Stellaris Dev Diary #21 - Administrative Sectors

[Teodosio7]

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?

Sounds reasonable.
Another reasonable assumption is that micromanagers are not, usually, people woth jobs.

 

[Darustet]

Sounds reasonable.
Another reasonable assumption is that micromanagers are not, usually, people woth jobs.

Let's keep the discussion away from people's personal lives. I don't like excessive micro and I don't have a job.

 

[NeilNeilNeil]

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.

My understanding is that the game does not explicitly prevent the player from manually controlling large numbers of planets, but that it is balanced in such a way as to make this unfavourable. There are penalties in place as your empire grows and you can mitigate these penalties by forming sectors which reduce the level of control you have over individual planets. Presumably, you could create custom games with these penalties removed, but the standard game settings, the settings which the developers play test to balance the game, are with the penalties in place. I'm all for custom game settings which let users set up play however they want, but when balancing the game the developers must focus their attention on the standard settings, for the reasons I have already stated.

 

[Teodosio7]

Let's keep the discussion away from people's personal lives. I don't like excessive micro and I don't have a job.

It wasn't my intention to patronize or to insult anyone. It was just a logical consideration. If you have a job and a family you cannot really expect to spend a very large number of hours just to complete a campaign on a video game.
When I was a kid I loved "Shogun: Total War", I played every single battle and a campaign lasted for tens of hours. Now that is no longer an option. Besides, I got tired of the endless grind.

This consideration is very relevant because Paradox will want to choose which market segment to focus on. You can't really make everybody happy.

 

[Madzai]

My understanding is that the game does not explicitly prevent the player from manually controlling large numbers of planets, but that it is balanced in such a way as to make this unfavourable. There are penalties in place as your empire grows and you can mitigate these penalties by forming sectors which reduce the level of control you have over individual planets. Presumably, you could create custom games with these penalties removed, but the standard game settings, the settings which the developers play test to balance the game, are with the penalties in place. I'm all for custom game settings which let users set up play however they want, but when balancing the game the developers must focus their attention on the standard settings, for the reasons I have already stated.

If it'll work as you described i'll be very pleased. Because it literally ideal - reasonable amount of control, reasonable amount of counter-expansion, good support if one doesn't want to bother with planets. But only, if its work well in small empires and don't penalize you too early or too heavy.

 

[Darustet]

It wasn't my intention to patronize or to insult anyone. It was just a logical consideration. If you have a job and a family you cannot really expect to spend a very large number of hours just to complete a campaign on a video game.
When I was a kid I loved "Shogun: Total War", I played every single battle and a campaign lasted for tens of hours. Now that is no longer an option. Besides, I got tired of the endless grind.

This consideration is very relevant because Paradox will want to choose which market segment to focus on. You can't really make everybody happy.

I can enjoy a game just as much be it 20 minutes of 20 hours. I understand your point but I see Civ selling just as well as any other game and one game can easily be +15 hours, especially in multi. The thing is to make a game you enjoy thruout the game, so you're in no hurry to finish one game quickly to start another. I and many of my friends even see positive things in a lengthy game, as it gives you plenty of brainfood to keep you occupied while doing something mundane at work or school, planning different strategies and how to best advance the game you played last night.

 

[RickInVA]

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?

No that is pretty accurate!

 

[RickInVA]

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.

I'm sorry I missed that "no bodyless stars" thing. That is another strike against Stellaris IMHO.

I think you are being equally silly. If we have these super telescopes why have an eXplore function at all? Just take a look with your super telescope! If you are going to have eXploration there needs, IMHO, to be the possibility that you find nothing. Seriously, only good exploration results? Might as well give everyone who plays a trophy while you are at it.

 

[ParagonExile]

I'm sorry I missed that "no bodyless stars" thing. That is another strike against Stellaris IMHO.

I think you are being equally silly. If we have these super telescopes why have an eXplore function at all? Just take a look with your super telescope! If you are going to have eXploration there needs, IMHO, to be the possibility that you find nothing. Seriously, only good exploration results? Might as well give everyone who plays a trophy while you are at it.

I disagree.

There simply being planets or asteroids in a system doesn't guarantee they'll be interesting or have useful resources.

 

[Tim_Ward]

It wasn't my intention to patronize or to insult anyone. It was just a logical consideration. If you have a job and a family you cannot really expect to spend a very large number of hours just to complete a campaign on a video game.
When I was a kid I loved "Shogun: Total War", I played every single battle and a campaign lasted for tens of hours. Now that is no longer an option. Besides, I got tired of the endless grind.

This consideration is very relevant because Paradox will want to choose which market segment to focus on. You can't really make everybody happy.

A 30 hour campaign over 3 days or over 3 months, it's the same in the end.

 

[Yenzen]

I disagree.

There simply being planets or asteroids in a system doesn't guarantee they'll be interesting or have useful resources.

It looks like, from this update, that sectors with 9/10 systems only have a few inhabited planets. Granted, this look to be early game, but it does not appear that every system will have any habitable planets, at least not for your species' preferred climate.

 

[Safehold]

If I like doing the dishes why should I meekly let you force me to use a dishwasher?

Yes, if you do the exact same thing on every province/planet that might be boring. Try doing something different once in a while.

This is my biggest befuddlement. If you don't like doing those things, why on earth would you play HOI3? And again, why should I meekly accept that game systems I love and are part of the greatest enjoyment I get out of the game are taken away so you can just "have fun and enjoy themselves"?

A lot of games are designed, exactly so that Obsessive Compulsive people do the exact same build order on certain provinces and planets. That isn't necessarily too much micro, it's too much user time spent doing repetitious things. Humans like ingenuity, and as you have pointed out, they want something different on in a while.

But the people who love strategic macro management, are the ones who played CK2, not HOI3. HOI3 is a war game, board style, and has such not only has specific rules limitations, but also micro issues with the rules. If it was a game like Risk, then there wouldn't be micromanagement woes, because there's almost nothing to waste the player's time on micro managing except doing dice rolls in Risk.

Modding the game, btw, is also you trying to "do something different once in a while", due to the workflow. People who are hung up on micro management aren't in their own camp, the reason why I call them OCD is because they actually are obsessive compulsive on a few gameplay elements. The reason why I know is because I do more micromanagement and perfecting the details than most people, but even I burn out when this becomes a repetitive issue throughout the gameplay "flow".

CK2 is quite manageable, I've found, not because it prevents micromanagement, but because it keeps it in the proper work flow. The real time tick system helps. That way, the user isn't managing planet A every turn or day. They rotate through tasks, like a ruler would. This week is economics and diplomacy. Next week is waging war. Next week is intrigue and assassination. Next week after that is going back to micromanaging newly conquered territories, etc. There's no enforced play style or work order or action order, like there usually are in turn based games. If you don't do something in a turn, you waste that turn, since you could have done it in that turn. That was the problem with 4x omni queus, the production points used to instantly buy buildings wasn't efficient or pooled together over time. You either used them or lost them. This forced the player to work on something every turn or ignore the loss.

We have 50 states in the United States. However, when the Federal Government wanted to build the Interstate Highway System, they did so, and the States had little to no say in it. Similarly with the Roman Empire road construction was planned by the central government.

As mentioned before, Stellaris will be like CK2, so if you want to fund buildings in sectors, you need to pay for it. Just like the feds paid for the highway defense bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

It was a military decision, first and foremost, that is why central undertook it and funded it, for the most part although the taxes came from states. The idea that you can get rid of the bureaucracy of a state, just handle everything yourself like they are your direct subordinates, isn't how human hierarchies work. Although that is how computer hierarchies work, and if you want to make Stellaris into a system mimicking a computer network, you can mod that in if you really felt it deserved to be worked on.

 

[ParagonExile]

It looks like, from this update, that sectors with 9/10 systems only have a few inhabited planets. Granted, this look to be early game, but it does not appear that every system will have any habitable planets, at least not for your species' preferred climate.

I imagine colony density increases as the game goes on, as you terraform planets, adapt your species, assimilate new races, and build AIs to live in harsh climates.

 

[Safehold]

The other problem with having the human manage 25-50 planets, a number quoted before, is the AI. The AI, in CK2, can behave human like when it comes to a finite number of criteria, variables, and context, when managing counties or duchies. That is because the 'possibilities' are cut off for the AI due to their limitation to their territory. It's not one AI managing every 25-50 planets at the same time.

So if the human player is given a feature that lets him do something, the AI must be coded in such a way that it also knows how to do that. Except the AI works best under a system of delegation and parallel processing, whereas humans can find all kinds of asymmetrical ways to "game" the system in those 25-50 planets, which the AI couldn't duplicate because it wasn't coded for it or merely doesn't understand what humans are doing.

The AI in Crusader Kings 2, has been fine tuned and behaves very well these days. They are "human like", much the same as Deep Blue, a chess program, was described by one human chess master as making moves that a "human would have". Computer programmed AI is very good at adapting to "rules based" systems, game play systems, and limitations on actions.

I see the current issue not as between micromanagement vs lack of it, but as a balance between tactics, strategy, and logistics. Strategy and logistics should have the least micromanagement, the most macromanagement game features. Because that's the part of the game the human is best suited for, and the AI least suited for. And also because humans tend to burn out faster than AI cores do, when doing repetitious actions that we already know ahead of time, how they should be done.

The AI, on the other hand, is very good at tactical decisions, since the choices are more limited, and calculation speed is better than "seeing the big picture". Humans also like to micro manage tactical decisions, and it is the one I least burn out on, since fighting is at least exciting. Preparing to fight via logistics, not so much.

So the micromanagers are a minority, because they want to micromanage everything, direct control of all 3 fields. Whereas others also like micromanagement, but they don't necessarily want to be focused on everything. They want to delegate and pick + choose, with intelligent secretaries. They don't want to lose control of important decisions, which is often a problem with "automation". The strict macromanagers, the ones who focus on almost complete delegation (like almost observing a simulated game run its course instead of interfering) are also probably another minority. The reason why I think Paradox will do a good job addressing the overall gameplay is not with theory, but by looking at a game they have already done, to see how their core precepts and principles work in reality: Crusader Kings 2.

As for exploring star systems, it's not all good results. You have to go there to find out what resources they have, and you are taking a risk if you do. Irregardless of whether that's setting up a mining station to extract minerals or leveling up your scientists via hero anomalies.

 

[huyderman]

The game is being designed with the idea of the player delegating administration of non-core worlds to the AI. Facilitating the "option" to micro everything would a major anti-feature. Since people would feel they could do a better job than the AI, weather true or not, there would be an incentive to do so even if most people would not find it a lot of fun.

And then people would start advocating it as the optimal way of doing things; "No wonder you lost, you should manage all planets yourself!". Then people would start demanding fixes or balances to the game based on this play style, even if though the game was never meant to be played like that. "It's in the game, so you should support it!"

So you'll ending up with the impossible task of trying to support two conflicting play-styles, compromising the overall design of the game. And any changes that are done to improve the intended play-style of the game, are likely to be met with uproar from the minority who wants to play differently.

Sorry, I would rather have a game with a cohesive design, than one trying to please everyone.

 

[Safehold]

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.

Skynet shouldn't be a problem until people connect water's memory capability directly to computer machine language, perhaps with a physical setup.

DNA and life came from the primordial soup, which was water + some energy, like electricity. It would be interesting, and probably dangerous, to combine that with a supercomputer.

 

[Safehold]

And any changes that are done to improve the intended play-style of the game, are likely to be met with uproar from the minority who wants to play differently.

That actually happened in Gal Civ 3. During an interview with Brad Wardell, he said that they introduced the "wheel" production function too early, then took it out, then put it back in when users yelled loudly that their 'optimized' production wheel was gone.

Now that people are "stuck" on this unfinished design, Brad Wardell seemed to have decided to go with a DLC expansion to Gal Civ3, which allows them to develop different UI and features, which isn't the normal 4x genre. While keeping the base GC3 for the diehards, the minority of "optimized" wheel fans and others who want their perfect 500x% bonuses or some such.

 

[eternien]

I don't like this system , i'm someone who loves to manage everything personally in my empire even if this is the micro- management.

At least they would could put an option for we have the choice of use this automatic system or not : - /

It's the first Dev Diary of the game where am I'm not enthusiastic( not at all)

 

[ParagonExile]

I don't like this system , i'm someone who loves to manage everything personally in my empire even if this is the micro- management.

At least they would could put an option for we have the choice of use this automatic system or not : - /

It's the first Dev Diary of the game where am I'm not enthusiastic( not at all)

I would feel genuine shock if modding the direct control limit requires changing more than 3 numbers. Take five minutes to edit the files and you'll be able to take direct control no problem.

 

[GC13]

The game is being designed with the idea of the player delegating administration of non-core worlds to the AI. Facilitating the "option" to micro everything would a major anti-feature. Since people would feel they could do a better job than the AI, weather true or not, there would be an incentive to do so even if most people would not find it a lot of fun.

And then people would start advocating it as the optimal way of doing things; "No wonder you lost, you should manage all planets yourself!". Then people would start demanding fixes or balances to the game based on this play style, even if though the game was never meant to be played like that. "It's in the game, so you should support it!"

So you'll ending up with the impossible task of trying to support two conflicting play-styles, compromising the overall design of the game. And any changes that are done to improve the intended play-style of the game, are likely to be met with uproar from the minority who wants to play differently.

Sorry, I would rather have a game with a cohesive design, than one trying to please everyone.

Thank you for saying this. A lot of people seem to disregard the human element in this: basically, players have to do what's best, or they'll feel like a heel. It's why North Korea Mode had to be removed from Crusader Kings 2, and it's why you can't have the option to micromanage an incredibly un-fun amount of systems in Stellaris.

The worst thing is that since there's nothing literally forcing you to do it (you can always have your normal feudal vassals, for instance), people who advocate for the system staying the way it is can always point out that it's your own fault that you use it; this ignores a very basic drive in humans to be doing things the "right" way, which puts anyone who cares about doing it the best way (of which I'd expect most grand strategy players to be among) on the horns of a nasty dilemma: they can either play a way that isn't fun, or they can play with a nagging feeling that they're playing wrong. They won't enjoy the game either way, and that would be entirely on the game developer for making the optimum strategy so boring.

So it's a good thing that Paradox is adding the sector governors! Anyone who doesn't like them can easily mod the system limit to be the whole galaxy.