Stellaris Dev Diary #271 - Ready…? Fight!

[Lorenerd11]

Please, add the game setting to Disable Habitats. The Habitat spam is greater than ever and is causing late game lag nightmare for me and I like playing Ironman with achivements.

There should be three settings for Habitat construction: Enabled, Player Only, Disabled

Player Only would allow players to construct Habitats normally, but disable Habitat construction for AI. Given their reliance of Habitats, Player Only and Disabled should probably also disable the spawning of empires with Void Dweller origin.

 

[Sutopia]

Please, add the game setting to Disable Habitats. The Habitat spam is greater than ever and is causing late game lag nightmare for me and I like playing Ironman with achivements.

The problem has always been the guaranteed 3.0 pop growth. They should remove that.
For habitats, I believe banning pop assembly buildings except for tier 3 habitat would be sufficient.

 

[great lakes]

random question - does the beta kill the old problem with the federation starts that one of the partners always gets trapped? because it's an old and annoying problem that one of the partners in a federation start almost always gets trapped.

 

[Thiend]

I like all of these changes so much I already don't know if I can go without them. Is there any kind of estimate on when this will be ready for a full release, after the open beta closes at the end of the month?

 

[Eladrin]

Re: Disengage

As part of these changes, we also made Disengagement not check until 25% hull rather than 50%, during the next beta update I'll increase that a little and see how that goes for a bit. We did some tests with battleships that stacked Disengagement Opportunities, and they escaped without many losses. Might also spread it out a little more, so Hit and Run gives +2 and maybe add it to a civic.

I like all of these changes so much I already don't know if I can go without them. Is there any kind of estimate on when this will be ready for a full release, after the open beta closes at the end of the month?

No official date yet, but the Custodian team issues updates once per quarter. (Oct-Nov-Dec) So with the beta ending at the end of October, and the second half of December being holidays, that gives you an approximate unofficial window for the target release if everything continues to go well. (So far I see the need to finish polish some stuff up, and some numbers absolutely need some adjustments, but most things seem generally decent.)

 

[currylambchop]

As part of these changes, we also made Disengagement not check until 25% hull rather than 50%, during the next beta update I'll increase that a little and see how that goes for a bit. We did some tests with battleships that stacked Disengagement Opportunities, and they escaped without many losses. Might also spread it out a little more, so Hit and Run gives +2 and maybe add it to a civic.

Doesn’t really make sense that battleships benefit more from disengage. A small ship should be able to flee more easily from the battlefield than a battleship. With such a low health threshold small ships will have almost no chance to flee.

 

[GloatingSwine]

The problem with disengagement was that there wasn't enough of it not that there was too much of it.

Without relatively high disengage rates the first battle decides the entire war, this was always the problem of old, taking serious losses in the first engagement can never be recovered during the scope of a single war.

 

[Mcgan]

The problem with disengagement was that there wasn't enough of it not that there was too much of it.

Slight disagree with this:
The problem with disengagement was that there wasn't enough of it when using weapons that do very high damage (ships instantly destroyed) and that there was too much of it when using weapons that do low damage (such as PD, because it can attack normal ships too).

 

[Ferrus Animus]

• Doomstacks aren’t fun.

Doomstacks lead to big climactic battles, are easy to micromanage and protect against the all-seeing AIs tendency to go after smaller fleets if you split it up.
Also you have jsut recently patched the AI to lessens its habit of sending a hundred small fleets out to attack mining systems, because it simply is not fun on the player side.

Removing doomstacks from Stellaris requires a lot of reworks, in many connected systems, that I honestly am not sure will result in a better experience.
Handle with care.

They want you to have to actually make hard choices on your playthrough and try different stuff each time, not just have 15 perk / tradition slots so you can pick the same ones every time

The issue with hard choices is that they need to be interesting and meaningful enough without being to limiting. In the past especially with traditions we has the situations where the choice which to pick (or pick first) wasn't really that meaningful.
But with more and more tradition trees being added and more ascension perks, there is the growing risk that too much is withheld and you have to few picks. Thre question of Detox is worth being its own ascension perk is not one easily answered positive.
Especially since these limits feel a bit aribitrary in the end and disrupt the fiction of building a sci-fi empire. It is weird to learn you cann not filter toxins from an atmosphere because 150 years ago your people decided to focus mroe on educating when you otherwise can shape worlds and have mastered nature.

And now with ascensions becoming traiditon trees and the new "do the galactic community a bit better" one, traditions look like a system that might get similarly overcrowded.

 

[Thiend]

Doomstacks lead to big climactic battles, are easy to micromanage and protect against the all-seeing AIs tendency to go after smaller fleets if you split it up.
Also you have jsut recently patched the AI to lessens its habit of sending a hundred small fleets out to attack mining systems, because it simply is not fun on the player side.

Removing doomstacks from Stellaris requires a lot of reworks, in many connected systems, that I honestly am not sure will result in a better experience.
Handle with care.




The issue with hard choices is that they need to be interesting and meaningful enough without being to limiting. In the past especially with traditions we has the situations where the choice which to pick (or pick first) wasn't really that meaningful.
But with more and more tradition trees being added and more ascension perks, there is the growing risk that too much is withheld and you have to few picks. Thre question of Detox is worth being its own ascension perk is not one easily answered positive.
Especially since these limits feel a bit aribitrary in the end and disrupt the fiction of building a sci-fi empire. It is weird to learn you cann not filter toxins from an atmosphere because 150 years ago your people decided to focus mroe on educating when you otherwise can shape worlds and have mastered nature.

And now with ascensions becoming traiditon trees and the new "do the galactic community a bit better" one, traditions look like a system that might get similarly overcrowded.

I agree. Traditions I think are fine, for now, but the effective number of ascension perks we have is actually more like 4, because we are specifically NOT making hard decisions. Species ascension and either hive/machine/arcology worlds are absolutely obligatory, Master Builders and Galactic Wonders are effectively the same. That's half of them right there. The current number isn't making us make hard decisions and use different perks, we're making no decisions and taking the exact same perks because some of them are just so obviously drastically better than others. I'm not sure whether adding more perk slots is a good solution, but the only alternative I can come up with is moving them (them being the auto-picks) over to tech only (no perk required) and tech really absolutely and definitively doesn't need that kind of buff.

 

[Neilbert]

Large weapons being large it makes sense they have much slower turning arcs. Once an enemy is up close they can out-maneuver your large guns.

In space combat, nothing is close. In any event, we already have something that represents large weapons turning slower - tracking, and we have something that already represents ships being able to out-maneuver large guns - evasion. We're literally reinventing the wheel here.

 

[Neilbert]

I’m not a fan of the addition of a minimum range. I can’t really wrap my head around what it’s supposed to represent, so it breaks my immersion badly. I’d much rather work with decreased tracking at closer distances than outright being unable to fire at a large target that’s sitting right there.

Really like that all Torpedos and Launchers are in the same slot now.

Same. Space is vast, and "Captain, the enemy is only 1 million km away - we can't hit them!!!" doesn't work for me. Minimum range is already reinventing the wheel for things that we already have - accuracy, evasion and tracking. About the only thing I can think of to make the concept of minimum range to work is large weapons having semi-guided munitions that only kick in after they reach a certain range to conserve reaction mass or perhaps if we were using a beam weapon instead of plasma weapons that it represents either a beam using exotic particles like mesons that only "pop" past certain ranges, or perhaps an array of some sort that's optimized to only focus past a certain point to make up for the individual beams attenuation past a certain point.

Plasma weapons having minimum ranges hurts my head and makes no sense, and in any event any science fiction I can remember seeing plasma weapons of this type in, their magnetic containment fields quickly dissipate, and they tend to be deadly but short-range weapons. Plasma weapons conceptually should be brawling weapons, plus mechanically they would synergize much better with autocannons then disruptors (just given that they act almost exactly like the energy counterpart to autocannons doing extra hull damage and armor damage, they would help the autocannons take out armor once autocannons got past the shields, rather than disruptors which do nothing to help the autocannons, being that they totally ignore armor). Since disruptors act like Meson weapons ignoring shields and armor, perhaps plasma weapons and disruptors should be switched (except disruptors have a different problem of not coming in large sizes, which could be fixed by adding a large disruptor and making cloud lightning weapons be something different?)

Rather than minimum range, perhaps as a compromise we could have a minimum effective range, where weapons have decreased accuracy at shorter ranges because they have semi-guided munitions or whatnot that kick in past a certain point? IDK.

I also do love that torpedoes and launchers are g-slot weapons now. That does make corvettes/frigates and cruisers stronger while nerfing battleships a reasonable amount. The problem is that with that happening, there are not enough energy weapon options left, thus the weirdness of plasma weapons being long ranged weapons, given that the only other laser alternative are disruptors, which logically make more sense, but don't come in large sizes.

 

[noobzo5000]

Will this be added to the Xbox game pass version of Stellaris on the pc? I've played Stellaris on the pc with Xbox game pass for a while and id love to be able to play this new update.

 

[Neilbert]

I love all the non-combat changes in the beta, but I do have one big problem with the combat changes in that I'm unhappy with disruptors being the only energy brawling weapon and would rather have plasma weapons as brawling weapons instead of, or in addition to, disruptors. Disruptors still don't work well with autocannons.

Conceptually, plasma weapons work better as brawler weapons as they tend to be depicted in most works of science fiction, role-playing games and video games I've read, watched, or played as balls of superheated plasma contained within magnetic fields that dissipate rather quickly, tending to make them have shorter ranges than lasers, particle beams, and other more exotic energy weapons. Thus, when I saw the large plasma cannon having a minimum range, it made my head hurt, as logically maximum range should always be the big problem with plasma weapons as they have gigantic problems just holding themselves together for any distance.

Mechanically, they synergize much better with autocannons than disruptors, as they function very similarly except that they damage armor instead of shields, and so once the autocannon knocks down the shields, the plasma weapons can then help take the armor down for the autocannons until they can both work together to damage the target's hull. Disruptors, on the other hand, do nothing to help take down armor, so they don't really work well to help autocannons get through armor, which autocannons don't do well. Trying to get through armor using just autocannons is a long, drawn-out process.

Disruptors could still be kept as brawler weapons, but more as a stand-alone weapon in a brawling ship armed solely with disruptors or a weapon used in concert with torpedoes by frigates and cruisers, rather than used with autocannons, or perhaps changed to be longer ranged weapons as an alternative to lasers. Of course, disruptors don't have a large version, which hurts them in this function, but frankly also is another reason they work poorly with large slot autocannons as well. Perhaps a large disruptor could be implemented, but then there's the question of what to do with the cloud lightning weapon. Maybe the cloud lightning weapon could be reworked into a different type of special weapon, since it always seemed odd that the large version of the disruptor was a weapon that couldn't be researched unless you killed a space creature and studied it's remains, while the X-slot version could be researched on its own just like small and medium disruptors.

It all boils down to that the big problem caused by making launchers into energy torpedoes (which is something I actually like, and think is cool - it's a good way to nerf battleships a bit and strengthen smaller ships like frigates and cruisers) is that disruptors, not having a large variant, doing relatively little damage, and generally being weird, don't work well as brawler weapons, and don't work well as alternatives to lasers, and conceptually, plasma weapons don't make good alternatives to long-ranged lasers either. Perhaps if there needs to be a new energy weapon that's an alternative to lasers if plasmas are made into brawling weapons and disruptors can't do the trick, maybe an easy fix could be the mining laser, which could be renamed a particle beam, and could be made in all sizes and recolored with two alternate colors to represent an advanced particle beam and an ultimate particle beam. Since it's using a pre-existing model, the art team wouldn't need to be brought in. Then again, I'm just fine with lasers being the only long-range energy weapon, as long as plasma weapons are made into brawler weapons.

 

[Neilbert]

Some nice QoL changes buried in there like long overdue faction demand updates. Also a special shoutout to the level 5 federation adjustment.

The level 5 federation buffer is an excellent quality of life improvement, to be sure, especially in a federation with a lot of AIs being uncooperative with you or each other or a federation with many members joining or leaving.

 

[Neilbert]

It's a safety feature. Torpedoes have to go a certain distance before they arm to avoid them detonating too close to the ship that is firing. I'm fairly certain that is how torpedoes, missiles, rockets work in real life too.

If you have ever seen the movie Hunt for Red October there is that scene where the captain of one sub turns and charges straight at the enemy submarine so the torpedo doesn't have enough time to arm.

Except this is space combat, and a torpedo or missile detonating too close would only be a danger at point-blank range. In a game where "close range" might be 10,000 km, detonating too close should never be an issue.

 

[Neilbert]

This makes me think. Will we also get the option to edit the loadout of our stations/citadels?

That would be very handy.

 

[Neilbert]

this looks brilliant! the politics tradition tree is such a tease, makes me excited for what's to come in a future politics DLC

can't wait to try the beta!

It does look pretty interesting. I can't wait to try it out.

 

[Neilbert]

You can only shoot the main cannon of a tank at a target at a certain distance from the tank or greater. Any closer, and the cannon can't be lowered far enough to hit the target (essentially, the tank's own hull is in the way). You could justify it with some similar excuse.

I mean, it's really just a gamey mechanic to screw people who use large ships, much like Stellaris has the gamey sprawl mechanic to screw people who actually want to play a 4X game, but you can find ways to justify it if you want.

Pretty much. I sort of justify it by figuring large weapons might be firing guided projectiles that only activate past a certain range to conserve fuel, but honestly trying to come up with an excuse for plasma weapons having a minimum range hurts my head, and in any event, they should be brawler weapons like autocannons anyhow. The thing is, though, that minimum range is really just a reinvention of the wheel when we have accuracy, tracking, and evasion already. In a space combat game when "close range" might be 10,000 km away, minimum range is sort of a odd concept.

 

[Shirasik]

Except this is space combat, and a torpedo or missile detonating too close would only be a danger at point-blank range. In a game where "close range" might be 10,000 km, detonating too close should never be an issue.

Battles are in vacuum so any shrapnel that is created by explosions will keep all momentum despite of travel distance. Should it be 10k km or 10M km. So we have to talk about distance-based chance to be hit by shrapnel created by any explosion. Then we come to the point where downed rockets can self-detonate and 'distribute' shrapnel around. Imagine the possibilities for friendly fire and tactical opportunities!

Or, if damaging factor of missiles isn't a shrapnel but rather explosion delivered to ship's interiors (e.g. HEAT ammo) then minimal arming distance don't make any sense.

Anyway, I wonder why whole codebreaking/espionage stuff still has nothing to do with all guided and smart weapons and stuff.