Stellaris Dev Diary #158 - Federation rework

[Methone]

will there will be a spying and sabotage system ?

Hope not. From what I hear, those are never, ever implemented in a fun way.

 

[The Founder]

Name three things in the OP that will make joining a Federation a tangiably better strategic investment than it is in the current version.

Human Controlable Leadership.

The Rotating Presidency and thus the AI getting (and missusing) the Federation fleet, is the biggest issue with the current itteration.

But I am going to asume youwill just ignore this, as you only want to be agressive rather then have a discussion?

 

[The Founder]

will there will be a spying and sabotage system ?

Back when Wiz was still team lead he said he would like to have one.
If he could properly implement it. That was really the big issue.

Consistent Distances with the FLT rework*, Crime, Piracy and even Branch offices - all those are mechanics that could be repurposed and/or used as basis for a Espionage System.


*Okay, to be fair everything benefits from a single way of doing distance calculation.

 

[DrNukeLear]

Actually I think a subterfuge/expansion update would be nice! It just needs fine balancing.

 

[Foefaller]

Well besides the envoys, they haven't mentioned anything, but you are right I could be prematurely dismissing that option. Envoys themselves could just be fed-related too though since they seemed like the main source of fed cohesion.

Envoys were mentioned at PDX stage as something that would also be part of the Galactic Community.

In fact, that might be their main purpose, because IIRC when they came up showing off federations grekulf gave a "we'll get more into that later" before talking a bit about how they work in the Galactic Community.

Contribution... to the fleet that sits in Space Dock and doesn't react to Crises because the AI is too stupid? THAT fleet contribution?

That specific scenario might actually be something addressed with the Galactic Community. They mentioned at PDX, that instead of waiting for the crisis to be threatening enough for an AI empire to respond (which I assume is the reason you have them sitting on the fed fleet) you can get a resolution passed that would force all empires to stop mucking about and treat the crisis as an immediate threat.

 

[Foefaller]

Human Controlable Leadership.

The Rotating Presidency and thus the AI getting (and missusing) the Federation fleet, is the biggest issue with the current itteration.

But I am going to asume youwill just ignore this, as you only want to be agressive rather then have a discussion?

Fed Presidency hasn't been rotating since 2.2, instead it's given to either the founder or the most powerful empire in the federation (though I think there is a certain percentage stronger you need to clear before it switches)

The end result is that while a player might not start as Fed President, most will grow strong enough to take the job, giving them absolute control of the Fed fleet and ship designer and basically turning it into a free, self replenishing 500 cap naval force whose only drawback is the lack of complete say as to what the composition will be.

Still have the issue of AI members constantly calling for wars though, which still makes joining one a questionable endeavor for those who aren't going tall or want to roleplay being in a federation regardless of the drawbacks.

 

[Methone]

Still have the issue of AI members constantly calling for wars though, which still makes joining one a questionable endeavor for those who aren't going tall or want to roleplay being in a federation regardless of the drawbacks.

I don't know, I don't usually get this problem. And when I do, I just don't answer yes or no; it defaults to no, but there's no actual opinion penalty for not picking up the phone.

 

[8igualdos0s]

Hope not. From what I hear, those are never, ever implemented in a fun way.

Maybe this could be the first time...who knows!

Edit: although probably there are better features to do first.

 

[Monturiol]

Human Controlable Leadership.
The Rotating Presidency and thus the AI getting (and missusing) the Federation fleet, is the biggest issue with the current itteration.
But I am going to asume youwill just ignore this, as you only want to be agressive rather then have a discussion?

Yes, that's ONE, which is the one that I already said, and it's the one that I pointed out doesn't actually suggest any improvements to the diplo or fleet AIs - the """"solution"""" to those problems is just to take it out of the hands of the AI entirely.

Talk about ignoring stuff, you're the one ignoring my previous and subsequent posts on precisely this matter?

 

[The Founder]

Yes, that's ONE, which is the one that I already said, and it's the one that I pointed out doesn't actually suggest any improvements to the diplo or fleet AIs - the """"solution"""" to those problems is just to take it out of the hands of the AI entirely.

Talk about ignoring stuff, you're the one ignoring my previous and subsequent posts on precisely this matter?

Shifting goalposts will not convince people to make a serious discussion with you.

 

[Monturiol]

Shifting goalposts will not convince people to make a serious discussion with you.

Their loss.
In any case, I asked for three tangible benefits, so I'm not sure how your listing one constitutes ME shifting the goalposts.

 

[Methone]

Their loss.
In any case, I asked for three tangible benefits, so I'm not sure how your listing one constitutes ME shifting the goalposts.

Other people have given you three tangible benefits. Your response mostly amounts to "No, that doesn't count!" so yes, you kinda are shifting the goalposts, dude.

 

[OfficerBrennan]

I believe Monturiol is saying that the three proposed tangible benefits aren't tangible at all, since they're built upon game mechanics that are inherently flawed: The end result is that Stellaris gameplay with Federations DLC will probably remain flawed.

As Methone succinctly puts it

Indeed. I'd be entirely happy with the next DLC being another species pack - we're overdue for one anyway, cough cough, aquatics - and while there's an argument to be made about how 'You don't hang up new furniture while taking out support beams', saying you should finish Diplomacy and THEN bugfix, there's also the argument of 'you don't take out support beams while the house is on fire'.

If I'm right, the pair are making the same argument. One that I also agree with.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I believe Monturiol is saying that the three proposed tangible benefits aren't tangible at all, since they're built upon game mechanics that are inherently flawed: The end result is that Stellaris gameplay with Federations DLC will probably remain flawed.

As Methone succinctly puts it


If I'm right, the pair are making the same argument. One that I also agree with.

They definitely need to do the diplomacy overhaul before they do any significant work on the AI.

Otherwise you get a 2.2 problem again; the AI prior to 2.2 was fairly competent with its economy. Not great, mind, but it presented a decent challenge in my experience, it didn't completely crash and burn until an empire started getting taken apart. Then they overhauled the economy, and the AI now performs noticably worse because it hasn't been brought up to speed with the new mechanics. You wouldn't do a major overhaul of AI behaviour prior to ripping out and replacing the systems the AI uses.

Same applies to diplomacy. This is the last of the "big three" (Warfare, Economy, Diplomacy) that the developers have been planning to overhaul for like... a year? More? There's no point fiddling with the AI until there's a more solid idea of the systems it'll be built on.

 

[OfficerBrennan]

There's no point fiddling with the AI until there's a more solid idea of the systems it'll be built on.

I agree with this in principle. However almost all the systems listed in the OP are things Stellaris players should be quite familiar with:

• Federation Types (which provide familiar economic boons)
• Perks (which appear to be multipliers applied to already existing systems)
• Level up, cohesion and centralisation, laws (A new dimension that dynamically gives federations more choices over time, but with a familiar heritage in economics. Countries have envoys as assets and potential federation members as liabilities. Balance your potential assets and liabilities to achieve whatever your goal is, in a given time frame).

My first impression is that the systems everything will be built on is a gradual derivation on already existing things, and not groundbreaking (which can be a prudent and responsible way to adapt to change). There are some unfamiliar things, but I doubt they'll amount to much:

• Succession (There looks to be some fun new things here! Will it be a meaty enough mechanic to stand by itself, or will it just be a nice but minor sub system that fires every few decades?)
• Diplomatic weight (Probably just a function of a countries economy? How much a country's industry is dedicated to producing diplomatic points? Who knows.)

Maybe I'm being too heavy handed in my minimisation, but I do this to get to the find the true coin beneath and see what game mechanics are on offer. It's too early to tell with only this dev diary to draw conclusions from, so whether or not Federations (and more importantly, the accompanying patch) will amount to anything remains to be seen. All I can do is urge caution to everyone and to think with their head and not with their hype.

Next week we will be talking about the Galactic Community, Resolutions and more!

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I agree with this in principle. However almost all the systems listed in the OP are things Stellaris players should be quite familiar with:

• Federation Types (which provide familiar economic boons)
• Perks (which appear to be multipliers applied to already existing systems)
• Level up, cohesion and centralisation, laws (A new dimension that dynamically gives federations more choices over time, but with a familiar heritage in economics. Countries have envoys as assets and potential federation members as liabilities. Balance your potential assets and liabilities to achieve whatever your goal is, in a given time frame).

My first impression is that the systems everything will be built on is a gradual derivation on already existing things, and not groundbreaking (which can be a prudent and responsible way to adapt to change). There are some unfamiliar things, but I doubt they'll amount to much:

• Succession (There looks to be some fun new things here! Will it be a meaty enough mechanic to stand by itself, or will it just be a nice but minor sub system that fires every few decades?)
• Diplomatic weight (Probably just a function of a countries economy? How much a country's industry is dedicated to producing diplomatic points? Who knows.)

Maybe I'm being too heavy handed in my minimisation, but I do this to get to the find the true coin beneath and see what game mechanics are on offer. It's too early to tell with only this dev diary to draw conclusions from, so whether or not Federations (and more importantly, the accompanying patch) will amount to anything remains to be seen. All I can do is urge caution to everyone and to think with their head and not with their hype.

Given we've gotten hints about a whole new behaviour-influencing score ("Diplomatic Strength"), this "Envoys" mechanic, something where empires can take "Diplomatic Stances", etc... I think there's almost certainly going to be enough of an underlying mechanical overhaul that the current diplomatic AI will need to be rejiggered.

 

[Foefaller]

I agree with this in principle. However almost all the systems listed in the OP are things Stellaris players should be quite familiar with:

• Federation Types (which provide familiar economic boons)
• Perks (which appear to be multipliers applied to already existing systems)
• Level up, cohesion and centralisation, laws (A new dimension that dynamically gives federations more choices over time, but with a familiar heritage in economics. Countries have envoys as assets and potential federation members as liabilities. Balance your potential assets and liabilities to achieve whatever your goal is, in a given time frame).

My first impression is that the systems everything will be built on is a gradual derivation on already existing things, and not groundbreaking (which can be a prudent and responsible way to adapt to change). There are some unfamiliar things, but I doubt they'll amount to much:

• Succession (There looks to be some fun new things here! Will it be a meaty enough mechanic to stand by itself, or will it just be a nice but minor sub system that fires every few decades?)
• Diplomatic weight (Probably just a function of a countries economy? How much a country's industry is dedicated to producing diplomatic points? Who knows.)

Maybe I'm being too heavy handed in my minimisation, but I do this to get to the find the true coin beneath and see what game mechanics are on offer. It's too early to tell with only this dev diary to draw conclusions from, so whether or not Federations (and more importantly, the accompanying patch) will amount to anything remains to be seen. All I can do is urge caution to everyone and to think with their head and not with their hype.

Diplomatic weight was given a brief explanation during PDXCON.

In it's most basic form, it's the voting strength of an empire for resolutions in the Galactic Community, and something that can be traded on a temporary basis via favors. The value comes from a lot of the similar things your empire score does, but it was mentioned that some resolutions will augment how weight is calculated; A Megacorp, for example, might be able to push for trade/economic power being worth more for determining diplomatic weight, increasing their weight and making it easier for them to promote and pass resolutions that might benefit them more directly.

Diplo weight and the GC are probably the parts I'm most excited about, especially if some form of them is in the free update, because it would create a role for Diplomacy to promote your empire's goals in a tangible way without having that require being in any sort of alliance or Federation.

 

[Pointyearedgit]

Hope not. From what I hear, those are never, ever implemented in a fun way.

Why don't we we re-calibrate that to: Games shouldn't do spy/sabotage systems often, but when they do, they should do them fun.

 

[Methone]

Why don't we we re-calibrate that to: Games shouldn't do spy/sabotage systems often, but when they do, they should do them fun.

Should.

 

[Foefaller]

Should.

I'm thinking of putting together a big suggestion post on espionage. Not so much a what all the mechanics should be but more of a "golden rules" type that I would hope a potential espionage system in Stellaris would follow.

Want to see this week's dev diary first though, some of the examples I had in mind might have to change depending on what's confirmed.