Stellaris has lost its elegance, pacing and tempo

[HarryB922]

If you don't think the AI is any challenge, try the Starnet AI mod. It will give you a challenge.

 

[methegrate]

I mostly agree with you, but differ on this point. The scaling costs are important in allowing different playstyles and smoothing out progression- snowballing is boring if there's nothing to impede it; if we ever want the non-warfare parts of the game to be engaging, we need more reasons not to just conquer everything in sight.

Admin cap was important though, because it standardized the way that scaling functions. Having a few well-developed planets is the same as having a lot of undeveloped ones.

I agree with you in principle here. While larger empires should, on the balance, be more powerful than smaller empires there absolutely needs to be something to counterbalance snowballing, otherwise as you say the board will just become a few big blobs very quickly.

I've never liked how Stellaris achieves this though. A simple penalty for size has always felt uninspired and, tbh, ineffective.

The alternative, imo, should be gameplay based. An empire should get harder and more expensive to run the larger it gets. To a certain degree I like how admin cap does this; for example, inexpensive edicts give smaller empires a meaningful edge. I think that's terrific, even if I think the edicts and policy system is criminally under-utilized. But for the most part this is abstracted past the point of fun. The expansion problem should be implemented as a gameplay mechanic, not an abstract stat-drag. (Tbh, I'm pretty sure this is what sectors were always intended to become before the devs essentially gave up on that system.)

 

[Defoli Scoyfol]

Empire power being directly proportional to geographic size is a fallacy, even if you consider the past and present of human empires. Even in the the modern day, if size was the primary determinant of power, Russia, Canada, and Canada would be the dominant power with Russia have nearly twice as much geographic area as Canada and China. If we look into the past, the rise of countries such as England, Japan, and Mongolia would make no sense if we tied it directly to physical size as well. As such, it is entirely reasonable to have mechanics that help cater to a "tall" empire playstyle. In fact, it is arguable that there should be more benefits to such a playstyle than there currently even are in the game.

 

[methegrate]

Empire power being directly proportional to geographic size is a fallacy, even if you consider the past and present of human empires. Even in the the modern day, if size was the primary determinant of power, Russia, Canada, and Canada would be the dominant power with Russia have nearly twice as much geographic area as Canada and China. If we look into the past, the rise of countries such as England, Japan, and Mongolia would make no sense if we tied it directly to physical size as well. As such, it is entirely reasonable to have mechanics that help cater to a "tall" empire playstyle. In fact, it is arguable that there should be more benefits to such a playstyle than there currently even are in the game.

It sort of reminds me of the old boxing quote, "a good big man will beat a good little man every time."

You're right that there are examples of large countries that didn't become dominant powers, but they don't prove the rule. Canada is enormous but sparsely populated and most of its territory is very harsh. It would be the equivalent of an empire with 100 star systems but only 10 that have any meaningful resources. Russia, too, has many issues with governance, but I feel it's tough to touch on that without going down a political rabbit hole. I don't want to offend any Russian forum-goers by accidentally insulting them.

The point, though, is that historically countries have gotten powerful by getting big. Rome, France, Germany, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Han Dynasty, the Khmer Empire (more regionally, but still)... Idk, I'm not sure it's useful to just rattle off examples, other than that historically the biggest-deal empires have almost always held the most territory. Even the examples of small countries that you cite is, respectfully, incorrect. They became dominant powers by taking lots and lots of territory. I mean, you mention England. Their empire got so large that they could literally and accurately say "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

A better example would be Venice, which became a very big deal despite a small geographic footprint. Or for a modern-day example, there's Singapore. It is vastly successful, but let's not pretend for a moment that it could repel an invasion from just about any of its neighbors if they got aggressive. City-states like that are the exception to the rule, far less common but still very real. If we're looking for real-life inspiration for Stellaris, they're why the game desperately needs a better diplomatic system that's well-integrated into the economic system. A small state can be wealthy and strong, and we can create lots of good reasons not to invade them. "Because they can fight back and win" rarely should be one of them though.

If someone plays a terrific tall game, that's great and should be entirely possible. But pound-for-pound, a well run big empire should beat a well run small one every time.

 

[performer]

An hour ago, I finished another game of Stellaris 2.2.. I started yesterday, played around 5-6 hours. The last crash made me to stop the session.
So my brand-new experiences:
- The game is slow. Very slow. In pre-2.2. versions, the mid game begins around 4-5 hours. I was - perhaps - at the start of the midgame. Everything feels very slow and clumsy.
- The planet management is clever, but it feels impersonal and "empty".
- I was always low with energy, alloys and consumer goods (nice), but I had TONS and TONS of metals. The events/anomalies are not properly adapted to this. If you have the choice to risk something paying 500 metals, it makes not really sense if you have already 5k.

I think 2.2. was a very huge step in a different direction - it feels like the alpha of a completely new game. So for me, who has not really fun with LeGuin, I am afraid I have to wait for 2.3 and beyond to start a new game.

 

[ow592]

- I was always low with energy, alloys and consumer goods (nice), but I had TONS and TONS of metals. The events/anomalies are not properly adapted to this. If you have the choice to risk something paying 500 metals, it makes not really sense if you have already 5k.

Did you already find the market?

 

[Juncti0n]

You're right that there are examples of large countries that didn't become dominant powers, but they don't prove the rule.

Actually, they do. Every large empire in history has been destroyed, and whether the cause was an internal or external factor the cause of their downfall was something that always began as a weaker force then what the empire was capable of.

Their empire got so large that they could literally and accurately say "the sun never sets on the British Empire."

And yet in the end that Empire was reduced into the modern day Commonwealth because of the loss of just one territory: India. The rest of the Empire was irrelevant - without India the Empire couldn't sustain its size. The Soviet Union fell in much the same fashion. Ultimately no matter how much an Empire expands its economy almost always concentrates into a handful of territories that, if lost, will quickly lead to the fall of the Empire.

A better example would be Venice, which became a very big deal despite a small geographic footprint.

An ironic choice for your point since Venice rose to prominence by sacking Constantinople and strategically conquering major Mediterranean trade ports in Europe. It survived nearly as long as any major empire had despite constant attacks from Napoleon, Austria, and the Ottomans purely on the strength of its navy. It was only when American trade weakened Mediterranean trade value and made the Venetian fleet impossible to maintain that finally Napoleon was finally able to sack Venice.

If someone plays a terrific tall game, that's great and should be entirely possible. But pound-for-pound, a well run big empire should beat a well run small one every time.

It is more accurate to say that big empires should always have an advantage over smaller ones that increases over time. In any game it should always be about player skill. A well-managed tall empire will focus its defenses on essential territory to achieve its victory objective. The wider empire needs to focus on taking away essential resources the tall empire cannot survive without. The ability to achieve a goal other then military supremacy is what makes tall empires fun. You can't beat a wide empire head-on, the goal is simply to defend yourself until you win another way.

As for the larger discussion:

I gotta say - I like wide empires. Galactic Conquest is fun as all Hell. I never liked the tile system in the late game pre-2.2 and the changes since fail to impress me. But then I am more of a role-player then a player who seeks maximum efficiency.

The most positive thing I can say about 2.2, and the main reason I disagree with the idea that it has taken away some of the elegance of Stellaris, is that before 2.2 I would never play a tall empire because with the tile system I always felt building tall inevitably wasted some of the production potential of certain planets. Now I can dabble in tall styles because I can choose how to build up my planets. Sure, I am still losing some planetary potential - but the effects of that no longer feel as dire as it did pre-2.2.

In short I while I think the presentation of the new system still needs a lot of work - in the end the changes have made Stellaris more fun and thus even more elegant.

 

[performer]

I gotta say - I like wide empires. Galactic Conquest is fun as all Hell. I never liked the tile system in the late game pre-2.2 and the changes since fail to impress me. But then I am more of a role-player then a player who seeks maximum efficiency..

That is indeed one of the strengths of the new system - even I as a critic of 2.2. understand your point. Yes, in 2.2 you can forge your planet in the way you want. For roleplaying, it is far better than in pre-2.2, where you always built the same stuff on all planets (click ... click ... cklick).

 

[methegrate]

/snip

I think your overall point is: because large empires eventually fall, that therefore proves that geographic size has no relationship to them being powerful.

Tbh, I'm just not following your logic. Empires rise and fall, but the ones that tend to be strongest are the ones that are largest while they're around. Then, sure, things happen. That's history. However I don't see you're connection from "these empires eventually fell" to "therefore their size had nothing to do with their strength." I think the much more accurate point is "all empires and nations rise and fall."

And as we've seen over and over again throughout history, the strongest ones also tend to be the biggest.

 

[LordRiker]

As someone who stopped playing around just before leviathan and just got back into it in the last month, I have to say things have improved. Way back when, I never felt I had the tools to manage my empire, space felt empty and it seemed all I did was defend against the AI.

Now, those districts are amazing, along with all the events, I love being able to actually manage my empire. I tend to prefer it to fighting wars and now I cando that. That being said, I don’t like choices being taken away, like FTL. I understand why but warp can be balanced many sci fi media, especially trek introduce hazards that prevent warp, ie nebulas, asteroid fields and other hazards but it would probably take more work to fix.

Aside from that, I really hate the artificial speed bumps like how long ships take to travel and how slow worlds populate, it feels Fast is the new normal. Other then that the game is much improved in my opinion.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I think your overall point is: because large empires eventually fall, that therefore proves that geographic size has no relationship to them being powerful.

Tbh, I'm just not following your logic. Empires rise and fall, but the ones that tend to be strongest are the ones that are largest while they're around. Then, sure, things happen. That's history. However I don't see you're connection from "these empires eventually fell" to "therefore their size had nothing to do with their strength." I think the much more accurate point is "all empires and nations rise and fall."

And as we've seen over and over again throughout history, the strongest ones also tend to be the biggest.

The more interesting observation is that the larger an empire becomes, the more it has to worry about territories under its control seceding/rebelling/breaking away and bringing the whole house of cards down with them. This is something Stellaris sorely needs.

 

[Defoli Scoyfol]

The more interesting observation is that the larger an empire becomes, the more it has to worry about territories under its control seceding/rebelling/breaking away and bringing the whole house of cards down with them. This is something Stellaris sorely needs.

Agreed, wide empires should have to constantly have to be worried about the loyalty of each portion of their empire that really isn't sufficiently modeled in the game currently (and honestly would be an excellent addition). If anything, history has shown that there is a certain "Goldilocks" zone in empire size where an empire can flourish and be strong. Outliers that are either too large or too small will ultimately face significant difficulty in longevity and result in collapse.

 

[InvisibleBison]

The more interesting observation is that the larger an empire becomes, the more it has to worry about territories under its control seceding/rebelling/breaking away and bringing the whole house of cards down with them. This is something Stellaris sorely needs.

I agree that secession movements would be a useful addition to the game. I don't think that correlating them with the size of your empire would make a lot of sense, though. History shows plenty of secession movements in small countries as well as large ones. (Of course, applying history to Stellaris is something of a tricky feat; the combination of instantaneous communications and slow interplanetary travel makes it significantly different from any historical era.)

 

[kardwill]

the combination of instantaneous communications and slow interplanetary travel makes it significantly different from any historical era.)

That's already been stated in other conversations, but are instant communications really part of the Stellaris fluff?
I mean, sure, we do have them in our gameplay, but it's also there in Crusader Kings (where my Irish chieftain can teleport his spymaster in constantinople and get his reports realtime, get news of the marital status of any indian bachelor, or react instantly to a crisis at home while he's crusading somewhere in Persia), so it could simply be a gameplay simplification, especially since in Stellaris you're playing your empire's administration, and not the emperor.

So, has it been established in the game world (like in an event text)? The closest thing I can think of are the discution of the diplo screen, but that could be simply the talks with the local embassador/envoy. You still need to wait a few days to get the real answer (just as you have to wait a few days to get a response to your demands in CK2)

 

[Koizumi]

While i do not really agree with the OP, i do think that some "design elegance" has been lost with 2.2. In short, i feel that the issue is that up to 2.1 the economic system was puzzle-like; in 2.2 the system was drastically modified, but some residual elements remained and do not fit the new design. More in detail:

1. Up to 2.1, the economic side of stellaris was literally a puzzle: every planet was a small, simple problem you had to solve to maximise output (match correct building to correct tile and pop with correct traits to correct building). This was not incredibly deep, and required micro-focus on each pop, which is why i think changing it made sense.
2. In 2.2, the economic system gives more importance to higher level decisions: you select districts and buildings for each planet, and cannot freely "move around" pops. I think this is a better framework, but the issue is that some old pop-specific mechanics remained: in particular, you can manually resettle every pop and can gene-mod every single pop. These two mechanics do not really fit the new system, because now you have many more pops, you cannot manually assign them to jobs, and planets are never "solved" (i.e., completely filled and built up as in 2.1).

So I agree that the economic system is less elegant, because now there is a bizarre combination of actions you can take at single pop level and of actions you can take only at empire/planet level. I think stellaris would feel better to play if the focus was clearer (am I supposed to be able to freely micromanage all pops, or should i only affect them indirectly via higher-level decisions?)

Still, I am optimistic that the devs are taking good steps in this sense. For instance, @grekulf stated that he thinks manual resettlement should be removed and replaced by less granular mechanics. I think something similar should be made for gene modding - for instance, in a thread somebody proposed to have a building which allows workers to gradually modify their traits to get better at their job. This process could be more or less efficient based on (more or less egalitarian) policies (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/biological-modification.1167180/)

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

So, has it been established in the game world (like in an event text)? The closest thing I can think of are the discution of the diplo screen, but that could be simply the talks with the local embassador/envoy. You still need to wait a few days to get the real answer (just as you have to wait a few days to get a response to your demands in CK2)

Based off this, there are FTL comms (probably but not nessecarily near-instant ones), but slower methods are used as well.

 

[kardwill]

Well, I assumed coms were FTL, since a 100.000 years lag on pan-galactic communication would be pretty annoying ^^
In Stellaris, given the scale, everything is FTL. But I don't think "instant" is a given. The simple fact that a courrier taking 2-3 years to bring news frome the border is a viable alternative kinda indicates that normal coms are not wondrous. (I know that courriers are also an option on Earth where we have near instant coms, but they are rarely used nowadays, and only take 1-2 days at worst)

A possible FTL coms could be a system of com-relays sending signals through the hyperlanes, for example. Far quicker than a ship (since the signal can cross the intra-system distance between stations at lightspeed in a few dozen hours, and not the 2 months that a ship needs), but it would still take a few weeks to get news to the emperor from the outer borders of a wide empire. Just enough to become a liability, which is an idea I like.

EDIT : Thanks for the screenshot. It's cool to see someone go all the way to support the debate

 

[Riince2]

the biggest difference now is in how long it takes to fully develop planets.

2.1.4: have new planet, know exactly what result you want, full it up with tier 1 of each building you want it to ultimately be running, then hand it off to the sector ai to upgrade them as new pops/techs get finished, you're done. No, the tiles won't fill out with pops instantly but you pretty much don't have to interact with the planet anymore.

2.2.7: constantly and I do mean constantly check every world to see if another building slot is ready to go yet, you CAN just build all your districts upfront but mind the sprawl, also be careful what pops are getting what jobs, modify priorities depending on your economy, keep track of immigration/emigration pull, unemployment, housing, stability, do I have any unique planetary features, what about overpopulation, amenities, keeping edicts rolling, species bloat gets ridiculous if you're not xenophobic... it all truly gets tiresome after awhile.

It also takes MUCH longer to "fully" develop a world now, which fully exacerbates the problem of having to check back for new building slots constantly.

The most bizarre decision I've ever seen was to remove tiles because of lag then increase the number of pops by a factor of 5-10, effectively killing any performance gain that could have resulted and causing pops to increase and slow things down increasingly for centuries because the pop ceiling is so high even on small worlds. Why?

 

[methegrate]

The more interesting observation is that the larger an empire becomes, the more it has to worry about territories under its control seceding/rebelling/breaking away and bringing the whole house of cards down with them. This is something Stellaris sorely needs.

This I completely agree with.

 

[psychotic1]

I agree with these criticisms. In real life Id delegatw managing the 11 reaources to a staffer.

The old economic system was superior and more fun. New Stellaris is tedius beyond belief.