Stellaris Dev Diary #170 - Performance and other technical issues

[Hertzila]

For planets, you could have each one with three bars--Population, Infrastructure and Pollution--that grow over time as each planet builds and spawns its way to its max potential. You set what you want a planet to be, and the local Governor handles the retrofitting; if Population overtakes Infrastructure, you've got unemployment, so then you deploy incentives for people to either migrate or stop making babies, or for businesses to set up shop there, or you provide the funds to speed up your own peoples' construction and development of the planet.

But you could get rid of planets entirely, and have each system be a single entity. Imagine if building habitats was handled like how we build Districts now, and the current planet view was the whole system.

That way, there's no need for jobs, and the resources are produced presumably by the system or planet itself; the current traits and other things like Mining Guilds would need a rework, but getting rid of jobs wouldn't be some death sentence for the gameplay.

I would really dislike this system and would consider it a significant step backwards for Stellaris. In a purely war-focused 4X this makes sense (eg. Sword of the Stars) but Stellaris has always been more of a mixture of 4X and Grand Strategy. Having very little nuance in the way of your internal empire make-up would be a massive downgrade and the reduction of systems down into just "habitable planet and pals" would IMO destroy the feeling of exploration. Easier on the AI and performance, but otherwise a big let-down.

 

[Methone]

Also, why is the creature in my forum avatar not in-game?

It is. You're a space-whale, standing up!

 

[Wolfspyder]

So as I said during the stream and earlier in this post: we've worked on OOS. We've fixed several, we're unsure how many are left because it's hard to know for sure without a huge number of people playing at once.

Is 2.6 going to be released in beta through Steam before actual release? To have more players to test for more OOS? I've stopped playing Stellaris entirely because I enjoy playing with family and we haven't been able to play due to desyncs.

 

[Methone]

Is 2.6 going to be released in beta through Steam before actual release? To have more players to test for more OOS? I've stopped playing Stellaris entirely because I enjoy playing with family and we haven't been able to play due to desyncs.

This is probably the solution, even though Stellaris isn't in the habit of beta-ing its patches. If the problem is you can't know for sure without a huge amount of people playing at once, get a huge amount of people to play at once.

 

[Badesumofu]

I can’t remember the last time any PDSgame had an open beta for a patch that had an accompanying paid DLC. Vanishingly unlikely, I’d say.

 

[alexti]

In all fairness, a second per day means you get through 10 ingame years in an hour, which can feel like quite the slog compared to the breeze of the early game when you fly through the first fifty years in an hour or so (at least that's what it feels like, did not actually measure). Different people have different "pain" thresholds, this is one of them.

Another way to look at is that if a typical campaign takes 130 years to complete it would take ~13 real time hours at that speed. There is clearly an argument that it is too long (though in practice, inefficient UI causes just as much problem as game performance).

 

[LekkoBot]

so without multiplayer we would have waaaaaaay better lategame? are 2 different versions of the game coming?

Nah, having a server and a client is a common way of creating a game: The server is virtual on your machine controlling the ai and the basics of the game. the client is what you interact which sends information about your empire to the server.

 

[Methone]

Another way to look at is that if a typical campaign takes 130 years to complete it would take ~13 real time hours at that speed.

There is not a thing in the universe forcing you to play 13 hours in one sitting.

 

[Hertzila]

Another way to look at is that if a typical campaign takes 130 years to complete it would take ~13 real time hours at that speed. There is clearly an argument that it is too long (though in practice, inefficient UI causes just as much problem as game performance).

...How speedy do you play grand strategy games if 13 hours is too long? 50 hours for 250 years seem like far more realistic numbers (for a typical long campaign), if still quite speedy. I play slow, but I never thought I was glacial compared to others.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Another way to look at is that if a typical campaign takes 130 years to complete it would take ~13 real time hours at that speed. There is clearly an argument that it is too long (though in practice, inefficient UI causes just as much problem as game performance).

Expecting to finish a decent Stellaris game in less than 13 hours is INSANE. It's not that sort of game - you play it over multiple sessions, possibly across an entire week or more.

 

[Unendingfear]

Expecting to finish a decent Stellaris game in less than 13 hours is INSANE. It's not that sort of game - you play it over multiple sessions, possibly across an entire week or more.

Man, I’ve played some campaigns for several consecutive months.

 

[Medicinal Carrot]

Would it be worthwhile to split the job fitness evaluations into batches, or would that cause too many additional headaches? E.G. update the job eval for odd numbered pops on odd weeks, and update even numbered pops on even weeks. On the upside, you would effectively cut the galaxy population almost in half, and would still get some weekly feedback from your decisions. That feedback would be significantly lessened, though, as each specific pop would only update every other week instead of weekly. And depending on how evaluations are done, I could see some pops switching jobs back and forth every week.

