Stellaris Dev Diary #142 - Sectors

[Cirenmas]

Another problem is that planets can have different modifiers for some resourses. Imagine you have 9-sized planet with Rich Minerals and 24-sized planet with 9 possible mining disctricts but with bad mineral modifiers; which should apply to sector output?

True.

I suppose you could average the modifiers over the districts. But that seems too bland, 10 mining districts at +10% combined with 90 mining districts at +0% would average to 1% per district. That implies that the sector chose t ok building only 1 out of 10 districts on the rich mineral planet when really the first 10 should have been built there.

Districts/jobs could be tagged with a planet of origin. When you build ming district it chooses the richest planet first. The sector screen could list the available quality of land remaining in the sector. So at start the sector has rich mineral resources remaining and after 10 districts the sector now indicates average minerals (assuming there is an average planet in the sector) and then after those districts are used it indicates poor minerals (assuming a poor plant exists) then finally listing none/negligible after all mining districts have been made. This tagging might also help determine what happens when a sector breaks up.

Third the best bonus could apply to all districts. The idea being that the planets are hyper specialized, ie. rich planet is a giant strip mine and all extra work that would normally go in a mining district is instead done elsewhere in the sector, thus allowing far more minerals to be pulled from the rich planet.

Or fourth, bonuses could be changed to work differently. Rich planets could just add extra miner jobs instead of a percent bonus. These jobs would be added to the sector. I am not sure how that specific example would work with a poor planet; minus jobs? If you don't mine that planet at all why would you subtract from the sector jobs?

Anyway I feel like the issues could be resolved with some thought.

Also it could make habitats interesting if building them freed up more sector resource districts by letting you move housing/city districts to them. I imagine a civilization living in habitats while their automated mines, generators and farms cover their planets.

 

[aono]

Actually, that's a premise I don't like here - "sectoral planets are hyper-specialised". That's meaning actual setup for each planet makes sense in current sector only, and, if by any reason, you're breaking sectors out, or if you want some kind of strategy too clever for simple sector AI (for example, you can want to have one building slot on every planet dedicated to special resourse production, swapping it as you see fit), this system is an opening for the most horrific micro ever.

Also I do believe that player is doing economy better, so making all the planetary production under the Sector carpet without possibility to change something inside would be bad. Sectors should reduce micromanagement, don't do it impossible.

 

[Cirenmas]

Actually, that's a premise I don't like here - "sectoral planets are hyper-specialised". That's meaning actual setup for each planet makes sense in current sector only, and, if by any reason, you're breaking sectors out, or if you want some kind of strategy too clever for simple sector AI (for example, you can want to have one building slot on every planet dedicated to special resourse production, swapping it as you see fit), this system is an opening for the most horrific micro ever.

Also I do believe that player is doing economy better, so making all the planetary production under the Sector carpet without possibility to change something inside would be bad. Sectors should reduce micromanagement, don't do it impossible.

I don't quite understand what you mean by having planet production being under a sector would prevent you from changing something inside? My idea can be summed up as: put all the planets in a sector on one screen to reduce having to switch screens.

Also if you have three planets with three strategic resource plants, isn't having three strategic resource plants on a sector view the same so long as the sector remains together? You could still replace them as you wish. And doing it from one sector sreen rather than three planet screens reduces micro.

I do agree that breaking planets out of the sector is the major issue my idea has.

I also agree the player does economy better. I am not proposing that the sector screen isn't controlled by the player only that multiple planets can be represented on a single screen to reduce the number of screens the player must use.

Ps: typing this on a phone so sorry for any hilarious spelling errors. I think I got them all...

 

[aono]

I don't quite understand what you mean by having planet production being under a sector would prevent you from changing something inside? My idea can be summed up as: put all the planets in a sector on one screen to reduce having to switch screens.

Because in your situation it's not just one screen - it's united economy, so by all means full sector would be counted as one giant planet.
Still, a game would operate with all this planets as they're different (it's mandatory: you can lose planet, something can happen with planet, you can create new sector, you can put a planet unto core rule...), so difference of mechanic and representation would summon micro. How would you manage pop growth and robot producing, for example?

 

[Cirenmas]

For bio pop growth my first thoughts would be to add all growth together so planets 1, 2, and 3 have growths of 5, 7, and 2 which sum to a growth of 14 for the sector. This does change it so only one pop is growing at a time although much faster. Perhaps a number of growing pops equal to the number of planets in the sector with individual weights would be better to represent growth. Although the single fast growing pop per sector might use less CPU resources to keep track of?

Robots would work similar, I would think the number of robots plants allowed in a sector would be based on the number of planets in the sector.

Assuming you keep both planet and sector screens (and figure out a way to represent a unified sector economy on the planet screen, maybe planet modifiers for buildings on other planets in the sector that affect this planet?) you only increase micro if you choose to use both. If you only use planet screens your micro has not changed and if you only use the sector screen then your micro has been reduced.

