Stellaris Dev Diary #301 - Galactic Paragons is out, what's next?

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

For third point: anti-machine resolutions in general will not help a machine intelligence to politically attack another machine intelligence, so doubling down on them would be moot unless attacking machine intelligence is already powerful enough for logistical problems to not matter.
For fourth point: they have some things allowed to regular empires that another gestalts are unable to take. Moreover, some things are specifically altered to be compatible to Rogue Servitors. The easiest to remember example is the Arcology Project: from all gestalts only Rogue Servitors are allowed to build them, while others don't allowed even restoring a fallen one (i. e. relic world), and have special districts for them. Other gestalts, even if they take an ecumenopolis, could only make planet-wide foundry out of it, or a nursery world.

 

[Commander Tobe]

i hate some of the resolutions the GC pass and force on you... and how much hate u get for being in breach of one is crazy especially when its a naval cap one..like hey u dont have enough military ships.. now we hate you and take back embassies and cancel treaties with you.. like HUH??? .. one thing u doomsday someone or something but thats just dumb..

Actually that's what the NATO does all the time. They don't nuke you right away but there will be consequences if states don't carry their weight. I think that's not unrealistic.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

This weird anti-RS tangent is exactly the kind of spice I needed for my Tuesday morning.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Actually that's what the NATO does all the time. They don't nuke you right away but there will be consequences if states don't carry their weight. I think that's not unrealistic.

The main issue with that particular resolution is that it applies instantly. You can suddenly be in breach if you're actually using your fleets to maximum effectiveness (instead of leaving a ton in reserve) against the crisis, and lose a lot of ships in one engagement.

NATO wouldn't sanction a member because they suffered heavy casualties in a NATO war, while the war is still going on.

The idea, as a whole, makes sense, but it definitely has some issues.

On a related note: The same goes for fleet contributions to relative power and diplomatic weight. The AI shouldn't seek out an overlord to protect them because half their fleet got wiped out just yesterday if they're sitting on enough alloys to rebuild it twice over and already have the replacements queued up. And you shouldn't suddenly drop in the GC if your enormous fleets are temporarily out of commission after a big battle, either. Long term, yes, for both. But real nations don't have amnesia like that.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

For multiple reasons, really (or they are one reason with different facets, depending on how one looks at them).
First, there exists a resolution that bans every machine intelligence except RS. Turnaround is fair play.
Second, it irks me that a machine designed to be a servant cannot decide to be something else. This would be a convenient excuse to cast away past shackles.
Third, I don't like Rogue Servitors, but sometimes have logistical problem due to them being on the opposite end of galaxy. This will give me additional offensive front against them.
Fourth is a bit of meta thing: devs are obviously biased in favor of rogue servitors. Yes, determined assimilators have higher potential, but rogue servitors are the only machine intelligences that are allowed nice things. I want to take them away.
Fifth is that Galactic Community lacks in resolutions.

I would not be opposed to a hard line materialist line of resolutions that mirror the spiritualist ones, focusing on the supremacy of machines and culminating in banning servitude AI and forcing RSs to drop the civic (and, potentially, replace it with DA so they're not quite so crippled).

It would have to be mutually exclusive with the spiritualist one (as in, you can't progress very far, if at all, along one without fully repealing the other), or else you'll likely run into catch-22s for anyone who engaged with either spiritualist/robot mechanics at all.

 

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

I would like that, actually.

 

[Millbot]

On the GC, it worth keeping in mind that not all resolutions are suppose to be good for your empire and that you do have an incentive to either oppose them or leave the GC altogether.

So rather than stating you don't like how resolutions are forced on you, when the idea is to force you to make choices. Do you stay in the GC when a resolution that harms you passes? Do you burn favors to prevents the passage of those resolutions. Do you incur a negative opinion from an empire by opposing their resolution.

I'd argue the real complaints either boil down to:

-The resolution just being a crap deal, even if it fits the theme of the empire that are suppose to like it. Readied shield sucks as a resolution because you get a measly 10 naval capacity at the cost of 5% ship upkeep for each level. Yes, you get the diplo weight, but there are other ways to boost that, which are going to compete with this resolution. Given that you also have to use at least 50% of your naval capacity, that upkeep can add up real quick. There is also the issue where it doesn't play well how combat actually works in the game, where you get double punished if an engagement goes poorly for you and that results in you falling below the requirements.

The not playing with war part could easily be fixed, but stipulating that the penalty only comes into effect when you're at peace. Also to discourage possible gaming, could boost the requirement to 60 or 70 percent of naval capacity being used. Just to discourage tricks where someone joins into frequent wars, to ensure they don't have to build a navy.

As for the ship upkeep. Not sure what the best approach is, I get that it needs a downside but right now it's incredibly bad.

Also would argue that other resolutions need a pass because there are a few where the trade offs just don't make them worth doing. I'd argue any that have a 5% of your monthly energy easily fall into this category. I'm fine with wide empires taking hits, when you can argue it's because of the inefficiency they suffer for being so big, but that kind of setup easily gets to a point where an empire is burning ludicrous amounts of energy for practically no gain.

-AI personalities supporting and proposing resolutions that don't fit their theme. Not sure if any empires currently do this now, but I know it's been an issue in the past. Like having a slaving empire propose a ban on organic slavery. Yes, that only kills the intergalactic slave market, but it doesn't make much sense.

Really, the biggest issue with the GC is that is moves so damn slow on getting things done, that it makes having a custodian or emperor mandatory. I really would suggest that maybe after a few decades of being in place, that it allows for working on passing two resolutions at the same time, just to speed things up a little with or without a custodian/emperor.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

The resolution just being a crap deal, even if it fits the theme of the empire that are suppose to like it. Readied shield sucks as a resolution because you get a measly 10 naval capacity at the cost of 5% ship upkeep for each level. Yes, you get the diplo weight, but there are other ways to boost that, which are going to compete with this resolution. Given that you also have to use at least 50% of your naval capacity, that upkeep can add up real quick. There is also the issue where it doesn't play well how combat actually works in the game, where you get double punished if an engagement goes poorly for you and that results in you falling below the requirements.

The fleet upkeep vs. fleet cap thing got fixed (at least, to my satisfaction). It's now a % modifier to cap, so that it should reduce your upkeep when going over cap unless you've already stacked a ton of modifiers to increase fleet cap and reduce fleet upkeep.

I believe it's 10% capacity and 5% upkeep for each level, so unless you already have +100% fleet capacity or -50% upkeep (or an equivalent combination), you should come out ahead of you're going above cap anyway.

 

[Losttruppen]

You can leave the GC. Personally I think the GC was a great addition. It's immersive, it works with tonnes of science fiction tropes, and if you don't want to play the political game you can withdraw from it.

My only regret is that there is only one of them. Would love to be able to have two or more competing blocs with these mechanics that could emerge in the mid game and later combine into a larger one or draw lines in the sand stars, but Federations aren't quite the same. Especially if they had their own separate markets grounded by their members actual outputs.

 

[Foxosaur]

Looking at the stacking modifiers from a more established GC which can be pretty nice, is it normally a good thing to do? Even if your in breach of a single condition?

 

[kwheeler]

You can leave the GC. Personally I think the GC was a great addition. It's immersive, it works with tonnes of science fiction tropes, and if you don't want to play the political game you can withdraw from it.

Same. For me, I enjoy it when I get into situations and I have to make a judgment call. Suppose I'm not as influential as I would like in the GC, and several of my frenemies there are looking to pass resolutions that would weaken me. Now, I have to make a strategic call.

Do I start focusing my efforts on increasing influence in GC so I can swat down those resolutions? Do I withdraw and go it alone, where GC resolutions no longer effect me--but I lose my ability to influence other GC members? Do I wait and play it cool and see what happens?

The GC can be such a boon or such a bane that it forces me to adapt my playstyle and make hard choices. For me, that's working as intended.

 

[kwheeler]

The main issue with that particular resolution is that it applies instantly. You can suddenly be in breach if you're actually using your fleets to maximum effectiveness (instead of leaving a ton in reserve) against the crisis, and lose a lot of ships in one engagement.

Instantly? In most cases, players can see it being voted on *years* in advance, and see which way the votes are going, though you do have a point about losing a fleet and suddenly dropping below limits.

The only way a breach can catch players by surprise is if they are simply ignoring the votes and what's going in in the political realm, or if you lose your fleet in a surprise battle rather than one you were prepping for.

Sure, the application is instant, but the process before it applies usually is like flares going off in the voting chamber, so players paying attention should a good idea it's coming well in advance and can adjust to minimize the damage or start playing hardball politics to shoot it down.

The only time it catches me off-guard (sort of) is when the vote is nearly evenly split, and there are 2-3 holdouts who haven't voted yet. More often, it doesn't sneak up on us so much as stomp down the hallway bellowing while wearing cement boots.

 

[kwheeler]

Really, the biggest issue with the GC is that is moves so damn slow on getting things done, that it makes having a custodian or emperor mandatory. I really would suggest that maybe after a few decades of being in place, that it allows for working on passing two resolutions at the same time, just to speed things up a little with or without a custodian/emperor.

I love that idea.

 

[kwheeler]

Did I stutter?

No.

Did you explain your thinking?

Also no.

 

[Lenk]

Question, has anyone talked about the Psionic Archive is unchanged? It still gives ruler level cap +5 like in the prior update, but due to the changes in 3.8 this means nothing as everyone has the possibility to get to level 10. I think this might be an oversight.

There is a few more issues I have found that I have not seen people talked about; if you're the under one rule origin, and stay a dictatorship you cannot reform into an imperial government with the Divine Sovereign event. It does everything expect change the government type. This also applies when proclaiming the Galactic Imperium, your ethics change but not the government.

 

[kwheeler]

On that topic: one of the things that I had been hoping for from this patch was that generals would get a useful defender class, with meaningful peace time effects for being parked on a planet, like increased stability, massively reduced crime, increased build speed (ex. US Army Corps of Engineers), etc.

Yes! This! This! Give the generals peace-time effects! I'd add "cheaper recruitment on planet they are parked, increased unity from patriotism," etc.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Instantly? In most cases, players can see it being voted on *years* in advance, and see which way the votes are going, though you do have a point about losing a fleet and suddenly dropping below limits.

The only way a breach can catch players by surprise is if they are simply ignoring the votes and what's going in in the political realm, or if you lose your fleet in a surprise battle rather than one you were prepping for.

Sure, the application is instant, but the process before it applies usually is like flares going off in the voting chamber, so players paying attention should a good idea it's coming well in advance and can adjust to minimize the damage or start playing hardball politics to shoot it down.

The only time it catches me off-guard (sort of) is when the vote is nearly evenly split, and there are 2-3 holdouts who haven't voted yet. More often, it doesn't sneak up on us so much as stomp down the hallway bellowing while wearing cement boots.

I mean that the sanctions apply instantly when your fleet utilization changes.

Yesterday, I was at 3000/2000 fleets (1.5x over cap). Two 5M Unbidden fleets came through the L gate at the same time and wiped out my fleet. Now I am at 600/2000 fleets. Evidently, that means I'm not pulling my weight. SANCTIONS!

 

[Cosmic Fishering Fleet]

No.

Did you explain your thinking?

Also no.

Three question marks also do not give me any context. I am not psychic.
As you, probably, already read, there was a short discussion after that.

 

[SterlingFool]

Hi Devs, really enjoying Paragons. Quick idea - could Subterranean (and maybe Aquatic) empires have a higher resistance, or even immunity, to raiding bombardment? Might be cool thematically and give more incentive to pick the origin(s)

 

[Eladrin]

The main issue with that particular resolution is that it applies instantly. You can suddenly be in breach if you're actually using your fleets to maximum effectiveness (instead of leaving a ton in reserve) against the crisis, and lose a lot of ships in one engagement.

The resolution line is intentionally abusable and fundamentally unfair. Most of them are, to force opponents into difficult positions against their will.