• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #206: Directing Nemesis

Hello everyone!

Today I thought I would talk more about the process of directing an expansion such as Nemesis.

As we’ve talked about in the past, finding a strong theme is one of the most important things that we do. Whenever we’ve had ideas (and there are many) we usually categorize them in a “box”. Each of our expansions has picked features from different “boxes”; Utopia was about internal politics and customization, Apocalypse was about warfare, Megacorp was about economy, and Federations was about diplomacy.

Along the way there’s usually more ideas in a box than we can fit into an expansion, so many of the ideas we’ve had for previous expansions get moved to a new expansion. For example, the “diplomacy box” contained too many good ideas that we wanted to work with, so Federations focused more on “good” diplomacy, whereas Nemesis focuses more on “evil” diplomacy.

Maintaining a strong theme for an expansion is very important, as it makes it easier for the players to forge strong fantasies and to build up excitement for those ideas. A more focused expansion also has more opportunities for features to interact, so it's also possible to have those deeper interactions in the game that we know many of you appreciate.

Although it is important to maintain a strong theme for a DLC, we also want to make sure that any expansion we create also contains something that caters to different types of players. For example, if Federations has a lot of focus on cooperation and diplomacy, it was a good idea to add the Juggernaut so that players who enjoy the more belligerent side of the game also get some new toys to play with.

Nemesis
Becoming the Crisis, and forming a Galactic Imperium through the Galactic Community, are both examples of ideas we had that were related to diplomacy is some fashion. With the Galactic Community in place, it made sense to allow players to play “the baddies” which aims to destroy the galaxy, and by continuation it made a lot of sense to add a feature that aims to be the counterforce to such threats.

Where Federations focused on cooperation and more friendly diplomacy, the goal of Nemesis was to focus more on building up conflicts between opposing forces. We really wanted to underline how a crisis can threaten the galaxy, and then a champion (the custodian) can rise to attempt to stop it.

We also wanted to create more opportunities for a balance of power to shift, so we wanted to continue with the idea of the custodian and how power can corrupt. By allowing the custodian to turn the galactic community into the galactic imperium, we were able to continue the trend of different types of crises that can occur in the galaxy. Although not perhaps a threat to all life in the galaxy, the Galactic Imperium (and a possible rebellion) was still intended to very much be considered a diplomatic crisis of sorts.

From my perspective I’m very happy with how we’ve managed to take these ideas from earlier and really bind them together in a very thematic sense in Nemesis. It’s not often that we can take so many powerful fantasies and put them together in such a way, so it's very fun to have been able to take this holistic approach.

Espionage
I’ve wanted to make an espionage system for quite some time, as it's been a goal for me as a designer. I don’t like when espionage systems are too deterministic, or when you just sit and wait on a progress bar, after which you’ll either succeed or fail.

I wanted our espionage system to contain more storytelling and the archaeology system that I originally designed for Ancient Relics really allows for that. I like that the system plays out in phases, similar to a siege in EU4, but allows for a lot more storytelling by inserting random events and stories in the “main story” of the content itself.

With the learnings from the archaeology system, I wanted to make our espionage system work similarly. As a game director, I’m not only responsible for the creation vision of the game, but also for scope (how large a feature can be, and where we spend our development time). I knew that by basing the system on what we did with archaeology, we would be able to save time that could be better spent elsewhere. Implementing UI is actually quite time consuming with the tech Stellaris uses, so any time we can save by not having to make UIs from scratch is a good idea in my opinion. By reusing certain parts, you can also reduce the amount of risk because we already have a pretty good idea of what to expect from the system or feature. Any time we spend reusing parts can be spent on polish, bug fixing or implementing cool new UIs for other features. It doesn’t come entirely free though, and you need to make sure you make enough adaptations where it's needed.

When it comes to what the espionage system itself should achieve, I wanted information gathering to be a large part of it. Espionage systems are hard to get right, because they can feel too predictive or boring, and you also have to constantly be considering the experience of the one being targeted by espionage.

Something we also have to consider when adding a new system like this is that the player only has so much capacity to interact with existing systems. We need to create a system that is fun and engaging when you choose to use it, and be aware that it's quite risky to add new systems that the player is forced to interact with. Cognitive load is definitely something that is tricky when designing for GSG games. I feel like the espionage system has hit a good mark with not being mandatory to play the game, but also being fun and interesting when you want to use it.

We couldn’t achieve everything I could have dreamed of, and although I would very much liked to have seen a more interactive counter-espionage part of the system, I’m very happy overall with how espionage turned out. Although not perfect, the content we have there and the way it works feels very good.

The basic system of espionage, just like the archaeology system, is a part of the free update to the base game, which makes it easier for us - or modders - to add more content later down the line. Trying to make the systems themselves a part of the free update has helped us a lot in the past, and sometimes we’ve even changed systems that were entirely a part of a DLC to become free. Ascension Perks (introduced in Utopia) were originally exclusive to Utopia, but we really wanted to use the system so we made it a part of the free game and changed it so that only some of the Ascension Perks themselves (like biological ascension) were a part of Utopia. We really like this approach, and hopefully you do too. Everyone wins!

Intel
Because we wanted information-gathering to be such an important part of the espionage system, we also thought a new Intel system would be necessary to make that a really good experience for the player.

I never liked how you’d find out so much about another alien empire as soon as you established communication with them. I wanted alien empires to feel more mysterious, and just as you explore the galaxy, you have to “explore” these alien empires to learn more about them.

The focus of the Intel system was very much to enhance the early- and mid game by focusing on this new angle of “exploration”. Even if you are not a warlike or diplomatic player, it should still be fun to learn more about the galaxy and its inhabitants. Because of all the things that the Intel system touches, and how it interacts with other features, it needs to be a free update to the game. The entire Intel system is a part of the free update and should be quite moddable.

From a scoping aspect, Intel definitely ended up being way more expensive than we had originally thought due to all the edgecases and all the small places in the game where the new system would interact with current existing features. Reworking UIs to sometimes hide information is not as easy as it may sound, especially in a game as large as Stellaris.

As a game director I also need to consider where I spend my development time, and if I put too much development time on working on a free feature like Intel, then the DLC features may become too thin and that players may consider the value of the DLC to be low. It’s a careful balance between adding enough new features in the free update vs. adding new features to a DLC, because both are important for different reasons.

In the end though, I think it was definitely worth spending the extra time to make the Intel system as it currently is.

Become the Crisis
The idea to allow players to become the crisis is not a new one, but it's one that has been with us for quite some time. It’s not until now that we’ve finally been able to give it a go, and I can’t think of a better expansion for it than with Nemesis.

The goal with the “BtC” feature was to allow the player to perform “evil” deeds and unlock more powerful rewards along the way to galactic domination.

The system went through a couple of different iterations, but it wasn’t until we added a more clear progression path with “crisis levels” that I felt like we were truly on the right track.

The new UI for BtC feels very awesome and with a very visible progression path it also feels better as a more explicit challenge. Within game design, explicit challenges are those that are posed directly to the player (like a quest), while implicit challenges are those that the player can make up themselves (like befriending all other empires as the Blorg).

An inherent weakness with many of our GSG games is that we do not have a lot of explicit challenges, which can make it hard for new players to figure out what they are supposed to do. If you are entirely new to the game, it can be hard to come up with implicit challenges yourself. National Focuses in HOI4, Missions in EU4 or Imperator are examples of features where we’ve successfully added more explicit challenges to our games. Implicit challenges go hand in hand with replayability, and they can also be more powerful experiences to the player, because the player is the sole reason behind it.

With the BtC feature, we’ve added objectives to help lead the player in becoming more menacing and an increasing threat to the galaxy. Although not as direct as perhaps a quest or a mission, they should help a lot and hopefully motivate the player.

We originally had ideas for the BtC feature to come in multiple shapes (ranging from a destructive force like an end-game crisis, to a subjugating force like the marauder, or a manipulative force that preys in the shadows), but due to time constraints we had to make the choice of either making one fantasy stronger and more engaging, or to have multiple versions that felt more watered-down. I had to make the choice, and focusing on the destructive fantasy made the most sense to me, due to multiple reasons, but simply put it's also the fantasy that makes the most sense.

After the dust has settled I’m very happy with where the Become the Crisis feature is, and I hope you will all enjoy deploying your Star-Eaters to consume the galaxy, going from one star to the next.

Custodian & Galactic Imperium
With the risk of sounding like a broken record, I want to highlight how much I enjoy the cycle of electing a custodian to fight a crisis, and then for the custodian to take power and become a new, diplomatic crisis. It’s very thematic, and it's a fantasy that we’re very aware of from popular culture (and to some degree, history).

I don’t have as many insights to share for these two features, as they were largely handled by one of our trusted and senior content designers. The idea and rough design for the Galactic Imperium was borne in association with the Galactic Community, and we’re very happy for the chance to add it to the game in Nemesis.

Although the Galactic Imperium is perhaps not the most ubiquitous and common feature to come across while playing, it's very evocative and fits like a glove when it comes to player fantasy.

Rounding up
In the end I don’t think you can ever really create a perfect expansion, and it takes a lot of experience to know what gives you the best chance with the resources you have. There’s a lot more detail that goes into all of the things I talked about, but I hope this dev diary was somewhat interesting to you, as I tried to give some more insights into how to direct an expansion and some of the thoughts one may come across while doing so.

I also want to thank my team for doing such fantastic work with Nemesis. Without them, none of this would have materialized.

----

That’s it for this week, folks! We’ll be back next week on April 1st, the day most famous for being exactly 2 weeks before the release of 3.0 ‘Dick’ and Nemesis.
 
  • 134Like
  • 33Love
  • 29
  • 4
  • 4
Reactions:
It is not just enemies, there are a lot of minor issues that can prevent federations.

And I'm not talking about it being easy, I'm talking about it being possible.
Which it right now isn't.
I agree, but that's also not what I responded to.
 
Don't answer a question with a counter question ;). And i explained that already. It's all about diplomacy and making the galaxy to a safer place
Actually, yes I should. It is on you to explain why this is actually an issue.

Why is not being able to make enemies make amends an issue?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually, yes I should. It is on you to explain why this is actually an issue.

Why is not being able to make enemies make amends an issue?
Ok, for keeping the peace... I want to play this game with as less warfare possible. I simply don't like it and i really like diplomacy, espionage and all forms of subtile manipulation to shape the galaxy to my willing without a single shot. And it's a logical option to mediate between two friends that fight each other. There are plenty of examples in the real world for such an behaviour. Any counter arguments?
 
  • 4Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
LOL Shaping the galaxy to your designs without firing a shot? How does that work? All it takes is someone catching wind of your machinations and suddenly you're in a war.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
LOL Shaping the galaxy to your designs without firing a shot? How does that work? All it takes is someone catching wind of your machinations and suddenly you're in a war.
That's why you gotta be really good at machinations to do it. Neither of Asimov's Foundations had a strong military yet both shaped the galaxy in their own ways.
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Well okay, sure, I just think if you want to roleplay one of the Foundations, then Stellaris probably isn't the game to do it. It's pretty much only good for war type stuff, given its map painter origins.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Well okay, sure, I just think if you want to roleplay one of the Foundations, then Stellaris probably isn't the game to do it. It's pretty much only good for war type stuff, given its map painter origins.
It's a sandbox with an emphasis on roleplaying a wide variety of sci-fi tropes, if parts of it aren't up to scratch relative to others then the solution is to polish and improve them, not say "yeah don't bother with the sub-par bits". If it was only ever meant to be a warring map painter we wouldn't have things like government options, ethical factions and all that other stuff that doesn't really matter to war and could currently do with fleshing out more.
 
  • 10
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It's a sandbox...

I'm talking actual engine limitations, like currently it does not support joining existing wars. You have to start a separate war to help out someone who isn't yet an ally. If you want all this RP stuff implemented, you'll either need a different game, or Stellaris 2.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Good question, and ironically enough, it's army/invasion.

I originally designed (early/rough design) a new invasion system for apocalypse, but we never had the time to implement it. The army/invasion design actually predates the archaeology one (and archaeology was based off of it). As fun as it could be to redo invasions, it's very low on my list of priorities. With the kind of game Stellaris is, I don't really see the value in spending a significant amount of development time to improve the invasion system. The whole rework would need to be in the free update, and when you compare it to other things that could be added for free (like the Intel system), it just doesn't come out on top.

My stance is, and as sad as it is to say it, invasions and ground combat are not a priority for Stellaris. That doesn't mean I will exclude any attempt to improve those areas, or to make content that lies very close to it, it just means that I don't think its worth putting a very significant amount of effort into overhauling it entirely. It's the kind of thing I would probably aim to overhaul completely for a sequel. I think building armies and sending transport ships to invade is quite tedious and not very rewarding. We all know it would feel better if you could attach assault troops to your ships, and use them either for invasions or boarding actions. We'll see what the future entails, but it's unlikely to be a priority in the near future.

Outside of that, I think a similar system for primitives could be very fun, and could provide a good amount of value for less development time cost.
This kind of candid insight is always very interesting to hear!

With that said, I’m just going to take this opportunity to say Stellaris 2 deserves a manpower mechanic. :0
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
I'm talking actual engine limitations, like currently it does not support joining existing wars. You have to start a separate war to help out someone who isn't yet an ally. If you want all this RP stuff implemented, you'll either need a different game, or Stellaris 2.
I'm not asking for a perfect galaxy simulator where you can do anything you can possibly think of, and I know engine limitations exist, but "don't hope for more subtle ways of influencing the galaxy because it's built on a map painter skeleton and a handful of things are impossible" is a bit extreme.
This kind of candid insight is always very interesting to hear!

With that said, I’m just going to take this opportunity to say Stellaris 2 deserves a manpower mechanic. :0
I would like some representation of warship crews and such (at least until sapient AI and androids render them obsolete), but I'm not sure how well manpower as the other games have it could translate so well into a game where your empire's population can be so hugely varied (unless you were to have a separate pool for every species in your empire and give them preferences, e.g. draw Lithoid pops for extra-durable ground troops but the quick-thinking Molluscoid void dwellers who learnt not to need air can man the starfleet, but that would quickly result in an absurd level of micromanagement and UI hell). Plus cloning and droid armies would render the entire mechanic obsolete once they're researched.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
This kind of candid insight is always very interesting to hear!

With that said, I’m just going to take this opportunity to say Stellaris 2 deserves a manpower mechanic. :0
Technically Stellaris already has a manpower mechanic, in that you can only build one army per pop of that species. It's just that you are basically never going to run into that cap besides not being able to make all your armies one species you only have a few pops of.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
That would be unfortunate.

Although Federations was the diplomacy update and Stellaris still has really weak diplomatic options compared to any other Paradox game.
Really don't understand why people say this at all. EU4 is just as week at diplomacy as all that game has to offer is war, war and war.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You deeply misunderstand my intent here. I fully endorse the idea that buying DLCs is how you fund continuous development of the game, and I've repeatedly defended the DLC model of Paradox, because it allows for stuff like CKII being supported for nearly ten years of additional contents and improvements. I have absolutely no problem paying a bit more for content if that means we keep getting more in the future.

However, I'm not made out of money, and I have a problem with buying content that will decrease my enjoyment of the game, exactly because it discourages me from financing said development. This is not me saying "booo Paradox for forcing me to pay for stuff", it's me saying "guys, I'd like to give you my money, but there's part of the content that's actively driving me away". There's a difference between paying a little bit more than what you think something's worth, and paying for something you genuinely don't want on top of something you do. It's not even a question of price, if I had to chose between paying 8€ (or 10, or 12) to get the espionage, or 8€ (or 10, or 12) to get the espionage + Nemesis, I'd still pick the former, because the Nemesis stuff is something I'd like to avoid. To make a (very subjective) parallel, it feels to me like if Sunset Invasion and Legacy of Rome were a single DLC. And it's not even a new phenomenon, the devs themselves added an in-game toggle for Xeno-Compatibility and the Caravaneers, because they realised that some features could actually be an annoyance for some people.

I'm not chastising the devs, who are just trying to add content they find fun to the game. I'm just pointing out that people have different focuses and preferences and views on how the game should be, and when you bundle wildly different stuff together, you run the risk that some people might be driven away instead of encouraged. Having DLCs with a narrower focus prevents that.
I have zero interest in playing as the crisis (I always turn them off when ever I start a new game) so if that is all there was to this DLC I would never buy it. This DLC also focusing on espionage really sparks my interest so I have a reason to buy it now. Also Paradox's DLC always cost less then a week worth of food shopping (they last much, much longer too) so it hardly like your spending any serious about of money on DLC. if you don't like what a DLC offers then don't buy it. With Paradox games you don't need to buy all the DLC to have an amazing time. I don't own all the DLC to Hearts Of Iron 4 or EU4 and never feel like I'm missing out and still have an awesome time when ever I pay those games.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...s.com/Crisis&usg=AOvVaw0NYDq9wIM53Hx74deSjJqR

 
  • 2
Reactions:
But you kind of do need to see it from a business perspective:
Making something good for a lot of people is a lot more economically successful than making something perfect for half of the amount of customers. Expecting people to risk their livelihoods to improve their products a little is a very unreasonable demand.

I do agree the DLCs would be better if they were more focused and in depth about a particular theme, but it's just not realistic as it would be a lot riskier for them.
Just take Espionage as an example. There have been hundreds of comments of how people dislike espionage mechanics in grand strategy / 4x games in the last dev diaries. If you'd make an espionage exclusive DLC all those people would probably not buy it. And going by loudness of these people i do think they are a significant portion of the fanbase. Thus it would be a significant revenue loss.

If you don't like this, you should probably work on abolishing capitalism instead of blaming the devs for making compromises in design like that for their DLCs.
I don't know if the majority of people who play Paradox games use this forum. I've been playing Paradox games since 2005 and only started using this forum a few years ago. My dad loves playing Paradox games but would never come on a forum like this as in is own words "he can think of better ways to spend this free time."
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Ok, for keeping the peace... I want to play this game with as less warfare possible. I simply don't like it and i really like diplomacy, espionage and all forms of subtile manipulation to shape the galaxy to my willing without a single shot. And it's a logical option to mediate between two friends that fight each other. There are plenty of examples in the real world for such an behaviour. Any counter arguments?

If they are friends, they cannot be enemies like you said in your previous comments in this section. ;)

Now, talking seriously, you cannot wait that the devs will cover each and every diplomatic option available -- that would require a certain amount of micromanagement and annoy many of the players that dislike such thing. And there is also the problem of the limitations of the game engine. Remember: no game is 100% perfect.
 
Ok, for keeping the peace... I want to play this game with as less warfare possible. I simply don't like it and i really like diplomacy, espionage and all forms of subtile manipulation to shape the galaxy to my willing without a single shot. And it's a logical option to mediate between two friends that fight each other. There are plenty of examples in the real world for such an behaviour. Any counter arguments?
I don't know if you been following human history but for the most of that human history war has played a major part of it. If humans get into space like in Stellaris then the other species out in the Milky Way better be ready for war because humans on the whole love making war. I'm sure their is going to be other species out in the Milky Way that also love a good war as much as humans do, maybe even more. As much as you would like war to take a back set (I like it too as well) that is never going to happen as the a war in the future will play the biggest part of most empires economies (especially the superpowers) just like it does today.
Also it's very hard to get some counties today to put side their differences and make peace. Take Israel and Palestine as an example, so just imagine how nearly impossible it is going to be to get to different species which you have very little in conman with who's ways and culture you barely understand to make peace.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
that would require a certain amount of micromanagement and annoy many of the players that dislike such thing.
Players which don't want to mediate or sabotage relations between empires just shouldn't do it. If they don't, nothing would change for them, but players who wish, would get the option. And I assume would be willing to engage in this micromanagement.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
If they are friends, they cannot be enemies like you said in your previous comments in this section.
Clarification example: Both empires are friendly to me and i want maybe open up a federation. But both are rivals to each other. So why shouldn't i try to mediate between them and maybe make them allies after a certain amount of time. I think thats quite reasonable.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Not everyone likes of micromanagement -- it's a boring waste of time and it ruins every game where such thing is a feature.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions: