Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[KingAlamar]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Given the context of the full game I'm [currently] mostly OK with the current individual pop vs. job system -- at least early in the game. When managing a low-ish number of planets I believe this system works quite well -- you balance of individual pops vs housing vs upkeep vs jobs [buildings & districts] and it forces you into what I believe is a useful exercise in planning.

The gotcha is that the wider your empire grows the "fun" (?) problems to solve get overwhelming due to all of the micro that I "feel" that I need to do.

Perhaps it would be better to designate planets like [Generator world, Tech World, Forge World, ...] and then instead of managing for each pop, building, district you're managing on the level of "planetary decisions", "planetary designation", "unity & stability".


**********************************************

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I guess it depends on the exact sorts of changes in mind. For example I would still want to "design" my ships and also dictate the ship composition in my fleets. I would then also want a simulation that takes the "individual" ships in mind to determine the winner of fleet vs. fleet battles. I also want to keep the idea that if I can synergize my ship design with my fleet composition that I'd be able to [successfully] take on a significantly more "powerful" force that doesn't have those synergies at different levels.

If you're talking about lowering the total number of fleets to 7 or 10 or similar I would be in favor of that as managing 30+ "fleets" at endgame is a bother and moreso when playing against an AI that will spam you on more fronts than you'd otherwise want to keep up with at any one time.

As for other changes in fleets it would depend. While it's "realistic" to restrict what fleets can & can't do I would still like to recreate some of the epic space battles from movies or even other games where you [and maybe your entire federation or galaxy] needs to have a showdown with a "crisis" level enemy. Here I would like to feel the scale of the battle -- seeing 5 "fleet icons" is a lot less inspiring than seeing 1000 ships fighting with your existence on the line.

**********************************************

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I define my empire / civilization before game as roleplay exercise and then I will use species type, traits, government, civics, origins, early ascension picks, etc. to match my pre-game vision to what is in-game.

Basically I want a layered approach [species, government, techs researched, tradition trees, etc.] to all tell a coherent story that allows me to bring my pregame vision to life. I wouldn't want those layers cut down to "militarist" and "pacifist" as my only choices.


**********************************************

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

My goals are [almost] always the same and they're almost always set before the game begins. I rarely if ever change my overall goals HOWEVER depending on the pre-game vision I have for my empire certain "opportunities" may arise that at least direct more short-term goals.

FYI: My general goals are almost always -- Build an empire that matches my pre-game roleplay notion of what my empire should be like ... try to survive early & midgame challenges and then end everything up with dealing with any late game "crisis", fallen empires, "player crisis" or similar events. Once my empire's place in the galaxy is secured into the indefinite future then I [generally] consider myself done.


**********************************************

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

I'm not married to the exact implementation of the trade system so I wouldn't mind it changing. Specifically the idea that trade [basically] flows from planets to starbases and then to the capital could be completely changed and I'd be fine with that.

Honestly I would probably be fine with Planets being "taxed" by Sectors and then the Sectors themselves being "taxed" by the Empire. Amount of Trade could then be a function of things like planetary designation [Trade world], amount of taxes, stability, piracy, relations to foreign powers, etc.

**********************************************

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Yes and no. I don't mind the colonization of "guaranteed" worlds being easy. Perhaps colonizing [via climate modded POPs or Robots] is too easy so I wouldn't mind it being harder to spread out -- at least initially


**********************************************

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

If I removed one current game system it would likely be "storms". While the new implementation isn't without its merits it seems like the current implementation is a "frequent annoyance" as opposed to an engaging feature to deal with.

If I chose a "current system" to focus on the next expansion I'd show some love to genetic ascension.

If I chose to implement a new system I'd look into something like "internal stability / politics" and would focus on that.

A system that I want to like more, but needs some fine tuning, is with "subjects" [minion empires]. Specifically I feel that the value of subject empires warps the game more than I'd like to see. For example if you want to roleplay without subjects it seems like there is too much bloat in "Research" to make the progression enjoyable. If you have one [or multiple] subjects then conversely Research seems "too easy" as you can reallocate a lot of your population to focus on research itself.

 

[bdolishny]

I first off want to say thank you for honestly asking your fans what matters to them. This year has been pretty rocky with Paradox DLCs but Stellaris is my favorite game and I have thousands of hours in it. I always say that other Paradox games need a team like the Custodians.

That being said, I have so many ideas that I hope will reach you guys that I don't really know where to start. I guess I'll focus on the thing I've given the most thoughts to and that is civics and origins. I think Stellaris needs a massive overhaul to civics and origins especially with this current three DLCs a year policy. Too many civics and origins have come out that add too little to the gameplay and roleplay aspects of this game.

I think the primary problem is the disconnect between what a civic is in game and what it is in setup. Civics should be decisions I as the player take to impact how I play the game. I bet not a lot of people know that, while you have to take ethics, you can entirely skip the civics part of setup. You can run an empire with no civics. If I'm choosing a civic it means that I as a player want my gameplay to change in a way that is significant. In-game too, civics are supposed to represent decisions that a government has taken to impact how they run. They are top down decisions that affect daily life for it's people.

As it stands, there are four (kind of five) types of civics. The first type are civics that are just stat increases; these impact how I play the game (I guess) but do not represent conceivable decisions or policies that affect the daily lives of citizens. And important note here is that they are unique; they are not replicated by technology or traditions. If another empire wants to have this bonus it needs to take this civic. Diplomatic Corp gives me good bonuses, but every nation has diplomats, no? How are citizens being affected by this? Knowledge Mentorship is another example. Any synthetic empire should be storing its leader's digitally and while the scaling bonus is unique, a lot of this civic is replicated elsewhere. All I really get his for is slightly better leaders, I don't have to take this into account beyond empire creation. Exalted Priesthood, Philosopher King, Distinguished Admiralty; I benefit from these all but they don't matter.

The second type of civic is one that should be a technology/tradition/ascension perk/policy. They provide nothing new to gameplay and accomplish nothing. They should be removed. Examples include Heroic Past (every nation has a past, it came free with your linear time silly), Hyperspace Specialty (we're in the galactic space here, everyone goes fast), Cutthroat Politics, or Free Haven.

Thirdly, there are civics that provide a unique building or replace an existing building. These are my least favourite even though they're better than the second type. They are lazy and, unfortunately, endemic to the most recent DLCs. These include civics like Memorialist, Shareholder Values, Astrometeorology, or Reanimators. I will touch on what I think would be best for civics like these later.

Fourthly, there are civics that I feel are good as is. They provide unique gameplay challenges and rewards, and they fundamentally change the lives of the pops living in that empire. Environmentalist, Feudal Society, Criminal Heritage, and Agrarian Idyll (my beloved). These might need some numbers to touch them up but otherwise fine.

The fifth, and secret type, are the civics that are parts of Origins, or should be combined together. Why is Idyll Bloom locked behind plantoids and why is it not part of the Life-Seeded origin? Beastmaster and Antiquarian Expertise are two haves to their origin's whole; why pick Beastmaster with something like Payback?

So, what do I think should be done. In addition to numbers changes to make the game more balanced, I propose Paradox should break up civics into two types. The first should be game start civics. These are civics that both change the gameplay and make sense in the game world. A Remnants origin empire with Catalytic Converters and Shared Burdens should feel very different than a Remnants origin empire with Feudal Society and Diplomatic Corp. Secondly, certain civics should unlock as the game progresses. I'm picturing something like the situations you get after cybernetically/synthetically evolving. You should have events pop up that give temporary bonuses or maluses in reaction to the state of the game. For example, let's just say your empire won a war of conquest against another but took massive civilian and military casualties. I'm not good at math but it should be triggerable with key game knowledge. As this situation goes on your society will ask questions about what should be done with the dead and if the cost was worth it, etc. If your society ultimately decides that the sacrifices were not in vain, it should be rewarded with the Idealistic Foundation civic. If the families of the dead decide that they are not willing to let their dead ones go just yet, and want to prevent something like this from happening again, you might get the Memorialist civic. If your government steps in and says that the wars must continue but agrees the cost was too high, maybe they can replace living soldiers with dead ones and you'll get the Reanimator civic. It should fee similar to EU4's King and Country disaster. Absolutism can completely change the course of a game and players can react to it by changing their game plan. Wars are stopped, development ceases as players have a new temporary goal. Other players ignore it and find other parts of the game more important. Maybe you didn't get the result you wanted and it changes how you play the game going forward. Too much of Stellaris is decided in the creation screen, we need more reactive and permanent decisions that aren't something like '10% trade value on Planet X'. Having pre and post game creation civics would reward skilled players as well as give the sense of discovery to new ones.

I hope other players get something out of this and agree with me. Civics should be game defining, they should feel unique, they should make sense in the world, and we as players should not be limited by the creation screen or the number 3. Paradox, thanks for the game.

 

[Vlad Lenn]

For me, the most crucial system in Stellaris is the ascension paths.

I love imagining how different societies (and there can be so many!) might transform when they unlock technologies capable of radically enhancing their species, sometimes even altering its nature entirely. That societal, cultural and physical transformation of a species always fascinated me. How would such a society be governed - or would it even be governed at all? What might happen when a spacefaring civilization approaches the level of power held by the Fallen Empires? And finally, what could have led to the decline of the Fallen Empires in the first place? Is this fall into decay an inevitable stage in the development of a space civilization? Could there be exceptions?

This is why I was so excited about the Machine Age expansion, which added depth to the mechanics of Cybernetic and Synthetic ascension and introduced Cosmogenesis, where we could touch upon the fabric of the universe itself. I hope that someday there will be expansions that provide the same level of depth and detail to the Psionic and, my personal favorite, Genetic ascension paths - complete with new forms of governance and situations, specimens, etc., allowing us to build new exciting civilizations - utopian, anti-utopian, and everything in between.

There are currently three Origins that force a particular Ascension Path for an organic empire, but no such origin for Genetics. Overtuned can be quite fun, but it's also a bit quirky (Toxoid style, with all those crafted smiles, farm appendages and extra brains) and it doesn't really focus on ascension, enhancing the base genetic modification instead.

I also had an idea about making some (or all) of the existing Endgame Crises particularly dangerous for empires that took a certain Ascension Path (or rather making that Crisis more dangerous for everyone else in case it manages to get to the territory of an empire that took its preferred Ascension Path). For example, Prethoryn Scourge could make Genetic empires their prime target, making them able to absorb rare genetic traits from the pops they consume, thus empowering the Scourge in new terrifying ways depending on the consumed traits and their combinations (they could be required to consume a certain number of pops having that trait for it to be absorbed into the Scourge). New monstrous creatures spawning, the Queen getting more beefed up and dangerous, new biologial weapons (that could then potentially be salvaged from their wrecks... Maybe some new twisted Prethoryn-themed genetic traits? Yummy!). So you see, the Crisis consuming an Ascended empire could be dangerous, but it could also be a potential boon for other empires in the form of new very rare techs, traits, weapons and other such stuff!

For Psionics, it could be Extradimensional Invaders that could have some psionic mind control powers they want to enhance by draining the power of ascended Psionics. As those powers grow, some terrifying effects could begin to manifest - psionic storms, mind controlled fleets, summoned ethereal creatures from beyond the Veil, or even parts of the Veil manifesting itself in our reality - huge potential for new exciting mechanics (as well as some new very rare Relics and specimens from beyond - among other things)! And there could be new Endgame Crises for the three new Machine ascension paths as well!

 

[ponfarr]

1. The current Pop and Job system is not at all important. The abstraction is a bit too abstract to be honest, as a Pop doesn't clearly represent either a number of individuals (in which case we should be able to clearly calculate how many people a Pop represents, and would make current numbers completely meaningless, as an ecumenopolis would need thousands of Pops to represent such a degree of demographic density) or a unit of production capability (which would make productivity upgrades better represented as more Pops, instead of multipliers). A new system that allows the simulation of planetary growth and productivity without individual Pops might even help solve many of the performance issues the game currently has.

2. It has changed so much already... I started playing on the time of single Doomstacks. I feel like the most important aspect of Stellaris fleets would be control: the game allows you to design individual ship classes and determine fleet composition. While I'm not at all against changes in the fleet system, those aspects are what makes Stellaris space combat, well, Stellaris space combat. At least to me.

3. Ethics, Civics, Government and Origin. Origin explains where they came from and how they got where they are, which is essential in defining both individuals and societies. Ethics explains how they face the reality they are given, their general mindset. Government and Civics shows how they organize themselves and which institutions are most important for their society. The combined effect of all these really brings home who a Stellaris civilization is.

4. I first set goals before starting a new game. These are general theme goals: diplomatic run, tech rush, overlordship, etc. Quite frequently, the precursor I get changes general goals, sometimes changing the way I expand (damn you Grunur...), which ascention path I'll pursue (Zroni...), and may even make me ragequit (seriously, Zroni with a machine or Grunur as a Void Dweller...). As new information gets added, my plans are altered to adjust to "reality": who are my neighbors, what star systems do I have available, planets in them, etc.

5. Honestly, I hardly pay any attention to it, with the exception of occasional pirates. In fact, since the only effect of pirates is a relatively small reduction in energy credits, they are only a very minor nuisance. Trade going to your capital makes a lot of sense in early game, when your capital IS the beating heart of your empire's economy, but makes ZERO sense in the late game, when it should represent goods moving between the highly specialized and developed planets you have by then, with minerals going from mining worlds to any type of industrial worlds, not necessarily your capital. In fact, the biggest problem I see with the trade system is that it only deals with internal trade, but should be dealing with trade between different empires, particularly neighboring ones.

6. I think it matters too little in early game and too much in mid game. In the early game, you should be struggling to colonize planets of adjacent types (Ocean and Tropical if you homeworld is Continental, for example), and essentially barred from living in worlds outside you basic type (Wet, Dry or Frozen). Maybe they'd end up like Arrakis: even after centuries of adaptation, the harsh conditions only allow for a few million people (which may sound like a lot, but for a whole planets it means that world is basically empty). Adaptation to different environments should be the subject of research, opening up new opportunities of expansion as new techniques are developed. By mid game, you should be able to colonize most, if not all, planets in your territory without the need for terraforming.

 

[Elminster12]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

I think it was a huge improvement over the seriously-limited tile system that has enabled lots of good additions. With that said, it is my understanding that the system is very intensive in terms of CPU usage and produces a good deal of lag later on, especially for those of us who don't have high-powered gaming computers, and it doesn't really bring a whole lot to the table: there generally aren't very many decisions being made concerning which pops are working which jobs, and that ones that do exist are mostly just "disable this job because it's suboptimal".
This really feels like a system that could use some abstraction. I'm certain you could preserve the compelling aspects of the system (particularly developed urban planets having a ton of people vs. some relatively quiet agricultural backwater) while reducing some of the load.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I've never been a big fan of the ship designer, but I don't expect that will be altered significantly.
As for fleets themselves: they continue to be messy and get terribly unwieldy late-game. I prefer fleets of exclusively cruiser+ size ships because managing the constant replenishment of smaller ships is a pain. Frigates basically don't have a role right now either: they're slow, they're fragile, there's no good reason to not just use Missile Cruisers instead.

Personally, I think it might be interesting if fleet sizes were overall smaller and ships were overall more durable, and if veterancy had some more oomph: you would then have reason to care about your ships and be encouraged to play more carefully with them, while reducing the total amount of ships flying around. It would also be an additional brake on going wide: it being harder for you to support enough ships to cover more frontage, giving a smaller empire that's better able to bring its full power to bear against you a fighting chance.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Ascension perks and civics feel very meaningful, and I love the situation and evolved governments that come out of going synth and going cyborg. It would be nice if psionic and especially genetic ascension got their own situations and ascended government forms. Civics and ethics carry a lot of weight too: I play my xenophobic technocracy mad science birbs(nothing is wrong when it's FOR SCIENCE!) a lot differently than the religious communist lizards or the egalitarian plant people.

It's certainly nice that some species classes get unique traits, as it helps make them feel different. It would be nice if there was more of that.

Certain species traits are really underwhelming (*coughresilientcough*). I appreciate not all of them will/can be winners, of course, but...

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

I try to roleplay my empire a bit. Explore space, try to establish boundaries, and go from there. I'm not a very aggressive player, most of the time. My goals are amorphous and rarely over-arching.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

It's not a very interesting system, and pirates are a constant source of irritation- unless you place a few hangar bays in strategic places. Trade is normally not even worth bothering with unless you've specifically specced your empire for it, which feels wrong.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Habitability is, IMO, simultaneously too binary and too easy to fix. There's rarely any reason to settle anything with less than 60% habitability, and there are a lot of ways that you can elide/reduce it: such as migration pacts with friendly empires, ascensions (synth and cyborg most of all), even tech. Leaves the Adaptability traits feeling very overpriced (with the exception of Spliced Adaptability, but even then its impact tapers off hard).

Terraforming is entirely too easy and a complete nothing. There's no process: you click a button, pay a lump sum of energy and wait. That's it. Then when the timer expires, that barely-habitable wasteland becomes basically perfect for your species. Gaia worlds feel generic and kind of undertuned. Ringworlds come too late to be worse than Ecumenopolises. Detox is a waste of an ascension perk.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Not off the top of my head.

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

Scrap armies. Make terraforming a situation- and make it dicey if you're terraforming an already-inhabited planet.
Bio Ascension desperately needs a glow-up.
I feel like there should be more events and situations about goings-on in your empire and along borders with other empires. Anti-war protests, veterans' movements, agitation for policy changes, minor and major diplomatic incidents(that are a bit more interactive), even just general slice of space life stuff. Leaders may often be involved.
Cosmic storms are interesting but need some more polish and need to present more opportunities, rather than just being a blob of unpreventable devastation.

 

[SecondSight375]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

I don't dislike the system, and I've gotten rather used to it. I did not play during initial launch, and I know that there were a lot of changes, but I feel like adjusting this at this point might just cause more confusion than good.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

Fleet management is one of my least favorite aspects of war. I generally just set my ships to "auto best" because micro managing the different weaponry and attachments is not something that interests me, even if there are massive benefits to it.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I absolutely love playing Inward Perfection empires, or something in the same vein. Being able to play an empire that is entirely self sufficient and can still maintain a presence on the galactic stage is a fantasy that I love to try and play out.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

I mostly set my goals based on the year we are in and the victory/power scores of the other empires vs mine. Where should I be at this point in the game in comparison to to other empires? If I check their statistics, am I equivalent to them, are they pathetic to me, or are they overwhelming to me? Do I need to start a project now so that I can benefit from it in 50 years? Are any other empires around me that are getting too powerful and require some "care" and "attention?"

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

I almost completely ignore the trade system until I start to get pirates. Even then, it's not something that I typically think about or engage with.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Potentially too easy. I've seen others suggest more events during colonization that could impact the planet, and I think that would be a fun addition (similar to what was added to terraforming).

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Off the top of my head, not particularly.

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

If I could remove a system, it would be victory score. I greatly enjoy Age of Wonders 4's take on victory because it feels like there's multiple avenues to win. I want to be able to play an empire that doesn't build a single fleet and doesn't have a single vassal, but is still able to attain "victory" by being a utopia and having a crazy high diplomatic score. I'd even be okay with a CK3 treatment of removing victory altogether and letting the game just naturally end with the stories that were told along the way. When I have to focus on victory score, I start to feel like there's a certain way I NEED to play in order to beat the game, and then every campaign ends up being relatively the same even if the events that trigger are different. I might also run into a situation where I've been friendly with an empire for the entirety of the game, but they're beating me in victory score, so before we hit the end year the Colossus needs to come out.

I'd also think about removing army combat. It's not fun to spend thousands of alloys on ships, completely demolish an opposing empire, and then realize you need to build a supporting army to capture their last planet. Sure, you could bombard it into oblivion, but you already have the ships. Perhaps the armies could just be rolled into that and scale off of fleet power?

If there was something I would want to see as a central focus of an expansion, it would be the remaining bio empire ascension paths. I love psionic ascension, and I know it got a soft rework recently, but an entire expansion focused on it like we got for the Machine Age would be awesome.

A feature I want to enjoy but doesn't quite work is the espionage system. It has so many possibilities, but the benefits and consequences or putting time and resources in it pales in comparison to just investing those things elsewhere.

 

[SomeoneNotDead]

To preface my response I do not play stellaris for roleplay, I play it for the RTS. Some may agree or disagree with my opinion and that is totally valid. However, the following is my opinion after playing quite a bit of the game and learning the intricacies.

I will be using the term intricacy multiple times throughout my response. When I use it, I'm often referring to an addition of complexity to Sstellaris as most of the systems in their current state feel a bit too simple and binary. The game could be immensely better if the systems already inside the game were better interwoven in with one another give the game a better ecosystem that lets players come back.

Answering the requested questions:

1. How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
   The current system that use individual pops and jobs are important, I like them. However, I feel like they could be made more intricate and complex rather than being simple jobs that give flat amounts that then get increased through bonuses. For example: making
   
   
2. If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
   I would not alter the fleets themselves, I would however strive to make the combat more intricate and intertwined with other game mechanics. The current state of combat (while much better than before) still consists of the same ship types (mostly) and doom stacking, one tapping the enemy fleets and then proceeding to kill the rest of their empire as they watch.
   
   The game's systems should be intertwined more together to make an intricate and fun system. They are too binary in their current state and simply adding more ship types or changing way ships shoot wont fix it. There should be more domains in which the war can wage other than simply on the planet and in the space. There is no depth to the combat system. There are implemented features that are already in the game but fall substantially from their potential usage. Some of these features could make the combat system way better.
   
   My best example of this is the espionage system. Out of the dozens of games I've played, I barely ever used it in war... only thing that's kinda useful is using the eggs on capital system (in my opinion). I would look into how HOI4 has it done, being able to codebreak other countries in order to get a bonus to kill your enemies quicker. The intelligence system is a cool system that I feel was never fully utilized to its full potential and could be further used in wars if revamped. Being able to use spies to gather intelligence on enemies in order to get a combat bonus towards their ships for example, would be something useful.
   
   Another example addition that could help make combat better is the implementation of a system similar to EU4's coalitions. If you wage war on the galaxy, the AI and other nations should see that and react to it. They should be able to respond together as one unit and attack you rather than having to wait for the galactic community to declare you a threat.
   
   
3. What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
   Re-usability is the main aspect I look at when making/defining a civ. Many of the origins or civics fall short of their actual usage and because they're utterly useless other than in one specific scenario. A lot of civics sound cool at face value but fall short when trying to use them in an actual game. Although these civs and origins add features for role-players the RTS players are never a going to pick them because they're useless. I usually end up picking from the same dozen civics time and time again because I'd be underpowered compared to the rest of the galaxy and get wiped without them. An example of that is police state which isn't very useful at all.
   
   
4. How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
   The main goal I set for myself is to defeat all the other enemy factions/nation. The goal does slightly change to focus on my own economy and then shifts towards building fleets as the game progresses but the main reason is to defeat the other factions/nations.
   
   
5. How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
   The trade system in the game has much potential but like intelligence or combat either got nerf'd to where it become un-fun to play or was half-baked. Make trade a more intricate system, make it be able to be more ingrained in the game. A good example of this: add a potential intelligence action to make another faction be able to trade with their private industries or make open borders affect the amount of energy etc. you get from commercial pacts.
   
   
6. Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
   Colonization is fine how it is, refer to my point from 1, don't make the planets worse, make them more intricate with different modifiers etc. rather than just changing the amount of mineral districts.
   
   
7. Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
   Not that I can think of.
   
   
8. If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
   On top of the combat and intelligence issues highlighted in my other points, I would like to begin enjoying combat again. While I understand the nerf towards wide play, I do feel it quite unfair with the current state of tall play. The ability to vassalize every nation in the galaxy and not go up in empire sprawl is a ridiculous system and needs to be fixed immediately. Additionally, the AI is utterly useless. The only thing the AI does is get easy monthly rations from the game and never develop any of their countries correctly. While I understand what I'm about to ask can be extremely difficult to implement, I believe some effort could help the replay-ability of the game immensely. Make the AI actually be able to build their own empires, whenever I take over the enemy empires I constantly need to rebuild their planets. The AI's monthly supply of resources is the only thing that makes it actually able to do anything at the start of the game, which as soon as the players build their empire up, become a joke to kill.

Last Note:
I have been playing stellaris for a long time and have mostly been enjoying myself. The work you guys at Paradox have been doing has made the game substantially better than were it was years ago, but I feel like instead of refining the game you've instead opted to add additional features without fully implementing them into Stellaris' ecosystem to a point where they could actually be viable. As much as others may not agree, I feel you should take a step back from constantly added new features and focus on refining some of the features that are either half-baked or that were never fulling imaged, making them an actual viable method of playstyle other than for role-players.

TLDR:
Make the game more cohesive with the systems already implemented rather than adding new ones and revamping combat for the 600th time. Also, fix the AI.

Edit: Made my points more concise, easier to understand and added extra examples

 

[Gorth]

1st: I would love to see some general frame improvement (specifically late game)
2nd: more customization. species avatars, clothes, ship varieties/skins
3rd: bigger galaxy/dual galaxy

Thanks for all the great work. I adore the game and cant wait to see what yall cook up next!

 

[Mitchz95]

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Micromanaging planets is by far my least favorite aspect of gameplay. I'd gladly give up the pop and jobs mechanics for improved performance; hell, bring back the tile system while you're at it! I miss having visual "maps" of all my colonies.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I'd generally like fleets to have fewer, more valuable ships. Maybe introduce a flagship mechanic where certain ships (military or science) could achieve some level of fame across your empire, providing buffs like those of the Paragon leaders. Committing them to battle would mean balancing the risk of losing them with some kind of benefits. Idk if this would be popular change but it'd be more interesting than doomstacks full of disposable battleships.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Species portrait, origin, and ethics. Anything that can be used to imply a history for your empire for RP value.

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

My goals usually amount to exploring as much as possible, grabbing key systems, and neutralizing enemies. I don't really strategize too much beyond that, besides preparing for specific events like the Great Khan and the endgame crises. Exploration is my favorite part of the game.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

Negligible. I often forget that trade is a thing at all.

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Like my fleet suggestion above, I'd prefer to have fewer colonizable planets, but with more detailed events and character for each one. They should all feel like worlds with rich histories, both before and after our colonists arrived, rather than simply mines and/or spreadsheets.

I'd love to see habitability serve as a bigger factor going into which planets to colonize, although that could possibly discourage players from going to war over them. Exotic biochemistries and fewer single-biome planets might be cool to explore in the future.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Broadly speaking, I think origins should represent a civilization's history (with an emphasis on story content), while civics should represent how that civilization is organized (with an emphasis on gameplay mechanics). Accordingly, I'd say that Progenitor Hive, Overtuned, Cybernetic Creed, Storm Chasers, and Primal Calling should be civics. Since we're limited to a single origin, I probably would not want any civics to change into origins.

Necrophage is a unique case that could probably get away with being a species trait, which would let players combine it with other origins and civics.

If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

I'm not a fan of the galactic community, mainly because joining it fills in most of the map and makes the galaxy feel small and cramped. My favorite sci-fi settings are those like Star Trek and The Expanse where even late in the story, the extent of explored space represents only a tiny percentage of the galaxy. Not sure how that dynamic could be replicated in Stellaris, but anything that keeps the exploration going as long as possible can only be a good thing.

For an expansion, I'd love somethat that massively expands on the procedurally-generated empires generated at game start. At present, all that really distinguished them is their AI personality and their species portrait, and maybe their origin if you're lucky, which makes it hard to get invested in them. Giving them more culture and personality would make a huge difference in immersion.

 

[ouimet1p]

Hello all,

I don't normally post, but this is touching closely on one of my main axis of engagement with the game. My 5 cents:

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Extremely. I nearly stoped playing when the tiles system went away. Building an empire for my population is, and continues to be, the reason I play the game. Seeing my pops on my worlds working their jobs is what keeps me engaged and motivated. I see enough data and spreadsheets at work, I do not wish to play a spreadsheet for a game. Planets these days are so close to being spreadsheets already, please do not make it worst. Give me beings I can feel connected to!

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I play Stellaris a as pacifist building game, I care about my empire and defending it. How I do so, I don't really care. I normally ignore fleets until I absolutely can't anymore. Fleet combat can be visually nice, but I don't really watch it too much. I'd be sad to see it go, but I'd stop playing if you got rid of or scaled down pops more than you already have.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I almost exclusively play an inward perfection empire. For me it's about the Pops, their stories, making cool places for them to live on, making sure the evil aliens are kept out of my beautiful borders, and making sure I have the largest, most advance and most developed empire in the game.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

See above. I also do enjoy finding clever ways to expand without violating my pacifist ethos. Fallen empires are so easy to goad into attacking one's empire, and (sometimes) crises can clear a goodly amount of space for one's empire to expand into. Awakened empires can also be useful for this, though they haven't really worked right in quite a few years. They used to a thereat to other Ai, now they're either too passive, or they bug out during wars and collapse. Finally, you can also sometimes trick empires into attacking you by keeping your fleet artificially weak, particularly if they are genocidal. This too can be a lot of fun.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

Not important at all. It's annoying, fiddly and incentivizes not building star-bases so that trade is only collected by your capital star-base.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

I tend not to colonize anything below 50% habitability in the early game, then terraform everything when I can. Having habitability matter more might be interesting, yes. It would make how I already play more optimal.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Please don't make inward perfection an origin, apart from that I don't care. I would like to see inward perfection buffed, however, as it is gotten progressively mechanically weaker as more was added to the game. For example, the lack of specialist vassals for inward perfection empires is particularly egregious even if it is thematically appropriate.

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?

1) The way pops are grown. I don't want aliens in my beautiful empire, but pops grow so slowly at the end of the game. I flee that if I want my ring worlds to have people on them, I have to keep the aliens I conquer and send them to the mines, farms and factories so that my own pops can work research jobs on the rings. This should be scraped and something new for pop growth put into place.

2) Genetic manipulation, slavery and traits that influence production. The current system is an exercise in frustration. Why aren't the intelligent natural scientists indentured servitors (or resident pops) I put on my research ring world segments staying put? Why are they being replaced by my own pops who are neither intelligent or natural scientists? I would like to put aliens in nice research jobs (when they are particularly suited to them) instead of sending them to the factories.

• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?

1)Fallen Empires! They already have so many cool places my pops can go live in! However, it could be so much better. I'd like for the new habitants on those ancient worlds to really feel their history and wonder. I'd also like keeping the fallen empire buildings to be more mechanically effective. At the moment, they are inefficient uses of pops compared to player built specialized worlds.

2)Psionic ascension really needs some love. The Shroud is not an engaging mechanic, it's an excuse to reload until you get an outcome you can live with. The patrons also all feel like they're all demon gods from Warhammer 40k and only one or two of them are actually useful.

• Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

1) When I'm assimilating large numbers of (non-fallen empire) alien worlds. I'd like an easy way to rebuild the AI designed worlds. They're generally not at all what I want. Perhaps if I could click a button and all of the buildings and district on a world would be removed. Then, if I could have a way to define templates that I can apply with another click that would be even better. Given how slowly population grows, anything I absorb in the late game becomes a pop factory and the aliens are moved off to work jobs that my own pops shouldn't be required to do.

2) I would like to be able to subsidize awakened empires, genocidal empires and hive minds effectively. At the moment I don't feel that this works very well. I can give them huge amounts of resources, but doesn't appear to have any effect on their ability to wage war effectively. I would therefore like to be able to give them ships directly.

 

[Dragon_Darkmyth75]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • It works, Don't fix it. I would increase some buildings to a 3rd tier such as Consumer goods building and/or Alloy building.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • It depends. Are we talking about adding more ship Classes, such as the mods "NSC" and "Gigastructural Engineering", or Ship behavior? More detail is needed.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Exploration and Growth, while some like the challenge of having to fight immediately I don't. I want some time before meeting a new civilization. That is why I have the Mod "No clustered Starts", and believe it should be embedded within the game as a choice.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • The first goal, expand till I can't expand anymore, preferably with no conflicts, The Second, develop the central or primary sector to a point where it is a draw on resources to do further than develop outer-lying sectors. Third get ready for End game crisises. This can change depending upon who playing as, whom I am bordering, and how fast the game moves adjacent to my development.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Easily changeable, and has no impact on my playstyle except when fine-tuning. Would love to have trade routes, Active animation of active trade deals, the Ability to set trade capitals with your empire for internal and external trade, and a more graphical representation on individual plants that have vital resources that are being traded.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • One mod: Planetary Diversity. I do not play the game without this mod. The subtle differences between planets, both graphical and Habitat-wise make it impossible for me to play without it. I with this mod was embedded within the game just for diversity. Planet climate SHOULD affect colonization efforts in the beginning and there should be technologies to help dispate the effects.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Mechanist and Necrophage should be Civics and Enviromentalist, Fanatic Purifiers, and Bulwark of Harmony should be Origins. I could provide further thoughts but this section would get very long, I can post later on this if asked.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • One game system that should be removed is Refugee. It does not work correctly for "Citizen only" policies and is downright horrible for games where you want to play as a nation with defined races and not be inundated with those you don't. For me, it doesn't work right and I would rather have it removed if it won't get fixed (which it looks like it won't). A game system that should be a central focus should be purification, not just through war, but through genetics, Isolation, De-Alterations, etc. It would be interesting to see alternative paths for a purity-focused empire rather than outright warfare (determined exterminator). There are two game features that I feel I want to enjoy but are not enjoyable: Spying/Infiltration, and Warfare Goals/Agreements/Truce features. Spying/Infiltration does not have enough actions, goals, or Scenarios to make it even a little bit more interesting, ANd Warfare win/lose goals are too locked and not adjustable to the evolving situation of warfare. (allies should be able to separate peace, Exchangable borders should allowed, and alterations of final goals should be allowed if the war changes such as going from conquer to subjugate or from Humiliate to resource settle.)

Sorry if this is long. Stellaris has been my Favorite game for a long time and I wish to have a hand in helping it become the best it can be. Thank you for reading.

 

[Dragon_Darkmyth75]

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Mechanist and Necrophage should be Civics and Enviromentalist, Fanatic Purifiers, and Bulwark of Harmony should be Origins. I could provide further thoughts but this section would get very long, I can post later on this if asked.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Mechanist and Necrophage should be Civics and Environmentalist, Fanatic Purifiers, and Bulwark of Harmony should be Origins.

Origins to Civics:

Mechanist: the effect this has on an Origin is minimal at best. Just make it a Civic by doing the same as described in the description of the Origin. Nothing more needs to be done.

Necrophage: Like Mechanist, the effect on the empire is minimal and could easily be swapped out with a Civic, same as described in the description as it is an origin. This would open up opportunities to role-play a death world Necrophage empire, A Megacorp deathcorp that sells its death slaves to make a profit or many other combinations.

Civis to Origins:

Environmentalist: Built upon a story where the race was able to combat its climate change (whether self-imposed, natural, or external interference) and has reached the stars to prevent others from destroying the natural beauty of the universe. They would be aggressive and force races to leave planets or deconstruct manufactories and mines on planets and in space if they win or diplomatic win.

Fanatic Purifiers: What greater goal exists for this race other than to see the extinction of others? Whether it be to prevent their own destruction or by religious jubilee, the race that chooses this Origins sees its task as to wipe all higher forms of life from the galaxy. If this nation can be actively taking planets and wiping out races, they would receive happiness and production bonuses, if they are stumped and prevented from doing so, they receive penalties. With this origin, you can create a Necrophage Fanatical Purifier, whose sole goal is to turn to galaxy to death.

Bulwark of Harmony: two words – Celestial Empire. Imagine a Celestial Empire government with all the benefits and limitations of the Bulwark of Harmony Origin. Their sole goal is to survive, achieve enlightenment, or watch and learn from the others. Whether that is because they fear the galaxy falling to chaos or death, or because they refuse to deal with outside their empire influences. Their embassies would be rare, expensive, and be auto-spies on those that have claimed them as Rivals. They should also have a mechanic that makes them suspectable to very powerful empires (non-Fallen) on their borders with high amenities (makes them unhappy)During galaxy-wide crises, there should be the option to allow others to come in to seek protection but only if they convert to the race’s beliefs.

 

[autumnTwilight]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Honestly, it is a fiddly headache that makes more sense in a game like Victoria than Stellaris. I would just remove jobs altogether. Pop genetics can give bonuses to buildings but we shouldn't need to care if there are enough people on the planet for every building and who is working where. Just average it out (or some form of weighted average to assume people are sorting into their better jobs).

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I am up for lot of different types of experimentation here.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Early Game Exploration. Mid Game Wars of expansion. Late game political intrigue and crises. Its about being able to tell a story of your people.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

Generally at the empire creation screen. I come up with a trope/idea/narrative, and then I build and play around that.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

I like the idea of trade, but the current implementation isn't really interactive. The entire trade protection system and how it interacts with starbases feels like it could use a general rework (including something to allow for trade routes with other empires).

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

I don't think this is in too bad a spot. Maybe some additional planet modifiers to further tweak planet habitability, but this mostly works right now.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Maybe not an origin, but a twist on rogue servitors. A situation where the bio trophies aren't so compliant. The AI sees the trophies as children, but the children are trying to regain their freedom. It could be interesting narrative from both the trophies and the AI point of view.

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

As mentioned earlier, I would remove jobs. They just don't seem to really work the way anyone wants.

For an expansion, it would be nice if we could make some sort of internal politics system for empires that feel like a tiered bonus/penalty system that you can ignore once you have set your policies at the start of the game. Ideally this would be something character/faction driven. That said, internal politics may also just not be that compatible with the core of Stellaris.

 

[They'reintheattic]

I have about 660 hours in the game over a couple years (rookie numbers, I know), but here are my thoughts:

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Important, they don’t need any change.​

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

As long as the changes preserve the feeling of great scale in Stellaris, go ahead. Doomstacking is a pretty big issue as well as late game lag, so some changes are definitely warranted.​

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origins for sure. The origin of life is a pretty big question in science, and the origin of our civilizations should be equally important. I’d like it if origins had more impact on your empire and had effects that last long into the game.​

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

I’m not a roleplayer, so my singular goal as soon as the game starts is to win (not according to the game’s victory system though, simply by subjugating or confederating the entire galaxy and defeating the endgame crisis). However, my PC is a potato so late game lag is also a concern, which usually encourages me to dispose of other civilizations as quickly as possible.​

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

Not nearly important enough. Given how important money is in the real world, trade plays a comparatively very small role in the management of my empires. It could definitely use more significance and complexity.​

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Colonization feels fine in the early game, although it is a little frustrating that the AI seems to colonize every single planet and build habitats in every single system, making conquests a grind and frying my PC in the late game. Maybe increase the penalties from empire sprawl, or at least make the AI less planet hungry?​

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Not that I can think of.​

If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

I love this game, but I have BIG beef with the casus belli system. In real life wars people don’t need to meet special requirements in order to invade another county (unless they do it legally, but it’s war, who cares?) Yet in Stellaris, I feel there are too many hoops to jump through if I’m not a genocidal empire. I think part of the issue is the painfully slow rate at which empires gain influence. Claiming systems, especially far away, is painfully slow especially when your influence cap is 1000, and there’s nothing more infuriating than having an expansionist, hostile empire right next to me but not meeting the specific criteria required to destroy them with my vastly superior fleet. Let me kill them!​

 

[sandwich8]

Is it possible to get these questions as a google form?

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Not at all. If it improves performance, go for it.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I wouldn't mind significant changes, but it has to be in service of making multiple fleet types good.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Earlygame: origin, civics, traditions. Midgame: approach to warfare, ascension path.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

My goals are set usually pregame. I have a idea I want to pursue (e.g. stacking boarding cables) and I make a civ that's reasonably efficient at it. It doesn't change as I play, and I quit when I'm reasonably satsified with the execution (or failure thereof) of the idea.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

hahah kill it with fire. Why is internal trade more valuable than external trade?

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

It's the opposite. There's a opportunity cost to colonization that people underestimate. The earlygame is when the AI is strongest, they can easily punish the player for overextending or colonizing too much. I also dislike managing tons of worlds

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Yes. I would love if every origin could have a story beat at midgame, for example. Every origin that doesn't can be a civic.

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

Remove: Randomized techs.
Central focus: Landless gameplay, but in stellaris
Want to Enjoy: ESPIONAGE

 

[Troyen]

I don't really think it's the quarterly releases that are the problem. I think it was the increase from 2 -> 3 DLC per year, which meant more stuff was being added at a rate faster than stuff could be fixed or polished. 3.1 - 3.5 was a great patch cycle. 3.6 is where it started going downhill where major bugs would linger, only to be fixed in a future cycle. (Yes, 3.6 didn't release with a DLC but it was the fleet rework and some bugs were pushed into 3.7, which came with primitive civ bugs that weren't fixed until 3.8, which came with the new leader design and bugs... and so on). 3.11 was the first solid patch in a while and while Machine Age was a good DLC, it launched with some major issues so it's hard to call 3.12 a good patch. (Nothing like the crisis showing up, bugging out at 9/10 insights, and being literally unable to do anything other than click dozens of "your fleet was forced to disengage" popups while your 20-30 hour run came to an end.)

I don't really want to see the quarterly releases go away because I played through the 2.X era where bugfixes took a really long time to arrive and the slower release cadence was much more frustrating. Especially since patch support seems to stop after around six weeks, so any outstanding game bugs have to wait until Q2 for a chance to be fixed. Just maybe have either more polish patches or longer-post patch support.


What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?
The tech system (which along with empire customizability is one of the top reasons the game is so replayable), real-time fleet battles, and the pop-based economy system.

I think as the game gets older (eight years now!), the number of drastic overhauls should go down. Yes, we can technically freeze our version in place if we never want to receive bug fixes again, but an economy-style overhaul seems a bit much. That's not to say no systems can be touched, and some of them are definitely in need of a facelift, but there is a worry that the game in a year or two will no longer be the game I bought and enjoy today.

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
I think they're a significant part of the game, even though there are more and more ways to get income without pops.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
I don't think fleets are currently a problem, despite all the forum griping. Maybe ships could be made more expensive or the penalty for going over naval cap be more severe (it's largely ignorable today), but in general, the concept of fleets in the game I think is good.

There are some minor QoL that would be nice, like fleets not deleting themselves if they get wiped out (so I can rebuild them easier), not splintering when reinforcement fails, being able to organize fleets in the outliner, maybe making destroyers have a stronger role, being able to save ship templates between games, smarter pathfinding (it overweights hyper-relays and gateways even when regular subspace is faster), etc.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
Ethics, government type, species, and especially origin. I often have a hard time picking a second or third civic since a lot of them don't feel impactful.

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
Every game is played to the victory year (2450 because I don't think there's enough lategame content even on higher DAT curves) with the goal of being #1 on the score screen, usually through non-aggressive means (though depends on ethics and civics). Origin and ethics have the biggest impact on how I approach the game, followed by my desire to stay limited to a few sectors because giant empire micromanagement is a headache.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
Not very. You can definitely feel the impact of a good trade empire economically, but it feels like passive income. The trade routes are simultaneously too fiddly and not customizable enough where they can take undesirable paths, and piracy is a very passive penalty that seems to only screw over the AI. This is one of those systems (along with crime and species traits/management) that I think would actually be worth a rework.

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Yes. There are significant early-game habitability upkeep penalties, but the benefits still outweigh the penalties in most situations. Mid and late-game habitability is a non-issue, even with the -25% penalty from going down the industrial galactic community resolution line. And I say that as someone that avoids robots (when not playing a ME) and avoids migration pacts (because the pop growth system will grow non-majority pops rather than my pops) when possible. It's too easy for a single-species empire to avoid/mitigate habitability penalties, which means it's even easier for everyone else.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
The Eager Explorers civics and maybe some of the others that are locked in on game start seem like they're more suited to be origins. The whole point of the civic is you're playing a primitive start, but that's not really a civic.

If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
Gene-modding. I get why it exists and the fantasy behind it, but modding your species into superpops in the midgame kinda negates the entire trait system and is where any variety you might've had between empires at the start of the game is eroded away. As a compromise, maybe lock it to Genetic Ascension only so that every game doesn't result in slapping on the best traits and removing your early negatives.

Plus the species window and species trait micromanagement is just the worst right now. (Relatedly, species rights management is also rather obtuse and a pain to manage in a multi-racial empire.)

Honorable mention to the toast system because I think the toasts provide less information than the popups they replaced and they don't respect the pause timer. If you don't mouse over it within the three seconds it's visible, key information about changes to your game state is lost.

Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
The Fallen Empires. Bring them up to date with the game. There are many systems added even in just 3.x that don't apply to the Fallen Empires. Espionage (even if limited to gather intel to try and guesstimate relative empire power), diplomacy, overlord/vassal relationships, etc. Yes, they don't care what normal empires think, but that should surface as massive penalties in the UI rather than a "oh, they don't care" dialog box. They have their own systems that are kinda disjoint from the game (Marauders are in a similar boat) and that shows with how they aren't integrated with anything else. Also, seems like there'd be some great story potential, or opportunities to have more variety in empires.

The War in Heaven could use an overhaul at the same time. It was cool at first, but now it plays out the same way every time and overwriting your 200-year hard-earned Federation setup just to make a Babylon 5 reference has gotten old. Maybe make it more dynamic or give it special rules so it feels different from your standard lategame total war (now that total war is more common to see).

Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
Minor Relics. The low storage cap (why???) combined with a small number of short-cooldown repeatable options to dispose of them combined with exotic ship components that just cost too much to actually rely on when you can only store a few thousand just make it a frustrating busywork system. Astral Threads are kinda similar, but at least that storage cap can be raised more easily. Both of these are also very naggy (either with "astral action ready" or "resource storage overflow").

I actually enjoy archaeology less now than I did before the system change that gave you a cap and regular income because before you at least weren't constantly expected to micromanage this special resource that's buried in the UI every time the spend ability comes off cooldown (i.e. every two years).

Honorable mention to the message settings feature. We can customize notifications but not at a very granular level. I don't want to turn on/off all research agreement notifications or alliance notifications. I want to turn off research/alliance notifications for other empires and keep the ones that involve my empire. Most of these diplomatic notifications need to distinguish between "involves me" and "doesn't involve me" so I can keep up to date on crucial information with the former and squelch the latter.


Things not covered above that I'd like to see:

• UI/UX improvements, e.g. Branch Office Expansion Planner. Playing a Megacorp requires a very high level of micro just to keep track of where you've expanded and where you haven't. Habitat construction, species management, leader management (what was my dead leader doing?), ship design (let us save initial ship loadouts between runs - I always make the same starting corvette design) also could use improvements. I'd love a customizable top bar where I could pin some of those special resources into the open space so I don't have to keep clicking into a submenu, or even other stuff like my current leader capacity. I'd also love it if the galactic community resolutions window was overhauled so you could more easily see what policies and modifiers are in effect, since it's challenging to determine that at a glance.
• More events. Some pools are deeper than others. I think the colony pool is pretty good (though at 800 hours in the game, I've seen many of those events every run - looking at you odd factory, broken terraforming equipment, communicating mushrooms). The primitive event pool is way too shallow and it's a shame First Contact didn't really add many to it. Sure, it added insight events and those are cool, but literally every game my first observation post will observe an incoming asteroid, a rogue scientist trying to become god, smugglers setting up a trafficking base, tractor beam malfunctions (sometimes a dozen times in the game!), etc. This game could use a CK3-style 100+ event pack to add more variety and replayability.
• Tone down the modifiers. There's a lot of modifiers and the power creep means you can ignore entire game systems (like happiness). The tech rebalance was helpful, and then the Machine Age pretty much brought us right back to where we were.
• More interesting space survival events. One game a long time ago I had a colony experiencing strong solar flares or something with a situation that required action, and I haven't really seen anything like it since. There's a lot of stuff about alien life in space, but not as much about surviving in space (low habitability or early colonies might be a good place). We've got the Star Trek fantasies, but where's the Martian?
• Please update the AI voting weights for Galactic Community resolutions. I'm pretty sure they're largely using the 2.6 values. It's ridiculous to see an empire actively being genocided by an Awakened Empire vote against an AE resolution because "they don't want to anger them". I think all the crisis voting weights aren't working or balanced correctly since crisis-style wars (including total wars) are treated differently than regular wars.

 

[FurAuran]

I've been playing Stellaris for the past 2 years now and have amassed over 900 hours in the game, have all of the DLC, and have probably made over 100 different species / empires at this point. Stellaris has been one of my favorite games over that time and has honestly helped me through so many rough patches. With all this said, I would like to preface that all of the critiques in this are not to downplay the work that's been put into this game so far. It is because I could see Stellaris evolving in so many ways and would love to see it get even better.

I'm going to format this with one large paragraph about all of my opinions, followed by a quick summary of the aforementioned paragraph.

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Honestly, it feels a bit off and I've honestly encountered unfavorable interactions. For example, sometimes I just have ruler pops that become unemployed upon upgrading or adding a civic that gives ruler jobs, and then my stability crashes because of an unemployed ruled. Or my pop promotes to a specialist job when I had a normal worker job preferred. It also just feels like pops themselves aren't that important, and are slightly incontrollable at times. Especially for xenophile / egalitarian empires. With xenophobic / authoritarian empires you can enact population / migration controls on certain species, but with others it's not entirely easy to do. Even then, it's hard to manage specific species working specific jobs. For example, if I have two species, one with intelligent and one without it, there's no way for me to ensure that the species with intelligent is the one to work the science jobs. I often find myself in a struggling position because the pops aren't working the jobs their traits work best with.

Overall, I feel like the system could / should be changed. It doesn't feel impactful and like the population is just another resource to manage. And on top of that, there's not that many ways to manage pops in a way that I enjoy.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

I feel like I frequently have confidence in my fleets doing well, and they fail. Sometimes I feel like my fleets are going to lose, and they're victorious. Fleet power in general seems pretty messed up, and is extremely inconsistent and seems to be based on some arbitrary value that we aren't able to see in game. This overall leads to me not having any idea what my or the enemies fleet power means, and I have to send my ships in just praying that they're going to win. Also, it just seems unrealistic to make a singular ships at a time. I feel like one "ship" should account for multiple, even if it has nothing to do with stats. It just seems weird that 50 ships can defeat a dimensional horror capable of destroying entire planets. I like the idea of producing "fleets" as a single ship and to me it makes a lot of sense. It also allows for a bit more planning in the grand strategy aspect. For example, making a "fleet" of (let's just imagine) 5 missile corvettes, 2 laser corvettes and a picket corvette, where it would overall have the same "fleet power" of one ship, if that makes sense? It would allow for more ship diversity and potential strategies to emerge. I feel like my limit would be changing the way fleets are designed. I feel as though I've grown fond of the different ship quarters and weapon slot designations. Plus, the current setup leads to EXTREME amounts of lag when a ton of ships are present. I would be down with almost anything if this gets fixed, honestly.

Overall I'd be down for a large overhaul of the systems in place for ships. Fleet power seems random at times and it's not an accurate measure of "strength" in my opinion, and the premise of making one ship at a time doesn't seem grand enough for a galactic empire. One would think that an entire empire that can wipe out the galaxy would have more than just 200 ships. I'd be down for almost anything as long as the overall ship components stay similar to the way they were and potentially a fix to the late game lag is found.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The first thing I do whenever I start working on an empire is selecting what origin I want to play. I feel like certain origins completely change the playstyle of a civilization and I'd love to see more of them come to be. I've played every single origin at least once now (including all the DLC) and it's honestly what makes each game unique to me. It allows me to get more of an idea of how I want to play. Second up I focus on the ethic choices, mostly because certain ethics are blocked for certain origins. I think about how I want to specifically play around that given origin with specific ethics and such. I feel like civics tend to fall on the backburner and I end up just picking whichever one I feel like would work the best with what I already had established, or settle on bare-bones ones.

Overall the most important aspect to me is origins followed by ethics. Civics tend to not really change my gameplay style and seem pretty non-important to how I set-up my empire, as they get chosen solely based on the origin and ethics I chose.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

I usually tend to chose an "overall" goal whenever I select my origin. If it's a story based origin I make it my main priority to play out the story first, then go for galactic domination or fighting the crisis, etc. For example, knights of the toxic god. Whenever I play it, I basically ignore everything that isn't within my empire and focus solely on the origin. If it's a non-story one, I try to build up my empire to have one of the three "power" aspects above other empires (fleets, science, economy). I then make that my primary objective until the galactic counsel / crisis happens. If it's a new origin, I try to see what new combinations I enjoy. Recently with the new galactic archives DLC I've tried to make a pirate empire (Treasure Hunters), tried out reanimating the space fauna (Primal Calling), and even tried to see how ocean paradise worked with the new civics / fleet type. Aside from those, I don't usually have any goals.

Overall, I usually set my goals based on my origin. With new origins, I try to see what works / doesn't work with them and make that my goal. Usual base goals for me are galactic strength / galactic community / the crisis.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

It's not. At all. I honestly do not like the current trade system at all. Trade is only good for getting energy, unity, or consumer goods, and doesn't really do anything aside from that. Especially the aspect with having to go directly to your capital, Below are some different recommendations / ideas that I have about the topic.

1) Have it set up to where "trade" goes between planets within your empire. For example, your mineral world trading minerals to your factory world for consumer goods. I feel as though this would make the aspect of resources a lot more realistic, instead of them just magically appearing in your UI for you to use wherever.

2) Have "trade hub" buildings be like distribution points. Instead of going to your capital, these "trade hubs" could be a mid-way point or final destination for materials to be gathered. The "resource storage" is, in my opinion, a useless building. It would make sense to change them to something like a resource distribution point that happens to also increase your storage. Where trade worlds can either be places to trade between planets, or potentially even places where you can exchange resources for energy / energy for resources. It would also help with the current "Market" system that's in place, which is extremely powerful early game but extremely underwhelming as the game goes on.

3) Have trade agreements / commercial pacts between empires require trade routes between the two empires. To be precise, a physical trade route with a ship would go between one planet and another to transfer the goods, similar to civ 6. I don't feel like these should be allowed to be interfered with by 3rd parties, and would more so be a visual effect, I guess.

4) Better explain how Megacorp holdings work. I feel as though Megacorp holdings are either used to increase the "efficiency" of the holding, or just work as buildings to produce resources on another planet. To me this just feels somewhat boring. Also, (this is unrelated to trade itself) I feel as though the descriptions of holdings can be a bit better. It says it "increases _____" but doesn't really go into detail on what that does for the holding.

Overall, I feel as though trade needs to go through another overhaul / rework. Some ideas are that it could be used to rationalize resource distribution, give trade worlds more importance, produce visuals for trading, and fix Megacorps from being somewhat boring / un-impactful.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

It definitely is too easy to colonize, and also way to important to in the early game. I feel as though the current colonization system makes starting locations extremely impactful, too much so if I'm being honest. Aside from the two guaranteed habitables, it is way too easy for some empire to start snowballing earlier than others because of complete change. I feel as though one way I could see this changing is by expanding the amount of planet types there are, and making habitability harder to come across in the early game. Having more options with stricter habitability requirements would not only make it harder to get a large amount of planets early game, but it would also make it more likely for an even distribution of planet types. Maybe even having a minimal habitability requirement to settle on planets, as there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem with settling on low habitability worlds aside from your pops self modding themselves, I feel as though increasing the amount of planet types would also bring a bit more interest to the game. I know personally having to choose between the 9 planet types is honestly a bit boring with how long I've been playing.

Overall, yes. It is too easy to colonize. It also makes the early game way more important and allows some empires to snowball more than others. I feel as though more planet types with varying habitability capabilities could help this, as well as a minimum habitability requirement to set-up a colony.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

(I'm also going to add a partial change to this question, including how I would change certain civics / origins as some of them seem out of place in certain aspects.) In my opinions, yes, some civics and origins should be swapped. Below is a list of every origin / civic I would change around as well as why I feel like it would bring about a better experience / open up new opportunities.

Origins:

Prosperous Unification - I wish it did more. Not necessarily bonus / strength wise, as it's already a good origin for the early game. To me it just feels like an origin you pick and completely forget about 10 years into the game. Maybe adding some small story events / lore pop-ups
Mechanist - I feel as though this could either be altered or turned into a civic. It doesn't seem to have any overall impact in the game aside from starting with robotic pops and the technology to produce them. This could either become an origin with special events, and maybe some benefits to going specific ascension paths, or could honestly become a civic instead, with some of the bonuses removed. It doesn't entirely feel like a cause for a species to start reaching towards space travel and more a small factoid about the species, similarly to other civics.

Syncretic Evolution - I honestly feel like it could just have a nice little spruce up. Maybe similarly to other origins the planet could be overpopulated, which caused your specie to reach for the stars. And maybe there could also be two different pathways for the origin, where in one path the serviles can become enlightened and become specialist oriented pops and the other they remain serviles. Similar to how clone army has it's diverging paths. This should remain an origin, but I feel like it leaves base game with barely any unique origins to start with. I feel as though this could also get replaced by specific base game civics, which I'll explain later.

(Slightly unrelated, but since I already talked about all of the base game origins I felt like I should bring this up.) I wish there were more origins that weren't locked behind DLC. There's only three origins to pick from in base game. And, as I've somewhat stated, they can get pretty stale quickly after playing with them a lot. I get that it's probably meant to entice people to get the DLC, but I feel as though even a few more base game origins could be added and still have people getting the DLC.

Slingshot to the stars - It's extremely underwhelming for an origin pick. I've used it once and I honestly didn't like it. I know there have been attempts to spruce this up, but honestly I feel like it would be better off as a potential civic with different bonuses attached to it. Maybe to make it a more enticing civic pick as well?

Riftworld - Similarly to Slingshot, I feel like it'd be better off as a civic meant for astral planes seeking empires. It doesn't feel like something I should use an entire origin on when I feel as though it would be a good civic to pair with specific other origins instead.

Storm Chasers - This should stay an origin, I just feel as though it doesn't fulfill the storm chasing ideal. It would be cool if it added a specific ship type that would be used to follow the storms around, which would aid in specific research bonuses and such, or if the empire was nomadic and would move around the galaxy specifically aiming at chasing storms. I feel as though this would give Galactic Storms a lot more potential than it started out with.

Civics:
Criminal Heritage - I feel as though this has a lot of potential for story aspects and deeper building. It seems off to remove an entire civic pick to entirely retcon the way the civic works, and how it can instantly get changed through an ideology war. I feel as though an entire galactic Megacorp hellbent on causing criminals definitely should have some sort of story behind it, and definitely shouldn't be revoked from a simple ideology war. I feel as though it could also have a somewhat decent story-line to it.
Death Cult - This honestly feels like it'd have a lot of potential for an origin. The species grew up worshiping a god of death and believes that every being in the galaxy should follow it's path. Maybe it could be something similar to toxic god where it's a story driven origin.
Dimensional Worship - Basically the same as Death Cult. I feel as though it has so much potential to have a story behind it which could expand on the lore of stellaris as well. Maybe it could have to do more with Shroud Entities as well, and could (once again) be a great story driven origin.

Eager Explorers & Exploration Protocols - I feel as though this could become one of the challenging origins, similar to doomsday and Broken Shackles, where you start off with less resources and a different style of gameplay. It already changes the system of FTL travel entirely, so having an origin based around it could be really nice.

Fanatic Purifiers (potentially its counterparts?) - I definitely feel as though Fanatic purifies itself could become a bio-based origin with story behind it. What caused a completely normal species to become so hellbent on eradicating all living beings? Is there potential for them to change their ways and see the wrong in their actions? I also say potentially their counterparts because firstly, it would be hard to merge them all into a singular origin, and Secondly, they honestly fit the gestalt empires somewhat. It's not too unlikely that a hive mind or machine intelligence want to wipe out all sapient life.

Inward Perfection - I only ever see / hear about this getting picked because of the achievement associated with it. I feel as though if it were to be an origin, it could have a lot of potential for other builds. Not only because it would allow a more useful civic to be chosen, but because of the story implications that could be made. It could have an origin to explain it

Masterful Crafters - This is honestly the one I feel like could replace Mechanist. Having an empire solely interested in crafting has a load of story potential. I know there's a mod for this already, but maybe it could come to making artifacts / relics or maybe be an origin assisting in kilo/mega-structures later in the game after specific story points. They are focused on crafting things to the point where it became part of the galactic scale.

Natural Design (and its counterparts) - I feel as though this could easily be turned into a somewhat spiritual origin where it has it's own changes to the genetics bio-tree, maybe giving enhancements over changing traits? It feels like it has a lot of potential to be an origin overall.

Obsessional Directive - Haha funny civic should become haha funny origin.

Rogue Servitor - Similar to Serviles it would make a good origin, if it had a good story. It could easily have archeological sites about how they became the protectors of the bio-pops or maybe story quests behind finding better ways to treat the bio-pops. Maybe at some point in the story.

Scavengers - Having a story based on a species that tries to scavenge anything and everything would be really nice. Maybe the origin could learn a way to fix / give other uses to the various amounts of space junk around the galaxy, or maybe even fix / find other uses for shattered worlds?

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

If I could remove / completely overhaul one system, I'd honestly have to say ground combat / wars. Wars seem so weird and the war goals just seem off. I feel as though the only main reason to stack influence is for claims, and other war goals just seem out of place. Vassalization wars seem to be available / unavailable inconsistently, despite the enemy overall power being marked as pathetic in overall power. You need to basically own every single star system the enemy owns to get them to surrender for some war goals, despite them already having 0 chance of winning the war. Ground combat only seems like a time blocker rather than anything of use, and a hassle to deal with when I'm low on minerals. One thing I do like is allowing orbital bombardment surrenders, but even then those aren't a consistent way to take over planets. The entire system I feel like could use a complete overall / rework. It's definitely important for the state of the game, but the current implication definitely could use some work; albeit better than previous iterations of previous systems.

Overall, I feel like the ground combat and war system needs a complete overhaul. War goals in general are wonky, and ground combat seems like an unnecessary time-gate that ends up just being tedious to deal with.

• Miscellaneous Feedback

This section is just going to include miscellaneous feedback that I have about the game, both compliments and suggestions that I have for changes.

1) I love the new system creation UI. It's absolutely phenomenal, and brings so much more visual clarity to galaxy creation.

2) Machine age was unironically one of my favorite DLCs to be added to the game, and I love the fact that there are consistent large yet related patches to the game that are paired with the DLC. It makes them so much more lively and exciting to experience for the first time!

3) I wish there were more ethics / more ethics picks. There is one mod in particular that adds a few ethics and gives more ethics points, and I feel as though it would allow for a lot more expression for goals and potentially add more origins / civics to play around with it for. (Just as a reference) The mod adds 4 new ethics and gives 5 ethics points instead of 3, which allows for much more governmental expression than the current system. Overall the current system is good, and I won't complain if it doesn't change, but I feel as though slight additions to this matter would make the game much more interesting and allow much more empire diversity to be played around with.

4) I recently got some friends to play Stellaris because it was on sale, and some starting off problems they're honestly overwhelmed at first. I personally feel as though having fake pre-generated situations that can be used as tutorials while introducing different features would be really beneficial, as people can learn at their own pace and have more focused tutorials. Plus it would give our beloved tutorial robot more time to shine!

5) Being able to make your own name packs in game would be a huge quality of life change. I know there's already ways to do this by editing the files, but I wish there was a way in game to add them. Basically, a feature in game that allows you to make your own fleet name, pop name, and planet names lists would actually be one of the best small additions to the game in my opinion.

6) More flag design options. I personally love the way that Crusader Kings does there flags, where you can design the flag with preset shapes yourself and make a completely unique flag every game. Over time, the flag designs become boring to work with. Having an option between pre-made patterns and hand made options would be much appreciated.

7) Potentially reaching out to mod creators. I feel as though there are so many mod creators out there that have made small QOL / UI alteration mods, and I feel as though some of them would love to help improve the base-game if asked. I feel they could be a really good relay between what the community wants and what the developers feel is best for the game.

Let me finish this 4000+ word post off with thank you, for all of the work you've put in. Stellaris has only been a game for 8 years now, but it's honestly been one of my favorites that I've seen. I can tell that there have been countless hours, days, and even years put into everything in the game. It's obvious that we can't expect perfection with everything, but I feel like where we are is already amazing. Please take the above suggesstions / comments as purely ways I can see the game growing, as that is exactly what they are. In the end, this game is already amazing and I am definitely going to keep playing it.

Keep up the great work, dev team!

 

[bcbc]

Alright, There have been a bunch of really lovely responses above and I agree with alot of what has already been said, but I'm going to drop in my own two cents just for posterity's sake.

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

None. None at all.
I have been, since months after le guinn(iirc) a strict advocate of seeing pops viciously vaporized in the name of performance, In the current system they effect very little and incur hilarious performance costs that modders and you at PDX have been trying to reel in for years at this point and I say sinking that ship and moving on, -however devastating the sunk cost- is well worth it purely for the lategame performance gains.

Functionally, a demographic system which treats each 'pop' instead as a unit of manpower, with ideologies and migration handled at the planet level would as far as I'm aware, have little to no effect on how 99.99% of players engage with the system from what I know, but while also compressing potentially tens of thousands of pops in a large, lategame scenario into a few dozen calculations ran on a per-planet basis.

Personally with how totally ineffectual 90% of pop traits are without aggressive minmaxing I would not be opposed to the total abolition of such. (Although I'd not recommend it, I'm certainly in the minority in that camp. And I admit that I do love the roleplay potential of traits.)

This pairs neatly with what it seems the community are always yelling about, performance this, performance that. Personally, My biggest ask is to increase multi-threading wherever possible, As of current, even *if* you have an absolutely monstrous CPU, Stellaris suffers from single thread bottlenecking that will leave you(me) at ~10-20% utilization anyway even with extreme amounts of turbo. Which is kind of ridiculous. (Doubly Ironic, given the only reason I have said CPU is to try and get stel lategame to run at a reasonable speed.)

The UI also has various sources of exponential lag that reveal themselves when playing with various mainstay mods like gigastructures and UI overhaul dynamic. Which can bring even midline GPU's and the FPS by extension to their knees and make playing on IGPU even on minimum settings torturous.
Some Actual examples being the following:

-Fleet manager when in possession of large fleets, seems to have something to do with large amounts of bonuses. Ship specific bonuses such as those gained from building out of a specific shipyard as the worst offender. (In my testing a fleet ~200 ships strong each with 2-4 ship specific buffs can tank the framerate to the single digits instantly apon opening the screen, even if the fleet is not in focus within the tab.)

-Leader Tab when you
A) Have too many leaders
B) Have too big a leader Pool
C) Have too many traits on screen
All of these stack. I am a big fan of extremely effectual leaders, so in my specific case, mostly as consequence of mods, these three factors result in about a third of my game time being spent under 10 FPS. Its a very minor issue, but I don't really get how the lag could be so bad to begin with.

While more an annoyance thanks to what stellaris is. It would be lovely to see Qol performance upkeep and jank cleanup continue in full force. As the game continues to grow more complex, Its a wonder that Its survived the technical debt as much as it has. I only hope that PDX can continue to work to improvements as opposed to just holding back the slowdown introduced by the flow of new content.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

Plenty!
The Fleet reworks as of recent have done wonders for the competitive scene but for everyone I know who plays, even those interested in minmaxxing, Are not playing multiplayer primarily, The power fantasy of fleets has always been in building said fleets and menacing thine foes with the tide, Be you a new player desperately holding up the fort against the swarms of A.I corvettes or a vet in lategame trying to figure out how many BB-Destroyer deathstacks you can afford without cutting into the megastructure budget.

Personally, as a Roleplayer, The system has always mostly been an afterthought. I love military as a topic to write about but the current system just does not create interesting scenarios unless you yourself go out of your way to create them. And strategy will never be as effective as more macro given how readily the A.I will suicide fleets into star forts bristling with buff auras and garrisonned by deathstack fleets.

My no.1 Request in any sort of navy improvements is to be rid of the nothingburger minor events. I don't want an admiral with traits I don't want that I immediately need to fire, or an admiral added to the leader pool that by arcane leader generation reasons does not benefit from the 40 different ways I've increased the trait quality and weeded out negative traits from the rest of my leader pool.

My greatest wishlist for fleets is the chance at hero ships and more involved history, Even something as simple as the history tab of a hoi4 vessel serves as the template for an entire story on its own. And Stellaris has so much potential for fluff with totally inconsequential things such as a log. But also more interesting things, We already have unique vessels and hero ships such as bubbles, the Toxic A.I dig, The Carrier and admiral you get from the galactic doorstep origin. It seems a natural fit that we see the military in a more narrative light in stellaris by now.

Let us build the Normandy, My technologist pacifists joining hands with the experience of the wartorne militarists next door, Spectre this, Council that! Stellaris has so many foundations and entire DLC's built around the characters and the political spaces they inhabit with federations, espionage, and so on. Ships are characters too, through their refits and designs, the people who crew or captain them. and so on.

Turns out, Those technologist pacifists? The tiny ceremonial fleet of crewed vessels they have? Its just a fraction of their full navy. secretly they keep thousands of drone ships concealed in blacksites, even from their own population for the event of war! Think of the fallout when they are revealed to not only the galaxy at large, but the public! There'll be riots in the streets!

That said, While maybe a year ago I'd of said I don't really trust PDX to rebalance fleet combat mechanically, You lot did a wonderful job with the recent changes, And I'm happy to see what you do next with it, regardless of what form it takes.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Personally, Its always been about the characters that make up a government, and the race they compose of.

Abbak, A species of herd mentality, Predisposed to populism and just exiting a brutal civil war, Lead by a dictator as the popular front, and her cabinet of visionaries. But only after overthrowing a democratic government. Said visionaries, a mix of statespeople, engineers, and a bit of supernatural nonesense, forced to uphold a dictatorship they all know is doomed to fail, all while managing a population enamored with a government that can seemingly do no wrong. Propped up only by a leading council who knows that when they're gone, it will all come crumbling down.

My biggest gripe with just about anything in Stellaris is when the game dictates down to you, When my level 20, 240 year old immortal leader who canonically has a clone backup gets randomly killed by a scripted event because said event says they forgot some basic safety measure, or it assumes that they were standing around the hyper-dangerous anomaly when the empire they're from has had access to wide scale automation and remote technology for well over 400 years as standard practice. I reload. I put a random leader on it, They die. And I move on. I cant even ignore these events because automation will start them anyway and the result will still be a dead leader. Its why I play with rifts disabled and its why I didn't buy storms when it came out.

A core part of the roleplay experience is the ability to chose when and what the drama is. I love when the game spontaneously gets unpredictable and difficult, but in practice its mostly a chore. So many events are designed like a minefield with 1 correct answer. Where the punishment is simply "sorry, that guys dead now." or some malus or whatever. Which just makes me dread the experience, or finds me on the wiki so I can deftly avoid the fact that saying the wrong thing to one random event will kill one of my best leaders (A character I'm likely quite invested in by midgame) 4 irl hours later. Because that was the wrong choice actually.

Contrarily though, I'm happy to set up drama for myself, Things like civil wars, normal wars, internal strife, political maneuvering and intrigue, and the principles of government and morality that drive a government, both its leaders and the society around them. Alot of these are not systems you can really roleplay with but instead systems which are either irrelevant unless your actively playing horribly at a mechanical level, or not really systems you roleplay in so much as you either engage with them optimally, or you just, don't engage with them.

Roleplay wise, there's no reason my obsessively friendly diplomacy of a fanatic pacifist, xenophile dictatorship is not trying to befriend everyone. But if I actually put envoys on all the neighbors, Well now the game is basically over, because none of the A.I can be mean to me anymore. (their relation is too high)

This segways into perhaps my biggest gripe with with the Stellaris experience at the moment. And has been so bad as of recent that I've not had much will to play the game at all.

Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?

GIVE ME A.I IMPROVEMENTS OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!
More seriously, A.I empires are fucking BORING. Plain and simple. I can roleplay all I like, write out my expansive canon and re-use characters between runs and hammer out sci-fi epic after sci-fi epic about the results. But that is all me. Stellaris as a game after a point just has nothing to offer you as a roleplayer or writer which is not easier to do without it.

A.I empires have none of the reactivity, internal politics, motivations, or so on. They offer no depth. Nothing is under the hood for a roleplayers nation to worry about or speculate on that isn't entirely artificial on the part of the writer.

I don't care if the A.I cheats, or if its even playing the same game as me. I don't care if its somehow mining 2/3rds my 20 million mineral income despite not having a single star lifter or whatever. What i do care about is how lifeless and robotic (i know i know) every single run becomes after that monotony kicks in.

When I, as a player, can look at an alien empire. And instantly file away every action it can ever take at any time in the future, mildly alter my game plan. And more or less play like they don't exist. And that said playstyle, while being less work, isn't going to put me behind in any major way, and in many ways also has no effect on my roleplay? That's an awful feeling.

Because the Schizophrenic A.I would rather spend 300 years on the same government and ethics, declaring war on eachother every 50 years for the whole game. Or if they're aligned, form enormous alliances that sit around and do nothing. I cant issue A.I requests, they cant trade territory, they rarely even have any goals or interests other than the same 4 diplomatic events that randomly proc halfway through midgame.

The biggest roleplay potential an empire presents is just going over and colonizing it. But then by lategame i need to integrate them and genocide everyone, because as per the great quote "Racial purity will improve your CPU performance." Not to mention the A.I loves to grow enormous amounts of pops. Which if you want a good economy is necessary, but means their eco is at the expense of my simspeed. Which just wont do.

Oh look, a megacorp. That means I need to dismiss a trade pact request every 4 years.
Oh look, other pacifists, that means I need to dismiss a migration treaty request every 4 years.

I want the A.I to cheat. Infact if at all possible, make it play as little of the game as you can, Performance above all else. Planets and such should still matter of course, but abstracted. But I want the resultant activity blob to be more interesting and unpredictable, An A.I which instead of being unable to balance its economy midgame on grand admiral, Is out here playing power politics with me. The upstart power on the block fighting an influence war with the advanced democracy on the other side of the galaxy, taking favors, issuing loans, rigging elections. Fighting proxy wars. Only for the whole game to change when said empires elections roll around and a new face is in office with different ideas.

I want to feel the force of an empires image, both mine and the A.I. If my little fortress in the corner who doesn't seem to do anything is seen as some obscure minor, I want the A.I to act like that, Threaten me for having no visible military! Demand technology! Try and force these weird nobodies to give us what they have.

Or perhaps the locals are a friendly democracy, they want your expertise, and want to offer their resources or defense in return?

If your some enormous, enigmatic hyper-empire, way ahead of everyone else, Do minors look to you to settle disputes with majors, are you feared, respected?

While complex in theory, I can see this all as simple events and weights, things that Stellaris is already chalk full of. In a way, all of this diplomatic stuff is mostly just hard labor from a writers perspective, Writing out edge cases and scenarios and tying them up to rely on the values that assert an A.I's values and their impressions of eachother. The hardest part potentially just being the act of relaying the information of what politics are actually happening where. So that the player can engage with it.

I wholly understand this is way, way to much to ask. But its my genuine sentiment. DLC like nemesis and federations were hugely popular but have been panned in hindsight for this exact reason that, while neat multiplayer mechanics, these systems just.. Don't mean much in singleplayer. There is no live politics to which they effect anything. It becomes a set and forget thing. Usually one with an objectively correct answer.

Megacorp? Trade fed.
Materialists? Science fed.
So on so forth. Roleplay wise there are options. But these sort of systems create friction with roleplay and mechanics, which can be very disruptive when your behind. Do I roleplay, or do I actually want to survive to the end of this game I already poured potentially a week of my life into already? I guess I might as well take that crisis perk...

Things like the crisis itself fall flat for an experienced player in SP because its generally the only thing you have to worry about by then. Theres no reason not to drop everything, maybe declare the crisis in the community, kill it. And go back to waiting for build ques to finish and making numbers go up.

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

I often Start a run with a pair of goals. A gameplay goal, the mechanical challenge of a run. A few examples below.
-Defeat 50x crisis on small galaxy, but with uncapped megas enabled.
-Defeat the Blokkats on their (second) highest difficulty setting without gratuitous amounts of cheating.
-Find out what the fuck the Aeternium is about.

And the Roleplay goal of a run. Similarly, examples included.
-Transition aforementioned dictatorship into a functional democracy
-Overcome all of the FE and instate peace over the galaxy by force as the custodian.
-Achieve Cosmogenesis as a digitalized machine empire in order to complete the ultimate measure of protection for their creators (As rouge servitors)

I usually take on a few minor ambitions, starting territorial disputes over chokepoints, or screwing with the A.I while I've got nothing better to do. Playing with an AP or civics which aren't great, and similar. But nothing major usually unless one of my original goals turns out to be a bust. The mentioned cosmogenesis run broke horribly for example due to digital pops and the ark not playing nice, thus I took a new goal in just seeing as much of the DLC as I could, given it was my first run. Started stuffing pops into the neural lathe and so on. Massively OOC, but at that point I had already 'achieved' my roleplay goals and was so far ahead that lag was my primary concern into the lategame.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

Meh? I cant really comment in all honesty, 90% of my runs play with a performance mod which just deletes the entire mechanic and gives me the trade income strait up. When I did engage with it, it seemed tedious and mostly pointless so I've not missed it in any of my gameplay without it.

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

Colonization is too centric to economic development. As a Sci-Fi nut my personal peeve has always been the focus on planets, massively expensive to ship to and from, as somesort of economic core to a civilization to which potentially 40% or more of the population would be spacefaring, a demographic you can only really express through absurd habitat spam, which itself creates ridiculous amounts of micromanagement hell and pop spam related lag.

In my personal experimentation with mods, I really love a few, much bigger and more developed worlds I can get invested in and work to specialize as opposed to a wall of data which takes minutes to shift through even as an experienced player. I certainly don't envy the newbie who ends up trying to play "tall" habitats and ends up needing to micro like 20 of the things. 6 planets with ~20 building slots is to me atleast, a much better experience. It takes longer to build up, demands less mental space to keep track of what planet does what game to game, and reduces the variety of micro intensive tasks to each planet. (such as governors, and their traits)

While further complexity would be neat, I can also see it just being an auger for even more micro hell. If we make hot planets too good at mining or energy, then suddenly a races planet preference becomes a metagame choice, Do i want research from cold world, food from temperate? minerals and energy from hot? Do I need to specialize every world in lockstep with their specific spot in the meta because so and so solar farm building makes technicians most effecient only on desert worlds? Mods exist which do this great and I use them regularly, so dont take this as words against the concept, but theres something to be said on the relative simplicity of alot of these core features given how much goes into eco already.

In modded, colonization is trivial. Terraforming and habitability buffs are everywhere and given out peacemeal. But Obviously, thats not an issue for PDX to fix and more a side effect of the Modding balance metagame, where there will always be a few obscure modifiers you can stack to high heaven even in a modest modpack (I'm never forgiving you guys for killing negative ship upkeep and megastructure build costs though, lol)

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

Overtuned, Tree of life, Galactic doorstep, Tombworld, Mechanist, Syncretic Evolution, Life-Seeded, Post-Apocalyptic, Subterranean, Calamitous Birth.

Alot of origins are more fluff than anything, while others are 90% crunch. There have been mods on the workshop that let you stack these together for years at this point and they're surprisingly stable. I play with overtuned ontop of my fluff origin nearly every other game I play and there's rarely even any jank to show for it.

I think all of these lower narrative impact or former civic origins should be civics. Of course such a change will result in all sorts of weird and wonderful cheese. But isn't that the charm of making stellaris such a free and open game?

That said, for multiplayer, I beg thee to add a banlist function. I last played a game with the boys when *nemesis* came out, and as per the meta at the time, around 6 out of 10 of the player empires were ringworld or machine world machines, usually with driven assimilators, as per the meta at the time, (despite the fact we agreed to ban them by agreement.) The ability to just.. Get rid of especially nasty cheese would be a scorched earth solution for sure but its better than nothing.

I also see suggestions of making Eager Explorers an origin? It is definitely one of the best start modifiers in all of stell for both fluff and crunch reasons, But as I play nearly every game with it for exactly those reasons, So I urge against it on personal grounds. It has so much to contribute to the context of an empire, paired with other origins, Post Apocalyptic, Overtuned Eager Explorers is itself the basis for an excellent narrative. And I'll always be for more choice over less choice.

If you could remove one game system, what would it be?

Armies.
It seems like the general consensus. And we know by devlogs and interviews (I've not kept up so correct me if I'm wrong here) That a big army rework is never happening.

But its still a shit system.
Personally, I'd say, Make armies akin to those in ES2, Give us troop and bombardment ships and make it so that instead of building and rebuilding armies, they are summoned from these anti-surface fleets. 1 Aux module of xenomorphs is 1 xenomorph army you can drop during an invasion. I'm pretty sure we've already had mods which work this way infact. Although they come and go.

tbh, stellaris has plenty of systems like armies. I think the main thing that makes armies so disliked is more the tedium of engaging with them. I like big numbers, armies have big numbers. But any joy I derive from a doomstack melting away my foes is counteracted by the simple fact that I had to pre-emptively spend a few thousand resources to start building that doomstack like, 20 ingame years ago, and if I didn't whatever war I'm fighting would be 20 years longer when I realize I forgot and now need to buy a doomstack and wait for it to build.

Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

I wanted to like astral rifts. But it seems to of unlearned the very things that we learned with normal exploration over the last half a decade. Failure chance this, leader dead there, The same issues which make trudging through exploration content a chore normally are amped up to 11 and I don't want to play anymore. Especially since the variety is so low. You can easily see about 75% of the content in a single game if your aggressive with exploration. (which itself is very important mechanically anyway)

Its also one of the few DLC where it seems like you aren't even expected to want to use it most of the time. Its super specific, and lays on the 'stellaris lore' thick in a way where any roleplay your doing takes a backseat.

This sort of writing mentality is why storms is the first DLC I haven't bought nor have plans to buy, And why I've chosen to wait on the reviews before picking up Grand Archive. Despite it being one of if not my favorite premise for a DLC in years.

As a bit of a vet, Exploration itself has become more and more of a chore for me over the years, and astral rifts came at a time where I was at my wits end with it. The system itself isnt necessarily bad but there is a point where every stellaris player stops seeing exploration as anything more than a series of right and wrong choices, and roleplay or not. They stop even being content once that happens, its just buttons to push to the point I can identify the options of an event just by seeing the associated picture half the time and chose accordingly. It brings me out of the other parts of the game more than anything.

All in all, While I've been pretty negative, I really love Stellaris. And its one of the best games, not just out of PDX, or in the 4x genre, But on the whole of the gaming market these days. And the DLC driven business model, while a bit questionable. Is something I'll happily buy into for the content you guys provide so regularly. With none of the insane gambling or freemium bullshit we see infesting even full priced games these days. Cheers to everyone at PDX, Hoi4 and so on too, Your doing great stuff and I'm happy to be here for it.
Uh, First forum post too? Good evening everyone!

 

[jayparadoritox]

Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

Espionage is just not impactful enough. It's too underpowered and requires you to spend influence. But the only reason to use your influence on espionage (as opposed to starbases/hyper relays/vassal negotiations/GC actions & resolutions) is because you are RPing or you enjoy the mechanics of espionage, so you basically force yourself to do some.

I DO think the mechanics are fun which is why I do it, but in the back of my mind, I know it stinks in terms of the gains it confers to my empire, and that I'd be better off building more starbases. I vaguely remember the Stellaris devs saying, years ago, even as they were adding influence costs to the operations, something along the lines of: "We know it's underpowered, and that these influence costs are actually going to make things worse before they get better, but we'll be redesigning espionage very soon!". It is now years later and it's still basically exactly the same in terms of power and how it works. This is the kind of thing that makes people worry the game changes too frequently, and keeps getting extra features added before older ones can find their feet. They get forgotten about.

If anything, espionage should be an influence generator, not an influence spender. That should surely be the purpose of my spy networks infecting other empires, right? That I gain MORE power over them, MORE influence over them. The current spending system of espionage makes you regret spending what you spend, come away feeling poorer (aka with less influence over opponents), and feels counterintuitive as a concept. Leaving aside for one moment that, as I say, the actual process of creating spy networks - with spymasters, building up assets, implementing sleeper cells so you can move around, etc - is very fun, it is the results which make you think, "Well, I pretty much had to force myself to play that way."

My suggestion is decouple influence as a mechanic from things like starbases and hyper relays, find some other way of gating those moments, and have influence remain as the external diplomacy resource which you want it to be. But players who have invested in spy networks with plenty of assets in each, should experience a greater rate of influence acquisition. By all means, continue to have the Operations (which need buffing by the way, I forgot to explicitly say that yet) cost some influence, but an established spy network with lots of assets should be accumulating influence, also.

 

[EpicCanadian]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?

Not very important. The current systems that use individual pops and jobs are there to model the economy/production of a star nation. If a different system can provide a better model, the system should be changed.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?

As much as is necessary. I do not think the current fleet combat system is very core to the identity of Stellaris.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The people of my civilization and their culture. I feel that the concept of culture (population culture, not government culture) is something that is not properly explored in Stellaris compared to its significance in sci-fi. Yes we have ethics but that is a very shallow representation.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

Overarching goals at the beginning of the game and short to medium term goals as the game progresses. The long term goals very rarely change and the short and medium term goals often change.

• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?

Not at all. I find that the current trade system can be ignored nearly 100% of the time.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?

I think colonization as a whole is okay, perhaps slightly too easy. However I do think habitability and climate should matter much more. For example there should be some worlds that are nearly perfectly suitable and incredibly easy to colonize, and others that are practically uninhabitable.

It is not much of a stretch to have planets native life that is wholly incomparable with your species such that to colonize the planet would require tearing up and replacing its entire biosphere.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?

I feel like there should be a third option that only decides your starting planet/system. This would include things like Shattered Ring, Void Dweller, Doomsday, Remnants, Life-Seeded, Post-Apocalyptic, Ocean Paradise.

Why can I not be a post apocalyptic clone army? Or a lost colony that found a shattered ring?

• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

There is no game system that I would remove. At least none that immediately come to mind.

I would love an expansion that adds a "Horatio" type civilization where it is made up of clones of a single individual.

I want to enjoy the galactic community but its current implementation feels flat. I think that the reason for this though is mostly because the AI can not plan ahead, make backroom deals, hold grudges etc. like humans can and instead simply follows weights provided by ethics, civics, etc. I don't see any easy solution to this though.