Looking back at "The Journey Ahead" thread now that we know what Utopia will have

[Me_]

A long time ago, sometime after the release of Leviathans, Wiz made a thread outlining the ideas for future expansions and patches. I think it may be nice to look at those idea to get a concept of what we can expect in the far future.

Here's part of the original post

What we want
Finally, I just wanted to offer some insight into what we believe are the key areas of the game that we should focus on at this time. We have received, and continue to receive, an amazing amount of good feedback and ideas, and of course we have our own ambitions and ideas for where we want to take Stellaris, but at the moment there are three key areas that we aim to continually target with future updates and content, namely:

• Fleshing out the mid- and lategame through the addition of more interesting narratives and 'galactic events' akin to Awakened Fallen Empires that shake up the galactic scene.
• Improving the internal workings of empires, making pops and leaders more interesting, and making empires feel more alive.
• Expanding on the ethics system, creating more unique playstyles and enhancing roleplaying.

It seems like Utopia focuses on all of the above improving the internal workings (factions) and enchancing late game (ascensions) plus expanding the ethics a bit (civics) although the last point seems to feature the least changes as most of the ethos-related stuff in Utopia deals with factions and therefore is counted under internal politics.

The second list mentions the features themselves, rather than overall goals:

• Ship appearance that differs for each empire, so no two empires' ships look exactly the same. (done)
  
• More story events and reactive narratives that give a sense of an unfolding story as you play. (maybe, if you count the ascensions)
  
• More potential for empire customization, ability to build competitive 'tall' empires. (done)
  
• Deeper Federations that start out as loose alliances and can eventually be turned into single states through diplomatic manuevering. (not done)
  
• Ability to set rights and obligations for particular species in your empire. (done)
  
• Global food that can be shared between planets. (done)
  
• Superweapons and planet killers. (not done)
  
• Ability to construct space habitats and ringworlds. (done)
  
• More interesting mechanics for pre-FTL civilizations. (one addition - indoctination)
  
• Factions that are proper interest groups with specific likes and dislikes and the potential to be a benefit to an empire instead of just being rebels. (done)
  
• A 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'. (not done)
  
• Buildable Dreadnoughts and Titans. (not done)

It seems to me that the stuff that is not done mostly deals with war and diplomacy, therefore I guess that's going to be the focus of the next DLC.

 

[binn05]

What I like to see into this list is that most things were accomplished with 1 DLC .
Can't wait to see what Wiz and the team have under their sleeves for the game .

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

I hope we have Doomstars as well as Deeper Federations and 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.

I remember playing a game that had a Space UN and it was very fun trying to work with other empires as well as bring together the galaxy.

I do hope they also fix the ground combat. But at the Space UN idea, I hope we can do things like we do in our real-life UN.

 

[Bayes]

I hope we have Doomstars as well as Deeper Federations and 'galactic community' with interstellar politics and a 'space UN'.

I remember playing a game that had a Space UN and it was very fun trying to work with other empires as well as bring together the galaxy.

I do hope they also fix the ground combat. But at the Space UN idea, I hope we can do things like we do in our real-life UN.

That actually sounds like a nice combination for a dlc. Doomsday weapons combined with deeper diplomacy sounds great.

 

[mergele]

That actually sounds like a nice combination for a dlc. Doomsday weapons combined with deeper diplomacy sounds great.

And if they are bundled together it could be easier to intertwine them. (Space nukes)

 

[Vjeldan]

And just this two things, War and Diplomacy, also seem to be the things that can and should be expanded the most after all the good things from utopia.
Better war balance, less doomstacks, more strategy, superweapons etc are often found on the wishlists in the forums, as are more options in diplomacy, including espionage.

Well great, now im already hyped for a DLC that hasnt even been hinted at.

 

[Me_]

And if they are bundled together it could be easier to intertwine them. (Space nukes)

Yeah, doomsday devices should be a part of diplomacy at least twofold - you could use them to intimidate others and nations could unite against whoever has them.

 

[bronze Void poison]

more ways to get other empires to do what you what would be nice.

 

[crowdemon]

What I like to see into this list is that most things were accomplished with 1 DLC .
Can't wait to see what Wiz and the team have under their sleeves for the game .

We could always plot to find out.

 

[Sarmatian]

Pretty much everything on the list helps, makes the game better/more interesting.

Unfortunately, many core areas remain of dubious quality, to say the least, namely diplomacy, warfare and empire management/sectors. No amount of flash can compensate for that. So, while the additions are nice, it's not what the game really needs.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

Pretty much everything on the list helps, makes the game better/more interesting.

Unfortunately, many core areas remain of dubious quality, to say the least, namely diplomacy, warfare and empire management/sectors. No amount of flash can compensate for that. So, while the additions are nice, it's not what the game really needs.

That's true. I'm actually surprised that they are trying to make people like sectors since there are still some problems to work out of sector usage.

Diplomacy needs some work as well. Having played Master of Orion, one of the cool things was using diplomacy and trade to get other empires to stop fighting with one another especially if you were trying to win the council vote. It also helped in establishing alliances as well as ending wars. The only problem is since pretty much everybody has access to almost all of the tech cards, you can't really trade specific technology, which is sad given my joy of receiving a message from my generals (they actually told you in person) or one of my spies that they have gotten technology after successfully conquering a planet or stealing from another empire.

I know that @Wiz mentioned that he wanted to do an espionage system but he wanted to make sure it was good as he was worried that it would be seen as lackluster. I'm surprised that he doesn't take inspiration from the first and second Master of Orion games for excellent examples of espionage systems (or even the Master of Orion remake).

By including an espionage system and upgrading the diplomacy system might make things even better.

As for ground and space combats, @Wiz has also stated his concerns for them as well. It's possible that Paradox is taking baby steps in terms of enhancing the game as they don't want to do a lot of stuff and something to go horribly wrong.

It is my belief that they are trying to avoid turning Stellaris into another Master of Orion 3 fiasco!

 

[Nyrael]

That's true. I'm actually surprised that they are trying to make people like sectors since there are still some problems to work out of sector usage.

They are not trying to make people like sectors though. The Devs themselves said that Sectors don't work at all.

 

[Me_]

Pretty much everything on the list helps, makes the game better/more interesting.

Unfortunately, many core areas remain of dubious quality, to say the least, namely diplomacy, warfare and empire management/sectors. No amount of flash can compensate for that. So, while the additions are nice, it's not what the game really needs.

1.5 is going to add a number of changes that should make sectors more managable. Also, not everything can be improved at once. For Banks they focused on internal politics (remember - factions are a free feature and so are traditions and most civics).

 

[Rubidium]

I know that Wiz mentioned that he wanted to do an espionage system but he wanted to make sure it was good as he was worried that it would be seen as lackluster. I'm surprised that he doesn't take inspiration from the first and second Master of Orion games for excellent examples of espionage systems (or even the Master of Orion remake).

By including an espionage system and upgrading the diplomacy system might make things even better.

I suspect he was specifically thinking of the Master of Orion games when he talked about lackluster espionage systems. I never played the first, but MoO2's espionage consisted of "build spies, either keep them at home for counterespionage or send them out to randomly blow stuff up/steal random techs." It wasn't particularly interesting or immersive (we all took the spy debuff for extra points to go to useful racial abilities), and didn't really represent how real espionage works (pro-tip: the CIA is not looking to blow up a randomly selected Chinese warship every couple of years).

An espionage system has several challenges to overcome:

1) It needs to be more than just a two-way zero-sum contest. If I invest minerals in espionage and blow up one of your ships, I've made one of my rivals slightly weaker in comparison to me. If I used those same minerals to build another warship, I've made myself stronger and thus made all of my rivals weaker in comparison to me. So why would I invest in espionage.

2) Trollery. People like to see themselves as making progress. If all espionage does is make someone else weaker, then the risk of dumping lots of spies at you and suddenly having a slew of sabotages, revolts, etc. makes the game less fun for everyone: less fun for the one getting ganged up on by spies, and less fun for the spiers (since all they are doing is dumping spies on an enemy and hoping that the RNG is in their favor).

3) Balance. Related to the above: if I can just steal everyone else's tech without problems, why should anyone invest in researching new technology, when it's more efficient to spend a small amount of resources on espionage to steal it from someone who has done all the work. If espionage to steal tech is massively inefficient compared to researching it myself, then why would anyone invest in espionage? Fallen Empires add an extra layer of complication to all this.

4) Realism. At the end of the day, 99.999% of espionage looks nothing like what we see in most games. Part of that is because technology looks very different in the real world (consisting of lots of minor, incremental improvements, rather than making one discovery and suddenly unlocking the next level of power plant), but part of that is because we expect flashier things from espionage. When North Korean intelligence assassinated Kim Jong-un's brother this year, it was a big deal because that sort of thing almost never happens; intelligence agencies tend to focus on surveillance and data gathering. While you may have the occasional flashy sabotage effort (think of Stuxnet and the sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, for a recent example), far more of intelligence goes to things like "where is this person" "who are they talking to" "what is their opinion on X topic." Those are all little things, but make up the vast majority of what intelligence agencies actually do in real life, but they aren't depicted in games (again, aside from the ability to occasionally steal a new technology from some other country).

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

I suspect he was specifically thinking of the Master of Orion games when he talked about lackluster espionage systems. I never played the first, but MoO2's espionage consisted of "build spies, either keep them at home for counterespionage or send them out to randomly blow stuff up/steal random techs." It wasn't particularly interesting or immersive (we all took the spy debuff for extra points to go to useful racial abilities), and didn't really represent how real espionage works (pro-tip: the CIA is not looking to blow up a randomly selected Chinese warship every couple of years).

An espionage system has several challenges to overcome:

1) It needs to be more than just a two-way zero-sum contest. If I invest minerals in espionage and blow up one of your ships, I've made one of my rivals slightly weaker in comparison to me. If I used those same minerals to build another warship, I've made myself stronger and thus made all of my rivals weaker in comparison to me. So why would I invest in espionage.

2) Trollery. People like to see themselves as making progress. If all espionage does is make someone else weaker, then the risk of dumping lots of spies at you and suddenly having a slew of sabotages, revolts, etc. makes the game less fun for everyone: less fun for the one getting ganged up on by spies, and less fun for the spiers (since all they are doing is dumping spies on an enemy and hoping that the RNG is in their favor).

3) Balance. Related to the above: if I can just steal everyone else's tech without problems, why should anyone invest in researching new technology, when it's more efficient to spend a small amount of resources on espionage to steal it from someone who has done all the work. If espionage to steal tech is massively inefficient compared to researching it myself, then why would anyone invest in espionage? Fallen Empires add an extra layer of complication to all this.

4) Realism. At the end of the day, 99.999% of espionage looks nothing like what we see in most games. Part of that is because technology looks very different in the real world (consisting of lots of minor, incremental improvements, rather than making one discovery and suddenly unlocking the next level of power plant), but part of that is because we expect flashier things from espionage. When North Korean intelligence assassinated Kim Jong-un's brother this year, it was a big deal because that sort of thing almost never happens; intelligence agencies tend to focus on surveillance and data gathering. While you may have the occasional flashy sabotage effort (think of Stuxnet and the sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program, for a recent example), far more of intelligence goes to things like "where is this person" "who are they talking to" "what is their opinion on X topic." Those are all little things, but make up the vast majority of what intelligence agencies actually do in real life, but they aren't depicted in games (again, aside from the ability to occasionally steal a new technology from some other country).

Well, that's true. That was one of the things I liked about the espionage system of the Master of Orion series. While simple like you said, it did carry the weight of the consequences that happened if you got caught or you got caught but were still successful.

A major factor to think about is that you have to make it both fun and yet serious minded, not to mention it has to be balanced so it's not lackluster but also simple enough that it can be easily utilized.

One thing that I want in any espionage system is that there are consequences to your actions, even if you are successful. That I believe is an important part of any sort of espionage system that is implemented for Stellaris.

Also, in regards to your point on realism, that is important to take in consideration. For example, in many scifi books, movies, and games when you take over a planet or system you sometimes capture enemy technology. That is something that I love in Master of Orion. But like you said in your point balance point, what is the point of researching tech if you can just steal it all.

Don't get me wrong here, you have brought up a lot of good points. If I may bring up a solution in regards to the balance issue you brought up: maybe each tech has a weight on how difficult it would be to steal that tech.

 

[Shermanator]

You know, I'm not sure I want doomstars. Now, I get the appeal, but I worry that if more than one faction builds one it ends in a "cold war" type game, and cold wars aren't very entertaining if they last two long, nor is it fun is all of civilization ends in a single war.
Also, and I get that realism isn't important in Stellaris but I'd just like to point this out, you don't need a death star to destroy a planet in order to kill everyone on it, just drop some really powerful bombs, or slam an asteroid into it. Problem solved.

If doomstars are added, it should be akin to building a megastructure. You pore your empires resources into it for years on end, the reward is either the ultimate deterrent or the tool you need to finally destroy your enemies for good. Actually using it at full power should give you a HUGE diplomatic penalty, so I think they should also have a "small shot" setting, where you can just destroy a tile instead of the entire planet, and should be able to fight entire fleets on their own, so they aren't useless to anyone who doesn't want to commit genocide.

 

[Zavaleta]

While it was not a part of Wiz's original "road map", I would like to see first contact mechanics made deeper and more fun in the next expansion that I can only assume focuses on diplomacy.

Currently, first contact just means the wait and expense time of finishing the make contact project. Not very interesting nor are first contact wars. I have never fought a first contact war that I did not intentionally initiate. Wiz has mentioned that he had some ideas for how to make first contact a dynamic and fun game mechanic. Hope he and the other devs get inspired to implement it.

 

[Ambereyed]

There are at least 5 known and already discussed areas where game could (and should) be improved:
1) Internal management.
2) Trade.
3) Espionage.
4) Diplomacy.
5) Warfare.

For 1 we have Utopia and Banks. Next patches probably won't focus on this area too much, except improving and tweaking already implemented systems.
For 2 - Wiz doesn't see trade as a vital part of the game. So if we want to see any serious improvements here we probably need to wait until more important areas would be tweaked.
3, 4 & 5 seems to be priority. Especially 5 is widely criticised, and Wiz know it. He already mentioned something about making patch fully or partially dedicated to adress problems with warfare.

So, my wild guessses:
Next patch will focus almost solely on warfare. We will see changes to FTL systems, new ways to "undoomstack" fleets, wargoals systems will be changed, fortifications will be tweaked, ground combat changed (transports removed), game goals will be changed, etc... In a DLC we will see superweapons, titans and dreadnoughts. And maybe some love for robots - with new portraits and ability to play them from the start.

After that we will see more "peaceful" patch, with space UN, improved federations, espionage, and so on.

 

[PalmettoExplorer14]

There are at least 5 known and already discussed areas where game could (and should) be improved:
1) Internal management.
2) Trade.
3) Espionage.
4) Diplomacy.
5) Warfare.

For 1 we have Utopia and Banks. Next patches probably won't focus on this area too much, except improving and tweaking already implemented systems.
For 2 - Wiz doesn't see trade as a vital part of the game. So if we want to see any serious improvements here we probably need to wait until more important areas would be tweaked.
3, 4 & 5 seems to be priority. Especially 5 is widely criticised, and Wiz know it. He already mentioned something about making patch fully or partially dedicated to adress problems with warfare.

So, my wild guessses:
Next patch will focus almost solely on warfare. We will see changes to FTL systems, new ways to "undoomstack" fleets, wargoals systems will be changed, fortifications will be tweaked, ground combat changed (transports removed), game goals will be changed, etc... In a DLC we will see superweapons, titans and dreadnoughts. And maybe some love for robots - with new portraits and ability to play them from the start.

After that we will see more "peaceful" patch, with space UN, improved federations, espionage, and so on.

I actually hope they don't remove transports, but instead alter how they work so they can be better utilize properly. But I do hope they change and make ground combat better, that's for sure.

 

[Rubidium]

You know, I'm not sure I want doomstars. Now, I get the appeal, but I worry that if more than one faction builds one it ends in a "cold war" type game, and cold wars aren't very entertaining if they last two long, nor is it fun is all of civilization ends in a single war.
Also, and I get that realism isn't important in Stellaris but I'd just like to point this out, you don't need a death star to destroy a planet in order to kill everyone on it, just drop some really powerful bombs, or slam an asteroid into it. Problem solved.

If doomstars are added, it should be akin to building a megastructure. You pore your empires resources into it for years on end, the reward is either the ultimate deterrent or the tool you need to finally destroy your enemies for good. Actually using it at full power should give you a HUGE diplomatic penalty, so I think they should also have a "small shot" setting, where you can just destroy a tile instead of the entire planet, and should be able to fight entire fleets on their own, so they aren't useless to anyone who doesn't want to commit genocide.

While we're talking about old Space Games, this idea is reminding me of Star Wars: Rebellion, which was a fairly meh Star Wars game from the '90s, which portrayed the Death Star more or less like you describe. Building a Death Star was a massive expenditure of time and resources. Once they were built, a Death Star greatly increased loyalty of planets within the sector it was located (as fear kept the systems in line), but actually using it would cause most of your planets throughout the galaxy to become extremely unhappy (the Rebels and the Empire were the only two factions and were always at war, so broader diplomacy was limited to making planets more sympathetic to you).