Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary will be focusing on the road ahead after Cherryh and Apocalypse, and our long-term priorities going forward.

Cherryh Post-Release Support
As mention in last week's dev diary, the immediate priority for the team is post-release support for Cherryh and Apocalypse, fixing bugs, addressing balance/feature feedback, and working on quality of life and performance improvements. We are maintaining a running 2.0.2 beta patch which we will continue to update every few days or so until we are happy with the state of the game.

The Post-Apocalypse
Apocalypse and Cherryh were an expansion/patch focused almost exclusively on war, and with it out, we are now going to be moving on to other, non-war related priorities for future updates, expansions and story packs. To give you an idea of what's coming, we're going to revisit the list of long-term goals for Stellaris I made and updated for Dev Diary #50 and Dev Diary #69. This time, we're going to organize the goals into the ones we feel have been delivered on, old goals that were added to the list before 2.0, and new goals that we have set for ourselves after 2.0 (there is no prioritization difference between goals based on when they were added or whether they are considered old or new for this particular list).

As before, the list is NOT in order of priority, and something being considered completed NOT mean we aren't going to continue to improve on it in future updates, just that we consider it to be at a satisfactory level.

As before, THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE OR FINAL LIST, NOTHING NOT ALREADY COMPLETED IS CERTAIN TO HAPPEN AND THERE ARE NO ETAS

Completed Goals

• Ship appearance that differs for each empire, so no two empires' ships look exactly the same.
• More potential for empire customization, ability to build competitive 'tall' empires.
• Global food that can be shared between planets.
• Ability to construct space habitats and ringworlds.
• Factions that are proper interest groups with specific likes and dislikes and the potential to be a benefit to an empire instead of just being rebels.
• Ability to set rights and obligations for particular species in your empire.
• Buildable Dreadnoughts and Titans.
• Deeper mechanics and unique portraits for synthetics.
• Reworking the endgame crises to be more balanced against each other and the size/state of the galaxy.
• Reworks to war to address the 'doomstacks' issue and make the strategic and tactical layers of warfare more interesting and less micro-intensive.
• Superweapons and planet killers.

Old Goals

• A 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.
• Deeper Federations that start out as loose alliances and can eventually be turned into single states through diplomatic manuevering.
• More story events and reactive narratives that give a sense of an unfolding story as you play.
• More interesting mechanics for pre-FTL civilizations.
• 'Living systems', making empire systems feel more alive and lived in

New Goals

• Less micromanagement and more focus on interesting choices in regards to planets, the ability to grow planets beyond current fixed size.
• Empire trade mechanics and trade agreements.
• A galactic market where resources and strategic resources can be imported and exported.
• Espionage and sabotage mechanics.
• Improved galaxy/hyperlane generation with better placed systems and dangers.
• More anomalies and unique systems to explore.

That's all for today! Over the next few weeks, dev diaries will continue to focus on post-release support. Feature dev diaries will resume when we have new features to talk about. Finishing off this dev diary is a screenshot of how we're reworking difficulty modes in the next update to the rolling 2.0.2 beta:

 

[Metnik]

Old Goals are still goals you'd like to achieve, right? While I'm still interested in all of them, "Living Systems" is really what I'm most looking forward to seeing.

 

[IlyaZ]

I have my doubts on some of the game "AI" being true neural nets, but regardless, RTS games are relatively much easier to get neural nets to train, problem is would they actually do a better for the gameplay, and I'd say without a lot of money, time, and a very rigid set of narrow rules to follow, nets will generally suck. Now get past that it becomes nearly impossible to tune the net to fit a proper balance, you might get something that is exceedingly dumb even after a lot of iterations or you could get something that is too smart (given you put a lot of time, effort, and had a rigid model) and wouldn't feel engaging to play against. That means it works best for a linear perspective on tactics in which it will make predictions and qualify whether it can win or lose. As far as would it be able to build decently that would require at least another net if not a few. And then you gotta separate that to each empire. Looking at this issue not only do you have to train the NN on multiple subsets of mechanics and have it act independently both of those mechanics and of other empires, but you gotta spend a fortune, a lot of time, and even then the results aren't even ensured when its finished, getting NNs to do what you want is very hit or miss and given we see it be hard enough to get it between smart and dumb enough to be engaging to play that means its a huge risk, and I'd think with actually very vague and shallow rewards. And that doesn't really mean it will do everything better anyway, so it gets better at simulating a player fighting a war, that's cool but does it mean it can reasonably manage its energy and minerals without cheating? I don't know but trying to even figure that out is likely worth less then just scripting behaviors to do it properly, and its probably more efficient in manner of money, time, and power. (computer learning algorithms are not an end all be all for adaptable AI [they don't actually often work for game "AI" because they're not really suppose to be AI] especially since it will need to be fixed with every tiny change and then a training process could produce an even dumber version and not a smarter one)

Basically you would save at different generations to get a difficulty setting. Iterating enough, the AI beats world champions, see e.g. OpenAI and DeepMind (AlphaGo). It is not that big a stretch to imagine the same systems generalized to any strategy game with a scoreable outcome, with a genetic algo set to evolve the net. However, there would have to be some smart entry point approach to let the net train on the game, it would have to explore the decision space of the game.

'Living systems', making empire systems feel more alive and lived in

Master of Orion (less feature rich/complex, but beautiful game, with a commendable attempt at doing real time battles), shows transport/space lanes between planets in a system in a very nice way (e.g. using the export option with the Interplanetary Administration). Planet view activity is visualized in a manner that reflects development and life.

Trades and resource flow could be visualized to make a living universe. Same goes for migration. While the progress bar is filling, draw a variably busy space lane with small shuttles, occasionally spawn a new kind of minor vessel that can be raided for gameplay purposes (and stop the flow if it happens, generate a task to clear the zone, make some faction happy for having secure lanes).

 

[VerKer]

Old Goals are still goals you'd like to achieve, right? While I'm still interested in all of them, "Living Systems" is really what I'm most looking forward to seeing.

Given how little late game performance has improved despite the loss of FTL variety, i sincerely doubt this being realistic any time before quantum computing will happen on your desktop though.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wouldn't be as resource intensive if civilian ships running around were just graphical flare to add color to the "trade route" or whatever, rather than fleets you could click on and control directly. They would have no direct interaction with warships, couldn't be attacked, no pathfinding beyond a set route etc.

 

[James Fire]

Given how little late game performance has improved despite the loss of FTL variety, i sincerely doubt this being realistic any time before quantum computing will happen on your desktop though.

You obviously aren't playing the game/ Game Performance is massively improved, allowing you to go way beyond the 2350 we could before.

 

[Elfich]

As a Quality of Life / UI item:

I would like to see some filtering options in the expansion planner. After I pick the planet I want to expand to, I get the list of 10-1000 planets to expand from. I would like to be able to filter the available planets by planet type or species. It would keep the hunting for the one arid planet I have that I am using to seed all my other arid planets from when everything else I have is continental and tundra.

 

[Dumuzii]

I'd really like to get a build multiple tick box for buildings on planets similar to synthetics.

Often if I'm settling worlds, especially in the mid/late game, the jumping back and forward between right clicking a tile and scrolling to select a building can be very tedious. Particularly when I'm only choosing between a mine, energy plant or research lab.

 

[Nobleheretic]

I would like a CB/war goal to force freedom of navigation on certain xenophobic AI empires that won't let me finish the Alien Specimen Procurement. Perhaps if you win the war they have to open their borders to you for ten years. I also want to second the people who want a CB/war goal to force the AI empires to drop their claims on the player.

The existing democratic mandates are very limited and rather boring. Is the biggest issue in Stellaris electoral politics really the construction of exactly four research outposts/mines?

It seems odd that the Empire's paramount leader always has to be selected from among the current active leader roster. In a democracy sometimes outsider populists are elected whose very incompetence can create interesting challenges for the player.

 

[King of Zoot]

Then why AIs in games like Europa IV or Victoria don't get any flatout cheating bonuses too? (except some to simply reduce cpu workload) Aren't they Paradox games too? (and much more complex to be fair)
I really hate it when AIs outright cheat, and by forcing them to not cheat and simply play fair (without abusing their own faults from my side) and then being called "beginner, newbie, or ensign" is just wrong. I just dislike games where single planet/base AIs can afford armies rivaling that of your 4 times larger nation. (like in all Total War games for example)

The AI in EUIV gets "lucky country" bonuses. Been a part of the gam sine EUI iirc.

 

[Ikael]

Great to know about Stellaris's future! I am convinced that this latest update was for the better and that it indeed archieved what it was meant to do: creating a more interesting warfare.

And now, for the old and new goals:

• Factions that are proper interest groups with specific likes and dislikes and the potential to be a benefit to an empire instead of just being rebels.
• More potential for empire customization, ability to build competitive 'tall' empires.

Sorry, but IMHO these two goals are far from being accomplished. It is not as if one planet seeded life needs to be competitive, but Stellaris is still greatly focused on map painting, as reflected by its victory conditions. And factions, while having lot of potential, are still whoefully underutilized.

• A 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.
• Deeper Federations that start out as loose alliances and can eventually be turned into single states through diplomatic manuevering.

Would be great to see. There are lots of Paradox games that can serve as inspiration for these goals.

• More story events and reactive narratives that give a sense of an unfolding story as you play.
• More interesting mechanics for pre-FTL civilizations.

Pre-FTL synthethic and hivemind civilizations would be great additions. Also, far more interactive, rewarding mechanics regarding xenophile interactions with primitive civs could add a lot to the game's narrative as well. Let us play as Alien's Engineers.

• 'Living systems', making empire systems feel more alive and lived in

This is intriguing. I wonder what the devs have on mind for this.

• Less micromanagement and more focus on interesting choices in regards to planets, the ability to grow planets beyond current fixed size.

Would that mean replacing the tile system? If so, that would be a really bold, polemic, yet necessary choice.

• Empire trade mechanics and trade agreements.
• A galactic market where resources and strategic resources can be imported and exported.

Then you would need a massive economic rework as well. And it would need strategic resources that gives massive advantages, but that would certainly require to embrace the whole "geography is destiny" ethos, and putting uniformity and multiplayer player balance on the list of lower priorities.

• Espionage and sabotage mechanics.

Yes to espionage, no to random ships exploding.

• Improved galaxy/hyperlane generation with better placed systems and dangers.

Unique, wondrous ultra-buffed planets able to provide massive amounts of resources and unspeakable horrors being locked out by ancient ruined warpgates only accesible via mid-game tech would be awesome.

• More anomalies and unique systems to explore.

Anomalies are cool, the more the merrier, but I would love if alien races would be progressively studied and understood, rather than being a dychotomic "known / unkown" type of affair. To unconver the secrets of the universe going deep into them, as well as wide, so to speak.

 

[Nam_Xue]

Hi there,

Really like the sounds of these updates, also really enjoying the depth that the new hyperlane-only system has created.

What would be really cool would be the ability to construct (and possible deconstruct) hyperlanes later on in the game. I think that would add a valuable extra layer of strategy!

Nam

 

[Mobosh]

If anyone is still watching this thread,

"Build more"- button for buildings, not just for robots plix! And make it remove the tooltip warning for over writing tile resources.

 

[0xFFF1]

Warp could only be a late-game tech or defensive starbases in border systems would become irrelevant (again) and we have the reworked Jump Drive in that area. Punching holes in space-time to create your own wormholes would be pretty sweet though.

I think a lategame tech that let make your own wormholes would be neat, but to balance it,

* If you ever had sensor data of the target system, either from yourself, or through a trade agreement, then a wormhole can be created that targets it. Otherwise it has a small range, perhaps cutting 5 jumps into 1.
* when you start building it, it would make an announcement to whoever owned the system that someone was creating a wormhole into their territory.
* A special project that would start that requires a skilled scientist present and lets the empire know exactly who is making it.
* Building it would take just long enough that they would be able to build enough defensive structures in the system to stop a fleet from an equally capable nation assuming they had the minerals available to build it up nonstop from the moment the notification was given.
* If they know who's making it, it grants a casus belli against you to that nation and every other nation with a defensive pact with that nation, although it doesn't unilaterally affect their existing opinion of you, so, depending on their ethics, they may ask you to stop or sign a non-aggression agreement first before deciding whether they will become hostile.
* Alternatively, you could ask for a trade agreement before building that's specific to either nation owning the wormhole creation technology, which would give monthly energy credit and mineral bonuses to both nations, with a larger bonus if the number of jumps between the capital planets is lower taking the new wormhole into account. Asking for them to trade you minerals is cheaper than would be typical for an amount equal to half the cost of the wormhole. This allows you to build a wormhole into their nation under a positive pretense.

 

[Caanaz]

An idea for the following improvement areas:
- Empire trade mechanics and trade agreements
- More anomalies and unique systems to explore
- A galactic market where resources and strategic resources can be imported and exported

Why do you not add 'luxury resources' (Much like in Civ) to systems and planets. They would provide empire wide small bonuses (1% for example) to for example happiness, growth, energy or any other relevant area. They would as such not be as important as the strategic resources but are also tradeable and worth collecting. Bonuses could also be different for the different race archetypes, or work better in combos, which would drive trading incentives to get something better for your empire

This would make systems more unique, the galaxy less bland, and would impact the expansion choices. Instead of expanding to the biggest planets, most resources systems or hyperlane choke points any more this would also affect the choices and make the galaxy more interesting. You could also make interesting Story events/Reactive narrative for some of these (Much like the aphrodisiac atmosphere one)


BR
Caanaz

 

[TheFriendlySatanist]

I would like to see the ability to reserve certain tiles for specific species for xenophobic and authoritarian empires. It would help with planet management a lot (I'm tired of my dumb slave species moving into labs when my dedicated research species is trying to move in). Or maybe the ability to sell pops as slaves for xenophobic and authoritarian empires, it would make Barbaric Despoilers more interesting.

 

[Roddo]

Please, please! can we delete old and forgotten entries in the event log?

No, I don't want to do a 5th ships graveyard exploration. Or a 9th giant skeleton project.

 

[kwm1800]

You obviously aren't playing the game/ Game Performance is massively improved, allowing you to go way beyond the 2350 we could before.

I obviously play the game and I see zero game performance improvement on late game.

I mean, if your definition of "go way beyond 2350" means it takes about 2 seconds for 1 day, well, then what you said is correct.


Not for me though.


It is particularity painful for me and I really do not want to play this game after year 2300 is passed.... too bad as a modder I maintain several Stellaris mod, and with one of them turned out to be quite popular. So I need to play the game to play test them.


But the performance of this game is so insanely bad that sometimes I get urge to go to my mods' pages and declare I abandon my mods because this game really is no longer fun for late game due to performance issue. Yes, I am talking about vanilla non-modded game. Lord have mercy if you use some resource-heavy mods.


And that's even before we talk about removal of FTL travels and forcing everyone to play Hyperlanes.

There is a reason why nobody talks about 'new' Master Of Orion. If Paradox did not use bait and switch and was honest about FTL methods from the first place, I would not bought this game in the first place. After all, I still have new Master Of Orion for that.

I mean, if this removal of FTL travels brought actual performance increase, I would like it as reasonable compromise. But the performance is exactly same as before.


At least new Master Of Orion runs really, really well, and unlike Stellaris it is an actually enjoyable space 4X game which uses Hyperlane mechanics very well. At this point probably superior to Stellaris in terms of game mechanics.

 

[James Fire]

I obviously play the game and I see zero game performance improvement on late game.

I mean, if your definition of "go way beyond 2350" means it takes about 2 seconds for 1 day, well, then what you said is correct.


Not for me though.


It is particularity painful for me and I really do not want to play this game after year 2300 is passed.... too bad as a modder I maintain several Stellaris mod, and with one of them turned out to be quite popular. So I need to play the game to play test them.


But the performance of this game is so insanely bad that sometimes I get urge to go to my mods' pages and declare I abandon my mods because this game really is no longer fun for late game due to performance issue. Yes, I am talking about vanilla non-modded game. Lord have mercy if you use some resource-heavy mods.


And that's even before we talk about removal of FTL travels and forcing everyone to play Hyperlanes.

There is a reason why nobody talks about 'new' Master Of Orion. If Paradox did not use bait and switch and was honest about FTL methods from the first place, I would not bought this game in the first place. After all, I still have new Master Of Orion for that.

I mean, if this removal of FTL travels brought actual performance increase, I would like it as reasonable compromise. But the performance is exactly same as before.


At least new Master Of Orion runs really, really well, and unlike Stellaris it is an actually enjoyable space 4X game which uses Hyperlane mechanics very well. At this point probably superior to Stellaris in terms of game mechanics.

What game are you playing? Most others are saying that late-game performance is massively improved, myself included.

I am in 2512 right now, still getting good FPS, and I have several mods active, around 12 or so. Some of them are in development, to get them updated to 2.0.

If you are not seeing performance improvements, the fault is with you, not the game.

 

[Hype]

What game are you playing? Most others are saying that late-game performance is massively improved, myself included.

I am in 2512 right now, still getting good FPS, and I have several mods active, around 12 or so. Some of them are in development, to get them updated to 2.0.

If you are not seeing performance improvements, the fault is with you, not the game.

Hard numbers are probably needed for any conversation about performance I think, not that I have them myself right now. One person's "good FPS" is another's "terrible performance." I still find playing on anything larger than a 600 star galaxy to be bad by 2350 or so. With a Ryzen 1800x.

 

[James Fire]

Hard numbers are probably needed for any conversation about performance I think, not that I have them myself right now. One person's "good FPS" is another's "terrible performance." I still find playing on anything larger than a 600 star galaxy to be bad by 2350 or so. With a Ryzen 1800x.

Define "Bad"