• 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 #284 - Broken Shackles

Free at Last!

I’m incredibly excited to introduce ‘Broken Shackles’, one of the new origins featured in the upcoming First Contact DLC.

Watch the Video Dev Diary here:

From the very beginning of the project, @Eladrin stressed the word ‘utopian’: First Contact celebrates the discovery of strange new worlds, and all the ways in which different cultures (and different species) interact with and support one another.

As I set out to design an origin for the DLC, this was the spirit and tone I was striving for. What’s more utopian than a rag-tag group of slaves who band together in a daring bid for freedom? Thrown together by the insidious Minamar Specialized Industries, these former indentured assets seize control of their captor’s ship and survive the chaotic crash landing on a habitable planet.

brokenshackles.png

You’ll have to make do with using the remains of your hijacked ship as infrastructure at the start of the game.

While the origin is challenging (players start out at a technological disadvantage, and will need to work hard before they can progress very far into space), a diverse population means that there is ample opportunity to colonize new worlds.

1674559516595.png

More species = better parties.

As your empire progresses, you will also have the opportunity to seek out each of your former home worlds. Reaching these planets not only represents a triumphant homecoming, but may also propel your people to new heights.

1674559548527.png

There’s no place like home.

However, not everything is peaches and cream. Different species mean diverse points of view, and the demands of various factions will need to be appeased if players hope to maximize the potential of their burgeoning empire.

Interactive Narrative

Broken Shackles represents a new paradigm for Stellaris origins: along with ‘Payback’, it comprises one half of a full story. But what’s a story without a good villain?

Enter Minamar Specialized Industries, or ‘MSI.’ This ‘benevolent corporation’ prides itself on helping ‘less developed societies’ reach their full potential. They kickstart development by loaning new technology to pre-FTL societies – loans provided at what they promise are very generous rates.

What happens when the bill comes due is another story. Indentured servitude is just one of MSI’s tools of debt collection.

1674559585085.png

“Enlightenment may not be free. But at MSI, it is always worth the cost.”

Why MSI?

1674559611505.png

Helmets in the boardroom.

Back in the earliest days of development, there was a discussion about how present the “evil slaver empire” would be. We decided on an advanced empire that can be stumbled across at any point in the game – sometimes they will spawn near your home cluster, while at others they show up on the far side of the galaxy. This random placement can have radical effects on a playthrough.

Initially, we envisioned the antagonist of ‘Broken Shackles’ and ‘Payback’ as a generic authoritarian slaver empire, but as the origins took shape, their motives and nature changed.

Minamar Specialized Industries styles itself a benevolent corporation that provides technological enlightenment for a nominal fee. Some might say that they take advantage of the naivety of the species they propel to the stars, but business is business. In any case, it’s likely that the rank and file at MSI believe the company line, even if the Board of Directors considers itself above such petty issues as morality.

In regards to their erstwhile assets, the ‘indentured servants’ who comprise the starting pops of the Broken Shackles origin, MSI claims not to hold any grudges. In fact, we intentionally shied away from styling MSI as ‘an ultimate evil’ that can’t be reasoned or dealt with. From the perspective of a Broken Shackles empire, MSI may indeed represent the worst instincts of sentient life, but to the rest of the galaxy they’re just another greedy Megacorp.

There isn’t much Megacorp related content in Stellaris in general, and what does exist is all locked behind the expansion of the same name. Playing with the ‘evil corporation’ trope allowed us to give MSI a distinct personality and flavor. To me, they feel like the perfect foil for a utopian origin, and I can’t wait for the release!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 128Like
  • 58Love
  • 11
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
You miss my point. I don't want a mechanism back that has been faulty. I want another option to play the game besides warfare.

How did they do it in Civilization 4? The diplomacy, culture, religion and trade system in this game was superb.
I haven't played Civ 4 in a long time. I don't recall the requirements for them to trade cities, although I do remember that it didn't seem to be balanced, and that it was subject to abuse as well.
 
You miss my point. I don't want a mechanism back that has been faulty. I want another option to play the game besides warfare.

How did they do it in Civilization 4? The diplomacy, culture, religion and trade system in this game was superb.
I think you've found the right overarching problem, just not a good solution. one of stellaris's big problems is that we don't have enough to do in peacetime. sorting that out is well beyond the scope of this pack, though.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
And this : "try to tech rush, to not get out teched because tech still rules everything => snowball into oblivion in some way or another => win" is essentially the game loop of every 4X game out there.
appeal to antiquity/common is a fallacy. I don't understand why people think this is a valid argument. A lot of 4x games have a snowball problem with tech so, its a good game design? What?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
appeal to antiquity/common is a fallacy. I don't understand why people think this is a valid argument. A lot of 4x games have a snowball problem with tech so, its a good game design? What?

That's not what said, but rather that focusing on tech is such a fundamental problem/core principle of 4x games that it's something that's difficult, it not outright impossible to get out of, while still being a 4x game with a meaningful tech progression
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
That's not what said, but rather that focusing on tech is such a fundamental problem/core principle of 4x games that it's something that's difficult, it not outright impossible to get out of, while still being a 4x game with a meaningful tech progression
Na... I see what you mean, but sience in most 4x games is a resource, that directly and indirectly produces more of itself, hence snowballs.

There are many ways to tackle that problem:
1. Upper limit of production. Obviously, if you have a reasonable upper limit for science production, you can not really snowball... (interestingly enough a method used in other paradox games working with great effect)
2. Sufficient rubber band mechanics: An easy fix but somehow paradox seams fearful of the concept to let empires drive in the wind shadow of more advanced empires. Examples are in the game, but they are lackluster at best
3. Buffers... In my opinion the most controversial. If done well it can work and can feel natural but its difficult. Paradox decided to focus on this method with empire size mali and i think it feels unispired and not very natural. And it only delays snowballing, not preventing it. A solution, that only delays the problem is not really a good solution, but what do i know?

There are a lot of ways to mitigate snowballing especially for tech, but the problem of escalating research has dug its roots deep into the 4x genre and everybody thinks now its the only way of designing research and tech progression...
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Na... I see what you mean, but sience in most 4x games is a resource, that directly and indirectly produces more of itself, hence snowballs.

There are many ways to tackle that problem:
1. Upper limit of production. Obviously, if you have a reasonable upper limit for science production, you can not really snowball... (interestingly enough a method used in other paradox games working with great effect)
2. Sufficient rubber band mechanics: An easy fix but somehow paradox seams fearful of the concept to let empires drive in the wind shadow of more advanced empires. Examples are in the game, but they are lackluster at best
3. Buffers... In my opinion the most controversial. If done well it can work and can feel natural but its difficult. Paradox decided to focus on this method with empire size mali and i think it feels unispired and not very natural. And it only delays snowballing, not preventing it. A solution, that only delays the problem is not really a good solution, but what do i know?

There are a lot of ways to mitigate snowballing especially for tech, but the problem of escalating research has dug its roots deep into the 4x genre and everybody thinks now its the only way of designing research and tech progression...
100% agree.
Despite the reintroduction of unmitigable Empire Size in 3.3, tech rush problem in Stellaris still exists.
As part of a larger Internal Politics suggestion, I had thought about the possibility to tie technologies and Institutions together (they would represent the large-scale application of certain technologies, appropriately grouped) and so you need to develop and maintain them (using Unity, which competes with technology, in terms of building space) as Empire Size grows.

Apart from this, which is only one of the myriad of possible solutions, in general I think that some basic balance of all those outrageously overpowered techs (all those +20% *resource*, to be clear) is much needed.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
well. Technology "spread" is pretty superficial for reasons of ease.
A significant mechanical extension of Planetary Devestation could work for this to reflect on this.
We /kind of/ have this system where you need a "higher tier" planetary capital to build "higher tier" buildings but the catch with the issues people have is that all tech is completely unfiltered available right from the get go.

So I would suggest:
- Making it harder to build cutting edge infrastructure by binding certain economy-booster techs to the capital building tier.
- Expanding planetary devestation to have it occour more frequently for mismanagement as some sort of "decline of industry". Right now devestation works a little like an "anti-stability".
- Making removing devestation more of a mechanic in of itself instead of just ticking away for a while .
(A tie-in of situations where you could spend credits to "rebuild" devestated sectors to counterbalance this increased occourance of devestation. removing devestation could also depend a system is "connected" to the capital-trade network and/or the relay network)

- In a further step there could be the purposeful destruction of industrial, infrastructure and thus technological capability of opponent. A "burning of fields and libraries" if you will.
- A little bit of a sidenote here but in my opinion Sectors could get semi-permanent boni for beeing especially good at something in respect to their neighbouring sectors.
think:
this sector has larger TV than "N" neighbouring Sectors" > Tradehubbonus (+N% TV)
.
.
.
This obviously reinforces that sectors dominance in that regard and could switch without cooldown and maybe a reason to demolish neighbouring systems for the sake of demolishing them and/or giving spies more purpose. giving someone a minor Trade-malus to temporarily get ahead and establish that lead by getting the mentioned boni could be really good after all. Also artificially creating "more neighbours" by connecting the galaxy via gateways and wormholes might be pretty good then! talking about stuff to do during peacetime and additional casus belli....

anyway....im rambling
 
  • 2
Reactions:
1. Upper limit of production. Obviously, if you have a reasonable upper limit for science production, you can not really snowball... (interestingly enough a method used in other paradox games working with great effect)
Then you cripple science production civics and traits in at least the mid game, possibly the latter part of the early game, because they become useless since you're capping production - and what you consider "reasonable" might well not be what someone else would consider "reasonable". If you cap at 200 science you're still capped at 200 science however you get there, and an empire with science boosts in civics or population traits cannot lever these advantages compared to an empire that has *penalties* in these areas.

I'm not sure what other paradox games you're thinking of where there's a practical upper limit for science production though?
CK3 - mostly learning based, but uncapped - and a common complaint is that you're wasting time once you've researched an entire era.
EU4 - whilst it *is* capped at 20 per tech type, that's in practical terms unlimited - and there are ways to cut the costs down enormously
HOI4 - I haven't played in a long time, but you can stack research bonuses very heavily in that as well.
Vicky? Maybe, I haven't played V2 in ages, and haven't touched V3 at all.
Sengoku? Dead, and I never got to grips with it.
Imperator? Dead, and *maybe* this would count - but I don't recall much of a science tree in that at all
Surviving Mars? Not really a Paradox product, but you can *massively* accelerate your research with building the right things *and* directly buy research for money.


2. Sufficient rubber band mechanics: An easy fix but somehow paradox seams fearful of the concept to let empires drive in the wind shadow of more advanced empires. Examples are in the game, but they are lackluster at best
So what "easy" rubber band mechanic do you suggest?

*In general* these mechanics are very artificial and stand out in other games - and sometimes feel like they're punishing you for specialising into a research build.
3. Buffers... In my opinion the most controversial. If done well it can work and can feel natural but its difficult. Paradox decided to focus on this method with empire size mali and i think it feels unispired and not very natural. And it only delays snowballing, not preventing it. A solution, that only delays the problem is not really a good solution, but what do i know?
Meaning what?
What would be a method that would "work" and "can feel natural"?



Na... I see what you mean, but sience in most 4x games is a resource, that directly and indirectly produces more of itself, hence snowballs.
As for this, minerals "directly and indirectly" produce more minerals by letting you build more mining stations, and more mining districts (and boosting buildings) on planet.
Energy lets you "directly and indirectly" produce more energy since you need it to literally keep the lights on for buildings that provide more energy production and provide minerals to build energy districts and mining stations.
Food lets you produce more food by keeping pops fed so that they can work.
Even alloys can be indirectly producing more of themselves by letting you build habitats that can then produce minerals that are converted to alloys.

So all of these snowball too, so if you're against snowballing effects, do you want to cut these producing more of themselves as well?
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

DreadLindwyrm

As most of your points above sound to me like slippery slopes, suggestive questioning or "silly me not having posted a scientific paper", I dont really feel the need to comment on any of them, but this one...

whilst it *is* capped at 20 per tech type, that's in practical terms unlimited
????????????????
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
well. I feel compelled to say that the game should treat its ressources better than "tech and alloys and whatever that clutter is that gets me there". And knowing the passionate discussions what the hell to do with food on this forums I know this is not a one-man issue as well.
 
  • 4
Reactions:

DreadLindwyrm

As most of your points above sound to me like slippery slopes, suggestive questioning or "silly me not having posted a scientific paper", I dont really feel the need to comment on any of them, but this one...


????????????????
Essentially impossible to reach.
The cap is sufficiently high that it cannot be reached, and thus in practical terms the cap does not exist.

Does this make sense to you?
Or do you not understand the concept that a limit you cannot reach might as well not be there?

And why ignore the rest of the sentence relating to EU4?

But sure, ignore the questions that might lead to *actually* looking into solving the problem that you have "discovered".

The question of what rubber banding mechanism you'd apply is *very* relevant - as it has to not mess up science research focussed empires without giving them at least something back.
The same for what "buffering" mechanism you think would work and feel natural.

*AND* you haven't quantified what upper limit of production methods you think work well in other games - EU4 approaches science progress more by stacking reductions to research than by stacking monarch points, so the number of monarch points isn't *strictly* an upper limit to science production since most of the modifiers are done at the other end of the calculation.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Essentially impossible to reach.
The cap is sufficiently high that it cannot be reached, and thus in practical terms the cap does not exist.
If there is a cap, that can't be reached/can't be gone above, its an upper limit by definition. Upper bound is probably a better wording. But you are simply wrong on this, at least technically. I think common sense is important here. If in EU4, most research production would happen in the range of 0 to 1, than yes an upper bound of 20 would be meaningless, but this isn't the case. Most research production happens around 10, and can't go above 20 (dont know if its exactly 20), regardless how long the game goes. For me thats definitly an "upper bound" regarding research production. I don't know why this has to be a discussion about definitions and basic principles. The intention should be clear.

*AND* you haven't quantified what upper limit of production methods you think work well in other games - EU4 approaches science progress more by stacking reductions to research than by stacking monarch points, so the number of monarch points isn't *strictly* an upper limit to science production since most of the modifiers are done at the other end of the calculation.
Yeah. I had firstly EU4 in mind. You say it here yourself: Research speed of empires are regulated in other ways, than coupling tech cost to a non-linear increasing research production. In my opinion its a far more flexible and superior way of laying the foundation of a 4x games tech progression. And again the number of monarch points, plain and simple have an upper bound, and thats 20, 21, maybe 23 or what ever. For example institutions greatly impact the speed with which you can researching, but thats a whole other story and doesn't changes the fact, that monarch points have an upper bound...
I was also thinking of CK3 and the era mechanic but to not contradict myself here, in hindsight it's more like a buffer mechanic i guess.

The question of what rubber banding mechanism you'd apply is *very* relevant - as it has to not mess up science research focussed empires without giving them at least something back.
Well, there are some examples in the game of stellaris already: Stealing tech, protectorates, science agreement, etc. but most are lackluster at best. Stealing tech is random and gives you what? 30% of a tech or so? And a cooldown of six years... Protectorate is the most interesting mechanic in my opinion. The subject treatment still feels to bad compered to what you get but all in all its ok i guess. Research agreements are a joke.
I wouldn't neccessary implement new mechanics, but make the existing ones more effective and more "relative" and less "absolute" in nature. Not to say that there are probably a million new and interesting rubber band mechanics, which could be implemented.

The same for what "buffering" mechanism you think would work and feel natural.
I dont think buffer mechanics would work well in stellaris. There is the empire size mali and i dont like it. It doesn't help players catch up and punishes you for wanting to play a chunky sized empire. If there are better mechanics i would love to see the empire size mali (for science) beeing scraped. Remember that my initial response was about handling snowballing in general not exclusively for stellaris. I think the institution mechanic from EU4 is a very clever buffer mechanic. The eras mechanic of CK3 falls also in the buffer category. I like both, but i like the concept of institutions more.

But regarding science in stellaris and its snowballing nature there is so much more to unpack and i dont think this dev diary is the right place for that. In addition i dont think i want to have a monumental discussion about it anyways, because im a person who still wants to touch grass now and then and not sit hours every day in front of my pc debating on what in detail i meant or could mean regarding certain specific technicalities. If you really want this discussion and want go way more in detail you should probably make your own thread about it.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
2. Sufficient rubber band mechanics: An easy fix but somehow paradox seams fearful of the concept to let empires drive in the wind shadow of more advanced empires. Examples are in the game, but they are lackluster at best

It always made sense to me that there should be some bonus based on the number of other empires that have researched a technology. This would represent the proliferation of science as more and more empires come into contact with each other. This would help primitives without them requiring to be a protectorate and lore wise would be the akin of sending some researchers to other empires tourist spots so they can use the wifi to download galactic wikipedia.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
wouldn't it amount to a rounding error?
On Head Office's balance sheet? For sure.

On the Chief Assistant to the Deputy Chief Assistant Regional Sub-Director's balance sheet? Probably not.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: