Stellaris Dev Diary #84: Čapek Feature Roundup (part 2)

[LeSingeAffame]

1. A proper building queue for planetary build that allies a player to reorder or selectively cancel constructions, rather than remake the entire build/upgrade chain.

Oh yes please

 

[Ari54x]

@Wiz,

First thanks for the QoL improvements, these are very nice.

Second, possible to ask for two important QoL changes for coreworlds?

1. A proper building queue for planetary build that allies a player to reorder or selectively cancel constructions, rather than remake the entire build/upgrade chain.

2. An autobuild toggle for core worlds, that allows a player to chose to automate planetary construction/upgrading, or not.

Just extending the ctrl+shift+click convention to construction as well as to galaxy map orders would probably be enough to get by with in terms of queueing behaviour. (edit: To clarify, on the galaxy map that will jump the new order to be the current task, rather than putting it at the end of the queue like shift-clicking)

I feel like if you want complete autobuild you should just toss the world into a nearby sector early, and retrieve it later.

 

[LeSingeAffame]

Just extending the ctrl+shift+click convention to construction as well as to galaxy map orders would probably be enough to get by with in terms of queueing behaviour. (edit: To clarify, on the galaxy map that will jump the new order to be the current task, rather than putting it at the end of the queue like shift-clicking)

That's already how it works ..? (Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean)

 

[ExNihil]

I feel like if you want complete autobuild you should just toss the world into a nearby sector early, and retrieve it later.

What if I just want autobuild for a period of time, like when im waging a war and don't want to divide my attention or constantly pause the game? Or what if I want a planet's full output, without sector taxation, but I don't want to micromanage construction all the time or upgrade buildings manually?

Actually your reply doesn't make any rational sense. Its a ''feeling'' with no logical grounding.

 

[Gomine]

It does may some sense if you don't want to do it yourself or have other more important things to do you delegate it to some one else

if it'd actually work I'm not so sure of

Actually your reply doesn't make any rational sense. Its a ''feeling'' with no logical grounding.

 

[Red192]

(edit: To clarify, on the galaxy map that will jump the new order to be the current task, rather than putting it at the end of the queue like shift-clicking)

oh god.... this, this is helpfull, thanks later i will try it

 

[sr999]

TL;DR: Covfefe.

* Livestock: Pre-Sapients are hunted and eaten, producing food for your empire, though this will slowly deplete their population. They can also be manually purged at will. Depletion is mostly done for balance reasons, as otherwise there would be no reason *not* to eat them.

Doesn't this utterly destroy immersion? Why should we penalize all non-Vegan species just so Vegan species aren't penalized? From an immersion perspective it'd be far better if Vegan species automatically were eaten as livestock (though it's not my job to suggest such mechanics even if it's the blindingly obviously correct design decision).

As to inherent plausibility, non-Vegan species, even pre-space age humans, are perfectly good at livestock management to the extent that numbers can be managed at any desired planetwide level, despite livestock's relative inefficiencies as against cereal crops.

As to inherent logic: of course there isn't any reason not to eat them. There never could be a reason. Category mistake.

In any event this design is utterly ahistorical.

Disclaimer: I come from a long line of graziers...

 

[Coyote027]

Why should we penalize all non-Vegan species just so Vegan species aren't penalized?

What is a "vegan species"? Remind yourself that even deer, horses and squirrels - "herbivores" as we label them - can and will scavenge meat when it's available to them.

 

[ExNihil]

It does may some sense if you don't want to do it yourself or have other more important things to do you delegate it to some one else

if it'd actually work I'm not so sure of

Why shouldn't it work? If core world's are in effect a sector?

It just needs to be a more configurable sector with no taxation penalties.

 

[Ari54x]

What if I just want autobuild for a period of time, like when im waging a war and don't want to divide my attention or constantly pause the game? Or what if I want a planet's full output, without sector taxation, but I don't want to micromanage construction all the time or upgrade buildings manually?

Actually your reply doesn't make any rational sense. Its a ''feeling'' with no logical grounding.

Autobuild is one of the big points of sectors. I'm sure in the long run we will probably get something like an "upgrade all" button for the core worlds to save us all some RSI risk, but a complete fire-and-forget solution should probably be reserved for sectors, unless there are some plans to change their mechanics to something else, say being more like EUIV's states, in which case, yes, more universal automation would probably be good. If you want to manage less worlds, having some of those resources go to the sector instead is kinda the price you pay. (Although, if you have plenty of influence, they're really just extra reserves for if you need them later)

One of the reasons that "not getting all your resources" from sector worlds and automation are so compatible is that you know for sure how many resources, you, the player, have at your disposal at any one time, and the AI also knows and can queue actions as appropriate. (it will of course have to cope with the player "stealing" its reserves sometimes, but the AI doesn't get frustrated and we do, so it's a better way to play things) The sector resources are theoretically yours too, but you have to spend influence to pull them back so that you're careful about how you construct your sectors and what you want out of them, rather than constantly pulling and pushing resources between sectors. An automation system that doesn't have its own resource pools puts you in a much more awkward situation, where suddenly your energy and minerals can disappear when you were counting on them being available. They don't hang on to a percentage of your resources just because.

Yes, having to spend influence to build military assets with those resources is sub-optimal, but player attention is also a limited resource and sometimes it's worth spending influence to conserve it. (It's inarguably not best play in single player where you can pause, but if you like multiplayer or just think upgrading is tedious it's a fair trade-off)

I'm not gonna bother to address your last two sentences because inevitably that turns into a meta-discussion about logic and emotion that's a big distraction, and it can't actually help a discussion. If there's apparently so little merit to my point that sectors are already where automation lives in Stellaris, then you shouldn't even need to point it out because it would be obvious.

And finally, yes, I know the sector AI is sometimes stupid. It's a big and complex game that AI struggles with given its limited CPU allocations. Hopefully they will fix it later.

 

[Ur-Quan Lord 13]

You could enslave non-conformists, taking away their citizen rights and their right to vote or speak.

Yah, this works alright.

I've long been on the side of being able to purge non-conformists. Even back before collectivist was changed, I said xenophobe pops should not only be okay with purging xenos, but also purging any non-xenophobes. There's a long history of racists being violent towards people of the same race who sympathize with others. And even now, unlike authoritarians who can still enslave egalitarians through caste system shenanigans, xenophobes can't do anything about xenophiles.

But, thinking about the real world... It's true that authoritarian governments commonly purge or enslave dissidents. It's also true that it doesn't work perfectly. There is always still unhappiness and unrest, as oppression spreads dissent. So, while purging dissidents is something an authoritarian government would actually do, disallowing it in the game is an alright representation of the fact that it never works.

Except in DPRK, but they're also not going to space any time soon. Information quarantine x 100.

 

[PirateJack]

I wouldn't mind the core sector being governed by your ruler. It would make sense to me and speed up their experience gain quite well.

 

[sr999]

What is a "vegan species"? Remind yourself that even deer, horses and squirrels - "herbivores" as we label them - can and will scavenge meat when it's available to them.

You missed my at the end. Apologies for not enlarging it!

 

[ExNihil]

I'm not gonna bother to address your last two sentences because inevitably that turns into a meta-discussion about logic and emotion that's a big distraction, and it can't actually help a discussion. If there's apparently so little merit to my point that sectors are already where automation lives in Stellaris, then you shouldn't even need to point it out because it would be obvious.

Wasn't about emotions, it was about the lack of arguments in what you wrote. I hate (=emotion) when ppl respond to request by stating this should be so because "I feel", whereas I do my very best to explain why X or Y will be helpful or not. Its a minimal level of courtesy when communicating on an internet forum IMO.

Autobuild is one of the big points of sectors. I'm sure in the long run we will probably get something like an "upgrade all" button for the core worlds to save us all some RSI risk, but a complete fire-and-forget solution should probably be reserved for sectors, unless there are some plans to change their mechanics to something else, say being more like EUIV's states, in which case, yes, more universal automation would probably be good. If you want to manage less worlds, having some of those resources go to the sector instead is kinda the price you pay. (Although, if you have plenty of influence, they're really just extra reserves for if you need them later)

One of the reasons that "not getting all your resources" from sector worlds and automation are so compatible is that you know for sure how many resources, you, the player, have at your disposal at any one time, and the AI also knows and can queue actions as appropriate. (it will of course have to cope with the player "stealing" its reserves sometimes, but the AI doesn't get frustrated and we do, so it's a better way to play things) The sector resources are theoretically yours too, but you have to spend influence to pull them back so that you're careful about how you construct your sectors and what you want out of them, rather than constantly pulling and pushing resources between sectors. An automation system that doesn't have its own resource pools puts you in a much more awkward situation, where suddenly your energy and minerals can disappear when you were counting on them being available. They don't hang on to a percentage of your resources just because.

I think, and feel, you are wrong. This isn't personal though so don't be offended please. Sectors are, slowly but surely, getting reworked. Take a look in the Sector Quarantine thread if you haven't. Wiz stated that they are experimenting with and will perhaps include in 1.8 a fix to sectors that allows players to queue construction and so forth. In other words, allowing players greater control into sectors.

Now what is the function of sectors? Mind you - I'm asking about function, not about justification (meta-fluff etc.), or rationalization of this feature? Well, its a way to allow players *not* to micor their entire empire. What I am asking is for a feature that will allow players to do even less micro, when and if the chose to do so. And the choice factor is highly significant - if you running your core sector you should have a greater degree of control, including on exactly HOW MUCH CONTROL you want at a given moment.

Have you ever got to this point in the game where you are suddenly fighting a huge war, maybe against multiple opponents or even a chain of different wars on different fronts, and suddenly after several hours of concentration, you discover 20 years went by and your core worlds are now full of unemployed pops? Or alternatively, do you ever find yourself having to pause constantly in the middle of a war of fleet action 'cuz you need to order construction on your latest colonized planet? Don't you find this ruins immersion or sometimes just demands a lot of unnecessary attention? I feel it does.

 

[Crazykiller1200]

gj

 

[CocoCincinnati]

Regarding Land Appropriation, is that an empire wide policy? If so, can it be turned on and off pretty easily or will it have the 10 year limit to change it again. I can see wanting to have that policy in effect for some conquered worlds but definitely NOT have it for others. The main reason would be for worlds that have low habitability for my primary species but there could also be some alien pops that I don't mind having more of while others I definitely want to limit.

 

[CorpusIurisCivilis]

Im still waiting for my Mechwarrior themed ground troops.
Where are my giant mech armies Paradox...I WANT to conquer the galaxy by deploying armies of 20 meter tall arsenals of lasers missiles and ballistics...WHERE ARE THEY????

 

[Heretic Saint]

Egalitarians may not necessarily be about equality between species. They can't seize land from citizens (nobody can).

In this case, shouldn't the Progressive Faction also stop caring about alien caste slaves or alien migration/population control? Why would alien Pops join the Progressive Faction if it does not advance their interests (even though they have reduced influence)? Why do free Pops have increased Egalitarian Ethos attraction due to nearby alien slaves, if they're actually hypocrites who don't care about native displacement?

I used to believe that Egalitarian Ethos in Stellaris was objective rather than subjective, meaning that empires with an Egalitarian government Ethos discriminating against aliens are not actually egalitarian by definition of the term (see: ancient Athens), which would justify the penalties to Faction Happiness in xenophobe empires resulting from inequal treatment. However, if Land Appropriation won't have an effect on the Egalitarian Faction, is this not an inconsistency?

Or am I just missing something and you were differentiating between a partially Egalitarian government, and the Egalitarian Faction - with the latter still opposing Land Appropriation policies?

I have a hunch this is fallout from the game attempting to abstract and neatly compartmentalize various issues in a way that nothing will be shared between multiple Factions, but it does feel a bit flawed particularly when it comes to the overlap between Xenophiles and Egalitarians. If you ever touch Factions again, would it be possible to consider "dynamic" political parties that pick from a variety of issues relevant to the empire, rather than trying to distribute everything to a fixed group of hardcoded Factions?

Or should there be an alternate Pseudo-Egalitarian Faction specifically for empires with a Xenophobe government Ethos, similar to how there are two Xenophobe Factions (Isolationists vs Supremacists), and one of them would care about Land Appropriation whilst the other does not? This would probably be the easiest fix.

Regarding Land Appropriation, is that an empire wide policy? If so, can it be turned on and off pretty easily or will it have the 10 year limit to change it again. I can see wanting to have that policy in effect for some conquered worlds but definitely NOT have it for others. The main reason would be for worlds that have low habitability for my primary species but there could also be some alien pops that I don't mind having more of while others I definitely want to limit.

It sounds like an Empire Policy, so I'm guessing it's going to have the usual 10 year cooldown in-between toggles.

Part of why I would hope it might be available as a Planetary Edict as well. If this won't make it into the game, it should be easy enough to mod at least.

 

[CrowScape]

Have you ever got to this point in the game where you are suddenly fighting a huge war, maybe against multiple opponents or even a chain of different wars on different fronts, and suddenly after several hours of concentration, you discover 20 years went by and your core worlds are now full of unemployed pops? Or alternatively, do you ever find yourself having to pause constantly in the middle of a war of fleet action 'cuz you need to order construction on your latest colonized planet? Don't you find this ruins immersion or sometimes just demands a lot of unnecessary attention? I feel it does.

I find this sentiment odd, considering that a battle can take months of in-game time. I can't see how pausing the game for a few seconds can break the immersion versus pausing in something closer to a one-to-one time basis, like Zelda.

 

[Heretic Saint]

I find this sentiment odd, considering that a battle can take months of in-game time. I can't see how pausing the game for a few seconds can break the immersion versus pausing in something closer to a one-to-one time basis, like Zelda.

Personally, I always viewed the pause button in Stellaris (or CK2, or EU4, etc.) as Paradox' equivalent of the "End Turn" button in other grand strategy times. It's just that here you define how long a turn lasts by yourself, and everyone acts simultaneously.

Though usually it's a crutch and slowing down to normal speed is enough to carry out an action. I'm not enough of a minmaxer to care about losing 2-3 days.