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

[velles]

Will there be more renowned leaders like 0101010111 or The Exile?

Also you should probably revert to having only sector governors, since introduction of planetary governors was a huge nerf to sector governors and now they're almost just as useless as generals.

 

[Hackisucker]

I believe it is simply a graphical issue. When players see a big gray silhouette they feel like it has to be filled. However filling all of them means they are way over their leader cap, so they blame the leader cap. If the empty silhouette's were instead replaced with a smaller button or something less obvious players wouldn't have the instinct to fill it.

I disagree. The problem in my opinion is that Paradox has created a game mechanic that I want to interact with and use, but I am punished when I do.

As an example you have governors. Now, if you play the game as "intended" you hire a governor who levels up and acquires traits. Then this Governor dies, and you hire a new one and have to start all over. Meanwhile, the existance of the planetary governor, and even hinted at in Dev Diary #297 quoted below.

So now, if you would like to see the potential career of a governor, it would be - Planet Governor, Sector Governor, Councilor, Empire Ruler.

Suggests the idea that you can have a sector governor "in training" ruling over a planet, ready to take over once the sector governor dies. But in reality this feature will not get used as having this additional governor takes away from valuable leader slots for little gain. This leads to the afformented feeling of being punished for interacting with the game.

 

[Getty]

Is it planned to reduce the leader experience gain debuff from going over leader cap? Maybe unity upkeep for leaders should increase more from going over the cap instead?



BTW I think that governor traits affecting only the planet the governor is in and governor level being sectorwide is fine. If traits were sectorwide, they would need to get watered down into quasi-irrelevance.

I think the current governor system balances traits being genuinely impactful and levels being important sectorwide, if traits were sectorwide, some renowned governors would be WAY too powerful.

 

[Harkinian's Dinner]

It seems pretty obvious to me that the point is you're supposed to choose which slots are most important for you to fill.

You need to understand that what you're "supposed to do" as intended by the developers is irrelevant when it doesn't work that way in practice.

The correct solution to the "which slots" problem is to fill all of them with the same governor, jumping that governor around for every task. No planetary governor is worth precious leader cap otherwise. That is a mathematical fact. You can't excuse broken game design in a strategy game with "but you're not supposed to play the effective way, you're supposed to play the ineffective way!"

Likewise, the correct solution to "how many generals do I want?" is always zero. The developers have created a system where major aspects of it are worthless or require horribly tedious micromanagement. Major changes are needed to fix it.

Giving you one free leader slot per leader type and reverting to sector governors only would go a long way.

 

[Methone]

You can't excuse broken game design in a strategy game with "but you're not supposed to play the effective way, you're supposed to play the ineffective way!"

Um, no. People doing outrageously stupid things in the name of getting an extra 0.1% efficiency is not 'broken game design', it's people doing stupid things.

 

[Hackisucker]

Um, no. People doing outrageously stupid things in the name of getting an extra 0.1% efficiency is not 'broken game design', it's people doing stupid things.

It's outrageously stupid to move a governor around because they have a trait that's literally useless if kept on the same planet?

 

[Enfield_PDX]

Any news on the constant pinging circles on the galaxy map?

On my Radar to be fixed

Ship build discount stacking.
2. Ship upkeep discount stacking.
3. A bug that increases defense platform armor as the starbase upgrades.

Alfray has been staring at a big list of all the discounts in the game for the past couple days. Safe to say we're looking into it.
Defence platform bug will also be resolved.

 

[Harkinian's Dinner]

Um, no. People doing outrageously stupid things in the name of getting an extra 0.1% efficiency is not 'broken game design', it's people doing stupid things.

Playing the game at a base level of competence is not stupid. Keeping a planetary governor that you aren't moving around, however, is stupid, in that it's a net loss for your empire. And so is defending poor game design and attacking people who play the game efficiently while doing mental gymnastics about what's the "intended way to play".

 

[DarkSafire]

"Legendary leaders no longer count towards Leader Capacity" - why not also for Renowned leaders? They are also unique.

Here some sugestions for dreaded leader cap issue:

• Make first leader in each class don't count towards cap
• Implement seperate leader cap for each class, so for example, militaristic empires who want more admirals/generals, could increase their cap with civics and techs (that are only available to them)

 

[Alfray Stryke]

Alfray has been staring at a big list of all the discounts in the game for the past couple days. Safe to say we're looking into it.

I have done nothing but look at spreadsheets since the release.

 

[xeleth12]

This approach towards the complaints regarding leader cap (which are in the thousands and we got some very constructive feedback regarding it, which is most) is, in my honest opinion, like putting a little band-aid over a gaping stomach wound with guts hanging out.

Quote: "Granted not all of these are accessible to all empires, it should be possible for most to get a leader cap of around 8-10."
I don't think you've really looked at the player feedback now, or that you don't exactly... care? 8-10 isn't exactly... great. To say the least. "Here's a carrot, enjoy".
I might be very wrong. But, doesn't seem like a good way to deal with it, -at all-.

Now, I know it's a "hotfix" and limited in what can be done, but if we have to wait months for the leader cap to be properly adressed/touched (if it ever will be)... not good.
Would be amazing if this subject would be adressed in a little more detail, properly; could avoid such reactions.

I was afraid than putting out new content revamping large chunks of the game so rapidly one after the other would lead to something big breaking. And here we are. But that's mostly my pessimism talking so... take it all with a grain of salt or just disregard this comment all-together.


PS: This is to folks more than the team, "commenters/players" here: Pretending the feedback regarding this cap isn't overwhelmingly negative is quite dishonest. Forums, Steam pages (from forums and reviews to the workshop itself), etc, it's everywhere. Everywhere. And even the positive reviews/feedback, many if not most, still mention a strong dislike for said cap; and I weight my words.

 

[Eios]

I have done nothing but look at spreadsheets since the release.

Stellaris or How I learned to stop worrying and love microsoft excel.

 

[Strangedane]

I have done nothing but look at spreadsheets since the release.

Is there any other way to play stellaris?

 

[Methone]

It's outrageously stupid to move a governor around because they have a trait that's literally useless if kept on the same planet?

Making yourself unhappy through needless micro is, yes.

Playing the game at a base level of competence is not stupid. Keeping a planetary governor that you aren't moving around, however, is stupid, in that it's a net loss for your empire. And so is defending poor game design and attacking people who play the game efficiently while doing mental gymnastics about what's the "intended way to play".

Base level of competence he says. Jesus christ. You're beyond help. I'm certain you didn't move the governors between sectors when they affected entire sectors.

 

[Askorti]

I have done nothing but look at spreadsheets since the release.

Not sure if dev or hardcore minmaxer

 

[BigRedJedi]

I have done nothing but look at spreadsheets since the release.

You are a beautiful person and I un-ironically love you.

 

[Ryika]

Please allow penalties for going over Leader Cap to be modded.

 

[Creeperman0]

Perhaps increasing leader capacity with the number of systems controlled, like how starbase capacity scales, would help ease the leader pinch in the later game? I could also see leaders of opportunity making good planetary governors or generals, except if they unexpectedly all level up and crash your leader capacity. Does the leader of opportunity trait include a hard level cap?

 

[Cahokia]

I would not call that a punishment @Hackisucker, but a meaningful choice. By having a combined leader pool you can specialize in which direction you want to go. While they described governor careers that way, nothing in the game is pointing to that as the intended way to use planetary governors. They are an early game boost you have the option of using. For the late game a better example would be employing governors in fringe sectors to level them up for core sectors. It makes total sense for an empire spanning hundreds of systems to no longer employ planetary governors but only in a few core sectors.

It is trivially easy with all the bonuses in the game to never have a leader die from age no matter your ascension path. Choosing not to take those bonuses is another choice on what you are prioritizing.

Also in the early game governor hopping has always been a thing in this game. This patch hasn't changed anything in that regard.

@xeleth12, if you run the math for this patch empires are objectively stronger in every way just using the council and not employing a single leader elsewhere. So if you didn't pick up a single leader cap bonus you would still be perfectly fine.

As an example of the benefits of the new system, once you get a few modifiers there is no need to spam assist research anymore. 1 veteran researcher on the council gives more effective research than the assist research bonus. I am very thankful for no longer feeling like I need to engage in that needlessly excessive micro for 50+ research colonies.

Admiral council bonuses are absolutely amazing, meaning you no longer need to employ a single admiral in a fleet to get power levels stronger than the previous patch.

Just because we are given the choice of using leaders in specific roles doesn't make it necessary. The game has fundamentally changed. You no longer need to micro employing 200+ leaders in the late game which is fantastic. Leaders have been massively buffed in compensation. If you want to play with the old style you can always revert to the previous patch.

 

[Jay Sherman]

PS: This is to folks more than the team, "commenters/players" here: Pretending the feedback regarding this cap isn't overwhelmingly negative is quite dishonest. Forums, Steam pages (from forums and reviews to the workshop itself), etc, it's everywhere. Everywhere. And even the positive reviews/feedback, many if not most, still mention a strong dislike for said cap; and I weight my words.

Angry people are vocal, people like me who likes or don't care about the leader cap are silent. It's the way internet works haha. For what it's worth, I think the Leader of Opportunity trait will alleviate a lot of issues if you can get some reliably.