Stellaris Dev Diary #148 - Relics & Relic Worlds

[BlackUmbrellas]

It would be cool if things like the infinity stones would be referenced, but something you can't get for your empire for obvious reasons.

Ew, no.

 

[LORD BLACKFIRE]

On the Xbox, an additional time increase factor is badly needed or increase the amount of mineral production in the mid game. Once all planets are colonized in an area and buildings upgraded it can get very boring waiting for mineral production to allow for a decent fleet, especially if you’re boxed in.

A more efficient method of ordering ship production from spaceports assigned to sectors is needed too.

 

[sajaxom]

Closed borders exist for a reason, you dont want them in your territory and neither do they want you usually. Adding a way to ignore closed borders just changes the entire diplomacy system.

That is why I didn't suggest that they be ignored. They should be integrated into the rest of the systems that drive gameplay within Stellaris. Currently, the exploration components of the game come to an abrupt end when the AI empires establish their borders. The current design is binary, and that has a significant impact on both early game expansion and the overall story arc of the game. Revising the system to have more nuance would allow more features of the game to stay relevant throughout the entire game.

Border control is notoriously difficult to enforce, and would be more difficult to enforce in space. Either way, in real life we allow private and commercial traffic to flow through our territory while denying military traffic. There are also those who violate borders regularly, either with private (migrants), commerical (smugglers), or military (pirates/insurgency) traffic. Adding some nuance to this concept in game both allows for existing story elements to continue and creates points of tension that would allow for new story elements to be created. For instance, when the military superpower next door goes to war with your neighbor, do you allow them access through your territory, or do you force them to go to war with you to get access? The current system has only 3 options - no access, which can lead to wars where the two combatants can't reach each other, full access, which allows all traffic through, or war. Expanding the system to have more answers to this question would make for much more interesting interactions with other empires. You could still have an "all borders are always closed" option, and just deny requests to open them. You would just need to have a military on hand to enforce that denial.

 

[kwheeler]

I've always wondered why you can't get more information about other empires- seeing their Relics would be fantastic, but also like... why can't we see what Traditions or Ascension Perks they've taken?

They may be saving that for espionage, when diplomacy becomes the focus a bit down the line of development.

 

[UltimateTobi]

That is why I didn't suggest that they be ignored. They should be integrated into the rest of the systems that drive gameplay within Stellaris. Currently, the exploration components of the game come to an abrupt end when the AI empires establish their borders. The current design is binary, and that has a significant impact on both early game expansion and the overall story arc of the game. Revising the system to have more nuance would allow more features of the game to stay relevant throughout the entire game.

Border control is notoriously difficult to enforce, and would be more difficult to enforce in space. Either way, in real life we allow private and commercial traffic to flow through our territory while denying military traffic. There are also those who violate borders regularly, either with private (migrants), commerical (smugglers), or military (pirates/insurgency) traffic. Adding some nuance to this concept in game both allows for existing story elements to continue and creates points of tension that would allow for new story elements to be created. For instance, when the military superpower next door goes to war with your neighbor, do you allow them access through your territory, or do you force them to go to war with you to get access? The current system has only 3 options - no access, which can lead to wars where the two combatants can't reach each other, full access, which allows all traffic through, or war. Expanding the system to have more answers to this question would make for much more interesting interactions with other empires. You could still have an "all borders are always closed" option, and just deny requests to open them. You would just need to have a military on hand to enforce that denial.

I agree, however enforcing one's border is one's responsibility (see Distant Worlds: Universe).

 

[Deggial]

They may be saving that for espionage, when diplomacy becomes the focus a bit down the line of development.

I was about to answer the same, you saved me a lot of typing.
Well, actually not that much, as your post is quite short and to the point while my reply is getting longer and longer without any substantial content.

Anyway, I agree with your valid comment.

Alternatively, as TLDR:
This ^

 

[Millbot]

I'm not sure I want them to save a tweak to the border system till the diplomacy/espionage expansion. Not sure how complex the code is, but it would be nice to see the border system expanded to look like this.

