• 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:
I like the evolution of resource deficits. It feels like a bit more of a tangible issue now.
  • Will bankruptcy effects vary for different deficits?
  • E.g. the selloff you showed for energy and advanced goods makes sense, but what would you do for something like an influence or rare resources (e.g. nanites) deficit?
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
I'd really like to see this. Planetary separatism, and by extension sector separatism/independence movements + the old pre-utopia 'Repatriarchs' faction, would do a lot for making conquest less of a 100% win strategy, if we actually had to deal with the fallout of annexing several planets of pissed, ethically divergent or recently enslaved, pops.
  • Would democratic elections & interregnums/dying monarchs be on your radar for situations, too? Instead of setting fire to a pile of influence over 90 days, an actual election campaign (or pretender movement) could work now with a dedicated timeline indicating when things will conclude.
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.
Do they support Changing scopes part way through? Such as a slave revolution starting on a planet and having a chance to trigger a sector-wide slave revolution? (Probably doable by making the 100% effect trigger 'sector revolt' sometimes rather than breaking off that one system). Also do they support sector scopes? I'm assuming they do but good to DBL check.

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.
This is also an issue with primitives that can take over your system - including any other colonies you have there.

I miss shared system ownership for this reason:
1646927781877.png

even if it wouldn't really work with how the game has evolved following 1.9.x.

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,
Would you aim to expand the scope to other AI parts of an empire? E.g. ships fitted with sapient combat computers might split off and join the machine rebellion, too.... Some leaders with the right(wrong for them) trait might have a chance to be choked to death by their
1646927121697.png
sapient AI assistants lol.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
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!".
At that point it is merely a delay, though. Unless the amount of troops needed to suppress is vastly higher than the amount of troops to win against rebels the battle will be known to come ages before and it will still be toothless if it is just auto-defeated by just some troops that fight some puny resistance for a month.

It wouldn't just be a popup that says "you lost your planet to the rebels". There has been a long growing resistance in a progressing situation that you did not / could not deal with correctly. Just because the final step of many is just one step doesn't mean it's in any way too little. But just having a month delay with an auto-battle ground combat that is most likely heavily skewed to one side or the other is quite pointless in my opinion. Especially with the current state of the ground combat system - which even the devs admit is lacking (but low priority, understandibly).
 
  • 6
Reactions:
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?
I understood it as 0 stockpile + negative income.
It doesn't magically end anymore if you get some stockpile, though. Improving your income helps you deal with it a lot better from what i understood.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Extremely strange bankruptcy decision. Because there is a market where you can quickly solve everything casually. If it were like in EU4, where there is no market, and loans for the war are needed, then this would be logical. And it’s so easy to create content for show, for whom ???
 
At that point it is merely a delay, though. Unless the amount of troops needed to suppress is vastly higher than the amount of troops to win against rebels the battle will be known to come ages before and it will still be toothless if it is just auto-defeated by just some troops that fight some puny resistance for a month.

It wouldn't just be a popup that says "you lost your planet to the rebels". There has been a long growing resistance in a progressing situation that you did not / could not deal with correctly. Just because the final step of many is just one step doesn't mean it's in any way too little. But just having a month delay with an auto-battle ground combat that is most likely heavily skewed to one side or the other is quite pointless in my opinion. Especially with the current state of the ground combat system - which even the devs admit is lacking (but low priority, understandibly).

But dude, this is a balance question, not a design problem. Like the guy showed here a screenshot of a 15k rebelion army, you easily balance the rebelion to not be some punny resistence that 10 defense armies defeat.

And as they want to make rebelions turns into Wars, this rebelion army will work into the Rebelling AI favor to use as Offensive armies on new planets.

Think of the flavour we lose by removing the battle phase. Flavour and storytelling is a good part of this game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
My hope when you first mentioned the situations was that it might be tied into like civil wars, if you had powerful and unhappy factions. Is this something you've considered?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
But dude, this is a balance question, not a design problem. Like the guy showed here a screenshot of a 15k rebelion army, you easily balance the rebelion to not be some punny resistence that 10 defense armies defeat.

