Stellaris Dev Diary #369 - 4.0 Changes: Part 3

[Vorpaliminal]

The new Mammalians look like they take a lot of ques from Toxoids, so I like them. I wouldn't mind seeing the old base game portrait sets spiced up using the current design philosophy, though I'm certain there would be complaints on that front.

 

[acki02]

Some pretty intriguing and promising things in this Dev Diary; however, while I like a lot of the changes, I find myself in a position of agreement with a number of people in the thread who already pointed out how stockpiling trade (or 'logistics') doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and undermines the energy credits being "The Currency(tm)".

I also believe there's room for a small mechanic related to 'trade' to make planetary deficits slightly more interesting: surlplus production of a resource should automatically cover a fraction of all deficit costs in the same system or sector (should be more significant in the same system than sector).

 

[Skeletr0nKing]

Is it just me or does it seem like criminal syndicates could work very well together now?

Im thinking of them in an "United Scumbags of the Galaxy" trade federation where every member has some legit branchs on each other while also stealing from the galaxy at large with illegal branches and the "No commercial pacts outside federation" rule

 

[blahmaster6k]

I'll be honest, I don't think I like the trade changes. This is going to force people to waste pops on clerks (the worst job in the game) just to upkeep their fleets and planets, it feels more like a tax that wasn't there before than a rework. You could also call it a global nerf to all empires, which never feels good.

It also completely kills builds like the shattered ring trade build that relied on the productivity of trade at low habitability to even be viable.

Furthermore, unless you produce specifically trade, you're now going to be hit with a double market fee to convert surplus energy credits into minerals in the early game, punishing all empires even more.

These changes have potential to hurt my enjoyment of the game significantly.

edit: I guess people like clerks and upkeep costs going up?

 

[klopkr]

All these changes are really obvious and good. Except the influence cost. Again influence is a terrible resource because everything but expansion is way too low value until the very late game then it's too abundant in a sudden wave.

Not a fan of the new portraits. Can we have simpler portraits? With simpler alien designs? These new ones just look like a mess to look at and are not appealing.

The jesus mammal is kinda funny though.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Oh my god I would kill and/or die if this was implemented right! I think that if logistics are going to be a factor it might be simpler to set up a maximum logistical capacity on a given system after which the trade upkeep exponentially increases (like fleet limit!). This way if players want to have doomstacks they will either have to:
- Fight on a system they have a high level starbase in with some sort of logistics related building (ideally a top building so they can have several rather than a bottom building which would limit them to just one)
- Fight on a system they at least control even if they don't have a starbase with logistics buildings, giving them a bonus to logistics capacity because of owned territory which will help but they will still need a lot of logistics capacity and/or trade to spare as without the starbase buildings a full doomstack will still be very costly
- Have an insane combo of logistics capacity bonuses AND a lot of trade capacity if they're fighting on enemy territory as they will have no owned territory logistics bonus let alone starbase logistics buildings

This is even better when you consider that defensive doomstacks might become viable, especially if each important system has an starbase with multiple logistics modules, while offensive doomstacks will be extremely difficult and expensive. It is possible the system could be made so that defensive doomstacks are only possible in a maxed out logistics starbase, possibly requiring orbital rings with similar modules or planetary logistical buildings or something, while owned territory gives a significant bonus but good luck having more than 50% of your fleet in there. Or perhaps even less if you're a very wide empire with a lot of ships. This could change the meta so that massive empires have "stacks" instead of "doomstacks' kinda like in eu4 which would add micro but fully resolve the doomstacking problem. A tamer approach is to be generous with logistics capacity, making logistic modules on starbases be reserved for specific strategies and allowing for full offensive doomstacks at a hefty but non-prohibitive cost. Personally I'd go for something in between to keep the system balanced.

The map system of Stellaris with hyperlanes connecting individual nodes and choke points that must be traveled through forces doomstacks by design. Punishing players for using the only viable option (doomstacking) to push through chokepoints would be a terrible design decision. Wide fronts don't and can't exist in Stellaris, the hyperlane system makes it simply not possible. Absent a wide front and with places for countries to concentrate firepower, the only way to ensure you win a war is to concentrate all available firepower in one system to ensure you don't lose.

You would have to completely rework how the map of Stellaris works if you want doomstacks to not be a required strategy. If you require doomstacking (because the map basically forces it) and then also punish it, you're just hurting the game. A player's options are basically to not doomstack and lose every war, or doomstack, maybe win the war, but pay a heavy tax for it. It's a lose-lose and feels bad either way.

 

[cryptkeeper]

I would assume the same uses as previously: providing electricity to your star bases, ships, buildings, robots, districts, etc.

That is my concern, now energy will be the not important resource next to food. At least food has civics that allow it to become useful. Maybe we could have a way to convert energy to alloys, conversions like food to alloys. Maybe ala star trek replicators .

 

[Arc2442]

I hope not. Trade makes sense in general for gestalts as they would want to move stuff between their worlds and also exchange things with xenos but branch offices imply individual needs : people that buy stuff at their scale which doesn't happen in a gestalt.
I could imagine very specialized branch for gestalt like augmentation centers with the gestalt paying contractors to upgrade their drones but the standard branch don't really work.

I can only see Private Mining Consortium working since you'd just be paying the overmind to have those menial drones mine for you and then share what you make... maybe Corporate Embassy? And at a stretch maybe Executive Retreat for those suits who really enjoy watching the synergy of a hive?

I can see some of the criminal branch office stuff working too, if they were getting involved with rogue drones and splinter minds, but the splinter minds probably wouldn't be too interested in underground nightclubs.

Also really curious to know if branch offices will even be allowed to be made on Hive Worlds, since the description of them make it sound like they're entirely inhospitable for anything not connected to the overmind (unless you're a Necrophage Hive)

 

[verybad]

Please have the size of the Starbase affect the cost and maximum cost of your fleet that is free. This way a major base is going to be more important for the maximum size of the fleet you can handle. Having the local planet trade deficit/bonus affect the local fleet would make more important planets be better places to handle the mega fleets, while the edge of the empire with minor Starbases will cost more to handle Alpha fleet. If the planet can handle the fleet it's better to place it there.

 

[Koopatin]

I do not know. overall i like the idea behind it but giving it to gestalts i like less. It is again something that makes different empires play more the same. I liked to play a relaxed game of gestalt where I could ignore trade, consumer goods, and sometimes food and habitability.

It is also again one more resource that is made normal. like with strategic resources that became just stuff to build or artifacts you just mine.

 

[arosenberger14]

The map system of Stellaris with hyperlanes connecting individual nodes and choke points that must be traveled through forces doomstacks by design. Punishing players for using the only viable option (doomstacking) to push through chokepoints would be a terrible design decision. Wide fronts don't and can't exist in Stellaris, the hyperlane system makes it simply not possible. Absent a wide front and with places for countries to concentrate firepower, the only way to ensure you win a war is to concentrate all available firepower in one system to ensure you don't lose.

You would have to completely rework how the map of Stellaris works if you want doomstacks to not be a required strategy. If you require doomstacking (because the map basically forces it) and then also punish it, you're just hurting the game. A player's options are basically to not doomstack and lose every war, or doomstack, maybe win the war, but pay a heavy tax for it. It's a lose-lose and feels bad either way.

Exactly, been trying to point this out for months now. Doomstacking is driven by the 1-D geometry of Stellaris's map, and frankly I don't think it's that big a problem. I'd much rather see focus on making war less of THE best way to get stronger and some mechanics to give defenders an advantage... logistics are good for the latter.

 

[Critical Ethics]

I'll be honest, I don't think I like the trade changes. This is going to force people to waste pops on clerks (the worst job in the game) just to upkeep their fleets and planets, it feels more like a tax that wasn't there before than a rework. You could also call it a global nerf to all empires, which never feels good.

It also completely kills builds like the shattered ring trade build that relied on the productivity of trade at low habitability to even be viable.

Furthermore, unless you produce specifically trade, you're now going to be hit with a double market fee to convert surplus energy credits into minerals in the early game, punishing all empires even more.

These changes are going to hurt my enjoyment of the game significantly.

Clerks are bad because they couldn't be too good because if they're too good they're better technicians than technicians. Decoupling clerks from energy production means they can be balanced on their own merits, and will presumably be balanced to be worth building. Given that the entire trade system is being reworked it's kind of silly to say it's going to be a tax that wasn't there before when we don't know how much trade we will be getting to pay for it with!

There's no reason why this should kill the low hab trade builds. Given that clerks are probably going to get a bit of a buff I would expect if anything that it will make them even better.

Since trade will no longer directly convert to energy you will not have as much excess energy. Much of what was previously excess energy will now be excess trade. You then use the excess trade to buy minerals at a single market fee penalty.

 

[Groggeneral]

As for the changes on possible trade upkeep for doomstacks: I fully expect that once you make doomstacks difficult to maintain, you have a well thought out solution how doomstacks of endgame crises, fallen empires and fleet-summoning relics as well as the astral rift fleet will be changed as well. I also expect that mercenaries would require no trade upkeep (they do have to look after their own supplies after all.). Seeing how unbalanced DLCs have become with doom stack summoning abilities and how little consideration is given on balance on many recent DLCs, i'm not confident anymore that Paradox can pull this off. So, please spend more serious time on balancing.

 

[Critical Ethics]

I also expect that mercenaries would require no trade upkeep (they do have to look after their own supplies after all.)

"Sir I am a professional. If you want me to work with these amateurs that's extra".

 

[MichaelMakesGames]

Do you happen to know where was that said? Can't find it.

When Eladrin first mentioned reworking trade, before the holidays:

"We’re likely to revamp [trade value] into a proper resource, though I’m also considering ways of also using it to simulate supply lines and local planetary deficits"
"Though if the planet were being bombarded, I'd probably want to experiment with blockade effects."
"Maybe storage depots prevent any negative blockade effects for a while, or cloaking techs."

I do a lot of that in my Under Siege mod. Was hopeful I could stop maintaining that

 

[Znikii]

Big planetary trade deficit should probably increase criminality to represent locals turning to local black market for smuggled/stolen/counterfiet goods.

Could Criminal jobs get Priest trietment, so their output depends on your ethics/civics please.

 

[Danny5072]

Are there any other changes planned to the galactic market? It has always seemed mechanically like not really a market, i. e. resources are not really exchanged between entities that are allowed to have them (such as empires), what really happens is that by buying something you just spawn it from nowhere, and by selling something you delete it.
I think that a system kind of like in HOI4 could be reasonable here, say a portion of your resources is assumed to be privately owned (the exact fraction depending on ethics, civics, policies, etc.) and thus outside of the player's immediate command, and so is then placed onto the market where other actors can buy them. Besides, the empires can of course freely sell their governmental stockpiles. That would enable a lot of interesting mechanics such as establishing embargoes or alternatively discounts for other empires, modifying market prices by dumping/withholding resources, and making not just planets but whole empires specialized on things like is often the case IRL. (For example you can be a big food producer but be dependent on the market for alloys. That would require you to stay friendly with someone who is a big alloy producer, unlike now where with sufficient credits (or now trade) you can easily mitigate that problem.)
I know it's much more difficult in the case of Stellaris, where resources are not really modeled as a proper civilian economy, and are rather assets that the government needs to spend to achieve things, but some moves in that direction could work anyway.

 

[Ajacoba]

The map system of Stellaris with hyperlanes connecting individual nodes and choke points that must be traveled through forces doomstacks by design. Punishing players for using the only viable option (doomstacking) to push through chokepoints would be a terrible design decision. Wide fronts don't and can't exist in Stellaris, the hyperlane system makes it simply not possible. Absent a wide front and with places for countries to concentrate firepower, the only way to ensure you win a war is to concentrate all available firepower in one system to ensure you don't lose.

You would have to completely rework how the map of Stellaris works if you want doomstacks to not be a required strategy. If you require doomstacking (because the map basically forces it) and then also punish it, you're just hurting the game. A player's options are basically to not doomstack and lose every war, or doomstack, maybe win the war, but pay a heavy tax for it. It's a lose-lose and feels bad either way.

but once you are in enemy territory you spread out and attack several spots at once like a swarm of locusts, otherwise war exhaustion and the new trade upkeep will make you run out of time before you have achieved anything more than the most basic war goals

also in the late game you often have to defend several borders at once, meaning your doomstack will be broken up anyways

If you put all your eggs in one basket you just get flanked and outmaneuvered and lose half your territory

 

[Ajacoba]

Big planetary trade deficit should probably increase criminality to represent locals turning to local black market for smuggled/stolen/counterfiet goods.

Could Criminal jobs get Priest trietment, so their output depends on your ethics/civics please.

Why would there be a black market if the trade deficit is covered by outside production and logistics?

 

[MichaelMakesGames]

How will trade deposits in space work? Do they require a mining station now? Or still collected by starbases (but no route back required)