Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[DC E1G]

I decided to address the more mechanical topics first and to come back to the more subjective and feel topics later. Before going into my ideas, I just wanted to say that I have recently returned to Stellaris after only playing a little over the last year or so and I think the game is currently in the best state it has ever been. The development team is absolutely killing it and I love to see development effort going into things other than new DLC content.

Overall, I don't think there are many things mechanically that I'd consider truly untouchable in Stellaris (the tech cards system is probably one of the few IMO), but there are definitely some that I think should almost certainly be left more or less how they are unless there are massive advantages to changing them. I would include how pops and jobs currently work as something that should probably be left how it is, more so just because I don't know if the potential benefits to such a huge and time consuming change are worth it at this point in the game's lifespan. These changes can also be hard to returning players and I think should really only be done when there's a really good reason. I feel similarly, although less strongly, about further changes to how pop growth works.

On the other hand, I think trade is the complete opposite, where the current implementation is either boring, annoying, or both. In most games I just ignore it beyond building a few starbase buildings, so I would definitely love to see trade mechanics worked on. This is a feature that I think could definitely be the subject of an expansion as there's a ton of potential here beyond how it currently works. I'd say the resource market and galactic market should probably be subject to a balance pass at the same time as they really kill any need to set up true trade deals with other empires (although making this too fiddly and time consuming would be worse than the current implementation).

As for something that largely works that I would love to see changed: I think planet habitability, terraforming, and colonization could use some developer attention, since they've remained largely unchanged since the 1.X days. This is another area that I think an expansion could definitely add to as there's so much thematic potential to the idea of perfectly sculpting all of your worlds to fit your needs. I will add that while I feel colonization is probably too easy, and habitability still matters too little, I think making it harder without addressing how easy conquest and integration of conquered worlds is, would just create balance issues.

Finally, since you guys brought it up and this has been a personal request of mine for years: please, please, please cut back the number of ships in the game. Personally I find it really obnoxious to have a dozen fleets with dozens of ships each by the end of the game and we all know it crushes performance at times. I know some people like the sci-fi fantasy idea of your galactic empire wielding hundreds of capital ships, but I think this should be the exception rather than the rule. I want to care when a combat takes out a few of my bigger ships. Plus the current fleet sizes makes the beautiful system level space combat a complete mess and performance hit to watch.

 

[PointlessSerpent]

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

I don't know about important, but it works. I'd be open to any changes if they were implemented well, but the entire game is built around this system and I'd be wary of a change that sounds really cool causing a domino effect that does more harm than good.

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

I really like being able to see fleets and combat, though I can't imagine that would be removed. I also appreciate being able to customize my ships, even if I often use the same designs. I wouldn't want fleets to be made simpler, right now war usually feels pretty boring and like there isn't much strategy unless I'm very evenly matched.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I'm not somebody who writes up a whole backstory for my empires, but I do like to have a general idea of their vibe. Ethics are generally the biggest factor in how I think about a civilization. I would like if species traits were more evenly balanced, sometimes I want to pick a trait because I think it would make sense from a roleplay perspective but I feel like I'm shooting myself in the foot if I pick something like nonadaptive or very strong.

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

I don't usually set goals unless I have something in particular that makes sense for that empire like capturing organics as a rogue servitor or completing cosmogenesis. I just kinda play the game and see what happens.

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

Not very. I thought it was cool to have actual trade routes and patrolling fleets when I started playing stellaris, but it feels more annoying than anything now. Pirates do nothing but force you to click on a fleet and then wait a while, and trade routes which you don't have much control over have a tendency to take nonsensical paths that can be very detrimental to your trade value (I feel like this has gotten worse recently, but maybe it's just me.)

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

I'm not sure. Having access to fewer planets would probably mean having to use non-specialized planets early game which I think is more boring than having a "mining world" and a "research world." Having low habitability feels very detrimental right now, though it is relatively easy to increase. Having a galactic planet-spanning empire is a core part of stellaris to me, and I wouldn't want to be stuck on 2 planets until I research "advanced colonization" or whatever. If climate did matter more, it seems like most empires could still ignore it just by signing a couple of migration pacts. Again, I'm open to any ideas if they turn out to be fun, I just don't know what a colonization rework would improve.

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

I think Necrophage could be a civic. I wonder if some of the "start on nonstandard planet" origins (Remnants, shattered ring, etc.) could be somehow made compatible with other origins, but they would feel weird as 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?

Pre-FTL observation events from first contact are a really cool concept, but there are so few that you end up seeing all of them multiple times in a single playthrough even with just a couple of observation posts (you'd think we'd have increased security after the first 2 missing scientists, and I'm curious as to why my observation posts attract so many asteroids). They also generally seem to assume you have a non-interference stance (if you're using passive observation, I actually think the aggressive observation events are more interesting) and often don't totally make sense. It doesn't feel great to instantly lose both your observation posts because some scientist decided to hop on down and aware pre-ftls are basically useless. Observation insights are also extremely random and it seems like you're just as likely get all of them in a few decades as you are to get just 2 or 3 over the entire game.

 

[soft_penguin]

I think it's really nice we're being asked!

Personally I enjoy building galactic civilizations and managing diplomacy. Also I essentially only play gestalts for soon 5k hours.

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  
  Not important at all. I could definitively live with some other form of system. While I enjoy watching planets grow micromanaging pops
  has never been fun, ever. Auto modding has been such a nice thing. I'd like more colony development options (and visual feedback as well)
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  
  While some critcism exists. I think Stellaris has the nicest system here. I personally like this over what for example Endless Space has.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  
  I think civics are and it's a shame we get so few. I'd enjoy if we had a points system on civics like we do on traits. Then we could really flesh out more personality on the societies we make. (imagine negative civics too)
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  
  I used to min max a lot and that was the goal, but now I mostly enjoy just letting a game unfold. The best times I've had with this game has been when the AI has actually screwed me over good or a major curve ball (L Cluster, Khan) has been thrown my way.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  
  As I essentially only play gestalts I do not care much for the trade system.
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  
  Absolutely! I think it's a problem that settle everything is still a good thing. Maybe we should be straight up blocked from settling certain planet classes until we have the proper technologies.
  
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  
  For machines, Rogue Servitors, Determined Exterminators and Driven Assimilators feels to me more like origins then 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?
  
  For system to remove I'd remove armies, make a fleet module on ships that has army strength and let fleets invade. Lost armies are replenished slowly by docking at a friendly starbase.
  
  For a feature that I want to enjoy but do not, I feel like Fallen Empires have been left behind a bit. When they get more involved in galactic politics (when someone goes cosmogenesis or rivals them) I'd like there to be more impact.

 

[odinthegreat]

Hey there! I originally wrote this on steam but I wanted to immortalize it here as well (please ignore if it's already been read and I apologize this game just means a lot to me and I'd hate to get my thoughts buried on a forum that might not have loads of dev oversight.) I am also struggling with the forums not wanting me to post this in full. It is supposed to be 3 parts... But the 3rd part keeps getting blocked

I want to just do all these. Whether or not it gets read I'd like to have my thoughts out (I have 2.5k hours and play GA no scaling 25x crisis for. every. game. not a flex just for context)

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
Minimally. IMO the system would be better without every species being capable of having multiple subspecies with split species traits. I think that species traits are really important to the game and shouldn't get replaced. But species gore NEEDS to be fixed. Having 40 different types of a single species is mind numbing. In terms of jobs I would say lightly important. I much prefer being able to specify what jobs my pops prioritize working in but I think the game would also be smoother and easier on the AI if this system was replaced/improved.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
As long as I can still be the commander in chief I don't care too much. Fleets become tedious and tiresome to manage by 2400. I have no interest in micromanaging 10-15 fleets of 240+ fleet cap each. All I want from the war system is the depth to continue to wage guerilla warfare against a slightly larger opponent and to be the primary person in control of my militaries strategic decisions (tactics don't matter). For reference, in many GA games I find that early game I am forced into a war that I don't want to be in. Right now I can usually win these wars while having 60% of the enemies total fleet power as long as my empire is not just a single line of stars because I can work around the AI and force them to split their fleets up so I can strike. I would hate to see this kind of play go away.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
Role play. Even though I don't go hard into RP and mostly metagame as soon as I am actually playing. Creating every civilization RP is the top priority for me. Having a balance between RP and Meta is good

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
My goals are usually not something I think about. The game is so big I usually just go "lets see what happens." The only goals I set are usually the ascension I want to pick and whether I want to build tall or wide.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
Minimally important. I think it is shoddily done and doesn't really add anything to the game. I'd much prefer the trade system be tied to planets AND starbases. It makes no sense that a planet generating 200 trade value is incapable of shipping that trade value back to the capitol while it can ship all the raw resources instantly and magically.

 

[odinthegreat]

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Yes and no. IMO there are simply too many planets in every game even at .25x. I think that sub 60% habitability should have harsher penalties but I would much rather see a refocus on the number of planets in the game. By the endgame it isn't uncommon for an empire to have 30+ colonies. It just becomes a total headache to manage. What I DO like about colonization currently is the "phases" of it. First phase is generally 70%+ colonies and then 50%+ colonies. Second phase is terraforming non-barren worlds, 3rd phase is terraforming barren worlds and inhabited worlds, final (optional) phase is building your own worlds via ringworlds or habitats. Building on this, currently we are seeing a larger shift of economic possibility off planets with Arc and Dyson Swarms. I would love to see this get expanded further while the total number of colonies on 1x gets vast reductions. But this likely won't happen and I understand why. The game is built on huge empires with huge numbers of colonies as a feature.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
Yes. I struggle to find a way to balance this but yeah. I think the current set of origins are really good as well as the current state of civics but I just don't know where I would make changes other than saying I think some changes could be made. The biggest thing I think is making Cybernetic Creed a civic instead of an origin and maybe re-working it a little bit.

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 can't think of any systems I would outright remove (other than cosmic storms lmao). But one huge issue I have with Stellaris right now is how bloated it is. If you have every DLC there is SO much going on at any given moment. So many decisions for a player to make that adding more DLC should be done extremely carefully and should not constantly introduce new popups and maintenance tasks for players to do. One other critique I have is that the endgame is just boring to play usually. Not out of any direct fault of any systems but just because the lag + the fact that you are either focusing entirely on internal development or conquering in prep for the crisis it just becomes stale. The early->midgame is usually so good and engaging but once you reach 2400 the allure begins to drop off. I usually roll my endgame back so that the games can end faster.

On the other side of things Diplomacy is currently so under-baked. It feels so one dimensional and really could use some expansion as I feel like I only engage with it for vassalization, federations, and war. Idk how it can be expanded because stellaris is a very different game from a game like HOI4 or Vicky 3. The fact that empires are born out of ashes and set their own destiny makes it impossible to copy the better diplomacy systems of other Paradox titles. One thing that immediately comes to mind is addressing the one dimensionality of empire opinions. I don't think having good relations with an empire should full stop prevent them from going to war with you to vassalize you when they have the protection diplo stance as an example. IMO the midgame should be ALL about diplomacy and it should be players #1 goals to form alliances and create diplomatic plays or interests in other nations.

Next, internal politics. I know it's been hammed on a ton. But pop opinions are a joke right now. It is so easy to quell dissent and avoid happiness spirals. I can wholesale take over my genocidal neighbor as commie space turtles and within a decade all of their pops will match my empire ethics all the while the lowest stability on my worlds is like 25 during that decade. I don't know if this needs a full dlc. I don't want to have to spend hours courting political movements like I do in Vicky 3. But it just needs more challenge and pops need to be able to resist large scale conquering.

 

[odinthegreat]

Next, on strategic resources: One area where Stellaris could use improvement is scarcity. In most of my playthroughs, resources are so abundant that I rarely, if ever, face a true shortage. I’d love to see a complete overhaul of the strategic resource system to bring a sense of scarcity and specialization. For instance, some empires might generate an abundance of exotic gases but lack volatile motes, while others could have plentiful dark matter deposits. This would create a real incentive for trading excess stockpiles with other nations. However, I wonder if this kind of balance is possible with the current setup of five base resources.

Finally, the Shroud. This is my biggest hope for future content. I play spiritualist empires in over half my games, and the psionics path feels like it could be expanded. A dedicated Shroud UI page could offer much deeper interactions without fully removing RNG. For example, a 'Shroud power meter' that psi corps or certain buildings could boost, possibly influenced by Zro production, would be fantastic. My idea is for a UI with abilities like 'delve for societal buffs,' offering meaningful random outcomes such as pop growth, resource bonuses, or unique modifiers. For the special psi techs, perhaps we could unlock new abilities after a set number of Shroud delves.

In all seriousness, thank you so much for this game. After 2.5k hours, there is a reason why Stellaris has been my #1 strategy game since 2018. I love the direction it’s heading in, and I’m excited for what’s next. Let’s keep the momentum going!

 

[Calvax]

But one huge issue I have with Stellaris right now is how bloated it is. If you have every DLC there is SO much going on at any given moment. So many decisions for a player to make that adding more DLC should be done extremely carefully and should not constantly introduce new popups and maintenance tasks for players to do

+1 to this. The frequency of notifications is markedly higher than it was a couple of years ago. I like to keep my speed on normal for most of the game as I like a calmer pace but now within the first few decades of the game there’s multiple notifications and pop ups a minute. I just reflexively close most of them which doesn’t feel like great engagement with the game, more that the noise has risen to the point things like anomalies are a burden more than an interest. Grand Archive is great but it’s added even more complexity on top of anomaly spam by introducing further steps for us to consider after most of them complete.

I don’t know what the solution is but I’d love some thought given to the frequency of notifications along with steps to cut down on them. Some simple ideas off the top of my head; get rid of the anomaly/special project combo. We don’t need double the amount of clicks and pop ups. With things like storms only create a pop up of its near or in our borders, I don’t care about storms half way across the galaxy. And for empire notifications add more context. Colour code or add descriptors that show me what my relations are with empires so I can care if I’m getting notified one is at war.

 

[Halberdier King]

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

I like the current system well enough, but I am not married to it. So if you want to radically alter the game again, you feel free.

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

I would be fine with changes to fleets, though with one caveat. I do still want to have a large fleet. I am the ruler of a large chunk of an entire galaxy. My military should feel like it. I also like having lots of battleships and big ships. I'd play around with an all-titan or all-juggernaught fleet if you let me.

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

I often don't have many goals. I just try to build my empire as best I can. I do tend to play similar empires, tall pacifists. I don't play as often as others, so I don't get bored of them.

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

Eh, I often ignore it until I get gateways anyway.


One thing I would like is more chill psionic stuff. I would like to be able to play a chill magic space hippie republic, or jedi or something, without feeling like I am nerfing myself by not making a covenant or having a god-emperor. Granted, this is not that big a deal, since I am comfortable with ignoring the game's lore and providing my own.

Again, I am not the most active player, so feel free to prioritize the more active ones.

Giving this more thought, I kind of would like a 'more numerous, but easier to deal with' approach. Like, I rule a decent chunk of a galaxy at least. I should feel like it. I would actually like to have more planets, a bigger empire, but with each planet having fewer stuff that needs manual managing, to keep micro down and performance up. Similarly, I would like massive fleets of big ships like battleships. Though I am less certain of the exact details needed here for how you would redesign planets in this way.

As for doomstacks, I guess the ideal solution would be to figure out how to encourage period to have their fleets divided, or engaging in multiple fronts, but that's a hard thing to do.

 

[Blobface3]

Figured I'd make my account after playing stellaris for a long time and seeing all the great replies here.

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

I'm neutral towards the current pop system, I'm not bothered by it nor do I think it needs substantial changing.

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

Personally, I like the current fleet mechanics a lot, though I wouldn't be upset in the event of substantial shakeups. I think what I want most from fleets is more "weird" weaponry options with unusual mechanics to help give each empire a defined "fleet style". There's a lot of design space to explore, like the space fauna Unique Mutations that make your fleets explode on death or split on death.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization? How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?

In order of importance:

1. Core concept, the flavor or theming of the empire. I like to take a narrative concept and make it as strong as possible.
2. How the empire engages with others diplomatically
3. How the empire structures its economy, what's abundant/scarce and what's the focus of production
4. End goals/Win condition, which I usually set immediately and stick to because I'm stubborn.

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

I'm not particularly fond of it. It's mostly a nuisance having construction or science ships blocked by random pirates, and I've heard it can be very bad for performance as well.

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

I think planets could definitely use more distinction, and a great place to do this would be the decisions tab. Most decisions are just resource expenditures to add something to the planet. A lot of design space could be opened up by adding trade-off decisions regarding how to use planetary features, like using a scenic waterfall for hydroelectric power for energy credits, or tourism for amenities. Planets would feel much more engaging and unique as players directly mould them into what they're looking for.

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

Personally, I'm completely fine with all origins and civics of the game remaining in their current position.

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

I don't think it should be removed, but Espionage could use a total rework. It'd be awesome to run an espionage focused empire that sells intel, or performs assassinations on leaders. The core problem is that espionage also needs to be engaging to fend off too, and the best solution I can think of for that, while still keeping the options strong, would be that countering espionage should be simple but costly, such that you always have the option to stop your leaders from getting poisoned, but you need to make sacrifices elsewhere to do it until you can beef up your encryption.

Also, I think the galactic community could use some serious consolidation. It's hard to get to the impactful stuff when the AI insists on voting and repealing minor, moderate, and major administrative sanctions. Then again, maybe that just makes it a better representation of galactic bureaucracy.

I actually think armies should stay in the game to make species trait selections relevant for military purposes, but it could also be consolidated into fleets.

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

Bio Ascension! I'd love to see it get the same treatment the machine ascensions got in machine age, it's my personal favorite in terms of flavor.

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

Species traits! I love messing around with species traits, and I'd love more options to tinker with that, like size, diet, or metabolic traits. The "free" traits from the machine age expansion would be great way to expand bio trait selection. Additionally, narrative relevance of species traits in event chains would really help make your species feel like it has a unique way of interfacing with the universe. A lot of these traits come up in say, the federation trial by combat event, but that's an extremely rare event. I'd love to see more like it elsewhere.

A few other miscellaneous things:

• I really like how the grand archive lets you track your empires history. I think it'd be cool to expand that leaders and fleets too, such that there's some way of tracking all the events a leader or fleet has gone through, even if it's just a ledger describing all their battles/event chains.
• I would love some way of prioritizing or deprioritizing certain parts of the tech tree. Sometimes I don't get mineral purification for obscene amounts of time, and every tech I research just keeps adding more techs to the pool making it even less likely to get. And it'd be fun to roleplay an empire that refuses to research shields, or any military technology, for example.
• EDIT: Something I forgot to mention in my initial post is I'd like to echo that some reworks for the war system would be nice. As it stands, the difference between war goals and status quo is often very large, and having a warscore build up and then be used to Negotiate for things at the end sounds perfect to make the end result less binary and more intuitive. It would also open up more options to have people leave wars early (separate from their allies) or join wars late. Whenever I'm introducing friends to the game, the war system is definitely one of the larger pain points.

 

[Xzenowulf]

boarding cables are for when VLURR leaves your empire without at least saying hello

Sadly capturing "VLUUR" only gives you a normal void cloud..

 

[bast_intentions]

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

I like the ability to mix pops, I like that they exist as a concept. Jobs are middling, I have no attachment to them. I would appreciate pop growth not being one species at a time.

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

If I lost control over where I would go it would be a problem. An automated mode is good, but it's very important for me to have an override to spend a specific fleet to specific systems, especially for stuff like pre-planning. I expect you have no plans to remove ship combat entirely, but I enjoy watching the space battles.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The civics, it's portrait. The species within it, and it's source of power (whether economical, diplomatic, or militaristic). I also like playing odd builds, especially stuff like catalytic processing or black-hole starts.

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

I want to build. I want to destroy. I want to make things, a strong system, a pretty system, a cool system. I often play with mods that add dozens of megastructures because it really allows me to transform my space and give every planetary body meaning. If there was one thing I could ask for, it would be for my fleets to have more impact. I don't wnat to just take a starbase and move on to the next system when I'm punishing a fallen empire for getting cocky and insulting me. I want to break it, I want to seed mines, I want to salt the earth and leave their economy in ruins for decades.

Adding some kind of "Trade devastation" to war exhaustion would be excellent IMO. And perhaps a policy stance, ways to make war more or less terrifying. "we don't attack resource stations because we're not monsters" vs burn the crops and salt the fields for their defiance.

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

Not overly. I've not interacted with it much. The interface is somewhat jank and awkward to use, and sometimes it breaks. It'll often route outside your space and cause piracy issues, even in gestalts who have no real way of suppressing it. Trade flowing between planets based on resource deficits (which you could exploit with espionage or war) would be excellent. A reason to have self-sufficient planets vs all specialized.

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

The per-planet growth speed is a problem. It greatly distorts the game by pushing for high levels of colonization and punishing tall players. I find myself unable to not colonize many planets because there's a balance between the number of negatives I can take for RP reasons and the positive gameplay I must engage with to not have my run ended early/exert an RP-appropriate amount of galactic influence. Terriforming being a megastructure-driven process would be a dream. Combine with the trade route idea from above and colonies and species preferences become real investments: accept aliens now, to colonize that planet, or work hard to make it match your main species?

Could also lean into issues where one-species planets have "Supremecist" problems without xenophilia/internal affairs.

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

I want shattered ring to be a start, not an origin. The fact I can't take other origins with shattered ring or other, similar starts is a travesty. Ditto on the "Random trinary" not being a completely random system--adding a flag so that a specific starting system or origin can be duplicated would hopefully not be too difficult and add to a lot more gameplay start variety, especially for mods.

• 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?

Armies. Armies are painful right now. Waiting years for billions of people to die and constantly losing generals because they lead from the front irritates me and leaves me not recruiting any at all to save on unity. Constructing armies from all my planets then moving them over the empire is also irritating, because army construction speed is limited on a per-planet basis. It doesn't make sense to me that my capital of 50 pops can raise the same amount of monthly armies as a 10 pop backwater. Sure, they might be able to support more, but ultimately I don't want to keep a standing army at all. Or, if I do, it should mean something rather than getting obliterated the instant war breaks out via unavoidable mass casualty while invading an AI planet that has heavily fortressed itself.

I don't want them the center of an expansion though. Maybe a small rework dlc. The feature just needs a rework with attention paid to the highs and lows of the system--making the lows less low and making the highs higher. Right now, there's very little high and quite a lot of drudgery and low. Armies are just fodder. They don't have to be. They could be the dread of the galaxy. Xenomorph armies exist, but they don't spread (IIRC). I should be able to seed a xenomorph on a planet and have them kill everyone. Then use a kill switch to make it accessible to my people (perhaps with a chance of failure.. that could be fun. Risk/reward/meaningful choices)

Bombardment probably also needs attention. Right now, I find myself reaching for mods that allow me to disintegrate planets because the choices are between "give every fleet a planet cracker" and "wait 10 years to kill all the pops and there ARE STILL ARMIES THERE." I want bombardment to mean something. When I take my doomstack of several hundred battleships and point it at a planet I want it to not be a pointless endeavor limited by game mechanics, I want that planet to suffer. If the enemy has a planetary shield generator, I want it to survive and onslaught, and then I want to bring the rest of my fleets over and overwhelm it in a show of might.

 

[Xzenowulf]

Not sure if it was done yet or not but i just captured a dimensional horror... doesnt have the ability to move or use normal jump drives but it can use the astral thread "jump anywhere in your empire" and seems to be able to emergency MIA back to where you set its home.. so i was able to plant it in my capital as a permanent defender.

 

[Cryptosg21]

I have over 600 hundred hours of playtime on steam and i don't enjoy the game anymore, the last 8 or or so dlc all felt the same, only building fleet matter in the end of all build, the game desperately need a big war rework to make it much more interesting because war, war is the goal of the game and my few no war run where terribly boring.

 

[Prolbo]

Well, if you can get rid of individual pop system and replace it with something like "planet population N.NNN.NNN" without ruining the jobs completely that would be great. Much more managable.
Job sliders or whatever you can come with would be appreciated.

Turning bloated fleets of individual ships into predesigned fleets-placeholders? That's amazing! No bore star bloat!
Just make sure it is possible to tell approx fleet numbers and composition at glance.
Also would be great if horrible string-by-string fleet composition (when you select fleet) would be gone too.

 

[Star Heintinuse Dragon]

Well, if you can get rid of individual pop system and replace it with something like "planet population N.NNN.NNN" without ruining the jobs completely that would be great. Much more managable.
Job sliders or whatever you can come with would be appreciated.

Turning bloated fleets of individual ships into predesigned fleets-placeholders? That's amazing! No bore star bloat!
Just make sure it is possible to tell approx fleet numbers and composition at glance.
Also would be great if horrible string-by-string fleet composition (when you select fleet) would be gone too.

I agree with the fleet UI. Even better both army builder and fleet builder have batch buildings, so the amounts of fleets will be represented as
Fleet 1 X57 Corvettes X32 Destroyers. I'm done clicking every single time to either remove or adding.

 

[Spododo]

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

Stellaris is a big fun space-nation sandbox to mep, where I can build an empire, explore, race with my friends to conquer the galaxy and have fun with optimizing different strategies. Blowing things up (calling storms, becoming the crisis, annoying the fallen empires a bit too early) just because one can.
While I do like the events and many wonders, I have come to read them less and less though, mainly because the sheer amount of DLCs has made me a firm MP DLC-leech, uh, I mean player who enjoys time with friends online. And sadly my constant "Let me read this! And fix that little income inefficiency" has bogged the game down so much for the others, that the increasing flood of events and microdecisions has forced me to actually read only the latest or most important messages.

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

The mod-ability, especially for total conversions; the many fun combinations of origins and civics and the feeling of actually doing some sci-fi politics instead of just building more ships to conquer more space (although that is often the endresult, still, the way is what matters). In that sense, many of the smaller subsystems, such as factions, feel important to prevent me from just turning *every* empire into the same min-maxed deathblorb.

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

Again, I'm often a bit pressed for time and cannot optimize pops as I used to, but this year I've spent basically less than 1% of my time on my pops and the time I *did* use on them was to uplift all of my genesis species. I often also completely forget to mod anyone besides my main species at all, since it's just getting too crowded and other planet-preferences can just often just be imported once by mutual agreement and then that's it. Even when I had a pact with the weaver of strands I ended up doing zero modificiations, because "more conquest, more tech, more diplomatic weight" simply... kept working very well and kept me busy.

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

As long as I can still enjoy watching things going boom from time to time and feel like my decisions (and equipment choices) are impacting things, I'm probably fine. I'd even go with a complete rework, with control zones expanding to neighboring systems, or frontline-like as in HOI - go wild. Just please let me keep some decisions about how my ships are equipped and look and let me build titans/colossi with fun special mechanics.
What I think I would enjoy most right now, would simply be a way to offload tasks like hunting enemy remnant fleets and micromanaging every single fleet in the endgame. Maybe some kind of semi-automatization (Admiral X with fleet Y1 & Y2 keeps sector Z safe or expands into zone ß).

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origins & Civics, sometimes also pop-traits if they're really redefining playstyle. I like to test out combinations and optimize them or find some horribly impractical things and try to make the best out of it. The feeling of things more or less fitting together for the fantasy of having an actual civilization and not just a bunch of numbers is up next --> ethics and minor civics, sometimes also policies but mostly I just use the latter to finetune the economy etc.

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 my goals for the next game while playing the current one, especially when I encounter an interesting looking AI empire or when I notice a major deficit in my current one. During the game my plans usually just change into one thing even when I vow to myself not to ... and that is blobbing. The galaxy is full of wonders and ressources without a 'proper' owner after all. Ironically this also often ruins the game as me and my friends often end up dominating the available parts of the galaxy a bit too soon and then just wait for the crisis or the tech to take on the FE. Or there is only one last federation resisting us and the ensuing galactic war would just be too tedious to micromanage so the game stagnates.

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

Trade exists in my eyes only to spawn pirates at the worst moment possible, giving Bubbles a chance to shine while my main fleets are busy elsewhere. Otherwise it is a most brittle thing, given that cut-off areas become very vulnerable to closed borders, war and cases of "I forgot to set the trade routes on my conquered stations". If I do play a individualistic empire, getting consumer goods from trade points is my highest priority since I usually screw that part of my economy up.

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

I find it mostly ok, though maybe some more interesting late game choices might be nice, maybe turning some very difficult-high reward planet types into some kind of situation-like challenge? Like settling on a molten world to establish a small, but boosted outpost for alloys or building a kind of fortress world with enhanced abilities to hinder enemy fleets. Maybe treat them like kilo-structures to prevent overcolonization of everything.

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

Many permanent civics feel a bit like origins to me, especially things like devouring swarm etc. feel a bit off since they completely remove aspects of the game or give a permanent CB. T

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

I would probably rework consumer goods and rare materials, since I find it annoying to keep track of them and reduce their number a bit while making it harder to aquire RM. For a full removal, trade system seems also like a strong candidate.

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

There are already many goods ideas, but I think I would find a kind of "landless" start interesting, either as true nomads who still have to settle (or maybe even play a bit like the marauders) or a proto-megacorp that starts within an advanced AI empire and expands at first (or maybe only) through branch offices etc..

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

Basically the fleet system. I have no big problems with the doomstackings, solving things with more ships as a sign of economical power is fine, but often only a single, very big AI federation remains as a midgame challenge but seems too tedious to actually attack (especially with an all-out war through, say, the senate declaring them a crisis). The instant conversions of systems feels very punishing, cuts off trade quickly and requires constant checks every other in-game week to make sure, no 10k fleet is somewhere sneaking past through some wormhole. The micro is just too much.

 

[Dark Meta]

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

One idea I had in my mind, was that we kinda have three different "dimensions" of empire origins and civics.

• Origin (final):
  • Where you come from, what defines your past and the way of your upbringing. Dragon, Gaia world, Ring world, Two speicies and the like.
  • Maybe start civics like early start as well, but those are kinda special and similar to origins...
  • Maybe this needs to be split into external origin and internal/political origin

• Destiny (final except maybe with big events like ascencion, gal emp, rebellion, mabe through traditions/ascencion perk choices):
  • Where your empire strifes to be or what it wants to be.
  • Those are Civics that can not be changed after game start and force you into a specific gameplay. Stuff like Genocidal empires, Inward Perfectionism, Agrarian, Gaia Seeders, the special machine civics.

• Civics (interchangable):
  • Interchangable political and cultural differences.
  • These could maybe interact with Traditions in the future, some maybe preventing some, or some getting buffed by them

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

I get the feeling that trade was tipping the toes into logistics. Trade from a seculuded planet does not arrive to your capital, that makes sense, but how does your production get there?
This will probably not be liked by many, but I feel like, with some refinement of course, the Idea of collecting and distributing pops, resources and services via infrastructure akin to the current trade system, would fit the management side well. This also adds more strategic locations for Offense and Defense, at least up to the mid/end game before gateways get common.
Piracy makes more sense then as well. This would also open up option for natural development of hyperlane relays on these routes. Maybe for a steady cost of resources via a policy? Could also passively buff resource production for planets and systems on those trade lines, due to better connectivity and efficiency.

Where this also fits in nicely: This would indirectly buff tall empires too, due to logistical buffs the wide empires woud lack. They still get more, but tall ones get it more reliable?
Maybe something like the ascension system would work great here as well, since that was kinda the way one could invest into the empire if one was smaller. Like buffing infrastructure routes and the buffs they give.
Wide empires also would get something out of this with big hyperlane highway infrastructure, spanning their empire.

 

[Agonarchartist]

Hi.
I bought the game on release, and have over 3,000 hours. I was here for warp drives and two starbases in the same system. I basically put it down then, because there was no terrain in space. Now there is and it matters.
This is a good game and it's better than it's ever been.

When I think about when Wiz was in charge, and now how influence and unity work, all these decision about what to do and build are more meaningful.

I'm a writer/artist/gamer designer who publishes games (ttrpg) full time. I play a lot of Stellaris, because I can let it run like a screen-saver on very slow while I draw. I, uh, honestly was a bit perturbed the first game I loaded up when you started focusing on optimization- it was running so much faster than I was used to. (that's just amusing, *please* the performance is so much better than it was, don't stop)

I have some suggestions.

First, and I know—I've been around for a bit, yeah? And I know the reasons, but when I played MOO2, I got a little planet screen where the men who had the weapons and armor I researched would run across the field and kill the bad guys. Wouldn't it be cool to see the warplings? Never gonna happen, but I had to say it.

Even though I mention mods, I'd like to say, since march of 2023 (paragons) or so (I mean, maybe when Overlord came out in '22), the game has been finally playable without mods. I've had nearly 1,000 hours of vanilla playtime since then.

You should know I generally play with .25X planets (and a mod that cuts it down) and usually no automatic habitable planets. There are just too many default planets + the planets (usually around three to six) you can get from events and playing the game. Playing with fewer planets is *much* more dramatic. I'm not saying planet rich galaxies shouldn't exist. Just that the difference between 1x and .25x needs to be greater (and between 1x and 2x) The primary difficulty with this is that the AI is pretty bad with only a few planets.

I've found I enjoy the game much more when I run an influence multiplier for claiming systems. It let's you explore far beyond the range of the systems you are able to control, you get a sense of the map, and can discover other empires, and still have empty and claimable space for the galaxy. That tension of finding something and trying to get the influence you need is very exciting. The main issue is that sometimes the AI is putting too much weight on expanding towards the player, which, fair cop. It's not like I'm not headed for chokepoints. It's more obvious with slower expansion.

My *favorite* part of the game is terraforming the galaxy. Not into habitable planets, but things like finding and setting up chokepoints at pulsars, figuring out where to add Azyrin's gaia worlds. Gigastructures is, way, waaay, too much, but I've always loved the kilo/deca structures: asteroid military stations, space production factories. You've done so much of this lately- roads^H^H^H^H^HHyper relays, dyson swarm/arc-furnace. Please continue in that vein, your teams implementations are great.

I know the feedback on cosmic storms is a lot of negativity, but those people are wrong. Casuals can turn it off. A dynamic galaxy is brilliant.

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

I have never cared. It was such a mess for so long, honestly I'm was just thrilled that it's no longer broken. I have no attachment to the way pop jobs function. I liked the tile system on release, but I just don't care. I *really* like features in CK3 and AoW4 that allow you to improve provinces. Allowing that for planets or systems, and I honestly don't think I'd ever do anything *but* play stellaris.

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

You could completely change the system, rework it from the ground up, and I wouldn't care. Things are much better lately-I know people love to knock stealth, but it's quite fun to decloak and destroy something where the enemy is somewhere else. I would very much like *fewer* more expensive and more powerful ships for sure.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Unity. My gaming civilization development is always about which tradition's I'm selecting. Adding more traditions means that many more approaches. I often find that the situation in play helps this develop organically!

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

It's first about solving problems, shortages, and preparing for the future, but once the economy is in shape, it's about preparing my empire for the crisis by terraforming the galaxy terrain.

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

I know where this button is! It tells me where to build 3 defense platforms to negate piracy entirely! As a game designer this seems specious. It doesn't matter-You know it doesn't matter, and you're looking for permission to make it matter.
Make it matter.

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

Yes. Yes.

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

Big question.
Shattered Ring is . . . not living up to the dream. The fact that there's always a unfixable ring segment? ;-;
I very frequently play necrophage and void dwellers. I could see rogue servitor/collector being an origin instead of a civic. I haven't played 'determined assimilator' since machine age, but that always seemed like more of an origin than 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?

Did you need me to say factions? Internal politics is-I appreciate it, I do. It's functional-prevents people from switching between pacifist/militarist on a whim. But it's not relevant in any way to game play. I can get twenty unity from a lot of places, but I don't really need it from factions. Now. . . if you got rid of administrative buildings and required unity to come from factions, well. . . That might be more interesting. It certainly either needs to be cut or reworked.


Some other thoughts
Espionage is too weak-I agree it's shocking when someone assassinates a leader or destroys a starport (having run mods that allow it) I can't say it makes my experience of the game worse! How shocking! Forced to adapt. It's there, just make sure it's integrated with whatever changes happen with factions.

The comments about genetics and species not mattering are pretty key-watch some competitive streamers—these traits are too weak. Unadaptable is 2 free points.

I really think the latest release and it's integration with the genetic ascension tree is pretty good—but hive minds and the idea of organic living fleets still feel like playing the same game without some of the interesting parts. This was a good first step in fixing that. Still, genetics needs more love. I want gholas, clones, replacing enemy leaders, changelings and shapeshifters.

Maybe for your final expansion you could add wizards, elves and magic.

Mass culling-Sometimes I need 1,000 physics research and don't to have to click 500 times.

Does no one care about that determined exterminator? AI Should be more unified and assertive about threats. It's pretty good when the player is going cosmogenesis, but if someone else is a terror, nobody seems to be all that concerned about them grabbing territory and snowballing. The Khan was tearing the galaxy apart, and I proposed declaring them the crisis, and everyone was like, "Nope, your empire isn't strong enough for me to support this notion." while their people are being fed into woodchippers.

I'm 46 years old. I get that this game is gonna be lucky to make it ten years, but I got to tell you, all these people saying "Stellaris 2"- I have the game I love. I'll buy content for the game I love. Look at Cities Skylines. I'm still playing one, and maybe in another five years or so I'll *look* at 2. If you release a stellaris 2, I'll just keep playing this. Newness for the sake of newness isn't good. There's millions of hours of code here, I can't imagine that anything called Stellaris 2 will do anything that this game currently doesn't. I see the version numbers, and have been here since release. This *is* Stellaris 3. There's no point in arguing with other people about it. If you release a new, different, stellaris game, you're just saying you don't want to take my money for half a decade till it's ready *because I already have stellaris*.

As a game designer, I always find it amusing when people suggest things—as always, users can always identify problems, but if they aren't a modder or on the design team, their solutions are usually lacking.

Being part of a corporation, there's always this fear about negative player experiences. But for the game to be interesting and dynamic, meaningful drawbacks have to exist (which you know). You can always add a thing that can create a negative player experience, and then have an option for it to default to off, that players, like me, prefer, can turn on!

 

[Spododo]

Aaand of course most ideas come to me after posting. I'll just add it here:

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

The situation system vs. digsites / espionage system, I think those could just be put together, removing the situations. You choose a stance (where suitable, like going in aggressively or carefully, changing speed and chances of good/bad mini events) and add a scientist / admiral / bureaucrat. This could also make certain situations more interesting as they're not just "ticking down/up bars" and make use of the fact that all characters have levels and modifiers. A consumer good crisis is hard to handle so you'd better not send a rookie who'll mess up the paperwork and logistics even more.

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

I'dd add something like internal midgame crisis, that could depend on origin and/or political system. So far we have two external crisis which are usally solved by applying lasers (and sometimes mass drivers) to the affected areas. But what about internal struggle that puts those empires that have soared ahead in a perilious situation (maybe only affecting empires that are in the top half or sth) and require political sacrifices? A succession crisis resulting in an uprising of local lords, an aggressive shareholder buying out the others, trying to turn your megacorp into a dictatorship or a bunch of fringeworlds petitioning for their peaceful secession in a democracy.
This might add some other ways to challenge players midgame while adding a bit more flavor to your pops having their own agendas and trying to change things in their empire beyond just forming an faction baiting you with a unity bonus. This could also be a point where factions shine - as a counterweight to the player-led council (or rogue drones vs the hive).

And at last, only about the vivarium:
It feels like this starts really cool (gotta breed them all to legendary perfection) and then I completely stop caring about it, since the DNA is simply stored in the fridge (and gained by killing them instead of taking samples at regular intervals, removing the best specimen from the vivarium) and the butchering can be set to auto. I noticed that after 50 years I simply stopped opening it. I can't even "emergency draft" the creatures with implants or as undead, they're just... hidden away in a menu without much use? I think this mechanic, should the player choose to keep interacting with it, could be more rewarding. Maybe special mods could also be bred and harvested here? And maybe have some that only apply to a given kind of creature, instead of being able to give all of them to all? A bit more specialization, like Tiyanki as hardy tanks, amobeas having advanced carrier options and crystal entities as glass canons could make them a bit more interesting as well.


Edit: Just saw the post by Agonarchartist and I'd definitely agree with the problems of espionage, though I do like the internal factions, though they could get a bite more love, making themselves heard, maybe even being representated by a character. Not as crass as in Victoria, but still, those individulists are said to consist of ... individuals, right? Maybe more events based around unhappy factions and the like (probably as a turn-off option for those who want to focus on external strife)?

 

[Seridor]

I'll just add some very brief notes where i could welcome some improvements:

1, try to teach the AI to play the game better, so we could probably reduce their bonus resources while keeping the game challenging

2, Right now diplomacy is not that interesting

3, would love to see some internal politics, factions getting even more roles, like let them controlling planets or sectors

4, as always try to reduce powercreep and snowball effects

sometimes less is better.. i hope we don't get more collectables like astral shards, minor artifacts etc.