Stellaris Dev Diary #326 - 3.10.4 "Pyxis" Released [e9b6] + Upcoming Holiday Tech Beta

[amib]

What makes you think they are? All I can tell from your screenshot is that most systems you have intel on are owned.

Also remember that you should expect the occasional cluster when using random placement due to randomness. The setting doesn't cause an even distribution. If you want more space, you might want to reduce the number of AI empires and/or increase the galaxy size.

it really would be nice if they would add some more options for empire placement on the galaxy creation settings list. when i choose random, i don't really want truly random, what i want is a balanced spread with no empires getting blocked in on day 1. i'd also like to see different patterns like half on one side of the galaxy and half on the other, and maybe some different variants based on your galaxy shape too.

 

[Lunatic4]

I've been playing this beta for a bit and had some thoughts:

I like the breakthrough tech idea and the idea that it gets cheaper the more people that have it. I like it because it gives the player control over whether to move into the next tier and when.

Regarding the general slowing down of research I have a couple of thoughts. Generally, I am pretty supportive of the notion that current tech is trivialized by how fast you can get through it. But, what I would say is that you may want to review what tiers certain tech appears at. If it is a negative that a particular tech appear really late in the game, then it might need to be reconsidered. I don't have a specific example of where it might be bad except maybe Zro mining - if you go Psionic and don't want to go the patron that is random, you'd have to wait until you researched Zro mining to get a new one, and if that is a later tier you could spend ages unable to change patron (more experienced people would prob be able to say if that specific situation is bad - just the only one I could think of). I guess the bullet point is that a change of this nature is somewhat fundamental and might necessitate a review of the tech tree (or events/choices based on a particular tech).

With the adding an increase of upkeep to research speed, again - generally supportive, but it seemed to me that a scientist on the council's choices of veteran trait seemed pretty flawed then. Like, if I don't want to get the one that increases speed is there a good alternative? I didn't think so (could be wrong of course), so do I just pick explorer and waste the trait pick? Maybe either some more or different choices might be something to look to.

With the Ship Build Speed issue, I was a little confused by the solution tbh. Like, if there is a cap that you (the devs) think is reasonable and players should not be able to go above - why not just set the cap to that instead of 90%? The reason I think that is better is because I think a variety of sources of something (whether it be ship build speed reduction or research speed oe whatever) is a good thing. It allows players to access the benefits without having to do a pre-set number of things. eg lets say the cap was super low (like 20%), then it would mean I could get that by maybe an edict and a leader and I don't have to go supremacy if I don't want - but someone who wanted to go supremacy wouldn't need to use unit on an edict. etc etc. It promotes a variety of play styles essentially. Also, would another avenue (and this goes for research speed too) to categorise the source of the bonus and you can only benefit from the highest bonus from each source (eg Leader, Tradition, Other). In the example I could benefit from a max of 3 sources, so that might get up to 50% or thereabouts. I guess in essence I'm suggesting the sources of the bonus are not the issue, but the stacking of the bonuses to the point of unintended outcome - so either preventing stacking or making the hard cap match your expectations might be better?

I will suggest that some of my assumptions/info is incorrect - apologies if so. I'm also sure there are players on here who understand the game waaaay better than I - but is just some food for thought.

Thank you for your time

 

[dancebyword]

I don't understand why the cyborg ruler trait is still allowed to be THAT bad. Shouldn't it get improved a bit?

Probably no point saying it this late though.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I don't understand why the cyborg ruler trait is still allowed to be THAT bad. Shouldn't it get improved a bit?

Probably no point saying it this late though.

It's... Fine? A 25% global district/building upkeep reduction is a great boon. It will cut the amount of pops you waste on strategic resources by quite a bit.

 

[jayparadoritox]

It's... Fine? A 25% global district/building upkeep reduction is a great boon. It will cut the amount of pops you waste on strategic resources by quite a bit.

Thematically for cyborgs those upkeep reduction traits just kind of fit too. Not just because cyborg pops have big upkeeps but just the idea that cyborgs are these halfway-beings between robot and biological, makes me feel like they'd act as good mediators between all the sectors in their empire and collaborate to ensure every industry is working as efficiently as possible with others

 

[dancebyword]

It's... Fine? A 25% global district/building upkeep reduction is a great boon. It will cut the amount of pops you waste on strategic resources by quite a bit.

But I don't typically need very many pops on strategic resources. It's just a handful. Like 4% of my total population or something, usually.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

But I don't typically need very many pops on strategic resources. It's just a handful. Like 4% of my total population or something, usually.

Sounds like you can reassign 1% of your population when playing Cyborgs, then.

 

[dancebyword]

Sounds like you can reassign 1% of your population when playing Cyborgs, then.

I think that's pretty weak then. Synths get pop assembly to each world on their leader. Erudite gets tech alternatives, you can't get many sources of additional tech alternatives. And let's not even get started on what Psionics can get with their leader

 

[Abdulijubjub]

But I don't typically need very many pops on strategic resources. It's just a handful. Like 4% of my total population or something, usually.

That sounds about right for actual refiners/chemists/translucers, but the impact of cutting the upkeep by 25% may be more than you expect. You'd expect it to save you 4*0.25=1%, but it may end up being more like 2% (or 4%, even, though that's a little optimistic.). "2% more pops to do what you will with" is a buff on par with 5% resources from jobs, in the late game (where every job has around +100%).

Each refiner (even with late game productivity) needs at least half a miner in support. So that 4% is actually 6% of pops.
Each refinery has 10 energy in upkeep (or, rather, had). That's roughly 1/3 of a technician. So it's really 7.3%. And you cut the upkeep of each refinery in addition to just reducing their number, so ~7.5%.

Every building slot dedicated to a refiner is a building slot not dedicated to a lab. So if you cut your upkeep by 25%, you can tear down refineries and put labs in those slots. Splitting a lab into two building slots saves 1 gas and 1 energy. So you may reduce your upkeep by 25%, but by decompressing your labs, you may actually end up paying 30% less.

So you're really paying ~7.5% of your pops just for strategic upkeep, and the real impact of reducing it saves you building slots, which will let you bump that up a bit further. If you just count strategics, it will be 8*0.25=2%.

A case study:

96 researchers in 16 advanced labs (needing 32 gas) plus 8 refiners, ~4 miners, and ~6 technicians for the energy upkeep of everything (96+8+4+6=114 pops).

becomes

96 researchers in 15 advanced labs and 3 basic labs (needing 15*2*0.75=22.5 gas) plus ~6 refiners, ~3 miners, and ~4 technicians for the energy upkeep of everything (96+6+3+4=109 pops).

You've saved 4.4% of the pops you were using for this by reducing your upkeep by 25% and keeping the same number of building slots. Quite a bit better than 1%. This was assuming that your refiners have +100% to output, your miners have +225% (making ~26 each), and your technicians are similar (making ~32 each).

But this is the best case. Ecu/ring districts are slightly less upkeep hungry than upgraded labs (though there's also various boosting buildings scattered around to consider). You'll likely get something close to the "8% of pops working for building upkeep", which will give you 2%.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I think that's pretty weak then. Synths get pop assembly to each world on their leader. Erudite gets tech alternatives, you can't get many sources of additional tech alternatives. And let's not even get started on what Psionics can get with their leader

Suppose you have 1000 pops scattered over 20 colonies when you start the comparison (round numbers pulled from a hat, YMMV if you have more/fewer pops/planets).

If you take cybernetic, your ruler immediately nets you 2% (20) effective pops. Its like having 20 extra pops, except without the sprawl. And as your empire grows, you'll consistently keep that 2% effective pop bonus.

If you take synths, your ruler gets you +1.15 assembly per colony. Each pop costs 100+1000*0.25=350 growth required, so it will take you 25 years to grow 20 pops. Except you (and the cybernetic empire) are growing at 10x that rate from organic growth and assembly combined. So you actually need to grow 24 pops to actually have 2% more pops because of the ruler when you catch up (30 years).

At the end you'll have ~1224 more pops, and the cybernetic will have 1200 pops with 2% more effective output per pop (ish, maybe; this is getting pretty handwavy, as synths also get another free roboticist, unrelated to the ruler traits). You are now even-ish.

But the cybernetic empire got its bonus immediately, so it will take 60 years for your average bonus from your ruler to match the cybernetic's over that time. Your growth required scaling will be higher (so the extra growth is less than it seems), and your empire size will be higher (both from more pops, and because the cybernetic gets a small district size reduction). Let's call it 64 years.

~32 years until you're even in economic output with the cybernetic, during which time it can either be researching (slightly) faster or conquering (slightly more) planets to put that bonus to use. And another 32 years of slowly accumulating raw pop advantage (assuming the cybernetic wasn't leveraging its advantage) before you get enough bonus from the extra pops to finally catch up with what the cybernetic had the entire time.

The cybernetic ruler is fine. It's not unbelievably amazing, but it's fine.

 

[dancebyword]

Wow..... Ok you've convinced me.

It sure would be difficult to try to formulate the argument similarly, to prove it people in general who are convinced cybernetic is bad. Guess I could always try coming back here and copy pasting

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Wow..... Ok you've convinced me.

It sure would be difficult to try to formulate the argument similarly, to prove it people in general who are convinced cybernetic is bad. Guess I could always try coming back here and copy pasting

That's valid criticism. It may be mathematically competitive, but if it looks weak and feels unsatisfying, it's sorta failed at its main job (be fun, and make the player feel powerful).

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I think that's pretty weak then. Synths get pop assembly to each world on their leader. Erudite gets tech alternatives, you can't get many sources of additional tech alternatives. And let's not even get started on what Psionics can get with their leader

I doubt many, if any, would disagree that the Synth and Erudite ruler traits are best in general, with most probably choosing the Synth trait as the best.

Though it must be said that if the player is already stacking a lot of alternative research options, the Erudite ruler trait isn't all that good and arguably the worst of the traits. Not quite sure I'd go that far myself, but I can definitely see an argument in favour of it.

And if up-front power is the most important, then Cyborg is arguably more powerful than even Synth, as it immediately reduces your energy and strategic resource upkeep costs, while the other three options take time to make a significant difference.

But Psionic vs. Cyborg? That's a different kettle of fish.

Ignoring the 10% ethics attraction, which isn't worth much, we are comparing 0.5 influence/month to a 25% reduction in district cost and, much less importantly, 5% empire size reduction from districts.

Early game Psionic is the clear winner as influence is in short supply and high demand, while demand for strategic resources are low, but mid- and end-game when strategic resources require many jobs fulfilled, both directly doing the job and indirectly to support the job, and where you can free up building or district slots by needing fewer strategic resource jobs, the math changes drastically.

I would argue that in the mid- and end-game the Cyborg ruler traits is considerably better than Psionic one except in two cases:

1. The player has a low influence income compared to his needs
2. The player has most of his strategic resource needs covered by vassals (though not always in these cases; depends on whether this taxation is preventing you from taxing something else from the vassal that you also need or not)

EDIT: My bad for not refreshing the window before starting writing. @Abdulijubjub has already explained my points, and done so better by also providing you with examples.