As someone who stopped playing this game long ago, My opinion about sprawl changes

[happyscrub]

I come to see changes about the game time to time and I see this change got people upset. I'm here to say Empire management is part of the reason I stopped playing this game. It was TOO DAMN EASY!!!

When this game came out, it promised to simulate the troubles of managing an empire as it grew. And back in the day, they fulfilled that promise. Big empires would have to deal with rebellions, unhappy pops, and factions changes. This is what they sold us. But slowly after the years, that aspect of the game has been watered down to slight resource inefficiency. I have seen no rebellion in this game since before 2.0 I think. Back in the day, it was none stop action. You get a big empire and start to slack? BAM!!! You lose a world to a rebel force. or slave revolt.

Even with these sprawl changes, it doesn't fulfil the promises the made on this game years ago.

 

[moyang]

How about this comment from former Stellaris director: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/6m6r2o/_/djzlhex

 

[Victor1234]

How about this comment from former Stellaris director: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/6m6r2o/_/djzlhex

Thanks for linking! That excuse the designer gave was unconvincing and poor game design in action. Scroll down and read

Losing is fun when you know it was your own fault and you can improve for the next attempt (Proof: Every roguelike, Dwarf fortress, every platformer). Players will only throw their mouse and claim bullshit when the loss was completely out of their control.

This is something I agree with 100%. It requires the dev to put some thought into how to make it work though, so the player feels like their own actions caused the bad event to happen. Paradox games in the past have been too hung up on RNG 'comet sighted = -1 stability' design and the natural consequence is to avoid penalties altogether rather than frustrate players with poorly thought out random problems.

 

[MagnusDux]

Thanks for linking! That excuse the designer gave was unconvincing and poor game design in action. Scroll down and read



This is something I agree with 100%. It requires the dev to put some thought into how to make it work though, so the player feels like their own actions caused the bad event to happen. Paradox games in the past have been too hung up on RNG 'comet sighted = -1 stability' design and the natural consequence is to avoid penalties altogether rather than frustrate players with poorly thought out random problems.

100% agree. This was such a bad take by wiz. The reason players don't like the rebels mechanic in eu4 is because it's a poorly designed mechanic, you get a stack of rebels and have to spend manpower to put it down, and that's it, theres no strategy, nothing to manage, no decision-making by the player, there isn't even a immersive element to it. Now compare that to rebellions in ck2 for example, they can be much more destructive, if you loose you can be demoted from king to a small vassal, yet it's an incredibly fun component of the game. There's all sorts of strategies the player can employ to deal with rebellions, you can marry into you vassals family, conspire against them, bribe them with gold, land or a spot on the council. All these options have different costs and benefits so there's a strategy element o the system and it contributes heavly to the "emergent narrative" that is such a core component of paradox games.

 

[moyang]

100% agree. This was such a bad take by wiz. The reason players don't like the rebels mechanic in eu4 is because it's a poorly designed mechanic, you get a stack of rebels and have to spend manpower to put it down, and that's it, theres no strategy, nothing to manage, no decision-making by the player, there isn't even a immersive element to it. Now compare that to rebellions in ck2 for example, they can be much more destructive, if you loose you can be demoted from king to a small vassal, yet it's an incredibly fun component of the game. There's all sorts of strategies the player can employ to deal with rebellions, you can marry into you vassals family, conspire against them, bribe them with gold, land or a spot on the council. All these options have different costs and benefits so there's a strategy element o the system and it contributes heavly to the "emergent narrative" that is such a core component of paradox games.

Actually Wiz talked about this aspect in the post too:

There is some truth to this, but it isn't that simple, as the EU4 example shows. The player could clearly identify that the reason they lost to rebels was because they tried to take over a vast swathe of territory without having sufficient resources to control it, but even so they would simply get angry and quit.

