Stellaris Dev Diary #322 - 3.10.0 “Pyxis” Custodian Features

[King Harkinian]

"I enjoy RNG screwing me." That's great, most do not. Because RNG completely outside ones control in a game that's based mostly on logic, planning, and decision making isn't enjoyable to many.

The loud minority you represent - that of people who are deathly afraid of adversity and unpredictability, two of the CORE APPEALS of any game, have ruined so many games in recent years. Even Stellaris has taken damage - the Ascension Paths for example are now a far less interesting system after being homogenized so that your kind can do the same predictable thing over and over in every game instead of having to adapt to the techs you draw. No one had these anti-fun opinions back in the day, and don't assume you're now a majority. I for one am less interested in playing and supporting Stellaris for every fun and chaotic system that gets replaced with a progress bar or spreadsheet.

 

[Thiend]

The loud minority you represent - that of people who are deathly afraid of adversity and unpredictability, two of the CORE APPEALS of any game, have ruined so many games in recent years. Even Stellaris has taken damage - the Ascension Paths for example are now a far less interesting system after being homogenized so that your kind can do the same predictable thing over and over in every game instead of having to adapt to the techs you draw. No one had these anti-fun opinions back in the day, and don't assume you're now a majority. I for one am less interested in playing and supporting Stellaris for every fun and chaotic system that gets replaced with a progress bar or spreadsheet.

I enjoy chaos, but your specific example really wasn't fun chaos. The way ascension paths work, you always went in planning to do a particular one - they just weren't balanced at all. They're still not, of course, but they're better than they were.

There's an important difference between "I adapt to my specific circumstances and RNG" and "RNG has arbitrarily screwed me over." The latter is how ascension worked before. What neighbors you have, what kind of hyperlane layout you have, what basic resource districts you have (versus, say, building habitats to take advantage of good deposits) are all examples of good RNG - you don't feel that RNG has screwed you by not giving you what you need, you just adapt to HOW it has given you what you need.

 

[DurianKing]

What neighbors you have, what kind of hyperlane layout you have, what basic resource districts you have (versus, say, building habitats to take advantage of good deposits) are all examples of good RNG - you don't feel that RNG has screwed you by not giving you what you need, you just adapt to HOW it has given you what you need.

So the only unpredictable element the game should have is in galaxy generation? Why actually play the game then, if you can already map out your game-winning strategy after a couple years of exploration and there is virtually nothing in the mid- or late-game that can throw you off course?

Look I know some people treat Stellaris kinds like woodworking: they want something familiar that they can perform competently over and over again, where the challenge lies in the wood and tools you start with. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s certainly not how everyone wants to play.

 

[Thiend]

So the only unpredictable element the game should have is in galaxy generation? Why actually play the game then, if you can already map out your game-winning strategy after a couple years of exploration and there is virtually nothing in the mid- or late-game that can throw you off course?

I don't seem to recall saying that. I gave examples and a general guideline.

It is good when RNG forces you to adapt and it is not good when RNG functions solely as a "better/worse" scale. It is therefore good RNG when, say, a space storm renders an area shieldless and you adapt by countering/building armor, avoiding the area, etc. It is not good RNG when, in the prior system where empires still had specific ascensions in mind going in, RNG determined when you could do it with no real player input. The new system is all the better the more good agenda options there are competing with using the ascension agenda to move it along, which creates a choice to either give up other agenda uses or wait on RNG to bring forth the tech.

RNG that creates choices is good. RNG that says "lol screw you" is not. I don't know how much more clear I can be but frankly I already thought I had been pretty clear.

 

[Ohirra]

So the only unpredictable element the game should have is in galaxy generation? Why actually play the game then, if you can already map out your game-winning strategy after a couple years of exploration and there is virtually nothing in the mid- or late-game that can throw you off course?

Look I know some people treat Stellaris kinds like woodworking: they want something familiar that they can perform competently over and over again, where the challenge lies in the wood and tools you start with. Nothing wrong with that, but it’s certainly not how everyone wants to play.

That is exactly how I play.

I like the RNG of galaxy generation. How many systems are 1 hyperlane away and what resources do they have, who are my neighbours, etc. If I save this specific galaxy map and replay it again trying a different type of build or whatever, I know exactly which systems are around me and who I'll end up meeting as I explore further out from my homeworld. It's consistent.

