What mechanics would you to keep from Stellaris if there ever was a sequel?

[Saviour of Galaxy]

There is well known what we hate or dont like in this game, because there were a tones of topics about game faults and failures. But is that a thing that Stellaris could really learn other space 4x games? Is there something we want to keep in hypothetical Stellaris 2? Well, in my opinion, there are!


- early game of Stellaris is IMHO one of the best in a genre. Exploration phase was even better with 3 types of FTL, but because the distinctive FTLs had it's problems in mid-to-late experience, it had to be flushed out. Yet, even after that I consider first few decades in Stellaris as the best part of the game.
- While crises are not made first by the Stellaris (MoO 2 was first I believe), I think that, with exception of bugs, Stellaris shown the proper way to the future games. Yes, they became repetive, yes, they are a random, yes they make some problems with performance. But the overall they made is what I like and want to keep it.
- Genemoding, uplifting and ancestions - I like that many of them are more than just bland "empire bonus +20% to your empire production" or "you can colonize new planet types". I like how they interact with empire ethics. I like how can I roleplay with it. When I creted my first perfected human pops and uplifted some birdies in 1.0, i loved that. Some people find that thing tedious, but I actually like to see my empires being melting pot of all kind of mutants, thats why I also like...
- ...ethics! The empire ethics determine how one can play, giving a flexibility and as diversity in creating empire, as the custom-based non scripted strategy allows. Not as diversed as strategies with many fixed empires with different mechanics, but much more flexible at the same time.

 

[FonVegen]

The way planets are organised as of 2.2 is a thing I'd want to keep. Yes, the AI has trouble figuring things out, yes, the UI could be improved upon. But the system itself is fun and lets you forge planets into what you want them to be.

 

[Ryika]

I'll cheat a bit and instead mention a feature that I'd definitely want back in a theoretical Stellaris 2: The three ftl types.

I do understand why they felt like they had to cut them from Stellaris, and it certainly has opened up a lot of design space that has lead to a very different, but equally great experience... but I feel like if they're creating a sequel from the ground up, then they should be able to build the game in a way that avoids the problems the old implementation of the three ftl types had.

If they managed to fuse the freedom that original Stellaris granted in terms of movement, and the openness of the galaxy that we had back then, with the defensive capacity that we have today, then that would already be enough for me to buy the game.

 

[ius]

Besides nostalgia, all three FTL types are within the current patch, albeit no longer accessible from the start, they are separated by technology cq. time. I would keep that mechanic, but I do think the way it is implemented can be improved upon.

Furthermore I would definitely keep pops and ethics. Also the improved economy with refined resources and pop jobs can stay.

A new feature I wish for is the ability to start in a pre-generated galaxy. and pick an empire akin to starting in CK/EU/etc, calculate a seed and be able to share and load that one. No matter how interesting exploration can be, the lack of a "timeline" bugs me.

 

[Typee]

The semi-random nature of tech research.
It's always good to have that in a 4X, to not make every game feel identical.
Civ games tech openings are pretty much always the same, it's nice to have to select among your options.
In fact I'd go with something that's even more polarized, with a RNG that's skewed to "lock" you into a particular technological path. So you'd have games where you went early into robots and didn't get gene modding until very late, others where you got fortifications fast but didn't get improved hyperdrives until later, and so on.

Yes, I'm thinking about SMAC here.
I'm always thinking about SMAC.

 

[Zundy]

The drama that each new patch/DLC brings to the forums. Better than TV.

 

[sillyrobot]

Very few actual mechanics.

I'd want an exploration mechanic, but not the current anomaly system, for example. I'd prefer the anomalies to be pre-assigned during galaxy generation (so things like terraforming candidates and pre-sapient races aren't always clustered). I'd prefer anomalies have additional criteria for detection so their release is spread out over the lifetime of the game as opposed to being an early land-rush endeavour.

I'd want a system where major events can force the galactic residents to react, but not the current "fight your neighbour then fight the much more powerful FE then fight the much more powerful mid-game crisis then fight the much more powerful awakened empire then fight the much more powerful end-game crisis". I'd prefer a smoother difficulty curve as opposed to the sudden spikes offered by the current game.

The combat system is there, but not worth retention.
The ship design system is there, but not worth retention.
Either of the colony design systems were OK, but nothing special or valuable.
I'd like an ethics system, but preferably a reactive rather than prescriptive one (i.e. ethics are assigned based on play as opposed to being a player choice that restricts play).
I like the idea of ascensions more than the execution.
I like the idea of species more than the execution.

Come to think of it, for almost any system in Stellaris, I can say "I like the idea of <X> more than the execution."

 

[PK_AZ]

Separation between biological (main species trait), cultural (ethos, traditions) and technological (available techs) aspect of empire.

 

[Kunae]

The original game.

 

[anamiac]

I like the way time passes in the game.
I like the way tech cards work, although if I could spend 1 influence to make a tech 90% less likely to show up for 20 years, it would be much better.
I like the end game crisis.

I'd like an ethics system, but preferably a reactive rather than prescriptive one (i.e. ethics are assigned based on play as opposed to being a player choice that restricts play).

