Stellaris Dev Diary #301 - Galactic Paragons is out, what's next?

[Velaroz]

Is the bug for "event armies get spawned in orbit instead of on the ground" on the list for bugfixes getting addressed in this upcoming patch?

Will the Ascension Path "restoration methods" for the Luminary get enabled during the 3.8 patch cycle at all, or is that being left as incomplete content?

 

[Methone]

Any news on the constant pinging circles on the galaxy map?

 

[Hackisucker]

Good step forward toward improving the latest patch!

The patch still includes some seemingly contradictory design choices and I was wondering what the plans ahead are to solve them?

• After the bombardement change Generals, which already are fairly useless leaders, are now even more useless. At the same time the patch has increased the opportunity cost of recruiting one. Why?
• You've created a system where there's now Sector governors and Planetary governors (I love this). But have at the same time reduced the ability to fill the empty slots. Why? Is the intent here that we are supposed to keep juggling the governors we have to different planets to make sure their bonuses are actually useful, like the blocker trait? It seems unneccesarily tedious and micromanagy.
• You've improved QOL by adding a way to copy and paste fleet templates in the fleet manager (I love this thank you). But have at the same time tied dynamic fleet cap limit to Admiral level, rendering the copy and paste feature useless since it requires modification anyway?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Knotz]

Is the Luminary's outcomes on the radar for this patch or only later down the line?

 

[Silens]

There's a couple of bonuses scattered about:

• Transcendent Learning AP: +2
• Dystopian Society civic: +1
• Pooled Knowledge civic: +1
• Autonomous Drones civic: +1
• Factory Overclocking civic: +1
• Precision Cogs civic: +1
• Colonial Centralization tech: +1
• Collective Self/Embodied Dynamism tech: +1
• Aptitude tradition: +1
• Statecraft tradition: +1
• Chosen of the Composer ruler: +1

Looking at that list, it seems a bit imbalanced. Half of those cap increases are hidden behind civics, the other half behind traditions and an AP, the last one even requiring another AP and a tradition.

That leaves only a mild +2 increase from tech, which isn't much.

May I inquire what thought process went into such a tight limit, and if there is a reason why there isn't a repeatable tech, like we have for starbase cap and the flat +x% increase for resource generation? Or why other thematically fitting traditions don't come with leader cap increases, i.e. Politics, Discovery, Expansion or Harmony?

 

[Harkinian's Dinner]

Reverting governors to being sector-wide is an absolutely necessary inclusion in this patch. In fact, it should be hotfixed even before that. The obnoxious micromanagement single-planet governors imposes on all but the most casual players runs counter to all game design philosophies.

And no, saying "you don't HAVE to move build cost reduction governors around every time you build something" is not a valid argument. Not only because it's the same as saying "just play badly lol", but also because those build cost traits are in fact completely worthless if you DON'T move the governor around constantly. You gain more minerals from the +4 minerals per month trait(which everyone agrees is worthless) than you gain from a governor with that trait which you aren't moving around, even if you build on the planet constantly.

Changing the effect of those kinds of traits is another solution to the issue, but I think everyone agrees that single-planet governors was just a terrible idea in general and completely at odds with the "fewer leaders" plan. So just change it back.

 

[Eladrin]

So the 0 empire build with grey eminences aren't getting touched a whole patch?

I don't know where you got that idea.

There will, of course, be more.

 

[Miguelinileugim]

Can't wait for the patch so I can finally play. Is it meant to be a stable "we're done with patching until next update" or will there be one more patch?

 

[Aaarh!!!]

Please fix:
1. Ship build discount stacking.
2. Ship upkeep discount stacking.
3. A bug that increases defense platform armor as the starbase upgrades.

 

[A2ch0n]

My only wish for the main patch would be the ascension based options for the "Under one Rule" Origin.

And for a fix, maybe give Crime Syndicates something to compensate for the missing commercial pact efficiency.

 

[pikasnoop]

Looking at that list, it seems a bit imbalanced. Half of those cap increases are hidden behind civics, the other half behind traditions and an AP, the last one even requiring another AP and a tradition.

That leaves only a mild +2 increase from tech, which isn't much.

May I inquire what thought process went into such a tight limit, and if there is a reason why there isn't a repeatable tech, like we have for starbase cap and the flat +x% increase for resource generation? Or why other thematically fitting traditions don't come with leader cap increases, i.e. Politics, Discovery, Expansion or Harmony?

While I do think some late game option would be cool (such as unity ambition and or megastructure), I would not want a (normal) repeatable giving leader cap. 1 leader cap is worth way more than anything else listed on a single repeatable.
There are also no repeatables giving gene points or envoys, and I think that is a good thing.

 

[goldennick94]

Will there be any other acquirable leaders that don't use leader capacity (such as enclaves) or was this change done mostly because Marauder leaders have to be paid in energy credits every so many years so this avoids a double upkeep scenario?

 

[Jman5]

On the subject of Empire Size, is there any thought to revisiting the formula to include subject empires in some limited fashion? For example if subject empires had their empire size reduced to 85%, while the overlord inherited the missing 15%, it would:
1. Act as a catch-up mechanic for the subject
2. Better balance between vassalization and direct control.

 

[Methone]

You've created a system where there's now Sector governors and Planetary governors (I love this). But have at the same time reduced the ability to fill the empty slots. Why? Is the intent here that we are supposed to keep juggling the governors we have to different planets to make sure their bonuses are actually useful, like the blocker trait? It seems unneccesarily tedious and micromanagy.

It seems pretty obvious to me that the point is you're supposed to choose which slots are most important for you to fill.

 

[G S Palmer]

Three thoughts:

1. Any chance of allowing a certain number of "base" leaders per category? That would make it so we might actually recruit generals instead of that just being a waste of a slot we could have used for a scientist.
2. Can we change the maluses from being over leader cap? For instance, just increasing upkeep? It's not a problem to have being over cap feel punishing, but reduced leader XP doesn't feel punishing, it just feels bad.
3. How about the ability to "furlough" leaders, sending them back to the leader pool, where they no longer count towards leader cap but also don't level up? You could even make them still cost unity upkeep to balance it. And then each time the leader pool refreshed there would be a chance they would dissappear, so it wasn't entirely risk free.

Any news on the constant pinging circles on the galaxy map?

God please.

 

[UltimateTobi]

Fixed a bug where ships would sometimes stop following its target when they entered a hyperlane

Does that mean we can finally follow our Juggernaut? Fleets always stopped following the Juggernaut when it entered Hyperlane.

 

[edwardlego]

There's a couple of bonuses scattered about:

• Transcendent Learning AP: +2
• Dystopian Society civic: +1
• Pooled Knowledge civic: +1
• Autonomous Drones civic: +1
• Factory Overclocking civic: +1
• Precision Cogs civic: +1
• Colonial Centralization tech: +1
• Collective Self/Embodied Dynamism tech: +1
• Aptitude tradition: +1
• Statecraft tradition: +1
• Chosen of the Composer ruler: +1

Granted not all of these are accessible to all empires, but it should be possible for most to get a leader cap of around 8-10.



Yeah, only the five legendary leaders (Gray, Azaryn, Keides, Sharpbeak and the Beholder) don't count towards the cap.

So in order to get a slightly more reasonable amount of leaders we need to dedicate an AP and 2 tradition slots.
I feel like 10 should be the default reachable trough tech, and the ruler should not count towards your cap.

i also find the soft cap penalties way too harsh. Half what it is currently should feel more reasonable

 

[Starfury]

While I'm convinced that there's just way too many sources of ship build cost reduction, if you really want to keep the option, one option to mitigate the -90% cost issue would be to replace the "ship build cost" modifier with a "ship building efficiency" modifier.

Instead of directly reducing costs, it would increase how much "ship" each unit of alloy buys. Final ship cost would be base cost divided by ship building efficiency. If you increased efficiency from 100% to 190%, it would "only" reduce cost by 47%.
And if - two or three DLC later - we'll have powercreeped even more bonuses, 300% ship building efficiency would amount to a 67% rebate.

Upside: Instead of the current system where every further reduction generates increasing return until you reach an arbitrary cap, there's diminishing return for infinite bonus spamming
Downside: It's less intuitive and harder to visualize in the UI

 

[Cahokia]

The two issues people seem to be gravitating toward is that the leader cap isn't large enough, and that stacking bonuses from leaders is overpowered....

Aside from that amusing juxtaposition I think there is something that could be done to solve a lot of the complaining. I believe it is simply a graphical issue. When players see a big gray silhouette they feel like it has to be filled. However filling all of them means they are way over their leader cap, so they blame the leader cap. If the empty silhouette's were instead replaced with a smaller button or something less obvious players wouldn't have the instinct to fill it.

I don't remember the patch now, but early on when empire size was being developed it used to be red when you went over your cap. Amusingly removing the red color change helped with the perception. I'm sure you all are well aware of the impact presentation has.

As the patches roll in and leaders become more balanced, fixing the outliers, I think it is good for people to remember that leaders are objectively better in everyway now. I thoroughly enjoy having to make a decision between which incredibly powerful ability I want from my leaders, since you can't have them all.

Overall the cap is a welcome addition to specialize your empire. I vastly prefer a handful of overpowered leaders versus raising the cap and watering down their abilities into weak sauce.

 

[corsairmarks]

> Leader view performance optimizations

I'm excited for this! That window causes noticeable performance drains when multiple mods are active.