Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary will be focusing on the road ahead after Cherryh and Apocalypse, and our long-term priorities going forward.

Cherryh Post-Release Support
As mention in last week's dev diary, the immediate priority for the team is post-release support for Cherryh and Apocalypse, fixing bugs, addressing balance/feature feedback, and working on quality of life and performance improvements. We are maintaining a running 2.0.2 beta patch which we will continue to update every few days or so until we are happy with the state of the game.

The Post-Apocalypse
Apocalypse and Cherryh were an expansion/patch focused almost exclusively on war, and with it out, we are now going to be moving on to other, non-war related priorities for future updates, expansions and story packs. To give you an idea of what's coming, we're going to revisit the list of long-term goals for Stellaris I made and updated for Dev Diary #50 and Dev Diary #69. This time, we're going to organize the goals into the ones we feel have been delivered on, old goals that were added to the list before 2.0, and new goals that we have set for ourselves after 2.0 (there is no prioritization difference between goals based on when they were added or whether they are considered old or new for this particular list).

As before, the list is NOT in order of priority, and something being considered completed NOT mean we aren't going to continue to improve on it in future updates, just that we consider it to be at a satisfactory level.

As before, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE OR FINAL LIST, NOTHING NOT ALREADY COMPLETED IS CERTAIN TO HAPPEN AND THERE ARE NO ETAS

Completed Goals

• Ship appearance that differs for each empire, so no two empires' ships look exactly the same.
• More potential for empire customization, ability to build competitive 'tall' empires.
• Global food that can be shared between planets.
• Ability to construct space habitats and ringworlds.
• Factions that are proper interest groups with specific likes and dislikes and the potential to be a benefit to an empire instead of just being rebels.
• Ability to set rights and obligations for particular species in your empire.
• Buildable Dreadnoughts and Titans.
• Deeper mechanics and unique portraits for synthetics.
• Reworking the endgame crises to be more balanced against each other and the size/state of the galaxy.
• Reworks to war to address the 'doomstacks' issue and make the strategic and tactical layers of warfare more interesting and less micro-intensive.
• Superweapons and planet killers.

Old Goals

• A 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.
• Deeper Federations that start out as loose alliances and can eventually be turned into single states through diplomatic manuevering.
• More story events and reactive narratives that give a sense of an unfolding story as you play.
• More interesting mechanics for pre-FTL civilizations.
• 'Living systems', making empire systems feel more alive and lived in

New Goals

• Less micromanagement and more focus on interesting choices in regards to planets, the ability to grow planets beyond current fixed size.
• Empire trade mechanics and trade agreements.
• A galactic market where resources and strategic resources can be imported and exported.
• Espionage and sabotage mechanics.
• Improved galaxy/hyperlane generation with better placed systems and dangers.
• More anomalies and unique systems to explore.

That's all for today! Over the next few weeks, dev diaries will continue to focus on post-release support. Feature dev diaries will resume when we have new features to talk about. Finishing off this dev diary is a screenshot of how we're reworking difficulty modes in the next update to the rolling 2.0.2 beta:

 

[nathelbiya]

Would personally prefer a federation to be like its own UN, where each state within votes on issues, however you could be associated with other federations at the same time. This may or may not lead you to have to potential switch allegiances if the two Feds begin to rub up against each other, or you could play member states off of each other for personal gain.

I think it could be great if it were a bit like the HRE in EUIV.

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

One thing I guess I would like to see, call me a nerd, is systems with red giant or supergiant stars. I know their is a mod for this but I would like to see it in game. Maybe with storylines that involve the chance of the star going nova: do you take the chance at developing that system, even if the system has superior resources and planets? Just a thought, not a huge deal if they don't do it.

It would also be cool if the red gaint would slowely degrade your armour if you pass your fleet through the system or to have some "galactic terrain" that creates attrition.

 

[Lowki]

I'd still like to see more internal politics in your empire. I'd also like more I can do to modify and customize the characters.

 

[th3freakie]

• Espionage and sabotage mechanics.

Please don't. At least don't do it like these things always are done in 4x games. They're always just an extra layer of shit to worry about that swings wildly from "nuisance" to "game breaking". Either "RNG says you got +5% research into the next habitability tech" or "you sabotaged enemy fleets and they're useless for the next year".

IF you absolutely must, connect it to how much information you have to govern/war/conduct diplomacy with. Make it so we don't instantly know the species characteristics of never-before-seen aliens, their government policies etc, what tech they use, what systems they own, where their starbases are, etc. Also, if I'm running a non-democratic government, make me not know who is and isn't in the opposition factions, unless I have proper intelligence/security services. Let me send support to like-minded factions in other empires. Make openness of society have some benefits and weaknesses that make it play different from closed ones (have different accesses and needs of access to information).

 

[BaronBanana]

Wouldn't it be better to have the scaling difficulty not as its own difficulty type but as checkbox on the right hand side (like you did with various other sliders). In that way you could select your starting difficulty (e.g. captain) and then select the checkbox for "scaling" to ensure that it will scale up to admiral over time.

Of course this is just one example on how to implement this idea, my main point is: "why not integrate the scaling difficulty option as an additional checkbox".

 

[Arrean]

Ship appearance that differs for each empire, so no two empires' ships look exactly the same.

While I understand this would be a low priotity. Isn't this only "kind of complete" empire colors on ships are great feature, but that doesn't feel enough to justify writing this off as complete. I wouldn't care if this comes years out, but some cosmetic stuff like e.g. organic protrusions on Hive-Mind ships, skull+bones on fanatic purifier ships(think Firefly Reaver) would be amazing.

Other than that, excited for the future. 2.0+Apocalypse Is the best update\expanision so far and really brought back my interest for the game

Also, was wondering, if this issue with ringworlds is being worked on?

 

[Wizzington]

Please don't. At least don't do it like these things always are done in 4x games. They're always just an extra layer of shit to worry about that swings wildly from "nuisance" to "game breaking". Either "RNG says you got +5% research into the next habitability tech" or "you sabotaged enemy fleets and they're useless for the next year".

IF you absolutely must, connect it to how much information you have to govern/war/conduct diplomacy with. Make it so we don't instantly know the species characteristics of never-before-seen aliens, their government policies etc, what tech they use, what systems they own, where their starbases are, etc. Also, if I'm running a non-democratic government, make me not know who is and isn't in the opposition factions, unless I have proper intelligence/security services. Let me send support to like-minded factions in other empires. Make openness of society have some benefits and weaknesses that make it play different from closed ones (have different accesses and needs of access to information).

We have no intention of adding espionage just to add espionage. If that's what we were going to do we'd have done so already.

 

[th3freakie]

We have no intention of adding espionage just to add espionage. If that's what we were going to do we'd have done so already.

This is good to know.

 

[Ariphaos]

Titans/Colossi were actually originally called Dreadnoughts/Titans but we renamed them to avoid confusion due to Fallen Empire Titans.

I've wondered if the Automated Dreadnought should get rebuilt as a unique titan. It has that weird lower mount for a colossal gun and everything.

 

[Borgratz]

Thanks for doing these list updates every now and then. Its really helpful to understand what you guys are doing! Kind of suprised that this isnt more common in game development.

@ the list: I like that you are adding more options to empire interactions (UN, Sabotage, Espionage) but I hope future updates will also really focus on improving the interactions we already have.
The main reason I quit Stellaris runs right now is because the game just doesnt have the option to do what I want it to do (Betray an ally who refuses to peace out. Influence my subjects so that they give up their claims on my systems. Option during peace deal negotiation.). Way too many parts of the game get decided for you.
So I really hope you dont have diplomatic actions on your "satisfactory" list because at least to me that is pretty much the only part of the game that still belongs on the rage inducingly underdeveloped list, now that 2.0 fixed so many of the other problems.


(I did read the 5 disclaimers, btw, this is not a "why isnt that on the list *pitchforks*" posts )

 

[Everstill]

"Sir, the Prethoryn have devoured the last independent nation. All their fleets are heading directly for us."

"Fear not, young Admiral. We have now attained more than 1000% production efficiency compared to all other nations in the galaxy."

"But that is because there are no other nations!"

"We are also lightyears ahead in terms of societal advancement and technology. Our victory is at hand."

*Victory screen flashes*

*Empire gets destroyed because player accidently touched space.*

lmao. This was way more ridiculous when you could win with a Crisis rampaging. You literally auto won when the Scourge trigger, just need to wait for them to eat planets and you would get 40% habitable planets.

And you still can win with Awakened empires in the galaxy. Like, The xenophobic is purging everyone and is 3 times stronger than you but you have won the game because you got 40% of the habitable planets. I don't even have to talk how forming the League of non-alligned power instantly "win" you the game.

Seriously, while we wait for the "goals" system Wiz talk about, the only victory conditions should be Conquer everyone or be in a federation with everyone that is left.

 

[mtilhan]

New Goals

• Less micromanagement and more focus on interesting choices in regards to planets, the ability to grow planets beyond current fixed size.

View attachment 343256

Thank you for update but I wish that this goal would not remove micromanagement but give an option for non-micromanagement. Some of us really like having micromanagement in games.

 

[Ixal]

• More potential for empire customization

I do hope this issue is not considered to be finished. Because unless you take one of the special starts most empires play the same no matter what type of government or ethos they have.

 

[Thumos]

Great news ! Loving 2.0, by far the most enjoyable the game has ever been.

Yeah I'm sure I've heard wiz speak about this before, I just wondered whether that had been shelved seeing as it's not on the list today.

And I agree, the victory conditions are pointless, which is why I set my own goals like I think most people do. That's why I wish they were either overhauled or they might as well just be cut like the devs have done to other mechanics that weren't working as intended.

That's why EU/CK point system is good. It's a clear finish line that lets you play the score if you want to, while never funneling anyone into a rigid playstyle. Something akin to that in Stellaris would go a long way toward satisfying ppl who care for completion imho.

 

[Vahilior]

I'm going to add a couple society techs that give Hive Minds and Machine Empires substantial resource production boosts in the mid-game.

Will there be anything on influence, it takes a very very long time to claim available systems in a large empire with a totally flat influence gain.

 

[Nyrael]

Yeah I'm sure I've heard wiz speak about this before, I just wondered whether that had been shelved seeing as it's not on the list today.

And I agree, the victory conditions are pointless, which is why I set my own goals like I think most people do. That's why I wish they were either overhauled or they might as well just be cut like the devs have done to other mechanics that weren't working as intended.

Cutting features is always an iffy subject. The 3FTL system was cut because it got in the way of balancing, programming, designing, etc., and also caused countless problems. But VP don't really do anything else other than fill the forums, reddit, and Facebook Groups with people who act like VP are the holy goals of their campaigns. Annoying, but not really that critical.

But who knows. Story Packs generally seem to take care of the low priority goals, so maybe the next one (which will probably come before the third expansion) even takes care of them.

 

[Derp]

Is it intended that citadels, starholds and starbases downgrade straight to outpost as opposed to incrementally down one to their lower level?

I really fail to see how that is logical either in terms of gameplay or realistic in terms of what a space faring empire would do?

I understand that it's give and take that you must decide which systems to invest in, and in what way. But when we've been piecemeal building up these stations outward, when we've been specializing them by module as we can or as we need.

But when we realize we don't need a citadel in that system or perhaps a starhold, we don't just downgrade it to a smaller starbase no no we just scrap the whole thing back to outpost????? Only to have to build back up to the level we wanted.

why would you ever downgrade a starbase to a lower level and not directly to an outpost? the upkeep costs are negligible, the mineral costs are unrecoverable, and it'd still contribute to the starbase cap.

 

[Zentay]

Wiz, can you tell us a bit more about how you plan on reducing micromanagement? The original idea was through sectors, but that failed. They need a fair amount of micromanagement initially, and players can manually build in sectors now, and the maximum number of core systems is much higher as well.

Imo the problem with Stellaris is that the AI cannot handle global food/energy, pops on tiles with buildings, with adjacency bonuses and potentially fluctuating food and energy income.

 

[SimmonsTheMad33]

New difficulty got me like

"Are you keeping up with the commodore? Cause all the other AI are on the same level as you......"

Ahem... sorry

 

[8igualdos0s]

I am excited about trade and living systems features...good DD!