• 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 #42 - Heinlein patch (part 3)

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This is the third part in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 patch that we are currently working on. This week's dev diary will be about more miscellaneous changes and improvements coming in the patch, currently planned for release sometime in October.

Federation/Alliance Merger
When Federations were given the ability to vote on invites and wars, alliances became a bit of an odd duck in the Stellaris diplomacy. A middle layer between the 'loose' diplomacy of defensive pacts and joint DOWs, they ended up as little more than a weak form of Federation that's usually swapped out the moment the latter becomes available. In Heinlein, we've decided to retire alliances altogether and have Federations be the only form of 'permanent' alliance. When you unlock the technology for Federations, you will immediately be able to invite another empire into a Federation with you, 4 empires no longer being necessary to start one. Once a Federation has been formed, the technology is not required to invite new members or to ask to join it.

Federation Association Status
Another issue we ran into with the changes to diplomacy in Asimov is that Alliances and Federations had trouble bringing in new members - since non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts and guarantees were no longer possible with outside powers, building trust is difficult and you have to mostly rely on large bribes to get new members to join, something that just didn't feel right. To address this, we're adding a new diplomatic option to Heinlein called 'Federation Association Status'. This works similarly to an invite to the Federation in that it can be offered and asked for with any member of the Federation, but must be approved via unanimous vote. A country that has Federation Association Status is not actually a part of the Federation, but has a non-aggression pact with all Federation members and will gain trust with them up to a maximum value of 100. Revoking association status can be done via majority vote, or on the part of the associate at any time they like.
h4Xxg1d.png


Planet Habitability Changes
The planet habitability wheel is a mechanic we were never quite happy with - it makes some degree of sense, but it's hard to keep track of how each planet relates to your homeworld type, and it ends up nonsensical in quite a few cases (Desert being perfectly fine for Tropical inhabitants, or Arid for Tundra, etc). We found that most players tend to intuitively divide planets into desert/arid tundra/arctic and ocean/tropical/continental, and so we decided to change the mechanic to fit player intuition. Instead of a wheel, planets are now divided into three climate groups (Dry, Wet and Cold) and two new planet types (Alpine and Savanna) were added so that each group has 3 planet types. Habitability for the climates now works as follows (numbers may be subject to change):
  • Habitability for your main planet type is 80% (as before)
  • Habitability for planets of your climate is 60%
  • Habitability for planets of other climates is 20%
As such, you no longer have to keep track of anything other than which climate your planet type has to know whether a particular type of world is suitable for your species.
tAcBgqB.png


We also felt that the number of habitable planets in the galaxy was too large overall, but that we couldn't really decrease it so long as the player only had access to 1/7 of those types at start, which would now become 1/9. We also felt the colonization tech gating could be rather arbitrary, particularly if you had a species suited to a particular planet type but still couldn't colonize it due to lacking the tech. As such, we've done away with the tech gating on colonization, and instead instituted a 30% minimum habitability requirement to colonize a planet. You will also be unable to relocate pops to a planet if their habitability there would be under the 30% minimum. With this change we've also majorly slashed the number of habitable worlds in the galaxy, though if you prefer a galaxy lush with life you will be able to make it so through a new option outlined below. We are, of course, looking into and tweaking the effects that having less habitable worlds overall will have on empire borders.

More Galaxy Setup Options
There is an old gamer's adage that says 'more player choice is always better'. We do not actually agree with this, as adding unnecessary/uninteresting choices can just as well bog a game down as it can improve it, but in the case of galaxy setup in a game such as Stellaris, it is pretty much true. With that in mind, the following new galaxy setup options are planned to be included in Heinlein:
  • Maximum number of Fallen Empires (actually setting a fixed number is difficult due to the way they spawn and how it's affected by regular empires)
  • Chance of habitable worlds spawning
  • Whether to allow advanced empires to start near players
  • Whether to use empire clustering
  • Whether endgame crises should be allowed to appear

Sector Improvements
Since barely a day goes by without a new thread on the topic of sectors and enslavement, we would of course be remiss not to deal with this particular bugbear. We intend to spend a considerable amount of time on the sector AI for Heinlein, but I'm not going to go into specifics on bug fixing/AI improvements but rather on a series of new toggles that we intend to introduce to give the player more control over their sector. In addition to the current redevelopment/respect tile resource toggles, the following new toggles are planned for Heinlein:
  • Whether sector is allowed to enslave/emancipate
  • Whether sector is allowed to build spaceports and construction ships
  • Whether sector is allowed to build military stations (this will replace the military sector focus)
We're also discussing having a sector toggle for building and maintaining local defense fleets, but we don't think we'll have time for it in Heinlein.

That's all for today! Next week we'll be talking about Fallen Empires, how they can awaken, and the War in Heaven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 254
  • 71
  • 11
Reactions:
I would love federation policies to be a thing!
Like, open borders treaty where all federation pops can migrate to other federation members, even if the members dont allow internal migration or have migration treaties?
Or banning/regulating slavery federation wide or things like that?
Maybe trade treaties where the whole federation gets +10 energy -5 minerals or something modifiers? or joint projects on scientific projects?
Maybe different succession laws for federation presidency?

Although I kinda feel binding conditions and policies to being in a federation, might give Alliances a reason to come back?
If federations have laws and terms, then there'd be a reason to have whats now just a middle step, for a no strings version?
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I do, but I mean the sector's internal economy tends to run at a deficit of one or the other.
Yeah, the sector focus is kinda broken; in that if it goes into debt you have to feed in coins. There's no way for a non-energy sector to have a balanced budget. I don't get why I have to feed them manually. If a sector has debt from maintenance, I should just pay for it.
 
I'm sad to see the habitability wheel go. It made so that the habitable and uninhabitable planets were different for everyone. Now it seems that everyone in the same category will be able to colonize the same planets. I really like the 2-axis system proposed earlier, but most people who suggested it made in unnecessary complicated. Instead of basing habitability on proximity (and then adding in a bunch of confusing modifiers to compensate for the fact that Continental worlds become OP and the "corner" worlds get screwed), just have 60% habitability for any world that shares one axis with your homeworld and 20% for those that don't. That way everyone gets four 60% planet types and four 20% planet types, nice and simple.
I also really hope you're rebalancing the Adaptability traits for Heinlein. Because as currently written, the Adaptable trait gives access to every planet in the galaxy for just 2 points while the very Adaptable costs 5 despite having far less of an impact compared to species with just the regular Adaptable trait.

Is it also correct to assume that the removal of alliances is just a temporary thing until you add actual federation policies and mechanics? I can see why you'd remove alliances now as currently federations are nothing but alliances under a different name.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I doubt that aliances will come back.

I think (and hope) they will have Federations which differ by politics chosen/voted (in the direction this works CK2) .

Instead of two Treaty types you have one customisable. The least integrated Federation would be the old Alliance (or even much less than that).

+ This provides a basis for all the inner-federation conflicts CK2 has in - lets say - The Holy Empire and the ability to make federations that fit the SiFi-organisation the race you are roleplay fits in. In my opinion, this is what Federations
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Got a bit hyped up after reading ,, merging alliances/federations", but it turned out not to be what I expected - therefore I'm gonna propose it now: Can we have a feature for merging two existing federations? I really would like to build that galaxy-wide dominace federation and even found friendly people on the other side of the galaxy, but can't invite them because they already got a federation on their own which they used to get rid of the xenophobe bullie next door. Why can't I say: Hey guys, we all really like each other and our ethics match, let's make our two federations into one!

Also, for roleplaying purposes mostly, can we have an happiness-focus for our sectors? Way to often I have seen my sectors relocating pops from that expensive eden-dome I built them to an undeveloped 1-mineral tile.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm sad to see the habitability wheel go. It made so that the habitable and uninhabitable planets were different for everyone. Now it seems that everyone in the same category will be able to colonize the same planets. I really like the 2-axis system proposed earlier, but most people who suggested it made in unnecessary complicated. Instead of basing habitability on proximity (and then adding in a bunch of confusing modifiers to compensate for the fact that Continental worlds become OP and the "corner" worlds get screwed), just have 60% habitability for any world that shares one axis with your homeworld and 20% for those that don't. That way everyone gets four 60% planet types and four 20% planet types, nice and simple.
I also really hope you're rebalancing the Adaptability traits for Heinlein. Because as currently written, the Adaptable trait gives access to every planet in the galaxy for just 2 points while the very Adaptable costs 5 despite having far less of an impact compared to species with just the regular Adaptable trait.

The issue is that from a plausibility point of view, having all the planets on one axis share the habitability, makes underisable result. What a species like is the combination temperature/humidity, just one of these parameter is not enough for believable results. For instance if we decide the criterion is temperature, a desert species will like tropical environment, and if we decide or humidity, a desert species would also like an arctic planet. (according to the last suggestion of the matrix). Which effectively doesn't make much sense.

However we could let go of the matrix and change the classification to temperature without much of an impact

Code:
Hot          Temperate      Cold
Desert        Oceanic      Arctic
Arid         Continental    Boreal
Savannah      Tropical     Tundra

This is the same groups as the dev ones, but the classification names make more sense to me, even if we lose a bit in internal consistency for the "temperate" one
 
soo sectors are still in this game why there the stupidest feature in the game and so no real purpose at all there suppost to lighten the work load of the player but realistically all they doo is give you less resources and a lower then it should be resource cap

they serve no purpose and i remember having to fuck about with the stupid sectors for more time then i care to admit
 
  • 9
Reactions:
soo sectors are still in this game why there the stupidest feature in the game and so no real purpose at all there suppost to lighten the work load of the player but realistically all they doo is give you less resources and a lower then it should be resource cap

they serve no purpose and i remember having to fuck about with the stupid sectors for more time then i care to admit

If you despise Sectors that much I'd advise you to stay clear of Stellaris for good.
The chances that they will be removed completly are nearly zero.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
soo sectors are still in this game why there the stupidest feature in the game and so no real purpose at all there suppost to lighten the work load of the player but realistically all they doo is give you less resources and a lower then it should be resource cap

they serve no purpose and i remember having to fuck about with the stupid sectors for more time then i care to admit

If you despise Sectors that much I'd advise you to stay clear of Stellaris for good.
The chances that they will be removed completly are nearly zero.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Care to share? :oops:
Babylon 5. The Vorlons (one bunch of spooky super-advanced aliens) ask you who you are. The Shadows (another bunch of spooky super-advanced aliens) ask you what you want.
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
Due to many frustrated points I feel like its worth pointing out that Stellaris is very much a work in progress BUT IN A GOOD WAY. There is a good foundation here in Stellaris, and the team is obviously prioritising what we want as a community. Having said that, I feel like many features that are presently implemented but feel "empty" (such as sectors) or have been removed (such as alliances) is actually a good thing, because we - as a community now have the opportunity to influence how these features receive "weight" and "flesh" as opposed to the developers doing so with guesswork, and us not getting what we want. Yes it will take time (and paid DLC no doubt for some of the heavier bits of content xD), but at the end of the day, I think we as gamers will get a better experience... I just wish our lives had 3x & 5x speeds so we could fast forward to when this content exists xD
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I was certain you would make my No Clustered Starts mod obsolete eventually, but for these galaxy generation customization improvements to come so early in the lifetime of Stellaris makes me so happy! Stay awesome!

As an aside, I have used No Clustered Starts in less than 10% of my own Stellaris games. As the game is now I love what this clustering does for the game pacing, but I can absolutely see myself using it somewhere down the road.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
With all respect, I don't think a detailed planetary classification system does much to improve the issues with the game (who can honestly tell me if "Alpine" means cold or warm, dry or wet?). Further, while I appreciate that Paradox is working towards improving the game, I don't see the continual changes in fundamental game systems as something particular healthy. Wether it be ethoses, governments, diplomacy or colonization/planet density does a clear design vision even exist?
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Due to many frustrated points I feel like its worth pointing out that Stellaris is very much a work in progress BUT IN A GOOD WAY. There is a good foundation here in Stellaris, and the team is obviously prioritising what we want as a community. Having said that, I feel like many features that are presently implemented but feel "empty" (such as sectors) or have been removed (such as alliances) is actually a good thing, because we - as a community now have the opportunity to influence how these features receive "weight" and "flesh" as opposed to the developers doing so with guesswork, and us not getting what we want. Yes it will take time (and paid DLC no doubt for some of the heavier bits of content xD), but at the end of the day, I think we as gamers will get a better experience... I just wish our lives had 3x & 5x speeds so we could fast forward to when this content exists xD

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/magic_thread.html

:p Agreed except for the x3 and x5 speeds for life
 
I don't like the new planet types at all.I really don't get why this change is needed ? It seems like a step back to me.

Because the wheel made zero sense in several things (most notably Tropical species enjoying Desert planets).

soo sectors are still in this game why there the stupidest feature in the game and so no real purpose at all there suppost to lighten the work load of the player but realistically all they doo is give you less resources and a lower then it should be resource cap

they serve no purpose and i remember having to fuck about with the stupid sectors for more time then i care to admit

As Soranya said, the chances of Sectors being removed is near 0. Sectors are there to represent the difficulties of leading an interstellar empire.

With all respect, I don't think a detailed planetary classification system does much to improve the issues with the game (who can honestly tell me if "Alpine" means cold or warm, dry or wet?). Further, while I appreciate that Paradox is working towards improving the game, I don't see the continual changes in fundamental game systems as something particular healthy. Wether it be ethoses, governments, diplomacy or colonization/planet density does a clear design vision even exist?

It is because of the vision that the flawed core mechanics are being overhauled.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Pops under the habitability threshold will die off over time. Terraforming a planet in a way that kills the pops will basically be treated as purging.

So I assume that genetically engineering the population of a planet so that it turns out to be under the threeshold will be treated as purgeing too?

The question here still might be whether it is considered purgeing from the start (so if you don't allow purgeing you can't do it) or only in it's effects on diplomacy as well as happiness?
 
  • 1
Reactions: