Stellaris Dev Diary #129 - Tradition Updates

[Sigma 582]

Hi there,
What bugged me in every game so far is that in some time, you have to choose every tradition, even if you play pacifists, you have tradition points to spend and will take the War doctrines. Will this be changed, that you won't have enough points lategame, or can do something else wiht them?
Cheers,
Camael

Apocalypse DLC adds Ambitions which are powerful edicts costing Unity. Not unlocking unnecessary traditions keeps ambitions price lower and gives you more unity to spend on them.

 

[Dmitrius]

Hi there,
What bugged me in every game so far is that in some time, you have to choose every tradition, even if you play pacifists, you have tradition points to spend and will take the War doctrines. Will this be changed, that you won't have enough points lategame, or can do something else wiht them?
Cheers,
Camael

Yeah, totally agree.

I think the ascension perks for psionic, synth and biological ascension should be removed and made an event where the player decides a route they wish to pursue.

Also they need to add more tradition trees to allow, for example only, dedicated pacifists or non diplomacy seeking warlords to get some benefits instead of useless abilities inside the supremacy and diplomacy trees respectively.

I think the trees need to be deeper as well. I should be hitting maybe 3 quarters of the traditions tops. Otherwise it's not a question of which traditions I take, but on which order.

Which defeats the purpose behind tradition trees making empires more unique and different.

 

[goldennick94]

Neat! Will the replaced tradition effects show up in the game in other ways, perhaps policies and more civics? I liked the idea of having lots of vassals with the pre-2.2 Domination Traditions, and I'd like to still see that be utilized in the game.

 

[Madzai]

A lot of these traditions don't makes sense for the new classless, socialist states. In fact, that traditions are not filtered by ethics (and that any one empire can attain them all) really doesn't make sense from a roleplay perspective, and I think detracts in some way from the weight of which decision should be chosen.

Long time ago then they were implementing alternative trees for GC and other Unique Empire i asked Wiz if they going to implement something like Ethic-depended traditions(not trees), alternative choices(like choosing between 2 Traditions in one tree) or even between two trees for a single slot. He said it's unlikely they add more choices and way to handle traditions, so the answer is probably no.

 

[Lot]

Quite happy to see the unity boosting traditions removed. Amazing how many of my pet peeves are being addressed in 2.2

 

[Calvax]

I think the trees need to be deeper as well. I should be hitting maybe 3 quarters of the traditions tops. Otherwise it's not a question of which traditions I take, but on which order.

Which defeats the purpose behind tradition trees making empires more unique and different.

One option would be to decouple ascension perks from traditions, at least partially. Maybe half of the ascension perks are unlocked but after you've filled them more traditions wont help. The rest have to be bought with large amounts of unity or unlocked through events/technologies.

 

[Khyron83]

So we will still need to progress down Discovery tree in order to get access to research assistant. I would suggest that research assistant be avaliable without databank Uplink just capped at the level 1 bonus. Databank Uplink would then allow for the increased production based on scientist skills for level 2 and above.

After research assistant was moved from a random tech to the traditions tree I have felt forced to take discovery as my second or third tradition to get the research assistant so my Scientists can do something to help my empire. Thanks to Science ships being in a new contact's borders when they close borders because I am a player not playing Xenophile, pacifist. Then they can not get out thanks to my neighbors rivaling me or just closing borders. So it is just sit in my empire until I get experimental navigation jump tech hoping I have enough info to get a jump off then get them exploring again, spend 3-4 tradition points to get research assistant, or war and watch all remaining border close because the player is getting aggressive.

 

[Taritu]

Changing the discovery starter to reduced anomaly research time from increased chance to find an anomaly feels like a significant reduction in fun. I take discovery because I like finding anomalies.

 

[Ezumiyr]

While this is nice, I've been waiting for more traditions (either more tradition trees or more unique ethics/civics-dependant traditions) since they were added to the game.
They are a nice addition, but given their limited number and their limited effects they aren't enough to be empire/playstyle-defining. Maybe it's hard to decide what you'll pick first - but is that really a good thing? I'd prefer to have a clear choice to make if I want to play as a particular kind of empire... Imo opinion it shouldn't be "all traditions are worth taking", but rather "each tree leads to its own path".
After all, they are traditions, not technologies. Technologies are already there to represent linear progression. These traditions are redundant.

So I can't say I'm not a bit disappointed.

 

[Dmitrius]

One option would be to decouple ascension perks from traditions, at least partially. Maybe half of the ascension perks are unlocked but after you've filled them more traditions wont help. The rest have to be bought with large amounts of unity or unlocked through events/technologies.

Hmm, I think some could be. Like the psi/synth/bio one which, I presume everyone takes and doesn't add much value as a choice in the ascension options.

I think ascension perks should level the playing field between small and large empires.... at the mmoment they really only serve as blockers to some abilities that with the exception of habitats and ring worlds effect large and small empires in the same way more or less.

Personally I start small to midsized to suck up all the ascension perks through my substantial unity generation and then fuck up the bloated weakling neighbours next door. Meaning that I still have all the advantages I had before with the raw resources of a much larger empire.

Sorry I know I'm getting off topic, but thinking back to the purpose behind all of this stuff otiginally makes me question whether the stated goals were met.

 

[The Founder]

Also they need to add more tradition trees to allow, for example only, dedicated pacifists or non diplomacy seeking warlords to get some benefits instead of useless abilities inside the supremacy and diplomacy trees respectively.

I think the trees need to be deeper as well. I should be hitting maybe 3 quarters of the traditions tops. Otherwise it's not a question of which traditions I take, but on which order.

Which defeats the purpose behind tradition trees making empires more unique and different.

Basically you want something more like EU4 Idea groups, rathern then the current Traditions?
I have no idea if they now finally have enough mechanics to make even one additional Tree. Or if more then 7 trees was ever even part of the Plan for the UI.

 

[Lot]

Changing the discovery starter to reduced anomaly research time from increased chance to find an anomaly feels like a significant reduction in fun. I take discovery because I like finding anomalies.

I'd rather have the speed, finding a high level anomaly is one thing, investigating it before 2210 is potentially game-changing.

 

[pryr]

For clarity:
View attachment 410199

How exactly penalties calculations are work? "(Empire size minus cap) * X " or "(empire size divided by cap) * X" ?

 

[grandad1982]

Eeerrr, the first real disappointment of 2.2. Not exactly disappointed maybe but just the nagging feeling that this is a missed opportunity.

Personally I'd have liked to seen more trees, have some of those trees be mutually exclusive and have more swaps based on ethics and civics.

It still just feels like your going to get them all and the only difference might be an occasional change in which order you take them. Not exactly that inspiring I'm afraid.

 

[Jean-Luc]

What about Paradise Domes?

 

[Dmitrius]

Basically you want something more like EU4 Idea groups, rathern then the current Traditions?
I have no idea if they now finally have enough mechanics to make even one additional Tree. Or if more then 7 trees was ever even part of the Plan for the UI.

In terms of structure maybe. The big difference being that the ideas in Eu4 allow you tailor your strategy to your surroundings. Most nations in Eu4 have a very specific method behind choosing ideas. Largely determines by historical events, geopolitics and raw geography.

Stellaris feels much more like a bronze age simulator where the world order is not established and everyone is essentially creating the type of societies they want to live in. That's the kind of theme I'd like to see. Think back to a pre Roman world where laws, conventions and moral philosophies had to be created to make sense of a new world with apparently limitless potential.

Funnily enouch I was thinking about this while playing Odyssey recently.

 

[Black Onion]

I am not a fan of the actual tradition system. It could be used better.
Actual everybody will get all traditions, it's only a question which tradition you like to get first. It's a question of "when", not a question of "if".

Instead traditions should support more different and interesting play styles: There should be some more advanced traditions, that deny the use of other advanced traditions in other traditions trees. E. g. so you can create an empire that is even better in researching, but they will never get the best traditions of the supremacy tree.

 

[Orphalesion]

View attachment 410198

I hope this isn't once again a system that tries to pressure the player into handing over parts of their territory to the control of AI governours :-(
It sounded like 2.2 would finally be the end of that...

 

[Calor]

Is it just me or does the Domination unlock seem more Expansion appropriate

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Let's see:

1. Expansion: seems 'first or never'
   • Adoption and extra pops are early-game only: you stop building colonies at some point (there are habitats, but still). Things like these are what puts tradition into "first or last" category (something you supposedly disliked about Discovery when you tweaked it last time, IIRC?).
   • Finisher is borderline useless: you upgrade ship shelter only once per planet. Also, 5 (or even 50) pops won't make a difference as long as resettlement remains trivial.
   • To be a good tradition, Expansion should not be simply about getting a large empire, but also about keeping said large empire functional.
2. Domination: seems fine
   • Adoption is, again, a bad bonus: you don't clear blockers after early game.
3. Prosperity: seems good, hard to say until you clarify how all those systems work (which is never ).
4. Harmony: seems okay.
5. Supremacy: seems OP.
   • There's nothing else to do in this game but fight and you decided to put all the military-related buffs (along with cost reductions) in a single place? Convenient, but OP.
   • Of course, planetary bombardment bonus is still useless while you have it hard-capped.
6. Diplomacy: seems untouched
   • Finisher, while fine, just reminds me that whole trust system really needs a rework: what's the point of faster trust growth when it's capped?
   • Naval cap contribution is useless while federation fleet remains hard-capped.
7. Discovery: seems nerfed
   • Adoption bonus is horrible compared to previous discovery chance. While it's still about anomalies that are gone past mid-game, discovery chance gave you more anomalies, while anomaly research speed gives you nothing: you literally have hundreds of years while your science ships have no other uses.
   • Assist research still needs a rework, along with the whole 'usefulness of civilian ships after early-game' thing.
   • To blody go is still an early-game thing, exclusively (would probably be better suited for Expansion tree, too).