• 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 #30 - Late Game Crises

Hi folks!

We’re getting close to release and there is not much left to talk about that we haven’t already covered. The only remaining major feature is, I believe, the “Late Game Crises” events, and I really don’t want to spoil them, so bear with me if I’m being slightly vague this time…

stellaris_dev_diary_30_02_20160418_message.jpg


Now, last week I talked about how large empires will have to worry about keeping all manner of political Factions in check. This is one of the ways we try to keep the game interesting and challenging past that crucial point when you often tend to lose interest in most strategy games and feel that you’ve already won. It’s not much fun to spend hours of your life mopping up the final resistance just so you’ll get to see that sweet acknowledgement saying “Victory!”. Another way to keep a game interesting is through random occurrences that can upset your plans even at a very late stage. This is where dangerous technologies and late game crises enter the picture.

stellaris_dev_diary_30_01_20160418_dangerous_tech.jpg


Some technologies are clearly marked as being “risky”, for example Robot Workers. Now, you might not always risk having your victory snatched out of your grasp, but in this case at least, you really are gambling with the fate of the galaxy. Just researching such a technology is safe; it’s the actual use of it that carries the danger. For example, the more sentient Robot Pops there are in the galaxy, the higher the risk is that they will come to deem organic life unfit to exist and rise up in a well-planned revolt. Unless crushed quickly and with overwhelming force, such a Machine Empire will quickly get out of hand and threaten all the remaining empires in the galaxy. Sentient robots will out-research and outproduce everyone. If the revolt is centered in a powerful rival empire, you’ll need to think carefully about when you want to intervene; a savvy player might time it just right and be able to mop up both the robots and the remnants of the rival empire. Leave it too long, however, and the robots will overwhelm you.

stellaris_dev_diary_30_02_20160418_diplomacy.jpg


The idea is that you will usually see one of the possible late game crises every time you play, but the chances increase the longer it takes you to win. However, it’s very rare to see more than one in the same game. The different threats vary in nature and behaviour, and can offer opportunities as well as posing an enormous danger to your survival. For example, it might be possible to reverse engineer some really unique technologies from these galactic threats, but the geography of the galaxy might also change in your favor…

That’s it for now my friends! Next week, we’ll change tack completely, and do a two-part, in-depth guide for modders.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 213
  • 99
  • 1
Reactions:
Do I read this screenshot well? Does it means that some unique ways to deal with crises can be unlocked depending on ethos?

These options are just based on your ethos, if you pick one that matches the other empire's ethos they will be happier with you but that's it as far as I know. I doubt that will matter much for that one though (like +5 opinion on top of -5000 - random numbers here)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A tiny research bonus isn't anywhere equivalent to gunpowder. I don't see why you shouldn't be competetive, since you can easily have a much bigger bonus just by traits from the game start.

It's probably not only a 5% bonus, it probably has additional bonuses when you stack that certain type of tech, making the risk worth it.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
That's not the point of the analogy. How would you even quantify the benefit of gunpowder with a simple tech/modifier.

Anyway, the tech either has passive/indirect bonuses (like enabling edicts or events that improve your robot pops) or lead to more beneficial technology options. Also 5% is 5%. There's no reason to avoid it when someone else has already embraced the risk.

You don't know if someone embraced it, it could be that you're the first one but there is also the chance that someone else was already annihilated by an Fallen Empire, making you the next on the list. If someone else researched it before you, the AI revolution is going to start there and continues right in your very own realm, while everyone else is able to prepare and watch. Of course the decision is easier if you can research sentient AI up to 5 or 10 times, being able to get a bonus by 25% to 50% with increasing chances from 5% to 90% but it's still a pretty easy "ney" just looking at one card for itself.

This remembers of Star Wars and what happened after episode 7 :)

Yuuzhan Vong is expanded universe, it's not canon anymore and won't happen after episode 7.
 
Well, if you gave full rights to robots each one of them would get one vote. Probably even our smartphones would be sentient in the future, so there's nothing stopping the robots from outnumbering the organics 1000 to 1 (they could just make more robots). The next step would be a galactic congress dominated by robot politicians.

Let's all vote now for Senator Bender's proposal 1001, the Constitutional Amend to Kill All Humans. Let's count the votes. 600 to 1 for it. So, let's start now.
I'm sorry why would you make machines that have no need to the sentient sentient? A sentient cellphone or a sentient toaster wouldn't make sense, you don't want a sentient being to be with you all the time like a cellphone is, nor does you need your cellphone to be able to write poetry. Much more likely you'd have one personal AI, that handlaes all the stuff in your house, that cna controll your cellphone if needed and so on. And that would be one per person, or even one per household. Or even less since a AI cna potentially partion parts of itself to handle diffrent issues. It could run any number of personalities similtaneously to cut down on the number of actual AIs needed and retain one core being. Fo ran example the same AI handle all the houses in a neighbourhood, it is hardcoded to be aunable to violate the privacy of any one of it's employers thus only one is really required.
If th hardware is powerful enough one AI could potentilly runa city or a nation, in fact you'd be hard to draw a line to what is one AI and what is one of it's functions.

Breaking them up into separe entities would probably be more for our comfort than any real need from the perspective of an AI.
Also I find it much more likely that humanity will merge with a nascent AI than being wiped out by it. We can do things that machines atleast at first will be unable to, and it will allow us to do things we could not otherwise do, thus interfacing makes sense. And well once you start down that road again where is the line between simply interfacing and merging?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm sorry why would you make machines that have no need to the sentient sentient?

Because it's cool. If I could make my shoes sentient, I would.
 
  • 6
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
but it's still a pretty easy "ney" just looking at one card for itself.

Yeah but that is not a very "Grand Strategy" way of thinking, because it ignores the grand strategy. It's not just one card that gives a small research bonus and in turn enables a chance to cause AI to rebel. There are follow up effects and even if you don't know it you might want to 'game theory' it and not risk giving an opponent the edge of potentionally having the benefits while you don't. As described in the DD, there are distinct 'sentient' robots, so it's safe to assume those are different which means probably better than non-sentient robots. It's NOT just a 5% research bonus. Seriously, do you think Paradox would make such a bad design decision?

But whatever, if you think it's an easy choice. Make that easy choice and never take the research. But unless you always play the same way where you can actually ignore the tech, I guarnatee you'll want to eat those posts because you'll love the benefits sentient AI gives you in the game. Especially after learning how to deal with AI revolts effectively (be it through military or tolerance).
 
Excellent hopefully you keep adding on end game crisis with DLC.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ca you "win" in this game ? I know most pardox title let you just play to year x is there actual victory here ?

There are victory conditions, though I imagine they won't actually end the game, only provide you with a long term goal to strive for. There is no set end-date from what I heard.
 
I kind of feel like that's just sort of the name of the game in Paradox historical titles; ideally, without player interference, things play out exactly like they did in history, but the non-event systems can only go so far, so they nudge it occasionally.

But here, so long as there's enough variety, it should be pretty easily prevented, since there is no history to try and replicate!
I wouldn't mind the events existence, just nerf the freaking probability such that instead of happening 90% of the cases it only happens maybe 20%
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ahn, the Stargate SG-1 tactics. Let's destroy the Ori by unleashing the replicators against them. Well, replicators destroyed the Ancients one time, why not another?
It was just a tiny remnant that was destroyed, most of them ascended before that. Also the Wraith did that, not the Replicators.

The replicators fought the Asgard. Who never ascended, but were destroyed by them over time despite not being their creators.

Although the creators of the replicators (who were exterminated) were apparently human, so it might have been another remnant of the Ancients I suppose. I'm not sure that would count though.
 
Because it's cool. If I could make my shoes sentient, I would.
Yeah... ehm... You know what... I changed my mind, the AI are so going to kill us.

Jokes aside, you're basically saying you'd trap the soul of a living thinking being in your shoes?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It was just a tiny remnant that was destroyed, most of them ascended before that. Also the Wraith did that, not the Replicators.

The replicators fought the Asgard. Who never ascended, but were destroyed by them over time despite not being their creators.

Although the creators of the replicators (who were exterminated) were apparently human, so it might have been another remnant of the Ancients I suppose. I'm not sure that would count though.
Eh the asgard destroyed the replicators not the other way around, only a few escaped the Ida galaxy to be destroyed by SG-1.
Then the asgard commited collective suicide (for reasons that I always thought was just due to bad storytelling, like so much in the last seasons of sg-1).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Eh the asgard destroyed the replicators not the other way around, only a few escaped the Ida galaxy to be destroyed by SG-1.
Then the asgard commited collective suicide (for reasons that I always thought was just due to bad storytelling, like so much in the last seasons of sg-1).
Yeah, but the Replicators caused the Asgard to be reduced to a tiny amount of people, who then committed suicide because they didn't think it was viable to continue.

The worst thing about that plot arc was that the Asgards apparently didn't know how to clone properly so the quality decreased each time, which made them incapable of recovering. Doesn't really make sense, but if you accept that part, then their suicide makes perfect sense.
 
Part of me wishes there wasn't a warning on the technology to tell you it's dangerous, we can't always predict what is going to be dangerous before it goes wrong. The three laws of robotics assure no robot can do harm, in principle it shouldn't be dangerous!

Forgot the Zeroth law buddy... maybe to save humanity you must cull the population and place them in the Matrix.