• 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 #237 - Reworking Unity, Part One

Доступно на русском в ВК/Read in Russian on VK

Welcome back! We hope you’ve all had a wonderful few weeks.

Today we’ll start with some more information about the goals of the Unity Rework mentioned in Dev Diary 215 (and briefly in 234), some updates on how things have been going so far, and our plans going forward.

Please note: All values and screen captures shown here are still very much in development and subject to change.

Identified Problems and Design Goals

Currently in Stellaris, Unity is an extremely weak resource that can generally be ignored, and due to the current implementation of Admin Capacity, the Empire Sprawl mechanic is largely toothless - leading to wide tech rushing being an oppressively powerful strategy. Since Unity is currently very easily generated through incidental means and provides minimal benefits, Empires have little need to develop a Unity generation base, and Spiritualist ethics are unattractive.

Influence is currently used for many internal and external interactions, making it a valuable resource, but it sometimes feels too limiting.

Our basic design goals for the Unity Rework can be summarized as:
  • Unity should be a meaningful resource that represents the willingness of your empire to band together for the betterment of society and their resilience towards negative change.
    • Unity should be more valuable than it is now, and empires focused on Unity generation should be interesting to play.
      • Spiritualist empires should have a satisfying niche to exploit and be able to feel that they are good at something.
      • The number of sources of incidental Unity from non-dedicated jobs should be reduced.
      • Empires that do not focus on Unity (but do not completely ignore it) should still be able to acquire their Ascension Perks by the late game.
    • Reward immersive decisions with Unity grants whenever possible.
    • Internal empire matters should generally utilize Unity.
      • Provide more ways to spend Unity.
      • Rebalance the way edicts work (again).
  • Reduce the oppressive impact of tech rushing by reintroducing some rubber-banding mechanics.
  • 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.)
  • In the late game, Unity focused empires should have a benefit to look forward to similar to the repeatable technologies a Research focused empire would have.
In this iteration we have focused on some of these bullets more than others, but will continue to refine the systems over future Custodian releases.

So What Are We Doing?

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.
  • The Capital designation, for instance, now also reduces Empire Sprawl generated by Pops on the planet.
1641998332819.png


Bureaucrats, Priests, Managers, Synapse Drones, and Coordinators will be the primary sources of Unity for various empire types. Culture Workers have been removed.

Autochthon Memorials (and similar buildings) now increase planetary Unity production and themselves produce Unity based on the number of Ascension Perks the Empire has taken. Being monuments, they no longer require workers.

1641998343919.png

These monuments are now planet-unique, and can be built by Spiritualist empires.

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

1641998361029.png

As an example, some Bureaucratic technologies now modify the Edicts Fund.

1641998374401.png

The Imperial Cult will squander any excess Edicts Fund on icons of the God Emperor at the end of the month. No refunds!

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.
Since Factions are no longer producing Influence, a small amount of Influence is now generated by your fleet, based on Power Projection - a comparison of your fleet size and Empire Sprawl.

Leaders now cost Unity to hire rather than Energy. They also have a small amount of Unity Upkeep. We understand that this increases the relative costs of choosing to hire several scientists at the start of the game for exploration purposes, or when “cycling” leader traits, as you are now choosing between Traditions and Leaders..

1641998387012.png

And then some empires go and break all the rules.

Most Megastructures now cost Unity rather than Influence, with the exception of any related to travel (such as Gateways) or that provide living space (such as Habitats and Ring Worlds).

Authority bonuses have (unsurprisingly) undergone some changes again, as several of them related to systems that no longer exist or operate differently now.

When Will This Happen?

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.

We’ll provide more details on the specifics of how the Open Beta will be run in next week's dev diary.

What Else is Planned?

As noted earlier, we’d like Unity to also reflect the resilience of your empire to negative effects. A high Unity empire may be more resistant to negative effects deficits or possibly even have their pops rise up to help repel invaders, but these ideas are still in early development and will not be part of this Open Beta or release. They’ll likely be tied to the evolving Situations that we mentioned in Dev Diary 234 - we’ll talk about those more in the future once their designs are finalized.

