• 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:
That's a larger UI change - I don't dare ask for something like that until PDS decides to devote an update to a thorough and much needed UI overhaul. :)

I'm curious Peter, as a longtime denizen and someone with some respect and clout around here, what were your thoughts on the newest-gen UI (Stellaris and HOI IV)? I was honestly shocked at how much of a step back it felt like from EUIV, but have mostly chalked it up to a new IP eating programming time and a game that was massively delayed that needed to be released. After all, it's the same people, for the most part, that worked on EUIV and CKII.
 
Since corvettes now are "best tool" against battleships, I'm feeling like AI will rely quite bit on those.

I'm not sure it's that definite but I could be wrong. The way I understand it is that certainly if there is an enemy battleship without a destroyer screen, then vettes will absolutely be the best tool to take it out. But if you add a screen of destroyers to that battleship, then all of a sudden, another battleship with X and L weapons might be a better tool against it. Or maybe a combination of both will be even better. You just have to make sure you protect your own battleship with screens so vettes aren't the best tool for the enemy to use against you. If the AI relies quite a bit on just vettes, then those will apparently be easily countered by the player......So yes if the AI is unable to use these ship roles effectively then this experiment could fail miserably. Here's to hoping it can.
 
I'm curious Peter, as a longtime denizen and someone with some respect and clout around here, what were your thoughts on the newest-gen UI (Stellaris and HOI IV)? I was honestly shocked at how much of a step back it felt like from EUIV, but have mostly chalked it up to a new IP eating programming time and a game that was massively delayed that needed to be released. After all, it's the same people, for the most part, that worked on EUIV and CKII.
I haven't played HOI4 and doubt I ever will unless somebody throws a copy at me; Not out of antipathy for the franchise, but because I've had just about enough of WW2 games to last me a lifetime.

With regards to Stellaris I was shocked by state of the user interface.

I consider it subpar in general and far below the quality I am used to from PDS, lacking in functionality to see what is important to the player with a minimum of effort and, what functionality there is, often requiring an excessive amount of mouse clicks or scrolling for the player to achieve what he wants.

It is one of the major reasons that I consider Stellaris to be a good game with great potential rather than a great game; there's a lot of fun to be had exploring the game mechanics, and I've had it so I'm certainly not complaining about value for money, but when the UI is aggravating and makes me jump through hoops or scroll through long lists to achieve what I want it is not something I'm interesting in playing single player long-term, nor does it make me interested in playing MP where fighting against the UI is in realtime, and it certainly doesn't encourage me to buy DLC.

PDS have certainly achieved their goal of "accessibility" and "GUI hygiene" (see the Gamasutra postmortem), but at the cost of a UI that is poor at doing its job efficiently once you are outside the early-game stage, and I consider that a crying shame. Like you, I hope that the result is because they were strapped for time and not because they consider it to be good.

Still, since the UI quality is so much below the typical post-EU2 PDS game, where you can access important information and make relevant choices with only a few clicks and little or no scrolling, I expect the UI to be overhauled at some time, either in one fell swoop for a major upgrade/DLC or incrementally.

Until that happens, I'll be following the announcements game and occasionally check what happens after an update, because as I said earlier, I consider the game to have great potential.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
It appears many people don't really trust the devs...

I mean, they are people who are working with the game every day and many of them have fun playing the game as well. I am sure that they are extensively playtesting the changes to ship balance, and wouldn't decide to pursue them if they were absolutely -horrible- in terms of fun.
 
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
People need to remember that each ship has different modules they can use for different weapon slots. So you could specialise one corvette for torpedoes and have another that's specialised towards small weapons or for defence. You're not going to be stuck using one template.

What I'm most hoping for is some more variation in the defensive/utility slots on modules, because they're largely all the same right now.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
an apple in space would be subjected to the same law of physics as everything else though.
I disagree. Apples above a certain height are naturally predisposed to land on the heads of mathematicians sitting in the garden. See the theory of special appletivity for more information.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
Literally all decisions about space warships with blatant handwavium engines and directed energy weapons capable of landing a telling hit from millions of kilometres away are arbitrary in the physics sense, and exist to serve the demands of such masters as "gameplay" and "narrative".
And I would contend that there is a vast difference between using handwavium to justify core concetes of the genre such as ftl travel, and using it to justify arbitrary restrictions such as torpedos being good against capital ships and only mountable on corvettes/cruisers or capital ships being unable to mount point defense systems. Neither of which makes any actual sense aside from attempting to justify enforcing ridgedly defined roles on ships. Gameplay isn't going to get any deeper from this change, it's just going to get more tedius in build your fleet. Doomstacks are still going to be the order of the day, and those, not a lack of predefined combat roles, is the actual problem with Stellaris' combat system.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Technobable does not make it any less of an arbitrary decision.

Yeah, something arbitrary in a completely fictional context without any real physics involved seems odd? Maybe not. But that is not the point. Consistent explanations is what help not to break the immersion. Most game elements are not even arbitrary but just convenient. Shields for instance, it doesn't really matter how they make no sense whatsoever, the concept is established and was very convenient in the beginning of CGI*. Everyone knows how shields are supposed to work, the fact that they will never exist doesn't really matter. (to most people)

*Not just CGI. With Dune for instance, the hole purpose of shields was to allow blade weapons, which otherwise make no sense in a beam weapon standoff.
 
Last edited:
Personally don't like the weapon changes. Not intuitive and very restricted. Can't believe you guys can't come up with a better solution to make all shiptypes viable, without shoving it down our throat with articial restrictions and limiting designs.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
These are some really good changes to ship roles and weapons. I'm looking forward to playing with the patch :)
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
So, I'm noticing a few things in the majority of the posts so far. They're very irrationally reactionary. As if they didn't comprehend what they read in the DD. Lemmie see if I can help with that...

Firstly, this is a game. And I don't say that thinking that people don't understand that, or that somehow being a game makes any particular issue unimportant. I say it, because it means the game world is going to be a ridiculously abstracted and simplified version of any possible reality. The current main complaint is about the nature of the ship roles and the rebalancing of ships and their components, to match those changes. These range from complaints that it's restrictive, to complaints that it somehow doesn't make sense.

This is because it's not even possible, with current, commonly available technology, and even the most powerful programming language developed yet, to create the kinds of modeling of these functions that the complainers seem to want. Is it possible to make an almost completely open-ended system for ship designs...sure. Does it work...absolutely not. It is exactly that kind of system that leads to the "one and only superfleet" kind of game. The kind where, if the AI is actually set up to make (ab)use of that particular strategy, it becomes impossible for players to beat it. Please don't say you've done it, because you haven't, because such a circumstance has never existed in any game in history. Moving along...

It is restrictive, by necessity. The quantity and frequency of change of variables involved in the real processes of developing war technologies and making strategic use of them, is literally incalculable at this time. They are, in fact, currently unknowable for the most part. That will not remain so, but it is such for now. So they made the simplest, most flexible rules they could, that actually mostly parallel real naval doctrines and technological employment. Ships of specific sizes have specific jobs to do. This isn't because of some particular artificial rule, as it is in the game, it's because of the limits of naval technology. The volume of the ship can only hold so much. That means power, supplies, weapons, and all the infrastructure to run it all. As technology improves, that balance changes. But, in general, small ships are meant to be hunter-killers, and long-range guided weapons are unbeatable for that purpose...and frankly likely always will be. Anybody remember the Ancient Drones from Stargate SG-1/Atlantis?

Now, it's true that they could've gone through and simply added a bunch of new values to ships and juggled all the stat balancing needed to make the new system do what they want. And the net result would've been the same, except that you could hypothetically could make a small ship do something (very poorly) that it's not suited for. Which, you'll be able to do under their announced system, it's just necessarily simpler and more direct. It is the best way to avoid the problem of "the best possible fleet setup". This way, you can't just make and uberfleet and coast through. You'll have to change it...probably make multiple fleets simultaneously to deal with multiple threats.

All that said, I myself have mixed feelings about this setup. I currently run my fleets with the best disruptors I have at the time, and the best armor piercing weapons I have at the time. It is, essentially, unbeatable...regularly taking down enemy fleets with significantly greater MP. Even maxed out shield-using ships don't last long under the disruptor fire; and after that, their armor is all but meaningless (and obviously PD is completely useless against me). No matter what defense they build up, I will cut through to their hull and wreck them in a couple of volleys at most. That won't work anymore under this system, and that bugs me. But, I'll deal with it, and hopefully get to enjoy making more varied and more fun fleets.

Hope that helps anyone who was confused on what these changes actually mean.
 
  • 8
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes it is a game, what they are trying to do is spice up the battles in the game. So far, I like the game, however the battles are very boring. There is not interaction, it is like watching a warrior pummel a barbarian in Civ, it is Civ 4's battle of the stacks, the bigger stronger stack wins. This patch gives a small amount of control over the battles and makes the battles a little bit better. Personally I stopped playing Stellaris and started playing Polaris Sector again, the battles are much more fun there where ship design and tactics can win you battles even against 4:1 odds. Stellaris wins on quests, exploration sheer beauty of the game, but they skimped too much on battles, ship types and design. Come on, add mines, remote missile platforms, lazing missile warheads etc.?
 
I don't think this update is meant to "improve" the battle tactics or balance the weapons. The scope of the game is never to go on to much detail regarding battles.

There will just be a new "optimal ratio" for weapons and ship classes, new counters to new common weapons setup and we will just adapt to the new world as we did with the old.

Imho this update is just meant to make battles more appealing from a visual point of view. Now deathballs just engage each other without much purpose. New battles will be more interesting with assault sips and long range each one playing its role. So, in the end, is an improvement and I like, even if it is not a tactical one.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I haven't played HOI4 and doubt I ever will unless somebody throws a copy at me; Not out of antipathy for the franchise, but because I've had just about enough of WW2 games to last me a lifetime.

With regards to Stellaris I was shocked by state of the user interface.

I consider it subpar in general and far below the quality I am used to from PDS, lacking in functionality to see what is important to the player with a minimum of effort and, what functionality there is, often requiring an excessive amount of mouse clicks or scrolling for the player to achieve what he wants.

It is one of the major reasons that I consider Stellaris to be a good game with great potential rather than a great game; there's a lot of fun to be had exploring the game mechanics, and I've had it so I'm certainly not complaining about value for money, but when the UI is aggravating and makes me jump through hoops or scroll through long lists to achieve what I want it is not something I'm interesting in playing single player long-term, nor does it make me interested in playing MP where fighting against the UI is in realtime, and it certainly doesn't encourage me to buy DLC.

PDS have certainly achieved their goal of "accessibility" and "GUI hygiene" (see the Gamasutra postmortem), but at the cost of a UI that is poor at doing its job efficiently once you are outside the early-game stage, and I consider that a crying shame. Like you, I hope that the result is because they were strapped for time and not because they consider it to be good.

Still, since the UI quality is so much below the typical post-EU2 PDS game, where you can access important information and make relevant choices with only a few clicks and little or no scrolling, I expect the UI to be overhauled at some time, either in one fell swoop for a major upgrade/DLC or incrementally.

Until that happens, I'll be following the announcements game and occasionally check what happens after an update, because as I said earlier, I consider the game to have great potential.

The one thing that scares me is that the solution to so many of the UI issues is a ledger, but there's a change that ledgers have joined customizable message settings in the dustbin of undesirables. Can't you holler at Johan or something? ;)
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Okay, now the ship roles are more set in stone than a "maybe" Like they was in DD 41

Awesome! Great!

But what happened to talking about Enclaves @Wiz??
I already have an idea about the ship changes in 1.3, the final concept could have waited for the 1.3 beta patchnotes. I want to know about those Enclaves! lol
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Where do you get this "of course" from?

Why, exactly, in terms of physics, do you think it is harder to find a firing solution for a big gun or to aim a big gun when you have a firing solution.?

One advantage of smaller guns would be that assuming fundamental physics works the same in the Stellaris universe as in ours, you'd be able to make smaller guns traverse more degrees of arc per second as less effort would be involved in their movement. This is solely an advantage when your target moves through enough degrees of arc per second to make a small gun capable of keeping up while a large gun cannot.

However, at the distances involved in Stellaris long range combat, guns are not going to be traversing many degrees of arc to keep tracking a target; What matters here is how precise your gun's and ship's movement can be measured relative to your target and its projected movement to ensure you have a good firing solution rather than how many degrees of arc per second the gun can traverse.

For small guns to have an advantage over big guns for the purpse of tracking and aiming at the distances we are talking about, ships would pretty much have to be in point blank range. (Which is why using small-gun point defense installations are a staple of military sci-fi.)


And distances for firing are correspondingly greater too.

Anyhow, it is a design decision to create more interesting gameplay, and I'm fine with that. Let's see how it works out. Realism is a hugely overrated concept when it comes to gaming.

I just find it an amusing idea that larger guns should be inherently more difficult to aim than small guns when taking pot-shots at things at the sort of distances we are talking about in Stellaris.

The distances and speeds of the targets involved are exactly the reason why aiming a small weapon is easier than a large. Consider yourself the captain of spacecraft under fire, You are flying at relativistic speeds and the incoming fire is likely even closer to the speed of light. What are your options if you want to survive? You will of course attempt to evade! How do you evade in such a scenario? You don't have a spotter looking for incoming fire and then reacting to this information. You will instead try to wildly and unpredictably accelerate your spaceship in a 2D plane orthogonal to the view of the enemy!
This will lead to the enemy having a very hard time getting a good firing solution with a large weapon than with a small, where the time taking to move and settle the gun on the desired trajectory is much faster, simply due to the mass of the weapon.
The time needed to do this is small, relative to our daily reference of time, but in a space battle going at relativistic speeds, even a tiny miscalculation will lead to a shot missing by kilometers.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the direction of this update, but the execution will result in one optimized fleet composition, especially if the ship roles are as restrictive as they seem to be.

In the long run, I hope for more variety and a step up on the RTS experience (otherwise it would have made no sense to deviate from the more abstract combat systems of other PDX games).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I apologize in advance if my comment has already been answered - I haven't read all the 13 pages of this particular thread...


My question regards the idea of specialized ships... will there be a way to upgrade our ships in a specialized manner - that is: if I have two different types of corvettes or destroyers will I be able to choose their upgrade paths or will they upgrade according to their named class instead of all of them upgrading to the same type and effectively ruining any specialization?


As it is now it is very difficult to keep a particular design upgraded - I usually keep the design in the list and then in order to keep the ships of that particular type upgrading to a specific design choice I have to remove all of them of a given fleet and then update their design, choose to upgrade them and only them return them to the fleet... the same happening to the other types - it is very boring and thus my idea of having different types of ships is not as appealing anymore (laser and missile corvettes, torpedo and point defense destroyers). After a while it gets tiresome to upgrade them and I choose just one type.


Will this be changed with the new patch?
 
Giga cannon? Gimmegimmegimmegimme!
 
  • 1
Reactions: