How do can the static gameplay of Stellaris be fixed?

[77Hawk77]

Happy New Year everyone, the newest update is very good. But there is one thing that annoys me about stellaris, and i know others feel the same way too. And that is that the game feels very static, in most games you don't ever have to care about someone who doesn't border you. You can go a hundred years in a game, and only ever interact with a few countries, and even though the you might end up taking over the Galaxy. You end up doing it at a point because you're so much stronger than everyone else that it doesn't matter any more. But I think this can be fixed.

The problem as I see it, lies in that the galaxy works like a 2D world, which makes sense of course, but also is very limiting, because you never ever get to move to people you don't border. I would like to discuss this problem, and think of things that could be solutions. Here are some of my own suggestions

1. Make warp and hyper travel possible at the same time again. Make it so hyperlanes, are actually these fast travel space routes, that cannot be colonised, but forms essentially an "ocean" like in EU. The way people who don't border each other, can still access each other through this area. Make warp travel the norm and slow, so that having access to hyperlanes is as important as having access to the ocean in EU. This should also work as trade lanes for trade routes, with some bonuses. This would require the galaxy generation to be different, something I wouldn't mind making a whole thread focusing on.

2. Make neutral small nations, like in Civ5 the city states. I imagine this would not be that hard, basically like the non-space age worlds, but actually space age, without being an Empire. You could spend influence here.

3. Make a galactic diplomacy or super national entity, like the galactic senate in star ruler 2, where you can buy bonuses and vote on galactic treaties banning certain things or solving border disputes. You could spend influence here.

4. Make a new type of control zone, which isn't directly controlled, but is under your influence. So you have your "core" worlds or systems, which is directly controlled, and then systems in the sphere of influence. You should only be able to "close borders" on systems you control. Make it so systems which are influenced can be stolen via influence, and so people can fight for influence in an area without having an all out war.

5. Make influence be gained from force projection like economic, diplomatic and military.

It always kinda irked me that you never really use influence in Stellaris, to influence anything. And with so many major nations with major differences, most games for me feels like there isn't any diplomacy at all, beyond the 1 obvious ally in the galaxy, so everyone forms a federation of 2 planets.

 

[LordNarvi]

Yes, this is true. I was okay with the FTL change but it making each empire only relevant if they're near your borders made Stellaris much less interesting.

 

[Etrutian]

Happy New Year everyone, the newest update is very good. But there is one thing that annoys me about stellaris, and i know others feel the same way too. And that is that the game feels very static, in most games you don't ever have to care about someone who doesn't border you. You can go a hundred years in a game, and only ever interact with a few countries, and even though the you might end up taking over the Galaxy. You end up doing it at a point because you're so much stronger than everyone else that it doesn't matter any more. But I think this can be fixed.

The problem as I see it, lies in that the galaxy works like a 2D world, which makes sense of course, but also is very limiting, because you never ever get to move to people you don't border. I would like to discuss this problem, and think of things that could be solutions. Here are some of my own suggestions

1. Make warp and hyper travel possible at the same time again. Make it so hyperlanes, are actually these fast travel space routes, that cannot be colonised, but forms essentially an "ocean" like in EU. The way people who don't border each other, can still access each other through this area. Make warp travel the norm and slow, so that having access to hyperlanes is as important as having access to the ocean in EU. This should also work as trade lanes for trade routes, with some bonuses. This would require the galaxy generation to be different, something I wouldn't mind making a whole thread focusing on.

Not interested. The ability to fully bypass defenses frankly sucks and was my biggest annoyance with the pre 1.9 life. I'm suprised they made it hyperlane only instead of giving us interdictors, but even with the old travel system, the regionalism diplomacy was still very strong.

2. Make neutral small nations, like in Civ5 the city states. I imagine this would not be that hard, basically like the non-space age worlds, but actually space age, without being an Empire. You could spend influence here.

Sounds like a fun idea to use influence. I liked this out of CIV and SINS.

3. Make a galactic diplomacy or super national entity, like the galactic senate in star ruler 2, where you can buy bonuses and vote on galactic treaties banning certain things or solving border disputes. You could spend influence here.

Would enjoy that. I think with Stellaris's different ethics they could even play on macro-factions.

4. Make a new type of control zone, which isn't directly controlled, but is under your influence. So you have your "core" worlds or systems, which is directly controlled, and then systems in the sphere of influence. You should only be able to "close borders" on systems you control. Make it so systems which are influenced can be stolen via influence, and so people can fight for influence in an area without having an all out war.

DMZ-like zones could make things pretty interesting. Or even Grey-Economic zones; Opinion maluses for encroaching on these 'influence' based zones could make for an interesting dynamic.

5. Make influence be gained from force projection like economic, diplomatic and military.

It always kinda irked me that you never really use influence in Stellaris, to influence anything. And with so many major nations with major differences, most games for me feels like there isn't any diplomacy at all, beyond the 1 obvious ally in the galaxy, so everyone forms a federation of 2 planets.

Allowing a 'Power Projection' Influence modifier would make things nice for conquest based players.


I imagine the next DLC will be diplo based, its the last thing the devs really need to flesh out now that we have a war and economic system. Quite excited for when they do.

 

[77Hawk77]

Not interested. The ability to fully bypass defenses frankly sucks and was my biggest annoyance with the pre 1.9 life. I'm suprised they made it hyperlane only instead of giving us interdictors, but even with the old travel system, the regionalism diplomacy was still very strong.

it was, but my idea was that effective warp travel should only occur within the same sector. So you could still have strategic locations that was defend-able.

 

[Sinister2202]

More features and ideas will not fix the "static" feeling of the game. It just adds more things to do, but at the end of the day, you'd just be waiting for things to happen as time (in game) flies by.

This is mainly due to lack of substance in a lot of areas - substance that immerses players. Without this substance to immerse players, all we'd be doing are managements. Click click scroll scroll. Not much think think, if you are an experienced player and most questions about the game have been answered, which is even a worse feeling than one would find.

1. Narration
2. Characteristics
3. Personas / Personalities
4. Dynamism

Without these substances, all are nothing but codes and procedural generations. Lack of these are also the reasons why other games that use the concepts of procedural generation feel so static.

Have you played Rimworld? The game at its core is procedural generation in terms of the game's developmental structure, but it makes up for it with substances that I've mentioned.

Whether you would have to RP to force yourself that the game is alive or not, it's even better if the game forces you to adapt and make the players realize their place in the world, and assume their roles accordingly.

Stellaris feels static because the game does not narrate for you. You are the narrator, and the galaxy is a mindless drone that you can bend to your will through tried and true methods, but with different flavors through each rounds you play. That's what it's missing.

 

[Badesumofu]

I feel that each game I play is telling the story of my empire. It might make the stories feel more alive if characters were more important like in CK2.

I have high hopes that I:R will combine the 'story of the nation' with the character-based stories of CK2 in a single game. I like my empire/nation driven stories, but I think they would come to life a lot better if they were more character-driven.

Perhaps if Stellaris does a deep politics expansion then it could be a character focused gameplay layer. A lot of the building blocks are there already like leaders being faction leaders as well. But at the moment leaders just feel like combinations of stats. Characters in CK2 feel like people.

 

[Zentay]

It feels static because there is little interaction with other nations. War is occasionally interesting. I find myself tending towards a tall playstyle in 2.2.2 anyway, rather than being a conqueror.

There needs to be more content that involves meaningful competition with other nations outside of a formal declaration of war. Raiding trade lanes with privateers, sabotage and theft, political activism performed by special operatives are two ideas.

I also don't like how quickly all solar systems are claimed. Most are barely worth the alloys and influence. I think the game would be more interesting if the pace of expansion was slower, and there were "core systems" and "fringe systems". Fringe systems would be systems that are only under loose control by a nation, and where the aforementioned new content could be put in (ie. inter-nation competition, manipulation, and hostility outside of formal declarations of war).

Thinking about it, the mining and research stations are a bit basic. We spend 100 minerals and them forget about them and they don't even matter much. Would it be interesting if we had mining and research operations that function a bit like colonies and their treasure fleets in EU IV?

 

[SirAlexius]

I think Stellaris would be way more interesting if factions and characters in your empire could interact with each other, as well as possibly characters and factions in other empires. I would not want it to go all the way to the level of CK2, but something along those lines would make the day to day gameplay way more immersive and meaningful. Maybe this is something they can keep in mind for Stellaris 2. I think Imperator is going in that direction, and hopefully the experience of making that game will help PDS understand how to make Stellaris more interesting.

 

[Saviour of Galaxy]

The biggest issue is already fixed - economy does support the mechanics of the Stellaris as a intended game, which could be hardly said before. Now what we need is 1. polishing what we have and 2. expanding the experience.

I was always saying that the biggest flaw of Stellaris was economy model and the biggest unexplored territory - leaders. IMO interactions with leaders and factions would give additional RP value. Many says that diplomacy should be improved. Few actually propose a solutions how to do it. First thing we need for diplomacy being improved is need for other empires for something else than target of conquest. So, first priority is improving AI. To trade with them was the meter of improving economy to get rid of self-efficiency. To using espionage on them we need to have a info to get about them. Right now its too easy to get sufficient intel about other empires. To treat with them, is a meter of improving AI and dynamics of relations. And I think that leaders and distinctive regime mechanics are the unexplored area here.

Also, while interactions with Fallen Empires has been improved since premiere, I actually expected it to be more deep. I wanted spiritualist F.E. more a "space pope" than occasional asshole.

 

[SirAlexius]

I wanted spiritualist F.E. more a "space pope" than occasional asshole.

This is one of the best ideas I have heard yet. I don't know what the policy is on tagging game designers and directors on threads like this but I really hope that they see this one.

 

[buglepong]

Diplomacy and espionage, which for some reason has been ignored by Paradox for years. Probably because they only play multiplayer and dont any fks.

 

[rubert]

I am not fan of "space pope" idea but hopefully the diplomacy patch/dlc includes some sort of galactic UN like what Civilization games have. (Some) FE's could join as "observers" much like Vorlons did in Babylon 5's council. Sometimes taking more active part for some reason but mostly just being there all mysterious.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

Diplomacy certainly needs fleshing out, and travel through natural wormholes usually arrives too late.

Perhaps wormhole tech should be always available as a research option once a wormhole had been encountered.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

It feels static because there is little interaction with other nations. War is occasionally interesting. I find myself tending towards a tall playstyle in 2.2.2 anyway, rather than being a conqueror.

There needs to be more content that involves meaningful competition with other nations outside of a formal declaration of war. Raiding trade lanes with privateers, sabotage and theft, political activism performed by special operatives are two ideas.

I also don't like how quickly all solar systems are claimed. Most are barely worth the alloys and influence. I think the game would be more interesting if the pace of expansion was slower, and there were "core systems" and "fringe systems". Fringe systems would be systems that are only under loose control by a nation, and where the aforementioned new content could be put in (ie. inter-nation competition, manipulation, and hostility outside of formal declarations of war).

Thinking about it, the mining and research stations are a bit basic. We spend 100 minerals and them forget about them and they don't even matter much. Would it be interesting if we had mining and research operations that function a bit like colonies and their treasure fleets in EU IV?

This so much.

Interacting peaceafully with other nations has a few choices available; it sorely lacks a bigger picture, a "space ONU", to say.

But if you want to be hostile, you have no other choice than open war. No border raids, no sabotage, no spying, no way to impose your will in any other way than total war.

But all of this will likely be introduced in the "Diplomacy Patch" in 2019.

 

[buglepong]

I also don't like how quickly all solar systems are claimed. Most are barely worth the alloys and influence. I think the game would be more interesting if the pace of expansion was slower, and there were "core systems" and "fringe systems". Fringe systems would be systems that are only under loose control by a nation, and where the aforementioned new content could be put in (ie. inter-nation competition, manipulation, and hostility outside of formal declarations of war).

Thinking about it, the mining and research stations are a bit basic. We spend 100 minerals and them forget about them and they don't even matter much. Would it be interesting if we had mining and research operations that function a bit like colonies and their treasure fleets in EU IV?

With the introduction of trade routes you could conceivably get rid of stations altogether and consolidate it all into a comprehensive trading system.
It would probably kill the games performance though.