Stellaris Dev Diary #363 - A Journey of Exploration

[ItThatAltersSanity]

It turns out that, among other things, you want to introduce trading or similar mechanics for gestalts to..... just increase their upkeep? Because players won't end up balancing food and minerals on the planet, they'll just accept the increased upkeep. That's exactly what happens in game practice, unless of course scarcity becomes too expensive in upkeep. Does that make any sense? Just add upkeep to specialized worlds and that's it.

Sometimes, simple solutions are elegant. I don't think this is such a time. A blockade system can encourage planet build diversity: where hyperspecialised planets are fragile and easily conquered while resilient planets are economically inefficient in comparison but will keep the enemy fleet tied up. A hyperspecialised planet could, with some revamped systems, force the player to make tradeoffs: form the doomstack by pulling off internal security and there will be military consequences deep inside your borders by the time the doomstack comes home years later.

 

[RoverStorm]

How would this effect districts, I main worry is moving away from one of my favorite bits of stellaris. I don't play vic 3 so I don't know how their job system works.

Also the auto mod traits...

I don't forsee the pop change actually affecting districts. It will change the interaction between jobs and pops, but not the number of jobs or housing, so districts will likely be unchanged.

At least by the pop changes. There is likely to be other economic changes.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

How would this effect districts, I main worry is moving away from one of my favorite bits of stellaris. I don't play vic 3 so I don't know how their job system works.

Also the auto mod traits...

In the first (and arguably second) year of Vic 3, construction was the main backbone of the gameplay loop, just as the military is for Stellaris. Given what's been said earlier this thread, I highly doubt we're going into Vic 3 job detail.

A quick example: you want a pop (of variable size) to mine iron. In the earlygame, you just need the Tools goods (economic resource) so you make a building (read: new job for another pop) which outputs that... which requires wood so another building (more job) to cut down trees. Later down the tech tree, you switch that building to a better recipe that takes more inputs. Now to dig out iron (faster than earlygame) they need coal and explosives, which is more buildings that in turn have their own increasingly complex inputs. The supply chains get very tangled and fragile for the most advanced recipes (production methods).

As for the pop traits, what I want kept are the flavour texts for why this gene engineered worker is superior to the uncompetitive plain guy. I don't want that to mean completely separate pops which then burn a hole in performance.

 

[cryptkeeper]

I don't forsee the pop change actually affecting districts. It will change the interaction between jobs and pops, but not the number of jobs or housing, so districts will likely be unchanged.

At least by the pop changes. There is likely to be other economic changes.

Having hard time visualizing how it wouldn't . But I am willing to give it a shot, I would like to try it before passing judgement to be sure.

 

[Ovan]

I'm gonna be real, trade routes and even piracy adds very little (even subtracts) from the overall experience. Axing them asap would be a good move in my opinion.

 

[cryptkeeper]

In the first (and arguably second) year of Vic 3, construction was the main backbone of the gameplay loop, just as the military is for Stellaris. Given what's been said earlier this thread, I highly doubt we're going into Vic 3 job detail.

A quick example: you want a pop (of variable size) to mine iron. In the earlygame, you just need the Tools goods (economic resource) so you make a building (read: new job for another pop) which outputs that... which requires wood so another building (more job) to cut down trees. Later down the tech tree, you switch that building to a better recipe that takes more inputs. Now to dig out iron (faster than earlygame) they need coal and explosives, which is more buildings that in turn have their own increasingly complex inputs. The supply chains get very tangled and fragile for the most advanced recipes (production methods).

As for the pop traits, what I want kept are the flavour texts for why this gene engineered worker is superior to the uncompetitive plain guy. I don't want that to mean completely separate pops which then burn a hole in performance.

I am having hard time seeing how this would effect districts and building specialization. As well as the job system in stellaris, I might need to play vic 3 to understand.

I think pop traits should stay, removing them would be net negative to me. I don't mind if pops are conglomerated like is being suggested but each species should still have defining traits. It one of the reasons the nanotech ascension confuses me, no pop trait to define them as nanomachines. Pop traits really help the roleplay aspect of stellaris I love so much.

 

[ItThatAltersSanity]

I am having hard time seeing how this would effect districts and building specialization. As well as the job system in stellaris, I might need to play vic 3 to understand.

I think pop traits should stay, removing them would be net negative to me. I don't mind if pops are conglomerated like is being suggested but each species should still have defining traits. It one of the reasons the nanotech ascension confuses me, no pop trait to define them as nanomachines. Pop traits really help the roleplay aspect of stellaris I love so much.

That was my point: there's no way Stellaris will adopt Vic 3 economics as it'd mean some 50 different building TYPES just to simulate 19th century supply chains. Stellaris will remain abstract with "yeah these 30 billion pops are miners. Don't ask what actual elements they're mining, it's all minerals" and "seriously, food is food, don't ask if it's cactus fruit, potato or seaweed".

Nobody, not even the devs, have any idea what the details are for the 2026 Stellaris economy. Understandably, people are afraid of big unknowns in the future. Eladrin is trusting us not to implode in paranoia because he's throwing ideas that far out. Ideas that have yet to be refined and tested. It's good to acknowledge and express the fear. Let us not forget the hope and trust. The player community will see to it that whatever details eventually get settled on by the devs are up to snuff. It may take some bumpy releases but we'll get there.

 

[arosenberger14]

While we're talking dramatic changes to the economy and pops, seems like it's time for me to mention one of my pet peeves: Energy Credits & Generator Districts.

The whole concept is kinda silly, any society that has access to fusion power is going to have more electricity than they need. Second, storage and transport of energy is a non-trivial matter, generator districts and such imply that energy is generated, stored somehow at the point of generation, and shipped to other places to produce value. Just look at all the challenges with developing renewable power storage and transmission or better batteries that we have on Earth right now for example. It's far easier to make energy locally where it's needed than it is to make it and ship it halfway across the galaxy in some storage device that'd be it's own challenge to design and construct. Then there's the economic issues that such a system would be hideously vulnerable to manipulation and hyperinflation; start making more energy than is needed and you can start crashing the value of the energy credit hard... imagine the ramifications of an oil-backed currency when the cost of crude went negative during Covid for instance. It's all just bonkers.

I think generator districts and other "energy credit" generating features should be abolished, and "credits" should come from pops and trade on the galactic market. Get rid of the whole "trade value" concept and make a line of transport infrastructure buildings that will let you access the market in a system; not enough transportation infrastructure and you can't collect all the resources from jobs in a system. Have taxation policy laws that affect how much energy you get from certain pops. Spruce up how the galactic market works to enable export/import focused economies. That'd all make a lot more sense than what we have now to me.

 

[Jay Sherman]

Being forced to come out of your shell as an empire to deal with galactic threats (mid and end game crises).

I was trying for the "200 years of peace" achievement and the galactic community decided to finally put an end to the purifiers becoming the crisis... when I was 189 years in. Lesson learned, don't join the GC.

It does feel bad sometimes when one of the arguably most effective ways to do it come in the form of Sovereign Guardianship which necessitates Militarist.

Very basic but I recommend individualist machines and go for virtuality + cosmogenesis, it is the first time I had success with Inward Perfection honestly.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

I'd imagine it'll be something like this:

A planet has six pops
- a size 2 human xenophobic ruling stratum pop
- a size 1 human militaristic ruling stratum pop
- a size 4 human xenophobic specialist stratum pop
- a size 3 human militaristic specialist stratum pop
- a size 8 human xenophobic worker stratum pop
- a size 10 human militaristic worker stratum pop

The planet has districts and buildings providing the following jobs:
- 3 politican jobs
- 2 researcher jobs
- 2 bureaucrat job
- 1 enforcer job
- 2 entertainer job
- 7 technician jobs
- 8 miner jobs
- 2 farmer jobs

Both of the ruling stratum pops are employed fully as politicians.
The size 4 human xenophobic specialist pop is employed 2/4 as researchers, 2/4 as bureaucrats.
The size 3 human militaristic specialist pop is employed 1/3 as enforcer and 2/3 as entertainer.
The size 8 human xenophobic worker pop is employed 7/8 as technician and 1/8 as miner.
The size 10 human militaristic worker pop is employed 7/10 as miner and 2/10 as farmer, and 1/10 unemployed.

Jobs produce stuff as before, modified by traits of the pop being employed in that job, are filled mostly like before, unemployment effects are magnified by size of unemployed part of the pop. Population capacity of planet is by how many "sizes" the pops are when put together, so the above example would be a planet population of 28 pops.

 

[drawar]

That wasn't what I was suggesting there. Your local food or mineral deficit might cost a small amount of Trade upkeep though to simulate the convoys supplying the world. You should not need to micromanage that sort of thing.

Though if the planet were being bombarded, I'd probably want to experiment with blockade effects.



More or less that, but using trade rather than energy. Maybe storage depots prevent any negative blockade effects for a while, or cloaking techs.

Not guaranteeing we'll do this, but it's my line of thinking. I don't want to go to the detail level of tracking the locations of all resources - while that has cool potential, Stellaris isn't set up for that sort of thing. Abstraction is good enough.

This would be interesting to give a "real" utility to clerks, traders and merchants.
Instead of "magically printing energy", they would generate an exchange capacity.
Worlds/structures with a surplus generate trade value.
Worlds/structures with a deficit consume trade value.

Afterwards, it could be interesting that the starbases/planetary rings allow trade networks: between planets, structures and starbases within range.
Each network could have its own market prices.
Trade networks from different empires could trade with each other, agreements could be by resource, for example, allow the export of food, but not alloy.

Trade enclaves could allow to connect to the galactic market.
Maybe add an option to request the creation of a trade enclave once the galactic market is created.

The economy could even become a simple flow or without stock (for material resources) at the level of the empire, but simply planetary/structures stocks.
By default, when needed for events and others, resources are deposited/collected in the commercial network of the capital.

Obviously, we would have to think of an "equivalent" system for gestalts, but which would be slightly different with its advantages and disadvantages.

 

[IgnisEternus]

I was trying for the "200 years of peace" achievement and the galactic community decided to finally put an end to the purifiers becoming the crisis... when I was 189 years in. Lesson learned, don't join the GC.


Very basic but I recommend individualist machines and go for virtuality + cosmogenesis, it is the first time I had success with Inward Perfection honestly.

I've had lots of success with Inward Perfection for about 2 years. Long before Void dweller rework. I was just saying that it would be cool to have more of these dense peaceful empire fantasies available

 

[Critical Ethics]

Trade is almost certainly going to change. Very few of you seemed terribly fond of the current system, and it’s both terribly bad for performance and mechanically difficult to understand for new players. While I like the general idea behind the trade routes, I don’t think they add enough benefit for their costs. We’re likely to revamp it into a proper resource, though I’m also considering ways of also using it to simulate supply lines and local planetary deficits.

Something something this gives me a pop happiness modifier something forums stability something IDK

 

[Critical Ethics]

Having hard time visualizing how it wouldn't . But I am willing to give it a shot, I would like to try it before passing judgement to be sure.

All building a district does is increase housing by an amount, maximum available of the applicable jobs by an amount, and sometimes building slots by an amount. There's no reason what's being described would need that to change. What has you worried it would?

 

[cryptkeeper]

All building a district does is increase housing by an amount, maximum available of the applicable jobs by an amount, and sometimes building slots by an amount. There's no reason what's being described would need that to change. What has you worried it would?

How do you have 1 entity work jobs like each pop does now how does this interaction work, How would you have multiple species, especially if you specialize work with jobs ? Like say your a Necrophage with worker pops of a separate species but not enough working said jobs ? How does this work ? Unemployment is this even a thing any more ?

I am not saying it wouldn't work I just can't picture how it works.

 

[bitmapmedivh]

How do you have 1 entity work jobs like each pop does now how does this interaction work, How would you have multiple species, especially if you specialize work with jobs ? Like say your a Necrophage with worker pops of a separate species but not enough working said jobs ? How does this work ? Unemployment is this even a thing any more ?

I am not saying it wouldn't work I just can't picture how it works.

Check upstream for an example I whipped up that is more or less a simplified version of how Victoria 3 does it, applied to Stellaris without changing how buildings and jobs work, based on what Eladrin said was their rough plan being POPs based on having matching characteristics of species, faction, ethics and strata to form a single POP.

I'd imagine the simplest way to translate POP numbers to this new system is giving them a size value, like in Victoria. But in Victoria, the size of a POP is an actual value, like 18000, representing 18000 individuals. I don't see Stellaris moving away from abstracted sizes, so while in the current system there might be say, 15 worker stratum xenophilic Blorgs on a planet, in the new system these would all be consolidated into one POP, with a size of 15. The logical conclusion from this system is that it'd be able to fill 15 worker stratum jobs. If there are only 14 worker stratum jobs on the planet, then a fraction of the POP is unemployed. This is no different from Victoria. If there are vacant jobs on the planet, the unemployed fraction of the POP will eventually transfer over to a suitable POP, thereby decreasing the size 15 worker stratum POP to a size 14, and increase the size of the POP it transfers to by 1. If there aren't any suitable POPs for it to transfer over to, but there are suitable jobs that it can fill (if there aren't any civics or species' rights issues that would bar it from taking that job) then it creates a new Xenophilic Blorg in that stratum with a size of 1.

Should any Xenophilic Blorg from other planets migrate to this one they'd try to merge with the matching POP in their stratum. So a size 2 Xenophilic Blorg worker POP arriving would merge with the already existing size 14 worker POP, while a size 2 Xenophilic Blorg specialist stratum POP would try to merge with our already existing size 1 Blorg specialist POP with the same ethic. If there still aren't more than 14 worker jobs on the planet, the now size 16 worker POP would be partially unemployed again, and the unemployed part would try to fill any vacant jobs on the planet it could take.

 

[jose2534]

I’d like to move us over to a system more similar to the pop groups used in Victoria 3 - though with a Stellaris spin on things.

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! YESSSSSS!!! My immersion will be enhanced!!!

And yes to all that follows this:

Trade is almost certainly going to change.

 

[TSBasilisk]

Another option that came to my mind was abstracting jobs. Instead of distinct jobs, you merge them together into the stratums. Adding jobs acts as a stratum modifuer which increases the worker slots in the stratum and adds the output to a lump sum for the stratum. That sum is then divided equally across all worker slots.

So say you have 10 Specialist slots: Two enforcers, two Entertainers, six Researchers. You only have eight pops on the planet. You would get production equal to 1.6 enforcers, 1.6 entertainers, and 4.8 researchers, not including pop bonuses.

Leaders can still generate backstories by referencing a stratum and selecting one of the job modifiers.

 

[Sigilstone17]

• Fix Boarding Cables capturing literally anything - thanks for the fun screenshots

This is bullshit. Modders must fix this immediately

 

[rubert]

Some of the questions that I offered as proposals were a bit leading - I did want to know what you all thought about the existing pop mechanics, for example, because I’m very interested in improving their performance and addressing several other quality of life and mechanical issues with the current systems. Your responses have strengthened my belief that tackling planets is a correct course of action, and you should expect some experimentation in next year’s Open Beta.

I’d like to move us over to a system more similar to the pop groups used in Victoria 3 - though with a Stellaris spin on things. We’re not likely to go as deep in the simulation as Victoria does, but I think that we can likely split pop groups based on species, ethics, and factions. Some of the granularity we have right now might slip though, so I’m eager to get to doing some prototyping and seeing what the pros and cons are of such a change, as well as what the performance implications would be. The economic implications are huge.

I haven't posted in the vision thread, but the biggest "issue" I have with the planets and colonies is that they are all very "samey", no matter how, when or where the planet and solar system is located. I think there should be some noticeable difference between the first colony world colonized 100 years ago and which has never seen any hostile fleets or actions compared to a newly colonized border colony which has endured invasions, space battles and even occupations every 5-10 years. The current ability to just resettle huge number of pops to a new colony makes this worse.

Quoting my old post from 2021:

I also think increasing (and decreasing) planetary efficiency somehow (overtime, events, etc) could be workable even in the current game. Highly developed, old colony world should have more robust and efficient infrastructure, factories etc. than a newly colonized planet or even an old colony but which has switched owners every 10-20 years because it is on the border of two empires.

I wouldn't want global techs which increase effiency though as it would make all the planets similar. What Stellaris lacks is "true" core worlds which are critical to the empire. I always find it bit silly that over a decade or so I can build a full 100% efficient research world and force move pops there and then it potentially beats a much older and more developed world. Some empires could be more distributed while others could be more centralized.