• 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 #245 - We have a Situation

Welcome to this week’s dev diary! Eladrin is busy with something exciting this week, so I’ve been roped into writing about the almost as exciting new Situations system we will be adding in the next patch.

The idea for implementing this system comes from the realisation that Stellaris provides excellent systems to tell stories about things that have happened - e.g. anomalies and archaeology sites - but lacks a good structure through which to tell stories about things which are happening right now. While we have a number of such stories, they are often either not as complex as we’d like them to be (e.g. we’d prefer to have more factors taken into account), or they are disproportionately complicated for us to implement (i.e. time-consuming and bug-prone). Either way, the player experience is often not as we’d like it, since such stories and event chains are likely to be hard to follow, and it may not always be clear that events are connected to each other or why certain things happen.

This was a state of affairs we wanted to improve upon, so we decided to implement a system which aimed to:
  • Give players an interactive and informative interface by which to experience current affairs event chains.
  • Provide a structure that is (relatively) easy to add new content to.

Initially, we took some inspiration from Disasters in EU4, but we soon diverged from it, since we realised not all the stories we wanted to tell were disasters, and we wanted a more UX-intensive solution. The result can be shown off in this mockup:

1646842176465.png

Note that this is a mockup - so not necessarily how the final UI will look.

To unpack this a bit, the flow progresses something like this:
  1. The Situation starts. This could happen e.g. through an event. The Situation can either be empire-wide, or it can be focused e.g. on a single planet
    1646842816635.png

    Event text is final.
  2. Each month, the Situation’s “progress” will tick upwards or downwards, depending on your response to the Situation.
    1646842610214.png

    A WIP tooltip showing the monthly change. It'll list all contributing factors.
  3. As the Situation progresses, you may reach the next “stage”. Often, an event will be fired as soon as this happens, to develop the story. Effects can also be applied to the empire or planet based on the current stage, e.g. an instability-based Situation may reduce stability by 10 for each stage.
  4. There may also be random events along the way that can happen on any monthly tick. To distinguish Situation-based events from regular ones, some tweaks have been made to the event interface:
    1646842979882.png
  5. The player can choose how to respond to a Situation via a selection of “Approaches”. On occasion, one might be prompted to change these via events, but otherwise, one can freely pick them in the Situations interface. (We have not yet decided whether there should generally be a cooldown to picking an option). Approaches usually have effects over time, such as “spend X Unity per month to gain faster progress”.
  6. When either end of the Situation’s progress bar is reached, the Situation is resolved, usually through an event in which something happens.

Some Situations will progress in a linear manner from left to right, others will start you in the middle and progress either to the left or to the right based on your choices. And we also want them to be differently coloured depending on how threatening the Situation is:

1646842264908.png

This is also a mockup.

This is all a bit theoretical, so, what changes can players expect in practice? Now I will take you through a few of the things we have done and are doing with the Situations system.

Narrative Situations

Content Design often implements narrative-based event chains set on a certain planet. Now, if we feel like the story has a bit more to give, a planet-based Situation can be crafted instead. The ability to have different outcomes at either end of the progress bar is particularly useful, since it can show which sort of conclusion the player is advancing towards (or at least indicate that there are multiple). To avoid giving spoilers, I won’t say exactly what stories we’ve added in this way, but there will be a few new planet-based narratives to encounter.

The “targeting” function of Situations is not limited to planets (though most of our effort has been towards making it work well there), so we have also managed to try adding a Situation based around a system or starbase.

Owners of the Leviathans DLC - or other DLCs that add Leviathan NPCs to the game - can also expect a few surprises next time they go monster-hunting ;)

Deficit Situations

Situations are not all fun and games. As their origin as EU4 Disasters would suggest, they are a great system through which to portray negative events. They give the player all the information they need to know what is happening, what the results of it will be, how severe the current Situation is, and what they can do about it.

One of our main priorities when it comes to using this aspect of Situations was reworking Deficits. At the moment, Deficits are like a light switch: as soon as you are in deficit (stockpile of 0 and negative income) for a given resource, you get all the defined penalties for being in that deficit (which can be quite harsh). But as soon as you spend a month no longer in deficit, all penalties are removed. This feels a bit off. Also, the penalties are the same for all empires, which has frequently led to headaches where they either disproportionately impacted a certain type of empire or left others (say, one with less need of a certain resource) relatively untouched. Finally, they can also be a cause for “death spirals” (in particular for the AI), as a shortage of one resource leads to penalties, which leads to a shortage of another resource.

With our rework, being in a deficit will start a Situation. You will start at 25% progress in this Situation, and it will increase in severity as long as you are at 0 balance and have a negative income. The rate of increase will depend on how much you are losing compared to your income. Having a stockpile will gradually make the Situation tick downwards; having a positive income will make it do so more rapidly.

1646843561944.png

This is the actual UI as it looks like right now. We are hard at work finishing it up and making it look presentable!

The penalties you receive for being in a deficit will start off light compared to their present settings, but will increase in severity as the Situation escalates. We are also able to configure them depending on your empire’s attributes, so for instance a Catalytic empire will now correctly get alloy output problems for being in a food deficit.

We aim to give each deficit Situation a choice of approaches, so that you can try to mitigate it from within the interface. So, for instance, a consumer goods shortage might be mitigated by electing to defund scientists, with the result that researchers cost less upkeep but also produce less research.

If however the deficit continues to grow, at 75% progress an event will fire which will warn that your empire is in truly dire financial straits and will need to make cutbacks soon. It will suggest a few, and you can pay a price (e.g. devastating a planet, or removing a special resource deposit) in return for some immediate resources that might help you alleviate the deficit.

1646843965654.png

Numbers not final

Finally, if the deficit becomes so severe that the progress bar is filled up, the empire is declared bankrupt. This is an unambiguously bad thing to happen to you - current effects (numbers to be finalised) are downgrading all non-capital buildings to their lowest level, disbanding half the fleet and all the armies, and giving 25% higher costs, 25% less ship damage, and 50% less unity and influence for 10 years. But it’s also designed to avoid death spirals: in return for liquidating these assets, you are given enough of the resource you defaulted on to survive for a while. Additionally, all other deficit Situations you are currently experiencing are terminated immediately, without penalty, and you are granted some resources to avoid them returning too soon.

1646844063692.png

Numbers are subject to change.

Changes are likely to come to this design as we continue to play with the new system and iron out its kinks, but we are hopeful that this new version of deficits will resolve many of the issues with the current deficits system, and make deficits, if not exactly fun to experience, at least a more interesting and less frustrating game mechanic.

Further “Strategic” Situations

We have further plans to overhaul systems or features using Situations. For these (unlike the Situations listed above), we can’t guarantee that they will definitely be in the next patch, but we are looking to adapt the likes of slave revolts, planetary separatism revolts, and the Synthetic Dawn AI Uprising to this new system.

With regards to the AI Uprising: we are broadly happy with the way the chain works now, but there are a few improvements to be made, and we feel that it would be beneficial to the player to be able to experience it through a UI. For instance, it has a bunch of events that an experienced player would recognise as warning signs that they should do something about it, but the inexperienced player would not know what is up and would not stop it from happening. With the Situations system, experienced and inexperienced players alike would know that something is up. However, this also makes it easier to know that you should do something about it, so we are also looking at making it a bit more challenging than just changing species right to end the Situation - after all, the robots are still extremely annoyed at you having deprived them of sentience for all these years! We are also looking at making purging the robots a viable if high-risk approach, at least so long as you don’t have too many robots.

With planetary revolts and slave uprisings, we have a feature that hasn’t seen much love for many a patch even as the game has changed around it, so we hope to improve it in a variety of aspects. At the moment, it would be fair to say that the unrest events are more a nuisance than a threat: revolts feel like they come out of the blue, but don’t have much teeth, as you can usually just conquer back the planet (since one planet alone cannot hope to stand against your empire). Our changes to this system are at a fairly early stage, but our goals include:
  • Make revolts feel less random - they will no longer happen suddenly, and whether unrest turns into a successful revolt will depend more reliably on factors such as how many pops are on the planet, and just how annoyed they are.
  • Smooth out issues such as one habitat in a system revolting leading to the loss of all planets in the system. The opinions of other planets in the system should have an impact on the success of the revolt.
  • Improve the system where planets can sometimes join other empires after the revolt. (At the moment, this can happen in separatist revolts if the original owner still exists and is nearby, and in slave revolts if there is an egalitarian empire nearby). Basically, they should be asked in advance if they wish to support the revolt, at which point it should progress faster, but on the other hand, the other side will know this is happening. Also, we may want to review the conditions for revolts joining other empires, since in some cases a completely annexed empire might have each planet revolt to form its own micronation.
  • We are toying with the idea of removing the stage where planets have ground combat during rebellions. Troops stationed there can be factored in during the buildup stage instead.
  • Ideally, a successful rebellion would start a war with the previous owner, but would also be a bit more of a potential threat. We’ll see what we manage to come up with, here.

That’s all for now! Except to add that, since an old version of the cheat sheet for what all Situations can do is actually available to you in 3.3, I’m attaching the new and updated version of this, so that those inclined can make plans for what to do with the system.

And keep an eye out for Eladrin’s dev diary next week. You won’t want to miss it.
 

Attachments

  • 00_situations.txt
    3,6 KB · Views: 0
  • 131Like
  • 93Love
  • 11
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh wow, great feature to implement! Increasing the depth of the game is always welcome. There are a few pointers I'd like to mention and wish to address, if it isn't an issue.

Will all event chains that feature progress eventually migrate to Outstanding Situations? Orbital Speed Demon, Nemma breeding and Atomic Countdown comes to mind.

This system seems perfect for inflicting espionage harm (through the espionage screen) without it being too OP because it allows counterspy efforts (through the situation screen.) Maybe it can be done, even if at "hack" (espionage finishes operation, starting the outstanding situation in the other empire)?

This also seems perfect for Terraforming and allowing some depth in the terraforming mechanic. Now the planet might be done faster with more resources or at the cost of a negative planetary modifier. Or the other way around, it can be done slower to ensure perfect outcomes and special planetary features. Genetic modification can also be done this way.

To finish it all, I'd like to kindly request a fix for the species panel which always bug out when xenocompatibility is turned on, creating new species from hybrids instead of subspecies or subhybrids. It really ruins the feature.
 
Last edited:
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will some anomalies be reworked to fit into the new situation system? There are a ton I believe would fit perfectly :)
 
What a convincing argument. I totally understand what you think is wrong.
u want a actual argument that me and others have already made multiple times to be repeated again ok.
the current sprawls system is a nerf to tall and favours wide as the debuffs to going super wide can be offset and beated by building a few extra science buildings basically replacing the old bureaucrats. how ever where tall before did not need as many bureaucrats they would build extra science instead to stay up to pace with tech using the civs they save by not having bureaucrats taking up the pop.

however with the current meta due to the failed sprawl chance tall if forced to go wide to compete with tech where the already wide players just build more and more science to out pace the debuffs. in tested games during the same time period going wide i have 3 times the output of a tall empire with only a 25% debuff effecting my empire tell me how is that balanced in any way shape or form ? the debuff to balance playing wide is being offset by science buildings and the basically free pop i have gained by not building bureaucrats ie instead of 20+ bureaucrats i gained 20 scientists and tall has gained nothing at all as u did not build more then 2 or 3 bureaucrats at most
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So what is the punishment for going bankrupt early game?

You have no ground armies, you disband your starting fleet anway, you have no upgraded buildings. +25% to all costs might worth it for some science rush strategies.

Also, what about xeno enlightenment? That would fit well into this system.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Also, what about xeno enlightenment? That would fit well into this system.

Good call.

The primitives infiltration event chain is already somewhat like this, with problems occasionally cropping up that need to be addressed. I can easily see that being improved by this new mechanic.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
This seems really cool. I'm especially excited about the applications chosen for the new system, deficits and rebellions. I've always thought it seems weird that you didn't get progressive pop starvation with a food deficit. I've also thought it was kind of sad that rebellions didn't have real teeth.

One question: Will negative situation resolutions always be on the left and positive on the right?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Seems like a perfect opportunity to improve planetary combat, like both empire having a situation when an invasion begins, it would more likely be a mix of situation and archeology, where there is the bar which start in the middle left being defeat, right being winning, and then both side make a choice hopping to counter the next action of the other (dice dnd alike where you throw a twenty = full win of the step). Just throwing ideas, but would be cool!
 
  • 4
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Wow, the new situation system sounds really cool! Some musings about it:

- I love that there could also be positive situations, rather than all of them being disasters as it happens in EU
- I do hope that there are multiple courses of action open for situations, rather than a binary "go left or right this bar" choices, especially for the more "narrative" ones like the AI uprising
- It would be really great if espionage could help to either create situations in enemy empires or to make an already existing situation worse (mwahaha)
- Rather than anomalies and rebellions, I think that this system's greatest potential could be realized when reworking internal politics. Having a "civil war" meter that goes up if you are low on unity and high on sprawl, or a "coup meter" if you happen to have a dictatorship authority and an ambitious high-level admiral could simulate the effects of ruling over increasingly complex space empires
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
This looks like it has a ton of potential. I can imagine that modders could have a lot of fun using this to improve planetary battles. Long term campaigns and whatnot.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Seems like a perfect opportunity to improve planetary combat, like both empire having a situation when an invasion begins, it would more likely be a mix of situation and archeology, where there is the bar which start in the middle left being defeat, right being winning, and then both side make a choice hopping to counter the next action of the other (dice dnd alike where you throw a twenty = full win of the step). Just throwing ideas, but would be cool!
I immediately thought of this too! And even if the devs themselves don't want to do it, I bet modders definitely will!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Deficit Situations
...
With our rework, being in a deficit will start a Situation. You will start at 25% progress in this Situation, and it will increase in severity as long as you are at 0 balance and have a negative income. The rate of increase will depend on how much you are losing compared to your income. Having a stockpile will gradually make the Situation tick downwards; having a positive income will make it do so more rapidly.

Am I understanding correctly that if I'm an empire that has 10k energy credits saved with +100 monthly income, but then the monthly situation changes so it becomes -200 monthly income, then a Deficit Situation will begin? Or will the Deficit Situation only begin once the empire reaches 0 energy?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
What about border tension? I always thought that the claims system presented a lost opportunity for diplomatic incidents. At present there is minimal cost to making tons of claims mid-game when you often have a lot of extra Influence floating around. Perhaps having existing claims on your neighbors could give a random chance each month of sparking a border incident? The situation would give you the option to choose between escalating tensions or negotiating a resolution. Possible end results could be leading to war, systems changing hands, tribute being paid by the side that backs down, or loss of claims.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure how they could keep it without the risk that those armies completely invalidate the system. Armies are extremely cheap past the early game and there's nothing stopping you from stacking a hundred on a slave planet to stop any rebellions.

There is plenty of ways to fix it.

- First, of course, is increasing armies cost and upkeep. Specially upkeep. Players already said this ages ago, that armies are too cheap, so it's better they are stronger and more expensive to create and maintain. And yes, if you put a hundred soldiers on a slave planet it SHOULD stop rebellions. By making them expensive, you are making a cost trade off to maintain the rebellion in line.

- Second, make armies defect or help the rebelion. When the rebelion army is fighting a defending army, make a % chance for armies to change sides and help the rebelion or simple defect (making them dissapear), with this scalable with how many armies are fighting. Robot armies can be sabotaged or hacked by officers siding with the rebelion. Unique event armies could be immune to this.

- Third, to prevent cheese of letting armies be on planet orbit and invade when the rebelion start fighting, make two systems. When the rebelion starts, all defending armies have a change to change sides or defect from the start of the battle and them the above system, that fighting defending armies always have a chance to change sides or defect. This chance can be scalable with the size of the rebelion.

This is not something complex or hard to implement (we already have the Necromancer civic for army battling events) and create a way better flavour for revolt mechanic than a simple text of "The rebelion took over your planet!"
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I do think their approach of having preemptive forces that suppress makes a lot of sense. If you see unrest growing on a planet you place troops to suppress that before it turns out to be a rebellion. If you have a lot of forces, but the rebellion still happens then the unrest was so large that your forces couldn't squelch it - skipping the ground combat is very valid in my opinion - with this approach at least.

I definitely do like the idea of having army positioning be relevant BEFORE the rebellion. Making resistance suppressible through smart troop movement and significant investment, even if you are a hardcore evil overlord.

They can do both. Preemptive forces that suppress make a lot of sense and must stay in the new system. But removing the battle phase remove a lot of flavour from the system.

There is plenty of ways to fix the "let hundreds tropps destroy any rebelion" problem without removing the battle phase and turning the rebelion into a text saying "The rebelion took out your planet!".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a great opportunity to make war exhaustion into something real instead of something very abstract, too, and a good way to further differentiate different types of empires.

Starting with the mechanics currently in place, add modifiers to increase war exhaustion gain for the aggressor and lower it for the defender- and remove it entirely for defenders in wars against genocidal empires. Make it lower in general for militaristic empires, but give them a huge penalty for losing battles. Huge victories can temporarily lower the impacts, but the exhaustion numbers overall will only continue to rise.

Next, model the impacts of war exhaustion on the population through the situation screen. Greater war exhaustion causes steadily increasing unhappiness in biological pops after a certain point. For hiveminds it causes nothing at first as their is no society to get angry about the war, but as war exhaustion reaches a higher level the strain of war footing and the attention the hivemind is paying to the war at the cost of internal functions causes pops to die, with a certain percentage for complex drones every month. And for machine intelligences, there is no unhappiness or burnt out drones, but after wars reach a certain length their opponents get combat bonuses - initially very small, but growing as time passes - to fighting them as they decode the communication networks and combat doctrines of an empire that isn't capable of spontaneous or individual improvisation.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: