Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[Zaacplot300]

Next week we’ll be talking about the 3.14.159 patch.

Forgot to ask this but does this mean we're not getting a patch on the 12th or is this referring to a different patch?

 

[EustaceCS]

Stellaris is a Living Game​

Over time, Stellaris has evolved and grown to meet the desires of the player base.​

• At launch, Stellaris leaned deep into its 4X roots.​
• It evolved from that base toward Grand Strategy.​
• As it continues to mature, we have added deeper Roleplaying aspects.​

All of these remain part of our DNA.

Stellaris is a 4X Grand Strategy game with Roleplaying elements that continues to evolve and redefine itself.​

---

...

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?

To me, it's a double somersault done for nothing.
It was 4X game.
Then it was Grand Strategy game.
Then it is kinda Roleplaying game currently.
What this game truly was and what players, which bought it as 4X game or Grand Strategy game, are supposed to do now?

If you need a pivot in paradigm of the game's development as drastic next time, maybe consider making a sequel instead of ASSURING DISAPPOINTMENT.

One of things which surprised me the most back in the day was the fact that instead of inflating Crusader Kings II the publisher chose to make a sequel.
AND they went nuts with that sequel.

Which is a right thing to do for paradigm shifts that significant!
CKIII went less historic, more Sims-4-ish route - and it is excellent on its own, and twice as nice that it wasn't forced onto CKII players!
Noone's disaapointed, two titles coexist without ASSURED DISAPPOINTMENT, everyone's happy!

Learn from the best.
Be like Crusader Kings III.

 

[Dire Poops]

The game has plenty to have fun, but making it far enough to see the content is unbearable. I've been playing 4X games for 25 years and there's two problems with these type of games.
1. Somewhere around mid-game things that were fun and engaging become a clickfest and tedious.
Solution - Good automation in all aspects. The colony manager is alright but it won't, for example, relocate pops. It won't distribute luxury items. I hate modifying all 20+ species in my empire. I'd rather click a button, sub-optimal be damned. Fleet movement and invasions in large wars is very tedious. Etc
2. When the challenge falls off, games are boring. With so many levers to pull and so much going on, how can a game this big remain challenging and engaging all the way through?
For starters, tributaries and prospectoriums are broken. The cut we get is too big. Plus we get the boosted income after AI buffs?
Currently we can scale difficulty to mid game or end game. These are good tools. But they are static tools. The difficulty should be able to scale off how well the player is doing. Like in RPGs like Skyrim, the enemies get stronger as you level up rather than low level enemies over here and stronger ones over there. Passing certain gates of empire strength, the AI should be boosted so they don't fall behind.
Conversely, we have empire size to help control expansion. Good, but not enough. There is no loss of efficiency on the income side of things. Sprawl needs to include a loss to resource income to represent increasingly complex infrastructure requirements.

TL;DR
1. More automation tools
2. Keep it challenging past mid-game with a dynamic difficulty and/or sprawl affecting income (alloys, energy, etc)

Oh and fleet combat is atrocious. Ever since you increased ship speed and removed combat speed, it looks ridiculous. Even at 1/4 speed it's a beehive of ships with apparently no mass. I have never seen worse looking space combat. Sorry.

 

[workbot]

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

I like that there are pops and jobs, but I don't mind if the system gets simplified in some way to help with late game lag.

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

You could scrap the whole thing and rebuild it from scratch, and I'd probably like that. Like, please, scrap individual ship components.

I like seeing big fleets, but some system would be nice where, for example: You build a corvette fleet. When you "upgrade"/reinforce the fleet, visually the number of corvettes goes up, but internally it's just some power number going up. If you have two corvette fleets of equal power going up against each other, it should be a coin toss about who wins.

Then, veterancy should matter more. A corvette fleet that's seen more combat should have a higher fleet power than one without it.

I think limiting fleets to one ship type, then building hard counters between ship types would make for more interesting combat. This would incentivize building different fleets, and it would be easier to predict how combat will go. The counters don't even need to be based on ship size, but maybe weapon type.

I love rock paper scissors systems. You can have various triangles that build in complexity over time. Like, for the three starter weapon types, you could do something like:

Lasers beat kinetic.
Kinetic beats missiles.
Missiles beat lasers.

But then you introduce point defence and hangars.

Maybe hangars are weak to missiles and point defence, but strong against lasers and kinetic.

Point defence is strong against missiles and hangars, but weak to lasers and kinetic.

So on and so forth. If each fleet on the map is clearly dileaneated by type, then I'll be able to know at a glance how boned I am with my current composition, but also how I can change my fleets to counter it.

Retrofitting at a starbase could change my corvettes from kinetic to lasers, for example.

While certain ship sizes can support certain types, so if I want point defence, I must build destroyers.

Etc etc.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origin, species type, ethics, and civics.

