• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #153 - Empire Sprawl & Administrative Capacity

Hello everyone!
We’re back with yet another dev diary to showcase some more fruits of summer experimentation. As with the previous dev diary, this involved a lot of work carried out during the summer and involves something I’ve wanted to explore for a good while now.

Today we’ll be talking about empire sprawl and administrative capacity. Do note that these changes are still fairly young in their development, so numbers and implementation details may not be representative of what it will look like in the end.

As a background, I can mention that I have a grander idea of where I want to take these mechanics, but it will not all happen at once. These changes aim to mimic state bureaucracy or overhead created by managing a large empire. As a minor aspect I also wanted you to be able to experience the funny absurdity of having a planet entirely dedicated to bureaucracy. The movie Brazil is a great source of inspiration here :)

Empire Sprawl
We wanted to expand on how empire sprawl is used, so that it becomes a more interesting mechanic. The largest change means that pops now increase empire sprawl. Most things in your empire should be increasing empire sprawl to various degrees, to represent the administrative burden they impose.

upload_2019-8-29_10-40-35.png

Empire Sprawl can now be modified from its different sources, and as an example, the Courier Networks expansion tradition will now reduce empire sprawl caused directly by the number of planets and systems. As another example shows, the Harmony traditions finisher now reduces the total empire sprawl caused by all your pops.

We are also able to modify how much empire sprawl each pop contributes, and we’ve added a couple of new species traits that affect it. There are also machine variants of these traits.

upload_2019-8-29_10-41-13.png

We have also increased the penalty for the amount of empire sprawl that exceeds your administrative capacity. The goal is not to make administrative a hard cap, but we want to make it necessary to invest some of your resources into increasing your administrative capacity. More on that later.

upload_2019-8-29_10-41-49.png

The current plan is for machine empires to be more reliant on keeping their administrative capacity in line with their empire sprawl, so machine empires will suffer a much harsher penalty for exceeding their cap. We want machines to feel “centralized” and to perhaps favor a more “tall” playstyle.

upload_2019-8-29_10-42-12.png

Hive Minds, on the other hand, should be more tolerant of a sprawling empire where unmanaged drones are able to fall back on their instincts whenever they cannot maintain a responsive connection to the hive mind. Therefore, hive minds should be more tolerant of a “wide” playstyle.

Administrative Capacity
With all these changes to empire sprawl, what about administrative capacity, I imagine you asking? Well, since empire sprawl is becoming an expanded concept, administrative capacity will naturally be a part of that. Increasing your administrative capacity will now be a part of planning your empire’s economy.

upload_2019-8-29_10-42-48.png

For regular empires, the bureaucrat is a new job that increases your administrative capacity at the cost of consumer goods. This is also a specialist job, and has needs accordingly. Administrators are unchanged, and do not currently affect administrative capacity or bureaucrats.

For machine empires, the coordinators have changed roles from producing unity to now increasing administrative capacity instead, and they are more effective than bureaucrats. A new job called Evaluators now produce unity for machine empires.

Hive Minds currently have the hardest time to produce administrative capacity, but it has been added as a function of the synapse drone job.

upload_2019-8-29_10-43-26.png


Certain sources that previously increased administrative capacity by a static amount now increase is by a percentage amount instead. This doesn’t affect the output of the jobs, but rather increases the total administrative capacity directly.

Summary
Personally I’m very excited for these changes and I’m very much looking forward to taking it to its next step in the future. I hope you enjoyed reading about the changes that will come to Stellaris sometime later this year. As always, we’ll be interested to hear your thoughts.

As mentioned in last week’s dev diary, the schedule for dev diaries will now be bi-weekly, so the next dev diary will be in another 2 weeks.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ok everyone. Let me jump in here. :)

Dev Diaries and productivity:
I think every regular here got to know Paradox's development cycle well enough to know that when dev diaries start, the devs usually begin with more low-profile changes and base-game reworks, before moving on to major announcements. It's the same this time around, so there's no need to assume otherwise.

