Stellaris Dev Diary #159 - Galactic Community

[BlackUmbrellas]

Makking choices based only on weights has severe limits. If empires can't combo decisions and have plans, agendas and memory, then AI is not AI but just a bunch of rigid pre-determined choices. Hence why the player gains a significant advantage in the game as time passes by. This is evident on most PDX titles I've seen and played.

The vast majority of AI in games has no ability to plan. It's still AI

 

[verybad]

The vast majority of AI in games has no ability to plan. It's still AI

Yeah, I guess when AI DOES start to plan better than us in games that we've got a problem...

 

[brbonfire]

Makking choices based only on weights has severe limits. If empires can't combo decisions and have plans, agendas and memory, then AI is not AI but just a bunch of rigid pre-determined choices. Hence why the player gains a significant advantage in the game as time passes by. This is evident on most PDX titles I've seen and played.

Aye, we're in agreement there. However, weights based AI is what Paradox games have, and so we need to work within that lattice. I'm honestly curious how many sanity checks one can add to the code to make sure the Space UN is used as a viable tool rather than a suicide method.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

10% reduction is not a small, inconsequential thing only important for roleplay

1. I said that the only effect other than the 10% market fee reduction, is RP/flavor. And, while we haven't seen the effect of the galactic council or being on the executive board, I am assuming it will give you considerably more influence on the rest of the universe, than just an exchange rate bonus between materials.

And 10% vs 20% reductions in costs on trades of thousands of alloys/food/minerals is an absolutely massive amount over the course of the game.

I mean, maybe I haven't played a galactic-market dependent empire before? I tried once and it quickly became untenable, thanks to the -80% value to everything I sold and +400% cost on everything I bought, once it was enough.

Are you using the market for something other than dumping all your excess minerals, buying alloys when you're full on energy, and occasionally shoring up a shortfall here and there? Because, if not, all you're missing is a 10% bonus on a very small portion of your economy. And, if so, that 10% bonus is just the difference between "really inefficient" and "really really inefficient".

2. Bolded parts added:

It is not uncommon for tiny or otherwise inconsequential places to become hubs of trade for various reasons. The free market does what it wills.

So, tell me which of these things are represented, in the game, by a planet being heavily populated, or having a large trade value, or the empire it's in being very powerful:

Timbuktu, the city of gold, "wealth and very existence of Timbuktu depended on its position as the southern terminus of an important trans-Saharan trade route", "Timbuktu flourished from the trade in salt, gold, ivory, and slaves"... in Stellaris terms it was a slaver empire (slavery policy enabled) with lots of trade value coming from naturally existing space deposits (salt, gold, ivory)... small population count but high trade value.

Trade value and galactic market trade are wholly unrelated concepts in Stellaris. A gestalt, with no trade value or trade value routes, might be the heaviest user of the galactic market. So, most galactic market trade would, presumably, go through some of their systems at some point...

a natural harbor with a larger capacity than any other harbor on the continent whatsoever,

Which planets/systems have natural harbors, now? Is that represented in the game in any way, shape or form? Can you tell me that primitive planet X in primitive system Y isn't optimal for that in some abstracted way??

Timbuktu was not only on top of a trade route,

Where are galactic market trade routes represented? Who are you trading with? Where are the goods you're selling or buying stored when they're not in possession of an empire?

Answer: they're not represented.
That tiny primitive planet might just be in the right position to be the best place (at some point in time) for those massive galactic market trades to be routed through or negotiated. The gestalt planet with 0 trade value (which seems to represent only internal trade of resources which are not directly useful to your empire) might still be where most galactic trade (of large quantities of resources which can be directly used by your government) goes through.

Presumably there are also trades going on that aren't initiated by empires, all those energy and minerals no one is buying must get used for something, all those alloys you buy must come from somewhere. If they don't wanna do those trades in your system, how are you gonna make them??


Ultimately, the power of the empire does matter. A strong empire is more likely to have an ecumenopolis (the only sure way to start with a strong bid, afaik) and more likely to be able to boost their nomination twice. But, other than that, the galactic market is not related to or represented by trade value and internal trade routes (reiterating that the biggest player on the market could be a gestalt which doesn't have those things at all, period, but still clearly knows how to use the galactic market), and the galactic market's trade routes and storage places and foci are not in any way represented in the game. The bid/nomination system is used to influence them, but it absolutely makes sense that the unidentified, abstract entities you're trading with will pick some other place that seems illogical from the pov of game mechanics, simply because the game mechanics to represent the reasons don't exist.

 

[Foefaller]

Makking choices based only on weights has severe limits. If empires can't combo decisions and have plans, agendas and memory, then AI is not AI but just a bunch of rigid pre-determined choices. Hence why the player gains a significant advantage in the game as time passes by. This is evident on most PDX titles I've seen and played.

It's evident in pretty much every 4X ever made. If it doesn't look that way it's almost always because matches are too short or the mechanics too simple for it to show in time.

Mainly because having the AI try to work off of a long-term plan or agenda is a good way to have it bring its entire empire to a screeching halt after getting hung up on an inanely simply step which circumstances don't allow it to complete the way it's be taught to do so.

 

[GnoSIS]

It's evident in pretty much every 4X ever made. If it doesn't look that way it's almost always because matches are too short or the mechanics too simple for it to show in time.

Mainly because having the AI try to work off of a long-term plan or agenda is a good way to have it bring its entire empire to a screeching halt after getting hung up on an inanely simply step which circumstances don't allow it to complete the way it's be taught to do so.

Not really, AIs that make choices and can also make sacrifices in other matters to boost their plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, not does it have to wait until the "full conjugation of planets" to execute its move.

 

[methegrate]

Bureaucrats seem like the kind of dynamic gameplay mechanic that people want to get away from the dreaded paradox mana systems. The more mechanics driven by pops the better imo.

I have the opposite reaction. I feel like having pops generate admin cap is exactly the kind of thing that creates the tedious maintenance mana system. Instead of having to make tough decisions around a limited resource, players will just generate more bureaucrats to magic up admin cap as needed.

It might be different if resources were tighter in Stellaris. In that case it would be a tough trade off, figuring out how to balance multiple needs. But the way the game actually plays you've always got pops to spare. With hundreds of food, minerals and energy coming in per turn, there'll be no problem shifting a bunch of workers from resources to bureaucracy whenever you need more.

 

[Radene]

Not really, AIs that make choices and can also make sacrifices in other matters to boost their plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, not does it have to wait until the "full conjugation of planets" to execute its move.

That "choice" to sacrifice something for long term is still, in the end, going to follow an algorithm rather than be an organic choice.

 

[FleetingRain]

So huhhhhh

What about the Interestellar Assembly?

 

[SongOfChaos]

I like the general idea, but from what we have seen so far pops are a major Contribution to sprawl. It doesn't matter if you put them on a few planets or dozens. But a wide empire would have a lot more building slots to produce bureaucrat jobs to lower the penalty. Currently there is the fear that the pop contribution is too large compared to other sprawl sources like system count. But we don't know a lot about bureaucrats yet. Maybe there is a way for tall empires to create a lot of bureaucrat jobs on city worlds or letting clerks produce administrative power.

Thank you, friend. That makes sense. I hope it doesn't wind up being implemented poorly.

 

[123robot]

Galactic market hub should be able to change location throughout the game based on changing trade value concentrations.

 

[KatiyaAdmiral8]

Will there be any interaction between the Interstellar Assembly megastructure and the Galactic Community mechanics?

 

[Verx90]

Galactic market hub should be able to change location throughout the game based on changing trade value concentrations.

mhhh, it is a bit too unstable like that, i would say when the trade value increase over a certain value or % of the starting (or last) one , so you need to have a significant trade value to actualy move it .

 

[verybad]

mhhh, it is a bit too unstable like that, i would say when the trade value increase over a certain value or % of the starting (or last) one , so you need to have a significant trade value to actualy move it .

How about having multiples that when owned by an empire provide multiple bonuses towards trade (eg owning one provides better anti-piracy values, owning another provides longer trade routes, and another provides increased base trade).

Then make each of these something that can be produced one at a time through diplomatic/economic means (eg make them something that can be bought through favors with benefits provided by the largest economies). Now make them locational and capturable in order to provide conflict. Each of these different Galactic Market hubs would be destroyable/capturable stations like New York Trade Center. Important but not the only ones in the world. The more of these things you capture/make the better for you or your enemies.

 

[Foefaller]

Not really, AIs that make choices and can also make sacrifices in other matters to boost their plan. It doesn't have to be perfect, not does it have to wait until the "full conjugation of planets" to execute its move.

If I remember way back to one of the first dev diaries on Stellaris, the way the AI handles resources is it makes a list of the next X things wants to build, then as more resources become available, "tabs" them to each task, favoriting things it considers more important but making sure everything on the list gets some part of the stockpile reserved for them, which is partially to make sure they don't get hung up trying to build something expensive when there are other short-term items that also need building. So it does "plan," to a degree.

Now, the AI was also mentioned at the time to have a sort of "override," where it would clear what it's allocated and start building the thing it really needs because of an imminent threat or issue, like more ships to fight a war, or specific buildings/districts to overcome a shortage, because in a war it shouldn't be obsessing about using those alloys to build another habitat, right?

...but this is the point, I think, that constantly throws the AI off the rails. When I play in a federation (which is more often than most people would, but then again I don't give much care to playing optimal) my Fed members usually don't run into the death spiral issues the rest of the galaxy does. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, and I'm usually still so far ahead it's silly, but based on the entirely scientific analysis of fleet sizes and scoring, my fed members are the best off, even when we're all Pacifists and not conquering our neighbors all the time. And I think the reason why is because, thanks to their awesomely powerful Federation President, they never have to go into override mode and drop what they were planning to build. Because when they do, we're back to the thing that keeping tabs on multiple projects was suppose to prevent; the risk of the AI effectively shutting down obsessing over one thing that they cannot build (or build fast enough) to the point the rest of their empire suffers.

(Which gave me this absolutely insane idea; what if making Alloys/ship construction separate from minerals was in part an attempt to make sure they didn't shut down planetary development over the need to build a fleet? It would also paradoxially explain at least some part of why it's so terrible at making enough alloys to replenish destroyed fleets; because the part of its thinking focused on minerals isn't freaking out, only the part that tracks alloys is.)

...I'm not sure if all this counters your statement or actually proves it, but... there it is.

 

[Foefaller]

mhhh, it is a bit too unstable like that, i would say when the trade value increase over a certain value or % of the starting (or last) one , so you need to have a significant trade value to actualy move it .

I say if creating the Galactic Market for the first time is going to be a resolution, why not also have a resolution for moving it?

 

[hfel]

Bureaucrats seem like the kind of dynamic gameplay mechanic that people want to get away from the dreaded paradox mana systems. The more mechanics driven by pops the better imo.

Too many bureaucrats should get some kind of penalty, other than just the job upkeep and opportunity cost; Stellaris currently has no mechanic to capture the inefficiency and corruption common in real-life bureaucracies, and naively assumes just growing the bureaucracy solves administrative problems. Maybe in a future internal politics DLC...

 

[verybad]

Too many bureaucrats should get some kind of penalty, other than just the job upkeep and opportunity cost; Stellaris currently has no mechanic to capture the inefficiency and corruption common in real-life bureaucracies, and naively assumes just growing the bureaucracy solves administrative problems. Maybe in a future internal politics DLC...

Actually, higher costs for large empires do reflect inefficiency and corruption, paying more for large governments bureaucrats upkeep and opportunity is exactly that.

 

[Radene]

Too many bureaucrats should get some kind of penalty, other than just the job upkeep and opportunity cost; Stellaris currently has no mechanic to capture the inefficiency and corruption common in real-life bureaucracies, and naively assumes just growing the bureaucracy solves administrative problems. Maybe in a future internal politics DLC...

I think the idea is that in this case, bureaucracy does not expand to cover the needs for expanding bureaucracy, but to counter the empire sprawl. I could see how a large number of bureaucrats could cause inefficiencies and losses, and maybe be a negative impact on the energy budget at least.

How about this: Every bureaucrat not needed (as in, increasing AC more than is currently necessary for the current sprawl) contributes to this inefficiency? Or, well, maybe every bureaucrat after say, 5-10 extras so that you don't get the penalty because you just researched the AC repeatable

 

[hfel]

Actually, higher costs for large empires do reflect inefficiency and corruption, paying more for large governments bureaucrats upkeep and opportunity is exactly that.

That would assume there's a full correlation between size and corruption, which is not necessarily the case. Small countries can have bloated and inefficient bureaucracies as well.