The "randomness" does not add extra value to the game...

[DanielPrates]

same shit

Language!

 

[Calvax]

Not going to lie, I just wish that SOME Techs, not all, just selected few, had few ways of increasing their spawn rate.

I’ve not really thought this through but being able to tick a research focus for one of the categories of tech might work. Favours more cards drawn from those categories, representing a call for research proposals from particular fields.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Tech in Stellaris is effectively a set of grant proposals. Now it's absolutely unrealistic in that we aren't deciding on several hundred projects to throw support behind; we can rationalize it by saying all "techs" are really a suite of projects and we're just choosing a category of research to pursue, or we can accept that Stellaris is a game and can't ask us to manage hundreds of choices in one aspect all at once. If you spend enough time around research groups, you'll see that projects don't remain viable indefinitely - research groups form and dissolve, researcher interests change and other priorities come to the fore, and people retire / are hired.

This is also what I mean in the sense that "science isn't linear." It isn't linear in the sense that even though the Mark II version is the next step for a technology after the Mark I is complete, you are liable to complete the Mark I only to find that the ideas for a Mark II aren't really ready for full-scale funding, or there are far more viable projects ready to go now that funding needs to be assigned. The next stage might languish for years, decades, even centuries, and might do so simply because nobody bothered to look back at the Mark I and ask if a Mark II might be possible (for example, the recent reversal of the Archimedes Screw - there's nothing that requires it to be a modern invention, but it ended up being one). There are, of course, exceptions for techs that are just waiting in the wings to be developed and generally always will be, but Stellaris offers a solution for them in the form of "pinned" tech options from debris research, special events / projects, and ascension perks.

Stellaris concentrates a model of scientific development as a mix of "what avenues we see as important right now" and "what we are ready to pursue right now" into an immediately accessible card-drawn system.

This is a very good explanation.

It's also a strong argument for tech cards being renamed to something like "Proposals" to stop threads like this from popping up.

oh boy suddenly my level 3 governor finds out that drugs exist and will not progress any longer...

It would be nice if these events offered more options.

Other Paradox games have "accept that this happens" or "pay X currency to stop this from happening" as event options for stuff like this. It's strange that Stellaris doesn't do this.

Why cant we have rulers with a trait tree so we can decide what trait we need or want...

This is fair.

Leaders leave a lot to be desired and being able to min-max hypercompetent leaders should be a valid strategy. I don't have any specific suggestions off the top of my head, but hypercompetent leaders feels thematically right and something that could be expanded on beyond the existing max leader level bonuses.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

All techs have ways of increasing their spawn rates.

This is information hidden from the player though, isn't it?

Having a tab somewhere where I can view the tech tree, and see info on their weights, would be nice and make the average player aware of the control they can have over tech draws.

Most trivially, every tech has a subcategory assigned to it (Voidcraft, New Worlds, Computing, etc.) and if you have a scientist with the matching Expertise you're more likely to draw that tech.

Problem is taking advantage of this can force some micro - there's no alert for "tech research is almost complete, quickly change the research leader to one with expertise in the field you want to draw from." If you want your next tech to be from a different category, you've got to either slow research on the current tech by assigning a leader with the wrong expertise or remember to check back periodically so you can make the switch before it finishes.

Maybe we could have a button next to auto-research for auto-generate tech options, so we have a chance to swap the research leader around after research completes but before getting new options.

 

[Greykrest]

I think the randomness of card games should be removed. Players should be able to just take whatever cards they want out of the deck at any time. If they want an interesting game, they're free to pick sub-optimal cards. /s

 

[LoLuecoLueco]

Tech in Stellaris is effectively a set of grant proposals. Now it's absolutely unrealistic in that we aren't deciding on several hundred projects to throw support behind; we can rationalize it by saying all "techs" are really a suite of projects and we're just choosing a category of research to pursue, or we can accept that Stellaris is a game and can't ask us to manage hundreds of choices in one aspect all at once. If you spend enough time around research groups, you'll see that projects don't remain viable indefinitely - research groups form and dissolve, researcher interests change and other priorities come to the fore, and people retire / are hired.

This is also what I mean in the sense that "science isn't linear." It isn't linear in the sense that even though the Mark II version is the next step for a technology after the Mark I is complete, you are liable to complete the Mark I only to find that the ideas for a Mark II aren't really ready for full-scale funding, or there are far more viable projects ready to go now that funding needs to be assigned. The next stage might languish for years, decades, even centuries, and might do so simply because nobody bothered to look back at the Mark I and ask if a Mark II might be possible (for example, the recent reversal of the Archimedes Screw - there's nothing that requires it to be a modern invention, but it ended up being one). There are, of course, exceptions for techs that are just waiting in the wings to be developed and generally always will be, but Stellaris offers a solution for them in the form of "pinned" tech options from debris research, special events / projects, and ascension perks.

Stellaris concentrates a model of scientific development as a mix of "what avenues we see as important right now" and "what we are ready to pursue right now" into an immediately accessible card-drawn system.

I have seen this explanation before, and even if i don't like it a lot i can understand it, but there is a issue that always keeps at my side and you didn't seem to address on your comment, altough i did raise it on mine: what about research options that you already were offered but didn't choose, and now have to wait for god knows how long to get at them again? If the idea was already raised, i see no issue with the scientific committee pointing at it and saying "well nice, now we need that, go and research it".

But i really don't think this is the only problem, the issues you brought about for the next stage of a project not being avaliable to research as soon as you finish the first one are indeed real, but Stellaris fails to model what is arguably the most important factor on research and you yourself said is part of the mix of the system: "what avenues we see as important right now".

I understand that you can manipulate the tech that will be drawn by changing the leader and some ethics and perks help specific techs to be drawn, but really necessity goes way beyond just this in how it can be represented. I will pick an example our noble OP posted when he raised this issue first: "i have lots of cristals but can't build civilian fabricators because the god of randomness won't allow it". In a realistic "what we see as important right now" scenario this wouldn't be a problem, since there's a clear incentive to researching better production methods for consumer goods but for some reason the entire scientific community simply is "nah" on the issue.

And as much as you can chock it up to "what we are ready to pursue right now", this is a very vague term that seems to be able to mean anything, is it supposed to mean the material capacity of your labs? the advancement of theory? the willingness of the workforce? Any of these don't exactly sit well as an answer, if the government really wants something to be researched it can allocate extra funds as we see all the time irl, theory can advance during the research itself and there's no reason to believe this isn't already how its intended, and as i said before, if there is a problem you will probably find scientists interested in fixing it.

In conclusion, i could stomach this card-drawing system far better if it addressed these two issues:
1) let us pick any research that was already drawn in the past as there's no reason not to
2) give us some other ways of affecting what kind of tech will appear besides just scientist and ethics, perharps some edicts or research policies are in order in that department.

 

[DukeLeto42]

But i really don't think this is the only problem, the issues you brought about for the next stage of a project not being avaliable to research as soon as you finish the first one are indeed real, but Stellaris fails to model what is arguably the most important factor on research and you yourself said is part of the mix of the system: "what avenues we see as important right now".

I understand that you can manipulate the tech that will be drawn by changing the leader and some ethics and perks help specific techs to be drawn, but really necessity goes way beyond just this in how it can be represented. I will pick an example our noble OP posted when he raised this issue first: "i have lots of cristals but can't build civilian fabricators because the god of randomness won't allow it". In a realistic "what we see as important right now" scenario this wouldn't be a problem, since there's a clear incentive to researching better production methods for consumer goods but for some reason the entire scientific community simply is "nah" on the issue.

You are not the only voice in your empire - priorities are determined by a number of interest groups (for the most part sadly not modeled), stated governmental priorities (I'd argue ascension perks are at least a partial modeling of that, since they create "pinned" tech options and can impact tech weights), and the foci of major figures in government (which evidently is modeled through research leaders boosting likelihood of their tech category, though I'd absolutely agree it isn't well signposted).

Instead, what you seem to be arguing for is a combination of what is suggested earlier in this thread (the ability to set tech category priorities to influence card draw weights, a way to throw your own priority focus) and a more intelligent card weighting system that recognizes better what your empire is in need of (we do already see that in what blocker removal techs show up).

And as much as you can chock it up to "what we are ready to pursue right now", this is a very vague term that seems to be able to mean anything, is it supposed to mean the material capacity of your labs? the advancement of theory? the willingness of the workforce? Any of these don't exactly sit well as an answer, if the government really wants something to be researched it can allocate extra funds as we see all the time irl, theory can advance during the research itself and there's no reason to believe this isn't already how its intended, and as i said before, if there is a problem you will probably find scientists interested in fixing it.

It's not as vague as you imply, though it is complex as it covers a variety of factors. It's probably easiest to deconstruct two of the aspects you throw out:

• Material capacity of labs - yep, "are there labs that are currently outfitted to research this" is a worthy question. It's also the existence of appropriate organization - building research groups takes time and effort and is subject to a lot of randomness (e.g. the association of someone I know with a research team because its head visited his university to work with another faculty member but "he didn't know anything about bones, so I had to find someone else to play with").
• Willingness of the workforce - it's not about willingness at all. When the government decides to "allocate extra funds as we see all the time irl," the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Missions are not what that usually looks like. Instead, a large pile of money is given to a granting agency and earmarked for a purpose (e.g. "climate science"). Then, the agency doles out money to various grant proposals that roughly fit the bill; again, the proposers usually are the primary drivers of the specific research focus beyond a broad category.

And this is what Stellaris, generally speaking (and despite bad signposting - 100% agree there) does - you assign a research leader with a specific category trait, boosting the likelihood of those researches appearing. You don't get to control exactly what shows up, but you'll probably get an appropriate tech option for your research focus (to use the Stellaris equivalent of "climate science," you'll almost certainly see a "New Worlds" tech with an equivalent leader, but you might get "Soil Remediation" instead of the "Deep Crust Engineering" tech you wanted). From what proposals and teams (i.e. tech options) are available, you choose what is your personal priority.

 

[Fenris_SE]

I think the randomness of card games should be removed. Players should be able to just take whatever cards they want out of the deck at any time. If they want an interesting game, they're free to pick sub-optimal cards. /s

Not sure about being able to just pick anything. That said, one thing that bothers me is that if you are going to hire someone IRL (yes I know this is not RL ), you list a set of qualifications the applicant must have to even be considered for the position. You don't just hire the first person that walks through the door, or even give them a second look if they don't meet any of the qualifications. Also in Stellaris with billions of possible applicants depending on how large your empire is, you get 3 random applicants. With one planet and 20 odd pops you get 3, with 30 planets and 2,000 pops you get 3. I think the more pops you have the bigger the leader pool of applicants should be.

I do however think there should be a way to increase the likely hood of getting certain leaders you want. If you're science driven and want a science bonus from your governor, then there should be a way to increase the chances of that. I also think by default that certain leaders shouldn't even appear as an option to hire. Why do I get leaders that give a bonus to slave output when my empire has slavery outlawed?

 

[TrotBot]

if you want crystals early then put a materials researcher on engineering. it's simple as that. build more labs, and hire scientists who have diverse skills so you can put one on there when you're really desperate for a specific tech.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

if you want crystals early then put a materials researcher on engineering. it's simple as that. build more labs, and hire scientists who have diverse skills so you can put one on there when you're really desperate for a specific tech.

or just regularly buy a ton, as i'm doing in my current game

 

[TrotBot]

or just regularly buy a ton, as i'm doing in my current game

you still need the tech before you can buy it, unless you find the traders for it.

 

[Ryika]

you still need the tech before you can buy it, unless you find the traders for it.

On the galactic market, trade for a resource is enabled for everybody as soon as someone produces it.

 

[Bezborg]

On the galactic market, trade for a resource is enabled for everybody as soon as someone produces it.

Now if only we had an actual supply system, instead of the galactic market acting as a replicator...

 

[Archael90]

I have crystals... i want more consumer goods... but i cant upgrade my consumer good factories because the god of randomness decides that it will take another 10 ears until the tech pops up...

This is kind of an oversight. Tech should pops up when is needed, those should has high weights.

I have those leaders and admirals... they have different level of experience gaining traits... but oh boy suddenly my level 3 governor finds out that drugs exist and will not progress any longer..

Why cant we have rulers with a trait tree so we can decide what trait we need or want...

Yeah... You would choose a leader to be addicted? This increase immersion to some degree. Yeah, its irritating, but just like irl you dont know if someone is, or will be addicted, and thus will be able to perform theirs job well.

 

[Maethendias]

because stellaris is about randomness. i think you might have mentioned that.

but it isnt.... every "random" factor is acutally not random at all
and im not talking about seeds here, just look at empire placements and how the galaxy gen places ethics... its not random, its completly based upon YOUR ethic, and the generation places empires counter to your ethic next to you, and then does that across the whole galaxy

or how the tech tree is not random either, and instead is just a collection of tiered blobs that you can play very easily once you figure out that not researching certain techs will allow you to quickly deplete your technology options (VERY noticable with early machine empires, and how you are required to research hydroponics to continue to the next tier regardless of what you are doing)

in fact, id argue stellaris is WAY TOO STATIC, which, again, especially noticable with its "defining feature" aka anomalies... the first few times they are nice, after that you always know what option to pick to get the best outcome, or the ciris, that always generate the same way with the same flaws in design, or military campaigns that are basically as static as a war can be (hilarious watching pdx trying multiple times to nerf doomstacks, despite doomstacks not being the underlying problem to why they are pretty much mandatory)

 

[Limbojack]

Yeah, give us absolute control over our tech choices. That would be a great idea. Considering how OP some techs really are, the first 40 years of the game will play exactly the same in every single campaign. That sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it?

No, RNG is necessary to keep the game interesting. I'd be inclined to agree with you on some specific issues, but overall, I don't consider the RNGness of Stellaris to be an issue (except for pre-built megastructures in MP games. I'd like to see some option to turn them off in the game lobby).

 

[CocoCincinnati]

The randomness to the techs is one of my favorite parts of the game. I also don't mind the leaders, adds some flavor instead of having a bunch of identical leaders all over the place.....although I do agree that arrested development shows up way too often, or at least seems to. You'd need way more traits to make a trait tree viable.

The current pop growth mechanic is abysmal and I would not mind a complete overhaul of that.

 

[FinbarFlin]

"I think the randomness of card games should be removed. Players should be able to just take whatever cards they want out of the deck at any time. If they want an interesting game, they're free to pick sub-optimal cards. /s"
-----
People who compare 2 different things and end their sentence with /s must feel really smart and superior... sure look at me i compare gambling with a "strategy" game...

"Yeah, give us absolute control over our tech choices. That would be a great idea. Considering how OP some techs really are, the first 40 years of the game will play exactly the same in every single campaign. That sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it?"
-----
Stellaris must be the only game you play then, i wonder how a game like Civilization ever made it to its 6th? or 7th? iteration then... besides that right now... nearly every game is the same after like 100 years because thats the point when you hit repeatable techs if you dont roleplay an empire that does not want to build any labs

If you dont play gestalt empires than most bio empires are indeed played the same way every time... now paradox gave plantoids some species locked abilities and what happens? People complaining why cant i have those as a mammal species... paradox finally starts to make this game played slightly different for different species and people are complaining about that? Really? Why cant i have "nice" Necrophages was another thread i loved... choices without consequences is what makes thing different to play... but a lot of people here hates that? How?

Nothing here ive read made me rethink my words... but but but you can steer what tech will most likely pop up next... you just have to rerole the scientist as long as you find the one for the one specific tech class you desire and you might have a "higher" chance to get it.... sure.... just spend like 2000 energy on it and then fire all those you dont want right now... click click click click... thats stupid and meaningless...

And thank you for the...

New_Pop_Species_Randomness	0.5	The higher this is, the more random species selection of new pops will be
New_Pop_Same_Species_Weight	1.0	The higher this is, the more new pops will be weighted by number of same or subspecies pops
New_Pop_Exact_Species_Weight	0.5	The higher this is, the more new pops will be weighted by number of exact same species pops
New_Pop_Slavery_Weight	0.25	The higher this is, the more new pops will tend to be balanced between enslaved and non-enslaved species
New_Pop_Species_Div	0.05	The higher this is, the more planets will tend to grow species that are underrepresented on the planet
New_Pop_Habitability_Threshold	0.75	If habitability is under this, apply exponentially increasing penalties to new pop weight
New_Pop_Homeworld_Mult	2	Pops have increased weight for growing on their homeworld
New_Pop_Growth_Mod_Mult	0.33	How much does species growth mod trait matter for new pop weight
NEW_POP_Immigration_Mod_Mult	1	How much does species immigration growth mod trait matter for new pop weight (when there is immigration)
Pop_Decline_Threshold	3.0	A species will decline when there is another species with a growth priority this many times higher

Thats super intuitive and totallyy understandable and controlable i will take this into consideration in my next game to better plan my pop growth... /s

 

[Ryika]

Nothing here ive read made me rethink my words... but but but you can steer what tech will most likely pop up next... you just have to rerole the scientist as long as you find the one for the one specific tech class you desire and you might have a "higher" chance to get it.... sure.... just spend like 2000 energy on it and then fire all those you dont want right now... click click click click... thats stupid and meaningless...

Nobody said the system is perfect as it is right now. Personally, I'm all for introducing a better way to get the scientist you want, but just getting rid of the entire thing? No.

It's also much more than just choosing the right scientist though. Knowing what tier a tech belong to, if they lead to new techs that further dilute the tech options of whether they're dead ends, how many techs you still need for the next tier, how likely a tech is to show up again if you don't pick it, if a tech is likely to show up as salvage and thus be removed from the card pool, etc. etc. If you really focus on the details there's a LOT of stuff you can do to manipulate things in your favor.

Thats super intuitive and totallyy understandable and controlable i will take this into consideration in my next game to better plan my pop growth... /s

Didn't link it for your specifically, but I'm glad you got some value out of it. This really made my evening a lot better, like, I basically went from being somewhat depressed to being full of enthusiasm and energy! It's great to know that one can really have a positive impact on the world even with something as seemingly minor as making information more easily accessible.

 

[OwlOfSpace]

Agreed with Leader random trait, as it stands, is nothing but annoyance in many cases.

However I think the issue is on the traits themselves rather than the randomness. It is either decent bonus or awful negative you never want.

Things should be mixed, like Unyielding Trait, where you have a buff in an area but debuff in others. So you don't get either mild 'okay' or 'f-k this bs' reaction, but you are given a tool to work with instead.