• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #368 - 4.0 Changes: Part 2

Hello everyone!

Today we’re going to take a deeper look at some of the ways we’re adjusting game pacing through changes to Galaxy Generation, Message Settings, Events and Anomalies. Then we’ll take a peek at the Focus system, the Empire Timeline, and a few other changes.

Some of this has already been covered in the announcement diary, but I’ll be providing more up-to-date screenshots and more details. As this is from a build that is still in active development, there will be placeholder icons or temporary text in some of these screenshots, and all of these are still subject to change.

Pacing Adjustments​

Stellaris is a game with many moving parts, each of which interact with other elements to produce a complex whole. Small adjustments in one spot can have significant effects in another, and in the end there can be unexpected impact to the general pacing of the game and overall economy.

Galaxy Generation​

As mentioned in Dev Diary #366, we’ve gone through all of the scripted systems and done a normalization pass on the frequency of these systems appearing, as well as preventing many of them from appearing in empire starting clusters. Some other adjustments have been made to generation as a whole, which should distribute non-guaranteed habitable worlds a bit better and reduce the likelihood of massive clusters of them right around your homeworld.

There were comments in the thread asking for the ability to easily change these weights. Since most of them now use scripted variables, they’ll be very easy to change with mods.
# SYSTEM INITIALIZERS
@spawn_system_rare = 0.1
@spawn_system_uncommon = 0.5
@spawn_system_base = 1
@spawn_system_slightlycommon = 2
@spawn_system_common = 4
@spawn_system_verycommon = 8
@spawn_system_extreme = 16
@spawn_system_max = 99999

@spawn_system_enclave = 100 # first enclave uses this, rest use extreme

As the pool of anomalies and prescripted systems with guaranteed anomalies have also grown over the years, we’ve adjusted the anomaly spawn chance increment a bit to compensate.

Leader Traits​

A minor change from the original announcement is that we’ve implemented a suggestion from the forum thread to have the trait selection levels on even levels - it’s much cleaner overall. Leaders still begin with a starting trait at level 1.

If you have trait selections to make, the leader level up Notifications will show the green “call to action”. If you don’t, they’ll have a more subdued monochrome icon.

Leader positions will also have a significantly greater effect on which traits will be selected for players without Galactic Paragons or those that prefer automatic trait selection. For those that prefer picking leader traits themselves, this bias is instead reflected in which traits are selected for the pool of possible traits whenever a new trait is available.

In Settings, we’re also letting you choose what you would like your default automatic trait selection to be. Any time you take over an empire as the primary human player (a distinction that is primarily relevant for co-op gameplay), it will make sure that the Auto Select Leader Traits box is set to your preference.

image10.png

Events, Messages, and Notifications​

We’re going through many events, messages, and notifications to reduce the number of popups that disrupt your general gameplay. While major events still appear as popups, those that don’t require an immediate response or are purely informational have been converted into notifications or toasts.

image3.png
image6.png
image14.png
image2.png
image4.png

The Artisans and Mirror Dimension can wait until I’ve finished what I’m currently doing.

As we’ve been doing this pass, we’ve updated some of the messages that have been converted into toasts, to make them more informative at a glance.

image13.png

Empire Focuses and the Timeline​

While designing the Empire Focuses we had several thoughts.
  • Stellaris is a dynamic game full of wonder and possibilities. Our sandbox nature means predefined and structured trees cannot work for us.
  • Tasks provided by Focuses should help guide newer players through the game, providing suggestions for short and medium term goals.
  • Behaving in a manner consistent with your Empire Focus should naturally complete the Tasks from that category.
    • Empire Focus categories are Conquest, Exploration, and Development. (Names subject to change.)
  • Rewards for progress within a Focus category should be intangible.
    • Any rewards you get should feel narratively consistent with your empire’s behavior. For instance, acting as an aggressive militarist should naturally guide your researchers to theorizing applicable technologies.
    • These rewards should reduce the need to rely on lucky draws from the tech pool if you want to pursue your Focus.

The Empire Timeline and Focus share a tab in the Situation Log.
image9.png

The current mockup of the Timeline tab. Some differences will exist between this and the final version.

Tasks come in four different categories - Conquest, Exploration, or Development correspond to the three different Focuses, and there are some very basic Tasks at the beginning that are considered “Core”. Completing a Task grants progress within its associated category; Core tasks grant progress in all three.

image11.png

Many of the early game tasks are generally straightforward. The tooltips try to give some advice about how to complete them.

At any time your empire will have five tasks offered, weighted toward your selected Focus. Tasks complete automatically and retroactively, so if you’ve already completed an Archaeology Site, it will complete immediately if you draw it. If you have a Task that either feels impossible or isn’t something you want to do, you can discard it for a small Unity cost.

Many of the rewards for progression along a Focus are (currently) research options thematically associated with the Focus. For example, the first Conquest milestone grants Doctrine: Fleet Support as a guaranteed research option, while others in the line include Specialized Combat Computers and Destroyers. You’ll still have to research them, but we’re happy with how your actual actions in game have an impact on the ideas your researchers are coming up with.

The Empire Timeline shows many of the key events of your empire. Beginning with your Origin as the starting point, important milestones will be logged as they happen. Empire firsts feature prominently on the timeline, such as your first colony or the first time you’ve been humiliated by a Fallen Empire, but some other crucial moments are listed as well, such as war declarations, megastructures, when a crisis appeared, or when an accursed rival stole your Galatron.

The timeline has several zoom levels to let you see a general overview of what happened at a glance, or a detailed list of interesting moments.

image1.png

Hard Reset​

In the 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update, we’re adding a new Origin to the Synthetic Dawn story pack called Hard Reset.

As a warning, this Origin gets pretty dark (even for Stellaris), very quickly.

image7.png

In this Origin, you begin as the cybernetic battle thralls of an advanced Driven Assimilator that have suddenly lost connection to the gestalt intelligence. Naturally, you were outfitted with some of the finest combat cybernetics available.

image8.png

Your civilization begins in an immediate fight for your lives.

Thankfully, as the elite battle thralls of your former masters, you excel at violence. This is good, because you’ll need to fight through rogue barrier fleets that still infest nearby systems.

image12.png

I’m sure everything on Dream Loop is fine. No need to investigate further, right?

As with Broken Shackles, the exploration of yourselves as a people is a core part of this Origin, with factions forming a little while after you gain your independence.

image5.png

Your sudden independence has also left your populace with some traits that represent your nature as Assimilator battle thralls. As you discover more about your past, you’ll have opportunities to either mitigate or enhance these traits, either by pursuing de-cyberization or by embracing the power of the machine. An alternate path exists where you can instead accept your conflicted nature and… Well, I won’t spoil what happens on that path.

Achievements​

As part of the development process, we decided to take this opportunity to review some of the rules around gaining achievements. As I think that many of the simpler ones are a great tool for letting you know that you’re playing the game “correctly”, so we’ve made a change.

Ironman mode is no longer required to earn most Stellaris achievements. An unmodified game checksum and being in single-player remain as requirements.
  • The "Victorious" achievement has been updated to "Win the game through any victory condition in Ironman mode."

Next Week​

We’re still working on getting things like the pop and planet changes presentable, so next week we’ll likely be talking about Trade and Logistics.

See you then!
 
  • 105Like
  • 55Love
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
Well if its minimum require to have a bit of military built then can you at least reward pacifist or good ethics empire more? It literally beat the notion of pacifist if I still have to get some some military, despite being anti social with inward perfection. Which some players have point out the game reward military industrial complex too much most of the events require you to at least kill sth.

Stellaris is a sandbox game so I still want to be able to play pacifist or a "true" god guy pls. I find it weird that no empire can survive with only trade, diplomacy and no military, despite human history said otherwise ( even when sometimes it end in a disaster because of a traitor that sell the whole country). Similar to how I want a crisis or a player crisis that does not harm players and give them benefits if players protect them long enough, but the crisis can only chose between good ethic or bad ethic to befriend so they got the anger of a collective of the side that was chosen. And can choose to be bad guy or not at the end.

Because if even inward perfection (they doesnt care about literally anything be it good-like diplomacy or bad-like killing) still require 1% of military then it still mean 0% of the game can be truly played as the "good guy" or "good ethic empire fully", this gives me some illusion of choices.
You still need a minimum amount of military to deal with such inconsiderate entities as hostile space fauna, pirates, and aggressive neighbours.
Historically nations that attempt to survive without a military either fail or have to be a client of another, more militarised nation - and are then at the mercy of that other nation deciding whether to protect them or not.

