Stellaris Dev Diary #367 - 4.0 Changes: Part 1

[ruzen]

I don't see any supply resource.
I though planets and trades are going to be maintained by this supply resource, so whats changed?

 

[Thiend]

There should be a slider that dictates the number of precursors with a checkbox for random. Then the selector should be just to determine what is available to be generated. That way you could have them all selected, but then only actually generate some lesser number of them if you set the slider to a lower number than the total precursors you've made available.

That part is essentially going to be the case, in that the maximum actually generated is the number of players so long as that isn't more than the number of enabled precursors. Having 8 enabled won't make it possible to get 8, unless there are 8 people to get them (none of whom have a duplicate).

 

[RoverStorm]

Will there be a setting for multiplayer where me and a friend who spawn next to each other are guaranteed to get two different precursors?

Is there a way for players to individually select which precursor(s) they want?

 

[Koopatin]

did you think about making strategic resources rare again? as it stands now it is just some resource to upgrade stuff. no decision to be had. build factory. upgrade everything. build best-in-slot ship stuff. done. I would go back to single planets and/or empire buildings that need special resources and maybe restrict special resource ship needs to titan auras and just have a few.


stellaris always does that: give us something rare and special, and after 2 patches, flood the game with it and makes it just another currency like everything else.

 

[WoodenP]

I love the new empire selection screen but I really feel like they missed a trick just having two tabs "General Settings" and "Advanced Settings". I'd love to see that expanded for more granularity, such as a "Geography" tab which can host stuff like the precursors, empire position, habitable world counts, and so on.

It'd help new players a lot too with clarity - and isn't that a big purpose of 4.0?

(A "presets" tab giving a pre-tweaked set of galaxy configurations would also be excellent!!! "Short Match", "Fast and Deadly", "Killer Crisis", "Minimal Friction" etc etc.)

 

[Masked Ermine]

We're still experimenting with exactly how we want to use it, but generally it's expected to be a repository of Concepts to help you get information inside of the game itself whenever possible.



We have not changed the "one precursor per empire" rule.



That's currently accurate. We'll continue playtesting it and see if we want to have a minimum number of slices, since I generally feel that it's better for a single Precursor to be localized to a portion of space rather than literally everywhere. (Some of the events imply that they were local powers rather than galaxy dominating behemoths.)

The recommendation of 4+ Precursors started with that in mind, but currently we do not create "empty slices".

The AI does not get precursors currently. It kind of ended up making the player get all of them, while also introducing a "feels bad" moment if they beat you to yours.

Re: Habitability, sounds like something a biologically ascending empire would be interested in making smoother.

This just feels like spiting the players that just asked to be able to pick a precursor like we could pick a crisis. A kind of "fine we'll let you pick the precursors but you're not going to like it" kind of attitude. Like why are we doing all these extra steps when you could just give us a tab on the pregame menu and say we get the precursor we want and it's just like the way the precursors worked before? I guess I just don't understand the thought process behind this particular modus operandi for still not giving the players the exact choice. Because it feels like if I pick one precursor there's a chance that all the precursor events could spawn on the far side of the Galaxy where they either won't proct because an AI empire is already surveyed that area or I will never get to. Which in many ways feels like an even bigger feels bad than having the AI break a precursor chain. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the spawn mechanics of the precursor events.

 

[goldennick94]

If time is not of the essence, instead of using a Special Project to modify your species, you can designate a template as the Species Default, and let them integrate over to that default template slowly over time. Certain traditions or buildings might affect the speed of this integration process.

Out of curiosity, will we be able to do multiple species through this method? I can see this being a huge relief in the number of clicks for biological focused xenophile empires (or other empires with a lot of xeno pops).

 

[Thiend]

This just feels like spiting the players that just asked to be able to pick a precursor like we could pick a crisis. A kind of "fine will let you pick the precursors but you're not going to like it" kind of attitude. Like why are we doing all these extra steps when you could just give us a tab on the pregame menu and say we get the precursor we want and it's just like the way the precursors worked before? I guess I just don't understand the thought process behind this particular modus operandi for still not giving the players the exact choice. Because it feels like if I pick one precursor there's a chance that all the precursor events could spawn on the far side of the Galaxy where they either won't proct because an AI empire is already surveyed that area or I will never get to. Which in many ways feels like an even bigger feels bad than having the AI break a precursor chain. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the spawn mechanics of the precursor events.

It's going to split the galaxy between all enabled precursors, so selecting only one means it's everywhere and only players can get it.

I still agree (and agree'd) with your post, because it DOES give the finger to anyone in multiplayer. You can still get duplicates no matter how many exist, so this isn't actually helpful at all because the fewer precursors exist the higher the odds of a duplicate are.

It's extremely exciting that they've done something to help at all, and extremely disappointing (especially considering the sheer number of times I've pointed it out) that they didn't do anything at all about this obvious problem.

 

[Masked Ermine]

It's going to split the galaxy between all enabled precursors, so selecting only one means it's everywhere and only players can get it.

I still agree (and agree'd) with your post, because it DOES give the finger to anyone in multiplayer. You can still get duplicates no matter how many exist, so this isn't actually helpful at all because the fewer precursors exist the higher the odds of a duplicate are.

It's extremely exciting that they've done something to help at all, and extremely disappointing (especially considering the sheer number of times I've pointed it out) that they didn't do anything at all about this obvious problem.

It's extremely frustrating for a single player though because if we're playing say shroud walkers or a psionic build and we desperately want the zroni yeah we can select that as the only precursor to spawn but we're still going to get screwed because now the stupid archeology sites are going to be spread all across the Galaxy instead of what they typically are which is relatively close to home. And I feel that just picking which one spawned without changing how the spawn was executed was closer to what players were asking for. It was the ability to pick precursors like we could pick crises without there being added steps or other changes we just wanted to pick which one showed up we didn't want to change how they spawned just which one showed up when they spawned. And like I said this feels very much like we'll let you pick which one spawns but we're going to make it horrible.

 

[Siren Soule]

It's going to split the galaxy between all enabled precursors, so selecting only one means it's everywhere and only players can get it.

I still agree (and agree'd) with your post, because it DOES give the finger to anyone in multiplayer. You can still get duplicates no matter how many exist, so this isn't actually helpful at all because the fewer precursors exist the higher the odds of a duplicate are.

It's extremely exciting that they've done something to help at all, and extremely disappointing (especially considering the sheer number of times I've pointed it out) that they didn't do anything at all about this obvious problem.

Maybe Paradox just doesn't agree that it's a problem.

Isn't fostering competition in multiplayer part of the game? Is it really logical to assume that a precursor would only be a precursor to one specific empire, especially if 2 spawn in the same region that precursor originates from?


What would you suggest to change it? Have each player pick their own precursor and have some agreement before a game starts not to pick the same? What if everyone wants cybrex? How do you decide who gets it?


I don't see how paradox can improve on the system they're putting forward here in a way that's fair. And this way, they can at least gather data on which precursors many players are disabling, and which ones are always picked, for balance purposes.

 

[Thiend]

It's extremely frustrating for a single player though because if we're playing say shroud walkers or a psionic build and we desperately want the zroni yeah we can select that as the only precursor to spawn but we're still going to get screwed because now the stupid archeology sites are going to be spread all across the Galaxy instead of what they typically are which is relatively close to home. And I feel that just picking which one spawned without changing how the spawn was executed was closer to what players were asking for. It was the ability to pick precursors like we could pick crises without there being added steps or other changes we just wanted to pick which one showed up we didn't want to change how they spawned just which one showed up when they spawned. And like I said this feels very much like we'll let you pick which one spawns but we're going to make it horrible.

I want to be absolutely uncompromising in critique of the part of this that is trash ("what if I'm playing multiplayer in this game I only own to play multiplayer"), but changing the area the precursors can spawn in shouldn't change anything about how precursor systems/sites are generated. They're generated (sometimes badly) relative to your empire, and have literally nothing to do with the total area in which the first precursor event in the chain can spawn, which is what this will change.

 

[Thiend]

Maybe Paradox just doesn't agree that it's a problem.

Isn't fostering competition in multiplayer part of the game? Is it really logical to assume that a precursor would only be a precursor to one specific empire, especially if 2 spawn in the same region that precursor originates from?

Yes, if it's competitive. I don't play multiplayer competitively, I play it cooperatively, so the fact we can't individually choose or at minimum not get duplicates makes this basically useless.

What would you suggest to change it? Have each player pick their own precursor and have some agreement before a game starts not to pick the same? What if everyone wants cybrex? How do you decide who gets it?


I don't see how paradox can improve on the system they're putting forward here in a way that's fair. And this way, they can at least gather data on which precursors many players are disabling, and which ones are always picked, for balance purposes.

Several options:
1. Exactly the same, but with an additional option preventing duplicates (IE if someone already has Cybrex, nobody else can gain the Cybrex precursor, they can only start other precursor chains).
2. Select per player (empire creation), not per game, global override setting available for competitive players.
3. Allow duplicates, but it also generates duplicate rewards (two players pick Baol, two initial archeology sites are created leading to different yet identical archeology sites and a different yet identical home system + relic + Secrets of the Baol).

Any of these will fix the problem. It's not hard to fix, they just didn't bother to do it.

 

[CassCD]

That asymmetry in the precursor selection window needs to be rectified immediately. And the only acceptable way to fix the issue is the addition of 3 more precursors. How much money do I need to throw at my screen to make this happen?

 

[Siren Soule]

Yes, if it's competitive. I don't play multiplayer competitively, I play it cooperatively, so the fact we can't individually choose or at minimum not get duplicates makes this basically useless.

Several options:
1. Exactly the same, but with an additional option preventing duplicates (IE if someone already has Cybrex, nobody else can gain the Cybrex precursor, they can only start other precursor chains).
2. Select per player (empire creation), not per game, global override setting available for competitive players.
3. Allow duplicates, but it also generates duplicate rewards (two players pick Baol, two initial archeology sites are created leading to different yet identical archeology sites and a different yet identical home system + relic + Secrets of the Baol).

Any of these will fix the problem. It's not hard to fix, they just didn't bother to do it.

Give the slice based mechanics, 1) doesn't work. The surveyables that can start a precursor are determined on galaxy gen. If 2 players spawn in the same cybrex spot, all that happens is whoever is first to survey gets cybrex. The second player would get nothing.

2) select per player forces duplicates and competition unless you enable 3 anyway, and besides....

3) This would break any form of game rp, not just competitive. Assume for example, everyone chose Baol (not going to happen, but illustrating it to make the case). How many "last baol" are there before it gets ridiculous? Or multiple cybrex alphas? Or the Javorian Pox sample, which is super isolated because it's dangerous, is now just in multiple systems spread across the galaxy?

There's no way I could logically accept 3 even if it would be "nice" for the player, as its inconsistent with the precursors stories.

 

[Nyrael]

This just feels like spiting the players that just asked to be able to pick a precursor like we could pick a crisis. A kind of "fine we'll let you pick the precursors but you're not going to like it" kind of attitude. Like why are we doing all these extra steps when you could just give us a tab on the pregame menu and say we get the precursor we want and it's just like the way the precursors worked before? I guess I just don't understand the thought process behind this particular modus operandi for still not giving the players the exact choice. Because it feels like if I pick one precursor there's a chance that all the precursor events could spawn on the far side of the Galaxy where they either won't proct because an AI empire is already surveyed that area or I will never get to. Which in many ways feels like an even bigger feels bad than having the AI break a precursor chain. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the spawn mechanics of the precursor events.

Because a lot of people want to just exclude precursors (so they don't get something useless to their build, like Zroni with machines) while keeping randomness in, and Stellaris' core vision fits closer to those people than min-maxers who only want the perfect one for themselves.

With that said, I don't see the problem here. You select only one, the entire Galaxy is a slice so you are guaranteed to get it, and their capital system will as usual spawn somewhere in or near your borders like before.

 

[Thiend]

Give the slice based mechanics, 1) doesn't work. The surveyables that can start a precursor are determined on galaxy gen. If 2 players spawn in the same cybrex spot, all that happens is whoever is first to survey gets cybrex. The second player would get nothing.

Actually they would get a different precursor, just not immediately. It's determined by where you survey, not where you spawn, and that's assuming they didn't just do something to have it fill in when precursors are removed from the pool of valid options mid-game.

2) select per player forces duplicates and competition unless you enable 3 anyway, and besides....

No it doesn't, it forces you to communicate what you each want and choose different options or use the override setting I also mentioned in scenarios where that won't work, such as PvP.

3) This would break any form of game rp, not just competitive. Assume for example, everyone chose Baol (not going to happen, but illustrating it to make the case). How many "last baol" are there before it gets ridiculous? Or multiple cybrex alphas? Or the Javorian Pox sample, which is super isolated because it's dangerous, is now just in multiple systems spread across the galaxy?

There's no way I could logically accept 3 even if it would be "nice" for the player, as its inconsistent with the precursors stories.

Yes it would, however you asked for solutions while acting like it was impossible to fix, not for my preferred solution. That is a valid solution to the problem as-presented. They're in descending order of how much I like them.

Selecting a precursor at all is "breaking the game RP," and that's the excuse given by the devs in the past to not allow it, so as that is now allowed this is no longer an actual obstacle. It's not the best solution either, but it does solve the problem.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

The AI does not get precursors currently. It kind of ended up making the player get all of them,

I find the word "currently" comforting, as the lack of AI access is my personal biggest issue with the precursors. I can't play with them without feeling like I am cheating against the AI, because the benefits are so great. I hope further alternatives are explored in the future.

On which galaxy size and precursor count did the human players tend to "get all of them"?
I imagine that precursor-hoarding would be much more of an issue on smaller galaxy sizes with many precursors, than on bigger ones with few precursors. In a 1,000-star galaxy, having 4 precursors end up with the dominant power of each quadrant (via empowering their discoverers, or their discoverers being conquered by greedy neighbours).

Please consider these two suggestions:

• A checkbox that lets us decide if AI empires get precursors (default = no).
• The recommended minimum number of precursors depends on galaxy size; perhaps 2 for tiny, 3 for small, 4 for medium, 5 for large and huge?

By allowing players to let AI empires get precursors, you will both satisfy that segment of the player base and also get their creative juices flowing from their experiences, generating useful feedback and ideas for future improvement.

while also introducing a "feels bad" moment if they beat you to yours.

This could in part be alleviated by adding a Galatron-style casus belli for precursors, for empires that failed to get a precursor of their own (i.e. have no precursor, or ongoing precursor quest). Those who miss out can then do something about it more easily. Precursor homeworlds and relics are Galatron-level desirable, and galactic balance of power is also in the interest of every other empire. Such a casus belli would also help make precursors end up with strong empires that can defend them against precursor-hoarding human players. (Possessing a precursor homeworld/relic could even justify some Threat generation with empires that don't, for each precursor homeworld/relic owned. Early precursor-hoarders could and should find themselves alone against the rest of the galaxy.)

I also think that a big issue with the current system is the lack of information about the progress of other empires, especially the ones competing for "your" precursor, and the lack of means to act on it (by intensifying efforts, or using less friendly alternatives). Suddenly losing a race that you might not even have been aware of feels bad, but it would not feel as bad if you knew there was a race and saw the competitor starting to get ahead long before the conclusion - and if you had options to try to rectify the situation before the finish line (or afterwards, with the casus belli described above).

Suggestion thread: Ideas for an updated precursor system
(The race for the precursor clues/MacGuffins that unlock their home systems could be expanded with wargoals, plundering, intelligence/operations, diplomacy, galactic community resolutions, research alternatives, enclaves, fallen empires, shroud options, the Galatron, the Rubricator, and so on.)

Finally, I can turn precursors off.

It is already possible to make a minimod to achieve this effect.
Step-by-step instructions for either disabling precursors for human players, or enabling them for AI players.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Re: Habitability, sounds like something a biologically ascending empire would be interested in making smoother.

Will there be an auto-modding option for climate preference, so that arctic humans don't drift back to continental humans despite living on an arctic world (due to a new continental-based template being the preferred one)?

Or will climate preferences be protected against the preferred template integration drift?

Or is climate adaptation (Glandular Acclimation) being moved behind genetic ascension?



Do the species modification changes mean that the AI will handle it differently than before, via the preferred template integration feature?

 

[Lorenerd11]

Is it possible for us to set default template for planet specific? Having a specific template for specialized planet and common template for most planets.

It would be nice if you could disable that on a planet.

A default template is absolutely necessary, but there will be certain planets where you might not want to use it and rather manage the pops manually.
I.e. an industrial planet or a thrall world.

Alternatively (and probably even better) it would be nice if you could create multiple default templates and assign them to planets.

I think based on what they said in this dev diary and the previous one, it is managed per template on the species tab?

Species Modification and Assimilation Targets​

We’ve gone through the genetic modification process to remove many pain points and make the overall flow much smoother. You’ll also be able to set a template as the species default, and can set sub-species variants to automatically integrate over time into the species default template.

The Species tab is generally more helpful as well.
Note: This branch does not include the pop changes.​

Unless there is some sort of planetary interface for species management that wasn't shown yet, I think this suggests integration settings will be empire-wide, but you can choose not to integrate specific templates.

 

[CycloneSP]

am the only one unimpressed by the new UI changes for the ship and species windows?

I'm not a fan of how much space they take up, now.

The ship windows just feel excessively large, especially the auto-generated options. (also, would it be possible to have some kind of toggle/option to set the "custom" as the default so I don't have to see that annoying pop up every time I wanna make a new ship design?)

as for the species tab, I don't see how making things take up more space improves anything. I felt like the UI design of the old species tab was quite sufficient as it was, and never really struggled to find any necessary information. (the only change I would've liked to have seen was the ability to collapse sub species)

oh, and btw, can we pretty please have the ability to rename a subspecies without the need to create a new template and perform a special project on hundreds of pops just to give that subspecies a new name? please?