I think though it would be better to remove the planet view once a planet has been added to a sector. You can be just as efficient controlling the sector if a sector is treated like a 'super planet' as you would controlling individual planets, more so if amenities and such are shared by the sector.

Handling the situation where a planet is forced out of a sector is the biggest issue. Perhaps by making a sector the planets become so intertwined that removing a planet causes devastation and/or blockers (sprawling slums?) on the planet that basically means the planet has to be built up from near scratch. The sector would also suffer major problems when it looses population and available districts though what exactly remains is an issue (did the leaving planet take mining districts or farm districts, etc).

 

[aono]

Let me put it this way: I dislike any option that makes mechanics for sector and non-sector planets to differ.

 

[Cirenmas]

Fair enough. Keeping sector planets and non sector planets working the same would help prevent overly complicating the game.

 

[Major Malfunction]

We have discussed adding an auto-build function for construction ships, similar to auto-explore, which should hopefully solve this problem better.

I've waiter two years for that

 

[Marconius]

In my current game (medium galaxy, mostly default settings), all my sectors only have 1-2 planets, and I've colonized every habitable planet in my empire. Hopefully the distance-based calculation will resolve this issue somewhat.

In general though, it doesn't seem like this idea would change much; sectors would basically stay a mostly optional way to automate some of your empire management, which you may or may not want to do. So it's a potentially useful UX tool, but I don't feel it adds much beyond that. Setting sectors to be focused on certain things is just a setting in this tool, but I don't see it especially making sectors more unique, unlike what the planet categories do (which I really like as well).

I really want to see sectors have more of a political influence; maybe ethics changes or even rebellions could be made sector-based, based on the type of sector and the governor assigned; this could even affect migration. I would love to see a complacent, pacifist Core sector with all the hedonistic paradise worlds, in conflict with the hard-working, militaristic outer systems, full of mines and factories.

You could even tie ruler elections to the sector system: in a democracy, you'd have regional representatives; in other government types, perhaps local oligarchs or governors or grand moffs influence elections, so big, influential sectors may get their leader elected... which of course might make the other sectors less than pleased...

 

[methegrate]

Although after this, I think fixing the midgame slump will become unavoidable.

Making sectors relevant and limiting the micro involved with a large empire, that's all a fantastic goal. I'm all in for that. But... to be honest, clicking all the little "build" icons is like 90% of what you actually do while not at war in the middle game.

This isn't a criticism. These things should be automated, especially constructors. They have always been a weak part of the game because they involve no decision making. (If it's a mineral patch, you build a mine. If it's a physics patch, you build a research station.) But clicking on the next energy node or dropping something into the planetary build queue has always been a huge part of the gameplay at this stage. The least interesting part, to be sure, but once it's gone there really will be a void to fill.

 

[Admiral Adama]

Happy to read about the upcoming changes.

Could we also get a Fortress world specialization?

 

[Malecord]

Space stations
We have discussed adding an auto-build function for construction ships, similar to auto-explore, which should hopefully solve this problem better.

Excuse me but... why do we even need construction ships in the first place?

Before you axed asymmetric FTL construction ships served the purpose of "proving" the game you had access to that location. But now?
For space stations you always have access to everything inside your borders (unless in occupied systems). Whilst for space bases you have access to a system if a hyperlane path with non hostile entities in it is available.

So what's the purpose of construction ships in Stellaris 2.0? It seems to me that now they only serve as click generators. Instead of forcing us to micromanage construction ships just add an animation that spawn a ship from the nearest suitable starbase.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Excuse me but... why do we even need construction ships in the first place?

Before you axed asymmetric FTL construction ships served the purpose of "proving" the game you had access to that location. But now?
For space stations you always have access to everything inside your borders (unless in occupied systems). Whilst for space bases you have access to a system if a hyperlane path with non hostile entities in it is available.

So what's the purpose of construction ships in Stellaris 2.0? It seems to me that now they only serve as click generators. Instead of forcing us to micromanage construction ships just add an animation that spawn a ship from the nearest suitable starbase.

If two empires both have a hyper lane path with non hostile entities, which one gets to build there if there is a dispute?

What construction ships give that you are missing is a limitation on how many construction tasks can be physically completed at once, based on your investment in them, and in general makes you expand in one direction, depending on which side you commit to. Of course if you have more than one constructor you can expand in multiple directions.

Sending out a constructor from the nearest starbase would get tedious if you have to send a new ship per job and you are working with stars that are any great distance from your nearest star base (and logically it would have to be your nearest shipyard).

And then there are the anomalies that would need to be reworked so that you use something other than a constructor to retrieve the reward.

 

[aantia]

Excuse me but... why do we even need construction ships in the first place?...

I agree with this - just have the civilians build the stations. Maybe make it tied to a starbase building, like trade is. That makes sense to me.

 

[Malecord]

If two empires both have a hyper lane path with non hostile entities, which one gets to build there if there is a dispute?

What construction ships give that you are missing is a limitation on how many construction tasks can be physically completed at once, based on your investment in them, and in general makes you expand in one direction, depending on which side you commit to. Of course if you have more than one constructor you can expand in multiple directions.

Sending out a constructor from the nearest starbase would get tedious if you have to send a new ship per job and you are working with stars that are any great distance from your nearest star base (and logically it would have to be your nearest shipyard).

And then there are the anomalies that would need to be reworked so that you use something other than a constructor to retrieve the reward.

All these are trivial details that hardly justify the construction ship mechanic.
The number of concurrent task can be balanced by number of starbases or starbase module, or techs or even not be capped at all.
Race to colonization can just be a matter of giving precedence to whoever clicks there first or which ship animation arrives in place first.
Events requiring construction ships can be rewritten to use something else.
Whilst deciding if the animation should start from nearest starport, dedicated construction module or any startbase is again a balance matter. But hardly a game changing one. In 2.2 you already have to cover your space with a web of star bases for economic reasons.

Imho today we don't even need explicit colonization ship management. The expansion manager already gives access to all the necessary buttons. The ability to order explicit colonization ships outside the context of a colonization mission is redundant and an unnecessary vestige of the past.

 

[Drewoid13]

Few thoughts.

I'd love an overhaul to the empire screen. The info there is sometimes hard to read or digest, and there's no easy way to click through to do something, then go back without closing and reopening menus. Simplify the information to action cycle would be great.

Sectors hopefully will min/max the planet's design choice (agri, rural, mineral, tech, etc) and then add extra buildings/districts that satisfy the sector's orientation. If the AI can handle that, it'll be good.

Seems like sectors could go two ways; as static entities connected to the map's generation, or organic entities (as outlined in OP).

I agree with the poster that tight clusters around which a sector is designated would be great. I'd be happy to wait for 20 minutes, ala Dwarf Fortress, for a procedurally generated map.

But even as organic entities, there could be a lot more done with sectors as political areas, such as rich sectors on the edge of space to poor sectors at key choke points. That way, wars can be fought over sector control from full on total war conflicts, to maybe implementing an HOI board war style limited conflict contained to that sector with escalation and deescalation options. Sectors can be tied to distance from capitol, influencing crime or autonomy, or something.

I LOVE the idea to allow player-designated plant types, and that they would mesh with a sector focus.

The success of any change should be rooted in developing the political systems in Stellaris (and I'd love a faction overhaul of internal politics) since everything ties into it.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

SUGGESTION

Link planet types to the sector capital building, which remains a player choice.

E.G. all planets start with a colony outpost. At 5, 10, 40, 80 pops you can upgrade the capital building to one of 2 or 3 different specialist buildings, with different specialist buildings being unlocked at each tier.

So a capital chain might look like ....
Colony outpost > prospecting office > Mining Administration > industrial coordination centre > planetary forge.

While an agricultural or commercial focused planet might have different capital buildings with different bonuses.

Thus planetary focus and bonus/malus are linked to the building type, and unlocked by planet population.

 

[gerishnakov]

17 pages into the discussion I came here to say it sounds like we're just going back to how sectors used to work, with a bit of added polish.

 

[safe-keeper]

Excuse me but... why do we even need construction ships in the first place?

Before you axed asymmetric FTL construction ships served the purpose of "proving" the game you had access to that location. But now?
For space stations you always have access to everything inside your borders (unless in occupied systems). Whilst for space bases you have access to a system if a hyperlane path with non hostile entities in it is available.

So what's the purpose of construction ships in Stellaris 2.0? It seems to me that now they only serve as click generators. Instead of forcing us to micromanage construction ships just add an animation that spawn a ship from the nearest suitable starbase.

Good points, but the problem isn't the construction ships in themselves, it's the terrible clickfest they generate. Same goes for science vessels where you for some reason need to right-click and select "survey system" for every system you want to survey.

There are so many good QoL solutions PDX could have implemented a long time ago that would nullify these problems. For example, being able to click-and-drag several systems and then be able to select "Survey systems", or being able to hold shift or whatever and "paint" systems by simply hovering your mouse cursor over them. Or being able to select a distant system and tell the science ship to go there, surveying every system it travels through along the way.

With construction ships, the problem is exacerbated because you need to first create an outpost for then to give it a new order to build resource stations. Simply being able to give it a "develop system" order which built the outpost and then the resource stations would alleviate this, as would the ability to select several systems at once, like with science ships above.

Also the ability to give it orders even if you don't have the resources, the same way you can tell your fleet to upgrade have it go to a starbase and wait there until you have the resources for the upgrades, at which point it will start upgrading.

Going badly OT from the topic of sectors, I suppose :/ , but that's my two cents...

 

[skytta]

Same goes for science vessels where you for some reason need to right-click and select "survey system" for every system you want to survey.

You can select the survey option in ship window (bottom left on screen) and use the shift-key to select multiple systems.
This is possible since release of the game.