Diversity: Overpowered?

[Cruxador]

From the streams and dev diaries, it seems like having multiple races will be very useful for unlocking new planet types and for minmaxing this and that. That's all well and good if you want to play some united federation of planets type "empire" where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya all day. Okay, so there's robots – but they require materialism and cost two energy (!!) and apparently are rebellious scum in their own right. So, what's left? How do you build a competitive empire if you're effectively locked out of ~half the planets, and get full efficiency on only 1/6? For that matter, how do you even conquer something without getting your nation infested with xenos demanding rights?

It seems like right now the full tolerance option is the "right" one and picking xenophobia is just setting yourself up for failure.

 

[Faeelin]

... Maybe don't pick it?

 

[ahhheygao]

From the streams and dev diaries, it seems like having multiple races will be very useful for unlocking new planet types and for minmaxing this and that.

Having multiple species is definitely very useful, yes, but unless you have compatible ethos, xenos are far more likely to be much unhappier than your own species, which means they are far more likely to join rebellious factions and lower your productivity.

How do you build a competitive empire if you're effectively locked out of ~half the planets, and get full efficiency on only 1/6?

The efficiency part can be mitigated or even neutralized by Habitability modifiers and Adaptive traits. Plus, we haven't even seen how terraforming works and details on Gaia Worlds yet.

For that matter, how do you even conquer something without getting your nation infested with xenos demanding rights?

You're still stuck with the wrong mindset. If you play as MUH RACIAL PURITY Fanatical Xenophobes, your POPs won't give a damn if you purge all those xeno scums. Or better yet, you can just dominate those xeno scums as independent tributaries or vassals and have them pay you tribute and serve your cause. Or enslave them all. Your pick.

It seems like right now the full tolerance option is the "right" one and picking xenophobia is just setting yourself up for failure.

No.

 

[lemmox]

That doesn't sound like OP, that sounds like a design decision. There is a compelling reason to want to diversify your empire. The downside is that diversity causes tensions and unrest.

You also have the option of going full xenophobe and just enslaving all your xeno pops and forcing them to planets that you need to colonize.

 

[Faeelin]

It would be interesting to see a game that actually took the controversial stance that liberalism and sentient rights do produce a more productive society. "Ahaha, the Galactic Space Reich has built its mighty panzerships OH SHIT WHAT IS THAT BOMB THE FEDERATION DEPLOYED ON MY CAPITAL"

 

[lemmox]

It would be interesting to see a game that actually took the controversial stance that liberalism and sentient rights do produce a more productive society. "Ahaha, the Galactic Space Reich has built its mighty panzerships OH SHIT WHAT IS THAT BOMB THE FEDERATION DEPLOYED ON MY CAPITAL"

Is that actually a controversial stance? Because it isn't where I come from (maybe the robot part would be, I don't know).

 

[Alexander Seil]

From the streams and dev diaries, it seems like having multiple races will be very useful for unlocking new planet types and for minmaxing this and that. That's all well and good if you want to play some united federation of planets type "empire" where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya all day. Okay, so there's robots – but they require materialism and cost two energy (!!) and apparently are rebellious scum in their own right. So, what's left? How do you build a competitive empire if you're effectively locked out of ~half the planets, and get full efficiency on only 1/6? For that matter, how do you even conquer something without getting your nation infested with xenos demanding rights?

It seems like right now the full tolerance option is the "right" one and picking xenophobia is just setting yourself up for failure.

You forgot Space Gulags. Space Gulags overseen by killer droids. That's what you do as a Xenophobic empire.

 

[Faeelin]

Is that actually a controversial stance? Because it isn't where I come from (maybe the robot part would be, I don't know).

I just think that the idea of needing to "balance" out certain ideas is kind of silly, because objectively some work better. Like, your narrowminded theocratic state will probably get treaty ports imposed by that progressive thassalocracy at some point!

 

[ahhheygao]

It would be interesting to see a game that actually took the controversial stance that liberalism and sentient rights do produce a more productive society.

Umm, how exactly is that a controversial stance? Murrica Freedomed the hell out of all-comers, and we Burgurstani Eaglelanders will constantly remind everyone of that.

I just think that the idea of needing to "balance" out certain ideas is kind of silly, because objectively some work better. Like, your narrowminded theocratic state will probably get treaty ports imposed by that progressive thassalocracy at some point!

Oh, here we go again. Your way is best! My homogeneous narrow-minded theocratic state probably won't get stuck with migrant problems and species tension unlike that progressive thassalocracy, but hey, what do I know.

 

[Fonz]

well if you're xenophobic there's really just one glorious option you must do

01_ENSLAVE_GALAXY

 

[Alexander Seil]

Well, we only have to wait a month to find out whether the Path of Now and Forever or the Eternal Doctrine is superior, rather twenty thousand years.

 

[Verenti]

From the streams and dev diaries, it seems like having multiple races will be very useful for unlocking new planet types and for minmaxing this and that. That's all well and good if you want to play some united federation of planets type "empire" where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya all day. Okay, so there's robots – but they require materialism and cost two energy (!!) and apparently are rebellious scum in their own right. So, what's left? How do you build a competitive empire if you're effectively locked out of ~half the planets, and get full efficiency on only 1/6? For that matter, how do you even conquer something without getting your nation infested with xenos demanding rights?

It seems like right now the full tolerance option is the "right" one and picking xenophobia is just setting yourself up for failure.

Well, you're ignoring a few things.

First of all, you assume an empire that colonises everything will be superior to a empire that colonises only a few types of planets. This isn't necessarily true. If you only colonise, for instance, continental worlds, you will be able to hold a much broader empire with greater stability, as "size" is more a function of colonised worlds than geographic space. If there are planets in system that you can't optimally colonise, you still gain relative power by denying your rivals access to them.

It's about trade offs though. Paradox games always punish dogmatic approaches and I suspect Stellaris will be no different. If you don't make your strategy for the situation you're presented with, you won't do so well. This means, if you don't look at your worlds to properly exploit them, you'll end up behind empires who do.

 

[mocoman2001]

How did we solve happiness problem in mother (xenophobic collectivist empire), it simple! We killed all people who were being unhappy.

Step 1, enslave, if slaves rebel, kill them and start again, step 2 profit.

 

[aitaituo]

A homogeneous society is a predictable society. A predictable society is a safe society. There is little to be gained by giving excessive attention or care for those who do not belong.

 

[QueenoftheIsles]

This... this is how you stay competitive, with slaves as far as the eye can see, genetically engineered to be obedient and with plenty of armies ready to stamp out and purge those who will not work to live...

A space slave empire is the "fascist" opposite of a "space federation." You can have lots of different types of POPS that can live on many different planets, they just need to bow to you instead of stand at your side equally!

 

[Admiral Howe]

Considering the upsides of diversifying your empire without acknowledging the downsides - factionalism, ethos drift, secession movements, decreased happiness/productivity, etc - doesn't seem all that productive.

 

[13Foxtrot]

this is what happens when we are hungry for a game to come out and its still a month out. it starts with blackhole arguments and then devolves into which game mechanic government type is best.

Paradox, for safety's sake, release the game or at least let us pre-order. #FeedTheBeast

 

[Cruxador]

You'll think diversity is overpowered, until your first "Blorg Lives Matter" protest. Then you will regret everything.

So far, the factions and rebels of Stellaris are looking just as trivial to dominate as in every other Paradox game: the main disincentive is that they're not fun to deal with, not that they're difficult.

First of all, you assume an empire that colonises everything will be superior to a empire that colonises only a few types of planets. This isn't necessarily true. If you only colonise, for instance, continental worlds, you will be able to hold a much broader empire with greater stability, as "size" is more a function of colonised worlds than geographic space. If there are planets in system that you can't optimally colonise, you still gain relative power by denying your rivals access to them.

Yeah except if you expand and take those continental worlds, you still have the other worlds in your domain which you'd be richer if you did colonize.

You also have the option of going full xenophobe and just enslaving all your xeno pops and forcing them to planets that you need to colonize.

Maintaining a slave population long-term is unpalatable. Their presence sullies a nation that should belong to my own people.

 

[Meraun]

From the streams and dev diaries, it seems like having multiple races will be very useful for unlocking new planet types and for minmaxing this and that. That's all well and good if you want to play some united federation of planets type "empire" where everyone holds hands and sings kumbaya all day. Okay, so there's robots – but they require materialism and cost two energy (!!) and apparently are rebellious scum in their own right. So, what's left? How do you build a competitive empire if you're effectively locked out of ~half the planets, and get full efficiency on only 1/6? For that matter, how do you even conquer something without getting your nation infested with xenos demanding rights?

It seems like right now the full tolerance option is the "right" one and picking xenophobia is just setting yourself up for failure.

well everything you said is the way it shoud be... a mulitalien Empire has an advantage over an one races empire.
But i believe the one race empire is more stable. because the reaces you add might be xenophobic..

 

[Oscot]

But i believe the one race empire is more stable. because the reaces you add might be xenophobic..

Xenophobic pops are probably the worst ones you can try to integrate, but don't forget that 'Being a problematic shitlord hater who doesn't like diversity' isn't the only crime in the Stellaris law book. If the aliens you try to integrate have any ethos that isn't the same as your government's, you're gonna have problems.