Next week I’ll go into details regarding the Open Beta, go over a new system that is meant to provide “tall” and Unity focused empires some significant mid to late game benefits called Planetary Ascension Tiers, and share details on another little something from one of our Content Designers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 169Like
  • 106Love
  • 21
  • 19
  • 12
  • 2Haha
Reactions:
I think it still will be. If Unity would become so much important and not limited to recruiting leaders, then a civic or a trait pick that generates more unity would be much more beneficial than a civic/trait that allows to recruit leaders less.
Some choices would be forever bound to RP it seems
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was talking about other people's debris. If you're in a war against someone far superior in tech you won't get access to debris because they will kill you.
It is.
"Just become someone's vassal" is a bad way of doing it
Only battles you're part of spawn debris for you. Debris is individual to each empire.

And yes, you will get access to it and the superior empire won't kill you. This is Stellaris, the AI isn't that competent and will only get a few systems from you at most even if they have several times your fleet power. I always get tons of tech from debris when playing on Grand Admiral.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Only battles you're part of spawn debris for you. Debris is individual to each empire.
Oh, right. So it's even more of a non-viable option for the wars that you're losing
And yes, you will get access to it and the superior empire won't kill you. This is Stellaris, the AI isn't that competent and will only get a few systems from you at most even if they have several times your fleet power. I always get tons of tech from debris when playing on Grand Admiral.
I was talking about the design choice of the game in general rather than braindead's AI choices. The player would rarely be behind in tech in the first place
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, right. So it's even more of a non-viable option for the wars that you're losing

I was talking about the design choice of the game in general than braindead's AI choices
Sounds to me like you just don't want to put in any effort and want to just get tech for free when playing poorly. I've listed many ways to actively catch up on tech when you're behind, and those methods certainly work for me. Either way it does sound like you'll have it easier with the new system one way or another, so enjoy.
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
Sounds to me like you just don't want to put in any effort and want to just get tech for free when playing poorly. I've listed many ways to actively catch up on tech when you're behind, and those methods certainly work for me. Either way it does sound like you'll have it easier with the new system one way or another, so enjoy.
Actually why I want this system is that so others around me, like AI, won't fall behind to much. As I said, against AI-only the player would rarely fall behind in tech in the first place
 
  • 7Like
  • 3
Reactions:
From my experience with the systems thus far, wide is still very effective (and if I want to be less diplomatic, it's still more powerful overall) but these changes give tall play some niches that skilled players can exploit.

I will wait until the Beta but I am genuinely concerned by taking huge risks all game long just to be beaten at the end of the game by some dudes on the other end of the galaxy that did litteraly nothing appart "playing tall" (which is just turtling in the corner with no risk involved).
 
  • 4
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
i like the idea of implictly buffing spiritual empires, i really dont like the idea of nerving wide empires. More pops = more of everything. Tall empires are unrealistically powerful in stellaris as is imho

I know right.
Like a city could stand in the way of the whole roman empire because the city is "tall" lol.
 
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:
You'll be able to reassign their jobs, but won't be able to permanently fire them. While they have a job, they don't cost Unity, so that scientist that developed half a dozen negative traits gets put on a ship and sent to explore until he dies.
So if they are unemployed they will cost some unity. My personal reaction to this is I’d rather leave them unemployed till they die rather than waste them on a science ship. And if it’s a governer, well, they can’t be on a science ship anyway and would only die of old age. Couldn’t we just pay a flat unity rate to dismiss the unwanted leader? Seems cleaner than leaving unemployed leaders around (some of which may be effectively immortal). Might fit better with the mechanics and still help prevent cycling through leaders - something I don’t do. But I don’t keep say a corrupt governor. I fire them.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I strongly agree with the guy you were replying to, and to your bit here as well. Please do keep Culture Workers in the game in some capacity.
A suggestion to keep them included;

It's likely Entertainers will have their Unity output removed as incidental sources of Unity are being cut down on.

An edict could be introduced called 'Fund the Arts' which could add Culture Workers to Holotheatres, the Capitol Building or even a scaling 'per 20 pops' modifier to all planets.

Culture Worker output would probably have to be delicately balanced, as having an edict indirectly generate the resource paying for its upkeep is a strong candidate for being constantly active, but I do there is significant roleplaying scope available with Edicts providing more than percentage modifiers.
 
  • 6
  • 1Like
Reactions:
These changes are so big, I need give some feedback. Stellaris's claim system needs changes, to smooth out the war game and system sprawl issues I can see coming from these changes.

I think that we should separate claims, from occupations, and you should not need a outpost to claim a system but rather you claim a system with influence, but to exploit system resources you would need to build a outpost. Doing so will cost you system sprawl. This should apply to war too, say I want to make war I can choose to occupy claims or just claim the system abandoning all structures in the system but still making so people who I have diplomacy with can not occupy it.

Certain empires can ignore all unoccupied claims, determined exterminators, fanatical purifiers, Barbaric Despoilers. Though all empires can choose ignore your claim doing so will iniate war with opposing nation. Claims should not be instant and must be explored/intel before you can claim said system, fleets in the system should speed up the claim, opposing stronger fleet power will determine who gets the claim.

At least this is what I thought of to help make war and sprawl penalty feel less harsh going forward. This could also lead to rebalancing system resources, and increasing occupation sprawl penalty.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Given the changes to unity, are there any changes planned for the psionic ascension? It is currently the most flavorful, but weakest mechanically of the three, so buffing it would be nice.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Couple thoughts.

-I really hope that a leader system rework is on the radar because these change are likely to really highlight how lacking the current system is. Right now they are pretty boring stack sticks that annoy players when they get negative traits (mainly arrested development, which is both way too common and really obnoxious to deal with) or when they finally die. They really should be something with pros and cons. Also while assignment makes sense for governors, admirals and generals. Scientists would probably work better as something that modifies the whole research institution. To be blunt I don't care for how the game incentivizes me to shuffle scientists around to maximize bonuses. If I need to check up on scientists after I've hired them and they are still alive, it really should be for actual god damn events, not "let me go put my voidcraft scientist in charge of engineering to speed up research on habitats, while I stick my industry scientist on a ship and then when that research is done, likely switch out the voidcraft scientist for another specialized scientist to boost research speed for whatever I research next." I'll be blunt it's bad design because it's neither fun, nor an interesting choice. Unity upkeep is just going to make leaders more annoying, if the system for leaders stays as is.

-I'm worried this is going to disadvantage egalitarian, if wide is still strong since that means the ethic will have less influence to claim systems, while authoritarianism still has the increased influence gains.

-I don't mind the fleet idea for influence gains. Just wondering, if maybe some of the piracy mechanics could be tweaked to incorporate the unity system. Currently, the piracy system is obnoxious because piracy can increased to infinity, which means there is an incentive to not centralize trade routes because that can lead to needing more corvettes than one wants to waste alloys and naval capacity on, while also making gateways extremely desirable. A unity mechanic to reduce piracy, could go some ways to give tall some more oomph, while reigning in wide's advantage some.

-I'm hoping the weakening of wide, will make conquest a little less attractive. Though since we're on the subject of trying to balance out tall and wide. The claim system needs another look. It shouldn't be possible for people to get claims down to zero influence. Also to be blunt, it doesn't make much sense for it to cost more influence to claim an unowned system, while it takes less to claim someone else's system. It should be the opposite. Unowned systems should be cheaper to claim because no one owns them and thus raise a stink and your own pops are less worried about it causing problem, while claiming someone else's system not only makes them mad, but causes non-war happy pops to worry about a potential conflict. I imagine wide would take a decent nerf, if we could only get a few systems per war, rather than dozens of systems. This would also require having claims to expire unless they are refreshed because currently, a grumpy AI claiming your worst border systems, can hose diplomacy options for the rest of the game; especially, if they just keep stack claims.

-I like he idea of using influence for espionage, so I hope you guys look into that idea. Would help to allow it to be an alternative to diplomacy. Both could use some work, with espionage needing the most work. Diplomacy probably would be helped by wide being weaker, so that we have an incentive to want allies and vassals.
 
  • 10Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I know right.
Like a city could stand in the way of the whole roman empire because the city is "tall" lol.
The problem isn't that big empires are too powerful relative to small ones. It's that they will always grow more powerful at a faster rate thanks to how research and pop growth work with in the current system. Makes it way too easy to snowball.
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So if they are unemployed they will cost some unity. My personal reaction to this is I’d rather leave them unemployed till they die rather than waste them on a science ship. And if it’s a governer, well, they can’t be on a science ship anyway and would only die of old age. Couldn’t we just pay a flat unity rate to dismiss the unwanted leader? Seems cleaner than leaving unemployed leaders around (some of which may be effectively immortal). Might fit better with the mechanics and still help prevent cycling through leaders - something I don’t do. But I don’t keep say a corrupt governor. I fire them.
You realize that is only for feudal society right?
EDIT:
More accurately leaders will cost unity upkeep, but are free when employed for nations with feudal society. Feudal society however makes it so that you can not fire leaders.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Autochthon Memorials (and similar buildings) now increase planetary Unity production and themselves produce Unity based on the number of Ascension Perks the Empire has taken.
Is that going to be based on number of perk slots unlocked or perk slots filled? Quite frequently I end up leaving perk slots open as they await the necessary technology to take (or even more annoyingly, leaving one slot open because I don't have the tech and leaving a second slot open because it's waiting on the first one so it can meet the number-of-previously-taken-perks prerequisite; seriously, Machine Empires have too many "need two previous perks" and too few "need one previous perk" options). I'd hate for this strategy to unnecessarily gimp my empire while I'm waiting for needed prerequisites to roll.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Do standard Ruler jobs still produce Unity? Unity production seemed to be a core focus of Ruler jobs, and it's unclear whether saying the Specialist Unity jobs are the 'main source' means that Ruler Unity production is one of the incidental sources being stripped, or whether the Specialist jobs are the main way to INCREASE Unity beyond the baseline provided by Rulers.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Since Factions are no longer producing Influence, a small amount of Influence is now generated by your fleet, based on Power Projection - a comparison of your fleet size and Empire Sprawl.

New meta: 100 weaponless, driveless corvettes in the early game for influence to rush expansion.
 
  • 10Haha
  • 2Love
  • 2
Reactions:
Nice, back to the Dev Diaries with the stuff a lot of us have been waiting \o/

Hope the holidays/vacation time was both refreshing and productive for the ideas brewing :cool:

Now to the text walling after a month of dev diaries abstinence ;)
(TL;DR on the end for convenience)


Overall, the goals of the Unity Rework presented look coherent given the current state of Unity as a resource and the problems related to the Admin Cap effects (or more precisely, lack of effects). Most of the changes shown do make sense given those objectives, and I'm curious to see what next week will bring, and to try out these changes on the open beta latter on (having the open beta is truly one of the best news, given the scale of the proposed changes), thought some do seem odd:

-- Something I have been hoping for some time was to have the Empire Capital designation be converted a planetary modifier (and have a lesser version for sector capitals), and we be allowed to use the normal designations on the Capital, or have a set of buffed up versions of the planetary designations for the Capital, it's specially annoying that we can't use the capital as a proper Forge / Factory world if needed.

-- I'm adding my opinion to the growing chorus that having unity be produced by Bureaucrats is, weird (outside of a byzantine bureaucracy empire of course, in those, lets fill up those triple form signed papers, for the glory of our people!). While the old culture workers were in a odd position, generating both unity and society research (and sound too generic), maybe having the job be 'Artists', 'Propagandists', 'Proselytizers' or something along these lines, depending on empire Ethics, would be more fitting. Bureaucrats would fit more a job revolving around planetary stability, in my opinion.

-- Monuments being Spiritualist exclusive feels odd, did the Temples get removed too in the culture worker removal process? And Authoritarian do look like the sort of ethos that would be into having some statues around praising the achievements of the empire... XD

-- The Power Projection mechanic sounds interesting, if I'm getting the idea right, it would be a way to represent the effect of having part of your fleet 'being used to control your territory' in a way, so the bigger your fleet in relation to your empire size, more of that fleet remains can be used to assert your presence outside of your space, so more Influence gains. The idea sounds good, now, if that will work is hanging on the balance of the numbers involved (given that starbase count is still bound to system numbers somewhat, which can be used to get more naval cap... see the cycle forming...). I'd be more inclined to have empire sprawl impact naval capacity more directly, if the 'you need a big fleet for big empire to work' is a concept that want to be explored, and have influence come from other sources, so to avoid the eventual problems that some people already pointed out with pacifist gameplay and 'over-aggression incentives'.

-- The idea of the Feudal Society Leaders being a more 'permanent court' of leaders could be more interesting if we had more uses for extra leaders, or if the idle ones generated some events, maybe related to each belonging to a faction (or a 'noble house' in that case), which would tie in with the Situations mechanics neatly in the future. Right now just looks like an odd side effect. But truth be told, Leaders in general have been on a odd spot for some time, maybe with a more in depth factions/institutions mechanics overhauling, that can be addressed.



Curious to see what those Planetary Ascension Tiers are, I'm all for ways to have more compact, denser empires (what I understand as the definition of 'tall' play the devs are considering), without having to spam habitats all around as the only option.


On the topic of the 'tall' play viability and the 'wide tech rush' problems, I'm not sure yet how the unity rework will factor on that directly, without the empire sprawl hitting unity production/consumption heavily, and that being quite a hit to a over-expansionist empire. The general impression on that question that I have got from my own games, and from the many, many, many, treads that always pop up here on the forums are:

-- Pops still are the key resource for all empires (if that is a problem or not is another question), and now after the last round of pop growth adjustments, stealing other empire pops, either by direct conquest or raiding bombardment tends to be a very strong strategy, without an viable alternative.

-- Gains from aggressive conquest overall are too 'quick' and not costly enough, conquering a totally opposite ethos empire in early game should not be just a military challenge, but also a management one, as such a conquered population would not be easily integrated into your empire or controlled, without some heavy costs, investment and planning.

-- Even now, one can just ignore all the sprawl penalties and just spam research labs on new colonies, and still be on a net gain in research speed.

-- There is no mechanic to differentiate what would be your empire 'core' worlds and the distant frontier extraction colonies or conquered territories, a captured enemy empire capital, full of research labs, on another arm of the galaxy, is quickly just as productive as a same set up planet in a star system one jump form your capital, which is also odd (some new internal intelligence/espionage, or other overlooked mechanics, like piracy, government ethic shift, proper trade routes could be useful here).

There is a lot more to the whole 'tall' thing (and a might try starting another one of those treads to share my thoughts, if I can get them on a readable form XD), but this points seem to be the most problematic on the current implementation (at least form what I see always popping up on the most recent treads about it).



An on a final tangent after that bloat of text, one thing that could be very opportune now with the Unity rework, is also giving another pass on the traditions and ascension perks, now that the new framework for selectable traditions is in place (and worked quite well), and unity is getting its so long deserved buff, it could be a good idea reconsider the function that traditions fill in the game. Right now they are both the stepping stone to get the ascension perks, and also (with few exceptions) some light and generic bonuses that still are not that impactful overall (though they are better now than on previous iterations).

Something that traditions could do better is being the 'niche powerups' that help buff our empire in specific ways (like a tradition about cloned/cyborgs/pys pops, ship/weapons specific fleets, space mining, terraforming, more niche stuff like that), in contrast of the more ample and direct buffs that tech provides. That would both help buff spiritualists on comparison to materialist current tech dominance, and make the dichotomy between both ethos have a more grounded contrast on gameplay (instead of the arbitrary 'robots good/bad' we have now)...
(This leads to another point about the overall 'logic' behind the spiritualist-materialist axis, and if they should get the same treatments the old collectivist-individualist axis got, which is also a recurrent topic, but that's another point...)



TL;DR

- Changes looking nice, but some details are odd.
- Save culture workers, bureaucrats generating unity is affecting forum unity, in a bad way. =(
- Not sure how this will help 'tall' (compact, dense empire) play, 'wide tech rush' broken more from conquest being too quick/easy/low-cost, pops still being the key resource, and form admin cap being mostly ignorable. Will have to wait next week for more sweet details.
- Maybe use the moment to make traditions more impactful, varied and niche, so to better compete with tech more 'generic' buffs, makes the gameplay difference from spiritualist-materialist ethic axis more grounded and relevant.
 
  • 7
  • 5Like
Reactions: