• 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:
This is why I (and a couple other forum'ers here) suggested to rename it to "Dry, Wet, Frozen". This way you keep the same classification but remove the temperature/humidity mix.

Dry & humid can be points on a water content scale, but frozen isn't -- that's indicative of a physical state due to temperature. While PDX can go with some variation of "Limited Water /Lots of Water / Frozen Water" that's still not avoiding the mix. Plus it seems less obvious than Dry/Average/Wet or Hot/Temperate/Cold.

Edit: I think I'm just nitpicking at this point, and happy to try out the new way. But could we possibly get Alpine changed to Boreal? Like most of the other current choices, Alpine seems a bit low in the way of biomass; cold but forested presents a good contrast to tundra and arctic climates.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Concerning complexity, I remember Paradox CEO Wester saying "Our games are not for everyone, and that's a statement I'm happy to make," at the company's 2014 convention. Has this changed with Stellaris?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Concerning complexity, I remember Paradox CEO Wester saying "Our games are not for everyone, and that's a statement I'm happy to make," at the company's 2014 convention. Has this changed with Stellaris?
"Not for everyone" does not mean "we are going to simulate things that would be more fun if left abstracted, or make fine-grained things that would be more fun if left coarsely granular".
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
Concerning complexity, I remember Paradox CEO Wester saying "Our games are not for everyone, and that's a statement I'm happy to make," at the company's 2014 convention. Has this changed with Stellaris?
From an interview in 2013 Johan Andersson "Well, I don't agree with the position that a game is either mass market or complex! The biggest challenge a developer faces have is in interface design. Improvements to your interface allow you to keep the same level of complexity while at the same time broadening the appeal."
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Concerning complexity, I remember Paradox CEO Wester saying "Our games are not for everyone, and that's a statement I'm happy to make," at the company's 2014 convention. Has this changed with Stellaris?
Considering how simple Stellaris is I think so.

On the other hand you have to take into account that paradox's games these days are very lackluster on release, and they start to become about average/good about a year+ after release. They got lucky with the hype surrounding the game as well with pretty decent marketing. It's pretty telling when approx 90% of the inital playerbase have stopped playing the game since release. Lastly look at the comparison between HOI3 and HOI4 in terms of complexity and so on.

Source: https://steamdb.info/app/281990/graphs/

Hopefully however the people up top will allow development for a fair amount of time. Although it's probable to me that because of the dwindling playerbase they will take off development to put it on a different game. If they do that I won't buy another Paradox game again.

"Not for everyone" does not mean "we are going to simulate things that would be more fun if left abstracted, or make fine-grained things that would be more fun if left coarsely granular".

Alright I`ll bite

Why do you think some simulation isn't fun? Why do you think It`ll be more fun if you simplify things?

If your going to abstract the planet types and go with fantasy instead of realism then why are the devs going for the current planet types?
Where are the crazy cool alien worlds, the lava planets? Why can't I have a playable species that lives solely in gas giants or certain types of stars? but what's going on is that the habitable planets seems to be grounded in realism with the planets being based off Earth's climates.

Why do you think my proposal is "coarsely granular" Compared to the abstract planet types we have currently? As far as I am aware it's the other way around with grouping up the planets into a single type being more granular than having the system I made up the other day.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Complexity is fine as long as it brings something to the table. Complexity for complexity's sake is just annoying micromanaging that will make the game a chore for majority of players.
Planets and Habitability can be made more complex and interesting at the same time. However, you need to create a system that is interesting and fun to use.

PDS has been making Grand Strategies for a long while now. The futility of non-rewarding complexity is something they learned a long time ago.

Sorry I missed your post arguing at 1am is a mistake.

Does it not bring some complexity? As I said before it does create a variable value in habitability this in turn gives a planet some more uniqueness and thus the game a bit more immersion.

Arguably they have missed the point of complexity, If you make everything simple like it is now it becomes boring. Like how Stellaris is pretty much simple compared to say EU4 or CK2 and look at the playerbase for the same amount of time after release.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why do you think some simulation isn't fun?
Some kinds of simulation don't serve the interests of engaging gameplay at all (to take an admittedly extreme example, I don't think Stellaris should simulate the minister of trade's third junior deputy's love affair with the office intern).

Not all simulation that serves the interests of engaging gameplay does so well enough to justify the cost to the creators of designing, implementing, and debugging it, or the cost to the end user of obtaining a computer adequate to run it at an acceptable speed.
Why do you think It`ll be more fun if you simplify things?
All successful games are simpler than a fully detailed simulation of the systems they represent. Indeed, when discussing systems as complex as interstellar empires, it is inevitable that any successful game about the subject will be simpler than a fully detailed simulation, because a computer that could run such a simulation at acceptable speed would be larger than the system it's simulating.

Thus, sometimes adding complexity creates more fun, and sometimes it doesn't. Reasonable people will disagree over exactly which complexity creates more fun, which is part of why game designers must to a large extent choose to please themselves before worrying about pleasing anyone else.
If your going to abstract the planet types and go with fantasy instead of realism then why are the devs going for the current planet types?
Because they're familiar (this can be really quite important) and easy to understand, and create useful constraints on the space in which game design decisions are made. For example: all empires want to obtain some kind of oxygenated mudball, so adjusting the frequency of habitable planets is a simple matter of adjusting the frequency of oxygenated mudballs compared to other kinds of planet.
Where are the crazy cool alien worlds, the lava planets?
The lava planets are uninhabitable molten hellholes, in accordance with the game designers' preferred aesthetics of how space colonization works.
Why can't I have a playable species that lives solely in gas giants or certain types of stars? but what's going on is that the habitable planets seems to be grounded in realism with the planets being based off Earth's climates.
Gas giant dwellers as playable empires would seem to conflict with the notions that (a) habitable planets should be rare and (b) habitable planets should routinely be the subject of competition (and thus conflict) between nearby empires. Gas giants are not rare, either in real life or in FTL-and-ray-guns science fiction.
Why do you think my proposal is "coarsely granular" Compared to the abstract planet types we have currently? As far as I am aware it's the other way around with grouping up the planets into a single type being more granular than having the system I made up the other day.
I forget which proposal is yours, and I'm not in the mood to go looking for it right now.

The existing system (1.0-1.2) is coarsely granular (there are seven kinds of habitable planet), and I find it tolerable (though I find it has a quite noticeable immersivity breakdown due to the way the climate compatibilities are set up). The officially proposed tweaks to the system add a small amount of granularity (but still keep things fairly coarse) and address that immersivity breakdown along the way.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not so sure about alliances being redundant. Even if all members can propose wars now, there are lots of scenarios I can imagine where two empires would agree to help each other in offensive or liberation wars without wanting all the commitment of things like a federation fleet or having to vote in all these ways. Xenophobic or militarist states might not want to give up any foreign policy control.

Federation association sounds really great, though. Does the associate have the option to join federation wars if they want (though they should not be auto-called IMO)?

Reading the title of that section I actually thought that there would come an option where if two federations and/or alliances had very high relations with each other they could propose and vote on merging the two. That would be cool :p

Well right now there is an option to invite other empires to war, that could be the noncommittal relationship you are talking about. Once the war is done then it is over and the two empires move on to their separate ways
 
I see one downside of the new climate system. All civilizations will be divided into 3 separate buckets, and their colonizational interests won't collide on any specific habitable planet. So one less tension point between them.
Right now roughly 5/7 of the civs presented in galaxy (so all but the opposite side of the planet-type wheel) may want to take some planet, suitable for you (80%s and 60%s), for themselves. Right before your Colony ship reach the point :). New system reduces collisions possibility to 1/3 of the galaxy dwellers. Clearly a downgrade
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I see one downside of the new climate system. All civilizations will be divided into 3 separate buckets, and their colonizational interests won't collide on any specific habitable planet.
Until they conquer a planet containing some useful aliens, at which point they can start leveraging those aliens without needing to do any Social research.
 
I'm new here, so I'll try to summarize what I can. I'm sorry if something hard, and my English because I speak Spanish.

First. Why Paradox? Why? Stellaris is such a great game, but it seems that with each patch you screw a little more. It's worse yet: you ruin the low tied point of the game since its was put on sale: the Diplomacy. And this's not say by me, it's said by all analyzes that iv have read of the game. First you remove embassies, alliances now? So we are forced to form a federation if we want some kind of alliance, which means that if our "federated ally" gets into a war, we end up dragging, like the USA to entire Western Europe in the NATO.

This sucks.

Instead of eliminating alliances, Could you return the embassies? It could be some sort of technology obtained following an Society investigation as Xeno Diplomacy or something. Or at least introduce espionage.

Second, ask an improvement in the trade as able to trade food with other empires or be able to distribute it to planets of our empire passing famine. Even some empire could ask us for help with some food on us. This happens in Civilization IV BtS.

Third: the planets. Intersting adding two new types of planets, but I still questioning whether the form of classification is correct. This graphic drew him out of Stellaris Digital Artwork:

Planet Classification.png

I will ignore this "Mercury is a molten world" for now. I'm not entirely agree with the position of Arctic and Tundra, since in the tundra there are swamps, and the poles tend to be dry. But I think it would be better that way:

Planet table 2.png

The tundra has swamps during the summer. The taiga or coniferous forests has a more moderate climate; I come to mind the forests of northern Canada, Scandinavia and Russia. Arid worlds are not necessarily or very hot or very cold; they are only dry, as the Iberian Peninsula or southern California. Savannah has seasonal periods of rain and drought more noticeable than rainforests. Ocean worlds are not necessarily warm and tropical; They can be cold too, being important only the increased presence of oceans.

I think we need more inhabitable planets, like ice giants, hot gas giants, or worlds like Titan, covered with dense atmosphere and liquid methane; to give more variety to the universe of Stellaris. Even binary stars or new textures for the planets.

Although more inspiration from several mods XD

Finally, I see that now we can further adjust the galaxy at will, as the number of habitable worlds. Excellent: more control for the player, Oh, YEAH!

And by the way, what about solar systems with more life like civilian ships? I hope more forward. See you.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Now that you're adding toggles to sector behavior, could you add one so the player can set them to build robots on their own? Would be nice to have instead of having to go through the planet list regularly and add robot pops to be built when I play my fox-cylon empire.
 
Until they conquer a planet containing some useful aliens, at which point they can start leveraging those aliens without needing to do any Social research.

There's also uplifting, or enlightenment and vassal absorption. Or, if you're lucky, a Gaia world with a Visitor's Center and migration treaties. It's only the old wheel-crawl that's lost. (Y'know: I'm tundra, I got an ocean world to fill. So I colonize an Arctic world and open my borders to an Ocean or Arctic type and make the world attractive.)

I'm not totally sold on this system. The wheel was weird and game-y (why do my tropical birds prefer deserts to oceans, again?), but it always felt fine from a mechanical perspective. This... I'd like there to be some crossover between the climates. Like each is a member of a sub-category, and sub-category to sub-category is doable at... let's say 45% habitability, throwing a number out there? Enough to make the player get that Frontier Clinic down fast, but fine for attracting migrants to cement a friendship with a migration treaty, holding a strategic position, denying a different-climate rival, or growing a population for later genetic modification.

Adaptive and Extremely Adaptive will probably also be needing a look.
 
Will terraforming be reworked at all? I've tried a few times and it ends up being so slow and costly I wonder why even bother, especially when gene modding does the same thing better and cheaper.

For the time and cost it seems like just looking elsewhere/conquering is a no brainier unless your severely cramped for space/planets. But even then it's a mid game tech so it doesn't really help with that anyway, if you "need" to terraform for habitable planets your in trouble.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But don't you do that anyway to look at the size of the planet, what tile blockers it has and what modifiers it has?

Yeah, but before doing that, I need to find suitable candidates, which is mostly done by glancing at the planet-gfx on the map. Admittedly, this will be easier with the upcoming habitable planet ledger, but quickly being to determine if a planet is a suitable candidate at a glance is valuable. Especially in multiplayer where you don't always have the luxury of time.

I honestly understand your point but I don't see how it will conflict with enjoyability, the way I see it is that It gives each planet a bit more uniqueness in that this planet is a bit more wet than this planet. It makes it a slight more interesting, that's it.

I agree it makes the details of the different planets more interesting, but most of the time it's just fluff. And it adds unnecessary complexity with at best not adding anything to the gameplay, and at worst it makes it more fiddly.

I can't really argue with this to be honest, I suppose that having different habitability values results in some worlds having more value than others but the main aim of the system is to promote immersion in the game and RP. It's the little things that tend to go a fair way in immersing the viewer.

I see your point, but the extra immersion would mostly be in the early game. In the early game, the fantasy of Stellaris is to explore the unknown and discover strange new worlds and civilizations. But from the mid-game, it's about ruling an interstellar empire and galactic politics/war. While more crunchy habitability it's an interesting detail that could add immersion in the early game, later it becomes just fluff and possibly a distraction.

That said, I'm not entirely against a more complex habitability system. If a more complex system added new interesting interactions, it could be pretty cool. I'm just not convinced that just making the "magic number" more complex to figure out or predict will add anything significant to the game. Meanwhile, the upcoming streamlining will probably be an improvement over the wheel, because you can quicker figure out at a glance if a planet is suitable.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I do have a question for Wiz

Any chance either in this patch or in a future patch down the road that we can have the ability to turn a government that we created and then beat the game or went as far as we wanted to go to turn around and have that government show up in a completely new game as a fallen empre?
 
I do have a question for Wiz

Any chance either in this patch or in a future patch down the road that we can have the ability to turn a government that we created and then beat the game or went as far as we wanted to go to turn around and have that government show up in a completely new game as a fallen empre?

Ask in the stream!

https://www.twitch.tv/paradoxinteractive
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't know if that has been asked but. Will there be any difference with wormhole station network when it comes to federation fleets? Will ships created by federation member ai with wormhole tech be "usable" ? Often I end up with a fleet i can't use because they are in a system without stations and i don't have access to their wormhole network
 
These changes sound pretty good. My only concern is the changes to habitability (in large part because I have no interest in forming federations in the first place, so those changes don't particularly affect me).

You're right that the old habitability system had major flaws. But, it wasn't bad because it was too complex. It was bad because it didn't make sense. You said it yourself, it didn't make sense for certain planet types to be adjacent on the wheel. These changes are a step in the right direction, but I agree with many other posters that the 3-class system, while easier to remember, also doesn't make that much sense.

The 2-D system proposed by some with humidity on one axis and temperature on the other sounds like a vastly better system. Yes, it's more complicated, but that's okay when it makes intuitive sense. I'm not totally sure how you'd balance habitability percentages for different preferences, but that's not an unsolvable problem.

What I'd really like to see is planet preference set in stone for species. It honestly doesn't make much sense to me that you can gene tailor planet preference. Strength? Sure, tailor them to have bigger muscles. Intelligence? How industrious a species is? Appearance? Sure, those all make sense. But what kind of humidity and temperature a species is comfortable in is a result of myriad physiological properties. It's not as simple as flipping a few genes. You'd have to fundamentally change what an organism is.

Removing the ability to tailor climate preference would prevent people from exploiting it for easy colonization, and it would make terraforming or integration required to comfortably colonize planets outside your native type. In my opinion, that's how it should be.
 
  • 1
Reactions: