Stellaris Dev Diary #153 - Empire Sprawl & Administrative Capacity

[Methone]

People already regularly ignore Admin Cap to go wide and munch the galaxy.

The penalties that don't do anything of note, remember.

Look. I can sort of accept Hive-players constantly being nagged at by the game to go wide. But machines to go tall?! Again, half of their playstyles are literally map-painters. And it can't be that Stellaris team was looking for a 'designated tall playstyle' because they already made Megacorps that, too. So I don't get what it is they're trying to do. If they were trying to go for 'machines are super efficient at exploiting current resources' as they said leading up to 2.2, they should've made individual machine pops have good production, but make them bad at pop growth/housing/both. Boom: Small, low-population planets that nonetheless produce decent resources.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

And it can't be that Stellaris team was looking for a 'designated tall playstyle' because they already made Megacorps that, too.

Machine Empires were being designed for tall play before Megacorps were even in the game, bud. And it's not as if they can't BOTH be designed for Tall play?

Again, you're wrong about the history of this game an AWFUL lot for someone who relies on it for their arguments so much.

 

[Kanzhuu]

A Spiritualist empire should play differently than a Materialist one, that's a choice you make when you build them... and so is picking a Gestalt empire. Playing a Hivemind is a specific choice in how you built your empire. Playing a Machine Intelligence is a specific choice in how you built your empire. They're specialized builds that should ABSOLUTELY have specialized mechanics and play styles attached to them.

This is true, but misses the point, I think. The question is not whether chosing Hive Mind of Materialist should determine your tools and options during the game, but to what extent. For me, machine empires feel like a railroad, there is never anything interesting about playing them. Compared to the depth of those empires that are shaped by a combination of ethics and government form, Machine Empires feel just... Boring? There are no policy changes, no factions, dependig on your civic there is not even diplomacy, which presents an issue for Devouring Swarms and Driven Exterminators once the potential diplomacy DLC comes out. I cannot comment on hive minds, I tried to love them but did not finish a single in-game decade with them, so maybe that is my comment on them.

Instead of railroading an empire to repetitive boringness, give the Hive Mind options to adapt and change more, same for the machines. Also, give us different types of machine empires: Can't I have a machine empire with individuals? Do synthetics dream only of synthetics, or are they allowed to appreciate and protect life? And Culture? Regarding hive minds, from the top of my head: Have one that is very centralized, like a physical super brain on a planet that psionically controls its empire as the supreme entity. When it is destroyed, the swarm will just fall apart unless it is rebuild quickly or back-ups are in place. Due to the necessary proximity to the motherbrain, expansion is very slow, especially since the drones do not want to be separated from their hive, they abhor the isolation of space and crave the embrace of the collective. There you go, tall hive mind, with bonus to everything within its core sector and maybe adjacent sectors and penalties for verything else. One more? Stellaris is somewhat lacking in bionik-horror tropes. Think Akira or the Borg, but why not have a flesh-machine-hybrid cyborg hive mind? That one would probably play wide. And presumably would not get along too well with its neighbours.

e:/
@Methone and @BlackUmbrellas
Guys, I can see both your points. What I can not see is the need to escalate into an argument. Be nice to each other, please?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

This is true, but misses the point, I think. The question is not whether chosing Hive Mind of Materialist should determine your tools and options during the game, but to what extent.

Hiveminds and Machine Intelligences both DESPERATELY need more interesting/engaging civics, which are one of the main way to differentiate playstyles for other empires.

I think Methone is SERIOUSLY overestimating how much the changes to Admin Cap and how Gestalts interact with it will actually restrict how you can play Gestalts.

 

[Foefaller]

This is true, but misses the point, I think. The question is not whether chosing Hive Mind of Materialist should determine your tools and options during the game, but to what extent. For me, machine empires feel like a railroad, there is never anything interesting about playing them. Compared to the depth of those empires that are shaped by a combination of ethics and government form, Machine Empires feel just... Boring? There are no policy changes, no factions, dependig on your civic there is not even diplomacy, which presents an issue for Devouring Swarms and Driven Exterminators once the potential diplomacy DLC comes out. I cannot comment on hive minds, I tried to love them but did not finish a single in-game decade with them, so maybe that is my comment on them.

Instead of railroading an empire to repetitive boringness, give the Hive Mind options to adapt and change more, same for the machines. Also, give us different types of machine empires: Can't I have a machine empire with individuals? Do synthetics dream only of synthetics, or are they allowed to appreciate and protect life? And Culture? Regarding hive minds, from the top of my head: Have one that is very centralized, like a physical super brain on a planet that psionically controls its empire as the supreme entity. When it is destroyed, the swarm will just fall apart unless it is rebuild quickly or back-ups are in place. Due to the necessary proximity to the motherbrain, expansion is very slow, especially since the drones do not want to be separated from their hive, they abhor the isolation of space and crave the embrace of the collective. There you go, tall hive mind, with bonus to everything within its core sector and maybe adjacent sectors and penalties for verything else. One more? Stellaris is somewhat lacking in bionik-horror tropes. Think Akira or the Borg, but why not have a flesh-machine-hybrid cyborg hive mind? That one would probably play wide. And presumably would not get along too well with its neighbours.

e:/
@Methone and @BlackUmbrellas
Guys, I can see both your points. What I can not see is the need to escalate into an argument. Be nice to each other, please?

I don't think it's nessisarily a bad thing for there to be an option that's light on the internal politics or maintenance. Some people might enjoy a game without having to deal with factions, or trade, or even diplomacy beyond declaring wars.

Though if ME's are going to be tweaked into being a tall style empire, they probably need something extra for their internal game, because without constant expansion to keep you engaged it is going to get boring very quickly.

 

[methegrate]

Hiveminds and Machine Intelligences both DESPERATELY need more interesting/engaging civics, which are one of the main way to differentiate playstyles for other empires.

Completely agree with this. I'd really like to see an expansion dedicated to asymmetrical civics, not just small stat tweaks but options that create real, new styles of play.

I think of it like Twilight Imperium. It's not Endless Space, the empires aren't playing completely different games. But they do have their own rules that make each one a unique opponent. If my opponent picks the Yssaril I need an entirely different strategy compared to if they're playing the Humans or the Hacan.

That's what I'd like to see in Stellaris.

 

[Kanzhuu]

Hiveminds and Machine Intelligences both DESPERATELY need more interesting/engaging civics, which are one of the main way to differentiate playstyles for other empires.

I think Methone is SERIOUSLY overestimating how much the changes to Admin Cap and how Gestalts interact with it will actually restrict how you can play Gestalts.

I think you two have made your positions abundantly clear and I think that you both have a point.

As you say, both HMs and MEs are severely lacking in interesting options. Once these options are there, the other issues will be mitigated alongside. As it stands, it is indeed weird to assume that ALL MEs should be tall and ALL HMs should be wide. And the conflict between Driven Exterminators and the tall play style seems obvious to me, but then again, I do not play MEs. Because as of now, they feel like "Stellaris - Incomplete Edition".

I don't think it's nessisarily a bad thing for there to be an option that's light on the internal politics or maintenance. Some people might enjoy a game without having to deal with factions, or trade, or even diplomacy beyond declaring wars.

I think the same as you do. The issue is that the lack of diplomacy, trade, pop dynamics, politics, etc. is not outweighed by other options. As someone else said: You would need something to replace those, because otherwise the only thing left to you are aggressive wars.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

As it stands, it is indeed weird to assume that ALL MEs should be tall and ALL HMs should be wide.

This is the problem! Right here! This!

You're ASSUMING that the changes will mean that just because a Hivemind is GOOD at being "wide", it SHOULD be wide. That's not the case! There's no reason you can't play it otherwise! Megacorps are "meant" to be tall, and I play them Wide sometimes because it fits the way I want to play that particular empire, and its fine! I suffer a bit more of a research penalty and I have to compensate for it somehow.

But, again, different empires SHOULD ABSOLUTELY play differently based on how you build them- and playing a Gestalt of either breed is VERY MUCH a deliberate choice in how you build your empire.

 

[LystAP]

So does this mean we'll be able to have Archive worlds? Planets made up wholly of administrative offices?

 

[Mauer]

Interesting DD, I had seen a few mods do something similar. However, IMHO tying over the Admin Cap penalties to whether an empire is supposed to be tall or wide is a mistake, since Empire Sprawl is not just how geographically extensive your empire is, but also how well-developed it is - having a handful of systems filled to the brim with habitats and planets with hundreds of POPs gives you as much or even more Empire Sprawl than expanding to more less-developed systems, the same issue exists already with megacorps that stay in their initial systems but try to get a few branch offices going.

I think the better way to differentiate playstyles would be to stack Empire Sprawl reductions for different things, like the DD mentions, but really go all out on it - rather than a few bonuses from traditions that everyone will get anyway, give megacorps a huge penalty for adding more systems, but give them a reduction to pops, maybe even a bonus per pop job, making their rural pops use more sprawl and their clerks less, etc.

 

[BluBot MAP]

I like idea that my Imperium can recently gain its Administorum.

 

[methegrate]

I think the better way to differentiate playstyles would be to stack Empire Sprawl reductions for different things, like the DD mentions, but really go all out on it - rather than a few bonuses from traditions that everyone will get anyway, give megacorps a huge penalty for adding more systems, but give them a reduction to pops, maybe even a bonus per pop job, making their rural pops use more sprawl and their clerks less, etc.

Love this idea.

 

[Mardols]

wow ... okey i know machine and hive mind are OP but this doesn't make any sense realistically since hives should have a hard time to be big empire since they have one hive mind what most likely uses some tech-bio communication that should be as effective as normal tech not even talking about machine intelligent where they probably would have the perfect communication since all of them mostly would think alike since they have one programming and so they are copies of copies only effected by they're AI but still they would have really easy time to go big. and they're need for cool rare resources to maybe create cool stuff would kind of encourage them to go even big.

 

[Mocarr]

Bureaucrat for admin cap?
Maybe Clerks could do that also, but less efficiently then Bureaucraft.
After all thay are : " White-collar workers perform the various administrative office tasks that are crucial to any sufficiently complex working environment."

 

[Kanzhuu]

This is the problem! Right here! This!

You're ASSUMING that the changes will mean that just because a Hivemind is GOOD at being "wide", it SHOULD be wide. That's not the case! There's no reason you can't play it otherwise! Megacorps are "meant" to be tall, and I play them Wide sometimes because it fits the way I want to play that particular empire, and its fine! I suffer a bit more of a research penalty and I have to compensate for it somehow.

But, again, different empires SHOULD ABSOLUTELY play differently based on how you build them- and playing a Gestalt of either breed is VERY MUCH a deliberate choice in how you build your empire.

I am assuming nothing, I just think MEs and HMs are boring and never play them and that is mostly it. I think you guys both have a point and I am not taking sides.

It is okay to have an empire tilted towards tall or wide, it is necessary to have distinctions between empire types. However, the degree to which your actions are pre-determined by your choice is another matter entirely. I like to think of ethics and civics as tools: Each empire has their own set of tools that they can use. HMs and MEs have a very, very limited set of tools that make playing them feel repetetive and boring (to me) and does not realize the full potential of these tropes. I think it is definetely wrong, for example, to force all MEs towards tall in such a manner that wide becomes untenable. Based on your example of a tall megacorp gone wide I think we agree on this. HMs all seem to be made for wide, wheras machines apparently should be tall. Flavour wise I wonder if it should not be the other way around, due to communications technology and the swarms desire to maintain cohesion. Also, sending a splinter of your swarm away to a distant planet seems both risky in regards to spawning an independent, second HM, and also very uncomfortable for the poor drones that will have to leave the embrace of the hive. I would assume a hive mind would make sure to concentrate its drones somewhat, but not so much it becomes vulnerable. Then again, based on flavour you probably could argue in both directions.

However, I also think that not all ME-types and HM-types should tilt towards the same play style. There are both plausible incarnations of tall and wide HMs, and the same foes for MEs.
Looking at the wiki, I get the feeling that at least as of now, Civics wise, both HMs and FEs would want to be wide, rather than tall. Which means we have arrived where we always arrive: Gestalt consciousnesses need a rework. While we are at it, why not have an HM-civic leaning towards tall and a ME-civic leaning towards wide? Well, actually for MEs we would need a civic that leans towards tall, because all the existing ones mostly seem to want you to go wide. Again, a rework appears in order.

e:/

So does this mean we'll be able to have Archive worlds? Planets made up wholly of administrative offices?

Yes. Somewhere back someone asked the same question and the official answer is that there will be a planet designation.

 

[DanielPrates]

I think the idea of pursuing a better administration via buildings, jobs, pops etc., is a VERY GOOD ONE. Too much expansion and you empire becomes unmanageable? Great. Need to improve admin capacity? Also great. Limit that to a couple of techs and traditions is bad though. I want something I can do, buy, invest on. Administrative planets are a great idea too. In fact, when ecumenopoli came along, I imagined the obvious Asimovian image of an empire where it was so vast, that it could only be managed by a capital solely dedicated to management. One that, to have its maluses, would be susceptible to sieges, isolation, hunger etc.

To chip in my contribution, I would say that building an administrative structure should scale in cost or effectiveness. Like, one bureaucrat means one 'thing' properly ran, but 1000 bureaucrats only could run 500 'things'. Its a good way to halve an endless expansion. So the more bureaucrats you have, the less they halve empire sprawl (or increase admin capacity). Only then techs and traditions would come into play, tweaking those limits.

Ok. Now for the criticism. Two weeks and that is all? I feel like Stellaris has officially ran into 'terminal-development' phase. Like the company thinks it is nearly done, y'all know? And they just feel they could improve one last thing or two. It's not that I don't like the idea of this new DD, or the last one, but at the same time I think it has the same feel of last DD.... "yeaaaah we are throwing some new mechanics at the wall, you know, to see if they stick and how we feel about things in general and ... stuff". Do we not have a roadmap anymore? I would be soooo happy if we went months with no DD, but at the end the dev team came up with an ambitious roadmap for future, big development goals. Better diplo, internal affairs, civil wars, governors and sectors that really mean something... btw the last one would tie in so well with the new administrative capacity ideas, like, the less staffed your admin is, the more it becomes ineffective, corrupt and at the end, rebellious.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[methegrate]

I am assuming nothing, I just think MEs and HMs are boring and never play them and that is mostly it. I think you guys both have a point and I am not taking sides.

It is okay to have an empire tilted towards tall or wide, it is necessary to have distinctions between empire types. However, the degree to which your actions are pre-determined by your choice is another matter entirely. I like to think of ethics and civics as tools: Each empire has their own set of tools that they can use. HMs and MEs have a very, very limited set of tools that make playing them feel repetetive and boring (to me) and does not realize the full potential of these tropes. I think it is definetely wrong, for example, to force all MEs towards tall in such a manner that wide becomes untenable. Based on your example of a tall megacorp gone wide I think we agree on this. HMs all seem to be made for wide,

However, I also think that not all ME-types and HM-types should tilt towards the same play style. There are both plausible incarnations of tall and wide HMs, and the same foes for MEs.
Looking at the wiki, I get the feeling that at least as of now, Civics wise, both HMs and FEs would want to be wide, rather than tall. Which means we have arrived where we always arrive: Gestalt consciousnesses need a rework. While we are at it, why not have an HM-civic leaning towards tall and a ME-civic leaning towards wide? Well, actually for FEs we would need a civic that leans towards tall, because all the existing ones mostly seem to want you to go wide.

e:/


Yes. Somewhere back someone asked the same question and the official answer is that there will be a planet designation.

I'd like to hope this will change if empire sprawl is made more interesting. Right now I kind of feel like it's similar to mechanics like trade and piracy. It's a really cool idea in theory, but it's so passive and abstract that you never really pay any attention to it. If sprawl becomes something more interactive and interesting, then maybe empires that have a unique relationship to that mechanic will get more interesting as well.

Although admittedly, this does feel like a problem with gestalt consciousness empires altogether. They mostly stand out for the mechanics that the game strips away, not for the new options they open up.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Nope! Hivemind AIs have always been expansion-based to the exclusion of basically everything else. They expand and expand and expand and only really get hostile when they RUN OUT of space to expand otherwise. That's a special behavioural tag they've always had.

"Hiveminds are expansive" has ALWAYS been the intention, even when they were just a special sort of Collectivist empire.

Please point me to something that makes Hiveminds "expansion based" because there is no such thing. I don't know how anyone would get that impression.

If someone who hasn't done a proper analysis of empires looks at hiveminds, that player would probably think this empire is made for pop growth because those bonuses are everywhere.

But thats obviously not true. Hiveminds get surpassed in pop growth by any other empire as soon as the colonies are above 10 pops and Robot growth kicks in. Meanwhile Hiveminds are forced to have Synapse Drone job on their new colonies which are a huge detriment to their economy.

They get surpassed by any empire in specialist efficiency due to additional stability, even more stability from crime lord deal, civics like Meritocracy and Synth ascencion. Meanwhile deviancy and amenities are a huge problem for them, while other empires simply build holo theathers, which they can even upgrade. No such thing for Hiveminds, who get 0 maintenance drone jobs from their housing districts compared to Machine empires who have the most overpowered housing districts in the game, providing tech drone jobs and maintenance drone jobs.

Hiveminds lose out in stats to other empires at every corner. Shit bonuses in traditions. 2 housing per culture worker building vs 2 housing per maintenance depot as Machine empire? A flat 10 reduction in deviancy? Synapse Drones vs Coordinators which provide 1% menial drone output bonus each and you will end up with 20-30 of them?

And of course the worst civics in the game overall, only 1 good civic with Devouring swarm.

Changes like reduced cost and terraform time to Gaia worlds are literally a slap in the face to all Hivemind players who already had worse versions of Machine worlds.

I specifically asked the devs to provide updated to Hive worlds in the same manner as Gaia worlds but you can see the result is 0 changes as with everything for Hiveminds since 2.2.

Oh wait, not quite. Their pop growth got immediately nerfed in 2.2.

And 2.3 was where Paradox took Hiveminds and threw them in the trash with those Habitability changes while providing additional bonuses to Robots. Everyone agreed that habitability was an issue, but there should have been preemptive nerfs to Robots/Hachine empires. We warned Paradox that Machines would get out of control without this. Here we are, months past 2.3 and Machine empires outclass every other empire in the game and people are wondering why Crisis require you to set them to max strength and earliest arrival date just to have a challenge.

 

[LystAP]

I am assuming nothing, I just think MEs and HMs are boring and never play them and that is mostly it. I think you guys both have a point and I am not taking sides.

It is okay to have an empire tilted towards tall or wide, it is necessary to have distinctions between empire types. However, the degree to which your actions are pre-determined by your choice is another matter entirely. I like to think of ethics and civics as tools: Each empire has their own set of tools that they can use. HMs and MEs have a very, very limited set of tools that make playing them feel repetetive and boring (to me) and does not realize the full potential of these tropes. I think it is definetely wrong, for example, to force all MEs towards tall in such a manner that wide becomes untenable. Based on your example of a tall megacorp gone wide I think we agree on this. HMs all seem to be made for wide, wheras machines apparently should be tall. Flavour wise I wonder if it should not be the other way around, due to communications technology and the swarms desire to maintain cohesion. Also, sending a splinter of your swarm away to a distant planet seems both risky in regards to spawning an independent, second HM, and also very uncomfortable for the poor drones that will have to leave the embrace of the hive. I would assume a hive mind would make sure to concentrate its drones somewhat, but not so much it becomes vulnerable. Then again, based on flavour you probably could argue in both directions.

However, I also think that not all ME-types and HM-types should tilt towards the same play style. There are both plausible incarnations of tall and wide HMs, and the same foes for MEs.
Looking at the wiki, I get the feeling that at least as of now, Civics wise, both HMs and FEs would want to be wide, rather than tall. Which means we have arrived where we always arrive: Gestalt consciousnesses need a rework. While we are at it, why not have an HM-civic leaning towards tall and a ME-civic leaning towards wide? Well, actually for MEs we would need a civic that leans towards tall, because all the existing ones mostly seem to want you to go wide. Again, a rework appears in order.

e:/


Yes. Somewhere back someone asked the same question and the official answer is that there will be a planet designation.

Would Spiritualists have their own version of bureaucrats? Priests can help run a Empire through faith and also handling some bureaucratic work as they have in some cultures.

This would be a great way to have Cathedral worlds.

 

[Kanzhuu]

They get surpassed by any empire in specialist efficiency due to additional stability, even more stability from crime lord deal, civics like Meritocracy and Synth ascencion. Meanwhile deviancy and amenities are a huge problem for them, while other empires simply build holo theathers, which they can even upgrade. No such thing for Hiveminds, who get 0 maintenance drone jobs from their housing districts compared to Machine empires who have the most overpowered housing districts in the game, providing tech drone jobs and maintenance drone jobs.

This one has frustrated me as well. What does amenities even mean in the context of a hive mind? If other races can have slaves to provide amenities, why can't the hive mind? If the hive mind is incapable of producing effective amenites through its own drones, why can't it grow specialised amenities-focused drones? And if that is not possible, why not enter symbiosis with a fungus or or little critter that runs around, eating parasites and feeding the younger drones?

This would be a great way to have Cathedral worlds.

Any god-emperor-fearing imperial citizen would know that these are called shrine worlds. And yes, that sounds great. I once suggested that relics would have to be stored on planets (which means that if you lose a planet, you lose the relic). Having a shrine world with relics sounds enticing.

e:/ I just realized that nerve stapled pops with basic subsistence use 0 amenities. So... If they can get by with no amenities whatsoever, it becomes all the more irritating, that hive minds should constantly struggle with amenities. I see the need for SOME amenities (parasite removal, health care) but it should not be a problem.