• 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
  • 9
  • 7
Reactions:
When I see a game that has systems like this focus system, it makes me immediately not want to play it.

It evokes the scene of a bunch of suits in a business meeting, discussing in veiled terms how stupid the players are, and that their market analysts are telling them that they have to put in a handholding system that tells players what to do and gives them little dopamine rewards for checking boxes.

Modern games are full of garbage like that. I don't play those games, and I feel like a lot of people who play Paradox games are also people who don't play those games and are not the target audience for gameplay systems that don't respect the intelligence of the player.

Nothing about this system enhances gameplay, or has artistic value, or has anything interesting to say. It is almost certainly something an analyst in a suit urged the devs to put in. It's an insult.
The original intent behind the system is to help new players who bounce off the game. Those people don't play Stellaris as a result which means lost profit.

If Paradox doesn't try to bring in new players and just focus on satisfying old players, the player base will shrink as old players drop off.
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
Reactions:
When I see a game that has systems like this focus system, it makes me immediately not want to play it.

It evokes the scene of a bunch of suits in a business meeting, discussing in veiled terms how stupid the players are, and that their market analysts are telling them that they have to put in a handholding system that tells players what to do and gives them little dopamine rewards for checking boxes.

Modern games are full of garbage like that. I don't play those games, and I feel like a lot of people who play Paradox games are also people who don't play those games and are not the target audience for gameplay systems that don't respect the intelligence of the player.

Nothing about this system enhances gameplay, or has artistic value, or has anything interesting to say. It is almost certainly something an analyst in a suit urged the devs to put in. It's an insult.

I find it a real stretch to imply this focus system is some kind of attempt to make a cookie clicker game in order to attract new people. The stated reasons for it are very believable: to address the common feedback among newer players that the game (particularly with all DLCs) can be overwhelming and to have the way your empire plays determine how it progresses. There's legitimate reasons to be wary that it might incentivise odd behaviour that goes against role play, or that the mechanics of refreshing are unduly punishing, or simply that it doesn't seem integrated with factions, governments, or anything else. But paradox players of many games have long complained about mana mechanics where you tick up some resource that lets you adjust your empire divorced from what you're actually doing. Unlocking more diplomatic options by being diplomatic, or more war options by being aggressive, makes sense and could totally add value.

I doubt this will chance your mind given how extreme your stance is, so only hope that you jump onto the beta so if you do find flaws with it you can feed them back in a helpful way to the devs.
 
  • 10Like
Reactions:
The original intent behind the system is to help new players who bounce off the game. Those people don't play Stellaris as a result which means lost profit.

If Paradox doesn't try to bring in new players and just focus on satisfying old players, the player base will shrink as old players drop off.
Of course that's the intent, that's what I'm saying. I feel insulted by the intent because this is a grand strategy/4X game, not the latest vapid lootbox game for attention deficit teenagers. I am protesting against a feature that aligns the game closer with types of games I despise. And as you can see in this thread, many other people agree.

It's not just idealism though - there's a legitimate business argument for not changing a game's track in a way that turns away longtime customers - the loyal customers who will otherwise remain a reliable source of income for years and years. If you end up with "flavor of the month" gamers as your customer base by emulating the modern live service game model of instant gratification and micro-gamification, then your game also risks that player base suddenly evaporating as they move onto the next thing. I don't think Stellaris is at risk of this just because of one feature, but the game HAS been heading in this direction for years now, with more and more gameplay systems that amount to progress bars and checkboxes instead of emergent sandbox strategy gameplay.
 
Last edited:
  • 14
Reactions:
Of course that's the intent, that's what I'm saying. I feel insulted by the intent because this is a grand strategy/4X game, not the latest vapid lootbox game for attention deficit teenagers. I am protesting against a feature that aligns the game closer with types of games I despise. And as you can see in this thread, many other people agree.

It's not just idealism though - there's a legitimate business argument for not changing a game's track in a way that turns away longtime customers - the loyal customers who will otherwise remain a reliable source of income for years and years. If you end up with "flavor of the month" gamers as your customer base by emulating the modern live service game model of instant gratification and micro-gamification, then your game also risks that player base suddenly evaporating as they move onto the next thing. I don't think Stellaris is at risk of this just because of one feature, but the game HAS been heading in this direction for years now, with more and more gameplay systems that amount to progress bars and checkboxes instead of emergent sandbox strategy gameplay.
This is an utterly insane position.
 
  • 7
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm left with mixed feeling about the Focus tree stuff. As long as there's plenty of options for many different playstyles its fine. For example if I'm playing a Fanatic Pacifist empire I'm not likely to build 5 corvettes for quite some time after game start. As long as there's no pressure to do so because its the most optimal play and the rewards are too good to pass up then its fine. Even having a science tech drawn out of the deck and becoming locked as a research option almost feels too good to pass up. If I have plenty of other economic and exploration based options where I don't feel bad about skipping the early corvette build then its fine.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't understand why you need to link achievements to the checksum, since you allowed you to get achievements without ironman? Most fans of the game play with mods and achievements would not hurt. I'll hint to you that there is a program called Steam Achievement Manager, with which you can open all achievements at once. So what is the purpose of your restrictions on the checksum? Remove it
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand why you need to link achievements to the checksum, since you allowed you to get achievements without ironman? Most fans of the game play with mods and achievements would not hurt. I'll hint to you that there is a program called Steam Achievement Manager, with which you can open all achievements at once. So what is the purpose of your restrictions on the checksum? Remove it
Especially when most (if not all) of their current games except for Stellaris have mods decoupled from achievements. I mean, this is a step in the right direction, but it's not fully there yet. Not sure what the deal is and why the Stellaris team is so hesitant to change it. There isn't even just the SAM like you mentioned, but there is a program available to remove the checksum requirement allowing you to play with mods. But it needs to be updated everytime there is an update to the game and is because it effects the .exe, it makes it not the most desirable thing to do.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I have to double check with my Tech Lead, but I'm pretty sure that using any debug commands during a playthrough should block achievements.
I hope it does block them.

No. Hard Reset requires some degree of Militarist. It also doesn't play well with civics that suggest that your civilization has a long and storied past, since you're a bit of a blank slate.

View attachment 1249314

I spy new civics.... or some sort of new category system.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
All the changes that are being worked on look great. However, I would be very happy to see small improvements that improve the immersion regarding the leaders.

Here is what I have been missing for a long time:

1. leaders can receive decorations and medals. This is great, especially if you play as an interstellar empire in the style of the one from Star Wars or Foundation. I think it would be great if such medals could be designed based on some schematic elements and given names and award conditions. I suspect that the medals could be tied somehow to the achieved experience of the leaders.

2 A family tree (in the case of hereditary monarchy systems) or a “gallery of leaders” (in the case of other systems).
 
The focus system needs to go straight into the garbage can. I cannot believe some people here are cheering for this.

Stellaris has, over the past few years, seen its wonderful sandbox nature become more and more encroached on by the sort of vapid dopamine-chasing level-up and progress bar systems that infest so many other games these days. And now, this system threatens to turn the ENTIRE GAME into one giant set of progress bars where you complete meaningless tasks to win points and progress along linear tracks.

I do not want to build 10 destroyers. I do not want the game to tell me to build 10 destroyers. I certainly do not want to feel FORCED by the game to build 10 useless destroyers because it unlocks the cruiser tech. I want to do *what I want to do*, not what the game tells me to do.

This system feels like Civ VI's eureka system which turned that game into a ridiculous conga line of silly tasks instead of a real free-form strategy game.

There's nothing to salvage about this system. Remove it. Keep the empire timeline, that part is great. Flesh that out instead, give us more graphs, logs of events, ways to track our progress - the progress we CHOOSE to make, not something we're TOLD to make.
Depends on the implementation. When you build a lot of destroyers, it makes sense that you gain knowledge about how to build them faster, cheaper, and stronger. This should really increase the likelihood of such technologies dropout. However, it doesn't make sense that now you know how to build a cruiser.

If only assistive technologies will drop out of the focus, if these technoligies continue to drop out of the pool without a focus, then maybe it's a good idea.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm left with mixed feeling about the Focus tree stuff. As long as there's plenty of options for many different playstyles its fine. For example if I'm playing a Fanatic Pacifist empire I'm not likely to build 5 corvettes for quite some time after game start. As long as there's no pressure to do so because its the most optimal play and the rewards are too good to pass up then its fine. Even having a science tech drawn out of the deck and becoming locked as a research option almost feels too good to pass up. If I have plenty of other economic and exploration based options where I don't feel bad about skipping the early corvette build then its fine.
I find a few corvettes are often useful early game just to cover against *small* space nasties and a couple of the early game events.
I'd imagine though if you're focussed on the not-military options you're less likely to pull the "build a fleet" cards.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Depends on the implementation. When you build a lot of destroyers, it makes sense that you gain knowledge about how to build them faster, cheaper, and stronger. This should really increase the likelihood of such technologies dropout. However, it doesn't make sense that now you know how to build a cruiser.

If only assistive technologies will drop out of the focus, if these technoligies continue to drop out of the pool without a focus, then maybe it's a good idea.
It *could* make sense to develop cruisers from this, even if it's only from the point of view of one of the military designers going "hey, I wish we had a bigger frame to put more guns on" :p
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Any changes in AI behavior? Its pretty bad right now.

I just got a 1000 star galaxy wiped out in half by the grey tempest while NOT A SINGLE EMPIRE VOTED TO MAKE IT GALACTIC FOCUS.
With the Unbidden attacking at the same time, we are down to like 20 stars and three empires now. Still both galactic focuses wont gather a single vote.

Regulators FE woke up over this but barely moves outside their border. Conservers and caretaker FEs won't even wake up over this.

I also had many instances where I basically seppukued my run admiting defeat as the AI had broken all my defenses and was able to wipe me out, but wouldn't do it over poor pathfinding and decision making.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
I just got a 1000 star galaxy wiped out in half by the grey tempest while NOT A SINGLE EMPIRE VOTED TO MAKE IT GALACTIC FOCUS.
With the Unbidden attacking at the same time, we are down to like 20 stars and three empires now. Still both galactic focuses wont gather a single vote.
AI has been unable to support the Grey Tempest galactic focus for years, possibly since it was first added (though I haven't been playing that long so I can't be sure). The problem is that AI is scripted to to support that focus depending on how many systems the Gray Tempest controls and whether it's neighboring them, but the Gray Tempest doesn't have starbases and never owns systems. So it's not really possible to get that resolution to pass unless the human player has enough diplo weight to push it through on their own.

That said, the crisis focuses don't do much so you don't really need them.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You misunderstand and neglect how most people play games like this. The perceived complexity is an indirect challenge for many—to be good at what they are doing. Stellaris is essentially a racing game, where players are forced to find ways to stay ahead in fleet power. Those who care about being successful with their empire must engage with tasks.

Tasks with rewards create a Pandora’s box, leading to posts like:

"I hate that I'm forced to build 20 Destroyers to get Cruisers early and reliably because that's the most efficient way to play! An early Cruiser rush is always a game-changer and puts me ahead!"

We are not wired to just fiddle with a sandbox—this isn’t the Mojang forum. This is Paradox, a company known for its deeply complex and grand strategy games. Any mechanic tied to in-game effects, even minor ones, will influence how players engage with the game. If Stellaris promises sandbox exploration and freedom, yet its systems offer an optimal way to play, players will naturally optimize the fun out of the game.

A task system with rewards—whether open, rigid, or random—will always create scenarios where players who care about efficiency are forced out of their goals or roleplay in order to chase a task if it provides an advantage.

I think I’m repeating myself at this point. You might be right that some experienced players will choose to ignore tasks entirely. But in that case, I have to ask—why have them tied to rewards in the first place?

I do think they are a great tool for new players. Whether new players actually arrive depends on how well the game is received and how effectively word spreads about its quality. But a better approach would be to focus on long-term fans—to increase perceived game quality, fun, depth, engagement, and emergent gameplay. This would naturally create a self-sustaining "moth propaganda machine", where veterans introduce and train new players.

I think I’ve lured 4 to 6 friends into Stellaris and taught them the game—but I’m just not feeling it anymore.
This is a lot of assumptions and a few logical fallacies. There are alternatives to surviving late game than fleet power, such as allies, turning off crisis, or turtling in the L cluster with defense platforms or mods which can do several things like adjust hyperlanes.

You state the entire game boils down to one concept and complexity is just a difficulty towards optimizing this concept, but later site that Paradox is known for deeply complex games, which by your previous argument doesn't mater.

Saying "we" are not wired to handle tinkering with sandboxes is a hasty generalization of the playerbase of Stellaris, where there is a multitude of playstyles. Some people enjoy seeing numbers go up, some people imagine vast societies, some people keep playing exploration over and over and resetting when its done.

If a game is complex with many options, it either has optimal options towards some goal, or there isn't options with meaning. Stating that some people will always try to optimize the game doesn't apply to everyone. There are challenge runs, rng, and playing to completely different or mutually exclusive goals. Not to mention that roleplayers as just one example are well known to pick themes, not stats, foe their choices.

You keep projecting how you play on others. I am not forced to play optimally. I don't even need to play optimally to defeat an end game crisis. That's whats great about having lots of options, I can beat the entire game without diplomacy as a fanatic purifier, without shipyards as a parasitic hive, without pop growth as a virtual empire, without the galcom, without espionage, without cloaking, without systems or colonies outside of my home world, etc.

The reward is a failsafe towards a tech you can get randomly. Infact, if you're as skilled and optimizing of a player as you claim everyone tries to be, then you would know about opportunity cost. Chasing after these milestones is only worth it if its faster than tech rushing, a tried and true method to get not just more tech pulls, but more tech. Everything you spend chasing milestones is less to spend on traditional tech rushing. Meanwhile, a new player unfamiliar with mechanics, has a path they can follow.

As for new players versus old players, pretty sure that's what the several surveys was polling. Us older players, determining what the most of us want fixed, changed, or added most. The upcoming pop and trade reworks as well as the Biological and Psionic ascension DLC are not exactly a concern of a player who hasn't made it far into the game yet.
Additionally, its not one pool of game designers all working on a single feature at a time. Different teams have different skills working on different projects and features. A lot of these smaller QoL features are pet projects of specific Custodian members. A few of them are even done entirely solo on the Custodian's free time between other projects.

If you're burned out from always trying to optimize, then honestly? Playing something else for a while is probably better for your mental health than getting upset about a QoL feature for new players combined with a milestone tracker for us nation history nerds.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I have 830 hours in Stellaris and I have 3/191 Achievements. One of those three achievements being 'Colonize a Planet' which only 27% of players have... If achievements are meant to represent what a player has achieved in their time playing then it has absolutely and totally failed in it's current form. Players who only play multiplayer or with mods are completely left out of the system, and judging by the numbers there are far more people out of the system then in.

I would recommend making achievements possible with mods and in multiplayer games.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I spy new civics.... or some sort of new category system.

I swear I saw a dev post somewhere clarifying that it was categories, heritage for things like Heroic Past (what past?) and institutional for organizations like Mining/Merchant Guilds.

Eladrin clarified they’re categories on the stellaris subreddit

Heritage Civics:
Aristocratic Elite
Heroic Past
Pleasure Seekers
Storm Callers
Environmental Architects

Institutional Civics:
Criminal Heritage
Media Conglomerate
Parliamentary System
Trading Posts
Dark Consortium

Amusing how the first institutional civic has heritage in its name lol. Someone suggested a rename to criminal enterprise which makes sense.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
You're assuming that getting the guaranteed research options through the focus system is going to get it to you faster than your normal gameplay.

They're intended to be failsafes to ensure that you get what you need to support the playstyle that you are actively engaging in, rather than rewards.

Edit: I'm sure that the most competitive players will find ways to take advantage of it, but since you'll still have to research the technologies, it's similar to getting a luck tech draw.
Yes, as I do not know how the details and the balancing will look, I can only assume. But the system reads like an avenue for frustrating feedback, where players complain that the task system makes the game too rigid if it provides deterministic rewards, thus making it the most optimal way to get ahead in the game.

The node you showed with "Build 20 Destroyers" implies this unlocks the guaranteed research option for getting Cruisers. I guess we could have the same task for Destroyers? So, assuming we start with 5 military tasks and not much is going on, there might be a task like "Build 20 Corvettes" that leads to a guaranteed Destroyer. If my assumption is correct, you could beeline to Cruisers—hell, even Battleships—if you focus on that.

Since military might is a tool useful for nearly 99% of the game, it becomes one of the most effective ways to play. No matter the empire type, story, or roleplay, it would be advisable to beeline for Cruisers with the tasks, unlock them as a guaranteed research option, and then proceed with the rest of your strategy.

Having this deterministic outcome will lead to deterministic gameplay. Assuming you can reroll tasks for Unity, you can mitigate not getting the tasks needed for optimal play by simply rerolling for Unity. This is significant because we cannot reroll our tech options when new ones are drawn—yet.

These are just the implications for players who consciously optimize their gameplay. For others, this could be even more damaging, as the "three colors" of "things to do in Stellaris" might lead to a moment of clarity where they realize the game isn’t about what it advertises:

"Explore a galaxy full of wonders in this sci-fi grand strategy game from Paradox Development Studios. Interact with diverse alien races, discover strange new worlds with unexpected events, and expand the reach of your empire. Each new adventure holds almost limitless possibilities."

Instead, it feels more like building a military-industrial complex with three (or four) different avenues of approach.

Again, I would suggest not opening Pandora’s box—remove rewards from tasks and have them exist solely as a guide for new players. Even if you’ve invested time and money into this system and want people to interact with it, remove the incentives.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
This is a lot of assumptions and a few logical fallacies. There are alternatives to surviving late game than fleet power, such as allies, turning off crisis, or turtling in the L cluster with defense platforms or mods which can do several things like adjust hyperlanes.

You state the entire game boils down to one concept and complexity is just a difficulty towards optimizing this concept, but later site that Paradox is known for deeply complex games, which by your previous argument doesn't mater.

Saying "we" are not wired to handle tinkering with sandboxes is a hasty generalization of the playerbase of Stellaris, where there is a multitude of playstyles. Some people enjoy seeing numbers go up, some people imagine vast societies, some people keep playing exploration over and over and resetting when its done.

If a game is complex with many options, it either has optimal options towards some goal, or there isn't options with meaning. Stating that some people will always try to optimize the game doesn't apply to everyone. There are challenge runs, rng, and playing to completely different or mutually exclusive goals. Not to mention that roleplayers as just one example are well known to pick themes, not stats, foe their choices.

You keep projecting how you play on others. I am not forced to play optimally. I don't even need to play optimally to defeat an end game crisis. That's whats great about having lots of options, I can beat the entire game without diplomacy as a fanatic purifier, without shipyards as a parasitic hive, without pop growth as a virtual empire, without the galcom, without espionage, without cloaking, without systems or colonies outside of my home world, etc.

The reward is a failsafe towards a tech you can get randomly. Infact, if you're as skilled and optimizing of a player as you claim everyone tries to be, then you would know about opportunity cost. Chasing after these milestones is only worth it if its faster than tech rushing, a tried and true method to get not just more tech pulls, but more tech. Everything you spend chasing milestones is less to spend on traditional tech rushing. Meanwhile, a new player unfamiliar with mechanics, has a path they can follow.

As for new players versus old players, pretty sure that's what the several surveys was polling. Us older players, determining what the most of us want fixed, changed, or added most. The upcoming pop and trade reworks as well as the Biological and Psionic ascension DLC are not exactly a concern of a player who hasn't made it far into the game yet.
Additionally, its not one pool of game designers all working on a single feature at a time. Different teams have different skills working on different projects and features. A lot of these smaller QoL features are pet projects of specific Custodian members. A few of them are even done entirely solo on the Custodian's free time between other projects.

If you're burned out from always trying to optimize, then honestly? Playing something else for a while is probably better for your mental health than getting upset about a QoL feature for new players combined with a milestone tracker for us nation history nerds.

I’m arguing based on the experience presented in vanilla with basic presets, as this seems to be the foundation for most balance and design decisions. We’ve seen statements like, “How do you design/balance Stellaris when so many options exist?” with the conclusion often being to focus on how the game functions with default settings, only checking for issues under extreme settings—without making major decisions around things like mods.

In my experience, no matter the roleplay or mechanics you choose, the game ultimately boils down to building a military-industrial complex. Defense stations become obsolete before the endgame even starts because, by design, fleet power scales far beyond what hard-capped stations can manage. Finding a system with more planets to build defenses is a nice bonus, but its overall impact on playstyle diversity feels minimal, at least in my experience.

I’m aware of the various ways people approach the game, but I evaluate it based on my own extensive testing across multiple playstyles. With 796 hours of playtime since 2016, I’ve experienced many iterations, mostly playing in a semi-coop setting with friends. I also observe how others play, including competitive scenes, so my assumptions aren’t based solely on personal experience—they’re informed by broader observations.

Considering Paradox’s other titles, their design often aligns gameplay goals with depth and complexity. That’s what I meant when I referred to how Paradox Studios is perceived. Whether they aim for that perception is another matter, as depth and complexity can hinder new customer acquisition—often seen as a challenge for growth-focused strategies seeking a broader audience. But to make a point based on my experience, older Paradox titles are perceived as really deep and complex by a majority of their players and even outsiders. So we naturally tend to approach these games with this challenge in mind, and we try to meet that challenge by solving these depths and complexities.

If the game starts to fail to provide this challenge, or the challenge is only solvable through one avenue, it becomes an issue. I just try to wrap my head around a space 4X grand strategy with a focus on story and exploration, and when I seek its challenges, goals, and mechanics, it ends up feeling like a military-industrial complex simulator with an unsatisfying conclusion—since the combat and strategies are mostly just big light shows and explosions, where the bigger numbers win.

I’d love to see more genuinely diverse playstyles and fundamentally different ways to play so that expectations meet reality—not just different tools leading to the same outcome: having the biggest, strongest fleet and using it freely without meaningful penalties. The endless growth and snowballing into fleet power and doomstacks is, in my opinion, the biggest issue limiting playstyle diversity, feature design, and balance.

Everything ties back to the fact that fleet power scales endlessly with the economy’s support—and can be used without restriction.

The task system we’re discussing feels like just another tool to reach that same goal. Sure, you can self-impose limitations, focusing on systems like exploration, and I respect that enjoyment. But I’d like the game to support these playstyles more meaningfully. The task system, with its rewards, doesn’t address this core issue—in fact, I think it exacerbates it. It highlights flaws in the fleet power growth spiral, acting as a band-aid to help less experienced players keep up while allowing experienced players to widen their lead. It’s a band-aid on a band-aid.

I think when people complain about things like not drawing Mega Structures or Cruisers, it’s often rooted in frustration—whether from competitive pressures or curiosity. Given that cruisers are key for military purposes, I’d assume it’s mostly competitive frustration. And why the competition? Because other empires snowball in fleet power while they’re stuck with destroyers. Why does it matter? Well, that’s exactly the problem I’ve outlined above.

I just want less of this dynamic. I want both military and non-military approaches to have meaningful, sensible places in the game. The game promises it’s not primarily military-focused, but that promise doesn’t align with the current reality i perceived.

As for what makes it into the game, the final decision rests with whoever sits at the top of the hierarchy. That’s not an assumption or my reality—it’s just how things work.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: