• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #54 - Ethics Rework

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Now that 1.4 is out, we can finally start properly talking about the 1.5 'Banks' update, which will be a major update with an accompanying (unannounced) expansion. As of right now we cannot provide any details on when 1.5 will come out, or anything about the unannounced expansion, so please don't ask. :)

Today's topic is a number of changes coming to ethics in the 1.5 update. Everything in this diary is part of the free update. Please note that values shown in screenshots are always non-final.

Authoritarian vs Egalitarian
One of the things in Stellaris I was never personally happy with was the Collectivism vs Individualism ethic. While interesting conceptually, the mechanics that the game presented for the ethics simply did not match either their meanings or flavor text, meaning you ended up with a Collectivist ethos that was somehow simultaneously egalitarian and 100% in on slavery, while Individualism was a confused jumble between liberal democratic values and randian free-market capitalism. For this reason we've decided to rebrand these ethics into something that should both be much more clear in its meaning, and match the mechanics as they are.

Authoritarian replaces Collectivist and represents belief in hierarchial rule and orderly, stratified societies. Authoritarian pops tolerate slavery and prefer to live in autocracies.
Egalitarian replaces Individualist and represents belief in individual rights and a level playing field. Egalitarian pops dislike slavery and elitism and prefer to live in democracies.

While I understand this may cause some controversy and will no doubt spark debate over people's interpretation of words like Authoritarian and Individualist, I believe that we need to work with the mechanics we have, and as it stand we simply do not have good mechanics for a Collectivism vs Individualism axis while the mechanics we have fit the rebranded ethics if not perfectly then at least a whole lot better.
2016_12_08_1.png

2016_12_08_5.png


Pop Ethics Rework
Another mechanic that never quite felt satisfying is the ethics divergence mechanic. Not only is it overly simplified with just a single value determining if pops go towards or from empire ethics, the shift rarely makes sense: Why would xenophobe alien pops diverge away from xenophobe just because they're far away from the capital of a xenophobic empire? Furthermore, the fact that pops could have anything from one to three different ethics made it extremely difficult to actually quantify what any individual pop's ethics actually mean for how they relate to the empire. For this reason we've decided to revamp the way pop ethics work in the following way:
  • Each pop in your empire will now only embrace a single, non-fanatic ethic. At the start of the game, your population will be made of up of only the ethics that you picked in species setup, but as your empire grows, its population will become more diverse in their views and wants.
  • Each ethic now has an attraction value for each pop in your empire depending on both the empire's situation and their own situation. For example, enslaved pops tend to become more egalitarian, while pops living around non-enslaved aliens become more xenophilic (and pops living around enslaved aliens more xenophobic). Conversely, fighting a lot of wars will increase the attraction for militarism across your entire empire, while an alien empire purging pops of a particular species will massively increase the attraction for xenophobic for the species being purged.
  • Over time, the ethics of your pops will drift in such a way that it roughly matches the overall attraction of that value. For example, if your materialist attraction sits at 10% for decades, it's likely that after that time, around 10% of your pops will be materialist. There is some random factor so it's likely never going to match up perfectly, but the system is built to try and go towards the mean, so the more overrepresented an ethic is compared to its attraction, the more likely pops are to drift away from it and vice versa.
2016_12_08_3.png


So what does the single ethic per pop mean in terms of how it affects pop happiness? Well, this brings us to the new faction system, which we will cover briefly in this dev diary, and get back to more in depth later.

Faction Rework
One thing we feel is currently missing from Stellaris is agency for your pops. Sure, they have their ethics and will get upset if you have policies that don't suit them, but that's about the only way they have of expressing their desires, and there is no tie-in between pop ethics and the politics systems in the game. To address this and also to create a system that will better fit the new pop ethics, we've decided to revamp the faction system in the following manner:
  • Factions are no longer purely rebel groupings, but instead represent political parties, popular movements and other such interest groups, and mostly only consist of pops of certain ethics. For example, the Supremacist faction desires complete political dominance for their own species, and is made up exclusively of Xenophobic pops, while the Isolationist faction wants diplomatic isolation and a strong defense, and can be joined by both Pacifist and Xenophobe pops. You do not start the game with any factions, but rather they will form over the course of the game as their interests become relevant
  • Factions have issues related to their values and goals, and how well the empire responds to those issues will determine the overall happiness level of the faction. For example, the Supremacists want the ruler to be of their species and are displeased by the presence of free alien populations in the empire. They will also get a temporary happiness boost whenever you defeat alien empires in war.
  • The happiness level of a faction determines the base happiness of all pops belonging to it. This means that where any pop not belonging to a faction has a base happiness of 50%, a pop belonging to a faction that have their happiness reduced to 35% because of their issues will have a base happiness of only 35% before any other modifiers are applied, meaning that displeasing a large and influential faction can result in vastly reduced productivity across your empire. As part of this, happiness effects from policies, xenophobia, slavery, etc have been merged into the faction system, so engaging in alien slavery will displease certain factions instead of having each pop individually react to it.
  • Factions have an influence level determined by the number of pops that belong to it. In addition to making its pops happier, a happy faction will provide an influence boost to their empire.
2016_12_08_4.png

2016_12_08_2.png


We will come back to factions in greater detail in a later dev diary, going over topics such as how separatists and rebellious slaves will work, and how factions can be used to change your empire ethics, but for now we are done for today. Next week we'll be talking about another new feature that we have dubbed 'Traditions and Unity'. See you then!
 
Last edited:
  • 367
  • 53
  • 17
Reactions:
The changes look great. Glad that our endless forum arguments resulted in something. The flavor text is also awesome. Hoping to see collectivist vs. indivindualist comes back later with new traits.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
As I understand it, being the slaving scum that you are will inspire your people to love slaving more, while causing distress and desire for freedom among the enslaved.

Keep your people strong, keep the slaves suppressed and unable to rise up.

It does ruin the standard strategy of having a collectist race that only enslaves collectivsts so that they don't get angry. First, because not all your pops will be collectivist, and second because the ones you enslave will lose collectivist and get angry anyway.

Maybe you'll be able to lock things down with ethics divergence and keep them happy though, I don't know.
 
Cheers for the DD (and all the extra answers afterwards) Wiz :D. New faction/ethics system looks like a huge improvement - more dynamic, more integrated with other gameplay systems, more flexible and much more friendly to emergent gameplay - great work to all involved :).

As an aside, have finally gotten around to playing more Stellaris (I'm a HoI fan first, nothing personal) and really enjoying the improvements in 1.3 and 1.4 as well - the game looks like it's on a great trajectory.

I'm actually thinking of changing it so unemployment just increases drift away from empire ethics instead, or scrapping the effect altogether. It's not like unemplyoment is really much of a mechanic at the moment.

I agree, building-based unemployment doesn't really do much (although I'd keep the indicator for a pop not producing anything, but maybe call it 'unproductive pop' or something like that, as it's useful information to the player, and without it you'd have to do click-bys on all your planets that weren't already full to check for unproductive pops).

Might be safer to remove it then add it back in again if you do an economics-based expansion down the track (hey, I'm sure it could be more exciting than it sounds :)) so that unemployment would be a dynamic thing over time. Lots of migration historically was driven by economic circumstances, so an economics-based (and economics-lite, nothing too complicated) expansion could work well with factions, migration and a trade mechanic. You could even have economic downturns increase support for radical factions that might push an otherwise peaceful player to see declaring war on someone as the best way to keep their people from getting particularly upset.....
 
It all depends on the mechanics involved. Impossible to really tell much until we know what those are. This could elevate the game to a whole new level of awesome or destroy it. So many thoughts. Will your starting empire choices give a bonus to those ethics for your primary species pops? If enslaved pops will naturally drift towards egalitarianism hopefully free pops in a democracy won't similarly drift towards authoritarianism. If fighting wars naturally cause pops to drift towards militarism then an empire that picks that trait from the start and then fights war after war after war should have a VERY stable domestic approval. Conversely does not fighting wars cause a drift towards pacifism? Is that dependent on whether you start them or not? Does researching technology naturally cause pops to drift towards materialism? If so, how do you keep spiritualist pops from drifting? A lot of random rambling I know but the mechanics that will be used seem to be of great importance here.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It does ruin the standard strategy of having a collectist race that only enslaves collectivsts so that they don't get angry. First, because not all your pops will be collectivist, and second because the ones you enslave will lose collectivist and get angry anyway.

Maybe you'll be able to lock things down with ethics divergence and keep them happy though, I don't know.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that there might be a trait that guides a species to government ethics, and so could keep them from becoming egalitarian and thus rebellious. Which seems like a good solution. It was always odd to me that being okay with slavery among your species meant automatically being okay with you yourself being enslaved. Absent a particular species trait that makes a species particularly good worker bees, it is discomforting to have them be too happy about it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
i feel we are getting closer and closer to crusader king dynamics and i am all for that. The internal politics should be as tough, exciting and deep as dealing with foreign powers.
 
I'm very excited about the new faction system and it has a lot of potential to be great. I imagine each faction will have multiple agendas and some may actually be beneficial to the empire/union (as they should, most political parties are founded upon an idealology that's good for the people) so its not always a negative/frustration to appease particular factions.


What I am curious though, would the faction environment be adjusted/behave with different flavor under authoritarian/monarchal governments? Sure, factions would still exists even in traditional monarchies, but I imagine they would be very different from political parties in democracies.
 
Really like the addition of internal politics, but I'm a bit disappointed that pops will be limited to 1 non-fanatic ethic as it doesn't really make sense that there's only 8 types of populations. I mean, there's a big difference between a Militarist/Spiritualist versus a Militarist/Materialist, or a Xenophobe/Pacifist versus a Xenophobe/Militarist.

My wish would be a combo of two non-fanatic ethics or a single fanatic one, but I understand that it would get a little complicated and that as it stands there will be different factions that a single-ethos pop could join. If the change works out maybe it could be expanded upon later?

I'll hope.
 
I consider Egalitarian to be a perfectly valid antithesis to Authoritarian. A society where most people are at the whim of a ruling elite is not an egalitarian society no matter how well the masses are treated. That doesn't mean an authoritarian society can't have egalitarian elements (for example, a high degree of meritocracy in its bureaucracy) but that's true for all the ethics... even the most pacifist society will have militaristic elements, and I doubt religion and spirituality is completely gone even in the most materialist empires.

All that aside... only polsci freshmen and internet charts believe that libertarianism is some kind of antithesis to authoritarianism. Seriously.

I thought you said to not use Ad Hominem attacks.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I thought you said to not use Ad Hominem attacks.

He didn't.

Strictly speaking, he gave a valid argument for his naming scheme, and then threw in an insult. It'd be ad hominem if he said "you're wrong because only polsci freshmen and internet charts believe that libertarianism is some kind of antithesis to authoritarianism."
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
He didn't.

Strictly speaking, he gave a valid argument for his naming scheme, and then threw in an insult. It'd be ad hominem if he said "you're wrong because only polsci freshmen and internet charts believe that libertarianism is some kind of antithesis to authoritarianism.
People like to throw around the word "ad hominem" without knowing what it means a lot nowadays. Attention everyone: An insult is not an ad hominem. Saying that politican X is a lying, cheating, unfaithful, stupid jerk and that his plan to murder all the jews is wrong because XYZ, that is an insult + a logical argument. Saying that politican X's plan to kill all the jews is wrong because he is a lying, cheating, unfaithful, stupid jerk is an ad hominem.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
egalitarian? not liberalist nor liberterian??????? seriously?????????????
They're not the same thing. Liberalism (assuming the actual definition, not one commonly used in america) is the opposite of totalitarianism. Egalitarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism. As mentioned, you can have a perfectly freedom-loving authoritarian regime.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I noticed the authoritarian ethos icon has a new, more fitting symbol instead of the old collectivist symbol. Apologies if this has been asked already (long thread), but will the "window" art behind the leaders change to better suit authoritarianism rather than the collectivist looking window it has now?

Something more grand and regal would seem appropriate, given the new connotations for the authoritarian ethos.
 
Last edited:
I really like the idea of reworking ethic drift and the new faction idea is great. Until now factions were just something I tried to choke out of existence, having a faction that actually supports things I want to do sounds fantastic.
 
I don't think it really matters all that much what they call it... I mean, as long as the game is moving forwards I'm sure they'll add more ways to customize our ethics and personalize them.

The game can really add to itself in a lot of ways and more ways to distinguish an empire is always good! I know a lot of people want hive minds and telepaths, etc so those would be fun ways to change up the game.

Maybe have several ethos wheels based on what language or culture or mindset you have first? Like normal, pack-minded, hive-minded, telepathic (think protoss Khala stuff), but I think that'd be a super balancing nightmare though lmao.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Status
Not open for further replies.