Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[Longherin]

Pops and Jobs -
Vicky 3 has a great base idea that I'd like to cobble in here, in that buildings take time to fill out and be productive.
Since the units of interaction the player has with planets are districts and buildings, it'd be nice if we had something like that. a district takes however much long to fill up, and we get to see the ratio of pops employed by the building. Hook everything onto districts and buildings rather than pops, I guess. Bigger pictures without having to open a list of 14 miners, too.

Fleets -
The current fleet system is, uh, threadbare enough that it can go in a lot of ways.
I don't think we're able to get away from two big balls of numbers squishing into each other, and that's fine.
Ships can probably benefit from living longer, even in a bigger fleet, and being able to take piecemeal damage.
It'd be nice if the system becomes robust enough that different fleet makeup and design aspects are valuable enough to allow for high risk high reward kind of designs.

Trade -
I'd like to send my fleets out to do crime and destroy civilian ships.
It will be incredibly annoying to have it done to me.
It's nice that it's out of the way, but the fact that it's both out of the way and representative of the logistic system of an empire feels odd.
Anecdotally, I've heard that lategame trade is a major source of slowdown. So, in that case, maybe it's better for each planet to send a ship to the capital of the sector (no sector, no ship) and if that ship is destroyed, then the trade from the source is deducted from the trade total for, like, a year, or something.
I just wanna raid. :<

Colonization -
Doesn't feel impactful for how important it is.
It'd be nice if we could get something that feels like we're fully living in the system? Like, minor colonies on non-settlable planets, moons that house fighter bases for system interdiction, etc.
move the gameplay away from the managing of individual planets into the managing of systems.

One System -
Ground combat.
Get away from the legacy 'stack of units smushing stack of units'.
Fully embrace the fact that it is a war being waged by empires that span *stars*.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Not very, the system would be good for a smaller scale colony development game but not so much in a grand strategy.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • If combat was improved, I could tolerate quite a bit of change. The end product is more important than how much things are altered.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Culture and history. Strengths and weaknesses inherent to my civilization as a whole, not the pops living in it.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • Mostly at the beginning base on what kind of build I'm playing. Adjust as necessary based on the environment.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • I think it's fine as is, not perfect, definitely could use some improvement, but still fine.
  • For most builds it's not so important, but for trade focused builds and a tall build living on ring worlds....trade is obviously very important.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Absolutely yes. Please and thank you.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Agrarian Idyll might make an interesting origin if done right....but I have no idea what done right would look like 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?
  • I would remove the current pop growth mechanic and replace with planet population with realistic pop growth and realistic immigration.
  • I think warfare is probably the one I would pick to be focused on. From the buildup, to declaring, to fighting, to ending and finally the peace after.
  • Probably Espionage. It seems like something I should like but just don't use it very often.

 

[The be]

I think you guys are right about asking about trade. It should be way more important. I think this mechanic can make the galaxy more "alive". Imagine having thousands of trade ships transporting material across your empire, opening up for direct attacks by pirates and other empires. I know it would make the game more logistics focues, but the current system right now, with goods having no phisical place, is out of touch with reality. Imaqgine transfering raw materials to the factory ring world. Imagine even having pops emigrate using ships, and if they are lost, then the pop dies! I hope you implement that.

The internal government gameplay got better with councils but I really think the factions and cultures within an empire should be portrayed better. If earth ever colonizes alpha centauri, that planet, after a few hndred years, would have diferent governing processses than earth, no matter how much authority is centralized.Diverging cultures (CK3?), evolving government factions and diferent decisions for diferent government types are the way to go.

 

[RoverStorm]

Apologies Paradox, I wanted to answer every question thoroughly, and I have a LOT to say.

I don't really expect a specific response since it's so long, but I will be thrilled if my post is read.

If anything, it's food for discussion.

How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?

My breakdown:

"Stellaris is a living game"
I think this point is accurate.

"Every game should be different"
To this end I think Stellaris falls short in terms of Empire build diversity. One example is that several patches ago there was an overhaul to pop jobs and many of them, especially Ruler jobs became homogenized.

However, the procedural generation and emergent gameplay of Stellaris remains a very strong component.
It is certainly true that every game feels different.

"The Galaxy is vast and full of wonders"
I think Stellaris most of Stellaris's failures are in this category. You mentioned one of the goals is "Sandbox" and I think many of the recent systems do NOT support the Sandbox element. This includes irremovable civics, arbitrarily hard capped mechanics, and a move toward playstyle homogenization.

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?
If Stellaris decided to remove any indication it takes place in space, I would probably no longer call it Stellaris.

If Stellaris completely rejected the sandbox element of Stellaris, it would also not be Stellaris.

I do not hold specific mechanics as sacred to a game's identity, I hold my experiences as sacred.
If it improves the experience I desire, any change can be a good one to me.

Some examples to comment on could include:

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

The current system is not important, and I would encourage some changes, but I also would not mind the current order.
A small change I would like is for more fluidity between Stratum. Miners under Mining Guilds I could see being Specialists, as an example. I'd also rework stratum job modifiers so instead of a specific stratum it's a specific category of resource (e.g. "Intellectual, Social, Manufactoring, Extraction"). This way, jobs chhanging stratum based on what civics the empire has doesn't change what modifiers affect job output. It also would reduce confusion around Slave modifiers not applying to certain types of jobs, as Slave modifiers could only affect certain resources categories.

As a modder I am keenly aware Pops' relation to Jobs and Ethics are a massive impact on performance and to be honest, the job system has felt good to look at but incredibly clunky and unwieldy to micro-manage and optimize or organize as according to your vision.

I would personally design the game such that pops are critical in the early-mid game, and then late game the population of the galaxy actually declines as your economy shifts to being based on automatic buildings and megastructures (Which I do NOT believe should be limited to 1 per empire). This way as the galaxy scales up, the economic focus shifts from individuals to grand empires and their grand machinations. This seems to be the best of keeping the current system while fixing the biggest complaint: end game lag.

I would also enjoy experimentations with what a pop represents. I at one point designed a custom mod where planets usually capped out at 10 pops that grew very slowly and had just a few jobs based on pop count, and buildings primarily increased the output of all pops rather than adding new jobs. I also tried the same 10 pop limit with pops making more resources the more pops on planet there was.
Such radical changes to pops I am entirely fine with trying out, and would be willing to change to if the end result is an improvement.

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

I personally have no special ties to the current fleet system. I would say the only wrong move to me is reducing the variety of ship builds. I personally would encourage a much larger variety of ship weapons and parts.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

There are two things that define an empire
Do they Expand or do they develop Inward?
Do they sacrafice for diplomacy or do they focus on their own efforts?

These two questions are the single most identifiable and impactful part of defining a civilization, and often as players we have no idea what we are going to do when staring at the empire creation because we have no clue who our neighbors will be, if any of them exist.

When you encounter another empire, these are by FAR the only two traits you will seriously recognize. They not only define your civilization to yourself, but also to other players.

Additional aspects:

Stellaris is a Grand Strategy game. This means, to me, that on a grand scale, it is a test of our ability to make long-term decisions based on limited information, and the ability to change and adapt as new information is revealed.

To me, I believe I should have absolute control over my civilization choices and they should never be based in randomness.

I believe it is CRUCIAL that ALL randomness in "Empire Build" be removed. Stellaris is a game that has you dealing with much randomness in events, neighbors, crisis, and many things well outside your control due to the procedural generation. I think this is good, however, it MUST be complimented by RELIABLE choices.

If neither the procedural generation nor our own choices are consistant, the game just becomes a slot machine.
I win or lose through nothing I can control outside of choosing to "play" or not.

It's also equally important that most choices should be reversable, if troublesome. Stellaris is random, and it should always be possible to "course correct" if a choice you previously made is suddenly an awful choice. If we cannot make changes to our build based on new information, it funnels players into wanting to "play safe" and limits the choices players feel safe picking. Since day one I have criticised Traditions being permenent, and even EU4 (the game they definitely game from) doesn't have them as permenent anymore!

Another detail is that our aspects should feel believable. Not "IS" believable, but feels believable. Huge difference between "scientifically realistic" and "opperates how people would expect it to work". Energy Shields aren't realistic, but most people have an idea of what a believable energy shield is.

To go into slightly more detail, I would say I spend MOST of my time on empire selection bouncing between Ethics/Government, Origins, and Traits.
These are because such choices can have a massive and irreversable impact on an upcoming game, and there will be no opportunity to revise them later if I determine my vision of an empire includes different to my choices. This is where I think the most improvement can be made.

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

Usually I set a goal upon empire creation for a vision of an empire I will be going for. The reality is many decisions are not made in empire select (I think this is a GOOD thing), but many decisions in empire select have MASSIVE consequences and are irreversable, so I usually feel like I have to decide what my "Complete OCD friendly build" will be right at empire creation.

Then usually for goals I have certain goals I aim for pretty much every game. Again, due to OCD, anything that I may "miss out on", I usually rush to get it done as fast as possible. Though this isn't really goals I "set for myself" and more "I will stress and not have fun if I fail these".

There is usually a point that I quite enjoy though, where I am deciding what my plan is to achieve dominance over the galaxy. Early game is the build-up, but at a certain point I must decide if I am going to be going for a crisis, galactic imperium, permenent ruler of a max level federation that rules the galaxy, or something equally grand.
I very much enjoy this decision, as it feels like a true natural turning point. No random "you can't pick bothh of these because we said so", of course trying to destroy the galaxy means becoming a galactic pariah, and of course forming a galactic empire means no more internal Federations!

But these are very impactful. If my goal is the Galactic Imperium, I'm not selecting Diplomacy because I'm not going to access Federations, as an example.

From there, usually I divide up the plan forward into smaller goals. If I'm going to fight everyone, I need to focus on whatever nations are most powerful. If it's diplomacy, then each law that I want passed is a small goal toward my big goal.

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

Honestly, I want some sort of trade as a concept, and builds centered around trade are some of my favorite, but I actually would prefer a complete overhaul.

In fact I would prefer either ALL resources require Trade routes to the capital or nothing require it. I love the idea of Trade, and I love the idea of the Trade Route, but it gets frustrating when I'm spending the early game micromanaging fleets for piracy suppression while my Gestalt friend has the time to read events without pausing.

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

Short awnser, yes and no. I do NOT believe habitability should impact resource output, but I DO believe it should impact upkeep and growth to a very serious degree. I envision that a planet might be settled even at 0% habitability because it provides a crucial resource, such as a major gas deposit, but at 0% habitability the workers need to be imported as they won't grow, and the maintence should definitely be very expensive. The planet should be a burden you only tolerate because something special on planet is worth it.

Habitability should be something that, if you are looking at a planet for growth and versatility, you ignore low habitability options.

If I was in charge, I'd make pop upkeep have special "cutoff" points. For example, below 60% habitability a species may now require more (flat, so even slaves are affected) food upkeep, to represent a certain breaking point where special clothes and treatments are needed for normal function, below 40% may need energy and consumer goods (even slaves) to represent devices and equipment needed to keep the species alive, and below 20% the food upkeep is replaced by an alloy upkeep to represent the fact that the species doesn't even leave their vehicles and buildings at this point and requires special machines to do anything.

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

I suggest revisiting all Origins and Permenent Civics and split them into the following categories:

1. Homeworld
I believe ALL "Homeworld" origins should be merged into the "Planet Class" screen. Post Apocalyptic, Life Seeded, Ocean Paradise, Remnants, Shattered Ring, Void Dwellers, and any future additions. Having them be origins gravely limits many perfectly reasonable player fantasies, such as a civilization that collapsed under a nuclear war and was lead back from extinction by a highly charismatic leader (Post Apocalyptic+Under One Rule)

Homeworlds are "naturally" exclusive, and as such it makes perfect sense that they are all exclusive with eachother.
It doesn't make sense that I cannot both start on a Habitat and Worship Cybernetic Augmentation.

2. Species Editor
Similarly, I think certain origins and civics belong as mechanics under the Species Editor. Subterranean should not be an Origin, it should be a trait that enables a decision to apply a planet modifier turning a world into "subterranean". It should be an option any empire that gets a world with a majority subterranean species can use. Anglers is similar with the "Aquatic" trait. And no they shouldn't be exclusive either.

Anything that adds "Secondary Species" also I believe belong in their own category, thus removed from the Origin/Civic pools.
This further opens up fairly natural player fantasies that really aren't exclusive with eachother, such as "Syncretic Evolution" and "Here be Dragons", where the two home species used to be bitter enemies until an even bigger fish showed up and they set aside their differences. Or "Mechanist" on "Void Dwellers" (see above) for that idea of a species that designed robots to work in space where they can't breath rather than rely on space suits.

I could even envision secondary species simply being something most empires can do, but purely optional.

3. Heritage
This is where I think most Origin and some Permenant civics belong. Instead of only picking one, each one picked decreases your planet's starting pops and infrastructure and increases tile blockers on the homeworld.

The main difference, as I see it, between Civics and Heritage, is that Civics represent government structure and can be changed to represent changing governments.
Heritage would represent the society outside of government. It would represent things that stay consistent regardless of government, such as the rival world in Fear of the Dark, or the population worshipping Cybernetics in Cybernetic Creed.

I DO think Heritage should be "slightly" maleable in gameplay. A late switch to Cybernetic Creed I think should be possible, based on the game state such as befriending a Cybernetic Creed Empire as a Spiritualist empire yourself. Though perhaps a civic based on the Creed but with fewer mechanics that Cybernetic Creed doesn't need would be a better representation?
But for the most part:
Heritage=Pretty Permenent
Civic=Changable

There are some normal civics I would move into this category, such as Agrarian Idyllic.

4. Other:
I mentioned above I think anyone should be able to get Aquatic and Subterranean bonuses if they get pops with those traits.
Overtuned I think should JUST be a rare technology that anyone can get the tech for under the right circumstances. This has no business being an origin, as any empire that conquers (or gets a migration treaty with) an overtuned empire basically steals pretty much the entire advantage of the origin in addition to whatever origin they picked. Even something like Ocean Paradise isn't this bad because they only steal the one planet, but you can grow overtuned pops to be the majority of your workforce! I would like to see a cyborg style resource upkeep for overtuned traits as well, probably food upkeep.

• 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?

Three different questions:
1. What would I remove if I could pick one thing?

I would remove "Mutual Exclusion" as a core tenant for choices, and replace it with "Opportunity Cost".
Put another way: I believe the idea of "exclusive permenant paths" for empires is unhealthy for the sandbox and should be done away with.

I VASTLY prefer the idea that powerful choices are balanced by powerful costs, including time investment, and natural consequences. I DESPISE balancing on "you only get one and can never change it later". Such balancing violates core tenants of Sandbox, namely in terms of player freedom.

I would prefer all ascension paths be balanced by having serious costs instead of being mutually exclusive. LOADS of sci-fi fantasies envision cybernetics, psionics, and genetics going hand in hand.

Another example, I would prefer if Cybernetic Creed empires could choose to keep all five factions and require balancing them off of eachother.

Normal Cybernetic empires I would prefer if we could switch between Collectivist and Individualist, possibly by turning all of the choices during cyberization that give a permenant modifier into policies, and switching enough policies changes which type of authority set is unlocked.

1.a. What would I remove if I could pick one SMALL thing?

The main mechanic I would just delete entirely is "Divided Patronage". It completely fails at the stated design goal of the mechanic (preventing vassal swarms. They are still possible if you just tax your micro-vassals to hell) and just limits player freedom.

The only other mechanic I'd remove is "War Exhaustion" as a timer. It has forced me to quit the game in frustration, though unlike Divided Patronage which always sucks, war exhaustion is only sometimes an issue.

Sometimes I am surprise attacked, I engage in extremely careful guerilla warfare as I rebuild and regroup withh my allies, I win a MASSIVE battle and the enemy is left with no forces and I begin to liberate my territory...and then I'm arbitrarily forced to peace out and lose 90% of my territory. Literally the enemy fleet is gone, and my fleet is returning to liberate completely unopposed, and the nation capitulates?!? By the time the peace treaty is done, all the people on those planets have been purged or resettled or the enemy has had a decade with all my industry and I have no hope to beat them now.

2. Which system would I make the central focus of an expansion?
There are two I would focus on, and they are not original:

Internal Politics, with special focus on factions and some sort of hybrid between a vassal and core territory. I would personally choose to focus on this.

Espionage. Most missions are not worth doing even if they were free, and the fact they cost influence means I quite literally never touch espionage.

3. What system do I want to enjoy but feel the current implementation doesn't quite work?
Again, there are two I REALLY want to love, but I cannot:

3.a Subjects.

