From Stellaris Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Outliner top.png
B - This article is considered a B-class article on the wiki quality scale

Changes to FTL chapter[edit]

I'm a bit uneasy about the many changes to the FTL chapter. In the past weeks a lot of text was added to it but most of the content is unconfirmed. Actually we know very little about the FTL tech in game. There's only one dev diary about it and it doesn't tell us much more than some rough outlines.

I would like to only see facts which are confirmed by the devs/dev diaries/etc. instead of speculations. *Aqua* (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2015 (CET)

Its edits by a single user, if you remove unconfirmed content then that's fine with me. Dauth (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2015 (CET)
I would remove almost everything he/she wrote. But that could upset him/her and cause an edit war. I'm hoping he/she responds here. :( I guess I'll wait a few more days before doing something. *Aqua* (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2015 (CET)
I am not interested in an editing war, but to have the most complete information out there. Everything that you feel is unconfirmed, should be highlighted as such, and perhaps even put in another hypothetical section about FTL travel, if that works, making it a win/win. Once, the game is known, that section can be scavenged and after a bit of time, deleted. Does this work? My wish isn't to put out anything untrue, as much of it is probably true. I am hyped about the game and see the possibilities, but those possibilities, real or imagined, shouldn't be confused with the few facts we have about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (Talk) 13:20, 3 November 2015‎ (CET)
Can everything that's been added be referenced in a dev diary? I haven't seen much which is new there tbh. We've had several diaries and posts from the dev team. If there is something which is totally unconfirmed or pure speculation then we should remove it. If the content is just rephrasing of what has come from the devs then it can stay. One further remark, on the wikis we don't refer to the gender of the player so instead of he can we use they please. Dauth (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2015 (CET)
They... ok, I'll remember it. Sounds weird but if it's common practiI'll stick to it.
I'm glad you are not upset. :) Ok, let's do it! When I first wrote about FTL I structured each FTL tech subchapter like this
1st - building requirement, general information what the tech allows the player to do
2nd - detailed workings of the tech
3rd - place where it works
My intension was to make it easier to compare with the other FTL techs.
We can add a 4th - unconfirmed passage to it and put a hatnote on top of it like it was done in the Government article. Or we completely overhaul that and think of something new. Maybe 1st general information, 2nd building/ship requirement and restrictions, 3rd how to use, 4th strategies & tactics, 5th infered information.
infered information - It is likely it'll be so but the devs didn't say it.
What do you think about that? *Aqua* (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2015 (CET)

I think having sub-sections is a superb idea! Maybe.... I. What does it do? II. How does it work? III. Where does it work? IV. How can it be used? V. What special situations can occur?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (Talk) 16:47, 3 November 2015‎ (CET)

For example:


I. What does it do? If the player chooses warp technology he can add warp engines to a ship. They allow unrestricted fleet movement on the map, but are the slowest of the FTL propulsion means.

II. How does it work? Costs? They are costly to build and strain the ship's power system. Also the warp range is limited, requiring a cool-down period before another jump can be made. If the travel target; destination, is too far away the fleet will automatically split the travel path into several warp jumps.

III. Where does it work? Unrestricted fleet movement offers the advantage of direct movement, going system to system. Additionally, it offers the player the choice of flexible points, which are in-between solar systems, in otherwise empty space.

IV. How can it be used? To initiate a warp the fleet has to move to the edge of a solar system before use.

V. What special situations can occur? If the player chooses so, to use them as a flexible scare tactic, that would give him a way of launching a system attack or ambush directed at other players, possible in short time after the ships are in place. If the player uses them this way, although not as direct as just moving from the system to the final travel target, other players could have difficulty predicting when or if an ambush or attack is coming in short time. That is the price of other players not knowing his true intentions. Additionally, if the player decides to pull back in defense of his system, he can do that too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by‎ (Talk) 17:06, 3 November 2015 (CET)

Wormhole[edit] I. What do they do? wormhole technology allows construction of the wormhole station which can create a wormhole to another solar system, within a limited range of it. The station allows ships to instantly move from one system to the next.

II. How does it work? Costs? Cooldown? The station needs a bit of time to create a wormhole depending on fleet size and cooldown; it can only last for a short time. The player can build multiple stations in a solar system to create a transportation hub, which effectively allows for quicker transport by easing the fleet burden of each wormhole station. Fleets using wormholes to travel are not fitted with engines able to reach outside of the edge of a solar system and presumably have more available space on them.

III. Where does it work? The station can only be built at the edge of a system. While the wormhole is open, fleets from both sides can use it simultaneously.

IV. How can it be used? The station can only generate one wormhole at a time and it must be located at the start or end point of a wormhole, at the edge of a system.

V. What special situations can occur? If a wormhole station is destroyed, nearby fleets could be cut-off from the rest of your empire if there's no other wormhole station in range. To re-establish the wormhole, the wormhole station would need to be re-built. Additionally, if the player chooses to attack an enemy system within range, he can do so with little or no warning from his wormhole station by generating a wormhole at the edge of their system and move his fleets though. This could be an unpleasant surprise to the attacked player, but could also leave his stations vulnerable to be attacked and destroyed. Therefore, if the player chooses to attack, it may be wise for him to fortify his stations first.

Hyperlane[edit] I. What do they do? Hyperlanes are the hidden network of star lanes, or paths, which connect all solar systems on the map together. The hyperlane network is fixed in subspace and can't be destroyed or changed. Only ships with the hyperdrive engine fitted on them can access a star lane, or path, and have quick movement on them. II. How does it work? Costs? Cooldown? While being faster than warp hyperlane engines have to charge a long time before use. III. Where does it work? Hyperlanes can connect solar systems which are difficult to reach using other FTL methods. IV. How can it be used? Fleets can access hyperlanes from any point in a solar system. V. What special situations can occur? This fixed nature can lead to the creation of choke-points with great strategic value.

I'd argue that's too many sections, given that each is at most a paragraph long. 2 or 3 sections should be plenty for that amount of text. ~ Meneth (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2015 (CET)

Combine sections one and two? Combine sections three and four? Leave section five? Section 1 - Costs? Cooldown? Speed? General Description? Section 2 - Where it works? How it works? Section 3 - Special circumstances?

Can there be a Discussion about Advantages/Disadvantages? Because I think Cost, Range, Cooldown, and speed for all species would be Arguably Disadvantages, but depending on the player, they may be worth it. Perhaps, a specific category would be better? Rewrite warp to fit? What are all the thoughts on this? Thank you.

Added a speculative chart for this idea.... (as some people might be interested in that).

I believe it looks good, for this edition. Feel free to edit, as well as give feedback. This is a team project, which I feel I helped with. Thank you, team leader - Aqua!

On the tables, Meneth, please update them to the green and red format, and whatever you feel would be an improvement. Beautiful is more desirable!

IMHO there are now too much headlines compared to content. Do you know of a better way which comes with less headlines? *Aqua* (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2015 (CET)


I'm currently not sold on the table, but I think that's because its a bit messy. Have you considered using the red and green templates that are on the wiki? That way you can use Cost for costly and Cost for cheap. Dauth (talk) 09:08, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Please update the table and make it beautiful. I am not too familiar with the red and green on wiki, but believe they're a great idea. Thank you.

Would you be able to do yellow? for in between, as part of the legend, and make the table beautiful? BTW: I did the red/green legend. Thanks. :)

Yellow on white background isn't a good idea. I changed the look to make it more inline with the other tables found on Stellaris wiki (example Ethos). The red and green is pretty common on the Paradox wikis, it imitates what most of the games are displaying and is easy to understand. I doubled the + and - signs and replaced = with oo. That's what I usually see when I look at such comparisions. Also I think that makes the legend and text redundant.
I'm not really sure if we should keep the table. Dauth, what do you think?
@unknown user, please end your ˈpostsˈ with a ~~~~. That automatically adds a signature. ;-) *Aqua* (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2015 (CET)
Tried a different table idea, any thoughts? Dauth (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2015 (CET)

I like the idea. Changed a few words! I am truly amazed by everything here! :) 20:33, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Another idea: if anyone can find a pic of a warp engine, wormhole station, or hyperdrive to use. It would be a great addition to each section. 20:42, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Somehow I'm not convinced of the table. The content is redundant (everything is mentioned earlier) and we can't be sure if the propulsion means really compare like that. For example warp may be slower than the other FTL techs but it could still be pretty fast. Is it right to say it's slow? Also the table misses out some important information like wormholes and warp only work at the edge of a solar system while the hyperdrive works everywhere.
One or two pictures would be nice. I guess we have to wait until the devs posts some or we can make them ourselves. ;-) *Aqua* (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Maybe, for each method on the comparison table, it could be clicked on for more details to reduce redundancy? 21:01, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Maybe, fast (warp), faster (hyperdrive), and magic (wormhole)? 21:03, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Using other words doesn't solve this problem, only numbers can. Which we don't have (yet).
Making the things clickable? I'm sorry I don't understand. Should there be a spoiler-like thingy which opens up when the user clicks on it? *Aqua* (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2015 (CET)

a link which explains more details like wormhole station for each method 21:16, 5 November 2015 (CET)

The methods on the table are now clickable. If only the redundancy can be put inside each link or click. 21:24, 5 November 2015 (CET)

You mean like what I did to them? The links now directs the user to the proper chapters. Or do you mean something else? *Aqua* (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2015 (CET)

Pop down menus for the comparison table would reduce redundancy, if it's possible? 23:46, 5 November 2015 (CET)

using Hide and Show 00:07, 6 November 2015 (CET) 03:58, 6 November 2015 (CET)

need syntax help on Collapsing, with the show button. 05:10, 6 November 2015 (CET)

I think i figured out a basic way, but feel free to beautify this further, and delete any redundancy if you think this works. Hope this helps :) 05:24, 6 November 2015 (CET)

It seems we told at cross purposes. I meant the whole table is redundant. When I view the article in default zoom my monitor displays the whole FTL chapter including the table at once. I usually set zoom to 150% but even then I have two FTL tech chapters visible at the same time. On other devices (tablets, smartphones, etc.) this may not be the same but I still struggle to find a reason for having a table. *Aqua* (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2015 (CET)

The table was to fulfill others wishes for Advantages and Disadvantages, although we have no numbers. Having the ability to expand and collapse will allow deletion of section 2. That was the idea. 12:43, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Just deleted the redundancy of sub section 2 for each FTL. Now, we have the General, Strategy/Tactics, and the Table (explaining the engines) 12:53, 6 November 2015 (CET)

made the table bigger for zoom issues 13:06, 6 November 2015 (CET)

how's that zoom look on your smartphone or tablet? 13:25, 6 November 2015 (CET)

thinking the section should point to the comparison for details, not the other way round 13:28, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Unknown user please use the colons to indent so its easy to follow the text. Overuse of big is not the solution. When we upgrade the wiki software which is due in a few months there will be a new mobile interface which should solve the issues with zoom/phones. Dauth (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Spacing, Padding, Borderings, Shading, please adjust numbers appropriately to be more beautiful! :) 18:51, 6 November 2015 (CET)

Opinion of Table Colors? 20:40, 6 November 2015 (CET)

We try to keep the tables as clean as possible. I'm hoping to convince people away from green/red because it causes an issue for colourblind users. Keeping just the mild or wikitable is best. Dauth (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2015 (CET) I just used easy to look at blue colors 'mild', other colors are available here too. That way the red, green, and black fonts can more easily been seen.
Does it look clean now? 02:37, 7 November 2015 (CET)
I've moved the table into here for people to develop. I've left the last version that I find acceptable in the main page. The grey on blue here is almost unreadable/
FTL Means Cost Cooldown Speed Range
Warp Engines Expensive After Use Fast Free
Unknown, but costly. They strain the ship's power system requiring a cool-down after use. They are the slowest of all the FTL propulsion means. Limited, will split path into warp jumps, if needed. Unrestricted, flexible points. Direct, system to system.
Wormhole Station Moderate Bit of Time Fastest Long
Unknown, but fair. It depends on fleet size and initial wait. Almost instantaneous, but the opening lasts only for a short time. Limited, but allows for long jumps.
Hyperlane Engines Cheaper Before Use Faster Accessibile
Unknown, but cheap. They have to charge a long time before use. Faster than Warp. Starting from any point within a solar system, they can connect solar systems which are difficult to reach using other FTL methods.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauth (Talk) 11:08, 7 November 2015 (CET)
The acceptable table you have is missing the information links, the expand and collapse, which is good for completeness. And I figured the grey was a good neutral color, but I can accept that it's not.. Maybe, you can suggest a better neutral color? Or is it the shades of blue? 15:41, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Colour is subtle on the wikis, we're not geocities. We don't use is other than Green for good, Red for bad and a couple of greys on the EU4 wiki. having several expand/collapse options makes the table slow and they vary its width when opened which isn't optimal. I see the table as a quick and easy comparison between the FTL methods, with the main differences explained in text in the sections above. Dauth (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Being that this is a space game, does the inside table look better now? What colors would be suitable for the left rows, and the table columns? 17:08, 7 November 2015 (CET)

How's the feeling of it now? Too Geocities like? Or did my following changes work? And, as far as the expand, collapse, there could be a link to the specifics? 17:31, 7 November 2015 (CET)

I took out the collapse function, because it could appear slow to some users, like what was said. For appearance, it may be appropriate to link the information, as right now it's just general information? Is this idea in development possible? Personally, I think it's better, but I don't know what others think. Maybe, a compromise can be reached? 18:01, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Personally, I feel best about these colors, but feel free to comment. 18:12, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Correction, and now? :) 18:39, 7 November 2015 (CET)
It's a black background. Other colors besides red, yellow, green can be adjusted to a liking. 18:40, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Much too complicated. Those colors are simply unnecessary. Colors should simply not be used except when it adds clarity (E.G., the use of red to make it clear that an effect is negative), and this use of color does not. ~ Meneth (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Reduced complexity, but still complete. Headings in white - bold white on Columns. Red text = Disadvantage. Yellow text = Neutral. Green text = Advantage. Background for each cell black. Does it look good? Ready and awaiting comments! :) 21:53, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Added the use of underlining. Thinking, it's a good idea. 22:03, 7 November 2015 (CET)
The sheer amount of code in that is frankly, terrifying. As is the use of black. ~ Meneth (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Reduced code by making background black defined in the table setting, not on each line anymore. Did the same thing with center align 22:28, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Any other suggestions to make it better? :) 22:49, 7 November 2015 (CET)
Seeing as it is meant to simply be a quick comparison, I don't think there's much point to going beyond what's currently on the live page, especially considering that much of the info would be speculation. ~ Meneth (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2015 (CET)
A quick comparison can be made with 1 txt symbol, making it red, green, yellow. But, there is text in this table for more information. The speculation is the red, yellow, and green. The facts are in text. If a player wants to be informed, she or he can read on. Is the table to big? Is that the complaint? Should it be reduced to one word with asterisks for more information? 00:25, 8 November 2015 (CET)
The table is simply beautiful, nothing too complex. just information oriented colors, and further simplified the code. 00:33, 8 November 2015 (CET)
Adjusted table width to 60%. But, it could be any number. Does this look better? 00:43, 8 November 2015 (CET)
I believe this is as simple as I can make the table in code. Look at it. 03:10, 8 November 2015 (CET)
Just adjusted width of each column specifically to match the text. Is there anything else I can do? I feel, this table not only has complete information, but has the appropriate colors, too. Let me know what you all think. 05:13, 8 November 2015 (CET)
Please do not use underlined text for emphasis. (Okay, its not in the style guidelines of this wiki. Please take a look at this section of the Wikipedia manual of style.) – Lillebror (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2015 (CET)
Underline now mentioned on the style guide for the wikis. Dauth (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2015 (CET)
Removed underline as a Bad Idea conforming to what is now mentioned, in the style guidelines 14:51, 8 November 2015 (CET)
put each description in it's unique cell. Simple descriptor on top. 16:49, 8 November 2015 (CET)
adjusted cell lengths 17:40, 8 November 2015 (CET)
simplified code 20:12, 8 November 2015 (CET)


I figure something less controversial like what was used in the Ethos section. Although, I felt like my original chart would be a great alternate way to compare. I think it's better to be consistent with the other styles. I'm thinking about moving the other table here, being that it's redundant. I am trying my best to be helpful BTW: Sorry, if the number of changes has been startling. 02:12, 9 November 2015 (CET)
Much of the following is speculation
Method Cost Cooldown Speed Range and accessibility
Warp Expensive Faster Slow Short range, any direction
Wormhole Moderate Slower Fast Moderate
Hyperlane Cheaper Moderate Moderate Long range, only fixed points 02:16, 9 November 2015 (CET)

IMO the current tables in the article are confusing. It took me some minutes to figure out why there're Xs in them. To tell the truth I like the lists from before more.

I think it's better to revert to the lists and wait for more information before we try a table again. I believe much of the problem is that we simply don't know what to write in there. Words like fast and slow are very vague (we even try to explain them!) and we don't know how they will be balanced and how important other factors are. It could even be that the techs are so well balanced that comparing factors is meaningless.
I know you put a lot of effort into them but I believe we should wait. *Aqua* (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2015 (CET)
I think that the current shaded versions are an order of magnitude better than the imposing block of colour. Though I think a combined table with the new background style would be better. Since each method currently only has 4 differences from the medium. Dauth (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2015 (CET)
FTL Means Cost Cooldown Speed Range
Warp Engines Expensive After Use Fast Free
-- -- -- --
Wormhole Station Moderate Bit of Time Fastest Long
-- -- -- --
Hyperlane Engines Cheaper Before Use Faster Accessibile
-- -- -- --

Something like this above? 13:28, 9 November 2015 (CET)

Strategy Section[edit]

Should there be a Strategy section, just like there is a comparison section? Allowing simpler sections. 1. Warp 2. Wormhole 3. Hyperlane 4. Comparison 5. Strategy. Thoughts? 17:00, 6 November 2015 (CET)

It's waaay to early to talk about that. Without playing the completed game we can only guess what's feasible and what not. *Aqua* (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2015 (CET)
moved it over here for all others to develop and given the style, it does need a rewrite. So, hopefully it can be improved. I think the page is back to normal, except for strategy. 17:24, 9 November 2015 (CET)

Warp Tactics - If the player chooses so, to use them as a flexible scare tactic, that would give him a way of launching a system attack or ambush directed at other players, possible in short time after the ships are in place. If the player uses them this way, although not as direct as just moving from the system to the final travel target, other players could have difficulty predicting when or if an ambush or attack is coming in short time. That is the price of other players not knowing his true intentions. Additionally, if the player decides to pull back in defense of his system, he can do that too. Wormhole Tactics - If a wormhole station is destroyed, that can leave nearby fleets cut-off from the rest of your empire, if there's no other wormhole station in range. To re-establish the wormhole, the wormhole station would need to be re-built. Additionally, if the player chooses to attack an enemy system within range, it can be done with little or no warning, with the wormhole station generating a wormhole at the edge of the defender's system and move his fleets through. This could be an unpleasant surprise to the attacked player, but could also leave the player's stations vulnerable to be attacked and destroyed. Therefore, if the player chooses to attack, it may be wise to fortify the stations first. Hyperlane Tactics - Hyperlanes are Fixed in subspace, this can lead to the creation of choke-points with great strategic value. 17:11, 9 November 2015 (CET)

Rewrite needed[edit]

This page has been tagged as a {{Rewrite}}, the below issues have been found when the page is compared to the style guidelines

  1. Use of you/your: Please change to third person
  2. Use of gender: Please use gender neutral language
  3. References to the player outside strategy sections: Please refer to agents rather than the player

~ Meneth (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2015 (CET)

The FTL section now has no mentions of you/your, he, she, they, them, or the player. I have a question though. In rewriting the intro of FTL, which now has the 'features section' of the wiki in the source material mentioned.... Since, that is used, should that be included in the References section too? Or would it need to be referenced at all, since its source is from with inside the wikis? I hope this section is now acceptable and meets all style guidelines? 16:56, 10 November 2015 (CET)
You should reference whatever the features list is referencing; direct references are better than indirect ones. ~ Meneth (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2015 (CET)
just did that :) SolarSatellite (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2015 (CET)
Also, please do use the "preview" button. Helps make sure you don't need 4 edits to do what can be done in one. ~ Meneth (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2015 (CET)

Tech Speed and Cost[edit]

From cataloging all techs and their costs in the two latest Blorg streams (no. 2 and 3) Ive discovered how tech cost scales with population size. Its a simple +2% for every POP beyond the first 10. Meaning that 10 population yields 100% cost, 42 population a 182% cost, 95 pop a 280% cost. However, I cant tell how the -25% cost from a Research Agreement works, since the Blorg never signed one. I can only assume that its multiplicative and not additive with the POP modifier, otherwise even medium sized empires will find the benefit of it way below what is advertised. Neither the umber of already researched techs nor tech rarity appear to affect the cost.

As for the research speed modifiers, like scientist Traits and skill levels, the bonus appears to multiply how many research points are added each month towards a project. Meaning, if you earn 36 Engineering research per month and the scientist gives a net +17% research speed, each month it will add roughly 42,12 points to the project. (unsure if decimals count)

Interestingly, almost all techs appear to be a multiple of 60, except some very high-tech ones, of which all appear to be from earlier dev diaries. However, Impulse Thrusters is from the latest stream and its cost comes down to 2320, which is rather odd and I cant figure out if there are any modifiers going on in the background (all other techs in the entire stream are consistant)

~ Sithril (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2016 (CEST)

For reference, here's the process I've been using to find out the base cost of a tech based on a modified cost value shown in a screenshot or video: look at any other techs that have a cost shown, and see if the base cost for any of them is already recorded on the wiki. If it is, divide the known base cost by the modified cost shown in the media. The result is a multiplier you can apply to any tech shown in the same screenshot or at the same point in the video to establish its base cost, since the percentage cost increase applies to every tech equally - the result may differ slightly from the actual base cost due to rounding, but rounding it to the nearest 10 again should get you an accurate value.
Using this method to establish the base costs for the techs in one of the recent Steam page screenshots turned up several techs with a base cost of 2320, so it appears to be a common base cost value. ElectricEel (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2016 (CEST)

Quoting above: Its a simple +2% for every POP beyond the first 10. Meaning that 10 population yields 100% cost, 42 population a 182% cost, 95 pop a 280% cost.

Shouldn't it be 164% for 42 pops and 270% for 95 pops?

--QDI (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

That appears correct... I may have wrote that a bit sleep-deprived. My appologies. -- Sithril (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2016 (CEST)

In the Lond Multiplayer Event the 'Research Agreement' -25% trade option was used. Its modifier is additive. Meaning that at 62 population a 900 base cost a tech will cost 1611 (+104% and -25% for a total of +79% cost). -- Sithril (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2016 (CEST)


The Amoeba Breeding Program has an unusual rarity display. Unlike all other rare techs, it does not have the purple colouring, but it doest have a shiny yellow outline (that not all rare techs share). Two other techs in ET5 have this - Cloud Lightning Conduits and Regenerative Hull Tissue. The interesting thing about all 3 is that they always appear as a 4th tech card the moment it becomes available and dont go away after choosing something else. I recall Wiz commenting on this "rarity" in the previous ET roughly stating that once you get such a tech option it stays there and you dont have to worry about it going away. Also, becouse of this I removed the rarity tag from Amoeba Breeding Program.

We might want to add a template for such "recurring" techs. -- Sithril (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2016 (CEST)

I'm working on it, just haven't gotten around to updating the template. Also sorry for the reverting, I must have clicked the edit button on an older revision. --Ben Kerman (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2016 (CEST)
I was working on updating the tech table so in the process I've also updated the template. I moved it from rare to tech to indicate the new styling options. It should be easy enough to add future markings too [such as dangerous tech]. ~ SolSys (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2016 (CEST)
The reason techs like "Amoeba Breeding Program" stays as an option is because he already had progress into it from surveying the "wreckage" of space amoebas, once you've made any progress into them they will continue to be "drawn" until they are completed. And from the streams it does appear as tho that may also be the case for "normal" techs, when he picked "Space Torpedoes" at 01:32:24 on the stream he had 1634/5850 progress done before researching it. --Saskia (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2016 (CEST)
I noticed it. The updated tables [and markings] are in my userpage. I'll re-deploy the page as soon as I'm done [RL got in the way]. ~ SolSys (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2016 (CEST)

Expand/collapse all?[edit]

Now the modifiers are collapsed by default, making it hard to search for technologies by the modifiers to their appearance. Is there a way to allow all techs to have their modifiers expanded with a single click? -GC13 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (CEST)

As far as I know there is a way to enable such an option via a script [for personal use]. The modifiers section only show ways to increase/decrease likelihood of appearance; to know if a tech will appear at all you need to check the prerequisite section. However, with that being said, its best to be aware that the lists are far from perfect since it's based on a pre-release info that might have changed after the initial data gathering. I expect the page to be fully updated within a week or 2 after the release. ~ SolSys (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2016 (CEST)

Looking into the files[edit]

I've only started playing after patch 1.3 and realizing how some of the information I've found on the wiki doesn't match what was happening, I looked into the files and 2 particular information came to light.

Firstly, sentient AI prerequisite as follows:

tech_sentient_ai = {
	area = physics
	tier = 3
	cost = @tier2cost4
	category = { computing }
	is_rare = yes
	is_dangerous = yes
	prerequisites = { "tech_self_aware_logic" }
	weight = @tier2weight4

I have changed the tier value accordingly and as this is my first attempt editing a wiki page, please forgive me for any error

Secondly, in Patch 1.3, it is stated as followed:

  • Amount of technologies required to access a new technology tier increased from 5 to 7

I didn't change anything on the wiki, but thought that there should at least be a line somewhere that include this info. However, I went into the files and also found some irregularities with this info. Following is an extract from \Stellaris\common\technology\tier\00_tier.txt:

# The previously_unlocked-value decides how many techs in the previous tier has to be researched before the tier is unlocked

0 = { # Tier 0

1 = { # Tier 1
	previously_unlocked = 0

2 = { # Tier 2
	previously_unlocked = 8

3 = { # Tier 3
	previously_unlocked = 8

4 = { # Tier 4
	previously_unlocked = 8

This shows that the previous unlocked tech requires 8 and I wonder if the error on the Patch 1.3 page should be corrected or is my game files screwed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2016‎ (CET)

The patch pages on the wiki are a quote/copy of the patch notes from Paradox. I've added a note. – Lillebror (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2016 (CET)
Unfortunately, I got distracted with the other wikis and didn't finish fully updating the tech list to 1.3 - only one field and some sections of the others are updated. If needed its possible to use my sandbox for the time being. ~ SolSys (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2016 (CET)
The thing about those values in the files: We have no idea if the Game even checks them anymore. It might have been the original idea to store them there. Wich was deprecated with a hardcoded/other place value. We could propably test it by just removing them. Unless the parsing is exttremely primitive or those values are still being accessed, it should not break the game. --The Founder (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2016 (CET)
Did a simple test today using console command 'techweights' and it does seems to indicate that Sentient AI is being treated as tier 3, and the amount of tech required does also seems to match the 8 that written in the file. Also found out that destroyer, while noted as a tier 2 tech, is actually being treated as a tier 1 tech. Seems like such an 'error' is due to the fact that their cost doesn't match their tier. Taking destroyer as an example, cost tier2cost1, but is actually marked as tier 1. And taking sentient AI case, cost tier2cost4, but is actually tier 3. So here is hat I think is going on, every tier has 4 cost, and the game reads tech in an array of 4x4. Tier 0 to 3, cost 1-4. And so I'm guessing they just changed the cost around by using the corresponding variables but did not change the tier value accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2016 (CET)
Slighly worse then even that. There is a value for Tier. And one value for Cost. And one value for Weight. Both cost and Weight have 4 different values per Tier. Wich do not nessesarily match up. So you could have a T2 tech with T1.4 Weight and T3.1 cost. A mixup betweeen 7 and 8 would make some sense too. A uncertainty of 1 happens often in Programming. It can be hard to remember wich form of equality was used in any given circumstance.--The Founder (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2016 (CET)

Selected Lineage[edit]

Can somebody explain to me why the Selected Lineage has both a wight bonus AND a weight penalty from the Authoritarian ethos? And why do Egalitarians just seem to get a flat bonus to gaining it but no bonus to Capacity Boosters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2017 (CET)

It's a bug; since it is present in the files it's also listed here. ~ SolSys (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2017 (CEST)

Outdated Image[edit] is severely outdated (Warp Drive no longer exists, older version of Planetary Unification). Which is good for historical content (and it'd be good to put it on an appropriate version page), but not good for a supposed-to-be-up-to-date page. Should be replaced. Anaphysik (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)