• 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 #33 - The Maiden Voyage

Hi everyone!

Well folks, here we are again, one week later… The development team has mostly weathered the release jitters and nerves are starting to calm down. The ship we worked so hard on for the last three years has been successfully launched and is currently on its maiden voyage. The crew seems mostly happy but some of the inspectors have raised concerns about mid-ship structural issues. As chief architect, I am not entirely surprised, but the reports will allow us to commence upgrades as soon as HMS Stellaris returns from its round-trip to Alpha Centauri. Alright, enough with the metaphor, let’s talk about our future plans for Stellaris!

First off, for those of you who are unfamiliar with our post-release policies, we will release a lot of expansions over the coming years. Each expansion will be accompanied by a major update (for Stellaris, these free updates will be named after famous science fiction authors) containing a whole bunch of completely free upgrades and improvements to the game in addition to regular bug fixes. As long as enough players keep buying paid content for the game, we promise to keep improving the game for everyone, almost like an MMO.

Now, before we begin the expansion cycle in earnest, we will spend the rest of May and June only focusing on bug fixes and free upgrades to the game. We carefully listen to all your feedback, which has already made us alter our priorities a bit. As a veteran designer of our complex historical games, I was anticipating a fair amount of criticism regarding the mid-game in Stellaris compared to that of our historical games, but I was more concerned with the depth of the economy than the relative lack of diplomatic options, for example. I also find much of the feedback on the Sector system interesting; the GUI and AI concerns will receive the highest priority. One area I was not at all surprised to get flak for is the lack of mid-game scripted content, however. We simply took too long getting all the early and late game stuff in, and neglected a whole category of events called “colony events”, which were supposed to be the bread and butter of the mid-game for the Science Ships.

We’ve been digesting and discussing your feedback and how to best go about improving the mid-game to make it more dynamic, both in the short and long run. Let’s start with our short term plans. When the game was released, we had already proceeded to fix a lot of issues. Together with some other pressing issues that have been reported, the plan is to release the 1.1 update - “Clarke” - near the end of May. We will try to cram as much as we can into this update, but the more fundamental stuff will have to wait until the next update (“Asimov”), which is scheduled for the end of June. The “Clarke” patch will mainly be a bug fix and GUI improvement update. Here are some of the highlights:

"CLARKE" HIGHLIGHTS
  • Fixes to the Ethic Divergence and Convergence issues. Currently, Pops tend to get more and more neutral (they lose Ethics, but rarely gain new ones.)
  • The End of Combat Summary. This screen looks bad and also doesn’t tell you what you need to know in order to revise your ship designs, etc.
  • Sector Management GUI: There are many issues with this, and we will try to get most of them fixed.
  • Diplomacy GUI issues. This includes the Diplomatic Pop-Ups when other empires contact you, but also more and better looking Notifications, and more informative tooltips on wars, etc.
  • AI improvements: Notably the Sector AI, but also plenty of other things. This kind of work is never "finished"...
  • Myriads of bug fixes and smaller GUI improvements.
  • Late game crises bugs. There were some nasty bugs in there, blocking certain subplots and various surprising developments.
  • EDIT: Remaining Performance Issues. We know about them; they might even be hotfixed before Clarke.
  • EDIT: Corvettes are too good.

Stellaris_new_Diplo_Notification_Mockup.png

New Diplomatic Notification. This is a mock-up, not an actual screenshot!

Stellaris_End_of_Combat_Mockup.png

New Fleet Combat Summary. This is a mock-up, not an actual screenshot!


After that, we’re moving on to the “Asimov” update, and this is when we can start making some major gameplay improvements to especially the mid-game. As you might have guessed, we plan to add some new diplomatic actions and treaties. Another thing that struck me during our discussions is that the normal lack of access to the space of other empires makes the game feel more constricted than intended. It limits your options since you can’t really interact much with the galaxy beyond the borders of your empire, and you only tend to concern yourself with your direct neighbors. This is bad for your Science Ships too, of course, since they might not be able to finish some of the grander “quests”. Compare the situation with Europa Universalis, where you usually have access to the oceans and can thus reach most of the world, or Crusader Kings, where you can even move through neutral territory with your armies. We also intend to add as much mid-game scripted content as we can. Thus, this is currently the plan for “Asimov”, but it’s not set in stone yet, so please bear with us if something gets pushed or altered:

"ASIMOV" HIGHLIGHTS (NOT SET IN STONE!)
  • Border Access Revision: Borders are now open to your ships by default, although empires can choose to Close their borders for another empire (lowering your relations, of course.)
  • Tributaries: New diplomatic status and corresponding war goals.
  • Joint Declarations of War: You can ask other empires to join you for a temporary alliance in a war against a specific target.
  • Defensive Pacts.
  • Harder to form and maintain proper Alliances.
  • More war goals: Humiliate, Open Borders, Make Tributary, etc.
  • Emancipation Faction. We had to cut this one at the last minute. Needs redesign.
  • Diplomatic Map Mode. Much requested!
  • Diplomatic Incidents: This is a whole class of new scripted events that causes more interaction with the other empires.
Past “Asimov”, I can’t give you any kind of specifics yet, but I am currently leaning towards honing in on the following general areas for the “Heinlein” update (these are not promises!):

CURRENT "HEINLEIN" INTENTIONS
  • Sector and Faction Politics: We are working on a design for this. I always wanted to make Factions more closely tied to Sectors, for example...
  • Federation and Alliance Politics: As a player, you need more ways of interacting with the other members, push your will through, and get elected, etc.
  • Giving Directions to Allies and Subject States.
  • Strategic Resource Overhaul: You should need these and search for them far and wide. They should be extremely important.
  • Battleship Class Weapons. Some Battleship front sections will be repurposed for an XL size weapon slot. There are currently four ship sizes but only three sizes to weapons, creating an imbalance. Also, Battleships should have fewer small weapon slots and have to rely on screens of smaller ships.
  • Fleet Combat Mechanics: Formations and/or more complex ship behavior is needed.
  • Mid-game scripted content: Guarded “treasures”, mid-game crises, colony events, etc.
  • Living Solar Systems: Little civilian ships moving around, etc.
Again, remember that we need to be somewhat flexible when things don't work out or when something else takes priority, so please take these later plans with a large grain of salt. As always, we also listen keenly to your feedback, so keep it coming!

Now, I am sure you are full of questions about the details, but hold your horses; it will all be explained in the coming dev diaries!
 
Last edited:
  • 1K
  • 289
  • 6
Reactions:
Brilliant, this is such good news. Very happy to see the XL 'love' given to the battleships. Hopefully that'll balance out the combat and stop corvette spam.
Thanks Paradox...and well done on a great game!
 
I think malluses should still exist, but merely reduced. Otherwise playing as collectivists just isn't worthwhile. Individualists get a straight up modifier with none of the complicated balancing act of slavery bonuses/malluses. I think what you're saying makes sense for individualists, who should get a harsher happiness penalty for being surrounded by collectivists, but non-individualists shouldn't care as much as they do about slavery. It's the difference between "these guys are creeping me out" and "these guys are being exploited, what if it happens to me?".

Yes, I can agree to this.
But isn't this already achieved by those being neither collectivists nor individualists not having a bonus or malus on slave tolerance, while collectivists have a 50% (100%) bonus, while individualists have a 50% (100%) malus?
 
You have very good plans for your updates and I am sure it will make a fantastic game even better.
I have now experienced many times with your games, how you improve them over the years and while getting more and more complex they remain playable and enjoyable.

Particularly excited about open border policy rather than closed being the default. I think it'd be interesting if you could then colonize in the same territory and have that contested sector/border where perhaps you can engage in conflict without war decs and goals. It'd be something to encourage border closures and make other nations seek to have you open them, but also give you a chance to sorta subversively take territory and maybe squeeze some resources out. .

I am also pro open border policy, but it should remain controllable for the owner of the region if somebody can establish colonies there or not. The system that you can decide not to allow access for military ships or station building/colonizing should be kept as it is, just that civilian access is the default option and if you deny access for civilian ships you get penalized.

But I would like it if you can allow your allies or federation members to settle in your territory, especially the planets that are not colonizable for your race in the long term.
Perhaps we can have a system where you declare specific planets as open for colonization, perhaps getting a kind of settling fee and/or part of the income and minerals+energy, because they are inside your borders.
Thus you can strengthen your federation and you must think twice if you ever leave this federation and risk internal conflicts in many shared star systems. I think that would be realistic and prohibit the player from cheating / exploiting alliances too much.

If you plan only a temporary alliance you just open your borders for normal civilian and military ships, but do not allow colonization (think about it in reality e.g. the USA cannot build a city in Germany without asking the government, that would be unrealistic).
 
Yes, I can agree to this.
But isn't this already achieved by those being neither collectivists nor individualists not having a bonus or malus on slave tolerance, while collectivists have a 50% (100%) bonus, while individualists have a 50% (100%) malus?

Honestly, I'm not sure why they have collectivists as liking slaves. I'm a collectivist, and I can assure you that's not how we think whatsoever. Collectivists tend to want the best for the whole, and everyone in it (like socialist-type stuff). Truth be told, Collectivism should not even have slavery as an issue. Slavery malus being in Individualism I get, but I think the bonus for slavery tolerance should go to the Materialist ethic, as that is what historically drives slavery.

Example, Star Trek's Federation would really be considered collectivist, but there is absolutely no slavery tolerance to be seen because it harms people.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Thank you so much for taking ownership of all the issues the game has, it truly is great when come out and say that they'll take feedback on the game and that the community has valid points.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I hope depth of the economy will still be addressed. Proper supply chains are probably too much to ask, but actual trading with other empires (AI talks about it a lot, after all) would be nice. My people doing business with their people, flow of goods benefiting both economies, that sort of thing.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
they should remove the following features:
Building stuff on planets
Moving pops between planets
Moving pops on planet surface
Possibility to make slaves
Possibility to make Robots

why?
because they are not really in the game, since you cant have any influence to the most of your planets due to sectors, but they bait alot people with those features.
psst. You can remove planets from sectors. You can do the thing you want to do. Then you can re-add them. Yes it's an annoying few extra clicks and yes, I'd prefer if sectors were a little less restrictive in some ways but "omg game ruined take out all the features" is a little overdramatic.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I am also pro open border policy, but it should remain controllable for the owner of the region if somebody can establish colonies there or not. The system that you can decide not to allow access for military ships or station building/colonizing should be kept as it is, just that civilian access is the default option and if you deny access for civilian ships you get penalized.

But I would like it if you can allow your allies or federation members to settle in your territory, especially the planets that are not colonizable for your race in the long term.
Perhaps we can have a system where you declare specific planets as open for colonization, perhaps getting a kind of settling fee and/or part of the income and minerals+energy, because they are inside your borders.
Thus you can strengthen your federation and you must think twice if you ever leave this federation and risk internal conflicts in many shared star systems. I think that would be realistic and prohibit the player from cheating / exploiting alliances too much.

If you plan only a temporary alliance you just open your borders for normal civilian and military ships, but do not allow colonization (think about it in reality e.g. the USA cannot build a city in Germany without asking the government, that would be unrealistic).

I did a little more detailed writeup I guess over in the suggestions: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...kirmishing-with-the-open-borders-plan.932958/

Yes, I think there should definitely be control given to the initial owner of the region via a border policy. Closed being what it is now with maybe some diplomatic penalty to neighboring empires, but it's an automatic 'keep out' and they can't go in without war dec or trade proposals detailing a limited access as it is in the current setting. Open being the new option that would give better relations to neighboring empires but risk them setting up shop in those territories too and then limited border being say, just science ship access... no colonies, no station building or anything really which could be perhaps a more neutral stance with no benefits or penalties.

I thought a good idea would be to incorporate it into the core/sector system with core planets/borders being always limited or closed and border worlds/sectors being ones that you can set their individual border policy to be open/limited/closed and then end up with a semi autonomous border skirmishing or cooperation. Anyway, I wrote up some thoughts in there with more in mind.
 
Cheers for the DD Doomdark and congratulations on a very successful launch :D. That upcoming roadmap sounds great, and pretty much has all the things in there that I'd see as important. Only thing that doesn't specifically get a mention would be some kind of 'ongoing' trade system that represents the benefits of trade (so instead of "20 monthly energy for X strategic resources", the trade route represents the opening of markets between two empires, and the sharing of goods and ideas, likely increasing wealth (energy) and science production. Perhaps with differing effects depending on the planets range to the other empire (so you could have very wealthy border worlds managing trade with other empires, a bit like the IRL coastal trade zones China set up in the (I think) 90s (could have been 80s, memory a bit shaky)).

More generally, really enjoying the game - cheers to you and the rest of the team :). Looking forward to it getting refined and bug-fixed - to infinity and beyond :D.
 
Honestly, I'm not sure why they have collectivists as liking slaves. I'm a collectivist, and I can assure you that's not how we think whatsoever. Collectivists tend to want the best for the whole, and everyone in it (like socialist-type stuff). Truth be told, Collectivism should not even have slavery as an issue. Slavery malus being in Individualism I get, but I think the bonus for slavery tolerance should go to the Materialist ethic, as that is what historically drives slavery.

Example, Star Trek's Federation would really be considered collectivist, but there is absolutely no slavery tolerance to be seen because it harms people.

There's no debating that point of view, it's just that from a gameplay mechanics pov slavery and willing servitude work quite similarly and might even generate similar reactions among (individualist) people. So creating two forms of servitude ("free" and "forced") could be seen as an unnecessary effort, even though I can see that the diplomatic reaction to those forms probably should differ.
So maybe "enslaving" (volunatry servitude) your own PoPs should have less of an impact than enslaving foreign PoPs?
 
*grump* Asimov = A
The next should be a b. Bear, Bradbury, Bradley, etc.

Edit: a Heinlein update should involve a quote on specialization.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Someone wrote about Corvettes and weapon sizes way back and i just have to agree that something should be done about this.

Small weapons from corvettes should not be able to penetrate Battleship armor except in very rare cases when a weak spot is hit. "Small" sized guns need a slight nerf when shooting at "Medium" sized armor and a big nerf against "Large" armor, and big guns would have a hard time to target a small, fast ship zipping all around.

This way you would almost need a balanced fleet. Your capital ships fight their capital ships with the big guns and the smaller ships duke it out around them.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
PLEASE MAKE SPACE HAVE MORE LIFE! CIVILIAN SHIPS FLYING FROM SYSTEM TO SYSTEM WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO USE YOUR MILITARY FORCES TO PATROL YOUR TRADING LANES ETC.

SHOOTING STARS, SOLAR FLARES, THE ABILITY TO HIDE ALL UI FOR A CINEMATIC SPACE BATTLE. ESPIONAGE...I WANT MY SPY NETWORK, I LOVE STEALING TECH!! SPACE BLOCKADES...I WANT MY VERY OWN TATOOIN SPACE BLOCKADE TILL MY ENEMIES RELENT INTO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS (ACCEPTING WHAT I WANT)!!

MORE RESOURCES! MORE ROLES FOR THE DIFFERENT SHIPS LIKE THE CONSTRUCTOR BEING ABLE TO UPGRADE DEFENSE STATIONS/STRUCTURES. HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUY/TRADE FOR TECH THAT IS NOT NATIVE TO YOUR SELECTED RACE.

I WANT TO ADD MORE BUT YOU MIGHT THINK I'M A TROLL.... I DON'T WANT MUCH REALLY...

P.S.

MY CAPS IS STUCK FOR SOME REASON AND I'M TOO LAZY TO USE THE SHIFT KEY FOR EVERYTHING I TYPE. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE NOTICED MORE hONEST...