The fact is that PDX Con is getting closer and since it's Paradox's biggest yearly event, obviously major announcements are going to happen there and more "meaty" features will be talked about the closer we get to it. This is part of the reason why dev dairies are happening bi-weekly for the time being, so let me end speculation that work has stalled in any way. The team is back from holidays and working as hard as ever.

The other reason why we resumed Dev Diaries already and opted for a bi-weekly DD is because we know that, especially after a holiday break, many of you have questions about whether the team is back in the office. That is one of the ways to show you that everyone is indeed here and one of the reasons why we started off with a "filler" Dev Diary about what the team has worked on during their holidays.

The frequency of Dev Diaries is undergoing some testing at the minute. We're holding onto a lot of info for PDX Con to give the team a really nice, big stage show announcement that you're not going to want to miss. Also, they do take a lot of time to formulate and doing this on a weekly basis with what many would consider 'filler' content would take away from development time. We're open to feedback on this, and if weekly is what you're after then it's worth noting that this would also mean an increase of this selfsame 'filler' content. The frequency is something we'd like to continue testing and perhaps changing up the format in the future, so feedback on this is welcomed. Let us know.


Reveal and release cycle:
On another subject. As with all Stellaris releases (with the exception of very early patches and test multiplayer patch branches), we follow a tradition of a free patch mixed with a paid content release. There is no reason to assume this has changed, especially since we *are* approaching PDX Con and "stuff" will be happen there. ;)

What that means for this dev diary specifically is that, as with previous updates, no change is made in a vaccuum and, of course, features discussed in this Dev Diary are followed by balance tweaks to related game systems. On that note, all the feedback you're giving here is always read by someone and is being considered during the development process.


To sum up:
What you're seeing are just the earliest inklings of what is coming next. Let's all be mindful of the looming PDX Con date, that cool stuff is on the way and the devs deserve a good reveal. :)
 
I didn't consider this a filler dev diary at all. If you think dev diaries are too much effort two write weekly at the current time, could we get some more informal information. I really enjoyed wiz twitter teasers. Something similar would be nice. For example of this diaries topic a image of the planet districts with industry districts could have been shown on twitter with a short sentence what it is. Eg "We are experimenting with industry districts. A new regular planet district that can switch between producing alloys and consumer goods"
 
...could we get some more informal information.

Time for those will come. It's not always easy to show off changes to the game without spoiling what's ahead. I know that PDX Con is still a bit off but as someone who's been playing this game since day 1, I do think it'll be worth the wait and being patient with a bit slower pace of reveals than usual. And I think it's better to have things be a bit slower now than us having to resort to filler content closer to release, when both you and us would rather talk about major things. :)
 
I really like all those changes. Makes a lot of sense and makes the game more interesting for sure. The Problem is, that it would be difficult to come to an end with the game at all, coz it becomes so slow from a certain point on. I hope this will also be a major point in the coming DLC. Otherwise it seems to me, that it is only a failed addition. Maybe it is time to focus on changing to a multi core option as main future addition, instead of all other.
 
Hi! Sorry I'm late, had problems with my internet.
I really like the idea! What I'm a little concerned about is the consistency of naming conventions. For example administrators not increasing admin cap is fairly confusing and many of such problems will arise in certain locas. So redefining jobs would create a lot of clarity.
 
[...] let me end speculation that work has stalled in any way. The team is back from holidays and working as hard as ever.

[...]

As with all Stellaris releases (with the exception of very early patches and test multiplayer patch branches), we follow a tradition of a free patch mixed with a paid content release. There is no reason to assume this has changed [...]
Thanks for confirming what I was saying earlier!

With everyone crying that the sky was falling and Paradox had abandoned the game, it was getting really frustrating seeing people sarcastically write off things like the established release pattern as "some sort of complex algorithm to predict updates".
 
Research doesn't just represent scientists coming up with new ideas - it also reflects scientists and engineers working to implement the idea across your empire...... Those Improved Corvette Hulls? Hundreds of ships need to be retrofitted to benefit. This is all rolled into Research for ease of gameplay, and that's why researching the same technology costs you more in a bigger empire.
Sorry, are you PDX staff? to excogitate such explanation?
As for implementing new constructions it included just in construction and maintenance cost.
As for retrofitting ships it included in refit bills.

