Stellaris Dev Diary #311 - Chiseling Away

[blahmaster6k]

The break-even point depends entirely on the trade modifier (and to a small degree on trade from living standards):

Depending on your trade modifier you need between 8 and 10 commercial zones to until you're no longer losing out to 3.8 clerks. If you factor in stability from excess amenities, you might have an argument for moving the break-even point down by 1 commercial zone.

View attachment 1018731
View attachment 1018724
View attachment 1018725

And that's just the effect of the clerk change. Here's what you get from 14 pops in 3.8 compared to 3.9 with a modest 60% trade modifier
View attachment 1018737
20% less trade with 900 more minerals invested and 3 additional energy upkeep.

It's honestly kind of sad how bad clerks are, they had one patch of being a good strategy when Merchant Guilds got the council trait(they were okay in trade builds but still not great after Merchants started costing 2 CGs in job upkeep) and then get shoved back into the bottom of the barrel again.

I have a question about Void Dwellers - they just don't seem competitive anymore. With a habitat costing 1000 alloys to build and colony ships costing 200, You now have to produce 2400 alloys to achieve the same level of base pop growth that void dwellers previously had at the start of the game, and which normal empires only need to spend 400 to get with two guaranteed habitable planets.

You also have to spend the years building your second and third habitats once you have managed to produce the alloys, and then wait for the colony to develop.

This update feels like it just cripples the pop growth of void dweller empires and makes them completely nonviable from a strength perspective. They just start out so low on the pop growth curve compared to every other empire type. Other empires are also free to invest the extra 2000 alloys into ships which they can use to conquer other empires, so Void Dwellers start massively behind in economy and military.

Void Dwellers are now comparable in pop growth to Life-Seeded and Ocean Paradise origins, except their growth is even lower because habitats are small and not a size 30 world with a bunch of bonuses,

 

[Rafss]

How about one of the neighbour systems get an abandoned habitat full of tile blockers? So instead of alloys and influence, you spend energy to remove blockers and get a fully functional habitat; a much less harsh impact on the early economy.

 

[Scyobi_Empire]

Probably a silly question, but is the new update to the beta save compatible with saves on the beta before it was updated?

 

[Eladrin]

Probably a silly question, but is the new update to the beta save compatible with saves on the beta before it was updated?

It is not completely save compatible. There was a fix made to orbitals that unfortunately removes the ones from the old saves. (There may also be some other things that break between versions.)

 

[Scyobi_Empire]

It is not completely save compatible. There was a fix made to orbitals that unfortunately removes the ones from the old saves. (There may also be some other things that break between versions.)

Is there anything in gamestate I can (mass, due to how many times the old code would turn up) replace as a bandaid? Push comes to shove, instabuild and resource would work

 

[gettingquite]

Good question,

Looking at it, the relic shouldn't add new deposits to planets that already have a deposit, so if an orbital provides research, energy or mining districts that won't change.

If the orbital provides building slots due to the planet lacking a research, energy or mining deposit when the orbital was first constructed and the relic adds a new deposit, you'll need to rebuild the orbital to get the district type unlocked.

I'll have a look at making this a bit smoother by swapping the orbital to collect resources if the relic spawns resources under it.

I've been testing out the 3.9 Habitat changes and I think that there might be an issue with Major and Minor orbitals in relation to building slots. When built over bodies with no deposit, they don't seem to give +0.5 building slots as per the tooltip. Not sure if I'm missing something.

 

[Rafss]

I've been testing out the 3.9 Habitat changes and I think that there might be an issue with Major and Minor orbitals in relation to building slots. When built over bodies with no deposit, they don't seem to give +0.5 building slots as per the tooltip. Not sure if I'm missing something.

It is a confirmed bug that will be fixed on the next patch, which is not planned to happen today.

 

[XCodes]

What do you guys actually want Trade to be? Because I don't understand what you're doing. Merchant Guilds in 3.8 is the all-in Trade build, and clearly that was too good. That's fine, nerf it. What you're putting out here, though, is both 1) a playstyle that absolutely does not function as anything other than an all-in build and 2) a playstyle that is substantially inferior to anything else we could be doing. Even with only 1 CG upkeep, Traders are a joke of a job right now. Their production is less efficient than Administrators, even after Mercantile tradition, and we already pretty much never build Administrators.

Do you just not want all-in Trade builds to be a thing? That makes sense. Make Trade jobs an alternative to Entertainers for Amenities production. You can do a whole rebalance with all different kinds of improved Amenities production with Trade being one path (with the Mercantile tradition and maybe Merchant Guilds civic), Police State being another (Oppressive Autocracy and Police State civics working in part or in concert with the Domination tradition to replace need for Amenities with need for Enforcers), Warrior Tradition (Nobody uses it and for good reason, it's a nothing civic that side-grades Amenities production from default just like 3.8 Catalytic Processing for Alloys), and Hedonism (which is actually just a nothing civic).

 

[KNakamura]

What do you guys actually want Trade to be? Because I don't understand what you're doing. Merchant Guilds in 3.8 is the all-in Trade build, and clearly that was too good. That's fine, nerf it. What you're putting out here, though, is both 1) a playstyle that absolutely does not function as anything other than an all-in build and 2) a playstyle that is substantially inferior to anything else we could be doing. Even with only 1 CG upkeep, Traders are a joke of a job right now. Their production is less efficient than Administrators, even after Mercantile tradition, and we already pretty much never build Administrators.

Do you just not want all-in Trade builds to be a thing? That makes sense. Make Trade jobs an alternative to Entertainers for Amenities production. You can do a whole rebalance with all different kinds of improved Amenities production with Trade being one path (with the Mercantile tradition and maybe Merchant Guilds civic), Police State being another (Oppressive Autocracy and Police State civics working in part or in concert with the Domination tradition to replace need for Amenities with need for Enforcers), Warrior Tradition (Nobody uses it and for good reason, it's a nothing civic that side-grades Amenities production from default just like 3.8 Catalytic Processing for Alloys), and Hedonism (which is actually just a nothing civic).

Hi. I use Warrior Tradition. It'd be nice if people posting on this threads considered things that just aren't "the meta" from time to time.

 

[Ikael]

Another one here on the "I am perplexed about trade changes" camp. I mean, habitats do need more fine-tuning, but at least I get where they are coming from. They will eventually get there. But trade it's like... well, I don't know what they are attempting exactly.

- Do they want trade builds to be viable or not? What about zero-habitability trade worlds?
- Do they want clerks to be a useful job on all kinds of empires, or only on trade-focused ones?
- Are merchants supposed to be the main source of trade value now?
- If we are not able to spam merchants anymore, why they haven't gotten better?

Still, my main concern is clerks and their role. Deactivating their jobs on most planets is one of the most tedious micro-tasks of the entire game.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Hi. I use Warrior Tradition. It'd be nice if people posting on this threads considered things that just aren't "the meta" from time to time.

It's actually pretty decent, especially with the new council position.

Even before 3.8, if running Militarized Economy, Duelists were close enough to the efficiency of running bureaucrats/soldiers (with a bunch of amenities at a heft discount) for the same outputs that it was usually optimal to use so many Duelists that you ran your amenities all the way to the 2x/+20% happiness limit. Assuming you had enough ships to want soldiers, and wanted enough unity that you would have otherwise considered bureaucrats, that is.

The jobs were good, though it didn't have a huge effect on your empire as a whole (which was its main problem).

I haven't tried it with the new council position, but it should be much better. Your Duelists cap at being a bureaucrat stapled to a soldier, plus two entertainers (4-5 base unity, +4 naval capacity, and a whopping base +20-25 amenities). You're basically always maxed out on amenities, and you have a reasonably spammable unity+naval cap job which is very efficient.

For reference: a Duelist burns 1 alloys (4 energy equivalent, with a discount because of Militarized Economy) while a fanatic militarist culture worker burns 3 CG (6 energy equivalent, plus a bit more because of the economy) for only 2 naval capacity instead of 4. Fully buffed Duelists are good even if you don't need amenities, though their usefulness is bounded by your empire's hunger for unity (since you should switch to soldiers once you no longer need the unity).

 

[maitue]

Why doesn't Mechromancy work with regular space fauna like Tiyanki or the Amoebas? Is it a balance thing to only rez leviathans and purged pops?

 

[Panzerslothen]

Hi. I use Warrior Tradition. It'd be nice if people posting on this threads considered things that just aren't "the meta" from time to time.

I for one am glad to hear someone saying something like this! Good for you, mate. You stand your ground on your playstyle.

"Meta-slavery" is a curse, IMHO. There's no space for 'having fun' when you boil everything down to pure numbers. It also misses that there are some value judgements and strategic decisions which can't be accounted for in a strict numerical approach. Lastly, it (somewhat arrogantly) assumes that EVERYONE is playing multiplayer, which of course isn't the case.

I'd like to think that the Min-Maxers are just a vocal (and somewhat abrasive) segment rather than a majority.

 

[Imp0815]

And that's just the effect of the clerk change. Here's what you get from 14 pops in 3.8 compared to 3.9 with a modest 60% trade modifier
View attachment 1018737
20% less trade with 900 more minerals invested and 3 additional energy upkeep.

Maybe this is intended, but they never told us WHY they made these changes in the first place.

As for now, it's more effective to move clerks to other colonies to be traders than to benefit from the 1% trade.

There are far too many jobs and planets in the game for clerks to be useful. Even for trade builds, clerks are better used as traders.

EDIT: I thought about it and now wonder what the results would be if traders provided less trade but increased the TV by a higher value like 5%. Clerks could provide the main sum of TV, like 5 or 6, and 6 to 7 with mercantile. This could mean that you rely on clerks providing the TV, and traders boost that outcome, making the per-job-value more balanced.

 

[Incompetent]

For clerk-amenities to be worthwhile, the entertainer amenity production would have to be kneecapped.

Not necessarily. Unless there's a complete rethink of what the job is for, Entertainers have to be much better than Clerks at pure amenity production. But it could still be the case that in some circumstances, the combined trade+amenity output of Clerks is worth more than the net value of Entertainers.

Say the numbers are adjusted such that a Clerk (with Mercantile traditions) produces half as many amenities as an Entertainer. Then (roughly speaking) if you would otherwise have Entertainers on the planet, the weakest non-amenity job is competing against the trade production of two Clerks, because instead of 1 Entertainer + 1 non-amenity job, you could just have 2 Clerks. By contrast, for mass Clerks to be viable, each Clerk beyond those required for amenities has to compete with other jobs on a 1:1 basis. So there's a reasonable range of values where you can give 2+ Clerks a role without letting them take over the colony's economy.

+1% specialist production would make me run a mix of Clerks on my Ecus and Ring Worlds.

That would make every non-Gestalt resemble a Rogue Servitor in the mid-to-late game, but without having to go through the slow start and other inflexibilities of a Rogue Servitor. The trouble is, if you make it much lower so as not to destroy Rogue Servitors' niche, then the bonus would be mostly irrelevant until you get to that Ecumenopolis stage. If we want to focus on Clerks as "helpers" to other pops, I think it should be based around something that isn't snowbally (amenities being a good example of a resource that doesn't snowball).

The +1% trade value is probably an attempt to make trade less weighted towards the early game and more something you lean into as the game progresses (culminating in Trade Ringworlds/Ecus and so on). I don't think it's a good way to fix Clerks, but in demanding commitment to the meme of a trade build, it seems relatively harmless for the wider game balance compared to blanket +% specialist production.

I have a question about Void Dwellers - they just don't seem competitive anymore. With a habitat costing 1000 alloys to build and colony ships costing 200, You now have to produce 2400 alloys to achieve the same level of base pop growth that void dwellers previously had at the start of the game, and which normal empires only need to spend 400 to get with two guaranteed habitable planets.

This wouldn't change the balance much, but I feel like colonization should be something that happens as part of the process of constructing a habitat central complex, since empty Habitats are completely pointless. Make it cost 1000 alloys, 200 food, 200 CGs (adjusted for Gestalts etc), but when building it you pick a species like you would with a colony ship, and then when the central complex has been built, it immediately becomes a colony with the usual starting number of pops. If nothing else, it would make sure the AI can't waste its resources on uncolonized Habitats.

 

[HFY]

That would make every non-Gestalt resemble a Rogue Servitor in the mid-to-late game, but without having to go through the slow start and other inflexibilities of a Rogue Servitor. The trouble is, if you make it much lower so as not to destroy Rogue Servitors' niche, then the bonus would be mostly irrelevant until you get to that Ecumenopolis stage. If we want to focus on Clerks as "helpers" to other pops, I think it should be based around something that isn't snowbally (amenities being a good example of a resource that doesn't snowball).

The +1% trade value is probably an attempt to make trade less weighted towards the early game and more something you lean into as the game progresses (culminating in Trade Ringworlds/Ecus and so on). I don't think it's a good way to fix Clerks, but in demanding commitment to the meme of a trade build, it seems relatively harmless for the wider game balance compared to blanket +% specialist production.

Rogue Servitors end up like that because Pop growth is "free" (relative to assembly) and RS cannot put grown pops into other jobs.

But every regular empire has many, many better ways to make use of a Clerk -- until the better job slots run out, of course. Then there's hopefully some value in employing your Clerks on your non-Trade / non-Urban planets.

E.g. on my Ecus, it seems like it's always better to build a Leisure District and use building slots for Labs or boost buildings. Therefore it might be cool if Commercial Zone counted as a boost building.

That would be a decision -- do I max out Alloy production (or CG, or Unity) by going Commercial Zones in my Ecu slots, or do I go for Research in those building slots? That might be a legitimate decision with two valid answers.

 

[Incompetent]

Rogue Servitors end up like that because Pop growth is "free" (relative to assembly) and RS cannot put grown pops into other jobs.

Indeed, Rogue Servitors don't have a choice, which is a weakness compared to non-Gestalts, especially early on. (There may be certain points of the game when the total pop count of a RS is a bit higher than that of non-Gestalts, so we can count some of the Bio-Trophies as "extra pops", but even then, it comes at the cost of tying down a lot of your precious drones as Replicators.) You wouldn't actually mass Clerks for the bonus unless it's a megacolony, or the pops being used as Clerks are defective in some way (e.g. zombies). My point is that if Clerks gave a Bio-Trophy-esque bonus, then you'd be giving all non-Gestalts the option to build like a Rogue Servitor wherever the Rogue Servitor colony build makes sense, which leaves actual Rogue Servitors looking a bit redundant.

Maybe Rogue Servitors are just weak in general, and the Rogue Servitor Ecumenopolis still isn't good on a per-pop basis, just less bad than other Rogue Servitor colonies; or maybe the +1 alloys from the Fabricator job makes the difference. That's not the perspective I have generally seen on the forums though when it comes to balance discussions.

 

[HFY]

You wouldn't actually mass Clerks for the bonus unless it's a megacolony, or the pops being used as Clerks are defective in some way (e.g. zombies).

Exactly, it's either a late-game consolation prize (because mega-colonies are where you will have enough specialists to actually want to employ Clerks, even if you'd prefer specialists) or a least-bad use for sub-standard pops (nerve stapled, serviles, slaves, zombies, etc.).

Early game the Clerk should have some value as a source of TV, late game a Clerk should be tolerable because of the tiny +% boost.


... oooo, and Utopian Abundance or Social Welfare might add +0.5% job productivity boost to all Unemployed pops.

Give me your huddled masses. Please.

 

[Panzerslothen]

I wonder how a base 4 TV + 4 Amenities Clerk (still with the optional +1/+1 to both from Mercantile) would do?

+1% specialist production would make me run a mix of Clerks on my Ecus and Ring Worlds.

I really like this idea too - possibly have it in addition to the +1% Trade Value (or not - I guess as long as the base +% Clerk buff affected Traders, that'd be fine - but AFAIK, TV isn't counted as a 'production'?)

 

[HFY]

I really like this idea too - possibly have it in addition to the +1% Trade Value (or not - I guess as long as the base +% Clerk buff affected Traders, that'd be fine - but AFAIK, TV isn't counted as a 'production'?)

The +% to specialist productivity would NOT affect Traders, since TV isn't considered production.

Perhaps move the +% TV over to Traders instead? Make it +2.5% TV so when you mass Traders you get better value from your Clerks and Merchants? But it's harder to really mass Traders so the bonus has to be higher.