• 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 #21 - Administrative Sectors

Hi again folks!

Today I am going to talk about one of the great pitfalls of strategy game design; dull micromanagement. That is, features which require too much player attention. The trick, of course, is determining how much is “too much”, but it’s useful to consider how central the feature is to the core gameplay, how well it scales between small and large states, and how repetitive it gets with time.

In Stellaris, one feature which risked causing bad micromanagement was the planetary tile system; assigning Pops to tiles and deciding which buildings should go where. It is a fairly central feature and it is fun to use… but if you had to worry about 20, 50 or more planets, it would scale poorly. The obvious solution to this type of scaling issue is automation; you can let the AI handle it for you. This is indeed what we did in Stellaris, but not in a “traditional” fashion... Instead, we opted for something a little bit more akin to the vassals in Crusader Kings through something we call Administrative Sectors.

stellaris_dev_diary_21_02_20160215_edit_sectors.jpg


A Sector is an administrative region under the control of a Sector Governor. You can control a few planets directly (your “core worlds”), but once you go past the limit, you will start suffering penalties to your Influence as well as Empire-wide income. The exact limit for how many planets you can control directly depends on various factors, like your government type and technologies, but, as with the “Demesne Limit” in Crusader Kings II, it will never be a huge number. At this point, it is best to start dividing your territory into Sectors. You can decide the Sector capital and which planets should belong to it (but they must all be connected to the capital, i.e. form one cohesive sub-region.) You are also allowed to name your Sectors, for fun.

Unlike proper Vassals, Sectors remain an integrated part of your Empire, but they will handle development of planets and the construction of mining stations within their region for you. You can give them a focus (Industry, Research, etc), an infusion of Minerals or Energy Credits to help them along, and decide if you want to tax them for Minerals and Energy Credits. Sectors do not possess any military fleets of their own, nor do they perform research (they have access to the same technologies you do, and their research output is all given to you.)

stellaris_dev_diary_21_01_20160215_sectors_list.jpg


While Sectors and Sector Governors cannot demand more autonomy, or directly rise up in revolt (things I’d love to explore in an expansion), over time their population tends to diverge ideologically from that of the regime, and create their own identity. Like-minded Pops will tend to migrate there if allowed to. In the same way, aliens of the same species will also tend to coalesce in the same Sectors. Thus, when Factions form, they will often tend to have their main seat of power in a specific Sector. And Factions can demand autonomy and achieve independence. However, this is something that warrants its own dev diary...

That’s all he wrote folks. This time. Next week, I plan to talk about Alliances and Federations!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 241
  • 70
  • 7
Reactions:
I disagree, then you run into mentat players who can minmax better than the AI and now you have a boring advantage.

So instead of fixing the AI so it can beat the minmax player you suggest that the game company should fix the game such that a minmax player cannot play the game the way he likes to? How does that differ from StarDrive2 where you are forced into combat and a zerg rush strategy because that is the way the game designer prefers to play?
 
  • 9
  • 4
Reactions:
Are we still going to do this?

Everyone? Guys?

What part of the user control vs game design argument have we not turned and turned again?

Nobody won, nobody's going to win. Some people want a different game in one aspect or want it modifiable to a degree where it can be one or the other, others don't or do not consider it viable to include that option, because everyone's going to dislike some limitation and it can't all be balanced to be turned off.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion about this because people, at their core, want different things regarding this out of personal preference. Just stop.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If there's an option to disable this, these government types and technologies become less useful. This affects game balance.

Paradox would therefore have come up with an altered version of the technology tree and government modifiers to support this version of the game. This is a total waste of time.

It's amazing how easy it is to say something is a "waste of time" when you don't want it in the first place.
 
  • 13
  • 3
Reactions:
You feel supporting two different versions of the game is a viable approach?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't get the people who want micromanagement. Paradox choose not to include it (For good reason I feel). They made their design choice. If it's that much of game breaker for you, whining about it won't change anything..
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't get the people who want micromanagement. Paradox choose not to include it (For good reason I feel). They made their design choice. If it's that much of game breaker for you, whining about it won't change anything..
You're in the Paradox discussion forums.
That is literally what this place is for.

I don't even mean this to be necessarily specious. "Why are people whining about a lost cause in Paradox gaming here?" The answer is, because this is the best place to do that.

Yes, it is still probably ineffective, but at least the wailing and gnashing of teeth will encounter constructive interference.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
You made the right call here. I've been a space 4X gamer for more than fifteen years now, and I can tell you one thing: the absurd micromanagement hell of a late game empire turns any game into a unpaid job. Absolutely not fun for the vast majority of players. There is a reason why infinite city sprawling is now considered one among the cardinal sins of 4X design.
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't get the people who want micromanagement. Paradox choose not to include it (For good reason I feel). They made their design choice. If it's that much of game breaker for you, whining about it won't change anything..

Some people enjoy it, some because they come from having played 4X games where this is the standard and they liked it there. A design decision has just been made to do things in a different way. Disagreeing with it makes sense if you wanted something else, and it can be debated, and it has been debated for 20+ pages.

It'd be more interesting if new arguments rather than:

"It's about user agency and choice!"
"People can use sectors with some bonuses to compensate, it'll be balanced!"
"Micro shows skill!"
"I want control over my own faction and not deal with foolish AI!"

-vs-

"Automation is good because micro is monotonous!"
"This adds a new political faction mechanic!"
"Paradox can't balance the game for being able to change every game design that people may disagree with!"
"People who don't want to micro will feel forced to!"

...But we've just been going through that cycle about 4 or 5 times by now...
 
  • 3
Reactions:
There can be no victory over the micromanagers, they will keep coming and coming.
Luckily the devs have their priorities straight and they have good experience with grand strategy games.

And just by virtue of being micromanagers they'll always have far more tolerance for the pointless debating of tedious arguments.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
You feel supporting two different versions of the game is a viable approach?

From previous forum discussions it has come out that about 5% of Paradox gamers play multi-player. From this forum it seems that perhaps 10-15% would like more detailed control over planets. Yet multiplayer continues to get support in paradox games that very often is "supporting two different versions of the game". People & Paradox are fine with that multiplayer support but not with the minco support? OK, well I guess that is a fact, but IMHO it blows up your whole argument.
 
  • 13
  • 3
Reactions:
From previous forum discussions it has come out that about 5% of Paradox gamers play multi-player. From this forum it seems that perhaps 10-15% would like more detailed control over planets. Yet multiplayer continues to get support in paradox games that very often is "supporting two different versions of the game". People & Paradox are fine with that multiplayer support but not with the minco support? OK, well I guess that is a fact, but IMHO it blows up your whole argument.

Those are not remotely comparable. Multiplayer does not require changes to how core gameplay works, nor does it require rebalancing of every aspect of the game to deal with the player controlling 200 planets directly instead of 10.

Multiplayer is the same as singleplayer, your opponents are just all the more dangerous, ingenious and... Vindictive at times.
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Multiplayer isn't really a fair comparison, since the engine supports it already (prior to this particular game) so a fair portion of the sunk cost is already well in the past.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
From previous forum discussions it has come out that about 5% of Paradox gamers play multi-player. From this forum it seems that perhaps 10-15% would like more detailed control over planets. Yet multiplayer continues to get support in paradox games that very often is "supporting two different versions of the game". People & Paradox are fine with that multiplayer support but not with the minco support? OK, well I guess that is a fact, but IMHO it blows up your whole argument.

I addition to what AKicebear and Yenzen have said, I don't think one thread on the forum is a representative sample, exactly.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I disagree, then you run into mentat players who can minmax better than the AI and now you have a boring advantage.

One would think it would be faster to make a 10 world sector tell it to focus on Industry (also placing a Sector Governor with Industry bonuses in charge)
Than having to micromanage said 10 worlds

Sure the Minmax player might make a more better build order than the AI but the bonuses Sector Governor gives might also make it a moot point anyway.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I addition to what AKicebear and Yenzen have said, I don't think one thread on the forum is a representative sample, exactly.

Certainly. However the "love of micro" discussion happens in pretty much every game on this forum, so I have a lot more backing for my thoughts than just this thread.
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Those are not remotely comparable. Multiplayer does not require changes to how core gameplay works, nor does it require rebalancing of every aspect of the game to deal with the player controlling 200 planets directly instead of 10.

Multiplayer is the same as singleplayer, your opponents are just all the more dangerous, ingenious and... Vindictive at times.

Good multiplayer requires balancing the game not just for the player vs the AI, but for the various possible human players vs. each other, as well as player vs. AI. Based on years of discussion for many paradox games this balancing act is very difficult and rarely gotten right, yet countless hundreds and thousands of hours of time are devoted to it.

I'm all for games having robust multiplayer even though I never play that way myself. For some reason most of you have no interest in there being robust micro support even though you never play that way yourselves. I'm hardly surprised that people want the developers' effort going into what they want and not what they don't want, but at least be honest about that.
 
  • 8
  • 4
Reactions:
Good multiplayer requires balancing the game not just for the player vs the AI, but for the various possible human players vs. each other, as well as player vs. AI. Based on years of discussion for many paradox games this balancing act is very difficult and rarely gotten right, yet countless hundreds and thousands of hours of time are devoted to it.

I'm all for games having robust multiplayer even though I never play that way myself. For some reason most of you have no interest in there being robust micro support even though you never play that way yourselves. I'm hardly surprised that people want the developers' effort going into what they want and not what they don't want, but at least be honest about that.

not really. the multiplayer in EUIV is exactly liek singleplayer, bar more people are humans. same checksum, same mechanics. the meta changes - you cant exploit a human player nearly as much as the AI, so you need a stronger millitary and diploamcy becomes a far larger factor. the game however stays the same. what you are proposing is changing up the general mechanics of the game - not at all the same thing.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
From previous forum discussions it has come out that about 5% of Paradox gamers play multi-player. From this forum it seems that perhaps 10-15% would like more detailed control over planets. Yet multiplayer continues to get support in paradox games that very often is "supporting two different versions of the game". People & Paradox are fine with that multiplayer support but not with the minco support? OK, well I guess that is a fact, but IMHO it blows up your whole argument.
Multiplayer games work in exactly the same way as single-player games, so no.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
To justify not adapting multiplayer AI:

If equal to or less than 1/10 of the systems are human controlled: It doesn't matter much, game will more or less be standard, maybe with a few co-operating players forming a faction, if they can find one another.
If 1/10-1/3 are human controlled: The entertainment is working together to beat the numerically superior, but intellectually inferior AI, followed by inter-player politics, diplomacy and wars.
If >1/3 are human controlled: Nobody cares about the AI, it's doomed and the real diplomacy will between real, thinking people.

... But as everyone else have said, it's not nearly the same effort as to include extreme variations in the gameplay limitations of players.