• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary - #145 Archaeology

Hello everyone!

Today we’re back with yet another dev diary, which will build upon some of the things we revealed last week. Last week we outlined some information about Minor Relics, and how they can be useful. We didn’t mention specifically how they are usually found, but luckily that is something you’ll learn today!

Archaeology
In the next DLC you will be able to experience some new content related to uncovering and excavating archaeological sites. Sites can be discovered in multiple ways, be it either on survey, generated at game start, or perhaps generated by an event.

upload_2019-4-25_9-41-4.png

Sites that lie inside your borders can be excavated by a Scientist, and will consist of several different chapters. A site can have 1-6 chapters, in addition to an introduction/prologue. Each chapter will have its own narrative and a reward, and has to be unlocked before it becomes visible.
upload_2019-4-25_9-41-36.png

Excavation in progress. Spoiler-blurred text.

A chapter will be unlocked whenever the Scientist excavating the site gets a successful result at the end of an Excavation Phase – mechanically this works very similar to how sieges work in EU4. As the Scientist goes through phases, it will roll a dice and add modifiers to the result. The final result will then either do nothing, add clues, or make a breakthrough to the next chapter.

Game mechanics details:
Result = dice roll + Archaeology Skill + Clues - Difficulty

Result Outcomes:
0-7: Status quo
8-10: +1 clue
11-13: +2 clues
14+: Breakthrough

upload_2019-4-25_9-44-45.png

Chapter completed. Spoiler-blurred text.
A neat feature of this new system is that you can click previous chapters to go back and read what happened.

At the end of each Excavation Phase, it is also possible that the Scientist triggers a random event, which will inject some unpredictability and create opportunities for emergent storytelling.
upload_2019-4-25_10-38-19.png

Everything is fine.

Archaeology chapters commonly reward the player with minor artifacts – but it can also be resources, research points or other more unique rewards.

Design intentions
Archaeology becomes a way for us to express narrative in a more evolving and controlled manner, and every site it also tied to a location on the map. All of these things together should make it more enjoyable to experience the content, since we hope it becomes easier to build a mental model of what is happening where. In general I believe that having narrative tied to things you can see on the map makes for a better experience. It’s not uncommon for me to forget where on the map a previous event occurred, and that is something I’d like to improve over time. I really like archaeology because it lands well between mechanics and narrative.

------------

We hope you could dig today’s dev diary, and next week we’ll be back with something old that is new.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Huh? I've reread my post several times now. I'm not sure how you guys are reaching this conclusion.

There is a 99.99% chance I'll buy this DLC. Stellaris is the game with the most played hours in my Steam library, and probably the only game that beats it would be World of Warcraft. I said this sounds interesting, but this specific addition doesn't get me fired up. I'm looking forward to learning more about the DLC.

Very confused. But maybe I was unclear. Hopefully this helps to clarify things.
Sounds interesting. But doesn't quite get me fired up like MegaCorps did. Or Leviathans. Or Machine Empires. The best Paradox DLCs includes changes that almost make the game feel new again. I'm not sure this feature by itself would do that (and yes I know there's more to come). Looking forward to hearing more about the DLC.
If you meant "new Precursors aren't very interesting to me", that would be understandable, but it came across as if the DLC itself- including the new Archeology mechanic- didn't interest you.
 
I see. I was referring only to the specific archaelogy mechanic. I am very interested in them expanding on the precursors. Thanks for clarifying.
 
I see. I was referring only to the specific archaelogy mechanic. I am very interested in them expanding on the precursors. Thanks for clarifying.
Oh, hm. Got the threads mixed up- so I suppose I meant "I don't find the archeology interesting" versus "I find the whole DLC- including the new precursors- uninteresting".

Honestly, feeling disappointed with the archaeology feature makes a lot LESS sense to me, since its clearly pretty robust and adds a lot of potential to the game, whereas the new Precursors are more minor in scope.
 
Oh, hm. Got the threads mixed up- so I suppose I meant "I don't find the archeology interesting" versus "I find the whole DLC- including the new precursors- uninteresting".

Honestly, feeling disappointed with the archaeology feature makes a lot LESS sense to me, since its clearly pretty robust and adds a lot of potential to the game, whereas the new Precursors are more minor in scope.

Well, again, I'm not how much clearer I can make this. If you look at my post it starts with "Sounds interesting." The next sentence is that it doesn't get me "fired up". The post concludes with "I'm looking forward to learning more about the DLC". You seem to be fixated on the fact that it doesn't get me fired up. Anyway, I'm done with this tangent now. I cannot explain things any clearer I don't think, and it all feels relatively pointless.
 
I applaud this new idea, I consider that it can not only revive the interest of the anomalies but also encourage their appearance in other stages of the game (as the half-final of the game) where currently, and unfortunately, this system is absent.

I would like to share some suggestions that I think can improve the experience of archaeological sites:

Why limit the anomaly to a single investigator? I think it would be more interesting to include a project leader and up to two research assistants.

In those minor anomalies it might be necessary a single researcher to overcome the difficulty of that anomaly, but in mayor anomalies (greater difficulty) I believe that several researchers who support with their knowledge and experience (and level) can be an extra in the management and resource strategy that involves the use of leaders. Rewarding those players who invest their credits in scientific leaders instead of the economy of their civilization or the size of their navy.

Example: Our civilization finds the remains of a technologically superior alien spacecraft. It is a complicated project, so it is necessary a Head of Research (mandatory) and there is the option of adding two Research Assistants.

I created a mock up on this idea based on the original image:

upload_2019-4-25_9-41-36MOD.png


---

Have you considered including requirements (such as traits) for the scientist investigating the anomaly? It is a good way to reuse the different traits of "Expertise", for example, limiting it to only scientists with these traits being able to participate in specific projects. Scientists with "Spark of Genius" may not suffer from these limitations.

Example: Because it is necessary to understand the engines of this discovered alien ship, the Head of Research must have the trait "Expertise: Voidcraft".

Not only would it improve the gaming experience and the storytelling, it would also involve an additional strategy that the most peaceful players or those seeking the greatest potential of anomalies would appreciate in the most mechanical and boring stages of the game.

If this idea of traits is combined with the use of several scientists I proposed earlier you can create a kind of simple "puzzle" where players might be interested in having the best group of scientists optimized for each new anomaly.

---

Why limit this new anomaly system to scientists only? There would be many who would welcome social anomalies: small problems or disputes that arise in the colonies of a civilization or positive events that can be solved with good management or diplomacy. These kinds of anomalies could use governors (or depending, even admirals or generals) instead of scientists.

Example: After the discovery of the alien ship to the public, several civil cults have emerged with the idea that these aliens are gods of another time and therefore deserve worship. Solving this project requires a Chief Ambassador (governor) and due to its difficulty can be supported by two other Ambassadors.

---

Would it be impossible to include this research system in diplomatic projects? Following my previous idea, I think it would be very interesting if certain levels had been reached (perhaps by previous research or by the opinion of one civilization on another), diplomatic projects could be created that would improve or worsen relations with another civilization (or even ways of influencing the population, changing its ethics, for example). Perhaps even completing these projects will force the target civilizations to perform other projects on their own.

Example: After accepting alien cults, our empire decides to share this new religion with a neighboring civilization. A new project led by a Chief Ambassador begins. After finished it, the cult will spread among the inhabitants of the other civilization.


I have some other ideas about this system, but I don't want to saturate this post.

Thank you very much for your time reading my suggestions.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-4-25_9-41-36MOD.png
    upload_2019-4-25_9-41-36MOD.png
    323,8 KB · Views: 16
Would it be impossible to include this research system in diplomatic projects? Following my previous idea, I think it would be very interesting if certain levels had been reached (perhaps by previous research or by the opinion of one civilization on another), diplomatic projects could be created that would improve or worsen relations with another civilization (or even ways of influencing the population, changing its ethics, for example). Perhaps even completing these projects will force the target civilizations to perform other projects on their own.

Example: After accepting alien cults, our empire decides to share this new religion with a neighboring civilization. A new project led by a Chief Ambassador begins. After finished it, the cult will spread among the inhabitants of the other civilization.


I have some other ideas about this system, but I don't want to saturate this post.

Thank you very much for your time reading my suggestions.

That's a cool idea. You should post that in the suggestions forum.
 
Design intentions
Archaeology becomes a way for us to express narrative in a more evolving and controlled manner, and every site it also tied to a location on the map. All of these things together should make it more enjoyable to experience the content, since we hope it becomes easier to build a mental model of what is happening where. In general I believe that having narrative tied to things you can see on the map makes for a better experience. It’s not uncommon for me to forget where on the map a previous event occurred, and that is something I’d like to improve over time. I really like archaeology because it lands well between mechanics and narrative.


This is the most important thing, for me, that Stellaris could possibly address. It's even more important than the slog that was warfare or the empty midgame. It just edges past weak diplomacy. I need, need, need emergent narratives in my games. I haven't been this excited since Way of Life was announced maybe? I don't know. I'm just too excited.
 
please make the dig sites searchable in the search function. also use this as an excuse to make the search function able to search for star types, L and regular gates, megastructures, wormholes, combination of stars?, rare deposits, planet types, leviathans, etc etc
 
If this is eventually used to rework the design functionality of anomalies, I would also like to see some changes to the design philosophy, too.

Many of the Stellaris anomalies give the player a choice in the outcome. However, they either a) give the player no information on the outcome, making it an uninformed guess, unless they have seen the event before, and/or b) have very imbalanced outcomes, making one choice clearly superior to the others.

The ’blind guessing’ approach is quite frustrating for a strategy game. I often google new anomaly outcomes if I want to know which choice will actually provide which bonus, which feels like cheating, but shouldn’t.

Crusader Kings seems to have more informed events, with more idea of a tradeoff: they are usually along the lines of “80% good thing happens, 20% bad thing happens” OR “do nothing”, which is at least giving the player some strategic choice. If your empire is strong, you may feel it worth the risk to get the bonus, whereas in other circumstances it might be wiser to leave it be, but in either case, there is some merit to either side.

I hope that anomalies can be revisited so that there are balanced and situational outcomes, with meaningful choices where you have a valid reason to pick any of them, depending on circumstances. That way they will continue to be interesting past the first play through.