• 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 #329 - Technology Beta Wrapup

Hello everyone!

It’s been two weeks, so let’s get straight into the good stuff.

Summary of Results​

Much like the first Technology Open Beta, very experienced players formed the bulk of respondents. This time it was closer to 72% of responses coming from players with over 1,000 hours in game. (Only 1.4% said they had less than 300 hours in Stellaris, so the survey skewed very much towards our most passionate players.) Thank you all for your feedback and help.

This time, a majority of players rated technology progress as “just right”, with the remainder almost perfectly evenly split between it being too fast or too slow, with a majority consensus that the changes were beneficial overall.

Many players missed the breakthrough technologies and the general opinion tended to lean towards us pulling back a little too far. Many players commented that they liked how technology tiers 3 and higher felt more impactful, but lamented that with the removal of breakthroughs, tier 2 sort of melded into tier 1 technologies.

There was also quite a spirited discussion on the Stellaris forums regarding the pros and cons of galaxy generation sliders and their effects on new players.

Our general philosophy is that it is better to permit more customization of your play experience than less, but that the default settings should be a positive play experience for inexperienced players. New players tend not to adjust the sliders much, while veterans tend to have more understanding of the exact effects of the various settings and can customize their game to satisfy their needs - but the default settings, except for difficulty, should be sufficient for an enjoyable game. We do agree that the galaxy settings screen has grown a significant amount over the years and could benefit from some reworking, and will be placing that task on the Custodian “to-do” list for sometime in the future.

Next Steps​

Overall, I consider the Technology Open Betas a significant success. We gathered a lot of useful information and feedback, and it gave us the chance to experiment with some systems that may or may not have panned out. We will be going forward with including the changes from the second Technology Open Beta in the 3.11 “Eridanus” update.

Breakthrough Technologies will not be coming at this time, but we may experiment with technology spread and similar effects sometime in the future.

One new change we’ll be making based on some of the data we’ve collected is that we’re moving Ascension Theory to Tier 4 from Tier 5, but it will only be available to empires that have completed at least six tradition trees. As Unity and Research are intended to be “opposing” resources to a degree, we did not want the capstone of Ascension based gameplay to be so strongly tied to the later game tech tree.

Now let’s hear about one of the other changes coming in the update.

Resort Worlds​

Hello, Stellaris community. I'm Gatekeeper, a long-time modder who's ascended into being part of the Stellaris Content team. And if you know anything about what I've done in the past, I like planets.

One thing I've done recently is to imagine a galaxy where Resort Worlds aren't just post-apocalyptic fortress worlds. Instead, these are vibrant, dedicated havens of rest, starkly contrasting the often harsh realities of interstellar life.

Resort Worlds Technology

The Resort Worlds technology which permits the Create Resort World planetary decision is no longer rare, and we've lowered it to tier 2. We've updated the decision’s restrictions; it no longer has a minimum planet size but can be used on planets that have upgraded capital buildings. As funny as it was (and we did it all the time), you can no longer declare a tomb or relic world a vacation paradise.

A pass has also been done on what buildings are allowed on Resort Worlds.

Create Resort World Planetary Decision
Planetary Decision Tooltip

Instead of providing perfect habitability, Clerks, and Entertainers, Resort Worlds now provide Resort Districts that give Housing, Building Slots, and Resort Worker jobs that provide Trade, and increase Amenities and Trade Value from Living Standards across all planets of your empire. This replaces the empire-wide Amenities reduction of the old version.

Resort District Tooltip
Resort Worker tooltip

On behalf of the United Caphevan Commonwealth, we would like to wish you a pleasant stay on Evaggimar II.

Next Week​

Next week we’ll be looking at some of the fixes and changes going into the 3.11 “Eridanus” update. See you then!
 
  • 86Like
  • 29Love
  • 6
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Everything sounds good but I hope the tech cost slider at galaxy generation is kept...
 
My only issue having played the beta extensively...

Please don't keep the consumer goods cost increase for researchers when their productivity is boosted.

The techs that boost alloys or consumer goods don't increase their job costs, it just makes them more efficient.

Please just let numbers go up. Pretty please.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Everything sounds good but I hope the tech cost slider at galaxy generation is kept...

We have no plans to remove any of the sliders. Eventually I do want to break some of them off into an Advanced Settings section, but they'll probably still exist. The only one that I could see going at some point is the Xeno-Compatibility toggle if we end up changing how it works in the future.

Please don't keep the consumer goods cost increase for researchers when their productivity is boosted.

Most of those were removed in the second beta. A few remained to represent your empire channeling additional resources and effort towards research.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Quite a few remain. Starting with the techs that boost researcher output, which is a penalty for hitting a tech.

I don't mind the ones like the Curator boost, that makes sense that the Curators cause some extra-special-needs for their +5%, but for a generic tech to come with a penalty just feels "not fun".
 
Quite a few remain. Starting with the techs that boost researcher output, which is a penalty for hitting a tech.

I don't mind the ones like the Curator boost, that makes sense that the Curators cause some extra-special-needs for their +5%, but for a generic tech to come with a penalty just feels "not fun".

In the ende it's just like the advanced Alloy/CG buildings. More input, more output -> less pops required for the same result.
1707307810160.png

In fact it's even better, because it doesn't require a building slot and rare resource upkeep.

Do you consider these techs a penalty as well?
1707308160228.png
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Are there plans to buff or rework Alien Zoo (building)? Cause atm it is pretty much irrelevant as it is.
It's actually very strong in the beta, since zookeepers now produce more research than researchers, with extra amenities and lower upkeep to boot. It's just a holotheater that gives you a more efficient researcher as well.

Each zoo is a small boost to your empire, but it's definitely worth interacting with.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't mind the ones like the Curator boost, that makes sense that the Curators cause some extra-special-needs for their +5%, but for a generic tech to come with a penalty just feels "not fun".
I actually think the only one that's ridiculous is the Curator boost. You're already paying 5000 energy for the contract, why is there then a CG increase on top? (Curator scientist is OK though.)

The other cost increases are fine with me, especially since they significantly reduced the number of them in the second beta.
 
Could you please explain how it "shafts the AI"? I am very far from any programming skills.
You don't need to know one end of a text editor from the other to see that the game is designed around the assumption that habitable planets are moderately abundant, by virtue of the fact that getting enough of the three core resources (unity, alloys, science) to actually do anything interesting is overwhelmingly reliant on pops.

Reducing habitable planet count reduces the number of pops you have, and thus makes the game harder for anyone who can't build Habitats.

The AI is not adaptive – it does exactly what it's told – and its current behaviour is not coded to beeline its Engineering research towards Habitats.

So, if you just crank down the number of habitables, without also writing a mod that adapts the AI's behaviour to this brave new world of "nowhere to put pops", you shaft the AI.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
You don't need to know one end of a text editor from the other to see that the game is designed around the assumption that habitable planets are moderately abundant, by virtue of the fact that getting enough of the three core resources (unity, alloys, science) to actually do anything interesting is overwhelmingly reliant on pops.

Reducing habitable planet count reduces the number of pops you have, and thus makes the game harder for anyone who can't build Habitats.

The AI is not adaptive – it does exactly what it's told – and its current behaviour is not coded to beeline its Engineering research towards Habitats.

So, if you just crank down the number of habitables, without also writing a mod that adapts the AI's behaviour to this brave new world of "nowhere to put pops", you shaft the AI.
Thank you for replying.
Your line of reasoning seems impeccable - but I have to ask - has this been tested and or confirmed by the developers?
Also - why do you see that Habitats should be the way to go for AI that finds itself without suitable planets to expand within its borders? Why not conquest or terraforming or gaining/modifying POPs so that they can inhabit plant types not suitable for original empire species?

Rage bit below.
Habitats and Orbital Rings are IMO some of the least logical things in Stellaris. I would love to see a setting turning them off completely. If my space navy can destroy space dragons and bombard planets into ruins - why can't it destroy a space station? Open space station (i.e. not a warren of tunnels in an asteroid) would probably be one of the most vulnerable things in space. It can hardly dodge. Civilian station is probably not equipped with tons of armour, force fields and rocket defence batteries. And any space ring would be a perfect tool for a genocidal bombardment of a planet.
 
Rage bit below.
Habitats and Orbital Rings are IMO some of the least logical things in Stellaris. I would love to see a setting turning them off completely. If my space navy can destroy space dragons and bombard planets into ruins - why can't it destroy a space station? Open space station (i.e. not a warren of tunnels in an asteroid) would probably be one of the most vulnerable things in space. It can hardly dodge. Civilian station is probably not equipped with tons of armour, force fields and rocket defence batteries. And any space ring would be a perfect tool for a genocidal bombardment of a planet.
Orbital rings are military installations with armor and shield generators. They're just starbases. You don't destroy them because (presumably) you want them, or have diplomacy concerns. Instead you disable and capture them like every other starbase. Crisis factions (including aspirants with Existential Expulsion) destroy orbital rings just like they destroy starbases.

For habitats... In my opinion they should have some absurd damage multiplier if they don't have a shield generator and break at 100% devastation like they were hit by a Colossus. The result would be that they almost immediately surrender if the aggressor allows it, or very quickly die if they don't, unless the owner has invested a precious building slot in shields.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Also - why do you see that Habitats should be the way to go for AI that finds itself without suitable planets to expand within its borders? Why not conquest or terraforming or gaining/modifying POPs so that they can inhabit plant types not suitable for original empire species?
Science: mostly from pops.
Alloys: almost entirely from pops.
Unity: 100% from pops.

Where do pops live?
 
To further this point :
Regardless of your habitability, you will want to settle any and all planets you can find, be it for the population growth only.

If you are in a situation where you can no longer grow your borders, or you are unwilling to do so (ie vassalizing does not cost influence, or there are so few planets that claiming systems with one costs too much), you may want to still increase your production capacity by getting new habitats.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
You don't need to know one end of a text editor from the other to see that the game is designed around the assumption that habitable planets are moderately abundant, by virtue of the fact that getting enough of the three core resources (unity, alloys, science) to actually do anything interesting is overwhelmingly reliant on pops.

Reducing habitable planet count reduces the number of pops you have, and thus makes the game harder for anyone who can't build Habitats.

The AI is not adaptive – it does exactly what it's told – and its current behaviour is not coded to beeline its Engineering research towards Habitats.

So, if you just crank down the number of habitables, without also writing a mod that adapts the AI's behaviour to this brave new world of "nowhere to put pops", you shaft the AI.

The same AI that goes through a progression of plowing its alloys into things that cost a ton of alloys as they become available and invariably spams habs? That AI?

The point is a good one on the whole but Habs are the worst example given how everyone who is riddled with Hab Spam complaints are not actually the ones contributing to it in their own playthroughs. But the point is solid if one evaluates a human Void Dweller Origin who turns down habitable planets for some other reason and then enjoys the benefit in the AI not having the stuff to keep up.

Edit: The mechanical reason that turning down habitable planets doesn't necessarily lead to Hab spam is that the AI struggles to get to the point of Hab Spam by being impacted by lack of planet production vigor to get there ahead of the human player.
 
Last edited:
IMO, a big part of the "problem" with Habitats arises from the way population growth works. Population growth rewards you for having as many "worlds" as possible - the more worlds you have, the more population growth you (can) get. If population growth did not depend on the number of worlds, and discouraged having pops in low-habitability locations, habitats would presumably be avoided until 1) you are running out of living space or 2) you find a really great deposit that you want to exploit.

A population growth rework could potentially resolve the issue with Habitats without making any further changes to them.
 
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Resort worlds are one of my favourite RP parts of the game. Happy to see it get love.

Would love some resort world specific event chains or maybe like a way to compete for the galaxies best resort world! Maybe a way to send my leaders on a vacation for some much needed R&R.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Could you please explain how it "shafts the AI"? I am very far from any programming skills.
The AI doesn't specialize its planets, at least not nearly to the degree as a player can. If you give the AI and a player five identical planets, the player is much more capable of optimizing those planets and getting much more out of them than the AI can. Take a look at how many times the AI builds a mix of the rural districts on some colony designated for another purpose, or a smattering of buildings at cross-purpose.

The AI difficulty is built around providing production bonuses to the AI's income. This partially helps counteract their inability to specialize, but still requires the AI to have the opportunity to build a sufficient amount of resources for the difficulty bonus to translate into something meaningful. The more you restrict the AI, the more it's unable to squeeze in every resource it needs on the available planets. There's some minimum level (I haven't done the math in a long while) of colonies before the AI can begin to be reasonably competitive. For example, going from 15 -> 20 planets is far less as big of a deal as going from 5 -> 10.

So when you turn down habitable planets and turn off guaranteed worlds (which gives the AI a chance to begin to build competitively early on), the player is able to adapt, but the AI is still trying to meet all the same targets for monthly income, it just has fewer opportunities to do so and isn't able to compensate as well.

Turning off the guaranteed planets also makes it more of a luck-of-the-draw. If you happen to find a planet near you with no guaranteeds on, you get a huge head start over every AI empire that doesn't, because those first few extra colonies especially are essential to empire growth. Your first colony doubles your population growth, and there's a huge compound difference over being able to do that on year two versus year twelve. One AI might also be able to get lucky, but as a whole, the average AI will be less powerful when you encounter them because most of them won't be so fortunate.

TLDR: turning down habitable planets makes the playing field uneven and the player is far better able to adapt than the AI to limited resources.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: