Stellaris Dev Diary #40 - Heinlein Patch (part 1)

[Robrecht]

B) Aggresive colonisation aka possible "Meta"
You need to wisely scout and evaluate planet to colonize.
You need to beat your neighbours to the sweet spot.
You need to defend your colonized world in the vulnerable colonization phase, and only then it becomes your well defensible foothold.
If it comes to a first contact war it is not a war of annihilation but a war for the prime real estate. There is real decision making involved in deciding if you are going to antagonize your neigbours or if you are just going to take the second best planet to colonize. (remember now you cannot go full WAAAAGH on their xeno butts and take their capitols, you could end up in a war of attrition.)

Yeah, OR:

B)Aggressive colonisation
Corvette rushes still dominate, except now instead of making a beeline for your Home system and destroying your spaceport (and keeping it destroyed until the armies arrive), the corvette blob systematically hunts down any colony ship trying to settle a new planet whilst its owner sends colony ships to take systems on the edge of their victim's border. Players are still required to build their own corvette blob to counter, but now they also have the added frustration of having one or more unassailable doom fortresses on their border, ready to spew out an invasion fleet that CAN handle your spaceport. Who is guaranteed to win in the long term is now a bit more unsure, but that doesn't stop it from still being hideously unfun for all the players who are unlucky enough to start next to the tryhard only concerned with 'maximizing their build for competitiveness'.

Because that's what happened in Civ V, players who discovered another player near them would rush a settler and build a city on the edge of their neighbour's territory, even if that was a sub-optimal spot for a city. Even a really bad city was still a unstoppable blockage to your expansion in the early game. It was slightly harder to pull off successfully than Battering Spam, but it still ruined the heck out of people's days and it still led to the person winning the game in the end... Because the underlying strength for these strategies was that it gave one player far more room to expand than any of the other players (Battering Spam by knocking out a neighbour competing for space and Aggressive Settlers by blocking off the neighbour from expanding in your direction and thus from competing with you for space).

And that's the point:
Any such single Meta is unfun even if it takes longer, because both Corvette rushing and the hypothetical Colony rushing work best with a very specific set of traits and ethics. If you want to be 'competitive' you have to play that specific 'build' in that specific way, because if you don't you won't be able to compete with the people who do. Nerfing that specific strategy without balancing out the underlying factor that makes it so good isn't going to 'fix' the game, it's just going to replace it with a different strategy.

 

[Lichslayer]

Yeah, OR:

B)Aggressive colonisation
Corvette rushes still dominate, except now instead of making a beeline for your Home system and destroying your spaceport (and keeping it destroyed until the armies arrive), the corvette blob systematically hunts down any colony ship trying to settle a new planet whilst its owner sends colony ships to take systems on the edge of their victim's border. Players are still required to build their own corvette blob to counter, but now they also have the added frustration of having one or more unassailable doom fortresses on their border, ready to spew out an invasion fleet that CAN handle your spaceport.

Not gonna happen. The Beeline is what feeds you economically. Building a colony ship takes resources and time. Building corvettes takes resources and time. And you cannot control all the colonizable planets, just one, two tops. Corvette rush does not dominate, because it cannot take developed worlds and instantly double your mineral outpout. Corvette spamming just does not pay off anymore. You can hurt other players, but you no longer profit from doing so and might end up hurting you own economy. By the time you finally take out that single player you "colony rushed" your other neighbours have colonized freely and can propably now support an equivalent or bigger fleet..

With current corvette rush, you take a planet, build a spaceport, build bigger fleet, take another planet. Colonizing does not pay off, because if only one other player out there pulls this off, you are dead, dead, dead, because colonies are a huge resource sink for a long time, while the other guy just snowballs out of proportion.

Your Civ V argument is irellevant, because blocking expansion in stellaris is practically impossible, except for hyperlanes, but that is a risk a player takes with this particular type of drive. Also there are typically colonizable planets within your starting borders, the enemy can kill your colony ships but he cannot take them, thus only wasting resources and slowing his eventual march on your homeworld.

Because the underlying strength for these strategies was that it gave one player far more room to expand than any of the other players

Not in Stellaris. There is enough space to colonize for most of the game, except for the smallest maps. The driving force behind the corvette rush is taking homeworlds, that is all there is to it.

You do not win by colony rushing, as you described it. All you get is a bitter war of attrition, you will kill each others ships, mining stations and stuff, but neither will have a huge gain in the end, not compared to the others. Smart colonization without antagonizing your neighbours is better in the long term.

 

[Lichslayer]

without balancing out the underlying factor that makes it so good isn't going to 'fix' the game

Stellaris is not about denying others the territory, Stellaris is about taking developed territory, because claiming and developing territory is very costly.
Snowball from captured territory is serious, especially with agressive builds.

Will nerfing corvette rush Make the Space Great Again? No. Will it SERIOUSLY diminish the negative effect of this "underlying factor"? Oh yes, it will.

 

[Duke of Nukem]

I wish the devs would go ahead and announce their proposed balance changes because a lot of what we are discussing might be adressed/obsolete at this point already.

 

[SiNNiS]

Yes I think Lichslayer has summed up what is exactly on my mind and I will leave it at that, hopefully the devs can have a few key takeaways from these discussions and make the appropriate changes. But I can guarantee that delaying the corvette rush by even 10-20 years with solutions like pre-built defense stations and starport modules would allow aggressive colonization builds to have a chance.

This in turn would allow players more game time to interact with other systems/mechanics in the game, thus effectively giving skillfull players more options.

 

[Robrecht]

Ok, you're getting hung up on the wrong thing here.

My point was that if Corvettes get nerfed some other 'super optimal' strategy that absolutely everyone has to use to be competitive is gonna take its place. The colonization thing was just an example, it could just as well be something else.

 

[Duke of Nukem]

Ok, you're getting hung up on the wrong thing here.

My point was that if Corvettes get nerfed some other 'super optimal' strategy that absolutely everyone has to use to be competitive is gonna take its place. The colonization thing was just an example, it could just as well be something else.

Once rebalancing is done and the "not diplomatically relevant" issue is solved I would imagine it will become "whoever builds an alliance and forms a federation first" will win and I'm pretty ok with that, I think that's the right direction. As soon as players start making it into mid-late game solo players will be in big trouble unless they have been steadily conquering.

If you go into a federation with good planning (one guy focused on engineering one on physics one on minerals one on energy) you will be at a serious production advantage overall with a fleet using all late game techs fairly early on.

 

[SiNNiS]

Once rebalancing is done and the "not diplomatically relevant" issue is solved I would imagine it will become "whoever builds an alliance and forms a federation first" will win and I'm pretty ok with that, I think that's the right direction. As soon as players start making it into mid-late game solo players will be in big trouble unless they have been steadily conquering.

If you go into a federation with good planning (one guy focused on engineering one on physics one on minerals one on energy) you will be at a serious production advantage overall with a fleet using all late game techs fairly early on.

This, once the game kicks off and passes the early stages the scope of the game,size of galaxy is far more dangerous than any single player. Other optimal strategies may exist that is fine because if waging war against another was a costly endeavor this would automatically translate in the need for diplomacy , galactic politics and alliances (federations would be beneficial in this case). The grand strategy elements would automatically become apparent in MP games and these are the kind of games we should strive for. Just imagine if it would cost you 10-20% of your fleet to take down a spaceport and another 10% to bombard a planet down to 0 because of anti-orbital artillery that could be built on the planet surface. In that case I would only go to war if I really had to because I know a war would put me behind other simmers and in the long run perhaps even make me irrelevant.

At the current state I could steam roll all 2-3 of my neighbors by 2210 and get over +100 minerals per month and keep feeding my fleet while rolling over other players until the game is over, while others just leave the game when they see the size of my empire. I don't have to care about diplomacy,tech,politics or any other aspect of the game. The reason of this is because I can double my mineral income by taking home systems easily at no cost with existing population and infrastructure. Mind you another point that this is an issue is I can easily build a fleet that is two-three times my naval capacity and easily deal with the extra maintenance costs (i.e 25/13 naval capacity , 180 / 80 naval capacity). This should be prevented or at least have a brutal penalty if done(something like 50% energy/mineral output for example).

My proposed solution offsets the snowballing by making it difficult to take home planets ridiculously early, this automatically changes the meta optimal strategy to colonizing and simming efficiently because I am not able to support a fleet large enough capable of taking another homesystem with only 1 planet, and that is what we want. Whatever turns into the optimal strategy after that is fine because anyone player would have not snowballed enough to enforce their will on the entire galaxy.

 

[TethysGrenz]

DIplomatic Victory options, many more ways to win are needed.
I seriously hope this is already in the works, as the game is still lacking in a good way to end it.
Perhaps better ways to merge groups who are part of a Federation, with the "Human" Player getting to lead, etc.
I ahve played a few games through post Asimov, but get to the point where it is conquer or dominate, and all the alliances mean very little by then... eventually you have to be ruthless to get a victory and that is not the way I would choose to play.

 

[Lichslayer]

Ok, you're getting hung up on the wrong thing here.

My point was that if Corvettes get nerfed some other 'super optimal' strategy that absolutely everyone has to use to be competitive is gonna take its place. The colonization thing was just an example, it could just as well be something else.

Of course there will be.

We are just saying that the superoptimal strategy should be from the grand-strategy genre (diplomacy, and whatnot) not the 4x genre. And unlike you, we just believe, that it can be done.

Because the transition from 4x to Grand Strategy is there, so if you just push the OP thing late into game, problem is (mostly) solved, thanks to specific nature of Stellaris as a Grand Strategy, and not pure 4x.


I think we made our point here already. Not gonna spam this thread further.

 

[Joe-Z]

Can't wait for October! I think I will start a new campaign after Heinlein gets out

 

[MrMarbles]

Nerfing corvettes will create all sorts of balance issues for late game fleet composition. Just handle the problem by boosting other things:

1. The Civ V option is strong cities, aka. stronger starports, that require significantly larger fleets to destroy. This could work, and is probably the easiest fix.

2. The second option is stronger defensive platforms. It won't save mp noobs, but it will be a valuable tool. This is the one I prefer, for what it's worth.

3. Behind door nr. 3 is increased military ship cost, while other costs stay the same. This will postpone the corvette rush, and make it less viable compared to growing your economy.

4. Reduced initial spaceport cost. The idea is that sometimes a corvette rush could succeed, but unless they take your planets you have a chance at a comeback. In the current meta spaceports are so expensive that once their fleets are parked in your orbit you might as well gg out.

5. Planetary defenses that damage ships in orbit. This could be another layer of defence, sacrificing a tile or two for added safety.

6. Increased ship maintenance out of port. I don't like this one, but it is a possible nerfhammer for early rushers.

Most of these (apart from nr. 6) are preferable to nerfing corvettes.

 

[SiNNiS]

Why is everyone so hung up on nerfing corvettes? That will create all sorts of balance issues for late game fleet composition. Just handle the problem by boosting other things:

1. The Civ V option is strong cities, aka. stronger starports, that require significantly larger fleets to destroy. This could work, and is probably the easiest fix.

2. The second option is stronger defensive platforms. It won't save mp noobs, but it will be a valuable tool. This is the one I prefer, for what it's worth.

3. Behind door nr. 3 is increased military ship cost, while other costs stay the same. This will postpone the corvette rush, and make it less viable compared to growing your economy.

4. Reduced initial spaceport cost. The idea is that sometimes a corvette rush could succeed, but unless they take your planets you have a chance at a comeback. In the current meta spaceports are so expensive that once their fleets are parked in your orbit you might as well gg out.

5. Planetary defenses that damage ships in orbit. This could be another layer of defence, sacrificing a tile or two for added safety.

6. Increased ship maintenance out of port. I don't like this one, but it is a possible nerfhammer for early rushers.

Most of these (apart from nr. 6) are preferable to nerfing corvettes.

Nobody on this thready suggested any changes be done directly to corvettes. It was stated that the root cause are corvette rushes. The previous posts starting from page 12 already provide the very solutions you listed, and none of them involve a direct nerf to corvettes.

 

[lpslucasps]

@Wiz is there an eta for the finishing of the custom ui element addition. At the moment it does not scope to anything but the empire taking the decision, rather than for instance the planet or fleet on which the element is being taken. Not having proper scoping for this feature means that the promise of this feature to provide the functionality of Targeted decisions is not yet there. If this feature is not going to be finished any time soon, could we get a basic decision system instead, something from which we can reliably drive events to specified scopes without having to fiddle around with edicts?

I didn't know it was possible to make custom ui elements at all. How does it work? Is there any specific instructions out there?

 

[Robrecht]

Of course there will be.

We are just saying that the superoptimal strategy should be from the grand-strategy genre (diplomacy, and whatnot) not the 4x genre. And unlike you, we just believe, that it can be done.

Because the transition from 4x to Grand Strategy is there, so if you just push the OP thing late into game, problem is (mostly) solved, thanks to specific nature of Stellaris as a Grand Strategy, and not pure 4x.


I think we made our point here already. Not gonna spam this thread further.

In the spirit of what you were trying to achieve then, I'd propose an alternative to buff up spaceports that should also pre-empt the dominance of late game beam weapons:

A new 'flak/scatter/wide' variation for each weapon type and tier that is specifically meant for countering many small targets.

• Spaceports would have these by default.
• They would do less damage per target, but attack every target in range. (Up to a maximum?)
  
• Should be balanced to do much more damage per second to large fleets of Corvettes (and a higher tech levels, Destroyers) than the default single shot variants.
• Should be relatively weak against larger ships (perhaps a damage bonus/malus based on relative sizes?)
• Destroyers and up should also be able to mount them. (Perhaps only on a special section?)
• These new variants, rather than Point Defenses, should be what's used to take out fighters/bombers, so as to make missiles a bit more viable in the late game (whereas now, many people put ships with mass PD in their fleets in the mid-late game because it works against both missiles and fighters/bombers).
• Single shot weapons (i.e. the current default) should in turn have slightly more trouble taking out smaller sized targets (with smaller weapon mounts having better efficiency), but better damage against larger targets.

This way Spaceports and Destroyers can counter Corvette spam, but in the late game players can't simply mass Lances without being swarmed by a large fleet of smaller ships (so they have to trade some of their Lances for AOE weapons. Effectively making it so that players have to balance single target efficiency versus aoe efficiency in their late game designs and not just mass a single design with weapons that are dominant against everything.)

 

[MrMarbles]

Nobody on this thready suggested any changes be done directly to corvettes. It was stated that the root cause are corvette rushes. The previous posts starting from page 12 already provide the very solutions you listed, and none of them involve a direct nerf corvettes.

Right, my bad Only managed 8 or so pages of "will you fix X bug?"

EDIT: In the spirit of fairness, not all the points are reflected previously in the thread. Agree with your list of problems though.

There are a few posts about ship range. Some of the range problems would be alleviated if ships behaved properly. Currently, they move around at a decent clip UNTIL they engage, when instead of accelerating and getting in the face of the opponent they just freeze and wait to be shot down. If short range ships closed the distance quickly range wouldn't guarantee a win.

 

[SiNNiS]

Right, my bad Only managed 8 or so pages of "will you fix X bug?"

EDIT: In the spirit of fairness, not all the points are reflected previously in the thread. Agree with your list of problems though.

There are a few posts about ship range. Some of the range problems would be alleviated if ships behaved properly. Currently, they move around at a decent clip UNTIL they engage, when instead of accelerating and getting in the face of the opponent they just freeze and wait to be shot down. If short range ships closed the distance quickly range wouldn't guarantee a win.

Yea that is an issue I have observed when using weapons with minimal range like auto cannons. In all honesty I did not want to get into those kind of details from fear of overwhelming the devs and dilute the focus from the more critical points. I am sure that if the devs focused on the problem at hand could come up with fantastic solutions as this thread is full of great ideas as well.

I would rather get to the point where MP games reach mid-late game phase first, then focusing on further improving upon that via balance in a different patch, then we would have a better idea of what the issue is. I think perhaps just having kinetic on the same level as tachyon/particle lances would be sufficient for now as well as having ships with short range directly get into range aggressively. But Wiz already stated that fleet combat is going to have an overhaul so I didn't want to speculate with that too much.

 

[Trutty]

One cool suggestion I've seen is to make it so higher level admirals can command bigger fleets/fleets with more military power, while low level admirals can only command small fleets. Fleets receive significant combat penalties when they have no commander or an unqualified commander. It would both handily deal with the problem of death-stacks, and add a whole new layer to leaders (Traits like quick xp gain, higher starting level, and long lifespan are now much more valuable.) Plus you're faced with the mutually exclusive strategic decision of choosing between a new younger admirals to train when your current ones grow old, or if your influence would be better spent in other facets of government.

 

[Duke of Nukem]

In the spirit of what you were trying to achieve then, I'd propose an alternative to buff up spaceports that should also pre-empt the dominance of late game beam weapons:

A new 'flak/scatter/wide' variation for each weapon type and tier that is specifically meant for countering many small targets.

• Spaceports would have these by default.
• They would do less damage per target, but attack every target in range. (Up to a maximum?)
  
• Should be balanced to do much more damage per second to large fleets of Corvettes (and a higher tech levels, Destroyers) than the default single shot variants.
• Should be relatively weak against larger ships (perhaps a damage bonus/malus based on relative sizes?)
• Destroyers and up should also be able to mount them. (Perhaps only on a special section?)
• These new variants, rather than Point Defenses, should be what's used to take out fighters/bombers, so as to make missiles a bit more viable in the late game (whereas now, many people put ships with mass PD in their fleets in the mid-late game because it works against both missiles and fighters/bombers).
• Single shot weapons (i.e. the current default) should in turn have slightly more trouble taking out smaller sized targets (with smaller weapon mounts having better efficiency), but better damage against larger targets.

This way Spaceports and Destroyers can counter Corvette spam, but in the late game players can't simply mass Lances without being swarmed by a large fleet of smaller ships (so they have to trade some of their Lances for AOE weapons. Effectively making it so that players have to balance single target efficiency versus aoe efficiency in their late game designs and not just mass a single design with weapons that are dominant against everything.)

I think just having any type of AOE weapon available would seriously harm the viability of corvette spam. A defense station with an FTL trap would wreck the entire stack in warp cool down if each shot were applied to each ship.

 

[SiNNiS]

One cool suggestion I've seen is to make it so higher level admirals can command bigger fleets/fleets with more military power, while low level admirals can only command small fleets. Fleets receive significant combat penalties when they have no commander or an unqualified commander. It would both handily deal with the problem of death-stacks, and add a whole new layer to leaders (Traits like quick xp gain, higher starting level, and long lifespan are now much more valuable.) Plus you're faced with the mutually exclusive strategic decision of choosing between a new younger admirals to train when your current ones grow old, or if your influence would be better spent in other facets of government.

That is actually a pretty good idea.