Stellaris Dev Diary #297 - Leaders, The Council, and Agendas

[WoodenP]

Another good observation of the shaky game design in this update - moving a governor around from planet to planet to get bonuses when clearing blockers for example sounds rather tedious. That's already a thing you can do with current governors, but it's generally not worth losing a sector-wide research bonus for example just to remove a blocker faster. The change definitely makes the micromanagement worse because you can laser-target planets for stuff like that, which will be far more optimal.

I really don't get why the devs thought adding governor micro while removing research micro was a good idea. Either keep the research micro or remove both. Changing researchers was far more engaging and less tedious than dealing with governors, since it had instant, empire-wide impact.

It properly blows my mind that neither you, nor the person before you, considered a simple reassignment cooldown. It's not a difficult challenge for the design.

 

[Tilarium]

You're imagining a best-case scenario here, rather than a typical or worst-case. The typical case, without buying the DLC, is that you get one head of research position with a maximum of five traits drawn at random. Naively, the odds of pulling one Expertise from each of Phys, Soc, Eng on any single scientist are much lower than the odds of pulling multiple from the same field (which is pretty bad for directing your tech draws), and even then drawing Expertises is going to be diluted by stuff like survey speed or anomaly research speed. If the only scientist traits were Expertises, with the first three traits drawn at random with replacement (since we know traits can have multiple levels now) with uniform probability and an equal number of expertise traits in each of Eng, Phys, and Soc (this assumption I'm not sure about, but it doesn't really change the big picture), the probability of a scientist getting exactly one from each of Eng, Phys, Soc is only 2/9 in the first three draws.

Moreover, coupling multiple expertises together on a single head of research is a huge reduction in flexibility to direct tech draws in the three areas independently, even if you get to choose the expertises he gets. Under the current system, I can deploy a New Worlds guy to fish for Climate Restoration and a Voidcraft guy to fish for Battleships independently - and then when Climate Restoration finishes, I can swap a Military Theory guy into Society while leaving Voidcraft alone. Under the new system, even with the DLC, even assuming I can pick exactly which traits my head of research gets, if I went Voidcraft + New Worlds, now I'm stuck with New Worlds if I also want Voidcraft (and as a Gestalt, probably stuck with that combination *forever*).

(Unless I happen to spend civics on getting extra scientist slots on the council... and buy the DLC)

It looks like you missed the part where you get to pick your traits when leveling up? Granted, the choices you get are random, but the odds are more in your favor to get multiple expertise traits then if just left to random. But you are right, I am assuming buying the DLC because, to me at least, it is worth it and I couldn't imagine playing without all the available DLCs.

 

[Blackadder23]

Another good observation of the shaky game design in this update - moving a governor around from planet to planet to get bonuses when clearing blockers for example sounds rather tedious. That's already a thing you can do with current governors, but it's generally not worth losing a sector-wide research bonus for example just to remove a blocker faster. The change definitely makes the micromanagement worse because you can laser-target planets for stuff like that, which will be far more optimal.

No one is holding a gun to your head and making you do this. The only one making the micromanagement worse is you.

I don't micromanage like this under current system, and I'm fine with my play experience.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

I'm extremely interested to see how the civics Feudal Society, Aristocracy, and Theocratic Monarchy affect the Council mechanics.

 

[OnyxAbussos]

By the way, I completely love the sound of all of this. TYANKI YOU!

 

[jedavis]

It looks like you missed the part where you get to pick your traits when leveling up? Granted, the choices you get are random, but the odds are more in your favor to get multiple expertise traits then if just left to random. But you are right, I am assuming buying the DLC because, to me at least, it is worth it and I couldn't imagine playing without all the available DLCs.

I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob.

I get it, this is a whale forum, and I too am a whale. But I'm a slow-whale who usually waits until any given DLC is on 50% sale. That's a long time to have my ability to direct my research put in the toilet relative to the current, pre-DLC state of affairs. I also don't know that that's really an unusual purchasing strategy (perhaps less so outside of this forum than on it).

Moreover, paying someone to get back what they have taken away from you in an effort to get you to pay them is encouraging misbehavior; it sets up bad incentives. The correct response is to refuse to pay any danegeld ever, and to encourage others to refuse to do so as well. The fact that paying the danegeld comes with some nice things and the value proposition isn't *purely* avoiding damage doesn't significantly change the situation, morally.

Anyway, I'm gonna go touch some grass and drink until I forget there's an internet full of people to argue with.

 

[Tilarium]

I wouldn't say I missed it, Bob.

I get it, this is a whale forum, and I too am a whale. But I'm a slow-whale who usually waits until any given DLC is on 50% sale. That's a long time to have my ability to direct my research put in the toilet relative to the current, pre-DLC state of affairs. I also don't know that that's really an unusual purchasing strategy (perhaps less so outside of this forum than on it).

Moreover, paying someone to get back what they have taken away from you in an effort to get you to pay them is encouraging misbehavior; it sets up bad incentives. The correct response is to refuse to pay any danegeld ever, and to encourage others to refuse to do so as well. The fact that paying the danegeld comes with some nice things and the value proposition isn't *purely* avoiding damage doesn't significantly change the situation, morally.

Anyway, I'm gonna go touch some grass and drink until I forget there's an internet full of people to argue with.

Ok, you didn't miss it. Did you also not miss the part where the head of research isn't the only one that can apply expertise traits to your research projects? So you have more then one council member leveling up and gaining traits and can end up with two, maybe more, leaders applying matching bonuses. Even without the DLC.

 

[Critical Ethics]

No one is holding a gun to your head and making you do this. The only one making the micromanagement worse is you.

I don't micromanage like this under current system, and I'm fine with my play experience.

The mechanic works great if you don't use it!

 

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

But how AI-Aided Design (this is a governor trait) will be affected? Starbases are not planets, but they are still part of a sector.
If Sector Governors are not using their traits outside sector capital, then the most important trait for military production sector becomes useless due to not affecting anything.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

But how AI-Aided Design (this is a governor trait) will be affected? Starbases are not planets, but they are still part of a sector.
If Sector Governors are not using their traits outside sector capital, then the most important trait for military production sector becomes useless due to not affecting anything.

*OR* it's been moved to be a different category of trait. Potentially a council level trait that your military node might want to have.

 

[Rafss]

I'm extremely interested to see how the civics Feudal Society, Aristocracy, and Theocratic Monarchy affect the Council mechanics.

Imperial Cult gets the Emperor #1 Fan in council, and when he dies you get a notification saying he was the #1

 

[Millbot]

Another good observation of the shaky game design in this update - moving a governor around from planet to planet to get bonuses when clearing blockers for example sounds rather tedious. That's already a thing you can do with current governors, but it's generally not worth losing a sector-wide research bonus for example just to remove a blocker faster. The change definitely makes the micromanagement worse because you can laser-target planets for stuff like that, which will be far more optimal.

I really don't get why the devs thought adding governor micro while removing research micro was a good idea. Either keep the research micro or remove both. Changing researchers was far more engaging and less tedious than dealing with governors, since it had instant, empire-wide impact.

Will be interesting to see what they did with the governor trait that helps with blocker clearing. If that got removed or if it got turned into a council trait. Either way, I'm hoping they did enough tweaks to remove the micro aspect.

Worth keeping in mind that with governors, there were only really three traits that you could do that kind of micro with. The aforementioned blocker clearing ones, then the next common one was the architecture ones that reduce building time and building cost. Finally, you have the seldom used anti-crime trait, which IMO Isn't worth it unless crime is really bad on a recent acquisition.

Every other trait that currently in game, doesn't play well with this micro approach because the benefits aren't calculated until the game ticks over to the next month, which means it only works for one planet.

So my hope is that at least with the block clearer traits and the architecture ones, the devs either make those council traits or rulers traits or just remove them. That would solve any complaints people have and before someone says removal would be a nerf. Given that they are buffing leaders substantially, it likely isn't a net nerf. All they need to do is make sure that none of the non-council traits exist in a form where players feel a need to move governors around to game the system.

Not sure about the anti-crime governors though. Honestly, the crime and deviancy systems need a rework, but that should probably wait till they do an internal politics rework and I hope that is the next major thing they tackle. Also hoping they do limit tackling that till they are ready to do the next major DLC. Though, I view that one as the least problematic because if someone is managing their worlds right, they would only ever be tempted to do that with newly acquired worlds from conquest or the rare cases where a revolt happens and all the revolting worlds ask to join your empire. On that note, can I say it's hilarious when it happens to the entirety of a vassal empire, so you end up get the whole vassal as a new sector (seen this twice now, both times I was playing an empire that was xenophile fanatical egalitarian).

I actually like the change here where their levels can apply the whole sector if they are the sector governor, while the traits are planet unique. It spares me from being annoyed with having a governor that has traits for boosting something that isn't being produced in their sector, while also being annoyed that I have a specialized world in a large sector that is getting zero benefit from any of the sector governor's traits. I actually like how this design has some potential for distinguishing between tall and wide. Might be cool if the meta for super tall empires is to invest in having powerful leaders to make up for the lack of pops and systems, while super wide invests the bare minimum in their leaders because it's just more efficient for them to lean on their massive population and high system count.

