Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Stellaris 53064 Bug Reports 34427 Console edition 1300 Suggestions 21111 Tech Support 3145 Multiplayer 391 User Mods 4768 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports)
Previous dev diary Next dev diary
Show only dev responses
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Verx90 said:
but i usualy build BIG BLOOB sector , i would be fuuu in a sec :D

i think this would make build tall be a bit toooooo hard , but this could be the way federation will be upgraded in the future . a big blob considerate 1 empire(unificated federation or whataver this language call them) but composed of a variety of sector that are the old nation inside the federation that are active like vassals in CK2 .
there is even someone that can realy understand me when i speak in this trash way ? :D
Click to expand...

It'd, make sector cap more meaningful though.
 
Wiz said:
# Traits
* NEW: Wasteful trait added to the game
* NEW: Conservational trait added to the game
* Decadent trait now requires authoritarian or xenophobe ethics
Click to expand...

Devs should add "Depraved" as a trait for xenophile and egalitarian ethics. -10% energy output if not near an alien pop of another species. Xenophiles need immigrants and internal trade with other species to flourish. Or maybe make that -5% Happiness. Whatever is more balanced.
 
Last edited:
* It is now possible to terraform barren planets that have the "Terraforming Candidate" modifier if you possess the Atmospheric Manipulation tech. Mars is such a world by default
Click to expand...

YASSSS!!!!!!

Core Sector Systems base value reduced from 5 to 3.
Click to expand...

Booo.

* Save the last used galaxy settings.
Click to expand...

HOORAY!
 
Last edited:
Almost there! So excited! Also, it is really good to know about some small, yet balance heavy details such as:

Egalitarian
* Effect on Policy Happiness effects removed
* Effect on Migration Attraction removed
* Consumer Goods Cost is now reduced by -10%
* Influence from factions is now increased by +15%
Click to expand...

Aw yeah! Extra influence from factions is a far more fitting bonus for egalitarians than migration attraction.

Militarist
* Effect on influence gain from rivals removed
* Effect on Ship Weapon Damage removed
* Ship Fire Rate is now increased by +10%
* Army Damage is now increased by +10%
Click to expand...

Woa, pretty damn big buff to militarists here. Sounds pretty darn awesome.
 
KopiG said:
Yes, that's how they work. You can set how much a sector should contribute to your bank, but that cannot be higher than 75%, so in time, the sector's bank will be full and inaccessible by the player. In reality, this means that a sector is basically a 25% taxed entity, which would be okay IF you could access its accumulated bank with some mechanic (influence cost, happiness penalty, whatever) but it seems like that's not the case. I think this really needs to be implemented, to access a sector's bank somehow. It is very very frustrating to see you running hundreds of energy credits deficit while your sectors have thousands banked up.
Click to expand...

I agree. This issue is my main sticking point with sectors. Unless the reason to have this is to penalise the player to balance against AI opponents, then it doesn't make sense. If you are on friendly terms with some entity then you should be able to trade their unwanted surpluses for something of value to them - it's a positive sum game and pretty much the basis of trade IRL.
 
The one issue I don't see addressed that is just stupid annoying is when you're part of a Federation and member nations other than the president's nation is in control of the Federation fleet. Hopefully it's just listed in a way that I didn't understand, but when that starts happening it really makes me want to go back to just playing without federations.
 
IndyBart said:
The one issue I don't see addressed that is just stupid annoying is when you're part of a Federation and member nations other than the president's nation is in control of the Federation fleet. Hopefully it's just listed in a way that I didn't understand, but when that starts happening it really makes me want to go back to just playing without federations.
Click to expand...

Wiz commented that this was fixed I think (somewhere in this thread?).
 
nweismuller said:
Neither of these. It means that if you have newly colonised planets A, B, and C and existing pops wish to move to these planets, only one pop will move to A at a time, one will move to B at a time, and one will move to C at a time, so we won't have the case where six months after colonisation suddenly fifteen pops arrive at Planet A, which is instantly thrown into major famine.
Click to expand...

