• 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:
Now, I also think we should have a toggle to regress into the stone age era before our civilization reaches the start. It could be a new way for Paradox to explore this time period and would only add about a year to the development cycle, but at least we'll have more choice to fit our preferences.

I also feel like there should be a gameplay mechanic to disable fleet combat, so we can focus more on diplomatic talks between the races, not everyone enjoys war, after all. This, of course, also needs to be balanced with multiple modifiers and have a "diplomatic warfare" sort of mini game where you can lose and gain land from just talking. The mini game needs to be balanced so you can expand equally as with warfare, if you're a really good diplomat.

Hell, I think maybe the tile system is alright, but there should also be an option for a more complicated system like Victoria 2's factories. This will take a while to include in a balanced way compared to the alternative tile system, but it is pretty stupid you can do it in the 1800's game, but not in the future! There's a distinct lact of control that I enjoy in Victoria 2 and demand integrated into this game even though this isn't Victoria 2 in space.

I've got like five or six other ideas for stuff that could really widen the horizon for the game, but most of all I would really like to hear from everyone else. Maybe, sometime around 2020, we could have a really good Space Strategy Game Maker... Sort of like RPG maker, but for strategy in space! - Where we can decide just how the game is supposed to work, instead of having to worry about having a base game which future work can be put in to, without worrying about balancing any changes for 15 fundamentally different ways of playing it.

Even better: keep 'em coming! :)
 
So instead of fixing the AI so it can beat the minmax player you suggest that the game company should fix the game such that a minmax player cannot play the game the way he likes to? How does that differ from StarDrive2 where you are forced into combat and a zerg rush strategy because that is the way the game designer prefers to play?
I highly suggest you learn to code and try to 'fix the AI'. There is a reason a computer that can beat Chess Masters 30% of the time makes the news (maybe not the mainstream news, but the scientific news!). AI is THE most difficult coding problem. Chess is a relatively simple game, there are less than a dozen different 'unit' types, and each has clear and concise rules as to its usage. There are only 2 starting options (white or black), and only 2-3 instances where the rules can be broken (Castling being the most notable). Yet it is a work of herculean effort to create a program that can reliably beat great players.
Stellaris is orders of magnitude more complicated than chess. It is not almost impossible to create an AI that can match very good players, it is outright impossible with current technology. The amount of calculations necessary to adequately determine a near optimal path is on the order of Trillions (at the least). When you combine every different variable you end up with far too many variables for computers today to handle. The human mind and computers are actually very different, despite 'common' comparisons. Computers really only excel at math, Stellaris is not math, it is a subjective comparative analysis of different options. Humans excel at this (it is what emotions do, after all), but there is no algorithm to deduce emotions or subjective analysis. And computers need alogrithms.
You are suggesting a literally impossible task, Wiz's remark a few pages back about Skynet being created before an AI that can beat good players is not an exaggeration.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
On the contrary: I'm arguing for flexibility, so that each player can choose to his/her own taste and preference. My preference is not limiting any one else's preference.
A preference which, by its very nature, does limit others preferences. Making a game that does X feature a single way, can have a very expansive feature X. Making a game that does feature X in 2 ways, will have half (or less) the expansiveness of feature X, because 2 times as much work needs to go into balancing it.

More salient point: You are advocating a system that will make the player you responded to feel inadequate and sad. You are putting your enjoyment of the game over his, you can't really argue that point. If the game is done your way he is sad, if the game is done his way you are sad. The deciding vote, thus, goes to the Devs.
 
Or we'll all be dead because they rose up and killed all organics :)

AlphaGo's main developer did say that he was surprised that AlphaGo accomplished its task several years ahead of expectations. Still, it is nearly 20 years after DB vs. Kasparov. Another 20 years, mayhaps?
 
...More salient point: You are advocating a system that will make the player you responded to feel inadequate and sad. You are putting your enjoyment of the game over his, you can't really argue that point. If the game is done your way he is sad, if the game is done his way you are sad. The deciding vote, thus, goes to the Devs.

THAT second one was a really good argument which I readily accept: point taken, case closed. :)

(And for the record, I'd like to point out that I'm not really sad if Sectors are implemented, since if I have to choose between Sectors and no Sectors, I definitely go with the former. It's an interesting concept and mechanism in a game that I am willing to try out (have done something similar but much more crude and rough in my mods for EU3 and in particular EU4).)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
In EU4 you can choose to play a republic or a monarchy, you can choose to focus on diplomacy or war efficiency, you can choose to colonize or improve stuff at home... You can't choose to automate buildings in provinces, because that's not how the game works. You can't choose to let the AI take care of building units in multiplayer Starcraft 2 while you focus on battling, nor can you choose that the fog of war should be turned off, because that's not how the game works (no, custom games do not count, they are akin to mods as far as this arguments goes) - and that's fine.

Meanwhile, in CK2, you can't micromage your vassals and have even less control than you'll have in Stellaris - and you can't turn that off in the game... because that's not how the game works and your limited control is a part of the gameplay itself!

In Stellaris you can choose to have a combination of government, ethos and technology which allows a rather high limit in terms of personally owned planets, but you can't control them all, because that's not how the game will work, and that's fine. Arguing for "more choice" is like arguing that any of these game should abandon limitations that go either in favor or against micromanagement, but which would, if undertaken, ruin the intended gameplay experience of these games.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In EU4 you can choose to play a republic or a monarchy, you can choose to focus on diplomacy or war efficiency, you can choose to colonize or improve stuff at home... You can't choose to automate buildings in provinces, because that's not how the game works. You can't choose to let the AI take care of building units in multiplayer Starcraft 2 while you focus on battling, nor can you choose that the fog of war should be turned off, because that's not how the game works (no, custom games do not count, they are akin to mods as far as this arguments goes) - and that's fine.

Meanwhile, in CK2, you can't micromage your vassals and have even less control than you'll have in Stellaris - and you can't turn that off in the game... because that's not how the game works and your limited control is a part of the gameplay itself!

In Stellaris you can choose to have a combination of government, ethos and technology which allows a rather high limit in terms of personally owned planets, but you can't control them all, because that's not how the game will work, and that's fine. Arguing for "more choice" is like arguing that any of these game should abandon limitations that go either in favor or against micromanagement, but which would, if undertaken, ruin the intended gameplay experience of these games.

Isn't your argumentation basically the same as saying 'Since game X has a certain game design, that game design is by definition the right one.'? In effect, that the developers are always right in their game design?

Or are there in your view any valid circumstances (aside from outright bugs) when a game feature (or lack thereof) can rightfully be complained about?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Isn't your argumentation basically the same as saying 'Since game X has a certain game design, that game design is by definition the right one.'? In effect, that the developers are always right in their game design?

Yes and no. My argument is that 'there needs to be a game design'. The game design can have some room for flexibility (to prevent every game from being the same) - such as in CK2 you can focus on stewardship to increase the extent of your personal control or in diplomacy to better keep your vassals in line - but it needs to have a clear direction. In this case the devs have chosen the middle way between CK2 (completely autonomous vassals that you can only impose a few restrictions and taxes on) and EU4/Victoria 2 (You can have control over pretty much all domestic affairs).

Is it the right one? Is the gameplay good? That's up to my personal opinion and popular sentiment, and we can't know how well it works before we try it ourselves. The recent changes to CK2 gameplay come to mind as something that has been received very coldly on average.

People have argued for and against micromanagement and my overall impression is that most space 4X games have erred on the side of more micromanagement, and it seems like some users here loved that, others thought it was one of the most annoying parts of those games.

For Stellaris the devs have decided to minimize the micromanagement toward the mid to late game with semi-autonomous sectors. You can love it or hate it, as people have hated the way other X games have done it, and argue for and against it (though it seems most people like it) - but demanding that it needs to be able to be disabled in the core game isn't unlike the examples I made in my earlier posts:

If it's an integral part of the game design the devs have chosen, then simply being able to switch it off or not is not a question of giving the player choice, because every facet of the game will be balanced and designed with that core component in mind, just as much as CK2 depends on very autonomous vassals and Starcraft 2 relies on constant player micromanagement.

Or are there in your view any valid circumstances (aside from outright bugs) when a game feature (or lack thereof) can rightfully be complained about?

Oh, it can always be complained about and quite often you can find arguments for doing so! What I'm against is demanding that games needs to provide vastly different core gameplay to cater to different types of players. I've played CK2, EU4 and Victoria 2 a lot, and I love all of them, because the core ideas and focuses behind them is different. I don't want CK2 to approach Victoria II in population management, nor do I want to manage my 500-member dynasty in Victoria II, and arguing that these games should provide toggles to do so because you wanted a different game... well... then play a different game.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Yes and no. My argument is that 'there needs to be a game design'. The game design can have some room for flexibility (to prevent every game from being the same) - such as in CK2 you can focus on stewardship to increase the extent of your personal control or in diplomacy to better keep your vassals in line - but it needs to have a clear direction. In this case the devs have chosen the middle way between CK2 (completely autonomous vassals that you can only impose a few restrictions and taxes on) and EU4/Victoria 2 (You can have control over pretty much all domestic affairs).

Is it the right one? Is the gameplay good? That's up to my personal opinion and popular sentiment, and we can't know how well it works before we try it ourselves. The recent changes to CK2 gameplay come to mind as something that has been received very coldly on average.

People have argued for and against micromanagement and my overall impression is that most space 4X games have erred on the side of more micromanagement, and it seems like some users here loved that, others thought it was one of the most annoying parts of those games.

For Stellaris the devs have decided to minimize the micromanagement toward the mid to late game with semi-autonomous sectors. You can love it or hate it, as people have hated the way other X games have done it, and argue for and against it (though it seems most people like it) - but demanding that it needs to be able to be disabled in the core game isn't unlike the examples I made in my earlier posts:

If it's an integral part of the game design the devs have chosen, then simply being able to switch it off or not is not a question of giving the player choice, because every facet of the game will be balanced and designed with that core component in mind, just as much as CK2 depends on very autonomous vassals and Starcraft 2 relies on constant player micromanagement.



Oh, it can always be complained about and quite often you can find arguments for doing so! What I'm against is demanding that games needs to provide vastly different core gameplay to cater to different types of players. I've played CK2, EU4 and Victoria 2 a lot, and I love all of them, because the core ideas and focuses behind them is different. I don't want CK2 to approach Victoria II in population management, nor do I want to manage my 500-member dynasty in Victoria II, and arguing that these games should provide toggles to do so because you wanted a different game... well... then play a different game.

Fair enough: all valid points. Thanks.
 
I highly suggest you learn to code and try to 'fix the AI'. There is a reason a computer that can beat Chess Masters 30% of the time makes the news (maybe not the mainstream news, but the scientific news!). AI is THE most difficult coding problem. Chess is a relatively simple game, there are less than a dozen different 'unit' types, and each has clear and concise rules as to its usage. There are only 2 starting options (white or black), and only 2-3 instances where the rules can be broken (Castling being the most notable). Yet it is a work of herculean effort to create a program that can reliably beat great players.
Stellaris is orders of magnitude more complicated than chess. It is not almost impossible to create an AI that can match very good players, it is outright impossible with current technology. The amount of calculations necessary to adequately determine a near optimal path is on the order of Trillions (at the least). When you combine every different variable you end up with far too many variables for computers today to handle. The human mind and computers are actually very different, despite 'common' comparisons. Computers really only excel at math, Stellaris is not math, it is a subjective comparative analysis of different options. Humans excel at this (it is what emotions do, after all), but there is no algorithm to deduce emotions or subjective analysis. And computers need alogrithms.
You are suggesting a literally impossible task, Wiz's remark a few pages back about Skynet being created before an AI that can beat good players is not an exaggeration.

totally agree on this.

people who speaks to simple "improve the AI" should better read up more on this topic before making judgments.
 
If all the core worlds and sectors have been established and the player finds another world that is better than the existing sector capital can the player change their setup to make the new planet a core world and let the old sector capital become a sector world?
 
in CK2, you can't micromage your vassals and have even less control than you'll have in Stellaris... Arguing for "more choice" is like.... ruin[ing] the intended gameplay experience of these games.
CK2 is a medieval european lord simulator. The lord/vassal system is supposed to reflect the political system of that era and it works well for feudal european kingdoms. The system breaks down (or rather is ahistorical) when dealing with non-european feudal kingdoms... like the Eastern Roman Empire.

Stellaris is a game set in the far future of inter galactic politics. Theres no historical time period to emulate, conceptually you would have political systems that run the entire spectrum. Other space 4x titles that tried to do mass automation give mixed results. The AI just isnt good enough to take over the ability of a player wholesale. Where an AI works it works, where it doesnt work, there need to be options for the player to correct it and set it on the strategic path that the player wants to take. The problem in an open ended game like this is that a player can choose multiple strategies. Having more options to intervene is better than fewer.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a question. When you assign a specialization for your sectors, will they use inappropriate tiles to do that specialization? Say I set it to minerals, will they fill the whole planet with minerals? Or just the tiles that start with minerals or are blank? This would be a major bug if so because Polaris Sector does this and it makes it so I have to micromanage most of my planets.
 
I have a question. When you assign a specialization for your sectors, will they use inappropriate tiles to do that specialization? Say I set it to minerals, will they fill the whole planet with minerals? Or just the tiles that start with minerals or are blank? This would be a major bug if so because Polaris Sector does this and it makes it so I have to micromanage most of my planets.
Hey

I think it will make the minimum buildings required to survive and then over produce on the buildings which you tell them to specialise in.

That's my guess.

Voice
 
The imo sensible way to do it would be the following:

If a tile has only one resource, the AI places the appropriate building.
If a tile has the choice between 2 resources, the AI choses your specialisation.
If a tile has no resource, that AI places your specialisation.

This maximises resource output while still giving a boost to whatever you told it to do.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The imo sensible way to do it would be the following:

If a tile has only one resource, the AI places the appropriate building.
If a tile has the choice between 2 resources, the AI choses your specialisation.
If a tile has no resource, that AI places your specialisation.

This maximises resource output while still giving a boost to whatever you told it to do.
Considering that those rules are basically how I would specialize a planet, I'd certainly hope the AI follows them as well.