P.P.S

pLEASE LISTEN TO MY PLEAS....

XoX
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am so excited for the border mechanic change, if they keep how all the FTLs work this will be a massive boon for warp, something more for hyperlanes, and could make wormholes feel less like my optimal choice. If they keep sensors working the same way, it could even be possible for the other FTL methods able to sneak through borders and around sensor ranges while wormholes are still limited due to the stations.
Military aspects could be amazing, going through an open empire to attack a neighbor without them even realizing it until the attack happens in the midgame when you've expanded but keep skipping sensor research, though didn't give specifics if military ships could go through open areas, but honestly it would make far more sense due to a space setting, without being in a sensor range you'd never know ships were moving through your territory.
 
What I would like to see:

A special type for slavery just for Collectivist pops. They can be called "cultists" or "sectarians" to indicate that they are servile, but because of their personal philosophy (Collectivist ethic), and not because of imposed oppression (despotic slavers).

This type of slavery should have reduced slavery malluses, as part of the boon to being collectivist, so that collectivists can reasonably coexist alongside non-collectivists.

As an aside, I think the Reeducation edict is flawed. It should be about imposing your chosen ethics on your pops, on top of preventing their ethic drift. This would be another way to give Collectivist empires a more intuitive gameplan, the turning of all pops into collectivists. Alternatively, it could be a policy where you institute empire-wide "brainwashing".

I'm not sure what can be done with Xenophobes. I haven't explored them much.

Lots of good points, but to comment on this specific part:

The Collectivist slaves could be a worker caste, or similar. As for Reducation, it reduces ethics divergence and assuming ethics divergence is negative, the pops will drift into your empire ethics. So it does in fact impose your ethics on your population, assuming there's not enough outside factors that lessen the influence of it. I think it's working as intended, although of course maybe some numbers needs tweaking.

I love playing Collectivists (and Spiritualists, good match those two I feel and religion is always a handy tool for imposing unity) and I think Collectivism and ethical divergence is actually a pretty solid system as it stands (except for the fact that pops very rarely acquire new ethics, only lose the old ones). With the right kind of government and applying the right amount of resources in terms of facilities and edicts, you can do a lot to make sure your non-native species drift towards your ethos, or at least away from anything opposing it. And non-native pops born in your empire will share your empire ethics, which actually seems like a decent method of representing that the generation you included might never adapt fully to your systems unless you really put some effort into it, but the future generations who grow up having never known any other culture will start out assimilated and only drift if their situation is bad.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
i saw this reddit post on the subreddit and think it goes over some excellent ideas that the devs should def take a look at
https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/4jgwf4/just_what_is_stellaris_missing_exactly_a_full/

I really think the defense station points are very valid - they need to be far more useful than they are.
also the idea of moving from planet management to sector management would be smart / fun - add alot of sector related options

tons of great thoughts in that thread

i think it's fun and the skeleton of a great game - if it were early access like NewMoo i would be 100 thrilled - as it is i'm still 85% thrilled and confident that the PDX team and make space great again! :)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Battleship Class Weapons. Some Battleship front sections will be repurposed for an XL size weapon slot. There are currently four ship sizes but only three sizes to weapons, creating an imbalance. Also, Battleships should have fewer small weapon slots and have to rely on screens of smaller ships.
I have been playing PI games since EU2. So I realize that the ship designer was a new thing. But honestly, take a hard second look at your approach to ship design and combat. Evasiveness for corvettes is silly considering everyone is using smart weapons in a space game. Being small and fast is good against the naked eye but in space there is nothing to hide behind. More importantly, rethink the linear approach to ship size. Right now, I have no reason to build bigger ships outside of fostering my ego. The improvement in ship size and weapons needs to be more than 1 -> 1.5 -> 2.0 -> 2.5 and more like 1 -> 1.5 -> 2.25 -> 3.25. Otherwise without an economy of scale being applied to corvette zergs, the choice is obvious and it should not be.
 
  • 1
Reactions: