Stellaris Dev Diary #133 - The Caravaneers

[Sir Roderick]

It also doesn’t really fit when it comes to colonisation. New colonies have flavour text about prefabs and tents, yet they start with one or two pops which would make them very well populated if a pop is a billion.

I thought about this and it could be a logaritmic or exponential scale, because, for example, Mars is size 13 and Earth is size 16, yet Mars is about half as big as Earth:
https://www.space.com/16871-how-big-is-mars.html
Mars, the fourth planet from the sun, is the second smallest planet in the solar system; only Mercury is smaller. Mars is about half (53 percent) the size of Earth, but because Mars is a desert planet, it has the same amount of dry land as Earth. The simple question of how big Mars is depends on what measurements you consider.

 

[Vanhal]

It only need one more thing: Caravaneers trying us to sell some crappy resource like basic minerals and then asking:

"DO YOU GUYS NOT HAVE PHONES?"

 

[ashbery76]

I dunno seems like it will be tired pretty fast and those art assets seem wasted.

 

[Minuro]

That is very different. In that case politicians are usually gambling with other people’s money and pocketing the winnings. It’s done without a mandate and is clearly theft. In this set up any winnings go straight back into the budget. I don’t find it difficult to believe at all that if there was an advanced alien species offering gambling opportunities to win exotic resources or new technologies that the public wouldn’t approve of a budget for it.

There’s no need to nerf egalitarian empires for this. It would be good if a future update expanded on things like mandates/faction demands and that would give rise to a similar mechanic: if you loose too much money gambling and can’t fufill your obligations people will be pissed. But if you’re fulfilling all that, all major factions are happy and you’re running a healthy surplus who cares if some of that is risked on a deal with an alien race that could be very profitable?

You see it reasonable. I believe that no rational and serious consensus would risk the resources it needs to survive and grow in a space casino. I think you're approaching this issue in a very... indulgent way.

 

[Knotz]

I need those designs for my space elves tho.

 

[Calvax]

You see it reasonable. I believe that no rational and serious consensus would risk the resources it needs to survive and grow in a space casino. I think you're approaching this issue in a very... indulgent way.

“Survive and grow” - if an empire isn’t managing its economy to the point it has a surplus then it can’t afford the casino anyway. Mechanically unless an empire is thriving they won’t be able to pay for it.

I think your approaching this from a very human-centric point of view and only thinking about corrupt politicians gambling for cash. What do you think would happen if tomorrow an alien spaceship appeared in orbit and broadcast to every government in the world that it would accept money for gambling on a chance to win natural resources, exotic resources and new technology?

Almost every government would partake and most citizens would support the expenditure within reason. Departments for High-Risk Extraterrestrial Trade would be founded everywhere. A few billion a year for the chance of the nation to win alien technology or exotic materials that could enhance our science and industry sounds great to me! The biggest disagreement and upset would be if the government lost too much and the economy suffered. In stellaris that can be represented through not having enough funds to fufill mandates, appease faction demands or respond quickly to disasters. Those could all do with fleshing out sure, but a straight up penalty is neither fun nor sensible.

 

[krios41]

Are we there yet?

 

[Minuro]

“Survive and grow” - if an empire isn’t managing its economy to the point it has a surplus then it can’t afford the casino anyway. Mechanically unless an empire is thriving they won’t be able to pay for it.

I think your approaching this from a very human-centric point of view and only thinking about corrupt politicians gambling for cash. What do you think would happen if tomorrow an alien spaceship appeared in orbit and broadcast to every government in the world that it would accept money for gambling on a chance to win natural resources, exotic resources and new technology?

Almost every government would partake and most citizens would support the expenditure within reason. Departments for High-Risk Extraterrestrial Trade would be founded everywhere. A few billion a year for the chance of the nation to win alien technology or exotic materials that could enhance our science and industry sounds great to me! The biggest disagreement and upset would be if the government lost too much and the economy suffered. In stellaris that can be represented through not having enough funds to fufill mandates, appease faction demands or respond quickly to disasters. Those could all do with fleshing out sure, but a straight up penalty is neither fun nor sensible.

Ok, I agree with you. You convinced me.

 

[Chinggis147]

I know this isn't completely on topic, but could we sell our old warships to other empires or the caravaneers? I feel like they are wasted when I scrap them when I upgrade from being corvette based to destroyer based fleet patterns.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Well done pdox

 

[Calvax]

Ok, I agree with you. You convinced me.

Thanks for the discussion! I do understand your position, it does seem very weird to have a state (which is essentially what the player is playing as) gambling in a casino. I do think there's a good foundation for civil unrest because of this but it would need a bit of an expansion to politics. Keeping pops happy at the moment is just a case of ticking off major factions yes/no requirements and building enough happiness buildings. There's definitely more depth coming in 2.2. with amenities and strata political power but it still seems like if your managing your economy well and have ticked off major faction requirements you'll be stable forever.

I'd like to see more complex and dynamic demands in politics. Not just do one thing and a faction will be happy forever. There could be general mandates and faction mandates that are complex, contradictory and new ones arise throughout a game. Imagine a relatively simple mandate to build a 10,000 energy fund (throw in all sorts of flavour about being a party of fiscal resilience in the face of galactic market turmoil). If by Date X you have 10k you get a stability/happiness boost, for every 1K over you get 10% more, but for every 1K under you get a 10% malus to stability/happiness. Whilst you're doing it your militarist faction comments that you have two fleets with outdated equipment and demands you upgrade them before Date X. Now there's a decision to be made; upgrade the ships to please the militarists but risk not hitting that 10k? Spend no money at all and hope to get as much of a stability/happiness bonus as you can (ideally countering the militarist anger)? Or how about taking a little flutter to see if you can have the best of both worlds?

That's just off the top of my head and likely isn't a great idea but that's the kind of stuff I hope for in internal politics in future. Dynamic factions, mandate pop-ups etc that force you to work and make decisions. Doesn't have to be CK2 levels of intrigue by any stretch but still enough to make managing an empire's people feel more than just pushing around robot pawns.

 

[Njordin]

Let us disable them please if we want to. Or at least make the jokes more subtile. Slots? For real? Missed opportunity for those ships and mechanics.

 

[Kayden_II]

Maybe it's time, that you should change your model in which you get your money from your ongoing game-development since these "caravaneers" really feel like your typical (exclusive, separated, not really fleshed-out, not really necessary and forced) feature to have "something" to sell for your newest DLC, altough I would rather pay for something like the "free" planetary rework ...

Meanwhile and similar to the marauder-empires, it would be neat to have an option to turn this (+ enclaves, too ?) off.

 

[FleetingRain]

Yes sure, they added Caravaneers because Megacorps weren't enough of an incentive to buy the DLC.

 

[Eelectrica]

Can we disable them, please? I don't want random space casino nonsense being constantly shoved in my face while i'm focusing on my internal development. And the random deals seem incredibly unhelpful- pops take forever to grow, i'm not giving them up.

If you don't like them, blow them up while on your way to killing the highly realistic space dragon.

 

[grandad1982]

Maybe it's time, that you should change your model in which you get your money from your ongoing game-development since these "caravaneers" really feel like your typical (exclusive, separated, not really fleshed-out, not really necessary and forced) feature to have "something" to sell for your newest DLC, altough I would rather pay for something like the "free" planetary rework ...

Meanwhile and similar to the marauder-empires, it would be neat to have an option to turn this (+ enclaves, too ?) off.

No. No. No.

Including major changes to the fundamental systems in DLC is a rubbish idea for the consumer and the devs as well (having to keep more than one version of the game going at anyone time).

For me Stellaris has actually managed the best use of the pdx DLC policy to date. The DLC adds the gravy, the patches are the meat (or if your like me the vegetables). The DLC also keeps pretty consistent themes and this make them easier to pick and choose from if you don't want them all (in EU4 for instance this is definitely not the case).

 

[Primarch Victus]

Maybe it's time, that you should change your model in which you get your money from your ongoing game-development since these "caravaneers" really feel like your typical (exclusive, separated, not really fleshed-out, not really necessary and forced) feature to have "something" to sell for your newest DLC, altough I would rather pay for something like the "free" planetary rework ...

Meanwhile and similar to the marauder-empires, it would be neat to have an option to turn this (+ enclaves, too ?) off.

So, you don't liked of what you saw in this game dev diary? so don't buy the damn DLC!

Seriously, I am tired of people complaining about minor things! Be happy for PDX not being like EA and not trying to scam us for money.

 

[Ambereyed]

Megacorps, ecumenopoli, megastructures, slave market, new ascension perks and civics. For me it's enough content for valuable DLC. Caravaneers may be mostly a joke, but this joke is quite innocent when you look at the scale of whole expansion.

 

[jPaolo]

I dunno seems like it will be tired pretty fast and those art assets seem wasted.

I noticed this with Enclaves. The novelty factor wears down pretty fast.

 

[Hyomoto]

On the 'casino': it does seem out of place. I mean, mechanically out of place. If it turns out to be good, what's the point of not spamming it? And if it turns out to be bad, why bother in the first place. It has a very RPG-y feel to it, like a side quest in the Golden Saucer, but this isn't Final Fantasy or even Spell Force. Maybe it's just me, but the question of how is it a meaningful addition and not just a meme-worthy add-on does seem prudent. I mean, maybe it's no different than random anomalies with a different cost, but it does come off as odd.

On the release date: Looking over a couple other data points, the Cherryh update released in February with the dev diaries starting in October for a total 15 pre-launch which seems to be tied for the most of any patch. Le Guin started in August and is already at 14. What I'm getting at is for Le Guin to drop in early January there would be around six more dev diaires, to include a pause for the holidays (such as seen in Cherryh). That would bring Le Guin up to 20 dev diaries, pre-launch. Impressive certainly, but it would require six more dev diaries of features to cover and put development at seven months. I think most people agree this patch is huge, but that would put it above every other patch by a significant margin, including a major overhaul of the game for 2.0. That's assuming early January, this all becomes more pronounced as you move away from there.

I bring all this up because, well, it's fun to speculate. And several people have suggested not for a few more months and I'm just interested in what data they are drawing that conclusion from? Based on the above, somewhere in the second week of December seems about the latest. But the first week isn't out of the question.

I will add, because I know someone will mistake this: I'm not saying the game has to or will be, I'm saying based on the data this seems like a reasonable assumption to make. I'm also interested in the conclusions people are drawing for a later time frame.