• 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 #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:
There is - POP growth times. This is especially noticeable if you have a large number of food tiles being worked on your new colony, or multiple races with different habitability on one planet. Like food it becomes inconsequential once the planet is full, though.

Well, yes that is why I specifically said there was no difference in happiness, I knew there was the influence on growth time. It doesn't make sense to me that pops on a 100% planet are as happy as pops on a 60% habitability planet if neither have happiness boosters.
 
In Heinlein, we've decided to retire alliances altogether and have Federations be the only form of 'permanent' alliance.
Please reconsider, I liked alliances because they were like Factions in Hearts of Iron 4. You didn't have to completely give up your national sovereignty and submit to someone else's rule. What could distinguish alliances from federations is if you made alliances like they actually operate. If an individual of an alliance goes to war it could give them an option to call their allies to war instead of a vote that drags everyone into the war. Operating independently of your alliance would definitely create a difference between the procedure of federations and alliances and allow you to keep them in the game.
 
Last edited:
  • 14
Reactions:
Two questions: Can we get, at some point, an option to turn off all victory conditions except the timelimit? Also, is there an ETA on the patch or at least the beta branch for it because this is the first time I have been excited to play the game since a few weeks after release, and I can't wait to dive back in.
 
Reworked Axis:

Your own world type: 80
Worlds sharing 1 type: 50
Worlds Sharing None: 20

Each start has exactly 4 "off type" worlds for 50%, each start has exactly 4 at 20%

I've read the discussions in this thread and this seems to make much, much more sense.
 

Attachments

  • Habitability Axis.jpg
    Habitability Axis.jpg
    39,9 KB · Views: 67
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Reworked Axis:

Your own world type: 80
Worlds sharing 1 type: 50
Worlds Sharing None: 20

Each start has exactly 4 "off type" worlds for 50%, each start has exactly 4 at 20%

I've read the discussions in this thread and this seems to make much, much more sense.

What about a scale rather than types? With RNG behind the numbers.
Special rules could apply to Gaia, Tomb and uninhabitable worlds of course.

0-100 Temperature
0-100 "Wetness"

Have the Adaptability value be = 80 - (((Temperature - Species optimal)Modulus) + (((Species optimal - Wetness)Modulus) / 1.5)

Therefore if we chose Continental (50 Temp, 50 wetness) and the planet was Desert (100 temp 0 wetness for an extreme example).

80 - ((100 - 50) + (0 - 50))/1.5

80 - ((50 + 50 (Modulus remember?))/1.5 = 13.333% Adaptability.


For sharing one type
say temperature = 50 and wetness remains 0

80 - ((50-50) + (0 - 50))/1.5

80 - (50)/1.5 = 46.666%

Dunno if you want Stellaris: DnD edition however.

EDIT: Good god this is a terrible idea, probably better off to use Pythagoras's theorem for a start.

And you need to penalize several types.

On the other hand you could probably make it fairer by changing 1.5 to 1 and making so the types you can choose range from

50-100 Temperature
50-100 Wetness.

in a 0 - 150 scale

Then use Pythagora's theorem when you add wetness and temperature.

so something like

80 - (((Temperature - Species optimal)^2 + (Wetness - Species optimal)^2)^0.5)/1

Did a bit more math and it seems ok.

Judging by area of a single species ie Habitability needs to be above 50, so if you use the 0-150 scale as a square grid the total area is 22500

using a radius of 30, (80-50) the feasible area is 2800ish so the coverage is 12.5%

Therefore you can reasonably colonize 1 in 8 of planets, Roughly what Wiz mentioned.

If you want to reduce that increase the value of the 1 at the end of the formula.

Might be a very complicated way of the grid system for colonization-able planets.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
It's not a 40k reference.

You may want to ask yourself who you are, though, or what it is you want.
Hoo boy, I can already see where this ends. I say that I want to conquer my greatest enemies, and in the end the moment that should be my greatest triumph turns into quiet horror, when I realize what I have done.
(Which probably means that their homeworld is now covered in crater tile blockers)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Just add a Centralization x Decentralization policy slider already, Sector related problems are not just due to bad AI&bugs, more than them it is badly designed. With such a slider you can have a middle&normal point (possibly out of 5 points) that allows the player to bypass Governors' decisions, possibly by spending Influence, in a certain tile for a certain amount of time. Decentralization would bring greater efficiency, but reduce (disable at the extreme point) the player's ability to meddle with planets, while Centralization would do the opposite but without removing the need for sectors. This can nicely be tied to ethics, so that an Individualist pop with a sense of autonomy would get angry by Central's intrusions into local governance, while Collective pops would not mind it so much. Let me bold that by-passing Governor part, that is crucial for QoL. I honestly cannot see how this is not implemented already, it is relatively self-contained so would not mess up with all the other mechanics, gives a control over sector shittiness, easy to teach the AI civs, and it's not an overlycomplex unimplementable pseudo-design we mostly see in forums.
 
  • 6
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
I want to live just long enough to be there when they cut off the Fallen Empire leader's head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into his lifeless eyes and wave, like this . Can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr Wiz?
Well played sir!
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I liked the climate wheel? this feels like, there is only three options, instead of choosing many different like, climate profiles, for your species? three families of classes seems like it might feel more gamey?
And was it ever hard to keep track of? you just hover the mouse over the wee icon..
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I liked the climate wheel? this feels like, there is only three options, instead of choosing many different like, climate profiles, for your species? three families of classes seems like it might feel more gamey?
And was it ever hard to keep track of? you just hover the mouse over the wee icon..

And it'll be the same with hovering the mouse, it just works a bit differently.
 
@Wiz
With all the changes to habitability, will terraforming see any changes too? I feel like for all the effort/time you put into it, you don't get a big pay out, especially compared to faster and cheaper adaptive gene modding. For example one of the things I pointed out in post I made about how terraforming could be improved, I have been baffled at why terraforming a planet to your like type, it still only has 80% habitability like it were a regular planet. You are actually changing the planets biosphere to (presumably) your main species preference, it's a bit silly for it to not be perfectly suited for your species when the whole idea of terraforming is to do just that.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I liked the climate wheel? this feels like, there is only three options, instead of choosing many different like, climate profiles, for your species? three families of classes seems like it might feel more gamey?
Climate Wheel was a good compromise, and was easy to get used to.
As Wiz said it had it's problems(particularly the desert/jungle adjacency), but it was still a structurally sound system.

I do however feel that we do not have enough information to truly see how the new system will work, and thus have a concern over exactly how it will work, especially with regards to terraformation.

In short:
NEED MORE INPUT!
 
When we get new options for map generation, are we going to be able to generate galaxies with more than 1000 systems? This is a heck of a lot of fun for people with overpowered computers and while it can be accomplished with mods, I find those mods tend to be a bit buggy.
 
I do not agree with the Limiting the amount of habitual worlds in the galaxy and the making it you need 30 percent Min to even colonized it which is just really stupid if you ask me. What if I want to use that planet to send all those species i hate to it so they could die ?. What if I wanted to make that planet my slave planet and have everyone suffer on it. Now you are telling me I cant do that ?. Also since you already making it i need to have 30 percent or higher to colonized.. Now on top of that you are limiting the amount of Planets hablitable. Its bad enough sometimes your home sector does not have any worlds you can live on ( Sol system )

I hope a mod comes along and reverses that as soon as possible. Its fine you make it 30 percent or higher to colonized.. The problem is you decrees the amount of planets that can be colonized ( Which honestly in a galaxy so large and known.. there should be more )

I bet people will Not be happy that I disagree with part of the Dev Diary Oh well I just hate that one small part of it.. That is all Everything else is great.. That one part with less habitability planets is the bad part. No matter what when you say "With this change we've also majorly slashed the number of habitable worlds in the galaxy " It just sounds bad to me. No matter if you said we could make a galaxy with lush life.. We really cant because than we get hammered by the 30 percent rule you added onto it. Why not just keep the 30 percent needed to colonized and leave the rest ?. As the old saying goes " Do not fix what is not broken "
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 3
Reactions:
Unique graphics, yes. Tile blockers, maybe.

If you're already gnawing on the art team for more world graphics, could you possibly convince them to give us shiny-like custom backgrounds for the special world types, instead of having tomb worlds, gaia worlds, and ring worlds use the background art for tundra worlds, continental worlds, and tropical worlds, respectively? Not a high-priority thing, I know, but it'd be a well-appreciated bonus for Heinlein.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Cheers for the DD Wiz :D. Changes all sound good. In terms of Associates to Federations, is there any thought to that placing some obligations on the associate, in the context of the nature of the federation (so a militaristic federation might want an associate to have a decent-sized fleet, while a spiritual one might want them to do something different)? Just a random idea, ignore if silly :).

We want to make it easier to keep the habitability mechanics in your head, not harder.

It's definitely a good step forward in that regard. If there was a way to have it so that it was covered off in the UI, and didn't need to be kept in the head at all, that'd help even more.

I want to flesh out Federations more in the future, yes. For now we're gonna focus on fixing up what mechanics we have currently.

+1 for future fleshing of Federations further, but that it's not something to prioritise now.