Stellaris Dev Diary #142 - Sectors

[Orion88]

Hello everyone!



Sector geography
The current plan is to have systems be automatically added to a sector within range. If a system could belong to two different sectors, it should be possible to nudge them to decide which sector they belong to. This important for players being able to set a sector geography that looks good to them in their game.

Moving sector capital will also redraw the sector, and could potentially remove or add new systems to it. You cannot add systems to a sector if they are outside its range. Systems must also maintain cohesion to a sector, so it's not possible to cut off parts of a sector.

So what was wrong with giving the players direct control over which worlds belong to what sector? And why is some automated system that takes control away from players better then?

 

[Peko?]

So what was wrong with giving the players direct control over which worlds belong to what sector? And why is some automated system that takes control away from players better then?

One single mega sector.

 

[Orion88]

One single mega sector.

Which is a problem because? The old system at least had penalties if you had too many worlds under your direct control.

Also if there is a limit of resources that one sector can stockpile why would you only want one mega sector?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Which is a problem because? The old system at least had penalties if you had too many worlds under your direct control.

It completely devalued Governors.
Also you could make each planet its own sector for effectvely infinite reserve cash thanks to the stockpile.
Also it would completely neuter any attempt at tying internal politics to sectors.

Honestly, what we have NOW is what people were constantly BEGGING for before- that we be allowed to manage all our own planets without AI interference, along with a removal of sector tax.

 

[Defoli Scoyfol]

We should just get away from the whole sector concept anyhow. Before 2.2, folks weren't using sectors for what they were intended to be anyway. Instead, the "ideal" method was just to pre-build planets, prevent the sector AI from making modifications, and just handing it off. The sector AI couldn't mess up because it had no choices to actually make.

If we just allowed players to queue up buildings prior to the slot opening up (and have them build the very moment there is a free spot), then restrict all new jobs upon constructing a new building, it'd be more than enough. Let it automatically unrestrict jobs if there is unemployment on the planet and that is already 90% of what players complain about regarding the micro without major changes in the UI or need for crafting new sector AI.

If you then add a planetary decision where unemployed or homeless pops are automatically resettled to the planet with the highest unemployment/free housing, the matter would be settled entirely.

Drop the whole sector brohaha, all it does it trigger the folks with borderline OCD.

 

[Peko?]

Which is a problem because? The old system at least had penalties if you had too many worlds under your direct control.

Under your direct control, zero penalties for having one sector with 800 systems and several hundred colonies.

Also if there is a limit of resources that one sector can stockpile why would you only want one mega sector?

That was basically the only (non-RP) reason to have more than one sector.

 

[Orion88]

It completely devalued Governors.
Also you could make each planet its own sector for effectvely infinite reserve cash thanks to the stockpile.
Also it would completely neuter any attempt at tying internal politics to sectors.

Honestly, what we have NOW is what people were constantly BEGGING for before- that we be allowed to manage all our own planets without AI interference, along with a removal of sector tax.

Completely control all of your planets all the time in a game like Stellaris and what you have is a micromanagement nightmare.

Also don`t care much about the governers (currently) as in Stellaris they only have a few lousy traits to begin with. Also wasn`t there some sort of limit on how many sectors you could have as well as a limit on how many resources there could be stored in a sector stockpile?
​

Under your direct control, zero penalties for having one sector with 800 systems and several hundred colonies.

That was basically the only (non-RP) reason to have more than one sector.

So if the player wanted to have only one sector then that was his/her choice. Still don`t see the big problem.

 

[Orion88]

Governors
Although governors will remain mostly the same as to how they are now, we will try to remake the governor traits to be a bit more generic and applicable to a sector as a whole, as opposed to being so planet-specific with their bonuses.

​

Perhaps could care more for the governors, if there would be more than 3 choices offered for me to choose from with each of them having like one trait each currently. (So often only 1 of them even worth considering to hire.) I mean seriously? That system would need a lot more traits and options to be interesting.

 

[Peko?]

So if the player wanted to have only one sector then that was his/her choice. Still don`t see the big problem.

Then I can't help you.

 

[Shark7]

When it comes to sector and (especially) planet automation, I want a global toggle switch so I can set it to OFF at the start of the game. I prefer to develop my colonies myself, not depending on the AI to do it. I find it much preferable to turn ON each planet/sectors AI individually as opposed to having it on by default.

The planet designation changes I do like. As once I've gotten a colony established, then I can let the AI take over and finish it up. I just want to make sure I have the colony stabilized before the AI gets control.

I do like the idea of being able to adjust the sector capital, and thus what can be in each sector. As it stands now, my current game is going to have about 12 colonies in the core system (since I found a bunch of planets all bunched around my starting system) and virtually no colonies elsewhere. This really defeats the purpose of the sector system. I'd really like a little more control over it so that I can take (in this example) 2 of the systems currently in my core sector and move them to a different one and balance it out a bit more.

Improved governor traits I'm in full support of.

Not in favor of AI being allowed to build outposts. I fear that they would break admin capacity if given that kind of freedom. Plus, just because a system is in range of the sector does not mean that I want it. It costs more to claim a low resource system than it will ever be worth. However, letting the AI handle building of mining stations or research stations is fine.

If we are not giving full control of sector creation to the players, then at least let us define sector size based on # of jumps for each individual sector, within a limit. Sometimes limiting the size of a sector to 1 or 2 jumps makes more sense than having them all at 3 jumps, etc.

 

[Orion88]

Under your direct control, zero penalties for having one sector with 800 systems and several hundred colonies.

So either set max amount limit of systems one sector can have or introduce penalties for having too many systems in one sector similarly to the too many systems under the players direct control?

 

[skytta]

So either set max amount limit of systems one sector can have or introduce penalties for having too many systems in one sector similarly to the too many systems under the players direct control?

With the new System in 2.2.X there is no limitation on how many Planets are under his/her direct control. He/She is able to choose how many of the Planets/Sectors he/she wants to manage. This feature was and is still wanted by most players.
So the Problem isn't how many Planets are under your direct control. It's how you get the player to make a distribution of the Planets/Systems into sectors without ruining the Sector system again. The distance measuring from the Sector capital isn't the worst idea. It solves the sector snaking we had before.
A mechanic that limits the amount of Planets and solar system is complicated and doesn't solve the snaking problem.
I don't like the sector system as it is now, but the fixes they are laying out are solving some issues with it.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I liked the old system in general, but it did need the following features.

1. Soft cap on size, similar to core sector.
2. Soft cap on total number of sectors.
3. Better governor traits.
4. More political options. (Policies, factions, etc.)
5. Better control of strategic resources.
6. More options to control planet builds, or custom templates for planets.

Wouldnt mind sectors also building their own 'garrison' fleets, to contend with piracy and otherwise operate much like federation fleets, along with a supply system to penalize doom stacks. Provided that sector fleets didnt penalised the player too much in terms of war score.

 

[Cymsdale]

Honestly, when it comes to micromanagement, simply being able to pre-select what buildings to make would solve 90% of my problems. Solving micromanagement is great, but I'm not sure it's something that *should* be solved using sectors. I'd rather their purpose be for something else if they had to exist at all.

 

[Dark Demise]

These changes sound lovely.

I'd love sectors and factions to eventually get some deeper gameplay to them. Something as simple as factions being tied to certain areas of your empire via sectors and increasing their ethics attraction there or other events based on their approval. Your government type could have a large effect on sector play with authoritarians having more "control" in some way whereas democracies see more "benefits" from keeping their various factions happy. Not sure what any of those ideas could be or represent though.

It could create some interesting situations for wide empires with certain ethics gaining too much power and revolts might actually become an issue.
Just some late night brainstorming, but I can't wait to see where you guys take us!

 

[aono]

Completely control all of your planets all the time in a game like Stellaris and what you have is a micromanagement nightmare.

Thing is, with AI being inherintly worse in operating Stellaris-type economy then human being is (that's kind of ok), Stellaris games tends to be micromanagement nightmare anyway.
IMO, there are six real or hypothetical reasons to have sectors in-game, until something would be redone harshly again:

1. Micromanagement reducal. It doesn't work, because players tend to optimize, and this means manual control for everything until AI would be better (or at least equal) in controlling economy. That's the same thing that is for battleplans in HoI4 - battleplans reducing micromanagement, and gives a bonus, but people tend to intervene into AI control (if turn it on in the first place), because they know better then AI where does this division belongs (and, honestly, because looking hands-off how AI playing against AI is very special kind of fun). It can be alleviated with pre-scripted behaviors, where every AI-controlled planet would look the same (and, essentially, I'm ok with it), because AI would complete the same script on every planet that meet some conditions, and then it's a question of this script' efficiency; something like HoI4 "standart AI divisions". Problem is obvious - all planets under said condition would be the same this way.
Still, 1) it's AI, not sectoral solution; 2) the better resolution of this problem isn't possible without economical rehaul (into more abstracted population) again. Not as I'm against rehauling economics into more abstract system (think Vic2), but I really don't think it would be done so soon after Le Guin. Not to mention I have no idea why automanagement should be limited to sectoral planets. If we have, for example, scripted paths to develop planets, such paths can be used with or without sectors.
Frankly, sectors as a decision for reducing micromanagement aren't work until they're made into semi-independent entities (think CK2 vassals), or until economics is redesigned to the far bigger scale.

2. Player limitation. That was an issue until no-long-before (I didn't check when exactly it ended, as I leaved Stellaris for a time) - making player to move its planets and stations under AI control and put a tax for them. It worked, but it wasn't fun in the first place (because it looked artificial as a hell, just as punish), was very annoying and people dislike it from the very beginning. It can be "improved" a bit with limiting a number of planet under one sector (because, like, why it's limited for core, but unlimited for sectors?), but essentially people would disagree. To make player limitation feeling normal, sectoral gameplay should be expanded in it's own right, to make things intresting for playing with sectors - like it's working with CK2 vassals again. And even then players would cry for "NK Mode".
Essentially, player limitation solutions are always percived as "bad", and it should be something really good attached to it.

This two is the reasons to have sectors in game from the very beginning, and focus of sectoral development was always there; still, I believe it's wrong focus and it should be changed.

3. RPG value. I'd not underestimate this - RPG is powerful thing, especially for Paradox games (let's face it - people who want to play cybersport would take another titles) and tools should support it. RPG sector potential is wasted, as nothing really happens with them, and, especially now, sectors can't be differed from each other beyond naming. This, I believe, should be changed, by allowing a player to set up a capital at very least.

4. Military organization tool. Think HoI theatres, with fleets/armies attached to one or another, and patroling for pirates/hunting enemies/giving player a quick hint where this fleet is exactly by the look on outliner. Still, by the way military is organized in Stellaris, it's very niche tool, maybe with autopatrol ability being the most useful. Until military would be automatised HoI-style, it's a little QoL feature, which I don't think a lot of people would consider useful.

5. Empire management tool. That's a thing which used now, but very weakly. I'm saying about the possibility to setup specialization for sector at large, when sector is pushed into some development, with bonuses attached. Also it's nice to have modifiers associated with sectors, beyond simple "governor trait".
Also, of course, some decisions can be made, like "allowing planet to core even if not coherent" by paying Influence upkeep and, maybe, penalty to cohesion; like "direct federal property". Or activate special policies by Influence overriding sectoral bonus and making special kind of planet, like "yes, it's mining sector, but there is a resort world here". Maybe it would be even adequate to have "sectoral cohesion", with penalties to production if sector isn't coherent.
If sectors would generate faction, though, it would lead to "faction inflation", where you have dozens of factions with overcrossing issues; so, I believe, the best way would be to make another set of goal system, accessible through Planet and Sector screen, "Sectoral Issues". There would be a list of issues for every sector, some of them being static and applicable to any sector (like, Autarky - being positive in any resourse, Trade Safety - not having piracy in sector, Foreign Relations - having no rival linked to sector, things like that), and some of them special, based on sectoral type (like, mining sectors would issue "Mineral producing at least X", or "% of mining jobs at least Y"), and penalties to happiness and/or to job production if this goals are unfulfilled, like "mismanagement penalty" (and, as the opposite, bonuses to production if they're fulfilled, to promote adding planets to sectors and make sectors working right).

6. Content generator. The reason for sectors which isn't used now, but, I believe, promising. Gameplay events and reasons for create events and disasters, with sectoral-based politics, installing sectoral policies, making dynamic ethic attraction by sectoral means (like, sector bordering some rival faction with big military should attract xenophobia and militancy, and research-based sector with a lot of labs should be a haven for Materialists). Also, sectoral-based events, benefitial and not, would give another kind of gameplay. This kind of application would add another layer to game, but would require a lot of content making, and, maybe, adding to engine new sets of scope, "sector", like "region" in EU4 or CK2.

Still, I think that this two last points are linked tightly with internal politics, which should be beefed; like, governments and factions should be more dynamic and complex, more differences added to different authorities (I suggested some changes to government ethics management and ruler selections before). And more tools (not simple control, but tools to work) for player to work with it.

 

[Prof Doom]

I do not believe a single sector AI can satisfy both the efficiency minded players and those that want to conquer the galaxy without taking away core gameplay.
To get close to achieve this it would need to be so complex it would slow the game down to much.

I propose tackling the problems of, its stupid, its wrong and it takes away game play with one "simple" solution.
Sectors use simple conditional mini scripts, to determine how what to build, these conditional mini scripts are player rewrite able in game. Similarly to how dragon age origins allowed the player to design AI companion behavior.

So a small example might be like:
Condition available housing <=0
If unemployed>5 Build city District
else
Build mining district
else
if free districts =0
Upgrade housing building
else
Build Housing building

This allow many different sectors styles in you empire, and allow paradox to to shape the future AI empires to also build more human like.
All this while adding gameplay rather than remove gameplay.

 

[methegrate]

So either set max amount limit of systems one sector can have or introduce penalties for having too many systems in one sector similarly to the too many systems under the players direct control?

I think part of the problem is that there's never been a good answer to why sectors exist in the first place.

For micromanagement, it would be much easier to just have an AI toggle on planets and "autobuild" on constructors. That goes double in the new economy. Assigning a general development order for groups of planets never made a whole lot of sense from a purely user-interface perspective. Then for a very long time sectors were mandatory, which made even less sense. Why in the world should a game actively require players to use a quality of life feature?

The devs did seem to want sectors to have an actual gameplay role, but that role has always been unclear. For a little while it was about rebellions and sector uprisings. That never worked well, though, and was patched out early. Ever since, sectors have just sort of been there. With each update they get iteratively less relevant, which is itself weird. Changing sectors again and again seems like much more work than just patching them out altogether. And it can't possibly be governors. They give nice little bonuses, but you aren't building an entire gameplay mechanic around them. (Although I will confess, Stellaris does treat leaders as weirdly important considering how completely forgettable they are.)

This is the part that's always been missing, and imho it's why sectors still cause so much debate. Right now this is a solution in search of a problem. Every update focuses on the mechanics of sectors but ignores the central question: Why do sectors exist at all? What are they supposed to do? Because if this is just a micromanagement tool with leader slots then it's a bad one and it's time to write sectors off as a well-intentioned but failed experiment.

Any fix for sectors needs to start there. It needs to start with the devs laying out a clear, coherent vision for their gameplay role. Then the devs can build the mechanic around that purpose.

Right now we all keep trying to figure out how well sectors work, but it's an inherently unanswerable question. You can't figure out how efficient a system is until you know what that system is trying to do in the first place.

 

[Cymsdale]

. And it can't possibly be governors. They give nice little bonuses, but you aren't building an entire gameplay mechanic around them. (Although I will confess, Stellaris does treat leaders as weirdly important considering how completely forgettable they are.)

This just tells me that making leaders more interesting is the key to fixing sectors. Then you don't really need to change sectors form their current implementation much at all (although maybe just remove a lot of the auto-build stuff that's there since it currently just seems to be a broken legacy feature from the old style).

More interesting traits on leaders would help. Maybe they should all have something good AND something bad so you have to have some trade off with them. Maybe some types of pops can have very strong opinions on what species their governor is. Maybe governors can have have an effect on ethics of their pops or create conflicts with specific ones. There is a lot of room to do something interesting here, and it has nothing to do with fixing planet micromanagement (which should be fixed in some non-sector way IMO).

 

[methegrate]

This just tells me that making leaders more interesting is the key to fixing sectors. Then you don't really need to change sectors form their current implementation much at all (although maybe just remove a lot of the auto-build stuff that's there since it currently just seems to be a broken legacy feature from the old style).

More interesting traits on leaders would help. Maybe they should all have something good AND something bad so you have to have some trade off with them. Maybe some types of pops can have very strong opinions on what species their governor is. Maybe governors can have have an effect on ethics of their pops or create conflicts with specific ones. There is a lot of room to do something interesting here, and it has nothing to do with fixing planet micromanagement (which should be fixed in some non-sector way IMO).

I certainly like that. (I mean, I think leaders in general need a ground-up rewrite. But I like this for sectors!)

I would make it part of a general internal politics vision though. Instead of being an end in-and-of themselves, the leaders you choose in all areas should strongly influence the direction a larger mechanic takes.

Tbh, I'm still not sure I see any of it happening though. Re-reading the OP, I still have no idea what the goal is here. The clearest statement is that "sectors should feel like a more unique part of gameplay," but there's no discussion of how. All the rest of the post is how they plan on tweaking sector implementation.

This is admittedly part of what has made me frustrated with Stellaris' development. Three years on and we still have no idea why sectors are even still in the game. Just constant tweaks to the same basic, broken formula. Just like with diplomacy, with leaders, with governments, with policies and edicts, with the tedious mid-game, etc. It all makes me pretty sympathetic to Mezmorki's post on his blog Big Game Theory. I want Stellaris to be great. It's tons of fun to talk about, and I think it has potential like few games I've ever played. Realistically, though, at this point I'm not sure I see it happening.