Stellaris Dev Diary #361 - The Vision

[der_butschi]

Good opportunity to delurk once again. I've started with Stellaris on release (Galaxy Edition). Well, actually before that, I still remember the legendary pre-release streams. I guess quite a few people here still remember when Mercedes Romereo died... That has always been the essence of what Stellaris is for me: A story generator in a Sci-Fi setting. So...

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • Not much at all. I'm not a min-maxer but a rollplayer so, micromanaging pops was never far up on my priority list. I was fine with the old grid view, too and menu with statistics giving me the necessary information would be fine, too. I like planet automation quite a lot, I'm more interested in the bigger picture.
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • Similar as above. The first N games, ship design was fun but by now I like to let my computer do it for me. I would like to be commander in chief and give guidelines how ships should fit my strategy, not decide which system goes where.
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization.
  • see below
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • RPG style, I imagine a backstory and try to figure out how my people would react in a given situation. Or how they would adapt to changing circumstances. I don't think I necessarily have goalsin that sense, that span hundreds of years. Let's say, I have a species that is short lived and peaceful. I like to play a race of peaceful and xenophile but very short lived rodents. They like to explore the galaxy and make friends. But they may also get obsessed with elongating their lives. To which lengths would they go to obtain such technology? I would probably use traditions, ascension perks and a third civic to symbolize a change in attitude over time.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • The system itself is ok. What I don't like is the concept of pirates. I never liked them in Sci-Fi games because pirate civilizations or domestic pirates advanced enough to challenge an empire never made sense to me. And they are usually just annoying.
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Yes and yes. Colonies should feel more special, I think.
• 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 always found Fallen Empires the most interesting aspect. What else says "The Galaxy is vast and full of wonders?" like ancient, mysterious civilizations? I'm a huge fan of Babylon 5 and love how the Vorlons and the other ancient civilizations are presented there. I would love to have them much more mysterious while having more interactions with them.

 

[bryanjarvis]

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

Not important, beyond the flavour of seeing that my planet has a significant number of people employed as Storm Dancers.

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

I could stand, and probably would like, not having to manage individual ships. The current micro-to-effect is pretty tedious for me, currently.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Stories and characters. I know it's gotten a mixed reception, but I love the sorts of story content we got in Paragons and Astral Planes.

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

I tend to have a good idea of what my civilization is gonna look like from the game start. I'm happy and sometimes eager to change them if I get the right event occurs(Shroud Chosen One, Horizon Signal, etc.).

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

It's never occurred to me that this is something in need of a rework, but I could enjoy another system. As someone who likes roleplaying Xenophilic nice guys, I appreciate that the current system encourages you to keep an active fleet, and keep the fleet divided and on the move in a way that's sometimes at odds with where pressing military threats are appearing. I wouldn't want those dynamics abstracted away.

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

Yes. I'd like fewer planets, which matter more. It's hard for me to keep invested when I start forgetting my 40th planet, and it makes me sad that mechanics like Resort World don't matter more, or maybe, don't feel like the matter more.

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

Unsure. Of course, I'd love to have the option to mix, for example, Necrophage with other Origins, but those ultimately are just edge cases in a game which is always striving for more creativity and customization.

• 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 love subterfuge. I appreciate how hard these systems are to make work and I think I would enjoy them just fine even if they were underpowered, but I find them in many cases worse-than-useless.
- Genetics/Organics need a rework, though I suspect you're already planning on fixing them.
- If I had the shaping of all things, I would want internal politics to be reworked. It's too easy to keep your population happy. It's too cheap to manage your political factions, and the rewards for doing so well are so light that I frequently forget to try. The consequences of unhappiness and mismanagement are too light, and worse, too bland. I want making the perfect utopia or worst dystopia to be a complex goal that you work towards throughout the course of the game. I want to feel pride when I have a planet with no crime and like a cool pirate captain when I manage to succeed despite having a planet with lots of crime. I want my population to face a meaningful opportunity costs for things like going to war, colonizing 6 new planets at once, or undergoing ascension.

 

[adil3tr]

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

To me, this is everything, a paradox game is all about the simulation and Stellaris is its best when there's something that comes from simulation. If the majority of what's happening in the game was no longer about those pops and jobs, just from modifiers, I would lose interest.

 

[Kurush_Onion]

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

Not really important. Usually work management comes down to disabling clerks and unnecessary enforcers.
You could even say that at the moment, job management is my personal enemy. At first, a long time ago, I tried to make a hive of specialized subspecies for different jobs using genetic ascension. This is the part of the society of advanced bioengineering that can technically be recreated in the game. But I encountered an insurmountable barrier in that it is impossible to influence which species takes which jobs.
Firstly, changing part of the population on one planet is micromanagement hell.
In addition, when modifying part of the population into special miners, half of the leaders usually also become them, losing longevity and training bonuses. All subspecies of the main species have the same rights and it is impossible to prohibit a subspecies of the main species from becoming leaders, rulers or specialists.
But even without population modification, the job system constantly resists accommodating different species well. I stopped playing through autocracy and exploitation of other species, because the main population constantly kicks out slaves from production jobs and stubbornly refuses to work as entertainers, leaving the planet without amenities.

Now I play exclusively socialist synths. I give everyone who joins shiny new perfect bodies with bonuses to everything.

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

I would really like to see the fleet and combat system reworked.With the current system, infinite additional bonuses make different types of weapons irrelevant. After +50-100% damage and rate of fire, missiles and strikecraft become useless because even a small amount of PD completely erases them. The difference between kinetic and energy weapons is also almost erased with the exception of bypass weapons.As a result, when playing on high difficulties, it is always advantageous to go for energy weapons because of disruptors and arc emitters. The disproportion in the benefits of armor and shields also inclines to the latter.
It does not add joy that improving technologies in 90% of cases gives a quantitative rather than a qualitative improvement in the strength of the fleet. A new laser gives more damage. A new shield gives more shield. Plasma is the same laser with increased damage. Artillery is the same railgun with increased damage and range.

It would be nice to rebalance the weapons. So that missiles would be the longest-range weapon on par with strikecraft. I absolutely do not understand why artillery with non-guided chunks of matter shoots further and better because, unlike missiles, they cannot be shot down. Artillery also deals damage earlier because it does not wait for the projectile to fly.Perhaps, instead of dividing into missiles and kinetic guns, it would be better to divide engineering weapons into explosive and solid. And make explosive artillery and kinetic missiles in addition to conventional ones. And this means...

It would be cool to have high-quality sci-fi development of weapons. So that there were high-tech ghost missiles that cannot be shot down and they could be used instead of artillery or an arc emitter at x25 crisis. Or devices for teleporting anti-matter explosives to the enemy. Or have a special assault hull for cruisers that will give invulnerability until the first shot (or for 2-3 days after the first hit/fleet engagement) so that cruisers with torpedoes and autocannons have a chance to fly up to the enemy.

It would be incredibly cool if the damage system in the game was more like an RPG. So that kinetic weapons always hit 50% of the total damage to armor, but this could be changed by the composition of the fleet or weapon. For example, make an aura that increases the damage received from kinetic weapons to armor by 30%. Or make a special energy emitter that weakens armor and itself does little damage but gives the target a debuff increasing the damage of kinetic weapons to armor. Or both. Both would be better. A weapon that shoots decoys and distracts PD from missiles/strikecraft. A weapon that slows down the enemy's speed or rate of fire. Titan/Juggernaut power transmitters that provide additional power to friendly ships, giving them bonuses. Phantom shields that give the ship 50% energy resistance while charged. Components that give/remove armor/shield bypass. Components that give bonuses in the first days of combat. Components that give bonuses after some time. Coordinator ships that give fleets various bonuses. Speaking of which...

It would be nice to have a certain limit of combat ships that a nation can maintain in a system in active combat or in general. So that the initial small fleets would work as usual, but after a certain number, the ships would have increasing penalties to accuracy, rate of fire, speed, evasion and maintenance. I imagine that maintaining a huge flotilla on the edge of the empire is a logistical nightmare. And it is also difficult to effectively use them in combat so that they do not interfere with each other.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Ascension perks. A civilization is defined by its achievements and what it strives for.
Unfortunately, there are currently only six perks that actually change the civilization and change the way it plays. These are of course the four ascension paths and two crisis perks.It would be amazing if more ascension perks had the same impact as the crisis perks. That they would change some aspect of the civilization and require the completion of certain tasks to receive all the bonuses.

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

I don't like it. Trade routes don't provide interesting interactions and are mostly a source of lag. So I usually use a mod that disables it. Trade routes are easy to secure with gateways and building military bases in weak areas. And even if you overlook an area, the most that can happen there is a decrease in income and the appearance of a tiny fleet of pirates. And all this is easily dispersed by military ships. All this can easily be replaced by several events that do not require constant calculations. Trade agreements and resource exchange between empires do not require trade routes and work separately from them.

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

When colonizing, there are often two opposite pictures. Usually, there are enough suitable planets nearby and colonization is not a problem. But sometimes there are either very few of them, or they are of the wrong type, or they have almost no slots for resource districts, and then everything is unexpectedly difficult.On the other hand, over time, with any style of play, it is easy to accumulate enough bonuses to habitability and terraforming becomes not worth the effort.I would like a mode in which terraforming was available from the start and so that instead of planets ready for colonization, there would be candidates for terraforming. Then you would have to invest effort in each planet.It would also be nice to have some kind of exploration mechanic for colonies. So that on the one hand you could find something interesting on the planets, and on the other hand, so that over time the planet's development potential grows.

As for habitability, I think the idea of one climate planets is long outdated. Planets and population modification would be much more interesting if each planet had a certain number of slots with different climates for the population. There would be a real benefit from a multi-species society when people live on the plains, mermaids in the oceans, Bedouin birds in the deserts, and some lithoid beetles under the mountains. With such a system, it would be possible to terraform the planet little by little, changing the climate of individual areas.
As for the climate. I have a crazy idea. I heard that this is a real-time strategy. Just imagine - if the planets had a climate cycle with different effects in different months. For half a year, the main continent with farms experiences summer and the planet produces more food, and then the season of increased solar radiation begins, in which thunderstorms and northern lights are everywhere, and the planet receives penalties to food and bonuses to energy/science.

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

I would like to see the effects of some origins and civics duplicated as ascension perks for roleplaying.

• 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?

At the moment, the game is seriously lacking internal politics. Factions are equal to the chosen ethics and do not react to changes in the empire. Enslaved egalitarians do not rebel. Spiritualists do not try to interrupt the process of turning themselves into synths or escape. I mean, technically, faction members react to events prescribed in the factions. But this only means an increase/decrease in joy and is easily mitigated by high stability on the planet. Slaves and non-citizens do not have political power and even in theory cannot change anything. I once tried to play a revolution in my empire and I can say with confidence that even a player has a very hard time changing the ethics of his empire. It is very difficult to carry out a socialist revolution in your empire on your own. In case of success, the empire does not react to it in any way. Militaristic slave owners will not try to raise a rebellion to return the old order or make an attempt on the ruler. The population doesn't care at all if a democratic president decides to change the government system to a monarchy.
An expansion that adds different political and civil events that depend on what happens to the empire and affect it would be great.
As for the features. It seems to me that for a full experience of narrative research this game lacks a civilization diary, where significant events and discoveries would be saved with the date and notes for finding coordinates on the map. With the ability to add your own text.

 

[TabelO]

1. How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
- What I like about the current system is that I can choose how a world evolves with time. At first a new colony may be a mining colony, but as they become more established the people turn towards a research world, then when the empire goes to war suddenly all of that is thrown into the air as they panic trying to build a strong industrial complex. If that can still be a thing with a new system, then the current system is not important whatsoever. (Also I would love to be able to name buildings on the planet. For example, President Dolores Commerical Megaplexes).

2. If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
- The most important part of fleets to me is the customizability. I choose to have my empire specialize in long-range artillery weapons or create a guerilla cloaked frigate force to attack starbases. I get to name my designs, ships, and fleets. If that was to change then Stellaris wouldn't feel like Stellaris because that feature has been there since I started playing.

3. What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
- My civilization is defined by its goals, the empires it discovers, the events that happen to it, and my goals. It's basically roleplay. I choose my empire, and I react as it. I may have started as a conquering empire but tire out after a while, or it may meet an empire it considers a friend,

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 usually set an "Empire's Goal" at the start of the game setting my initial goals for this empire, this goal always reflects and changes as it goes on. Sometimes this goal is abandoned due to its interactions, and other times it is intensified. As time goes on more goals are made. However usually in mid-to-late endgame these goals either lose all importance or are all completed, and I get bored and start a new game.

5. How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
- The current trade system seems to be a relic of a bygone era. I can't remember the last time I actually opened the trade window other than to fix it sending trade into a hostile system and losing it all.

6. Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
- Colonization feels easy. I mean when your people are living on a tomb world with 0% habitability, you would expect them to be dying from radiation and other hazards. But we don't see that, we just see "Increased pop upkeep, reduced resources, and less pop growth". Perhaps lower habitability should have more and harsher penalties.

7. Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
- Eager Explorers always felt strange as a civic when I always considered it an origin. Another comment from earlier talking about "Cultural and Planetary" category system for origin, having a "Where you came from and who you are" thing I would support.

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?
1. The War system. The war system is full of things that just make things harder, a rework is needed. For example: When my federation goes to war against my wishes why do I have no say in when the war ends? I'm forced to wait until the AI finishes the war before doing anything such as inviting federation members. I just recently played a game where one such war made me lose an empire I wanted to join my federation when they created their own.
2. Demands. If I am overwhelming to another empire, why can't I demand things of them? "Hey, give me that system or I'll take all of your systems".
3. Borders - If I am the greatest power in the Galaxy, and I control 70% of it and one corvette of mine could smite their puny empire into dust, why do I care about respecting their borders? I'm just saying if I'm that tiny empire and a ship from an empire you have closed borders to who is 100000 times stronger than you comes in, are you going to declare war on them for that? Is it worth your species being destroyed for that?
4. Influence - I understand it as a balancing method, but when it comes to roleplay, it tends to hinder things. If I am an expansionist empire, and my people believe in expanding, why do I need to use influence to claim a system nowhere near any other power? It's different if I'm claiming a system right next to another alien empire who wants that system, but when it's just the system next door to your capital, why would I have any trouble convincing my people "Hey that's ours now".

 

[MajoNingyo]

For me Stellaris is a game where I can create a unique empire and role play it by exploring the wide galaxy. For me the main drive is possibility to make a lot of different and, of course, meaningful choices (it doesn't matter how small or big they are - each of them are very important aspect in my experience).

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 me galactic council is one of the main issues. I don't know why, but it doesn't make any sense. Bunch of empires join it and push random laws. Why? Wouldn't it make more sense if we had some kind of coalitions according to some kind of empires familiarities which would decide and push the laws only acceptable to them? Now it's like a war game and chaos without any logical rules. It needs more work.

Also, war system is terrible. It needs to be updated, because now it's a true pain to go to war. For example: why can't we just withdraw from the active war while it's not us who was attacked? Or why can't other empires join it in the middle? Of course, why can't we force the other empire to pay us some kind of contribution after our victory?
It would be crazy as well if we could do the economical harm while fighting other empire as well. Economic war is also a thing, yes? Some kind of economic blockade or something like that.


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

Sometimes it feels like it. But answering this question I will concentrate on terraforming. It's very basic. I would love choices in terraforming process. If I decide to terraform a planet, I would love to have more choice of deciding how this planet should turn out. Of course, it's a very simple example, but to choose some aspects what we want to do with the planet would be interesting. For example: it's energy planet and we could add more districts to the energy district sacrificing others.


My dream

I know that it was talked before, but I can't let myself not to mention this. Bio ships are my biggest dream and I would love to see it happening!



Btw, you guys are doing a great job. I love your game and hope to see a lot of amazing updates in the future!

 

[mharmless]

I have been playing Stellaris since launch day, and took off time to do it. I have every DLC, and I have 6,553 hours logged on Steam as of right now, which is over three years at a full time job. I'm pretty sure you owe me health benefits, actually.

Planets. Please work on planets. They are _far_ too samey. There is little room to build stories around them. Very rarely does something happen to make a planet stand out from the crowd in some way. This goes for habitats and ringworlds as well. Please let there be more drastic differences. I feel like we're slowly getting better here, but I would dearly love it if you slammed on the accelerator.

In a similar vein, please consider exploring the idea of species traits that modify jobs more. Like a trait that makes unity along with trade when working a clerk, or trade along with science when working a lab. Species traits, not origins or civics. As it is now, if I invade and conquer my neighbors, nothing really changes about how my empire works. Added a few billion beings ought to have more of an impact, and also seems like it would provide a boon to multi-species empires.

Both things really do just dovetail into 'make planets more unique and interesting' though.

 

[Socyopath]

My favorite thing about Stellaris is the RP/immersion you can have through Origins and Ascensions.

These are systems I'd like to see have a major impact on a civilization. By adding, for example, exclusive mechanisms to make gameplay a little more unique.


Origins:

I find that most of them only have an impact at the start of the game, but struggle to renew themselves, like the “Teachers of the Shroud”, where once the tradition is started, it's no longer useful. But there are also some that I find really well done, like “Here Be Dragons”, where the progression is smooth for quite a while, with some very nice rewards towards the end.

Ascensions:

This is currently my favorite feature of the game, and I have to say that the work you've done on “The Machine Age” is incredible. Ideally, we'd like to see the same kind of content for the other paths, especially the fact that you can specialize sounds really good to me.

One last thing that I'd love to see is Map Layers (like in Age of Wonders 4 with the underground and the Eldritch Realm), this could add exploration to the map as well as some very interesting events.

 

[Yarmeru]

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

I like them currently. Not opposed to changes if they add interesting choices.

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

I’m not a huge combat player, but please for the love of god, let me save templates between games. I hate customizing ships.

What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Civics and traits. Traits as a whole need a lot more variability. I basically run with the same 3 every game. I would pay good money for a giant trait and civic pack honestly. They’re my favorite part of Stellaris.

On the note of civics, my favorite civics (and origins for that matter), are ones that encourage me to alter my gameplay and re-value certain things. For instance, Barbaric Despoilers is really fun even if it’s not the most powerful because it encourages me to fight wars but not necessarily conquer territory. I also really loved Permanent Employment because the clerk builds were silly and unique.

I also really value portraits that fit the theme I’m going for. I would have loved to see the human looking plantoid models get a robot synthetic evolution visual progression.

Other small improvements emblem customization (maybe gold, silver, bronze, or rose), and ships / cities. I find there are a lot of city designs that are lacking for swarm feeling organic hives, ancient stone architectures, and Egyptian designs. We definitely need an organic ship design (please don’t tie that to a civic).

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

RP minded goals, I usually restart until I get them. The Chosen One is a good example of this. I hate that it’s so random.

Gameplay goals, I look for opportunity as I see it. I’m a more diplomatic player, so I often prioritize making alliances and controlling the council.

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

Not important.

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

I don’t see any reason to change it. You could give more choice so we don’t default to every planet, but you also risk RNG by doing that too much.

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

Criminal Heritage for Megacorps would work better as a Megacorp exclusive origin. It’s clear you’re not able to go far enough with the mechanics because of the fact that it’s still a civic, so criminal empires still feel half baked. You could potentially make this it’s own government type too.

Cataclysmic Birth has never felt like an origin. It would fit far better as a civic. Terravore could work as an origin if given more mechanics, but maybe you could do something more interesting like a “World Shaper” origin that lets you smash planets together to form super planets.

Necrophage definitely should not be an origin, but I don’t think it should be a civic either. It has a profound influence on goverment type by ensuring only necrophages can be leaders, so I think it belongs as a government type that can’t be reformed out of, much like hives or machine intelligences. Maybe Necrophage and Necrophage Hive are the ways to go here.

Cybernetic Creed should have been a civic. I had so many good ideas in mind, but locking me out of origins meant those creative ideas were DoA. It’s not a particularly fun origin either IMO, and it’s weird the cybernetics acceleration origin is tied to spiritualists, especially since they have 2 origins like that now.

Eager Explorers and similar would probably fit better as an origin. Then you could also do more with the mechanics.

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 love to see empire politics story chains, especially for democracies. Make the bonuses small, and avoid negative outcomes. They should be a fun little side quest. I’m definitely interested in having a bit of intrigue and juggling faction wants more directly. Choosing autocratic governments can eliminate this mechanic for those who don’t want to play with it.

As for bad mechanics…storms aren’t fun. I was really hoping for smaller storms that followed a specific path, and you could direct it toward other empires more easily. Storms as a weapon is fun.

Species templates continue to be the least fun part of Stellaris. It’s miserable managing templates per planet and it’s often unclear when to prioritize spending society research to apply templates. I’d much rather the conversion be a resource tax, and for the love of god, make applying templates more automatic.

Branch Office Expansion needs its own interface like planetary expansion. It’s difficult to figure out which planets already have them, especially with other megacorps in the game.

Other
Storm Chasers should have had a crisis path where you could decide the storm needed to be even bigger.

Megacorps need an evil civic like fantatic purifiers. Maybe something to do with monopolizing the galaxy?

Pacifism should focus more on trade and xenophile more on diplomacy. Megacorps are the most pacifist empires in the game, and if the bonuses were there, it would encourage some more xenophobic megacorps.

We need a way to break up federations through military conquest or galactic council bills.

Gaia worlds need a late game path. Maybe a temple world or art / culture world designation?

Contrarian civics like Pompous Purists are great fun. I’d love to see a Xenophile that obsessively collects species like Pokémon. Maybe they get a custom archive screen? Alternatively, a pacifist civic where they disarm empires by violent force.

Finally, crisis paths are fun. Definitely give us more of those. Maybe a Cetana-like crisis path? I love that people can keep playing after the cosmogenesis empire wins. Maybe let them go for second / third place too?

 

[AvatarThomas]

Buff Cosmic Storms pretty please!!!!

 

[Helicopter200]

I hope they will rework psionic and genetic ascension to be on par with The machine age DLC

 

[Agent Mocollo]

Before anything else, I just want to say I love the work you guys have done for stellaris. Its my favorite game and I expect it to be for many more years.

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

I prefer the current system to the tile system, but I am not super attached to individual pops. The main thing I like is the influence of species traits and pop designations, but micromanaging each individual pop is neither here nor there for me.

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

I may be in the minority but I LOVE watching space battles. I know the ships are the biggest contributer to end game lag but I would be sadden if individual ships and flashy space battles were removed. I am completly open to reducing/limiting the number of ships an empire can field and would love for mixed fleets to be more viable than mono-fleets. I do not think doomstacking is a problem, I think it is a symptom of planets and systems not being stratigecally important enough. If we had to split our fleets to cover more ground I think it would solve the doomstacking problem. Maybe a blockading system or supply line system, I dont know but thats my two cents.

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

Definetivly ethics and civics. I love the philosophical nature of ethics, especially the spiritualism/materialism split. My only complaint with civics at all is how gestalts lack some of the really unique councler positions. It would be cool, especially for the unremovable civics, if our gestalt nodes got scaling traits or counciler effects that represent the impact such a civic has on the gestalts central intelligence.

• 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 play multiplayer with friends and always set my goal as arbitrary roleplaying objectives. Win a galactic revolution, amaglmate all inteligence into the lathe. Setting goals with roleplay will always be more enjoyable for myself and my friends than metagaming to win. I also love how besides the crisis paths, there is no win condition for the game. I think "winning" the game should be left up to the players on when they complete their own objectives. That is not to say I do not like the crisis paths, I love them but I do not want generic win conditions from games like civ 5.

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

I do not interact with it at all and would be happy for its removal, especially if its replaced with more interesting systems like millitary supply lines or blockading.

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

Personally I would love if habitability was way tougher, maybe a lower habitability accrosed the board for all species or even a required technology to settle worlds different from your starting homeworld would be nice. It would make habitability bonuses more impactful and especially habitability floors more interesting. I would also like a setting or slider where most habitable worlds are replaced with terraforming candidates instead for a harsher galaxy.

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

Maybe a few of the earlier origins would be better as civics(again). Mechanist and cybernetic creed feel more like perminant civics to me. Most origins however feel correctly like the origin of my civilization while civics feel like how my civilization acts now. I have seen talk of splitting origins into planetary and societal origins which seems like bloat to me but I am generally impartial to a change like that. One thing I would hate to happen is the change of permanant civics into origins. DE, FP, DA, DS, and most others are great as civics because they let me mix and match with most other origins and civics and I would hate if they were changed into origins or removed.

• 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 only system I don't like is the astral actions, I would generally be fine if they were reworked or removed. I would love to play more genetic ascension/psionic ascension but they feel bad to play both from strength and roleplay. I would love advance government types for all ascension paths and a overhaul of genetic ascention to bring it on par. I would also not mind a unique hive mind psionic ascention path similar to the special machine ascentions. Internal politics and espionage are features that I would love to see improved in a major expansion especially over ground combat. I would also love if blockading planets and systems had a huge impact on economics and stability both empire wide and locally. Adding supplylines for fleets that are impacted by doomstacking or by distance could be an interesting change too. Most of all, if I could have one minor change made I would like changes to the crisis. More Crisis weapons/techs, especially from the unbidden and contingency(my beloved). I feel like they could give more cool components(like a living metal gun or something). I would like the unbidden and prethorian scourge to have more unique factors, like maybe the shadow in the warp for the prethorian scourge.

 

[Mr. Morague]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

1. I like the idea of pops and jobs, but I feel that more power should be given to districts and buildings. I think that doing so would reduce the need for such high numbers of pops.
2. I'm unsure. I like how they currently work well enough, but can see it could use changes.
3. Origin is the most important to me.
4. There hasn't really been a goal for a long time, I just kinda press play and see what happens to me.
5. I tend to play with multiple sectors isolated from each other. This causes my starbases to whine at me when I'm not playing Gestalt. The current way piracy works also pushes me more towards playing Gestalt in general.
6. I definitely feel that habitability and climate should be more important. I remember there being a mod that would prevent you from colonizing any planet type except your home planet type until you researched the appropriate tech. I think something along those lines would fit in and give New Worlds technologies a bit more impact.
7. I feel like Lost Colony, Overtuned, and Calamitous Birth don't fit in quite as well as most other origins. Especially with Lost Colony and Calamitous Birth, they feel like they should be permanent civics like Eager Explorers so they can compete better. I do not have strong feelings the other way around.
8. There are no systems I want to outright remove. I think Crime/Deviancy and by extension Piracy could be a good focus for an expansion. I really like the idea of Pre-FTL civilizations, but in the sense that I want to cultivate them. As far as I'm aware there isn't a way to create new Pre-FTL civilizations, no way to regress their technology if you want to, no way to influence their origin or civics, nor any real reward to uplifting them. I also very strongly dislike that you automatically gain communications with them if you have even the tiniest bit of vision on the system--I really like the idea of being their Fallen Empire equivalent that they have to find.

 

[Pyromechwolf]

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  
  I kinda would like a system like Victoria were we control how many structures and we have to deal with the ethics that might be better as a type of job. example Authoritarians or egalitarians being better at admin jobs for example while militarist and materialist would be better at forge jobs as an. I also feel like their is not a good way to control how your pops choose what jobs they do. there been many times were I would have loved a caste system where I would makes sub races that would only work a type of job because that is the job their ancestors worked.
  
  
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  
  I feel like the scale we are at right now is odd for how ships are managed. as well as armies. assuming a pop is 100,000 to 1,000,000,000 people having a fleet managed by one frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship at at time seems a little odd to me I feel like it should be battle groups. I would have thought we would build based on supply groups of ships and manage them at a time.
  
  
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  
  having more flexibility in system is most important to me. there are times were I feel like we don't get enough civics for certain civilization styles. also the ability to not being able to change empires from one thing to an other is a bit of a pain point. for examples mega corp criminal syndicate can't become an dictatorial normal empire because the Biggest boss decided he took over everything and its time to restructure. just like I have had empire Idea's I can't do with out modded because I can't for one game start with and extra civic because I want to do an build that has a mandatory civic to start.
  
  
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  
  I build an empire to play or build in a certain way and try to push myself to that goal. meta might try to play on higher difficulties or easier but mostly I keep my settings set and change how I play with the mindset of the empire I use. side note because this I think it would be the best place for this, can we get something for empire creation to have our policies pre managed so I don't have to change them at the start of everygame.
  
  
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  
  routes is cool I like them. trade on its face Is kinda dumb. I feel like first of that mega corps should have the best trade anything for all empire types. I have pictured trade to be misc good and services being pass through. I would rather see we have to develop routes to all of our systems so if we want to build something on a planet we have to ship minerals to that planet. minerals are not just magically there. it would change how wars can be waged if an empire has a weak or only single routes to systems. and for trade should be looked as more of an allocation system were for examples sins of a solar empire 2 TEC you can use trade points to aquire resource from private sources. but if you can sell you extra capabilities to a other empire you have a commercal pact with it would be a cool way to help grow a freind and get you more of those passive credits via trade or get something you need that they might start making a surplus of. that can then feed into policies were people might get made at you that you are only selling or buying to them.
  
  
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  
  yes I feel like we can land on a planet fill up all of its district and building slot and move everyone on it in 10 years and poof its down. I feel like there should be locks on how much access we have to a planet that opens up as more and more time goes on, if an empire decided to rush and they can support it with resources and man power then can rush the how avalable a planet is. we also should have an idea what is on the planet but not know the full details till colonized. survaying planet should get us type, class, size and a vauge representation on what (in the current system) districts are on it. unless blatent we should not know if motes or rare crystals are on the planet. just like we don't know there was an undergound civ that we might need to go to war with till after we get their.
  
  
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  
  I feel like voidborn should be a civic instead of an origin or it needs to get something that other empire can't get with an assenchten perk. its a very explensive origin that requires 1500 alloys, 200 influince and 1800 days before they can have first colony. it feel more like a civic like rouge serverters if kept as an origin traditions should have more bonus for habitates that only they have. I think crimal syndicate should be more fleshed out to be an origin. Idyllic bloom should also be fleshed out and add story events to be an origin, or add its features to life seeded and add the story events to 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?
  
  I want to enjoy trade and logistics more I think that something that should be explanded on, we have pirates, we have gateways we have hyper relies. we have everything their for that we just don't have anything for it. I feel like this something I would want the next expanstion done on and I feel like I would wnat to enjoy but it just a dial to turn to make a thing and that it. I feel like Espinage also feels to not useful to really interact with. I don't do much with it exept assign a spy and leave it. for system I would remove it would be cosmic storms as they are now, I don't mind and actually love the idea of the space evirment having hazards and changing. but basicly have 5 diffrent type of space hurricans feel like a feature that was stappled on and one storme told the others sure copy my homework but change it a little so it doesn't look like you copied it. but I feel like this a more of a poor implimentation and less of a I think the game is better with out it. but with how they are in the game right now I have them turned off.

 

[Ilab]

This is interesting! I think you guys are gonna drown in comments and ideas! And of course, I will help my fellow Xenos with that (prepares bucket):

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
  • I honestly feel that the prioritization/deprioritization of jobs is interestnig. But sadly it is most of the time reduced to deprio clerks and at some points prio what you immediately need, lets say enforcers when crime is up. It is annoying when there are lots of planets to manage and doesn't add much. If it mattered more and could be done better it would be fantastic. But I am also Okay with a different way to do things. For instance I love Star Ruler 2 Wake of The Heralds (some of the things I will mention here are to some extent inspired by it)
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
  • It really depends on a lot of factors. I could provide lots of ideas, but sadly I don't know which ones are feasible or not and don't want to write a thesis of which 90% might be impossible. However some ideas that I think should be doable are:
    • Change computers for formations/stances, for example instead allowing some ships to stand at first line and act like tanks, properly moving between the enemy and allies to intercept fire. This would allow having better set roles for ships.
    • Change the way in which ships are designed, instead of having a few sections for each ship, use a system of points or something simmilar. What if I want a ship that is only shields with 4 point defense weapons, call it Juggernauty and set him as a tank? Then create Pinchy, no armor nor shields but 12 missiles? This would really let people imagination and creativity fly. (A great ship design system is also on Star Ruler 2... but some parts are doubtfully adaptable here)
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
  • Their visions and values. This is hard to summarize but I would love if pop traits had a bigger impact in people and their empires. For instance someone sedentary shouldn't just had less growth from immigration, it should relocate less and be less willing to colonize rim planets. A strong pop should mean that the empire is less likely to accept humilliation. Currently I doesn't matter whether 100% of your pops are this or that, the leader (player) just does whatever (and it has to be that way ofc, but make it that at least there are some penalties to happines, stability etc)
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
  • Oh boy. Lots of them, each game so I will skip this parte. BUT one thing I do hate is when the game forces me to do something ridiculous. For example why if I have unrestricted wars am I restricted out of a Liberation war? There are things that make sense like Stratified society being only available to Authoritarian empires, but others don't.
  • A very specific example of something I hate (with my soul) is when Cetana kills fallen empires. The crisis is awesome, except for this detail. What IF I want to save them? A lot of players usually stand up for the galaxy when the crisis comes, but with Cetana you cannot do anything to save the FEs. I would love for this tiny detail to change, maybe change it that I can enter earlier but with massive penalties, it would actually be a fun challenge.
  • Other things like the fact that Megacorps can build plenty of things on their branches but an Overlord that has literal control (not just a commercial pact) over the vassal can only build 4 in all the Empire? As suggested some other times, some holdings should be empire unique and some planet unique but the limit of holdings should be for each planet not the entire empire.
  • Also, why do I need to go to war over that L-Gate over there when I have perfect relations with that empire and I am willing to give them my daughter hand's just so that they give it to me, peacefully. System trading was broken, but having things that the AI can't just do is sad. I shouldn't need to stomp a fly to get what I want, specially if the system has no planets or something. Maybe make an exception for certain systems (systems with l-gates for example, and the AI has no planets there etc)
  • Why can't I, after something drastical, lets say losing a far with a fallen empire and having my leader killed, have a situation to radicalize and become genocidal? Some civics are locked at game start, they make sense.Specially balance wise, but I think that a situation that takes a long while and is advertised to other empires informing them that X nation is radicalizing and becoming 'bad' would both give time and reason to act against it while not limiting the thirst for vengeance of the first.
  • The same applies to pops, why can't I do some bad stuff to my original species? What IF I RPed that the Empire population of a Necrophage empire reached critical mass, reveled and are now the bosses while the previous 'bosses' are now slaves?
  • Why do I need to respect your borders? This mechanic is problematic, empires should be able to ignore them at several risks like for example your ships are considered violating space and are shoot, they risk accidents, damage etc and you get penalties to relations with ALL empires as you have proven to not care for diplomacy nor respecting international laws etc.
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
  • Sadly, not important. I think it would be much better if trade routes where more valuable and raidable. For example Sins of a Solar Empire 2 and Star Ruler 2 both send periodical ships from planets to simulate the transportation of resources. You don't need to send one each second (as Solar Empire 2 did, and caused performance issues) but one from time to time like Star Ruler 2 did is great. It makes it possible for the enemy to raid the ship, causing harm for one empire and plundering for the other. This would make a lot of strategies fun and allow some smaller empires to have true skirmishes as well as sabotaging the enemy economy etc.
  • I honestly think that the current system is bad, but I also think that made right trade could be a wonderful thing, surely the envy of those filthy gestalts!
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
  • Colonization is a toss. It is mostly easy, except for some origins (like organic shattered ring, a pass on this origin would be lovely it is great for RP and many things, but it is very bad for non machines unless you meta a lot, and even there its not great)
  • Habitability is something that can be troublesome at first but is irrelevant later. I don't like any approach, there should be no matter of tech that makes people that lived in oceans feel comfortable in deserts. Sure with proper ecotech and acclimatization and whatever they would certainly improve, but there should be a cap so that you never reached 100% habitability on such an hostile (to you) planet. That would also make Terraforming more useful and valuable, specially for its costs and time needed.
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
  • This is a topic I don't feel comfortable with to give precise input, but I do think that some ideas I have heard (like the already mentioned about separating origins between planets and cultural or similar could be good.
• 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 a single system. One of the best things Stellaris has is that it is very feature rich.
  • About, which fetures to improve, there is lots of room for improvement. BUT I certainly think that the systems that need it the most are espionage and ground combat.
  • After those are brought up to modern standards I think that DLC focusing on internal politics etc would be great. Currently empires tend to feel all the same or very similar.

All in all Stellaris is, of all the games of its kind that I have played, the best as a whole however I do find some games miles ahead in specific ares (which is ok ofc, but we could maybe 'steal' some ideas). But I think it could certainly improve in areas. For example, Star Ruler 2 has a hugely better supply chain system for both systems and fleets and its combat is miles ahead. The way in which it treats fleets is also quite interesting. It does lack in almost all other areas in comparison to Stellaris, but some ideas from it could very well help this game. Specially how FTL and defenses work.
Simmilarly the way in which Starbases can be improved in Sins of a Solar Empire 2 is great!

I would say this once more, as I did in the suggestions forums, but maybe no dev saw it. I think that with Outposts we could do similar to colony ships, when you try to create one you must choose from a list of species. For an outpust it could be that once you choose to upgrade it to starbase you pick a template (which you could design beforehand).

TLDR: Anyways, for my bucket, I really think that a lot of good ideas are gonna show up on this thread. However I think that a very good way to come up with fresh ideas is to try some other games and mods. Lots of mods for Stellaris already scratch itches that many players have. We could take some of those and add them to the game. But for fresher ideas and 'innovative' things checking out other games is the way IMO. After all some of them do some things really well.

 

[MarkDey]

I love the engagement and humor that the Stellaris team brings to their frequent communications with their players. Not just the most verbose people like @Eladrin, @MrFreake_PDX , and @Alfray Stryke , but everyone I've had the pleasure to engage with on the team. Stellaris is my favorite Paradox game.

I don't have all of the DLCs (just Utopia, Federations, Distant Stars, Ancient Relics, & Astral Planes), so can't give an opinion on something that I haven't played with, but as one might guess with this set of DLCs, I always look forward to developing a story with my single-player games. Leviathans and Galactic Paragons are DLCs that I'm looking to get eventually, once I decide to spend more time playing Stellaris.

I agree with the design intents of "Every story, trope, or player fantasy in science fiction is within our domain", "Stellaris is a 4X Grand Strategy game with Roleplaying elements that continues to evolve and redefine itself", and "A sense of uncertainty and wonder about what could happen next is core to the Stellaris experience". I do, however, have some clarifying thoughts on those for how I'd prefer to see Stellaris develop.

Every story, trope, or player fantasy in science fiction is within our domain
The focus on hard (or at least mostly firm) sci-fi should remain. I've been playing with the psionics ascension recently, and so far that is still believable, but sometimes it's a stretch. I'd prefer not to see fantasy or magic science become a part of Stellaris stories.

Stellaris is a 4X Grand Strategy game with Roleplaying elements that continues to evolve and redefine itself
I'd prefer to have more weight on "4X Grand Strategy game" for future developments. The roleplaying elements that currently exist provide a nice flavor, but I would rather not have an additional focus on characters or leaders. This is one of the reasons I haven't purchased Galactic Paragons. I've played Crusader Kings II and while I enjoyed the strong character focus in that game, I'd rather not have something similar in Stellaris. The galaxy is vast and while a leader can have a significant impact, I want to focus on a more strategic story for my space empire.

A sense of uncertainty and wonder about what could happen next is core to the Stellaris experience
I would like to have a way to experience this on a reoccurring basis. The Stellaris wiki is a wonderful resource and a massive spoiler. After seeing events a few times, I have found myself using the wiki to get the optimal results from various choices. Part of this situation is reliant on the player having the appropriate mindset, and not focusing on how the RNG failed them, but if the game can have events that are less deterministic, like some of the astral rift stories, then that could help facilitate that sense of uncertainty and wonder. It may be easier for the player to have a mindset that accepts that randomness of an event if the results are all random benefits, instead of some being a penalty and some being a benefit.

We’re going to slow things down a little bit to let things stabilize. I’ve hinted a couple of times (and said outright last week) that we have the Custodian team working on some big things - the new Game Setup screen was part of this initiative but was completed early enough that we could sneak it into 3.14.1. My current plan is to have an Open Beta with some of the team's larger changes during Q1 of next year, replacing what would have been the slot for a 3.15 release. This will make 2025Q2, around our anniversary in May, a bigger than normal release, giving us the opportunity to catch up on technical debt, polish, and major features.

I have good memories from the last Open Beta, and I'm glad to see that there are plans for another one! Charging up the release cannon to have a more powerful effect instead of leaving it set to rapid-fire sounds like a great decision to me.

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

Two things come to mind: Exploration and Crisis events

Whether it's uncovering the exact hyperlane structure of the galaxy, finding other civilizations or creatures, locating anomalies or dig sites or astral rifts for future events or stories, and then being able to use those events to shape the growth of my empire is a core aspect of Stellaris. Similarly, having a crisis develop that can challenge the entire galaxy is a core component of any Stellaris story. It changes the mid-game or the end-game into a focus on survival, and not just a drive to have the highest amount of points on the victory scoreboard. I'm still trying to find the best combination of galaxy size and crisis strength to have the best challenge.

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

I like designing ships and would want to keep that aspect, and even expand it to designing starbases. I also like the concept of cutting all things related to the number of ships to have individual vessels have a more prominent part of the story. If there was a drastic change to cut everything to one-tenth of what it is now, then each ship would have more of an impact. That said, I might be able to get the same effect by playing on a smaller galaxy size.

Out of time to write - perhaps more later!

 

[Leaderothala]

1: I agree with the precentages of pops. like if u have an alloy industry u can decide how many millions/billions/trillions of ppl work ther and how many alloy you get in return. that coud be really a fine tune for resources management

2: i dont say to completly abolish single ship desings, but i rather build as montu say here a whole fleet. for x alloy. So command limit goes for how many ship u can fit into one fleet (up to like a 1k) and u can still decide the fleet composition from existing ships. But im a sucker for for shipbuilding and desings so i really like to see a more extensive way to ship desinging and building. Where you put your weapons what weapons u put on your ship manually be able to place your shield and armor to your ship, so positioning in combat actually matter, so if ur fleets brawl with an enemy front to front Flanking give you a huge damage bonus if u dont placed ur armor and shield properly. And the flanking damage from the sides or from the back can be mitigated if u put armor to the sides and the back. Also woud have some kind of more intresting weapon management system. not just tier lvl and thats it, but u be able to manually desing your weapon systems. like u can have an uv laser but tuned into high damage but lower range so you melt everything but only on short range. Or have a loooong barreled Kinetic drive what can shoot across the entire star system,but have significantly lower damage. So its all about pro's and con's. ( i wainting pretty hard for the falling frontier game that is what id love to see as ship desinger.)

3 definetly ethics and origins. but i currently feel the origins dont really have any impact on the game just a positive or negative number on things like we may have some extra goodies and or some event chain and thats it.and that is not really enought for how important an origin shoud be. The ethics are currently too rigid thus unrealistic. it shoud be a spectrum and not inheritly get locked out from the other ethics. so if im a materialist but in an event i want to pick a spiritualist approach i can do it but it woud shift my ethics in that direction with benefits but also negatives. probably if i have fractions they will not like that and will penalize me for that with less to no influence gain or negative for unity for a while.

4 Honestly there is not really too mutch of different goals in the game. you either unify, subjugate or destroy anyone else with the crisis. or became the crisis and kill everyone. i dont say there is needed to be mutch but also the ai are too rigid to feel any sort of importance what they are doing or not. they doing their own silly things, so the ai soud be tuned more to not be that rigid. so if like a spiritualis pacifist got attacked and nobody want or can protect them they can say fuk it full military and will murder ur a'ss it woud be great to see constans shifting of ethics in the Ai empires, so your ally can turn into a fanatic purifyers if they got pushed "too far" and things like that.

5: trade system garbage currently. again just an useless number generator. but i can see trade fleets going to and from planet to planet ( like in starsector) what can and will be ambushed and destroyed by pirates. so u actually need to send out patrol fleets around your own desingated trade paths to scare away or save trading fleets already attacked by pirates.

6: Ye it is too easy. again its just a number generator. So i woud say below 80% hab your colony will need more and more goodies to function normally. alloy mineral energy food consumer goods depending on planet type and habitability. so if u are an continental and u colonize a desert world u will need 50% more food per colonist since growing food there are hard. in a lava world u will need extra almost everything since are u insane? And also below 50% u will need to set up sites firsts or localised terraforming what need to be maintained (more extra monthly cost) to be somewhat livable to ppl there. So low hab world will be really hard for any empire it will need appropriate tech and resources investment to make a lava word produce more than it cost to maitain.

7: yes but i dont know those from top of my head but like planetary unification shoud be a civic not an origin.

8 : diplomacy and spying feels not really well cooked. i barely to never use them since its literally meaningless overall in my games. First focus shoud be OPTIMALIZE UR GAME! after god know how many years ur game still unplayable after midgame anything larger than a small galaxy! in a large galaxy after like 2300 i cannot play faster than slowest since the game so badly optimalized and have so many useless garbage calculations no matter how good my pc is its crawling on the ground like rat! And expand and/or redesing ur ground combat! its so barebone and booring i literally hate to do any sort of ground combat just time waste.

 

[Lorgoth]

My big wishlist item is a Envoy rework. Right now envoys occupy a weird quasi leader state - the actions they are involved in have difficulty levels, but they don't gain traits or experience. My preference would be to remove them and add a Diplotmatic corps, with an espionage division. There could be buildings, decisions, policy's and edicts to affect their performance.

Beyond that I would like to see some more ascension paths added, a Toxic Acension would be great.

Piracy should be able to pop up in more places than just on trade routes - i would love to see some backwater planet become a pirate haven.

The resource building (energy building, mineral etc) should be planetary decions instead, to free up a couple precious building slots now that there are so many DLC buildings.

 

[Kuldan5853]

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?

Some examples to comment on could include:

• How important to you are the current systems that use individual Pops and Jobs in the planetary simulation?
• If we made significant changes to fleets, how much could we alter before it no longer felt like the game you love?
• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?
• How do you set goals for yourself during gameplay? When do you set them, and how often do they change as you play?
• How important is the current Trade system, with routes collecting back to your Capital?
• Is colonization too easy? Should habitability and planet climate matter more?
• Are there any Origins that should be Civics, or Civics that should be Origins?
• If you could remove one game system, what would it be? Which system would you make the central focus of an expansion? Is there a feature you want to enjoy, but feel the current implementation doesn’t quite work for you?

Okay, this will be fun.

Stellaris to me is, on one side, a Game I have enjoyed playing for such a long time that it has been the bane of my sleep for many, many nights. However, it has also grown so much that I rarely start a new game anymore, as there is just so much to do, think about, and work on due to the expansions, patches, and other content added, that it sometimes feels like a chore, rather than fun to play - sometimes, less is more (mechanics).

I also still miss the old times pre 2.0 with the different travel modes, but that is gone and buried.

Now to your specific examples:

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

To me, not at all - I almost never interact with this system and sometimes even forget it is there, the whole concept of the pops with their strata etc. is very complex to manage as soon as a game gets bigger, where I seriously consider if adding another planet to my empire is even worth the overhead in required micromanagement...

I might be old school, but I somewhat miss the system for pops in the 1996 Master of Orion 2 - too simple for Stellaris, but as a metaphor it just worked.

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

Fleet combat balancing against / for / with doomstacking etc. has always been a very delicate balance, and I think I'd vastly prefer a Star Trek: New Horizons approach to fleets where the individual unit is much more important, but also unit numbers are vastly cut down overall to compensate. I'd also like some improvements to ship design - maybe a middle ground between auto generate and fully custom, where you can select a suggested loadout based on your tech stack from a list of archetypes ("brawler", "anti-fighter/missile", "sniper", "missile gunboat", etc. )

• What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?

This is pretty interesting and hard to answer at the same time - I think for me it's mainly the origins, which greatly affect the backstory that exists in my head.

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

Generally, this is a problem for me as the games tend to be the same(ish) each time - expand, conquer, grow, grow grow - at least with my capabilities, playing tall has never been a viable alternative to playing wide. I also would prefer a way to play less militaristic - even more focus on technology / diplomacy even as a viable end game strategy. It should be possible to play tall and outpace everyone else in a way that you basically become a fallen empire - small, but powerful (and inward centric). This could be balanced by making expansion and conquest prohibitively expensive for such a playstile, so that you don't tech up, bulk up and THEN go on a conquer spree.

As for how / if they change - this depends on the stories / content I encounter on the way - some discoveries like early L-Gate or some other megastructure can change my focus quite a bit, depending on the RNG favors (or disfavors) I'm dealt.

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

Honestly, I consider this system mainly unneccessary and somewhat annoying, including the pirate spawn and trade route patrolling. If you play wide this grows to be a chore very quickly versus something that is fun and engaging - especially since the way to deal with the pirates once they spawn is always the same - find the closest doomstack, whack them, return to base.

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

I think yes, this should be much harder - the planet management (and depth) is so big at this point that having more than a dozen or so systems (at least for me) is not fun anymore but turns into playing excel... I'll always play with 0.25x habitable already and would prefer if it could go (much) lower still - or as you wrote, keep the planets technically habitable, but make them much more challenging to keep the overall number of colonies down significantly.

I know fully automating planets is technically an option, but it always felt to me like it was doing more harm than good - I haven't played in a while though.

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

Nothing I really spent a lot of time with thinking about, but more Origins are always great - I'd wish for some Origins that have even more ramifications later in the game, maybe even mid/endgame stuff.

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

Ground Combat

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

I would really love if there would be more interactions around not only your own origin, but those of other factions around you - we have the generic diplomacy and events of course, but there is little in the sense of actually doing research on other factions, figuring out their history, discovering storylines involving their origins and dealings.

Generally, and this might be a totally wrong perception just because I'm simply not good at the game, but it feels like there is way too little in the way of indirect diplomacy not in how you deal with faction A, but to influence faction As situation with faction B.

Stuff like being locked out from making defensive pacts / joining an ongoing war on behalf of another party for example would be something I really would be interested as a mechanic - right now the whole war and peace mechanic including all the exclusions what you are allowed to do are very "game-y" in the sense that a lot of it would not really be happening in the real world. If my neighbor is suddenly at war, even if we're not in a defensive pact, I should be able to call them and say "hey, I got your back, let me in and I'll kick some ass with you".

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

Diplomacy and cross-faction interactions (not only A-B) as described above.

 

[Arduunos]

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

I may be alone in this, but I love individual pops. When I am playing tall and micromanaging, looking through my job details is something I've started to really love. I have a long-standing dream that one day espionage will become a system where you can deeply influence individual pops both at home and abroad, changing their ethics, recruiting them, sending them on missions, etc. in a much deeper way than you can right now.

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

Fleets are just clunky for me to use in general. It's so hard to organize them once made, and the ship limits, fleet limits, ship power, etc. feel really unintuitive. I avoid touching them too deeply for this reason. I would like it to be easier to create new fleets without accidentally ending up with a disorganized swarm of 30 1-2 ship fleets that you need 5 clicks in the UI to recombine or shuffle around. I don't know what would need to stay because I struggle with the entire system.

"What aspects are most important in defining your civilization?"

I would hate to lose any of the customization we have in the New Empire screen right now. If anything, it doesn't have enough customization. I am one of those players who fills my game with AI Custom Empires, then gets disappointed when they never play like my fantasy for them. Three things that would massively help would be:

1. The ability to set the AI of your force-spawned empires.

2. An extra civic slot so that I can make them unique at start. Two is just not enough to make unique empires that do what I imagine them doing.

3. Common scifi tropes need to be reusable! Void Dwellers comes to mind. It's impossible to lean into anything resembling a hard scifi "space is (sorta) barren" fantasy, or a galaxy full of trade flotillas, or anything adjacent to that, when only two empires can have it.

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

I'm always setting goals and working on them. There's usually an "early game" and "mid game" and "late game" division for them. I often have a long arc for my empires in mind that has to do with the fantasy, then practical arcs for the game stages.

The thing that changes most often in these goals is which Tradition tree I am working on: this tends to shift depending on what threats my empire is currently facing. One thing I do a lot is use my first round of Unity to buy the tabs of each Tradition I want (defining goals), then complete them based on what I need in the moment.

This method has a tendency to bite back, though, because sometimes I find I've made a mistake in what Traditions to take. But it really helps me define the empire fantasy.

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

I hate this system and regularly forget that it exists. I would love a replacement.

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

Counting colonization as early game, I think the whole thing is too easy. I really want to spend my early game working on my planets and internal development. There need to be more political events, slave rebellions, disgruntled colonists sending angry letters back to the motherworld, terraforming problems to solve that aren't actual terraforming (like, idk, maybe the soil needs to be made farmable), etc.

HOWEVER, habitability and planet climate are awkward to me. Like, there shouldn't be any reason why Humans, who evolved in a savannah, cannot live on Savannah worlds. Or jungle worlds. Or tundra worlds. Or anything we have on Earth where Humans live. I understand that habitability is there for gameplay, but if it's going to stay as it is, it would be nice if these biomes were a little more..... alien.

On the flipside, the game struggles to recognize colonies I've force-spawned on other world types as the same species as their origin world. I like to set up situations where I'm uniting my lost colonies under one banner, and it can get a bit weird sometimes when Empire #1 does not recognize Empire #2 as kindred because one lives in a jungle and one lives in a desert. I thought the civic for species-type would help, but it doesn't fit for xenophobe empires.

I would LOVE for weather to play a bigger part in colonization. Mostly because I just want more colonization events in general. The idea of having to work to tame your alien planet just sounds like such a fun way to spend the early game.

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

VOID DWELLERS SHOULD BE A CIVIC. Or at least not unique to one "Random" and one "Sol." Please. I'm begging here.

Toxic, tomb world, and clones also come to mind. But I don't want the reusable origins to become civics and end up with only single-use origins left. Because I want all origins to be reusable in the same game for constructing my galactic fantasy this could get messy fast, so maybe I should step back on this one...

There are a lot of Civics that would be compelling origins, so I'm not really sure what to pick out. Adjacently, it would be nice if the "eager explorers" style warp ships would explore the galaxy on AI empires. Though I've found a really fun use-case for the civic for force-spawning my own "pre-FTL" worlds. If you change this civic to an origin, I would love if there remained some other way to force single system or low-tech empires.

Adjacently, the ability to set your starting star type and not have those be single-use would be welcome, even though that's a homeworld setting and not a true origin.

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

I would prefer systems to be made more deep or user-friendly than to be removed.

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

Anything that dives into the micromanagement side of gameplay. Planetary factions, espionage, building colonies, etc. The leader update you all made when the council system was added was one of my favorite new additions to the game. Grand Archive feels similarly fun and deep to play. I love anything that lets me play tall.

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

I want to enjoy trade empires and hive minds so badly. But I just.... can't.

Trade empires don't have much going for them that leans into the fantasy of being a trade empire. You're just a regular empire who happens to get a buff to resources. Sometimes you can install branches on other worlds, but usually other companies get there first. I want more corporate espionage, intricate trade agreements, the ability to strongly define what goods my company specializes in, maybe the ability to construct enclaves or put more empires on space stations.

Hive minds I loved when I first started to play them. There was a lovely kind of peace that came from my unified hive, expanding into the galaxy, focusing on outward things instead of inward conflict (this is before my early game became way too easy). Then I played another empire and found that my old hiveminds' AI were murderous conquerers who want everyone to forcibly join the peace and harmony of the hive. Kinda killed it for me, since I was trying to lean into something like the Na'vi or that crystal hivemind planet in the one Stargate SG-1 episode.

Machines are just perfect, though. Individualist machine options fixed 99% of my problems with them except one: I really want to have some way to play a machine empire that has an equivalent to the "enlighten pre-FTL" pops, but for making robots into advanced sentient AI. A liberation war to free robot slaves sounds fun.