Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[03793]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Honestly, removing current pop system and making one that doesn't account for every individual pop would be good both for gameplay and performance, I believe. Something similar to Project Caesar, where every pop of the same culture (species in this case) and strata is counted into one entity?
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Oh, you could go ham on fleets. I personally think there should be much greater difference between hull sizes - corvettes should be dime a dozen while capital ships should remain few in numbers and costly, not the pure battleship military nonsense we pull right now. You already made effort to make monofleets less prelavent and I'd be happy if you went harder on that.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization
  • The ones I put in empire creation screen. I would honestly love if civics, authorities and ethics had larger mechanical impact on shaping the empires. A small pipe dream of mine is having civics be split in two separate mechanics, one being the traits of your government (things like Police State, Byzantine Bureaucracy or Parliamentary System) and the other being "culture" of sorts (things like Warrior Culture, Selective Kinship or Pleasure Seekers)
• 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 beyond your understanding not set beyond what kind of empire I make and what ascension path and perks I plan to take
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • It's rather irrelevant and I wish it was bigger. If we were talking about, let's say, semi-automated constant trade of excess resources between empires, then I'd care about Trade. And I do want to care about it.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Probably an unpopular opinion, but I would rather have induvidual planets get more identity and value to them. I don't think colonization should be harder, but terraforming should matter more, not "just ignore any planet below 60% or use them as breeding pools for pops until you get habitality-increasing techs or turn into robots" we have now. Terraforming, in my opinion, should also be a longer, more complicated process than "learn tech, spend bunch of credits, wait a bit". And in return it should give bigger benefits than just getting planets of the right climate. If terraforming is more costly, it should make terraformed planets better than natural.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Origins that should be Civics? I mean, since we now have Civics that change starting species, maybe Necrophage, Subterranean and Syncretic Evolution would do better as Civics. As for Civics that should be Origins, none what I can think of.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • If I were to remove a mechanic, it would be transports for armies. For a mechanic that needs its own expansion, aformentioned Trade. There's really a lot what could be done with it, enough to warrant an expansion. I'd buy it too (but I bought every Stellaris expansion anyway). As for what could be good but isn't, Espionage and Megacorps could really use major makeovers by Custodian team. Espionage is neither fun nor very viable, while Megacorps miss a lot of fantasies one could want to play (I'm surprised we don't have banking or arms manufacturing corporations, nor an empire where you have actual normal government standing on the shoulders of corporations (Think NUSA and Militech in Cyberpunk, or Super Earth in Helldivers, as some examples))

 

[Rodahtnov]

Hey there! Long time modder and stellaris lover wanting to give my small 2 cents and opinion/feedback on the bullet point list and what it entrails! Will try to be as concise as possible even if i have really really long opinions to share about them!

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

Individual pops give a lot of flexibility to multiple systems and constraints in others, what i feel is we better aimed species controls to sort those pops accordingly and measure their impact - Also some ways to buff pops so they count more without having to rely on modifiers or tricky performance expensive elements would be extra good as would allow to cull numbers down while keeping the feel of "these pops exist".

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

Definitively the fleet cap system should be reviewed as it's certainly the main offender of late game performance - a straight up reduction of the system to a 50 or 33% of its current numbers (aka culling fleet sizes while increasing ship performance) would lead to a really really better late game - Would also give way more value to high-end ships and streamlined compositions.
It is certainly espectacular seeing hundreds of ships fighting in a system during an hour for a year of game to pass, but it would be even better if that year passes way faster and more stories and battle can be developed.
Also i think its time of fleet capacity to be removed from starbases and given fully to pops to simulate manpower, maybe some kind of logistics tied to the system would be good.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Feel - It goes under the radar a lot of times but the "feel" a different tileset, a different building type, flavour, assymetrical gameplay, etc provide are the ones that settle the difference.
It is not the same to play a Technocratic Idyllic Bloom empire than a Technocratic Lifeseeded Empire, even if the themes are the same the feel and execution are different.

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

Generally due to experience and near 4k hours already invested on the game, i tend to set them beforehand when i create the empire, thinking: How would i develop them, how they would feel about some things, what ascension they would like to pursue - After that a new layer is added through the gameplay with different ramifications, based on precursors, interactions with other empires, etc.
An empire of good guys focused on tech and utopias may become twisted, paranoid and secluded after they find themselves submerged in a hostile galaxy, adapting to the hardness of the situation.
I feel a way to set up "goals" on the empire design screen would greatly improve this aspect and add a real fun layer to the game, like mini quests added to the system that you can compromise to fulfill and advance through it (the new quest system introduced with cosmic storms would be perfect!).

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

Trade feels like an afterthought system nowadays - its an odd planet modifier converted into currency in a non intuitive way, that generally most builds ignore yet becomes a main source of energy eclipsing energy districts, and those who focus on it get way too much for no effort.
Personally, i would convert trade into a way to invest into your empire in a more proactive than passive way, from things like "paying private companies to take hold of this planet and develop it faster", or paying a faction for them to be happier (Frostpunk 2 does this excellently!).
And trade routes... kinda obscure on their own, there should be more hotspots of trade collection (maybe targets for empire attacks!).

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

Colonization should be a long and immersive process and soft/full terraforming should be an earlier and not "1 button and gone" system.
The sheer wonder of exploration should extend more than on the ship exploration phase, and ways to maybe prospect or reescan planets and tailor them better would greatly expand midgame.

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

There are way more origins that feel like civics now, like mechanists (ironically) or Fruitful Partnership - I feel origins should be more tied to a real species "origin", clear example of this one would be Shattered Ring or Voidborne, whereas mechanical elements should be split into civics (Example, mechanist or Necrophage).
The system needs a "in between" for both elements, and would benefit greatly of a new type of empire creation option, lets call it "Foundation" - this way you have 3 clear ways of set your empire motion forward:

1. Origins = how your species start, setting initial planet, conditions, etc (IE Shattered Ring, Voidborne, Slingshot to the stars, and maybe a lot of new origins given space to suit this specific niche).
2. "Foundation" = setting how your species develop, setting societal specific elements and lore and core mechanics (IE Necrophage, Teachers of the shroud, Eager Explorers, etc).
3. Civics/rest = setting how your species form their society, setting mechanics more tied to the workings of a society per se (most of existing ones + some ported back from origins such as Mechanists (society focused on robots) or Planetary Unification (society focused on cohestion).

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 completely remove crime and remake it from scratch in a more interesting way, taking factions, external actors, espionage and etc into action for it and not just "oh no four pops now are stealing" - Crime should be a double edged sword that can also benefit you if you are a corrupt empire.
• For me the central focus of a expansion would be exploring a more in depth terraformation, as explained previously, being able to customize your worlds to the max removing a bit of the rng if you are willing to invest enough on planets.
• And for a feature i want to enjoy but doesn't "click" as needed... species rights and societal control, its good and basic and easy to understand but immensely constraining in all regards.

I hope this really helps! Loving the game and how much love y'all pour on it, for more years of stellaris to come!

 

[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.

 

[Silens]

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

Pretty important, as those systems allow me to shape and form my society the way I want to. I like playing Necrophage, and they get a bonus for working higher strata. The current systems gives me the incentives to micromanage individual pops here and reaping the benefits.
I'd say that we don't have enough micro options yet. Example: When I play machines, the trait for leader immortality is pretty expensive. What I then like to do is to turn a small portion of pops into a variant with that trait, while most of my empire remains on more productive traits. But I have no idea which pop to turn, if I want to turn my existing leaders immortal. I can select individual pops to turn, but I have no way of knowing which exact pop is associated with a specific leader.

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

I pretty much need a way to design ships, choose the composition of my fleets, and having direct control over those fleets. I require all of those points for the game to be what I love.

• 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?

Origins are defining, but in actual gameplay I like all aspects that are opening ways for me to better my society: gene editing, ascension, traditions. The idea of being on a quest for perfection is enticing to me.

That's also part of how I set my goals. I look at my surroundings, determine what I need to get somewhere, and then try to get those things (planets, systems, resources etc.). When the exploration phase ends, I shift to improving what I have (kilostructures, defensible systems etc.). I set my goals and try to achieve them, and those goals only change when I get the opportunity to get something better (like a rival with desirable planets becoming weak all of a sudden).

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

In the spirit of building up galactic infrastructure, the idea of the system is nice. But in practice the piracy system forces me to clutter my UI with many small corvette fleets and manually setting up patrols and checking if piracy actually goes down... it's tiring really.

I'd not discard the fantasy of it, building up logistics chains and supply routes and stuff like that is what people (me included) enjoy in all GSG. It's the execution of it that makes it tedious.

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

It is pretty cheap and easy, yes, but I don't think habitability is the cog you want to turn here. Going back to the previous answers, I mentioned space infrastructure. What makes colonies so easy is the instant transport of all resources across your entire empire, which allows you to jumpstart any colony anywhere. You don't have to supply your colony, don't have to deliver supplies and building materials.

Now, I don't claim that there's instant fun in it, that would depend on how such a system would ultimately look like. But if you want to make space feel vast and make colonies harder to set up, then maybe make distance matter more? Just a thought, though.

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

I'm actually pretty content, even with ground combat. Nothing I'd outright remove... well, maybe space pirates, they're really annoying.

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

Internal empire institutions, space infrastructure, terraforming as an impactful process (as opposed to clicking one button and waiting for 100% success)

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

Automated Starbase design. It used bad weapon choices, shields in systems with shield nullification, too many S and M weapon slots etc. I'd make the automation optional, let the player create starbase designs, and allow to freely choose which design to implement in which system with an upgraded base.

 

[Lengyel Huru]

Here are my thoughts:

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • My determination to maintain these systems is limited. I would't mind if there was more fluid represantation - like percentages or some factors, indicators. But, it has to be very polished, with beautiful graphic representation, because current expectations are quite high.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Well in terms of quantity, not much. Current fleets look quite "realistic". For sure a default formation of fleet breaks immersion, but it's not like we want TotalWar-like game. I don't know if I want symbolic representation of battles with full sized action in popup window. You have to be careful about it.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • The background (separete story that I write every time in creation wizard), civics, origin. Everything that gives immersion and fluent explanation of further choices and development.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • I feel like I have no clues where I am going to end up in every round of this game. I mean that's the point of replayability - not being able to forecast upcoming evoluion.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • I treat it like a internal micro game and it gives me flavour of fragile economy. I don't like that the capital has to be central point of business, but the current net-shaped system of connection is satysfying.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • I admit that it should be another journey and interesting experience. The adaptability should be more complex, but I don't want to have another excavation site screen during every colonization.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Every origin that lacks of story flavour might be civic - like mechanist or prosperous unification. I think there is a lot of space in current content to fill with new origins, and You should focus on that some day - like a story pack or something.
• 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 think edicts are quite annoying, I find them as another toggle bars to keep an eye on.
  • I'd like to get total rework of internal politics, with merged factions/goverment/election/ruler/policies systems into one living organism.
  • I miss proper and complex espionage system, the current one is somehow unatractive.
  • I'd add some science/tradition special grand projects (like galactic wonders) that U could achieve in cooperation with group of other empires
  • and God... I miss those planet surface tiles as a represantation of specific world....

 

[Koopatin]

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

i just want to see pops/portraits somewhere. and i want the boni to work somehow. i do not need all the calculating or strata. i do not need performance killing 1000 pops on a planet. where is even the difference between 1000 pops and 60? it is any number you want anyways. i do not know if it would be less lag but i think something like if race X with bonus Y > 30% you get bonus for job Y, if less than not.

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

less ships, bigger fleets is what i do in my mod. i am not sure if it works but it seems less fleets and less ships does help with less fleets that need pathfinding.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

i feel the military aspect is so strong in that game that every civ does feel samey gameplay wise, even in RP i have to RP around war reasons because when you stop to grow you miss to much.

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

my goal is grow, not min max, and i never end a round anyway becuase after 4k hours, even after all those DLC i know exactly how the game would play out if i continue further.

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

it adds nothing. only annoying pirate pop ups

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

no. its fine. could be changed if you really want to axe pops but else it is good enough.

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

you should do away with most civics and origins as a one/two pick and go way back to the master of orion 2 times or more like old rpg systems where everything just cost points and you mix and match EVERYTHING if you have points for it. 3 origins, no civics, no trait points should be as possible as a race with 12 traits and a negative origin

• 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 do not want to remove any system for itself, but i want to tone down EVERYTHING. as it stands right now, every DLC (except for cosimic storms) does add something nice. but everything together just adds too much. every system has something in it. A digsite, a precursor, a NPC faction, a special system, a rift, an gateway, a L gate, you get the point. And if everything is special.nothing is and it is tik tok and no game. i stil want to have everything in game but maybe tone it down a bit. no "chance" to happen but the game should select beforehand what will occur over the game and give only a handful of stuff. for Stellaris 2, I would want something like a "storyteller" AI (not this kind of AI) that spins a single story through your game. as one example, starting with precursors and some events and ending in the crisis. like mass effects reapers, for example. or interacting more with fallen empires that knew the precursor.

and a new expansion, well, again the falen empires are kind of boring. the war in heaven is ... useless now.. but kind of nice in theory, but we only have a few events with fallen empires. I would love for the fallen empires to interact more with the galaxy. They should infiltrate your government long before the war on heaven. They should look for allies (or canon foder), they could force themselves to be leaders of the galactic community.

*edit* too add. all those events and so on give the player so much more power than the AI. often even a few free planets.

 

[Foxosaur]

If i could change something, and something that can immediately come to my mind, I would add more variety to planets. All planets of the same class look always the same (unless things changed with the last patch/DLC, I've yet to play it, my bad), and as a player, I'd like to have at least some visual variation for them, a bit like it is in Star Trek Infinte.

When I was looking at the various planet classes, I noticed that Continental sits in the middle of them all, it occurred to me a question. If someone picks their preferred planet to be an extreme type. Does that then mean, they generally will have lower habitability of other types, because they are not in a middle ground? I'm sure someone knows the answer to this but either way, I think totally agree about more variety.

 

[Headbomb]

Let me start by saying that, in my opinion, your third pillar, "Every game is different", is and has been untrue for a long, long time. There has been positive movement in that regard (mainly no-FTL origin, mercs, unity rework and lately virtual path), but the feeling remains the same: no matter who you pick, your gameplay boils down to colonizing everything, ramping up your science and painting the galaxy your color. It's the optimal way - you don't have to rely on unreliable factors (allies and GalCom), only yourself, and protecting yourself is the most important part. The crisis will come, it will come with a strong fleet, and if you lose the numbers game - it's over. There is no comeback potential, no unexpected help from abroad, no scientific breakthrough that can turn the tide.

If viewed through this lens, the game falls neatly into differently shaped mold: biological races are the base; mechanical races are the same, but don't use food; hivemind don't use consumer goods; and all of them need fleet, science and pops, no exceptions. This is one of the reasons why people complain about balance - if your civic or origin doesn't contribute to these three points, then it will not be picked after the novelty wears off. Sure, you can make a mess of a pacifist beastmaster biological empire with, say, diplomatic focus, and you may have a lot of fun with it, but it's a type of content that players churn through - play once, forget it exists. It's unsustainable for the developers and makes the game feel stale.

What I want from Stellaris, primarily, is variety. Not in events, not in civic pics, not in tradition trees, but gameplay. If empire A pushes me to build fleet and science and empire B does the same, then they are practically the same. It's just a different color to paint the galaxy with. Sometimes ago you had a tech rework beta, which was reverted upon proper release - I'm not gonna lie, I was *very* disappointed with that decision. If you've seen what people did during the beta, and view it through my lens, then you would see that the game's variety multiplied overnight: some were playing science-focused builds with weak economy and fleet, because scientists were SO DAMN EXPENSIVE; others built an economic behemoth, trading their resources for science with other, more developed empires, while saving on scientist upkeep themselves; and the last group made a marauder empire with a gigantic fleet of crappy ships, ravaging across the galaxy in search of battles, so that they could analyze the debris and move forward this way. THIS is the utmost priority for me in terms of game's future.

Another request has been a long time coming: biological ships. As in "we take meat and make ships out of it". Not through catalytic processing, not by converting space fauna, not by making our own fauna - meat ships from our meat ship shipyards. Tyranids. Zergs. Aliens. I believe these are in the works, but I would really like if those were different from "metal" ships gameplay-wise somehow. Maybe innate regeneration, but no shields? Some sort of boarding mechanic that disables one of your ships and one of the enemies, with no interruptions yours coming on top? Generating assault armies on the ships themselves? You get the gist.

I absolutely do not care about ship combat. I find it overly complicated, mainly because your setups do not transfer from game to game. Sure, I can make an optimal counter for an enemy empire, but I have to learn about their designs through espionage, find a proper counter (usually on wiki, in-game stats can be very confusing. Do I take a piercing weapon or the one with higher damage amplification? Maybe one with better defence type counter? Or maybe I should slot defence amplification instead?), find resources and time for retrofitiing and NOT get caught in another conflict meanwhile. Or I can just build three times as much ships in the meantime, assuming that the other empire still exists in ten years. What I do care about is planetary fights. I think a good start would be bringing a second type of units, akin to cavalry in EU4 - expensive assault units that do more damage towards numberically inferior forces. Then you allow them to pick small fights, skirmishes, with defenders under favorable conditions before the main fight begins, so that they can eliminate some units. Hell, add planetary cannons that would shred assaulting armies if the devastation is not high enough to disable them. Let "cavalry" land through said defences to run anti-anti-air ops. Tie in espionage to disable the AA guns, add bonuses based on infiltration for "cavalry" to allow them pick off targets in skirmishes faster.

Overall, I would like the game to shrink in numbers. Less planets to colonize, less ships, less armies. I play on 0.25x colonizable planets and it's still too much. It's hard to care about flavor when it's your tenth planet. It's hard to care about fleet composition when you have two hundred ships. It's hard to care about saving troops when it takes 500 power to take a planet. Coincidentally, it would also deliver content slower, so that the novelty lasts longer. If you colonize twenty planets per campaign, you will see twenty potential event chains and planetary traits; if you colonize ten - that's twice as much time to see all the content.

People are frequently requesting internal politics - I believe this should be addressed, but I don't find it among high priority for me. Factions are a very delicate subject - expand too much and you might end up losing control over your empire, forcing you to restart the whole campaign due to RNG. Diplomacy between empires could use more work, especially in transparency. I'll never shup up about how good it feels knowing exactly why a certain nation acted in such a way in EU4, and it's a high bar for you to reach. Big props for "war expected" notification! I'd like to see more ties for espionage for that, some deeper infiltration with permanent embedded agents in various branches. Imagine embedding your scientist agent, which gets hired as a councillor: you get monthly stolen science, they get a malus and if the war breaks out - all their research gets set back one year. Embed a commander, learn their ship designs and disable planetary AA guns during the war. Embed an official and redirect some trade to your capital instead. Paranoia, purges, betrayal - isn't that what it was supposed to be?

Another mechanical problem to solve is opportunity cost. As the game balloons in options, some will inevitably be deemed too niche to pick. If one category gets too big - why not add a secondary category? For example, in traditions - add secondary, advanced slots, requiring two "regular" trees to unlock. Picked Harmony and Diplomacy? Here, you can now unlock an advanced tree in a separate slot - Aptitude. Got Supremacy and Subterfuge? Unlock an advanced tree of Unyielding! Same goes for civics and origins: you should be able to pick X "regular" civics (mining guilds or cutthroat politics, for example) and one game-changing one (devouring swarm or idyllic bloom). Some origins should be reclassified as civics and vice versa. If it's a story - it should be an origin, if it's a mechanical change - it should be a civic.

Trade could use some flavor, actually. Multi-empire trade networks, smuggling and hidden smuggler bases, bribery, bounty hunters, privateers, and most importantly - pirate rework. Oh god, they are so annoying to deal with, it's a real chore.

Last point is a pipe dream, but I'll share nonetheless - culture and religion. Something akin to Rimworld's ideoreligions or CK3's religions. Imagine an empire having a customizable deity or a concept that can be physical (holy mountain blocker, a celestial object in their system or a leader), abstract (curiosity or justice) or mythical (Toxic God), with it's own bonuses (Justice giving, say, more edict funds and holy mountain giving unity) divided by the amount of such deities (two deities would give half the bonus, five - one fifth each, so if Justice gives +100 edict fund base, then having both Justice and Curiosity would give you +50 edict fund and +5% (10% base) research speed). You can move some edicts or origins here, tie them to that "religion" as precepts (say, you can have a leader-deity and a cultural precept of military supremacy, forcing you to make more militarisitc options in events or suffer ethic attraction penalty). Then you meet other empires. If your ties are close for a long while (say, a hundred year), then their culture can rub off on you, giving you an option to adopt their precept. If you are REALLY close - why not adopt their deity or add yours to it, making it a part of a pantheon? This would allow sumulating proper religions or extreme beliefs, creating stories of both theological wars and cultural fraternization. And yes, you should be able to destroy physical deities of other empires or find mythical deities of yours sometimes, prompting identity crisis.

 

[ValkorionsDream]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  - Irrelevant, I hardly feel any sense of connection to any individuals, this was different with the tile system but a much grander, more abstracted economic simulation would be a lot more interesting.
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  - It can and should be redone entirely; the aspect of naval combat is boring. Strategy doesn't matter. Tactics hardly matter. Ship design is more or less the same 2-3 loadouts every single time.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  - Origins.
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  - Goals are typically not during gameplay but rather before it; i.e if I have a silly build I'll see how far I can take things. There is very little variety in the economic and military gameplay most of the time.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  - It is entirely irrelevant and not engaging at all. It lacks interaction and piracy is a real nuisance but not in a way that'd be engaging.
  
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  - conceptually interesting, especially if combined with a more in-depth economic approach
  
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  - Under One Rule, Overtuned, Calamitous Birth, maybe Mechanist
  
  
• 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'll tack onto this by saying I believe a lot of systems deserve modernization and/or an overhaul as there is a severe issue in how these don't interact as much as I personally feel they should. Things like the economy being too simple and discouraging trade, galactic market being an infinite resource printer, strategic resources hardly mattering beyond having any access to them, to how GalCom doesn't do enough unique things and federations are just stat boosters and Warfare (in terms of goals and rewards) being incredibly 2 dimensional. "Winner takes all" and a WE system without any actual consequence are all things that diminish my enjoyment of the game noticeably. I think what I'd like to reworked the most however would be Espionage, The system with assets is interesting, and I feel that's what it should center around, but espionage isn't impactful enough and maybe too micromanage-y though it's fine to me personally. Espionage should be a valid, alternative playstyle to "Military might" or "Diplomatic power" and not just a minor thing you click on every now and then.
  
  Edit: Another thing I would like to specifically mention for the last point is crises; they could be much more interesting with added mini-games for each of them as you learn to adapt to them and maybe them adapting to you. Crises could be so much more than stat checks.

 

[InvisibleBison]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Jobs aren't that important. I started playing before 2.2, and while the jobs system is better than the tile system, I wouldn't say it's essential to the game. Pops are a more important feature, but if there's a significantly better alternative I'd be willing to consider removing them.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • So long as the top-level features of having discrete fleets that we can build and order about remains, the details can be changed pretty much at will.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • The combination of origins, ethics and civics are important, but so is the text field for writing a nation's backstory. It doesn't have any mechanical effect, but being able to create a unique history for a nation helps them feel different from similar nations.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • I generally have an overall goal of being able to conquer at least one fallen empire before the end game; that to me is the minimum baseline for a successful game. But I also have more short-term goals, which arise organically and generally are of the form of dealing with a specific problem. For example, if I have a food shortage I might decide to establish a farming world, which in turn requires me to expand into a nearby empire's territory to get a good planet, which in turn requires me to build up my fleet enough to win a war.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Completely irrelevant. It's a totally ridiculous system, and I generally play gestalts anyway.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • I don't think colonization is too easy so much as the costs aren't seen by the player. The effects of living on a low-habitability world are that pops cost more and produce less, which is lost in the shuffle of resources. If low-habitability worlds had a more visible, direct effect (recurring events of some sort, or maybe a situation?) the current system would be fine.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • My rule of thumb is that civics represent trends in society that can change, whereas origins represent consequences of past events that cannot be altered. Thus, I'd say that Eager Explorers, Beastmasters, Criminal Heritage (and their corporate/gestalt equivalents) and Devouring Swarm would be better off as origins than as civics.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
  • I'd probably remove operations. I've found them to be entirely lackluster, to the extent that I don't bother using them and never notice the AI using them against me. In theory they could be made more consequential, but that would just make them unfun, because the AI would be able to bombard you with negative stuff that you can't counter.
• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • I'm not sure. I'd like to see changes to pop modding and the Galactic Community, but in both cases my ideas aren't substantial enough to constitute a full expansion.
  • EDIT: On second thought, an overhaul of crises would be nice. If you could find a way to make them more than a fleet power check, that would bring new life to one of the least interesting parts of the game.

 

[Red Death]

Let me first say: It may not be a popular opinion, but for me the increased focus on "Roleplaying" through pre-scripted hand-crafted specific storylines of the past few years has weakened the immersive roleplaying experience and the "every game is different" goal you set. I am thinking of for example the Payback and Broken Shackles Origins (whose concepts had tremendous potential for emergent storytelling) being hampered by being linked to one specific pre-designed empire with a set personality. For me "emergent narratives" come primarily from adding more of those smaller, interesting building blocks with many options in combination with solid and deep gameplay mechanics, not big chunks of story that often don't interact well with your situation otherwise, or mechanics that don't fit within the mould of the pre-designed narrative. That's why I've generally avoided buying DLC that add a lot of this type of content.

This does not necessarily apply to smaller handcrafted stories and personalities, like anomalies, unique leaders or planet events. For example, Keides or the Rubricator (and the dragon). But in this case they either need to have a lot of different outcomes/options, or they really need to not show up in every game. What I've heard on this from Astral Planes (in terms of the same ones showing up every game, unlocking the same "spawn fleet" power for everyone) has not made me want to buy it so far.

As for your specific questions:

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Very, and not really at the same time? Different species and their traits having an effect are very important to me, as are the population having their own ethics. But I guess the way jobs and pops are divided into discrete units like this does not matter that much to me.
  • A very long time ago (with the tile system), when pops had a bit more agency, they were meaningful. For example, even now I still remember that time I conquered a Xenophobes planet, and my own population migrating to that planet, resulting in the xenophobe population migrating out to get away from the xenos! But they haven't had this type of storytelling in a long time now.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Almost everything. I guess maybe removing the shipdesigner would make it feel like a different game, but even that I don't really care about.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Ethics, Civics, Origen, species traits in that order. (species trats earlier if xenophobe)
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • I typically set a goal at the start of the game, but that might be as vague as "see what happens aroud me, and respond as this empire would".
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • In it's current form not very, but I would prefer seeing it expanded rather than removed. For example, a trade agreement between two empires should really create a route between the empire capitals, even through uncolonized space. Pirates would make more sense there, than in your own empire's borders.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Maybe, but as long as you can integrate alien species with 0 difficulty, you can't go very far in this.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • I have more issues with specific Origins, than I do with how they are classified.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
  • Megastructure limits of all types, they should be balanced number-wise so that it is possible to keep building them. It is decidedly anti-immersive that an empire that learns how to build something like a Dyson Sphere would build immediately build one in 20-50 years and then never again.
• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
  • Factions, and combined with this how ethics of your population can shift.
  • Empire Events. We have anomalies for discoveries, some diplomatic events, and planet events for specific planets. Where are our events for the parliament members throwing coffee at eachother, or the Queen squabbling with her heir? There's only very few of these things, like the Manifesti situation (and that one is not particularly great).
  • Re-Survey: A mid-game tech that let's you re-survey all objects, especially those already claimed by you or other empires. Probably has a lower rate of anomalise and if possible a different set of anomalies, for example also including diplomatic effects with whoever owns that system, and avoiding changes to that system witout the owner being able to respond.
    • This keeps the Star Trek exploration feeling going throughout the whole game. I think in a much better way than what archeology and Astral Planes tried.
    • This makes sure keeping a body of scientists around. In particular it makes sure the whole exploration-focused veteran type does not become obsolete.
• Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • Repairing Megastructures.
    • Ruined megastructures should be an absolutely massive deal worth fighting over like in the trailer. As it stands, you unlock the ability to repair them just a little bit before you can build one yourself.
  • Subjects.
    • Too many things are fixed numbers per subject instead of based on the subject's size. Holdings come too mind. I think this is also the reason you has to add the rather ham-fisted "loyalty loss depending on number of subjects)
  • The War in Heaven.
    • This being a Total War is such an enormous pain. The original implementation, or at least some version where normal empires are vassalized instead of annexed (like Awakened Empires normally do) would be much more enjoyable.
  • Leaders.
    • Traits being tied to specific roles suck. It's become even worse since every leader type became a "governor". Getting a choice between only governor-focused traits on my hyper-specialized fleet admiral is the worst feeling. Either:
      • Completely split each role into its own leader type.
      • Make sure each trait a leader can get (apart from the veteran specializations) has some effect in every role that leader can take. This probably involves rolling a bunch of traits together into fewer traits.
    • Also, you can just make the Council positions exclusive like all the other roles I think.
  • New habitats.
    • Manually building Orbitals gets very annoying.
  • Federations.
    • Them being so hopelessly outmatched by a single epire of equivalent size makes them pointless. See also below.

For the game as a whole, the "Grand Strategy" aspect is severely hampered by some things:

• Even witth Empire size penalties, how large your empire is (particularly in population), is the main decider on how fast you can tech up. As a result, a single empire is always much stronger than something like an alliance or federation of equivalent (or even larger) population. That's because they don't just have equivalent or more resources/fleet size. they will also be much more advanced, unless they're playing poorly (AI or deliberate player). None of Paradox's other grand strategy games do this. And for good reason: having the small empires mean nothing, makes the strategic situation more boring.
• The most important factor in how fast your population grows is how many colonies you have, because of the quite high base growth you get just for it being a colony. This leads to weird things like colonizing llow habitability planets just for the growth, and it contributes to things like previous and current habitat spam.

I think fixing these two things will make Stellaris strategically more interesting.

 

[Nyrael]

Oh man, that first DD gives me so much nostalgia. I still remember how many of us were let down to see PDS was making a 4X sci-fi game. Although I did get interested soon enough, little did I know that Paradox was about to make my fave Paradox game, and one of my fave games ever.

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

Honestly, not much. While I do feel this system is better, I'll admit hat I preferred the Tiles. Not for gameplay, but immersion: back then I knew each and every species in my empire, and built the planet to make the most of their strengths. The new system... a POP is just a number. I'd even argue that the current system incentives Xenophobe playthroughs to keep it neat and cleaner.

I don't think Tiles need to return... but I think species need to be more noticable. If you do a Faction Rework, I hope Species form their own factions and fight for their rights and fight other species for privileges.

• 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 hit "Random" and have the AI generate an empire for me. Then I may return to Main Menu to change the portrait or some detail, but generally I play with what I got and make decisions based on Ethics, Civics and Origin. This makes sure I never play campaigns in the same manner.

My goal is usually to defeat the End Game Crisis and be the dominant power. I have Victory Screen turned off as I find it useless.

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

I barely notice it, but I also don't want it changed. EU5 is apparently going to make us need to do stuff like make sure the church I am building has access to glass and that kills my excitement for it. I like it in Victoria, but economy simulation and management should not be too detailed.

If something is to be added for trade, I'd want civilian trade fleets to be added, trade guilds to interact with, and so on. Stuff that is less about managing the economy, and more about interacting with other space entities.

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

It's fine to me, but I keep number of habitable worlds less than the default. I do think Food should be an issue - colonies should either be self-sustainable with food, or have food supplies that, if broken, can starve the colony. This would also hamper the "Overspecialize Planet" strategies as it becomes a "high reward but high risk" rather than just "Optimal Play".

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

Yes. I think there should be Origin categories homeworld, origin story, ambition), with some Origins filling multiple categories.

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

As mentioned, I think species should be more significant. Sci-Fi stories are all about different races interacting with one another, but we have NONE of that. Tiles at least made you always know what species live on what planet and where they work, but now even checking that is a hassle.
There should be some interactions between species in your empire. Some ideas:

1. Species A and species B find themselves in a violent clash on one of your younger colonies, and their contempt for one another expands to other planets, making the planets which have significant populations of both less stable
2. An idea from a mod: when I declared war on Empire of Species C, all citizens of that species on my planets started protesting. This was a neat and realistic detail
3. Treatment of another empire's species should have stronger impact on diplomacy
4. Species should form their own Factions, and those Factions demand privileges over others for return of benefits. Some might even demand an entire planet to be limited to them
5. If let's say an Libertarian rebellion overthrows an Authoritarian Empire, the members of that species in your planet might demand that you restore the original government and if you do, the "liberated" empire owes you favors or vassalage

Generally, I think a lot could be done with species.

 

[Dsingis]

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

POPs and jobs in general? pretty important I'd say. I mean that hasn't changed since Stellaris 1.0, we had POPs and jobs then too, but the scale, presentation etc. changed a lot. As long as we keep POPs and jobs in general I'd be fine with whatever betterment you may envision the entire system. It's clear that the change from planetary tiles to the system now was a good one. Who knows what you'll cook up instead of the current system?

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

Change the entire military system for all I care. I don't like how combat and fleets work right now. The reason is that bigger is always better, logistics plays no role whatsoever, and alpha strike will forever be king. Back in 1.0 we had the issue of big doomstacks. That was changed a bit with fleet limits, but that doesn't prevent us from doomstacking different fleets. At the very least we should implement logistics. Star Trek Infinite had a logistics system for their warp-based travel. How a hyperlanes logistics system would work, I don't know, but I'm not a game designer

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The stuff we have currently. Things that enable certain mechanics, or make us play in a certain way. I don't like purely roleplay civics, like Memorialists, because they don't have much impact to the gameplay I feel. But of course Determined Exterminators is a completely different way of playing than a normal empire. More playstyles, with meaningful choices in terms of mechanics or behaviours etc. would be great. Also, more species unique traits. Not just for plants and rocks.

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

I set goals at the start of the game, and I rarely change them.

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

I'm not attached to that at all, if you have a better idea, go ahead.

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

Yes, colonization should be more limited. It should be a heavy investment for a continental species to inhabit a desert planet and make it worthwhile. We should also have more exclusive things. Like species that can only inhabit poison planets, frozen ones or barren ones and can only settle these specific ones. Terraforming is also too easy I think. In the end, every empire can inhabit every planet with no problems. That should not be the case I feel.

• 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 suppose I would remove the espionage system, because it doesn't have much impact anyways? Maybe the new leader system, because it becomes a bit annoying when dealing with a large empire with many leaders. Or at least make it easier to manage so many leaders, where you simply don't care about their traits.
A system I would make a central focus of an expansion is internal politics, warfare and kilostructures. Internal politics should be obvious, the current faction system could be completely overhauled. Warfare, as I outlined above, could change. Also more limited wars. Have small border skirmishes, not outright total war everytime. And more kilostructures, like the Dyson Swarm, but for more areas. Like a fortress kilostructure to fortify your border. Make a space maginot line Perhaps every megastructure could have its smaller kilostructure which can eventually be upgraded to the real deal, like the Dyson Swarm to Dyson Sphere.

 

[Faron235]

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

Honestly, I like the system from Victoria 3 better.

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

Hmm, I hardly use the fleet, I prefer a peaceful solution to the problem, so I can't say much on this topic

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origin and Ascension

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

My goals are always surveillance, stealth, and inciting conflict throughout the galaxy.

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

Trade has long been in need of overhaul, just like mega-corporations.

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

Colonization is more than ok, I don't think it needs any changes

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

Here I think I can name one Civics that belongs in Origin - Genesis Guides

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?

Trade and piracy, Ascension, so I think it should be the culmination of the technological and cultural progress of civilization, Espionage, I really hope to recycle it, as I really dream of playing an rp game for the shadows of Babylon 5

What do you want?

 

[RoAdd]

I am talking from both the perspective of a modder and player.

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

Pops to me feel as the lifeblood, offering both some figment of personality and liveliness on planets, if one were to investigate and look at them. The job system is versatile and unlike any other game i have played.

It might have some issues, especially in regards to growth system, which imho caused the introduction of the growth penalty, but didn't address the issue proper. Plus all it encouraged was to add more growth to systems (cough budding caught modularity)

Performance is an issue, not as much as in the past, but the system could be improved, especially by improving the tools for game designer and modders on pop effects. (a lot of lag generating effects are due to very niche traits and civics, that are checked on everyone even if not applicable, this happens due to lock of tools of implementing the more efficiently)

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

Can be burned to the ground and made anew. If anything even just reducing ships 10 fold would improve the system and make it more impactful. A ship should be something it feels like a loss. not a statistic. Scale becomes meaningless when you print ships.

Probably something like making ships 10 times as expensive, more resilient, have 10 times less naval capacity would improve stuff somewhat in feel without going to far from current system. Plus the performance benefit of it without any necessary drawback (did you people know every ship has its own upkeep calculations, even if ya have 100 of the same in the same fleet?). Reducing numbers 10 fold just reduces these calculations 10 fold. Unsure what impact on ai calculations would be tho.

3. What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origins and civics, and later Ascension paths and perks. Would love if some civics might become available when you go a specific ascension path. Psionic cabals, psi advertisements, cyber netrunner empires etc. Adding more available and hidden empire costumization past game start is good. Advanced governments were a thing in the right direction, but would need to be expanded massively to other paths, and to civics too.

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

I mostly play with a fantasy, and trying to play it while also optimizing it and trying to play optimally. Or trying to push a specific niche to its breaking point. Other times going full RP and trying to achieve a goal, like retreating into the l cluster and becoming a 'fallen empire' retreating into it. Stellaris is great that allows all this kinda playestyles.

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

Absolutely unimportant and could probably be thrown into the bin, when it matters. it is a chore, make a starbase here to collect, kill that annoying pirate. Not compelling or interesting.

Trade itself feels really weird, it swung from being a joke when Lem was released, to being op and back and forth. Never stabilized in a good place and always allows builds specifically built to abuse it to outshine nearly anything.

It also interacts really weirdly with branch offices, in the fact that that trade gets double dipped essentially , producing a shit ton of credits for both empires, the corp getting it out of thin air.

If anything would have been more compelling branch offices to potentially consume trade, to generate resources for both empires.

On this note... why is energy conflating both energy and currency, it makes little sense and removes nuance... could be a lot more interesting having money as a proper resource, and used for subsidies/policies etc, instead of energy.

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

Colonization is too easy, and habitability barely matters. The fact surveying with science ships gives you almost all information about a planet exacerbates the issue. The initial colonization phase probably should have like a pioneer stage, where you discover the planetary features etc. Orbital survey can only show so much, how do they even discover underground deposits etc. I could see technologies in aiding in this in late game, to speed up colonization at that point, but early game colonies are essentially, make colonizer, slap it on planet, build assembly...

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

Origins should potentially be split between planetary/situation origin, and cultural origin. It could allow a remnants empire with under one rule, emulating a destroyed empire reemerging from the ashes. Potentially have voidborn with mechanists, making robots for colonization where your people wouldn't dare thread.

A part of me... as a modder would like it return to pre origin times, when origins were just civics and you could do exactly all this. You just need to make some of these civics essentially in groups of mutually exclusive civics.

If the cost mechanism of civics was actually used, (civics can cost more than 1 point by default, just this is never used in vanilla) It could certainly allow more varied empires. Heck making empire creation with civics somewhat behave like species modification, with picks and points could work. Maybe detrimental civics could become a thing for both rp and optimization.

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

Factions... they are so bad for performance, for so little benefit. They should be simplified and optimized in how pops join them etc. And adjusting them for internal politics.

If anything current ethic based factions is very rigid... and boring with almost same demands every time.

Demands should probably be in a pool, factions thats spawn could pull from. Factions would be dynamic, changing their ethics and demands as your empire grows and evolves.

If you satisfied a demand, it should diminish in the future how much approval it gives, people forget etc. New demands would take its place etc.

Of course this could become tedious, if not done correctly, so take it with a grain of massive salt. But internal politics is needed. (And tbh somewhat expended to gestalts, since they are already shafted from so many game mechanics)

 

[OluapPlayer]

I really appreciate this dev post. It makes me eager to see what the Custodian team is working on.

Before I answer the questions posted, I'll clarify that I started playing the game shortly before The Machine Age came out (it was about 1 or 2 months before that), and I play Stellaris primarily for the roleplaying aspect without much care for optimization, because I don't play on difficulties higher than Ensign. This game is, in good part, what I wish Spore's Space Stage was like.

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

I feel no attachment to pops beyond their mechanical uses. They come off to me as simply numbers that must go up, and from my understand, they are one of the primary sources of endgame lag.

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

I'm honestly not the best person to answer this. I find the ship designer nightmarish to look at and I just stick to auto-best ships, since I see no reason not to do so. My strategy revolves around getting a higher number than the opponent and that works 9/10 times.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

This is where the roleplaying comes in. I enjoy coming up with empires and envisioning how they would perform as a spacefaring nation. I've made dozens upon dozens of custom empires which I have no intention of ever playing, made just for the fun of it and in the chance they spawn as NPCs while I'm playing as nations I actually intend to play with.

• 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 set long-term goals in my games. I'm not a min-maxer, so mY goals tend to be just getting a stable economy and working through the tech tree/military build-up as one would. In case something that requires my attention happens (like a genocidal showing up, a crisis, a leviathan, etc), then I change my focus to that.

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

Completely irrelevant. To me, all trade serves is to cause annoying pirate ships to spawn in the middle of my empire that force me to send a big fleet to delete it in 2 seconds and then make me re-build mining/research stations that were lost.

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

I don't have strong feelings on this, other than perhaps we could use more colonization events that make colonies more diverse in their flavor. I don't have any ideas to how it could be deepened.

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

No opinion. Other users have better words for this than me.

• 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 hate any system enough to want it removed, so no opinion on that.
Terraforming is extremely lackluster (press a button and wait for it to be done), and could easily receive tons of flavor and customization.
Fallen Empires, I'd love more interaction with them (see my signature for ideas on Scions hint hint), especially being given the chance to actually play as one without being a crisis, with all the benefits and drawbacks it entails.
I don't particularly care for internal politics, but I'm aware that it's a very highly wished feature by the community.
As for a central expansion focus: a galaxy editor and scenario maker. Let me create the galaxy from a template, populate it with exactly the empires I want, where I want. Let me specify exactly what personality they should have (this could be an empire creator option too), plus their relationships with one another if any - perhaps I'd like a game starting with two large rivaling federations already active. I'd love to hand-craft a galaxy to my own liking and see how it goes from there. You could even give us the option to share these scenarios in the Steam Workshop so players can share their galaxies with one another.

 

[Metallichydra]

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

The current system of individual pops and jobs isn't the worst system, in my opinion, but I wouldn't be opposed to a new system.

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

As for fleets, I think the current war and fleet system is kind of bad. Doomstacks in particular, and that most strategies boil down to whoever has the biggest fleet. But mostly that one big decisive battle is mostly all there is to war. I wouldn't be opposed to big decisive battles, so long as there is a decent amount of back and forth war before that.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Defining my civilizations, that one is hard for me to answer. One thing, though, is civics that alter gameplay a lot, mostly catalytic recyclers. Unfortunately the ability to reform governments so easily makes it hard to use civics to define ones empire when anyone can simply reform in and out of most civics every 10 years. I'd say too little of the customization you do before the game starts is lost too quickly.

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

The current trade system is very boring. I like the idea of trade routes, but when they only exist withing your own empire, that makes them kind of strange and frustrating, especially with how pirates are handled.

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

I'd say yes. Colonization is too easy

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

Currently some origins feel like they should be neither. Gateway is a prime example of this. No story, no benefits, no real change to the start of the game. Others feel like they should be able to be combined with others, yet they are not fit to be civics. For machines specifically it feels like I have one less civic due to having to pick either determined exterminator, driven assimilator or rogue servitor. Making them origins, however, would ruin them for me, and most likely most players.

• 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?

Not sure if it counts as a game system, but base intel.
In any case, intel and similar mechanics does not work with the current implementation.
In a similar vein, the ability to reach a detection strength of 10 without any way to decrease the detection strength of another empire or to get more than 10 cloaking makes cloaking essentially worthless the moment your enemy gets a detection strength or 10. Or if they get 100 intel, of which they can get 100 base intel. And there is nothing you can do to counteract this intel. Please just rework intel. Intel and Espionage expansion please.

 

[Ikarrus]

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

Not much since Megacorp. They're hidden away on the UI and species become more interchangable as the game progresses. As much as I would love to care about individual pops as much as I did pre-megacorp, the current mechanics do not support it.

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

Fleets and combat/war mechanics are the least of my concerns and is, IMO, one of the weaker aspects of stellaris. I would not care much if it had significant rework.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I think Stellaris does a very good job of this already. I suppose I wish our founder pops mattered more somehow as mid-late game everything tends to homogenize.

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

I have a narrative in mind when I first create an empire. I try to play to those goals, but I welcome anything disruptive that challenges me and forces me to make diversions towards that goal.

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

I try to think of it as little as possible because it's just not interesting beyond a small mindspace tax

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

Colonization being too easy feeds into a feeling I've had that there are too many habitable planets by default. Combined with how homogenized pops tend to feel later in the game.

• 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 want to care about pops more, and I have some nebulous feelings about wanting to define their culture more.... somehow. My current most disliked system is war and warscore (It's serviceable but we could do with something more flexible)

 

[Gibborim]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • I am not particularly attached to it, but any major change at this level carries some risk.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • I am not particularly attached to it, but any major change at this level carries some risk.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Civics and Origin
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Feels more inconvenient than important. Trade is generally not very rewarding unless you are a trade focused empire.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • I am not particularly attached to it, but any major change at this level carries some risk.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • Subterranean sticks out in particular.
  • Perhaps there should be an 'Origin' civic slot. I.e. a third civic slot that must be populated from a specific set of game-play altering civics like Sovereign Guardianship, Natural Design, Devouring Swarm, etc.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
  • I think being stuck with nodes instead of a council for Gestalts excludes them from too important of an aspect of the game. There should be origin/civic options that get them a council/destiny traits if the player wants. Progenitor Hive seems like an obvious one here.
• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
  • Obviously, Biological Asc needs an expansion that focuses on its revamp.
  • Beyond that, a greater diversity of Crisis, Precursors, Origins.
• Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  • I wish I could trust the planet automation at all.
  • I wish I could create planet and star base templates that the AI works towards.

 

[Anonim97]

What is Stellaris to you?​

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

I think you pretty much nailed it. I could see some GSG elements and Roleplay elements to be expanded, but I think it would require big work on them.

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

I think eXploration is sacred to me in that sense. Maybe I could see them changed via adding some clusters with no connections via hyperlanes and only Wormholes (similarly to L-Cluster), but I remember it being said multiple times that it is hard thing to do and it is really taxing on the computing (as seen by the existence of "disable L-cluster" option in Settings).

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?

I think they are great, but I think the system is a little too pop-centric and focused on expansion (planetside, rather than galactic-side here). As in there is no "Quality" vs "Quantity" here. You always want to fully develop your planet, build all the possible districts, use 100% of the planet, have planets be mono-thematic/specialized, have all the pops working jobs. To give the real life example (yeah, giving real life example to sci-fi game, lol) - due to automation multiple people were (and are) left jobless. However in Stellaris an automation (let's say higher output of Mining jobs) would result in Empire/Player building more mining districts, employing even more population in that industry.
Another example - if World Government™ decided to fill the Grand Canyon so there would be no canyon and only plains - the people would be rightfully angry, there would be protests and people would be less than happy. Now let's look at removing the Deep Sinkhole blocker in Stellaris. ...yeah.

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

I feel like if we were to even further decrease the size of fleets (both per-army and empire-wide), it would be better. Rather than having 20 Battleships being normal, having 6 of them should be normal.
I haven't played the Star Trek: Infinite, but I heard, there was a system where you needed to have Admiral and Soldiers pops from Space Academy (or something military related) and these were limiting in how many ships you can build, with bigger ships needing more Admirals (rarer) pop jobs. I think this sounded neat. Of course I am not sure how it worked in practice, because I haven't played it, but it sounded fun.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I guess Civics and Ethics from in-game. From out-of-game what I planned to roleplay.

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

My goal is usually to have fun roleplaying the empire I planned. Outside of that it is probably collecting as many Archeology Sites as I could.

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

I am going to be honest - I forget about Trade System, unless I have Pirates due to unpatrolled routes. And even then if I put Hangars on Starbases, I forget about it again. Outside of one specific Megacorp run, I think I never tinkered with it much.

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

YES!
Colonization is just "send colony ship there". The new events for first colonization are nice, but I think there could be more.
On top of that Habitability and Climate doesn't matter as long as it's above 30%. Sure, you get increased upkeep, but that's nothing.

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

To be answered, but outside of that I kinda wish planet-related origins (Life Seeded, Post-Apocalyptic) were separated from story-related origins.

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

Ground Combat.

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

Internal politics. And by that I mean:
- happiness and amenities rework; Right now you usually only need only one Theatre and your have enough Amenities for the next 50-100 in-game years. On top of that Slaves never get unhappy to the point of revolting and even the non-slave pops who have the lowest possible Living Standards still usually are in the 80% of happiness;
- Crime rework - similar deal to above. One precinct to keep your crime in 0%. On top of that having 0% crime feels very unrealistic. Crime should almost never reach below 5% outside of some specific builds (Hive Minds, Fanatical Egalitarian with Utopian Abundance, Idealistic Foundation etc etc or and super heavy police state [like 50% of pops being police]);
- ethic drift for the frontiers/outskirts of your empire. In theory it already exists in game, but I don't think I had even any changes due to it. Your capital and your newest non-conquered colony will feel the same and have same problems;
- speaking of which I don't think I have ever changed my empire ethics, outside of the one or two events. Why? There is little to no incentive to ever consider cganging ethics in the first place, it might as well be static;
- political parties. They exist. And that's all there is to them. I know wishing for Victoria 3 system in Stellaris is insane, because these are vastly different games with different systems, but I wish there were at least a little more similar. Maybe make it so that your empire policies depends on the Factions/Parties ruling your empire? For example empire with Pacificstic ruler will have Civilian Economy or not be allowed to change into Militarized Economy. Similar thing the other way around. Also maybe a popularity boost for the newly created Factions? Having all your pops be in the Materialistic party for the 300+ years is... Weird. Sure, they are popular, but I would guess people would want change by then.
- in the past non-core sectors were managed by AI and gave reduced resources to your empire. And while it was frustrating to majority of the players and because of it scrapped, but I think there could be still something salvaged from there. Maybe not giving back them to AI, but the reduced income based on the "local empire sprawl" (something like empire wide, but per planet, rising the further the planet is from capital and being reduced by Bureaucratic buildings)? I am just spitballing here, but I think it would be neat. Rulling a galaxy wide empire should have challenges to it, right?

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

Most people would say Espionage and they are right (also "called it, lol"). But I want to shed the light on one more system that was expanded in the past, but it still could work - First Contact with pre-FTL species.