• 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:
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.

No one cares what you find appealing or entertaining pal. You have a job to do. Now get back to managing those planets. All of them. No slacking. I will be checking. Consider this your final warning. Miss one planet and you're fired.
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
I totally buy THAT argument. And if I have to choose between having to use Sector Governors and not being able to use them, I definitely choose the former.
Which is why people here are asking to be given a choice and not having to live with one or the other.
I'm pretty new to this forum but I have noticed that some posters here seem to have a problem with the idea of others having the gall to merely voice concerns over a design decision by Paradox or going against the majority opinion. I am not sure why exactly that is - would people rather this forum was an echo chamber? For the most part we're not trying to force our ideas on other people - so I don't get the backlash - and neither is "Paradox said it will be this way so you can't argue against it" a valid response to alternative ideas when that is one of the points of being able to discuss something in the first place (critique it and consider hypothetical alternatives).
I love how what you're saying is completely reasonable and clever, and yet your post has as many downvotes as upvotes because people think that you're agreeing with pro-micromanagers.
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.
I wouldn't say ignoring 25% of your player base is a wise decision. Giving the option to choose won't ruin the game for everyone else.
If you really must micromanage, I'm sure there will be plenty of mods which let you do so
But my achievements!
make calculations, did you guys would really like to spend like 1 hour in a paused game just trying to manage each planet??
If that's how I enjoy playing my game, do you have anything against it?
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!"
Are you already implying that the sector AI will be that horrible that, given a choice, any sane man would opt not to use it? That doesn't sound good, does it?
As I would have it, it should be a choice between getting a little edge by investing a lot of effort vs. having a more relaxed game by sacrificing some efficiency.
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?"
I'm sorry, but I don't think your examples are well-chosen. All three ideas you suggested are a complete overhaul of the respective game mechanic (maybe apart from terraforming, but that's questionable). Meanwhile, sectors are merely delegating what you would normally do yourself to the AI who would, ideally and in theory, do exactly the same, optimally and automatically. The only problem is that it probably won't because it's not smart enough.

I am a micromanager, although I would definitely use sectors, they seem fun just for the roleplaying value alone. I'm only worried that the number of planets I can manage directly will be too small for my taste. Too bad we don't have any numbers on that yet.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
People's replies are indeed fascinating.

My Grand Space Opera post was, actually, quite serious and intended as a compliment. How so? Because, IMHO, when viewed as a 4X or Grand Strategy Game many of the design decisions don't make sense to me, but when viewed as a Grand Space Opera they do. If I'm expecting an elephant I might be disappointed with thin legs and a long neck, but if I am expecting a giraffe then I get what I expected. So I was expressing that if I change my expectation then what I am being offered makes complete sense. But also that such is not what I am looking for. I'm amazed at the hostility.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you already implying that the sector AI will be that horrible that, given a choice, any sane man would opt not to use it? That doesn't sound good, does it?
As I would have it, it should be a choice between getting a little edge by investing a lot of effort vs. having a more relaxed game by sacrificing some efficiency.

No, I'm implying that even if the AI is good, some players will be better. And there will be those that think they are better, even if they actually might not be. And then there are the ones getting told by the two former groups they should be better, and it's the best way to play the game...

People are not rational actors. A lot of people would end up microing, even if they don't actually find it any fun, if the "option" is there. Add to that the extra work needed by the devs to support it. Adding the "option" to micro everything will not only affect those players who want to micro, it will affect the entire game and also those who don't want to micro. Pretending otherwise is naive.

The developers should pick one path and stick to it. They have chosen a design where you just focus on a smaller group of planets, and delegate the rest to the AI, and even plan to possibly expand on this design in later patches and expansions. Providing an "option" would just fracture the game design, and make the game worse, and possibly limit the design space for the game later.

There is nothing wrong with wanting micro, but the game is better off with a tighter focus.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Which is why people here are asking to be given a choice and not having to live with one or the other.

I love how what you're saying is completely reasonable and clever, and yet your post has as many downvotes as upvotes because people think that you're agreeing with pro-micromanagers.
I wouldn't say ignoring 25% of your player base is a wise decision. Giving the option to choose won't ruin the game for everyone else.
But my achievements!

If that's how I enjoy playing my game, do you have anything against it?
Are you already implying that the sector AI will be that horrible that, given a choice, any sane man would opt not to use it? That doesn't sound good, does it?
As I would have it, it should be a choice between getting a little edge by investing a lot of effort vs. having a more relaxed game by sacrificing some efficiency.

I'm sorry, but I don't think your examples are well-chosen. All three ideas you suggested are a complete overhaul of the respective game mechanic (maybe apart from terraforming, but that's questionable). Meanwhile, sectors are merely delegating what you would normally do yourself to the AI who would, ideally and in theory, do exactly the same, optimally and automatically. The only problem is that it probably won't because it's not smart enough.

I am a micromanager, although I would definitely use sectors, they seem fun just for the roleplaying value alone. I'm only worried that the number of planets I can manage directly will be too small for my taste. Too bad we don't have any numbers on that yet.

What would be your idea of "large enough"? While I've been circlejerking it for a while now, we have proof that a faction can start with asserting central control over at least 9 inhabitable planets, and we've seen images that seem to confirm that not every system will have a habitable planet, and those that do mostly only have one. If you can start with 9 with certain governments and devs say that research (probably society) can increase it, 15+ does not seem far fetched.

In any case, sectors are an integral game mechanic as my other examples. While the devs have said that the sectors are not a source of independence movements per se, they will result in cases of "birds of a feather flock together" phenomena, where pops of certain ethos or races flock to and will be focal points for factions. They are also a sort of limiter on expansive empires to keep them from being too monolithic, though the degree of control you can assert of them seems fairly high - higher than vassals in EU4 certainly, and they don't have their own fleets.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No, I'm implying that even if the AI is good, some players will be better. And there will be those that think they are better, even if they actually might not be. And then there are the ones getting told by the two former groups they should be better, and it's the best way to play the game...

People are not rational actors. A lot of people would end up microing, even if they don't actually find it any fun, if the "option" is there. Add to that the extra work needed by the devs to support it. Adding the "option" to micro everything will not only affect those players who want to micro, it will affect the entire game and also those who don't want to micro. Pretending otherwise is naive.

The developers should pick one path and stick to it. They have chosen a design where you just focus on a smaller group of planets, and delegate the rest to the AI, and even plan to possibly expand on this design in later patches and expansions. Providing an "option" would just fracture the game design, and make the game worse, and possibly limit the design space for the game later.

There is nothing wrong with wanting micro, but the game is better off with a tighter focus.
It seems to me like an issue of getting the message through to people. Make it seem that sectors are the right way to go, and everyone will be using them. And then only the really good players might figure out that you can get more of it through additional effort. As it stands now, the diary says that not using sectors will actively be punished instead.

And as I said, it should give only a small edge by being a significant investment, so that plenty of people, even knowing about it, would decide "I don't need that much hassle in my life, I'll just go simple".
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
No one cares what you find appealing or entertaining pal. You have a job to do. Now get back to managing those planets. All of them. No slacking. I will be checking. Consider this your final warning. Miss one planet and you're fired.
....Said the voice in your head... The same voice that forced you to break your own finger a minute ago while you were trying to click that "allow AI to handle planets" button? It's like this for ppl who are dead set on not allowing player to choose between AI and manual control? Sad to know such harsh truth...

But jokes aside.

What would be your idea of "large enough"? While I've been circlejerking it for a while now, we have proof that a faction can start with 9 inhabitable planets, and we've seen images that seem to confirm that not every system will have a habitable planet, and those that do mostly only have one. If you can start with 9 and devs say that research (probably society) can increase it, 15+ does not seem far fetched.

That totally depends on "Empire" i want to build. For a huge spanning somewhat feudal Empire (200+ planets) i'd say something around 20-25% of planets seems fine. Maybe even less with some decentralized Democracy for some good bonuses. But like every planet for a ~50 planets militaristic authoritarian Spartan-like society. The thing is number of planets under direct control must be very, very versatile utilizing both strait numbers and % of plants as a result of your race traits, leaders, government, techs and a lot of other stuff... So it reqire an insane amount of work to balance or it'll turn out completely broken, either making some setups OP, or gimping something like small Empires.
 
What would be your idea of "large enough"? While I've been circlejerking it for a while now, we have proof that a faction can start with asserting central control over at least 9 inhabitable planets, and we've seen images that seem to confirm that not every system will have a habitable planet, and those that do mostly only have one. If you can start with 9 with certain governments and devs say that research (probably society) can increase it, 15+ does not seem far fetched.
It's hard to say now, because we still don't know how it will actually feel, controlling a plante or ten, what the gameplay will be and how much micro will really be needed on each world. Maybe we'll all realise that five planets will be enough and we're worried about nothing. Maybe, on the other hand, even fifteen will feel like too few. Personally, the reason why I'm worried about this issue, is in large part because I don't want to be deprived of having options and forced into one choice. Even if I would do the same choice on my own, not having a choice in the first place leaves a bad feeling.

Here's a scenario that popped into my head. I have an empire, I'm at my "core worlds" limit. Suddenly, I discover a new empty planet, and it's perfect. Maybe it's very rich in resources, maybe it has unique modifiers, maybe it fits perfectly for my people, maybe all of the above. I want it badly, and I want it for myself. This means, however, that in order to avoid getting negative modifiers, I'd have to give away one of my previous core worlds to a sector. One of the planets I've been lovely cultivating into perfect little balls of life for centuries now has to go under the control of a computer-controlled administrator. I don't want to. I hate giving my old land to estates in EU4 (thankfully, I can mostly get by by giving them only new lands now). I would much rather spend some admin points or whatever their counterpart will be in order to increase my core planet limit by one for that new gem. And I worried that I won't be able to, and will have to either lose one of my beloved planets, lose the new one, or suffer penalties until the end of the game.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding all this, of course. We still don't know much, and maybe this whole point is moot. I'm very excited for the game and already have many ideas in my head about my future empires. And I like having as many options as possible, that's all.

In any case, sectors are an integral game mechanic as my other examples. While the devs have said that the sectors are not a source of independence movements per se, they will result in cases of "birds of a feather flock together" phenomena, where pops of certain ethos or races flock to and will be focal points for factions. They are also a sort of limiter on expansive empires to keep them from being too monolithic, though the degree of control you can assert of them seems fairly high - higher than vassals in EU4 certainly, and they don't have their own fleets.
But giving an option to use them or not is not such a massive change as changing the entire technology research process. Returning to your examples, it's more like giving the player a choice whether to use terraforming or not. Which, I'm assuming, he already has.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
....Said the voice in your head... The same voice that forced you to break your own finger a minute ago while you were trying to click that "allow AI to handle planets" button? It's like this for ppl who are dead set on not allowing player to choose between AI and manual control? Sad to know such harsh truth...

Where have I been against allowing the player to choose manual control?

I'm happy for custom game settings to allow players to do whatever they want.

My only position is that there needs to be a standard set of game settings that the developers balance the game around.

Trying to balance a game around multiple, radically different play styles, will result in a mess, in my opinion.

But custom game settings / mods to do whatever you want. Sure thing.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Which is why people here are asking to be given a choice and not having to live with one or the other.

And so do I, in several posts, in earlier parts of that thread. Which you couldn't know about. :)

(My preference towards Sector Governors is only IF I HAVE to choose...)
 
Here's a scenario that popped into my head. I have an empire, I'm at my "core worlds" limit. Suddenly, I discover a new empty planet, and it's perfect. Maybe it's very rich in resources, maybe it has unique modifiers, maybe it fits perfectly for my people, maybe all of the above. I want it badly, and I want it for myself. This means, however, that in order to avoid getting negative modifiers, I'd have to give away one of my previous core worlds to a sector. One of the planets I've been lovely cultivating into perfect little balls of life for centuries now has to go under the control of a computer-controlled administrator. I don't want to. I hate giving my old land to estates in EU4 (thankfully, I can mostly get by by giving them only new lands now). I would much rather spend some admin points or whatever their counterpart will be in order to increase my core planet limit by one for that new gem. And I worried that I won't be able to, and will have to either lose one of my beloved planets, lose the new one, or suffer penalties until the end of the game.

I'm definitely happy about sectors being part of gameplay, but I do see where you're coming from. I definitely felt that way when I was first introduced to the colonial nations mechanic in EU4.

It's also good that you seem to recognize that to allow that control, something has to give. If not control of planets, then research, militancy, or corruption. Centralising control is costly and difficult, both in real life and in Paradox games in general. That said, I don't see an issue with giving a player the choice to dramatically increase their planet cap through intensive research or investment. The net result is that something else will be sacrificed to make that possible, and the choice as to whether it will be worth the cost will add to the game rather than detract from it. The caveat is that the costs of raising said cap should not be linear, but scale upwards.

To quote Sid Meier: "A game is a series of interesting choices"
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Well, one of the
I'm definitely happy about sectors being part of gameplay, but I do see where you're coming from. I definitely felt that way when I was first introduced to the colonial nations mechanic in EU4.

It's also good that you seem to recognize that to allow that control, something has to give. If not control of planets, then research, militancy, or corruption. Centralising control is costly and difficult, both in real life and in Paradox games in general. That said, I don't see an issue with giving a player the choice to dramatically increase their planet cap through intensive research or investment. The net result is that something else will be sacrificed to make that possible, and the choice as to whether it will be worth the cost will add to the game rather than detract from it. The caveat is that the costs of raising said cap should not be linear, but scale upwards.

To quote Sid Meier: "A game is a series of interesting choices"

One of these days, the two of us will need to have a fight about the right to use Georgia as our avatar.

There can only be one.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I am trying to not get sucked in to the entire discussion about sector governors vs. micro management, but i cant help myself.

First:
I am firmly on the side of the sector governors.
from a game perspective (i dont want to micro manage 50 planets) and from a RP perspective (every country in the world has several layers to it. from cities, to counties, to states to the federal level)

Second: (the actual part of my post)
I feels that most of the arguments for micro management (against sector governors) is:
  1. I want to control everything
  2. the AI wont do as good of a job as me
  3. i dont want to have debuff by going over my planet limit

if i paraphrase these arguments is that people want to be able to play the 'perfect' game. IMO this fundamentally misses the concept of every game Paradox has ever build. Paradox games will put barriers in your way (random -1 stability modifiers are a perfect example in EU4). It forces you to think not in perfect solutions but acceptable compromises (CK2 vassels) .

Lastly:
personally i love concepts of these imperfect worlds because: (a) success feels that much better and (b) the replay ability is increased.

EDIT: spelling (as expected :))
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
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. :)

Interesting question. I originally thought that direct control was limited to planets as it matches perfectly with the planets listed on the quick select bar. But looking over the image gallery every shot has each planet in a different system (except on of the pre-alpha advertising shots which doesn't use the same HUD)

I wonder if the player can control one planet in a system directly whilst the rest is controlled by a sector governor (e.g. I control Sol III whilst Sol IV is looked after by Bob my governor for that sector)

I thought they'd said sectors don't have a limit in size (only in the number of sectors your government can control) but that you wanted to keep them as small as possible to limit the damage in breakaway factions.
 
Well, one of the
One of these days, the two of us will need to have a fight about the right to use Georgia as our avatar.

There can only be one.

Bring it on :mad:
lol
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It forces you to think not in perfect solutions but acceptable comprises

Beautifully said. I'd double like this if I could. Although I'm gonna grammar nazi a bit and correct your spelling of compromises =P
 
But giving an option to use them or not is not such a massive change as changing the entire technology research process. Returning to your examples, it's more like giving the player a choice whether to use terraforming or not. Which, I'm assuming, he already has.

But the difference between:

20% of your population want to enforce Pacifism or they will break away

and

1 planet in the 200 you own wants to enforce Pacifism or they will break away

is rather massive. Without sectors the threat of internal factions pretty much disappears unless they come up with an entirely new way of doing it (hence the whole 2 game argument) This will especially be the case if, like Vic2, your army / fleet units link themselves to a sector. All the ships from sector Orion breaking away is more scary than the one scout which happened to be built on arrakis 3 leaving your fleet.
 
I'm sorry, but I don't think your examples are well-chosen. All three ideas you suggested are a complete overhaul of the respective game mechanic (maybe apart from terraforming, but that's questionable). Meanwhile, sectors are merely delegating what you would normally do yourself to the AI who would, ideally and in theory, do exactly the same, optimally and automatically. The only problem is that it probably won't because it's not smart enough.

I am a micromanager, although I would definitely use sectors, they seem fun just for the roleplaying value alone. I'm only worried that the number of planets I can manage directly will be too small for my taste. Too bad we don't have any numbers on that yet.

You seem to think that the sectors are only about less micromanagement. But thats not true. The sectors play a vital role in a major feature. Factions of your Empire. If you take away sectors your impact this feature and through that probably many more. And with that in mind.. if they officialy provide an option for "no sectors" they would need to reprogram the whole thing about how Factions work.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Interesting question. I originally thought that direct control was limited to planets as it matches perfectly with the planets listed on the quick select bar. But looking over the image gallery every shot has each planet in a different system (except on of the pre-alpha advertising shots which doesn't use the same HUD)

I wonder if the player can control one planet in a system directly whilst the rest is controlled by a sector governor (e.g. I control Sol III whilst Sol IV is looked after by Bob my governor for that sector)

I thought they'd said sectors don't have a limit in size (only in the number of sectors your government can control) but that you wanted to keep them as small as possible to limit the damage in breakaway factions.

I think the opposite of what he's saying is the case. The number of inhabitable planets will be lower than the number of systems! That is, a hegemonic empire that controls 15 planets directly may control 30 systems, but half of those only have space stations!

I do also wonder if you can appoint governors in non-sectors to alleviate the limit, say if you uplift a species in a system where you already directly control another planet, can you make them effectively self-govern without adding to your burden or splitting systems between sectors?

A logical limit to this would be that you would need to directly control at least one planet in the system to pull it off, to prevent directly controlling everything without having any sectors.