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

I usually set a goal on empire creation (something like, I want to vassalize everyone, or I want to become emperor, or I want to get cybernetics as fast as possible).

Then it depends on what spawns around me.

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

I feel like it's useless. It should either matter way more (like, only planets connected by trade route can access the global resource pool, so a distant colony MUST produce enough, say, food to support itself), or just be scrapped entirely.

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

Yes. However, I think just a straight up resource and upkeep penalty feels bad. I'd like more RP and events in this system.

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

I think tree of life should be a permanent civic!

I want to combine it with other origins. But also, please give us three civic slots 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?

I'd scrap ground combat. You could probably just merge it with bombardment, maybe even make invasion a bombardment type that does minimal infrastructure damage.

Also, shout out to factions and internal politics. I feel that would be a fun way to introduce goals that can change across a game.

 

[Friedrich von Deutschland]

Oh this is going to be exciting!

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Not at all. I could go for a much larger-scale population simulation and remove job management interactions, as I can count the times I need to do that on one hand. If you could fit the species traits within a simpler but grander system, I would go for it.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Please alter it as much as you like, the Fleet and combat system, along with the rampant doomstack issues, are holding back major parts of your vision, at least for me!
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • The origins, and I’m sad that some just drop off when they are "done" and get lost in the mix. I would like them to be a major part of each playthrough and remain relevant throughout.
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • Always and every time. I lose interest if no meaningful differences come to mind, and playstyles and builds dry up. I get back into the game when I see major changes to gameplay and systems. It's somewhat limited by my imagination and curiosity, but I feel invested enough to notice interesting things.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Absolutely not important.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Maybe, as all systems cascade into each other. It would be interesting if changes to this impacted other areas and had clear reasons why. If colonies became more complex and long-term, with goals and events per challenging colony, I would go for it. But the implication is that my fleet power would snowball slower, which some people might dislike (not me, though).
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • I have no opinion on that.
• 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 RTS-like fleet and military systems and their doomstacking problems. I would like to see a full rework of that; I would even pay for it, as I think the game is being held back by these systems.

I would like to second this with the caveat that i find the trade system fundamentally flawed, as currently markets are basically magic mass-energy converters which don’t correspond to actual resource availability. This probably would have to wait for Stellaris 2 but a public-private split similar to that depicted in Shadow Empire, combined with actual markets similar to what we’re seeing in in Project Caesar, would be good.

For colonization I’d actually like to be allowed to colonize everything. And yes I do mean everything, including places like Venus and Jupiter with cloud cities and shit. With the technology we start with in 2200 such feats should be possible with the right investments, and the advantage of habitable worlds should be that colonizing them is trivially easy by comparison due to lower startup and upkeep costs.

For pops and jobs? Neither the current system nor the tile system felt satisfying to me, and the performance issues are ever present. I wouldn’t object to a Stellaris 4.0 that abstracted much of this away. That said having a large and growing population is part of many fantasies, so some sort of population system should always remain, even if it’s not the current system of discrete pops. Lets say the system were reworked so each pop had a “size” stat making it more similar to Victoria or the upcoming Project Caesar? That would be acceptable if not desirable as it solves the issue of large pops causing slowdown while also allowing for the fantasy of a populous empire. The issue of diverse populations causing slowdown exists, but hopefully there are ways to mitigate that issue.

 

[Eldrazi]

Above all, Stellaris' biggest strength is the storytelling, which comes in two forms: Emergent and Discovery. 4X games (i.e. Civilization, Endless series, Age of Wonders, etc.) are generally good at the Emergent Storytelling. The ability to develop the story of your nation as you go, as well as to define what your nation is about right at the start, allows for story moments to pop up on their own without the developers directly intending them. The "Eternal War" situation in Civilization II, where three nations far into the future began a never-ending nuclear trading game, was not something the developers wrote into the game. It occurred on its own.

The other kind of storytelling would be the Discovery, which would be the anomalies and dig sites in Stellaris. Stellaris goes harder here than any other 4X I've played. The adventure to find treasures is great. Finding a weird thing in Endless Legend will usually give a small blurb of lore text and a small, lump sum of resources. Finding a weird thing in Stellaris can be that, but it can also modify your entire species' traits. It can give your empire a permanent buff. Heck, even the potential for a new resource deposit is neat! Each one has an actual story with them too! I love running the Discovery Tradition just to find more anamolies, and you better believe The Grand Archive DLC letting me go even crazier on that front was very appreciated.

That all said, I've been playing the game since After Levianthans, but before Utopia. At the moment, I think the biggest issues I've been having with Stellaris since the around the Machine Age's release are that the Civic and Origin slots are bloated, and Empires still feel too static politically/culturally in-game.

There are a lot of Origins that are very lacking, in both gameplay and flavor. Tomb World start is boring, there's no story. It's also extremely weak. The only strategy it really works with is Plantoid/Fungoid/Lithoid with Radiotrophic, Tomb World, Relentless Industrialists. That's very limiting for something that also isn't that impressive in-game, and again, the storytelling isn't that deep. Calamitous Birth is another good example. It's terrible, and while it's a funny idea for a origin, it gets old with every planet smash being the same.

For a while now, I've wished Planet Type origins and Story Origins would be seperated. Why can't we combo Knights of the Toxic God with Tomb World? Why not Necrophage on Shattered Ring (After all, the Flood belongs on Halo.)? Under One Rule on Remnants? Obviously you shouldn't combo everything with everything, and special planet starts would have to include trade-offs if the trade-off isn't losing out on a good origin. At the same time, I want to actually be able to play some of these planetary origins without feeling like I'm severly limiting myself by doing so.

Normal planet types could also do with a way to differentiate them more. Right now, the only differences are planetary features (which doesn't mean a lot mechanically) and a slight weighing to resource amounts (Dry worlds with more energy credits, cold with more minerals, and wet with more food). It'd be neat if they were a little more distinct, especially within the main category. Desert, Arid, and Savanna worlds look the same and play the same. It's boring.

As a small addendum, I want way more options for customizing the window our leader sits in. Playing a spooky death empire is cool, but the window showing a happy sunny day over the crypt skyscrapers is... weird. It's also weird to play a Subterranean empire with the flesh room, but the window shows metal skyscrapers. Stuff like that.

As for the Civics, they are really messed up at the moment. It's not just the vast imbalance in power and/or flavor. Some Civics do not really shine until way later in the game. Dark Consortium as a first-pick is a bad idea, for example. Yet the Civic allows you get really cool buildings without sending people to the brain scorcher. I want to combo this point with something else, because I think a single solution exists for both issues.

Empires have always felt too static. It's weird how in 200 years, our Empires are still the same. Tradition Trees do not feel like adopting new ideas, but solidifying things the Empire already held to be important. Ascension Perks do not feel like embracing a radical idea, but more a pure gameplay thing of unlocking a powerful buff/entity. Even the flag of the Empire cannot be changed.

My personal suggestion is to do what Civ VII is doing, which is what Humankind did. At mid-game start and at late-game start, an event should fire off that allows (but doesn't force) the Empire to change in some meaningful way. If you're playing a Xenophile empire, maybe you're having second thoughts after being surrounded by bullies? Conversly, maybe a Xenophobic empire, upon seeing so many ruins of great empires, begins to rethink their own place in the galaxy. So enable the option to shift Ethics and shuffle Civics without costing a ton of Unity. The existing framework for change should remain if you want a sudden shift, but gradual shifts shouldn't cost Unity.

I would also allow the Civic limit to expand as the game goes on, and maybe even introduce non-starting only Civics. The Galactic Emperor already has this going on, but it's limited to the latest of late game and acts more as a victory lap than anything else.

Last thing, I would love to find a way to make Sectors more than a way to give govenor buffs to planets. I want a way to look at different sectors and see them as culturally distinct. My core worlds follow my vision to the letter, but a frontier sector might have a slight deviation. A recently conquered world would probably be upset. Yet none of this is currently depicted in-game in a meaningful way. I know everyone and their mothers talks about "The Internal Politics" DLC, and yet there doesn't seem to be a big consensus on what that even is. My personal wish is a way to just see the lives of my pops in different parts of the empire. It's hard, given how the abstraction allows personal interpretation. At the same time, it's hard to interpret a diverse group of worlds as a diverse group of worlds when all I see is %80 stability on them all.

Last last thing, Gestalt Empires. I love Hive Minds in fiction. They're cool. They can be cool in Stellaris, both organic and synthetic. That said, their method of having a unique playstyle is to just delete gameplay mechanics and not replace them with anything else. It's nice to be able to ignore consumer goods and potentially food as a mechanic, it makes the game easier after all. However it's also really boring. There really needs to be a mechanic unique to these empires to compensate. I would also like an ability to define what kind of Hive Mind we're rocking, as in having options. Are we like the Zerg/Tyranids, a ton of hungry minds ruled over by a great one? Or are we like the Eldrazi - purely just a single mind, with every body being like a limb to us. Not a seperate thing, just part of us. Some kind of middle between them? The game right now is ambiguious, but not in a good way. A lot of events reference how the drones are acting up, and deviation implies each drone has some will of its own. Yet the drones can't live without the mind guiding them, they die quickly like human cells without a body to be in. It's a weird line to walk on, rather than comitting one way or the other.

Make it like the 0 cost traits Machines got recently - a tiny buff towards something flavorful to give a little flavor nod. Maybe have some events factor it in. Could be cool.

Thanks for everything the team has done over the years, here's hoping to more!

 

[klopkr]

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

You could remove every pop from the game for me if it meant you could simulate 5k stars. The game is and has always been too small and too local with not enough empty space. I'd love a EU5 style number based system with gene and robo modding bonuses being applied against the percentage of a pop that uses them.

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

You could make it a while HOI4 frontline system and it would still be fine so long as you can see the fleets. Mostly I think fleets are fine as they are but the main thing is chasing down enemies, and being able to handle multi multi multi front wars. Stronger late game starbases could go a long way.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I build all the lore off the civics and available gameplay options due to them. I could go for 1-2 more starting civics if there were simply way more of them and they were balanced well. Why can't I be a pirate, slaver, and barbaric despoiler, with a warrior culture and feudal system from the start? I kind of wish that civics could be stacked on more because I feel that so much of the empire flavour is in them.

• 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 them at empire creation based on civics but they change fast depending on the early game and usually end up being dominating the galaxy at the late game with destroying every enemy planet just to speed up the game. Early game tends to be very limiting and hugboxy because only a few empires touch each other leading to few opportunities. I mostly blame the game for being too small.

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

Absolutely worthless. Too obscure, doesn't do much, and often outclassed by other methods. I've tried to focus on it in the past and it's not worth it. I'd rather see a system built on building actual civilian movement between enough systems and enough known systems to reach the maximum number of other empire to trade with for trade bonuses.

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

Colonization is very easy, but if you do too much with it it'll be super annoying at late game when you want colonization to be easy. Habitability feels like a strange relic. Most payers colonize every world and many playstyles reduce the relevance of habitability. Planet size and available resources does significantly more for deciding on colonization than habitability.

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

Subterranean should be a civic. We need waaaaay more generic origins and some origins like knights of the toxic gods should have non themed versions.

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

Espionage is the obvious answer. Influence cost is straight up bad and it still barely does anything. Using it for pre-FTL civs feels bad. It really should just be an ongoing event with choices until they are enlightened or you pause it to hopefully keep them ignorant.

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

Needing to save up a pool of influence for pre-ftl civs becoming FTL and demanding their system is horrible. You can get multiple pretty much at once and get screwed out of your empire natural option, so now you're paying a ton or giving up valuable normal planets of your empire. Very few worthwhile things cost this much influence.

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

I just want to massively slow down the early game and speed up the late game. There should be so much space and so little influence in the early game that you can spend maybe even 100 years just finally reaching your natural borders. Wars should be fought but distant enough that they're not so commonly kill or be killed. In the late game if you are much stronger than another empire it should be relatively fast and efficient to destroy them. Much faster planetwide combat so you don't just crack everything, much much faster fleets, and please make their ships have to flee into their unconquered territory. I hate when I destroy a fleet and conquer the left side of the galaxy, move all the way to the right side, and now they have returned to their already conquered home system from the losers realm to be annoying until I can round up some fleets to cross the galaxy again.

 

[Shin Yodama]

One aspect I would remove if I could would be cosmic storms. They've ruined the game for me.

 

[klopkr]

• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • I hope, all Civics can be changed in play, what can't is in Origin.

Only if you can have double or triple origins.

 

[Nudeldifudel]

First time commenting here on a dev diary, but I just had to log in to talk about this.

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

To me it's pretty important, I dont mind changes or improvements, but I feel like different things give different jobs that different pops can hold is pretty classic Stellaris to me. My problem is that individual pops isn't used to their full advantage. Like each individually pop has a political opinion, political power etc. And that should matter. Right now it only matters when you out them all together like per planet and stuff in terms of how much stability etc but having a ruler on a planet with maybe another ethic then the empire has potential for a story, and maybe I could have the option of swapping him out for a pop with another ethic if I want, or if a lot of pops on the same planet has the same ethic decide to do something good or bad. Or like pops of different races working togheter on a planet should at least get an event or something. All Im saying is that I think the pop system is good mechanically right now, it's just not used to its fullest when it comes to creating stories. Events, situations, modifiers etc.

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

I think you would have to alter quite a lot. Like as long as it's ships together in a fleet with an Admiral in charge, it should feel relatively the same I think. But my problem with fleets is not that they are complex, I like that its complex, I just find myself not caring or understanding most of the time. It's been a while since I played the tutorial, but I feel like I can't understand from playing the game, how I should design my fleets, like should I have 10 destroyers and 1 battleship, 10 cruiser, or all battleships etc. And I the game doesn't highlight it's rock, paper, scissors aspect enough. Like I know you need Intel to look at others ships, but I feel like the aspect of countering and being ready for your enemy was more apparent and easier to do, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Because right now, I just make a fleet with a bit of everything in it, designed the best I can and use it against everyone. And maybe that's a me problem, I don't know. I still feel the game could be easier to understand and engage with in this regard though. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't to the fleet system needs a complete overhaul if you are going to change anything, I would just make it easier to understand, engage and be good at the whole ship/fleet/combat system.

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

Origins are of course important, and the are pretty good right now. Maybe some of the older ones could use a second look, but otherwise pretty great. What I think is most important is probably the civics. But I think they could definitely be a bit more important to your empire, like I would love if each civic had a couple of events that could happen each game. Would make every game even more unique. Ethics are okey, like they are fine. But I honestly think they should maybe unlock/lock more stuff or something. Right now they are just kinda there I don't know. Now government forms should definitely be improved. They are an afterthought when I make my empire now for the most part, when they should be one of the main things. Playing as an empire should feel unique, just like a hive mind is unique. Playing as a federation should be possible. Having a oligarchic confederation where like every planet has its own governor and vote in the federal government should be a thing etc. So in the future I hope government type is so much improved, it is my most important aspect when forming my civilization.


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

I often have achievements I'm going for, love them. Otherwise I have maybe a specific cool empire I have designed, or a natural goal in game because of new content to go for. Or I just play to see the new content.

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

Now it's not important but it really should be. Just like pop ethics/political power is wasted, so is the fact that we have actual trade routs in our empires. It's been a long time since I looked at my trade routes or even saw a pirate, but they should matter. And trade routes should interact with trade routes in other empires. The Galactic market should be a simulated thing taking actual trade routes in the galaxy into account. We should be able to embargo, or build trade stations on borders to connect our trade routes, if I am between two powerful empires, or between a mega corp and their commercial partner, I should prosper and gain something because of the trade going through my empire. And please make, just like precursors, rare resources actually rare, and be only available in certain parts of the Galaxy. This would make you want to go to war, to get them. Or want to trade. Or support an empire in a war to get access to them etc etc. And let mega corp have civics specializing themselves in different rare resources, letting them sell them for better prices. Give me a bonus if I own most of the locations in the galaxy that has rare crystals for example. So people have to interact with me, possibly trade with me to get them. And yeah speaking of purely the system connection back to my capital, yeah I like it.

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

Yes. Honestly, I think the game should be rebalanced for having fewer, but bigger and more unique planets. It would improve storytelling, roleplaying, performance, micromanaged everything. I want to be tempted to go to war over a planet, because a planet should be a big deal, but now when I have 20 of them, 1 no longer is any special. And in that sense, terra forming should also be a bigger deal. Like terra forming planets into my habilitation type should feel important and nesseasery, but right now I either have enough planets, other races, or finished my ascension path so it no longer matters.

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

Don't know, but probably.

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

Don't know if I would remove any system. But ground combat and espionage currently doesn't work as implemented. Like I mean it works, but it isn't fun or really engaging enough for me to engage with it.


What I would focus an expansion around is of course, Internal politics, as I have already touched on elements of it already in this reply. Because right now Stellaris is kinda hollow. Like I am not playing the leader of my empire, or even the government, I am playing as my civilization as a whole in a sort of third person manner. And that's fine, but I feel like we are always looking outside, never inside our empire. Like beyond factions being a non system or pop ethics not being used, I don't feel like there actually lives anybody in my empire. Like I'm told there is, and I can see them in jobs, but I don't feel it. Like give me events about pops protesting a war, pops protesting a Policy change. Give me factions that are naturally formed based on my empire and choices not ethics. Give me sectors with governors that can be disloyal and go rouge. Give me event chains about how to handle the oncoming immigration crisis from a war across the galaxy, or how pops of my own species are angry for me giving citizens rights to a species we just conquered. I changed from democratic to imperial government form in an afternoon and nobody bats an eye etc etc. Stellaris is only alive when you look outside your empire, other empires, discoveries, wars, etc. But when you look inside, it's not only pretty empty, you can't even look inside in the first place. And that should definitely be tackled with an expansion. Maybe 4.0?

 

[Drullo321]

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

While I'm not ultra heavily invested in every small detail the system has to offer, depending on the empire I play (traditions, civics, ethics) I use it more, sometimes less.
I think it is part of what makes Stellaris unique in comparison to other 4X games and is part of the roleplay part of the game for me. I wouldn't mind changes to the system for a successor to Stellaris, however in my opinion fundamental changes to the current Stellaris are detrimental to what are some of the benefits changes offer (e.g. performance gains)

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

Don't alter the visual representation of fleets and ships in the galaxy / systems. I often watch battles between fleets and stations and it is a pleasure.


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

In terms of gameplay: Ascension path, decision to either to TV or credits

In terms of roleplay: Ethics in combination with certain civics and traditions (e.g. Supremacy livestock slaver vs MegaCorp trade empire vs benevolent Rogue Servitor)

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

While the nature of the galaxy and its randomness have influence on the decisions I do, the core part is decided before game start. I tinker about an empire from gameplay and roleplay aspects and then I've a plan i want to realise in the game. Maybe I want to create large capital full of livestock, or i want to be the ruler of the largest federation.
For example, if i want to play a peaceful trader empire (RP) with Mercantile first, i just restart if my nearest neighbor is a fanatic purifier, because it changes just to much of what i wanted to achieve.

Therefore, mostly mid/lategame is open for discussion but early game is set in stone before gamestart and if i don't have fun early, i just restart.

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

To be honest, while I love trade as a competitor and alternative to credits, CG, unity (and even basic ressources as WorkerCoop) and enabling different playstyles, i absolutely hate the pirate / trade protection part of it as it is just an annoying gameplay mechanic, easily but cumbersome to counter.

I just installed the mod "Pirates removed" after ~20h playing the game (currently at >1500h playtime) and never looked back. Piracy simply didn't offer anything then annoyance and even have to deal with them sometimes as gestalt is just the icing on the cake...

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

While technically the pure gameplay part of building a colony ship and colonize a planet is easy, the impact of bad habitabily, bad planetary features/modifiers, etc have a large impact on the performance of the colony itself. I think it matters alot and enough to stay as it is.

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

I think, beside basic origins like Prosperous unifications, they are allowed to have some major impact on how you play the game. There are roleplay origins like UOR, KotG and gameplay origins like Void Dwellers who do this.

On the other hand, some civics are heavily bloated to be used as a civic like Genesis Guides and may be better as an origin.

But to be honest, rather then swapping some Origins<->Civics, I rather would like be some overhauling/balancing of some of them to make them worthwhile or make use of some of the aspects. For example the Overtuned edict is just terrible and in my playthroughs I didn't use it at any part in the game.
I didn't consider picking the Heroic Past civic at all, neither from RP nor gameplay.

The list could continue but the TL;DR of what i wanted to say is from my perspective it would be better to have a look at some civics/origins and how they match with the current state of the game then considering swapping some of them to Origin/Civic.

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

Remove: Piracy (as described above). Just an annoyance with no fun.

Single focus on future expansions: Genetics overhaul and expansion similar to Machine Age, other then that I let the Stellaris Dev surprise me.

Features I want to enjoy but currently can't (because of either balance, lack of gameplay options, RP, etc):

1. Genetics ascension (Is simply a worse option then Modularity/SynthModularity from gameplay, and offers less from RP perspective too)

2. Certain annoyances with the leader trait system:
a) Alot of useless bloat traits: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ou-dont-even-have-terraforming-techs.1713499/
b) Because of A, you pick +Trait Options, just to weed out useless picks, not because you actually want options.
c) Randomness of trait at gamestart. Especially annoying on gestalt nodes. I simply don't want an espionage trait on gestalt for half of the game. Let us choose start traits as a levelup option.

3. Map generation limitations and bugs
a) If i choose to have (depending on map size) 1, 2, 3 FE empires in the game, i don't want the map generator generating less (e.g. zero in a tiny galaxy...). Either bug or working as intended. But not for me
b) I want more map options for certain things. For example I want to decide myself how many leviathans I want to have in the galaxy. I don't want to be restricted to like 1-2 on tiny, nothing wrong with having 5 or 6.

 

[Toybasher]

I like the pop system and wouldn't want to see it go. I like the general "feel" of watching your planets grow. Or if you're a micro-managing maniac, customizing pops for each planet type and job. So I'd really rather not remove it.

In terms of stuff that can be improved, I want government and internal politics represented more. This was made a little worse as democracies lost their mandates with Galactic Paragons. (not that people really liked that mechanic, but it still provided some more separation between government types.)

Democracies could have an internal congress similar to CK2 Conclave that partially handicaps certain actions like war declarations, etc. (You can bypass them but with a moderate penalty to pop happiness and factions.) There should be more gameplay differences between a democracy and dictatorship besides how often rulers get replaced and some small modifiers. Monarchies could have a small noble family you could interact with, designate a new heir, etc.

 

[Hego Damask]

For me, the biggest issue with Stellaris (as well as other grand strategy games) is that the player (i.e., ruler) knows everything about the population (such as levels of happiness, faction membership, ethical alignment, etc.) and other aspects of an empire, whereas in reality, governments and rulers do not have such precise information (yet). Because of that, the threats a player may face are all external. There are no revolutions or coups (except maybe an AI rebellion), no corrupt or traitorous leaders, and no secret heretics or chaos cults that could pose a threat to the player from within the empire. If I remember correctly, there is an interesting mechanic involving Stalin's paranoia in Hearts of Iron 4. I'd like to see something like that in Stellaris too, but in a less scripted and more emergent form.

 

[indalecio248]

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

Its nice, but when you have planets generating hundreds or perhaps thousands of TV, having a remote system that has an asteroid of moon that grants 2 TV is a little underwhelming. I really want to like it, but most of the time its not really worth it setting up a Trade station to collect that. Even if you put in all Trading Hubs and an Off-World Trading Company, it tends to be not worth it. This is speaking as someone who frequently plays megacorps and other trade-based empires.

EDIT
On another note, I would very much like to choose my initial council in Empire setup, for roleplay reasons. I know we can do it for the leader, but having the option to name and pick the initial traits on the council would be great.

 

[MEMARNS]

The game needs to rework the economy. Now energy and currency are the same thing and you can get all the resources from nothing, and the galactic market is just a name that does not have any trade behind it. Also, the introduction of a separate currency will expand the galactic law on a single currency

 

[Belkeirun]

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

Not at all. Please remove it. Have the districts directly produce resources. The planet can support a number of districts based on the size of the planet and the population of the planet. Make Ring-Worlds great again....

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

Change away, please remove the number of AI fleets badly trying to pathfind. The fleet manager has got to be updated, it is beyond a joke.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I generally want to play a game with the civilization I have designed. I don't play games with 100's of different species in my empire as that defeats the purpose of designing one in the first place.

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

Goals are often fixed when setting up the game. Unless something major happens my long term plans don't change. I have already decided on what ascension path and generally what perks. Unless I get an unexpected precursor event or find myself blocked in with far less room for expansion then the goals don't change.

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

Not at all. You have to go full trade or not at all.

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

The first planet you colonize could be more difficult/interesting. Planet climate should matter, but a lot more planets should be able to be terraformed.

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

Origins should be split into 'Planetary System' & 'Cultural Origin'. Some of the Civics should probably be 'Cultural Origins' basically the ones you can't swap out.

• 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 Factions (Totally irrelevant)
For future expansion, Nomadic Cultures, Population based on slow moving World Ships.
Wants to enjoy,

1) Leaders, the new system is OK, but when I build a new science ship and go to recruit a 'surveyor' I expect to be able to hire a surveyor, not a scientist who wants to fly on a ship for a jolly. That is one of the biggest reasons to break the 'no cheating rule' and use a console command to refresh the leader pool. In each leader category there always needs to be a level 1 with 1 skill upgrade available option.

2) Stellaris is a 4X space game. Explore - 10/10. Expand - 3/10. Exploit - 6/10. Exterminate - 6/10.

Exploring is very good and fun and easily the best part of the game.
Expand is rather poor due to the limits you have imposed on the game, slowing pop growth, too much emphasis on wide vs tall debate.
Exploit is under represented, the materials you have to exploit should be a far greater limiting factor than it is, especially regarding rare & strategic materials.
Exterminate, the war goals system is not good. The number of times I have been in a 3 way war which nobody can end is annoying and a common game ender.

 

[Okto]

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

- I really enjoy the Stellaris economy and planet management, I think its one of the best in all PDS games. A Project Caesar / Victoria 3 pop system where worlds largely manage on their own would be better, but thats too much to ask from Stellaris 1. I'd wish that there were more ways of specializing in the late game, maybe through a more accessable path towards fallen Empire tech.

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

- For me, the limit is that I can send my fleet anywhere in system and that there are pretty space battles. Stellaris lives because you (the devs) aren't afraid to do major reworks. Do them! As long as the game doesn't end up like Vic3's combat, anything goes. (especially more automation would be nice)

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

- If I had to choose propably the origin closely followed by civics, but honestly every creation aspect is important, including flags, backgrounds and the species appearance!

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

- When I play with friends I often try to roleplay and imagine what the leaders would do. That doesn't always work out since failing doesn't make for fun RP but its often good enough to steer the game.

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

- I really like trade, but pirates are just an unneccary nuisance and I couldn't care less about trade routes. Also, the system feels a bit detached from cross empire trading through diplomancy.

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

- I think colonization is too focused arround the habitable planets from a human point of view, which we could propably settle easily anyways since they're just ripped apart biomes of Earth. What I would like to see is species being able to settle the other planets, which each bring their unique challenges. Especially I'd like to see Aquatics in subsurface oceans! But I can see the balance implications if every planet is easily settleable.

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

- Criminal Heritage. Rogue Servitor.

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 pirates in their current form. They're just annoying.

- Warfare, war exhaustion, and peace. I'd like to see neutral zones, fortress dismantling, propaganda to lower war exhaustion, blockades?
- a crime rework where crime isn't always bad and can give you advantages
- more options to unite the galaxy outside of becoming emperor

- Federations. I want to be able to unite them! or even turn them into vassals.

 

[Eladrin]

Lots of very detailed responses, thank you all. I've got a lot of reading to do tonight.

Forgot to ask this but does this mean we're not getting a patch on the 12th or is this referring to a different patch?

I'm exceptionally bad at the concept of linear time. Currently we are in fact looking at having the 3.14.159 patch next week; on my dev diary list I originally had it penciled in for the week after and despite moving it I then forgot how time works. Again.

 

[y1kdcb5au9rqw]

How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
The only good thing about it is that it is much better than the tiles. For me it completely ruins the feel of managing an empire on a galactic scale that I have to move a group of miners into a research lab because I want a few more science production (even if that move is automated) or have one of them “grow” for x amount of time and then “pop, another pop pops up".

I would have designed it as an abstraction somewhat akin to Victoria’s pop simulation and have it at the sector scale, so every time I build a new station or colonises a planet in that sector it changes the characteristics of the overall sector instead of at the level of individual colonies including planets, rings and whatnot in individual systems.

That way you can micromanage (if you want to) smaller sectors with few colonies and really feel connected to them in the beginning of the game but as you grow you would have to make your sectors bigger (somewhat like in Crusader Kings where you put provinces with counts under dukes once the span of control gets overextended and eventually you have to put dukes under kings) and not manage them in as much detail making your span of control the same but the management level moving more and more away from operations and into the strategic level as you grow. (this of course is a general problem with Paradox games where every province sort of have the same build order and after a while it just becomes conquer, build workshop, repeat)


If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
Fleets suffer from the same problem as colonies, in the beginning individual ships matter and later on it just becomes a mass of firepower thrown at another mass of firepower. I think a bigger focus on fleet makeup, logistics and special operations might make this part of the game more engaging and make it feel like the game I might love.


What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
I think that the background story (such as origins and civics) matters a lot, as I want to feel that there is a history behind the civilisation I am playing and that guides what I want to do in the game as a “logical” sometime even ideological extension of that history. On the opposite side of that is the race design which is just bonus stacking and pretty disappointing at that (though some of the race avatars are pretty spectacular and do play into my history fantasy most of the time).


How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
I do not really set goals, except maybe at the tactical level (get this system to achieve an operational effect and such), but I play the “logical” development of my civilisation (as described above) and that does of course guide me and the broader direction of a given game but more as a "reaction" to how events unfold in said game.


How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
System is just a nuisance, best part of playing a machine empire is not having to engage with it.


Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Yes, and it circles back to my thoughts on the pop/colony system above.


Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
I liked it better when there were only civics and it was easier to pick and mix and fully design your own history, now you sometimes have to fit your history into what the system allows you to do. However, civics as a whole are pretty boring (in the same way that race design is) so maybe all civics should be expanded upon to more origin style depth.


If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
Probably the storms, that addition really managed to not add anything positive to the game at all.


Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
Internal politics and factions are something that is really underdeveloped, often just a hinderance you have to work around, not something that is actively engaged with. Would also tie nicely into my sectors as the central “province element” mentioned above with sectors growing their own factions pursuing different goals and aligning with other factions in other sectors to push through their agenda.


Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
I enjoy the exploration and expansion part of the game and have a hard time understanding how you can “survey” the entire galaxy in the first 50 years of achieving FTL and then there is nothing left to find… how efficient can one little science ship be, hovering over an entire planet for a couple of days (I know there are a few events and such that discovers things after colonisation etc., but most of the galaxy is documented and catalogued in the first 50 years).

 

[Frimgehnier]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  
  Quite. It has its issues, but it was welcome addition when it was introduced and I have little complaints for it as a concept. Regarding the vague hint that you think of changing it, I can say that I'm sceptical. Not because I think of this system as important and non-replaceable, but because I think that the main issue of the game after Synthetic Age is balance, and tinkering with fundamental part of the game is not a good way to right the balance
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  
  It would be welcome if the war wouldn't be such a slog
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  
  Efficiency, build, type of empire, origin and how much pain in the ass controlling this empire would be
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  
  Not to fall back behind my friends, often with quite specialized and optimal builds
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  
  It constantly distracts me with spawning pirates. Can I, I don't know, pay some alloys to set up a trade convoy? Aside from that, It is invisible in most scenarios, and even if I pick an empire focusing on trade, it just another number that goes up
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  
  I wouldn't name it easy, I would say that it is uneventful and devoid of meaningful choice. You count you empire size in your head, and either wait for terraforming, or decide to go yolo and colonize everything
  
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  
  I have no particular thoughts about this. The current arrangement seems fine
  
  
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be?
  
  Espionage, in the form that it exists in current version. It needs constant attention and constant choices made in the vacuum of this particular system. It doesn't yield anything particularly useful, and it could be ignored whatsoever. AIs are so quickly outpaced that there is no use of spying on them (why should I divert my attention on a civ that would be conquered in couple of years?), and in the clash of players this system doesn't give anything substantial
  
  
• Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion?
  
  Hive minds
  
  
• Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?
  
  Two of them: vassals and galactic community. More broadly, diplomacy overall. Vassals are good on paper, but AIs are just rushing to become yours if you are strong enough. AIs just don't have the concept of stable, long-standing alliance anymore -- Either one of them develops federation, or one becomes the vassal of the another
  
  Galactic community is kinda uneventful. You click your vote and forget. There is no narrative of why someone proposes minor economic sanctions in a community without many laws to break. There is no struggle to pass a law. There is no interaction between empires regarding galactic community -- you can spend favors without an empire's involvement or discover that they are slightly angry because you chose not to support their peepee poopoo act three years ago