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

[Calvax]

You've improved QOL by adding a way to copy and paste fleet templates in the fleet manager (I love this thank you). But have at the same time tied dynamic fleet cap limit to Admiral level, rendering the copy and paste feature useless since it requires modification anyway?

Going by a lot of the feedback in this thread it doesn't seem a popular change, particularly for the fact they cause fleets to autosplit. If the intent by the devs is for us to have a fewer number of larger fleets I hope they consider removing the dynamic fleet cap and simply rebalance the tech and civic improvements we get. Dynamic fleet cap is a headache.

 

[Hackisucker]

it doesn't seem a popular change, particularly for the fact they cause fleets to autosplit. If the intent by the devs is for us to have a fewer number of larger fleets I hope they consider removing the dynamic fleet cap and simply rebalance the tech and civic improvements we get. Dynamic fleet cap is a headache.

Yea there does seem to be some unnessecary micro introduced in this update. I've stopped building past my natural cap at this point to avoid the headache.

 

[Starfury]

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

Here's one vote for locking Alfray into the Excel room for a couple of weeks before the next release!

 

[G S Palmer]

One thing I don't agree with that I've seen in this thread is the suggestion that they should get rid of planet governors. I couldn't disagree more. This has the potential to provide an excellent framework for a future internal politics update. Different types of governments have different governor types, be it appointed viceroys who you can choose but must pay upkeep for, or elected governors who are free but may have their own priorities, or even a feudal system with sector governors being "dukes" and planetary governors being "counts". So much potential.

 

[Keith_C]

Here's one vote for locking Alfray into the Excel room for a couple of weeks before the next release!

I'm not sure how making him play more EVE would help?

 

[LystAP]

Are you looking into the Betaverse situation bug? I think that’s been out for awhile.

 

[Alfray Stryke]

I'm not sure how making him play more EVE would help?

I quit playing EVE in 2006!

 

[zZander56]

While you're adjusting Marauder admirals, would you mind taking a look at Mercenary admirals? They've been bugged out since release, and 90% of the time do not command the Mercenary fleets they're supposed to. This has become particularly important after the leader expansion of course.

If that's unfixable for some reason, could you enable using empire admirals on Mercenary fleets?

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

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

Now somebody’s gotta sneak into your office and change the shortcut for Stellaris to open Excel instead.

 

[MrFreake_PDX]

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.

As someone who's been reading the forums/steam and other platforms, and have been immersed in this since release: I disagree that the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Yes, I agree there are some negative feelings out there, but saying the feedback is overwhelmingly negative is disingenuous.

Making yourself unhappy through needless micro is, yes.

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.

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".

This is is a heated topic with two camps with vastly different opinions on the matter. I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone commenting on this DD thread that everyone here is expected to respect each other's opinions, and to treat each other with respect.

Failure to do so will result in the parties responsible being removed from the forums. I will not speak to whether this interaction was respectful or not, only that this discussion seems to be trending in the disrespectful direction, and I'm pre-emptively putting a stop to it.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Granted not all of these are accessible to all empires, but it should be possible for most to get a leader cap of around 8-10.

On a related topic, will you consider allowing rulers to hold field positions?

Perhaps only allowing governor as default, but with appropriate civics allowing rulers that do other things? For instance, Technocracy could allow the ruler to captain a science ship, Distinguished Admiralty could allow admiral rulers that lead fleats, Imperial Cult could allow the ruler to do whatever they like, and splinter khanates would have their rulers personaly command fleets. And Mercedes Romero, Chosen One God-Empress of Blorgkind, could personally lead the military in the grimdark struggle against the friend request deniers. It would also make some sense if Dolores of the UNE started out as governing Earth, since that's basically what her job would be (as head of the UNE) prior to the discovery of FTL travel.

With leaders being fewer now, they more than ever before represent "the exceptional few", and exceptional rulers have been known to accomplish things outside of their office. Also, Stellaris is a game of science fiction tropes, where personal leadership of especially important activities is very common. And, most importantly, it would offer lots of fun - and add significant strategic considerations. For instance, the Barbaric Despoiler / Warrior Culture fleet might be headed by their Warlord - which likely makes their fleet bigger and more dangerous, but also gives you an opportunity to really hurt them.

 

[CrazyJ]

I'll be honest, the 8-10 leader limit is unpopular for a reason. I get that you want leaders to be more important, but forcing the player to use less than a third of what you would have at that point is not the way to do it.

 

[xeleth12]

As someone who's been reading the forums/steam and other platforms, and have been immersed in this since release: I disagree that the feedback is overwhelmingly negative. Yes, I agree there are some negative feelings out there, but saying the feedback is overwhelmingly negative is disingenuous.

I'm talking specifically about the "leader cap" here. Otherwise I'm afraid you haven't been paying attention...

@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.

"Just don't play with leaders except for the council in the expansion/update focused on leaders."
Yeah I'm overexaggerating but do you even hear yourself?

 

[wisecat]

• Leaders can no longer start the game with traits that produce resources. This should stop machine leaders from keeping a bonsai tree garden as a hobby.

Maybe keep bonsai garden as a negative trait for machine leaders? A dangerous obsession that reduces their lifespan due to moisture and possible molds and insects infestation

 

[lilsaihah]

I had a think about a few things and I think maybe if each use of Expand the Council gave you +1 Leader Cap that would fit thematically and would probably give the correct pacing for throttling the number of Leaders someone has.

Also I think there should be +1 Envoy in The Empire Needs You. That way the tooltip will read +1+1+1 which tickles me, and it also makes sense as a thing to have in the Aptitude tradition tree. Maybe give one to Amongst Peers, too.

 

[Rafss]

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

New council leader trait:
Spreadsheet Obsessive
+5% Pop Resource Output
-10 Years Leader Lifespan

 

[zZander56]

Will you fix the (assumed) bug of Promising Officer admirals not gaining the Material Liberator trait in empires using Letters of Marque?

(While I'm on the topic, has the trait ever done anything else internally? I have to say, +6 energy per destroyed ship is pretty low, particularly given the overabundance of energy for Megacorps. Maybe the trait could allow fleets to conduct raids of some sort? Something like siphoning the trade of the system the fleet is in while within enemy borders outside of war?)

 

[jayparadoritox]

I really like the leader of opportunity trait as a solution.

All I'd ask for on top of that is some kind of scaling effect on leader cap (even if it's ferociously slow!) akin to how starbases work, to reflect a gigantic galactic empire (by the late stages of the game) gaining a few more uber-powerful individuals. Because it's a population of trillions at that point.

Could add some power % modifier to the leaders in empires which remain tall rather than wide, if that's the worry.

 

[Starfire Breeze]

Will empires with the Feudal Society civic still be charged a (high) unity cost to dismiss a Leader of Opportunity?

 

[Muhrks]

Are you fixing localization things as well, or do I need to report each of them seperately? ^^