Stellaris Dev Diary #325 - 3.10.3 "Pyxis" Released [d2aa] + Further Beta Plans

[Troyen]

Was gonna ask since i’m new here on the forum (soon 3k in the game!) if this was common? While i applaud the passion and lively debate (on a mildly inscrutable but crazy fun game), do wonder if some here be 12 year olds (scratch out a word) who are a tad too bored. In any case, i’ve noticed the moderators’ hard work and I thank y’all for it

It happens every time there's a major mechanical rework in the game. Happened with the pop growth changes (3.0), unity/empire size rework (3.3), fleet combat rework (3.6), leader cap and overhaul (3.8), etc. I think pop growth followed by the leader cap were the worst two, at least this is all contained in one thread.

But yeah, some people get pretty passionate about major changes, especially if it looks like the game is swerving in a direction they don't want it to go. In this case it was repeatedly stated to be an experiment not guaranteed to be in a future patch (i.e. this is NOT a 3.11 beta), so some of that feedback is worth holding on for the beta feedback thread.

 

[rubert]

I haven't seen such childish squabbling in a long time.

Let's remember we're here to talk about a game, not each other.

Remember the time of FTL rework back in the day? I remember that being pretty "fun" too, causing the FTL discussions to be quarantined to a single thread. I don't think this will expand to million threads like FTL did, but guess we'll see.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

It happens every time there's a major mechanical rework in the game. Happened with the pop growth changes (3.0), unity/empire size rework (3.3), fleet combat rework (3.6), leader cap and overhaul (3.8), etc. I think pop growth followed by the leader cap were the worst two, at least this is all contained in one thread.

But yeah, some people get pretty passionate about major changes, especially if it looks like the game is swerving in a direction they don't want it to go. In this case it was repeatedly stated to be an experiment not guaranteed to be in a future patch (i.e. this is NOT a 3.11 beta), so some of that feedback is worth holding on for the beta feedback thread.

And passionate disagreement is fine, as long as it is expressed in a constructive, mature and impersonal manner. The most interesting discussions (in my opinion) are often found between opposing viewpoints that try to make themselves understood by, and understand, each other.

(Which is much easier to accomplish if a discussion is kept strictly within the topic, without involving emotionally tinted claims about cognitive, moral or aesthetic imperfections of the other part, their next of kin or their favourite pets.)

 

[oreopirate]

Honestly I'm here for this. I know that ship cost modifiers needed to get down, but I'm worried that it isn't quite enough. Personally, I would have increased ship build times. As it stands, Titans are the only ship whose loss you really feel, and even that is barely once you get to stacking ship build speed modifiers.

That said, love the tech changes. I will admit to having some slight concerns they might be too much, but I'll wait to see how they feel in game. You shouldn't be hitting enough repeatables that you are equivalent in tech to a FE or AE in the early-mid 2400's. The pretty clear parameters are the default settings. Mid game, Cruisers, orbital rings, mid tier weapons, etc in or around 2300, and beginning to hit repeatable in or around 2400.
That said, I can't wait to try out these changes on a 5x tech 2600-3000 game.

 

[Harvey_James]

so if researching battleships and titans take a lot longer now .. maybe we could consider buffing them a little to make them worth the research time?? .. honestly we need balance pass of weapons/ships plus a nav cap nerf and then a fleet fight rework thats in much need of improvement...

- battleships = could use a little more tank and punch you feel
- Titans = more interesting auras maybe have 2 auras and more of everything especially more weapon options instead of artillery only

- add bomber hangars = slower but with mini torp like weapons excelling in fighting large ships like battleships and starbases.. these would be a way of making battleships and titans more unique and worth the extra research time and resources they take.. especially with nav cap nerf the titans would be rarer .. increase their ship size by 50% and production costs too.. make titans 1 a fleet limit as the default flagship the admiral occupies

 

[Millbot]

I will say that devs probably should have the internal discussion about what they are balancing the game around, maybe even have that with the playerbase. I've always assumed default setting are what they are balancing the game around.

I like the sliders because they do give players more granular control over their experience, on top of also being an accessibility thing. It's way for players to either make the game more challenging for themselves or to make it easier to play. sometimes can also be about adjusting the game to better fit their schedules or even better accommodate older or weaker gaming PCs, if changing something results in less computational lag (lowing habitable worlds, is a great example of this)

That said, enough has changed and end game lag is bad enough. That I do think there is a reasonable merit in asking if the balance should be done around games lasting for 200 years. This doesn't mean that players shouldn't have the tools in the form of sliders, to increase game length, if that is what they desired, but it does seem like many palyers do not actually finish a game. That can come down to them being bored of what midgame and late game become, which is why they devs are looking into research speed. It can also and often does seem to come down to endgame lag just making the game unplayable, which is likely one factor in trying to nip ship numbers.

If the plan is to continue to balance around game length being 200 years. That probably does need to be better communicated to the playerbase, since we probably have a decent chunk of players that view the defaults a suggestion and don't think that's where balance numbers are being considered around. It might make it easier selling some players on changes that would reduce the lag. If someone is playing 100 year games and not running into the lag issues, they are going to be more hostile to the idea of changes to ship numbers, pops numbers and other things done to reduce end game lag, if they have convinced themselves that most are playing 100 year games and the game runs just fine. So if you state clearly it's 200 years, it might force them to actually play the game on default and realize that once you get passed 100 years, the lag gets exponentially worse, that the game is unplayable and I'm getting the impression that players with much better machines my 10 year old Dell Inspiron are getting a similar experience as me. They probably are able to run on better settings, but it's not really a graphics thing that is bogging their game down, it's all the pop calculations and eyesore ship carpets, that aren't being render on screen, that are really bogging everything down.

 

[Getty]

I have the opposite view. Ship cost stacking was absolutely broken and good on Paradox for wisening up to that fact and doing something about it. It might be a bit heavy handed with long dormant and well-balanced things like A Grand Fleet being noticed and nerfed now because of the whiplash from just how broken this currently is, but it's the right direction.

Conversely the research changes are very heavy handed and I'm afraid they're going to make the game a lot slower paced. Maybe ship components should also scale more dramatically to compensate so you actually feel the massive tech investment. Same for repeatables too.

Technology needed to be nerfed anyways tho...........

 

[Vreivai]

Technology needed to be nerfed anyways tho...........

Yeah, but the changes appear excessive. It looks like you probably won't be finishing the tech tree on default settings until well after the default victory year with how the changes currently are.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

That particular strategy won't work quite as well in 3.10 as it relied on a (now removed) governor trait generating 9x monthly unity per blocker cleared.

I've played a 3.9 game where I used that trait as well as the explorer destiny trait to generate unity out of the wazoo. I ended up with ~30 max ascended worlds with <100 empire size in the 2280s. (Though nowhere near or on track towards the economy Peter had in the 2300s unless I went on a nihilistic acquisition spree of galaxtic scale)

Needless to say I'm not surprised both traits didn't make the cut for 3.10

Commercial: "Minimal empire size is a way of life... That is holding you back. Abandon the mental block! Accept that the important thing is that you have low empire size compared to your economy, not low empire size in absolute terms, and YOU TOO can play Ascensionist wide rather than tall."

Mostly kidding. I also like the occasional "stay at 100, see how far I can take it" game, and it sounds like you got far and had a blast.

And we are definitely not going to be seeing something like my extremely silly extremely wide ascensionist super empire by the mid 24th century anytime soon due to those nerfs (clearing unity for blockers is gone, Champions of the Empire gone, Truth Seeker council for +50% to all output is gone, further council techspeed nerfs making a 5 scientist council less powerful in general), but then, I rather expected them to be savagely nerfed, so I can't say I was too shocked by 3.10 in that regard.

Of course, even in 3.10 I could probably do something pretty silly with unity over science in terms of very wide ascensionist gameplay, just not something anywhere that silly where I went a lot wider than anything remotely sane just to show how I could do that while focusing on unity and still beat normal tech builds at their own game.

Spoiler: Screenshots for those who haven't seem them and want to know what we are talking about.

2342: Empire Size, general economic stats. No fleet upkeep reduction (council selection was for Eye for Talent, and as so often I don't take Supremacy), but 15k alloy production covers it handily with something to spare.

Don't worry about the energy deficit. It is deliberate: Standard Crystal of Odryskia gameplay.

2341: My pocket Leviathan

2324: Status of research 18 years earlier

No, were I do try it now, it would probably be an initially lower tech approach with more long-term ramp up potential.

Thinking Gestalt Hive with Divided Attention/Subsumed Will/Elevational Computations, since we get that magical -100% ES from colonies (i.e. the 10 base cost) simply from taking Imperial Prerogative. Probably start out Divided Attention/Void Hive for the economic acceleration from saving thousands of early-game minerals on stations, and the freedom to spam as many colonies as quickly as possible without worry about early-game ES slowing down agenda progress.

Much worse research output due to Gestalts greatly inferior council not allowing the stacking of scientists, and getting into a Holy Covenant federation for the third ascension booster is something that probably wouldn't happen. Probably going Overtuned Cyborgs starting out with economic acceleration traits later changed to to stack Docile and Streamlined Protocols on all POPs, and specialized stacked unity trait POPs for unity ecumenopolises and stacked reserach traits for research ringworlds. Something like that.

Alternatively a build much like the 3.8.4 UOR one, but staying pacifist, perhaps even transitioning to FanPac/Spi once I had vassalized the galaxy, rather than merely starting out Pac/XPhile/Spi for Enlightened Ruler/Wise Mentor => ER3/WM1/Pious Ascetic 3 shenanigans, and dropping it in favour of FanSpi/XPhile. Or go full out democratic B(e)acon of Liberty, I guess, with some other origin. But I would probably have to stay below 100 planets, and not many more systems for that matter, in this case.

Alternatively, rather than seeing how absurd shielded battleship carriers I could make, diverting just half the society research to the +5% unity repeatable tech, which was amusingly not eliminated in 3.10 and which I've never needed to use to excess before, not needing to, could reap big dividends. Or I could... Or.. Or... So many ideas, so little time to test.

But I won't really have time to play before Christmas vacation, and I'll probably be testing out Sovereign Guardianship builds instead, so how about you go ahead and do it instead of me and report on the results.

 

[Enailios]

Yeah, but the changes appear excessive. It looks like you probably won't be finishing the tech tree on default settings until well after the default victory year with how the changes currently are.

So what i’m struggling to understand is why would that be bad? (Sincere question)

See, my take on that (if its even gonna be the case…) is that it would make choices more important. IF the tech tree is not going to be completed, then choosing whether to research the next tier ship class v bigger pewpews would actually matter! (Right now, they all get done at whatever time y’all get them done and then we start ramping up the fleets to face whatever at whenever time)

And even if such a prospect is unappealing, then sliders on tech, time, crisis etc all still exist to give us the game we want. I suspect, that at worst, the gameplay experience will still be there but under a different name. We just might not be able to do the “GA x25 x3 by 2250” whatever nonsense. The field goal would just move accordingly to our skill level but the good times will still be there. No? I dunno, i suspect all will be just fine but then again i’m distracted, sitting outside enjoying a fire so i apologize if i’m not making any sense

 

[Juboboman]

So what i’m struggling to understand is why would that be bad? (Sincere question)

See, my take on that (if its even gonna be the case…) is that it would make choices more important.

With respect, that's the same faulty reasoning people used to justify the initial draconian leader cap. The fact that the devs have since rolled that feature back so much as to essentially remove the cap as a constraint confirms that it doesn't make for actual good gameplay. It turns out it was not fun having 5-6 leaders and all your planets/sectors having empty boxes instead of governors, all your fleets having empty boxes instead of admirals, and at most having 1-3 scientists to assist research, explore the entire galaxy, and research enemy debris. Despite the fact that you certainly had to "make choices" it was still not fun because none of those choices allowed you to play the way you wanted to.

Likewise with the tech tree, finishing a game without finishing the tech tree is not fun. You're just missing out. And you know you're missing out. Someone earlier gave the analogy of the debate between players that want to "complete" their character only at the very end of an RPG, vs those that want to have enough time to actually play with what they have built and enjoy it action before they start again. In many ways a player's empire in a game like Stellaris is similar to a player's character in an RPG, so it's not surprising that debate has found a way to manifest itself here.

But as I said I think the leader cap controversy we've all just been through is proof that for Stellaris, choice for choice sake when it's artificially induced by crippling the player's smooth flow through the game does not turn out as fun in practice as its advocates think it would be in theory.

 

[Enailios]

choice for choice sake when it's artificially induced by crippling the player's smooth flow through the game does not turn out as fun in practice as its advocates think it would be in theory.

Okay. So if we wanted a “completionist” run (simplistic take on your point but for convenience) then what about sliders? As it stands, the game is about solved with meta a, b and c that are out there even with all the arduous settings we can think of being applied…

“The audience not being the top percentile” is a point accepted and granted but it will still open up the game. Completionist runs would still be avail (presumably, or is that the crux of the fierce debates?) and the arduous settings won’t be as necessary for the top percentile. Win win?

 

[Juboboman]

Okay. So if we wanted a “completionist” run (simplistic take on your point but for convenience) then what about sliders? As it stands, the game is about solved with meta a, b and c that are out there even with all the arduous settings we can think of being applied…

“The audience not being the top percentile” is a point accepted and granted but it will still open up the game. Completionist runs would still be avail (presumably, or is that the crux of the fierce debates?) and the arduous settings won’t be as necessary for the top percentile. Win win?

I'm fine with slider scalability because this is a fundamental enough change that I think however you go it would spoil the experience for players that don't prefer that style. That said we still don't really how much of the nerfs will make it to the end game. If they end up slowing tech down by ~50% as opposed to the theoretical 300, 400+% that people are postulating now, then the current tech cost slider would be fine. But I'm all for giving players the tools to customize the rules to their playstyle as much as is reasonable.

 

[NotAYakk]

I have tried current stellaris non-meta builds, just relaxed single player, with 0.5x to 2x tech costs.

The slower the tech, the later (in terms of colonies and economy) I reached midgame tech.

Midgame tech to me is star fortresses and cruisers and T3+ weapons/armor.

Shortly after that, the game breaks. Tech starts coming at faster and faster speeds like a blur. Alloy production goes from 50-100 to 1000s, minerals become free, and tech per month goes from 100s to 1000s in the blink of an eye.

 

[Juboboman]

I have tried current stellaris non-meta builds, just relaxed single player, with 0.5x to 2x tech costs.

The slower the tech, the later (in terms of colonies and economy) I reached midgame tech.

Midgame tech to me is star fortresses and cruisers and T3+ weapons/armor.

Shortly after that, the game breaks. Tech starts coming at faster and faster speeds like a blur. Alloy production goes from 50-100 to 1000s, minerals become free, and tech per month goes from 100s to 1000s in the blink of an eye.

The change in the tech curve in the beta is actually one of the ones I hope they do keep in part at least as it should directly address this. Tech speed from early>mid game is relatively decent, at least it doesn't need to get really any slower than it is, especially not early game. Tech from mid>end game as you say is ridiculously fast. And the tech curve change should address that.

However much longer the totality of the tech tree is slowed down when the changes finally go live, I hope the vast majority of that slow down is focused on mid>end game speed rather than just a blanket "everything is going to be x slower".

 

[Vreivai]

So what i’m struggling to understand is why would that be bad? (Sincere question)

See, my take on that (if its even gonna be the case…) is that it would make choices more important. IF the tech tree is not going to be completed, then choosing whether to research the next tier ship class v bigger pewpews would actually matter! (Right now, they all get done at whatever time y’all get them done and then we start ramping up the fleets to face whatever at whenever time)

And even if such a prospect is unappealing, then sliders on tech, time, crisis etc all still exist to give us the game we want. I suspect, that at worst, the gameplay experience will still be there but under a different name. We just might not be able to do the “GA x25 x3 by 2250” whatever nonsense. The field goal would just move accordingly to our skill level but the good times will still be there. No? I dunno, i suspect all will be just fine but then again i’m distracted, sitting outside enjoying a fire so i apologize if i’m not making any sense

First, due to how tech is set up, you're not really "making choices." You roll those techs, and then you pick one. You really want mega-engineering, but don't roll it until 2550? Guess no ring worlds, which means less research, which means now you're even slower. Second, with the current numbers provided it might be past 2400 before you even reach T4 techs. Also, "default victory year" is not a good standard, I used that to demonstrate how absurd the changes appear. Very few games are played to the default victory year. Most are ended 50+ years before reaching that, either because the game becomes too laggy or because the game is essentially won. This only changes tech pacing, which does impact other pacing, but you'll still be gated in your expansion at the same rate by influence, and other costs. Traditions will still go at the same speed. Wars will still more or less progress at the same speed, but at a lower tech level. Most games the galaxy will be, unless the player intentionally delays action for decades or more, at or around its end state well before late game techs are ever seen. There's a real possibility that, for all intents and purposes, late game techs like titans, colossi, and megastructures might as well not exist.

As for sliders, the reason they can't just be used to fix it is how the tech cost was changed. T1 techs will be 25% more expensive. T4 techs will be 200% more expensive, T5 techs 300% more expensive. And it's nerfed by more than 75%. .25x tech/tradition cost will mean that you'll be blowing through the early game techs in no time at all, while still taking 2-3 times as long for later game techs as you currently do on 1x. And that slider isn't just tech cost, it's tradition cost, too, which is going unchanged, so you'll blow through that tree in no time at all and spend a ton of the game waiting on techs for ascension perks.

 

[Enailios]

1.

Midgame tech to me is star fortresses and cruisers and T3+ weapons/armor.

Shortly after that, the game breaks. Tech starts coming at faster and faster speeds like a blur. Alloy production goes from 50-100 to 1000s, minerals become free, and tech per month goes from 100s to 1000s in the blink of an eye.

Ya, the floodgate just opens

2.

There's a real possibility that, for all intents and purposes, late game techs like titans, colossi, and megastructures might as well not exist.

Which is a scenario that, I would think, be undesirable to many.

So how to fix 1 & 2? (Sincere question)

Sidenote:

As for sliders, the reason they can't just be used to fix it is how the tech cost was changed. T1 techs will be 25% more expensive. T4 techs will be 200% more expensive, T5 techs 300% more expensive. And it's nerfed by more than 75%. .25x tech/tradition cost will mean that you'll be blowing through the early game techs in no time at all, while still taking 2-3 times as long for later game techs as you currently do on 1x. And that slider isn't just tech cost, it's tradition cost, too, which is going unchanged, so you'll blow through that tree in no time at all and spend a ton of the game waiting on techs for ascension perks.

*As it stands. Sliders are, too, subject to change. Values adjusted elsewhere can also be adjusted accordingly in the sliders. The “.25” maths/nomenclature can be adjusted to whatever maths that would make everybody happy. Just need to wait and see?

 

[blahmaster6k]

I have tried current stellaris non-meta builds, just relaxed single player, with 0.5x to 2x tech costs.

The slower the tech, the later (in terms of colonies and economy) I reached midgame tech.

Midgame tech to me is star fortresses and cruisers and T3+ weapons/armor.

Shortly after that, the game breaks. Tech starts coming at faster and faster speeds like a blur. Alloy production goes from 50-100 to 1000s, minerals become free, and tech per month goes from 100s to 1000s in the blink of an eye.

I would like to point out that meta builds with good economy management easily jump to +100-150 alloys between 20 and 30 years into the game, and some of the best builds can probably manage that on the earlier side of that time frame. That's very much still the early game.

That's mostly just because of rushing the first alloy plant upgrade, which is a tier 1 tech that only requires motes.

I think expansion won't be slowed down all that much, only tech.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

2.

Which is a scenario that, I would think, be undesirable to many.

So how to fix 1 & 2? (Sincere question)

One approach could be to remove prerequisite techs from ascension perk picks, and instead have ascension perks add guaranteed research options for the techs required. Similar to how the Lunar Program ascension perk was picked before the USA had the technology for going to the moon.

Players who really want megastructures or titans/colossi could then just pick the corresponding ascension perk and get the research options as soon as possible.

 

[Vreivai]

1.

Ya, the floodgate just opens

2.

Which is a scenario that, I would think, be undesirable to many.

So how to fix 1 & 2? (Sincere question)

Sidenote:

*As it stands. Sliders are, too, subject to change. Values adjusted elsewhere can also be adjusted accordingly in the sliders. The “.25” maths/nomenclature can be adjusted to whatever maths that would make everybody happy. Just need to wait and see?

I think what they should do is limit the changes to nerfing or removing a lot of the things that enable snowballing tech. Removing the three stacking +20% researcher output techs, for example, is probably a good move, as is nerfing research speed increases. Perhaps also remove or nerf other universal modifiers that impact researcher output, such as limiting the +10/20/30% job output modifier from capital buildings to not impact researchers.

Or what I'd do, because I'd like to see repeatables remain a major factor in the game, would be to move a lot of these things that enable snowballing to the end of the tech tree. I think Ring worlds, for example, wouldn't need to be touched, since they're already essentially at the end of the tech tree. Might still not be enough, but I think that'd be a good starting place. In my experience, doing compounding nerfs like this is a bad idea, because developers have difficulty accurately gauging just how impactful the changes will be.