• 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 #111 - Anomaly Rework & Expanded Exploration

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today, we're going to start talking about the 2.1 'Niven' update, which will be the next major update after 2.0. At this point I cannot give you any details on the exact nature of the update or when it's arriving, but I *can* talk about some changes we're making and new features we're introducing in regards to exploration, galaxy generation and anomalies.

Anomaly Changes
In 2.1, we're changing the way anomalies work in a few ways. First and foremost, we are removing the concept of failure risk - we found that the possibility to fail on anomalies added little to the game in terms of interesting choices, and mostly frustrated players or made them wait with researching said anomalies until their chance of success was maximized. As such, instead of making it so that anomalies have a failure risk based on scientist skill level, we've instead made it so that the time it takes to research an anomaly is heavily dependent on the scientist skill versus the level of the anomaly - researching a level 2 anomaly with a level 2 scientist will be a comparatively quick affair, while attempting a level 10 anomaly with the same scientist can take a very, very long time, and might mean that it is better to return to it later with a more skilled scientist, so not to hold up your early exploration.
2018_04_19_2.png

(Note: Not final numbers, etc)

As part of this we've also added an anomaly tracker tab to the situation log. The anomaly tracker will keep track of anomalies that you have discovered but not yet researched and easily let find and you return to them.
2018_04_19_1.png


Hyperlane Generation
Another thing that is changing in 2.1 is the way the Hyperlane network is generated. Rather than simply attempting to connect stars to nearby stars, we've created a new generation algorithm that builds up 'clusters' of stars with a high degree of internal connectivity, that are connected to each other by thinner 'highways' which form natural chokepoints. These chokepoints are also registered as such by the game, allowing us to find actual chokepoint systems and avoid placing Leviathans and other powerful space monsters there, as well as improving the AI's ability to detect suitable spots for defensive starbses. The hyperlane connectivity setting will determine the level of connectivity between clusters, and thus how frequent and easily circumvented chokepoints are.
2018_04_19_3.png

(Note: Image is not final. We're still working on the algorithm)

As part of this it will now also be possible for modders to easily generate systems and clusters of systems that are not connected to the main hyperlane network.

New Stars & Systems
Lastly for today, we've added a bunch of new system and star types to the game. First out are binary and trinary star systems - systems containing more than a single star. These systems come in a variety of configurations, and will often contain more planets and resources than conventional, single-star systems. We've also added some new star types to the game in the form of Brown Dwarves (not technically stars, I know) and Class M red super-giants. We've also made it possible to generate more than a single asteroid belt in a system, and created some new mineral-rich asteroid-heavy systems. Finally, there are some new unique systems to find with large amounts of resources in them, guarded by powerful space creatures.
2018_04_19_5.png

2018_04_19_6.png

2018_04_19_4.png


That's all for today! Next week we're going to be talking about something just a little bit mysterious called the L-Cluster... see you then!
 
I'm not understanding how the anomaly changes will improve the game. The chance of failure does add tension. Often the failure modes can be humorous. Replacing that with waiting an extra-long time doesn't seem to add anything except boredom. We are already waiting a long time just to get from one star system to the next.

However, I do like the idea of having an anomaly log. That's pretty cool. I hope it includes the completed anomalies. Maybe there could be such a log for each scientist or ship. This "captain's log" should have a stardate on it. :)
my reading is that the flat 5% chance of anomaly investigation failure will be removed, but the failure modes from the event chains are unchanged.
 
So, forgiveness please if this has been asked/answered before.

Will it be possible to have Binary systems with the extra star creating extra orbits, like in the trinary system shot? Will it be possible to have trinary systems like the binary system above with the three stars all forming the center of a system?

Also, will Alpha Centauri always be a trinary system and will Procyon always be a binary as shown in the twitter pictures?

Finally, will each Star have a possibility of having the star bonus (usually there is one, and it's usually 2-4 energy credits or 2-4 science, typically physics or engineering) in each multi-star system, or will only one of those stars be likely to have it?
 
The Stellaris dev team will build the game less around choke points and choke point-centric gameplay if we turn up the hyperlane density? How?
I never said they would. I pointed out a way that you can not make it so choke-point-centric, if that is what you want.
 
I just found out about the update involving anomalies, and I thought I'd throw in my own two cents on the matter:

In my second playthrough of the game, I encountered a certain anomaly involving a derelict ship. When my relatively experienced scientist aboard the analyzed the ship, there didn't seem to be anything interesting about it at all, which was a normal outcome for some other anomalies in the game. But right as my science ship, the UNS Ptolemy, was leaving the system, it turned out my scientist and everyone on board had been infected with brain parasites, and the last transmission my ship sends out is of its passengers tearing each other into bloody pieces.

It was an utterly tragic failure, and when it happened, I couldn't stop laughing for an entire minute.

Yeah, I did go back to an earlier save to see if my scientist could actually come out alive, but it wasn't as interesting. The failure actually added to my enjoyment of the game, and it was also very fitting for the whole space setting of Stellaris. It was something pulled right out of a sci-fi horror movie like Event Horizon or Alien and I didn't expect something like it would actually come up in the game.
Also, the science ship I used, the UNS Ptolemy, had discovered the first bits of alien life outside my empire, and a ton of other big anomalies earlier in the game. For a historically important ship to get destroyed in such a way, it felt like a sci-fi version of one of NASA's past disasters involving their spacecraft, and it got me even more immersed into the game. It was a stark reminder of the dangers lurking in the universe, and that exploration wouldn't always lead to a happy outcome. And yes, it's still one of my favorite moments in the entire game.

So yeah, I don't think failure should be completely removed as possibilities. I think they do add to the uncertainty of exploring space, and while it's not too significant to the game, taking it away wouldn't necessarily make the game better either.
 
Real-life Mayflower: we could not now take time for further search or consideration, our victuals being much spent, especially our Beere...
EU4 Mayflower: rum's gone, but we just drink salt water, so it's cool.

I'm sure there are gameplay reasons for why this change was made, but it seems very strange to me.
It means you don't have to manually babysit your exploration fleets while still attending to everything else an EU4 country has to do.
 
WOW, Real Space is coming!
But I hope the game can cover all star class finally as like as the mod in workshop
Hypergaints, Supergiants, Brightgiants, Subgiants...
 
Plenty of tabletop RPGs do not use dice, or use them in ways that create more interesting decisions.

Random numbers serve a purpose. They provide "friction" and an unsolvable game state, for example.

The point Wiz is making (which I think I agree with) is that the end result of the percentage chance of failure only really served as a time delay on exploring the anomaly. That means that the RNG in this case isn't actually adding anything to game, or any interesting decisions around it. Replace that with the system as mentioned, and you're exchanging "do I risk a 10% chance of failure" for "can I afford to spend x months exploring this, rather than exploring new systems", which is definitely a small upgrade in terms of meaningful choices.

I wann O class, L, T, Y class for brown dwarf!
 
I just found out about the update involving anomalies, and I thought I'd throw in my own two cents on the matter:

In my second playthrough of the game, I encountered a certain anomaly involving a derelict ship. When my relatively experienced scientist aboard the analyzed the ship, there didn't seem to be anything interesting about it at all, which was a normal outcome for some other anomalies in the game. But right as my science ship, the UNS Ptolemy, was leaving the system, it turned out my scientist and everyone on board had been infected with brain parasites, and the last transmission my ship sends out is of its passengers tearing each other into bloody pieces.

It was an utterly tragic failure, and when it happened, I couldn't stop laughing for an entire minute.

Yeah, I did go back to an earlier save to see if my scientist could actually come out alive, but it wasn't as interesting. The failure actually added to my enjoyment of the game, and it was also very fitting for the whole space setting of Stellaris. It was something pulled right out of a sci-fi horror movie like Event Horizon or Alien and I didn't expect something like it would actually come up in the game.
Also, the science ship I used, the UNS Ptolemy, had discovered the first bits of alien life outside my empire, and a ton of other big anomalies earlier in the game. For a historically important ship to get destroyed in such a way, it felt like a sci-fi version of one of NASA's past disasters involving their spacecraft, and it got me even more immersed into the game. It was a stark reminder of the dangers lurking in the universe, and that exploration wouldn't always lead to a happy outcome. And yes, it's still one of my favorite moments in the entire game.

So yeah, I don't think failure should be completely removed as possibilities. I think they do add to the uncertainty of exploring space, and while it's not too significant to the game, taking it away wouldn't necessarily make the game better either.

Note though, you don't get that event until you've succeeded at the anomlaly and done the special project that it spawns.

(Also once you've seen that one once you don't do it again because its only "good" outcomes have very restrictive requirements for the scientist doing it.)
 
Not sure if this has been asked before, but will the update also change/remove the increased Anomaly Discovery Chance from the trait "Meticulous" and edict "Map The Stars"?
It always felt like an incentive to wait with exploring until I have this with my scientist, to get the best output of the nonrecurring discoverytour.

The event "Crystal Sonar" also seems like it robs you of the possibility to find anomalies in affected systems because the automatically surveyed elements are not affected by scientist and edict performance. So maybe this also could need some refinement.
 
Last edited:
And please tell: when was there a chance to lose a Scientist exactly? Because the last time I checked, everyone delayed researching it until chance of losing the Scientist was minimal. The chance existed solely on paper.
And as said in the thread already: it does not actually remove the risks because the same can be accomplished via Special Projects and Events, and in a much more flexible fashion.

the multiplayer game I am currently playing with some friends, I have lost 3 ( THREE) scientists so far, while they were investigating anomalies at 5% chance of failure -.-
 
Can you plz plz add a "doubletime" fleet stance that allows ships to enter jump whenever possible and ignore conflicts? it will really make exploration and reinforcing fleets easier.

Also there is a BUG when the ships are following a fleet that is entering jump. If Fleet A is following Fleet B, and Fleet B initiates jump, Fleet A will start charging at the same time, but if Fleet B cancels the jump half way or decides to jump to a different system, Fleet A would still jump to the original destination, there by getting separated with Fleet B.

@Wiz
 
Randomization has no inherent value. It only has value if it creates interesting gameplay outcomes or choices. Anomaly fail risk did not.
Although I love randomness almost always in games (and especially in CK2, for example, where randomness plus complex endogenous systems have made it the immortal classic it is), my impression is you keep trying to push this game away from grand strategy towards something more for multiplayer strategy people, and I'll grant you that "your scientist might die!!" makes for a bad multiplayer strategy game.

However, the game also feels a bit neutered without that danger, too, especially for us singleplayer people (the traditional Paradox audience). Now exploring the universe is that much safer, with less sense of risk, danger, discovery. Every anomaly is now 100% safe. Wait, anomalies carry no risk at all...? Are we still exploring...?

I suppose something a lot of us longtime Paradox fans have trouble with is that you seem hell-bent on turning this game into a ho-hum predictable, deterministic multiplayer strategy game rather than the fundamentally single-player endogenous RNG fests that made Paradox successful in the first place. (Ask Doomdark about his CK2 design philosophy sometime IMO.)
 
Great... After srewing up the FTL system completely with 2.0 Paradox gives the hyperlane system a final kick in the... (you know what I mean) with the choke points. This is f*#+!:- space! There should be a whole lot of nothing in all three directions, not a roadmap like downtown london. Whats next, pedestrian zones, speedlimits or roundabout traffic???

But at least the anomaly system seems to get a usefull upgrade that might make it even better.
 
Until your explorer randomly dies and your fleet stops exploring and just sits there dying...
Sure, but I have "leader dies" configured to pop-up-and-pause, so I can deal with the situation reactively.
 
Great... After srewing up the FTL system completely with 2.0 Paradox gives the hyperlane system a final kick in the... (you know what I mean) with the choke points. This is f*#+!:- space! There should be a whole lot of nothing in all three directions, not a roadmap like downtown london. Whats next, pedestrian zones, speedlimits or roundabout traffic???

But at least the anomaly system seems to get a usefull upgrade that might make it even better.
So turn up the multiplier...

No chokepoints.
 
I'm not a fan of this.Choice and consequence is good design.Yeah you could leave it for scientist to level up but sometimes you would risk it.
Where's the choice?