Small but flavorful wants and changes

[Earth Dragon]

Been playing for a while but new to the Forums. Have well past a 1000 hours in game including (shamefully) over 200 for Megacorp. I felt 2.2 was a major improvement but want to kick out a list of things I was surprised to not see come with:

Expanded Traditions - Making a very Unique flavorful Empire is important to me, as well as many others. Feeling like my people/government having a easily role-played purpose makes any game like this better. This game is good in this regard but not great. The biggest area at this stage holding it back from greatness is a Tradition system that ends up every Empire having all the same Traditions and Static buffs. The BEST part of this is the Ascension Perks, as those are very meaningful choices and there are never enough to do everything you want. But there is SO much room for improvement here as shown in this screen shot

You can blow me off and say I already have access to it via the the mod shown, but if we are being objective, modsters rarely put a big enough emphasis on balance, as also shown by these mods allowing you to Unlock all Ascension Perks as a result. There is really so much to do here, those 7 categories, and the sub categories a couple should be shattered into, just can't cover it and give every Empire that Unique setting it deserves. And said bluntly, Competitive Multiplayer should not be this game's main concern. And if that would cause pause to implement this because of balance struggles, that is more then unfortunate.

Galactic Crusaders - Some of the best Empires to play are the Barbarians and Ravenous Swarms, but there is a massive hole that has been created in not allowing for Empires to Prioritize righting the wrongs of the Galaxy. I'd like to see more options like the Robotic Caretakers where you are playing high morale Nations. A "Crusader" type government that can declare war to free slave, beat back Fanatic Purifiers WITHOUT claiming the systems (all special War Declaration where you blow up their stuff versus claiming it), and destabilize sinful governments in general would make for interesting play. Imagine Spawning at 200 at the outer edge and there is a Determined Exterminator you know of purging innocents at 010. Declare the "Crusade" War condition on them, and all their Rivals automatically let you through their space to beat back their territory without having to now govern it. I would play this at the drop of a hat!

More Emphasis on Fighters - This is from giving you more options in that those slots to having different size wings stationed in your territory. I'd like to see the "Holy Trinity" of aircraft established of Fighter, Interceptor, and Bomber and fully utilized. I'd also like to see Starbases auto equipped with a pair of fighters, just like they are with a Missile Launcher, which upgrades to 4/8/12/16 as you building up the base. I don't think this is game breaking, and is mostly absorbed by all the PDS spam, but damn it, I want fighters stationed at all my bases!! (Maybe as part of that nice extended Traditions pool!)

More Meaningful Ground Combat - I would MUCH rather have ground combat entanglements take a year+ versus the current bomb the planet until 100% Devestation because the defender just keeps slipping in defense armies. I'm up for suggestions on this one as much as anyone, but the current system is a bit disappointing. It doesn't have to be full "Battle of Hoth" type raids, but even planetary guns still defending the surface could force more army level engagements at least. Warships being loaded with troops versus the transport ship system would also be a welcome change. I'm sure even the guys at Paradox understand what Marines are

Better PDS placement and more gun/ship art - It'd be nice it the "best" weapon stalls were the ones that the PDS filled. Any one who has up an Insect Corvette knows what I'm talking about. It just looks odd. This is a minor thing, but would make the ships look so much better in the designer. I'd also like to see other weapons then just PDS get their own unique gun art, including Torpedos looking different then missiles and the like.

Let me pick my Weapon Colors - It looks so badass When my "Hornet" Ravenous Swarm Destroyers are firing UV lasers that match their engines trails. So much so, I've held off on upgrading that tech last so they keep the thematic look. Just allow for players to choose their beam colors.

Xenophiles are out of Control - Xenophiles have been the hardest faction to please and the keep under control in 2.2 more then any other group. I've had everything from Robots, to Slave from only a pair of races, to all the right Living Standards, to Decadent pops, to no migration treaties to............you name it. But the Xenophiles still have some ungodly high Ethics pull that it is just too hard to contain realistically. Why are they so much more invasive then any other group? And why are they more particular then almost any other group where they have the most unique and divergent demands that piss off everyone who isn't them? This just seems like they are harsher/get more pull then intended. I don't get that same crazy impact from Xenophobes getting pissed when I allow a couple of residences in my Empire and they are a sub-faction that has started up.

Better Variance from Mild to Extreme Ethics opening up options - I'd really love to play a Reptilian Empire that has no problem eating it's enemies, but still forms Alliances(federates) with other Reptile species. Or set up an Avian Menagerie where they love and want to befriend all Birds, but their Xenophilia only extends to Birds. Spiritualists who allow Robotic workers but not Sapient AI or Mild Militarists that just want to ensure that they are well defended and not particularly taking over other's turf. Essentially mild factions to go with your mild pull would be a welcome twist!

Deeper Federation/Alliance Options - I'll be the one of the first to say, reiterating the idea of meat-eating Reptiles, that 2.3 would be good to concentrate on overhauling the Federation/Defensive Pact/Vassal State Systems of the game. It's probably the weakest, most rigid area at this point that could do so much more. Just the fact that someone has to take a Tradition to start one is a problem in and of itself (which wisely got fixed with Vassals).

Capitol Exclusive Buildings - The last one I'll list is it would be nice to have special buildings that could only be build at your Capitol that you had to have the right Ethics and Civics for. Things that would be similar to the Notre Dame Cathedral, The Statue of Liberty, or the Great Opera House.


Thanks for reading. Love the game and only want to see it continuing to move onward and upward!

A couple more that completely got missed!

Too Many Useless Systems now - It's one thing to find a system with a sun and 3 planets and have it only produce 2 energy. It's a completely different thing to find a Trinary System that is a main thorough fare for your Empire which contains a Neutron star, and is about as big of a space that you can find and the system is worth 2 Energy. Why do stars no longer autogenerate something in binary and trinary systems? With the New Admin Cap, Systems are way too punishing now as is. They don't need the additional nerf of stars punishing your movement, yet no longer giving you the proper research to help eventually overcome that hindrance. All stars should give you something. I feel there should also be opportunities to "re-scan systems" to find over looked resources that have a weighted find rate for weaker systems and systems with a higher percentage of dead weight. One last sub-bullet: Too many Anomalies and finds override the natural resources now. Even if it's 2 trade, I often feel cheated it went away. Systems are just too weak now to lose what few natural resources they provide to an expedition.

No Enough Research Specialization - Simply put, there should be more jobs that provide Engineering and Physics research with the appropriate resource feed. Military Researcher producing Engineering and Society, Flat Engineer specializing in just that and so on. This is not only a Roleplay whole to not allow players to really specialize in something but a game balance issue as it helps make up for what you don't find in space. Society already has a handful of these guys so why should Physics and Engineering be so barred from this?

 

[Sinister2202]

I like the expanded traditions idea. But to be honest, it would bring a lot of uniqueness to each empires if the traditions were "path" based, on top of it being expanded as choosing paths would narrow things down.

On top of that, the expanded traditions should have synchronicity with the government's ethos, perks, aesthetics so that picking "domination" for example follows suit with an authoritarian empire. But due to the fact being that traditions are expanded, not all should have obvious synchronicity for unpredictability.

 

[methegrate]

I like the expanded traditions idea. But to be honest, it would bring a lot of uniqueness to each empires if the traditions were "path" based, on top of it being expanded as choosing paths would narrow things down.

On top of that, the expanded traditions should have synchronicity with the government's ethos, perks, aesthetics so that picking "domination" for example follows suit with an authoritarian empire. But due to the fact being that traditions are expanded, not all should have obvious synchronicity for unpredictability.

Agreed. Before expanding the number of traditions, I'd focus on making them much deeper with mutually exclusive options.

My thinking is that each ethos should have its own tradition tree with the kind of depth and breadth of a HoI IV national focus tree. As you pick your ethos, you assemble the trees that will make up your empire unity. Each ethos should have literally dozens of options, again many mutually exclusive, in its traditions. Between your three ethos picks you'd have a tree with the same kind of depth as they have in Hearts of Iron, and one with real character relevant to your empire.

Then again, I'd borrow several ideas from that game. The mutually exclusive doctrines, for example, are another idea that should be almost copied and pasted straight into Stellaris.

 

[Sinister2202]

Agreed. Before expanding the number of traditions, I'd focus on making them much deeper with mutually exclusive options.

My thinking is that each ethos should have its own tradition tree with the kind of depth and breadth of a HoI IV national focus tree. As you pick your ethos, you assemble the trees that will make up your empire unity. Each ethos should have literally dozens of options, again many mutually exclusive, in its traditions. Between your three ethos picks you'd have a tree with the same kind of depth as they have in Hearts of Iron, and one with real character relevant to your empire.

Then again, I'd borrow several ideas from that game. The mutually exclusive doctrines, for example, are another idea that should be almost copied and pasted straight into Stellaris.

Yes exactly what I had in mind. At first I would imagine the choices would be narrow, then expand outwards.

 

[EvilTom]

If you have mutually exclusive traditions, how do you deal with them when ethos changes?

I'm not 100% keen on how all your tradition points carry over if you change ethos. Traditions make it sound like something that takes years to build up... and in the game they do through the accumilation and expenditure of unity.

Should your ascension and unity be refunded? Or should you lose (all or a percentage) of them as the cost of swapping ethos?

 

[Koizumi]

Nice list of suggestions! I especially agree with the first two points - the strenght of stellaris are the rp possibilities, and they could be enhanced quite a bit. The first two points would help with that.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Added a couple more points that I thought I had listed but hadn't

 

[Nakkivene]

Having more science projects you can do in your space would add flavour, but I'd want an auto-project option then. Do a project, return back to assist research. Or perhaps science ships could wander around doing random mad science instead of assisting research, giving you some RP bonus and occasional goodies?

 

[Piotrzeci]

I do agree that space feels quite empty now. Planets produce so much, that there really isn't much reason to expand. It takes a toll on admin cap and doesn't really bring much in return. Space stations are quite expensive to maintain and many systems just barely aren't empty. It might be just my imagination, but having many systems takes more of the cap than the population on planets do, even though it doesn't pay as well. The devs said that you are meant to go over your cap... but really you can just stay under it and it is a better alternative. Minerals and Energy can always be acquired via tributary states and food can be bought. Why not just spam Alloys, Consumer Goods and Research? And if you do, then there is no need for anything in space, but rare resources. I again feel like the best systems to take from neighbours are those that create a good choke-point and ensure no more wars.
Having said that, I must praise rare resources. There are rare enough and at the same time not too rare and have a lot of uses. I must say they are worth taking and even conquering.
Generally I would like to see something being raised with empire size. Maybe naval cap, influence gain or something. Right now the cap just dictates the size of empire. It's absolutely perfect as long as you are below it and then going over it is a problem and going even further is just a nobrain "no". Being large means being weak... which makes barely any sense (apart from the tactic of crippling yourself to just kill everyone around, so in a way you are relatively stronger). Why does it cost so much to hold a system? How much does it hurt my administration to have a system with a single mining station in it, that nobody has claimed and is inside my borders (I mean everything around is also taken)? How many thousands of citizens have to manage this empty chunk of space, that it takes twice as much of the cap as a district?

There could be techs to reduce empire size from owned systems, the cohesion could be more relevant and tied to the strength of penalties (so it would be better to own systems, than to leave them untaken) and most importantly the penalties shouldn't be flat based on points over the cap, but instead connected to your empire's capacity in a percentage way; why is one system over the cap as much of an issue for a 300 system big empire as it is for one that is 30 systems big? "We have this 5 systems with a mining station each somewhere over there and can't really manage them well, so techs are 10% harder to research" (???)

 

[Spaceception]

It would be really interesting to have more tradition trees that act more like paths your empire could take. But I would limit them to 7 possible trees + a free perk as they are now. This way you have to choose what your empire will prioritize itself with. In addition, each would also have different bonuses based on ethics. It would automatically choose trees based on the fanatic ethic, but randomly choose one out of 3 if you didn't have a fanatic ethic. Finally, it'd be nice to switch out one of your ascension perks (Excluding the ascension paths/megastructures/anything that would be trouble to remove) for a hefty unity price. So you can change it to something more useful later in the game.

 

[methegrate]

If you have mutually exclusive traditions, how do you deal with them when ethos changes?

I'm not 100% keen on how all your tradition points carry over if you change ethos. Traditions make it sound like something that takes years to build up... and in the game they do through the accumilation and expenditure of unity.

Should your ascension and unity be refunded? Or should you lose (all or a percentage) of them as the cost of swapping ethos?

Personally I'd go with keeping ascension, but giving a relatively small unity refund. When you change ethics you've changed the very nature of your empire. Imho it's okay for that to be a big, destabilizing deal.

 

[Earth Dragon]

If you have mutually exclusive traditions, how do you deal with them when ethos changes?

I'm not 100% keen on how all your tradition points carry over if you change ethos. Traditions make it sound like something that takes years to build up... and in the game they do through the accumilation and expenditure of unity.

Should your ascension and unity be refunded? Or should you lose (all or a percentage) of them as the cost of swapping ethos?

And Here in lies the issues with attaching Tradtions to governing Ethics. They need to remain seperate to avoid non-sense later. And there is nothing to say that your Pacifists don't have a Tradition of conflict: it's why they are now Pacifists or any other combination. I'd rather the non-role-play power gamers be allowed to abuse the system then tighten the screws on people just wanting the flavor they want without trying to break anything. Ethics already affect policy enough, they don't need to cripple you conceptually because your thoughts may differ from the devs.

 

[Sinister2202]

If you have mutually exclusive traditions, how do you deal with them when ethos changes?

I'm not 100% keen on how all your tradition points carry over if you change ethos. Traditions make it sound like something that takes years to build up... and in the game they do through the accumilation and expenditure of unity.

Should your ascension and unity be refunded? Or should you lose (all or a percentage) of them as the cost of swapping ethos?

For the "mutually exclusive" part, it shouldn't be limited to ethos. It's just that empires shouldn't be able to pick ALL traditions and turn out the same as everyone else. However, there should be some base line traditions where everyone can pick everything and turn out the same, except further down the line, they should eventually split and differentiate.

 

[Little Green Mensch]

I wouldn't mind seeing more differences in tradition trees - it always felt weird that Egalitarians could pick "Domination," for example.

That said, I think a branching tradition tree with mutually exclusive choices would be neat. It would be very difficult to balance, however; some tradition bonuses are already much stronger than others, and creating a whole new set of choices that are meaningful but equally advantageous overall is non-trivial.

 

[Earth Dragon]

I wouldn't mind seeing more differences in tradition trees - it always felt weird that Egalitarians could pick "Domination," for example.

That said, I think a branching tradition tree with mutually exclusive choices would be neat. It would be very difficult to balance, however; some tradition bonuses are already much stronger than others, and creating a whole new set of choices that are meaningful but equally advantageous overall is non-trivial.

I feel they haven't balanced the trees properly because they don't have to. Once the need is there, it becomes a higher priority. +2 Governor Levels isn't bad, but it gets mucked up in a Tree that also has Tile Blocker savings and +2 Ruler levels and Enforcer Effectiveness. Now all of these buffs can be spread out a little better, in addition to breaking up the "must take" trees like Expansion and Exploration (not trying to start a debate, just stating what many people think).

Instead "exclusive trees" I'd much rather see the factions give you negatives for trees they don't like and positives for trees they do like. This opens everything up, and allows you to build what you want knowing that there may be a conflict within your empire. This becomes a better mechanic when there are 15 choices with a cap at a certain number versus just 7 and you'll eventually have them all.