Losing tends to be 'fun' when there's a clear, identifiable cause and more importantly, an identifiable opponent. When you can say "damn that Russia/United Kingdom/Glodblax Empire, I'll get you next time!". That's (part of) why revolts in CK2 tend to be less frustrating, and why I think the civil war mechanic in EU: Rome was so good: It's a vassal/general/politician in your empire rising up against you as a clearly identifiable antagonist rather than a nebulous mass of 'rebels' that seem more like the game trying to take away your fun experience.

It really comes down to the fact that the leaders system isn't terribly developed and not really tied into the politics at all. Leaders can be hired and dismissed at will and lack any real identity or motives, they're mostly just stat buffs with a portrait. There's nothing preventing us from developing leaders more and expanding on the role they play in factions, but it isn't at the top of the priority list.

And it comes down to priorities. I don't think empire stability thing is top of the list, just putting high number for sprawl penalty will do fine. Maybe they could improve things like warfare, since micromanaging armies to occupy every colony is so annoying. Also there's no separate peace yet.

 

[Starfury]

This is something I agree with 100%. It requires the dev to put some thought into how to make it work though, so the player feels like their own actions caused the bad event to happen. Paradox games in the past have been too hung up on RNG 'comet sighted = -1 stability' design and the natural consequence is to avoid penalties altogether rather than frustrate players with poorly thought out random problems.

And players are exceptionally good in blaming the rng comet for pushing them over the brink, after their own plan put them at -2 stability in the first place.

It's a bit like when you're trying to build a clever AI. People always say they want a smart AI, but if you had a "smart" AI (which could backstab you without warning, or pile up on a not-yet-runaway leader) a majority of players would complain about the AI being not fun to play against.

 

[Ludaire]

I don't think sprawl was meant to move the game in the direction you seem to want. As best as I can tell, it's just a mechanic to slow the snowball and rubber band things a little bit so that games are closer and tech/tradition speeds are a bit more consistent.

Losing is fun when you know it was your own fault and you can improve for the next attempt (Proof: Every roguelike, Dwarf fortress, every platformer). Players will only throw their mouse and claim bullshit when the loss was completely out of their control.

This comparison being used worries me a bit. I would like to see things like rebellions have a bit more meat to them, but not like these mentioned games.

I hate roguelikes, and I don't have any interest in Dwarf Fortress, so I really don't want those to become the baseline for failure in Stellaris. The platformer comparison is especially puzzling, as a big reason that works in platformers is that iteration times are so quick. Having a similar win/loss ratio to a difficult platformer in a game where each play through can be dozens of hours would be infuriating to me, which is part of what I dislike about rogue-likes. And this is coming from someone who will gladly wipe to a raid encounter 10-20 times over hours to master the mechanics and get through the raid.

I'd point to the AI uprising. It's a really cool mechanic (at least when an empire actually has a significant robot population), and I'd love to see internal instability be more like that. In particular, having your empire split on an issue, have it come to war, and getting to choose which side you want to control is really fun and part of what makes the AI uprising so unique. It feels very Stellaris to me, and one empire I have is explicitly designed to be a mean slaving technocracy that eventually gets an AI uprising, which I always choose to take over.

There's a lot of cool directions they could go, but rogue-likes and platformers are not the place I want them to be looking to for inspiration.

 

[Gethsemani]

Let's keep in mind that "players" aren't some homogenous blob that all want the same thing. Pdx players in particular are very a very diverse group, from people who just wants to play pretend WW2 all the way up to people who will spend more time on statistical analysis of the current patch to figure out the optimal style of play then they will actually play (and that's with 3,000+ hours in the game). There are players who wants to just pretend they are the Not-Klingon Empire and have a power fantasy of fighting evil aliens and there are players who wish that Stellaris had more of Dune's politicking.

To understand this we need not look further then the AI-uprising crisis. Some players love the challenge it presents. Others will call bullshit the moment half their empire just vanishes. Pdx problem is balancing the game to suit both these groups, because neither group is right they just like different things. That the former group is over-represented on this forum doesn't mean it is the majority of players.

 

[FinbarFlin]

"...the player could clearly identify that the reason they lost to rebels was because they tried to take over a vast swathe of territory without having sufficient resources to control it..."

In other words... we cater to the dumb...

 

[Maethendias]

How about this comment from former Stellaris director: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/6m6r2o/_/djzlhex

no... the problem isnt that its not fun, the problem is that people just have no idea how to IMPLEMENT it in an engaging way

 

[Gethsemani]

"...the player could clearly identify that the reason they lost to rebels was because they tried to take over a vast swathe of territory without having sufficient resources to control it..."

In other words... we cater to the dumb...

Or new(-ish) players. What's that joke about Paradox games that gets thrown about? "I've played for 500 hours, I'm almost through the tutorial."

These are complex games and you don't need to be dumb to not fully understand how all the game systems tie together or how some actions have consequences that the player doesn't fully comprehend.

 

[FinbarFlin]

To understand this we need not look further then the AI-uprising crisis. Some players love the challenge it presents. Others will call bullshit the moment half their empire just vanishes. Pdx problem is balancing the game to suit both these groups, because neither group is right they just like different things. That the former group is over-represented on this forum doesn't mean it is the majority of players.

To be honest... its is a bullhit mechanic... pops are the most important ressource in the game.... and you cant prevent loosing them by reconquer your planets as fast as possible... i don't mind the lost buildings but the pops that hurts... so i don't think that a bad mechanic is a good example...

 

[Maethendias]

To be honest... its is a bullhit mechanic... pops are the most important ressource in the game.... and you cant prevent loosing them by reconquer your planets as fast as possible... i don't mind the lost buildings but the pops that hurts... so i don't think that a bad mechanic is a good example...

back to what i was saying, its not the mechanic itself, just how it was implemented

 

[FinbarFlin]

Or new(-ish) players. What's that joke about Paradox games that gets thrown about? "I've played for 500 hours, I'm almost through the tutorial."

These are complex games and you don't need to be dumb to not fully understand how all the game systems tie together or how some actions have consequences that the player doesn't fully comprehend.

Yeah that's right... in some way... but sooner or later people learn how to play a certain paradox game... but the game will be missing interesting "features" or "challenges" because it was catered to new players... what is so bad if those people learn it the hard way... shall a game be dumped down to prevent "hurt feelings"? I mean if a new player has to do his first playthrough on the max difficulty its his fault if his ego takes damage... that's why we have those easy difficulty levels, that's a way how you can make mistakes or don't understand everything, yet it wont ruin your game... and the devs comment can be read as: "Players who know how to play it, still don't like it... why? Because they are ignorant... nooooo i want those 20 provinces now... paradox bends their knee to them and the result is insane snowballing...

Complexity is one thing, but game mechanics that doesn't make sense or are intuitive is another thing... that youtuber stephan is a good example for it, every time he discovers a broken or overpowered mechanic in Stellaris everyone is baffled because those things work but are unlogical, because the devs lost themselves in spreadsheets... like the former... its better to keep your pops unemployed for more research mechanic...

Another mechanic is the "what pop will be grown next on a planet"... there is a very long formula explaining why pop X or pop Y is grown right now... but its too complicated to be used intuitive and if you want do it your way, you will be punished for it... that sucks...

Devs should learn to grow some balls and don't cater to everyone but instead realize their visions for a game... if you don't like it, don't play it... but on the other hand its all about the $$$ what is not bad... because that's what companies are for... but the result is a worse game...

Stellaris v 1.0 was not perfect by any means but it was the most easiest to get into paradox game in the "near" past in my opinion... now its not because it got covered layer by layer with new mechanics... breaking or never fully repair old mechanics... it seems like the devs cant, or lost control over their own game...

 

[Marmelado]

just putting high number for sprawl penalty will do fine

It won't. Penalties don't fail because they are weak, but because the whole concept of the sprawl is misguided.

The problem is not that the wide is better than the tall, the actual problem is that in Stellaris the wide will always be better than the tall. It is a systematic flaw at the very core of the game's design caused by the math Stellaris uses. No matter how harsh you make the penalties, the wide would still be a better choice just because that's how math works in the game. Penalties may slow down the wide, but they do nothing to fix desparity between the wide and the tall. A player employing the wide playstyle may no longer hit repeatables by 2300, but his proportional advantage over the tall would still be the same or even more pronounced. It would result in the same snowballing effect, just with lower absolute numbers. So, what's even the point?

The new internal stability mechanic is a way out of this because it makes the gameplay less linear and less mathematical. The quote you posted is the one I disagree with. Rebellions may be a good and an interesting mechanic if implemented right. For example, old CK2 rebellion system was truly dangerous and made sense, while still allowing the player to prevent the rebellion or beat it in the battlefied through tactics.

 

[FinbarFlin]

...The reason players don't like the rebels mechanic in eu4 is because it's a poorly designed mechanic, you get a stack of rebels and have to spend manpower to put it down, and that's it, theres no strategy, nothing to manage, no decision-making by the player, there isn't even a immersive element to it...

Its maybe poorly designed... but it fullfils a certain thing... it binds resources... it punishes fast expansion... it punishes big empires expanding in regions people dont like you because of different culture or religion... it punishes to throw all manpower into a conflict... it does a lot of things... but mainly to prevent snowballing...

 

[Gethsemani]

Yeah that's right... in some way... but sooner or later people learn how to play a certain paradox game...

Sure, but if the game is constantly frustrating them do you really think they will stick around? If you're to reach 100+ hours of any game you need to find it enjoyable for all of those first 100 hours, not get frustrated every fifth or tenth hour because the game curve balled you or because some opaque mechanic did something you couldn't foresee.

Devs should learn to grow some balls and don't cater to everyone but instead realize their visions for a game... if you don't like it, don't play it... but on the other hand its all about the $$$ what is not bad... because that's what companies are for... but the result is a worse game...

The result is a game more people can enjoy. That might make it worse for the die-hard Grognards, but more people will be able to play the game and enjoy it. This is good both for Pdx (cash flow, baby!) and for the game's community, because there will be more people around to appreciate and talk about the game.

All this of course assumes that the devs vision for the game isn't to make it an approachable 4x game. Which it very well might be. A recurring issue I have with this line of reasoning is the assumption that if the devs weren't simpering, spineless cowards they'd make your ideal game, instead of assuming that the devs are actually sticking as close to their vision as they realistically can.

 

[Tech Noir Synth]

How about this comment from former Stellaris director: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/6m6r2o/_/djzlhex

Rebellions are common in Crusader Kings 3 and they are still annoying, but fun. Because dealing with them means you won't have Rebellion for X years and you also get another prisoner which you can interact with. Its more than just sending your army somewhere and be done with it, which is much better design.

No idea if Stellaris could adopt any of this. Stelallaris is a strategy game, not a roleplay simulator. The only goal is to see numbers go up and your empire spread across the galaxy until you decide to delete the savefile.

 

[TrotBot]

Stellaris needs widespread rebellions in slaver and xenophobe societies (who keep xenos enslaved). The problem is because it's not a developed system, it just hands ocer all your planets. Rebellions should not create a new empire until you lose the fight. This way, the rebellions would lead to strikes, riots, a mass of rebel troops, revolts, and even coups. But all of it on YOUR territory, with the necessary penalties to the economy of the effected planets, until you've dealt with it so badly you start losing planets but only one at a time.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Actually Wiz talked about this aspect in the post too:





And it comes down to priorities. I don't think empire stability thing is top of the list, just putting high number for sprawl penalty will do fine. Maybe they could improve things like warfare, since micromanaging armies to occupy every colony is so annoying. Also there's no separate peace yet.

This directly contradicts the previous point though. He says people don't want rebellions, then says OK you're right they do and we know how to make them cool and fun but it's not a priority. People don't like a thing =/= implementing thing in the way people like isn't a priority.