You know what would be cool? You start out the game with 2 ethic points and 1 civic. When you get your second ascension perk the game unlocks your third ethic point, gives you a second civic slot and a special free opportunity to reform your government. Furthermore, in this special reform your second civic options would include some of the civics that normally cannot be picked after game start - with some exceptions (IE, fanatic purifiers and inward perfection would be options, but mechanist, syncretic evolution, and life seeded would not)

This would result in a period of galactic turmoil as nations redefine themselves, sort of an early game crisis. Plus it would encourage the player to adapt their game to their neighbors, allowing two playthroughs with the same species to turn out radically different.

 

[Aotrs Commander]

I wouldn't care to hazard a guess, considering CK2 just hit seven years as is still going - I think it can only get better a it goes along, especially as they are not afraid to make massive overhauls to make it better.

My perfect game would include some form of proper tactical combat on top and a much more robust starship generation system (see Sword of the Stars or Polaris Sector).

(You COULD still squeeze it in seperate like, a la SotS - in single player, anyway - if you just make it such that battle only take place in under 24 hours, which is more than enough time for a battle to happen!)

But, the usual bug problems notwthstanding, and a little more balance to pop growth and UI polish, there's not really anything that I think a sequel could improve on that we currently have other than in "have more (anomolies/namelists/portraits)."

(I could cite a whole laundry lists of More Stuff I'd like to see, but I would like to hope that Stellaris runs long enough to see some o that become a reality, like, THIS game.)

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I like the time system.
I like early game exploration.
I like the concept of fallen empires, anomalies and crises.

I think the ethics, traits and civics can be improved. I would have liked to see physical traits, psychological traits, and political, economic and military doctrines that had real gameplay impact and better differentiated species and empires from each other.

I like the tech system except there should be more impactful choices, like certain tech choices should reduce the likelihood of other techs.

The combat is fine bar some balancing and minor mechanics, but ship design and fleet management can do with significant improvement.

I like the concept of terraforming but I think its terribly implemented in Stellaris. Would have preferred a more 'realistic' system. I.e. planets that are distinguished along lines of atmospheric gases, (oxygen, methane, ammonia, carbon dioxide, etc) with different ranges for temperature, gravity, ambient radiation, etc. Terraforming for different things should require specific techs and buildings which slowly shift planet attributes over time.

Even blockers like seismic activity, ambient radiation, asteroid impacts, acid rain, tidal locking etc should be locked behind techs and unique buildings that overcome them. Buildings like alloy forges, generators, factoties should also have an ecological impact (pollution, climate change).

Not sure I buy the districts and buildings mechanic for developing planets but it is a suitable abstraction.

 

[Ryika]

Besides nostalgia, all three FTL types are within the current patch, albeit no longer accessible from the start, they are separated by technology cq. time.

There's a much bigger difference between the implementation we had pre-2.0 and the current patch, which is that movement is no longer asymmetrical. Every empire starts with the same movement options, and additional movement options just give benefits, but no weaknesses to exploit.

As such, the three FTL types that we have now are simply not the same FTL types that we had in 1.0. They're more akin to a movement system that you'd see in games like Civ, where you start with a base movement and then gain access to additional movement options (Railroads, Airports, Paratroopers, amphibious armies, ships getting faster, etc.) as the territory you have to defend grows. And like I said, that's fine - I very much understand why they replaced the system, and I do think it was the right decision given that the movement system never really worked all that well.

But I also think that, when they're designing a game from the ground up, they do have a lot more freedom to implement mechanics and then design the rest of the game around them, and I also think that asymmetrical movement like we had back then is something that can be balanced around. And something that provides gameplay that's worthy of being one of the cornerstones on which the game can be built - if people don't agree with that... fine, then I'm the odd one out here.

 

[ompy]

- Not being able to change edicts/policies for x years.
- Charging credits to resettle pops between planets.

EVERY decision must have a cost, and there are some decisions in Stellaris that don't, but should. But they got it right for those two things at least.

 

[Chthon]

There is well known what we hate or dont like in this game, because there were a tones of topics about game faults and failures. But is that a thing that Stellaris could really learn other space 4x games? Is there something we want to keep in hypothetical Stellaris 2? Well, in my opinion, there are!


- early game of Stellaris is IMHO one of the best in a genre. Exploration phase was even better with 3 types of FTL, but because the distinctive FTLs had it's problems in mid-to-late experience, it had to be flushed out. Yet, even after that I consider first few decades in Stellaris as the best part of the game.
- While crises are not made first by the Stellaris (MoO 2 was first I believe), I think that, with exception of bugs, Stellaris shown the proper way to the future games. Yes, they became repetive, yes, they are a random, yes they make some problems with performance. But the overall they made is what I like and want to keep it.
- Genemoding, uplifting and ancestions - I like that many of them are more than just bland "empire bonus +20% to your empire production" or "you can colonize new planet types". I like how they interact with empire ethics. I like how can I roleplay with it. When I creted my first perfected human pops and uplifted some birdies in 1.0, i loved that. Some people find that thing tedious, but I actually like to see my empires being melting pot of all kind of mutants, thats why I also like...
- ...ethics! The empire ethics determine how one can play, giving a flexibility and as diversity in creating empire, as the custom-based non scripted strategy allows. Not as diversed as strategies with many fixed empires with different mechanics, but much more flexible at the same time.

Space!