One thing about Stellaris that I feel is holding it back is that it is an unbalanced game. Between the power of Scion starts, ringworld starts, machine empires or just the usual Synth Technocracy, there isn't really that many competitive play styles. This is a shame since Stellaris has dozens of different ones in the game that contain so much potential but aren't playable since a Life Seeded Xenophilic Beacon of Liberty or a Tomb World Militarist Warrior Culture cannot ever compete with a Technocracy with the Scion Origin.
Now, I know that many in the community are skeptical about balancing, mainly since it tends to dull strong strategies and reduce diversity of playstyles which is why I want to talk about balancing itself.
An important thing about balancing to keep in mind that there are two types of balancing, symmetrical and asymmetrical.
Symmetrical balancing focuses on making sure that all players have the same options, think of Chess where players start with the same pieces and moves. This type of balancing makes sure that every start is similar to each other and without much variety. For example, a symmetrical way of balancing the Scion origin would be to remove the OP fleet and gifts from the Fallen Empires. This is pretty boring and I think this type of balancing doesn't fit Stellaris well, although some games do it pretty well like Eu4.
On the other hand, asymmetrical balancing is about giving players different ways of winning a game, with games like Starcraft being a good example. This type of balancing makes sure that all players have different paths but all competitive to achieving victory. For example, a asymmetrical way of balancing the Scion origin would be continue having the Scion receive OP gifts but the Fallen Empire also meddles like crazy, let's say a Materialist one will try to tax you like crazy when you get big or a Militarist one will force you into repeated wars and use you to get rid of countries that they don't like. Here, their intrusion can be make winning just as difficult as a normal game, but in a completely different way.
We can see here is that instead of equalizing strengths, this type of balancing adds downsides to strengths, which makes games more fun since starts aren't about picking how you want to be overpowered, but rather selecting the strengths that you want to use to overcome your weaknesses. Additionally, this can give so many bland parts of the game so much more flavor and interest (remember how a third of Civics don't really do anything like Covee system).
I do admit that asymmetric balancing is more difficult than leaving the game alone and that it takes more time to make the whole game not only look different but feel different, but I firmly believe that this type of mindset is the best way to improve Stellaris and add more features.
Now, I know that many in the community are skeptical about balancing, mainly since it tends to dull strong strategies and reduce diversity of playstyles which is why I want to talk about balancing itself.
An important thing about balancing to keep in mind that there are two types of balancing, symmetrical and asymmetrical.
Symmetrical balancing focuses on making sure that all players have the same options, think of Chess where players start with the same pieces and moves. This type of balancing makes sure that every start is similar to each other and without much variety. For example, a symmetrical way of balancing the Scion origin would be to remove the OP fleet and gifts from the Fallen Empires. This is pretty boring and I think this type of balancing doesn't fit Stellaris well, although some games do it pretty well like Eu4.
On the other hand, asymmetrical balancing is about giving players different ways of winning a game, with games like Starcraft being a good example. This type of balancing makes sure that all players have different paths but all competitive to achieving victory. For example, a asymmetrical way of balancing the Scion origin would be continue having the Scion receive OP gifts but the Fallen Empire also meddles like crazy, let's say a Materialist one will try to tax you like crazy when you get big or a Militarist one will force you into repeated wars and use you to get rid of countries that they don't like. Here, their intrusion can be make winning just as difficult as a normal game, but in a completely different way.
We can see here is that instead of equalizing strengths, this type of balancing adds downsides to strengths, which makes games more fun since starts aren't about picking how you want to be overpowered, but rather selecting the strengths that you want to use to overcome your weaknesses. Additionally, this can give so many bland parts of the game so much more flavor and interest (remember how a third of Civics don't really do anything like Covee system).
I do admit that asymmetric balancing is more difficult than leaving the game alone and that it takes more time to make the whole game not only look different but feel different, but I firmly believe that this type of mindset is the best way to improve Stellaris and add more features.