Will POPs from your empire have priority? Or will Nomadic pops have priority? This might be a boost or a nerf to sedentary / nomadic depending on how it is implemented - who will get there first vs who leaves first.

Given global food, too many immigrants at a time to an undeveloped world could result in Empire wide famine, not just planetary famine. Ouch. Glad they fixed that.
 
Constans337 said:
I agree. This issue is my main sticking point with sectors. Unless the reason to have this is to penalise the player to balance against AI opponents, then it doesn't make sense. If you are on friendly terms with some entity then you should be able to trade their unwanted surpluses for something of value to them - it's a positive sum game and pretty much the basis of trade IRL.
Click to expand...

when they reach the maximun minerals or energy they start giving you 100% of theyr income . you will not notice this if they have to build from scrach on your new 200 planets and you tax them at 75% . because even if all insult the actual IA of sector , it actualy build spaceports, robots and buildings; 1 for time , and THATS the problem .
 
Constans337 said:
I agree. This issue is my main sticking point with sectors. Unless the reason to have this is to penalise the player to balance against AI opponents, then it doesn't make sense. If you are on friendly terms with some entity then you should be able to trade their unwanted surpluses for something of value to them - it's a positive sum game and pretty much the basis of trade IRL.
Click to expand...

It'd be nice if more democratic style empires had to wrangle with trading favors with their sector governors go get some of that revenue when the Imperial purse is empty, maybe some sort of balancing act where sectors gain more influence or leverage or autonomy the more you have to call on them for help.

More authoritarian style empires may have access to more... direct means of wealth acquisition, but might have to deal with coups or plots from the governors or generals.

BrokenSky said:
It'd, make sector cap more meaningful though.
Click to expand...

I've always been a bit puzzled as to why sectors don't have management penalties for having too many systems like the core sector does. At the very least there should be some sort of diminishing returns for loading too many planets into a single super sector. (a rise in unrest due to overstretched bureaucracy could work.)

Also, it'd be nice if the sector governor had the potential to straight up rebel or coup if you were silly enough to give him more resources within his sector than your core or other sectors combined.

This would be especially nice to see in Monarchies or Military dictatorships, where sector governors could act more like court nobles.

Sectors in some forms of democracy might even appoint their own governors via local elections. A national leader might find themselves in positions of having to pander to a particular faction which won the election in their vital industrial sector etc.


Basically, sectors work OK in their current state as micro-mitigation tool, but they have the potential to become so much more than that.
 
Verx90 said:
when they reach the maximun minerals or energy they start giving you 100% of theyr income .
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I've not noticed that. I was running a large energy deficit once and two sectors maxed out with energy at one point but I didn't notice my loss rate reducing when they hit their cap.
 
Last edited:
i had your same problem, then i noticed that one popping faction with 235 pop in that was making strike and i didn't understand how i passed from making 1k of energy per month to making -400 . then i noticed that this faction, was a BIG FAT UNITED faction of the sector, the sector stopped was still in positive of energy, but they were producing half of it . chek if you are repressing all the factions if your deficit appeared from nowhere ; or if the sector is actualy at its max limit of energy or minerals, thats too sometime take me in red ( because i build only 1 BLOOB sector , so , anything happens to it , rape me ) if the sector for whatever reason builded something and took more than a month to regain the minerals used, may take you to deficit , but with a big blob this should not happen , because they make tons of minerals.

edit : if your deficit come from having your fleets out of planets, you builded too much ships without having the economy to sustain them and you should destroy , destroy , destroy .
 
Last edited:
Wiz said:
Materialist
* Effect on building cost removed
* Research Speed is now increased by +5%
* Robot upkeep cost is now reduced by -10%

Fanatic Materialist
* Effect on building cost removed
* Research Speed is now increased by +10%
* Robot upkeep cost is now reduced by -20%
Click to expand...

Does this upkeep cost reduction also apply to Droids and Synthetics? (We need to find a word to use to mean all three types of... mechanical pops?)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back