• 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 Dev Diary #370 - 4.0 Changes Part 4

Hello everyone!

This week we’re going to look at the upcoming changes to Pops in the Stellaris 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update.

Last week I said we might also look at the Planet UI, but I’m going to save that until next week since there’s quite a bit to cover here (especially if you’re into the technical details), and I’d rather not split the feedback.

Pop Groups and Workforce​

As mentioned in Dev Diary 366, the Pop and Jobs system introduced in Stellaris 2.2 ‘Le Guin’ has always had significant performance implications in the late game, and we’ve been working on incremental improvements ever since. In the Stellaris 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update, Pops will be grouped into Pop Groups based on species, strata, ethics, and faction, and these Pop Groups will produce Workforce that is used to fill (or partially fill) Jobs. As part of this change, we’re changing the overall scale of Pops - most things that previously affected or manipulated 1 Pop would now affect or manipulate groups of 100. The new systems can manipulate any number of Pops within a Pop Group just as easily as manipulating one, and I’ll go into some of the benefits of the finer resolution below.

Our primary desire with these changes is to improve late-game performance, but while working on it we took the opportunity to streamline some aspects of planetary management and improve the planet UI.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the details.

Workforce

In Stellaris, the core economic loop since 2.2 has been: Pops fill Jobs, and Jobs produce resources.

With the 4.0 ‘Phoenix’ update, we’re making a subtle but important change - Pops will now generate Workforce, which is used to fill Jobs, and planets themselves will produce resources.

At a basic level, this works almost the same way. By default, every Pop generates 1 Workforce, so Jobs are still filled at the same rate. However, this shift is crucial for backend performance improvements, reducing the number of calculations the game needs to make each month.

Example: Then vs. Now​

Before (3.14):
  • Take a planet with 100 Pops working Metallurgist Jobs, where 20 of them have a +10% Production Bonus from a Species Trait.
  • These 100 Pops produce 612 Alloys per month.
  • Every Pop is individually checked - 80 produce the standard amount, while 20 get a 10% Alloy production bonus from their species trait.

Now (4.0):
  • Instead of tracking individual Pops, we track Workforce filling Jobs.
  • The Jobs are now filled by 10,000 Workforce (since Pops are scaled up by 100).
  • 8,000 Workforce comes from regular Pops, while 2,000 Workforce comes from the bonus-earning Pops.
    • The species bonus is now “10% bonus Workforce when working Alloy jobs” - those Pops contribute an extra 200 Workforce, making the total 10,200 Workforce. Bonus Workforce is allowed to go over the required Workforce for a job, yielding extra production.
  • If 100 Workforce still produces 6 Alloys, the planet still produces 612 Alloys - same output, different system.

Why This Matters:​

The key benefit is efficiency. Instead of iterating through and calculating production for every individual Pop, the game now only checks once per planet. This makes the system more scalable and improves performance, while still allowing for species based bonuses and modifiers.

Most existing species traits that affect Job production will be converted into Workforce bonuses or planet-based modifiers. As always, the final balancing will be refined through the Open Beta.

There are a few quirks and subtleties about how this interacts with other modifiers - bonus Workforce as a modifier is more powerful than bonus Production due to the two of them stacking multiplicatively rather than additively.

Pop groups are currently split up by Species, Strata, Ethics, and Faction. If you end up in a case where a Pop group is not completely uniform (for example, if 20% of the Pop group are recent refugees and thus happier than the rest), then the differences get averaged across the Pop group.

If none of this feels like it makes sense - it’s okay. It’s mostly a behind-the-scenes change. Jobs require Workforce to fill them, and that’s generated by Pops. We have some ideas about ways to expand upon this in the future, such as replacing part of the Workforce with automation by using a building.

Pop Growth

With more granular Pop units, we have more ability to support simultaneous growth of Pops on a planet. Each species present on a planet will grow normally, and with the smaller unit size, will grow every month.

This results in several benefits, including multi-species empires not getting their growth dominated by underrepresented species, and also lets us remove the floor on colony Pop growth. This does mean that newly settled colonies will be very reliant on migration to grow their population until they develop to the point where they can support their own Pop growth, and removes a long-running issue where spamming colonies regardless of habitability simply for the minimum flat Pop growth was optimal.

Xeno-Compatibility will pool all species on a multi-species planet together to calculate their growth rate, then split the growth proportionally across the various species.

Assembly works largely the way it did before, except that fractional Assembly will become “microPops” thanks to the finer resolution of Pops. Machine and Organic Assembly will no longer conflict with one another, as the Organic Pops will handle their own growth, while all mechanical assembly will be channeled towards the highest “score” mechanical Pop templates available.

Colonization and Civilians

Since your new colonies will be extremely reliant on migration from their homeworld until they reach a critical mass of inhabitants where they can begin to support themselves, we’re adding a new population stratum called Civilians (or Residents, for species without full citizenship). These Civilians form the generally content base of your empire, and will trickle out to the colonies, looking for better opportunities. Unemployed Pops will still exist and downgrade through the strata, with unemployed Worker stratum Pops demoting to Civilians over time. This will have an impact on stability, as Civilians are largely content and non-disruptive.

This is mostly for you modders out there to abuse, but in the new system, “Unemployed Specialist” will technically be a Job - there’ll be one for each stratum. Every Job can have a demotion target assigned to it, and a time.

In our implementation, all of the Specialist stratum Jobs will demote to Unemployed Specialist; Unemployed Specialist will demote to Unemployed Worker, and Unemployed Worker will demote to Civilian as they give up on their dreams of productivity and veg out in front of the holoscreen.

There are actually going to be many more Strata than I listed there.

Our current list includes the following for regular empires:
  • Elites
  • Elites (Unemployed)
  • Specialists
  • Specialists (Unemployed)
  • Specialists (Slave)
  • Specialists (Slave, Unemployed)
    • For Indentured Servitude
  • Workers
  • Workers (Unemployed)
  • Workers (Slave)
  • Slaves (Unemployed)
  • Civilians
  • Residents
  • Criminals
  • Pre-Sapients
Gestalts would have:
  • Complex Drones
  • Menial Drones
  • Maintenance Drones (Civilian Equivalent)
    • Unemployed Complex and Menial drones demote directly to here, skipping the Unemployed state
  • Deviant Drones
  • Slaves (For Grid Amalgamation, Livestock, etc.)
  • Bio-Trophies
  • Bio-Trophies (Unemployed)
  • Pre-Sapients
There are likely to be more once we’re done, including the various Purge types.

Like many of the other changes, it’s all about removing iteration. Instead of going through the Pops to find the unemployed ones, we already know that any Pops in the Specialist (Unemployed) stratum are, in fact, unemployed. When a Specialist Job opens up, we have a smaller pool of candidates that are pre-identified, and we already have a clear priority of who has dibs on the Job.

In this model, Slaves would demote to the Slaves (Unemployed) Job/stratum and go no further, so they’ll never hit the content state of Residents and Civilians. Based on playtesting, we might end up adding a Slaves (Specialist, Unemployed)

Modders: Technically, there’s nothing stopping you from having a Job “demote” to a higher strata, like if you had a Worker stratum “Academy Cadet” that led to a Specialist stratum “Officer” Job. Just make sure you comment your script.

Your homeworld will start with a fairly large pool of Civilians to support your early expansion. We’re a bit worried about early conquest of homeworlds being too easy of a snowball with this increased starting Pop count, so are considering various ways of making it more challenging to take homeworlds in the early to mid game. One idea we have includes having Civilians create impromptu defensive militias to help defend their home, and possibly starting you off with a few Defensive Platforms. Another idea is for aggressively invaded Civilians to take “Resistance” Jobs that they must then “demote” out of over time. The number of Civilians converted to this new Job and how long it takes them to drop out of it would be modified depending on how their people are being treated by their new and old masters.

We welcome your ideas and suggestions.

Clerks are dead! Long live Civilians!

We’re currently still experimenting with the effects Living Standards have on Civilians (and Pops in general) - it’s likely that more of the Trade generation from Living Standards will be shifted to the Civilian stratum, and production from Unemployed Pops in the old system may also move to the Civilians. This will give them some of the functions of Clerks in the old economic model. In Gestalt empires, they are likely going to be outright named Maintenance Drones rather than “Civilians”.

We’re also renaming the Ruler stratum to “Elites”, so “Ruler” isn’t double-dipping between your Empire’s ruler at the top economic stratum.

Next Week​

Next week we’ll be going through the new Planet UI, and how all of this changes things there.
 
Last edited:
  • 134Like
  • 88Love
  • 15
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
How will this change resettlement? Will we still be able to manually move pops between planets?
It says this in the log:
As part of this change, we’re changing the overall scale of Pops - most things that previously affected or manipulated 1 Pop would now affect or manipulate groups of 100.
So I see no reason resettlement would not work. It just now affects up to 100 pops, instead of 1 pop.
 
I'm still fond of "Dependents", if not as a replacement for Civilian, then as a stratum for individualistic pops in a gestalt empire.

To a hive, individualistic pops are certainly are certainly neither Worker nor Civilians. And they are functionally useless, due to their inability to function as part of the collective.
I don't like the name dependent, as then it misses jobs done by people in the private sector. Not just people depending on a UBI check to live. Don't we already have a term for hive bound individuals? Livestock or BIO0trophy?
 
Regarding the "Civilian" debate.
What about "General Population" - in contrast to "Specific Population" (doing something that specificially provides somthing "specified" to the overall System)

In otherwords:
General Population: Does things but nothing that we as the Player directly use
Workers/Specialists/Elite: Do stuff that we as the Player directly use.

The only two gripes i have with this is why the "General Population" would have less political power then, lets say the Worker stratum. In most societies i'd say they are at the same level. (In Stratified Societies not. b.c. they do not directly benefit the State) and that it does not properly exlpain why the "general" population wants to become "specific" pouplation (again for those societies that would not differ between them and worker class political power wise)


Alternatively: "Menials" (as in doing menial jobs)
This would nicely explain why they want to go up in stratum. And why they would have less politicla power then the workerclass.


Next Idea (i am on a run):
"Unskilled Workers" compared to "Skilled Workers" and it would allow for true "unemployed/depend" strata below.
Basically: For their jobs (that are not specified in game) you do need no or almost no qualification. This would nicely explain why they want to go up the stratum ladder.

Edit:
Maybe we do not need the same Strata names for every ethic/govermenttype etc. So we can switch the names depending on how your society is organised. (Like Descriptions/Names of Traditions are changed dynamically)
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The fact that the main discussion here is the new strata's name is probably a good sign for the rest. I wonder if the best way to solve that part would not be to just let us change all the stratas names like we can change the council positions names (and many other things like leaders, planets, ships etc...). Maybe even jobs now that I think of it.
Stellaris is loved for its RP possibilities. Letting player rename more things may help with that.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
We currently do not intend on changing "Civilians". Many of the proposed alternatives in this thread carry negative connotations that we very much want to avoid - they might be, but also critically might not be an underclass or unskilled, depending on the ethics, civics, and policies of your Empire.

In The Culture or Star Trek, these people live in a post-scarcity society, with no expectations placed upon them. They go to the colonies because they choose to - not because they have to. In a story like The Expanse or many other dystopias, their lives are much harsher and desperation leads them to the stars.

While scripted localization to change their name could be interesting, we've found it tends to be confusing to newer players when game terms change from game to game.

So I see no reason resettlement would not work. It just now affects up to 100 pops, instead of 1 pop.

This is correct.

With the gestalt equivalent of civilians likely ending up being called maintenance drones, what happens to the current maintenance drone job? Is it getting renamed? Is the new strata replacing it?

The new strata would replace it. We're still experimenting with some of this though, so there may be changes before release.
 
  • 15
  • 11Like
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
We currently do not intend on changing "Civilians". Many of the proposed alternatives in this thread carry negative connotations that we very much want to avoid - they might be, but also critically might not be an underclass or unskilled, depending on the ethics, civics, and policies of your Empire.

In The Culture or Star Trek, these people live in a post-scarcity society, with no expectations placed upon them. They go to the colonies because they choose to - not because they have to. In a story like The Expanse or many other dystopias, their lives are much harsher and desperation leads them to the stars.

While scripted localization to change their name could be interesting, we've found it tends to be confusing to newer players when game terms change from game to game.
Good point on newer players needing a consistent game term. Still, the lively debate on the name "Civilians" is a sign the term is currently too open to interpretation (meaning people consider it an insult when it's not intended to be). Three ideas come to mind:
* Tooltip description changes depending on ethics/policies to elaborate what exactly this strata means for a given empire
* Different job names within this sector to make clear if they're living utopian or dystopian lives
* A parenthesis in the planet view UI: "Civilians (private sector)" vs "Civilians (desperate masses)" depending on ethics/policies
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Good point on newer players needing a consistent game term. Still, the lively debate on the name "Civilians" is a sign the term is currently too open to interpretation (meaning people consider it an insult when it's not intended to be). Three ideas come to mind:
* Tooltip description changes depending on ethics/policies to elaborate what exactly this strata means for a given empire
* Different job names within this sector to make clear if they're living utopian or dystopian lives
* A parenthesis in the planet view UI: "Civilians (private sector)" vs "Civilians (desperate masses)" depending on ethics/policies

At some point I think it's best to leave it up to player interpretation. It's a fine line definitely, but stellaris is a sandbox that gives us tools to make empires and role play them how we like. Having the game try to fix a roleplay for each ethic sounds too restrictive.

Changing names based on civics or living standards could be interesting, so long as it reflected any mechanical changes.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
I don't like the name dependent, as then it misses jobs done by people in the private sector. Not just people depending on a UBI check to live. Don't we already have a term for hive bound individuals? Livestock or BIO0trophy?
This time I was talking about the name for individualistic pops in gestalt empires.

I'm thinking it could be a better fit than "Slaves" in some cases.
 
Last edited:
Changing names based on civics or living standards could be interesting, so long as it reflected any mechanical changes.
On that part I agree with Eladrin. It may be best if the name are left unchanged for readability for new players. Different names should be kept for mechanically different jobs (priest give different resources than administrators for instance) and not just jobs that happen to have slightly different outputs due to external bonus (dark consortium researchers are still researcher even if they produce dark matter). But a way to change the name ourselves would give experienced player a way to have jobs names matching the RP without causing problems for new players.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
We currently do not intend on changing "Civilians". Many of the proposed alternatives in this thread carry negative connotations that we very much want to avoid - they might be, but also critically might not be an underclass or unskilled, depending on the ethics, civics, and policies of your Empire.

In The Culture or Star Trek, these people live in a post-scarcity society, with no expectations placed upon them. They go to the colonies because they choose to - not because they have to. In a story like The Expanse or many other dystopias, their lives are much harsher and desperation leads them to the stars.

While scripted localization to change their name could be interesting, we've found it tends to be confusing to newer players when game terms change from game to game.

Forgive me but the actual truth seems pretty obvious in what you have told us yourself:

You simply needed a new "population bucket" to solve yourself the headaches caused by the negative impact of unemployment (which is a realistic concept) and allow you to streamline the migration process...in essence this new stratum is a purely a "gamey" shortcut that you guys came up with to not have to delve too deeply on how to resolve this in a more realistic way...

Now...while it's not too exciting for the development team to tell you they are messing with a relatively "stable" game mechanic to simplify their lives, one could understand it if -at least- a minimal effort was made to select the most meaningful term for the new (gamey) "population bucket" and to try to tie up logically with what factually happen in the game...

However the problem is that this politically correct explaination you are providing us for this fixation on this "Civilian" term for this gamey "population bucket" you guys need so badly doesn't seem make any logical sense even at the most casual scrutiny, Eladrin:

Terms like "Dependents" wouldn't be acceptable because "carry negative connotations"...sure...they might have some negative connotation...but still your game has -obviously- a hierarchical strata structure in which people who are unemployed get demoted and those unemployed people carry a negative modifier for the planet because they seem to be pretty unhappy about that condition!

...don't those terms and game mechanics all have negative connotations?

So...do you plan to rename all negative terms that already exist in Stellaris?

Will unemployed Elite, Specialist and Workers disappear, just in the name of politically-correctness and gamey shortcuts?

Will the whole idea of having a hierarchical strata structure disappear, because having people on top of each other...even in a UI is a negative and humiliating thing?

Will the purging job get a "flowery" rebranded name and maybe some lovely tooltip like "You'll own nothing and be happy?"?!

You see my point?

These pretty evident logical gaps between "what you are factually trying to do", "what is already* in the game" and "what you are telling us", seem to suggest that of there are only two possible explanation for your fixation with this bad term:

A) You came up with it yourself. Was an awful term and none in the team felt like telling you because "you're the boss" there.
Now...pride is understandable, but that if becomes pretty obvious that an idea isn't a good idea, one should be willing to change his mind.

B) This is an attempt to push down our throat Real World political propaganda with the excuse that "this is just a game!!".
In this case, you have been asked by someone to push this idea into this game, because they needed to brainwash us with their politics.
Please note that this is very far from being a "conspiracy theory" scenario, because I am pretty sure we all know about certain "(so-called) consultancies" routinely "working" for big Western game developers to push certain politics down our throat...

Maybe it is really just "A", Eladrin...and in that case I can understand that....I mean...when I was a teenager, I'd have zero problem to recognize a mistake or a bad idea when I noticed it, but, as one gets old, one get bothered to admit it....so...yeah...I can relate to that and frankly I have to give to you guys:

In the past you came up with solutions I disagreed with ...like certain decision on Research nerfing...which felt like restricting what we could do...but then you guys have show you're reasonable and you later adjusted things and...well...you managed to adjust the game in a way that gave us more freedom and more options!

So...I don't expect you to agree with me, but please consider that the logical gaps I have hinted about make one seriously paranoid about the "B" scenario and that's a really but really unpleasant scenario...especially given that if one makes any reference to Real World politics, one gets "strikes" on this forum!

Because, personally, if some jerk of consultant came to me and told me to push crappy politics into my work I'd tell her or him to "go stuff it"...so I'd never be able to relate to that -not even with a gun barrel at my head- and that scenario really bothers me!

...and yeah...honestly I can't help wondering which of ones is!

*= ...and let's clarify...the fact that I am remarking you the obvious fact that Stellaris, while having its simplifications, does already have pretty much negative terms and game mechanics shouldn't be taken as an invite to remove them to turn it into an unpalatable unrealistic simulation!
 
  • 19
Reactions:
At some point I think it's best to leave it up to player interpretation. It's a fine line definitely, but stellaris is a sandbox that gives us tools to make empires and role play them how we like. Having the game try to fix a roleplay for each ethic sounds too restrictive.

Changing names based on civics or living standards could be interesting, so long as it reflected any mechanical changes.
On one hand, yes, on the other, leaving too much to player interpretation makes the game itself bland and shallow.
Those little details add a lot of richness to the experience, and should not be discounted.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
However the problem is that this politically correct explaination you are providing us for this fixation on this "Civilian" term for this gamey "population bucket" you guys need so badly doesn't seem make any logical sense even at the most casual scrutiny, Eladrin:
You got completely lost in the sauce, and that's because you misunderstood what is meant by "negative connotations". It's not negative connotation in the meaning of "hurting someone's feelings", but negative connotations in the meaning of an element that is "undesirable", one a player might want to get rid of.
They want to avoid a negative connotation word for civilians because you're not meant to want to get rid of them. That's why they're not "unemployed", "dependents" or something else of similar tone.
As a player you're meant to see the civilians as a normal part of your empire's population, not an element to get rid of.
That's what is meant by "negative connotations".
 
  • 7
  • 5
Reactions:
This is correct.
If I bring up a planet with 1,000 civilians on it of the same species/ethic will they show as one bar that I can transfer an arbitrary amount of*?

Or, said in an increasing tone of excitement, would I even be able to sort all of a species into one pop bar and transfer as many of them as I liked*?

*with a scaling cost obviously
 
You got completely lost in the sauce, and that's because you misunderstood what is meant by "negative connotations". It's not negative connotation in the meaning of "hurting someone's feelings", but negative connotations in the meaning of an element that is "undesirable", one a player might want to get rid of.
They want to avoid a negative connotation word for civilians because you're not meant to want to get rid of them. That's why they're not "unemployed", "dependents" or something else of similar tone.
As a player you're meant to see the civilians as a normal part of your empire's population, not an element to get rid of.
That's what is meant by "negative connotations".

I am sorry, Askorti...but your logical contortionism, if possible, seem to achieve a new peak in lack of logic:

In essence, you seem just throwing around "fried air" to try to "defend the undefensible"!

You essentially you have decided that you have to defend Eladrin's flawed logical explaination because "oh my God...he's a Paradox developer!! Someone is criticizing what my deity is saying!!!" and you came up with an evem more absurd explaination!

A "negative" perception isn't about what the player thinks or about the general audience thinks, because, unless we assume the player is lobotomized -which we don't!-, it is pretty evident that the player would perceive "positivity" or "negativity" based on the general perception of the general audience and what is the cultural baggage associated with the term!!

I am absolutely understood what Eladrin meant with those "negative connotation" which is precisely the politically correct sense I have pointed out..."dependent could be seen as a 'bad word' and we don't want to use it" (...we prefer the -meaningless- "civilian"!).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What they "want" is simply said:

Code:
They want just a "population bucket" to dumb "unemployed Workers" to solve the problem of the unemployment penalty and to simplify them the streamlining of the migration mechanics by just dumping all unemployed Workers and "Civilians/Dependents" into the colonies!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point with the name is, in the best case (apolitical) scenario, that is just an awful non-sensical name that Eladrin came up with himself and he doesn't want to admit it is a pretty evidently bad name out of an extension of his "I am the boss*" pride!

The perception of the players?

Frankly they don't seem to care much about "how it is perceived", given a lot of people are telling them is a nonsensical name (in fact multiple people pointed out that "civilian" makes only sense if paired with "military"!) and that to some of us -like me- stinks of Real World political propaganda!

They have decided that "Civilian" had to be and they are just megaphoning their finalized decision under the pretense of "wanting player's feedbacks and opinions"!!

*= Which possibly is also the reason why the fact that isn't such a great name didn't came up internally...
 
  • 16
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Forgive me but the actual truth seems pretty obvious in what you have told us yourself:

You simply needed a new "population bucket" to solve yourself the headaches caused by the negative impact of unemployment (which is a realistic concept) and allow you to streamline the migration process...in essence this new stratum is a purely a "gamey" shortcut that you guys came up with to not have to delve too deeply on how to resolve this in a more realistic way...

Now...while it's not too exciting for the development team to tell you they are messing with a relatively "stable" game mechanic to simplify their lives, one could understand it if -at least- a minimal effort was made to select the most meaningful term for the new (gamey) "population bucket" and to try to tie up logically with what factually happen in the game...

However the problem is that this politically correct explaination you are providing us for this fixation on this "Civilian" term for this gamey "population bucket" you guys need so badly doesn't seem make any logical sense even at the most casual scrutiny, Eladrin:

Terms like "Dependents" wouldn't be acceptable because "carry negative connotations"...sure...they might have some negative connotation...but still your game has -obviously- a hierarchical strata structure in which people who are unemployed get demoted and those unemployed people carry a negative modifier for the planet because they seem to be pretty unhappy about that condition!

...don't those terms and game mechanics all have negative connotations?

So...do you plan to rename all negative terms that already exist in Stellaris?

Will unemployed Elite, Specialist and Workers disappear, just in the name of politically-correctness and gamey shortcuts?

Will the whole idea of having a hierarchical strata structure disappear, because having people on top of each other...even in a UI is a negative and humiliating thing?

Will the purging job get a "flowery" rebranded name and maybe some lovely tooltip like "You'll own nothing and be happy?"?!

You see my point?

These pretty evident logical gaps between "what you are factually trying to do", "what is already* in the game" and "what you are telling us", seem to suggest that of there are only two possible explanation for your fixation with this bad term:

A) You came up with it yourself. Was an awful term and none in the team felt like telling you because "you're the boss" there.
Now...pride is understandable, but that if becomes pretty obvious that an idea isn't a good idea, one should be willing to change his mind.

B) This is an attempt to push down our throat Real World political propaganda with the excuse that "this is just a game!!".
In this case, you have been asked by someone to push this idea into this game, because they needed to brainwash us with their politics.
Please note that this is very far from being a "conspiracy theory" scenario, because I am pretty sure we all know about certain "(so-called) consultancies" routinely "working" for big Western game developers to push certain politics down our throat...

Maybe it is really just "A", Eladrin...and in that case I can understand that....I mean...when I was a teenager, I'd have zero problem to recognize a mistake or a bad idea when I noticed it, but, as one gets old, one get bothered to admit it....so...yeah...I can relate to that and frankly I have to give to you guys:

In the past you came up with solutions I disagreed with ...like certain decision on Research nerfing...which felt like restricting what we could do...but then you guys have show you're reasonable and you later adjusted things and...well...you managed to adjust the game in a way that gave us more freedom and more options!

So...I don't expect you to agree with me, but please consider that the logical gaps I have hinted about make one seriously paranoid about the "B" scenario and that's a really but really unpleasant scenario...especially given that if one makes any reference to Real World politics, one gets "strikes" on this forum!

Because, personally, if some jerk of consultant came to me and told me to push crappy politics into my work I'd tell her or him to "go stuff it"...so I'd never be able to relate to that -not even with a gun barrel at my head- and that scenario really bothers me!

...and yeah...honestly I can't help wondering which of ones is!

*= ...and let's clarify...the fact that I am remarking you the obvious fact that Stellaris, while having its simplifications, does already have pretty much negative terms and game mechanics shouldn't be taken as an invite to remove them to turn it into an unpalatable unrealistic simulation!
I honestly think we already discussed this at length and there is really no point in arguing more about this.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As some have already said, the fact that the biggest debate on this thread is over semantics is a good sign for this update overall.

Well...none has really any big issue with the streamlining of the population or migration mechanics...but these "semantics" discussion are important because are part of the "make believe", the "understandability" of the game mechanics and the "perceived political neutrality" of this game!!!

This is not a secondary issue!!

I mean...I have kind of spent the whole weekend trying to wrap my head around how the Heart of Iron 4 Manpower mechanics work, because, for example, the total country population got called "max_manpower" in-game, the "conscription" get called "Recruitable Population", other modifiers get also called "Recruitable Population"... I mean...this kind of "semantics" issues might really turn the game into a mess when one try to understand how things work in it...especially if things aren't so clear and so community members can't reasonably wrap up their head around it to update the Wiki!!!

I really would rather avoid that for Stellaris...is already a quite complex game...using bad terms which are meaningless or confusing in real life term is something that should be avoided like plague!!
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions: