Planet design leads to sameness everywhere

[Liggi]

What we need, basically, are Interest Groups (or an equivalent). A planet full of Bureaucrats should have a population that behaves differently and values different things compared to a planet full of Miners + Farmers. Likewise, a planet full of Soldiers, a planet full of Clerks, a planet full of Metallurgists and so on.

 

[John MacWhat]

I really don't think that planetary sameness really is a result of economy, it's the fact that politics, culture, and religion are basically absent. In Stellaris, your interaction with colonies is almost entirely about jobs management. Jobs are central features of Stellaris.

I kind of hope whenever they make Stellaris 2 they move away from jobs and more towards treating colonies something like Imperator-style provinces that have their own culture, religion, political beliefs etc and pops have output that is based on their species, social strata, and planet buildings/features.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Look, there's a game of chess where you have the board and there's a game of cards where you play your hand. There's Starcraft archetype, where maps are syymetrical, and no matter the map you get the natural, "the 3rd" etc. And then there's Civ archetype where pretty much nothing is mirrored and guaranteed. First one makes up for great competitive play, for concrete build-orders, the second one is just more... adventurous if you will. I think that's a fair dichotomy.

Now, you're getting your details right (tbh I was thinking of Humankind and E.Legend mechanics), but my point was that Stellaris is much more closer to the ways of Sc than to Civ in that regard.

And I'll heavily disagree with this, because strategic asymmetry is overwhelming due to the RNG nature of the galaxy. How many planets- and thus your pop-potential- is incredibly RNG. Whether your neighbors will let you do a high-payoff tech bloom or slaughter you if you try is RNG. The ROI on various build strategies and even conquests is RNG. Empire build efficacy is wildly unbalanced, with very strong synergy combos and some that are actively self-defeating.

If we're going by a assymetric vs symmetric gameplay difference, Civ and Stellaris are not only on the same side, but in each other's pants.

And which of these does better suit Stellaris, the roleplay, emergent side of it? I don't want the game to go full chaotic and "play your hand", but I wish it made few steps that side of a slider.

It's just the topic at hand I felt is right place to voice that concern.

I don't dispute your right to voice that concern, I just disagree that your concern is valid on the justification presented.

 

[DeanTheDull]

What we need, basically, are Interest Groups (or an equivalent). A planet full of Bureaucrats should have a population that behaves differently and values different things compared to a planet full of Miners + Farmers. Likewise, a planet full of Soldiers, a planet full of Clerks, a planet full of Metallurgists and so on.

Someone in the Victoria forum once mentioned that Victoria seemed to have evolved from the Stellaris faction system. Hopefully when Stellaris 2 comes around, they'll be able to incorporate the Victory Interest Group system and evolve that.

 

[Lanferite]

And I'll heavily disagree with this, because strategic asymmetry is overwhelming due to the RNG nature of the galaxy.

Is it? Lately I've been watching competitive multiplayer, (Comrad Truck streams) and it seems guy's doing the same exact thing every game. Sure sometimes his guaranteed is 4 jumps away or not the direction where he looked for it first, but that's about it. The RNG you'd hear them complaining about is actually tech rolls, not terrain generation.

When I play Stellaris (singleplayer) I think of my game plan on the empire selection screen, i.e. before I even see the map itself. But in Civ competitive I often saw them going with randomized nations, both because of imbalance and because its more about playing the terrain anyway.

In Civ-likes it is guaranteed that there'll be some lands to settle, but their quality or gimmics are to be seen. Of course the more land the better, but the land itself has its distinct features. Here, you are guaranteed there be some planets to settle, again, the more the better, but the planets just lack that distinction, 3 cont planets are just that - 3 cont planets. Yeah, size and district cap, but does this cut it?

 

[TempestM]

Frankly, I would really like to see planets become a lot more rare, but substantially more unique. Having 30+ planets is completely unmanageable.

Not about planet designs, but I wanted to add to that because it is frustrating.
Last time I've tried to think "well, I'm good on resources, what if I'll just care less and will create some sectors and just give them to the AI"? I mean, it can't be THAT bad, right? Better than managing 30 planets.
I was wrong. Oh boy was I wrong. First the sector management is absolutely abysmal. Expansion usually is divided into early-stage of grabbing what is suited, and post-midgame when you unlock all terraforming and suddenly you have a lot of now-habbitable worlds that you would get. Logical idea would be to keep your initial core planets under direct control and leave new planets to automatic management, but since sectors is yet another part of the game that they keep changing once in a while, it's still horrible! Without decent manual sector assignment it's just not usable.
And yet the worst part is actual AI planet management. I gave it a try with selecting 3 new planets, giving a sector 5k each resources and +100 monthly income, set to balanced production. 10-20 later all planets have all possible problems: unemployment, no housing, no amenities, and only one building built giving 1 job, producing robots! (giving even more unemployment) What are they doing nothing?

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Really, I think the game has been trying to do much.
You've got uplift, you've got gene mod synthetic astention, psi... There are whole series of novels written about just one of these! So, the game cant give any idea the attention it deserves.

 

[Marshall Thomas]

I do love me my Planet Modifiers mod, but I'd also consider it horrendously unbalanced from a design perspective.

Which Planet Modifiers mod do you use? Is it compatible with the current beta? Thanks in advance

 

[Losttruppen]

I also feel the recent changes from 3.0 have reduced the impact Planet size has on their value.

A size 25 research world used to be better as you could cap districts and get your all your building slots opened. Now you can get all the slots on a size 12 and pump out 500/500/500 research while exporting all your pops as well, where that size 25 will be a growth sink until the very late game with only minor resources as recompense. Better to just find another size 12 and put your mines on that and double your growth.

Or take everything because habitability means nothing anymore either.

 

[Ferrus Animus]

I do love me my Planet Modifiers mod, but I'd also consider it horrendously unbalanced from a design perspective.

Unbalanced for what? Balance is complivated and has different points depending on what is important.

Also those unbalances lead to interesting decisions, something that is desired in a game.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Which Planet Modifiers mod do you use? Is it compatible with the current beta? Thanks in advance

I use Guili's Planet Modifiers, but I haven't in the beta.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Unbalanced for what? Balance is complivated and has different points depending on what is important.

General bands of resource generation potential in the course of the early/early-mid-game, when individual planets matter most.

Number of planets in your core area is already one of the biggest indicators of power by year 75, which is the point by which most games are effectively decided as power snowballs start consuming other empires. Expanding the power of planets via interesting modifiers makes this more unabalanced, not less, as people with more planets will also have a better chance to draw better modifiers, further expanding their resource/power base.

Negative modifiers aren't really a balance, because to be 'interesting' they tend to be circumventable, and thus just affect prioritization rather than lowering output. IE, a world with a farm-malus is not going to lower empire food, because you just use it as a non-farm world, but a world will a interesting mining bonus will always be prioritized as a mining world (unless there is something even better for it).

Also those unbalances lead to interesting decisions, something that is desired in a game.

I disagree this is the case in this context of planet modifiers. An interesting decision needs to weigh a cost-benefit, but strong modifiers break the link to make it a cost or benefit, for which people always choose benefits. If a world has a +20% miner benefit, there's not really a cost-benefit, there's a benefit or an opportunity cost of not taking the benefit. If I'm short on minerals, this lets me make up the minerals. If I'd be able to scale up alloy production with more minerals, the lets me make use of the minerals. If I wouldn't increase my mineral consumption, taking the minerals would let me free up another less-efficient mining world to more efficient purposes.

Stellaris is, at heart, an economy game geared around pursuing economic efficiency. Any modifier that affects efficiency is going to see the decision tend towards whatever is efficient or- if not strictly efficient- useful and effective, which is a different form of efficiency.

If the planet modifier is not making an impact on output or efficiency, what, exactly, is it modifying? The color? Flavor text?

 

[HFY]

I disagree this is the case in this context of planet modifiers. An interesting decision needs to weigh a cost-benefit, but strong modifiers break the link to make it a cost or benefit, for which people always choose benefits. If a world has a +20% miner benefit, there's not really a cost-benefit, there's a benefit or an opportunity cost of not taking the benefit. If I'm short on minerals, this lets me make up the minerals. If I'd be able to scale up alloy production with more minerals, the lets me make use of the minerals. If I wouldn't increase my mineral consumption, taking the minerals would let me free up another less-efficient mining world to more efficient purposes.

Stellaris is, at heart, an economy game geared around pursuing economic efficiency. Any modifier that affects efficiency is going to see the decision tend towards whatever is efficient or- if not strictly efficient- useful and effective, which is a different form of efficiency.

If the planet modifier is not making an impact on output or efficiency, what, exactly, is it modifying? The color? Flavor text?

In Civ, a city will give me food + production (which every city needs and has), but also might be adjacent to a mountain which I need to build an Observatory in the future, or might give access to Horses (which I need for powerful cavalry units; without them I'd need to use Riflemen to win, and that's a longer tech path), or might provide access to Dyes which would increase empire-wide happiness and improve my Theater buildings -- and improved Theaters might mean fewer pops wasted on Entertainer jobs.

Not directly production, and also not just flavor text.

The lack of meaningful resources in Stellaris is why Civ-style decisions can't happen here (yet).

 

[DeanTheDull]

In Civ, a city will give me food + production (which every city needs and has), but also might be adjacent to a mountain which I need to build an Observatory in the future, or might give access to Horses (which I need for powerful cavalry units; without them I'd need to use Riflemen to win, and that's a longer tech path), or might provide access to Dyes which would increase empire-wide happiness and improve my Theater buildings -- and improved Theaters might mean fewer pops wasted on Entertainer jobs.

Districts and deposits- both planetary deposits/modifiers and system deposits/traits (enclaves, black holes, nebula)- provide this same dyanamic in Stellaris.

Not directly production, and also not just flavor text.

The lack of meaningful resources in Stellaris is why Civ-style decisions can't happen here (yet).

What you just listed were economic efficiency dynamics that are already present in Stellaris.

Happiness is already covered. Ethics attraction is already covered. Habitability is already covered. Rare and exotic resources are already covered. Unique jobs are already covered. Pop Growth is already covered. Abstract resources (including influence) are already covered. Interstellar politics are lready covered (Fallen Empires). Special event chains are already covered.

I'll repeat the question: if the planet modifier is not making an impact on output or efficiency, what, exactly, is it modifying?

 

[HFY]

Districts and deposits- both planetary deposits/modifiers and system deposits/traits (enclaves, black holes, nebula)- provide this same dyanamic in Stellaris.

Not in the current version, not even close.

The difference in Civ between horses / no-horses is a change in strategy at all levels -- tech-wise you're looking at different priorities, diplomacy-wise you're looking for war with significantly different timing, some buildings are different, your war preparation (defense or offense) is going to look different -- the grand strategy of your game is different depending on whether you have this one resource or not.

Stellaris has no such grand strategic distinctions. Every "strategic" resource is available to everyone, and all of them are necessary for every strategy.

What you just listed were economic efficiency dynamics that are already present in Stellaris.

Happiness is already covered. Ethics attraction is already covered. Habitability is already covered. Rare and exotic resources are already covered. Unique jobs are already covered. Pop Growth is already covered. Abstract resources (including influence) are already covered. Interstellar politics are lready covered (Fallen Empires). Special event chains are already covered.

I'll repeat the question: if the planet modifier is not making an impact on output or efficiency, what, exactly, is it modifying?

- What you can build (not just how fast)
- When you can war
- How you defend yourself

That's what you get from one resource (Horses). There are others, they also impact your strategy.

Changing your empire's grand strategy (tech, diplomacy, defense, war timing) based on a single resource is not the same as merely "making an impact on output or efficiency".

Stellaris no longer supports that sort of strategic resource. What they call "strategic resources" are not what I'd consider strategic in Civ terms, since everyone can create the Stellaris resources (and in fact must create them for upgraded buildings).

 

[DeanTheDull]

Not in the current version, not even close.

The difference in Civ between horses / no-horses is a change in strategy at all levels -- tech-wise you're looking at different priorities, diplomacy-wise you're looking for war with significantly different timing, some buildings are different, your war preparation (defense or offense) is going to look different -- the grand strategy of your game is different depending on whether you have this one resource or not.

Stellaris has no such grand strategic distinctions. Every "strategic" resource is available to everyone, and all of them are necessary for every strategy.



- What you can build (not just how fast)
- When you can war
- How you defend yourself

That's what you get from one resource (Horses). There are others, they also impact your strategy.

Changing your empire's grand strategy (tech, diplomacy, defense, war timing) based on a single resource is not the same as merely "making an impact on output or efficiency".

Stellaris no longer supports that sort of strategic resource. What they call "strategic resources" are not what I'd consider strategic in Civ terms, since everyone can create the Stellaris resources (and in fact must create them for upgraded buildings).

And now we are going to the implications of rare resources, and not modifiers. I am pleased we have changed the topic to something more productive, but we have abandoned the field of planetary modifiers entirely, which is what you were responding to.

 

[HFY]

And now we are going to the implications of rare resources, and not modifiers. I am pleased we have changed the topic to something more productive, but we have abandoned the field of planetary modifiers entirely, which is what you were responding to.

Strategic resource access is something Civ city placement gives.

Strategic resource access is something Stellaris planetary deposits also can give, but it's largely irrelevant to the game and does not impact strategy. There is no grand strategic adjustment for having or lacking a "strategic" resource.


Planetary deposits are what this guy said were equivalent to Civ city tiles:

Districts and deposits- both planetary deposits/modifiers and system deposits/traits (enclaves, black holes, nebula)- provide this same dyanamic in Stellaris.

... so if you don't like the idea of a comparison between the two, please take it up with him.

 

[Ferrus Animus]

General bands of resource generation potential in the course of the early/early-mid-game, when individual planets matter most.

Number of planets in your core area is already one of the biggest indicators of power by year 75, which is the point by which most games are effectively decided as power snowballs start consuming other empires. Expanding the power of planets via interesting modifiers makes this more unabalanced, not less, as people with more planets will also have a better chance to draw better modifiers, further expanding their resource/power base.

Negative modifiers aren't really a balance, because to be 'interesting' they tend to be circumventable, and thus just affect prioritization rather than lowering output. IE, a world with a farm-malus is not going to lower empire food, because you just use it as a non-farm world, but a world will a interesting mining bonus will always be prioritized as a mining world (unless there is something even better for it).

That is a very PvP-centric view. The AI already gets much higher bonuses that outscale current planet modifier bonuses by far.

I disagree this is the case in this context of planet modifiers. An interesting decision needs to weigh a cost-benefit, but strong modifiers break the link to make it a cost or benefit, for which people always choose benefits. If a world has a +20% miner benefit, there's not really a cost-benefit, there's a benefit or an opportunity cost of not taking the benefit. If I'm short on minerals, this lets me make up the minerals. If I'd be able to scale up alloy production with more minerals, the lets me make use of the minerals. If I wouldn't increase my mineral consumption, taking the minerals would let me free up another less-efficient mining world to more efficient purposes.

Stellaris is, at heart, an economy game geared around pursuing economic efficiency. Any modifier that affects efficiency is going to see the decision tend towards whatever is efficient or- if not strictly efficient- useful and effective, which is a different form of efficiency.

If the planet modifier is not making an impact on output or efficiency, what, exactly, is it modifying? The color? Flavor text?

You know we can make this more complicated than a simple percentage increase?
Hot Core: Allows the building of geothermal power plant buildings, allowing the planet to get technicians from buildings and not only districts
Worm Diversity: -30% food from farmers but +15 agriculture district limit. Decide between pop/job efficience or more bang for your strategic resources.
Ancient Resort World: Get a global +5% bonus to trade, if this planet is a resort world.

And besides that, even simple straight production bonuses that are better mean you have to make different choices.

And while I agree that Stellaris at its heart is all about economic efficiences, I feel the way people are scared of minor bonuses because they give a tony advanttage and so prevent them from balancing each other out is holding the game back quite a bit.

 

[DeanTheDull]

That is a very PvP-centric view. The AI already gets much higher bonuses that outscale current planet modifier bonuses by far.

And this would put a balance pressure on giving them higher bonuses on higher difficulties, to match the relative shift in potential player output.

When you raise a median that is a median by definition, all other values increase to reflect it. Rising tides lift all boats, not just the small ones, and all that.

You know we can make this more complicated than a simple percentage increase?
Hot Core: Allows the building of geothermal power plant buildings, allowing the planet to get technicians from buildings and not only districts

This is only a good choice to make if the geothermal plant building allows more energy output a pop to make up for a difference in building slot cost. Ergo, an economic output and efficiency modifier.

Worm Diversity: -30% food from farmers but +15 agriculture district limit. Decide between pop/job efficience or more bang for your strategic resources.

This is, again, an economic output and efficiency modifier. Moreover, it's a bad one, because no one who understands the nature of the game's pop-efficiency meta will choose more of a bad job instead of using pops on other planets to provide food without a penalty and using pops on this planet to provide something without a 30% modifier. Pops, not jobs, are the limiting factor in Stellaris economics.

Ancient Resort World: Get a global +5% bonus to trade, if this planet is a resort world.

This is an economic output and efficiency modifier.

And besides that, even simple straight production bonuses that are better mean you have to make different choices.

Straight production bonuses are economic output and efficiency modifiers.

And while I agree that Stellaris at its heart is all about economic efficiences, I feel the way people are scared of minor bonuses because they give a tony advanttage and so prevent them from balancing each other out is holding the game back quite a bit.

One of the most well received developments in Stellaris in the last few years has been the Custodian team, who have been re-balancing old things as much as making anything new. Including many generally recognized as appropriate nerfs.

 

[methegrate]

Agreed. And I feel like you could use the trade mechanic that's already in the game to do it. Right now, trade bases are linked by trade routes and have a radius in which they collect trade. So, expand that mechanic to just include all resources.

If a system is connected to the capital through the trade network, then it is connected to the empire's stockpile. It adds its resources and can withdraw from them. If it isn't in the collection radius of a trade base, or if its trade network doesn't connect to the capital, then it can't connect to the empire's stockpile. It can only use local resources.

Local stockpiles might be a good addition, although I worry that this might add a lot of complexity for relatively little payoff. Plus, given just how many resources empires generate in Stellaris, they also might defeat the purpose. It won't matter if a planet is cut off from the empire if it can just coast for the next decade off its stockpiled food.

I would expand this to all systems though, not just planets. Right now uninhabited systems (most of the galaxy map) are just dead space, so most empires end up with huge backwaters that they just kind of ignore. Needing to build and defend trade networks in those areas, along with keeping an eye out for piracy, would add a little depth to those systems.

Edit - One other way this might be interesting. Right now, when you take planets and systems you immediately get access to those resources. I do think that's a god change, it makes swapping territory during a war higher stakes.

But we could also add buildable military outposts that create trade radius and connect to the trade network. You can build them in territory that you hold during a war, and they would let you connect captured resources back to the empire's stockpile. That would create a type of logistics system during wartime. You would need to build and protect those outposts if you want to keep the gains you make during a war.