Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[Losttruppen]

Stellaris to me is a single-player game about your Team(species, alliance, collective, parasite-host) emerging from small beginnings into a vast(but sadly bounded) galaxy full of discovery, wonder, and, best of all, Xenos and Robots to contend with.

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

2.1 relegated Pop Portraits to page two collapsible folders, Paragons removed 90% of my Leaders, if you turn Pops into numbers on a spreadsheet what will become of current and future Species packs? Focus on removing the performance and micro load, but please don't devalue our purchases any more, or remove a revenue stream and great source of new Xenos/Bots to play with and against.

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

The RTS-lite combat is a large part of my enjoyment in this game. Combat in all other 4X space games and other Paradox grand-strategy games I have played are extremely offputting and feel like tacked on minigames(HoI is well integrated). I prefer Company of Heroes to Steel Division, Sins of a Solar Empire to Endless Space, Fifa to Football Manager, Rome: Total War land battles to their sea battles, Empire: Total War to Risk. Changing this to something more abstract would hurt the game after 8 years; I can't see this attracting anyone new to this game, only appeasing a part of the playerbase at the expense of another part.

Stellaris combat has issues(Hull class imbalances, one battle Wars before mop up operations, 20 useless Weapons and 3 that exploit design issues every meta shakeup, wide RNG from Disengagement affecting War Score and Economy, Benny Hill chases) but I don't think it's because of its inherent design, merely implementation. We have in the last 8 years seen just about every Weapon type sway from the top of the meta to the bottom; people claimed Strikecraft would never be fixed and should be removed, but the bugs were squashed and they behave fine now, and have one of the best functioning Combat Computer behaviours.

I feel this portion of the game has been on the back-burner for 8 years barring a few instances on full blast such as 2.0 or 3.6(burning some things like Neutron Launchers but cooking Strikecraft to a nice sear), where it has slowly improved and expanded it's potential(remember when every ship from Corvettes to Battleships just swarmed like a ball of fish, where now Artillery ships fan out and kite and Carriers maintain range) and I only see it getting better with a bit more consistent focus and attention. Perhaps a dedicated War team a la Custodians who can learn how to work this system on a more consistent basis, as it seems like some progress is made then left to gather dust for too long before getting another pass that ignores most of the prior intentions and direction for something new.

I love the system, it is a unique blend of RTS and Grand Strategy that plays well into the Economic(Components cost different resources, Alloys drive half the economy and Ships are the biggest spender), Research, Exploration(threats; limits and time gates on expansion; redirections; unique Components, Leviathan ships, Grand Herald), Diplomatic, and Galaxy Map systems, while being simple enough to be able to use Auto-generated designs and move order directions to accomplish everything it needs and offering a depth of Rock-paper-scissors asymmetry if you want to min-max and or even just RP using different Ship or Fleet layouts.

More work on ensuring each Hull has a purpose, each Computer behaviour does what it should, each Component has a niche in which it excels(this may require some pruning or perhaps some redundancy just to offer different flavours of the same combat role), and most of all, that the AI knows what to do with it, and if it doesn't then it should stick to the functional basics.

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 every game to maximize my Exploration and give myself every bonus, while setting as hostile and difficult a galaxy as I can, with tailor made Rival Empires to become late-game threats, All Crises, and steep Research costs against 5x Habitable GA difficulty scaling enemies to make every bonus not only necessary but hard fought.

I use off-meta builds to handicap myself and for RP flavour. I have played the same Empire(Spi/Mil/Phobe Life-seeded) and Species(Humans->Elves) for 6000 hours. I RP as haughty, xenophobic, enigmatic dark elves returning from some near-extinction or banishment event on an unholy crusade to restore their former empire which is now full of bugs and primitives, and is in dire need of some housekeeping.

My goals are to survive as long as I can, and usually end after I have defeated a particularly difficult foe or have become overwhelmed by all my enemies from being evil Xenophobes.

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

I would prefer Trade to not be it's own Resource, and instead be the way in which you collect and distribute all the others. I feel the current collection system could be revamped to move Resources from Colonies and Systems, to Trade focused worlds per Sector, and then connect those to each other. This would allow us some abstraction of a Civilian and transport network, as well as provide a means of finally removing the money-printing Internal Market and basing the economy on what is actually produced.

Trade should represent the volume of Resources a Planet can move, so if your Planet produced 200 Alloys, you would need 200 Trade at the local hub to collect those Alloys and get them to your Shipyards. By having less you would still create those Alloys and stock them locally, but they would not be useable until they could be transported by either increasing local Trade to clear the deficit, or a Planet decision, Military Aid convoy, or something at a cost.

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

Leaders after Paragons.

I play a Xenophobe single Species; I have to accept serious RP conflicts to take on most Paragons, I still have empty silhouettes where I used to have nice(paid for) Portraits, I have no external Leader Pool thus halving my new recruits, and I play as Space Elves, some of whom do not meet my Empire's grooming standards for Hairstyles and are thus removed from consideration for Hire.

One of the major reasons for the Leader Caps was the new power of Leaders, yet most Leaders are hired in their 30s(or 40s) and have a default age limit of 80, meaning most will die long before ever seeing these power levels and the Caps prevent us from having any stand-ins or apprentices and I must hire one of 3 random leaders on the spot to replace them. From all the games I have played since Paragons I have not seen the power levels advertised, my playstyle removes most of the paths to achieve them, and the few leaders I do get a sense of power from end up dead shortly after even though I dedicate a significant effort in pursuit of Leader Lifespan and Unity.

Please consider raising the default death Age to 100, since it's the year 2200 and we're dealing with space age races and 80 is below most contemporary developed Human countries, and allowing for some way to better prepare replacement Leaders that isn't sticking a Cap consuming Councilor in a non-Council role; it feels wrong to have empty silhouettes governing all my worlds to then have someone sitting there twiddling their appendages waiting for another someone to die.

Guaranteed RNG negative traits are also a feels-bad mechanic, and having either a significantly larger pool diluted with a number of minor negatives like -5% Farmer output rather than huge issues like ten years of their life removed or torturing entire sectors, or a way to remove it by sending them to my Resort or Penal colony for a stint of remediation would go a long way to alleviate the desire to Alt-f4 when those red toasts come up.

 

[Madwwwizard]

So I have played this game since launch. Unlike what was mentioned I don't play every game differently, I play with preset empires that represent various other sci fi empires races/empires. I play it more as a roleplaying game, so I more excited about origins that represent tropes undone. I loved machine age origins, I think they are some of the best. I also play basically every game through to the end, the end being either defeating the crisis or getting destroyed by some other faction or midgame crisis.

I think the only major thing on my wishlist at this point is bioships and some sort of overhaul to the biological ascension. It feels very lame compared to the others.

 

[ClavintheGreat]

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

The current stellaris pops+jobs system/balance is the most enjoyable to me econ management of any pdx game on offer, do not touch it, its fantastic

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

You can change a lot with fleets, especially if it reduces late game fleet micro?

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The synergy of Civics/ideologies generally

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

I generally just play casual mp games, so the goal is to: expand to a reasonable size, and grow the economy, build a large fleet, and be strong in the galactic community. These never change

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

Burn the trade system to the ground

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

too RNG based on what planets/how many planets you get imo. Some starts are really really bad, and some starts are far too good. Current colonization system is fine

• 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?

Burn the trade system to the ground, maybe the espionage system too.

Expand on the wargoals system and diplomacy system more.

 

[Navar]

Stellaris has been my go-to strategy game basically since release for the sheer immersion I can get out of it with gamplay that feels fun with a decent depth and variety to playstyles available.

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

I really like the way jobs function currently, but I feel we could see more done with how they exist individually. I feel like the jobs and positions available to a society do a lot for my immersion, so I'd hate to see that system go away. If pops become a blur, then what even is my empire?

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

My preferred playstyle is Inward Perfection, with a tiny territory with built up borders (hopefully 2 or fewer chokepoints to hold in). Changing fleets doesn't touch that as much, so I don't see how I would be impacted by that. Abstract them if you'd like imo.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

How my people live is important to me. The jobs they work, how happy they are in their situation, how the rulers live, what does my society focus on when not dealing with the necessities of life and all that. How we build things, how and where we live is important as well.

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

Kinda random tbh, I go with whatever the game throws at me until it no longer interests me.

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

I think trade should exist, though the way it currently works needs adjustment. My main gripes are that there is no job that leverages trade into a resource, and that trade just generates resources on its own. In my mind, trade jobs should either generate trade or leverage trade to create energy or what have you. Trade routes are fine imo, but shouldn't necessarily all go to your capital, but between colonies in general.

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

I feel that habitability should matter WAY more than it does right now. As it stands, I feel that a planet's climate should matter a bit more than it does now. Not sure in what way, but I feel that it should.

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

Origins (and some civics) currently fall into one of four categories: Homeworld origins (Remnants, Post Apocalyptic, Voidborn, Life Seeded, etc), Society origins (Mechanists, Scion, Cybernetic Creed, Eager Explorers, etc), Story origins (Treasure Hunters, On the Shoulders of Giants, Riftworld, etc), and Flavor origins (Galactic Doorstep, Lost Colony, Slingshot to the Stars, Calamitous Birth).

Homeworld is based around your home being different than the norm.

Society is based around your people's ascension to the stars being different from the norm.

Story is based around a particular goal your people have or found when reaching the stars.

Flavor is based on providing a small benifit that differs slightly from the norm.

Some are a mix, others blatantly being a toe-dip of accessing certain mechanics sooner (which is fine, most are done well). It could do with a shake-up, but anything done to these (like selecting more than one origin) would have to be done carefully.

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: I don't think I'd remove any system, most I would just touch on to make better.

Expansion focus: Pop rights and Factions. I'd love for more factions to act like the Cybernetic Creed factions do, what with vying for policies and not always pleasing all factions.

Currently, I feel that the one thing I don't like and would want improved would be how, after a few years, you just stop getting events from Pre-Ftl observation. Its just stops, and no events pop up. That needs a lot more events, and some generic ones so that you can keep benifiting on not just taking over their planet.

 

[Imp0815]

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



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.

Don't forget to take some time off to relax! Play some inspirational games, like HoI IV for example.

 

[Edorath]

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Origin, civics, traits... it's all a mix truth be told

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

I think i can speak for most players in that the goals and my build influence eachother, and as for changes i personally only do that when it presents a form of roleplaying opportunities

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

I like trade but i have always personally believed it'd be nice to have ways to further use it beyond turn into energy/CGs etc. I'd also like to see it influence my pop's lives a bit more too, maybe the trade exchange policies could be expanded to have passive effects attached to them?

• 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 wouldn't remove anything, but i'd absolutely rework criminal corps as a whole. I'd like to see a DLC focused on alien fauna/flora (as well as terraforming) OR internal politics/institutions, and how ascensions influence your society and in turn said institutions maybe (i always thought machine age did a great job with this, and hope there'll be something equivalent for biologic/psionic ascensions too). As for i want to enjoy, i'd say espionage and mercenaries. Espionage is very much toothless and won't impact the game outside passively gaining intel most of the time, and mercenaries will quickly bankrupt either you or the AI eventually (imo this would have an easy fix, just have mercenaries have set fleets rather than ever increasing ones).

 

[Shadowstrike]

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

I like the granularity of the pop system: particularly how it represents that each group of aliens has specific biological/mechanical identity, political leanings, employment, and so forth. That said, I would be OK with "merging" pops together that have the same set of identities if it helps with simulation speed.

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

Honestly, I'm not too tied to the current fleet system. It's always been a "build the biggest doomstack and roll it around". I'd love to see more to do with logistics of maintaining those fleets (e.g. supply lines, attrition), and having to space them out more.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I think that being able to define the "values" of your civilization, e.g. their ethics, helps me most in defining who they are. Origins and civics also play into this. I would like to see more of an evolution of cultural values over the course of the game though. As you encounter alien civilizations and advance technologically, your values should evolve as a function of that, and more importantly, there should be incentives to do so. Right now, there doesn't seem to be any rationale to change your focus from say egalitarian to spiritualist.

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

There's definitely a "next shiny bauble" effect here - I find something I want to acquire (planets, anomalies, etc.), and then go for it, and see how the game evolves from there. I think this aspect is fine, to be honest.

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

I'm not too attached to this? Trade can definitely be handled in a more interesting, and more interactive way.

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

Yes, habitability should matter more, but it's also way too easy as a xenophile nation to just recruit alien pops with different planetary preferences to overcome this. There really should be a cultural acculturation mechanic that makes it so that aliens take time to accept being part of your nation, so you can't just sign a migration treaty to get ocean-dwellers, and then use them to settle all your ocean worlds, without the concern that they might split from your empire.

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

I feel like the distinction should be a little more solid. Origins should be immutable situations that your civilization finds itself in at the start of the game, whereas civics are values that your civilization can adopt or change. Looking through the list on the wiki, I feel like these origins should be civics: Mechanist, Overtuned, Subterranean, Under One Rule, Cybernetic Creed, Storm Chasers, Primal Calling, Treasure Hunters. In terms of Civics, I feel strongly that there shouldn't be any civics you cannot remove. These are cultural values that your civilization holds, but they should be changeable (even if there is a cost associated with it). I'm aware that many of them are immutable because they change your starting situation, so you could game the system to get those initial benefits and reform away; I feel like those civics should be shifted to origins. But it would be interesting to have say a Driven Assimilator shift to Rogue Servitor as their thoughts about organics changes.

• 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've been playing a lot of Victoria 3, and I feel like Stellaris is missing an aspect of controlling a living, changing society, and dealing with the internal political forces that shape that. Right now, this is really down to picking ethics and civics at the start, with the one change of adding the additional civic mid-game. I'd like to see there be an evolution in the kind of society that you have, with branching possibilities of what your people will become, as they are influenced by both other civilizations, and the progression of technology. I'd also like to see the push/pull between conservative and progressive forces contribute to that change. I'd like to see the factions become more like Victoria 3's interest groups, and your civics/laws become more like Victoria 3's laws, with only a limited number of them available at the start, more becoming available as you are influenced by events/technologies, and then there being a struggle to change those laws, based on the factional interplay internally.

 

[Shaeliss]

If we're suggesting expansion ideas...

I'll toss mine in the hat: a Galactic Life DLC focusing on making the galaxy more alive. This would include but not limited to Crime and Piracy rework!

Organize military parades to show off your might! Maybe cheat on them by adding fake armies and fake ships to them to look more imposing! I mean, sure, an event this big means Rivals will most likely try to do some Espionnage to gather some Intel on you, or even launch an Operation to sabotage it, since even if the actual damage is minimal, that's gonna be a public humiliation for your parade to go this wrong, but you've invested in security and counterespionnage... Right?

Militarist neighbor who's your best friend hasn't been in a war in a long time? You're invited to shoot some asteroids for fun, or to some large scale war games! Get an additional Commander and Scientist to study the fight while you're at it! Both sides gets some Experience to their Armies, Ships and Commanders, and a chance for some Research progress towards Military Theory and/or Ship Components, the winner gets some self-satisfaction (Unity, probably) and some Influence as they just got some street cred, and the loser gets to see the winning tactics and equipment in action so they have a higher chance to reverse-engineer techs the winner used!

Maybe customizeable federations where you could get generic, Federation type-specific, and Ethics-specific perks (for simplicity's sake, unless their Ethics contradicts or supports the perks, they should probably abstain from voting)! Extra investments in a fed means things go smoother tho! And hey, Federation events to be unlocked as fed perks! A huge Trader forum to get some nice boons from Trade should be doable for most, maybe even all feds, but Trade Leagues should go WILD with those! Invest in your federaton, you might get something cool out of it!

Become a leader in legal arms exports at arms fair, or vioe for all kinds of recognition in Space Olympics through the Galcom! And hey, if we end up able to recreate the Football War In Space, I'm not gonna complain. And hey, other similar events like a Space Emu War on world with dangerous fauna could be good for a laugh, and actually winning it could turn in a Specimen or a Planetary Modifier!

Hire criminals to harass dissident group, or to fake a terror attack on your planets that you framed another empire for! Recruit criminals as spies, set up offshore bank enclaves for all of your dirty dealings or Overlord Tax evasion (and some cash on the side), but be aware, criminals, pirates and other empires could also do dealings at your banks, turn some of your food and/or CG production into drugs, become a narcostate, but if half your leaders get your lifespan reduced by becoming Substance Abusers just so you could make money, well, that's life, hawk your fleet's hardware for quick cash on the black market, at the cost of losing a lot of your efficiency and possibly seeing these guns again very soon, grant pardons to smugglers and hire them as Independent Traders (if I was less charitable and less afraid of lawsuits from the Workshop, I'd use another word instead of "independant") so you can get a cut of theior profits toss some Space Opium at your rivals to weaken them, sell guns to rebel groups, or buy things from Empires that have no commercial agreement with you (but it goes both ways and those "retired" black market operators operate on YOUR territory), and Privateers can harass your enemies (or even you, if they make you a better deal or think they can get away with highjacking a shipment or two...)... Do you trust theml with Jump and Cloaking techs?

Buy weapons to built your ships, getting higher build times as components muist be refitted, and replacing some of the alloy build and upkeep costs with Energy Credits costs, as you have to keep buying... Buy and reverse engineer decommissioned hardware or cutting edge civilian goods! The more the technology spreads, the cheaper it gets to buy it...

Oh, and all manners of positive and negative things happen at your border... Smuggling, tourism, piracy... Maybe build vice stations that could help you gather Intelligence on your neighbours (you would be surprised how much information foreign dignitaries let sleep around paid concubines) and make you money, and it might cause some slight uptick in Crime for them, but... They get a few benefits out of it, like reduced Amenities consumptions and the possibility of doing shady deals of their own if they tolerate these vice enclaves on their borders...

And hey, the Warfare Storm leaks need to happen more often instead of being jealously hoarded by Cybernetoic Ascenscion...

 

[Abdulijubjub]

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
Economic model and strategy, which usually means civics, with some features from the origin (and occasionally the ascension). What matters is that they play differently. If two empires have drastically different narrative descriptions, but they both play exactly the same (except one has +15% to something or other, and the other has +15% to something else, so that a tiny number of pops shift around), then they're not different empires (to me). And, unless I played something terribly and would like to do it over with better decisionmaking, I'm not generally interesting in playing the same thing repeatedly.

How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
Usually: the goal is to win, in a way that's thematically appropriate. Aside from a few things that pop up during gameplay ("I have a chance to protect Amor Alveo this game. Save the amoeba!"), the goals are set at the start, and it's nearly always "win in a way that's thematically appropriate for this particular empire with its civics/ethics".

How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
It has one role which is very important: it makes trade feel like trade. It gives it the vibe of connecting your empire and generating prosperity by things flowing from place to place, with trade routes to protect with your anti-piracy fleets, and such. But I can imagine many other systems that could do something like that, and the actual mechanical reality is either shallow and easily solvable (starbase chains to completely remove piracy, then gateways extending their reach even further) or needlessly tedious (manually setting up patrol routes with 10 corvette fleets to prevent hostile ships from appearing in the middle of my empire is not something I particularly want to spend my time on). I would be very sad if we lost everything and trade just became another resource (or disappeared). I would be overjoyed if we got something more minimalist that captured the same vibe (because it's the vibe, making trade feel different from other economic models, which is crucial).

Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
Yes, absolutely, too easy. Outside of the very early game where the cost of a colony ship is substantial (and you must pace yourself), players should always colonize everything for growth (which e.g. leaves Terrestrial Sculpting feeling like an empty prerequisite tech for Ecological Adaptation).

Habitability is too easy to deal with. If you're a xenophile you just sign a migration pact and never worry about it again. If you're a xenophobe, you colonize everything and just reshuffle pops back to your capital or guaranteed habitables. And for all of them, it's eventually solved by mid game (by terraforming, if necessary) so that e.g. habitability bonuses are completely worthless.

---

What is most sacred
Balance (ish) among possible strategies, which is currently sorely lacking. It's not just a roleplaying game, it's also a strategy game. That means part of the fun comes from playing well.

So if playing well means you're encouraged to drop something fun/unique in favor of the same bland boring options that every empire gets (regardless of civic/origin), then it sucks the joy out of the game.

"Just don't do that, then" - The challenge is part of the fun. It's more difficult to feel challenged if I know, consciously, at all times, that I'm playing with one hand tied behind my back and all my difficulties could go away easily if I just pressed a button which is supposed to be a valid part of the game.

i.e. Players will optimize the fun out of a game if you let them, if half of what made the game fun in the first place is strategizing and optimizing. If the game makes optimizing un-fun, then it's because there's something wrong with the game.

Weak civics that do something unique are fine (though it would be better if they were brought up to par). Intentionally challenging civics and origins are great (though I think it's a missed opportunity if they don't give you something interesting as a reward). Civics/origins that are too strong would also be fine, if the game were harder (so that you could experience what they have to offer and still be challenged without intentionally shooting yourself in the foot), but it's currently not difficult enough for that.

What is not fine are options that are strictly better than, and do the same thing as, other options. Or, conversely, unique content which is always a trap compared to the default, so that you should never actually use it if you have a choice ex. Rangers, or Mutual Aid back when you could switch back to Wealth Creation. Or universally available options that are always the right choice (Cosmogenesis).

I love to optimize. I like to feel that I'm playing well. I like to take an empire (with its constraints, and its goals, imposed by origin/civics/ethics) and execute as well as possible (without abandoning those origins/civics/ethics unless it was part of the original game plan).

I took an unintentional hiatus from actually playing, after a few Machine Age playthroughs, because ever time I started up an empire and planned ahead, I got to "and then I guess I take Cosmogenesis again and just go on autopilot, abandoning literally everything that made the empire unique, until eventually I auto-win without the AI ever trying to oppose me", then lost all my enthusiasm to play. Now I just pretend it's not there, which is a shame. A little bit of what it gave (if it came at a cost, came in limited amount, or was otherwise limited enough to not replace all empire's strategies with "just use the cosmogenesis buildings, abandoning everything that came before") would be better.

 

[Lakdav]

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

I wouldn't terribly mind interesting changes to this system, but it would surely feel like a very different game at that point. It is a good, adaptive system - though the variety and sheer number of different possible specialist jobs makes the pops tab on planets feel more overwhelming than easy to use.

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

You could alter many things, but if you got rid of the ship designer entirely or the Hull/Armor/Shield layered defenses, then it would no longer feel like Stellaris to me.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Possible interactions with other empires, and the many ways empires may differ from one another. Thus I wouldn't mind more ethics, and ethics for gestalts with their own kinds of limitations and bonuses.

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

Based on information of what I have access to, what would be more difficult to reach, and is it even worth it to reach it. Goals develop in early game, stagnate or are reached midgame, and new goals come up late game with crises emptying systems and Gates allowing closer access.

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

I play gestalts mostly. It only affects me when two empires have their route crossing my territory, and then only because it builds piracy, making their trade my problem...

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

The system in place is fine, but we could use more small events regarding their climate and/or planetary blockers and their clearance. Galactic Storms are a good step, but in scale it is too big immediately. Until a planet is fully tamed (machine/hive world or ecumenopolis) weather anomalies could create floods, droughts, storms, leave behind new blockers that can be cleared for new resource sectors.

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

Any civic that currently "Start of the game only" should be an origin... or a second origin, if you would entertain the idea of such a system. And as origins, empires should be able to grow beyond them. A Determined Exterminator could try to repent, it wouldn't erase its history of genocide and the negative relations from such a history, but it should be able to make the effort. Similarly a Devouring Swarm could overcome its constant hunger. These options should be available at least sometimes (ascension comes to mind)

It would be cool if some Origins enabled the choice to adapt a new civic unique to that Origin, once the origin's story is finished.

• 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'm probably alone in this, but I would remove the market *until* you have contact with another civilization willing to trade with you. Who am I selling these minerals to? Where am I buying these consumer goods from? Am I not the owner of my lonely empire's economy? Where is this stuff coming from??

Galactic politics could use some work or incentives to use. Most of the resolutions basically come down to Diplomatic Weight that feels like the entire Galactic Community exists only for its own amusement, and it has only one winner, the one able to become Galactic Emperor in the end because that is all Diplomatic Weight builds up towards. That, and one more free fleet you inherit from your Custodianship. Espionage is another aspect I would love to enjoy but can't (except for the occasional darkening of another empires Sun via Stellar Devourer eggs)

 

[Commodore Shad]

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

This is a part of the game that requires a lot of micromanagement. So it's clearly not my favorite part of the game, and one of the reasons why I play tall almost systematically.

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

I have no idea; fleet management is definitely not the part I love the most. I just stack ships of different sizes and try to maximize my fleet power

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Politic choices are definitily the more important part for me. I love the myriad of political systems I can play, and would love to have even more. RP is also something that I cherish in the game : my trade league xenophile thalassocratic empire, with paragons, etc. Again, I would love to have more political systems, diplomacy and characters.

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

In the end, my goal is always to defeat the end game crisis and the stagnant empires. That said, how I do that depends on my empire settings.

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

I play mostly as megacorps (2000+hours), so i highly value trade. Having said that, the actuel route system is almot always ignored, unless a route is actually broken for some reasons. I don't have much idea about how improving it, even though I would love a better system.

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

I enjoy playing tall empires, with no more than 3-4 planets. So yes, I would probably like having colonization more challenging.

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

I would love having more options, both as civics and origins. To my mind civics are more about organizational politics, and origins more about the empire background, so that could be politic, or otherwise.

• 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 system for conquering planets is still very bad, although not as bad as it once was... No idea about how to improve it.
-The conclusion of wars is also very bad and frustrating: when you have only a very mediocre view of the result of your actions. The game could benefit greatly from an EU4-style system, with a wide range of choices during the peace settlement: gaining systems, branch offices, breaking allegiances or vassalage relationships, changing the political system, possibly gaining leaders, paragons, items, and so on.
-I would love to have an expansion on culture and religions in our empire. Choosing religious and cultural paths, etc.

 

[Archael90]

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

- I would love to really see a pop and jobs simulated. But current implementation is not what I expect. Current planet view is just bad for me, I prefer old, but improved tile system.

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

- No changes to fleets will make this game worse, literally. Since removal of 3 ftls, nothing, in terms of fleets and warfare can make game worse. I would love to see fleets being a unit, not single ships (tho ability of fully customizable ships would be nice - remove guns from ship models, give ships just slots and allow to equip those with anything of the right size... And do something with fauna fleets, it's so underwhelming).

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

- depending of what you ask. I would love to see more impactful traits, ability to rename council before game start, more freedom in choosing 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 set my goals during empire creation, when I create an empire I decide what they will be looking for in the galaxy and they will pursue this goals.

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

- It's underwhelming. If it's only for TV, it could be non existent I would not notice. If it will be expanded to transport minerals for forges, or food to all planets, it will be much better.

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

- yes

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

- There are civics that needs it's own civic slot, mainly permanent civics.

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

- check my signature.
But I would love to see all bugs and narrative holes being fixed. This would be extremely good expansion.
But I think you asked for something else:
Psionics and bio paths should get full overhauls.

 

[JediPearce]

A civic I think should be an origin would be the Hive Mind Empath civic. Mainly so it could be a path for Hive Minds to psionically ascend. Okay I just want psionic hive minds...

I could go on about how I'd like to see biological ascension get the same treatment as synthetic (with tall, wide, and balanced branches), or how I want there to be meatships (which you've indicated are coming), but really all I care about is a biological ship set. It could be nothing but a bio ship set and I would still throw money at it. I know I could use a mod for that effect, but I prefer to play without mods.

Another thing I'd love to see changed is some form of control over your precursors (in the settings or in your game). I save scrum too often when I get a bad precursor for my empire. I've gotten Zroni exactly twice, and both times I was playing a hive mind. I have no idea how the Zroni feel to play as a psionic race.

 

[Questionable]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  The individual pop system has never really been important to me and over the course of playing the game since the early days when planets had tiles instead of districts the pop-token system kinda seems like it creates more problems than anything, and ever since the little portraits got put into the new (newer than the tile system lol) job system you kinda never see the little guys anyway.
  
  I already made a great big suggestion post (I'm not gonna assume anyone important read it cause it was kind of an insane idea) about a Pops 3.0 rework where we divested ourselves completely of the individual pops system to create a granular population demographics system which turns planetary populations into more of a catalytic resource to supply for job demand (or a regular resource for those who view their "people" as more "expendable") with the % of the demographics with x or y traits having bonuses and negatives for outputs and resources.
  The main argument I saw against it which weren't around how much work it would be would be missing out on seeing our little guys, but like I said we kind of already never see them and that role of seeing our species of choice represented visually has been superseded by the new and improved Leader & Council system.
  
  So yeah imo, GO NUTS with this, do something wild if you think it'll improve the game, I'm all for it
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  This is another thing that's kind of fallen by the wayside for a long time to me, naval capacity has kind of been powercrept (unintentionally I feel) to the point where individual ships haven't mattered for a long, long time, its all about just who has the biggest blob of numbers and the resources & shipyard throughput to quickly replace them.
  The biggest thing on my wish list is simply for fleets to be smaller and ships to be bigger, for fleet engagements to feel like real space battles and for individual ships (especially the big ships) to be real difference makers.
  For instance Battleships should be flagships of fleets, only a couple of them per fleet with as a major centerpiece of a primary war fleet, Titans should be rare, with only one or two, maybe three for really MASSIVE navies and be colossal sources of power projection and Juggernauts should be mobile citadels allowing you to functionally project your influence deep into enemy territory.
  As things are right now its all about just mass-producing monohull designs in such vast quantities that its kind of a bit silly.
  
  Having slower, smaller, more cinematic fleet engagements like the media that inspires Stellaris so well (Star Wars, Star Trek, Warhammer 40k, Babylon 5, and much more I'm sure) where your ships over all have a more meaningful role to play.
  
  I'm sure it won't be easy but the willingness to take chances and experiment and iterate on and make mistakes is absolutely one of the things that makes me love Stellaris.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  The systems already in place to customize civilizations is already really good, adding more to it would always be good (like more specific ideology modifiers on top of the civics & ethics). When I create a custom civ though I think the journey's much more important than the origin or even destination. I love events that alter my civ in an unexpected or even drastic fashion just from events that can happen in-game, going into the galaxy shaped by their origins, starting ethics and civics (and headcanon ideology) is a great start and clashing with things that challenge those presuppositions makes for truly fascinating stories, things that irrevocably change the course of that civilization due to things encountered within the great unknown, even more-so.
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  I only really ever go into a game with a set goal in mind if there's something specific I want to experience or a new piece of content (official or modded) I want to try out. I really like sort of just going into the great unknown blind, hoping for unexpected events or challenges that alter my base civ in novel ways (if you couldn't tell I'm not an MP or competitive player ), so yeah kinda, refer to the above question I guess lol.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  I like it conceptually but it is kind of just another resource to collect, like a bonus source of energy credits or consumer goods/unity if I go into that one tradition tree. Kind of a nothing burger system I hardly notice outside of the once-in-a-blue-moon instances where it spawns pirates.
  Maybe if trade did more than just convert to energy credits like having connections to amenities or happiness, or produced resources or mitigated demand for resources based on the output of the planets the trade is coming from. I kind of don't know how to make trade feel more present without also making it a whole thing and a total hassle or mess in the process. Sure I wouldn't mind, or even enjoy a more complex system but idk if other people would hate that.
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  I would say yeah probably, I also think there are just way too many planets in the galaxy by default (I almost always play on 0.25x habitable worlds) considering the sheer amount of resources even a single planet can output and number of pops each planet can house.
  Regardless of whether or not its too easy I would like a planet's biosphere to actually matter, moving to a new climate on earth (hot to cold, dry to wet) is already a challenge, moving to a whole new biosphere would be immense. Also for the spread of civilization to have a noticeable impact on a planet, as the pops on it acclimate to their new home, or reshape it to their liking, and for the exploitation of the panet's resources to have some kind of impact, global warming, cooling, soil and mineral depletion, biodiversity loss, things that really set apart the recklessly industrious and the prudently conservationist. Additionally for habitability and terraforming to be a bit more granular than just like-prefers-like. For instance specific planetary features could add or remove habitability, y'know. Pretty much anything. I like planets to have personality.
  
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  A decent few yeah, I could probably make a case for all the starter-only civics and quite a few of the origins going either way. A lot of origins don't feel like they should be mutually exclusive, especially many of the less story driven ones, and civics to me feel like things that should be changeable pretty much no matter what. For instance I think purifiers should be able to reconsider their ways, devouring swarms when defeated too often having to adapt or perish, or for driven assimilators, rogue servitors and determined exterminators to be manifested mid-way through a playthrough as a machine hivemind decides that life should be assimilated, preserved or eradicated through their encounters with foreign entities.
  For Origins in general I feel like there could be a point system or something, where some origins could be matched together, like why is life seeded and mechanists or voidborne and the one with the servile species mutually exclusive, because it'd be OP? Well yeah maybe but outside of that there isn't really a reason. I generally feel like there's a lot more room for nuance and customization in that system.
  
  
• 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?
  To remove? Nothing I can think of, even things I barely interact with I'm kinda glad they're there. The central focus of an expansion? Where to even begin.... I guess to keep it brief: The other ascension paths. Machine Age was AMAZING and doing the same for psionics and genetics would be incredible.
  Now for the feature I want to enjoy, that's easy....
  Espionage. Its been a bugbear for me ever since it was launched, basically the UI is terrible, its a pain to access, practically hidden and you have no ingame reminders to set operations or check in on infiltration, not even a "max infiltration reached" notification, its like you don't want us to remember its there... So yeah just general UI and accessibility improvements for that system would be fantastic.
  As a sidenote, making it easier to find and contact enclaves would be great, like a speed-dial shortcut or something. UI/UX issues in general is my main gripe with anything in the game.

 

[jconnor1688]

I think I have around 4000 hours, so I might know a little about this game. I'll start off by saying that the most important quality to Stellaris is exemplified in the final part of the post about not patching a bug because the devs want to see the players having fun with it. That level of respect for the audience and love for the product is what makes Stellaris successful above all else. Dustborn, Star Wars Outlaws, Dragon Age, Concord, and AC Shadows utterly failed in this basic principle.

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

They're fine, but I would really like a higher-level of management that's still granular, something like deployable templates rather than selecting Auto and not getting the buildings you want. I want to be able to setup a planetary template from Colony to Specialization that builds and upgrades everything as I get the resources and tech. I would also like to save these templates for use in all games.

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

Fleets cause the most lag currently, so any change to them should primarily be to decrease lag. Another annoying thing about fleets is organizing them, be it in the Outliner or Fleet Manager; a simple fix though: let us drag and drop. In fact, just let us drag and drop in the Outliner anyway, and (off-topic) have it reflect in the Resettlement menu, which currently doesn't reflect the order of your Outliner, but rather the order they were colonized. Finally, I wish fleet names were based on the ships in that fleet, rather than randomized. Corvettes should be a "Vanguard" or similar name.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I'd like more internal politics. When playing Stellaris, many moments are defined by me imagining the story my empire is telling. I pick leader traits or make other decisions based on what I think that empire would do in that situation, but much of that "history," for better or worse, really is entirely in my mind, rather than actively reflected in the game. I'd like decisions made in the game to have more of a consequence on my empire. Having Leaders with Ethics can help with this, like Pacifist Pops being less Happy, thus have lower Stability, if a Commander/Militarist is governing that sector, and this can trigger events.

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

Mentioned above, I set goals based on what I think that empire would do, and it creates a "history" for the empire. They may change if something significant happens - if I win a major war, I'll sometimes reform the government, maybe the CEO of the Megacorp is able to seize power as a monarch and usher in an age of empire. I would like to see more of these decisions reflected in the game in the form of events and narratives.

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

It should be more important. Many times, Trade is what keeps me afloat regardless of empire type, but maintaining it with fleets can be a pain, I wish there were more options to protect my Trade routes, and I'd like to fully customize them, as it's terrible that they prioritize Hyper Relays and Gateways, which aren't always the optimal route.

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

Habitability should matter more, but the current implementation of incremental Habitability boosts is fine. Steeper penalties and more events tied to decreased Habitability please.

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

Storm Chasers is more of a Civic than an Origin. Genesis Guides is more of an Origin than a Civic.

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

I would remove the storms. Sorry but I don't think they make much sense thematically, and they don't really do what I would've liked them to do, I wanted them to be more tactically useful. I would like to see a focus on Bio and Psionic ascensions like we saw with Machine Age. I don't like the current implementation of Espionage, I want more operations with bigger consequences. Let me depose a ruler and get sanctioned by the GalCom if my Encryption is too low and I get caught. Let me (not gonna use overly specific language here) "wreak havoc" on other planets using undercover agents to damage infrastructure, for political purposes or otherwise.

Thank you for the countless hours of fun!

 

[Sian]

​

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

Not directly answering the question but a rather spinning it off into a sideline

The amount of origins probably mean that it's about time to consider splitting them into two distinct groupings (nomenclature pending), where you at generation can pick one of each (with a default 'Prosperous unification'-esque choice in each as well)

1) "What makes your planet / System / galactic neighbourhood special" which would include things such as Doorstep, Slingshot, Remnents, Void Dwellers, Ring World, Life-seeded, etc.

2) "What makes your Species / Society, special" which would include things such as Mechanist, Necrophage, Syncretic Evolution (probably due a upgrade as Necrophage outcompetes it in almost every case), Clone Army, Overtuned, Subterranean, Teachers, One Rule, etc ... but some of the permanent civics could also find a new home in this slot

 

[OldyGuard]

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

There is some jank especially when it comes to growth with multiple species growing on one planet. This is an issue especially when random serviles just clutter planets if you forget or are not paying attention. Luckily I play authoritarian a lot so I can lock pop growth to my normal species but it can still be annoying. For role-play however it would be fund to know how many people exactly Im killing is on a planet than just an abstract pop number.

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

As long as I can control the fleets whatever change should be fine.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

The current system is fine but I would like a parallel to oppressive autocracy like unhinged anarchy. Like maybe random devastation on a planet. Also the authoritarian ethic starting out with militarist economy is annoying, especially if ur auth pacifist

• 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 try to win the game (situation log points), I don't usually deviate from that goal unless Im just trying to bum rush a certain new event.

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

I ignore trade (unless I am a trade empire) because of pirates. Most of the time I delete any starting trade buildings. It would be cool to have a mechanic around patrolling routes that dosent force me to micro a bunch of tiny fleets or to have a chain of starbases.

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

the current system is fine. I feel like a change would be another chore to wrorry about

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

I want to enjoy galatic politics. It would be fund to see the galaxy be shaped by what type of empires inhabit it. I feel like thats whats trying to be implemented but the AI just seems to pass the same thing every game and the galatic community just seems rather "samey" everygame. I would also remove the weight twords militaristic and xenophobic empires appearing on harder difficulties. I get why its a thing but it can start to remove the roleplay and exploration part of the game on harder difficulties.

 

[Werewyvern]

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

I feel that it is important that any Civilization's overall ability to either protect itself and project power (militarily, economically, or otherwise) be tied rather directly to its population. Not just the quantity, but also the quality of members of that population and, in addition, the desire of the overall population to enact the will(s) of the person(s) leading their civilization. Creating individual jobs and assigning individual pops (regardless of what a pop actually represents, in this game, we handle them as single entities) to those jobs does tend to get a bit "micro-managy." This is to say that I truly value growing a population and improving it, but I am not forever bound to the current application of this idea.

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

This is tricky. I don't typically play multiplayer sessions, so most of my experience is in dealing with the AI's fleets. I've played Stellaris enough to know how to do this pretty well, and as such, I am comfortable with the fleet system as it stands currently. That does not mean I am married to it, however. As long as I still get to design the ships and choose what ships go into which fleets, I will be happy, even if other aspects change.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

I feel that the most important aspects are, in no particular order of importance: Who makes up the civilization; the species and their traits. What makes them special? Origins and certain Civics cover this aspect. How is my civilization going to interact with the galaxy? Origins, Civics, Ethics and my current mood cover this.

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

When making a civilization; choosing the Origin and Civics and such, I set a playstyle goal for myself. These will range from, "Get off my lawn!" to, "Your home is my home," to ,"Buy my stuff, or else!" It's at this stage that I declare (to myself) my intended method to "win" the game. Whether that method is to Become a Crisis, take over the Galactic Community peacefully, or stand so TALL on my conquests/vassals that none can challenge me, I set my intentions, and then play toward that goal. As the early game fleshes out, my initial neighboring civilizations (aggressive vs. peaceful) and certain events (like the Worm in Waiting) will further refine my goals, but they almost never deter me from why I started that game of Stellaris in the first place. I won't suddenly go hyper aggressive and attempt to conquer the galaxy when my initial goal was to become the Custodian.

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

There's a trade system? I'm only slightly kidding. It almost never matters in my playthroughs; either I'm generating enough Protection from Bastions that I never notice a need for it or I'm playing a gestalt consciousness and don't have TV. The only times I am aware of this system and the consequences (if the pirates that spawn can be called a real consequence) for not having enough Protection for my TV is when I am playing a TV focused, and I mean focused, setup. Like, numerous Ringworlds full of Trade Districts level of focused. At this level, it's just a minor, but highly repetitive nuisance hearing about pirates spawning, then immediately being vaporized, then pirates spawning somewhere else, and being immediately vaporized, and so on. Long story short; The system is unnecessary. The consequences are all bark, no bite. Thus, either treat TV like every other resource, or make this system meaningfully impact gameplay.

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

Yes. Very much yes. Habitability and Climate, as well as other factors should matter much more in spreading out throughout the galaxy. Right now, it feels way too easy to hit a point where you can colonize every planet in sight without thinking too hard about it. I'm not talking about Xenophile builds that make migration treaties. Having access to multiple species that can settle different climates is one of Xenophile's strengths. That's fine. I'm talking about a Nonadaptive Xenophobic species popping a few technology pills getting habitability raised to the point of it not mattering relatively quickly.

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

Ooh, I like this one, but with a twist. So, I am a fan of more; like starting with more Civics, having a Major Origin and minor addendums to it, etc. That being said, I feel that some Origins and Civics are about what your species, and others are about what situation your species finds itself in. For example, Necrophage is about what your species is, and Void Dwellers is the situation they're in. Overtuned is what your species is, Afraid of the Dark is the situation they're in. As such, I feel that there should be two Origin choices; the first being what your species is at its core, and the other being whatever major event(s), recent or ancient, that put your species on their current path. As far as Civics go, with the sheer number of them now, I feel having an extra slot at the start, and being able to gain an extra during gameplay (in addition to the one we can already get with technology) would be cool.

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

For removal: Trade routes.
Central focus of an expansion: Internal Politics and Stability, i.e. "Keeping your Empire yours." A massive, diverse population is going to want many, many different things. The current faction system does not really address this very well.
Want to enjoy: Espionage. It's just feels like it doesn't accomplish enough; outside of an assigning an Envoy to score a 5% boost to research speed. The other actions only seem impactful on empires that are already inconsequential on the galactic stage.

 

[DrewDidIt]

My two greatest desires: pops and fleet stacks gotta go. At least a more abstract pop system would go a long way. Still dreaming of a grand campaign with 5,000+ stars.

My unpopular request is - first - overhaul the diplomatic mechanics of the AI. The AI should should be far more reactive to overreaching powers in the galaxy, whether that be a vast, benevolent empire, devouring swarm, etc. Alliances should be almost guaranteed to form when bordering any empire twice the size of their own. Even xenophobes and pompous purists should seek out friends in such circumstances.

- Second - alliances of smaller nations need a way to compete with wide empires technologically. Maybe a way for allied empires to pool research together, hammering down new techs at a far greater pace than otherwise possible. Perhaps greater discounts for techs that allies have discovered.

- Third - the unpopular - remove empire size. Assuming the galaxy is more able to stabilize itself with alliances and bridging the tech gaps between wide and tall, such arbitrary mechanics that serve nothing but as a handicap would no longer be necessary.

 

[Nerevatar]

I want espionage to be great, fun and impactful, but it is really lacking.

4X is what drew me to stellaris to begin with back during federation. It felt like a 4X but so much deeper/interconnected and more complex then other games of the genre. I feel like some of that has been lost in recent years. Or maybe I just changed?