so: 5 demerits and I'm voting the third option.

Space trade is bad because it's boring, not because it's unrealistic. I can cite pop-sci-fi to prove a fictitious point just as easily: go read Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds, that has (sub-lightspeed!) interstellar trade as A Big Freaking Deal. And also very boring.
 
With the research, is that a single building for all research types, or a seperate building per type?

Also, will there be any sort of new variety with things like defensive options? It would be awesome to have the option to fortify planets with different sorts of ground-based defenses - turrets, shields etc.
 
Great changes, less micro and RSI, more grand strategy and role playing. I'm in! Onwards to the next 2400 hours of Stellaris. My family will have to miss me but at least they will know I'm at home. Not to be disturbed off course. I also think these changes will make it easier for the AI. And we will be able to mod some parts. Very excited about all this.
 
This might be a bit too philosophical, but..
I strongly believe that some degree of "realism" is absolutely desirable in any fiction. It wouldn't be much fun to have abstracted "wakk" doing "bloimp" in the "sul", while you see red and blue geometrical forms shifting into other geometrical forms, which is all an abstraction to gamepieces that do turns and stuff. A few logical games like Go can do wihout, but even chess or minesweeper profit from having a somewhat abstracted connection to reality.
And a fictional game is interesting BECAUSE it is a reference to real things, yet it is a fiction and not THE reality. As Stellaris plays in the future this game can't be based on history, but it can try to make sense. I think it's not a question of wether this game is either realistic or a fiction, but i believe, a fiction gets better, if it appears make-believe like it could be real. It's immersion. If the game can give me a good explanation why something is and how it is and that in a way that i can apply my knowledge and logic to make a strategic and or immersive decicion, then thats exciting. If it's just something that does something because of game rules, then it's not a fantasy game or fiction. It's a game with rules, but not immersive, and with no roleplay.

I argue for fantasy and fiction that stays true to its own "realism", a fantastical, fictional realism. What I argue against is arbitrary, inconsistent fantasy, aswell as pure logic-puzzle games without fantasy (in this context).
 
that Agree to disagree ratio suprized me more than the actual changes

What purpose would disagreeing serve?
To a get a tile thread sticky sooner rather than later?

I guess most people have accepted the games direction even if they dislike it.
People who dislike this change will either keep playing it because the game is still fun dispite changes they dislike (the FTL change for me for example) or abbandon the game.
 
What purpose would disagreeing serve?
To a get a tile thread sticky sooner rather than later?

I guess most people have accepted the games direction even if they dislike it.
People who dislike this change will either keep playing it because the game is still fun dispite changes they dislike (the FTL change for me for example) or abbandon the game.
i suspect that the amount of people upset about the loss of the tile system is extremely small
 
It's a dev diary, not a novella... gotta keep each one to a reasonable length. There's just no way I could cover the entire Planetary Rework (and the way it affects various empires type) to one or even two dev diaries without leaving a ton out.

I don't think many people complain that dev diaries are too long, I woudn't mind dev novella. You can always get some intern to wrote it down for you :D


This might be a bit too philosophical, but..
I strongly believe that some degree of "realism" is absolutely desirable in any fiction. It wouldn't be much fun to have abstracted "wakk" doing "bloimp" in the "sul", while you see red and blue geometrical forms shifting into other geometrical forms, which is all an abstraction to gamepieces that do turns and stuff. A few logical games like Go can do wihout, but even chess or minesweeper profit from having a somewhat abstracted connection to reality.
And a fictional game is interesting BECAUSE it is a reference to real things, yet it is a fiction and not THE reality. As Stellaris plays in the future this game can't be based on history, but it can try to make sense. I think it's not a question of wether this game is either realistic or a fiction, but i believe, a fiction gets better, if it appears make-believe like it could be real. It's immersion. If the game can give me a good explanation why something is and how it is and that in a way that i can apply my knowledge and logic to make a strategic and or immersive decicion, then thats exciting. If it's just something that does something because of game rules, then it's not a fantasy game or fiction. It's a game with rules, but not immersive, and with no roleplay.

I argue for fantasy and fiction that stays true to its own "realism", a fantastical, fictional realism. What I argue against is arbitrary, inconsistent fantasy, aswell as pure logic-puzzle games without fantasy (in this context).

I think words you are looking for are "internal consistency", calling it "realism" kinda mixes the concepts. Internally consistent fantasy (or sci-fi) world might feel alien and unknown, but it will feel immersive and "believable" (for lack of better word) if it sets rules that it then follows instead of asspulling something new every time plot needs resolving.

And sci-fi universes I like have a bit of both. Take WH40k for example. You have immediately recognizable elements like human's structure of power, organization and government, familiar names of things (imperial guard is exactly what you expect it to be etc.), but on the other corner of the universe there are entities completely alien and unlike anything "human" like tyranids, races far more advanced like eldar, or complete insanity of warp entities.

Playing human-ish race in Stellaris should feel "familiar" (and a bit "realistic") but playing an hive mind probably should not
 
I'm torn with how to vote this comment.

Because on the one hand I agree with you that the constant calls for "Muh trade routes" in Stellaris are stupid. Trade is boring and I don't care about it. I care about tachyon weaponry and singularity planet busters and a billion Fanatical Purifier xenomorph armies being HALO'd onto the Peace And Love Federation's capital ecumenopolis. Conversely "Xardox Empire set up a 1 Betharian Stone trade route between Tau Ceti III and Alpha Centauri IXb" is just yaaaaaaaaaaawn.
We don't need trade routes and anyone who keeps asking for them should go play Microsoft Excel instead, because that's what they really like.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND you're making a realism argument about a game where time-travelling black hole worm poets fall in love with cybernetic mushroom technocracies, so: 5 demerits and I'm voting the third option.

Space trade is bad because it's boring, not because it's unrealistic. I can cite pop-sci-fi to prove a fictitious point just as easily: go read Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds, that has (sub-lightspeed!) interstellar trade as A Big Freaking Deal. And also very boring.
Yeah sure, trade is boring on its own, without context.
But that's now how Stellaris works. Trade is part of a greater whole that is building your interstellar empire and your society, which, if you are playing this game, you shouldn't find boring.
 
Yeah sure, trade is boring on its own, without context.
But that's now how Stellaris works. Trade is part of a greater whole that is building your interstellar empire and your society, which, if you are playing this game, you shouldn't find boring.
You certainly shouldn't find it boring, but the whole reason we're having this conversation in this thread is because despite the fact that building your empire shouldn't be boring, the tedious tile system managed to persist in the game for 2 years. So it's not like Paradox is immune to unintentionally putting boring mechanics in Stellaris.
 
You certainly shouldn't find it boring, but the whole reason we're having this conversation in this thread is because despite the fact that building your empire shouldn't be boring, the tedious tile system managed to persist in the game for 2 years. So it's not like Paradox is immune to unintentionally putting boring mechanics in Stellaris.
True!
But I think my point still stands, trade might be boring in isolation but it doesn't have to be inherently boring when it is part of the larger whole of building your empire.

Edit: Also, trade can support more interesting things, like raiding trade routes during war, cutting off planets from supply lines to destroy your opponent's economy, ect.

Edit Edit: Also there are business sim games and "space trucker" games wehre you essentially just run an interstellar trade vessel. Keep in mind a lot of people do seem to think trade is enteraining.
 
I'm torn with how to vote this comment.

Because on the one hand I agree with you that the constant calls for "Muh trade routes" in Stellaris are stupid. Trade is boring and I don't care about it. I care about tachyon weaponry and singularity planet busters and a billion Fanatical Purifier xenomorph armies being HALO'd onto the Peace And Love Federation's capital ecumenopolis. Conversely "Xardox Empire set up a 1 Betharian Stone trade route between Tau Ceti III and Alpha Centauri IXb" is just yaaaaaaaaaaawn.
We don't need trade routes and anyone who keeps asking for them should go play Microsoft Excel instead, because that's what they really like.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND you're making a realism argument about a game where time-travelling black hole worm poets fall in love with cybernetic mushroom technocracies, so: 5 demerits and I'm voting the third option.

Space trade is bad because it's boring, not because it's unrealistic. I can cite pop-sci-fi to prove a fictitious point just as easily: go read Revelation Space by Alastair Reynolds, that has (sub-lightspeed!) interstellar trade as A Big Freaking Deal. And also very boring.

The reason that this game needs trade is because this game is about empire building. A huge aspect about building an empire (at least a remotely peaceful one) is building up trade relations with your neighbors. I think you're forgetting that this game isn't all about war, which you seem to make it very clear that that's all you care about, and that a particularly large portion of the player base (even the purge king himself, @Wiz) would greatly appreciate the addition of more peacetime options and mechanics regardless of how much it makes you "yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn".

Furthermore If you believe that someone which plays the game looking for an immersive space empire management experience who craves actual trade and options ingame beyond dropping troops on every alien planet you find needs to play Microsoft Excel because the only aspects you find enjoyable is mass genocide, then I think that you'd be better off playing StarCraft and leave us to our "Excel sheets".

This is a grand strategy game, much more than it is anything else, and it's only going to become more of one with each update. It has been gradually since release and with it's leadership it's only ever going to continue to add options as long as they add more depth and strategy to the general concept of, "building a space empire".
 
The reason that this game needs trade is because this game is about empire building. A huge aspect about building an empire (at least a remotely peaceful one) is building up trade relations with your neighbors. I think you're forgetting that this game isn't all about war, which you seem to make it very clear that that's all you care about, and that a particularly large portion of the player base (even the purge king himself, @Wiz) would greatly appreciate the addition of more peacetime options and mechanics regardless of how much it makes you "yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn".
I like peacetime options.
Espionage, internal rebellions, local specialisation, more exploration, super technologies, more viable megastructures...
Just not trade.
"A huge aspect about building an empire (at least a remotely peaceful one) is building up trade relations with your neighbors."? U wot m8, NO empire-building game had trade route mechanics before Civ V, and we all managed to enjoy them just fine.

This is a grand strategy game, much more than it is anything else, and it's only going to become more of one with each update. It has been gradually since release and with it's leadership it's only ever going to continue to add options as long as they add more depth and strategy to the general concept of, "building a space empire".
You can be a Grand Strat game without being a Mercantile Camel Train Simulator. I draw your attention particularly to pre-Horse-Lords CK2.
 
I like peacetime options.
"A huge aspect about building an empire (at least a remotely peaceful one) is building up trade relations with your neighbors."? U wot m8, NO empire-building game had trade route mechanics before Civ V, and we all managed to enjoy them just fine.

Trade route mechanics date back to Civilisation 1, at least.