I would admit "implementation" cost for widespread social inventions but this should be done as special project. If therу is a need
 
Sorry, are you PDX staff? to excogitate such explanation?
No, I'm just smart and good at understanding game mechanics.

As for implementing new constructions it included just in construction and maintenance cost.
As for retrofitting ships it included in refit bills.

I would admit "implementation" cost for widespread social inventions but this should be done as special project. If therу is a need
These can all be additional considerations, but I specifically named examples of technologies that just work right after researching. There's quite a lot of them, and many of them do involve widespread social change - for example, all the "+X % Resource from Job Y" technologies must logically involve large-scale machinery retrofitting and/or personel retraining programs for all workers of a given job to experience the raise in productivity. And since these don't involve either constructing/upgrading buildings or special projects, the only logical conclusion is that all these implementation costs are already rolled into research cost. Which in turn explains why the cost rises with empire sprawl - surely you can see how implementing new fracking techniques will be easier to do for ten mining districts than it would be for a hundred!
 
Having to sink pops into keep the empire manageable, is a good way to slow down the snowball effect since that's less pops that can go towards generating more resources. This also has a nice effect in that it means, sometimes more pops isn't necessarily better. A big issue with the current game is that more pops is nearly always better, hell, some feel that more pops is always better. If less pops ends up not being a detriment, it does make tall more of a viable option. If tall ends up being more viable, it also means that it becomes more viable to run with setups that don't just become "well gonna declare war on everyone and take their stuff."

But that's what the amenity system is for. We already have one system in place that limits tall growth, and forces you to employ jobs in order to support additional pop growth. Now they want to add yet another sytem that punishes / curves tall growth? Sorry, but I don't see it. Yes, we really, really need some kind of restraint mechanism on map-painting, I agree. But leave tall gameplay out of this, I say. Or at least, limit sprawl to districts rather than population per se.
 
Pops causing sprawl runs completely counter to the mechanic being intended to balance "tall" vs "wide". All that does is just make life more difficult for everyone. What is the intended purpose of that change?

I don't think the mechanic particularly needs reworking and expanding, there are much bigger priorities in my mind.
 
Honestly they should focus also on a good patch. Take a little break from more DLC.

Also I´m not sure if I speak for everybody, but the game could use new events, precursors and dig sites, as fresh exploration doesn´t exist anymore.

This. So very much this. First patch the numerous game-breaking bugs. I don't see why anyone would even be thinking about more DLC when what we already have isn't working. Then fill out the current mechanics. More anomalies, events, dig-sites, precursors, planet types/features, etc. and maybe even a few more civics and traits. Make the game itself wider rather than taller. Just tacking on more DLC is turning the game into the Scavenger Bot when, in my opinion, it would be better as an Enigmatic Fortress. Refined but more unpredictable.
 
This. So very much this. First patch the numerous game-breaking bugs. I don't see why anyone would even be thinking about more DLC when what we already have isn't working. Then fill out the current mechanics. More anomalies, events, dig-sites, precursors, planet types/features, etc. and maybe even a few more civics and traits. Make the game itself wider rather than taller. Just tacking on more DLC is turning the game into the Scavenger Bot when, in my opinion, it would be better as an Enigmatic Fortress. Refined but more unpredictable.
Orrrrrr they could go ahead and overhaul diplomacy NOW, so that all the fixes don't break when they do, and then have a more stable platform with mostly-sorted core mechanics to build content expansion and stability fixes off of.
 
Regarding communication, I personally liked the old way better. You got a constant drip-feed of interesting information and thus, more active forums.

I can understand that you don't want to spoil anything before an event, and I get that other fans want more refinement and less new mechanics, but I think that the game would greatly benefit from a constant stream of small gameplay tweaks and balances, such as the Warrior Culture rework.

You don't need to dramatically reinvent the wheel nor introduce more content, but something as minor (in terms of manpower) as, say, civic or tradition reworks can have massive gameplay impact and foster interesting discussion on the forums and help Stellaris. Hivemind civics and several ascension perks could surely get a rework, diplomacy DLC or not, for example.
 
But that's what the amenity system is for. We already have one system in place that limits tall growth, and forces you to employ jobs in order to support additional pop growth. Now they want to add yet another sytem that punishes / curves tall growth? Sorry, but I don't see it. Yes, we really, really need some kind of restraint mechanism on map-painting, I agree. But leave tall gameplay out of this, I say. Or at least, limit sprawl to districts rather than population per se.
Make ground armies fighting give a lot more devastation. Make conquered planets not only give their populace a -Happiness for 10 years, but give the PLANET ITSELF a 'recently conquered' for 10 years that prevents Devastation from going down. Presto. Conquering planets results in them being practically useless for a decade and puts the brakes on map painting.
 
Make ground armies fighting give a lot more devastation. Make conquered planets not only give their populace a -Happiness for 10 years, but give the PLANET ITSELF a 'recently conquered' for 10 years that prevents Devastation from going down. Presto. Conquering planets results in them being practically useless for a decade and puts the brakes on map painting.

Maybe? I'm hesitant because it still feels like you'd always be better off taking the planet than not. No matter how low the planet's production goes, even if it's below zero, it will go away in 10 short years and by taking it I deny it to the enemy. If I'm thinking in terms of me vs. my enemy, the planet would have to run more than -100% production before I'm arguably worse off in the short term, and even then it will still go away over time and I'll be richer for it. (And that doesn't even take growth, construction and better management into account.)

Even if the game automatically destroyed every district and building on a conquered planet, between my ability to rebuild and denying it to the enemy, I think it would almost always be worth taking, right?

Personally, I love the idea of massively expanding the empire sprawl system but hate the idea of having pops generate admin cap. Once a resource is pop-generated it falls into the same trap as the rest of the Stellaris economy. Big empires are so big that you can produce the resource in functionally infinite quantities, so every related cost becomes trivial.

By contrast influence is one of the most interesting and important resources in the game. I'd argue that it is by far the most interesting and important, and that's because it's perhaps the only legitimately zero-sum resource. You get what you get and have very few ways to generate more. I never have as much influence as I want, and that's a very good thing.

I'd like admin cap to work like that. It should be a system with real teeth so that I might legitimately be worse off taking an extra planet even once that planet is back at 100% production. (Otherwise, I'm still always better off waiting out the malus and building a better empire in the long run.)

Ideally it should also be well-integrated into domestic and galactic politics, so that I really sweat over how to spend my 80 points of admin cap. If I can just crank out another handful of bureaucrats every time I start running low, well, won't this just be the new CG?
 
Maybe? I'm hesitant because it still feels like you'd always be better off taking the planet than not. No matter how low the planet's production goes, even if it's below zero, it will go away in 10 short years and by taking it I deny it to the enemy. If I'm thinking in terms of me vs. my enemy, the planet would have to run more than -100% production before I'm arguably worse off in the short term, and even then it will still go away over time and I'll be richer for it. (And that doesn't even take growth, construction and better management into account.)

Even if the game automatically destroyed every district and building on a conquered planet, between my ability to rebuild and denying it to the enemy, I think it would almost always be worth taking, right?

Personally, I love the idea of massively expanding the empire sprawl system but hate the idea of having pops generate admin cap. Once a resource is pop-generated it falls into the same trap as the rest of the Stellaris economy. Big empires are so big that you can produce the resource in functionally infinite quantities, so every related cost becomes trivial.

By contrast influence is one of the most interesting and important resources in the game. I'd argue that it is by far the most interesting and important, and that's because it's perhaps the only legitimately zero-sum resource. You get what you get and have very few ways to generate more. I never have as much influence as I want, and that's a very good thing.

I'd like admin cap to work like that. It should be a system with real teeth so that I might legitimately be worse off taking an extra planet even once that planet is back at 100% production. (Otherwise, I'm still always better off waiting out the malus and building a better empire in the long run.)

Ideally it should also be well-integrated into domestic and galactic politics, so that I really sweat over how to spend my 80 points of admin cap. If I can just crank out another handful of bureaucrats every time I start running low, well, won't this just be the new CG?
If only this, yes. You'd probably want to revamp Trade so that it's not just shuffling resources around, so that cooperation gives more resources than straight-conquest. One suggestion I saw is an agreement like 'For every 10 CG we produce, you'll generate 1 CG, and vice versa for your production of Alloys', going off the vein of how Commercial Pacts generate trade-goodies out of thin air.

Tl;dr you need to make conquest less powerful and teamwork more powerful. If this seems like a 'no duh' obvious solution then... well, it is an obvious solution.
 
[...]By contrast influence is one of the most interesting and important resources in the game. I'd argue that it is by far the most interesting and important, and that's because it's perhaps the only legitimately zero-sum resource. You get what you get and have very few ways to generate more. I never have as much influence as I want, and that's a very good thing.

I'd like admin cap to work like that. It should be a system with real teeth, ideally one well-integrated into domestic and galactic politics, so that I really sweat over how to spend my 80 points of admin cap. If I can just crank out another handful of bureaucrats every time I start running low, well, won't this just be the new CG?

Specifically to address your comparison with CG. The big difference is, CG are a resource that generates instant massive penalties once you dip to zero and have negative income, admin cap... does not, it is much smoother. With that in mind, it is entirely possible that the balance of this system will be more akin to influence than one might at first think - you very well could end up fighting an uphill battle to stay on top of Empire Sprawl penalties with bureaucrats. I'm personally still not a fan of linear increases to sprawl penalties (exponential would hit appropriately hard, linear lacks.. bite), but even linear increases can be made painful enough that you'll want to fight them.

... Other than that, after having a long and hard time of thinking about it, I tend to agree with those apprehensive of tying pops back into empire sprawl in a direct fashion. This is, essentially, double-dipping on the pops. Pops require upkeep and housing, provided by districts and buildings. Districts already get taxed by Empire Sprawl increases. I'd be in favor of Empire Sprawl being generated either from Buildings and Districts, or from Pops. Not both. Considering how the current iteration of the economy assumes that different empire types have different degrees of pop efficiency, I'm leaning towards it being from Buildings and Districts. That way, if one wanted to later change how Empire Sprawl gets generated, not mitigated, one could improve the buildings - also, this way, building upgrades would be (even more) incentivized by virtue of being Sprawl-efficient.

If, on the other hand, Sprawl were to be generated from pops only, then the system would be getting a pretty big overhaul. In order for it to be a rough metric of empire power, the amount of sprawl generated by each pop would have to be modified by the pop living standards ... at which point ... you might as well modify the base sprawl by the amount of CG upkeep of a pop. However, having the vast majority of sprawl be generated by pops would mean that there would be an equalizer between empires more focused on research and empires more focused on resource production - and this focus might actually come into being, because a not insignificant amount of the population would be spent administrating said empire, so that there wouldn't be enough pops to do it all (unlike currently). So there is certainly merit behind the idea of having pops generate Empire sprawl.
 
If only this, yes. You'd probably want to revamp Trade so that it's not just shuffling resources around, so that cooperation gives more resources than straight-conquest. One suggestion I saw is an agreement like 'For every 10 CG we produce, you'll generate 1 CG, and vice versa for your production of Alloys', going off the vein of how Commercial Pacts generate trade-goodies out of thin air.

Tl;dr you need to make conquest less powerful and teamwork more powerful. If this seems like a 'no duh' obvious solution then... well, it is an obvious solution.

I've always loved this type of idea. I would really, really like to see more positive-sum trade (that is, we both get richer) and more trade that's based on what each empire produces. Like, as you say, commercial pacts. Or how research pacts don't create science, they make research cheaper based on what the other empire has.

And agreed, I'd really like to see that plugged into the trade network system.

This is actually why I've always been so interested in Stellaris. I feel like so many pieces of the game have just great ideas that were never developed. Like how commercial and research pacts have this positive-sum, partner-specific features, but then that was never built out into a bigger galactic economy.
 
Outstanding balance change. Admin caps would become useless anyway around mid-game once science and unity output would ramp up to compensate, so going to a system that's percentage based is both logical and inclusive.
Not to mention it didn't scale well with the high variety of galaxy-settings.