Stellaris Dev Diary #297 - Leaders, The Council, and Agendas

[jedavis]

Ok, you didn't miss it. Did you also not miss the part where the head of research isn't the only one that can apply expertise traits to your research projects? So you have more then one council member leveling up and gaining traits and can end up with two, maybe more, leaders applying matching bonuses. Even without the DLC.

Looking at this screenshot, those three positions without DLC are likely Minister of Defense, Ruler, and Head of Research. If they let a scientist be Minister of Defense and apply tech weights from there rather than restricting it to admirals and generals, I'll eat my hat (and we have evidence that council slots can be class-restricted). So we're likely talking two slots. One of those slots is Ruler, 1) who can't be switched out reliably or frequently, and 2) again looking at the screenshot, that ruler's Propulsion Expertise looks rather greyed out to me... it certainly isn't its traditional orange, nor the new minty green of the New Worlds expertise on his head of research.

So I think the available evidence weighs against your predictions that multiple slots will be usable for altering tech weights for non-DLC players (never mind reliably, flexibly, and independently altering the weights on particular fields like we can do currently).

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Except more than one focus per tech branch counter each other, so you still have 3(if you select Civics around it) but they are now mixed in with up to 9 other Traits, which also may counter it and more than one of the same(if it works as it does now) will not increase your draw chances.

That depends if they're both fields that you want to draw anyway, and having two or more tech fields that you want weighted positively means that collectively they drown out the ones you don't want. That will depend on some finesse in the weighting of course, and how much you specifically want to get **just this one field** at the expenses of the other fields that might be supplying other useful technologies that you could research in either order. It might not matter to you if you're drawing your Materials/Armour techs before or after drawing your Voidcraft/Ship size technologies for example, or you might not care if you're drawing from Particles for reactors and weapons before drawing for Fields for shields if you need both to be effective.


And those extra 9 traits *may* also boost your research overall in a tech branch rather than countering it - so you might, for example, have +5% engineering research speed, +10% voidcraft speed, and +10 weight on voidcraft all on the same individual. (You might not, depending on the traits available, but I use those an example of a researcher that's boosting multiple aspects of one tech field.)

Overall, more information is needed to make the sort of judgements of doom and despair that you're leaning to.

 

[styroler]

Hey since were making some changes to leaders can we get something for Imperial heirs to do while they wait to take over. Let them be a governor or an admiral or something, anything other than sitting in the back ground doing nothing while we're waiting.

 

[Critical Ethics]

No one is saying swapping Scientists for Tech draw manipulation was the best solution to the RNG tech system in this game, but it's worked for 7 years now without a problem and people like you could play your way and people who wanted to engage with it and eek a bit more out of the system were welcome to do so.

Now that functionality has been severely reduced and tucked away behind a special strategy with a DLC price tag. The defence of this solution seems to be that it is in fact still there, except we now have up to 5 council slots to juggle, with even more RNG determining whether we get a useful expertise trait, where before it was a simple coloured circle with a distinct image we could process at a glance, now it's one of 700* new traits sprinkled throughout my entire pool of leaders vying for Council slots.

So it seems the 'horrible macro in a "grand strategy game"' is still here, it's still the only way to deal with the RNG tech system, you are still welcome to ignore it, except it has become more difficult to manage for those who wish to and only open to those with the proper civics, most of which sound like paid features. So since you never cared for it, you can continue to do so, but please don't complain that other people want to discuss an aspect of this game just because you don't like that aspect. If they had been willing to improve the system they wouldn't have removed 2/3 of it and left the rest tucked away in a closet.

This feature was fine for those who cared and easily ignored by those who didn't, and would have been just the same in the new Leader system, but it has been reduced under the pretense of limiting the number of leaders you deal with, when that is not the case and these 2 research slots are the only ones being removed while other, far less compelling Leaders are even increased. All of the "horrible macro" is still there, even more perhaps with Planetary Governors and enhanced Assist Research, except it's become a bit more "horrible".

There is also an RP aspect to tech draw manipulation that is being thrown out it seems, where a Spiritualist vying for Psionic Theory is going to aim for different Techs than a Bio Ascension empire chasing Biology Techs, or a Machine needing more more Alloys to build more pops, so it's not just a mechanic for the min/max players. While this has been somewhat anemic and most empires will want mostly the same Techs in the end, it is sad to see them shying away from the system altogether rather than trying to improve on it as you seem to want.

There's a bit of confusion here. Neither I nor Heliotic not anyone going "Ugh, Micro!" are arguing against players having control over their tech draws. Far from it! I want it to be easier to control tech draws. I want to be able to control tech draws without engaging with a weird scientist shuffle mechanic at all.

You're saying "The new system looks like it's going to make it difficult and awkward to control tech draws, unlike the old system which worked fine."

I'm saying "Well... I'm with you on the first half..."

 

[Losttruppen]

two or more tech fields that you want weighted positively means that collectively they drown out the ones you don't want.

Fields don't compete for slots, techs do. In the mid-game some Fields will have up to 10 techs to roll, so having a one-size-fits all Research Head can again be harmful.

I'm saying "Well... I'm with you on the first half..."

The old system was only micro heavy if you wanted it to be, by switching your Researchers out for the last month's roll; that's not what I want to preserve, I just want 3 separate focuses, one for each Research branch, whether that is from the old 3 Researchers, or a new system using Policies or something else is not a big deal to me.

Having this ability locked behind DLC, Civics, and positions that in some governments will be elected(or permanent) and locked in for years seems like a serious downgrade. How is the new system not more difficult and awkward to control tech draws?

 

[Critical Ethics]

Fields don't compete for slots, techs do. In the mid-game some Fields will have up to 10 techs to roll, so having a one-size-fits all Research Head can again be harmful.

Having this ability locked behind positions that in some governments will be elected and locked in for years seems like a serious downgrade. How is the new system not more difficult and awkward to control tech draws?

It is more difficult and awkward (or at least seems so from the info we have, reserve judgement until it's out etc etc etc). It's just that the old system was also not good. So rather than asking for the old system (scientists-level specialist traits weighting card draws) back, I want the old system to stay gone, the vestiges still present in the new system (council-level specialist traits weighting card draws) to also go away, and for us to get a completely different, much better system in its place.

 

[Losttruppen]

It is more difficult and awkward (or at least seems so from the info we have, reserve judgement until it's out etc etc etc). It's just that the old system was also not good. So rather than asking for the old system (scientists-level specialist traits weighting card draws) back, I want the old system to stay gone, the vestiges still present in the new system (council-level specialist traits weighting card draws) to also go away, and for us to get a completely different, much better system in its place.

I don't disagree with that, but given the choice of bad(pre-existing) solution, worse solution, or pipe-dream solution, I have a pretty clear idea which one I would like, yet they chose the "worse" one(with a UI update) to save us from managing 2 extra Leaders,

 

[Critical Ethics]

I don't disagree with that, but given the choice of bad(pre-existing) solution, worse solution, or pipe-dream solution, I have a pretty clear idea which one I would like, yet they chose the "worse" one(with a UI update) to save us from managing 2 extra Leaders,

Yeah, but we are where we are so the question is where to go next, and I'd like to move to something new and better than to revert to the known but not good. It's a matter of focus - your complaint is that they changed things, and my complaint is that they stopped half way.

 

[Losttruppen]

your complaint is that they changed things, and my complaint is that they stopped half way.

My complaint is that they spent dev time designing a new UI for this change(assuming it's not just our Head of Research in all three portraits of the current Research tab), that really went half way in the other direction from your ideal which they had no intention of solving. They didn't even try to solve the problem we are discussing, let alone make it halfway to doing so since as you admit this is a worse version of the same thing we had before, this change was simply collateral damage to their desire for "fewer" Leaders.

I have posted above about using Policies to achieve the same result or another solution that allows us to nudge all three tech branches in the direction we need and the ability to do so at all stages of the game with the default empires as we have now.

 

[Millbot]

People seem to be forgetting that the rework means your leaders are going to be much more powerful, than they currently are.

To pivot this back to governors. The change to how they govern sectors is going to be a buff. First, let's talk about how things actually work with governors that people are ignoring.

