Are the developers allergic to "Internal Politics" and "Ground Invasion"?

[Normannus]

I'm not convinced they should be 'fun', actually. The point of internal politics is to work against player agency, i.e. to actively make it more frustrating to achieve his goals.

GSGs are about, fundamentally, problem solving. The game presents you with difficulties and you have goals- either from yourself or the game- and you need to work against the difficulties. That’s what people enjoy in these games, they enjoy solving problems and overcoming challenges. This “but internal politics is just there to frustrate your goals and limit agency” is the absolute silliest possible objection.

Strategy? In my strategy game?

 

[PK_AZ]

This “but internal politics is just there to frustrate your goals and limit agency” is the absolute silliest possible objection.

You know what? I'm in fighting mood right now. Tell me, please, where I objected to anything on the grounds of it being frustrating?

 

[Normannus]

You know what? I'm in fighting mood right now. Tell me, please, where I objected to anything on the grounds of it being frustrating?

That has been the entire basis of your objection so far, as is evidenced by all of your comments

 

[PK_AZ]

That has been the entire basis of your objection so far, as is evidenced by all of your comments

That's interesting. Could you quote one of such objections, because I cannot find them right now?

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

You know what? I'm in fighting mood right now. Tell me, please, where I objected to anything on the grounds of it being frustrating?

…?

You said it in one of the two sentences he quoted:

The point of internal politics is to work against player agency, i.e. to actively make it more frustrating to achieve his goals.

 

[PK_AZ]

You said it in one of the two sentences he quoted:

Here is context:

The bigger problem would be to find way to make faction happiness and faction power more dynamic, interactive and fun to engage with than the current "set empire policies to please the 2/3 main factions and then forget about it for the rest of the game".

I'm not convinced they should be 'fun', actually.

What I objected was notion that internal politics system (actually: parts of that) has to be fun to interact. I wrote nothing about whether internal politics should or should not be included in game. Neither if frustrating mechanics are good or bad. My position here needs some bigger context, I will come to that soon.

The point of internal politics is to work against player agency, i.e. to actively make it more frustrating to achieve his goals. If player do not rage-quit game at least once, because three mid-tier mistakes created spiral of crap that cannot be broken without doing some extreme play, I would argue that internal politics system didn't really fulfilled its role.

...here I actually wrote that - without going into details - internal politics system should be able to frustrate player to be good.

As for bigger context. There is general tendency on Paradox Plaza to expect every mechanics and every part of mechanics to be fun, engaging and complex. I consider that expectation to be detrimental for quality of the game. Nature of GSGs is that some systems are engaging, some just are, some are busywork than nevertheless has to be done, some are outright frustrating and punishing in psychological sense (to force player to avoid them, f.e. civil wars)

 

[mrt1212]

GSGs are about, fundamentally, problem solving. The game presents you with difficulties and you have goals- either from yourself or the game- and you need to work against the difficulties. That’s what people enjoy in these games, they enjoy solving problems and overcoming challenges. This “but internal politics is just there to frustrate your goals and limit agency” is the absolute silliest possible objection.

Strategy? In my strategy game?

Like I keep saying the playerbase is fractured on engagement with Stellaris and what it is doing as a game - because Stellaris is open to it and half supports at least. Im not going to get this taxonomy right but theres a few engagements that seem pronounced.

Please dont make a political compass out of this, Im begging you!

Objective Problem Solvers: Trying to find the best methods to apply the best methods to solve problems.

Creative Problem Solvers: Using only available methods and limiting available methods to solve problems. Some think creativity is boundless canvas with boundless colors but theyre wrong, so wrong. Impediment is the impetus of creativity, so says I an artistic hobbyist when not gaming.

Static Character Storytelling; The character is defined ahead of time on how they will proceed through the story because the character is the character is the character (and they will be made to succeed no matter what according to what they are about from the start)

Dynamic Character Storytelling: The character has a starting basis of who they are but can and does change to degrees by events it encounters and choices through them so the story is more about the tumult of character's personal journey through it (and its never perfect and ideals and aspirations falter but they keep trying) rather than the acts and deeds they do along the way. And they can die in chapter 2 of the first act and that's their story, sad and short as it may be for a supposed protag.

This feels like a starting point to at least congregating players to what Stellaris does and can do in scratching game playing itches. And Stellaris does accomodate all at once but doesnt deliver it so intensely and speficially to just one. You can but there are limits to game support and accomodation. And even players arent static, some runs are seeking to tell a powerhero story, others are like trying to get homicidal goose getting out of a cement mixer. Player's prerogative.

WIthin Objective and Creative problem solving is the RNG engagement and Objective Problem Solving seeks more awareness of cause and effect of solving problems, as to smartly prevent them if possible but select the most beneficial path to lick it if it does. Its about proving knowing best with enough info to know best. It is hard to do that with confounders you cant account for and cant see ahead of time.

Creative Problem Solving Can roll with more ambiguity of cause an effect because the net present solution is somewhat discrete and linking creative solutions back to back to back is the trick of the problem solving, even through missteps that induce more painful creatve problem solving potential or demand you objectively solve it once and for all after not doing so.


As it interjects in Static and Dynamic Character storytelling, RNG represents intrustion on Static Characters, especially if it seemingly draws them away from their Character. Something just happening to a Static Character vs. A Dynamic Character encountering...its hard for me to articulate this well but as others express it, this is how some mention RNG in games - shit happening confounders to the static character's arc. Things getting in the way, roadblocks and diversions. This isnt the same as Spearman vs. Tank RNG, this is macro intrusion into what a player is trying to usher along for themselves.

I think we often cross streams over all of this because the game accomodates all of our presence within in it, not equitably but we can pretty much go end to end and top to bottom playing the game anywhere on this plotted chart. And so what we want usually reinforces what we are already about with the game.

But its really hard to be an Objective Problem Solver writing Static Character Story in a game that is constantly shaking it up with DLCs if you found your muses in problem solving and storytelling at one point and that was it for you. RNG with ambiguity and ambiguity itself will also be a bigger burden on them than their creative and dynamic peers.

This is just in player engagement with it conceptually and philisophically. not much to do with Devs presentation for a first pass of plotting what a player hopes to do and get out of playthrough.

If youre wondering, I work in Helpdesk so my work is a mix of Objective and Creative problem solving with IT problems at the user level. The wierd problems I have to investigate and deduce and maybe not solve the first time (requiring meantime kludge) are tougher, more intimidating, but more satisfying to solve over the ones that are cut n dried 'user ignorance' or 'user access/rights' problems.

Maybe the simple thesis is 'the more static the character story, the more objective problem solving invoked, the more brittle it is to unexpecteds and intrusions'

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

What I objected was notion that internal politics system (actually: parts of that) has to be fun to interact. I wrote nothing about whether internal politics should or should not be included in game. Neither if frustrating mechanics are good or bad. My position here needs some bigger context, I will come to that soon.

...here I actually wrote that - without going into details - internal politics system should be able to frustrate player to be good.

As for bigger context. There is general tendency on Paradox Plaza to expect every mechanics and every part of mechanics to be fun, engaging and complex. I consider that expectation to be detrimental for quality of the game. Nature of GSGs is that some systems are engaging, some just are, some are busywork than nevertheless has to be done, some are outright frustrating and punishing in psychological sense (to force player to avoid them, f.e. civil wars)

Anything new to a video game should increase players’ overall enjoyment over it. After all, why would anyone want a feature that makes a game worse?

Not every individual button press needs to be a dopamine hit, but the expectation with internal politics features is that the overall system would be a net positive for the game.

It sounds like you’ve decided that the only possible implementation of an internal politics is one that’s negative and frustrating. That’s fine, but you also seem to be expecting people to argue with you over that specific implementation. Like, yeah, of course you’re not going to want internal politics if you think the only ways it can be implemented will be negative, but clearly people don’t share that specific vision.

 

[HFY]

Anything new to a video game should increase players’ overall enjoyment over it. After all, why would anyone want a feature that makes a game worse?

Not every individual button press needs to be a dopamine hit, but the expectation with internal politics features is that the overall system would be a net positive for the game.

It sounds like you’ve decided that the only possible implementation of an internal politics one is one that’s negative and frustrating. That’s fine, but you also seem to be expecting people to argue with you over that specific implementation. Like, yeah, of course you’re not going to want internal politics if you think the only ways it can be implemented will be negative, but clearly people don’t share that specific vision.

Agreed.

I view a bunch of current decisions in Stellaris as negative to the player's experience, and more nuanced / more complex internal politics as a potential way to remove some of those frustrations.

 

[mrt1212]

Anything new to a video game should increase players’ overall enjoyment over it. After all, why would anyone want a feature that makes a game worse?

Not every individual button press needs to be a dopamine hit, but the expectation with internal politics features is that the overall system would be a net positive for the game.

It sounds like you’ve decided that the only possible implementation of an internal politics is one that’s negative and frustrating. That’s fine, but you also seem to be expecting people to argue with you over that specific implementation. Like, yeah, of course you’re not going to want internal politics if you think the only ways it can be implemented will be negative, but clearly people don’t share that specific vision.

I think the most likely implimentation would put cooldown counters anywhere else but where you tap a button to start cooldown?

THat frightens me, not facing mutiny because I made a ton of promises I didnt fulfill.

 

[PK_AZ]

But its really hard to be an Objective Problem Solver writing Static Character Story in a game that is constantly shaking it up with DLCs if you found your muses in problem solving and storytelling at one point and that was it for you.

I agree with what you wrote, with one minor objection. From my perspective, the problem is not in DLCs, but in free patches. DLC can be easily turned off (or nor brought at first place). Yes, it did not solve problem fully, f.e. you may like everything about DLC but one mechanics (hello there, Conclave), or there may be some vision change influencing more than one DLC. But it is still one level of magnitude less painful that getting rid of free patch.

 

[mrt1212]

I agree with what you wrote, with one minor objection. From my perspective, the problem is not in DLCs, but in free patches. DLC can be easily turned off (or nor brought at first place). Yes, it did not solve problem fully, f.e. you may like everything about DLC but one mechanics (hello there, Conclave), or there may be some vision change influencing more than one DLC. But it is still one level of magnitude less painful that getting rid of free patch.

Oooh, yeah, I hadnt thought about this outside DLC releases and playerbase yay/nay on suiting them. 'This doesnt seem for me and I wish it was' is inscrutably true.

I do wonder how much Internal Politics cant be a DLC unto itself like many folks think at this point. Huge scope, want to accomodate all player types, the missing piece in an otherwise full game, so make it core...But in making it core at first and accomodating to all...we are still gonna get an Internal Politics Unleashed DLC or should.

So says an obsessesed DLC cow (and situations enjoyer) at least

Also, how much does internal politics need to call itself that distinctly? What if its one half of it is a Pacts, Oaths and Promises mechanic in core that makes self selected internal questing a normal thing in existing subsystems where it isnt, and then is expanded upon by DLC smartly as to scratch more of the Internal Politics itches we have asked for? Is that more digestable than a specific one shot DLC that tries to do it all, that nobody can agree on what it should be and if it should exist?

 

[HFY]

I do wonder how much Internal Politics cant be a DLC unto itself like many folks think at this point. Huge scope, want to accomodate all player types, the missing piece in an otherwise full game, so make it core...But in making it core at first and accomodating to all...we are still gonna get an Internal Politics Unleashed DLC or should.

Just in terms of Factions, we had more complex & less smudged / overlapping variety in 1.9

It's not just about adding new content which has never been in the game -- part of it is going to be restoring the content which 2.2 wrecked in its blind destructiveness.

 

[Archael90]

I would like at least some changes to those topics:
Ground combat: invasion weapon, defence or aux component for ships allowing to invade bombarded planets, general is a commander of a fleet. All commanders traits have effects for both: fleet and armies.
Internal politics: multi species planets suffer from stability (and maybe pop growth) loss and crime increase, xenophobe pops have lower happiness for every other species on a planet and xenophile pops have higher happiness. Depending on politics, ascension perks and civics, planeta can feel negatives with more or less different species. Introduce policy restricting migration and max number of different species on a planet, xenophiles cannot restrict things related to migrations and egalitarians cannot restrict max number of citizen species on planets.

 

[Ikael]

Ground combat is a lost cause, I am afraid. "Un-obtrusive ground combat" as the one we currently have is the best we can aspire to. It could be made more relevant if transports would take more valuable resources (alloys, pops, regular ship's weapon slots, whatever), but there seems to be no interest whatsoever in it. I have already made my peace with the fact that it will be untouched for the time being.

As for the much fabled, "internal politics rework", as I defended in my previous posts, it can be done by just revising and balancing older, already established game systems without needing to add pesky new features. I understand that devs gotta tread carefully on that front. But if I have to pick one single aspect to revise, just one thing to adjust regarding internal politics, by the love of the Shroud please look at faction demands, their current incoherence and lack of balance. It is THE thing to solve. No need for additional factions even. As long as the basic faction demands of each ethic are okay, you can build up almost everything else from there (rebellions, espionage, institutions, whatever).

Wild theory-crafting new mechanics like cultures or religions can be confined to easily disabled DLC, the only thing that would fall into a "grey area" would be institutions.

But as long as faction demands remain in their current state, little else can be built upon "internal politics", I think.

I see federations as very business-like, even if born out of some ideology (even militarily). If you make the federation bonus be linked to its number of members, or combined diplo weight, it leads to all sorts of player behaviour. I think it would be more fun if, as a player, once I am in my federation my choices were something like:

• The federation members are at peace and everything is going quite well. I should try to expand my federation's influence by growing its member count, be that through liberating a vassal that would be a good fit for us, helping another member get a vassal or buttering up another empire. After all, the more members I have, the better my bonus
• As counter balance, as my federation grows, the easier it is for my economy and war status to be tied to its members. If a member has a big financial downturn and/or goes to war, it should impact me directly no matter what. I should be incentivised to help said member solve its problem, so my federation can go back to humming along. This gets players interacting with all corners of the galaxy.
• If member(s) of the federation become too much trouble, the president could have the option to kick them out for a hefty cohesion price. Think reverse Brexit or what could have happened to Greece.
• If the federation has too many unstable members, others should be thinking about voluntarily leaving rather than paying the hefty price of fixing other people's problems in order to get the federation back on track. This could snowball into the federation getting dissolved. Classic Brexit move.

As a player, this gives me so many reasons to interact with the galaxy:

1. If I am a minor member doing well economically, do I invest in my federation hoping to foster it? If said federation is going badly, do I pay lip service and hope to leave as soon as possible?
2. If I am the president, do I try my best to keep my members doing well so that my federation bonus stay strong? In order to do so, should I consolidate power, since those pesky Xenos can't seem to run their own economies?
3. Once the house of cards come crashing down, how do I capitalize? Do I turn on my once allies, or do I wait patiently for the inevitable demise of my federation?

Yeah, that could also work! That's what I meant by "more unstable federations": People abandoning federations (or getting expelled from them) should be common in the latest stages (read: levels) of Federations. That's a far more realistic approach than the current "forever fed" model, or than Federations randomly exploding for no apparent reason or due to espionage.

 

[Kim the Mindcaster]

I could enjoy and find interest in ground combat if it wasn't so dull in the current version
I really hope that this mechanic will be one day updated

 

[3ishop]

I could enjoy and find interest in ground combat if it wasn't so dull in the current version
I really hope that this mechanic will be one day updated

In what way would you find it interesting without it becoming a chore?

 

[Kim the Mindcaster]

In what way would you find it interesting without it becoming a chore?

Many games with repetitive combat encounters seem boring to some, and entertain others. Perhaps for simple combat encounters it is worth introducing simplified rules like auto-combat, for complex situations the player will prefer to control the combat personally. Planetary combat could be interesting if it brings something new to the game, puts the player in front of a choice and allows various situations to develop. Of course, this will require serious rework - and the desire of the developers to do it.

In my opinion, the current criticism from players like "let's remove combat completely" comes from the fact that ground combat in the game is boring now

 

[Thiend]

In what way would you find it interesting without it becoming a chore?

I personally would need a variable success state. I'm not interested in "now it's just harder" but if I could invest more effort for more rewards than I currently get, or the same for the same as current, that would be an acceptable rework.

The problem for me with suggestions for ground combat reworks is that, much like many IP suggestions, it's not making it more in-depth. It's making it require more micromanagement. Expanding ground combat to require more effort, mechanically and in terms of player engagement, must entail a success state beyond "victory." Because victory is currently available for the price of setting my army to aggressive and looking away. I don't want to go towards that same goal for more effort, I want to go towards a greater goal for more effort.

My extremely primitive suggestion (because I am not that interested in a ground combat rework, but want to provide an example of how one could be good that I would be okay with) would be to make planetary defenses stronger, so that stronger armies could then conquer them via more involved mechanics, and this in turn could provide alternative rewards and/or just more occupation score. Using the current level of effort (tell army to attack, walk away) still generally produces the result of victory, and provides around the current amount of occupation score, but narratively leaves behind pockets of resistance - which is still obviously the planet conquered, but doesn't count towards occupation as much as removing that resistance would. Perhaps the "fully conquered" version would provide things like intel or having the planet work for you during the war until reclaimed, instead of producing nothing at all as the "pockets of resistance are left" version would still do.

I don't know exactly what this would look like in terms of ground combat gameplay, but I could likely accept most versions of that. The obstacle for me is "why do I want this and not the current version. What is my benefit for making the mechanic more engaging (IE higher effort floor)."

 

[Archael90]

I personally would need a variable success state. I'm not interested in "now it's just harder" but if I could invest more effort for more rewards than I currently get, or the same for the same as current, that would be an acceptable rework.

The problem for me with suggestions for ground combat reworks is that, much like many IP suggestions, it's not making it more in-depth. It's making it require more micromanagement. Expanding ground combat to require more effort, mechanically and in terms of player engagement, must entail a success state beyond "victory." Because victory is currently available for the price of setting my army to aggressive and looking away. I don't want to go towards that same goal for more effort, I want to go towards a greater goal for more effort.

My extremely primitive suggestion (because I am not that interested in a ground combat rework, but want to provide an example of how one could be good that I would be okay with) would be to make planetary defenses stronger, so that stronger armies could then conquer them via more involved mechanics, and this in turn could provide alternative rewards and/or just more occupation score. Using the current level of effort (tell army to attack, walk away) still generally produces the result of victory, and provides around the current amount of occupation score, but narratively leaves behind pockets of resistance - which is still obviously the planet conquered, but doesn't count towards occupation as much as removing that resistance would. Perhaps the "fully conquered" version would provide things like intel or having the planet work for you during the war until reclaimed, instead of producing nothing at all as the "pockets of resistance are left" version would still do.

I don't know exactly what this would look like in terms of ground combat gameplay, but I could likely accept most versions of that. The obstacle for me is "why do I want this and not the current version. What is my benefit for making the mechanic more engaging (IE higher effort floor)."

So ship modules that allow invasion that replaces current armies, would be better - its simpler tho have more depth (choice between fleet power vs invasion) for the same goal.