Stellaris Dev Diary #366 - Announcing Stellaris 4.0

[Foxosaur]

This thread has more love emotes than the latest Tinto talks post. That's quite a step.

Though I want to say, I think its great how the direction its going. I personally think you're doing a great job Eladrin and co. I think there's still a couple of big things still to do, such as a Megacorp revamp but maybe that will partly be solved by trade being it's own resource.

 

[Calvax]

Probably a very unpopular opinion here but 'streamlining' (interchange with with dd-word if you prefer) POPs is the worst news I have heard from Paradox regarding Stellaris as POPs are the best thing in whichever game Paradox has them in. There's no acceptable benefit that's worth the trade-off from them being a lesser version of themselves. Much less performance which isn't even a gameplay issue. Why should I care if the game can run 100 years in 10 seconds if the quality of the simulation is effectively worse? It's like generating an AI image which is non-serviceable but is faster to generate. Who cares if I can generate ten times the amount when none of them can offer the quality one had before?

I'd rather hear the news of "no more patches" than "here's a patch that will offer a lesser experience". I'll see what they do with this 'POP groups' but I'm not holding my breath. You don't want to hold back the computation power from where the game needs it. Vic3 made that mistake and ended up with non-sense things like POPs consuming what's produced most instead of what's cheapest. If we end with an amalgamated mess of POPs that don't properly portray diverse properties, it'll harm what's being tried to do with the POP system. Every POP already simulates a bunch of the population grouped together, it's not representing one singular entity. I don't see how they can be grouped even further without diluting their meaning.

What quality about pops do you think will be diluted? From the, admittedly very early build, picture we’ve seen of a planet screen we’ll still see pops working jobs. The most significant difference will be how they’re grouped for calculation purposes which not only helps performance but lays potential foundations for culture and internal politics reworks.

Any chance we get an AI ship design rework along with the new ship designer changes? The AI is still pretty bad at designing their ships and fleets

An AI planet management pass would be good too, especially as the pop economy is getting reworked. I know the AI benefits from bonuses that could change its decision making but it’s painful taking over planets that nearly instantly collapse because of unemployment/housing issues. Even in the best case scenario their worlds are often worse than the automated options players have.

 

[ClavintheGreat]

I do NOT want missions. Terrible idea.

 

[A Cat]

The job system was a huge improvement over the tiles. I hope the pop group system will be a similarly large step forwards.

 

[Thiend]

The job system was a huge improvement over the tiles. I hope the pop group system will be a similarly large step forwards.

I really can't agree that jobs was better than tiles, but this DOES look like it has the potential to be better than either. At least, from what little I see and understand of it. We shall see.

 

[Bayushi Tasogare]

I wanted to touch briefly on the trade-as-resource aspect of this.

With this, I hope that the Trade resource becomes the exchange resource in the Markets. Trade policies could then be changed from 'this is what Trade turns into' to 'this is what you're allowed to convert to/from trade'. The logistics part of this suggests that it's currently planned to be able to create Naval Capacity with Trade (logistics support). That could be, e.g., a Militarist / Gestalt trade policy. Meanwhile, a Materialist trade policy might allow conversion to research, Spiritualist to unity, Egalitarian to Consumer Goods, and similar.

If the Naval capacity idea is there, we could get similar things like getting Diplomatic Weight with Xenophile ethics, as one example.

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to this.

 

[grommile]

I mean something that exists in the game universe. Pops, Jobs, Planets, Techs, Anomalies. And what makes sense.

There's a whole bunch of fancy language for describing different kinds of game mechanics and the relationship of game mechanics the universe depicted by the game, but the plain fact is that by any normally accepted definition of the English-language phrase "game mechanics", the proposed Focus Trees system is a game mechanic.

 

[Mohreb]

still nothing annonced to facilitate the interaction with the intergalactic community :'( so great mechanic but so stressfull to use in larger galaxies ....

 

[Critical Ethics]

I mean something that exists in the game universe. Pops, Jobs, Planets, Techs, Anomalies. And what makes sense.

(Though Unity shenanigans are weak in this domain and would be nice to have it reworked)

The "waypoints" do not represent anything exisiting, they are mere bonuses for your actions that come out of nowhere. Thus I say they do not represent any in-game mechanic.

That what I thought you meant, which is why I was asking about game pieces/pawns etc. I don't really have much to add to what @Abdulijubjub said. From what the OP listed as potential rewards this is really just exposing a part of the tech system that's always been there, but making it a bit more reliable and adding some hooks to pull other mechanics into. As I said, I would really like to see some of the waypoint "originating" from factions.

 

[Critical Ethics]

It could be kinda fun and thematic if Machine Hive Minds' list was presented like a BASIC instruction set and organic hive minds as a literal to do list.

 

[Thiend]

That what I thought you meant, which is why I was asking about game pieces/pawns etc. I don't really have much to add to what @Abdulijubjub said. From what the OP listed as potential rewards this is really just exposing a part of the tech system that's always been there, but making it a bit more reliable and adding some hooks to pull other mechanics into. As I said, I would really like to see some of the waypoint "originating" from factions.

From the (vanishingly small) detail we have, it sounds like it will essentially give concrete rewards like guaranteed techs for doing things that mean you're trying to develop in that area - rather than the current model where doing things doesn't necessarily mean the game will give you the tools to continue your strategy.

It IS possible that some rewards and/or tasks will be too gamey, but we just don't have enough information. What it sounds like they're trying to do with it is stop or soften some of the points where you're carrying out a particular strategy, but spinning your wheels because you just can't draw the tech you need to continue. That's good, even if I don't know yet whether the first version of it will be good. I'm particularly hopeful for such RNG-hell items as Ascension Theory, Mega-Engineering, Thrall Worlds, and the various job throughput buff buildings.

 

[Inspector2311]

The new Message Settings should allow you to customize your notifications to suit your preferences – whether you want a popup that automatically pauses the game or to turn certain notifications completely off.

This is an excellent addition. I am a player who prefers to play the turn-based game that Stellaris is under the skin. I.e., I pause every time I make almost any kind of decision, as opposed to playing it more like an RTS, where you play it more or less unpaused the whole time. Sadly, it often feels like my playstyle is mostly invisible. I don't think I've ever seen anyone talks about playing it the way I do, but accommodations are frequently talked about or made for the opposite playstyle (like apologizing for pop-ups, "overly frequent" leader trait decisions, taking away the "building complete" sound notification*, or other things that don't mesh well with playing in real time).

That said, this is an opportunity to add in pop-ups/messages for many, many more things in the game. (like it was in, say, the early Hearts of Iron games) I'd never be able to get away with asking this without the new message settings screen, as it would anger the real-time players, but if these can be off by default, then no harm to those players.

Specifically, I'd like to ask for notifications for all the various things that expire, come off cool-downs, or otherwise complete. Such as the cooldown finishing on using minor artifacts, distributing luxury goods, organizing festivals, fleets arriving at their destinations, buildings being constructed, being allowed to change policies, the leader pool refreshing, and many more. It's a lot to have to remember to check, and I frequently lose track of many of these things, to my frustration. It would feel like a huge QoL improvement to not lose track of these things anymore.

Thank you for your time, and looking forward to 4.0.




*which was, admittedly, too nonspecific to be useful, but the fact that it wasn't replaced with a more useful form of notification supports my point.

 

[Enero]

From the (vanishingly small) detail we have, it sounds like it will essentially give concrete rewards like guaranteed techs for doing things that mean you're trying to develop in that area - rather than the current model where doing things doesn't necessarily mean the game will give you the tools to continue your strategy.

It IS possible that some rewards and/or tasks will be too gamey, but we just don't have enough information. What it sounds like they're trying to do with it is stop or soften some of the points where you're carrying out a particular strategy, but spinning your wheels because you just can't draw the tech you need to continue. That's good, even if I don't know yet whether the first version of it will be good. I'm particularly hopeful for such RNG-hell items as Ascension Theory, Mega-Engineering, Thrall Worlds, and the various job throughput buff buildings.

That's an extremely bad game-design to have systems that are doing opposite things:
- random techs to make playthroughs less straightforward.
- Focus Tree to make playthroughs more predictable.

The devs could make all subsequent techs appear as options. That would be a good compromice.

 

[verybad]

By "Trade will also be used to represent general logistics capability and as such, will likely become available to gestalt empires for these logistical purposes."

I would be very interested in planets needing Trade to make their economy work, having trade make things function especially on larger planets and potential trade ships go between planets and be pirate/raider/etc. Interceptable ships going from non-military ship and bringing to needed make factories work would be divine. I.E. manufactory planets need food, and 3 food traders need to come each month, if it doesn't have enough logistic handling capability, then people on that planet will starve and get unhappy. In return, it brings minerals to the main planet, which holds them for other planets.

Trade ships would be non-produced and handled but they could have speed and size and maximum distance. Planets could have locations to hold supplies and extras would go to these locations get trade ships. Those locations would get more people growth to handle that. A trade hub(s) might get huge supply and demand with workers handle the work and more trade Star Base to bring logistics one the planet, more food would be needed, and larger bases might be required. Manufacturing to levels and technology would also require supplies. So making a level 5 battleship needs more stuff to arrive at its build location or it would be delayed. Pirates could be paid off to leave the location, pirates that are paid off or intercept enough trade ships would be able to grow, and large enough growth would result in pirates forming their own nations.

I SO would be on with that...

 

[Thiend]

That's an extremely bad game-design to have systems that are doing opposite things:
- random techs to make playthroughs less straightforward.
- Focus Tree to make playthroughs more predictable.

The devs could make all subsequent techs appear as options. That would be a good compromice.

That would be too much information for new players and too strong for experienced ones simultaneously.

The combination of these two mechanics with respect to tech drawing (we already know at least one non-tech thing the focus tree enables) is that the system is random with no investment, and for certain major strategic keystones (such as megastructures) you can go through some effort to mitigate the RNG, either in general or in response to being RNG-screwed. These aren't contradictory, because the baseline is a degree of randomness and with player investment in specific areas they are rewarded with lower RNG in those areas.

It remains to be seen how much of this is operating that way, however that is what they've said it is for and we have almost no information so I assume that is how it will actually work until I see information indicating otherwise.

 

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

Except for the fact that if the buttons were merged, building research/mining stations to a system would have a much larger starting cost since you were building both at the same time. This is major in the early game when you have negligible mineral production. In the early game I often have to balance very carefully what I build and where personally..

I think you misunderstood me. Having both civilian stations be merged to one button shouldn't affect picking stations one-by-one, because context menu (the right-click one both in system view and on star map) shouldn't be affected by it. Rather, the button would highlight both resource deposits and science deposits as eligible targets to build stations in system view, which you'll click in the order you want them to be built anyway. I didn't see a celestial body that both had resource and research deposits together, but I think this would be a very rare edge case.

 

[wisecat]

All necessary things, but sadly nothing of what I wanted and asked for has made it into the list of planned improvement/changes so far.

 

[Critical Ethics]

That's an extremely bad game-design to have systems that are doing opposite things:
- random techs to make playthroughs less straightforward.
- Focus Tree to make playthroughs more predictable.

The devs could make all subsequent techs appear as options. That would be a good compromice.

I don't entirely disagree. I quickly grew tired of the stellaris card draw system. But given that that's not going anywhere that's part of why I like this - we're getting little a bit of a real tech tree, as a treat.

Speaking of I wonder if federations will also end up as a garaunteed tech rather than being straight given to you.

e: the mechsnic itself is also going to be a combo of shaped and random given that it sounds like the tracks will be fixed across playhroughs but the actions you get credit for will be a weighted random draw. One game might immediately award exploration points for blitzing a bunch of planetary surveys while another may not provide a checkmark for that for years afterwards.

 

[Ikael]

Regarding the whole focus system (I have yet to play a Paradox title with those):

> There is a mission system in the game already, faction demands. It didn't hurt the experience at all if you ask me. In fact, if the system ends up feeling too gamey, you can always combine those two and turn those empire focuses into a reworked version of faction remands & rewards

> If it gets too strong, it will railroad players. If it gets too weak, it will be yet another redundant system to ignore like espionage. It will need a ton of fine-tuning, especially when it comes to the design and unlocking sequence of missions

> I really think that the focus system has far more potential for a way to spice up the middle game lull and fine-tune other systems (such as RNG tech draw, or Federation unlocking) rather than a means to guide new players (a step-by-step narrative tutorial campaign a la "the rise of the UNE" would work much better, IMHO)

> Another thing to take into account would be how many "active" missions you can have at once or you might choose from, so you are never "stuck" with one mission that is important to you yet has zero relation with how you play the game blocking you from progression. Having more than one option per tree could be necessary in order to make it work

I do think that this system holds quite a lot of promise, so I can't wait to see its execution!

 

[Sucellus]

Galaxy Generation Updates​

As Stellaris has grown, so has the number of pre-scripted systems. Many of these unique systems were set at extremely high weights to appear, causing most of them to appear in every game you play. Since these special systems usually contained one or more habitable worlds, it inflated the number of such worlds well above the expected number, especially since they did not respect the Habitable Worlds slider from your settings.

We’ve done a normalization pass on the weights of these systems - many should still appear in each game, but it shouldn’t try to stuff all of them in. They also now respect the Habitable Worlds and Pre-FTL sliders from galaxy setup if appropriate, and should generally no longer appear in the immediate vicinity of Empire homeworlds.

This change yields general benefits to game pacing and indirectly, an improvement to performance in general.

This change has the potential to be seriously frustrating, as it might lead to even more frequent use of "observe mode" and restarting games. The number of pre-scripted systems should really be configurable through a slider, with an additional option to force spawn all of them for those of us who enjoy these unique systems. For example, I don’t want to start a game and find that there’s no Sol, Deneb, or Trappist. On the other hand, some players might prefer starting a game with no pre-scripted systems at all. Please give us these options!

Additionally, many origins allow you to start in Sol but not in Deneb. It would be a nice quality-of-life improvement if this flexibility were extended to other iconic systems like Deneb as well.

Thanks for your consideration!