Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[Thiend]

Prepare yourself.

The pop system; there must be pops. They are currently largely NOT tracked individually, and this has broken a number of systems that were functional under the tile system; specifically, slavery, resettlement, and faction management. I would say any less than current is a downgrade, although it's possible that improvements to the current system would fix the problems listed above so more isn't necessarily required either.

I absolutely must be customizing my ships, my ships must individually exist and combat must actually physically take place, but besides that there's very little about fleets OR warfare that I wouldn't be okay with changing, presuming the replacement was good of course.

My civilization is chiefly defined by: does my origin/do my civics significantly change my gameplay, and given that what are my gameplans - sometimes I intend to conquer the galaxy, sometimes I just want to develop my empire and see what happens elsewhere until something like a crisis prompts me to action. Sometimes my plans are ironclad even if there's something like a Devouring Swarm nearby, sometimes as little as "my neighbor voted for a galcom resolution that is ruining my day" provokes me to immediately declare a war. It largely depends on just what kind of game I'm in the mood for.

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?

The answer to all of these questions except maybe that I would make it a central expansion feature is the current growth/district system.

I consider it to be an attempted replacement of the tile system that hasn't gotten enough polish to actually be an improvement over it yet. It made growth uncapped so that resettling one pop from each of 24 planets doesn't make 25 pops grow in one round to fill up a size 25 planet, and... that's the main improvement. The growth caps introduced for performance have meant that growth is hard to understand, easy to manipulate once you DO understand it to do things I think make it even worse, and effectively still capped like the tile system was for general gameplay. Meanwhile, it has also meant that systems like faction and slavery management are effectively just gone. There are some losses I miss from the tile system (in practice and in what could be, like planets with multiple habitability types) but the real impediment to the current district system is that growth is currently unable to operate on the scale demanded by it.

Origins and civics:
1. Should be origins: Rogue Servitors, Oppressive Autocracy, Storm Devotion, Sovereign Guardianship.
2. Should be civics: Subterranean.
3. Changes to both: some origins should have unique civics available to further customize how you play. For example, Void Dwellers and Shattered Ring should have a shared 'Artificial Environment' civic outright preventing growth on natural planets but granting improvements to artificial ones to boost their ability to play on ONLY their starting style of planet. There could be more for things like Clone Army (difficult access to more clone vats, pops must assimilate to being clones and gain the clone soldier trait or be purged) or Progenitor Hive (leaders gain destiny traits and your hive nodes are replaced by a council, leader xp trickle rate is reduced).
4. Changes to an origin: the Eternal Throne and Azilash should be locked to only Riftworld. Riftworld lacks anything truly unique about it in function and lifespan mechanics are made far worse by being able to make your leaders all immortal suddenly, including and especially Overtuned, Eternal Machines, and lifespan boosting traits generally.

Also, some origins should be compatible with each other. Shattered Ring Knights of the Toxic God would be a massive thematic match, although on a lower scale there's also stuff like how to use Fauna/Storms (storms improvement info when BTW) fully you really need their associated origin which is really lame when you then would also like to be a Clone Army, Knights of the Toxic God etc. It would also help lower power origins like Syncretic Evolution, which is just Worse Necrophage, to really see use - if origins either used a point system or were just directly set to be compatible with some other origins, Syncretic Evolution could be compatible with more/cost fewer points than Necrophage, giving me a reason to ever really use it.

Oh, and finally, I guess I actually DO have one feature (or two really) that I'd like to see as the focus of an entire expansion. Genetic and Psionic Ascension. Still waiting for news about that too (alongside Cosmic Storms updates/fixes), perhaps it is in that first 2025 DLC.

 

[Merch991]

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

For me, the current implementation is somewhat ok but I would like pops to be, in some cases, more of a problem for political and social stability of the empire. Currently, pops are too easy to please and align with governing ethics, which doesn't make any sense.

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

I would want to see a drastic reduction in ships numbers, paired with drastic rebalance to existing economic powercreep (looking at you, Machine Age). Less, more valuable ships. Resolve doomstack and combat balance issues. No matter how much significant will be those changes.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Civics and Origins. They should both be far more impactful than they are now. Expecially regarding Origins, you should feel their effects throughout the entire game.

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

Trade and trade route system should be much more present in the game. Empire-to-empire routes, other resources which use that system, piracy rework etc etc...

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

Absolutely yes! Currently, it's far too easy colonizing planets. Too many habitability techs make that a non-issue while habitability is THE primary concern of a spacefaring civilization. A simple idea to start making habitability matter more is having districts or jobs to reduce it. This should also help in characterizing planets more (for example, a Gaia world can always have 100% habitability while an Ecumenopolis, which starts from 100 could rapidly decline it because of many heavy industries....)

• 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?

Obviously, internal politics rework would be my ideal focus. As for underwhelming systems, the first which come to my mind (after factions) is certainly espionage. I've said many times but the way this mechanic has been "worked" is simply ridiculous. While many of us were asking for a complete rework/rebalance the only thing which came to light was the introduction of an influence cost (oh my god, that color affinity justification... What a nonsense).
Espionage deserves a proper rebalance and a proper role in this game. If you fear those who don't want it, then simply add an option to disable it partially or entirely.

 

[Durbs12]

Begging for two fleet management QoL features that I waste a lot of time on. I'd love a button to automatically fold a fleet's ships out of the current fleet and into their correct spaces in my other local fleets in the same orbit (anything leftover stays with the current fleet). Every time I upgrade my fleet command limit and don't want to make more ships via reinforce I have to transfer ships out of a lesser fleet one-at-a-time then do a ton of merging. That also involves checking them against their proper numbers I set in the fleet menu. Very tedious.

In a very similar vein, would love a button like the reverse of reinforce that kicks out stuff above your designated ship numbers in a fleet (ie, kick out 2 cruisers if you're at 4/2).

 

[henners_]

I honestly only ever bother with trade until my empire hits a major energy deficit, and I remember trade is a thing. That's when I start to build up my starbases at my empire sector capitals, fill them up with the trade buildings to maximize the trade reach in that sector and then carry on with my game once the energy deficit fixes itself. Don't even get me started on corvettes suppressing piracy, I'm not about to rant, I really just don't start with the whole piracy system.
Trade and Espionage are the two features in this game that could mysteriously bug out of the game and I wouldn't notice it at all.

The most "scared" thing to me is the early game exploration. I always like to play wide, trying to grab every possible choke-point system in a thin line, then eventually explore all the stars I cut off for myself. When Eager Explorers was added, that completely changed how I play Stellaris irrevocably. As in if there is no equivalent to Eager Explorers in the inevitable Stellaris 2, I would wait until it was added before I would buy the game.

"Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?" Ground combat does feel like something that could do with an overhaul in terms of current implementation, at least because it's a "one size fits all" approach. You know different planet climates would have different rules for ground combat. You say Stellaris is open to all scifi tropes, then compare how ground combat works in Dune on a harsh desert planer compared to something like an ocean world.

 

[BritoDiniz]

I don't know if here is the right place to ask, but does the Stellaris team have plans on expansions to which areas and fantasies?

For example, planets. There are many things you guys could do relating to the fantasies around planets and what we do with, from tidaly locked planets that go beyond just a modifier, new "biomes" for planets, an expansion to living planets, fleet based civilization with arks, special planet related projects with cool effects like interconected planets(like two planets that orbit one another, that can be colonized and later be united into one big "planet"), arcologies(basicaly a response to the typical ecumenopolis), shared borders/planets(imagine two civilizations sharring space, one with surface cities, and another with underground cities), expansions to the unhabitable planets with advanced posts and unique unhabitable and so on. There is enough to do an entire expansion pass around them. Are any of those concepts in your minds? Or is another? Maybe expansions to ascensions? Battle systems? Government types? Ethics? Effects of the destruction of empires, your and others? Ethereal species?

Also, if there is nothing right now, what are some of the things the staff wants to do in the future?

 

[Skyfire2275]

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

Not critically important. Though I do enjoy moving pops around as an authoritarian... for... evil reasons. It does give a personal touch for that!

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

Drastically reducing the number of ships would have no effect. But I do like the idea of having individual ships for flavour.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Species, homeworld, galactic neighbourhood, origin, ethics. And to a lesser degree authority, civics, colours, art style.

• 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 set goals at the beginning and make only minor adjustments along the way. I rarely make big changes.

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

I would not miss it if it was gone and replaced with something better. The concept of trade seems important, but the current implementation is more annoying than interesting. Piracy feels too common and too micro-manage-y. Trade routes automatically re-routing themselves is also very annoying.

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

Yes, especially as the game progresses. Planets need more modifiers relating to gravity, climate, and new ones for atmosphere. Make each planet feel more unique with its own challenges. Colonization events should more or less be guaranteed (unless the planet is special in some other way)

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

A lot of the permanent civics should be looked at for conversion to origins. Maybe not all, but certainly that would be a good place to start.

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

Remove: trade routes (but replaced with something else)
Focus of expansion: genetic ascension and modification. The ascension path is weak, and feels bad since the pops don't push back enough. And modification projects just feel hollow. Managing all the modified pops is also a nightmare.
Want to enjoy: Little things that feel like they need just a bit more interaction. Like the artisan enclave stealing from you. I want to go destroy them and have them know and beg for mercy and forgiveness. I want VLUUR to have some special events, I want Ubume's baby to have more attached to it. I feel like these little things would benefit from a bit more narrative. (similar to how the Dathnak got expanded a few times)

 

[LayZboy]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you 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?
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
• 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?

In order:

. They don't really matter mostly. There's nothing that indiviual pops do that can't be fufilled by just representing them as a number. All of the things you actually notice are usually done by leaders anyway. The only time you notice pops is when you get that genetic event from poor hability.

. Whilst the composition of fleets doesn't matter that much, I do think you'd lose alot if you couldn't move them around a star system. Like ordering science ships to skirt around wild-life or a marauder system. Or having you fleet sit right at a hyperlane exit to catch invaders.

. It's obviously the civics, ethics and acension perks that are most defining. They often dictate the way you play and allow you to roleplay alot easier.

. The only goal I usually set myself is building megastructures.

. I mostly play machines so that mechanic doesn't exist for me. When I do play bio empires I often forget it's even there. The only time I really care is if I get a megacorp vassal.

. Yes colonization is too easy. It would be neat if you had to explore your planets to discover what distrcits it even has. You could throw many events into this during the planet explore phase to keep it engaging (and give modders even more places to expand content) and give oppertunitys to shape the planet further. Man-made things like habs and player built ringworlds should not be included in this however. Only issue is that the AI probably can't handle a system like this.

. I can't think of any right now.

. The EXP system for combat ships is pretty hidden and imo, pointless. You could straight up remove this and I doubt people would even notice.

. A focus for an expansion I want is internal strife. It is far too easy to make a happy empire even if you just absorbed another empire via conquest. It should cause alot of problems when you annex another empire forcefully.

 

[Danny5072]

What area I would like to see more attention to: planetary automation and starbase automation at large. By "automation" I mean tools like EU4 macrobuilder, or templates, which would allow either to set manual instructions for the planet quick and easy (such that you set it up once and never have to open planet view again - basically a modular and customizable version of current planet automation), or at least with few clicks build in bulk across your empire. Starbases need this too, I have a few standard 'shipyard' or 'anchorage' templates which haven't changed in years, would be convenient to create them in some sort of designer and then apply to a starport in one click (which would then automatically rebuild, build and upgrade stuff to match the template).

For that purpose - addressing your first question - planetary management needs to be simplified. The system of individual 'pops' outlived its utility and is a fundamentally unfixable performance burden (imagine if every development point in EU4 was its own object in code to which calculations are applied constantly at specific game ticks, or every factory in HOI4). In a perfect world I would love to see that completely gone, and the population size abstracted away into a flavor statistic, with the planets' productivity no longer dependent on individual pops doing individual jobs. In addition, a system of disctricts+buildings is cool RP-wise but has gotten bloated with so many civics/events/etc. now having their own unique buildings. The issue is not even the presence of these buildings but the inconvenience caused by the system apparently being sandboxy but the actual gameplay needs often dictating what you need to place (for instance, as a bio empire, you want a gene clinic on every planet, so why not have a specific building slot reserved just for 'pop growth' buildings, and make clone vats an upgrade to clinics). In other words, the player freedom in using up the building slots is really unnecessary.

If I may I will direct you to Polaris Sector (2016) for reference, it is a game overall vastly inferior to Stellaris, but it has very convenient planetary management where (upon acquiring a planet) you set the specialization and the AI just autofills the planet according to it, and there isn't really a point in microing this even if you are an 'advanced' player - there are so few building types (basically each for every produceable resource and that's it) that even AI can't mess this up. Obviously such barebones system wouldn't work in Stellaris but I think it's a possible source of inspiration of how particular aspects can be simplified.

The aim of simplifying planet management: a) the aesthetic satisfaction of empire gardening (to have each planet type, e.g. mining planets, be filled out in a very particular unified manner, with buildings appearing in the planet view in the same order everywhere), b) it will cut down on player time spent microing that.

 

[drawar]

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

I think population should be a statistic.
Pops could still exist, but it would have a population value.
Population growth should be more "real" depending on a "birth/death" ratio and population fertility of the empire.

Currently, with some exceptions, to increase your population growth, you need to colonize more world, because population growth is mostly per world and not per population.

We should be able to rely heavily on cloning (and assembly for robots) to grow our population.
Obviously, clones, especially at the beginning, could have disadvantages that are reduced with new technologies/traditions and especially with genetic ascension.

Obviously having a large population would have its disadvantage, more pop = more resources consumed (ideally, we would also have to review the crime system), housing...

Populations do not directly occupy jobs, but generate a "labor force".

The labor force generated obviously depends on the number of the population, but also on its efficiency.
A smaller population could produce as much, or even more, labor force than a larger population.

The efficiency of pops would depend on its basic traits. If the labor force is separated by jobs, efficiency can be separated by jobs. For example, with the trait "Intelligent", a pop will have a greater efficiency for scientist jobs.

Also, efficiency could be increased by technologies, traditions... But also by certain buildings that would increase the consumption of certain resources.

For example, improving research laboratories would not consume exotic gas.
But we could modify Research Institute to make it unique per planet which would increase the consumption of exotic gas according to the number of scientific jobs and which would increase the efficiency of pops for scientific jobs, thus being able to fill as many researcher jobs with less population.

Virtual ascension could be the extreme case of a small population, but with very high efficiency.

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

Personally I think the combat system should be a simulation, removing the ground combat and turning the worlds into sort of starbases for combat.
Space combat revamp : "simulated fight"

Currently, space combat takes place in real space, which sometimes causes problematic situations, also since we do not have control over the ships, it does not bring anything, there is no micromanagement , ship management, order to give, abilities to activate... Also as the game progresses, it can quickly make a lot of ships to simulate.

Afterwards, I don't know much about it, so I don't know if it can really improve performance, but I imagine it can, but that's not the main purpose of this idea.

In short, like in EU or CK, the fights will be simulated off the map.
But each fleet will be represented by ships (admittedly, a reduced number), so on the main map, there will always be a "dummy" combat which simulates a space combat.

Battlefield
The battlefield will be divided into levels (rank), 1, 2, 3 and 4, on each side.

The ships of each camp will position themselves in a level, according to the role of their computer system:
- 1: Swarm, Picket
- 2: Line, Platform, Starbase
- 3: Artillery
- 4: Carrier, Colossus

Each level has a limited place. Mainly dependent on fleet command capacity.
Each ship takes a number of slots corresponding to its size (command point), so a Battleship takes the place of 8 Corvettes.
Also, each side has an overall capacity for the battlefield, for example, if each level has 20 slots and the overall capacity is 60, the side does not occupy more than 60 slots and not 80.

Starbases and defense platforms have free slots so, at equal power, the owner of a starbase can potentially use greater firepower.
Maybe the Juggernaut and Star-Eater could have a free slot.
The Colossus has one free slot.

At the start of a fight, each ship is assigned a level according to the role of its computer system. If a level is filled, the surplus ships are put in reserve.
Once the first deployment is done, if there are still usable slots left, a second deployment is performed, the system tries to bring the ship closer to its desired level. For example, a battleship (Artillery) will be deployed in priority at level 2 or 4 (if 3 is full).
However, each time a ship is deployed outside of its desired level, it suffers penalties. The greater the distance, the greater the penalties.
A Battleship (Artillery) at level 1 will have a greater penalty than a Battleship (Artillery) at level 2 or 4.

The penalties would mainly be a decrease in the chance to hit and tracking.

The ships in reserve do not participate in combat, but if slots become available, ships in reserve will be deployed to the battlefield.
Also a ship with an undesired level can reposition itself at the desired level, if a slot becomes available.


Range of weapons :
Each weapon still has a range, but the operation is modified and simplified.

S and P weapons can target level 1.
M weapons can target level 1↓ and 2.
L weapons can target level 1↓↓, 2↓ and 3.
X and T weapons can target level 1↓↓↓, 2↓↓, 3↓ and 4.
G and H weapons can target level 1, 2, 3 and 4.

The “↓” indicate a hit chance and/or tracking penalty. Greater penalty with the number of "↓".
An “Artillery” Battleship will therefore have more difficulty hitting a ship at level 1, worse if the Battleship is badly positioned. Obviously, it always depends on the dodge ability of the target.
So an enemy battleship at level 1 will be easier to hit than a corvette for example.

Also an empty level between two camps does not count.

For example, if level 1 is empty, S weapons can target level 2. If level 2 is also empty, they can target level 3...
If the 3 and 1 are occupied, but the 2 is empty, M weapons cannot target the 3, only the 1.
If the 3 and 2 are occupied, but the 1 is empty, M weapons can target level 2 and 3.

G and H Weapons can traverse a level, but each time they traverse a level, P Weapons can target them for the duration of the traverse. For interception of G and H weapons, the range of P weapons is limited to their level.



Animation :
In the combat window, the ships are “static” in their locations, but you can see the attacks between the ships, as well as the G and H weapons. Obviously, when a ship is destroyed, there is an explosion.

Why?
The simplest answer is that I'm crazy.

Afterwards, more seriously, I find the current system not very interesting and cumbersome, and useless, because it does not use the possibilities of being represented on the real map to allow "micro-management", well, or just minimal management... Since the only thing we can do is retreat... And even if the ships are 3D, the fights are 2D with completely mobile turrets and simply on the "roof" of ship.

Also we can also abuse fights close to the outer limits which will be out of reach of the starbase and etc.

I think it could also be interesting to allow different fleet compositions. Single-type fleets are likely to cause problems.
For example, if you only have Battleships (X and L, Artillery), you will inevitably have badly positioned Battleships and you will also have difficulty aiming well at level 1 and 2, which could be problematic, if the enemy has ships positioned there.

Afterwards, this system could also be adapted for land combat, if we add various types of army.

Complement : Doomstack Mitigation Discussion -- hard cap vs. soft cap

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The most important aspect that is missing is culture.
Pops can be mixed and integrated without any problem, even pops coming from a Fanatic Purifiers empire.
Ultimately, the pops don't really have an identity, you just have to accumulate as many pops as possible.

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

A big problem for me, are there goals in Stellaris? For me, the games always come back to the same thing.
There are not really different ways to play. We are not in a "Civilization" with different paths to victory.

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

With a real "logistics" network, it could be relevant, but here, it's just boring.
Currently, resources are "teleported" throughout the empire without the possibility of having isolated worlds.

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

I would like to have a very significant change to really have different planets.
New habitability system

The habitability system should be based on a series of planetary characteristics rather than planetary mono-biomes.

Example :
- Atmosphere
- Atmosphere class
- Humidity
- Temperature
- Lithosphere
- Nature

Atmosphere and atmosphere class :
The atmosphere is the most important feature. It determines whether a living being can live there without having to wear a mask at all times to breathe, or even a suit to protect the toxic element.
Atmosphere example : oxygen, methane, ammonia, sulfur, chlorine and phosphorus (inspiration), and special Ecumenopolis and Habitat

The system would remain simple without going into details of percentages for such and such gas.
That is why there would be a class system for the atmosphere represented by a letter : A, B, C, D or E, and special T (Tomb world), R (Relique), G (Gaia). H (Hive), W (Ring World)

Humidity :
Humidity would be represented by a number ranging from 1 to 5 (very dry to very wet)

Temperature :
The temperature would be a value in kelvin degree representing the average temperature of the planet. This can be very variable, each type of atmosphere has a possible temperature range.

Lithosphere :
This characteristic represents the tectonic activity of the planet. A very intense activity (earthquake, volcano) can harm the development of the planet and have devastating events, but it's planet can also some riches. For example, more ore deposits and energy sources (geothermal).
The lithosphere would be characterized by: inactive, weak, medium, agitated or unstable.

Nature :
Nature is a characteristic that determines the dangerousness of life on the planet: peaceful, docile, calm, hostile or deadly.

* Having thought about it again since, we could even add the Magnetosphere: no, weak, medium, high and very high. The robots would also be affected by the magnetosphere, perhaps more than the biological ones, the computer systems having to be better protected against the electromagnetic disturbances when the magnetic field is weak.

Habitability :
The habitability system becomes a system of inhabitability.
Each feature can earn points of inhabitability :
- Different atmosphere +200
- Atmosphere identical, but different class: +20 per gap (example D: +20% for E and C and +40% for A and B), T +100, R +50, G/H/W +0
- +10 for each difference in humidity level (to have a humidity in the extremes will harm the general habitability, but it is planet can have interesting characteristics compared to temperate planet.)
- Temperature : +2 for each different Kelvin degree (maximum +40)
- Lithosphere : inactive (no effect), weak (+5), medium (+10), agitated (+20) or unstable (+40)
- Nature : peaceful (no effect), docile (+5), calm (+10), hostile (+20) or deadly (+40)

100 inhabitability =
- Housing need +100%
- Amenities need +150%
- Upkeep +150%
- Pop Growth Speed -50%
- Immigration -50%
- Resettlement cost +200%
- Colony development speed -200%
- Colonization cost +200%
Inhabitability has no maximum and can exceed 100 points.
Robots are only affected by lithosphere and nature.

Increase habitability, terraformation and others :
Certain traits, technology, civics or decisions can mitigate the negative effect of a global character. For example, the strong genetic trait diminishes the impact of a hostile nature.
It is also possible to modify planetary characteristics of special projects. However, changing a planetary characteristics can change planetary features.
For example, decreasing the activity of the lithosphere can remove volcanoes/geothermal, thus decreasing the number of generator district .

Technology :
- Atmospheric Filtering : -50% for the impact of the atmosphere on inhabitability.
- Hostile Environment Adaptation : -50% for the impact of the lithosphere and nature on inhabitability.
- Foreign Soil Enrichment Thermocloth (the creation of advanced thermal regulation cloth will help our settlers adapt to new worlds) : reduced to 1 the effect of each degree kelvin and reduces the maximum penalty to 20
- Eco-Integration Studies : reduced the penalties due to the inhabitability of 10%.

Terraformation :
Changing the type of lithosphere or nature requires a ascension perks : Mastery of Nature.
Changing the type of atmosphere, temperature and humidity requires a ascension perks : World Shaper.

Ascension perks Arcology Project requires : Mastery of Nature, World Shaper and Master Builders
Ascension perks Gaia world (new) requires : Mastery of Nature, World Shaper and Transcendence
Ascension perks Hive Worlds requires : Mastery of Nature, World Shaper and Evolutionary Mastery
Ascension perks Machine Worlds Project requires : Mastery of Nature, Master Builders and Synthetic Age.
These four Ascension perks are mutually exclusive.

Habitat and Ecumenopolis :
Habitat and Ecumenopolis do not have a defined atmosphere, so they are perfect for all species.
But, each consumes more housing and amenities!
This represents the need for machines to meet the specific need of each species and also allow them to live together.

Ring World, Gaia and Hive world :
These “planets” no longer have perfect habitability for all species. They have a specific atmosphere and a special atmosphere class.
The inhabitability value of these planets depends only on the atmosphere.

They are therefore perfect for all species with the same atmosphere preference.

Also, the inhabitability penalties are reduced by 50%. They can therefore also be potentially interesting for other species with a different atmosphere preference, especially for the most adaptable species.
But these planets will no longer be perfect paradises for everyone. This distinguishes them from Habitats and Ecumenopolis.

Each section of a Ring World can have a different atmosphere.

Adaptation :
The Engineered Evolution is necessary to modify the atmosphere class preference.
The Evolutionary Mastery is necessary to modify the atmosphere preference (oxygen, ammonia and etc.).
Synthetics are only affected by lithospheres and nature.

We could even add more extreme classes and allow the colonization of lava worlds...
Obviously, this also requires a redesign of the population, otherwise, it just becomes easy to colonize everything to take advantage of the additional population growth.

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

Origins: societal, "planetary" and diplomatic

Instead of choosing an origin, it might be interesting to be able to choose one for three central aspects of its empire: its type of society, its mother "planet" and its diplomatic positioning at the beginning.

Some civics that cannot be added and removed will become origins.

Societal origin :
- Prosperous Unification
- Mechanist
- Syncretic Evolution
- Tree of Life
- Necrophage
- Rogue Servitor
- Driven Assimilator
- Clone Army
- Anglers

Planetary origin :
- "Classic" : Homeworld have 25 district
- Resource Consolidation
- Life-Seeded
- Post-Apocalyptic
- Remnants
- Doomsday
- Shattered Ring
- Void Dwellers
- Calamitous Birth
- Hive world
- Ocean Paradise
- Idyllic Bloom

Diplomatic origins :
- Infinite frontier : Removes the influence cost for building a starbase whose star system is located in the capital sector.
- Galactic Doorstep : uncertain positioning
- On the Shoulders of Giants : uncertain positioning
- Lost Colony
- Common Ground
- Hegemon
- Scion
- Inward Perfection : accessible to hive and machine empires, with adaptation, with some exceptions.
- Fanatic Purifiers
- Criminal Heritage
- Devouring Swarm
- Terravore
- Determined Exterminator
- Fanatic Protector : Rogue servitor seeing all other empires as a threat to its creators (starting biotrophy), a threat that must be destroyed.
- Pre-colonization : Starts without "Hyperspace Travel" technology, this technology will not be available in the list of searchable starting technologies. Has two vassals, each with a colonized planet in a non-bordering star system. Impossible to interact and exchange resources with his vassals without “Hyperspace Travel” technology
- Here Be Dragons
- Barbaric Despoilers



Obviously, that would have to be improved over time, but it could allow interesting combinations of fairly varied starting situations.

Other example :

Making categories makes it possible to group together several origins which are mutually exclusive. This can be a way to pre-filter origins and make exclusions more easily visible.

By adding as I said a Joker category, we could offer more freedom while remaining relatively clear.

It could give this:

Societal origins :
- Prosperous Unification
- Mechanist
- Syncretic Evolution
- Tree of Life
- Necrophage
- Rogue Servitor
- Driven Assimilator
- Clone Army

Planetary origins :
- "Classic" : Homeworld have 25 district
- Resource Consolidation
- Life-Seeded
- Post-Apocalyptic
- Remnants
- Shattered Ring
- Void Dwellers
- Hive world
- Ocean Paradise
- Idyllic Bloom

Diplomatic origins :
- Infinite frontier : Removes the influence cost for building a starbase whose star system is located in the capital sector.
- Lost Colony
- Common Ground
- Hegemon
- Scion
- Inward Perfection : accessible to hive and machine empires, with adaptation, with some exceptions.
- Fanatic Purifiers
- Devouring Swarm
- Terravore
- Determined Exterminator
- Fanatic Protector : Rogue servitor seeing all other empires as a threat to its creators (starting biotrophy), a threat that must be destroyed.
- Pre-colonization : Starts without "Hyperspace Travel" technology, this technology will not be available in the list of searchable starting technologies. Has two vassals, each with a colonized planet in a non-bordering star system. Impossible to interact and exchange resources with his vassals without “Hyperspace Travel” technology

Joker origins :
- Anglers
- Here Be Dragons
- Criminal Heritage
- Galactic Doorstep
- On the Shoulders of Giants
- Barbaric Despoilers
- Doomsday
- Calamitous Birth

You can take several joker origins, but for each joker origin you have to sacrifice a societal/planetary/diplomatic origin.

Without completely revising the original system, I think that a civic should be something that can be modified.
A permanent civic should not exist, I find that it limits too much
Afterwards, it is certain that it is too easy and instantaneous to change civic.

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

If I had to remove one thing, it would be the creation of "League of Non-Aligned Powers", it can completely destroy the geopolitics of the galaxy during and after the War in Heaven. Especially since it duplicates with Galactic community


The other most important thing would be to remove as many arbitrary limits as possible.
And also to give the impression of gigantism.
For example, megastructures are actually pretty unimpressive and pretty easy to make as long as you have an average economy and not too much warfare. You can easily mass build them.

Abstract logistics system for spatial structures and spatial developments

The idea is that all spatial structures (we could also include planets and related things, but I'm not doing that here, but that could also be interesting) consume a logistic capacity.
This logistical capacity acts as a soft limit for spatial structures and is also a more impactful cost than energy which can be easily 'infinite'.

Logistic capacity is mainly produced by logisticians.
Logisticians are produced by capital buildings and warehouses.

The logistician jobs also increase empire size.
The systems no longer increase empire size.
*If planets consume logistic capacity, planets might still increase empire size or not, districts would not increase empire size, but would consume logistic capacity.


Logistician :
- Upkeep : -1 Consumer Good, -1 Alloy (-2 Alloy for Machine, -1 Alloy and -2 food for Hive), +5 Empire Size
- Produces : +5 Logistics capacity

Reassembled Ship Shelter : +0 Logistician
Planetary Administration, Resort Administration, Governor's Palace : +1 Logistician
Planetary Capital, Resort Capital-Complex, Governor's Estates : +2 Logisticians
System Capital-Complex : +3 Logisticians
Imperial Palace : +4 Logisticians

Habitat Administration : +1 Logistician
Habitat Central Control : +2 Logisticians

Hive Core : +1 Logistician
Hive Nexus : +2 Logisticians
Imperial Complex : +3 Logisticians

Deployment Post : +1 Logistician
Administrative Array : +2 Logisticians
Planetary Processor : +3 Logisticians
Primary Nexus : +4 Logisticians
Imperial Center : +5 Logisticians

Small warehouse : +2 Logistician
Warehouse (-1 Rare Crystal) : +4 Logistician
Big warehouse (-2 Rare Crystal) : +6 Logistician

Hive Mind :
Hive empires might have a harder time producing logistics capacity, but they would also consume less logistics capacity.

Machine Intelligence
Machine empires might have an easier time producing logistics capacity, but they would also consume more logistics capacity.

Corporate or civic Merchant Guilds :
Logistician : -1 Logistic capacity, -1 Empire Size, +2 Trade Value
Merchant : +2 Logistics capacity


Stations :
Each station (mining, research and observation) would consume base 1 logistics capacity.

It is therefore not necessarily interesting to build, especially at the beginning, as many stations as possible.
Building a station becomes more of a choice than an automatism.
More stations = more logisticians needed, so more pops and buildings slots not available for other tasks.

However, the stations would be more useful and productive than now.
Each mining and research station could increase in size depending on the importance of deposits exploited.

For example, if the base mineral deposit is 3. The mining station can be enlarged 2 times.
The station therefore becomes more productive, but with a secondary cost.
Each level of expansion of the station increases its consumption of logistics by 10%, 20% or 25% (I don't know).
So the station consumes more logistics, but less than if we build a new mining station. It may therefore be more interesting to first build your stations on the larger deposits.

In addition each station can be leveled up. The level limit is mainly increased by technology.
Each additional level increases the station's productivity and increases its logistics consumption by 1.

Mining Station: +1 level max, Zero-G Refineries, Long-Range Mineral Scanners, Mineral Cutting Beams, Autonomous Mining Drones and Nanite Mineral Probes
Research station : +1 level max, Zero-G Laboratories, Miniature Containment Fields, Quantum Probes, Autonomous Station Protocols and Multi-Dimensional Analysis
So with these technologies, these stations can reach level 6 and consume 6 logistics capacity, more if these stations have been enlarged.
The stations can therefore be a very interesting source of resources and research, but more logistics capacity must be devoted to them.

Civic Mining Guilds :
- -20% logistics capacity cost for station
- +1 Minerals from Miners

Civic Private Prospectors:
-33% logistics capacity cost for station


Starbase :
Starbases have no fixed limits.
They consume instead of the logistics capacity according to its level:
- Outpost : 1
- Starport : 5
- Starhold : 25
- Star Fortress : 50
- Citadel : 100

Before you panic over the numbers, there are several ways to reduce these costs!
- Adopting the Unyielding tradition tree : -33% logistic cost for starbase in a colonized system
- Fortress Doctrine from Unyielding tradition tree : -5% logistical cost for starbase per weapon modules
- Stellar Expansion technology : -10% logistic cost for starbase
- Manifest Destiny technology : -10% logistic cost for starbase
- Fortify the Border edict : the starbase adjacent to a rival empire or considering us a rival does not count towards the starbase number logistics penalty
- Trading Posts civic : -5% logistical cost for starbase per Trade Hub modules
- Grasp the Void ascension perk : -20% logistics cost for the number of starbases
- Covenant: End of the Cycle : I do not know.
- Interstellar Expansion repeatable technology : -5% logistics cost for the number of starbases (25% max)
- Strategic Coordination Center : -10% logistics cost for starbases per level (30% max)

However, in addition to the logistics cost for each starbase according to its level, there is also a logistics cost depending on the number of starbases, the more starbases there are, the more complex the network becomes, the more the logistics cost increases.
It can therefore be interesting to improve your starbases instead of building new ones.

Cost for number starbase = (number starbase-3)*number starbase^0.5
Minimum 0
The first three starbases do not generate a penalty, but each additional starbase increases the penalty which increases faster and faster.
Obviously, for the formula, it's the general idea, it could be different.
For example, one could add either via the number of systems possessed (like now) or via another means of the "free" starbases which does not count the number of starbases, thus increasing the -3 value.


Resource collection :
An important, very important change is that resources from a station or planet are only collected if they are within range of a starbase.
A planet can only use resources if it is within range of a starbase (to see, if we add a planetary stock to the planet, so that isolated planets could be autonomous, during colonization, the planet would start to have a reserve of resource, taken during the construction of the ship).

The gestalt empires would have the equivalent of the Trade Hub.

Naval capacity :
The Anchorages modules of Starbase would be the primary means of increasing naval capacity.
The Anchorages are used to "deliver" logistics to military fleets.
There is therefore no "military or civilian logistics".
Each Anchorage consumes 2 logistics capacity.

The soldiers would have a different role that deviates from the core of this idea of logistics, but they have to be given another role to keep them useful.
Instead of increasing naval capacity, soldiers generate manpower for use by land armies and ships, much like manpower/sailors in EU4.
Obviously, this could be more developed, but within the scope of this topic, I keep the system simple.
It therefore becomes as important to have Anchorages (therefore logisticians) to support a large fleet as to have soldiers to generate manpower to replace the dead in armies and ships.

Civic Citizen Service : +15% Naval capacity ---> +15% Manpower from Soldier


Megastructure :
A central use of logistics capacity would be the maintenance of megastructures.
Logistics would be the “limit system” to megastructure numbers. So there would be no fixed limit to megastructures, if you want to build 100 dyson spheres, you could theoretically... If you can produce enough logistic capacity...
But some bonuses of megastructures would not be additive, for example, 2 Mega Shipyard will give as bonus for the empire +100% Empire Ship Build Speed and not +200%.

Reduced the cost of logistics capacity of megastructures :
- Master Builders : -10%
- Architectural Renaissance (Ambition) : -10%
- Shattered Ring (Origin) : -10% [Unrestored Capital Segment and Ruined Sections cost no Logistics Capacity]

Habitat :
A habitat would consume 50 (level 2 : 75; level 3 : 100) logistic capacities.
Voidborne : -20% logistic cost for habitat
Void Dwellers (Origin) : -20% logistic cost for habitat, the Arcane Replicator will generate a logistic capacity to support the 3 starting habitats.

The habitats would therefore be more expensive, but they could receive some bonuses.
For example, level 2 and 3 would unlock new building slots.
Maybe also increase the number of districts.
Habitats built on a resource deposit (including research) could receive a percentage resource production bonus depending on the size of the deposit. For example 5% per 1 base mineral of the mineral deposit.

The goal would be to have slightly more powerful and potentially fewer habitats.
A habitat can perfectly produce more logistic capacity than they consume, but this takes up slots and pops.

For the Trades districts, a clerk job could be replaced by a logistician job.
And/or habitats have a “Logistics Center” designation that adds one or two logistician jobs to Housing districts with -2 or -4 housing.

Gateways :
The Gateways would have an upkeep cost of 100 logistic capacity (and I'm hesitant even maybe 125 or 150).
Yes, the cost is high, but this structure is also very useful, so it is an important investment for construction, but also in the long term.

Hyper Relays :
The Hyper Relays would have a logistics capacity cost of 25.
I think it's high enough that it's a significant cost when built in large numbers, but low enough that in the mid-game and late game it's viable to create some routes on the important runs.

Orbital Rings :
Logistics capacity cost :
- T1 : 20
- T2 : 40
- T3 : 80

Ring World :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600
- Stage 4 : 800
- Stage 5 : 1000

Dyson Sphere :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600
- Stage 4 : 800
- Stage 5 : 1000

Science Nexus :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 300
- Stage 2 : 600
- Stage 3 : 900

Sentry Array
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600
- Stage 4 : 800

Matter Decompressor :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 250
- Stage 2 : 500
- Stage 3 : 750
- Stage 4 : 1000

Mega Art Installation :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 300
- Stage 2 : 600
- Stage 3 : 900
- Stage 4 : 900

Strategic Coordination Center :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 300
- Stage 2 : 600
- Stage 3 : 900

Interstellar Assembly :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600
- Stage 4 : 800

Mega Shipyard :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600

Quantum Catapult :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Site : 100
- Stage 1 : 200
- Stage 2 : 400
- Stage 3 : 600

Aetherophasic Engine :
Logistics capacity cost :
- Stage 1 : 100
- Stage 2 : 275
- Stage 3 : 475
- Stage 4 : 775
- Stage 5 : 0


Obviously, the bonuses of the megastructures and their cost in logistics could be adjusted as needed.
This is to give a general idea.
Megastructures are powerful, but are "expensive" to build, but also and above all to maintain (not just energy which is very easily produced).

So it's not enough to produce tons of alloys to build megastructures. You have to be able to provide the logistical capacity.
But it is still possible to produce enough logistic capacity, as long as you have pops and building slots to dedicate to warehouses.
For example, for a Ring World, without bonuses with basic logisticians which produces 5 logistic capacities. It would take 33.3 large warehouses (less counting the logisticians of the capital buildings) spread over the 4 sections of the Ring World for it to be self-sufficient in logistics capacity. Yeah, that's a lot, but precisely the districts of the Ring Worlds are very powerful.

Obviously, for example, a Dyson Sphere cannot be self-sufficient, so you have to build the warehouses on planets/habitats/ring world.
But it produces a lot of energy without using pops, districts/buildings and strategic resources, apart from the need for logistics.


Insufficient logistics capacity :
If the need for logistics exceeds the production of logistics. The structures depending on it will work less efficiently, if the shortage becomes too great, these structures will be deactivated.

Habitats will lose stability and habitability.
Restored Ring segments will slowly gain devastation (or other modifier) after 10 years (or 20 years?) the segments will become Shattered Ring World.
Structures can be deactivated and reactivated manually for a cost in unity depending on the importance of the structure.
Megastructures that have been inactive for too long (10 years or 20 years?) will become ruined megastructures, except Ring Worlds which will become Shattered Ring Worlds, which will have to be restored if we want to use them again.

The habitats in critical situations will have a special decision to evacuate pops at a unity cost based on the number of pops (regardless of empire law) and trauma for the pops.

Even the planets end up being unimpressive, unless you go to Ecumenopolis. The Gaia planets don't really have any flavor and are too easy to get.
Planets could have several levels of development.

Complement to the logistics system, but could exist without it.

This could enable many interesting things.

The starbases would be more strategic.
They would be obligatory for the planets to be connected to the “economic networks” of the empire.
They would be essential to have and maintain a large fleet.
Improving or not a starbase would be more of a choice, currently, unless you are limited in alloy, it is almost always better to improve them and put anchorages, it has practically no maintenance cost.

Putting a cost in logistics for the districts could open up very interesting possibilities for planetary development.
Ideally, population growth should also be revised so that it is in relation to population size and etc. And not that it's just more interesting to have to colonize more planets/habitats to have greater population growth.
The idea would be that like space stations, we could develop planets: in the ground and in the air.
With “Weather Control Systems” technology, we could, through a planetary decision, unlock access to underground districts and building slots.
This would cost energy and volatile motes.
Underground districts and buildings would have higher maintenance costs and districts would consume more logistics capacity. Pops working underground would also have a greater need for amenities.
It would be necessary to unlock numerous blockers with a cost in energy and volatile motes to fully access the basement.

With “Anti-Gravity Engineering” technology, we could unlock access “to the sky”.
By a planetary decision with a cost in alloy and rare crystals, we would have access to districts and locations of aerial buildings.
Air districts would have an alloy and rare crystals cost, as well as a rare crystals maintenance cost and would consume more logistics capacity.

We could therefore develop “megaplanets”, but for the same number of districts, it would be more costly in terms of logistical capacity and resources to have a mega planet than several “basic planets”.


Also it would be interesting to return to the old habitats with the research, commercial and leisure districts.
Moreover, since habitats are unique per system, we should integrate them into starbases.
Habitats, if the tech is unlocked, would be a special expansion of the starbase.
No need for mining and energy districts when you can develop mining stations for that.

We can imagine other levels: spatial (planet with a ring), virtual, psionic...

 

[Merrivale]

To me there are two things that bug me about current Stellaris, one is a smaller QoL thing and the other is something I think I'm in the minority on.

First, playing a heavy bio-engineered game is really micro heavy and nasty. I know you've automated some of the systems, but the big problem for me is the species screen. It needs some heavy love. It's a major PITA to go through all of the species and when you start getting crosses and sub-species it gets really bad. I'd also like to be able to use a queue, rather than have to go back each time after one species finishes to start the next one. This queue would need to be pausable, so that I can toggle between society research and species alterations.

Second, I don't like that each game tends to turn into a block of two to three large federations icing over the galaxy. It feels like there is little or no room to maneuver once you hit this point and it also seems to happen every time. As someone who doesn't love the federation game to begin with, I'm always thinking how much I'd like to just be able to turn it off in game rules (obviously I want all the stuff that came with that DLC).

 

[Vissarion Bashkovez II]

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
Actually, they are pretty important to me. I understand that Pops and Jobs are not very good for performance and limit the design space, but they attach me to my empire and make it easier to imagine that I am creating a unique interstellar society. It seems that the RPG element of Stellaris is more important to me than its strategical gameplay element... All in all, I am in favor of a rework, not complete dismantle of a system — maybe cutting the amount of Pops and Jobs in buildings in half, or something like that.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
The current Trade system is very simplistic, but I don't mind against this abstract representation of wealth generation, and it is hard to me to imagine complete rework of Trade on the current stage of Stellaris lifecycle. Trade routes system, on the other hand, can be reworked into something more interesting — I just hope that such change will not break Megacorp gameplay.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
There are certain examples of Civics vs Origins problem, but, again, I doubt that it will be effective to completely rework things on the current stage. So I can make only two suggestions:
1) Developers can leave it as it is, and just pay more attention to balancing out Civics—Origins relations;
2) The system can go through some reorganisation:
Origin (can also be called Primary Origin) would depict completely unique starting conditions (special homeworld) or a complex story (Toxic God);
Up to 2 "Destinies" (can also be called Secondary Origins) would depict things that are currently defined as "fixed" Civics (genocidal, for example), other "complex" civics and Origins of lesser significance;
Civics would work as they are currently working, but there would be no "fixed" ones, because these are moved to other category.

It would make the definition of Civics more clear, the design space more free, while also creating additional versatility during the empire creation.

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 definitely want to enjoy espionage, but it seems that the only way to make it more important and rewarding without making it overpowered is to give it some kind of completely unique function — like affecting the inner politics of other empires. What to do with the inner politics system is a completely different question, though...

 

[Quant]

Ok, so the Devs ask for feedback, we will surely deliver=)

I am a vet player since 2016 and I mainly enjoy playing non-gestalts, and I am playing only single player games.

What is Stellaris for me? It's a fantasy of how life in a sci-fi setting actaully looks like. How society of my empire evolve, how people struggle, what they want, and what mysteries and challanges they face in this dark and relentless galaxy.

What I want to see in the game in the order of my personal interest from most desirable to nice-to-have:

1. More internal politics, with Senate and elections. I want elections which are actually a thing, that I (as a ruler) am scared of but also looking forward too. I want my economic and military decisions to influence the results. I want my GalCom votes to influence internal politics and vise versa. I want more factions, and I want them to have more diversity (loyalist militarists and pacifist loyalists should be two separate factions, for example). And I want elections to be a BIG event, and to see results in graphical way based on sectors/plantes. This is the top thing I am looking for.

2. Less instances I control, but bigger impact from each of them. I like to play wide, and even on 0.25 plannets I am getting 50-75 palnets by late game, and losing even 10 is not much of a deal. I want to have 5-10 times less but actaully care for the a lot. The same goes for ships. I want a battleship to be a crazy expensive thing that not every empire can even have. Not because of the hard game limit, but because it takes a ton of resources, research and manpower to build and maintain. And if I loose one - I want this loss to hit me hard. Like an Aircraft Carrier in modern era or a Legion in Roman times.

3. More dynamic empires. Player empires are becoming very static past mid-game. I want more political events to influence my empire. Crisises are fine but they originate from a timer and I want something that comes out based on in-game mechanics, from within society. A good example would be CK-3 inheritance system or a Robot uprising. Maybe colony wants autonomy? Maybe the species living there are immigrants and they feel their culture is not represented well? Et cetera..

4. The war score and war goals - I think its implemented badly and it should be changed. Chasing every enemy plannet and system to force your goals is not realistic. Most wars are won or lost due to economy, internal politics or losing military strength, not losing all the territory to the enemy.

5. More win options besides two crisises and a score-by-year-X. I have to say, I realy appretiate that you added the second player crisis option aka science victory, its the step in the right direction in my opinion.

6. Ground combat. If single planets are going to be more valuable then this system requiers that players will engage more with ground combat, as it becomes more critical for their empires to win or loose the planet. I think a lot of good suggestions are already out there on this topic.

7. Religion. I like that we have Shroud gods, but I would appretaite an option to design my own religion.

8. Trash/pollution system. Would be nice to have.

Now to the "formal" questionare.
What systems and content are “sacred” to you, which would make Stellaris not Stellaris anymore if we changed them?
I have seen the game evolve over the years and I like it. One thing that is truely “sacred” to me is the music player. I really, really enjoy the music. Please keep it coming!

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  It is good and I like it. I have a high-end PC so no lag observed. Although if you come up with a better option I am open to it.
• 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 there is less micromanagement - I am open for innovations
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  Civics and government type (thanks for adding more with the Machine Age!)
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  Its usualy a target steam achivement I am currently chasing for + Ialways aim for becoming a dominat force in the glalxy + destroying/pacifing empires which piss me off during the game
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  I like that we have trade. I think its ok but a bit clunky when you have to re-assign routes after border changes. I don't mind it being modified.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  Yes for sure it is. Colonization should be harder, and it should take longer. In my games I just skip the colonization speed techs, because its already quite fast and there is always a better option in the tech screen.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  I don't have an opinion here. I guess for me its fine as is.
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? I think that excavations and astral rifts should become one, as well as artal threads and artifacts. I would just add some options to the excavations to have a bit more choices during the process.
• 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? Internal politics.

 

[SzalonyNiemiec]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  
  I like the current pops and jobs system. I'm open to gradual improvements, but would be wary of any larger reworks.
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  
  The way fleets are right now is something that fulfills a neccesary feature of a GSG reasonably well. But it isn't the strength of the game. I'm open to a lot of change here, as long as it doesn't require to much micromanagement.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  
  For me what's most important is the politics and ethics of my civilization. Then come leaders and at the end is species. I really wish politics was modeled in a deeper, more impactful and more detailed way.
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  
  I usually just see where a campaign takes me and set goals when they arise. (usually defeating a genocidal empire or midgame crisis) The only goals I really set from the start are a high standard of living and finding allies for a federation.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  
  Is OK
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  
  Yes Colonization is way too easy. But I don't neccesarily think clomate should matter more. I think there should be another dimension orthogonal to climate, which more strongly affects habitability (you could imagine a continental world to be anything between barely habitable due to atmosphere or radiation, to a perfect gaia world.) Maybe something like the star trek system of classifying planets as M,L,Y and so on...
  
  Another thing I would change to colonization is infrastructure. Building something on a fresh colony should be harder than building something in a bustling metropolis. There should either be an abstract metric to reflect the infrastructure development or buildings like spaceports that define how well connected to the empire wide ressource pool a colony is.
  
  
• 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 LOVE an expansion focussed on internal politics, which better models the distribution of power within my empire. (Right now every empire is a dictatorschip, differing only in how often they replace their dictator)

 

[Calvax]

Firstly thanks a lot for sharing your reflections on the year, and for asking the community for input! Stellaris is a fantastic game and it has a great dev team with the level of community engagement and transparency You guys do great work

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?

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

As a general answer to this: my fundamental love of stellaris is that it has the mechanics to allow for diverse role play with science fiction empires. As a long time sci fi fan I adore that there are so many references, both in lore but especially in mechanics, to many classic sci fi franchises. For me stellaris is good at walking the line between giving us mechanics to play out those fantasies without being very restrictive in how we use them. For instance: declaring the imperium is obviously inspired by star wars, but the mechanics have enough flexibility that it doesn't lock us into a specific play style to do it.

Conversely something like Knights of the Toxic Good goes too far into one specific role play, since the only way to play a knightly order is to do it with the focus and backstory of a toxic space monster.

The flexibility is fundamental to my enjoyment. Well designed mechanics that support, but don't control, role play.

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

Individual pops are not important. I do love having a population that grows, of diverse species (unless it's a drastically xenophobe empire), which work in particular jobs. That side of the economic management I really like. But I don't need it to be individual pops. If stellaris moved to a system more like Vicky 3 where pops were numbers instead of discrete that would be fine. I would say the important things with the current system are:

• Being able to see the diversity of pops easily on the planet screen to help give a feel of what our empire looks like at a "street level" view
• Having pop traits that matter, and complement the jobs they have
• Seeing differences between planets

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

If fleets became too much of an abstraction or introduced too much micromanagement I don't think I'd enjoy it. War in stellaris isn't the best but it's also not the worst. I'd be really wary if there were changes that added much more complexity to think about, like a complicated supply system or no longer being able to order around individual fleets. I very much value convenience in fleet management, like having the fleet manager which is a function I've wanted in strategy games since I was a kid. Whatever changes might come so long as they help fulfill the role play and have good features for larger scale management and automation would be good.

If warfare became as abstract as HOI or required tedious micromanagement then it would be far too different.

What I’d like to see is more of a reason to use mixed fleets, rather than mono fleets of cruisers or battleships still being better than anything else.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I would say things like government type, demographics, and policies. While they don't do a lot beyond changing a few numbers I adore the idea that we can have empires where everyone lives in utopian abundance, or where slaves are freed. As well as things like being an empire that can wage war to liberate or use the galcom to enforce soft power.

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

I would say fairly often I set goals. They don't vary too much but they can vary depending on the type of empire. I often, from the start, set goals along the lines of "become the galactic emperor" or the inverse of "liberate the galaxy for democracy". My goals don't tend to change unless I'm trying to play an empire that is more on the side-lines. I find it hard to play an isolationist empire or play an empire that spends it's time building up someone else because the mechanics for that still feel lacking.

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

At best its an afterthought, most of the time it's an annoyance due to the random appearance of pirates which are never a real threat, just a mole you have to wack down until you can get to gateways or have starbases to spare.

Ideally I'd love a system where different resources flowed from worlds with surpluses to those with deficits (space mines could flow to nearest world). But this could be impractical for performance.

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

Absolutely habitability should matter more. Planets feel less special with how easy they are to colonise. I would say that part of this is down to how, unless you're a radical xenophobe, it's easy to get a migration treaty or conquer some pops with different habitability preferences and start spamming. I feel there should be some strong social consequences for having a society made up of species who are geographically segregated.

I also think the mechanical incentive to colonise is too high that it feels like you're playing the game wrong if you don't. The free pop growth that every planet gets means you're missing out if you don't colonise and since pops are ultimately the main driver of everything that free +3 growth is never a bad thing.

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

I'm pretty happy with the current set up. The only things that jump to mind is post apocalyptic combined with something like Under One Rule feel like they would synergise really well for story telling purposes. Also civics like eager explorers feel a bit unsatisfying just as civics because there's a lot of cool sci fi potential there to explore being a species that gets to space early, with a unique FTL method, but it just falls off.

There are also civics that feel a bit gamey like the civic that gets you dark matter specialists/resources early.

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

I'd remove bypass weapons, or at least massively limit them. Just from an immersion perspective I don't get why things like missiles ignore shields (if the shield can block a kinetic weapon why does a missile fly through?) and there are far too many bypass weapons. They don't feel special and instead put you in a situation where you ignore them or go all in, and just on a personal note shields in sci fi are a very cool staple that often feel gimped in stellaris.

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

whisper it: internal politics. Specifically an expansion that focuses on developing factions. Factions, as they stand, feel too abstract and static. I'd love an expansion/update wherein:

- Factions have dynamic demands based on how the game progresses, e.g. a rival has a stronger fleet which makes the military faction unhappy
- Special interest groups that appear targeted at specific events in the game, e.g. the blorg of your empire want their homeworld liberated from a purifier
- Representation of the map, e.g. the core sector might be predominantly governing factions but more peripheral worlds and sectors are more divergent, possibly influenced by neighbouring alien sectors.

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

Pop modification. It's a really cool idea that has been in the game since the start; having pops that can be augmented to be good at different jobs or in different environments. In practice it's a micromanagement hell and the system was clearly never designed with the diversity of pops and subpsecies we have in the game. This means most of the time I make one generically good template for my most common species and spam it down, then forget about it.

Bonus list

Here's a bunch of generic thoughts that don't fit the questions above:

• I find vassals are still far too static and the union mapmode treating them the same as federations is poor for telling interesting science fiction stories. I think loyalty should matter more, disloyalty should give a penalty to taxes (allowing the vassal to catch up enough to properly rebel), vassals in a federation should push more for their freedom, and empires should value treaties and federations far higher than being vassalized
• Border gore can be frustrating, particularly in event of a crisis where you lose stations immediately and empires you've had fantastic relationships with all game mindlessly expand into the territory. It's a huge pain especially in the late game because it looks ugly and immersion wise doesn't make sense. How is a foreign empire collecting resources from one system in my territory when we don't have open borders? Why is the ally who I came to the defence of multiple times over the centuries building an outpost in a key system that I just liberated from the unbidden?
• The soft power of the galcom is too weak. Empires shouldn't be ok with just sitting in breach for centuries, there should be some internal pressure. E.g. if you pass universal prosperity mandate there should be a stronger ethics attraction for egalitarianism that leads to an internal change in empires not compliant
• There are too many notifications. Outside of the early game it can become really distracting and trains the player to keep closing windows so they can focus on what they're doing, which isn't great

 

[one4crisis]

I'm surprised that Paradox is paying attention to the Chinese community. As a Chinese and a Paradox gamer, I'm glad to see this.

Something advice of myself:
1. How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
Nothing. Use simple math to do it maybe better, and this system isn't in detail, I can't controlling a single pop position.
2. Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
As a space empire, I should can change a planet easily. Som special environment should also be considered.
3. 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?
Delete Empire size, it add my tech cost. The market should remake, the market is the most advanced tech in Stellaris, I can use energy to get anything. The spy system also needs to be modified, at the moment it's complete rubbish.
4. How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
Early in the game I'll take control of more star systems and get a vassal to provide resources. Then I thought more about excavating the site, expanding the fleet, doing research.
5. The tech pool
The categorisation of techs into 3 categories is not good enough, which leads to a loss of immersion. Also, due to the increase in game content, this has led to the pollution of the technology pool. And most tech use a empire fix. Maybe we should can add more things about how to use these tech(another form of the empire size, but more rational), it should can be auto use.

And the old things are becoming more and more unimportant, we should change this.

 

[V-Metamorph]

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

I have an overall dislike for pops and jobs in Stellaris. Mainly their impact on performance. Rules are rules, and pop is just one way like many others to convey empire power. They’re good for early games, but they rapidly reach capacity. In fact, without DLC, a base game Stellaris player is essentially doomed to either die of “pop apocalypse” or try to seize a fallen empire world for himself. The power held by pops has never ceased increasing, eclipsing for a long time starbase output and even megastructures. A lot of buildings were also normalized and less flavorful. Biggest offenders are the Tech Directorate, Military Guarison and so forth, which are pricey technologies with a “Once per empire” building policy. That’s just a regular tech with one extra step, it gives the illusion of a choice. Pops are overall too polarizing for the game, and it (and some other modifiers) can brute-force far too easily certain playstyles or AI.

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

I might be a bit biased but for me the fleet system as we know it “just” need better balanced cruisers, better defined destroyer roles and a tiny nerf to armor (less armor unless you use armor hardening which would serve as Hardening x Capacitor equivalent) and more established rules for tracking and weapons targeting. The Hardening techs need to be lower on the tech tree too, beyond that I would welcome more “exotic” and “specialized” “faction-ships” or weapons, much like the one proposed in Stellaris Nexus (Nanites ships are the closest thing to that idea currently.). We could also have Battle barges, Prototype battleships, battle science ships, Orbital propaganda stations (with a big gun). It is a big galaxy, yet sometimes fighting ais (and even players) often Time feels way too similar. Where I would draw the lines is introducing new mechanics that “work in vacuum”. That’s how you end up with a mechanic people slowly forget because it's strictly inferior, or redundant.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I like my RP grounded in mechanics. This makes “redundant” mechanics (let’s say Cyborgs and Biological ascension or especially Necrophage/Syncretic evolution) much less interesting to me as they do not help convey better stories. I also love robot, dragons, behemoth… the Simic player inside me is quite satisfied with stellaris overall flavorwise.

• 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 my goals on 2 occasions. At game start I will usually take a gimmick, and create an empire that fullil that gimmick or sci fi trope. After that, during game, it’ll take “opportun” events that match my gimmick (recent example are me appointing a governor of a conquered species because i played Xenophile militarist rocks with Agrarian. You fought good! now keep an eye on planet and enjoy refined rock culinaries, we have a wonderful diamond sauce)

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

Bad, its recent exponential changes made it somehow worse. It is also likely a performance sink. I prefer Stellaris Nexus takes on trade : spend “influence” to send a convoy to a nation (the value of that convoy is a fraction of the sum of your monthly output + a trade resource that counts for twice a regular ressource.). The nation can answer by a convoy of its own and you gain both an “exotic resource” that represents trades and can be spent as any ressource. Translating this to actual stellaris terms i think is not too hard

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

I would argue it is space exploration that is too easy. Everything gets taken relatively fast by AI and because of the pop system later colonies/habitats/rings are often formalities to dump your extra pops. Let's assume I am a dev for a moment. My “Dlcs” would be Unity and Exploration centered. There should be systems “too dark to navigate” early on and likewise planets whose habitability depends on either traits and/or technologies and/or tradition pop may have. Likewise I believe a better established “Planet tier” system could be a decent alternative to this question. (yes, I did not read all the questions first x) )

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

Doesn’t matter to me, I’d rather have it better defined now and not have dev time wasted on something that has worked for the past years.
If it’s mechanically sound (which so far it mostly was) I am not bothered.

For me a Civic is a specific “quirk” that stems from an empire’s ethic and to an extent his biological/mechanical traits.

An Origin is the result of “alien tempering”, factors beyond the control of the affected species that either predates its modern civilization or involve its creation or traits to a greater extent,

with origin taking priorities over civics when tied.

• 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 made a post some 2 years ago where I depicted my “Stellaris DLC”, essentially a UNITY/EXPLORATION driven one. I stand by most of what I included in this image, though I would add “dark space” systems and other roadblock in the galaxy are welcome. It also assumes the impact on performance is minimal.

I would also add a Planet tier system, ranging from 1 to 4 :

• 1 primitive worlds and/or very early colonies (maybe through refugee events?)
• 2 FTL worlds (starting world for players)
• 3 Artificial/Advanced worlds (Ecus, populated worlds, rings,...)
• 4 Fallen/Gilded worlds

The higher the planet tier, the more it will rely on its infrastructure. a planet’s output at tier 3 or Tier 4 isn’t measured by its jobs, rather by its available “skilled pops” that would work similarly to the aforementioned “crew system”, giving scaling bonuses to buildings (the actual resource generators, not unlike what Fallen empire/cosmogenesis currently achieve). This could have a great effect on performance by shunning the amount of effective pop in the galaxy, normalize a lot of powercrept mechanics and make cosmogenesis more coherent with the rest of the game (as it is the closest thing with FE planets to the system i propose).

Oh and ofc, the “funny chinese discovered bug” would become a stand alone mechanic. After all, the bug proved it was a funny addition.

The empire alignment part was inspired by Spore, stellaris doesn't really reward RP options, so long story short, it is meant as a catch up mechanic/reward over empires that are just waving big alloy stick.

As for mechanics I think I would remove, I think i’d remove/rework Trade. It is just a different game with little to no story implications. Either underwhelming or overpowered, rarely in between.

I’d also remove/rework Galactic Unions and most of the perks given by federations, as they do not reflect the state of the game in terms of modifiers, as well as the Federation Reset effects ( from “proclaiming the empire” or “federation type change” )


That'll be all for me, thanks for this call to feedback, you guys are doing great, beware big bad powercreep!

(and give a chance to stellaris nexus :> )

 

[VelhoteVeio]

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?Zero, nada, zilch. Pops are a means to an end, not at all a cornerstone of Stellarisfor me.

If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
Depends on the change. For me, the thing I love most about fleets is how they are tied to what type of civ you are. Ideally, civs with different ethics and civics would have different fleets, or be incentivized to use different fleets. Maybe this can be mostly set dressing, but right now, it feels weird that a bio hive mind devouring swarm has basically the same ships as an enlightened democracy of robots.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
Ethics, civics/origins, population, in that order. Those are the fundamental things that make each empire unique. Ideally, each ethics would have vastly different civics, with only a few of them being present in almost all of them. After that, I’ve always liked the idea of events altering a civ. One of the reasons I LOVE psionics is because of the chosen one event, where your civ completely changes because of it. I think there should be more stuff like this.

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 create an idea for an empire and set an overall goal, stuff like “Vassalize the galaxy,” “Proclaim the imperium,” “Become the galactic market powerhouse,” etc. Then I roleplay the civ with the goal in mind, changing how my empire works depending on events. For example, one time I focused on becoming the economic powerhouse of the galaxy without any fleets, but because the Khan awoke and devastated my allies, I built a lot of mercenaries to protect my corporate empire.

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
Not important at all. Honestly, it’s a hindrance and makes little sense.

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Depends. Right now, if you change that, what is the gameplay about? Right now, the fun of Stellaris is mostly managing your economy, which means managing your planets. If you reduce the player’s ability to colonize without any trade-offs, you're basically narrowing the gameplay for no reason, giving fewer things for the player to do. Yes, planets should be harder to colonize, but we need a trade-off mechanic for that—something else to manage that impacts the economy besides planets.

Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
Absolutely. In my opinion, no civics should be locked; it makes no sense. If your empire is supposed to evolve as you play, and civics are a major cornerstone of your empire, locking yourself out of options is shooting yourself in the foot. Not to mention times when a civic goes "offline" because of an ethics change, but you can’t change it? It’s nonsensical. I think a good way to think about origins and civics is: if it’s something about the empire that can change during gameplay, it’s a civic. If it’s something static or historical to the empire, it should be an 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 would remove ground combat. It makes wars a slog-fest and, in the late game, gives the player one more thing to worry about (building armies) that have no other use. They don’t give diplomatic power, don’t affect almost any other event, etc. I think wars should be a focus of an expansion. Right now, how treaties, war exhaustion, and score work is so nonsensical, like, laughably so. I can't win a vassalization war after conquering every single planet and system of my primary target because they have an ally across the galaxy I can't even reach? Absolute nonsense. Wars are a gameplay cornerstone of the game, and the way they work right now sucks. A feature I really, really want to enjoy is gene tailoring/robot modding. The idea of specializing a species or set of robots is amazing to me, but the implementation makes it so hard. Not only do I need to edit every species manually, even if I have the same template for both, but I need to do an event for each one, stop research, and I can’t even guarantee they will work the jobs they are specialized for. Wasted potential, if you ask me—it makes gene tailoring so useless.

 

[Tim_Ward]

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

This system is good, but if you want to ditch it for performance reasons you can so long as the complex model of the economy remains intact.

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

Since I do not like how wars work right now, you can change it as much as you like and I'd still like the game.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Interactions with other civilisations.

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

This system requires no meaningful decisions, so not very. The idea of setting trade routes is fun but it doesn't really have meaningful consequences. N.B I do not play with trade focused empires so YMMV.

Also, while we're talking about trade, it's absurd that there is still, the year of our lord 2024, no way to find out how much money a trade deal with a particular empire is generating for you. Like, WTF.

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

No, and yes. It would be good if colonies on low habitability worlds worked a bit differently. Right now, it's a straight downgrade with no incentive not to terraform everything you come across. Exploring the idea of domed colonies on low habitability worlds which work differently to regular worlds might be interesting.

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

Federations, easily. They make diplomacy too stale, break player alliances when an AI joins one and turn the galaxy into a stalemate between enormous power blocks, and they force the player into annoying AI wars when you're inside one.

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

Expanding the vanilla diplomacy options is a must at this point, including adding more cassus beli and peace options. Complete rework of the peace treaty system and war mechanics are also necessary because it's very inflexible right now.

For a game supposedly about grand strategy, it's silly how limited the diplomatic mechanics are compared to something like EU4. It seems like the intent was that most of the diplomacy game would take place with the federation system, but that system is, as mentioned previously, bad.

Also, do one on ground combat, lol.

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

Is there ever. Warfare, espionage, diplomacy, trade, would be the main ones. All the stuff around external interactions is overly bare-bones, formulaic and inflexible. In contrast, most of the internal stuff (economy, traditions, civic systems, discoveries, etc) is in a pretty good spot. Only internal politics seems missing.

 

[Harfus]

I'd love if habitability felt more interactive, or influence how you build on a planet. Right now, all habitability does for me is "if it's 50% or over, colonize. If it's less, wait until I get terraforming." Imagine if on an ocean world, we had to build dehydrator facilities to adapt the planey to desert species living there, while arctic species wouldn't benefit. Not that this is a particularly great suggestion, but what I'm getting at is that I'd like more interactivity with how I approach colonization and habitability than just my 50% rule.

And, on the opposite end of sacred, ground combat is just profane. The fantasy of having all these awesome and amazing soldiers, bombing stances, undead armies and titanic creatures used in ground combat, it should feel more epic, you know? Right now it's just circles shrinking. There's so much potential there for what ground combat could be and it just feels empty.

 

[Son of Poland]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  -- I like the spreadsheet aspect of interacting with the pops, districts, and jobs. I find it much more interesting from a strategic perspective than tiles. I suppose my only criticism would be that some planet management feels like "just have to add another district *wait* and then add another of the same district." However, this does not mean that I want a return to planetary economics where each planet has to be self-sustaining.
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  -- I don't really have a strong opinion on fleets and I know the Devs have worked hard in trying multiple iterations over the years. If the Devs were to change the Meta as recommended by others in this comment section, I don't think it would disrupt my Science-Fiction fantasy playing experience in the slightest.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  -- The choice between origin, ethics, and civics really does meet the vision of each new game feeling different. This has only been expanded on further with each update giving me more options to interact with different systems of the game.
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  -- I set larger goals in the empire creation screen. Is this going to be a pacifist run? Tall/wide? Things like that. Once I get rolling in game, the goals are more concerned with expansion and planet specializations.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  -- I feel like Trade as a system becomes very straightforward if it's something the empire wants to focus on as well as quickly becomes inconsequential in the long term in terms of interactivity. Paired with the Mercantile tradition, it becomes very strong and, ironically, regulates itself without too much player input by only providing benefits without much input.
  -- I think Trade could become more nuanced if Sector capitals played a larger role. It should not just be about connecting systems back to the Capital, but connecting someway to the Sector Capital and designing the sector in a way to benefit specific trade values (ex: since there are a lot of consumer goods produced in this Sector, the Sector Capital has discounts/buffs/reduced upkeep for Consumer Based jobs, but there is a lack of minerals in the sector so building costs are increased). This makes it so as an Empire expands, each Sector becomes more involved from a strategic point of view with the Sector Capital being more valuable than it is now in the existing game. This also provides benefits to Wide gameplay by offering benefits to new markets based upon Sector prioritizations and opens doors to engaging more with internal politics - ex. (1) a particular sector has been increasingly more valuable than the core sector and the Pops are desiring either to change the Empire Capital to the new Sector or seek independence; (2) new policies and edicts to enhance sectors based upon specialization, ethics attractions, etc.; and (3) improved interactivity with existing gameplay systems such as leaders - a Leader may have a loyalty score connected to them.
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  -- I've seen this discussed before and I tend to agree with many of those thoughts. Right now, Terraforming feels too easy and makes many of the planet-related Techs/Traditions/Traits irrelevant. Additionally, there feels like there is little reason to engage with Glandular Acclimation beyond RP purposes due to the accessibility of terraforming and the increased habitability perks through Techs and Traditions. So, yes, habitability and planet climate should matter much more!
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  -- I like the current split between Origins, Civics, and Civics that cannot be added or removed at the start of the game. It offers fun RP opportunities and encourages strategic thinking.
  
  
• 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?
  -- The idea of Ascension Paths actually causing your Empire's Government to Ascend to a different style is one that should certainly be explored further for other Ascension Paths as well as perhaps explored in some Origins as well.
  -- I know this opinion has been thoroughly heard in the community, but updating Bio-Ascension is a must. Also, since machines got a lot of love this year, Hive Minds should also experience the same!
  -- It's disappointing that the Devs have had to add an option to turn off/on Xeno-Compatibility in the options, effectively removing an entire gameplay option from the game due to lag concerns. It's a bit of a meme at this point, but I personally can't wait to hear what's in store for this Ascension Perk just due to it being practically a dropped game feature.
  -- Look to my answer about Trade and Sectors --> If something like that could be explored, I think that would scratch the itch of a lot of people desiring an internal politics rework!