Stellaris Dev Diary #332 - 3.11 “Eridanus” Release Notes

[fourteenfour]

All these ship upkeep and tech changes just feel like you're making the game more of a slog and less fun.

Mods are what make this game playable. I have removed many of their changes through searching the workshop and even modded a few areas myself to just make the game enjoyable for myself.

You are not going to win any battles here as there are far too many who think agreeing with PDX wins them points.

The speculative theory is getting the game to a theoretical place of proper pacing with costs for a longer fuller game instead of 'Everything crucial happens in the first 2 acts, the 3rd is cleanup and Crisis' at default. The other shoe is obviously figuring out performance savings directly through the guts of the code and calls made and also through game object costs so there are potentially less objects as the game goes on and the 3rd act is more than cleanup and Crisis and doesn't turn into 'Slowest' Speed by way of all the number crunching.


(Also, how much would an organizational layer above Fleets, fleets of fleets, called Armadas, help? Can onest find out?)

On the point of Armadas, how is this not just doom stacking 2.0?

The issue with pacing is they already allow people to set the threshold for the ages of the game and they allow people to scale tech and tradition cost (Separately FINALLY) so its not like pacing is a concern.

The other issue with pacing is you end up with too much time on your hands and start to realize how much in this game is just broken or not fun. We do it because its not like we can't but I do wish I could trust the AI more and allow it to manage colonies for me but I can't... it screws up colonies I don't set to auto manage with my least favorite job of cycling through colonies insuring there are no more than absolutely necessary clerk/drone jobs.

 

[Kranakhan]

Did you test BEFORE getting the tech? E.G. Put an event cruiser in the same fleet with corvettes before you have the tech to build cruisers and then try upgrading them.

You have a point, I will mark me this to review it in the future. I will take it into account when that event arises in one of my games. Now I am very curious if this last test you have told me is true. Thanks for the fact.

 

[mrt1212]

On the point of Armadas, how is this not just doom stacking 2.0?

The issue with pacing is they already allow people to set the threshold for the ages of the game and they allow people to scale tech and tradition cost (Separately FINALLY) so its not like pacing is a concern.

The other issue with pacing is you end up with too much time on your hands and start to realize how much in this game is just broken or not fun. We do it because its not like we can't but I do wish I could trust the AI more and allow it to manage colonies for me but I can't... it screws up colonies I don't set to auto manage with my least favorite job of cycling through colonies insuring there are no more than absolutely necessary clerk/drone jobs.

Easy - I don't care if it is doom stacking, the game making you physically select 20 fleets that will be a doom stack, because there's not an Armada grouping, doesn't actually stop doom stacking, NOR the creation of 20 fleets in time that could or could not be a doom stack. It's incomprehensible that there's not some kind of hierarchical pulse to 'organizing obligatory objects' (This is my Affinity Group name, btw) that will exist and be used in that specific way, and we're supposed to think making it a pain will prevent it through click cost?

No. It just gets gripes as I do it because it is the thing to do.

Give us the UI tools to play the game as it presents itself - this is the one at the top given any kind of hands-on with the game as it progresses and it becomes clear that you're gonna have more fleets than one full rotation of the mouse wheel.

As for pacing - hard disagree given complete misses on both Khan and War In Heaven under many circumstances where players are on default settings and the playthrough 'grows up' at such a pace to prevent either, or players are forcibly speeding the playthrough pacing up and not encountering them either. These were both supposed to be levelers and fitness checks (that also slows the game down in their own right by being diversions from larger objectives you might have had or confused those objectives completely) and they functionally no longer exist in the game often enough because the pacing is very off, both in research and Navy building where the latter also follows the former in why.

Edit: 'The Too Much Time On Hands' is exactly a symptom of 'pacing'. I said this over on Reddit in a snit, but players front running the focus and performance drain as the time goes on by speeding up the game to be a rootin, tootin, sharp shootin, adventure that takes 10-15 hours tops is a kind of game, but also explains pacing issues and sets them up to happen. Devs can't go too hard too fast in taking some of this back on their plate as the beta showed but...if they can spread the experience out and further develop Super Organism Empire management where you have - 50 colonies, 100 branch offices, 25 fleets, 5+ vassals, etc etc the details of individual management don't matter that much so long as they aren't being ACTIVELY mismanaged - maybe that helps with everything after the Super Organism point not be a focus draining slog. When the game enters this phase of still needing to actively pilot every object as if it were one of 5 rather than one of 50...this is when players start dropping their focus and want out and the New Game Itch starts to grow.

 

[Calvax]

Easy - I don't care if it is doom stacking, the game making you physically select 20 fleets that will be a doom stack, because there's not an Armada grouping, doesn't actually stop doom stacking, NOR the creation of 20 fleets in time that could or could not be a doom stack. It's incomprehensible that there's not some kind of hierarchical pulse to 'organizing obligatory objects' (This is my Affinity Group name, btw) that will exist and be used in that specific way, and we're supposed to think making it a pain will prevent it through click cost?

While fleet sorting will forever be a bane to me why can't you use the control groups? There's no need to physically select 20 fleets whenever you want to order the same 20 fleets around. Select a group, assign them to control group one, and hit that button whenever you want your first armada.

 

[mrt1212]

While fleet sorting will forever be a bane to me why can't you use the control groups? There's no need to physically select 20 fleets whenever you want to order the same 20 fleets around. Select a group, assign them to control group one, and hit that button whenever you want your first armada.

Reinforcement control as well, where topping off Armada A at 80% and on the front takes priority over Armada B at 90% and returning home for upgrades. Or even potentially, not having to remap the auto grouping upon creation a new fleet. If you create it in the Armada container, no need to recreate the group. One of the behaviors I noticed with the Fleet Manager is that it automatically reinforces in order of the fleets listed in Fleet Manager...and it's been suggested that onest just individually reinforces fleets they want to, but ya know...I still want the 4x UI tools that make it a cinch.

 

[mrt1212]

• Every participant in a war now gets a truce with the others after it ends, even if they were on the same side

IDK about this one...like...what's the reckoning here? This could slow things down a bit, if for whatever reason, 3rd party had a defensive pact with 2 other parties that hate one another's guts and were itching to duke it out. (This has happened in a few playthroughs now where I am rolling dolo with Defensive Pacts with at least 2 parties who don't like one another very much and getting happily tugged into wars for salvage, etc)

 

[HFY]

IDK about this one...like...what's the reckoning here? This could slow things down a bit, if for whatever reason, 3rd party had a defensive pact with 2 other parties that hate one another's guts and were itching to duke it out. (This has happened in a few playthroughs now where I am rolling dolo with Defensive Pacts with at least 2 parties who don't like one another very much and getting happily tugged into wars for salvage, etc)

It's common for an isolationist AI to give me open borders during a war, and then immediately close borders after -- sometimes leaving my fleets trapped on the wrong side.

 

[mrt1212]

It's common for an isolationist AI to give me open borders during a war, and then immediately close borders after -- sometimes leaving my fleets trapped on the wrong side.

OMG RIGHT, that makes some amount of sense and I had one playthrough go belly up just because of that, but still...seems like for some of those big wide scale wars with many parties this could ice things pretty good for the 10 years after amongst all after...Well, I'll hafta to see how it goes then.

 

[HFY]

OMG RIGHT, that makes some amount of sense and I had one playthrough go belly up just because of that, but still...seems like for some of those big wide scale wars with many parties this could ice things pretty good for the 10 years after amongst all after...Well, I'll hafta to see how it goes then.

Yeah, it might mean there's an overall pace of galactic war - peace decade - galactic war - peace decade - etc.

Either way, I look forward to the post-war convenience.

 

[mrt1212]

Yeah, it might mean there's an overall pace of galactic war - peace decade - galactic war - peace decade - etc.

Either way, I look forward to the post-war convenience.

I am going to have to get a lot better with my Second Strike selection so it actually lines up just so with big throw downs...I love Enmity for most of the game but never do Second Strike correctly and on time, I'm terribly off beat with it, terribly. Edit: Half the problem is I do conquests which uhhhhhh...yeah...they're aren't rivals after that. They're in a bad way, very bad.

 

[Eladrin]

As a head's up, today's dev diary will be later than the usual time.

 

[Jeyops]

Reading the patch notes: Wow... okay... I LIKE THIS!

No Idea how the game feels yet but you tackled a bunch of the most pressing issues. Once again: Thanks pdx!

 

[BlankLines]

Good evening, thank you for informing us. Will there be any surprise spoilers

As a head's up, today's dev diary will be later than the usual time.

 

[Michaeas Magister]

From the patch notes:

• Rebalanced leader traits gained from Ascension Paths (Psionic, Chosen One, Synthetic, Cyborg, Erudite)

Could this be any more vague or generalized? "Rebalanced" how?!?

Any chance at all that we could get a more detailed note as to just what was changed/balanced, please?

Thanks!

 

[TrueWolves]

That's incorrect. There's a mod which adds +600 years to leader lifespan, and a 200 year old leader will retire in less than a month.

It's not just a fancy death message. It's a separate mechanism.

Please refrain from posting misinformation.

An apology would have been nice since this has been proven to have never been misinformation.

 

[HFY]

There were some changes made to lifespan a few months back (I think they released alongside Astral Planes) so things that increased lifespan would better affect maximum lifespan and percentage age based effects, and it looks like they may have cleared up the issues you were having. When I swapped out the leader_age from your example with the new leader_lifespan_add, my 351 year old leaders seemed content to continue doing their jobs as time was passing.

Spoiler

I stuck this into trait_enduring, replacing the normal modifier block.

leader_age_min = 100
leader_age_max = 400
   
modifier = {
        leader_lifespan_add = 625
        pop_amenities_usage_add = 0.10
        planet_jobs_unity_produces_mult = 0.25
}

View attachment 1085925
I kicked the starting ages up to 600 - 900, and the ones in the upper end of the age ranges retired or died in the first month as expected, but the 704 year old leader kept chugging along (with 0% chance of death under 705, the one I posted above probably had +10 lifespan from a trait).

View attachment 1085931

Once she hit 706, she started accumulating death chance.

Letting the game run at speed 5, she finally died at 708.

View attachment 1085933

To be completely transparent, I did my testing on my local 3.11.1 branch, so I may have slight differences in code than what's currently on live, but it looks like the mod should be able to use leader_lifespan_add. If not now, then next Tuesday.

Thanks again for finding this and fixing it.

Even if random forum people are still giving me a hassle about reporting it, thank you for confirming and fixing it.

 

[Kranakhan]

Did you test BEFORE getting the tech? E.G. Put an event cruiser in the same fleet with corvettes before you have the tech to build cruisers and then try upgrading them.

After verifying it conscientiously, I have concluded that everything you have said is incorrect and is only based on outdated information.

Therefore I will continue to insist, create_ship = {upgradable = no} works correctly for event ships.

Spoiler: SCREENSHOTS

Anyway, thanks for contrasting the information, at least it has spur me to test it.