 

[Losttruppen]

Ok, you didn't miss it. Did you also not miss the part where the head of research isn't the only one that can apply expertise traits to your research projects? So you have more then one council member leveling up and gaining traits and can end up with two, maybe more, leaders applying matching bonuses. Even without the DLC.

There has been no confirmation that stacking expertise on multiple councillors will affect the increased draw weight multiplier for tech of that expertise, only the increased research rate.

Tech draw is the issue at hand, and having additional council slots affect it is not necessarily a good thing as tech draws are zero-sum, meaning an increase for one is a decrease for another, so either you have significantly more micro juggling three science draws with a single expertise at a time, or you just ignore the entirely unique tech draw system this game has enjoyed since release and pray to RNG which can be very frustrating if you miss out on a tech key to your build for years on end.

That the Devs think tech draw manipulation with Scientists is some obscure strategy for only those who "wish to" and who pick select civics to engage with it is what confuses me. It is about the only effective way to get around the RNG tech draw system and interact with it in meaningful ways(chasing Megastructures and Psionics, actually staying competitive in fleet strength on GA with proper Engineering tech focus) and allows us some agency over the pace of our expansion. To then repackage and sell it with the DLC is especially strange.

This change has at the least required a change to the Technology UI window; maybe they have tweaked the system as a whole and are going to reveal more next week, but right now I am still a bit unsure how this will work out.

 

[Harkinian's Dinner]

It properly blows my mind that neither you, nor the person before you, considered a simple reassignment cooldown. It's not a difficult challenge for the design.

...Are you trying to defend bad design with the argument that better design is easy to come up with, even though said better design isn't actually in the game? All while making the utterly irrational assumption that because we didn't mention a better design solution in our posts, we didn't consider it and somehow WE are making a mistake, not the developers?

Your post is the most bafflingly strange and pointless one in the thread so far.

No one is holding a gun to your head and making you do this. The only one making the micromanagement worse is you.

I don't micromanage like this under current system, and I'm fine with my play experience.

This is another invalid argument. "If you close your eyes and pretend the design flaw isn't there, it goes away!" Honestly, do better.

 

[styroler]

Can we rename the Council positions? Its a little weird for a Megacorp to have a "Minister of Defense" even if they do have a cooperate officer who is in charge of security. Renaming and/or changing the names based on government types (which you could also do but seems like alot more work) would give this system alot of flavor and make it feel more part of your empire.

Also while I get the whole thing about Gestalts is they dont need councilors, I think it would be cool if you could get some sort of special leader for Rouge Servitors who was a Organic. This position would functionally be an honorary organic leader who is the "official" leader even though he is given completely meaningless tasks. I want my Wall-E Captain reading the morning announcements!

 

[Heliotic]

The mechanic works great if you don't use it!

I'm always frustrated by people diving on a ditch to defend horrible macro in a 'grand strategy game'.

Manually moving leaders around is 100% micro that doesn't fit in a grand strategy game. Manually swapping out leaders to minmax science bonuses is 100% micro that doesn't fit in a grand strategy game. (Oppenheimer would have just been a name on a report to Truman, he certainly wasn't perusing a list of names and stats to decide who works on what project).

Rather than trying to defend these horrible mechanics, we should be asking ourselves 'what does the strategic version of this decision look like?' Now unfortunately the answer is almost a budget spreadsheet and some policy settings, but I'll still take that over minmaxing something that we'd find a way to automate if it was in any other context but a video game.'

 

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

There is a lot of animosity in this thread.

So, planetary governors. Making it so sector governor's traits don't matter at all doesn't feel right. For example, I got a star system (three stars, each with a planetary system) that is rich in minerals and has several habitable planets. I set up sector capital there due to three mining worlds and several mining habitats being needed. In this case, one extractor optimizes star system as a whole (there are a couple of worlds in that sector that don't have specialization right, so governor works mainly on capital system there). Under new management, I will need an extractor for every colony inside the same star system, which would be unnecessary micromanagement, because each habitat's governor would be wasted..

 

[tanny]

Is the Chosen one a destiny trait or anything? Are there special interactions with it?

 

[Losttruppen]

I'm always frustrated by people diving on a ditch to defend horrible macro in a 'grand strategy game'.

No one is saying swapping Scientists for Tech draw manipulation was the best solution to the RNG tech system in this game, but it's worked for 7 years now without a problem and people like you could play your way and people who wanted to engage with it and eek a bit more out of the system were welcome to do so.

Now that functionality has been severely reduced and tucked away behind a special strategy with a DLC price tag. The defence of this solution seems to be that it is in fact still there, except we now have up to 5 council slots to juggle, with even more RNG determining whether we get a useful expertise trait, where before it was a simple coloured circle with a distinct image we could process at a glance, now it's one of 700* new traits sprinkled throughout my entire pool of leaders vying for Council slots.

So it seems the 'horrible macro in a "grand strategy game"' is still here, it's still the only way to deal with the RNG tech system, you are still welcome to ignore it, except it has become more difficult to manage for those who wish to and only open to those with the proper civics, most of which sound like paid features. So since you never cared for it, you can continue to do so, but please don't complain that other people want to discuss an aspect of this game just because you don't like that aspect. If they had been willing to improve the system they wouldn't have removed 2/3 of it and left the rest tucked away in a closet.

This feature was fine for those who cared and easily ignored by those who didn't, and would have been just the same in the new Leader system, but it has been reduced under the pretense of limiting the number of leaders you deal with, when that is not the case and these 2 research slots are the only ones being removed while other, far less compelling Leaders are even increased. All of the "horrible macro" is still there, even more perhaps with Planetary Governors and enhanced Assist Research, except it's become a bit more "horrible".

There is also an RP aspect to tech draw manipulation that is being thrown out it seems, where a Spiritualist vying for Psionic Theory is going to aim for different Techs than a Bio Ascension empire chasing Biology Techs, or a Machine needing more more Alloys to build more pops, so it's not just a mechanic for the min/max players. While this has been somewhat anemic and most empires will want mostly the same Techs in the end, it is sad to see them shying away from the system altogether rather than trying to improve on it as you seem to want.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

No one is saying swapping Scientists for Tech draw manipulation was the best solution to the RNG tech system in this game, but it's worked for 7 years now without a problem and people like you could play your way and people who wanted to engage with it and eek a bit more out of the system were welcome to do so.

Now that functionality has been severely reduced and tucked away behind a special strategy with a DLC price tag. The defence of this solution seems to be that it is in fact still there, except we now have up to 5 council slots to juggle, with even more RNG determining whether we get a useful expertise trait, where before it was a simple coloured circle with a distinct image we could process at a glance, now it's one of 700* new traits sprinkled throughout my entire pool of leaders vying for Council slots.

So it seems the 'horrible macro in a "grand strategy game"' is still here, it's still the only way to deal with the RNG tech system, you are still welcome to ignore it, except it has become more difficult to manage for those who wish to and only open to those with the proper civics, most of which sound like paid features. So since you never cared for it, you can continue to do so, but please don't complain that other people want to discuss an aspect of this game just because you don't like that aspect. If they had been willing to improve the system they wouldn't have removed 2/3 of it and left the rest tucked away in a closet.

This feature was fine for those who cared and easily ignored by those who didn't, and would have been just the same in the new Leader system, but it has been reduced under the pretense of limiting the number of leaders you deal with, when that is not the case and these 2 research slots are the only ones being removed while other, far less compelling Leaders are even increased. All of the "horrible macro" is still there, even more perhaps with Planetary Governors and enhanced Assist Research, except it's become a bit more "horrible".

There is also an RP aspect to tech draw manipulation that is being thrown out it seems, where a Spiritualist vying for Psionic Theory is going to aim for different Techs than a Bio Ascension empire chasing Biology Techs, or a Machine needing more more Alloys to build more pops, so it's not just a mechanic for the min/max players. While this has been somewhat anemic and most empires will want mostly the same Techs in the end, it is sad to see them shying away from the system altogether rather than trying to improve on it as you seem to want.

And now you can have *5* areas of scientific focus available, rather than 3, if you set your council up that way without having to swap rulers in and out.


You're not prevented from having different empires chasing different techs either, since each empire now has *more* specialisation available, and since you can choose the specialisations the leaders get (albeit from a list) you can now refuse expertise traits that are completely at odds with what you want, and take from the other traits that you are offered. Not all traits are going to be offered to all leaders either, so the 700 traits is a bit misleading in a comparison here. For example, your scientists are not going to be offered the admiral or governor veteran traits; a scientist who is specialised as a researcher will not get the space exploration veteran traits, meaning you're less likely to be sat with a scientist who has traits for archaeology *and* is a genius researcher, meaning that they're partially wasted in either role. For most levels the destiny traits don't really count either, as they won't be in the pool of traits you're drawing from.