-Closed (already implemented)
-Exploration only aka science ships only
-Full civilian access aka science ships & construction ships can pass through but not military ships.
-Limited military access, country given this option can request permission to move military fleets through your territory.
-Full civilian access & limited military access
-Fully open

This would allow exploration to stay relevant much longer. This could also be extended to perhaps allowing other empires access to dig sites, but not be allowed to retrieve relics, while also having to share their discoveries with the host empire. Also really not fun to have a full map, put things on full advanced start for AI (which IMO is currently BS, since they can get freaken titans. Sure they go down quick against corvette swarms, but really?) and you get hit with neighbors that grind your ability to explore to a halt at around 30 systems, while only really getting a handful of anomalies.

IMO I would love to see tweaks to anomalies, where there are some that are always available to anyone that surveys the system (maybe even have a researchable tech, that allows for a second survey of surveyed systems, that could turn up new stuff). So rather than more of them per se, but have them stay relevant after everything has been surveyed because it makes things seem pretty dead, in a game about exploration, when a single survey or system claim could render everything in a system as discovered.

 

[Oscot]

This would allow exploration to stay relevant much longer.

No it wouldn't. Now that enemy systems are auto-surveyed, there's no explorer-based reason to go into enemy space unless you want to pass through it, which is what experimental subspace navigation already fulfils.
And if you have None sensor information on the stars you want to get to, so you can't exp-sub-nav to it, then this is a good thing because "Big dark unknown region that you can't get to until better sensor tech / diplomacy shift" is itself a good thing (fully surveyed galaxies by 2300 = bad, so roadblocks to exploration = good).

I'm all for having more things to explore, but umpteen gradations of border porosity hidden down in the bottom of a diplomacy sub-menu in a diplomacy system that is objectively terrible is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[SarahGabriella]

That is why I didn't suggest that they be ignored. They should be integrated into the rest of the systems that drive gameplay within Stellaris. Currently, the exploration components of the game come to an abrupt end when the AI empires establish their borders. The current design is binary, and that has a significant impact on both early game expansion and the overall story arc of the game. Revising the system to have more nuance would allow more features of the game to stay relevant throughout the entire game.

Border control is notoriously difficult to enforce, and would be more difficult to enforce in space. Either way, in real life we allow private and commercial traffic to flow through our territory while denying military traffic. There are also those who violate borders regularly, either with private (migrants), commerical (smugglers), or military (pirates/insurgency) traffic. Adding some nuance to this concept in game both allows for existing story elements to continue and creates points of tension that would allow for new story elements to be created. For instance, when the military superpower next door goes to war with your neighbor, do you allow them access through your territory, or do you force them to go to war with you to get access? The current system has only 3 options - no access, which can lead to wars where the two combatants can't reach each other, full access, which allows all traffic through, or war. Expanding the system to have more answers to this question would make for much more interesting interactions with other empires. You could still have an "all borders are always closed" option, and just deny requests to open them. You would just need to have a military on hand to enforce that denial.

You can ally with anyone along the way so the issue of not having access to them in case of war isnt much of a thing. And at the end there you want peaceful players to have high military output, great.
Instant uninstall and refund for me if something this stupid was added.

 

[Ragnor Ironpants]

How does a Relic World get restored to an Ecumenopolis? I take it it's more difficult than just removing the blockers?

 

[Nussor]

Because it makes for better gameplay. Without a shared cooldown there are much less interesting choices. It just becomes a question of "can I afford X right now?".

I strongly disagree with this. This sort of restrictive design philosophy makes me really mad. The reality of a shared cooldown is that there will always be one objectively best "choice".

 

[Millbot]

No it wouldn't. Now that enemy systems are auto-surveyed, there's no explorer-based reason to go into enemy space unless you want to pass through it, which is what experimental subspace navigation already fulfils.
And if you have None sensor information on the stars you want to get to, so you can't exp-sub-nav to it, then this is a good thing because "Big dark unknown region that you can't get to until better sensor tech / diplomacy shift" is itself a good thing (fully surveyed galaxies by 2300 = bad, so roadblocks to exploration = good).

I'm all for having more things to explore, but umpteen gradations of border porosity hidden down in the bottom of a diplomacy sub-menu in a diplomacy system that is objectively terrible is the wrong way to go about it.

A game that leans heavily on exploration, shouldn't have a setup where RNG completely hoses your ability to do so because all your neighbors are real jerks. Also kind of dumb, that one ship survey by me or someone dropping an outpost means that there is nothing new to find in a system. New stuff should show up because either it was missed on the first pass because no one had the tech to see it or new unexpected things happen.

Hell, you're going to be disappointed when they do redo the system because this stuff is going to be in the diplomacy menu or a new espionage menu, that you have to go to. Also the major issue with the current system is that it's way too simple and way too binary. Diplomacy isn't an interesting concept because it's simple black & white. It's interesting because it is all those various graduations that you don't want to deal with. One being that my border choices shouldn't be a binary open or close.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

A game that leans heavily on exploration, shouldn't have a setup where RNG completely hoses your ability to do so because all your neighbors are real jerks. Also kind of dumb, that one ship survey by me or someone dropping an outpost means that there is nothing new to find in a system. New stuff should show up because either it was missed on the first pass because no one had the tech to see it or new unexpected things happen.

Hell, you're going to be disappointed when they do redo the system because this stuff is going to be in the diplomacy menu or a new espionage menu, that you have to go to. Also the major issue with the current system is that it's way too simple and way too binary. Diplomacy isn't an interesting concept because it's simple black & white. It's interesting because it is all those various graduations that you don't want to deal with. One being that my border choices shouldn't be a binary open or close.

When something has been searched, it's been searched.
A gas giant that has a massive deposit of rare gases at it's heart doesn't suddenly turn out to be a barren planet with an unusually thick atmosphere.
A planet that has "no interesting features whatsoever" doesn't suddenly develop a whole slew of spectacular features just because someone looked at it again.
Neither does a planet with "unusually powerful tectonics" suddenly turn out to have "no interesting features".

We could have new things happen - but they're not going to be survey triggered "just because". Either they'd have to be common enough to be worth searching for again, in which case you have to ask how all these survey crews are missing so many things, across so many planets, and having contradictory results come out; or they'd be rare enough that second (and subsequent) surveys are a waste of time and effort, and just end up costing you to keep scientists in the field constantly.

Maybe the new archaelogy update will provide enough "there are new things", with it meaning that not all anomalies will be one-and-done, but that there'll be chains to work with.

 

[Millbot]

Last I've checked, in the real world, we've had to go back and look at things again because hey, we had new scientific advances that allowed us to take a closer look at something. In some cases we find brand new stuff we didn't know about. Or we are able to make our current assessment even more accurate because we had to tolerate some guess work and holes being present thanks to limitations of technology.

As advanced as we're supposed to be in Stellaris, I don't think it's to the point, where a single survey sweep will find everything. A second pass through being locked beyond research, could just mean the option to find really rare anomalies or events. That can help add substance to the mid game and even maybe be a way to shake up the status quo since no one would know where it'll show up. I like idea of archaeology, but one weak point I see it having, is that it won't lend itself quite as well to being a game changer. People are going to get an idea of where all the good arcology stuff is and either be able to contest the territory that has it or not.

 

[Methone]

Last I've checked, in the real world, we've had to go back and look at things again because hey, we had new scientific advances that allowed us to take a closer look at something. In some cases we find brand new stuff we didn't know about. Or we are able to make our current assessment even more accurate because we had to tolerate some guess work and holes being present thanks to limitations of technology.

Some things really do have to be mutually exclusive, though. Like, you're not going to go to the broiling tectonic world and go "Wait, actually, those supervolcanoes don't exist, this planet's just featureless".

 

[sajaxom]

Last I've checked, in the real world, we've had to go back and look at things again because hey, we had new scientific advances that allowed us to take a closer look at something. In some cases we find brand new stuff we didn't know about. Or we are able to make our current assessment even more accurate because we had to tolerate some guess work and holes being present thanks to limitations of technology.

Exactly. We've been looking at the sun for thousands of years, and we are still finding new things about it. We've been sailing the oceans for thousands of years, and we're still finding new things in it. We've been dealing with gravity for thousands of years, and we are still finding new things about how it works. Things change, for sure, but usually we just miss something that was there all along because we didn't know what we were looking at, or how to see it at all. Science and exploration are both iterative processes, and it would be nice to see that reflected more in game. Especially given how much depth and story value are derived from the exploration side of the game. Be honest, the first time you got Horizon signal, were you compelled to find out more? Did it make you play way longer than you had planned to for that session? Sure, the 5th time you get it you aren't as interested, but not knowing how it would turn out is a large part of what makes it interesting. Almost every planet in Stellaris is a one and done - you have no reason to ever return. And that's a shame, because the game is fundamentally about controlling planets as a means of telling the story of a space faring society. At a certain point, the game turns into "I know everything there is to know, what's left to do? I guess I can paint the map." Adding more depth to planets and exploration won't stop this, but it could move that point from 2400 to 2600 and beyond. And that would give players a lot more time to enjoy the new mid and end game features.

 

[sajaxom]

You can ally with anyone along the way so the issue of not having access to them in case of war isnt much of a thing. And at the end there you want peaceful players to have high military output, great.
Instant uninstall and refund for me if something this stupid was added.

Alliances can have a pretty steep cost, though, both in favor and obligations. It's too binary to represent the myriad of different relationships between two empires.

Regarding peaceful players, it would depend on how you are "peaceful". If you don't declare war on anyone but you gobble up every system you see and close your borders to everyone, then you should probably have some angry neighbors knocking on the door. If you sit at a major crossroads and deny everyone passage, then you will probably need a military to maintain that. If you have open borders, though, then you probably wouldn't. More nuance in border control could also create situations where someone's war against your neighbor threatens your access to the rest of the galaxy, and you give them assistance to protect your strategic interests. Basically, a weak and peaceful power that controls critical choke points could find allies simply by virtue of having open borders, even if they wouldn't normally provide military access.

Most relationships right now are either really good or really bad, eg, the other empire loves you or hates you. That's driven largely by how binary interactions are with other empires. Those strong relationships help build federations, but they don't leave a lot of room for shifting friendships and power balances, which make the game a lot more interesting. There are very few interactions you have with other empires that have a low enough weight that they can improve a bad relationship without bribery.

 

[Brent15]

When can we get some more graphics packs? I know these are labor intensive but I'd like more ship packs, more portraits, more graphics in general would be nice. But start with portraits.

 

[G S Palmer]

When can we get some more graphics packs? I know these are labor intensive but I'd like more ship packs, more portraits, more graphics in general would be nice. But start with portraits.

How about 3-5 different variations for each planet's background art? It would make planets feel more unique.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Last I've checked, in the real world, we've had to go back and look at things again because hey, we had new scientific advances that allowed us to take a closer look at something. In some cases we find brand new stuff we didn't know about. Or we are able to make our current assessment even more accurate because we had to tolerate some guess work and holes being present thanks to limitations of technology.

As advanced as we're supposed to be in Stellaris, I don't think it's to the point, where a single survey sweep will find everything. A second pass through being locked beyond research, could just mean the option to find really rare anomalies or events. That can help add substance to the mid game and even maybe be a way to shake up the status quo since no one would know where it'll show up. I like idea of archaeology, but one weak point I see it having, is that it won't lend itself quite as well to being a game changer. People are going to get an idea of where all the good arcology stuff is and either be able to contest the territory that has it or not.

OK, so how often should you be able to resurvey a planet?

How much scientific advancement is "enough"? And what tier should "survey II" be at anyway? How many tiers of surveying do you think is reasonable?

How do you suggest the (essentially random) anomaly system is altered so that you can't destroy existing deposits and features?

Only surveying once is a deliberate design choice so that you don't get conflicting anomalies on a planet - and more importantly so you can't screw up someone else's planets with your survey that erases all blockers and features, or causes someone's home system to go nova, taking with it most of their development.

And "really rare" anomalies are all well and good, but what should they be? Can they be found by normal surveys, or are they locked behind several tiers of survey?

And what happens when you run out of re-surveys anyway because the 12-20 empires in your galaxy are all running 5-6 science ships each, meaning that there are perhaps 10-15 surveys per ship before you exhaust each "batch" of surveys?