Stellaris Dev Diary #350 - Storms and their Aftermath

[dulahan]

I remain... concerned about this expansion. I mean, I bought the Pass, but I do worry how random storms will be, and how much we'll have to spend building slots just to survive them, making our already limited building slots even more limited.

Though knowing there's 2 new Precursors is exciting, and might push it into me keeping it on for the same reason I do the Galactic Community DLC - too many other nice features! (I legitimately hate the Gal Com)

That all said, I also still have faith in the team, so hopefully it will be more fun in practice than it looks!

 

[Tseudonym]

Don't forget to pass all the Storm Relief GalCom Resolutions so you can commit galactic insurance fraud.

Challenge accepted.

 

[indalecio248]

Honestly this look so annoying to deal with and to keep track of. Especially the devastation for all storms and having to build buildings on planets to nullify it. At any point any of your planet can be under a storm and there you go, deal with it for the next 68 years, then 3 years with the aftermath, build a building there to negate some devastation and then hope for some good planetary modifiers. And don't forget to keep track of it all, and check back after 68 years to see these modifiers and potentially change your entire planetary setup.

If there isn't any other content in this DLC, that sounds remotely interesting, and if in addition to that, there is no setting to completely disable storms (you only mentioned adjusting some stuff in the game rules, not being able to disable them entirely) then I see no reason to buy this, honestly. Would be the first Stellaris DLC I wouldn't buy.

I'm feeling the same. These take precious building slots to mitigate something we didn't experience before, while only providing maintenance jobs. They're frankly underwhelming. If at the very least these provided something like science job, than that might make it worth it. If those jobs provided something like a boosted effect to those jobs when a storm was present, then they would definitely be worth it.

Lastly, I would ask how storms would interact with something like a planetary shield, either ground or orbital based.

EDIT: How about Aid Center Overlord holdings?

 

[Jekson20level]

Thanks for the new content. I'm very interested in how we can control the storm. But I don't know yet if it's worth it.
I'm a little disappointed that storms spawn randomly. I'd like to see them spawn due to empire activity. For example, building a Dyson sphere blocks the solar wind and this can cause a storm over time. I gave other examples under the previous diary. Is it possible to implement this?

 

[Tim_Ward]

The usual DLC offering is that you pay money to get new ways to play the game and make your empire powerful, or new things to interact with, preferably to become more powerful.

A DLC where main the feature adds a bunch of RNG events that make you less powerful, and could potentially completely cripple your entire economy, and new the gameplay is just spending resources to get back to where you'd be if you'd never brought the DLC to begin with seems like a bold choice.

Like, From software's not going to put out an elden ring DLC that's just "more negative status effects!" and some items to cure them.

Oh well, they can't all be winners, I guess.

 

[NilsFabian]

Do I get this right? A particle storm might outright destroy my fleets?

 

[xxeroc2000xx]

View attachment 1178104

 

[SelchBuall]

Is it possible to accumlate multiple different planetary modifiers over time?

 

[Foxosaur]

Do I get this right? A particle storm might outright destroy my fleets?

I think it's limited to 20% hull remaining, so doesn't break them completely.

 

[goldennick94]

The usual DLC offering is that you pay money to get new ways to play the game and make your empire powerful, or new things to interact with, preferably to become more powerful.

A DLC where main the feature adds a bunch of RNG events that make you less powerful, and could potentially completely cripple your entire economy, and new the gameplay is just spending resources to get back to where you'd be if you'd never brought the DLC to begin with seems like a bold choice.

Like, From software's not going to put out an elden ring DLC that's just "more negative status effects!" and some items to cure them.

Oh well, they can't all be winners, I guess.

I have a couple of opinions on this.

In regards to the DLC take, I don't think everyone has this stance. I think the devs current approach to making new content is more towards fulfilling player fantasies and letting players experience various sci-fi experiences in an organic way. Sure this does mean sometimes fulfilling the power fantasy angle but I don't think it is going to always be nor should it be intended to be exclusive to that angle. This is why stuff like Narrative Expansions exist, which fulfill these player experiences in a very story heavy way.

In regards to this DLC, I think the biggest appeal is 1) Fulfilling the experiencing space storms sci-fi experience (the kind that would be present as navigational hazards in stuff like Star Trek and the like) and 2) given that it's a mechanical expansion, give players ways to utilize these navigational hazards in various ways.

As someone who likes more tactical mechanics in gameplay, I find the concept of being able to choose to either repel storms towards unwanted neighbors or build proactively to counter them as interesting gameplay mechanics. In addition, you could go the opposite route and attract storms and try to use the mechanics to mitigate the negative effect and use as many bonuses to turn them into a mostly boon. This opens up interesting gameplay options when dealing with hostile empires who may not have chosen to specialize into storm mitigation that end up fighting at a disadvantage should they choose to invade while you're manipulating storms to stay near a border territory for example.

Personally, I think environmental hazards are a somewhat underutilized mechanic in Stellaris, and seeing it be expanded into ways that players can manipulate seems like a fun idea to me.

In your defense, I will acknowledge there is potential for this to be considered an annoying mechanic to some who would prefer to not play at all with it. For example, feeling forced to devote precious planetary slots to protecting against storms where they could be better repurposed to main economy jobs is a valid concern. I also assume that's why these storms have some positive outcomes to them so that experiencing them has the potential of you coming out on top in the long term.

That being said, without being able to play it right now, everything is speculation. In my opinion, I think it's unfair to the devs to make assumptions that a DLC is going to be good or bad without actually playing it and seeing if the actual result is truly good or bad.

 

[Minisalt]

Will there be modifiers to habitats or are they for planets only? I feel like void dwellers could either be a big winner or big loser depending on how storms and the modifiers they leave behind affect gameplay.

 

[Methone]

Some of the effects don't make sense. How is a gravity-storm causing... enforcers to make more unity?

 

[Methone]

Cetana: Finally, the wheel of suffering will soon be at an end. The galaxy will know peace.

Random particle storm coming to turn off her regen: The @#$% it will!

 

[mrt1212]

I don't get how increased gravitational pulls increases Enforcer and Entertainer output.

At least with Entertainers, it's using the science of Puns to get away with it.

 

[mrt1212]

I remain... concerned about this expansion. I mean, I bought the Pass, but I do worry how random storms will be, and how much we'll have to spend building slots just to survive them, making our already limited building slots even more limited.

Though knowing there's 2 new Precursors is exciting, and might push it into me keeping it on for the same reason I do the Galactic Community DLC - too many other nice features! (I legitimately hate the Gal Com)

That all said, I also still have faith in the team, so hopefully it will be more fun in practice than it looks!

Something that strikes me about these concerns is that I am fully expecting that we will have to relearn the game and it might be tough to get the hang of if we hold onto Old Ways, but it's actually giving me a reason to retrofit my settlements for some tactical reason, when I generally don't retrofit my settlements at all. I've actually been kind of weirded out about how much I can set and forget a settlement over time because absent falling into a cool building like Numistic Shrine, the best practices for building out a specialized settlement are kind of a done deal for me.

Now, I can see this being way way worse for those with a far flung empire with beaucoup settlements where you're fidgeting with retrofits in the path of the storm and its putting stress on our domestic economy but I'm smiling at how I'm being forced off my kinda docile and rote spot.

I am kinda balking at the size of effect like why 100-200% buffs and not say 50% for some of the modifiers, but we shall see how that goes. That just seems like a really intense switcheroo so surely you'll notice but it just seems like a lot. A lot a lot.

 

[DarkSafire]

So if i understand correctly stuff that reduces storm negative effects don't reduce positive effects they give? It should be choice how much risk/reward you want.

 

[HFY]

This is awesome:

Can it be inverted to make larger ships even more effective? If so that should be even rarer.

I really look forward to mods making use of that effect.

====

But I don't like these new buildings. The idea of disaster relief being a permanent structure on every planet is just a building-slot tax.

Perhaps instead make the relief mechanic some kind of big ship that's expensive to build, and then has high upkeep when it's doing its job (in orbit around a disaster-stricken world)... and allow me to park my relief ships around friendly neighbors to improve relations / increase Loyalty.

Making the relief mechanic ships instead of permanent structures also makes war more interesting -- do I deny the enemy that relief ship? Is that even more of a warcrime than usual? You have the opportunity to expand the Geneva Checklist to attacking relief workers, which means players can be even more horrible to other empires than currently, and that's not an opportunity you should miss.

Ships good, buildings bad.

 

[Methone]

Perhaps instead make the relief mechanic some kind of big ship that's expensive to build,

Think it's a bit late in the development cycle for that...

 

[mrt1212]

This is awesome:

View attachment 1178212

Can it be inverted to make larger ships even more effective? If so that should be even rarer.

I really look forward to mods making use of that effect.

====

But I don't like these new buildings. The idea of disaster relief being a permanent structure on every planet is just a building-slot tax.

Perhaps instead make the relief mechanic some kind of big ship that's expensive to build, and then has high upkeep when it's doing its job (in orbit around a disaster-stricken world)... and allow me to park my relief ships around friendly neighbors to improve relations / increase Loyalty.

Making the relief mechanic ships instead of permanent structures also makes war more interesting -- do I deny the enemy that relief ship? Is that even more of a warcrime than usual? You have the opportunity to expand the Geneva Checklist to attacking relief workers, which means players can be even more horrible to other empires than currently, and that's not an opportunity you should miss.

Ships good, buildings bad.

I think if you keep around a storm relief center for 100 years after your first terrible storm just in case it happens again, that's either you RPing a buncha shook xenos living in fear of the next one, or rejecting that tactical building slot play is at all compelling or what the point of these buildings are. And fair enough if it doesn't seem compelling or seems especially onerous as the game goes on, cause I can see it for those 50 planet empires on a spiral arm completely in the way but...it doesn't seem that onerous for the plucky tall empire that has to make 6 swaps for 10 years and then are left alone for another 50-100 by storms in general.

 

[Tim_Ward]

I have a couple of opinions on this.

In regards to the DLC take, I don't think everyone has this stance. I think the devs current approach to making new content is more towards fulfilling player fantasies and letting players experience various sci-fi experiences in an organic way. Sure this does mean sometimes fulfilling the power fantasy angle but I don't think it is going to always be nor should it be intended to be exclusive to that angle. This is why stuff like Narrative Expansions exist, which fulfill these player experiences in a very story heavy way.

In regards to this DLC, I think the biggest appeal is 1) Fulfilling the experiencing space storms sci-fi experience (the kind that would be present as navigational hazards in stuff like Star Trek and the like) and 2) given that it's a mechanical expansion, give players ways to utilize these navigational hazards in various ways.

As someone who likes more tactical mechanics in gameplay, I find the concept of being able to choose to either repel storms towards unwanted neighbors or build proactively to counter them as interesting gameplay mechanics. In addition, you could go the opposite route and attract storms and try to use the mechanics to mitigate the negative effect and use as many bonuses to turn them into a mostly boon. This opens up interesting gameplay options when dealing with hostile empires who may not have chosen to specialize into storm mitigation that end up fighting at a disadvantage should they choose to invade while you're manipulating storms to stay near a border territory for example.

Personally, I think environmental hazards are a somewhat underutilized mechanic in Stellaris, and seeing it be expanded into ways that players can manipulate seems like a fun idea to me.

In your defense, I will acknowledge there is potential for this to be considered an annoying mechanic to some who would prefer to not play at all with it. For example, feeling forced to devote precious planetary slots to protecting against storms where they could be better repurposed to main economy jobs is a valid concern. I also assume that's why these storms have some positive outcomes to them so that experiencing them has the potential of you coming out on top in the long term.

That being said, without being able to play it right now, everything is speculation. In my opinion, I think it's unfair to the devs to make assumptions that a DLC is going to be good or bad without actually playing it and seeing if the actual result is truly good or bad.

The main problems I am seeing are the following combination

1) RNG
2) Situational status effects

I know game devs the world over seem in love with it, but RNG stuff is (almost) never good in strategy games because as a player, you just can't plan around it, which is the entire point of a strategy game. You can build your empire around being the storm guys and then just not get any storms come your way. You ignore storms when building your empire and then never get storms. Frustrating. This is why I have an instant allergic reaction to any and all RNG mechanics. I think the only good one I've seen is Stallaris' tech system and that's semi-random at most.

Meanwhile, some of these storms have the potential to absolutely fuck your empire if the hit certain places, and not in a fun way. 1+ consumer goods usage on a highly populated world or -30% mineral production on a mining world could wreck absolute havoc. And since minerals are mainly a support resource (you use them to make the two main resources, alloys and tech), having a surplus of them is nice to have at most while having a deficit of them can be crippling.

Also I get wanting to do the star trek thing but some narrative tropes just don't work in games where you, the player, are not a character in the world. If they really want to channel Star Trek at least let us send out science ships to technobabble them away or something, at least it's not using up a building slot or hoping you have the right technologies and at least it's not passive.