Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. As mentioned in last week's dev diary, we're currently in an extended post-launch support period, and so there won't be any feature dev diaries coming for a while. Today's dev diary will just be a quick update about a couple of the issues we're currently aware of and working on for the 2.1.1 rolling beta. This is just a select few items, not a comprehensive list of everything we're working on!

L-Cluster Variety
The first issue we're currently addressing is L-Cluster balance and variety. We've had some feedback from players who got a 'positive' L-Cluster outcome that it felt a bit underwhelming, and while we definitely do not want every L-Cluster outcome to be negative, we do acknowledge that we could have done more in regards to the flavor and detail of some of the outcomes. As such, we'll be doing an extended second pass on this feature, adding more flavor and more outcomes, and also looking into the balance of when the L-Cluster is accessible and AI-related issues for some of those outcomes. We expect to have balance and AI fixes with you sooner rather than later, with the second content pass likely a few weeks away as we have decided to invest a fair amount of additional time and resources into it.

Performance
Another problem we're aware of and working on is the issue some users are experiencing with decreased performance and stuttering in 2.1 compared to 2.0. All I can say about this at the moment is that our coders are looking into it and have already made some progress on the problem, and that we consider it to be a very high priority issue that we absolutely intend to resolve.

Finally for today, a picture showing off a little modding support feature we'll be putting into the rolling beta - when you name objects in script (such as naming a newly created fleet or using the set_name function) the script will now take a scope, meaning that you can for example create a ship named after a leader, or renamed a planet dynamically after the species living there.

That's all for today! Join us again next week for... you guessed it... more post-launch support!

 

[RationalLemming]

Great to hear about making the outcomes a bit more flavoursome. I got a 'good outcome' in my first Distant Stars game and felt disappointed even though I know there need to be good and bad options.

Does the L-cluster sometimes not spawn? Would it be possible to have an option on start up to allow a random chance of no spawn at all? It feels silly for it to ALWAYS spawn when other event chains sometimes do not occur.

Is the tech in the rolling beta to research before opening the L-gates intended to push back the opening? I just had a 'bad outcome' and it felt too strong for the galaxy size and young game age (I was running four science ships and Map the Stars).

 

[Eelectrica]

I appreciate the ongoing efforts of you and team.
Cheers.

 

[KopiG]

Does the L-cluster sometimes not spawn? Would it be possible to have an option on start up to allow a random chance of no spawn at all? It feels silly for it to ALWAYS spawn when other event chains sometimes do not occur.

I would not like this. I think it should always spawn as its a trademark of Distant Stars. That would be like saying that sometimes Enclaves shouldnt spawn for Utopia owners. WOuld be silly imo.

 

[RationalLemming]

I would not like this. I think it should always spawn as its a trademark of Distant Stars. That would be like saying that sometimes Enclaves shouldnt spawn for Utopia owners. WOuld be silly imo.

I do understand that. However, not all leviathans spawn in every game. The War in Heaven doesn't occur in every game. While I think it would be good for the L-cluster to spawn nearly all the time with working L-gates or would be fresh if one outcome was no L-gates or broken L-gates.

Side note, I felt while playing that L-gates should have been revealed after activating the Gate network. Some gates would then be found to be different and there would be an 'oh, this gate is different and cannot be opened yet... I'll need to investigate further!" moment in the game. However, I acknowledge that would come too late for what was intended.

 

[pryr]

How about making L-gates available for all empires, including peaceful unlucky ones? For example, ability to build own L-gate if you have proper techs and enough knowledge about L-gates.

 

[Spricar]

Finally for today, a picture showing off a little modding support feature we'll be putting into the rolling beta - when you name objects in script (such as naming a newly created fleet or using the set_name function) the script will now take a scope, meaning that you can for example create a ship named after a leader, or renamed a planet dynamically after the species living there.


That's all for today! Join us again next week for... you guessed it... more post-launch support!

Would it be possible to add numbers (like MARK I, MARK II,...) to ship class names when they are upgraded. So, basic model is [ship class name], when/if you add better reactor for example it is [ship class name] I, you change the weapon type its [ship class name] II, etc etc

 

[Borgratz]

Great to hear that you are prioritizing performance. I know talking about it is pretty boring as a designer, but just hearing that there is people working on it makes reading about the more exiting stuff worthwhile

 

[HandicapdHippo]

and that we consider it to be a very high priority issue that we absolutely intend to resolve.

Glad to hear, I had to abandon my current game just as the crises started due to the freeezing and stuttering making everything unusable, I was running a lot of mods on a large galaxy which compounded the problem but before 2.1 I was able to run a similar setup fairly well well past the date my current game is at. Hopefully I can pick it up again soon.

 

[Lowkeyknight]

Awesome. But, can we get an update on when Vassals (and AI in general) will stop starving their pops into rebellion and start spending resources to solve obvious lacks (food, shipyard, energy etc).

 

[MarKr]

@Wiz
I am sorry if I am being annoying with this, but are there any news on the Federation fleet problems? The problems have been reported so I will just link it here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...f368-federation-fleets.1090696/#post-24210118
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...designer-at-some-point.1096794/#post-24215107
The whole fleet capacity that is taken from you when you join a federation is pretty much a trap now because the Federation fleet is sort of a useless in singleplayer games (maybe except for when you use it as a cannon-fodder) because the AI keeps upgrading them to "auto-best" designs which are usually "as much PD as possible" and there is no way for players to retrofit them back.

I know this topic is about Niven Post-Launch support, but this problem came with Cherryh and wasn't addressed in Cherryh-post-launch support and has been present ever since.

Thanks for any news about this.

 

[stardude900]

Any estimation on the next beta release?

 

[Arnovitz]

Could you add a start option to remove the habitable starting planets on galaxy generation? I'd rather my spawn be completely random.

 

[TheWackyWombat]

I'm glad you're taking the time to revisit the L-Gates. I think the problem a lot of people have with the 'positive' outcome isn't the payoff, it's that you're told this area was locked away, and you have to put a bunch of effort into uncovering what was so important... and the payoff is a few stars, some strategic resources, and absolutely no answer. Considering Distant Stars is supposed to be a story based expansion, that just feels bad.

If I had the choice between finding the L-Cluster empty even 10% of the time, and opening the L-Cluster and finding something apocalyptic 100% of the time, I'd prefer to find something bad.

I do have one suggestion for opening the L-Cluster and finding something 'Good' (but not overwhelming), perhaps you could add the chance of finding a fallen empire, an enemy of the original gate builders imprisoned away from the galaxy, who would be grateful to the first race that opened the L-gate again.

*EDIT*
Also... Is there any chance you can look at giving players more fine tuned control over the map generation at game start please? I like the ability to choose hyperlane density, number of habitable planets, number of empires, etc, but I would REALLY like the ability to enable/disable individual features on a map to map basis. The ability to toggle enclaves, leviathans, L-gates, choose how common strategic resources and/or neutral mobs are... pretty much any of the game's big features without having to disable an expansion.

We have a lot of choice now, but I would really like the ability to shake things up further.

 

[Lumpy]

Could you add a start option to remove the habitable starting planets on galaxy generation? I'd rather my spawn be completely random.

I've made a mod for that, I will update and upload it into the workshop when I find the time. But a checkbox solution would be a nice addition!

 

[Rafss]

I saw your presentation at Paradox Con, where you said you wanted to make more fallen empire ethics.

With the L-Gates, now it was the time, and still is as you're revisiting the feature.

Please, consider placing development resources in a new fallen empire, they always have so much story to tell.

 

[Dunaedine]

I'm glad you're taking the time to revisit the L-Gates. I think the problem a lot of people have with the 'positive' outcome isn't the payoff, it's that you're told this area was locked away, and you have to put a bunch of effort into uncovering what was so important... and the payoff is a few stars, some strategic resources, and absolutely no answer. Considering Distant Stars is supposed to be a story based expansion, that just feels bad.

If I had the choice between finding the L-Cluster empty even 10% of the time, and opening the L-Cluster and finding something apocalyptic 100% of the time, I'd prefer to find something bad.

I do have one suggestion for opening the L-Cluster and finding something 'Good' (but not overwhelming), perhaps you could add the chance of finding a fallen empire, an enemy of the original gate builders imprisoned away from the galaxy, who would be grateful to the first race that opened the L-gate again.

*EDIT*
Also... Is there any chance you can look at giving players more fine tuned control over the map generation at game start please? I like the ability to choose hyperlane density, number of habitable planets, number of empires, etc, but I would REALLY like the ability to enable/disable individual features on a map to map basis. The ability to toggle enclaves, leviathans, L-gates, choose how common strategic resources and/or neutral mobs are... pretty much any of the game's big features without having to disable an expansion.

We have a lot of choice now, but I would really like the ability to shake things up further.

So a nearly immediate War In Heavens, but with you as an ally (not a form of vassalization, so with potential research agreement) of a newly Awakened Empire?

 

[Vinraith]

I would not like this. I think it should always spawn as its a trademark of Distant Stars. That would be like saying that sometimes Enclaves shouldnt spawn for Utopia owners. WOuld be silly imo.

Then, obviously, don't use that option.

 

[ViolentBeetle]

Finally for today, a picture showing off a little modding support feature we'll be putting into the rolling beta - when you name objects in script (such as naming a newly created fleet or using the set_name function) the script will now take a scope, meaning that you can for example create a ship named after a leader, or renamed a planet dynamically after the species living there.

I'd rather be fully able to use [this things] in them. I think in some places I can, but I haven't quite managed to make it work last time I tried.

 

[Poohbah]

Also the "bad" result of the L-Cluster is actually the best result if you can survive, since it's the only result in which you gain the ability to terraform the nanite worlds which then gives you a bunch of systems with multiple inhabitable planets.