Stellaris Dev Diary #288 - Payback and Insights

[Troyen]

Will the Payback origin be eligible for automatically generated AI empires, given that it overrides the galaxy setup parameters (for pre-FTL civilizations, and so forth)? Or, like with Imperial Fiefdom, is the origin only picked for player-designed empires (whether played by a player or force-instantiated as an AI empire by the game creator)?

Your question was answered earlier in the thread (filter by dev posts so you can skip all the fanatic purifier arguments):

If you play an empire with the Payback/Broken Shackles origin, the MSI and another empire with the other Origin will spawn, but the AI will never create a Payback/Broken Shackles empire and fill the galaxy with all these people you don't care about.

So it seems to act like Imperial Fiefdom.

 

[Methone]

Because that would both nullify all of the hand holding they built into it, and it's boring. You don't need another reason to go kill everything. It's lame.

this argument is just bad. They should limit player options because... you think it's lame?

Sorry sir, I didn't realize you were the head of the Global Institute of Having Fun. Can I offer you a back rub to make up for it?

 

[Yurichenko]

Yes, to look for allies we don't need to be xenophile. But we don't need to become a Fanatic Purifier just because we were invaded either. Stop. Seeing. Ethics. In. A. Absolute. Way. You don't need to go extreme in either direction (xenophile or xenophobe) to use Payback or Broken Shackles.
Besides, not every Stellaris player is a power gamer/war criminal min/maxing everything in a quest to obliterate/enslave all intelligent life in the galaxy -- some of us play Stellaris just for the sake of a good RP.

Kid, the Greater Terran Union ISN'T a Fanatic Purifier empire. They are xenophobe, aunthoritarian and militarist with an dictatorship form of government. Stop. With. This. Rubbish.

Sorry friend, but I think you totally misinterpreted the meaning of my comments. I NEVER said that they should convert into Xenophobes, much less into Fanatic Purifiers.
The only thing I said and defended is that in my opinion, the only thing that should be restricted in that origin is Xenophilia, since due to the specific context of this origin I find it hardly credible that among all the skills that a civilization could develop after a alien invasion, out persistently the particular taste for aliens.

About the Great Union of Terra, I did not intend to prove anything with that video. I only wanted to illustrate ONE of the THOUSAND possible paths that this origin could follow, taking advantage of the fact that it is based on Stellaris and that it is so well narrated.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

By 2400. even with half that research, you should be so deep into repeatables that you have stopped caring about it because it no longer matters. Those "big numbers" you just pulled out of your behind aren't very impressive because they don't matter.

You also aren't likely to be just getting these at that point.

I just listed the exact numbers from the earliest save I had on hand at the moment, though it was distinctly late game. At an earlier point in the game, the total empire size will be smaller, as would the amount of size from districts, and total research/unity.

Edit: and you're only so deep into repeatables that you no longer care if you're not doing 25x, or 25/37.5/56.26x. Empire size buffs that affect everything are exactly what you're seeking out at that point.

But the math doesn't fundamentally change, just shift: extra research and unity vs. extra planet and pops. Like I said: early game, you always invade (to be optimal). But after that, it becomes more optimal to just observe, especially for small numbers of pops. Or, it would be, if you could guarantee getting this tech.

I'm even understating the benefits of not invading, by only looking at the tech, and not throwing in the empire size reduction from 1 fewer planet, ~10 fewer districts, and 34 fewer pops.

Suppose I did that comparison 100 years earlier (2300, with vaguely estimated numbers, since I don't have the save on hand). 1/2 the empire size, 1/3 the pops, 1/6 the research, and 1/10 the unity. And you'd get 24 pops total instead of 34 (12 growing in 50 years instead of 22 in 150).

You could have the output of 24 pops (2 farmers, 1 technicians, 3 miners, 2 artisans, three politicians, 1 entertainer, 1 refiner/chemist/translucer (aggregate), and 12 researchers). I'm not saying you put this all on one planet (that would be inefficient), I'm just saying that this is what you'll probably get if you scale a mid game empire up by one planet and 24 pops, focused entirely on research, building a few extra districts on your farming/mining/factory planets to support it. That's 96 research of each type and 27 unity, roughly. Assuming that my vague back of the envelope estimates on pop output at this point in the game aren't wildly off. Keep in mind, I'm assuming a Clone Vat as part of the growth, to get this number of pops. Hence the 2 farmers, for the pops and the vat.

40 empire size from districts saved, plus another 10 districts not built (.6*.5*10=3), a planet not controlled (5), and 24 fewer pops (24*.8*.6=11.5, assuming you have decent from-pops reduction), for a total of ~60. If you have 1/2 the empire size and 1/6 the research, that's going from 1.58x to 1.52x tech costs. At 5.3k research, that means you're getting the equivalent of 270 research (90 of each type) from the size reduction. At 1/10 of the unity (2.5k), you're going from 2.16x to 2.04x for traditions, so you're getting around 90 unity. That puts you right at the tipping point, for research, and well ahead, for unity. Also, you're getting 8-16 society research and 0-8 CG from the research outpost. Small, but not totally irrelevant at this scale.

And it tips only toward the tech being better from that point, since the empire size reduction scales with your entire empire's increased need for districts as your pops grow, and the extra research from conquest only scales with the pops from a single planet/growth queue.

Of course, the best way to handle this is to have you cake and eat it too: observe till you get the most powerful insight techs, then invade. I would rather all the techs came with "+1 unity from observation posts" to make for a slowly building incentive to keep the post around. But that doesn't change the math on this particular tech.

Sprawl reduction bonuses are incredibly powerful. They're not worth several dozen researchers/bureaucrats at mid game, but they're worth several dozen pops supporting all the researchers/bureaucrats they can.

Edit: I misremembered what the original claim was, edited the last paragraph. The other poster was exaggerating (or being unclear on) its value, and you made two separate claims:
1. that these techs are not valuable enough to make it worth it to not invade (which I would argue is incorrect)
2. and that it's not worth several dozen researchers/bureaucrats by mid game (which is correct)

 

[Abdulijubjub]

The stream gave us a third option: you can spend influence (and envoys) to plant advanced technology and speed them through the ages. Then infiltrate. Depending on how much this helps compared to the influence it costs, this can be the ultimate "have your cake and it to too" option.

1. You can invade/infiltrate immediately, getting a planet that's net negative for 10 years and a handful of pops (or spend influence to get the pops without the decade of uselessness).
2. You can observe forever, picking up some powerful techs and some (doubtless) useless ones, but giving up the raw power of an extra planet and its pops.
3. You can observe while rushing them through the ages, effectively buying (future) pops with influence. Going from Renaissance to Industrial is +10 pops, for instance. Then wait until you get the insight techs you want, then take the planet. You can invade (spending only minerals) and have a net negative world for 10 years, but now with more pops than #1 that are useful from year 11 onward. Or you could infiltrate, spending a bit of extra influence to skip that decade of uselessness.

Whether or not #3 is actually worth it would very much depend on how powerful the spy operations are, though. If you end up paying hundreds of influence for a small number of pops, you're still stuck with #1 and #2.

 

[Primarch Victus]

Sorry friend, but I think you totally misinterpreted the meaning of my comments. I NEVER said that they should convert into Xenophobes, much less into Fanatic Purifiers.
The only thing I said and defended is that in my opinion, the only thing that should be restricted in that origin is Xenophilia, since due to the specific context of this origin I find it hardly credible that among all the skills that a civilization could develop after a alien invasion, out persistently the particular taste for aliens.

About the Great Union of Terra, I did not intend to prove anything with that video. I only wanted to illustrate ONE of the THOUSAND possible paths that this origin could follow, taking advantage of the fact that it is based on Stellaris and that it is so well narrated.

I understand your (failed) argument very well. And there is not "thousands of possible paths for a planet that was invaded, get rid of the invaders and now want revenge. There is only TWO paths available -- both depending of cultural factors like the religion(s) at the time of the invasion/liberation, how the world get unified after the invasion, etc.:

_ the newly freed people can become Xenophile/Fanatic Xenophobe and start to see all intelligent alien life as potential threat and end under the control of an authoritarian/militaristic government (that was the path chosen by the Greater Terran Union) OR;

_ they can unify and, aware that they are much probably the underdogs in a potentially hostile galaxy, they can try to find allies to fight against the MSI in the case of their return -- after all, they much probably were not the only ones that MSI screwed up.

 

[Primarch Victus]

You leave any way to actually measure/judge at the door. There is no possible common ground. [rude comment moderated out]

I measured and judge my games and their DLCs based strictely in how fun and interesting they look and feel -- I don't give a fig to math, "emergent gameplay/storyline" or complexity. And this DLC looks incredibly fun -- or at least, far more fun than anything you could think at.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I understand your (failed) argument very well. And there is not "thousands of possible paths for a planet that was invaded, get rid of the invaders and now want revenge. There is only TWO paths available -- both depending of cultural factors like the religion(s) at the time of the invasion/liberation, how the world get unified after the invasion, etc.:

_ the newly freed people can become Xenophile/Fanatic Xenophobe and start to see all intelligent alien life as potential threat and end under the control of an authoritarian/militaristic government (that was the path chosen by the Greater Terran Union) OR;

_ they can unify and, aware that they are much probably the underdogs in a potentially hostile galaxy, they can try to find allies to fight against the MSI in the case of their return -- after all, they much probably were not the only ones that MSI screwed up.

You're ignoring that a lot of the "thousand" different paths are reflected by civics, as not everything is tied to ethics and government form.

But I would contend that the two options you give are not the only options.

A Militarist/Egalitarian isolationist state is possible. We're going to claim our space, defend it, and whilst we don't hate all other life, we're just not interested in talking to it, and want to be left alone. Voluntary co-operation between people is better than allowing opportunists to enslave us under the pretence of fighting the alien.

Possibly even a Xenophile isolationist, strange as that might seem - we like other races, we're eager to trade with them, but we don't want them in our space.

It might go Xenophobe/Spiritualist "the gods gave us victory and forced the alien to flee! Now we must obey the gods and shun the alien!" without necessarily turning militarist.

They could unify and decide *they* want to do the things MSI were doing, and get a slice of the galactic pie as an overlord of primitive civilisations, and seek to dominate everything rather than ally with others against MSI.

 

[oreopirate]

Then it sounds like you are hilariously overbuilding your feeder worlds.

That 30% won't help that. It's going to knock off ~2% because that is how math works.

Also, 5x, really? Why?




It has nothing to do with ones "experience" and everything to do with simple math.

Further, I kinda detest every time someone uses RP as an excuse to play poorly. You can be both a 'Power gamer' and RP. In fact I have no problem at all making the argument that knowing when and how to maximize output drastically increases the quality and range of RP as it allows you to better manipulate the AI into telling the stories you want to tell. Doubly so when it allows you to make 'bad' decisions and skirt by consequences without doing something as lame as opening the console.



All that paragraph tells me is that your opinion should be discarded because you have no idea how to do basic math, nor how the game works.

400 pops is obscenely low by 2300. I play on 1x planets and without touching either the slave market, nor invading anyone I typically sit around 1k.

28 pops is a flat, instant ~7% pop increase on 400 pops, which is *far* from inconsequential.

You should really stop using Gene-Clinics, they are a terrible investment.

"Playstyle" isn't a euphemism for bad. Some people enjoy ball torture too, it's not going to stop me from saying "Naw dog, I'm good".

I dont use feeder worlds. I play egal xenophiles primarily. Why force people to move off my planets? Just because that's meta? That's a BS reason to me.
30% will knock off 3%, not 2%.
Because that is what I like to play on. I like to colonize every damn rock I can. And when I play a xenophobe, it makes purging the galaxy so much more interesting.

Simple math?
Se there you are, saying that your way is the only way to play. If you really want to play by math, dude, Determined exterminators, or gestalt lithoids are the "only way" to play by simple math. Minimum resources to manage, and can colonize everything with huge growth bonuses.

My opinion should be discarded? Says the guy who thinks that 10*.3= 2.
1k pops? Yeah, hate to break it to you, but unless you are conquering everything, or play an obscene growth and habitability gestalt build, I don't believe you, and I don't care.

They are an pop increase, but remeber, I play egals, they require a significant investment in resources and require a few years of building queue to get them properly
They fit for my nations. If my nation is all about the betterment of sentient, and the flavor text of the gene clinics is providing gene clinics and curing the last disease that we already can't it'd be against the ilk of the nation to not have them. When I don't play my usual fanatic egals, I avoid them like the plague.

No playstyle is a euphemisim for playing what is enjoyable. Moving pops from world to world isn't enjoy to me. I'd liken that to ball torture, to quote your euphemism.

You need to get off your high horse and realize that I nor anyone has to play the same as you. Just like you can't jam your play style down your throat, you need to realize that some people like what they put don in the dev diary, and it is not possible for them to make something that everybody. Some people, will complain no matter what. There are still people on the forums, who want back tiles. Tiles, bud. And you can't be a winner and always have the devs make stuff you like.
I don't like the federation/hegemony origin, doesn't mean that they are useless or that anyone who plays them doesn't deserve to have an opinion. I don't like to power game. I don't prep my ships for the crisis until after the first battle because how the hell would I know what the unbidden are bringing to bear unless I bring out of game knowledge in?

And just because you like to power game and play based on what is most efficient, doesn't mean your opinion is worthless to me. It just means that we like different things about this game. So kindly, grow up, and stop with petty insults for when someone disagrees with you or says things you don't like. Have a nice life.

 

[Primarch Victus]

You're ignoring that a lot of the "thousand" different paths are reflected by civics, as not everything is tied to ethics and government form.

But I would contend that the two options you give are not the only options.

A Militarist/Egalitarian isolationist state is possible. We're going to claim our space, defend it, and whilst we don't hate all other life, we're just not interested in talking to it, and want to be left alone. Voluntary co-operation between people is better than allowing opportunists to enslave us under the pretence of fighting the alien.

Possibly even a Xenophile isolationist, strange as that might seem - we like other races, we're eager to trade with them, but we don't want them in our space.

It might go Xenophobe/Spiritualist "the gods gave us victory and forced the alien to flee! Now we must obey the gods and shun the alien!" without necessarily turning militarist.

They could unify and decide *they* want to do the things MSI were doing, and get a slice of the galactic pie as an overlord of primitive civilisations, and seek to dominate everything rather than ally with others against MSI.

Maybe. But the more interesting paths are the ones I cited in my previous post. All these others are deadly boring! And I play games only when they are interesting.

Finally, the same freedom that you enjoys to dislike this DLC, other people (including me) have to enjoy it. So please, go away.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Finally, DON'T YOU DARE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, BETTER THAN THE DEVS THEMSELVES, THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE THIS DLC. Me and plenty of people liked of EVERYTHING shown so far and it won't be your opinion that will change that. Now please, GTFO!

This is the same arrogance that you're railing against, coming from the other side.

"This wasn't for me, therefore it is bad and no one should enjoy it" is terrible feedback. But so is "this was for me, therefore it is perfect, and no one should criticize it."

I love when mechanics and roleplay align, and there are multiple, locally optimal paths forward. So I am very interested in balance.

 

[Spaceception]

Interesting video.,
The description feels Auth/Mil/Xenophobe with a dictatorship government?

Kid, the Greater Terran Union ISN'T a Fanatic Purifier empire. They are xenophobe, aunthoritarian and militarist with an dictatorship form of government. Stop. With. This. Rubbish.

This is probably just an annoying nitpick, but GTU is an oligarchy with citizen service, since they're described as a stratocracy (and one of the videos mentions a 20 year election cycle iirc), but yes.

 

[Primarch Victus]

This is the same arrogance that you're railing against, coming from the other side.

"This wasn't for me, therefore it is bad and no one should enjoy it" is terrible feedback. But so is "this was for me, therefore it is perfect, and no one should criticize it."

I love when mechanics and roleplay align, and there are multiple, locally optimal paths forward. So I am very interested in balance.

No, I'm not being arrongant. I'm just tired of people complaining without reason and acting like they were at the center of the universe itself. He or others don't likes of the or do not have interest in this DLC? So why not simply click the "Respectfully Disagree" button and leave? Leave us enjoy this Dev Diary and ask for more info about the upcomin DLC in peace.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

So why not simply click the "Respectfully Disagree" button and leave?

1. Differences in norms. I've seen plenty of people interpret dropping a "disagree" and not explaining why as toxic negativity. It's funny that you're insisting that it's the right way to respond, and that people are being rude for daring to discuss their opinions on a forum.
2. The forum isn't a hype machine. It's a place for discussion, both for what we like about the game and don't like.

This would be a very boring thread if it was just one response ("I like it!") with a bunch of Agrees/Respectfully Disagrees to gauge sentiment. The whole point of the thread is to discuss the content in the dev diary...

 

[Primarch Victus]

And that content is being discussed. But it is pretty annoying when someone comes from nowhere and says that "this DLC will flop" without providing any rationa reason for thinking that way.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Maybe. But the more interesting paths are the ones I cited in my previous post. All these others are deadly boring! And I play games only when they are interesting.

Finally, DON'T YOU DARE TO THINK THAT YOU KNOW, BETTER THAN THE DEVS THEMSELVES THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO TAKE THIS DLC. Me and plenty of people liked of EVERYTHING shown so far and it won't be your opinion that will change that. Now please, GTFO!

You said there are only two paths.

I pointed out some other possible ones. Potentially they could be interesting ones if you play them out and choose civics to round them off. Some people like isolationist games, some people don't. Some people like to play games where they push back the aliens with minimal (if any) interactions.

Also, those are a couple of ideas I threw together in a few moments specifically to contrast the two that you gave that boil down to "we hate all aliens", and "we're going to form an alliance with everyone else", and are by no means the only possibilities. There's also "well that was rough, but we're not going to judge everyone based on MSI, and take them as they come without assuming they're an enemy or an ally" - which would fit most ethics combinations, but isn't an easy one to really define a build for quickly.



And then there's your last paragraph. Where am I saying I know the right direction to take the DLC? Where am I saying I don't like any of what has been shown?
Why should I have to accept you being this rude to me, when I haven't expressed any dislike for what is being shown?

No, I'm not being arrongant. I'm just tired of people complaining without reason and acting like they were at the center of the universe itself. He or others don't likes of the or do not have interest in this DLC? So why not simply click the "Respectfully Disagree" button and leave? Leave us enjoy this Dev Diary and ask for more info about the upcomin DLC in peace.

Except I wasn't, and I haven't said I don't like this or have no interest.

I was discussing possible alternative interpretations of how a world could come out of the MSI situation without having to result in one of the two options you gave. You might not like the options I presented, but they are possibilities that some people might want to play.

I'm discussing *in the thread for discussing the dev diary* possible ways that the game could play out once we have the DLC, and I am not saying I dislike any of it at all - in fact I really like what we've seen so far and want to get my hands on it.

I'm not even complaining!

I didn't just hit "respectfully disagree", because I wanted to explain why I disagree with your point, and some alternative approaches that could come out the MSI situation. Simply hitting "respectfully disagree" wouldn't express any of that or explain *why* I disagree.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

And that content is being discussed. But it is pretty annoying when someone comes from nowhere and says that "this DLC will flop" without providing any rationa reason for thinking that way.

Are you arguing with comments that you think I made, or arguing with comments that someone else made and talking about it as if I made the comments.
Nowhere did I say the DLC will flop.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

This is probably just an annoying nitpick, but GTU is an oligarchy with citizen service, since they're described as a stratocracy (and one of the videos mentions a 20 year election cycle iirc), but yes.

Nah, fair enough. It's just the feeling I got from the trailer.

I'm far from perfect at judging these things.

 

[Maethendias]

Because that would both nullify all of the hand holding they built into it, and it's boring. You don't need another reason to go kill everything. It's lame.

the fact that purifiers dont have reasons for their base gameplay AND how much content they lose just by being purifiers (compounded if gestalt btw, which is already a MAJOR issue for machines as i said time and time again,and why paradox will always be unable to balance them propperly) is the problem

you DO in fact need a reason to kill everything, else the game becomes utterly freaking boring (one of the reasons why nemesis was such a win AND flop, thanks to its conclusion), again, especially compounded by the fact at how much focus stellaris has for diplomacy, and how things like warfare, technology, and international politics are woefully ignored, underdeveloped and or straight up non existent

again, see signature

 

[Maethendias]

When you are as experienced as I am, with both heavily modded builds and beta testing total overhauls, it's not hard to draw conclusions/make predictions on what is offered. Especially when so many are outright arguing over easily done math.

people seem to never understand this btw
its always funny how people who played the game for thousands of hours apparently arent able to understand the underlying foundations and mechanics of the game to an extent that would allow them to draw conclusions pre release, which often enough end up being proven correctly