Many mechanics make subjects incredibly frustrating. Subjects do not benefit from my techhnology, especially repeatable techs, and end up just folding in combat. Subjects make really frustrating choices in planet construction and I do not have the choice to micromanage them. Subjects seem willing to swear allegiance to others at every opportunity so choosing to vassalize or release a vassal currently feels like you are just giving away land to your rivals.
I also find Divided Patronage an awful mechanic. It didn't remove vassal swarms, it forced everyone who vassal swarms to be malevolent and tax the absolute hell out of subjects so they just can't afford to fight you. So all it did was remove a player fantasy of being a benevolent overlord of many small civilizations. It also feels awful even when you aren't going vassal swarm, as it kicks in if you try to (very reasonably) get just one of each specialization. And instead of protecting my new protectorates, I rush to integrate them as fast as possible so I don't have to deal with disloyalty from my big loyal vassal I am keeping for specialization bonuses.
Additionally, the tax system is not nearly flexible enough. The fact I cannot give resources if I am taxing or subsizing them means I just try to never interact with taxes, because I want that option available in case there's an event or war and I need a quick exchange of resources.

I want to love subjects. I love dealing with vassals in Crusader Kings, and so many GOOD ingrediants exist for Stellaris subjects, but I just feel like I am FIGHTING my own subjects and their mecanics than actually enjoying them.

Part of it I think is that current subjects have this vision I would describe as "external subjects", while many of the fantasies I want are some kind of "internal subject". The idea to be some sort of "the country is itself sort of a Federation", where there are many "subjects" that I can choose to grant different levels of autonomy to. Subjects whom consider themselves as a core part of my territory and will remain fiercly loyal even if collectively they utterly overpower me, IF I have policies and grants that keep them happy.

3.b Holdings.

Megacorp Branch Office buildings that produce a flat amount of resources really feels awful, so I end up just building the same 4-5 buildings every game. +5% Diplomatic Weight, +25% Branch Office Value, whatever has the highest crime impact. In general, I'm not tailoring my branch office to the local market, I'm just copy+pasting the same set of buildings.
Overlord holdings are much worse though. It really feels awful that it doesn't matter if a subject has one colony or one hundred, and we get at most 4 buildings. The buildings at least are what I believe holding buildings should be: with variable impact based on the planet's economy and jobs.

My final thoughts:

I would like to finish by explaining that I used to be a huge Stellaris enthusiast, but I had fallen off largely due to dis-satisfaction with many changes and additions.
I returned due to very much enjoying much of what I saw with Machine Age, but despite all of the very good designs there was also many of the same issues I have.
I still love Stellaris, but it is becoming weaker as more mechanics are added that frustrate me.

I, more than anything, enjoy the freedom to mold games as I desire, changing course entirely if I want to, in order to compliment emergent storytelling.

Many changes and new mechanics have issues that violate this, and prevent me from enjoying them.

I very much dislike not having options and/or control, as well as the inability to change my mind, just because the intended playstyle didn't need or want those options.
I use the example that I should love Cybernetic Creed, but I have no option to keep all five factions and their buildings and traits, nor do I have the ability to switch between which creed is favored, or even change the tithe!
I also use the fact that Cyberization situation may randomly give you amazing permenent modifiers, or zero permenent modifiers, and it's completly outside your control, despite this being one of the biggest empire building choices available. At least the Shroud lets you keep trying forever.
And many decisions are irreversable when they really feel like it should be a policy I can change my mind on later! Why is the choice for athletes in sports not a policy I can change as I deem fit in my own narrative?

I also find it very infuriating when mechanics seem restricted in random ways despite having natural costs and I coming to the decision I am willing to pay that cost. Why are Dysonspheres limited to building one, but I can use however many I capture? Why is the new Vivarium tank capped at 200, when I need to devote naturally limited starbase capacity anyways?

The question on if something should be mutually exclusive to me is "If, ignoring balance and game mechanics, does it make sense that these are mutually exclusive?"
Not realistic, as sci-fi is mostly make believe. Does it make logical sense? I repeat: why can't I worship cybernetics if I evolved on a habitat, or the ruins of a prior empire?

I used to discuss Stellaris on these forums, and I don't really do so anymore, as I feel like often what I enjoy is in the minority, and it feels wrong to even request changes that would make the game less enjoyable for others, as why should my enjoyment come at the cost of everyone else's?

But you have requested to hear my feedback, and I do still love Stellaris. It's easy to point out what I take issues with, but there are so many things I DO love about Stellaris.

 

[Edward Morgan]

What is Stellaris to you?​

To me is the ultimate single* player sy-fy sandbox role-playing game from the perspective of a LEADER of a space faring Nation/Empire.
*Please don't try to balance or limit your creations because it would be bad for pvp.

After watching Foundation, The Expanse, my very superficial knowledge of 40k and other sy-fy stories, I always put my self in the position of the leader of a great nation/empire that is aiming to control the galaxy in some way, shape or form and role-play accordingly, being the God Emperor or the Chancellor of the UN.

Aside from fringe cases most good leader, delegate to competent people, make trade deals, reallocate resources, boost morale, support through crisis etc... And that is what I use Stellaris for, a role-playing platform for my space fantasy.

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

-Nothing is sacred to me, so go ahead give your best shot.
-Thank you for tuning down on the release timer though, honestly got burnout and haven't yet played the last two DLC that I bought with the yearly package.

They should be able to play the same empire ten times in a row and experience ten different stories.​

-I'm one of those player that play with the two empires that I listed above all the time. And it is always something new, thanks to the base game and mods that I use. (I add mods to make the game harder and fair not easier and broken.)

Now some game-play feedback​

• Situations is a great mechanic that should be used more and expanded upon, it gives the feeling I talked earlier that you are actually managing, well, situations that shape your nation/empire. Terraforming, mega structures, colonizing, espionage etc... More options, more outcomes, just more.
  
  
• Terraforming and Colonies, I play with a mod called nascent world if I recall the name correctly, basically what this mod does is on the start of the game you start with a small colony on the moon and on mars. My point being there is no way we discover and apply FTL safely before we even have a settlement on mars, it may not be a highly developed world but we would at least have a small settlement there.
  The main issue it's not that it's easy, it's just dull, make a situation that siphon resources, if you fail to meet the colony have to fend for themselves and maybe revolt or they find new types of resources, have a crisis that you have to manage, something memorable not just click once spend 10k energy at once and after ten years you terraformed an inhabitable planet with no issues what so ever. Or even worse click colonize and bam there is a new colony on another star system, when that day comes It's going to be the greatest achievement of humankind.
  
  
• As much as people like micromanaging pops etc... It's technically not my job to do, it's for the governor that I pointed to be there, I'm not asking for it to be removed I never used planetary automation in any case, mostly because I follow a protocol for new colonies and I don't expect the automation to be effective, but from seeing some people using it it's kinda atrocious anyway and honestly it's a core mechanic of the game, but when you have like 10+ planets it becomes a pain.
  
  
• Trade/economy: The market makes no sense, from whom am I buying or selling? It makes sense if you are a super decentralized government that buy from corporations inside your own empire, but if you are an authoritarian that controls all forms of production or you haven't met any other civilizations or you are all alone in the galaxy, who are you trading with? It's creating resources from thin air.
  Maybe until you are in a Federation or the galactic market is formed you have to actually trade with other empires, It would also bring a new depth to Alliances, Federations and the Galactic Community. I can't remember the last time I made a trade deal with other empire and honestly this is bad from a role-playing and game mechanic point of view.
  I only bother with trade routes when I realize they are disconnected to my capital, which is like once per game and I always have to re-remember how to do it, I read someone says it causes lag, if that is the case just remove or rework entirely.
  
  
• Espionage I don't need to say much, there are plenty of good feedback. I only ask for an actual Espionage tab where I can see all my spy networks and manage them (if there is one I haven't found yet after 2k+ hours on this game).
  And a setting that unleash the AI to do all the crazy spy stuff, I remember reading somewhere, a long time ago, that the AI is limited to like 3 espionage actions.
  
  
• I'm not one of those guys that say to remove ground combat entirely, I even made a mod for myself that adds extra ground units, but making transport ships is nonsense, ships should have an army module that you can tell your admiral to deploy ground troops. I can't remember in any sy-fy setting where a destroyer isn't capable of deploying units to the ground, even Helldivers have a squad of four and they are enough to partially destroy a planet, If I had to guess their super destroyer is basically just a corvette in the Stellaris universe.
  
  
• About space combat, fleet composition, fleet number, fleet weapons etc... I don't really care do your worst , as long as they are pretty to watch I don't care if it's rock, paper, scissor or numbers game or whatever people complain about, anyway I always build balanced ships with varied ship types on my fleet composition(I know the ship computers don't work properly when you do that). Also would love for an option to automate conquest just let the AI take control of the fleets, clicking on twenty star systems when you already defeated the enemy main fleet, control their capital and all their shipyards, is just a pointless mini-game, or rework war goals, one of the two would be nice.

Well thank you for coming to my TED talk, sorry for any grammar mistakes, English is not my first language and remember to purge all the xenos.

 

[Dragatus]

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

A little bit. I like the flavor provided by having special jobs like Rangers or the new Wranglers. But that is the only thing I really like about the system.

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

That is hard to answer without knowing more about what you'd change.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Species portrait, ethics and civics.

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

It changes from game to game. Sometimes I hunt for achievements. Sometimes I get inspired by what a specific combo can do. Sometimes I react organically to how a game is developing.

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

Not important at all. In fact, I think the game would be better off without it.

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

Yes, but not by much. Habitability should be a key problem to solve in the early game and completely solved by the end game.

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

Not really, but Primal Calling and Beastmasters should be merged. They're such natural combo it feels very weird to pick one without picking the other. And Storm Chasers is such a natural combo with Astrometeorology and Storm Devotion that it's again hard to pick it without taking at least one of those 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 would remove the trade route system.
I would make ship design a central focus of an expansion.
I want to enjoy espionage, but it just doesn't feel worth the effort to do anything more than gather intel.

 

[L0rdScrambles]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • The individual pops are not important, but the population means something. What I mean is, I enjoy the visual nature of the population on planets. I like to see the diversity, or lack there of depending on my empire. I would happily cut the 'pop' as a mechanic, exchanging that for an even more abstract but more performant system as long as I could still see the beautiful portraits, clothes etc. of the beings that make up my population.
  • I also don't care about jobs, really, in the sense that I don't need to be able to mess with them one at a time. The game should be thinking bigger than that. It would be sufficient for me to have the output of an abstract workforce presented in resource terms with sliders for the resources.
  • I suggest planets can be greatly simplified with inhabited planets/moons/structures having a workforce value and an infrastructure value (or level?), both of which grow over time, and can perhaps be accelerated by resettlement, immigration, events, investment etc. Workforce is what you use to produce resources (% allocated through sliders) and infrastructure increases productivity and unlocks districts and progressively more advanced planet upgrades. Districts are fine, they can be used to represent the natural (or artificial...) capacity that the planet has to produce certain resource types. Only planet-unique buildings though. A very developed planet with a high population is a powerhouse, but fragile. Young colony worlds may produce nothing, but they are the next generation of agriculture or mining worlds.
  • Something like this would allow for many more inhabited entities - you can have a small mining colony on the moon but it can never grow its infrastructure beyond a certain tier/level/value.
  • For a radical change... change energy credits to be a local "Energy" resource, with Trade Value becoming currency, and bring back a little more around food as something that needs to be available to a planet.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • I would tread pretty carefully, or at least be clear about the vision for combat and how that integrates into a vision for warfare as a whole.
  • I don't need to control the individual ships or anything like that, please don't go there. It's not that game. I want vast armadas, with sweeping, epic space battles that play out beautifully on the screen.
  • I don't want fewer ships. The game is bigger than that. Please think 'grand'. I would argue that we should ditch individual ships and move to fleets only, in fact. A better solution than Fleet Command Limit is needed, in any case.
  • I have seen speculation that the number of ships is a big performance problem - if this is so then hopefully you can resolve that through technical improvements and optimisation rather than reducing the number of ships as a solution.
  • Ships could be made a bit more interesting if they had a few more properties and there were different types of weapons with more interesting effects. perhaps ships could have a numerical crew value, for example, which could then be subject to attack, require replenishment etc. Boarding actions, anyone?
  • Ships are too fast. Way too fast. There is nothing pleasing about a swarm of ships flying super fast in circles. Think Star Wars capital ships duelling at range while smaller escort ships make attack runs.
  • Please give strike craft some love. Bring back different types with different mission profiles.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Appearance! The portrait art in the game is one of the things that defines it. I love choosing the portraits for my empire first and then going from there to figure out who these beings are and what they're about!
  • Culture! I think the Origin, Ethics and Civics system is another defining element of Stellaris. More Origins are always welcome but I must be honest, I prefer to use only a few of them myself and have custom AI empires spawn with many of the others.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • That is hard to answer because each game is different depending on the empire you plan and the galaxy you are in. Usually my goals in the early game evolve as I explore my surroundings. It just depends so much on the geography and who is around! Later, it becomes more about who my powerful enemies are going to be. Certainly it has become the 'Game of Vassals' so catching 'em all is a significant part of the mid-game. Late game it's usually a matter of biting chunks off big but rational enemies or putting genociders to the sword, and then dealing with crises.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • I am sorry to say it is almost ignored. There is something there I think that can be revitalised, the concept of trade routes which you set up and that can be disrupted by various means (pirates, espionage, events)... but I think the concept of it being a collection system for Trade Value is a bit weak. Trade routes should be fewer and more meaningful perhaps. Trade-focused empires could still be very potent, but their advantages would be in establishing more trade routes which are also more productive for them and their trading partners.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Yes to the first part. But perhaps the problem is how quickly planets can be scaled up. As written above I suggest planets should need both population and infrastructure, with the latter being something that can't just instantly be maximised if you're rich. it doesn't need to require any time to establish the colony but it should have to go through many growth steps before it can be an industrial powerhouse. Today you can just relocate 100 pops and spend some amount of minerals. The only thing that takes time is building the districts and buildings.
  • I would enjoy planets being much more unique via deposits and modifiers - there is a reason that the mods which add new planet types and planet modifiers are so popular (they are awesome)!
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
  • If I had to throw something in the bin... I'm not sure, really! After 5000 hours I'm pretty institutionalised. I guess Crime would be a candidate, and I've already mentioned Trade Value. The only experience I hate in the game is empire-ruining wars against AI empires. I play on Grand Admiral but sometimes you just get caught out! And it's a shame when that has to be the end of the whole campaign. I wish the AI would use pure subjugation more frequently, rather than conquest or annihilation. Being a subject is cool nowadays!
• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
  • It has to be warfare, really, doesn't it? Like it's just such a massive opportunity to elevate the game as a whole. We have to get away somehow from "my number is bigger and my ships move instantly wherever I want, therefore your empire is defeated". The warfare is nothing, its a contest of industrial output and technology level. We need some sort of space logistics, slower ships, more attrition in fleets, asymmetric warfare, a revised but elegant ground combat system, ship designs and fleet composition that matters a lot more etc.. There are many fine threads about the place by people with great ideas on how to address this so I won't expand further here. There are going to be some limits to what can be done, but that I think is the biggest failing of the game currently since it all ultimately comes down to a good galactic hyperwar at the end of the day, doesn't it?
  • As a bonus answer, I would also love to see another Become the Crisis path in the future!
• Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • Espionage! I really want it to be a thing but it just isn't and I don't really know how to address that and make it engaging without being just a total hassle for a player on the receiving end. Maybe if there were fewer Operation types but each one had a much more significant impact which was played out through event chains, Situations etc.

 

[Eelectrica]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Planets need to feel like planets. One thing the original tile system could have had is some unique planet appearances. If the system is changed, the artwork needs to back it up.

• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • The ultimate power fantasy is having a massive fleet to sweep through the galaxy and burn down all who stand in the way. I don't see any problem with Doomstacking. If my fleets a grouped together that means I have exploitable holes some where else. The encounter design also encourages doom stacking. Want to take a fallen empire? You need a big fleet to knock down their big fleet or your small fleets are canon fodder, like goons taking on the superhero one at a time for some reason.
  • That said, if our fleets are reduced in size I wouldn't mind. If encounter design is fixed so as smaller fleets will be adequate then sure. Not sure what the size is, but 1 is too small, happy medium somewhere in the middle I guess.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Government and ethics determine my civilization and I try and adapt my playstyle to match that.

• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • Depends, sometimes if achievement hunting it's until I've wrung every possible achievement out of that playthrough. On a normal play through, I'll usually want to face the endgame crisis and try and take down the fallen empires as well.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • The game has trade other than the galactic market? Honestly though, I largely ignore it. I mean if there is a trade node a jump or two away I'll typically build the trade starbase building to get those resources, but I don't remember the last time I bothered setting up patrol routes.

• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Yeah, I think colonization is a bit too easy. hability and climate should matter. I mean theoretically we can live on Mars or the moon, but it ain't gonna by easy. Terraformed worlds should be easy since we've supposedly done the work in taming the planet already. But some planets should be harder to tame than others. Especially if it has wild beasts and so on.

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • No thoughts on this one. Happy to go with whatever.

• 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 guess the easy answer for a system to remove is ground combat, but how are our fortress worlds going to work? Some of these planets should be hard to take. Ground combat feels like a necessary evil. How to make taking and defending planets fun is the trick. I newly colonised planet should be easy, wipe out the colonists and bam, done. On the other hand an ecumenopolis should be difficult. We have trillions of people supposedly living on such a planet who aren't going to be too thrilled about their new overlords.
  • I'd love a colonisation story pack. Let the writers off the leash coming up with colonisation events. Some good, some bad. Colonisation shouldn't be impossible either. Could work in terraforming as well in that since terraforming and colonisation usually go hand in hand.

 

[Ker0]

I don’t need a lot of sweeping changes for Stellaris at this point. That said, I’d love to see new additions, like internal politics, religion/culture, and making espionage more impactful and fun.

 

[labgnome]

How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?

I do think it matches pretty well. I do think there are areas of sci-fi imagination Stellaris hasn't yet fully or properly expaned into, but I'd like to see it go there. I am alwasy for more of the weird and wonderful.​

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

I don't know exactly what that woudl be, I've played through a lot of changes. I would say the most "sacred" is customization and choice.​

Some examples to comment on could include:

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Not terribly. I like the districts and buildings for the most part though.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Not really sure. As more of a role-player I like options in desiging and customizing the ships to make my empire distinct, but maintianing a fleet and coordinating it durring a conflict can feel tedious sometimes.
  • GOing off of the previous question, I woudl like to see changes that would finally allow a proper nomadic civilization.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Flavor. I primarily I guess go for roleplaying, so options that make a civilization feel different, have a different quality to them. I like to pre-build a lot of empires in Stellaris and I find there's a lot of civics I don't put to use because they just lack flavor. Like Distinguished Admiralty is somethign I only use if I need to top off a militaristic civilization and don't have anything more interesting that fits, Cuthroat Politics, Byzantine Beurocracy, Efficient Beaurocary, are pretty similar for me as well, and a lot of hive civics feel pretty bland too, both "One Mind" and "Subsumed Will" not only feel like they're saying the same thing but also just "a hive mind that's even more hive mind".
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • I like to start with a story for the civilization I am playing and go through how that particular story takes their civilization, so I suppose that itself usually doesn't change much.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • It's not. It's not interesting and I don't know doesn't feel like "trade" if that makes any sense. Also the galactic market can be gamed too easily by human players I think. I also think that while I like the idea of energy as currency, it's a bit immersion breaking to treat it like "money". Like maybe have "trade value" be a seperate system for Megacorps, kida the reverse of hor gestalts don't deal with happiness?
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Yes on both counts. Maybe also some more variety in planet types. Maybe non-standard atmospheres or hydrospheres or otherwise alien environments in the base game. The more alien our aliens can be the better.
    • A note on classifications as well: we don't need "frozen" and also "uninhabitable frozen", and two types of "barren". I think habitable should be "cold", and maybe "barren" and "airless" or something like that. Something less confusing.
    • Another note maybe make stellar type relevant for species with the photosynthetic trait. Like a bonus for stars of the same type as their homeworld sun, but a penalty for certian different types of stars.
      • Maybe also a solar-powered trait for machines with a similar bonus/penalty for local star type?
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • For origins that should be civics: given Dark Consortium, Eager Explorers, Hyperspace Specialty and Planetscapers all being civics I think that Galactic Doorstep, Slingshot to the Stars, and Arcweilders could all also potentially work as civics instead.
  • For civics that could work as origins you've probably gotten this before, but Rouge Servitors and Driven Assimilators, I'd also add Genesis Guides as well.
    • As a note, with hives being able to cybernetically ascend, maybe like a machine and hive verison of assimilator origins(?) for a proper "Borg" style playthrough.
    • Mycoryzal Ideal and Relentless Industrialists also kinda feel like that could work as origins if they had just a bit more.
  • Anglers, Beastmasters and Dimensional Worship share a lot of material with Ocean Paradise, Call of the Wild and Riftworld respectively and feel like either necessary civics for the origin (which I think is bad) and kinda the "civic version" of the origin, so I think my feeling is less that one should be the other, so much as whichever choice is made they should merge them.
    • For me this kinda dovetails into Fruitful Partnership and Cordyceptic Drones as I those have obvious thematic overlap there, and for note Cordyceptic Drones and Wild Hive (the hive-mind version Beastmasters) I think have way too much overlap and should probably be mutually exclusive. So maybe something similar there. Maybe merge Cordyceptic Drones into the hive version of Necorphage if they're origins, or also make Fruitful Partnership 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?
  • If it's not getting a big fix, trade.
  • Obviously Genetic and Psionic Ascention, like Synthetic and Cybernetic got.
  • Technology. I feel like it's kinda just a gamble and wait system, and that the choices aren't particularly impactful. I'd like to see exploration of the sci-fi trope of civilizations going down very different technological development routs.

 

[:yakiesenior69]

Here to give my feedback and support:

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

Personally, I don’t mind individual Jobs - those work fundamentally well. But I wouldn’t mind seeing more roles and types?

But, I would to see Pops reworked - instead of mere numbers, I like to see something similar to Victoria - with methods to increase population and promote migration, through certain settlements or pass laws and regulations that help to bolster that.

And help to adapt and improve, rather than just plopping them down on planets - I feel like Traits could work with that, much like Leaders?

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

Definitely needs polishing and rework!

I would love to be able to create our own trade caravans and guild - similar to Branch Offices or Mercenary Companies.

And Space Pirates being more of threat - rather than an annoyance. They could attack your caravans, forcing you to divert ships to protect your traders or build starbases or outposts with means of defence and security - like the Coast Guard.

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

I would like it to be harder and more challenging.

Like hostile or native wildlife - which you can exterminate, neuter or domesticate.

Erratic weather & tougher or more idyllic climates through events or anomalies, rather than blockers - which you can endure through technology or utilise as methods to harvest more resources.

And even Pre-Sapients can offer up distinct benefits - rather than uplift, why not coexist? Or even learn from?

That - and I love events, situations and anomalies themed around weather, climate, discoveries, uncovering old secrets etc.

Like Archaeology - but themed around colonies, wildlife, weather etc.

And maybe make hostile environments more lucrative and challenging - like with Tomb Worlds, where you can find old bunkers, or with Titan Worlds, where you can recruit them into your armies?

That - and maybe new colonies or methods of colonisation - like Asteroids or small outposts, for example? Which could be built on Gas Giants, Dead Worlds etc.

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

I would love to see Feudal Society or Agrarian Idyll as Origins! That could blend really nicely with planets and pre-sapients.

Common Ground and Hegemon I like to see as Civics, rather than Origins. I don’t really ever use them, really.

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

I would love to see more emphasis on Pre-Sapients, Armies or maybe Primitives?

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

Honestly, like I said atop, I think Armies and Caravans could really use some reworks - like offering rare resources, building branch offices, providing trade convoys - and with new units for Armies, like different ranks, training or types of tactics?

Maybe some aircraft or tanks - like for certain invasions or situations, rather than just throwing entire armies of infantry at situations and watching them turn to mulch. Plus, it’s a little tedious and boring.

Traits as well. Just like Leaders, I like to more emphasis on that for civilians - such as for Roleplay, Habitation or mere boons and banes.

 

[TreeFidd]

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?

Politics (and by extension espionage), both internal and external. i would love to see a rework or expansion to factions. currently they function like political parties, but feel somewhat hollow. they bend to the players will most of the time. before 1.5 and utopia there were independence factions, but your only options for interaction were ignore and suppress. it would be nice to see a more fleshed out version of that system return alongside the current one. on the external side it would be cool to influence the factions of other empires, both discreetly and overtly.

 

[Jekson20level]

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

• I honestly haven't gotten to the moment when I'm going to study the trading system yet. Last time I played with Inward Perfection. One of the reasons why trading is below in my list of interests is that we trade "trade" and not resources. I'm sure the game needs logistics and trade as part of it. Only logistics can defeat doomstacks. Right now, trade and the market are not connected in any way. But in fact, we are trading on the market. I think trading is a great candidate for DLC, as not everyone needs a deeper system. But I'll buy it.
• The way I see the trading system. For example, I can capture all the dark matter mining sites and be a monopolist. Other empires will have to make a commercial pact with me to gain access to it. I will be able to impose a duty on trade in this resource, or I can impose an embargo (terminate the agreement). In the galactic community, an embargo can be imposed, and then duties can be reduced to zero.

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

• I think colonization should be easy, but at the end of the game, when all the technologies are already open and you can click automation. But first you need to adapt your species to the new planet. I have already given an example in question 3 (somewhere on page 13 of the comments). I will also add that this can be both technologies for mutations or implants, as well as decrees or planetary decisions on the use of special medicines. During colonization and terraforming, special projects can be selected to adapt and customize the planet. Plus, it should take resources (including unique ones), icy asteroids for oceanic worlds. Colonization and terraforming are excellent candidates for DLC. But it will require the rework of biological/mechanical properties.

 

[Arduunos]

Completely forgot about the mission statements, so here it is.

"The Galaxy is Vast and Full of Wonders"

In theory, Stellaris has this down. I love all the narrative events, discoveries, and expansive gameplay that this game offers. In practice, I think it sometimes fails. This is mostly because I enjoy playing tall. In my experience, without being able to expand beyond my borders, the exploration aspect functionally stops after early-game. The recent DLCs (Astral Rifts and Cosmic Storms) have fixed this somewhat since they added ways to spawn archaeology-ish events and anomalies in my own borders, but it would be nice to have the option to actually.... explore wonders... outside of my own territory. I love archaeology and I'm sad my tall empires can't use it.

There may be a slight mismatch between the people who play tall vs wide and what Stellaris lets those empires do. Wide empires seem to be popular with people who like to play conquering empires, but they're the ones who get all the research and exploration options, and miss out on using their vast resources to make overpowered defense fleets and stations brimming with defense platforms. Tall empires seem to be popular with people who enjoy trade and science and diplomacy, but they are blocked from excavating sites in other empires and encouraged to build strong fleets and defense bases. It's a bit odd.

"Every story, trope, or player fantasy in science fiction is within our domain."

I think that this is true if you're playing a solo game against randomized empires. If you're trying to design your own galaxy, it becomes tough. It's hard to set up RP scenarios with so many single-use origins and limited control over the AI. Though that's more of a "me" problem I think than a "Stellaris" problem.

The game is also lacking a bit in the utopian fantasy department. I know you all do a murderous pass for genocidal empires, but it would be nice if you'd also do more passes for peaceful or conniving/spy empires. Being able to end a war with diplomacy, buy systems with trade goods, convert empires to your ethics with espionage, things like that do not usually play out the way I wish they would.

An example from my recent game: I made an AI empire whose traits and civics were meant to guide them towards being peaceful isolationist hippie psions. I surrounded them with militant authoritarians with the idea it would be a fun contrast to have my one peaceful ally. When I checked back in they had reformed into a Dictatorial Cybervision. I... guess that's a kind of peaceful. Appropriately culty, but also the total opposite of the game I was hoping for.

On that note, I'd add "pacifist hiveminds and good guy psionics" to this list, but I'm pretty sure you all are already working on a bio ascension update to match Machine Age. And if not, you should! The AI seems to trend towards moral abiguity, which is fine, but can make for a lonely galaxy when playing good guys.

I also find it hard to do runs based on existing franchises. I set up my own Star Trek game (I don't use mods and was... disappointed... with ST:Infinite) and it's pretty difficult to play when diplomacy, trade, and espionage are frequently invalid ways to end conflicts. Solutions seem to favor making a big fleet or taking over the Galactic Community, which doesn't suit that kind of game very well. (Unless you're playing the Terran Empire, I guess.)

"Stellaris is a Living Game: Stellaris is a 4X Grand Strategy game with Roleplaying elements that continues to evolve and redefine itself."

No argument here. The game has a really perfect balance of randomization and emergent storytelling with premade narratives. Sometimes the RP falls a bit flat (see above), but it's much better than other strategy games.

I also love how great the team is at responding to player feedback. You can tell that the devs also like to play the game. It's nice. This survey is such a great thing to ask from us, and I hope that it's not too difficult going through the replies.

"Every Game is Different: A sense of uncertainty and wonder about what could happen next is core to the Stellaris experience."

I think this holds true with everything except combat and warfare. Like a lot of people have said, there's only one way to end wars in Stellaris: stack up auto-design ships, control chokepoints, and sacrifice your fleets in suicidal runs while hoping you have the resources to rebuild them if it fails. This is especially tough if you rely on defense satellites and have to rebuild them after every conflict. Wars will begin around mid-game, then lull while the Galactic Community does its thing, then the big empires begin to break up into smaller ones, then the first crisis hits. It's very predictable. Don't get me wrong - I actually love strategically controlling chokepoints. I just would love to have more variety and peaceful solutions. I also want to be able to just explore if I want to or rely on alternative forms of warfare without building up a huge fleet being a necessary component of my gameplay.

"How does this match what you think Stellaris is, and where it should go? Would you change any of these vision statements?"

I think that you might have to add "Customization" into the vision statement somewhere! It seems like, reading through comments, there are a lot of people who really enjoy the customization and sandbox aspects of the game. Whether that is the ship designer, micromanaging planets, or just making interesting and aesthetic empires in the New Game menu. It seems to be an important gameplay core element that isn't listed here.

"What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?"

None of them are truly "sacred" to me except, possibly, the ability to customize my own empires and fill the galaxy with them. I love being able to play against my own designs. It's a huge reason I enjoy the game! This dev team is great, and I trust you all to deliver. I have yet to not enjoy a DLC in some way.

 

[ScottyWired]

My main comment is "the worst part about Stellaris earlygame is eventually you run out of it". Sucks when the whole galaxy has been explored.

It would be awesome to have a progressive game mode where chunks of the galaxy get unlocked one at a time, so that a single game can have several cycles of explore -> colonize -> compete for limited space.

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

I would like pops to be a bit smarter about self-allocation. There are many situations where I'm negative on basic resources because pops are obsessed with trade and amenity jobs while leaving farming roles unfilled.

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 fairly bad at setting goals for myself. I usually just aim for an achievement and focus on that.
Steam achievements are good, but I'd really get some use out of a random goal generator or community challenges.

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

I'd like an edict called "trade convoys" which reduces trade value but makes trade more resistant to piracy.
Piracy is a very undercooked system and I'd love to see more to it. Have piracy rely on factors other than pure trade value, and have ways to interact with them, like being able to bribe them if you can't respond with force. Or even piracy against other empires! Send in my own ships during peacetime to conduct greyzone warfare.

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

Getting the terraforming tech relies too much on good RNG. I wish terraforming was always be available at a steep penalty, and the various techs simply make it more efficient.
I'd love to see climates have specialties so that gaia worlds or primary species preference isn't always the best play. I've been playing Factorio Space Age and I love how the volcano planet is basically a massive printer that turns lava into metal products.

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 don't like how armies work. I've always thought they'd make more sense as a ship class or module. Armies that specialize would cool too, like aquatic armies that work better on water planets or flamethrower armies that have bonuses against hiveminds and undead.

 

[Little Tee]

"Every Game is Different: A sense of uncertainty and wonder about what could happen next is core to the Stellaris experience."

I think this holds true with everything except combat and warfare. Like a lot of people have said, there's only one way to end wars in Stellaris: stack up auto-design ships, control chokepoints, and sacrifice your fleets in suicidal runs while hoping you have the resources to rebuild them if it fails. This is especially tough if you rely on defense satellites and have to rebuild them after every conflict. Wars will begin around mid-game, then lull while the Galactic Community does its thing, then the big empires begin to break up into smaller ones, then the first crisis hits. It's very predictable. I would love to have more variety and peaceful solutions. I also want to be able to just explore if I want to or rely on alternative forms of warfare without building up a huge fleet being a necessary component of my gameplay.

I have a more detailed reply to the OP somewhere above, but this is also something that has been nagging at me for a while.

Particularly the thoughts expressed in the line I've highlighted in the quote.

So on the point about big empires breaking up into smaller ones, I've noticed that when AIs become vassals of other AIs they seem to become far too prone to rebellions. It can make being in a Federation extremely tedious when one (sometimes multiple) of the members is constantly fighting each successive fragmentation and refragmentation of its initial vassal. It's great that vassals don't just shut up and take it, but it feels like they get far too big a stability penalty to maintain cohesion.

AI likes vassalization (both requesting and demanding) a bit too much, as an aside.

It's worth stating that the early - mid - late/end game dynamic helps move the narrative of each game, and that's great - there are on occasion playthrough conditions where without this, nothing much would happen to upset the balances of power. Any given playthrough needs something like this in order to continue to be fun and engaging. The Chosen, Prikkkiikkiitiiki or whatever they're called, and other 'surprises' are great.

And that's kinda the key word - Surprises. The various crises are fun, but while results, speed, or difficulty may be different from game to game, mechanically speaking, it's always the same however you configure them in the new game menu. It's neither a surprise nor surprising, and after a few victories, it starts to feel like a chore.

I've played several MMOs in my time, so I appreciate how difficult it can be to both regularly and frequently create new, interesting, and diverse content for any player who is more than casual, but I guess I'm asking for more surprises. I love War in Heaven, but after having won several time, I now play without FEs pretty much as a default setup, and it would be interesting to play without crises too and their absence not make that part of the game bland and uneventful.

 

[Ludaire]

To me, Stellaris feels like a tabletop roleplaying game where you're playing as a space empire instead of an individual person, and the game is at its best when it leans heavily into that. Creating an empire feels so much like making a D&D character in the best ways with origins and civics feeling like classes and/or subclasses. Choosing traditions and ascension perks feels like leveling up, as does the overall economic growth of your empire. Relics are like picking up cool magic items. It's amazing, and it's one of the reasons Stellaris is one of my all time favorite games.

I do feel compelled to answer the questions, but first, one big piece of feedback I'd like to give is this:

I'd love to see the game start to take a "less is more" approach in a lot of areas of the game.

Over the years, we've accumulated so much stuff that the game often feels a bit bloated. This applies to a lot of areas of the game. A great example is anomalies. I think I would enjoy them a lot more if I encountered 5-10 anomalies per game which each carried more impact instead of 20-30 where only 2-3 matter beyond a +5% here or some extra society research there. At this point, I've read through almost all of them already, so I skip through them, and I'm not even always reading the new ones now, since they can end up blending in, and I'm in the habit of skipping past them quickly. At the very least, I'd appreciate it if there aren't any decision points in an anomaly's chain that it doesn't require multiple clicks from me (one of the most annoying anomalies are the numerous "spawn a special project" anomalies where you do the anomaly, get a special project, do the special project, and then get one specific outcome with no choice involved, since it's so many extra clicks for something that could be one pop up).

Pop ups are another thing that really hurt from this. In the mid to late game, you can end up being absolutely bombarded by them, and sometimes it's so bad that I have to pause, take a deep breath, and even step away for a moment because the constant stream can be so overwhelming it becomes anxiety-inducing. If there was overall less stuff in the game, that problem would be lessened, and each individual thing can be given a lot more weight, both narratively and mechanically.

This could also be a setting thing. Having a galaxy setting to turn down the number of anomalies, events, and archeology sites could be nice to reduce the constant stream of fluff that's not enjoyable to read the third, fourth, fifth time. This is especially true if it mainly cut down on the smaller items rather than just changing the chance in general. Though I'd prefer the game be balanced as a whole around fewer but more impactful anomalies/events/archeology sites. This could also improve replayability since the anomalies/events/etc. that you run into will vary more game to game if you aren't virtually guaranteed to see a good portion of them every game.

Research is another area where things feel extremely bloated. There are so many technologies that it's sometimes a struggle to get certain basic necessities. In my regular play group, Mineral Purification Plants has started to become infamous for being so elusive that this tier 1 technology sometimes can't be obtained until 2300 or later. I think the choice space that technologies represent as a whole isn't bad; it's just that things are split up too granularly. Engineering is especially bad right now, and it feels like no matter how much I emphasize it, I'm decades into repeatables for the other two trees before I finish up the engineering tree. I used to only use automatic research extremely late game once I'd collected 4-5 of the important repeatable techs; now I'm hitting that as soon as I get core non-repeatable technologies I want since there's just so many technologies. "Research finished" goes from being super exciting in the early game to annoying in the late game, mainly during that time when you've finished all the key technologies you care about and are now blasting through all the lower tier techs that were lower priority before you dig into repeatables. I mean, do we really need to research a ship type, the standardized patterns for it, and then improved hulls twice? That's fourteen technologies that are just "makes X ship type marginally better."

Certain things like empire customization, tradition trees, and ascension perks aren't an issue in my opinion. More options, especially when they're limited to game creation or specific one time decisions, isn't a bad thing. Even better when you have mutually exclusive choices. To me, more origins, civics, ascension perks, and so on while still having the same number of "slots" for these is not just fine but great.

I think overall, especially as we continue to get even more expansions, having more quality over quantity when it comes to the moment to moment play would be a huge help. I understand that raw quantity is likely tied into the "vast and full of wonders" theme, but I think right now, we end up lacking on the "wonder" part at times because the volume of stuff can make it hard for any individual thing to actually feel like a true wonder.

Anyway, the questions:

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

I quite like the pop/job/district/building setup we currently have. I don't think it's fundamental to Stellaris, as other systems could capture the important part of what makes the system great, but I like where we're at now overall.

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

Nothing about how fleets work now is super important to me. You could make huge changes, and Stellaris would still feel like Stellaris to me. In fact, I think it's a great area to work on, especially if it means streamlining things in the way I mentioned above. The fleet designer feels super fiddly and bloated most of the time, and something simpler could maintain depth while requiring less fiddling, and it could even increase the importance of things you get from special events. I'd also love to see a reduction to the raw number of ships. Most of my favorite sci fi settings generally have maybe a half dozen fleets maximum for really huge military forces with most having one to three. I also love having big, iconic named ships that really matter. Most of the time in Stellaris, though, I end up with a dozen fleets, each with a titan, and special things like event ships just end up blending into the mass. Even something like the federation fleet or GDF ends up more powerful than a standard fleet but still can't stand out because they're still a relatively small proportion of my military power. It cuts down a lot on the potential for the roleplaying aspects to shine through in the military side of things.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Civics, origins, and ethics are so crucial. They're what help me decide on my goals for a play through, what methods I'm going to use to achieve those goals, how I respond to the various challenges that pop up, and so on. There's a lot of awesome customization and choice at empire creation, but those three are central. There are also some very defining ascension perks, but to me, those are still secondary to the origins and ethics. Even something like the crisis ascension perks are heavily informed by those three core things, as a galactic nemesis arising from a devouring swarm feels very different from a galactic nemesis coming from an authoritarian technocrat mechanist.

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

My larger goals generally come from what empire I'm playing: who they are, what they stand for, etc. Also, if I'm playing multiplayer, some agreement with the other players, since we don't play "against" each other, usually being more cooperative. My long term "playthrough goals" generally don't change much, but there's often smaller goals that pop up in response to what happens. Getting subjugated usually means independence becomes a big goal for example. Crises of various forms are similar where they become a main driver of my play for a bit.

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

Extremely unimportant. I play gestalt a lot, so it's not a factor for those empires. Even when I'm not gestalt, dealing with trade routes and piracy is more of an annoyance than interesting. As an example, it's annoying having my fleet list clogged up with several small anti-piracy corvette fleets that generally aren't relevant to my military campaigns. Even when I play Megacorp, the important things to me are the branch offices and focusing jobs on trade instead of energy generation. Figuring out the trade route to get to my capital isn't exciting, especially since it's so static and generally doesn't involve much strategic thought or choice.

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

I think we're at a good place. It feels like generally the best move in the long term is still to colonize everything, but there's challenge and risk involved as you have to support those colonies for a while before they become a net positive. Balancing the economy through that early rapid growth while trying to have just enough of a military to avoid getting war declared on me is a really enjoyable part of the game.

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

Eager Explorers and the equivalents seem like they could be an origin, though losing the option to combine it with slingshot to the stars for a reduction to influence cost based on distance would cut down on my interest in it a lot. Overtuned seems like it could just be a civic unless there's some event stuff I'm not aware of (I haven't played it; just going off what I know about it).

I think overall, things are fine, though. I worry that any change like this would inevitably mess up someone's favorite empire. For example, if you turned Rogue Servitors into an origin instead of a civic, I couldn't play my main empire anymore since it's Rogue Servitors plus Shattered Ring, and the entire backstory of "Machines created to build and maintain megastructures slowly coming to run the rest of society after the tragic destruction of the ring world" wouldn't work anymore.

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

Part of me wants to say "ground combat," but I feel like there's value in having bonuses to armies from a roleplaying perspective, and I'm not sure how you preserve those if you try to roll transport fleets and armies into the rest of your fleet somehow. It kind of feels like it's a "The worst one, except for all the others" situation.

Since it's not that, I think I might have to say Astral Rifts. They're really cool the first time or two through, and I really appreciate them for that. However, now that I've seen them all, it's just a bunch of extra pop ups and clicking for random rewards that usually mean very little.

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

I'd love to see health and education be a central focus, expanding on the idea of living standards. Deciding how much to invest in your peoples' health, happiness, and education could be really interesting. Do you invest in the infrastructure required for those things to get the bonuses of a happier, healthier, and better educated populace? Or do you ruthlessly drive your people like slaves to try to get bonuses that way and keep control of the population through police and military force? Does your society treat these things as luxuries only available to the elite, meaning rulers and to a lesser extent specialists get access to these sorts of bonuses without much investment from you or do you treat it as a right, meaning it's more expensive to maintain, but all pops receive the benefits. Do you utilize your education system for propaganda to keep your citizens in line with your governing ethics at the expense of individual thought and freedom or do you have a more open education that doesn't control ethics but does promote innovation?

I think it can work with gestalts, too.; How much do you invest in your individual drones? Is each drone an investment that needs to be cultivated and maintained or are they expendable and the hive mind is just getting as much value out of each drone as possible before it dies?

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

Leaders. I really liked a lot of what galactic paragons did, and I love the idea of extremely influential individuals in my empire making a big impact while I guide what they do and how they grow. However, I think the fact that we get so many means they can't have enough impact individually to mean as much as I'd like. Again, it's a quantity vs quality thing. Cut the number of leaders in half while increasing the effects they have, and I think they'd be more engaging. As it is, once I get into late game or sometimes even just mid game, needing to constantly pick perks and replace leaders gets a bit exhausting and just doesn't feel as satisfying as the early days when you only have a few leaders and each is much more special.

I'd love to see a change kind of like how envoys changed where you have "leaders" on one hand and "heroes" on the other. Leaders could be the numerous but less important and impactful people. The admiral for each fleet, the governor for each planet, etc. Each gets only one perk; maybe a second after they've leveled enough. When one dies and can be replaced, the player can potentially choose between a few or have it automated. The council can still work off them, and it can be part of planet, fleet, and exploration management.

Then, you have heroes, which are made up of the paragons plus heroes coming from pop species that are generated by the occasional event rather than being hired. They're closer to what leaders are like now, with the full leveling and such, and can be assigned to the same slots as leader but have much, much more significant effects. There could be a sort of "hidden" cap where the chance to gain another hero is greatly reduced if you already have several so that you generally only have a few at a time.

It would probably take another expansion, though, and it seems unlikely we'd be revisiting leaders as a concept again anytime soon since galactic paragons wasn't that long ago.

I really appreciate if you read through all this. I really, really love this game, and I'm excited to continue playing it and seeing what you come up with next! Thanks for all the amazing work.

 

[Sniccups]

Made this account specifically to post in this thread. Thank you to the team for opening this up.

First off, the biggest thing I have to say is about fleets and ships. I don't understand them. Like, I get the basics of how fleets work and I can use the ships, but I don't feel like I understand what makes a ship design good or useful. I don't really care if the fleet systems themselves are changed, because I haven't been able to get invested in the current system, but what I would absolutely like to see is more accessible in-game information about what differentiates ship components from each other.

Also, since some ship components can counter others, creating positive or negative matchups: it would be nice if we had a way to figure out what kinds of ships/weapons the other empires are using. That would provide much more of an incentive to understand the situations where different ships would be useful, rather than just building more and more of whatever ship is "meta" right now, which is currently all I feel like I can do.

Now, about what Stellaris is for me: I always love imagining the culture of the civilizations I build. I try to imagine a public reputation for each of my leaders, what it would be like for a common citizen to hear the galaxy's news, what pop culture is like in my empire, what these "consumer goods" I'm producing actually are, or how culture differs between my planets. I would love more opportunities to define that culture, especially in ways that aren't directly connected to politics and government - which I know is difficult from a gameplay perspective, since government is how the player sees and controls the game. For now, let's just say that I'd like to see more cosmetic/artistic choices, and more "small-scale" events and ways to interact with what's happening in your empire. I think Grand Archive is a step in a positive direction here, what with the specific interactions with the aliens in your space, and especially the specimens that let you and your people remember what's happened to them.

In short, Stellaris for me is a game about getting into the mental space of this civilization I've made, and seeing the galaxy from their perspective. I'd like more opportunities to know what my people know.

I think that's everything important that I have to say. I have some more minor thoughts that I'd like to see taken into account, if you want to hear them:

Spoiler: Other thoughts

I don't really enjoy optimizing or specializing my planets for resource output, at least not without also taking care of the pops who live there.

I'm not a fan of Paragons as a general concept - they make the galaxy feel too individualistic, too centralized in this handful of people - but that might just be me. I don't actually mind them.

I don't play with the more detailed or story-based Origins; they feel much too specific, and I don't really appreciate having a single storyline for my entire civilization. Again, might just be me.

The latest batches of new Civics confuse me, especially the hyper-specialized ones. I haven't tried them out in gameplay, so I can't speak to how fun they are for players who do enjoy optimizing, but I just can't figure out how a Dark Consortium or Sovereign Guardianship or Genesis Guides civilization develops.

Genetic Ascension deserves more attention. I feel like the other paths get much more focus these days.

Terraforming Candidates are a majorly under-utilized mechanic. I'd like to see them more often.

Sectors are still weird to me.

I'd like buying and trading star systems to be more of a thing, or alternately allowing other empires' ships to use your systems. It bothers me that you can't excavate an archaeological site owned by an ally, for example.

I do wish that intel, trade, factions, colonization, and terraforming could be more in-depth. You've probably heard that a lot in this thread.

If I could make a request for one cool sci-fi thing that Stellaris hasn't really done yet: I want to be able to move planets around in a system. Whoever lived in the Shallash system could do it - why can't we learn how?

 

[PoiButler]

Stole Scav Bot

 

[Aerolfos]

What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?

Empire customization.

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

Not at all. But the changes I've thought of add up to a whole new continuous planet+pop+economic system which might be out of scope for Stellaris entirely. It would be nice to have planets be the individual "unit" of economy, for modifier calculation purposes, rather than breaking down into pops (much slower for the game)

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

Go wild. I want less ships, and most of all individual turret movement and targetting + AOE, like sins of a solar empire has (I doubt this is possible in the engine but it would sure be nice)

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origins and civics. There's a mod, Ethics and Civics: Bug Branch, which is spot on with designing impactful civics that significantly change playstyle.

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

Usually during empire creation. The biggest changes come from other players in multiplayer messing with goals and doing stuff like vassalizing.

Vassalization is a much more interesting dynamic to fights between players and empires, the problem is that there are very few incentives to actually fight back and not instantly surrender, because that gets you all the benefits and none of the downsides. Players that instantly surrender to enable vassal swarms ruin games.

Speaking of, peace mechanics should be reworked. The system as it is now has pretty much failed its original goal of being more granular and enabling lower stakes small wars, and we're back to the dev diary that covered the rework and its goals. Those are still goals Stellaris needs today.

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

The performance downside and pathfinding mess (which often fails and robs you of revenue) are not worth the benefits. Also, jump driving into a lategame player megacorps capital is basically griefing for how unreasonably effective and impossible to defend against it is. Losing a critical starbase (which is likely with how jump drives work) will cripple empires that depend on trade, making them far weaker than their peers - and they aren't really stronger economically if you don't do that. Machines are a particular offender for having a much stronger but also practically untouchable economy.

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

Yes. I've seen Gatekeeper's thoughts on this and I agree completely.

• 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?

Jump drives. Quantum catapults are a far more interesting implementation of the concept of yeeting fleets into your enemy, jump drives are overpowered and boring and ruin strategic and tactical planning of the lategame. Ponderous lategame doomstacks can't even make it to the jump drived fleet in time to exploit the debuffs, which repeatables cancel out anyway. In theory you can connect your own empire with hyper relays and gateways, but jump drives also ruin those by being an instant capture which disrupts the network and slows your fleet to a crawl at the critical juncture of actually catching the enemy, letting them drag things out enough for debuffs to expire.

Starbases being unable to ever hold up to a fleet on their own lategame also means the enemy can always poke holes in your empire and kill your valuable worlds, even if they split up their doomstack purely for the sake of jump drive griefing,. A doomstack winning over an unsupported citadel is one thing, a single battleship fleet being able to stomp thousands upon thousands of alloys without taking damage is another entirely

Miscellaneous

Ground combat should be initiated from fleets, and not a separate system. Give us ground troop capacity with ships being more or less suited to it (probably some measure of player choice for tradeoffs), and an army designer for changing force composition in the "abstract" for the empire at large. Bring back attachments as modifiers in that designer. Engagements should tick away once initiated and pit your designed forces against theirs, and if you do something silly like only bring tanks to a swamp world defended by xenomorphs it should fail miserably.