This is just a communications thing, but for Stellaris it might be useful to clarify the thinking behind some of the game's half-finished or underdeveloped systems.
Just speaking personally, for about 2 1/2 years I've been buying DLC on good faith based on Paradox's reputation and the game's sense of potential. Without meaning to sound ad hominem, I've begun to feel like a fool. Thirty two months is a long time and so many of the problems that Stellaris launched with have never gotten fixed.
In particular I'm thinking leaders, sectors, diplomacy, lack of soul/asymmetry, solved development and the dead middle game (just among some... this doesn't even mention governments, mandates, polices and edicts, etc.). All have taken near-relentless criticism from launch, all for a different reason.
It might be helpful from a community standpoint to clarify the developers' thinking on these systems. For me, I would be interested in thoughts on the following:
- Leaders: These seem like a half-finished CKII style personality system. You get alerts when they die, as though it were a significant event, but in practice they're just named stat bumps. What is the purpose of the leader system? Do the developers intend to finish building out what feels like an incomplete personality mechanic?
- Sectors: Countless pixels have been spilled on sectors, so I won't get back into that. In essence, why are they still in the game? What do the developers intend to do with this mechanic?
- Diplomacy: The buzz is that this is the next big DLC. Without getting into specifics, what is the vision for diplomacy? How would the developers like the diplomatic game to play out and what mechanics would they like to build in to achieve that?
- Asymmetry: A review once said that the biggest problem with Stellaris is that it "has no soul." Every empire feels like just a reskinned row on the spreadsheet. None feel different, none have any sense of character. The world is the same. The world of Stellaris has no sense of itself. Instead it relies on references to every other big sci fi property to try and paper that over.
What is the developers' perspective on that? Do they want to make empires feel more asymmetrical and alien? And is there a sense of how they want the world of Stellaris to feel to the player?
- Solved Development: Stellaris is a war game. It's the only thing to really do. Moreover, if you don't have power you get flattened and building ships is the only path to power. So min/maxing toward alloys is the overwhelmingly dominant strategy. Do the developers have a sense of how they want to address this?
- The Dead Middle: I play Stellaris while I'm washing dishes, while I'm editing articles or watching Netflix. I sometimes start it up after getting back from the gym then jump in the shower. One of the forum's moderators once called Stellaris an "idler." It's because, once you've finished the early exploration phase, there's nowhere to go and nothing to do except occasionally declare war. You become a landlocked nation, with no meaningful interaction with your neighbors aside from invasion. You can literally walk away from the game for 15, 20 minutes at a stretch and nothing happens. Is there a plan for this?