What I really, really dislike are RNG things that may or may not happen. Will I find the same anomaly again if I survey this system on a replay? Will I get the same colony event if I expand to this planet again? That is bad RNG because it's inconsistent.

 

[Ikael]

Once again, the Custodian initiative is the best thing that happened to the game, as proven by this DD. Amazing stuff! Now, some comments:

- Leader consolidation looks quite solid. However, I am not sold on the sub-classes. Some of them seem to be disappearing after the early game (explorer) while other ones seem too weak to ever consider them. I mean, Commanders acting as governors seem to me like a wasted opportunity. They could have improved the defenses of the system, generated additional naval cap, or provided faster ship-building speed... instead, their use seems to be restricted to slaver builds and pacifying newly occupied territories, which is not something you need often unless invasion shock penalties have been massively increased.

- Civic rework was completely necessary considering the extensive trait and leader rework. Glad to see that the old problems of "over-compartmentalizing" seem to be solved. Glad to see Custodians touching all the areas affected by reworks, you guys are doing great work.

- Unless the penalties for not having "default" council positions are lessened, I don't think that anyone is going to change those.

- Tradition rework. Man, Aptitude got nerfed really hard, but Statecraft really needed that buff. Perhaps that was needed, but I am not sure if Aptitude required such a hard nerf, considering how the general trait power level has been (rightfully) decreased.

- Council legitimacy seems like a good framework for internal politics (tm) and further boosts agendas, which are some of the most interesting things that came up with the latest leader update.

- It is weird to see that envoy numbers have not been reduced despite their reduced uses. Perhaps they will get other functions in the future?

- OMG ascension perks got revisited, at last, long last. Galactic force projection is now useful (is this real life?), and Shared Destiny has been nerfed. Hell yeah! The witch is dead! (and by the "witch", I mean, "get one ascension perk so you can get infinite vassal swarms"). Also, massive kudos for making Feudal Society and Shared Destiny a natural pair, as they should be.

Yes, they can. Though I can see reasons why you might not want them doing field work (trait possibilities will be split across Council and whatever job they're filling), so we'll discuss possible alternatives internally.

Perhaps field traits could also offer effects when in the council? (For example, the Archeologist trait giving +10% Archaeology Excavation Speed on the field, and +5% minor artifact output if in the council). But then that would mess with the current class system, I guess.

 

[Starfury]

- Leader consolidation looks quite solid. However, I am not sold on the sub-classes. Some of them seem to be disappearing after the early game (explorer) while other ones seem too weak to ever consider them. I mean, Commanders acting as governors seem to me like a wasted opportunity. They could have improved the defenses of the system, generated additional naval cap, or provided faster ship-building speed... instead, their use seems to be restricted to slaver builds and pacifying newly occupied territories, which is not something you need often unless invasion shock penalties have been massively increased.

That might be a bit early to say. We'll still have to see what the Commissioner Veteran traits will look like. I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the pioneer traits will end up on Commissioners instead of Industrialists.
That would mean you could use Commissioners as Governors for your energy and your mining planets while Industialists and Analysts take care of your core worlds.

Of course, as long as you can afford to shift to a zero-worker economy even a Pioneer / Protector hybrid will end up pretty useless, but I'm not sure that's really a problem. A pacifist might also find Admirals and Generals useless after all.


Speaking of different classes working as Governors: I do wonder happened to the Common Governor traits. Did they end up in the Common trait pool? Can Scientists and Commanders end up with basic traits like Principled or Agrarian Upbringing?

 

[WARRIOR_PSIX]

I think that the heroic past needs to be left with a "maximum of negative traits", However, as a compromise, I suggest making it -0.2 for the leader level, and not in the basic modifiers. I.e., when reaching lvl 5, there will be -1 trait, and at level 10 there will be -2 traits.

 

[LiZinckle]

The council positions are now limited, but since the civic have different weight towards their modifiers and position strength, choosing from them becomes strategic.

I am now eagerly anticipating the results of my next playthrough in 3.10.

 

[Cahokia]

Just want to chime in as I see several complaints about swapping the main 3 council positions and their penalties. This is a very welcome addition as being able to specialize your empire during certain stages is very powerful. A tech rush with 6 scientists for that sweet research speed is huge. Minister of Defense is a purely economic position anyways since naval cap is easy to go over. Once you are deep into tech repeatables, being able to have 6 Commanders on the council will also be very powerful. I expect this will be the only way to get near -90% ship cost with possible incoming nerfs. (which are needed)

These are moderate penalties in the early game (the worst is the head of research), but trivial late game after stacking bonuses. One important note is that any non-Gestalt can hire an enclave scientist to be able to field 6 council scientists. However only divine conduit and galactic emperor will be able to field 6 council commanders. (unless something changes) We will have to see if this makes forming the galactic imperium attractive over the custodian though. At least throw a bone and give them a resolution for damage to crisis factions.

This further reinforces a bonus oligarchy & democracy have since they can swap their ruler easily. Stacking bonuses is very powerful and being able to swap out all council members throughout the game will allow you to further specialize.

 

[Jay Sherman]

Just want to chime in as I see several complaints about swapping the main 3 council positions and their penalties. This is a very welcome addition as being able to specialize your empire during certain stages is very powerful.

It is so much better than not being able to do it, that's for sure!

 

[Beauty Nova]

It's mostly the fact that we're getting a new default minister that isn't all that useful, but if you drop it suddenly you lose 25% diplomatic weight.

 

[Thiend]

It's mostly the fact that we're getting a new default minister that isn't all that useful, but if you drop it suddenly you lose 25% diplomatic weight.

Indeed. This new version is actually less customizable because it penalizes you just for the level of customization we have now.

Put bluntly, if they want people to use the baseline positions and have an option to customize, there can't be penalties for customizing. This isn't a system where you freely choose what you want but the baseline is also valid, it's a system where you CAN choose what you want but ONLY the baseline is valid.

Every part of this rework I like, except that, which is genuinely awful. Either buff the standard positions to be competitive or accept that we won't use them, don't give us fake options to choose different ones. In what world is ANY council position going to compete with +25% research rate that doesn't care about leader level, on top of the actual council position and councilor traits? Give me a break. Someone designed the baseline positions and really wants them used. Okay, buff them or give up on that.

 

[Telenil]

I'm French and I get absurdly triggered when I read "chateaus". This is clearly a French word, but the correct plural form in our language is "chateaux". My brain won't stop tagging this as a spelling error.

 

[Cahokia]

That is a fair criticism @Beauty Nova and @Thiend. However diplomatic weight either really matters or not at all depending on the state of the galaxy. We will see how the vassal changes mix things up cause maybe diplomatic weight will start mattering again. (which would be nice) I do agree that the Head of Research is the strongest penalty, and it feels more impactful compared to the others. Especially since that scientist would also have research speed traits. Maybe that penalty would need to be tuned down compared to the others.

I still stand by my previous point though that once you are deep into repeatables having 6 council commanders will be far more impactful than -25% research speed which is a drop in the bucket of stacking modifiers. So there is a use case for removing Head of Research which is nice even if only a handful of empires could do this. In crisis runs being able to spit out an absurd number of ships with high starting experience is very useful.

So you aren't required to always take the baseline @Thiend. I believe the penalties are there to counter how powerful stacking modifiers in one category can become. Stacking 6 scientists for an early tech rush is probably the strongest strategy that will come from this change. I do agree it feels weird to have penalties for the base positions compared to the other council positions. However I believe the reason for this is strictly to counter 6 leaders of one category being used.

 

[-Marauder-]

Pretty funny stuff coming from someone who is gonna keep buying DLC for a game that randomly spites them with RNG, when there are free word processors and spreadsheet programs that would satisfy full narrative control and solving optimization problems seemingly better than any PDX game.

You're equating high impact RNG that is almost inevitable and has no player interaction, with conscious risk taking that leads to smaller risks and potential higher gains. Take the Shroud as an example, the Shroud can backfire. More often than not however, it doesn't. The investment into the Shroud is minimal, the potential gains large, and the downsides while at times painful are limited in how painful they are and even more important are temporary. The biggest point here however is player agency. The player decides to take these risks.

Leader negative traits are a hidden value, and more often than not seem to be fixed at -4 across the board. They have zero interaction with the player beyond imposing out of nowhere a massive punishing debuff that more often than not means that leader has to go ASAFP. A leader the player likely invested considerable time and effort in to raise as high as they are, kept around for as long as they could, and and was a fairly high investment.

You're going out of your way to be incredibly dishonest here, conflating minor RNG often times within player control and as direct consequences of their actions to huge RNG BS that the player does not have any control over whatsoever.


So let's break this down. We're having the Shroud, various anomalies, etc:

- Almost always happen due to a decision made by the player, and as direct consequences of player actions.
- Impact tends to be minor and or temporary.
- Usually comes with a risk/reward outcome heavily tilted in favor of the latter.
- Low investment both time and resource wise.

On the other side we have the current negative leader traits.

- Leaders are a very big investment, both time and resource wise.
- Leaders have a huge impact on the Empire now.
- Impact of negative leader traits differs wildly.
- The entire system is hidden from the player and completely out of their control.
- Player has zero interaction with it.

Good morning! I find this interactive, fun, and enjoyable ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Having all your leaders be 'practically perfect in every way' is some Mary Poppins-level stuff. To each their own, though.



A game where nothing unpredictable ever happens sounds like a pretty boring game, imho. It also seems kinda antithetical to the history simulators that Paradox specialises in, and Stellaris is very much a future history simulator.

Sure, explain to me how a hidden negative trait value that means a leader one spend decades raising will instantly be fired and replaced forcing one to go through the entire process again is particularly interactive. Unless you mean the action of disposing of them is that?

Loads of unpredictable things happen, certain negative leader traits is like someone randomly shooting you in the foot during a marathon. That's not something that enhances the enjoyability of the marathon nor is it particularly great an approach. Not giving leaders massively empire wide negative effects such as bonus Empire size doesn't mean "the game is pretty boring".

Also, following your argument, I guess games like Chess are pretty boring too?

The loud minority you represent - that of people who are deathly afraid of adversity and unpredictability, two of the CORE APPEALS of any game, have ruined so many games in recent years. Even Stellaris has taken damage - the Ascension Paths for example are now a far less interesting system after being homogenized so that your kind can do the same predictable thing over and over in every game instead of having to adapt to the techs you draw. No one had these anti-fun opinions back in the day, and don't assume you're now a majority. I for one am less interested in playing and supporting Stellaris for every fun and chaotic system that gets replaced with a progress bar or spreadsheet.

What the hell are you even talking about?

So the only unpredictable element the game should have is in galaxy generation? Why actually play the game then, if you can already map out your game-winning strategy after a couple years of exploration and there is virtually nothing in the mid- or late-game that can throw you off course?

Holy mother of false binaries. There's loads of unpredictable aspects to the game, including what actions other Empires and players will take. Comparing that to a hidden value that does nothing but forces you to fire leaders and replace them ASAFP if they gain certain negative traits hardly even registers in the grander scale of things, beyond being incredibly unfun and frustrating.

 

[mrt1212]

You're simply oversteeping yourself in a sideshow subsystem of the game and calling it a problem when meta perfection for its own vanity gets a couple zits.

Like, leaders are kinda cool and kinda just there to hire, but aren't a fundamental of how I play so if one gets a zit, the show goes on and I still succeed. Pretty nifty how I sorted that out in 2 seconds.

Nearly everyone having a cow about Leaders seems inflexibly stuck on them being some kind of game grease that spites them in the end and it's wild watching this simply treating it like a bonus subsystem

Maybe I should take you for a walk around the block

 

[Thiend]

However I believe the reason for this is strictly to counter 6 leaders of one category being used.

I'm probably about to sound more adversarial than I intend, but it's for that exact reason that my first post in this thread suggested the penalties (adjusted to be comparable to one another) should be for having none of a type of leader, rather than not having the default council positions. That would be relatively reasonable as a soft limitation in a way that "use these exact council positions we know you don't want" isn't.

 

[Archael90]

System where to choose positive trait, player have to choose one negative would be better than random developing of negative leader traits.

 

[mrt1212]

System where to choose positive trait, player have to choose one negative would be better than random developing of negative leader traits.

lmao, at that point, the player should be taking the mood stabilizing pills their leaders are getting addicted to in game, since leaders seem to get by just fine addicted to pills while their Empire Civic God pulling their strings is apoplectic and inconsolable.