Stellaris Dev Diary #55 - Unity and Traditions

[modernwhofan]

Sid Meiers Stellaris?
I am okay with this.

 

[Jolly Reaper]

Ignoring the bit that comes immediately prior to what you quoted, sure.

Not to mention that even the bit he quoted started with "overall", which in this context is a clear reference to generalization, not that size is the only factor.

The real issue here, I think, is the amount of dev work a system requires. CiV-style policy tree is relatively simple to code, debug and balance. A mechanism where your policies rise organically from your actions is certainly cool, but far more complex. Implementing that would either mean postponing Banks considerably, putting less emphasis on other parts such as the new faction system, or cutting down on whatever is in the upcoming DLC. The last won't be happening, since Paradox is a business and rather DLC-oriented at that, and the first is unlikely as well for the same reason. The second is possible, I suppose, but I wouldn't be at all in favour.

For most developers this would also be a prime candidate for being one of those awesome ideas that can't be put into practice at all, and gets chopped at alpha or beta. Paradox could do it, but most likely the first iterations would still be buggy, imbalanced, and open to fairly ridiculous exploits. There would be much salt here after 1.5 came out, I suspect. Better to start relatively simple and later expand on elements such as ethos-dependent ways of gaining Unity. Having them give discounts to specific trees instead of extra points might be a good start.

It's also a bit odd to take such a hard line on penalizing expansion, when currently bigger is always better, despite the existing size penalties to research. Would the game really be better if those modifiers were removed, because they're arbitrary and therefore automatically bad design? I don't think so. Stellaris is too much of a Blobbing Simulator as it is.

 

[Schimmelpfennig]

Disagreeing with friend, and complaining about downvotes always deserves to be downvoted.

I see why we are living in a post-factual world.

So seriously folks cannot see the link between growth and success in 4x strategy any more and realize whatever ethics offer advantages in this field will be more successful and become next to mandatory?

You may as well vote for earth being flat.

 

[shadowclasper]

I see why we are living in a post-factual world.

So seriously folks cannot see the link between growth and success in 4x strategy any more and realize whatever ethics offer advantages in this field will be more successful and become next to mandatory?

You may as well vote for earth being flat.

I didn't disagree with you on the basis of growth not being the most important factor. That is absolutely correct. What I disagreed with is that removing those growth bonuses entirely was a good idea. Instead you need different forms of growth. For example, the bonuses for science development should be exponentially stronger so that they counter act the amount of decay in spread at all, so that they very noticeably effect growth in the same way spiritualist empires have a very noticeable effect on growth.

This isn't a case of post factual or even headed thinking. it's a case of you whining when people downvoted you. People have opinions, they get to express them. Just because we're disagreeing with you does not mean our opinions are unreasoned or invalid, they simply mean that we disagree with you, and further downvotes come from folks who dislike somebody who whines about being downvoted. Don't complain about losing the debate, better reason your arguments or adjust your position to include opinions other than your own (think up counter arguments to your stance, and presenting the counter-counter arguments ahead of time, is generally an acceptable method of doing so in such a way that doesn't undermine your own position).

But to bring us back onto topic.

I agree with the general thrust of your argument. Growth based empires in Stellaris tend to be far more valuable than non-growth based empires. The more planets you have the stronger you are.

What needs to be included are ways of cultivating power that are not related to the number of planets you own. Rare resources being cultivated, making some technologies -actually- unique and more likely to happen to low pop empires. Having science focused empires force multiply their low number of planets better.

Culture/Unity growth, I think, is a good way to begin implementing these systems, but it's a thorny problem that has to be considered in it's totality. Almost everything in the game right now is related to -some- form of growth in some form, that's pretty much what all grand strategy games are about; Growth Optimization. Spreading your culture/values/resource base/economy as wide as possible in order to outlast all other opposition. What's necessary is fine tuning that now.

 

[JamesTheClarke]

A really neat addition to the game, as before mentioned by others it looks quite Civ 5ish, but that is by no means a bad thing. In that regard though I have a question: will it be possible to redistribute invested points at a heavy penalty?

To explain why I'm asking:

The one thing that always bothered me about this mechanic in Civ 5 is that it feels very "gamey", meaning in doesn't fit the setting of a civilization but more that of a character in an RPG. Civilizations tend to shift a lot, often shedding entire strings of traditions if need be (example: martial tradition of Prussia / Germany before and after WW II ). While video game characters in RPGs just keep on levelling on top of a decision path chosen early on.

While I fully agree that a player should not be able to just switch entire tradition trees nilly-willy, it should be possible to do so at a heavy opportunity cost in order to reflect changes in how traditions affect civilizations. That way players can successfully role play the shift from martial to bureaucratic society if they so choose (for example prompted by joining a peaceful federation).

Opportunity costs could be handled twofold:

1.) one loses 20% of tradition points when a tradition shift is initiated. E.g. a player unlocked 10 traditions but want to shift in a different direction? after initiating the shift he'll start with 8 tradition points.

2.) one cannot allocate the remaining tradition points immediately. A new tradition focus should build up over time otherwise it feels very arcade-like again. Every X amount of years a player can reallocate 1 tradition point.

Personally, I feel that both penalties should be applied in order to truly make a reallocation of traditions a costly but rewarding decision. Due to the time investment and the loss of tradition points once all remaining points are reallocated it feels like an accomplishment and a "journey" to the player to have changed the role of traditions for one's faction.

 

[Birdy123]

Will Spiritualists/Religious Fanatics get love with these? I want to go on a Space Crusade and unite our brothers and sisters.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Is there anything to spend unity on, beyond traditions? Otherwise, it's just going to accumulate once you've got all the ones you want...

 

[Fugu]

Awesome feature. The social policy trees were one of my favorite parts of CiV and I'm glad you guys are adopting the same sort of idea. I have a couple of thoughts though. Firstly, I feel like the harmony and purity tree contradict each other. One promotes a diverse and happy population while the other promotes species domination. Obviously we can't read the tradition descriptions right now, but if they're not going to be exclusive please try to make it so that the descriptions from one don't contradict the descriptions from the other.

On that note, the only thing I am kind of disappointed in is the lack of exclusivity. I'm not sure how long it takes to adopt one complete tree so maybe the fact that there are only five traditions per tree are alright, but the fact you can adopt every tree sort of irks me. Because of that, the choice of which tradition to adopt is only short-term. We can always grab the other option later and, if we play long enough, eventually we will adopt all the traditions. I hope that in the future we can make more difficult choices when customizing our empires.

Other than those two gripes, this is probably going be my most favorite feature so far.

I think that the fact that they're going to affect your pop happines and factions limits your options, even if you technically could pick contradicting options. This could potentially mean creating a huge rift in your Empire.

 

[Swuul]

"Unity" is the resource that lets you buy traditions. It isn't a tradition itself. You accumulate Unity over time, with a few ways to increase it based on structures and certain unlocked Traditions. You can unlock traditions by spending Unity, and the cost to unlock traditions increases based on multiple factors- including how far you've spread yourself across the galaxy (because a larger empire is less unified).

I am quite capable to read Unity is used to unlock traditions, and you gain (as per Wiz) most of these traditions fastest by not establishing such a tradition with your actions.

It is illogical to gain a Tradition by not engaging in anything which would actually be considered a traditional behaviour. More importantly, it is not good game-designing to arbitrary penalise a player for doing well.

 

[dav77-b]

Unless explicitly said otherwise, free update. Everything detailed in this DD is free.

I did not expect that

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Coincidentally, this is another major reason for why it should be possible to drop Traditions. Otherwise you're really maneuvering yourself into a corner here as you'll be stuck with Traditions working against your actual population, causing permanent penalties, or you'll just try to enforce your original Ethos as long as possible to avoid negative repercussions of a change.

I hope this feature doesn't end up sabotaging the potential of Ethos shift, either forced (Factions) or voluntary (emergent storytelling).

I'd honestly expect Traditions to be toggle-able.

 

[Gamengervi]

Coincidentally, this is another major reason for why it should be possible to drop Traditions. Otherwise you're really maneuvering yourself into a corner here as you'll be stuck with Traditions working against your actual population, causing permanent penalties, or you'll just try to enforce your original Ethos as long as possible to avoid negative repercussions of a change.

I hope this feature doesn't end up sabotaging the potential of Ethos shift, either forced (Factions) or voluntary (emergent storytelling).

Yes, one of the things I was going to write about was being able to drop traditions both for gameplay purposes and role-playing purposes. One of the problems is concerning the fact that they are presented in the form of a tree (which I do like). What happens if you drop a tradition that was required for another tradition that you've already unlocked? Will they both be dropped? Can factions, rebels, or other empires force you to drop traditions such as the flesh tithe?

I'd honestly expect Traditions to be toggle-able.

Yes, this might work. One possibility is that disabling a tradition that makes one type of POP happy or that one type of POP approves of could provide the opposite effect and make them unhappy. There should also probably be a time limit before you can toggle something back on and off again. This could also go with what I posted above about being forced or coerced into changing traditions by other entities and could provide a bridge in order to integrate the system with the 'space UN' mentioned in an earlier diary.

 

[Moonshadow101]

My issue with the system as described is that while it is a buff to smaller empires and a neat customization feature, it only accomplishes those two things on a temporary basis. Over the course of a long game, larger empires will inevitably catch up with their smaller counterparts, and when everyone eventually has every tradition, there's no customization.

If you want the system to have any meaning in the long run, it needs hard caps, not just throttles.

 

[Swuul]

Good thing the throttle factors aren't arbitrary, then, and that they're implemented with very specific reasons in mind both mechanically and thematically.

I am not sure what you are refering to. But PDOX games have a well-established history on how to make games more challenging if you grow too fast. Be it increased corruption as seen in EU:Rome, be it friction between nationalities as in Vicky2, be it demesne juggling like in CK2, etc.

This Unity -> Tradition is quite comparable at how fast you gain leaders or diplomats in Vicky2. If we took the Unity -> Tradition to Vicky, Haiti would have the greatest military leaders and the smoothest diplomats in the world, because as a small peaceful country it would have high Unity generation and thus could pick the suitable Traditions with Unity. Meanwhile a Prussia which turned to Germany through diplomacy and wars would have lousy diplomats and lousy generals, because obviously a rapidly expanding country will have low Unity and thus can't pick up the required Traditions for good diplomats or leaders.

A game with such a mechanic would just stink, wouldn't it?

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I am not sure what you are refering to. But PDOX games have a well-established history on how to make games more challenging if you grow too fast. Be it increased corruption as seen in EU:Rome, be it friction between nationalities as in Vicky2, be it demesne juggling like in CK2, etc.

This Unity -> Tradition is quite comparable at how fast you gain leaders or diplomats in Vicky2. If we took the Unity -> Tradition to Vicky, Haiti would have the greatest military leaders and the smoothest diplomats in the world, because as a small peaceful country it would have high Unity generation and thus could pick the suitable Traditions with Unity. Meanwhile a Prussia which turned to Germany through diplomacy and wars would have lousy diplomats and lousy generals, because obviously a rapidly expanding country will have low Unity and thus can't pick up the required Traditions for good diplomats or leaders.

A game with such a mechanic would just stink, wouldn't it?

Because you toooooootally know exactly how the system is balanced, how viable filling any given tree is, what the traits inside the tree do re: benefits, how those benefits compare in utility for small vs. large empires...

Take off your grump goggles, maybe.

 

[wthree]

I am not sure what you are refering to. But PDOX games have a well-established history on how to make games more challenging if you grow too fast. Be it increased corruption as seen in EU:Rome, be it friction between nationalities as in Vicky2, be it demesne juggling like in CK2, etc.

This Unity -> Tradition is quite comparable at how fast you gain leaders or diplomats in Vicky2. If we took the Unity -> Tradition to Vicky, Haiti would have the greatest military leaders and the smoothest diplomats in the world, because as a small peaceful country it would have high Unity generation and thus could pick the suitable Traditions with Unity. Meanwhile a Prussia which turned to Germany through diplomacy and wars would have lousy diplomats and lousy generals, because obviously a rapidly expanding country will have low Unity and thus can't pick up the required Traditions for good diplomats or leaders.

A game with such a mechanic would just stink, wouldn't it?

While it's impossible to tell at the moment, from the looks of it (and from previous paradox games) Unity will be related to how consolidated your empire is. So if it's just an absolute mess, you'll have low unity, while if it runs effectively you'll have high unity. The point being that a smaller empire is easier to consolidate, but it's still possible to do it effectively in a larger one.

Think literacy/industrialization in Vicky 2.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

Yes, because that is what Wiz said.

The same Wiz that also said this, I assume?

Unhappy factions, minority species and slaves all increase the cost of adoption Traditions further, though these effects can be offset or even canceled out entirely by adopting the right Traditions for the empire you intend to build.

There are other ways to gain unity as well, some ethos/tradition specific.

The fact is that you're arguing from a baseless set of assumptions, namely that empire size is the only/most significant factor in unlocking traditions, with *no* knowledge on the actual balance of it. A large empire doing lots of whatever Supremacy actions increase their Unity gain may very well be able to keep up with or surpass a small isolationistic empire. Hell, as far as we know the very first Tradition in the Supremacy tree might as well remove the cost increase for planet size or pop size or whatever metric they've decided to use to measure empire size. The phrase you quoted is talking about "overall", and in that case it is just fine.

 

[Schimmelpfennig]

Expansion: Focuses on growth through rapid colonization.
Domination: Focuses on maintaining control over your population and subjects.
Prosperity: Focuses on economic growth.
Harmony: Focuses on maintaining a happy and diverse population.
Supremacy: Focuses on growth through military conquest.
Purity: Focuses on strength through homogenity and dominion over other species.
Exploration: Focuses on exploration and scientific discovery.

While I am glad individualism finally is an ethic which can compete with spiritualism (or add to it as well), I think this implementation will further increase balancing problems of ethics.

It seems totally clear to me anything spiritual plus harmony/expansion will still blow most other approaches out of the water. Also xenophobes/slavers will find some strong boosts again, while most middle of the road and reasonable approaches will take a lot more effort and totally fail in min-maxed multiplayer (...and is there any other but min-maxed multiplayer on Paradox games?)

Still fanatic spiritualism plus anything should rule and it looks like you will just create slightly more variants of playing this. It gives you more options to finetune your empire, but the variety in competitive approaches still is missing.



PS: If you want some real variety in ethics, you need to remove growth bonuses completely from ethics as growth/happiness combos alway outrun any other approach. Whatever other bonus you receive in your empire, in most cases it just matters as soon as you can work a tile.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Still fanatic spiritualism plus anything should rule and it looks like you will just create slightly more variants of playing this. It gives you more options to finetune your empire, but the variety in competitive approaches still is missing.

I actually consider Fanatic Materialist / Pacifist to be the best combo in my past few games.


(Remember that I have seen things that you have not seen.)

 

[Demantiae]

Looks like this is the update that makes the game. These mechanics were hinted at in the base game but we all know Paradox can do better. All their games have that one update/dlc that really makes it shine. For Stellaris this will be it. Can't wait!