There will likely be a second release this week on Friday, like last Friday. This is the 5th so far...
-
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.
I made a mod called "Beta Patch" and uploaded it to the steam workshop
it should fix the whole district looping.
it wait for you to have finished colonized and then it gives the planet the correct district. so you still have to wait one month tick before the wrong district is removed.
after that everything is fine.
steamcommunity.com
it should fix the whole district looping.
it wait for you to have finished colonized and then it gives the planet the correct district. so you still have to wait one month tick before the wrong district is removed.
after that everything is fine.
Steam Workshop::Beta Patch (planet occupy)
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
I strongly want to emphasize that nobody here is being a "negative Nancy"—unless you want to label yourself that. Nearly every post I’ve read on this topic raises valid concerns and questions that only have theorized answers with a ton of hopeium attached, and all we’ve seen is a very early prototype of a system that’s already proving to be controversial and barely functional.
Overall, everyone is excited for changes to the game—the pop rework is welcomed with open arms. But we didn’t sign up for a new planetary building system that, on the surface, seems to create more issues than it solves.
Personally, I really do want change for the game—but more in terms of reworking the entire combat system, or reimagining the core gameplay mechanics. I’d prefer a shift away from constant fleet power increases toward a more balanced approach focused on empire growth, sustainability, and investing in different branches—not just military.
- 10
- 6
- 1
I don't believe we're being Negative Nancies. I think we have valid criticisms of a system that looks like it will cause more problems than it solves. However if you spend a lot of time on game forums, you'll often see people with valid criticisms ignored when major changes are coming, as simply being negative because they're against change. My point was specifically that, while sometimes people will perceive critics that way, that that is not in fact what's happening. That's why (As you even show in your quote), I follow it up when the fact that I actually think the new system CAN be great and welcome the change.
- 4
- 1
The problem is they haven't explained HOW this new system will be better, aside from vague notions about providing more options and customizability. And what we're seeing in front of us is a system that's giving us less options, and limitations that are hurting gameplay. How are Zones that give you +180 jobs and restrict your choices of buildings in slots giving us "more choice" than a building that provides +180 jobs and 3 general building slots where we can choose whatever we want? Right now the answer is "It will be better, trust us". And yet when a similar system was teased back in 2022, they ended up abandoning it because it didn't work.
I'd like to believe that what they're promising will show up, but right now I'm spending way more time micromanaging my planets and tinkering with trades than I did in 3.xx, and the explanations given are really vague. If they've actually thought this all through and know how the system will work, why not present that? Right now I've got the feeling they're stuck in a sunk-cost fallacy, I'd love to be wrong, but given how they originally planned for Amenities to come from a Zone, and how that doesn't make sense at all from a game-design perspective, I'm worried.
----------------
Edit: to explain what I mean about Amenities. Amenities are the only resource that are neccessary for all planets, that cannot be imported from another place. All of a pops/planets needs in terms of energy, metals, food, CGs, alloys, motes, crystals, gasses, etc. can be imported from another colony. So if the only way to generate them is using a zone (or your two limited Govt building slots) then it neccessitates building an Amenities zone. The problem is Zones are supposed to be extra specializations for a planet, not for base survival needs.
In effect, you should either have a fixed "Amenities District" on each planet, similar to Energy/Metal/Food districts; or there should be Amenities jobs provided in each City district, at least enough to cover that districts needs, plus a bit extra for some unemployment. I don't think a great solution is adding another new district to all planets, so realistically you gotta make it a default job in city districts.
Then, the reason to have an Amenities Zone is for very rural worlds that focus on energy/mineral/food districts only, in effect it'll be like the "boomtowns" that develop in mining and agricultural areas. No big cities, so the few dense areas that show up focus on providing amenities to the rural folks that live nearby. And then for situations in between this, on planets that mix city and base resource districts, you can add Amenities buildings to the Govt Zone, or you allow Amenities+X buildings in other zones like the Gene Clinics.
And this is such a basic bit of gameplay design that the fact it wasn't considered from the beginning of this economy rework is part of what has me worried. "How do we do Amenities?" should have been brought up early in rethinking the building system this way, and it didn't get handled until they were already committed to the rework. Yikes.
If you disagree, that's fine, Could you explain why?
Last edited:
- 10
- 3
- 2
More changes not mentioned in the patch notes:
- Physics, Society, and Engineering lab buildings have been added. You can only have one of them on a planet, and they shift your researchers jobs to one of the three types.
- Councilor for Mutagenic Spas civic now gives +0.5 unity to medical workers instead of +0.1 unity to entertainers.
- 8
- 3
We've pushed a quick update to the test branch to fix the colonies exploding issue.
- 31
- 1
I'll say, so far, I've loved the updates to zones. And I love what has changed. However, this update is disappointing. I want to be able to play my favorite rogue servitors and driven assimilators. I also have to ask weather I can play a Megacorp, since I really want to do the whole pirate empire thing.
For me, 8 or 9 times out of 10 getting a mix of resources from an upgrade is a good thing. But I do worry about those people who feel the need to min-max every planet or have extreme levels of control.
While I'm enjoying the zones and don't consider the problem of mixed city districts a big deal, I think some better communication on this is kind of needed. I've found that if I wait until I have a few hundred citizens before upgrading cities I'm pretty well off, but it seems a lot of people are either feeling like they shouldn't have citizens at all. Or maybe they just don't like not being able to upgrade the CG district on the same planet as their research district.
For me, 8 or 9 times out of 10 getting a mix of resources from an upgrade is a good thing. But I do worry about those people who feel the need to min-max every planet or have extreme levels of control.
To add my two cents. Just removing buildings as the primary way to develop planets makes it a better system to me. I spend no more time in the market than I did before, and the only time I used to micromanage jobs was maintenance drones, and I still haven't micromanaged jobs. I think people like me hear so much negativity and fear the changes we like will be undone by a few people who apparently have massive issues with it. There are balance problems, most of the advantages of zones remain unrealized, and all that is true. But I mostly hate having buildings demanding more attention than the cities on your planets. and this really helps a lot there. and as balance continues to be improved it seems to work a lot better each patch.
Last edited:
- 7
- 3
- 2
- 1
I am not sure if they are supposed to be siddegrades of the low level labs?
Much appreciated.
In all seriousness, the timing of all this (with release just 6-7 weeks away) has me concerned. The zoning overhaul sounds... interesting, but it has to be done right. And I dunno if it's "right" yet.
I think if the 4.0 update was just a separate thing, distinct from the DLC launch, I would be a lot more confident that this will turn out fine. Tied together though? Not so much.
Personal opinion: PDX's latest "DLC disasters" (for lack of a better term) have caused me to lose a bit of trust in Paradox as a whole. While I'm fully aware that the Stellaris team(s) are mostly (if not entirely, I've forgotten) separate from the [insert another Paradox grand strategy game here] teams, it still doesn't stop that feeling of mine that goes "I have a bad feeling this isn't gonna go well".
- 4
- 1
- 1
I don't think it's fair to say "By a few people". It's a way to downplay the argument of people who have complaints by implying that you're in the majority and they are not. Unless they do a poll we have no idea where the majority falls in terms of what players want from this.
I think this is where there will be a lot of disagreements. I like the idea of Zones being a big change to a City and Buildings providing smaller changes to cities. The big disagreements going to come from how people think it should end up working in the end. I've said in other threads, one of the biggest issues with Buildings currently is their lack of scalability, and the massive restrictions and so from my perspective the balance has not really improved much at all. The game is more playable due to half measure fixes like Urban Districts, but that has never addressed the fundamental problem that Building Slots are too restrictive to be interesting, and Buildings providing a static number of jobs doesn't fit with the new design philosophy of Zones providing Jobs per District. Until the fundamentals of what they're trying to do work well and are enjoyable to play I think many of us are going to continue to say that the entire system is a problem even if it's technically playable.
- 4
- 2
This entire forum is a 'few people,' compared to the player base. On the other hand, it did sound dismissive and wasn't meant that way.
What I really meant was that I only recognize less than a dozen names having been major players in the beta discussion for or against any give topic, so that was what I was thinking about as a 'few.'
There is going to be a lot of disagreements, because I like the more restricted building slots, feel the urban district isn't a half measure and is quite good, and generally enjoy the current system minus balance issues.
I don't know one way or the other about buildings, but desperately hope they are never made equivalent to zones, in that you don't need the related zone if you have the 'right' building. Even if buildings are made to scale, that should never be the near as good as the zones themselves. It would be rather disappointing if 'every planet has an urban zone' becomes the meta because buildings are just that good. Though I guess if you stack civic related buildings up too that could happen for good reasons.
- 5
- 2
- 1
This is already going to be the case for a large amount of players BECAUSE of the arbitrary restrictions added into 4.0. Urban Zones were absolutely a half-measure, and I would say that is almost objectively true. The game was almost not functional due to their restrictions, and so they added Urban Zones into one of the Updates as a way to get more Building Slots that were needed to play the game. If Urban Zones were not a half-measure they would have existed in the default build, as part of what they intended 4.0 to look like. However, it was not. Zones were originally not working out as they thought they would, and Urban Zones were a quick and easy solution to throw in.
Urban Zones are already going to be needed if the game is implemented in the direction it's currently going. You have two "Free" Building Slots in your Capital Zone, however you are going to need more than two Building Slots during the game. One slot is already going to be taken up by your Clone Vat, Robot Factory, Psi-Corp, Augmentation Center, ect. Pretty much every Ascension Path has a building associated with it, that you generally want on every planet. That leaves you with one "Free" Building Slot. Currently that will be most likely used for Amenities. If you need a Precinct Building due to Crime, if you want a Gene Clinic to help with Pop Growth, if you're running both Organic and Robot Pops (So you'll need a Robot Factory along with whatever Organic building you have), you'll be out of luck. Building Slots are too important to the game, and so an Urban District once you start getting further into the game will be necessary.
I agree that Buildings should not overshadow Zones. Buildings should CHANGE Zones. Some buildings giving static buffs like "+20% Research" is fine, if not a bit boring. But if the purpose of the system is to allow your Districts to be more customizable, then you should be adding it in like a Russian nesting doll. Districts provide housing, Zones provide jobs, Buildings either make those jobs better, or change some of your jobs. As it stands now, the restrictions make Zones incredibly boring because you don't actually interact with them in any critical way. Building one of the very few passive buff options available is not true interaction with the player because it's not a choice. Of course your going to put in the very few buildings you have, because those are your only options available. It doesn't meaningfully change the Zone beyond "Makes numbers bigger" (Or less if it's Upkeep Reduction) and you can do that just through tech.
- 9
- 4
- 1
Every beta had a survey. I wager more then a dozen people filled them out.
- 3
- 1
The issues with Infrastructure?
Infrastructure from districts unlocked build slots (1 per 10) and scaling numbers of jobs (1 per 20) rather like Zones do now. It had all the same issues as zones.
Massive changes in number of jobs and accidentally making lots of unwanted jobs (this was before we could change job priorities or open and close jobs).
If you swapped a city district (+6 infrastructure) to mining district (+2 infrastructure) you'd lower the total infrastructure, which would in turn lower the jobs from every building and also lower the max build slots potentially ruining another building and closing even more jobs. Even adding a new mining district could cause a death spiral as more jobs that use minerals could be created than the jobs producing minerals and pops would promote into those new jobs and produce even fewer minerals (and take decades to demote).
After infrastructure was removed buildings were changed to unlock from population numbers instead of infrastructure. This change caused buildings to be ruined if you moved pops to new planets. Eventually it was changed again to build slots being unlocked with districts so that build slots only went down if you destroyed a district and not because someone migrated and caused a butterfly effect that somehow ruined your industry.
It's easy to see why it evolved into what we have in 3.14. Although I can't find Dev comments explaining why or when exactly "infrastructure" was abandoned.
Or did you mean this issues with Megacorp?
There were lots of issues and it's hard to remember exactly what was wrong and when. But I think:
The big free patch at the time was released just before the holidays and like now had a short beta but quickly pushed to live without time to fix everything.
The 2.2 update and Megacorp made massive changes and had bugs, but also:
1. Lacked quality of life features (missing hotkeys for research, no branch office planner, poor sector management)
2. Didn't output of space deposits to match job outputs,
3. Changed pop growth
This was less control than before when multiple species could grow and migrate at the same time, robots could have different models queued for specific jobs and you could move pops around to make sure they worked the correct job. People were frustrated seeing pops working jobs that didn't benefit from their pop traits because of buggy job weights and new forced automation of job allocation.
4. Added Strata changes with frustratingly long demotion times and no control of pop job weights etc. and it all took a very long time to fix.
Now, 7 years later the 4.0 update should improve the experience of being a megacorp with changes to how megacorps interact with rival megacorps and gestalts also having trade. I am a little nervous how massively increasing the number of potential branch offices is going to impact balance. But I hope we can have Gestalt megacorps sooner rather than later.
The big free patch at the time was released just before the holidays and like now had a short beta but quickly pushed to live without time to fix everything.
The 2.2 update and Megacorp made massive changes and had bugs, but also:
1. Lacked quality of life features (missing hotkeys for research, no branch office planner, poor sector management)
2. Didn't output of space deposits to match job outputs,
3. Changed pop growth
This was less control than before when multiple species could grow and migrate at the same time, robots could have different models queued for specific jobs and you could move pops around to make sure they worked the correct job. People were frustrated seeing pops working jobs that didn't benefit from their pop traits because of buggy job weights and new forced automation of job allocation.
4. Added Strata changes with frustratingly long demotion times and no control of pop job weights etc. and it all took a very long time to fix.
Now, 7 years later the 4.0 update should improve the experience of being a megacorp with changes to how megacorps interact with rival megacorps and gestalts also having trade. I am a little nervous how massively increasing the number of potential branch offices is going to impact balance. But I hope we can have Gestalt megacorps sooner rather than later.
- 4
- 1
Parliament System allowed a faction to form early (just one), but nobody joined any faction until 10 years had passed.
Pretty sure that's not intentional, not sure why it would happen.
Pretty sure that's not intentional, not sure why it would happen.
The Urban Zone as a fix to issues with Zones is nearly the same solution as just giving you 5 building slots in the Government Zone, and one less Zone overall, minus the jobs provided. It's fixing issues with the new system, by taking a few steps back into the old system.
And it's adding a new problem, destroying and rebuilding Buildings in order to fit into different Zones as new colonies are added. Buildings that were in your Urban Zone often end up becoming needed in specialized Zones as the colony expands, so you're demolishing and moving them around.
I think a Zone that adds jobs is a good idea. I think them also providing building slots from a limited pool makes things very fiddly. I think the old system of open building slots (with some specialized buildings not available unless a Zone is built) accomplishes the same thing, with much less fiddliness.
If there's a plan to add something new to how zones are working that justifies this Gov't/City/Zones/Slots nested-doll system, I haven't seen it yet. Does it make the AI work better? Does it make planet-templates easier so we can rely on planet automation? Does it increase performance somehow? All I've heard is that by limiting choice, it's adding more choice somehow.
If I've missed something from a Dev Diary or post that actually gives details that explain why it's better, I'd love to see it. I'm happy to be wrong on this, I want Stellaris to be an even better game.
Last edited:
- 5
- 2
- 2
Except you can choose to have those 3 extra buildings slots, and I'm often ok with not having them. Most of my colonies end up with an open 'wild card' slot anyways so I've not got too much of a problem with it.
I've seen multiple statements at allowing buildings to remain when replacing zones, if they fit in the new zone. So, yes this is annoying in the beta. It's probably not going to be a problem in the release.
And here is where the major agreement is; and why I broke up your comment. I think the mass of building slots open for anything was the biggest flaw in the old system and I'm very glad it's dead and gone. I actually like having to think about what I put where, and like that I will not be placing duplicates of buildings on every single planet.
The biggest question remains with the civic/ascension buildings that a lot of people will want everyone. I'm hoping that such things are remade so that you don't need them everywhere, or that they are more permissive. Like having the ability to add a ranger lodge to any basic resource zone, rather than just the governmental one.
I'd also like to see another building slot added to the government zone, and the 'capital' building moved to a unique slot. but that's a more 'would be nice' rather than 'major problem' that has to be fixed.
Which I can't see and might as well don't know exists. I know they exist, but the forum is the bigger picture for those of us on it talking. So, the survey feels like a big shrug. I got involved before I even thought about the survey as well, so it's not like its existence had any impact on whether or not I thought it was important to speak out.
- 1
- 1
I don't think the new sysyem is weak or bad and certainle has its upsides, my only concern is that this infernal deadline in May does not leave much margin for the devs to have things ready.
And we know what might be at the end of that line (Gordon Ramsay yelling at the top of his lungs that it's raw and punching the uncooked fish on the table making it explode aand covering everyone in it?). The devs are clearly in overdrive already.
But in all seriousness, it is what it is and all we can do is help with the testing and point out the bugs. They will be fixed eventually.
And we know what might be at the end of that line (Gordon Ramsay yelling at the top of his lungs that it's raw and punching the uncooked fish on the table making it explode aand covering everyone in it?). The devs are clearly in overdrive already.
But in all seriousness, it is what it is and all we can do is help with the testing and point out the bugs. They will be fixed eventually.
- 5