And as they want to make rebelions turns into Wars, this rebelion army will work into the Rebelling AI favor to use as Offensive armies on new planets.

Think of the flavour we lose by removing the battle phase. Flavour and storytelling is a good part of this game.
My point was also that it might simply be a question of incorporating the battle into the situation.
The last stages could involve strategic decisions like massive violent suppression, but causing devastation and potential building destruction. This would be waaaaay more interesting than the ground combat. And successes/numbers could be influenced by army strength and approval rating * pop count.
Alternatively you could pay to keep the peace - so you sink resources into the planet to stabilise it instead of violently suppressing the people.

Ground combat is just fundamentally uninteresting in the current game. Merging this into the situation would be so much more fun and allow for many more approaches.
You could even include stats like army damage or army morale damage into account. If your suppression army is consisting of undead, xenomorph or whatever eldritch abomination you have in your arsenal the suppression might be stronger, but you might have other downsides, because long term people despise you even more (i.e. by additionally reducing happiness and/or governing ethics attraction).

You can't tell me this would be less interesting than a standard Stellaris ground battle.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks spiffy. I can think of tons of amazing ways to make this work.

...which leads to the obvious question and obvious answer, "How moddable is it?" Answer: "It's extremely flexible!"

But, for those of us with limited brain capacity (still waiting to be uplifted), compared to writing just an event chain how difficult will it be to add these?
 
"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"

Are you sure about that?

View attachment 816586
What I meant was: the rebellion may succeed, but there's usually nothing stopping you from taking the planet back straight away.
All of this sounds great, but situations involving two countries is - IMO - exactly the sort of thing Stellaris needs. If my neighbor has a serious deficit, give me a situation in a separate category ('Such and Such Is Starving') where I can offer to lend aid in return for favors or goodwill or some other resource. This will provide an avenue for empire-to-empire interactions AND help smooth out AI econ problems before they get too bad. If my neighbor is being invaded, give me a situation to either give them military aid, providing alloys per month and a ship build speed increase or even send in a fleet as privateers, or let me choose to give any intel I have on them to their attacker to provide an attack bonus. If I'm the one who's being attacked, give me the option to ask for that aid.

Give situations for intervening in your neighbor's elections or messing with their crown prince, if you aren't already looking at something like that for espionage. As you build out this system, see which situations have the potential for foreign involvement and build that out too. We need more non-war options for helping or hindering our allies and enemies, and this seems like a great way to do it.
In my view, Stellaris needs both, but it will have to be two different systems. Our aim with Situations was to do the case we're trying to cover - namely internal issues and stories - well. The scope is already actually quite ambitious in the sense that there's so much you can do with Situations, and so many things we are likely to do in the future with them (and yes, there is a case for updating various event chains to use the system).
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?
It's a bit of a stumbling point we have had with the UX in general, but the short answer is no. Basically:
- For a Situation with a single outcome where "A Thing Happens" (this includes e.g. going bankrupt), that will be on the right. If the left side is used in these cases, it is to simply end the Situation with no further effects.
- For other Situations, you will start in the middle and can decide which way to go based on your choices. In these cases, it will often not be clear in advance what the best course of action is.
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?
Only when you reach 0 energy.
But dude, this is a balance question, not a design problem. Like the guy showed here a screenshot of a 15k rebelion army, you easily balance the rebelion to not be some punny resistence that 10 defense armies defeat.

And as they want to make rebelions turns into Wars, this rebelion army will work into the Rebelling AI favor to use as Offensive armies on new planets.

Think of the flavour we lose by removing the battle phase. Flavour and storytelling is a good part of this game.
It is worth it for gaining flavour during the rebellion, and having the actual revolt spawn ground armies is not tenable when you know the revolution is coming.

Note that having fewer moving parts and a more predictable outcome means that a lot less can go wrong, and therefore a lot more can be done with the system.
 
  • 17
  • 9Like
  • 2
Reactions:
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.
I don't really expect this to be implemented at the moment since it is a bit much to ask, but wouldn't it be cool if there could be a reverse revolt as well. For instance, if the empire had a lot of AI-integrated systems, the AI could start abusing the biological population and a reverse revolt could happen where the bio pops would rise against the machine instead, ultimately putting the empire at odds with all machine empires in some way.
 
It is worth it for gaining flavour during the rebellion, and having the actual revolt spawn ground armies is not tenable when you know the revolution is coming.

Note that having fewer moving parts and a more predictable outcome means that a lot less can go wrong, and therefore a lot more can be done with the system.
As me and others have elaborated on, it is easy to design rebellions so the ground battle is not easily dealt with, such as by having ground armies defect and by giving them higher upkeep so that suppressing the rebellion by force comes at great cost.

Reducing dynamic complexity in favour of predictable simplicity is the opposite of the way things should be going. Pretty sure most players want emergent storytelling where indeed things can go wrong in unexpected and unintended ways, not a rigid point to point structure where you just fill up a progress bar...
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
How are you going to make sure Gestalts and non-Gestalts will get equal content this time around?

As exciting as this one sounds, given our experience with anomalies, civics, origins and events Gestalts have always been left with less options. One of our favourite events, the Horizon Signal is inaccessible by Gestalts to this day. Or the Nivlac are inaccessible by Hiveminds even though Driven Assimilators can get this event. I'm not looking forward to more content if Gestalts are left out again.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Ok, this is awesome and something I've been wanting to see for a while. But 3.3 patch? Please? The game isn't even playable for me right now, there are so many bugs and negative QoL changes from 3.3. I was really hoping to see a patch out by the next DD, or at least before a new system was introduced.
I'll be wrapping up the testing of 3.3.3 tomorrow morning so expect it to release sometime in the next week. However it only contains a few targeted bug fixes and a few balance tweaks. Otherwise 3.3 is in a good state right now

and before anyone says "But Tall is still weaker than Wide" yes, we know. but we're getting there. This is a multi step process. :D
 
  • 26Like
  • 4Love
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Would really hope that some operations can trigger these situations in other empires, where the disparity between encoding / code breaking determines how far along the situation has progressed when it arrives in a targeted empire.

Eg. Arm privateers could effectively grow stronger with each stage, where stage 1 is about where it is now (an annoyance), and say stage 3 is akin to the AI rebellion. If you have say +3 code breaking against another empire, that situation once the operation is complete would start at stage 3 and be close to causing a rebellion.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Do resolved situations vanish or is there somewhere in the UI that they can stick around once completed? Often in the late game I find myself sitting on a pile of modifiers with only a vague idea of where they came from; it would be neat to have a historical archive to consult.

Also, on the list of things to situationize: sanctions for being In Breach of Galactic Law would be ideal situations, allowing you to progress towards compliance (possibly dragging your feet) with lingering penalties for your wrongdoing ways, or deciding to break the law in new and exciting ways to show those filthy xenophiles what's what.
 
and before anyone says "But Tall is still weaker than Wide" yes, we know. but we're getting there. This is a multi step process. :D
Wide is easier because you just need to walk there while for Tall you need to climb to reach it :D.
 
  • 4Haha
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
LOVE it this is exactly what I wanted next in my games. I want to help my neighbours' slaves and robots revolt against their masters!

Also, will your actions in situations effect your ethics and factions?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
At the beginning of this article I was pretty skeptical how this would be more of a benefit than a hassle. You sold me with the Deficit Situation. That sounds brilliant.

The thing that bothers me is limitations on Approaches. Of course there would be Situations where only a couple Approaches make sense, but for some a wide variety could be taken. I'm not a fan of predefining and scripting Approaches, but I won't mind if it is possible to have more than 4.
As an example, with rebellions:
  1. Strengthen the garrison with troops and ships
  2. Divide and resettle them
  3. Sack the planet of resources and sell all the populace as slaves, abandoning the colony
  4. Purge the dissidents
  5. Investigate for foreign interference (by an Operation)
  6. Negotiate (a lot of branches from this)
  7. Immediately expel the planet(s), either independent or vassal
  8. Do nothing
It's complicated. That's just what I came up with. Also, a few of these Approaches involve more actions, like choosing where to resettle pops, and some of these could be done concurrently.
 
  • 2
Reactions: