Tell me do i misunderstand idea of zones or beta-testers are?

[Miridan]

It's been a week since the open beta started and I keep seeing comments such as "oh this new district-zone-building system will be great when devs implement it and fix the balance". Will this system work well? I doubt it very much. I'm not talking about obvious bugs like broken demotion, unfinished interface or missing building effects because they will certainly be fixed. I'm talking about idea of zones.

The problem beta-testers found is that maintaining a healthy economy is difficult - your economy is not fully under your control. You can easily enter death spiral when you build any zone as it makes massive shift in the workforce, leading to overproduction of one resource and underproduction of another.

However, I believe that this is actually not a problem. The system works exactly as intended according to developer's design: you can choose only three zones in your city district and you can NOT choose to build them independently of each other. You aren't supposed to alter the ratios of jobs on the planet. You aren't supposed to (and you actually can't) produce everything on a single planet. You're supposed to specialise planets even if you only have one very big planet like a Life-seeded origin or a ringworld or an ecumenopolis.
Due to this developers had to create a workaround - your homeworld starts with an early industrial zone, which produces every advanced resource. And in the latest beta patch they added new industrial zone that produces alloys and consumer goods. This goes against the design choice of having different zones for different jobs.

What i don't understand is why can't we combine small zones to get job proportion we need?

It's funny that this is how basic resource zones currently work. You CAN choose how much energy/food/minerals you want to produce. You can build an energy zone separate from a mining zone, and if you build farms you get only food, not food+amenities+unity+energy. You can have 10:6:2 proportion of miners, technicians and farmers, but you can only have 1:1:1 or 2:1 proportion of any specialist jobs.

In my humble opinion the developers could rework zones to act as a compromise between the old and new system:

1. zones replace districts completely - they are built directly on the planet, capped by planetary features and planet size
2. each zone provides fixed number of jobs of one main type, scaled by its size
3. each zone can have multiple buildings
4. buildings modify zones or jobs, but don't provide them
5. building costs and upkeep are proportional to the size of the zone and cost of expanding zone increases for each building within it
6. unique buildings should either modify capital zone (embassy) or become distinct zones (planetary shield)

By the way, points № 1,2,4 can already be implemented in the current non-beta version of the game using districts and buildings. №5 can be done with a slight limitation - you can't have district and corresponding building in the building queue at the same time for cost modifiers to work.

Additional QoL - planet interface should only show zones with a size greater than 0.

 

[fourteenfour]

Zones could just replace districts using the same system districts used where you built a new district to expand the capability. The buildings permitted would wholly be related to the zone type. The issue I see is UI space for all of this. The current UI for Planetary Summary is a cluttered mess and the tabs for Management and Population make little sense based on what they actually do.

My radical proposal is six zones. city, mineral, and agriculture. Yes, this means energy just goes away. We no longer need it since it is not a currency and just dropping the energy maintenance simplifies game play (yes I know you can trade for trade but it is clumsy double conversion process).

Hence the player can choose up to three zones for any colony. The current block used for planet production would instead be presented as two rows in the space between portrait and zones. The bottom three zone slots would be player choices and they would look like how districts currently look in those slot. The idea is very fast recognition of how developed a zone is. So the blocks color in as you build it up and you get three building slots for customization.

 

[vulcan7200]

I proposed a similar-ish solution in the Open Beta threads. I think Districts, Zones, and Buildings can easily stay as is. You don't need to replace any of them.

Districts are the overarching struture, limited by Planet Size. Zones add Jobs to these Districts, and in the case of Basic Resources I would just start with their Zones being unlocked and giving those Jobs as there's no reason to lock off Zones behind research for them imo. Buildings than can either change or enhance those jobs given by the Zone. As an example, if you created a Consumer Goods Zone you get 100 Artisans. You have three Building Slots which you can either put Buildings that enhance Consumer Goods Production (Automation, Factory Building, ect) OR you can build Job Buildings which turn 25 of those 100 Jobs into something different with a Zone Limit 1 restriction on each Buliding. A Holo-Theater would turn the Jobs given by the Zone from 100 Consumer Jobs, to 75 Consumer Jobs and 25 Entertainer Jobs. A Holo-Theater and Precinct would turn the District into 50 Consumer Jobs, 25 Entertainer Jobs, 25 Enforcer Jobs. Luxury Housing would give the District a bit more Housing and Amenities Per District instead of a flat bonus.

This would give you some ability to customize the District to what you want or need, while still keeping the idea of what they're trying to do intact. If I'm playing Oppressive Authority and Police State, I'm likely going to want or need a Precinct in every Zone giving me more Enforcers to handle Crime and give me extra Stability/Unity. If I'm playing Citizen Service, I might want to slap a Fortress in every Zone to be giving me a boost in Soldier Jobs.

 

[jedavis]

It's funny that this is how basic resource zones currently work. You CAN choose how much energy/food/minerals you want to produce. You can build an energy zone separate from a mining zone, and if you build farms you get only food, not food+amenities+unity+energy. You can have 10:6:2 proportion of miners, technicians and farmers, but you can only have 1:1:1 or 2:1 proportion of any specialist jobs.

Shh, don't let the devs hear or we'll end up with a single Raw Resource district type that has Mining, Energy, and Agricultural zones that convert its Rural Civilian jobs into Miners, Technicians, and Farmers...

(go on, devs, do it, I double-dog dare you. It would be hilarious and consistent with the current design for city districts - if it's such a good idea for cities, why not for raw resources too? And instead of having raw resource planetary features limit number of districts, have them give more jobs per district after the corresponding zone has been built)

 

[Imp0815]

I’m not sure if everyone has played the Stellaris Beta (free for all Stellaris owners), but the new District → Zone → Building system is fundamentally flawed. This system significantly diminishes the depth of planet management by reducing it to merely constructing districts. In this design, buildings act solely as modifiers, and mixed production is discouraged because it creates an overwhelming job management problem.

Zones and buildings only modify the job output already provided by districts. If you want to boost a specific aspect—say, increasing CG production—you can’t do it directly. Instead, you must build an entirely new district, which spawns a host of additional, unwanted jobs and forces you to tweak job sliders to correct the imbalance.
This mirrors the old issue with clerk jobs, which players protested until Paradox rebalanced their impact. For example, if you aim for 100 Artisans to improve CG production, you might also inadvertently generate 300 Researchers, 100 Enforcers, and 200 Laborers—all because the new district is the only way to add jobs.

Another concern is late-game stagnation. In planet development, you will fill all available zones and building slots, leaving you with no choice but to upgrade existing districts to expand the planet. This severely reduces meaningful building decisions in the late game.
Moreover, the game’s logic forces unrealistic interactions: build 10 city districts, add an industrial zone, and suddenly all 10 districts receive the same zone; build a factory in that zone, and every district constructs the same factory. This coupling of everything to districts makes little sense.

I believe we should revert to the old system, where both districts and buildings directly provide jobs. That model was simple, straightforward, and allowed for more engaging decision-making. While Martin’s major overhaul of the economy was significant, it doesn’t mean every Stellaris designer needs to continuously modify it. Perhaps it’s time to leave the economy as is and focus on reworking other aspects of the game—maybe even the military systems.

 

[Beauty Nova]

Sounds a lot like my experience trying to do pure trade worker coops after the energy nerf.

 

[KNakamura]

I’m not sure if everyone has played the Stellaris Beta (free for all Stellaris owners), but the new District → Zone → Building system is fundamentally flawed. This system significantly diminishes the depth of planet management by reducing it to merely constructing districts. In this design, buildings act solely as modifiers, and mixed production is discouraged because it creates an overwhelming job management problem.

Zones and buildings only modify the job output already provided by districts. If you want to boost a specific aspect—say, increasing CG production—you can’t do it directly. Instead, you must build an entirely new district, which spawns a host of additional, unwanted jobs and forces you to tweak job sliders to correct the imbalance.
This mirrors the old issue with clerk jobs, which players protested until Paradox rebalanced their impact. For example, if you aim for 100 Artisans to improve CG production, you might also inadvertently generate 300 Researchers, 100 Enforcers, and 200 Laborers—all because the new district is the only way to add jobs.

Another concern is late-game stagnation. In planet development, you will fill all available zones and building slots, leaving you with no choice but to upgrade existing districts to expand the planet. This severely reduces meaningful building decisions in the late game.
Moreover, the game’s logic forces unrealistic interactions: build 10 city districts, add an industrial zone, and suddenly all 10 districts receive the same zone; build a factory in that zone, and every district constructs the same factory. This coupling of everything to districts makes little sense.

I believe we should revert to the old system, where both districts and buildings directly provide jobs. That model was simple, straightforward, and allowed for more engaging decision-making. While Martin’s major overhaul of the economy was significant, it doesn’t mean every Stellaris designer needs to continuously modify it. Perhaps it’s time to leave the economy as is and focus on reworking other aspects of the game—maybe even the military systems.

I think the problem is in part they need to change the economy to fix other elements, so it's a knock on effect. I think at some point they also just watnd to make it less deep in management to remove micro but aren't guite succeeding in that.

 

[-Marauder-]

I think the problem is in part they need to change the economy to fix other elements, so it's a knock on effect. I think at some point they also just watnd to make it less deep in management to remove micro but aren't guite succeeding in that.

I would actually argue they are making it simultaneously MORE micro heavy, while making it less deep, less player involved, and more inefficient. The new zones don't work on oh so many levels and are almost universally a worse implementation of planet management than we currently have. More nestled menus, more things we can't change or decide, more complexity, less control.

The question IMHO is, what exactly do these new zones improve over the current districts. And I can't really see anything they do better. They are simply different, and not in a good way.

They're not required for the pop rework, they are not required for most other changes. They could be removed entirely and the pop changes etc would still very much work with the old system just as well if not better.

 

[Imp0815]

I think the problem is in part they need to change the economy to fix other elements, so it's a knock on effect. I think at some point they also just watnd to make it less deep in management to remove micro but aren't guite succeeding in that.

I thought about how the pop rework connects to the new district system, and I don’t see it.
I don’t see the need for this change—you could have just increased job numbers from buildings and districts, and it would work just the same.
I also don’t understand why we would want to dumb down the only fun and working aspect of the game: building and managing planets.
The nuances of specialized planets and balancing them out was one of the few aspects that worked and was fun. Min-maxing and optimizing while still having the option of automation just worked.
I don’t know what was wrong with it or why this change was needed.

The only argument I see is that some people don’t like managing their planets or find it repetitive, so they want to reduce this aspect of the game to have more time for other things.
But that aggravates me, because what’s left then?

• You automate surveys.
• You automate construction ships.
• And what’s left?
  • Diplomacy?
  • Mega structures?
  • The horrendous military system, where you just smash doomstack against doomstack and the bigger stick wins?

This change is bad, and they should have expanded on planet management, made it deeper, and given us more tools to create unique and exciting planets. They could have introduced more asymmetrical planets that demand very different setups, instead of forcing everything into one of ten specialization categories.

I invite everyone who respectfully disagrees to argue their case—why do you think this change is good or improves the game beyond the points I already stated?

Make your case—tell us why this system will work and how it improves the overall experience.

 

[Ryika]

I invite everyone who respectfully disagrees to argue their case—why do you think this change is good or improves the game beyond the points I already stated?

I don't disagree, but I think there is a "positive vision" that one can have for the new system.

Right now, it's all very basic, but imagine you have a Civic-specific zone that adds Civic-specific jobs, competing with a zone available to you because of a planet modifier, and another planet modifier is allowing you to build a certain strong building on that planet, but only in a certain zone. Perhaps add an Empire-Unique zone from tech or something that you might or might not want to add to that planet to the mix.

Then, let's assume that the trade deficit costs are generally balanced such that it makes sense to produce some resources locally if the planet is suited for it, a variety of buildings that will hopefully be added to push things into different directions as well, and suddenly you actually do have quite some choices to make, and some interesting planets to design. I think in comparison, the current system doesn't really lend itself as much to having those unique planets. That one planetary building that your Civic unlocks just does not shape your planets in the same way that a zone might.

So to me, the question is whether there's a bigger idea behind the current design or whether that basic system is all we're getting. If it's indeed all we're getting, then I don't really see the point. But I do see potential for something interesting.

 

[Thiend]

I would actually argue they are making it simultaneously MORE micro heavy, while making it less deep, less player involved, and more inefficient. The new zones don't work on oh so many levels and are almost universally a worse implementation of planet management than we currently have. More nestled menus, more things we can't change or decide, more complexity, less control.

The question IMHO is, what exactly do these new zones improve over the current districts. And I can't really see anything they do better. They are simply different, and not in a good way.

They're not required for the pop rework, they are not required for most other changes. They could be removed entirely and the pop changes etc would still very much work with the old system just as well if not better.

The question for me is down to purpose. If the purpose of this was something I don't see (and many others also don't see), it's possible that further iteration is a good idea.

If not, it looks like a change for the sake of a change, the value of which is of course determined by how much that change improved (or didn't improve) the game.

If it's the latter, I think removing all zones, adding more district types, and implementing these same building changes with regular-but-reduced building slots would get us basically all of the parts of this that are good while culling the problems introduced by the new system. If it isn’t solving a specific problem, the major effect of the way jobs work in the beta is that it's both confusing and imprecise.

 

[Kataclyszm]

And yet when I was skeptical about them before the beta opened I got dogpiled.

 

[Thiend]

And yet when I was skeptical about them before the beta opened I got dogpiled.

I didn't see your post that I recall, but personally I was willing to give the new system a try. It looked very new and confusing, but the confusion seemed to probably be due to the newness.

It is, at least in the current iteration, just genuinely a confusing system - new has nothing to do with it.

There are new things in the system that I like, but none of them are inherent to the new system compared to the old system. Pending changes that make the new system better, that does mean they can theoretically just port over the good parts to the same framework we operate on in 3.14.

Of course, there's also the bad ending, where they neither fix nor revert the parts that don't seem to be working out very well. I'd say their best move is to try another week or two of changes, then put out some feedback forms again so they know more accurately whether to keep trying, or cut their losses (and, if the latter, what specific parts are good enough to port over).

 

[-Marauder-]

The question for me is down to purpose. If the purpose of this was something I don't see (and many others also don't see), it's possible that further iteration is a good idea.

If not, it looks like a change for the sake of a change, the value of which is of course determined by how much that change improved (or didn't improve) the game.

If it's the latter, I think removing all zones, adding more district types, and implementing these same building changes with regular-but-reduced building slots would get us basically all of the parts of this that are good while culling the problems introduced by the new system. If it isn’t solving a specific problem, the major effect of the way jobs work in the beta is that it's both confusing and imprecise.

Not even sure we need fewer building slots, otherwise I'm mostly in agreement. But right now it feels like things are, actually worse. We'll see in further iterations I'm honestly mostly worried that this will be rammed through no matter what even if it turns out to be change for the sake of change that makes things, well, worse.

 

[Kataclyszm]

I'm honestly mostly worried that this will be rammed through no matter what even if it turns out to be change for the sake of change that makes things, well, worse.

My big fear, too. It's all just so needlessly overcomplicated, but do you think the suits are going to approve "Another 6 months and X dollars to re-redesign"?

 

[-Marauder-]

And yet when I was skeptical about them before the beta opened I got dogpiled.

Same, funny how that has calmed down somewhat albeit it's still happening. Imp argued his post fairly well and didn't say anything bad or wrong. Yet the same group of people who all have private profiles and never contribute or even write anymore seem to just mass downvote him.

 

[-Marauder-]

My big fear, too. It's all just so needlessly overcomplicated, but do you think the suits are going to approve "Another 6 months and X dollars to re-redesign"?

Scrapping it, given how early it currently is and adapting the current system might actually be faster and less work. But given they are still trying to make it work right now and will keep trying. With it potentially working out, or worse not, will put us in a place where it will have to be used no matter what.

 

[Aurelio123]

Yes, this means energy just goes away.

One of the issues of dropping energy is that robots and lithoids become even more braindead easy to play, they dont have to worry about consumer goods/food already so now even energy is removed, also robots are made to consume energy not food. Regardless without the devs admitting that the current system does not work for the amount of different goods Normal Empires have to produce at once idk how we can move forward unless they come up with some bandaid solutions.

 

[Thiend]

Scrapping it, given how early it currently is and adapting the current system might actually be faster and less work. But given they are still trying to make it work right now and will keep trying. With it potentially working out, or worse not, will put us in a place where it will have to be used no matter what.

IF there's a reason and IF there's meaningful progress toward a good system (the patch tomorrow will be a big clue for that), it should be fine. I'm not opposed to them trying. I'm not even really opposed to an experimental "is this cool" test without a deeper reason, as long as it never goes live without getting good first. That's the problem we've had with the pop/district systems since introduction (that they needed more work before going live) and I'm honestly just not up for dealing with it for years again if it happens again. Even at the worst points I was happy to keep playing the live version, but I'll just start modding 3.14 if it happens again and that means no more DLC buying.

Assuming they aren't absolutely committed to all of the changes regardless of quality, it should be the work of a day or two to make a version that just has more district types and all unique buildings. Besides the UI, of course. And that's instead of continued iteration of this system, which will undoubtedly take longer than that. Those are the parts that are pretty unambiguous improvements (of jobs, pop granularity is separate, although I like that too personally), not to mention internally consistent with respect to the district system in a way it never has been since introduced. That's if they can't make this good though, and I'm a little wary but I'm not really alarmed yet considering they're making large changes regularly to the beta with no announced stop date.

 

[Kataclyszm]

IF there's a reason and IF there's meaningful progress toward a good system (the patch tomorrow will be a big clue for that), it should be fine. I'm not opposed to them trying. I'm not even really opposed to an experimental "is this cool" test without a deeper reason, as long as it never goes live without getting good first. That's the problem we've had with the pop/district systems since introduction (that they needed more work before going live) and I'm honestly just not up for dealing with it for years again if it happens again. Even at the worst points I was happy to keep playing the live version, but I'll just start modding 3.14 if it happens again and that means no more DLC buying.

Assuming they aren't absolutely committed to all of the changes regardless of quality, it should be the work of a day or two to make a version that just has more district types and all unique buildings. Besides the UI, of course. And that's instead of continued iteration of this system, which will undoubtedly take longer than that. Those are the parts that are pretty unambiguous improvements (of jobs, pop granularity is separate, although I like that too personally), not to mention internally consistent with respect to the district system in a way it never has been since introduced. That's if they can't make this good though, and I'm a little wary but I'm not really alarmed yet considering they're making large changes regularly to the beta with no announced stop date.

If.