Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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 53855 Bug Reports 36917 Console edition 1310 Suggestions 21550 Tech Support 3193 Multiplayer 392 User Mods 4786 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses

Stellaris Dev Diary #42 - Heinlein patch (part 3)

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. This is the third part in a multi-part dev diary about the 'Heinlein' 1.3 patch that we are currently working on. This week's dev diary will be about more miscellaneous changes and improvements coming in the patch, currently planned for release sometime in October.

Federation/Alliance Merger
When Federations were given the ability to vote on invites and wars, alliances became a bit of an odd duck in the Stellaris diplomacy. A middle layer between the 'loose' diplomacy of defensive pacts and joint DOWs, they ended up as little more than a weak form of Federation that's usually swapped out the moment the latter becomes available. In Heinlein, we've decided to retire alliances altogether and have Federations be the only form of 'permanent' alliance. When you unlock the technology for Federations, you will immediately be able to invite another empire into a Federation with you, 4 empires no longer being necessary to start one. Once a Federation has been formed, the technology is not required to invite new members or to ask to join it.

Federation Association Status
Another issue we ran into with the changes to diplomacy in Asimov is that Alliances and Federations had trouble bringing in new members - since non-aggression pacts, defensive pacts and guarantees were no longer possible with outside powers, building trust is difficult and you have to mostly rely on large bribes to get new members to join, something that just didn't feel right. To address this, we're adding a new diplomatic option to Heinlein called 'Federation Association Status'. This works similarly to an invite to the Federation in that it can be offered and asked for with any member of the Federation, but must be approved via unanimous vote. A country that has Federation Association Status is not actually a part of the Federation, but has a non-aggression pact with all Federation members and will gain trust with them up to a maximum value of 100. Revoking association status can be done via majority vote, or on the part of the associate at any time they like.
h4Xxg1d.png


Planet Habitability Changes
The planet habitability wheel is a mechanic we were never quite happy with - it makes some degree of sense, but it's hard to keep track of how each planet relates to your homeworld type, and it ends up nonsensical in quite a few cases (Desert being perfectly fine for Tropical inhabitants, or Arid for Tundra, etc). We found that most players tend to intuitively divide planets into desert/arid tundra/arctic and ocean/tropical/continental, and so we decided to change the mechanic to fit player intuition. Instead of a wheel, planets are now divided into three climate groups (Dry, Wet and Cold) and two new planet types (Alpine and Savanna) were added so that each group has 3 planet types. Habitability for the climates now works as follows (numbers may be subject to change):
  • Habitability for your main planet type is 80% (as before)
  • Habitability for planets of your climate is 60%
  • Habitability for planets of other climates is 20%
As such, you no longer have to keep track of anything other than which climate your planet type has to know whether a particular type of world is suitable for your species.
tAcBgqB.png


We also felt that the number of habitable planets in the galaxy was too large overall, but that we couldn't really decrease it so long as the player only had access to 1/7 of those types at start, which would now become 1/9. We also felt the colonization tech gating could be rather arbitrary, particularly if you had a species suited to a particular planet type but still couldn't colonize it due to lacking the tech. As such, we've done away with the tech gating on colonization, and instead instituted a 30% minimum habitability requirement to colonize a planet. You will also be unable to relocate pops to a planet if their habitability there would be under the 30% minimum. With this change we've also majorly slashed the number of habitable worlds in the galaxy, though if you prefer a galaxy lush with life you will be able to make it so through a new option outlined below. We are, of course, looking into and tweaking the effects that having less habitable worlds overall will have on empire borders.

More Galaxy Setup Options
There is an old gamer's adage that says 'more player choice is always better'. We do not actually agree with this, as adding unnecessary/uninteresting choices can just as well bog a game down as it can improve it, but in the case of galaxy setup in a game such as Stellaris, it is pretty much true. With that in mind, the following new galaxy setup options are planned to be included in Heinlein:
  • Maximum number of Fallen Empires (actually setting a fixed number is difficult due to the way they spawn and how it's affected by regular empires)
  • Chance of habitable worlds spawning
  • Whether to allow advanced empires to start near players
  • Whether to use empire clustering
  • Whether endgame crises should be allowed to appear

Sector Improvements
Since barely a day goes by without a new thread on the topic of sectors and enslavement, we would of course be remiss not to deal with this particular bugbear. We intend to spend a considerable amount of time on the sector AI for Heinlein, but I'm not going to go into specifics on bug fixing/AI improvements but rather on a series of new toggles that we intend to introduce to give the player more control over their sector. In addition to the current redevelopment/respect tile resource toggles, the following new toggles are planned for Heinlein:
  • Whether sector is allowed to enslave/emancipate
  • Whether sector is allowed to build spaceports and construction ships
  • Whether sector is allowed to build military stations (this will replace the military sector focus)
We're also discussing having a sector toggle for building and maintaining local defense fleets, but we don't think we'll have time for it in Heinlein.

That's all for today! Next week we'll be talking about Fallen Empires, how they can awaken, and the War in Heaven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 254
  • 71
  • 11
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
This is my first post here, and I saw how Wiz was so open to communication, its very impressive to say the least, compared to other games I've played.

I wanted to make a new player observation, I just bought the game about 2 weeks ago.

Sectors and special buildings are a bust. I'd really like them to use these more, even If I had to micro or provide the build cost in influence.

My biggest beef is the lack of diplomacy. I started several games with a "galactic empire" type mentality. I did well.. really well. I have a quarter of the known galaxy under one benevolent flag in my best game. I felt like I had won, at least in my view (no I didn't get the victory condition but was really far into it, like 120 plants of 303). I got the Plantoid DLC because I fell in love with this game and wanted to support the devs. With the new empire I made, I decided to try a 180 flip. When I started, I tried to set up trade deals and all kinds of things. AI is FAR to picky. I feel like Pacifists, and Xenophiles need a larger push in the amount that others will agree, if for no other reason than mechanics. with a 150+ favorable opinion, start charts and active sensor link for the same is STILL a -2 or -3. Just an anecdotal example, I'm new, but I realize there are many different ethos and gov types that all factor in. As another, I had a Def pact and a guarantee independence and asking for Wormhole access to DEFEND THEM is -1000...seems odd...

I'd really like to see a request opening borders, at least for pacifists; let it be a trade deal or SOMETHING, but going to war is nearly impossible just to open a border, and border access seems like a really silly reason to go to war, seeing as going to war forces borders to open anyhow. So this wouldn't hut the game play of Wars themselves.


Next, I saw that Embassies were in, but gone? I wasn't following the development cycle until just recently, but I would really like to see this come in again. Embassy planet would be such a fun feature. Having a large ethics divergence due to being exposed to a different culture. Could open the door to lots of fun mechanics and new diplomatic features. New diplomacy is so important, because it seems as of now, military power is the best way to "win". It would be a nice trade off because Pacifists and Xenophile's can't infiltrate with observation posts to fold a new species into their empire, just to name one thing I perceive as lopsided.

There are insults, why not complements or gifts? a 1 year of Xeno pets is sure to oblige an emperor, or a pile of energy credits and or minerals should make even the most bloodthirsty warlord look at you more favorably. Protection Fees might also be a nice addition for Pacifists dealing with Militarists.

TL: DR? I love the idea of playing with diplomacy, please, please, please expand on it!

Thank you to the Dev team for this CRAZY good game!
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
It's like one step forward, two steps back with this device diary.

Stellaris needs to stop removing good but confusing basegame features that actually worked ok (embassies, alliances, habitability, ect) and focus more on adding more content, fixing mid-late game drag, improve ground combat, add in espionage, more events, and tweaking these core features to make them more playable.

This is getting ridiculous.
 
  • 14
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
How is a two axis system for habitability complex? You find planets that are as moist and hot as your species likes. Its not like they're suggesting adding atmospheric composition and pressure and landmass percentage and gravity and all the other variables that would make for a truly deep variety.
 
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
Habitable frozen and molten worlds are not going to happen. They are supposed to represent generic uncoloniesble planets. And as said they want to decrease the number of habitable worlds even further.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Draculdraconis said:
with the change to colonization to get my species altered in a way that they some of them can live on all worlds, one must find a Gaia world to change them to an other climate or a planet with hab+10 mod or colonize a hab +5 with an other species and build a frontier clinic and put one of your pops on it to change them?
Click to expand...

I think it would be better if they made it so that races could only ever be genetically modified within the same habitability group. Otherwise, it still risks being completely overpowered compared to other options for broader colonization (terraforming, synths, and multi-species empires).

I wonder how migration treaties will work. Seems like they would be more of a catch-22 than now, where you can make a colony of one very unhappy pop, get the treaty so the new race moves on to the planet, and move that pop away.
 
Darkath said:
Code: 
               Hot            Warm            Cold
Dry           Desert          Arid            Alpine
Humid        Savanna       Continental       Tundra
Wet          Jungle          Oceanic         Arctic
Click to expand...
The Arctic and especially Antarctica on Earth are not wet! Most of their area is technically desert because of the very low amount of precipitation


As for the diary: some great changes there. It may not be perfect, but it makes a lot more sense than the habitability wheel. And it's great to see more galaxy creation options and an option to turn off clustered starts
 
Wiz said:
There's defensive pacts and joint DOWs for that. Federations also vote on everything, so the only thing you're sacrificing that you're not already sacrificing to alliances is some naval capacity.
Click to expand...

Wiz, what special will the federation president do then except control and design the federation fleet? It seems that you plan to reduce the president to a squad commander :)

Also, I think some people dislike having to join a federation, not because it reduces their sovereignty functionally ingame, but because the name "federation" itself implies it. So I think it may be an RP problem.

Btw, I am impressed by most of the changes, you guys are doing a great job!
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Most of this sounds nice, but I'm a bit sceptic on the removal of alliances. But well, I will have to see once ingame and when all of the other dev diaries have been published.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Deronium said:
It all nice, but deleting alliances seems strange.
Actually, i think there is a big mistake not in alliances, but in federation role.

Alliance must present as military offensive and defensive pact.

But federation must be not a military at all.
It must be more as politic and trade pact. Like same ethics-governments rules, trading and research treaties. Something acting more like in babylon5. open borders, some tech trade and diplomats working for problems like "crysis" in galaxy or sanctions against slaver empire.
Click to expand...

The problem is, that there are no peaceful ways to win the game. You can win only by warring on and on, until you conquered half the galaxy.
At the moment, federations and alliances both serve no purpose except making the game feel more realistic.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
"The War in Heaven" eh? could this possibly involve genocidal robots made of living metal and a race of arrogant, immortal, psychic beings that created a bunch of new races?
 
  • 5
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Hapchazzard said:
Ooo, would that be a step in making sectors more tied in with factions?
Click to expand...

Great idea. Half the sector fleet joins the rebellion! Would be awesome.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
EuropaCam said:
I'd still like to advocate for the planets being categorized along both hot-cold and wet-dry lines, but then only have one axis count for game purposes.
Click to expand...

So basically replace the Dry-Wet-Cold split with Dry-Average-Wet split? I kinda think this is the best suggestion here this far. It retains the relative simplicity of the system described in DD (well, it is pretty much the same system) while that sort of categorisation makes, at least in my opinion, more sense.
 
Quick question: One particular nasty Sector AI bug that has been annoying me since release is that it absolutely refuses to allow an enslaved pop to work the planets Planetary Administration. As this tile can often end up a very high food / mineral producing tile, this is rather heartbreaking to my min-maxing heart :)

(Has this been fixed? ;))
 
Last edited:
Alliance/Federation merger
I am not sure whether I understand the proposed changes concerning the Alliance/Federation merger, however as I understand it, I must say I rather like the divide instead. To me alliances are advanced pacts between only two empires, whereas a Federation needs at least three members to function. I envision a Federation to be an organizational structure that starts out as a coalition, and can develop into more or less an union (with an elected ruler), much like EU4's HRE with its manipulative level of integration.

So far in none of my campaigns have I felt the need or desire to establish a contemporary Federation.

Colonization
I approve Colonization no longer requires the tech. I cannot see why a player wouldn't want to pick that technology first, as not picking it could delay the technology card beyond control.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
TauGDS said:
"The War in Heaven" eh? could this possibly involve genocidal robots made of living metal and a race of arrogant, immortal, psychic beings that created a bunch of new races?
Click to expand...

It's not a 40k reference.

You may want to ask yourself who you are, though, or what it is you want.
 
  • 19
  • 7
Reactions:
I'm really looking forward to most of these changes, especially for the mid-game-events, but I hope you won't neglect the bugfixing.
The Phetoryn Scourge-event for example is totally bugged and the quest is impossible to be finished.
Also, AI players are too weak and too decentralized to stop even the vanguard by the time it appears.

My biggest concern is the loss of alliances though. There are so many alliances in the Sci-Fi-universe that are strong bounds, despite not being a Federation.
For example: Federation-Klingon alliance from Star Trek, UNSC-Sangheli alliance from Halo, the alliance between the Asgard and the Humans in Stargate...
Of course some of them can be seen as defensive pacts, but alliances sound way more interesting and imply that two factions,
although they would never form a federation and give up their sovereignity, are respecting each other in a way like warrior-brothers do.
 
Just want to commend you PDX on how you're tackling Stellaris. With it being a new series it was obvious it wouldn't be as easy to get it right from the get-go as EU4 or CK2, but the recent patches are just spot on in terms of content and direction. The modding community is also already amazing, being able to do great stuff (the best of which you use as inspiration for improvements). By the time Stellaris is done, I think it'll be without a doubt the best game you have in your library. Keep up the good work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back