Stellaris Dev Diary #354 - Stellaris 3.13.1 'Vela' Preliminary Release Notes

[Ajacoba]

This is supremely disappointing. With all the janky stuff introduced by Cosmic Storms (pathing issues, out of control devastation, terrible AI handling, overloaded tech tree, horrendously bugged and/or useless Precursors), the monstrously large planets were the only attraction (though I could see dropping them to 30 and 40, respectively). Going forward I'm liable to just deactivate Cosmic Storms, and regret buying the Season Pass.

You could just deactivate storms in campaign settings if you hate them that much

 

[Kainser]

I thought we fixed that bug - will make a note to investigate it during the next dedicated bugfix day.

 

[Kainser]

Xenophobe Xeno Paragons really bother me.

I get why someone needed that box checked, but if I'm playing a Xenophobe, then I'm not hiring Xenos to lead the empire.

There are plenty of Xenophobe variants which would be ok with having a competent Xeno serving them, if you play one that doesn't then just don't hire them? How on earth is this an issue.

People here act like all xenophobes are fanatic purifiers when there is an entire spectrum. You can keep the Xenophobe faction happy even with Xenos on the council!

 

[Ajacoba]

There are plenty of Xenophobe variants which would be ok with having a competent Xeno serving them, if you play one that doesn't then just don't hire them? How on earth is this an issue.

People here act like all xenophobes are fanatic purifiers when there is an entire spectrum. You can keep the Xenophobe faction happy even with Xenos on the council!

yeah, one xenophobe paragon is a robot who just wants to help you run your own stuff at peak efficiency without any care about the lower classes or, god forbid, the xenos
and the other guy doesn't even need to be on the council, he just admires that your empire stays loyal to its traditions and doesn't mix with xeno cultures

also if you just don't build that silly recruitment office you will barely meet any paragons anyways, no? given that it literally tripples the chances

 

[Lorenerd11]

Isn't that what the high level unique traits are for?

I was thinking that, too.

If there's a brilliant leader in your empire... wouldn't they have been part of your empire all along? Leveling up your leader to high level is how you watch said leader develop.

 

[HFY]

also if you just don't build that silly recruitment office you will barely meet any paragons anyways, no?

Nope.

Even when I don't build it, I still get the pre-gen paragons.

Not as fast probably? But they still appear.

 

[Ilab]

Any fixes that would have been in a standalone 3.13.2 will still be going into 3.14.1. (Including those fixed in the dedicated bugfix days between now and then.)

We've learned a lot from this year, and will definitely be arranging the schedule differently next year.



Generally planets in Stellaris should have a base planet size between size 15-20, capping out at 25. In extremely limited instances we let them go up to 30.

The Metal and Arboreal World planets are now between size 18-22, the Previously Terraformed planet is size 18-25, and the Collided planet is now size 25-30. The planet modifiers on several of these add extra districts on top of this - the Arboreal World planet modifier has +8 max districts, for example, making it effectively 26-30, and the Collided Planet 29-34.



For the last couple of years, we have stuck to a release cadence of one every quarter. Stellaris is a living game and the evolution of the game is part of our promise to the players. If you're on Steam, you can follow the instructions here to stay on a specific release if you prefer stability.

That said, my intention is to slow down a bit after this and concentrate most major gameplay changes in a single release during the year. (Caveat: If there's a release focusing on a mechanic, it's still going to change that mechanic.) For 2026, that's planned for the Q2 release, and I expect that we'll be replacing the normal Q1 release with an Open Beta instead.

Now, that's not to say that if a mechanic isn't working out that we wouldn't change it in, say, a Q4 release. It's a general intention rather than shackles.

Hi, this might be some hijacking but I really (and I am certain some others too) would like to know IF there is any chance at all that at some point we get a revision on some things that are still having an impact in the game in terms of balance, namely ascensions. Is it likely (or at least in the radar) that Genetics will get a revision after the machine age 'increase' to machines strengths? Even more hijacked, any chance some older mechanics get revisited, like espionage?

I reckon this is frequently brought up, but since I find that this comment here is very well made and informative (also very eager to communicate with us) so I want to get ya' while you are in the mood to chat and ask stuff away

 

[Ilab]

Some save games where this is especially egregious would be really helpful. I've seen some screenshots that are clearly not behaving as expected, so I know it's happening.

Locally, I'm seeing my fleets pathing through storms, though they do tend to minimize the number of jumps in storm systems if possible.

Spoiler

View attachment 1189984

The behavior is tied to a define, FLEET_PATHFINDING_COSMIC_STORM_WEIGHT, that currently adds 100 days to the "cost" per system that has a storm in it, but that shouldn't cause it to take a circuit around the galaxy instead of go through three systems. In my picture, if I sent the ships to Vurul it'll path around the storm, but if Baeeruta is the destination they cut across it.

I could provide one save game I am currently playing (its on Civ difficulty and several other nasty stuff for the AI, don't judge me, I am hunting achievs!) where this is being awful, how should I do it? However, why not make this some toggle? Or only make use of this pathing if the tech isn't researched. It feels 'weird' that ships usually don't avoid static dangers like Leviathans for instance, ad want to avoid some Snow xD. I do think that a toggle would be the best option, but then it would probably rise the question of whether it should be On or Off by default, so I would even prefer that they didn't path around storms at all. The main logic here being that even if they enter the storms, they do monthly damage so its is unlikely that they (unless they stay inside too long) receive major damage. Additionally, if I order my fleets to go somewhere I would rather have them go there, if they get in the storm it is my fault for not being careful.

NOTE: I think that the 100 days is a bigger issue the later you are in the game, as you get better drives and Hyper relays, going trough a storm might take very little time, bu the hardcoded 100 days might inflate it considerably.

 

[Ilab]

I have a crew that I regularly play multiplayer with 2-3 times a week, the same guys every time. One of us was very excited to play storm rider, but all 3 of our games since this DLC came out have had storms stuck at 0 days, and seemingly they stay in his empire and never leave. We've had to resort to stopping our multiplayer, loading the save and console command killing the 0-day storm. Toggling attraction/repulsion edicts sometimes causes the storm to disappear if it's at 0 days, but it's hit or miss. We're considering turning off storms until this is fixed as there's seemingly no counterplay other than going a storm-repulsion empire. Please consider adding some kind of master-kill switch that terminates a storm at 0 days no matter what other conditions are present, if the intent truly is for them to dissipate at 0 days remaining.

Hi, firs things first! If you are on Europe I would like to request joining your galactic community (join ur crew, mine is no longer playing often :/ ) Second, i haven't done it yet but, have you tried Stopping the storm with a science ship? I know some people have reported having storms at 0 days forever, however I have not gotten any myself to try if that option stops them. I agree about the kill switch, but if what I suggest works at least you shouldn't need to stop the multiplayer game.

 

[Ilab]

I guess I could refute this. But you wouldn't listen if I did, would you? You seem the type, Mr. "Oh they ALL just so HAPPEN to be from the outside spaces".

Edit: Nevermind it's an entire DLC billed about our leaders, but the 'big feature' is these rando leaders who show up out of thin air.

You could try to refute, but you won't. Not because he is of that type, I mean, do you know him? I didn't think so. You don't refute because you couldn't forma reasonable argument. He did. Now, ofc, you might dislike the feature of whatever, but that doesn't mean that what he said is wrong. In any case, I have a solution: disable the DLC if you have it, don't buy it if you don't.

 

[Lorenerd11]

Or just get rid of the paragons entirely. Their stupid, nonsensical backstories where they pop into existence from empires and orders that don't exist, with accomplishments that never occurred.

On that note, I heard a suggestion that paragons could only start appearing after the Galactic Community has been formed (for instance, it could be the formation of the Galactic Community that grants the Xeno-Linguistics tech option.)

With all these new contacts, it would help make it feel less like they just appeared out of nowhere.

 

[Thiend]

Didn't does not mean couldn't. I've been through this song and dance before and I know you, he, won't listen. You're not the type; I can tell as much.

Found the IRL fanatic xenophobe.

So why should I spend my time writing a cohesive argument that just gets ignored? Tell me. Not a rhetorical question: actually tell me why I should do it.

To prove that you're not claiming you can as an effort to look like you won an argument while incapable of doing so?

 

[HFY]

On that note, I heard a suggestion that paragons could only start appearing after the Galactic Community has been formed (for instance, it could be the formation of the Galactic Community that grants the Xeno-Linguistics tech option.)

With all these new contacts, it would help make it feel less like they just appeared out of nowhere.

I really like that idea.

Of course, there are some galaxies where the GC never forms, so something else would need to happen for those cases -- but that could be an opportunity for something else interesting.

 

[Thiend]

I really like that idea.

Of course, there are some galaxies where the GC never forms, so something else would need to happen for those cases -- but that could be an opportunity for something else interesting.

Midgame year as a failsafe should work. I almost said 2300, but then if your game ends before 2300 due to your settings this would just never happen.

 

[athalusgc]

Hi, firs things first! If you are on Europe I would like to request joining your galactic community (join ur crew, mine is no longer playing often :/ ) Second, i haven't done it yet but, have you tried Stopping the storm with a science ship? I know some people have reported having storms at 0 days forever, however I have not gotten any myself to try if that option stops them. I agree about the kill switch, but if what I suggest works at least you shouldn't need to stop the multiplayer game.

Would love to have more, but we're on Eastern and Central time USA. I actually haven't tried that yet, didn't even know it was an option. I know you can have a Science ship sustain a storm but haven't tried to kill one. I'll have to look in to that.

 

[Panzerslothen]

For 2026, that's planned for the Q2 release, and I expect that we'll be replacing the normal Q1 release with an Open Beta instead.

Do you mean "for 2025", or was the 2026 correct and deliberate?

 

[HFY]

Do you mean "for 2025", or was the 2026 correct and deliberate?

Since you put him on the spot, now it's 2027.

• Added a job weight to Storm Dancers so that pops actually want to work the job

 

[Panzerslothen]

Since you put him on the spot, now it's 2027.



View attachment 1192205

2028 is aaaaages away! Why is Eladrin talking about plans for 2029?!

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Do you mean "for 2025", or was the 2026 correct and deliberate?

No, no, we meant 2226

 

[Eladrin]

Do you mean "for 2025", or was the 2026 correct and deliberate?

The Worm and Cosmogenesis have messed with my understanding of linear time.