• 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 #21 - Administrative Sectors

Hi again folks!

Today I am going to talk about one of the great pitfalls of strategy game design; dull micromanagement. That is, features which require too much player attention. The trick, of course, is determining how much is “too much”, but it’s useful to consider how central the feature is to the core gameplay, how well it scales between small and large states, and how repetitive it gets with time.

In Stellaris, one feature which risked causing bad micromanagement was the planetary tile system; assigning Pops to tiles and deciding which buildings should go where. It is a fairly central feature and it is fun to use… but if you had to worry about 20, 50 or more planets, it would scale poorly. The obvious solution to this type of scaling issue is automation; you can let the AI handle it for you. This is indeed what we did in Stellaris, but not in a “traditional” fashion... Instead, we opted for something a little bit more akin to the vassals in Crusader Kings through something we call Administrative Sectors.

stellaris_dev_diary_21_02_20160215_edit_sectors.jpg


A Sector is an administrative region under the control of a Sector Governor. You can control a few planets directly (your “core worlds”), but once you go past the limit, you will start suffering penalties to your Influence as well as Empire-wide income. The exact limit for how many planets you can control directly depends on various factors, like your government type and technologies, but, as with the “Demesne Limit” in Crusader Kings II, it will never be a huge number. At this point, it is best to start dividing your territory into Sectors. You can decide the Sector capital and which planets should belong to it (but they must all be connected to the capital, i.e. form one cohesive sub-region.) You are also allowed to name your Sectors, for fun.

Unlike proper Vassals, Sectors remain an integrated part of your Empire, but they will handle development of planets and the construction of mining stations within their region for you. You can give them a focus (Industry, Research, etc), an infusion of Minerals or Energy Credits to help them along, and decide if you want to tax them for Minerals and Energy Credits. Sectors do not possess any military fleets of their own, nor do they perform research (they have access to the same technologies you do, and their research output is all given to you.)

stellaris_dev_diary_21_01_20160215_sectors_list.jpg


While Sectors and Sector Governors cannot demand more autonomy, or directly rise up in revolt (things I’d love to explore in an expansion), over time their population tends to diverge ideologically from that of the regime, and create their own identity. Like-minded Pops will tend to migrate there if allowed to. In the same way, aliens of the same species will also tend to coalesce in the same Sectors. Thus, when Factions form, they will often tend to have their main seat of power in a specific Sector. And Factions can demand autonomy and achieve independence. However, this is something that warrants its own dev diary...

That’s all he wrote folks. This time. Next week, I plan to talk about Alliances and Federations!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 241
  • 70
  • 7
Reactions:
I'd agree with you if we would talk about a small portion of the player base disliking a game because of it's incremental core feature, for example disliking the unique combat in Undertale instead of a more straightforward combat mechanic where you'd punch the enemy on the face. Well, that's one of the core aspects of the game that people praised and what made it popular, If you don't like it don't play the game.

Clearly this isn't as a small portion as you seem to think. This discussion has been going on for 20 pages now almost, and it seems evenly split. Maybe 1/3 for micro and 2/3 against, and that's just among people interested enough to visit the Paradox forums. As hard it is to believe, a lot of strategy players DO like to be micromanagers. Look at Arumba for example. He makes 3-hour streams spend making calculations on Excel on how to be an optimal micromanager and he gets over 1000 viewers when he does.

Also, the "if you don't like it don't play it" attitude is a bit insulting. Clearly we like everything else in the game, and the purpose of the forums and Dev diaries is for Paradox to inform us on what they are doing, and for us to inform them if we like it or not. This is why I personally, would like to have the option of relying heavily on administrative sectors and not get horribly penalized for it. People seem to bring up a lot that you can still do it and that it's ok to get penalized, as if the penalty will be small and allow someone to play. No, it clearly isn't. And if it is, it's still the wrong way to go about it. It should be the other way around. Administrative sectors should be providing a bonus if used, but otherwise they shouldn't be forced on the player. Everyone seems to assume the AI will be quite competent. Well, I'm very skeptical about it. In every game I've seen, AI governors range from horrible to useless. Administrative sectors should be a useful tool, not a forced mechanic. You aren't a micromanager? Great, you can set it up from the start and never have to worry about it. You are a micromanager? Great, you aren't forced to use it, until when you've started up your planets on the path you desire and then can leave it to the AI's hands.

And when you think about it, it will probably introduce more micromanagement than it intends removing. If the AI indeed turns out to be subpar, then sooner or later, people will be doing the following: Take out a planet from a sector with the game paused. Go in the planet and build what you want it to build. Put the planet back in the administrative sector. It'll be like the attrition on arrival mechanic from EU4 all over again.
 
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
Clearly this isn't as a small portion as you seem to think. This discussion has been going on for 20 pages now almost, and it seems evenly split. Maybe 1/3 for micro and 2/3 against

That doesn't sound evenly split to me. Frankly, I believe the intensive micromanagers are a very vocal minority who have had the ear of the 4X developers for far too long despite not generating the majority of sales. As such I would speculate the micromanagers here are 1/4 of the population or less. It's good to see Paradox recognizes the weakness of titles in the 4X genre and how these micro aspects really make games drag on for the majority of players.

If you really must micromanage, I'm sure there will be plenty of mods which let you do so - remember these micromanagers are very vocal and thus will be making tons to mods to over-complicate the game - I have zero doubts. And that's their choice. But that's not the vision Paradox sees for Stellaris. I, for one, am looking forward to the next generation of 4X which Stellaris will usher in.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
Stellaris is a grand strategy focused on exploration, role play, politics, populations and adventure. Not Microsoft Excel in Space.

Sectors add more dynamic elements to space powers which have been mentioned as being expanded upon. I want this politics simulator of grand decisions with the variations naturally evolving, and not the unrealistic tedium of 100% direct control yawn fest of almost every 4x game out there.
 
  • 12
  • 1
Reactions:
If I manage to make the sector AI so good that it's outperforming an experienced player, I'd worry less about game balance and more about skynet.
Speaking of witch lets hope you dont get too good at programming AI then :)
 
If I like doing the dishes why should I meekly let you force me to use a dishwasher?
Then just mod the game when it comes out. Good grief, it will be right there in the file. Have fun managing a hundred systems, the rest of us will be happy they put the effort into making a robust sector system.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
1 galaxy
1000 stars, or just 200 (still a huge map to me)
each star as like 2 to 6 planets
late game you have like 300 stars in your empire , something like 600 (if each star as only 2 planets) planets.
make calculations, did you guys would really like to spend like 1 hour in a paused game just trying to manage each planet??
 
  • 6
Reactions:
1 galaxy
1000 stars, or just 200 (still a huge map to me)
each star as like 2 to 6 planets
late game you have like 300 stars in your empire , something like 600 (if each star as only 2 planets) planets.
make calculations, did you guys would really like to spend like 1 hour in a paused game just trying to manage each planet??

I really must be missing something in the DDs. Where do you get the idea that every star will have planets, and not just planet, but multiple planets?

For those that scoff at the idea that a future galactic administration could manage dozens or hundreds of planets, as it is "unrealistic", why don't you take a swipe at the idea that all stars have multiple usable planets? Talk about unrealistic!

And lastly, Yepper!
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
You do realize that the thousands of stars ingame only represent the tiny fraction of the billions of stars in the galaxy that have useful planets?

There are hundreds of millions of habitable planets in the Milky Way at least. If we do what Stellaris does and assume aliens are common, then a very large number of them will actually be inhabited.

I imagine the stars in the game are only as numerous as they are in reality for technical reasons and because humans can't deal with millions of items all at once.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I really must be missing something in the DDs. Where do you get the idea that every star will have planets, and not just planet, but multiple planets?

For those that scoff at the idea that a future galactic administration could manage dozens or hundreds of planets, as it is "unrealistic", why don't you take a swipe at the idea that all stars have multiple usable planets? Talk about unrealistic!

And lastly, Yepper!

They said in one of the earlier DD threads that there will be no bodyless stars in the game, that every single one of them will have something useful rather than just taking up space.

I am at work and don't feel like digging through things on my laptop to try to find the exact quote for you. And as for why multiple planets, ll of the systems we have been shown so far have had multiple planets and other objects in them.

And I think you are being a little silly, its not that every star in the universe has multiple usable planets, but the star civilizations we will be playing have no reason to bother with exploring stars that have nothing around them, as they are functionally useless, and well before you get interstellar travel you could use telescopes to know if SOMETHING is there or not, if not, they don't bother to visit.
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I am absolutely thrilled to read this DD. I am happy to minimize my micromanagement and delighted that the sectors will become distinct over time.

And a hint at a future expansion re: sector revolts? Excellent mwahahaha...
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
1 galaxy
1000 stars, or just 200 (still a huge map to me)
each star as like 2 to 6 planets
late game you have like 300 stars in your empire , something like 600 (if each star as only 2 planets) planets.
make calculations, did you guys would really like to spend like 1 hour in a paused game just trying to manage each planet??
Careful now. There are people out there who actually do in fact enjoy this ;) .
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Careful now. There are people out there who actually do in fact enjoy this ;) .
Well, in my last GC3 game before any automation was introduced i had an empire with around 100 planets and it was manageable. It was a mess with Starbases and fleets, but planets were OK.
Surely, i'd gladly outsource 50% of them to competent AI after initial build-up if i could (because some planets are not worth of manual control) but it was manageable even with horrible GC3 notification system.

And i ask again, everyone speaking about 100-200-300 planets Empires, and how difficult it would be to manage them manually. But why everyone forgot about "tall with wide" unique to 4X experience Stellaris is going to provide? Things that works fine and are mandatory to huge empire must no apply to small ones. If would be a huge waste if we finally get to play a competent small empire but still have to play by the same rules as huge ones.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Why does that bother you? You don't have to be pushed, you can resist if you want to. What difference should it make to you what everyone else does?

I couldn't care less how others choose to play the game, as it doesn't effect my enjoyment of the game. What does effect my enjoyment of the game, however, is the styles of play which the developers choose to balance the game around. If the game is balanced around late game heavy micro-management, then I am unlikely to enjoy the late game.

It is theoretically possible, I guess, for the developers to simultaneously balance the game around radically different styles of play. However, good game balance is an incredibly difficult task as it is, and this extra burden is most likely to result in a mess of a game that is not liked by anyone.

I'd much rather the developers stuck with a single vision, even if that vision entailed late game heavy micro management, than try to create a game that is all things to all men.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I couldn't care less how others choose to play the game, as it doesn't effect my enjoyment of the game. What does effect my enjoyment of the game, however, is the styles of play which the developers choose to balance the game around. If the game is balanced around late game heavy micro-management, then I am unlikely to enjoy the late game.
That you wrote is wrong. Developers have no obligations to balance every play style and they don't - HOI3 is yet again a good example of it. Game is clearly not intended to play with manually-controlled armies and not balanes around it, but you totally can do it and Developers are no way responsible or obligated to fix problems you can encounter while doing manual control (if they don't seriously affect "normal" games too).
Stellaris is clearly being developed with multiplayer in mind, but manually controlling all your Empire simply won't work unless you are playing with ppl who agree to play this way.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
That you wrote is wrong. Developers have no obligations to balance every play style and they don't - HOI3 is yet again a good example of it. Game is clearly not intended to play with manually-controlled armies and not balanes around it, but you totally can do it and Developers are no way responsible or obligated to fix problems you can encounter while doing manual control (if they don't seriously affect "normal" games too).
Stellaris is clearly being developed with multiplayer in mind, but manually controlling all your Empire simply won't work unless you are playing with ppl who agree to play this way.

Maybe you should properly read peoples posts before replying. I am arguing that developers should not try to balance the game around every style of play.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You feel you will like those other management tasks, and I am happy for you. The task that makes me happiest is to manage my planets. Why should I have to mod the game to keep my happiest task? Why should I want to play a game that virtually insists that I don't do the thing I enjoy most? And lastly, why, if I like all the other things I have seen about the game, should I just keep silent?

Well, I'm glad that the planet management isn't the only thing you're looking forward in Stellaris, as it is but a feature among dozens in the game. Stellaris wants to play itself differently, the devs want to try a new concept instead of sticking to an old one and why would that be wrong? Often changing an aspect of the game takes something away from it but it isn't simply wrong but different. Sometimes an option isn't possible. Many games have option to turn things on auto but in Stellaris many of the mechanics are build around sectors and the devs have hinted that they are going to deepen those mechanics in expansions. It builds itself differently from those games. In that case, an option to micro everything yourself is contradicting with the many of core aspects of the game and can't be changed with just a tickbox.

Why you should your happiest task be modded in instead of already being there? Well, not all games can answer to everyone's happiest task, simply because there can be exact opposites and games aren't build to answer solely to your happiest task, just as they are not build to answer solely mine. The important thing is that we can both mod it if we want to.

And lastly, you shouldn't need to keep silent and I have never indicated such, quite the opposite. This is a place where we can and should express our feelings. Wheter we agree or not is irrelevant.

Clearly this isn't as a small portion as you seem to think. This discussion has been going on for 20 pages now almost, and it seems evenly split. Maybe 1/3 for micro and 2/3 against, and that's just among people interested enough to visit the Paradox forums. As hard it is to believe, a lot of strategy players DO like to be micromanagers. Look at Arumba for example. He makes 3-hour streams spend making calculations on Excel on how to be an optimal micromanager and he gets over 1000 viewers when he does.

Also, the "if you don't like it don't play it" attitude is a bit insulting. Clearly we like everything else in the game, and the purpose of the forums and Dev diaries is for Paradox to inform us on what they are doing, and for us to inform them if we like it or not. This is why I personally, would like to have the option of relying heavily on administrative sectors and not get horribly penalized for it. People seem to bring up a lot that you can still do it and that it's ok to get penalized, as if the penalty will be small and allow someone to play. No, it clearly isn't. And if it is, it's still the wrong way to go about it. It should be the other way around. Administrative sectors should be providing a bonus if used, but otherwise they shouldn't be forced on the player. Everyone seems to assume the AI will be quite competent. Well, I'm very skeptical about it. In every game I've seen, AI governors range from horrible to useless. Administrative sectors should be a useful tool, not a forced mechanic. You aren't a micromanager? Great, you can set it up from the start and never have to worry about it. You are a micromanager? Great, you aren't forced to use it, until when you've started up your planets on the path you desire and then can leave it to the AI's hands.

I'm not surprised to see that people like that and it has never been hard for me to believe but your numbers about this thread are way off. I can easily give a few examples:
The original post agree/disagree ratio is 187/2
Yet, maybe a more fair picture would came looking at delpiero1234's comment:
"A better choice would have been to let the player decide if he wants to micromanage 20-50 planets or not."
agree/disagree 155/39

Lastly, out of curiosity, I run through the thread. To simplify: 95 people agreed, ~15 were in the middle ground or were worried about the ai and ~15 disagreed. Also some 50 people asking questions, not really caring to give an opinion. Of all the people who replied to this thread, those against it, wanting an option or not yet sure is less than 20%. Sure, the numbers are up to interpetations but it gives a good idea. And that's just among the people interested enough to visit the Paradox forums and caring to answer. Usually, people who agree or don't care about the issue don't care to answer, so us having a lenghty argument here doesn't mean that the portions would be much different outside this thread.

An no, just because I'm in the majority doesn't make my opinion or preference better than yours, we're entitled to our own opinion and we're both welcome to express them. Also, I see no reason not to listen to what minority has to say or not to tend their needs as well, if possible, but it is completely logical when making a game to attend first the needs of the bigger portion of target audience and then see if there are other options. The whole point being that the majority in here hates the need to micromanage every planet in late game and that there is no good way around it, which is what the minority loves. As I explained earlier in this post, Stellaris is different from many other games where you either set everything on auto or do it yourself. The system is supposed to more sophisticated and there will be many more mechanics build around that, so it's not that you will be deprived from having an option for no reason but that the game itself doesn't allow it.

I don't think this means that people who like spreadsheet games can't like Stellaris, it's just a game build on different principles that plays differently. I wouldn't want to change those games either because obviously there is a fan base who likes them, you gave a good example of it.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Can I conclude that micromanagers do not play multi user ? :)

Because I assume that this system makes it much easier to play multi player without people calling for slowing down speed all the time ;-)
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Can we make the connection that type of personality that enjoys micromanaging 100s of planets is also the type of persononality that will just go on and on about the same thing for nearly 20 pages? Or is that overly harsh?
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe you should properly read peoples posts before replying. I am arguing that developers should not try to balance the game around every style of play.
Well, yes, i should, sorry about it.
But my point still stand. Developers should balance their game about one particular playstyle. But it doesn't mean there must be no other way to play if it don't break balance. Manually controlled armies didn't break balance in HoI3 - if any not micro-obsessed ppl used it, that's because sometimes AI pull some seriously stupid trick, and we have to do some things manually in "damage-control" mode. So sometimes ability to manual control is just a safety check.
So i also cannot see why manually controlling planets should break balance in single or multiplayer. Somebody afraid of someone get a bit more abstract "win points" because he microed? Too bad for them - if they can't micro, they just invent even more unnatural and tedious way to get a couple more points, that any normal and sane person'll never use. Because some people play exactly for it - simply to get best result possible without cheating but twisting any given gameplay mechanics in unnatural way.