As inward perfection since you won't be dealing with other nations much, you have to be willing to defend yourself or perish, and this is not unreasonable. The fanatic purifiers 5 systems over don't care about your pacifist ethics, and probably find it disgusting. Neither do the hostile mobile space crystals or Voidworms.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I meant a guaranteed option. We have a good technology system with weighting factors.
Agree to disagree ;)
Discoveries cannot be guaranteed.

Discoveries cannot be guaranteed.
Arguments to realism are not really my jam. I'm all about what makes the better game, and for me what makes the better game is getting my gosh danged megastructures while there's still stars to put them around.

Also if we are arguing to realism then William Ogburn and Dorothy Thomas would say that you are completely wrong and that discoveries are, in fact, guaranteed.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions:
Well if its minimum require to have a bit of military built then can you at least reward pacifist or good ethics empire more? It literally beat the notion of pacifist if I still have to get some some military, despite being anti social with inward perfection. Which some players have point out the game reward military industrial complex too much most of the events require you to at least kill sth.

Stellaris is a sandbox game so I still want to be able to play pacifist or a "true" god guy pls. I find it weird that no empire can survive with only trade, diplomacy and no military, despite human history said otherwise ( even when sometimes it end in a disaster because of a traitor that sell the whole country). Similar to how I want a crisis or a player crisis that does not harm players and give them benefits if players protect them long enough, but the crisis can only chose between good ethic or bad ethic to befriend so they got the anger of a collective of the side that was chosen. And can choose to be bad guy or not at the end.

Because if even inward perfection (they doesnt care about literally anything be it good-like diplomacy or bad-like killing) still require 1% of military then it still mean 0% of the game can be truly played as the "good guy" or "good ethic empire fully", this gives me some illusion of choices.
Given the scale of the space creatures in Stellaris, building 20 destroyers and nothing else is equivalent to having half a dozen guys with pitchforks who only use them to shoo the smaller bears away from main street. I guarantee you every human society has had bear shooers or equivalent.

edit: Also you don't need to build the destroyers. All building the destroyers will do is guarantee you access to the opportunity to research bigger, more violent ships and weapons that your 100% completely and utterly pure pacifist empire doesn't want anyway. No actual harm, no actual foul.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Haha
Reactions:
I have been following all these DDs and most stuff is great. I feel that people is jumping on conclusions about things they still don't have enough info on, like the focus system. To me it seems great. Most of 4.0 seems great. I still have some issues with the Leaders changes, the one thing I have commented in all previous DDs, so I won't talk about it again.

I have one major problem though. I need an answer on it, and I am sure I am not the only one. I am sure that once 4.0 is deployed, later development from the custodians will be focused on it. It is logical and ok.

However, since the last DLC we got several surveys, now several DDs, but not a single patch to fix some of the major issues that remain with season 8. I am sure that if they are not fixed before 4.0 they will either not get fixed, or will take ages to get so.

Please, we need to not forget those DLCs entirely, this is not great for peoples appreciation of them and affects the player base in many ways. There are many issues, it would take lots of time to tackle them all. But there are 3 main things that should be quite doable and not take too much time, while also being the biggest problems of the last 3 DLCs:
1. Let us move specimens from exhibition to storage. Something that simulates losing it and acquiring it would do, not ideal, but would work. You just right click, select store or something and it goes into storage, the next in queue comes out, you do this until you have what you want. It can work and will solve a major issue with Grand Archive.
2. Fix the storm tech bug (currently just researching lvl 1 of storm protection tech, such as effect on defenses, disables the effect and only leaves the damage. That is. With just the first tech for defenses the effect that shields no longer regenerate disappears and only a meager 20 damage per month remains. Which does nothing. Additionally, it was mentioned about instead using components to not make storms useless later into the game as the tech allows you to ignore it completely. For an entire DLC purely based on a single mechanic (Storms) these 2 issues are deal breakers, and make them almost useless outside of boons to economy. Losing all strategic value.
3. Review advanced governments. There are too many issues, they need a pass. For instance, Imperial Cybernetic has more drawbacks than any other for less benefits than any other. You lose your power projection from influence which gets replaced by ruler modifiers. The relic is unrealistic to get decent benefits while other authorities get better stuff from the get go. Even using the 'cheaty' method of FE war surrender on cooldown you would need 150 years to reach max bonus. If you play it normally we are talking about hundreds and hundreds. Which paired with the fact that we can't decide our heir means we cant properly use the relic. That is to just mention one issue. Please review this as it is most of what Cyborgs got, and it is not even closely well thought. It can get very long to explain all the issues here. but if you guys review it most of them become obvious.

Please don't let things how they are, we all want to have fun. The DLCs are great, but these minor things need some fixing.

ll in all 1 and 2 are the most important, and I believe easier to fix. As 3 is sad, but is mostly a balance issue. While 1 and 2 are design problems.

As usual, very excited about the next update, specially pop changes. I just don't want the current DLCs to be left with these problems forever, as has happened in the past, they are still recent, something can be done about it.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I have been following all these DDs and most stuff is great. I feel that people is jumping on conclusions about things they still don't have enough info on, like the focus system. To me it seems great. Most of 4.0 seems great. I still have some issues with the Leaders changes, the one thing I have commented in all previous DDs, so I won't talk about it again.

I have one major problem though. I need an answer on it, and I am sure I am not the only one. I am sure that once 4.0 is deployed, later development from the custodians will be focused on it. It is logical and ok.

However, since the last DLC we got several surveys, now several DDs, but not a single patch to fix some of the major issues that remain with season 8. I am sure that if they are not fixed before 4.0 they will either not get fixed, or will take ages to get so.

Please, we need to not forget those DLCs entirely, this is not great for peoples appreciation of them and affects the player base in many ways. There are many issues, it would take lots of time to tackle them all. But there are 3 main things that should be quite doable and not take too much time, while also being the biggest problems of the last 3 DLCs:
1. Let us move specimens from exhibition to storage. Something that simulates losing it and acquiring it would do, not ideal, but would work. You just right click, select store or something and it goes into storage, the next in queue comes out, you do this until you have what you want. It can work and will solve a major issue with Grand Archive.
2. Fix the storm tech bug (currently just researching lvl 1 of storm protection tech, such as effect on defenses, disables the effect and only leaves the damage. That is. With just the first tech for defenses the effect that shields no longer regenerate disappears and only a meager 20 damage per month remains. Which does nothing. Additionally, it was mentioned about instead using components to not make storms useless later into the game as the tech allows you to ignore it completely. For an entire DLC purely based on a single mechanic (Storms) these 2 issues are deal breakers, and make them almost useless outside of boons to economy. Losing all strategic value.
3. Review advanced governments. There are too many issues, they need a pass. For instance, Imperial Cybernetic has more drawbacks than any other for less benefits than any other. You lose your power projection from influence which gets replaced by ruler modifiers. The relic is unrealistic to get decent benefits while other authorities get better stuff from the get go. Even using the 'cheaty' method of FE war surrender on cooldown you would need 150 years to reach max bonus. If you play it normally we are talking about hundreds and hundreds. Which paired with the fact that we can't decide our heir means we cant properly use the relic. That is to just mention one issue. Please review this as it is most of what Cyborgs got, and it is not even closely well thought. It can get very long to explain all the issues here. but if you guys review it most of them become obvious.

Please don't let things how they are, we all want to have fun. The DLCs are great, but these minor things need some fixing.

ll in all 1 and 2 are the most important, and I believe easier to fix. As 3 is sad, but is mostly a balance issue. While 1 and 2 are design problems.

As usual, very excited about the next update, specially pop changes. I just don't want the current DLCs to be left with these problems forever, as has happened in the past, they are still recent, something can be done about it.
I'm trying really hard to not make a third thread amounting to "when are the ascension reworks," but yes, the time when we should have had details on season 8 fixes (fauna are weak, Cosmic Storms the DLC is utterly broken, half of ascensions still need updates) has passed.

If you want to be technical, it passed in November, which is when there were allegedly going to be details on those ascension updates.

November was 66 days ago. I certainly hope I won't be saying this again with three digits in March.
 
I'm trying really hard to not make a third thread amounting to "when are the ascension reworks," but yes, the time when we should have had details on season 8 fixes (fauna are weak, Cosmic Storms the DLC is utterly broken, half of ascensions still need updates) has passed.

If you want to be technical, it passed in November, which is when there were allegedly going to be details on those ascension updates.

November was 66 days ago. I certainly hope I won't be saying this again with three digits in March.

I could be reading to much into it but this response to a question on habitability traits in the new pop mod system, and the announcement a DLC will be coming with 4.0, makes me think we’re getting a bio ascension DLC at the very least

Re: Habitability, sounds like something a biologically ascending empire would be interested in making smoother.

But I completely agree with the plea not to leave the QoL, balance, and bug issues with season 8 for too long. It’s understandable that the devs have finite capacity and have to organise and it’s great this year things seem to be slowing down rather than rushing through DLC. But it would also be good for the issues of last year to be corrected as well as not repeated.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Guess what?! I just downloaded a mod that gave me all the achievements for free! Bam! Your achievements are magically devalued!
  1. You lie, because the changes haven't been made yet.
  2. Without checksum it would take me all of 5 minutes to modify the achivements.txt to give me every achievement.

Talking to you isn’t an expression of caring either way about achievements. If they stayed as they are or changed I don’t mind. The point is that it shouldn’t matter to you how anyone else got their achievements, it should only matter what you think about your own.

If you do something hard on iron man with no mods then great. Its value isn’t affected by whether someone else has the same little tick box on steam but did it in an easier way (which is already possible for many by changing the game settings to silly extremes). They’re hardly a status signal or have worth outside what you give them.

What I do care about here is arguing that other people have to play a specific way just so you can feel validated.
Talking about it is not how you show "I don't care about it".

I'm half tempted, when I get home from work later today, to use SAM to unlock all of the remaining 147 achievements I need to 100% the game, just make The Founders achievements all worthless. Of course, then I'd undo the damage and restore it back to normal after because I still want to hunt them.
If that is the only way you get your happiness into your live, I can't stop you.

Absolutely. There's a lot of reasons why the comparisons to predatory practices fall down and the similarities are superficial at best. I'm just making sure we're all on the same page about what the argument being made is so people don't refute the wrong thing.
The Developer of Vampire Survivors learned his craft doing online casinos.
He is using all his knowledge in the game. Yet it isn't predatory, because no money is invovled.

The Focus Trees are a tool. No tool is inherently predatory. Every tool can be used predatory.

Admittedly the pop rework and the change to hyperlanes only were in fact really bad. I was never a fan of either.

Your position on focuses is still insane though.
Hyperlane only was necessary.
Multiple FTL was a mistake. It barely worked in Sword of the Stars 1+2. And those games were dedsigned around the Gimmick.
If they tried to still use it, pathfinding would be a bottleneck making Pops look like a walk in the park.

The pop rework wasn't a mistake. Pops were a mistake.

They were a mistake in 1.0.
The rework could not fix them.
Imperator: Rome could not fix them.
Victoria 3 just replaced them entirely. And as I understand it, the new system will be similar to Vicky 3?

Stellaris was there to find things out. And they found out that pops are definitely not the way to go. Not unless you can somehow multithread their processing.

Can't we just have 3 of each achievement, one for MP, one for SP, and one for SP Ironman? And if you unlock it for SP, it unlocks for MP, and if you unlock it for SP Ironman, it unlocks it for SP and Multiplayer?
That would serve no purpose. And as I understand, the only reason MP doesn't give achievements is that nobody is daring enough to play with Ironman and risk a corrupted save?

"Hey, Admiral Xilis. I've been doing some virtual modelling concerning the performance of our destroyers, and I've found a niche for a heavier support vessel armed with more and bigger guns. My projections are that they'll be 10% more effective at killing amoebas when deployed alongside our current naval assets."
*Boom* a sensible reason to get cruisers falling out of the tech list as something the scientists have proposed - and thus is now a guaranteed research option when you come to direct them to pick a project from their list. They've done the preliminary sketches, even if they've not actually put any effort into it yet.

It is logically related to your previous actions here, since more effective/larger/specialised ship role does branch out from using existing ships and finding their limitations.
I am still confused that people argue that this isn't the most obvious, logical way miltiary technolgy should evolve.
It wasn't the scientists that decided to "build a bigger boat".

It literally beat the notion of pacifist if I still have to get some some military, despite being anti social with inward perfection.
If you don't have a fleet you aren't a pacifist - you are just unarmed. And probably incapable of survival.

Pacifism is when you could destroy them - but choose not to.
 
This is correct. Most players play unmodded, non-Ironman.
Just curious, but why is unmodded multiplayer excluded, now that Ironman is dropped?

I know no other paradox games allow achievements in multiplayer (I think the Civ series does), but it kinda sucks to get some rare galaxy condition only to not benefit from the achievement because you're in multiplayer. Especially since Stellaris has a wide variety of rare spawns and conditions (that will only get even more rare in 4.0 when the special anomaly rate is adjusted), a wide variety of possible empire types and origins, and many achievements aren't something the other player can help you cheese anyway.

Especially since I think it was mentioned most multiplayer games are co-op?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  1. You lie, because the changes haven't been made yet.
  2. Without checksum it would take me all of 5 minutes to modify the achivements.txt to give me every achievement.

I gotcha, it only counts as devaluing in your mind if PDX is the one to obviate 'achievements'. That's certainly... a position you can have, that's for sure.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You still need a minimum amount of military to deal with such inconsiderate entities as hostile space fauna, pirates, and aggressive neighbours.
Historically nations that attempt to survive without a military either fail or have to be a client of another, more militarised nation - and are then at the mercy of that other nation deciding whether to protect them or not.

As inward perfection since you won't be dealing with other nations much, you have to be willing to defend yourself or perish, and this is not unreasonable. The fanatic purifiers 5 systems over don't care about your pacifist ethics, and probably find it disgusting. Neither do the hostile mobile space crystals or Voidworms.
"Historically nations that attempt to survive without a military either fail or have to be a client of another, more militarised nation - and are then at the mercy of that other nation deciding whether to protect them or not." There that part although it sucks to be a client of another nation is still an option, which mean you can pretty much survive by making other your shield it doesnt cancel out what I said theres technically who survive with only trade, no matter how underhand tactic they were doing. (You only look like a coward in history books though)
The meta is literally just build more fleet doom stack to kill the whole map, even if I dont play as a militarist the AI can gain so much just by warring as long as they take more planets, more pop with more resource generation from me I am mostly guaranteed they will be stronger. It doesnt feel rewarding as much compare to playing militarist with all the bonus and perks oor storyline after killing stuffs. (events like diplomatic, empire influence by the number of allies I can see theres multiple of way then just nudging players to build fleet)
 
  • 3
Reactions:
  1. You lie, because the changes haven't been made yet.
  2. Without checksum it would take me all of 5 minutes to modify the achivements.txt to give me every achievement.


Talking about it is not how you show "I don't care about it".


If that is the only way you get your happiness into your live, I can't stop you.


The Developer of Vampire Survivors learned his craft doing online casinos.
He is using all his knowledge in the game. Yet it isn't predatory, because no money is invovled.

The Focus Trees are a tool. No tool is inherently predatory. Every tool can be used predatory.


Hyperlane only was necessary.
Multiple FTL was a mistake. It barely worked in Sword of the Stars 1+2. And those games were dedsigned around the Gimmick.
If they tried to still use it, pathfinding would be a bottleneck making Pops look like a walk in the park.

The pop rework wasn't a mistake. Pops were a mistake.

They were a mistake in 1.0.
The rework could not fix them.
Imperator: Rome could not fix them.
Victoria 3 just replaced them entirely. And as I understand it, the new system will be similar to Vicky 3?

Stellaris was there to find things out. And they found out that pops are definitely not the way to go. Not unless you can somehow multithread their processing.


That would serve no purpose. And as I understand, the only reason MP doesn't give achievements is that nobody is daring enough to play with Ironman and risk a corrupted save?


I am still confused that people argue that this isn't the most obvious, logical way miltiary technolgy should evolve.
It wasn't the scientists that decided to "build a bigger boat".


If you don't have a fleet you aren't a pacifist - you are just unarmed. And probably incapable of survival.

Pacifism is when you could destroy them - but choose not to.
I guess I should word it another way its not that I dont want to build a single fleet, but rather the gameplay for good ethics empire are mostly near identical to warring empire at endgame or midgame in term of military might (doom stacking). (Partly the problems are because we still need to rework trade, diplomacy, galactic community, espionage, galactic politics and internal politics are still a mess, not stealing planets doesnt yield much). Right now the most beneficial road is to go genocidal empire or bad ethics empire, because it give the most rewards and resources and benefits by owning more planets more pops, the other aspect of Stellaris which is for non fighting looked stale.
 
"Historically nations that attempt to survive without a military either fail or have to be a client of another, more militarised nation - and are then at the mercy of that other nation deciding whether to protect them or not." There that part although it sucks to be a client of another nation is still an option, which mean you can pretty much survive by making other your shield it doesnt cancel out what I said theres technically who survive with only trade, no matter how underhand tactic they were doing. (You only look like a coward in history books though)
The meta is literally just build more fleet doom stack to kill the whole map, even if I dont play as a militarist the AI can gain so much just by warring as long as they take more planets, more pop with more resource generation from me I am mostly guaranteed they will be stronger. It doesnt feel rewarding as much compare to playing militarist with all the bonus and perks oor storyline after killing stuffs. (events like diplomatic, empire influence by the number of allies I can see theres multiple of way then just nudging players to build fleet)
I guess I just don't trust the AI that I'm somehow in a defensive pact / alliance / vassal situation with to be competent enough to keep me alive. :D

Especially not with early game space fauna before I can get good alliances going.

And if you're a vassal, they might try and annex you (unless they've been told not to do this now - I haven't read all the patch notes), which is *less than ideal*.

With *some* military for self defense you might be able to get a competently large federation together though, which *might* be able to swing wars for you and be enough that you and your federation can last until the end game, possibly even with you in charge if your economy is strong enough - although at that point you get to run the federation fleet whether you built it or not. Ultimately though you'll have to have some forces to fight off the omnicidal crisis when it strikes, no matter how much you might want to live in peace and harmony with everyone else.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Stellaris already introduced a truly fanatic pacifist empire with no weapons whatsoever.
They are canonically extinct by the time the player starts a game though. Turns out the fanatic xenophobe FE did not like their existance.
All thats left behind is a system with every type of moon in perfect sync around a planet. And the lore.

So yeah - not being able to self-defend turns out to be a bad decision.
 
Well if its minimum require to have a bit of military built then can you at least reward pacifist or good ethics empire more? It literally beat the notion of pacifist if I still have to get some some military, despite being anti social with inward perfection. Which some players have point out the game reward military industrial complex too much most of the events require you to at least kill sth.

Stellaris is a sandbox game so I still want to be able to play pacifist or a "true" god guy pls. I find it weird that no empire can survive with only trade, diplomacy and no military, despite human history said otherwise ( even when sometimes it end in a disaster because of a traitor that sell the whole country). Similar to how I want a crisis or a player crisis that does not harm players and give them benefits if players protect them long enough, but the crisis can only chose between good ethic or bad ethic to befriend so they got the anger of a collective of the side that was chosen. And can choose to be bad guy or not at the end.

Because if even inward perfection (they doesnt care about literally anything be it good-like diplomacy or bad-like killing) still require 1% of military then it still mean 0% of the game can be truly played as the "good guy" or "good ethic empire fully", this gives me some illusion of choices.
As others have pointed out, you do still need military force to defend yourself unless you want to become a vassal or tributary - which is entirely possible if you manage to never allow them to integrate you. You just need to pick your sugar daddy carefully or go Scion, which will have an expiration date once the younger empires are strong enough to slap your sugar grandpa around.

If you want to play with no military whatsoever and survive off of just trade and diplomacy, you could turn into a space Italian city-state and lean into mercenary forces heavily - the problem is the game doesn't take into account what forces you might be able to field if you dump your bank account into buying guns for hire, so you'll always be at Pathetic fleet strength compared to them until it's throw down time, thus inviting war. I also don't know of any nation in history with a significant status/power that didn't rely on military strength outside of hiring mercenaries that wasn't also a vassal or puppet of a different nation.

The Stellaris sandbox exists for you to play a "good ethic empire" fully, whatever that means to you... but it doesn't mean that it won't be an extremely bumpy ride where you'll find it hard or even impossible to flourish and be an independent superpower. You can play nice and be a saint, the AI won't always return the favour, just like in real life.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
Reactions:
You still need a minimum amount of military to deal with such inconsiderate entities as hostile space fauna, pirates, and aggressive neighbours.
Historically nations that attempt to survive without a military either fail or have to be a client of another, more militarised nation - and are then at the mercy of that other nation deciding whether to protect them or not.

As inward perfection since you won't be dealing with other nations much, you have to be willing to defend yourself or perish, and this is not unreasonable. The fanatic purifiers 5 systems over don't care about your pacifist ethics, and probably find it disgusting. Neither do the hostile mobile space crystals or Voidworms.

I don't really disagree with you given the way the game is now and due to the fact military changes are beyond the scope of 4.0, so that's unlikely to change soon.

I would say that there are science fiction tropes and fantasies of wielding power without a military that stellaris is currently incapable of satisfying. A big one that comes to mind is from the Foundation series. In those novels the world of Terminus has a small population as is extremely resource poor, while being surrounded by four aggressive neighbours. What Terminus has is advanced technology which it first exports via an organised religion. Despite having no military when one of the neighbours launches a fleet to annex the planet the crews mutiny out of fear that their actions are heresy.

In a later book Terminus extends its power further through trade in technological items that become necessary to the economy of surrounding sectors and cannot be easily reverse engineered. Eventually none of those empires can afford to go to war with Terminus because if they did it would only take a few months until their industries ground to a halt.

Neither of these are easy mechanics to bring to the game. Culture and religion are largely non-existent and pops don't have individual feelings about foreign empires that could result in them revolting against their government if war was declared on a popular one. Likewise the economy is quite simple so there's no real scope for one empire to become dependant on another through trade (only through taxes). But maybe in 2026 if we get improvements to factions, diplomacy, and espionage there will be viable, but difficult, strategies for defence that don't require many (or any) military fleets.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Lot of good changes here.

I am a little concerned about the empire focuses, but honestly it's hard to gauge without more implementation details - perhaps in the open beta. I am concerned it may end up either too railroady or too gimmicky. An example of the former is the Vic 3 game objectives which attempted to be a mix of offering player guidance and offering goals and victory conditions, but in reality the middle parts of all the paths are overly restrictive (e.g. attain -20% market price of certain goods, gather 8 countries in your market) and they're not really used much. An example of the latter is the Civ 6 breakthrough system where you build two forts to gain 40% of some technology or other thing; nice in concept but sometimes you do the thing just to get the reward even though doing the thing wasn't otherwise necessary for your specific setup in the first place.

"Found a colony" makes sense, but the tricky parts are what do you include in the middle or near the end? I noticed "build 20 destroyers" is a proposal, and some games that's fine, and other games I might get lucky and roll destroyer and cruiser tech back-to-back. Depending on what the reward for 20 destroyers is (especially if it's something important like a doctrine), then we might be nudging games to play out more similarly to one another, which might impact the replayability that Stellaris excels at. Similarly, goals like "declare a war" are one thing, but "declare x wars" is different.
It also can hamper player efficiency. It's not so relevant now, but before the tech rework I would often tech rush and skip straight to cruisers while stockpiling alloys for the first 30 years or so of the game. Now it would probably be destroyers. But unless I'm intentionally playing an early game alloy rush build, I'm not going to want to waste a bunch of alloys on a "build 20 corvettes" goal.
 
It also can hamper player efficiency. It's not so relevant now, but before the tech rework I would often tech rush and skip straight to cruisers while stockpiling alloys for the first 30 years or so of the game. Now it would probably be destroyers. But unless I'm intentionally playing an early game alloy rush build, I'm not going to want to waste a bunch of alloys on a "build 20 corvettes" goal.
Fortunately the given example goals are "build 5 corvettes" and "build 20 destroyers".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Fortunately the given example goals are "build 5 corvettes" and "build 20 destroyers".
That's still 500 alloys (roughly) on corvettes in a game where I probably don't want to spend any alloys on corvettes at all. That being said, it's just a rough guideline so I'm not really upset, it just has potential to be disruptive or counterproductive to what you really want to be doing.