Regardless of how much rerolling one does or doesn't do. You often run into the issue where your ideal governor for a sector gains a trait that is absolutely useless for the whole sector or many of worlds in that sector. For instance, Let's say I get my hands on a ringworld system and when I create a sector that is able to include it. I end up with a solid mining world and then two really crappy worlds where I can sort of specialize them, but they are going to be crap out. Let's say both rolled small and have their districts equally split between the base resources and no features that make them special. I decide I really want research rings, so I throw a governor with the intellectual trait at that sector. If I don't build research labs on my natural worlds, that trait is doing nothing for those worlds. This is quite possible depending on what resources I need and how worlds in other sectors roll. Let's say my governor then manages to get a few level ups. IT's quite possible that for my governor's entire run governing that sector, they only get two more traits and neither one does a thing for me. Let's say my governor rolls adaptable as their second trait and then the third trait ends up being the bureaucrat trait, but I didn't build any thing to create bureaucrat jobs in that sector. Unless you are using mods, the console or getting really lucky, this is pretty common.

So first the sector governor functionality is essentially unchanged. Many of the colonies that governor govern only benefit from their levels and get zero benefit from the traits they have. Now, it's a bit unclear, but I'm assuming that part of the leader is that your governor bonuses from their levels are going to be stronger.

Though let's say that bonuses for levels are unchanged, it's still going to be a buff, even for players without the new DLC. First, your governors are going to be able to get more traits than they do now. I cannot stress how often I see level 6-8 governors bite the dust, while only having two traits, it feels like you are lucky if you get more than that. Also the RNG involved in their traits has been greatly diminished. So if you get a good world for specialization and it's your sector capital, you have more leeway in making sure that governor is now going to buff the output of that world even more and this is before we consider that they will be more powerful than they currently are.

So yeah, my sector governor wouldn't be applying intellectual to all my ringworld sections, when you take my example of current game and move it to a game with the new system.

In exchange though, I'm getting a governor that is going to be getting more traits. I'm going to have more control over what traits that governor gets. So I should be able to avoid having a governor ruling a ring section rolling intellectual, environmental engineer and unifier, when all I'm doing on that world is research production. I might not be guaranteed raising the perfect governor for that world, but I get the impression that the tweaks should guarantee that I can keep their traits relevant to their post. I'm also being given the option to hire another governor to manage prime worlds for specialization, instead of having to pick and choose or just having to accept that my governor isn't rolling traits that will help my awesome mining world.

Finally, let's deal with another reality that people are ignoring. https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Leader scroll down to governor traits, look a them and then scroll down to special traits and look at the ones that a governor could get and not which ones can be considered as potentially being something you can reliable get, enclavetrader would be a good example, while nanite entity would not. Do not that a whole host of specialized worlds in the current game essentially get bupkis from governors;; especially, when we consider that some governor traits are locked behind a DLC or require policies that some empires don't perform. The added traits mean those specializations will now have governors that can synergize with them.

Frankly, if we get the worst case scenario where you lose some research, because that's usually what most people try to maximize. Well, I don't see that as an issue given what we're getting in exchange.

Also not all worlds need a dedicated governor, which is the current design now anyways. You don't really don't assign a governor to a sector specifically for you're crappy worlds that can be specialized into producing 1-3 resources. You want those be close enough to a good world for specialization, that you can put them in the same sector as that prime world for specialization and have it sponge off the level bonuses of a the govern assigned to make that prime specialization world better. If you can't, you usually drop down a habitat to try to get a few worlds into a single sector and that habitat usually gets specialized into something that is worth having a governor on or you build up enough habitats, that you have enough colonies there to justify assigning a governor to the sector.

Also looking at the Geo Mapper trait for scientists. We are going to be have new ways to boost resource output from our worlds, that are provided by other leaders. Though if I had to guess, it's probably going to be limited to scientists assisting research and maybe generals overseeing troops stationed on the colony (assuming generals are still a thing).

 

[George Fernell]

I cannot even fathom explaining my friends that there are Edicts and Agendas now and that they are different things :|
I really hope that over time the systems can get merged, and streamlined.
Policies also lie in a forgotten tab that you touch at the beginning of the game and never go back to again.
An integration of all these things into this new "Empire Administration" screen would be nice.

Example:
There is not one reason why Volatile Land Clearance is an Edict. Make it a planetary decision with a fixed cost that adds a modifier for X amount of time.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I cannot even fathom explaining my friends that there are Edicts and Agendas now and that they are different things :|

Edicts and agendas both existed before this patch, and they've always been different things.

 

[Dr_Gentech]

Option for the Culture style thing where Minds sometimes recruit biological people to do special stuff would be nice nod.

Yes, I would really like more ways to roleplay the Culture in the game. Rogue Servitors are constantly shouting about how dystopian they are and it makes it hard to roleplay this classic sci-fi trope. Don't get me wrong, I love RS, and I think as an individual concept it's a good and interesting concept. It's just not the same concept as the Culture, even though it's the closest mechanically. Would love anything that helps to bridge that gap and make a more friendly individuals + Machine Intelligence civilisation.

 

[KNakamura]

I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob.

I get it, this is a whale forum, and I too am a whale. But I'm a slow-whale who usually waits until any given DLC is on 50% sale. That's a long time to have my ability to direct my research put in the toilet relative to the current, pre-DLC state of affairs. I also don't know that that's really an unusual purchasing strategy (perhaps less so outside of this forum than on it).

Moreover, paying someone to get back what they have taken away from you in an effort to get you to pay them is encouraging misbehavior; it sets up bad incentives. The correct response is to refuse to pay any danegeld ever, and to encourage others to refuse to do so as well. The fact that paying the danegeld comes with some nice things and the value proposition isn't *purely* avoiding damage doesn't significantly change the situation, morally.

Anyway, I'm gonna go touch some grass and drink until I forget there's an internet full of people to argue with.

"danegeld"

Overstatement, much? Like seriously, calling DLC buyers whales is also inaccurate, because whales are people who spend hundreds of dollars a month.

Also: I don't think that's really removing a feature that is worth crusading against, but then again, this is the Stellaris forums..

 

[George Fernell]

Edicts and agendas both existed before this patch, and they've always been different things.

Ok.
Lets pretend that most of agendas didn't suck.
Also lets pretend that agendas are not absent for democratic governments.
Also lets pretend that in Imperial you had any say in what agenda is next.
Also lets pretend that, for oligarchic and dictatorial empires, any person in their right mind actually used to spend their influence/unity to select ruler.
Also lets pretend that when such a thing was done, the decision was based on agenda and not leader level and traits.

If we do all that, then yes, agendas always existed

 

[KNakamura]

Ok.
Lets pretend that most of agendas didn't suck.
Also lets pretend that agendas are not absent for democratic governments.
Also lets pretend that in Imperial you had any say in what agenda is next.
Also lets pretend that, for oligarchic and dictatorial empires, any person in their right mind actually used to spend their influence/unity to select ruler.
Also lets pretend that when such a thing was done, the decision was based on agenda and not leader level and traits.

If we do all that, then yes, agendas always existed

.. they always existed and rulers in democratic governments had one

The point is to flesh out the system into some thing you have more reason to care about.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

.. they always existed and rulers in democratic governments had one

The point is to flesh out the system into some thing you have more reason to care about.

*Non-democratic, but yeah.

The main difference is that now they're player selectable (like traits) instead of being random per ruler. Gone are the days of an otherwise good ruler rolling crappy agendas (+10% xenophile ethics attraction, and zero other effects).

Now you choose, and it seems like they'll actually be useful.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Moreover, paying someone to get back what they have taken away from you in an effort to get you to pay them is encouraging misbehavior; it sets up bad incentives. The correct response is to refuse to pay any danegeld ever, and to encourage others to refuse to do so as well. The fact that paying the danegeld comes with some nice things and the value proposition isn't *purely* avoiding damage doesn't significantly change the situation, morally.

Nothing is being taken away from you. The free 3.8 update is optional. You can still keep playing with 3.7 if you overall prefer that version.

 

[Heliotic]

There is also an RP aspect to tech draw manipulation that is being thrown out it seems, where a Spiritualist vying for Psionic Theory is going to aim for different Techs than a Bio Ascension empire chasing Biology Techs, or a Machine needing more more Alloys to build more pops, so it's not just a mechanic for the min/max players. While this has been somewhat anemic and most empires will want mostly the same Techs in the end, it is sad to see them shying away from the system altogether rather than trying to improve on it as you seem to want.

TLDR: Its absolutely reasonable to want a way to steer research, but the current system is a relic of former design decisions (and is just bad). People should be focused on new ways to achieve the same outcome rather than reflexively defending the bad.

Making decisions on what research to prioritise is actually an important strategic decision that even Governments today grapple with, but there needs to be a better way to do this than just rerolling scientists until you hit the one you want and swapping it in.

Neither President Biden nor President Jinping are conducting job interviews to find the right person to lead their research programs. They're signing a directive stating their priorities which is then flowed through to agencies in the form of new policy settings and revised budgets which may then lead to job interviews and expanded research teams. Beyond that, there's also broader thinking about education within your population: If you want your population to be more focused on military theory, engineering and material science, your society might be different to one focused on social sciences, art and culture. These are actual strategic considerations that more clearly influence research than 'did I get the right leader out of leader roulette'.

Granted, this would require reworking of a few core systems so its not ideal, but certainly the current approach to minmaxing science could only be 'desirable behavior' or 'fun and engaging gameplay' if the Game Director was Franz Kafka, so I'm asking the people reflexively defending a system that could be charitably be described as a relic of a former era to consider how the actually meaningful decision you want to make (steering technology outcomes) could be implemented in a better way.

 

[metatoaster]

I am not interested in buying a DLC to have more than three council positions.

I would not mind having unique "special" leaders locked behind the DLC but a substantial game mechanic, oh hell no

This all seems like nice ideas, but it looks like the DLC adds powerful options which could make the game easier for those who got it. Isn’t it a bit of power creep?

I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob.

I get it, this is a whale forum, and I too am a whale. But I'm a slow-whale who usually waits until any given DLC is on 50% sale. That's a long time to have my ability to direct my research put in the toilet relative to the current, pre-DLC state of affairs. I also don't know that that's really an unusual purchasing strategy (perhaps less so outside of this forum than on it).

Moreover, paying someone to get back what they have taken away from you in an effort to get you to pay them is encouraging misbehavior; it sets up bad incentives. The correct response is to refuse to pay any danegeld ever, and to encourage others to refuse to do so as well. The fact that paying the danegeld comes with some nice things and the value proposition isn't *purely* avoiding damage doesn't significantly change the situation, morally.

No matter how you spin it it does feel like the most "pay to win" (no Jerry, not in a multiplayer sense, now sit down) or "pay to enjoy" DLC so far. The mid-game and end-game crises just to name one thing have to be balanced against some power level, and for obvious reasons they're only gonna be balanced against the power level of a player who has all DLCs. It's not hard to understand that players experiencing the base game for the first time might get very frustrated when they try higher difficulties but don't have access to ascension traits, the "powerful leaders" (I think devs emphasized that enough) from the DLC, and every other paid-for advantage that was added so far.

If I'm playing this game I want to be able to share it with other players who unlike me, don't own all DLC. And I want them to be able to play solo and enjoy themselves.

Just revert to the HoI3 system already Paradox, you're destroying your games with this DLC segmentation nonsense and forcing your devs to think like greedy mobile bastards "how much can we afford to milk the player with the free vs paid split in this DLC" instead of thinking "how great can I make this game".

Another good observation of the shaky game design in this update - moving a governor around from planet to planet to get bonuses when clearing blockers for example sounds rather tedious. That's already a thing you can do with current governors, but it's generally not worth losing a sector-wide research bonus for example just to remove a blocker faster. The change definitely makes the micromanagement worse because you can laser-target planets for stuff like that, which will be far more optimal.

I really don't get why the devs thought adding governor micro while removing research micro was a good idea. Either keep the research micro or remove both. Changing researchers was far more engaging and less tedious than dealing with governors, since it had instant, empire-wide impact.

Crap. You made me realize another dumb thing in this game you have to do to be fully efficient. Oh my god, it's fully of... design... holes.

They put a cooldown on envoys jumping from job to job, why didn't they do it for leaders already.