Stellaris Dev Diary #21 - Administrative Sectors

[Wizzington]

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.

Yep. Precisely this.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

I am so going Warhammer 40,000 on the sector/subsector naming

 

[Yenzen]

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)

Welcome to the last 10 pages of discussion!

Just enabling/disabling core game mechanics is not as simple as slapping a setting on it and calling it a day. Paradox has to release a game that doesn't need to be re-balanced according to completely changed gameplay settings - it's probably hard enough to balance the different ethos and races and to stop the snowball effect from being too powerful or too weak!

They are releasing one game that people need to be able to pick up and play normally, and the game needs to be balanced for every setting possible. They are also releasing the game with *their* vision, this isn't a new Galantic Conquest or whatever.

Transfer this mindset to other things:

- "I don't like the 'card' technology progression (I actually don't...), can I have a setting to make a normal tech tree and gradual research?"
- "I think terraforming sounds like a bad mechanic, can we have an option to disable it?"
- "I don't like how being Fanatic X disables Y government form, can we have a setting to unlock all governments regardless?"

The core game isn't a sandbox game where you can choose which mechanics are in and how they work. That is what mods are for.

I think it'll take a week at most for a mod to disable sectors to appear, since there seems to be a small core of people really into it, and that's a cool part of this community!

 

[Ex Mudder]

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.

You completely ignored my post, bottom of page 3, which is what I think he was referring too. 22 disagree / 12 agree. I was not asking for 100s of planets, I wanted around 20, which is a high demense limit that is achievable in CK II if you really power game it ( think).

I did cut my "lower limits work better for MP" prior to posting, I figured it would be self evident.

I am baffled why 2/3s of the players would disagree with something like that. I was not mandating 20 player controlled planets, you can always control fewer if you want. It would seem to me, based on a few other posts, that the problem here is that many players (2/3 or more) are afraid that if the game allows 20 (or 25-50, or 100s) of personally managed planets they will be compelled by their own natures to mini max them to the detriment of gameflow, game balance, the AI, and their own enjoyment. That is like arguing "If you let me save and reload I will save and reload, therefore you should make Ironman the only way to play, and make sure that I am punished when I save scum." Ofc, many of them then would rather condemn everyone else for doing this, rather that admitting to their own moral weaknesses to this sort of compulsive mini-maxing behavior that they feel is so abhorrent that is must be prevented at all costs!

After all, it is just Too Perilious, as Sir Lancelot would say.

As for the AI and gamebalance, I am not sure at what point "too many player controlled <blanks>" would cause problems. Given the theoretical upper limits of demenses in CK II, I doubt 20 directly controlled planets would be game breaking, the way 25, 50, 100, or removing the limit would be.

I don't like micromanagement, myself, and am happy to leave it to the AI if I felt the AI could handle it (I like Distant Worlds). In my decades of playing computer games, all the way back to Civ I, MoO, and MoM, I have found over and over again that the aggravation of a stupid AI managing things for me > aggravation of micromanaging them myself. I don't trust the AI, and I know that by the nature of software development that the AI will ALWAYS suck at release, because a good AI is not only difficult and time consuming to write, most of it can not even be written until the game is nearly complete, at which point it is almost ready to be shipped. I trust Paradox to get this right, eventually, with post launch programming and DLCs.

What I don't want is my enjoyment on launch degraded by the addition of a feature that will likely polarize the community, myself included, esp when the people who like the feature will likely be dissappointed with its implementation. For this feature to work, the AI for sectors must work AT LAUNCH. Unfortunately, the chance of the AI for administrative sectors (or any AI) working well on release approaches zero, no matter how good the programmers (like Wiz) are. And while I trust this will improve over time, there will still be people who will hate how it works or just want to do it themselves, no matter how well it does the job. I simply do not see a happy outcome here.

 

[Yenzen]

There's no way to know, or reason to assume, that 15-20 personally controlled planets is impossible. I can't find the screenshot, but I've seen a cap of 9 in the early game. Probably aligns with autocracy, collectivism and technology.

 

[eternien]

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.

If it's the case and we can change that in the defines.lua (like colonial nation in EU4) no problem, but it's a shame, until now the game will be
on the path to be the best 4x since MoO II, Alpha Centauri and Gal Civ 2. :-/ (
Yeah for me one single thing can change everything, so the game passed to "future legend of 4x" in only "a very good 4x" so i'm a little disappointed. :-/

 

[Yenzen]

Here, 9, in the *early game*.

 

[Darustet]

You completely ignored my post, bottom of page 3, which is what I think he was referring too. 22 disagree / 12 agree. I was not asking for 100s of planets, I wanted around 20, which is a high demense limit that is achievable in CK II if you really power game it ( think).

I did cut my "lower limits work better for MP" prior to posting, I figured it would be self evident.

I am baffled why 2/3s of the players would disagree with something like that. I was not mandating 20 player controlled planets, you can always control fewer if you want. It would seem to me, based on a few other posts, that the problem here is that many players (2/3 or more) are afraid that if the game allows 20 (or 25-50, or 100s) of personally managed planets they will be compelled by their own natures to mini max them to the detriment of gameflow, game balance, the AI, and their own enjoyment. That is like arguing "If you let me save and reload I will save and reload, therefore you should make Ironman the only way to play, and make sure that I am punished when I save scum." Ofc, many of them then would rather condemn everyone else for doing this, rather that admitting to their own moral weaknesses to this sort of compulsive mini-maxing behavior that they feel is so abhorrent that is must be prevented at all costs!

After all, it is just Too Perilious, as Sir Lancelot would say.

As for the AI and gamebalance, I am not sure at what point "too many player controlled <blanks>" would cause problems. Given the theoretical upper limits of demenses in CK II, I doubt 20 directly controlled planets would be game breaking, the way 25, 50, 100, or removing the limit would be.

I don't like micromanagement, myself, and am happy to leave it to the AI if I felt the AI could handle it (I like Distant Worlds). In my decades of playing computer games, all the way back to Civ I, MoO, and MoM, I have found over and over again that the aggravation of a stupid AI managing things for me > aggravation of micromanaging them myself. I don't trust the AI, and I know that by the nature of software development that the AI will ALWAYS suck at release, because a good AI is not only difficult and time consuming to write, most of it can not even be written until the game is nearly complete, at which point it is almost ready to be shipped. I trust Paradox to get this right, eventually, with post launch programming and DLCs.

What I don't want is my enjoyment on launch degraded by the addition of a feature that will likely polarize the community, myself included, esp when the people who like the feature will likely be dissappointed with its implementation. For this feature to work, the AI for sectors must work AT LAUNCH. Unfortunately, the chance of the AI for administrative sectors (or any AI) working well on release approaches zero, no matter how good the programmers (like Wiz) are. And while I trust this will improve over time, there will still be people who will hate how it works or just want to do it themselves, no matter how well it does the job. I simply do not see a happy outcome here.

The post I replied didn't mention your post on page 3 and I took the numbers from the first few posts which had the most answers, thus gave the best idea of community's wishes.

But to answer your post on page 3 and whether or not 20 or so planets is too much is a matter of taste. We have been talking about whether all of player's hundreds of planets need that attention, which is very different from 20, as you pointed out yourself. I don't think 20 is too much and when I gave a example figure earlier on another post, on how many planets/sectors would need micro at end game, I guessed 10 planets and 10 sectors each. 10 planets here and there could easily be in the range of what different goverments could directly control via tech and goverment types. I and many others were concerned that the count would be in the hundreds. And, as has been pointed out, we have seen numbers like 9 on early game.

Good AI is something we all wish to see, especially with the introduction of sectors. The devs have stated that it is a huge priority. The game doesn't have a launch date yet and one of the reasons is likely that the devs want a working version of the AI. If the AI is just "okay" at launch, that's fine for my standards since we both believe it will be improved on. At least for me, it takes a while to get competent enough in a game of this scale for even a hard AI to feel too easy. The helping factor for AI design is that the AI doesn't handle them all alone. You still give it the orders via governors, are free to choose options like not to demolish already built structures and probably more, so hopefully situations like you mentioned won't be an issue.

If some people will hate the sector feature not because of the AI but the feature itself, then it is their problem, not the games problem. If for them this one feature has to be in every space 4x that they play, instead of accepting and getting to know a game as the game wants itself to be played, then it is their own loss.

 

[RickInVA]

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.

Yes, it is officially the National Defense Interstate Highway System, well understood.

However you may have glossed over the part where I explain that indeed the Federal Government does not run the States, but that I was refuting the opinion, expressed frequently here, that central governments have no say in how lower level administrative areas function. Which by specific examples I was refuting.

 

[RickInVA]

If some people will hate the sector feature not because of the AI but the feature itself, then it is their problem, not the games problem. If for them this one feature has to be in every space 4x that they play, instead of accepting and getting to know a game as the game wants itself to be played, then it is their own loss.

You may not be surprised that I disagree. That is like saying that because some people think mark Rothko is a fabulous artist that if I don't there is something wrong with me. No, I think his "art" is junk. Just saying it is "art" does not make it art. Just as saying that forced Administrative Sectors are great because the developers put them there is fallacious. if so every game would be perfect the way the developers present it! The would be no room for improvement! What a fool I am not to fawn over the droppings from the great Game Developer!

I'm very honest and open about what I want. I do not want the game the developers are building, I want the game I would design if I had the opportunity. My hope is that the two generally align. But, no, thank you, I am not just going to "accept" anything blindly. I'm going to take the opportunity to point out what I consider serious flaws in what could otherwise be a good game.

 

[RickInVA]

Having re-read several of the DDs and giving the matter some thought I feel I have distilled Stellaris' essence, at least for me.

Some have said that Stellaris is a Grand Strategy Game. I don't agree, because I find that a GSG has more emphasis on the details than I see here.

What I think Stellaris is is a Grand Space Opera. In opera the main character, or Hero, (the player) is always at the center of attention. There are supporting roles, some of which may be important, but there is very little attention given to the details. If the hero needs a sword it will appear, the how or why or where is not important. The hero does dashing, daring things, and often succeeds. Or if a tragedy generally always fails. The important point being that success or failure does not often have a cause, it just is, and is a artifice to move the story forward.

That is how I have come to see Stellaris. Let us go dashing amongst the stars! Friends and evil doers alike await your bidding! Great mysteries are yours to discover! But don't worry too much about those annoying details, they just distract from another rousing musical number!

While I like the opera, and all the performing arts (with the exception of ballet), that is not what I am looking for in a game. I want something meatier. I want to get my hands dirty with the details. I want to read the book! As such it may not surprise that my two favorite literary series are 21 and 27 volumes long. The opera is over in 4 hours, my 27 volumes take 2-3 months!

So enjoy the Opera, I will wait for the book!

 

[ParagonExile]

Having re-read several of the DDs and giving the matter some thought I feel I have distilled Stellaris' essence, at least for me.

Some have said that Stellaris is a Grand Strategy Game. I don't agree, because I find that a GSG has more emphasis on the details than I see here.

What I think Stellaris is is a Grand Space Opera. In opera the main character, or Hero, (the player) is always at the center of attention. There are supporting roles, some of which may be important, but there is very little attention given to the details. If the hero needs a sword it will appear, the how or why or where is not important. The hero does dashing, daring things, and often succeeds. Or if a tragedy generally always fails. The important point being that success or failure does not often have a cause, it just is, and is a artifice to move the story forward.

That is how I have come to see Stellaris. Let us go dashing amongst the stars! Friends and evil doers alike await your bidding! Great mysteries are yours to discover! But don't worry too much about those annoying details, they just distract from another rousing musical number!

While I like the opera, and all the performing arts (with the exception of ballet), that is not what I am looking for in a game. I want something meatier. I want to get my hands dirty with the details. I want to read the book! As such it may not surprise that my two favorite literary series are 21 and 27 volumes long. The opera is over in 4 hours, my 27 volumes take 2-3 months!

So enjoy the Opera, I will wait for the book!

Mate are you for real? That's a ridiculous comparison and a bit of an overreaction, don't you think?

You're asking for large amounts tactics in a strategy game made by developers who are known for making games that focus almost solely on strategy.

 

[Old Joe]

Mate are you for real? That's a ridiculous comparison and a bit of an overreaction, don't you think?

You're asking for large amounts tactics in a strategy game made by developers who are known for making games that focus almost solely on strategy.

actually he didnt mention word "tactics" or "more tactics" once, the word was "details"
aside of melodramatics of the post i agree about details amount issue, that differ shallow and deep games

most of PX games dont have tactical combat yes, but details in them, modifiers, options, etc, are just enough for replayability and diversity and not to make it unplayable in same time

also i dont know how to valuate amount of details in this game just by dozen of DD, maybe there will be tons of details to look into. i too hope

 

[Ingros]

just wondering if this is not only gameplay related but also for performance... instead of simulating 1000 invidual planets you just group several of them into one entity.. in the end you have "one big planet" instead of 10 or 15 or even more... all depends how deep we can check on the planets afterwards.. i would assume that races/faction and even buildings are just mentioned as a one big number instead of being devided to each planet (.e.g 7M aquaman of the WaterWorld Sector compare to 2M on tauretis prime, 1M on raklet IV etc. etc.)

for the player it would feel like your empire consist of 1000 planets, but in the end the game has only 10 sectors to calculate

So if you mod and change the limit to unlimited, you may also experience extremly slow speed after a while

just an idea

 

[Darustet]

You may not be surprised that I disagree. That is like saying that because some people think mark Rothko is a fabulous artist that if I don't there is something wrong with me. No, I think his "art" is junk. Just saying it is "art" does not make it art. Just as saying that forced Administrative Sectors are great because the developers put them there is fallacious. if so every game would be perfect the way the developers present it! The would be no room for improvement! What a fool I am not to fawn over the droppings from the great Game Developer!

I'm very honest and open about what I want. I do not want the game the developers are building, I want the game I would design if I had the opportunity. My hope is that the two generally align. But, no, thank you, I am not just going to "accept" anything blindly. I'm going to take the opportunity to point out what I consider serious flaws in what could otherwise be a good game.

First of all, your first point is completely wrong and either you didn't read my post very well or you didn't understand it. I said that if you don't like the product the way it is designed, maybe the problem is not in the product but in you, in that you have a different taste than the core target audience. That doesn't make you wrong, you just have a different opinion about the product but that doesn't make the product wrong either.

I don't know the artist but we could talk about any piece of art or consumer good here. You having a different opinion about it doesn't make the maker, the object or the people who like it wrong. The best thing an artist can be, is to be true to itself, even if it means taking risks and not everybody liking it. That's how we get awesome and unique games. If your and your friends favourite artist makes a new album that explores some new concepts and all of your friends like it and go see it live except you and few others, because you didn't think it was as good as previous albums, it is not the artist's fault that you can't like it enough to want to buy a ticket yourself. It is not anyone's fault, your taste was different of what the artist had in mind but your opinion doesn't make the album bad.

Nobody has said that simply because devs put something in a game, it always works. But you having a different opinion doesn't make it good or bad either. Wheter a mechanic works or not is judged by how it works, how it adds to the game, how it fits to the game and does it make the impact it is supposed to make. Your only argument has been that you don't like it.

Some have said that Stellaris is a Grand Strategy Game. I don't agree, because I find that a GSG has more emphasis on the details than I see here.

What I think Stellaris is is a Grand Space Opera. In opera the main character, or Hero, (the player) is always at the center of attention. There are supporting roles, some of which may be important, but there is very little attention given to the details. If the hero needs a sword it will appear, the how or why or where is not important. The hero does dashing, daring things, and often succeeds. Or if a tragedy generally always fails. The important point being that success or failure does not often have a cause, it just is, and is a artifice to move the story forward.

That is how I have come to see Stellaris. Let us go dashing amongst the stars! Friends and evil doers alike await your bidding! Great mysteries are yours to discover! But don't worry too much about those annoying details, they just distract from another rousing musical number!

While I like the opera, and all the performing arts (with the exception of ballet), that is not what I am looking for in a game. I want something meatier. I want to get my hands dirty with the details. I want to read the book! As such it may not surprise that my two favorite literary series are 21 and 27 volumes long. The opera is over in 4 hours, my 27 volumes take 2-3 months!

So enjoy the Opera, I will wait for the book!

You claim that Stellaris isn't detailed or deep enough to qualify as a GSG. I myself didn't find anything like that in the dd's or wikipedia's definition of GSG. Not surprisingly, because nowhere did they mention that you need to have unlimited access to this micro we refer here as "planetary micro". Nothing dictates that a GSG or 4x game has to have that and I'm talking about unlimited planetary micro. That has been the issue, not that we don't have planetary micro at all, because we do have it.

Game is not made deep or detailed by taking off restrains on just one detail of the game and in Stellaris, how this particular detail is handled doesn't change the core of the game. Stellaris is deep because we have multi layered access to different aspects of the game, with mechanics that differ depending on how you play and which nation you play with. Unlimited planetary micro isn't some sort of Holy Grail of GSG or 4x and we have tons of different micro mechanics like planetary, sector, diplomatic, trade, shipbuilding, warfare, exploring, research, citizen, inner politics, assimilation of lesser races, tactics and strategies. There are several varying factors in the game like galaxy generation, traits, ethos, type of goverment, other races, random events, your neighbours, ftl, anomalies, end-game disasters, research etc. Game is also made deep and detailed by its art, lore and if it generates the feeling that you're really in control of your destiny.

I also like both opera and detailed book series. I feel that restricting planetary micro doesn't take depth away from this particular long book series. It cuts off repetitive descriptions of main character's sibling fixing broken furniture every four chapters but while it might shorten the series a little, it doesn't take away any necessary details or storylines that might affect the main story or the main characters. In fact, I feel that it makes the story more focused.

(The woodworking community didn't really agree and apparently have put up a site to fix it by writing fan art. On the other hand, both the writer and most of the community seemed fine for not having to read those in an epic story of a woodmason's road to power by slaying a dragon and uniting a broken empire. Priorities, I guess.)

 

[Kikaider]

Ok, I think I'm confused now. Two questions (didn't see they've been asked yet, or answered at least):
1) Is the control limit in terms of "Planets" or "Systems"? Because if "sectors" are defined by groups of systems, a planet cap makes less sense in this context considering most systems will (likely) have 2-3 viable planets for colonization and it would suck from a player's perspective to not be able to be able to colonize the second garden paradise world in newly gained system that's a perfectly place core-world-system because you found 3 decent planets in the last system you colonized and already built them up.
2) And what about sector size, will the sectors you designate ALSO have a cap on "viable" size given that if you as star-emperor/fuhrer/president/king can't administer more than 5 sectors/9 planets, why would a governor you appoint with only a fraction of your bureaucracy to support them be able to handle 7 sectors/14 planets?

Don't get me wrong, I personally like the idea of administrative sectors (especially if the rate of pop ideal "divergence" is dependent on sector distance from the core-worlds), but I just want to make sure I understand the system and can make sense of it.

 

[Madzai]

What I think Stellaris is is a Grand Space Opera. In opera the main character, or Hero, (the player) is always at the center of attention.

Well, even if its a bit of over-dramatization it is true. Because Developers basically said so themselves. Sure, players aren't always the center of attention, but everything happens in Universe of Stellaris to entertain players and keep him occupied. And it was made so to combat one of the 4X major problems - boredom of the late game (we even had a DD addressing this problem). In abstract "space" in common 4X by the middle of parties situation usually became quite static, because AI pursue his own interests and not aimed to keep player occupied. While in Stellaris they announces so much different gameplay elements that are supposed to keep player occupied it is basically "everything circle around player".

 

[Haldan]

What I think Stellaris is is a Grand Space Opera. In opera the main character, or Hero, (the player) is always at the center of attention. There are supporting roles, some of which may be important, but there is very little attention given to the details. If the hero needs a sword it will appear, the how or why or where is not important. The hero does dashing, daring things, and often succeeds. Or if a tragedy generally always fails. The important point being that success or failure does not often have a cause, it just is, and is a artifice to move the story forward.

That is how I have come to see Stellaris. Let us go dashing amongst the stars! Friends and evil doers alike await your bidding! Great mysteries are yours to discover! But don't worry too much about those annoying details, they just distract from another rousing musical number!

While I like the opera, and all the performing arts (with the exception of ballet), that is not what I am looking for in a game. I want something meatier. I want to get my hands dirty with the details. I want to read the book! As such it may not surprise that my two favorite literary series are 21 and 27 volumes long. The opera is over in 4 hours, my 27 volumes take 2-3 months!

So enjoy the Opera, I will wait for the book!

Plain and utterly pretentious.

 

[Darustet]

Well, even if its a bit of over-dramatization it is true. Because Developers basically said so themselves. Sure, players aren't always the center of attention, but everything happens in Universe of Stellaris to entertain players and keep him occupied. And it was made so to combat one of the 4X major problems - boredom of the late game (we even had a DD addressing this problem). In abstract "space" in common 4X by the middle of parties situation usually became quite static, because AI pursue his own interests and not aimed to keep player occupied. While in Stellaris they announces so much different gameplay elements that are supposed to keep player occupied it is basically "everything circle around player".

But doesn't the game circle around the player anyway, whether or not we are managing individually planets or microing whatever else the the devs put into the game instead? At the end I'm just as occupied.

On the contrary, to me the game circles more around the player if the player is the sole person doing all the work, instead delegating matters to the AI. But I don't feel that here it qualifies Stellaris as a "grand space opera" rather than a "grand strategy game" (not that it matters at the end what the game is called, the conversation rose from a game mechanic), because I'm not seeing them cancelling each others out. In my mind, I'll always place games into "opera setting", even if I'm the sole person making the opera and all the minute details, because that story arc will form just the same.

I hope just as any, that there will be plenty of details to be taken care of. That's the idea of GSG but we just want less of that one single mechanic, that we feel doesn't after a certain point really add anything new to the game.

 

[Tiaexz]

Being honest, I think the idea of Stellaris being like a "Space Opera" makes it sound more appealing. The idea that you can make meaningful decisions on a grand stage, to play and act your part against other actors, with added bonus of having a key part in the telling of your story to entertain the audience (players). Sure beats the generic "I need to build more colony ships and mass settle everywhere before AI does the same!" of the 4x genre.