• 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 #45 - Ship Balance

Hello everyone!

Today we will go into the sixth part in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 update and accompanying (unannounced) content DLC. The topic of today's dev diary is the changes to ship roles and ship balance.

Ship Roles
The new design intends to give each ship a more unique combat role. Some ships will be defensive, while others will be more offensive.

Corvettes
Small and aggressive ships with high evasion that can be equipped with torpedoess. They will be very effective against large ships like battleships due to their high evasion and access to torpedoes. They have very low armor, but a very high chance to evade.

Destroyers
Defensive ships that are designed to counter corvettes, which is why they receive an innate +10 bonus to Tracking. They can be equipped with point-defense weapons, to shoot down the torpedoes fired by corvettes. They have moderate armor, and a moderate chance to evade.

Cruisers
These aggressive ships should be able to put out a lot of damage, but at the cost of less defense. Cruisers, like corvettes, can also be equipped with torpedoes. But unlike corvettes, they can also be equipped with hangars for strike craft. They have somewhat high armor, and a small chance to evade.

Battleships
The new role for battleships will be durable capital ships that fire at its enemies from a long distance. They are the only ship size that can be equipped with extra large weapons. They have very high armor, but minimal evasion.

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-30.png


Evasion, Tracking & Armor
A new feature in the Heinlein patch will be the Tracking stat. Each weapon will have a Tracking value that determines how effective they are against ships with high evasion. Every point of Tracking reduces the target’s chance to evade that attack by the same amount. Small weapons will have high Tracking, medium weapons will have medium Tracking, and large weapons will have minimal Tracking.

This means that large weapons - with a poor Tracking value - will still be very effective against large ships like cruisers or battleships, but almost useless against small ships like corvettes due to their high evasion.

The armor penetration of weapons has also been rebalanced so that large weapons have a much higher armor penetration values than smaller weapons.

In effect, this means that small weapons are good at shooting at small ships, while large weapons are good at shooting at large ships.

Another note is that missile weapons no longer ignore evasion, and can be evaded like normal. Most missiles, however, will have a very high Tracking value.

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-50.png


New Slots
Something new in the Heinlein patch will be the introduction of a couple of new slot types.

x.png

The extra large slot will contain powerful spinal-mounted weapons that are designed to target and take out enemy capital ships. Only Battleships will have a ship section with this weapon slot.

t.png

The torpedo slot, as evident by its name, will hold torpedoes. Torpedoes are slow firing weapons that deal massive damage, perfect for taking down larger ships. Unlike other missiles, however, torpedoes do not have good Tracking, which means they are very ineffective against ships with high evasion, such as corvettes or destroyers.

a_ux.png

The auxiliary slot will hold components that have ship-wide effects. Crystal-Forged Armor, Shield Capacitors and Regenerative Hull Tissue are examples of components that will now be equipped in this slot.

pd.png

Point-defense weapons now have its own slot size. The idea is that you should need to specialize some ships into countering enemy torpedoes

upload_2016-9-12_14-53-13.png


Major weapon rebalancing
Most weapons have been rebalanced to better suit the new design.

That's all for this week! Join us again next monday when we’ll be back with another dev diary!
 
Last edited:
  • 147
  • 51
  • 13
Reactions:
The current situation, where there are no well-defined roles, means it's much easier to min-max. This makes it much easier to get situations where there is one optimal strategy and anything else under-performs. Enforcing roles means enforced variety, and although optimal compositions might exist,

Enforcing roles means enforcing an optimal composition. You are always going to use the same fleet because it's enforced by the game. Always have different options for ship classes and different play styles. Otherwise as said before replay-ability drops to almost zero.


it's less likely that they will and also easier to balance - you don't have to worry as much about, say, destroyer swarms with tachyon lances being able to outperform battleships for DPS if a powerful counter to destroyers exists.

That is simply bad balancing. The current method suffers from poor design. Hopefully 1.3 won't.

Yes, a balanced fleet is probably the way to go here (and that's obviously by design). But there is far more variation to be had within a balanced fleet than there is within a system that explicitly lets min-maxing happen.

As said before, you can have the exact same variation otherwise but only if you have good balancing. By enforcing a balanced fleet you are going to make ship designing bloody terrible as in your going to make every ship design the same because it's enforced by the game and not chosen by the player. That kills the fun and replay-ability.

While I welcome the new combat design I want to be able to choose between 5-6 different fleet doctrines each time. Otherwise everyone will build the exact same fleet and all it will come down to has who has the most ships. The exact scenario as before which is boring, dull and with absolutely zero replay-ability. One of the most glaring flaws with Stellaris.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
You really think there will be no variation within fleets? The ship designer is still there. You still get to choose how many ships of each class are in each fleet and what specific sub-role they're tuned for with their equipment.
I KNOW that I will not ever build a single fleet that will not have all four types of ships because not having any of four ship types will put me at a disadvantage. It's counterproductive. But, I know that all AI will be coded to have exactly same fleet as I. It may be adjusted with hotfixes or patches but most effective combination will come up within first days after Heinlein will be released, I have no doubt of it, just like in HoIIV 7-2 army composition became a standart one day after release.
Nope not at all. And how many corvettes in your fleet vs. how many of the other types?

And you never give your alternative? Single ship type fleets?
With current mechanics we have no alternatives as Heinlein so far showed no solution to Doomstacks, which is a cancer that is killing Stellaris fun.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Want more options then this. Fleet A has 14k of corvettes with torpedoes. Fleet B has 14k fleet of BB's and fleet C has 14k fleet of 7K DD's and 7K BB's. Gues what the outcomes are?

I agree. Assuming they get the values in the right ballpark, there should still be a great deal of flexibility in the system. You can design a BB to fill different roles, and but not every role. As presented, there shouldn't be one optimal fleet composition and ship design. It will still depend on what your opponent does. Do you design your destroyers to optimize them as PD platforms or as corvette killers or both? Are your cruisers designed to wreck DDs, wreck cruisers or wreck battleships? What kind of defenses are they best against?

It was always the intention that larger ships tend to have an advantage over next smaller the size class (all else being equal), while being at a disadvantage against classes that are much smaller. The problem was that once they changed armor, they didn't have the game mechanisms to consistently achieve the balance vision. Now they are putting those mechanisms in place.

Even then, I expect that you will sometimes be able to work against the pattern. DDs have innate advantages against corvettes, but it's probably possible in some cases to design corvettes that can kill a particular opponent's DDs (by having the right defence, and the right weapon against their defense, etc). However, if you do, it's likely that your corvettes won't be a threat against the big ships, because the weapons good for killing DDs won't be appropriate against BBs.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
With current mechanics we have no alternatives as Heinlein so far showed no solution to Doomstacks, which is a cancer that is killing Stellaris fun.
I notice quite a few people saying that they can by various means disassemble opponents who rely on doomstacks.
 
So how will the extra large weapon be useful against small ships? Will handful of corvettes always be able to take down battleship?
This ship roles change seems to me a little bit like the problem of balance is swept under the carpet by rock-paper-scissor (-lizard-Spock) system. Maybe it will be for the better, dunno, will have to try how will it play out. In most other games I ended with fleets of battleships and discarder smaller vessels so if there will be mechanism to use all of ship types then good. Still this solution looks a little bit artificial to me though.

This does feel really artificial. I like the idea of utility slots vs normal slots to allow some more tradeoff between segment types; but PD should still go in small or medium weapon slots, to create a tradeoff between damage against larger or smaller ships in the same slots.

If every slot is ultra specialised then you have no reason to make a choice, the slot makes the choice for you. You would simply insert the highest tier weapon you have into each slot, gameplay finished.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I doubt that will change current state of warfare. Instead of bilding 100 destroyers doomstack every player will build 10 battleship-20-cruiser-30-destroyer-50corvetter or something like that doomstack.
More clicking for the same result. That's like EUIV change, when everyone build pure artillery armies and then afteк changes army pattern remained the same just with different proportion. We even have templates for that.

Exactly this problem - there needs to be variety of strategy with army composition.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
While I welcome the new combat design I want to be able to choose between 5-6 different fleet doctrines each time. Otherwise everyone will build the exact same fleet and all it will come down to is who has the most ships. The exact scenario as before which is boring, dull and with absolutely zero replay-ability. One of the most glaring flaws with Stellaris.

Doctrine to further specialize roles definitely sound nice - you could have them be mutually exclusive research paths that give additional bonuses to ship classes, and potentially unlock special ship modules. I think there absolutely needs to be restrictions on what different classes of ship hulls can do, though. If there are doctrines, they should be to reinforce and specialize the roles that specific classes of ships are given, not to enable ships to do things entirely outside the scope of their class. Otherwise we're right back where we started, but with a truly useless layer of additional complexity on top.

As was mentioned a bit earlier in the thread, the problem with game mechanics that let you design your own stuff is that eventually, after playing for awhile, you just learn that option X tends to be the best option. There's not really any way around that. Sure, you could give people the option to try horrible combinations, but if nobody who's experienced enough to know that they're a terrible or sub-optimal idea (which would be most everyone even remotely competent at games after a couple playthroughs) would use those options, they might as well not be in the game. Nobody loses anything by having specific roles for what specific classes can and cannot try to do, because they wouldn't really pick those options in the first place.

But what you're talking about now has shifted from what the argument in this thread is: people are complaining about the existence of well-defined roles as a concept instead of being allowed to put anything on any ship.
 
Well, this can work out, even still letting the player have a god amount of freedom in his design - weapons have each their own tracking, so you can fit a battleship with some small weaponry and thus gain some ability to defend against corvettes.

Though it decreases variability over multiple species. Fleet composition should have some room to vary between each; maybe adding a military doctrine to a species additionally to and depending on the ethos
 
I KNOW that I will not ever build a single fleet that will not have all four types of ships because not having any of four ship types will put me at a disadvantage. It's counterproductive. But, I know that all AI will be coded to have exactly same fleet as I. It may be adjusted with hotfixes or patches but most effective combination will come up within first days after Heinlein will be released, I have no doubt of it, just like in HoIIV 7-2 army composition became a standart one day after release.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you really think there will be no variation within a fleet that consists of a balanced array of ship classes? The ship designer is still there.
 
Well, this can work out, even still letting the player have a god amount of freedom in his design - weapons have each their own tracking, so you can fit a battleship with some small weaponry and thus gain some ability to defend against corvettes.

Though it decreases variability over multiple species. Fleet composition should have some room to vary between each; maybe adding a military doctrine to a species additionally to and depending on the ethos

I think this is the key point. There isn't much stopping you from making a battleship that can shoot down corvettes, it just isn't optimal. That's not taking away player choice. I agree though that some sort of military doctrine would be nice.

"Small ship doctrine" - Corvettes and fighters have +10 evasion
"Ship of the Line" - Battleships cost 80% maintenance
"One shot, one kill" - +20 tracking on destroyers
etc. etc.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
With current mechanics we have no alternatives as Heinlein so far showed no solution to Doomstacks, which is a cancer that is killing Stellaris fun.

Doomstacks are not there because of roles. They are there because more ships = win, plain and simple. You seem to have shifted the goalposts in your argument and now are applying a non sequiter fallacy. The design for the roles was not meant to fix doomstacks but to fix a single ship type from becoming the ONLY ship type you needed or wanted.

You now are claiming this change is bad because it doesn't stop doomstacks. Well guess what YOUR alternative won't stop doomstacks either. It is a different problem and requires a different solution. Roles fix the problem of a single ship being OP against all other types of ships.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
You seem to have shifted the goalposts in your argument and now are applying a non sequiter fallacy.

Can we please not insist on playing the fallacy game? It's not a substitute for arguments and doesn't make you sound smarter.

If you think they're wrong, explain why they're wrong (which you did admirably). The internet in general needs to get off thinking that calling out fallacies is how you debate, though. Thanks.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we please not insist on playing the fallacy game? It's not a substitute for arguments and doesn't make you sound smarter.

If you think they're wrong, explain why they're wrong (which you did admirably). The internet in general needs to get off thinking that calling out fallacies is how you debate, though. Thanks.

A fallacy is simply a contradiction in an argument. It's basically admitting your argument is wrong if it isn't a mistake when you use it.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we please not insist on playing the fallacy game? It's not a substitute for arguments and doesn't make you sound smarter.

If you think they're wrong, explain why they're wrong (which you did admirably). The internet in general needs to get off thinking that calling out fallacies is how you debate, though. Thanks.

I called out the fallacy because after showing that their original position against the change was incorrect they now decide to switch the argument against the change to "it won't solve doomstacks". It is a fallacy in argument because the design was never meant to fix that problem. It is 100% accurate for me to point this out.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Can we please not insist on playing the fallacy game? It's not a substitute for arguments and doesn't make you sound smarter.

If you think they're wrong, explain why they're wrong (which you did admirably). The internet in general needs to get off thinking that calling out fallacies is how you debate, though. Thanks.

It can be useful to point out fallacies, but most people use the "appeal to fallacy" fallacy, which implies that if the other person is committing a logical fallacy, you are correct. That however, is itself, a fallacy.

So ultimately, I agree with you :p
 
It can be useful to point out fallacies, but most people use the "appeal to fallacy" fallacy, which implies that if the other person is committing a logical fallacy, you are correct. That however, is itself, a fallacy.

So ultimately, I agree with you :p

Except I didn't just say it was a fallacy but instead pointed out the actual issue in their argument that was a fallacy and then answered why it was wrong. So I agree just saying "fallacy" does nothing. One must state what the fallacy was and why it is a fallacy.

In this case the fallacy was saying the design was bad because it doesn't solve doomstacks. I agree it doesn't but then the design wasn't meant to. It was instead meant to do away with one ship type is OP and to show the player that fleet combos are better then single ship type fleets.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: