Stellaris Dev Diary #237 - Reworking Unity, Part One

[Critical Ethics]

Well they're describing it as both - it seems that it both represents internal political power and also cultural cohesion; so a tyrannical empire which rules over everyone with an iron fist has a lot of unity.

I think that's why bureaucrats give unity - it's not that they make everyone feel more culturally united, it's that having a complicated Beurocracy allows you to bury people in red tape so they can't voice their objections effectively?

But yeah, it's entirely possible I've misunderstood - the concept does seem a little vague, like it covers several slightly different things (following ethics attraction, happiness, political power)?

This is why I'm in favour of multiple flavours of sources of unity. It's easy to argue for why bureaucrats, culture workers, certain leaders, religious leaders, and entertainers would each contribute to cultural unity and the ability to exert internal political pressure, but if you restrict it to just one or two of the above it quickly becomes a much weirder setup.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

I'm guessing one of two possibilities.

First, the Planetary designations can now be "leveled up" by investing Unity, increasing the benefits it provides. Swapping designations is still possible, but you'll lose the invested Unity.

Second, each planet gets its own Ascension tree you can access via a new page. The "perks" would be a mix of planetary specific options and political decisions which will provide incremental bonuses to certain aspects of the planet.

the latter sounds way better, imo. Would love the ability to customize my planets further, for both min/max and RP reasons.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

Well they're describing it as both - it seems that it both represents internal political power and also cultural cohesion; so a tyrannical empire which rules over everyone with an iron fist has a lot of unity.

I think that's why bureaucrats give unity - it's not that they make everyone feel more culturally united, it's that having a complicated Beurocracy allows you to bury people in red tape so they can't voice their objections effectively?

But yeah, it's entirely possible I've misunderstood - the concept does seem a little vague, like it covers several slightly different things (following ethics attraction, happiness, political power)?

That sounds an awful lot like "writing the script for the author". It's possible I suppose, but red tape does not really affect national cohesion realistically. If something like that was attempted, and the people hated you, I imagine red tape wouldn't stop a rebellion, as an example.

 

[Ridixo]

Emphasis mine. Influence isn't only going to come from fleets, there will still be other ways of getting influence. Fleets are just going to be one more.



I like the idea of other ways of getting influence, but the way things are going there seems to be a clearer divide between influence being used externally and unity internally. With unity taking over so many things influence will be left for expansion and the galactic community. I think alternate ways to get influence should, like fleet size, be based on things that would naturally lead to external political power. This could be things like; getting influence based on positive relations with other empires or getting a bonus based on how far one is ahead on tech.

Good idea. I like that

 

[Aksakov]

Seems nice and immersive but in so many ways could work differently as intended. I'm quite worried about the future development

 

[oreopirate]

That sounds an awful lot like "writing the script for the author". It's possible I suppose, but red tape does not really affect national cohesion realistically. If something like that was attempted, and the people hated you, I imagine red tape wouldn't stop a rebellion, as an example.

Personally, I have always imagined them as more than just beauracrats, as in one of any number of jobs that have beauracratic qualities. Below is the post of a user who summed my own thoughts in a perfect manner.

Since Stellaris has only the bureucrats go represent government jobs, I always imagined them as far more than just the guys measuring how much food must go towards each planet. I imagined them as the ones designing the teaching programs that allow your people to become educated, the supervisors ensuring corruption doesn't spread uncontested, the appraiser going from planet to planet trying to find what the people need or want, the coordinators that ensure everyone is working towards the same goal yet work is not duplicated, the ones in charge of revising laws and making sure the edicts become actual realities (you can go above edict cap is you have enough), etc. In essence, every gubernamental job dedicated to capacitate, coordinate and make sure the people of the empire still feel like they belong to the same empire, since the administrator only take care of their respective planets.

 

[BrokenSky]

That sounds an awful lot like "writing the script for the author". It's possible I suppose, but red tape does not really affect national cohesion realistically. If something like that was attempted, and the people hated you, I imagine red tape wouldn't stop a rebellion, as an example.

I mean Stellaris historically has suffered from several mechanics having several authors with different scripts.

Obviously being able to stop a revolt by wrapping them up in red tape seems silly, but it's possible you could stop them effectively coordinating (resulting in more crime and minor uprisings, but less in the way of major rebellions). I guess we'll have to wait to see how spending unity to mitigate de-cohesion works?

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Regardless of any of your other arguments, the Egyptian pyramids were not built using slave labour.

That said...



Megastructures still require alloys for construction as the material resource, the non-material resource (previously Influence) is now Unity as we are making Unity the "resource" to model internal political pressure, while Influence is external pressure.



There's other factors that play into it as well.

I love how you managed to read a four paragraph rant, then quote and reply to the most relevant bits like that! Your patience doesn't go unnoticed devs

 

[TheRevanchist25]

Speaking of administration - the job title "Administrator" does not exactly radiate "ruler stratum" in the same way "Executive", "High priest", "Noble" or "Science Director" do. Administrators are often more in the middle of an organization, rather than being at the top of the hierarchy.

What if the job name "Administrator" was moved to the specialist-level default unity generator job, instead of "Bureaucrat"?
The word "administrator" is more neutral than "bureaucrat", and it could more easily cover all of the aspects Gui10 mentioned.

(The current "Administrator" job would obviously need a new name then. Perhaps "Planetary administrator" or "Government official"?)

Obviously the name of the job should change based on government type and ethics selected. Possibly also taking into account the new planet ascensions. Like for example, If your an Imperialist Empire with the Entrenched Nobility, the planet leader should be a Prince or Princess, each planet their own Principality, or something, and Sector Governor's being Kings or Queens, since your Ruler is Emperor.

 

[Winterborn21-37]

Carefully optimistic - very interested to see what shape the changes take.
I like to see how the thought process behind all these massive changes formed from goals to practicalities - I can finally hit refresh button in the search engine until I see the new DD every Thursday

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Can't help but wonder if making these harder to quote is a company policy.

Several systems that used to cost Influence are now paid in Unity.

• Planetary Decisions that were formerly paid in Influence. Prices have been adjusted.
• Resettlement of pops. Abandoning colonies still costs Influence.
• Manipulation of internal Factions. Factions themselves will now produce Unity instead of Influence.

While not a bad thing in itself, abandoning colony actually in the same category as settling it (used to cost influence) or claiming a system. Each resource should have a purpose, since its introduction in 1.5, you're struggled to come up with purpose for Unity, which often overlapped with influence. Can't you start with deciding on actual boundaries resource should be used? Bad enough that alloys were initially perceived as "minerals for off-planet construction", but never lived up to that.

[*]Make tall play more viable, preferring to balance tall vs. wide play in favor of distinctiveness, and emphasizing differences between hives, machines, megacorps, and normal empires. (This does not necessarily mean that tall Unity focused empires will be the equal of wide Research focused ones, but they should have some things that they are good at and be more competitive in general than they are now.)

Tall and wide is distinctiveness in itself. Influencing playstyle would likely be more powerful than removing half of the resources - latter makes gestalts feel like an "easy mode" rather than distinct.

All means of increasing Administrative Capacity have been removed. While there are ways to reduce the Empire Sprawl generated by various sources, and this will be used to help differentiate gameplay between different empire types, empires will no longer be able to completely mitigate sprawl penalties. Penalties and sprawl generation values have been significantly modified.

Probably, good for balance. Will see when the actual numbers are known. Good to know you finally admit that bureaucrats were a mistake.

The Edicts Cap system has been removed. Toggled Edicts will have monthly Unity Upkeep which is modified by Empire Sprawl.

Seriously? Not that I mind, but what happened to finding out that people shy away from edicts exactly because they require upkeep?

Each empire has an Edicts Fund which subsidizes Edict Upkeep, reducing the amount you have to pay each month to maintain them. Things that previously increased Edict Capacity now generally increase the Edicts Fund, but some civics, techs, and ascension perks have received other thematic modifications.

Just... why? Can't you, for once, come up with something not overly convoluted and riddled with hidden under-the-hood mechanics, like simple upkeep reductions? Not only it would be easier for average person to understand (reducing ever growing learning curve), but also would likely require less computing resources.

Since these are pretty big changes that touch many game systems in so many ways, we’ve decided to put these changes up in a limited duration Open Beta on Steam for playtest and feedback. This will give us a chance to adjust values and modify some game interactions before the changes get pushed to live later on in the 3.3.x patch cycle, and we will continue improving on them in future Custodian releases.

Finally. Hope you can actually act on feedback (and have a way of organizing it), or the whole thing would be wasted.

A high Unity empire may be more resistant to negative effects deficits

So, not only you're endorsing players running negative economy, you're even considering of buffing it?

 

[TheRevanchist25]

Can't help but wonder if making these harder to quote is a company policy.



Just... why? Can't you, for once, come up with something not overly convoluted and riddled with hidden under-the-hood mechanics, like simple upkeep reductions? Not only it would be easier for average person to understand (reducing ever growing learning curve), but also would likely require less computing resources.

I've noticed that this is a very unfortunate trend in the Industry these days. Blizzard does the same thing, making overly convoluted systems nobody asked for, that they think are neat, that just makes the game overly bloated for no reason. Ofc, in Blizzards case, they typically spend the rest of their expansion cutting down, or removing those systems post release because all the negative feedback that they ignored pre-release ended up being correct. Paradox of course won't do that, because most devs don't. Most devs commit to their ideas, regardless of how badly they turn out in practice. Granted, that does not mean an Edict Fund WILL turn out badly, but as you said, it's unnecessary bloat that only contributes to making it harder to convince friends and co-workers to try out the game because their too intimidated by convoluted systems. I assume it's because Devs just think they're super Artsy and clever and a basic solution to a problem is "too mundane".

 

[Numida]

I'll ask the most obvious question and I know nobody even thought about it, bu WHAT ABOUT THE WIDE EMPIRES?
All you've said is about how you are going to BUFF THE TALL EMPIRES. As if playing wide empires is an absolute win of a strategy. If it wasn't obvious, I'll break it down:
- Wide empires are difficult to defend, since you have more touch points to defend and you need more time to move your fleets around.
- Having more systems does not provide enough of a reward to compensate: literally any system you can mine on loses to one respective job on a planet.
- The wider your empire, the more difficult it is to establish trade routes.
- You still need additional resource to keep up with growing empire: admin capacity. I would have whole planets designated to being bureaucratic hell just to keep up with the territories.

So, what's the genius idea behind punishing wide empires?

 

[Obeliskkai]

Planets full of bureaucrats maintaining the order of the empire are a common sci-fi trope, but admittedly a little dystopian. Maybe there's still a spot for Culture Workers out there.

I have to add my voice here to this point. Yes it is a common sci-fi trope but it's also a trope that chimes with the nature of the society that has them. Nobody is surprised that the Vogons dedicate so much time to the depressing drudgery of bureaucracy, but that trope does not easily overlay onto other kinds of civilizations.

Can you imagine the spiritual Minbari from Babylon 5 having whole worlds dedicated to such pursuits? And I doubt the warlike Klingons have another planet filled to the brim with Klingon bureaucrats toiling away at filling in the correct form in triplicate whilst everyone else goes off to die in glorious combat.

It strikes me as a one size fits all approach that just rubs against the multiplicity of empires we can create and seems to go against the stated design goal of creating more diverse government types that feel different. Whereas some empires would definitely have entire worlds filled to the brim with bureaucrats, having the same in a spiritualist empire as an example would just feel wrong. Rather than a world of bureaucrats, such an empire would surely have a world of quiet contemplation filled with temples where Priests would preach to the populace of the sanctity of their nation and their gods.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love where you are going with these changes and I am eagerly anticipating them, but citing the planet filled with bureaucrats trope rubs me the wrong way because, well, not everyone wants to be the Vogons.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

I'll ask the most obvious question and I know nobody even thought about it, bu WHAT ABOUT THE WIDE EMPIRES?
All you've said is about how you are going to BUFF THE TALL EMPIRES. As if playing wide empires is an absolute win of a strategy. If it wasn't obvious, I'll break it down:
- Wide empires are difficult to defend, since you have more touch points to defend and you need more time to move your fleets around.
- Having more systems does not provide enough of a reward to compensate: literally any system you can mine on loses to one respective job on a planet.
- The wider your empire, the more difficult it is to establish trade routes.

So, what's the genius idea behind punishing wide empires?

Because Tech Rushing, presumably. Which is a real problem, that needs addressed. I just think their going about it in the wrong way.

Also, there's no real debate that Wide is superior to Tall, but ofc, it should be, that's logically how that works. It's basically impossible to defend in game anyway, regardless of Tall vs Wide. Tall is ofc easier to defend due to travel time, but overall, Paradox has decided defending is terrible and evil and shouldn't be allowed regardless, so that issue is a wash. Wide Empires just have to spam Gateways across their territory to compensate.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

I've noticed that this is a very unfortunate trend in the Industry these days. Blizzard does the same thing, making overly convoluted systems nobody asked for, that they think are neat, that just makes the game overly bloated for no reason. Ofc, in Blizzards case, they typically spend the rest of their expansion cutting down, or removing those systems post release because all the negative feedback that they ignored pre-release ended up being correct. Paradox of course won't do that, because most devs don't. Most devs commit to their ideas, regardless of how badly they turn out in practice. I assume it's because Devs just think they're super Artsy and clever and a basic solution to a problem is "too mundane".

To be fair, it's a quite common thing with Paradox. You might even go as far as calling it their distinctive "feature": part of the reason their games were fairly niche, until their (relatively) recent drive to widen their target audience. Sure, as a result of that certain aspect of game get "dumbed down", and while I may be sad to see some of that complexity go, often it comes with vastly improved usability - a much more important aspect than slightly more "realistic" calculations.

It is my understanding that, in their majority, people do not want to spend hours upon hours on youtube, external wiki, or even in-game tutorial (provided it's adequate enough, which often is not the case) just to learn how to play - it's not a sport or a job - it's an entertainment, and thus should be reasonably simple. New mechanics might be good, and often needed (like making gestalts gameplay actually feel different in more ways that "simpler"), but there are just as often times when they are uncalled for, if only because they up the learning curve, reducing potential revenue.

 

[TheRevanchist25]

To be fair, it's a quite common thing with Paradox. You might even go as far as calling it their distinctive "feature": part of the reason their games were fairly niche, until their (relatively) recent drive to widen their target audience. Sure, as a result of that certain aspect of game get "dumbed down", and while I may be sad to see some of that complexity go, often it comes with vastly improved usability - a much more important aspect than slightly more "realistic" calculations.

It is my understanding that, in their majority, people do not want to spend hours upon hours on youtube, external wiki, or even in-game tutorial (provided it's adequate enough, which often is not the case) just to learn how to play - it's not a sport or a job - it's an entertainment, and thus should be reasonably simple. New mechanics might be good, and often needed (like making gestalts gameplay actually feel different in more ways that "simpler"), but there are just as often times when they are uncalled for, if only because they up the learning curve, reducing potential revenue.

It's definitely true that it drives away potential new customers. I cannot convince several friends to buy Stellaris or Crusader Kings, no matter what I do. Their too intimidated by the systems involved and, to your point, feel like they shouldn't have to spend hours of their life on youtube or wikis learning how to do anything. It took years for me to finally buy CK2 for the same exact reasons. Which is not to say complexity is bad, it's definitely not. I think it's fair to say most ppl who play the game wants more fleshed out systems. There are several mechanics in this game that are so basic that their inclusion is utterly pointless and need to be seriously reworked and expanded. Edicts is not one of those things. Adding an Edict Fun isn't depth, it's just bloat.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Seriously? Not that I mind, but what happened to finding out that people shy away from edicts exactly because they require upkeep?

Just... why? Can't you, for once, come up with something not overly convoluted and riddled with hidden under-the-hood mechanics, like simple upkeep reductions? Not only it would be easier for average person to understand (reducing ever growing learning curve), but also would likely require less computing resources.

Because the first covers the second, and the old model of admin sprawl increase for more edicts over capacity won't work anymore.

The implication of the new edict fund system is bifurcated as it is rather than a single flat modifier to avoid requiring upkeep-only edicts, and to reduce the upkeep limited.

Edict funds are a more flexible form of the edict cap system, except now edicts can be based around cost and not simply a number. Instead of a flat 'choose 5' that leads to the most powerful five picks, you now have a 'choose however many reaches your fund limit,' which itself can be changed with civics or techs and presumably authorities.

This is the new system for people who don't like upkeep, because that's what the fund cap covers- upkeep-free edicts.


When you DO go over, the old/current system's admin upkeep penalty is more bureaucrats to manage the 25% sprawl increase. This is a non-starter in a system in which you can't raise admin cap. Thus, the use of unity for upkeep instead, which fits the new theme of unity as your empire-internal resource.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Because the first covers the second, and the old model of admin sprawl increase for more edicts over capacity won't work anymore.

The implication of the new edict fund system is bifurcated as it is rather than a single flat modifier to avoid requiring upkeep-only edicts, and to reduce the upkeep limited.

Edict funds are a more flexible form of the edict cap system, except now edicts can be based around cost and not simply a number. Instead of a flat 'choose 5' that leads to the most powerful five picks, you now have a 'choose however many reaches your fund limit,' which itself can be changed with civics or techs and presumably authorities.

This is the new system for people who don't like upkeep, because that's what the fund cap covers- upkeep-free edicts.


When you DO go over, the old/current system's admin upkeep penalty is more bureaucrats to manage the 25% sprawl increase. This is a non-starter in a system in which you can't raise admin cap. Thus, the use of unity for upkeep instead, which fits the new theme of unity as your empire-internal resource.

Introducing edict upkeep and in exactly same update introducing mechanic to eliminate newly introduced edict upkeep (but only up to a certain threshold) seems contradictory.

 

[Mila34]

Introducing edict upkeep and in exactly same update introducing mechanic to eliminate newly introduced edict upkeep (but only up to a certain threshold) seems contradictory.

It doesn't seem contradictory to me. The Edict fund makes sense to me on two levels.

Firstly, it allows players to interact with the edicts mechanic from the start of the game without either completely halting Traditions progress, since Unity production is limited at the start, or having to vastly increase early game Unity and watch players sail through the first few Tradition trees.

Secondly, it gives players the ability to focus their empire on an edict heavy playstyle without directly overlapping with a Unity heavy playstyle.

That actually gives me an idea of how to solve the whole Bureaucrats/Cultural Workers situation. Keep both (for normal empires) with Cultural Workers being the Unity provider and Bureaucrats increasing the Edicts fund, with outputs balanced such that a Bureaucrat gives more Edict Upkeep through the Edict Fund than a Cultural Worker would through Unity.