Stellaris Dev Diary #160 - Origins Full Reveal

[Monturiol]

That's a problem, not a solution.

One could, I suppose, charitably spin it as "The problems of multiplayer are for multiplayers to solve, or at least are not sufficient reasons for the Devs to gimp the diversity of singleplayer".
Which, y'know, if that had been the design philosophy of Stellaris since Day 1 I think we'd all* be a lot better off right now.

(Or at least, "all" in terms of the the 99% of people who play SP exclusively and have yet been led around by the nose for 3 years as devs pander to balance-obsessive MPers who think they're playing Starcraft league e-sports)

 

[Teriria]

Looking forward to this tbh. Recently been playing more stellaris and if we can get stellaris as close to role-playing as ck2 I'm all for it!

 

[Tempo7an]

so they're basically civics that have their own artwork and can't be selected together?
like the Lost Colony one.. cant it be selected with Scion?

 

[Monturiol]

Almost certainly. They currently weight civics: how often do you see life-seeded empires popping up as random AIs?

Literally every game.

That comment was to be expected, but I think it's a bit unfair.
In the past people have complained that the content of each DLC is disconnected from the content of other DLCs, and lamented that this meant hives and machine empires would never get meaningful attention in new DLCs. So now these empire types do get some special attention, and now the complaint is you can't access some of the content without having two DLCs.
You can't have it both ways.

I'm quoting this mostly because I can't agree with it twice.
The kind of treatment that Machines and Hives are getting in Federations is literally the best possible treatment they could be getting. Well, other than, y'know, making those extra origins free to Utopia / SynthDawn owners, but given that I do not live under Fully Automated Gay Luxury Space Communism I can't claim to be too resentful at being expected to pay for new content.
I expect the content to be bug-filled and disjointed and 2350-slowdown-nigh-unusable, so I won't be paying for it for that reason, but not for the "I already bought Utopia so I deserve Utopia+ content at no extra cost" reason.

 

[Methone]

The kind of treatment that Machines and Hives are getting in Federations is literally the best possible treatment they could be getting.

??? The 'kind of treatment they're getting'? Let's recap the treatment we've seen them get.

Machines: Get the ability to start on a damn Machine World, as if they weren't strong enough.

Hives: Get a ridiculous 'Tree of Life' that flavorwise makes no sense to be Hive-locked in the first place.

And that's it.

This is "Literally the best possible treatment they could be getting"?!

 

[Gothbert]

Sounds exploitable, what's stopping you from just invading?

Nothing really, but it depends on what type of empire you are playing. However, I think the more interesting aspect is the potential event chains. This would be the equivalent of finding Mars is habitable and inhabited by humans. So, how did these humans get there? Some alien benefactors or observers of ancient past? Was there some human space empire that fell into disarray, regressed to stone age barbarity, and has now been long forgotten?

 

[SeekingEtermity]

Would a megacorp that chooses Common Ground get a trade league?

I do notice a distinct lack of Megacorp-specific origins (or even Megacorp-specific behaviors within any of the Origins), yes.

 

[Monturiol]

This is "Literally the best possible treatment they could be getting"?!

"Some more content, when no-one expected any more content due to the aforementioned self-contained-DLC issues"

I'll grant you that in Leibniz's Best Of All Possible Worlds this additional content would be mechanically coherent and flavourfully sensical and Starcraft-tier balanced, but, y'know, we haven't gotten any mechanically balanced or flavourfully sensible or finely balanced content since... Leviathans? So yeah, maybe I'm suffering from a chronic case of low expectations here.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

One could, I suppose, charitably spin it as "The problems of multiplayer are for multiplayers to solve, or at least are not sufficient reasons for the Devs to gimp the diversity of singleplayer".
Which, y'know, if that had been the design philosophy of Stellaris since Day 1 I think we'd all* be a lot better off right now.

(Or at least, "all" in terms of the the 99% of people who play SP exclusively and have yet been led around by the nose for 3 years as devs pander to balance-obsessive MPers who think they're playing Starcraft league e-sports)

Snarky one, aren't you?

I disagree that an unbalanced single player is fun, for the same reason that any poorly balanced single-player game is fun. I don't even play multiplayer, and I'm annoyed that you tried to lump me in with any kind of strawman at all, as if that would somehow invalidate the point I was trying to make.

 

[AmericanViking]

I really hope there will be some kind of alloy bonus, or decreased cost, for void dwellers, because I want to be able to build habitats. I don't want to have to rely on colonizing regular planets. That would just ruin the point of the start.

 

[Monturiol]

I disagree that an unbalanced single player is fun.

Well now you're going to have to explain to the class why you hate CKII and EUIV, aren't you?

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

Well now you're going to have to explain to the class why you hate CKII and EUIV, aren't you?

I need do no such thing, and condescension has no place in a forum of discussion. Wouldn't you rather act like someone who deserves respect?

I tried CKII, and found it interesting in concept but ungainly in execution.

 

[Monturiol]

I need do no such thing, and condescension has no place in a forum of discussion. Wouldn't you rather act like someone who deserves respect?

I tried CKII, and found it interesting in concept but ungainly in execution.

My point is that CKII and EUIV are both extreeeeeeeeeeeeeemly unbalanced games - try to WC as Ulm vs. WC as Ottomans - and yet most Stellaris players are Stellaris players because they like Paradox games such as CKII and EUIV. Where extreme unbalancing constitutes much of the charm and replayability.

Now, if you're not a big CKII or EUIV player then fair enough, I'll not accuse you of incoherent double standards and inconsistency, but a great number of people on these forums who complain about Stellaris balance every post have a user icon bedecked in CKII and EUIV expansions, and it always strikes me as extreme hypocrisy that mega-unbalance is good in historical games but bad in Stellaris. And I have never received what I consider to be a coherent defense of this position.

If I have attributed to you personally a set of beliefs that you personally do not hold, then I accept that's my bad. I defend myself only with a Bayesian argument that this incoherent belief system is extremely common, and so my priors are my priors for good reason.

 

[Methone]

s, and it always strikes me as extreme hypocrisy that mega-unbalance is good in historical games but bad in Stellaris. And I have never received what I consider to be a coherent defense of this position.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CK and EU both have ways to competently make up for starting in a bad position. Whereas there is no such mechanism in Stellaris. Just look at how, ahem, 'impactful' primitives who reach spaceflight midgame tend to be.

 

[Monturiol]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but CK and EU both have ways to competently make up for starting in a bad position. Whereas there is no such mechanism in Stellaris. Just look at how, ahem, 'impactful' primitives who reach spaceflight midgame tend to be.

Are you telling me you can't win Stellaris games when you start off trapped in your 3-planet starting cluster by the Maraurders for 90 years?
Because I can.
That AI-controlled post-primitives don't do very well is on the AI, which... is certainly an issue, but not entirely germane to the topic at hand.

 

[Methone]

Are you telling me you can't win Stellaris games when you start off trapped in your 3-planet starting cluster by the Maraurders for 90 years?
Because I can.

Sure, but that's because the AI's incompetent and will still have 30k fleets in 2400. Any result that requires the preface "This only works because the AI is bad" shouldn't be counted, for obvious reasons.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

It's only 15% science bonus, and either +8 scientist jobs or -6 districts depending on if it's a central spire or dense ruins.

"Only" as much science as three trait points worth of bonuses. That's assuming you only get one of Dense Ruins or Central Spire, too; normally you get both of them, so you get +30% science, which is 3x as good as Intelligent. And yes, you lose 6 districts, but even if you start with Broken Spire and need to cough up the (relatively) huge pile of money early on to remove the blocker, +8 scientists is as good as four building slots in the early game.

Finally, don't forget that you presumably turn it into an Ecumenopolis, and that you'll probably still get your Rubricator world. The empire that takes this origin will be swimming in research.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

My point is that CKII and EUIV are both extreeeeeeeeeeeeeemly unbalanced games - try to WC as Ulm vs. WC as Ottomans - and yet most Stellaris players are Stellaris players because they like Paradox games such as CKII and EUIV. Where extreme unbalancing constitutes much of the charm and replayability.

Now, if you're not a big CKII or EUIV player then fair enough, I'll not accuse you of incoherent double standards and inconsistency, but a great number of people on these forums who complain about Stellaris balance every post have a user icon bedecked in CKII and EUIV expansions, and it always strikes me as extreme hypocrisy that mega-unbalance is good in historical games but bad in Stellaris. And I have never received what I consider to be a coherent defense of this position.

If I have attributed to you personally a set of beliefs that you personally do not hold, then I accept that's my bad. I defend myself only with a Bayesian argument that this incoherent belief system is extremely common, and so my priors are my priors for good reason.

I disagree with the premise of your argument, on the grounds that Crusader Kings 2 is marketed as a historically accurate strategy game. It's unfair because history is unfair, the game tells you this straightaway, and then challenges the player to change history.

Stellaris does no such thing. Any person would be perfectly within their rights to complain about balance issues in a game that doesn't use CKII's marketing strategy, because the basic assumption of any normal game is that it will be a fair and balanced experience.

So, no, not hypocrisy. Your arguments so far strike me as illogical from anything other than an apologist's perspective, where the point of the argument isn't to be consistent with itself, but to be consistent with the idea that the game cannot be wrong.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

Agreed. 20 to 30 years would be much better because your colonies will potentially still be significantly under-developed. Also, does the shattered homeworld provide mineral resources in the same way that cracking a planet does?

What I expect it to do (and what my mod for this origin does) is actually give alloys, which also unlocks the mining district option on the habitat.

And no, these free alloys are not overpowered. They're a partial compensation for a painful penalty, because habitats (technically, their capital buildings) have a five alloy upkeep and that's enough to cripple your early-game alloy income (especially if you start with two habitats, which at present is mandatory if you want both generator and mining districts as a non-gestalt). That's before you consider how outrageously expensive (in alloys) habitats are by early-game standards, and the fact that you still need to build a colony ship to actually inhabit them.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

"Only" as much science as three trait points worth of bonuses. That's assuming you only get one of Dense Ruins or Central Spire, too; normally you get both of them, so you get +30% science, which is 3x as good as Intelligent. And yes, you lose 6 districts, but even if you start with Broken Spire and need to cough up the (relatively) huge pile of money early on to remove the blocker, +8 scientists is as good as four building slots in the early game.

Finally, don't forget that you presumably turn it into an Ecumenopolis, and that you'll probably still get your Rubricator world. The empire that takes this origin will be swimming in research.

Wait, there's variety in relic worlds? I thought they were all the same. In fact, I've only ever gotten the same exact feature loadout every single time I've found a relic world.

And on that note, I've never found a relic world outside the pre-scripted events.

(especially if you start with two habitats, which at present is mandatory if you want both generator and mining districts as a non-gestalt)

Minor correction: it's possible, albeit weird and gimmicky, for a non-gestalt empire to get both energy and mining districts on a habitat. It requires the planet to have both mineral and energy deposits, and this causes the habitat to lose its leisure district. If you want to try this, you can do it naturally with the Dragon's Horde planet, or you can force it to happen with the Surveyor artifact.

I'd much rather have two habitats though, because trying to squeeze 24 pops into one itty bitty sardine can while still meeting all my basic resource needs and stockpiling alloys for another habitat and still having room for hydroponic farms sounds like a thrice-damned nightmare.