 

[Arcvalons]

Well there's two different answers to that. Yes, I've thought about it. A lot. It's even be discussed with @grekulf and the design team. But at the same time, as a programmer, it feels bad to have to change the design of the game because of technical limitations. We (The programmers of Stellaris) would much rather have a system where design decides what they want without having to think about technical issues.

On the other hand, there are too few systems that reduce number of pops. Population decline, disease, etc. are things that should realistically affect empires. As it is right now it's just exponential pop growth, forever

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

On the other hand, there are too few systems that reduce number of pops. Population decline, disease, etc. are things that should realistically affect empires. As it is right now it's just exponential pop growth, forever

Planetary bombardment/army warfare should, if nothing else, have a decent impact on POPs. Pre-2.4 it could be pretty noticable, especially on higher bombardment types. Nowadays it... really isn't noticeable at all.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

thanks so much for this. the more open and transparent feedback we get from you guys the better

 

[Spartakus]

And replace it with what?

Whatever the AI and the average players CPU can handle. Bonus points for reducing micromanagement. I take a playable came over a more complex one any day.

 

[Akamia]

So does this mean that these issues are solved as of the current state of 2.6?

 

[Blayze]

I would really dislike this system and would consider it a significant step backwards for Stellaris. In a purely war-focused 4X this makes sense (eg. Sword of the Stars) but Stellaris has always been more of a mixture of 4X and Grand Strategy. Having very little nuance in the way of your internal empire make-up would be a massive downgrade and the reduction of systems down into just "habitable planet and pals" would IMO destroy the feeling of exploration. Easier on the AI and performance, but otherwise a big let-down.

I don't think it would lack nuance.

The idea I had was that Construction and Science ships went away; instead you dictate a system to colonise and provide resource incentives if you want to make it more likely to happen; eventually a Colony Ship is sent to that system to set up an inhabited starbase, and from there we manage those people and the system itself.

They build and expand on their own, sending their own ships to set up mining stations, investigating planets for colonisation, finding and studying anomalies, etc. Again, you can intervene with resources, either just gifting them stuff or incentivising certain actions.

When you unlock habitats, for example, they start to upgrade their stations into habitats; megastructures are Decisions you make, and they upgrade a habitat to make it happen (or the whole system if a ringworld).

The whole time you're trying to balance each system's Population against its Infrastructure--too much of one and you'll get unemployment, too much of the other means empty jobs--again by providing incentives.

You can deal with the private sector to speed your expansion up by having them build things on their own, but you'll make them more powerful, and they'll set up shop and start leeching resources.

Use them too much and they start lobbying; eventually they might take over your empire, or parts of it, and form a megacorp against your will... or several megacorps will fight for control and tear your empire apart (or just be a massive drain on your resources as they asset-strip you for profits).

The idea is that you don't need a page for every planet or habitat; just pick what you want each planet (or system) to do and wait for the local Governor to handle the retrofitting according to their competence or corruption.

A massive change, sure, but it would hardly lack nuance; and as a bonus, without individual pops and jobs, all their associated lag goes out the window.

 

[Hertzila]

*snip snap*

That sounds like an amalgamation of Sword of the Stars 2 and Majesty. I could see it work, for another game, but that would just increase the lag, or lack nuance. Majesty has plenty of actors in the field to get the incentive system to work properly for the heroes while still being interesting and playable.

Or you end up with the system from Sword of the Stars 2, which is basically what you wrote. Private sector, having to balance the government and private industry, dealing the the population and infrastructure meters, abstracted systems. It was boring as all hell, and I say that as a fan of the SOTS stuff. It felt like I was far less in control and doing less of the fun military stuff of SOTS1. The point behind SOTS2 was that the empire's internal make-up would matter and be part of the system, but this abstract system was horrible. There was nothing playable in it, it was just "max the meters".

Even worse, you had to play in potentially very stupid ways to make your empire's make-up what you wanted since it was all abstract and dynamic, as otherwise the private system or the new imperial make-up might bite you hard in the ass. Just imagine if you made too many mineral stations in Stellaris and suddenly the game informed that your war-mongering monarchy just transformed into pacifistic democracy since you built one too many. Or even worse, the local AI governors built one too many. That idea is horrifying for Stellaris. Please no.

 

[AlphaAsh]

Whatever the AI and the average players CPU can handle. Bonus points for reducing micromanagement. I take a playable came over a more complex one any day.

I'd be bored and go play something else.

On the other hand, there are too few systems that reduce number of pops. Population decline, disease, etc. are things that should realistically affect empires. As it is right now it's just exponential pop growth, forever

When I suggested a death rate, due to ageing and lifespans (which would allow a leader stat to actually have impact on pops), I was respectfully disagreed all the way to hell.