Stellaris Dev Diary #237 - Reworking Unity, Part One

[Morcroft]

I'm worried about what this will do to Machine Empires, especially Rogue Servitors and Driven Assimilators: this feels like they're dependency on organic pops (either as cyborgs or as bio-trophies) is going to greatly hinder them. Already Rogue Servitors have issues because moving organic pops around is more expensive for them than any other empire in the game.

Personally I hope Gestalt empires in general, but Machine Empires specifically, don't have as much of a Unity upkeep as bio-empires: they are literally a single, collective consciousness. While you can still have deviancy become a problem for them, I feel like it should be substantially harder to achieve.
In my vision I see it as:
-The wider a bio-empire expands the greater the internal unity production needs to be to avoid rebellions and parts of the empire breaking away.
-Gestalt empires can spread wider than bio-empires, but instead of rebellion the drones become erratic and "damage" the colony, aka: the further (in a straight line, not by hyperlanes) a colony is from the Gestalt capital, the less pops can be supported on that colony and the more common "disasters" can occur.

Thematically, what makes Gestalt empires terrifying is the unified front it presents against bio-empires: here is a single consciousness controlling millions, if not billions, of drones that it can throw at any problem at any time. The Borg in Star Trek, the Formians in Ender's Game, so on and so forth.
At the same time, these single-consciousness empires can also "go tall" by turning inward: instead of having thousands of planets and mountains of resources, the consciousness exists on a small number of planets but is amazingly intelligent and efficient.

So yeah, hopefully Paradox is keeping Gestalts in mind with these reworks.

PS: please give us some unique looking ships for Machine and Organic empires.

 

[Anarcomu]

Fleet is another spammable source, after all. I think, that planet capitals can add little values of influence too, graded by planet development level. I seems weird that you can get influence by fleet but not with your planets, for example

Mmmmh, like others have said, your capacity to field a large fleet make sense in offering capacity to project on international politics, aka influence.
And, it might not be clear, but I did understand that you get a fixe amount of influence per month, which is then reduced if your fleet doesn't match your empire size.
This way, you can never get more than (say) 2 influence from fleet, regardless of your empire size, whilst giving (says) 0.2 influence per capital building means that there is few limit on how many influence you would gain per month, with wider empire getting an advantage.

Considering, of course, that influence from ship works the way I think it works.

 

[DeanTheDull]

This does sound very interesting. So somehow unity is going to turn into repeatable techs like 5% mineral output bonus, Energy weapon attack speed, naval capacity?

He probably means that unity will get a repeatable modifier.

 

[fourteenfour]

So you are saying it will take longer for a large empire to research something because of sprawl? Are we really going back to that level of stupidity? Seriously the idea that a large empire cannot outstrip smaller empires across a great many things is just being silly.

the reason tech rush and such was so easy is because the bonehead code that did not penalize the production of research and unity but instead temporarily increased the cost of the perk or tech based on an instant in time, meaning you could just turn admin capacity on and off on demand and magically reduces costs back to nothing and then swap them back when you know you have sufficient banked research or unity

 

[TheRevanchist25]

TBH, I don’t like how Feudal Society became a mix of two different concepts: cheaper leaders, and more trusting subjects. I feel that this civic had a lot of potential to empower and expand on vassalization, rather than to provide more meaningful buffs to an entirely unrelated mechanic.

Yea honestly that seems like a totally illogical change to the civic. It should 100% buff a Vassalization playstyle instead.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I'm worried about what this will do to Machine Empires, especially Rogue Servitors and Driven Assimilators: this feels like they're dependency on organic pops (either as cyborgs or as bio-trophies) is going to greatly hinder them. Already Rogue Servitors have issues because moving organic pops around is more expensive for them than any other empire in the game.

Personally I hope Gestalt empires in general, but Machine Empires specifically, don't have as much of a Unity upkeep as bio-empires: they are literally a single, collective consciousness. While you can still have deviancy become a problem for them, I feel like it should be substantially harder to achieve.
In my vision I see it as:
-The wider a bio-empire expands the greater the internal unity production needs to be to avoid rebellions and parts of the empire breaking away.
-Gestalt empires can spread wider than bio-empires, but instead of rebellion the drones become erratic and "damage" the colony, aka: the further (in a straight line, not by hyperlanes) a colony is from the Gestalt capital, the less pops can be supported on that colony and the more common "disasters" can occur.

Thematically, what makes Gestalt empires terrifying is the unified front it presents against bio-empires: here is a single consciousness controlling millions, if not billions, of drones that it can throw at any problem at any time. The Borg in Star Trek, the Formians in Ender's Game, so on and so forth.
At the same time, these single-consciousness empires can also "go tall" by turning inward: instead of having thousands of planets and mountains of resources, the consciousness exists on a small number of planets but is amazingly intelligent and efficient.

So yeah, hopefully Paradox is keeping Gestalts in mind with these reworks.

PS: please give us some unique looking ships for Machine and Organic empires.

Machine Empires had the strongest unity/admin jobs in the current game (coordinators are 15-18 admin sprawl, evaluators are 1 unity better than culture workers), and if that relative strength carries forward they'd be getting a relative buff since everyone else would lose incidental unity roles. Servitors are more subject to issue, but that depends if bio-trophies get a unity buff and even if not, you can take Memorialist which is reasonably strong once you start stacking them.

On your broader point, I imagine they'll lose their admin sprawl penalties, since that's unavoidable, and will have a different factor in how gestalt-vs-not-hive/machine pops affect the pop admin sprawl. A machine or hive discount for assimilate pops, but penalty for livestock/grid amalgation pops, would seem to fit the theme of making early-game conquests cost more.

 

[DeanTheDull]

So you are saying it will take longer for a large empire to research something because of sprawl? Are we really going back to that level of stupidity? Seriously the idea that a large empire cannot outstrip smaller empires across a great many things is just being silly.

And if they focus their resources, they will.

The implication so far isn't that wide empires will be worse at tech, but that wide empires will be worse at traditions in a either-or sense. You can focus on science and get the techs, or unity and get the traditions, but you won't get the traditions before the late-game if you don't take away your science focus.

 

[TempestM]

UPD:
Here's an idea: have both admin cap and penalties from independent empire sprawl.
With first you would have to actively do something to increase admin cap, just like now. Penalties would be in a similar way to how it's now or not, but as long as you're in the cap, no penalties.

The second would be something like Corruption from R2TW: you would always have some passive penalties that increase slowly with each pop or each settlement, and they can't be contained by staying inside some cap, but won't be as visible until you go wide too much, because they won't be presented as a "penalty for going wide" but as a steady price rise for expanding your empire more and more
Whether should you be able to actively negate this Corruption penalty is up to debate, depending on what penalties the first usual cap would have

After thinking about how Total War did it, added an idea to my initial post

 

[theTyke]

These changes sound absolute horrible.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I just hope wide playstyle is not killed on the spot with those sprawl change.

Investing ressources to war and actually commiting is a gamble that involve way more risk that just turtling in one corner and I feel like there should be some kind of trade off.

Wide will probably still be very strong anyway - 30 scientists with a 300% tech cost penalty is the same as 10 scientists with no penalty.

Overall sounds good, but I do wonder if this is taking too much away from influence?

For example, influence now only seems to be used for:

• Starbase building
• Claims (which can be circumvented through total wars)
• GC resolutions (which are a finite influence sink)
• Relic activation (though thematically this would make more sense with unity)

And that’s it?

So once you’ve built all of your starbases and the galaxy fills up, influence doesn’t really do anything, and also now makes you wonder why does it exist?

I also fear that making influence generation modified by fleet size again places emphasis on warmongering empires, so reduces pacifist playstyles ability to compete when expanding

You forgot ring worlds and habitats. You can use the influence to keep spamming them.

anti-state ethic pops unhappy with being conquered.

The spiritualists will learn to enjoy their new mechanical bodies.

On second thought, this is a bit amusing because who's doing the purging if my own pops aren't there?

Probably the garrison armies.

Keep in mind there is a Tech called ASCENSION THEORY which is +1 Ascension perk. I have criticised this tech in the past because it makes it so research focused empires will always catch up on AP's without having to invest into unity.

Honestly, this isn't a very good argument. Ascension theory is a super late tech. Even in an empire that doesn't speed through traditions, ascension theory will nine times out of ten be used on the 7th or 8th ascension perk, meaning it's probably going to be something like defender of the galaxy or the colossus project that isn't very relevant for most of the game. You will already have all of your important build-defining ascension perks by then.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

Ascension theory is a super late tech.

With the speed at which tech is researched, lategame techs are not late in the game. In the current game you can easily reach repeatables way before 2300. Compared to the pace of the game it is still very early. The game has changed so much that all the normal timelines no longer apply. Everyone is moving crisis date and midgame start date much earlier than their normal date. Personally I have never even played a game longer than 2430 or so because it just gets boring after 100 years of repeatables and nothing happening anymore.

 

[DeanTheDull]

With the speed at which tech is researched, lategame techs are not late in the game. In the current game you can easily reach repeatables way before 2300. Compared to the pace of the game it is still very early. The game has changed so much that all the normal timelines no longer apply. Everyone is moving crisis date and midgame start date much earlier than their normal date. Personally I have never even played a game longer than 2430 or so because it just gets boring after 100 years of repeatables and nothing happening anymore.

With the speed at which techs were researched. This isn't a change going into the current game, but the new system. Techs and ascension perks will be much slower due to the admin sprawl implications.

 

[TempestM]

Depends on the numbers of the new system. The tech even might be removed entirely and made into something else

 

[blahmaster6k]

With the speed at which tech is researched, lategame techs are not late in the game. In the current game you can easily reach repeatables way before 2300. Compared to the pace of the game it is still very early. The game has changed so much that all the normal timelines no longer apply. Everyone is moving crisis date and midgame start date much earlier than their normal date. Personally I have never even played a game longer than 2430 or so because it just gets boring after 100 years of repeatables and nothing happening anymore.

While true, the same is also said for unity on the current version. You typically can finish all traditions by the early 2300s even with "incidental" sources of unity as this dev diary calls them whether that be trade, technocracy, or just a few entertainers.

 

[oreopirate]

So you are saying it will take longer for a large empire to research something because of sprawl? Are we really going back to that level of stupidity? Seriously the idea that a large empire cannot outstrip smaller empires across a great many things is just being silly.

the reason tech rush and such was so easy is because the bonehead code that did not penalize the production of research and unity but instead temporarily increased the cost of the perk or tech based on an instant in time, meaning you could just turn admin capacity on and off on demand and magically reduces costs back to nothing and then swap them back when you know you have sufficient banked research or unity

I don't think you really read the dev diary. Research will take longer because you will be building less science labs and building a few more unity buildings to negate the worst of sprawl. The larger your empire gets, the more diverse it becomes, even internally. Think about the difference between something like New York (ecumenopoli planets), and the cornfields of Kansas (Agri-world), you honestly think that those citizens would vote and feel the same about everything? Or celebrate the same holidays or speak the same?
Wide play will only be a little weaker. Wait to pass judgement on how "stupid" something is until you have all the facts. Like Administrative sprawl penalties will work which is unknow right now.
What they are saying with this, is that larger empire might take longer to research something because of communication lines, local dialects or tradition, non standardized methods of doing things.

 

[evilcat]

We will see how it goes.
Very good that there are some major changes to unity it will bring fresh air.
The good thing about Stellaris is that every couple of month it is a bit different game. Same but different.
If you think this will bring wide down, you understimate our power, wide will always find a way.

 

[TempestM]

If you think this will bring wide down, you understimate our power, wide will always find a way.

The attempt on my sprawl has let me scarred and deformed... but my blobbing has never been stronger!

 

[DeanTheDull]

Thinking on the change to the admin system and how unavoidable it is, it occurs to me that it might be more palatable/feel like less of punishment for playing well if it's depiction/characterization communicates benefits as well as penalties.

Instead an ever-redder Bad Number of 'you are This Much over the Admin Cap, here's your nerf hammer,' it might be better to frame admin sprawl in terms of phases, which each phase having pluses and minuses. So in the sub-30 admin sprawl (the current start), you are characterized as as 'Emergent FTL power'- and you get bonuses to reflect how efficient/effective/unconstrained by size you are, say a bonus to hiring leaders and such. Then from size 30-50, you are a 'interstellar explorer,' and you lose the science boost, but also get a different boost- say to science ship survey speed. Then from size 50-100, you are 'experienced interstellar explorer,' with a tool tip characterization of 'distant researchers find it harder to coordinate at FTL distances, but-' and another boost fit for the period- say a boost to colony settlement.


This continues by stage, but in each stage when science penalties hit another benchmark, you also get some sort of bonus that is (presumably) important for the stage. To pick more arbitrary metrics- at 600-700, you are a 'galactic power', whose 'sprawling bureaucracy is a thing of constant complaint,' but who also gets a +X0 fleet cap. At 750, you become a 'great galactic power', and get +1 envoy. At 1000, you are such 'historical galactic presence' that pops empire-wide get double the happiness bonus from amenities in pride and you can even find some new dig sites of your own earlier history, which in turn pop up a few science/unity rewards to carry you on.


The point here is less the bonuses, and more the player psychology of feeling they are getting something new even as they pick up something bad. Even if, objectively, unimpeded science might be better than those power benchmarks, the boons could be something to look forward to rather than dreading pure penalties.

 

[methegrate]

With the speed at which tech is researched, lategame techs are not late in the game. In the current game you can easily reach repeatables way before 2300. Compared to the pace of the game it is still very early. The game has changed so much that all the normal timelines no longer apply. Everyone is moving crisis date and midgame start date much earlier than their normal date. Personally I have never even played a game longer than 2430 or so because it just gets boring after 100 years of repeatables and nothing happening anymore.

I really do think they need an across the board nerf of planetary production values. Collectively, jobs produce so many resources compared to what anything in the game costs. A lot of that could be helped by literally cutting job-based output by 50% or more. It would need some per-job balancing, but it's where I'd start. (For example, when it comes to producing strategic resources, they should literally move a decimal point.)

 

[Kaios26]

While the new unity systems themselves will basically come down to how interesting or intitutive they are in gameplay, my big concern is that this really pulls out the non-government parts of culture from Stellaris' simulation. As I go through the game, I keep wanting there to be a more visible domestic economy, so ever piece of food or consumer goods doesn't have be my direct responsibility, and if there isn't a job I made, people are suddenly unemployed. I could understand if this was simply a playstyle of the hyper-totalitarian, 100% space communism governments, every single empire plays this way, from nomial free-states, to literal hive minds. Cutting out at least the head canon of non-government sources of unity keeps making Stellaris more and more a tyranny simulator.

While I'm cautiously optimistic that these changes will be good for game-play, perhaps this will open up an opportunity to explore the more autonomous / non-governmental aspects of a space empire in future patches and DLC, because for right now those parts of the game are sorely lacking, and would add depth and richness to stories and gameplay.