Stellaris Dev Diary #274 - 3.6.0.beta.final.final(1)v2 Copy

[Dr. B]

Now that I have been able to look at the code, I would like to clarify some things for myself and others about the psi related changes in the patch notes:

The per pop alloy or unity upkeep from the random event has been reduced by 90%, from 0.75 down to 0.075. I looked through all the modifiers and unless I missed something, this is it.


The penalty goes as follows:

Rank -1: stability -7 >> -3; unity ±0% >> -7%​

Rank 2: stability -15 >> -7; unity ±0% >> -15%​

I'm not sure how to feel about this.


Unfortunately, the event that did this can still kill one pop. Which means both of the planetary debuff events now come with the loss of one pop. Still much better than losing eight.


The Composer favours xenophiles over xenophobes, the Whisperers favour materialist over spiritualists, so back to how it is in 3.5.


Specifically you get four options:

1. Always a ruler
2. Random non-ruler leader
3. Random non-ruler leader or Chosen One (the Eater can also have another ruler in this slot)
4. Always a leader of a specific class based on your patron
   1. A scientist for the Composer and Whisperers
   2. An admiral for the Eater
   3. A governor for the Instrument

You will always be able to choose your ruler or one leader of a class associated with your patron, plus two random rolls, which is great. Although I think imperial heirs count as rulers in terms of leader class, I wonder if they still apply their effect while being heir. If I read this correctly, then your third choice will always be the regular Chosen One, if you have one, as it overrides the random selection.

Okay...
Say if you happen to play Fanatic Spiritualist, Xenophobe Necrophages, what patron would you attract?

 

[Dersu_Uzala]

I dont know if this has been mentioned yet but cybernetic hiveminds are kinda broken. They do not get the 4 robot modification points that regular empires get so are stuck with the bare minimum in terms of pop modification.

Since they dont have access to robot technologies maybe just add these points to the cybernetic tradition tree for hiveminds. Or just make it so one of the traditions gives access to some +mod points tech specific to cyber hiveminds.

 

[CometBliss]

I thought they added a civic where you can use other's pops to make like your own like necropurge... Something like this from the forgotten queens ...

 

[Lorenerd11]

I thought they added a civic where you can use other's pops to make like your own like necropurge... Something like this from the forgotten queens ...

I mean, that's already how Hive Necrophages work.

 

[GnoSIS]

So, no Post or DD today?

 

[Lorenerd11]

So, no Post or DD today?

I guess this is this weeks' one, just posted two days earlier.

 

[Thiend]

I guess this is this weeks' one, just posted two days earlier.

"Due to the Open Beta update, this dev diary replaces our normally scheduled dev diary that would have gone out on Thursday. We'll have more news next week."

Yes. Sadly. Would've liked a release date but this is fine.

 

[Lorenerd11]

Improvements

• The Epi-Genetic Triggers technology and Genetic Resequencing tradition now both allow the removal of pre-sapient traits from species via species modification. The Servile trait from the Syncretic Evolution origin and traits bestowed by the Enigmatic Cache count as pre-sapient traits for this.

Can you change it so that Epi-Genetic Triggers isn't required for Morphogenetic Field Mastery? It feels like such a weird niche requirement that Xenomorph armies are gated behind encountering pre-sapients.

 

[KingAlamar]

Could some additional details be provided for the following fix??

• Fixed AI's difficulty-adjusted economic modifiers, plus certain misevaluations of modifier benefits in its economic strategy

Were the bonuses too high, too low, or all over the place?? Specifically I've noticed that solo play seems to be vastly easier than when cooperatively federated with other players and I'm wondering if this fix would impact what I'm seeing.

 

[KingAlamar]

The most substantial change here in my opinion is moving fighter craft tech to sociology. Now you can research them in parallel with either shields and kinetics or missiles, or with energy weapons and armor. In the past I had pretty much forgotten about sociology in the late game, just researching more monthly unity and leader lifespans even though neither are very important at that point in the game. This change is making me reevaluate my navy composition.

It will probably shake up my late game as I often focused on cranking Unity generation up to squeeze in that one last edict

 

[AngelRaver]

I have messaged GOG support about it already but if there was any way you could provide Betas to GOG as well or a way to download the Beta patch from the launcher, or even manually, that would be amazing. I do understand I won't be able to participate in this beta. I love your guys' games and I have been heartbroken that I haven't been able to participate in the beta for Stellaris at all. But having the option for any future betas would be *highly* appreciated. Thank you for your consideration of the community.

 

[frozenparagon]

Some wonderful fixes here. I'm very happy to see society getting some more military techs (and engineering getting a break), along with the fix for lead ships inexplicably charging into the fray. I had wondered what was causing that.

in one of my mods, i straight up moved tech over to physics to even it out

 

[Muffin_Expert]

The new patch seems great! I just want to echo what I heard said in an earlier feedback thread and haven't seen any info on--the name "politics" for the new tradition seems off. Is this a placeholder name for the new tradition and we will find out its actual name later, or is that confirmed to be it? I hope the prior.

 

[CometBliss]

I mean, that's already how Hive Necrophages work.

But slaves are only live stock... And plus makes it like devouring swarm but not devouring swarm. If you catch my meaning? Necrophage although cuts pop growth by a lot. And slaves are suppose to increase production as a normal empire. Total wars probably won't survive as necrophage.

 

[Lorenerd11]

But slaves are only live stock... And plus makes it like devouring swarm but not devouring swarm. If you catch my meaning? Necrophage although cuts pop growth by a lot. And slaves are suppose to increase production as a normal empire. Total wars probably won't survive as necrophage.

Yeah, there should definitely be smaller pop growth penalties for genocidal necrophages, since they don't get to maintain alien populations to steadily grow from..

 

[DevWolf]

I really think the planetary ascension boosts provided by the civic, federation and tradition finisher together are a unbalanced addition to the game. When combined they provide a 70% bonus to planet ascension. Which results in a lot of late game bonuses to empires that can get those. I've run the numbers before, which results in around a 5.25x bonus at tier 10 to colony designations. It also results in a -80% empire size reduction to the planet. These high numbers can result in alloy, consumer goods and researchers having no job upkeep, as their respective designations reach a -105% upkeep reduction.

I think it would be more balanced if they just allowed for faster and cheaper ascension over more powerful ascensions. At the very least I'd think keeping an option all empires can get such as the Harmony finisher is a good addition. But I'd make it s 20% bonus instead of 25%. It makes for nicely rounded numbers. A total of a 4x bonus at tier 10 planet ascension. Which would reduce the upkeep of alloy, consumer goods and technology designations to -80% total. Still good but not broken.

Edit:
So people don't think this is a problem. I guess I have the wrong idea. I'll have to look into this a bit more. It just seems like when you reach the point of having nothing to spend unity on other than edicts and ambitions, it can provide some powerful late game boosts. I just worry it might be too powerful is all. Maybe it's not broken but is it balanced?

 

[Mackus]

Empire name format was changed AGAIN.
AND there is nothing in patch notes.
AND AGAIN it's not compatible with ANY previously used format.

previously I could just write
format = "<empire_names_adjective> <empire_names_noun> of [This.Capital.GetName]"
prefix_format = "<empire_names_adjective> [This.Capital.GetName] <empire_names_noun>"
noun = "[This.Capital.GetName]"
And have something like "Star Empire of Earth". Clear, simple, functional. Easy to use and does precisely what you wanted it to do.

But no. It doesn't work anymore. What was wrong with previous one? Why do we HAVE to use stuf like "AofB{{{<>}{[]}{<>}}}. HOW are we even supposed use it?
Even if you wanted compatibility with other languages that's no reason to straight up make old system STOP working.

 

[Thiend]

I really think the planatery ascension boosts provided by the civic, federation and tradition finisher together are a unbalanced addition to the game. When combined they provide a 70% bonus to planet acension. Which results in a lot of late game bonuses to empires that can get those. I've run the numbers before, which results in around a 5.25x bonus at tier 10 to colony designations. It also results in a -80% empire size reduction to the planet. These high numbers can result in alloy, consumer goods and researchers having no job upkeep, as their respective designations reach a -105% upkeep reduction.

I think it would be more balanced if they just allowed for faster and cheaper ascension over more powerful acensions. At the very least I'd think keeping an option all empires can get such as the Harmony finisher is a good additon. But I'd make it s 20% bonus instead of 25%. It makes for nicely rounded numbers. A total of a 4x bonus at tier 10 planet acension. Which would reduce the upkeep of alloy, consumer goods and technology designations to -80% total. Still good but not broken. If changes have already been made to these then I'll change my post.

Oh God, no! Not unity actually being good (and by proxy spiritualist being maybe on par with materialist/psionic with anything else for the first time ever)!

I'd be in favor of locking even more planetary ascension bonuses behind specifically being spiritualist and/or psionic. The planetary ascension buffs are the only thing holding psionic together and they aren't even exclusive to it.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I really think the planatery ascension boosts provided by the civic, federation and tradition finisher together are a unbalanced addition to the game. When combined they provide a 70% bonus to planet acension. Which results in a lot of late game bonuses to empires that can get those. I've run the numbers before, which results in around a 5.25x bonus at tier 10 to colony designations. It also results in a -80% empire size reduction to the planet. These high numbers can result in alloy, consumer goods and researchers having no job upkeep, as their respective designations reach a -105% upkeep reduction.

I think it would be more balanced if they just allowed for faster and cheaper ascension over more powerful acensions. At the very least I'd think keeping an option all empires can get such as the Harmony finisher is a good additon. But I'd make it s 20% bonus instead of 25%. It makes for nicely rounded numbers. A total of a 4x bonus at tier 10 planet acension. Which would reduce the upkeep of alloy, consumer goods and technology designations to -80% total. Still good but not broken. If changes have already been made to these then I'll change my post.

I've seen a lot of hay made about the -100% job upkeep, but it's just a gimmick, especially with repeatables. Would you think it was a problem if forge worlds gave +15% output, instead of -20% upkeep?

That -20% upkeep is saving 2.4 minerals. When you fully ascend a planet, you're saving an additional 85% (10.2) minerals per job, assuming you've chosen the right federation type and invested a civic. A late game miner makes around 24-30 minerals per pop, even before repeatables, and well over 30 after a few repeatables. Easily 42, if you're taking "10 ascension levels" as a casual assumption, like with alloys, as the ascensions on a mining world give +148% to miner output after Balance in the Middle.

Compare these two scenarios:

• Metallurgists consuming 12 minerals and making ~15.8 alloys (+100% from other modifiers and +63.75% from the revised designation), with miners making 30 minerals per pop. That's ~11.28 alloys per pop, on average.
• Metallurgists consuming 1.8 minerals (reduced by the designation) and making 12 alloys, again with miners making 30 minerals per pop. ~That's 11.32 alloys per pop.

The same. And the more efficient your miners become (or the more minerals you get from non-pop sources, like deposits, a Matter Decompressor, or vassals), the more efficient the high consumption but higher output metallurgists get, up to a point. Meanwhile, the low upkeep metallurgists are just as good as they'll ever get.

With the 42 minerals per pop from a fully ascended mining world, the boosted metallurgists would make 12.3 alloys per pop, while the low upkeep ones are just 11.45.

The -20% upkeep reduction is strong (on par with a 7.5% bonus in the early game, or a 15% bonus in the late game), but the ability to drive upkeep almost to zero (or all the way, with no capital upgrades) is really not a big deal. The fact that you're still limited by pops makes it a non-issue.

The same would not be true of something like a -100% fleet upkeep reduction, or -100% ship build cost reduction (since those can scale indefinitely), but there's no effect which is bound only by its upkeep that can be broken by planetary ascension. Even the most "broken" options (0 upkeep nanite transmuters, or similar) are bound by building slots, and the change makes them merely usable (for once).

Note that they buffed ascensionist in the second-to-last beta update (to also reduced empire sprawl effects on traditions). It was too weak, not too strong.

 

[Thiend]

I've seen a lot of hay made about the -100% job upkeep, but it's just a gimmick, especially with repeatables. Would you think it was a problem if forge worlds gave +15% output, instead of -20% upkeep?

That -20% upkeep is saving 2.4 minerals. When you fully ascend a planet, you're saving an additional 85% (10.2) minerals per job, assuming you've chosen the right federation type and invested a civic. A late game miner makes around 24-30 minerals per pop, even before repeatables, and well over 30 after a few repeatables. Easily 42, if you're taking "10 ascension levels" as a casual assumption, like with alloys, as the ascensions on a mining world give +148% to miner output after Balance in the Middle.

Compare these two scenarios:

• Metallurgists consuming 12 minerals and making ~15.8 alloys (+100% from other modifiers and +63.75% from the revised designation), with miners making 30 minerals per pop. That's ~11.28 alloys per pop, on average.
• Metallurgists consuming 1.8 minerals (reduced by the designation) and making 12 alloys, again with miners making 30 minerals per pop. ~That's 11.32 alloys per pop.

The same. And the more efficient your miners become (or the more minerals you get from non-pop sources, like deposits, a Matter Decompressor, or vassals), the more efficient the high consumption but higher output metallurgists get, up to a point. Meanwhile, the low upkeep metallurgists are just as good as they'll ever get.

With the 42 minerals per pop from a fully ascended mining world, the boosted metallurgists would make 12.3 alloys per pop, while the low upkeep ones are just 11.45.

The -20% upkeep reduction is strong (on par with a 7.5% bonus in the early game, or a 15% bonus in the late game), but the ability to drive upkeep almost to zero (or all the way, with no capital upgrades) is really not a big deal. The fact that you're still limited by pops makes it a non-issue.

The same would not be true of something like a -100% fleet upkeep reduction, or -100% ship build cost reduction (since those can scale indefinitely), but there's no effect which is bound only by its upkeep that can be broken by planetary ascension. Even the most "broken" options (0 upkeep nanite transmuters, or similar) are bound by building slots, and the change makes them merely usable (for once).

Note that they buffed ascensionist in the second-to-last beta update (to also reduced empire sprawl effects on traditions). It was too weak, not too strong.

To put it another way, planetary ascension scales off number of pops, as does all job output. Spiritualist is the worst ethic (in the game/at accumulation of pops), so even with the spiritualist-only civic (and the other bonuses are weighted that way too) materialist is still probably getting more out of planetary ascension than spiritualist. At best I think psionic might break even with this to other ascensions, except this costs traditions, civics, ethics, and a federation in addition to one ascension perk. Worry if psionic gets pop assembly and planetary ascension buffs are still aimed at spiritualist use primarily, otherwise this isn't even breaking even.