[Dev Team] Astral Planes and Stellaris 3.10.0 "Pyxis" Preliminary Release Notes

[DurianKing]

Hello dear developers!
I would like to wish that changes to the modifiers of planets and any activities on them would not be a low priority for you. I really like it when, after terraforming, I receive a notification about some event on the planet, when some mini-events occur after removing negative modifiers such as “wild nature”. I would really like the planets to initially have a lot of different things to do - so that the player would not just colonize it and immediately start building sectors, but would have a choice - to receive reduced suitability due to disasters on the planet and build sectors, or first get rid of all these disasters so that the planet is more suitable. This is also a good way for the player to kill excess gold, which by the middle of the game there is simply nowhere to put it. And with the colonization of new planets, the player would spend it all on removing negative modifiers and bad areas.
And one more wish - after terraforming, the planet is always without a single cell in distress. Immediately cleared of all problem areas. Out of curiosity, I started terraforming on problem planets - and it was cleared of all problem sectors, which I would one by one “fix” manually. On the one hand, this is logical, on the other hand, I ask you to take some chance that the terraforming went wrong and new problem sectors would accidentally be added, which after terraforming would have to be “repaired” again for gold.

Interesting stuff here. IMO, individual planets should be much more interesting (and they’re getting more interesting), and pop growth on newly settled planets should be much slower. I know they boost the pop growth on newly colonized planets to help get them into the game, but with Interesting Planets (TM) you could have a colony that contributed enormously to you economy or research with relatively few pops because it had some special features. Less basing colonial development on precedence from earth, more The Expanse.

 

[Thiend]

Removing the science bonuses to output would neither resolve the issue of the tech rate gain speeding up as the game progressed nor change the idea that focusing on tech (and alloys) is all that matters, as some players aver.

Since the rate of tech gain is determined by the trinity of science output, tech speed, and empire size, and the first two naturally increase over time, while the second becomes easier to control over time, at least if the player knows what they are doing, all getting rid of the science increasing techs would do would be to make more players realize the importance of focusing on the tech-trinity rather than devoting most of their attention to the raw science output.

Still, removing the science output increasing techs would slow down the tech race slightly, but given that it doesn't resolve any of the underlying issues and creates new issues by their absence increasing the relative value of other sources of increased science output (from ascension paths, planetary ascension, etc), it would seem wiser, or at least easier, just to increase the costs of higher tier techs instead to achieve the same level of slowdown without having to rebalance all the sources of increased science output to reflect the new reality of not getting increases from tech.

More generally, removing all the output modifying techs would seem like a serious mistake from a conceptual point of view, since Stellaris is neither dystopian nor depicts a stagnant universe, but is about 4X and more optimistic by nature: Go forth and spread your colonies across the stars while making great advances.

The idea that progress and new technology allows people to do their job better is a strong one narratively as well as familiar from history to most people, and from a game design POV it provides players some nice milestones of progression to frequently make POPs perform their jobs better.

Getting rid of all that for the sake of balance is not something to do lightly, and arguably not at all unless PDS has an equally compelling story to tell with game mechanics to support it. Which is a lot of work compared to fiddling with the issue at the edges, which is what is being done.

So "why isn't this already the case?" you ask? The most likely reason is that the developers are well aware of the issues but are unwilling to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

So I wouldn't expect all the output modifying techs to disappear unless there's another overhaul of the economic system on the scale of the 2.0 change, where their absence would make sense in the new context.

I didn't say all output modifying techs, I said all the +20%/10% ones. You can still have your mining hub and energy nexus, you just won't get quite as much, nor as quickly, nor for free. The increase in output is, in fact, what makes tech focus so important and dominant; being ahead in tech makes you more ahead in tech because it increases your actual tech rate and all of the resources you need to turn into more research. Take that away, and being ahead in tech no longer reinforces you being ahead in tech in a way that is functionally impossible to catch up to or exceed. Once being ahead stops keeping you ahead in tech, it is no longer required to focus tech all the time every game, it has value for what it actually does.

It's also just generally bad to have them, because it's pretty transparent that nobody including the devs understands what they do in terms of magnitude. That's why there's a council trait for +2.5% minerals. That would be reasonable if it actually gave that percentage, which it does not because of all the other modifiers. There are a whole host of modifiers that are worthless because they're balanced for what they say, which is not what they do due to the aforementioned +20%/10% modifiers.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I still think the proper solution is just removing all the +20%/10% income techs. If research no longer makes research dramatically faster, that might fix the problem right there - both of "focus tech 100% of the time regardless of any other factors" and of it getting relatively faster instead of slower or equivalent as the game goes on.

It's kind of a basic, "why isn't this already the case" thing to be honest. They removed 99% of the unity bonuses in traditions, why does tech have bonuses to tech? The rest just make it worse, because bonuses to any other resources increase the number of researchers you can support.

That's kind of how things work in real life though. Humans have always done scientific research, but when we invented (researched) the first mechanical computers we were able to solve more complex math problems and make new discoveries much more quickly than we could before. Then we invented digital computing, vacuum tubes, transistors, circuit boards, and eventually everything modern computers use today. With each new discovery in the computing field, our ability as a society to solve new problems and research new technologies more quickly increases.

 

[Thiend]

That's kind of how things work in real life though. Humans have always done scientific research, but when we invented (researched) the first mechanical computers we were able to solve more complex math problems and make new discoveries much more quickly than we could before. Then we invented digital computing, vacuum tubes, transistors, circuit boards, and eventually everything modern computers use today. With each new discovery in the computing field, our ability as a society to solve new problems and research new technologies more quickly increases.

What represents reality is NOT always best for gameplay. In real life, yes, being ahead reinforces your lead... that's awful gameplay though, it's boring and reduces the ability of the game to be challenging for the period of time it is clearly intended to be.

Also, if we actually copied real life, the tech tree would be 90% stuff that has absolutely no impact on your economic or military power due to being... not actually useful. Stagnation exists in real life.

 

[mrt1212]

What represents reality is NOT always best for gameplay. In real life, yes, being ahead reinforces your lead... that's awful gameplay though, it's boring and reduces the ability of the game to be challenging for the period of time it is clearly intended to be.

Also, if we actually copied real life, the tech tree would be 90% stuff that has absolutely no impact on your economic or military power due to being... not actually useful. Stagnation exists in real life.

Yeah, one of the things some game players claim they want is very strict 'winning begets winning, losing begets losing' but its like, this makes for short and sweet games around seeking the early win that determines ultimate victory, or if the designers are sadists, the losers are trapped in the experience and opt to concede outright because they're bystanders with nothing to actually do, not even mess around for a laugh.

I have a lot of uncouth opinions around this but to keep it short and sweet myself, hardass games that purport to be about smarts and decision making often attract plyers who get real irate when the game system allows them to lose the whole game on a 5% chance when theyve been winning for 59 minutes out of an hour, and backed their opponent into taking the incredible desperate chance that worked. Not fair, bad game design...but...a helluva better story to tell about it.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yeah, one of the things some game players claim they want is very strict 'winning begets winning, losing begets losing' but its like, this makes for short and sweet games around seeking the early win that determines ultimate victory, or if the designers are sadists, the losers are trapped in the experience and opt to concede outright because they're bystanders with nothing to actually do, not even mess around for a laugh.

Most video games I've played are honestly like this, especially competitive games. Whoever gets an early lead can usually snowball it into a bigger and bigger lead and is almost guaranteed to win unless they make a catastrophic mistake. That's just how most competitive games work, no matter the genre. Strategy games(RTS or turn-based), MOBAs, shooters, battle royales, pick your game and it's probably like that. Probably the only competitive games I can think of that aren't designed to be snowbally are fighting games.

Rubber band mechanics are good to keep things from getting too far out of control, but add too many of them and the player just becomes disincentivized to try and get ahead. I personally don't want a game where I'm punished for making good decisions.

With regard to people who don't like that tech rushing is a good strategy and want it nerfed, I would guess that tech rushing is probably a solid strategy in almost every game that has a technology system, and expecting otherwise from Stellaris is a mistake. Tech rushing should be powerful and one of the best strategies. Furthermore, tech rushing is far from the only strategy in Stellaris. It's not even the best strategy. You can go for other strategies and come out just fine or even better - a tech rushing player in 2210 with no fleet is going to be in for a rude awakening if his first contact is with a fanatic purifier with a massive fleet.

I have a lot of uncouth opinions around this but to keep it short and sweet myself, hardass games that purport to be about smarts and decision making often attract plyers who get real irate when the game system allows them to lose the whole game on a 5% chance when theyve been winning for 59 minutes out of an hour, and backed their opponent into taking the incredible desperate chance that worked. Not fair, bad game design...but...a helluva better story to tell about it.

I have no idea what this has to do with Stellaris, but I'm not going to make assumptions about people just based on the games that they play.

 

[mrt1212]

Most video games I've played are honestly like this, especially competitive games. Whoever gets an early lead can usually snowball it into a bigger and bigger lead and is almost guaranteed to win unless they make a catastrophic mistake. That's just how most competitive games work, no matter the genre. Strategy games(RTS or turn-based), MOBAs, shooters, battle royales, pick your game and it's probably like that. Probably the only competitive games I can think of that aren't designed to be snowbally are fighting games.

Rubber band mechanics are good to keep things from getting too far out of control, but add too many of them and the player just becomes disincentivized to try and get ahead. I personally don't want a game where I'm punished for making good decisions.

With regard to people who don't like that tech rushing is a good strategy and want it nerfed, I would guess that tech rushing is probably a solid strategy in almost every game that has a technology system, and expecting otherwise from Stellaris is a mistake. Tech rushing should be powerful and one of the best strategies. Furthermore, tech rushing is far from the only strategy in Stellaris. It's not even the best strategy. You can go for other strategies and come out just fine or even better - a tech rushing player in 2210 with no fleet is going to be in for a rude awakening if his first contact is with a fanatic purifier with a massive fleet.


I have no idea what this has to do with Stellaris, but I'm not going to make assumptions about people just based on the games that they play.

Well most games that seek to have a single winner need a mechanism to sort them out but...most the games you mentioned have rounds and arent a contiguous single rounds where a 60-40 advantage in the first 20% of the round is all she wrote about that round. I played a ton of TF2 cart push and even if the cart pushes did have snowball action for blue where two crucial ubers could get two points, Red was generally not completely screwed if they lost the first two cart points. On the better cart push maps. On Capture point maps, there was way less of that and I loved being the back line pyro that kept our points clean but again theres a simple symmetry in action.

Poker is a great multiplayer game because of its simplicity and risk management but also because the structure of the game kind of prevents snowballs from forming early and washing players out to select for a winner.

Tennis is another awesome game because if its an even match itll go the distance and if it isnt or one opponent is off, it can be short and sweet.

To your point though - good games know how to not let early losers be out for good and early winners never be too comfy and at least with SP stellaris, and with Civ and SMAC and any 4x game really...you play enough to know the tipping point where its just time and clicks to get the victory screen. Part of that in stellaris at least is that early wins are unimpeachable.

 

[Ajacoba]

honestly you guys are just too good

casual players (like me ) are only barely able to handle fallen empires by 2400 and increasing the crisis strength even slightly is pretty damn dangerous (especially with "All") while repeatables won't come up until the endgame comes near

also the strength of the AI seems to fluctuate a lot, sometimes a hivemind has better science than me (even reverse engineered titans once after being declared war on by a hivemind XD) and when I'm actively supporting the AI with "Development Aides" and "Champions of the Community" they do way better than when I never join the community because I'm roleplaying Romulans and self-isolating or when I'm actively sabotaging them by playing some genocider

so imo the current default settings are fine - especially since when the devs were to set the default appropriate for the best players rather than the average players then newbies and players who aren't min/maxing the hell outta the game would struggle immensely

 

[Calvax]

I would still very, very much like to know what "Astral rift fail probability" means.

But enough of that, onto the important stuff:

Holy heck!!!

Going by the dev diaries and YouTube videos it seems like when you’re done exploring an astral rift you’re guaranteed to unlock the next action. It doesn’t matter which rift you explore as the order of actions is the same each game.

In addition to this you can get different rewards depending on your choices. We’ve seen in some of the teasers different choices have different difficulties. I’m guessing that’s what the fail chance refers to.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Going by the dev diaries and YouTube videos it seems like when you’re done exploring an astral rift you’re guaranteed to unlock the next action. It doesn’t matter which rift you explore as the order of actions is the same each game.

In addition to this you can get different rewards depending on your choices. We’ve seen in some of the teasers different choices have different difficulties. I’m guessing that’s what the fail chance refers to.

But does the difficulty just impact how Iong it takes or can you actually "fail" a rift?

 

[Calvax]

But does the difficulty just impact how Iong it takes or can you actually "fail" a rift?

Seems like you can fail individual choices within a rift, so far it doesn't seem like we can fail a rift over all. At least not in the sense of exploring one to unlock the next astral action

 

[Starfury]

A year ago, I posted a thread that did some math on tech costs. The main takeaway was that the first three tech tiers added about 40% research per pop employed in a simple miner->artisan->researcher chain, with tier 4 adding another 25%

So without any other modifiers to research output or tech speed, technologies alone take care of about half the increased tech costs per tier.

Post 3.8, with +200% tech speed being the new +100%, I'm pretty sure you could play a game where 30 late game pops could research a tier 5 tech faster than 30 year 2200 pops could research a tier 1 tech.

So yeah, right now I'm pretty certain that instead of doubling tech costs between tiers 1 and 4, you could easily go to a factor of about 2.5 without risk of overshooting.

Tier	Tech Cost Now	Tech cost 2.5
1	2500	2500
2	5000	6000
3	10000	15000
4	20000	35000
5	40000	90000

And yeah, just moving the mid-/endgame years doesn't really solve the problem, since there's still some things with more or less hard-coded dates, like some military technologies, but most of all Federation levels. A federation takes 70 years to reach level 4 and 150 years to reach level 5. Even the new Delegate/Ambassador traits likely won't be enough to get a level 5 Federation before you're knee-deep in repeatable technologies.

 

[Ajacoba]

A year ago, I posted a thread that did some math on tech costs. The main takeaway was that the first three tech tiers added about 40% research per pop employed in a simple miner->artisan->researcher chain, with tier 4 adding another 25%

So without any other modifiers to research output or tech speed, technologies alone take care of about half the increased tech costs per tier.

Post 3.8, with +200% tech speed being the new +100%, I'm pretty sure you could play a game where 30 late game pops could research a tier 5 tech faster than 30 year 2200 pops could research a tier 1 tech.

So yeah, right now I'm pretty certain that instead of doubling tech costs between tiers 1 and 4, you could easily go to a factor of about 2.5 without risk of overshooting.

Tier	Tech Cost Now	Tech cost 2.5
1	2500	2500
2	5000	6000
3	10000	15000
4	20000	35000
5	40000	90000

And yeah, just moving the mid-/endgame years doesn't really solve the problem, since there's still some things with more or less hard-coded dates, like some military technologies, but most of all Federation levels. A federation takes 70 years to reach level 4 and 150 years to reach level 5. Even the new Delegate/Ambassador traits likely won't be enough to get a level 5 Federation before you're knee-deep in repeatable technologies.

You can increase tech costs
That way you will snowball later and less

 

[Panzerslothen]

It would be nice if Tech Costs could be decoupled from Tradition costs.

Also: A while ago, I noticed that Technology could 'only' be paid for with the Research unity (be that Physics, Society and Engineering). I then requested a modability feature, in which this was made no longer strictly the case.

If Technologies were decoupled from being charged only in Research, then this would have at least two effects:

• It would be possible to have 'Technologies' costing only Unity, which would be a good way of supplementing Traditions (you could have 'Traditions' which were researchable)
• It would be possible to add new costs into certain technologies. This would help with technology scaling; rather than simply making something cheaper or more expensive in terms of Research points, you could link it in to limited quantities of other resources. Weapons components and certain buildings, for example, already have this. Why not technologies?

@Ajacoba , where's the beef, man?

 

[Starfury]

You can increase tech costs
That way you will snowball later and less

You missed the point I made.

The problem isn't tech costs being too low. The problem is tech costs scaling WAY slower than research output.
The first couple of Tier 1 techs take several years to complete. After a couple of decades, you end up researching new techs if a few months. That's the problem.

Scaling tech (and tradition) costs enough for repeatables not to be researched in 3-4 months mean the first techs will take 5-10 years to research. That's 1. not fun and 2. still completely out of whack.

 

[Seridor]

Scaling tech (and tradition) costs enough for repeatables not to be researched in 3-4 months mean the first techs will take 5-10 years to research. That's 1. not fun and 2. still completely out of whack.

I play with 2,5 tech cost, I don't mind spending the first 5-10 years getting the 20% bonus and nothing else, but I completely agree that higher tier tech cost should be increased.
Actually with the powercreep we have all around I'd increase the cost of many other things. Buildings, ships etc.

 

[Critical Ethics]

You can increase tech costs
That way you will snowball later and less

The problem isn't the timing of the snowball, it's the existence. Increasing tech costs slows down the start of the game when research already feels like a slog and still results in fast late-game techs, just later.

 

[Silens]

View attachment 1047930

The only effects that currently increase this are Shared Destiny, Feudal Society and Franchising.

May I ask what the thought process was behind the change? It seems like a very harsh nerf, one you probably wouldn't introduce just like that without a good reason.

 

[Ajacoba]

May I ask what the thought process was behind the change? It seems like a very harsh nerf, one you probably wouldn't introduce just like that without a good reason.

Obviously the exploit where people were printing resources by vassalizing everything they could get their hands on

You still should easily be able to have like half a dozen vassals without them being too sad
You just will no longer be able to ignore the penalty for a dozen or more vassals

 

[Silens]

Obviously the exploit where people were printing resources by vassalizing everything they could get their hands on

Wait, vassalizing is considered an exploit now? What's next, the 'exploit' of taking someone's planets to generate resources for yourself?

Hard to believe this is the reason. Isn't that kind of the entire point of having vassals, to collect resources through vassal terms? That's the entire major selling point of the Overlord DLC.

If the change was to reduce vassal taxes, it doesn't even address the issue. Vassals will still pay the full amount, regardless of any loyalty penalty or their opinion of their overlord. They just won't be loyal, that's all. But they still pay up.

The only thing that changes is that you're shut out of any of the limited benefits of having vassals, like borrowing a fleet, a leader etc., as that requires loyalty as a currency. I haven't heard of that ever being a problem, so I'd really love to know why the devs feel that vassal loyalty requires such a hard nerf.

If anything, making all your subjects disloyal all the time will only serve to impose much harder terms. I mean, if loyalty is at -100 anyway, why even pretend to have fair terms?