Stellaris 3.99.4 'Phoenix' Open Beta Release Notes

[NorseGod]

...
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.
...

So just make all buildings planet unique buildings, that fixes half the issue. And as for wanting the problem of figuring what goes where, I'm glad you enjoy the puzzle, but I rapidly started coming up with templates, just the same as earlier versions.

Have you played on a high colony count map? I've been playing on 5x the habitable worlds, with a Xenophile Empire, to see how this system works at scale, and most of my time is just fiddling with planets and tweaking market trades. This system is fun for 5-10 planets. As it is right now, when you get to 20+ I find very deminishing returns.

 

[Turing37]

Every beta had a survey. I wager more then a dozen people filled them out.

While likely true, it doesn't contradict or invalidate the statement; those unknown (to us) number of players, and their opinions, are not posted on the forums, while a small but very vocal minority continue to shout into the void, and implying that anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong. Only the developers know the results of the surveys, and as was correctly pointed out, only the smallest sliver of players post to the forum, and an even smaller number are so vocal about pushing their views as "correct".

 

[lukyril_porki]

Well, I can already report quite the unfortunate bug. After my first colony was formed, the pops migrated away from the new planet and now keep migrating between the planets, unforming the new colony every other month, making so that no improvements can be built on it.

Update: The colony uncolonized

Same for me, sent a bug report

 

[Newbee53]

Have you played on a high colony count map? I've been playing on 5x the habitable worlds, with a Xenophile Empire, and most of my time is just fiddling with planets and tweaking market trades. This system is fun for 5-10 planets. As it is right now, when you get to 20+ I find very deminishing returns.

I've found the 1x habitable worlds just fine, if sometimes to high density for the entire life of the game. Ok, that's a big of an exaggeration, but I've debated toning it down a bit multiple times over the last few years. Often coming to the conclusion I'd like some middle point between the various options. And you are always going to find diminishing returns and templets. The question is how punishing is it to deviate if you want to, and does it really demand such things. More over, how hard is it to switch to 'templets' when the numbers get to high.

So just make all buildings planet unique buildings, that fixes half the issue. And as for wanting the problem of figuring what goes where, I'm glad you enjoy the puzzle, but I rapidly started coming up with templates, just the same as earlier versions.

No, making them all planet unique--and still having enough slots to build everything--will fix nothing. even if you reduce the number of slots, you've done nothing to fix the 'I can and will plant an astral thread lab on every planet' problem. To cite and example.

No, if you are a technocracy, you can build a lab on every planet, and still have enough room to build anything else. A citizen service empire can build a fortress on every planet, and still fill in everything else.

It's just not interesting if your normal empire 'builds a dozen labs' on their research planet. And your spiritualist empire builds a temple, and a dozen labs.

 

[Huskermax5]

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.

This 1000000%. It’s a needed feature imo. But also should add an extra slot on empire capital as well.

I get the military academy and research institute in 3.14 and I am never incentivized to put them on capital just whatever colony has space and the necessary capital level

 

[Newbee53]

This 1000000%. It’s a needed feature imo. But also should add an extra slot on empire capital as well.

I get the military academy and research institute in 3.14 and I am never incentivized to put them on capital just whatever colony has space and the necessary capital level

I've got a Suggestion based on this, its kind of basic at the moment, but figured it could be flushed out. Personally I think it would work well enough with a single new slot, and the capital moved into its unique slot. but I expect people will throw other ideas around.

 

[The Founder]

while a small but very vocal minority continue to shout into the void, and implying that anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong

Then you should stop doing that?

Same for me, sent a bug report

Pretty sure we got a hotfix for that since the message was written.

If you need a quick overview, you can look only at the dev responses.

 

[Normannus]

This 1000000%. It’s a needed feature imo. But also should add an extra slot on empire capital as well.

I get the military academy and research institute in 3.14 and I am never incentivized to put them on capital just whatever colony has space and the necessary capital level

With the changes to zones/building slots, I would love if, as you get into the mid and late game, your empire capital gets access to more building slots than other planets, really letting it be the bustling metropolis of at the center of an interstellar empire. Likewise, one-per empire buildings should give increased bonuses on the empire capital. I would have the empire capital be its own kind of specialized planet build, where instead of specializing in one particular resource like your mining, alloy, research worlds, etc, it is filled with unique administrative buildings that are managing the rest of the empire.

 

[NorseGod]

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.

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.

If we downplay buildings, what do you see planets being? Just districts and zones, with a Government building you upgrade seems kind of basic. What else will take the place of buildings

While likely true, it doesn't contradict or invalidate the statement; those unknown (to us) number of players, and their opinions, are not posted on the forums, while a small but very vocal minority continue to shout into the void, and implying that anyone who disagrees is objectively wrong. Only the developers know the results of the surveys, and as was correctly pointed out, only the smallest sliver of players post to the forum, and an even smaller number are so vocal about pushing their views as "correct".

I see very few people claiming "I am right" and way more saying "I think this". The only one on this thread afaik was saying that people with criticisms of the new system are a tiny minority, which we have no evidence for either way.

We don't know how many people feel about the new system, so all we can do for now is report bugs and discuss what's in front of us, and what we've been told.

For myself, I remain unconvinced that the "City Zones with Building Slots" system is adding options and making the game more streamlined, especially at higher planet counts. I'm very open to folks explaining why it's best handled this way.

 

[Calvax]

With the changes to zones/building slots, I would love if, as you get into the mid and late game, your empire capital gets access to more building slots than other planets, really letting it be the bustling metropolis of at the center of an interstellar empire. Likewise, one-per empire buildings should give increased bonuses on the empire capital. I would have the empire capital be its own kind of specialized planet build, where instead of specializing in one particular resource like your mining, alloy, research worlds, etc, it is filled with unique administrative buildings that are managing the rest of the empire.

I like the idea of capital buildings and zones, but having extra slots or otherwise different UI less so. Seems like it would be a mess if you take over a capital world and half its stuff disappears creating tonnes of unemployment on top of everything else.

 

[NorseGod]

With the changes to zones/building slots, I would love if, as you get into the mid and late game, your empire capital gets access to more building slots than other planets, really letting it be the bustling metropolis of at the center of an interstellar empire. Likewise, one-per empire buildings should give increased bonuses on the empire capital. I would have the empire capital be its own kind of specialized planet build, where instead of specializing in one particular resource like your mining, alloy, research worlds, etc, it is filled with unique administrative buildings that are managing the rest of the empire.

I had an idea that maybe planet designation should add jobs, similar to zones. For the Capital, it could be modified by the number of city zones, so you get more Admin jobs as the capital becomes a giant world city.

 

[NorseGod]

I've found the 1x habitable worlds just fine, if sometimes to high density for the entire life of the game. Ok, that's a big of an exaggeration, but I've debated toning it down a bit multiple times over the last few years. Often coming to the conclusion I'd like some middle point between the various options. And you are always going to find diminishing returns and templets. The question is how punishing is it to deviate if you want to, and does it really demand such things. More over, how hard is it to switch to 'templets' when the numbers get to high.

No, making them all planet unique--and still having enough slots to build everything--will fix nothing. even if you reduce the number of slots, you've done nothing to fix the 'I can and will plant an astral thread lab on every planet' problem. To cite and example.

No, if you are a technocracy, you can build a lab on every planet, and still have enough room to build anything else. A citizen service empire can build a fortress on every planet, and still fill in everything else.

It's just not interesting if your normal empire 'builds a dozen labs' on their research planet. And your spiritualist empire builds a temple, and a dozen labs.

You can try to build a lab on every planet, but you're not going to have the resources to make it work. This is why I asked if you've played with higher planet counts, so you actually see what it's like at high planet counts, as in a late-stage empire. I'm running a technocracy with 30+ planets, and it only makes sense to build 3 tech worlds right now, due to the needs for CGs and the resources to make them.

Acutally give it a try, before you claim that it's abusable. It's likely not as bad as you imagine.

 

[Bergest]

One thing I really like about this patch is the (re)introduction of specialized science labs, but I think that it would be better if, instead of being per planet, these specialized labs would be per district and would only affect the jobs of said district, since that would allow for a much greater level of customization for the player.

 

[Newbee53]

With the changes to zones/building slots, I would love if, as you get into the mid and late game, your empire capital gets access to more building slots than other planets, really letting it be the bustling metropolis of at the center of an interstellar empire. Likewise, one-per empire buildings should give increased bonuses on the empire capital. I would have the empire capital be its own kind of specialized planet build, where instead of specializing in one particular resource like your mining, alloy, research worlds, etc, it is filled with unique administrative buildings that are managing the rest of the empire.

There is potential here. It would be rather problematic if it required a unique UI. Or if part of the summery window was locked out on regular planets. But there is definitely something to this idea.

If we downplay buildings, what do you see planets being? Just districts and zones, with a Government building you upgrade seems kind of basic. What else will take the place of buildings

I didn't mean that buildings need to be weaker than they currently are in the beta. I more meant having buildings be more important than the related zone/city or whatever is a bad idea. I really shouldn't be able to run my empire without a factory zone--assuming my species needs CG--because I built a building instead. More like, buildings have their place, but the zones should carry the majority of the load for their own resources. Baring Amenities of course.

You can try to build a lab on every planet, but you're not going to have the resources to make it work. This is why I asked if you've played with higher planet counts, so you actually see what it's like at high planet counts, as in a late-stage empire. I'm running a technocracy with 30+ planets, and it only makes sense to build 3 tech worlds right now, due to the needs for CGs and the resources to make them.

Acutally give it a try, before you claim that it's abusable. It's likely not as bad as you imagine.

I've not done it with research labs, but I've definitely done it with temples. Every planet on something like a few dozen worlds having a single temple? Not hard to handle at all in 3.14. You just need to build a few more industrial districts on those worlds that will already have it. Maybe your mining world also has a factory building. Or you just have factory worlds dominated by mines, whatever works for the individual planets.

I mean, once you build enough 3.14 industrial worlds to have like 70ish alloys per month you can afford at least one factory world without blinking. Actually, I tend to do that around that point anyways just because.

And I'm not saying its abuse to do that. I'm saying I don't think of it as good gameplay to be able to do it without giving something up. and its never a bad thing to sprinkle a couple 3.14 industrial districts around the empire.

 

[Eladrin]

Just as a note - we did actually have Urban Zones in the design from the start, they're not a "half measure" reaction to desire for more generic building slots.

I mentioned them in the original dev diary.

The Government Zone and Urban Zone can, however, accept most Urban buildings.

 

[FPSCanarussia]

The pop system is good. It needs polish - a lot of polish - but the fundamentals are already an improvement on 3.14. Features like the empire timeline are pretty underdeveloped but they're also not that important. As such, the main thing the developers need to get right is the new system of districts, zones, and buildings.

And you know what? There are some things I really like about it, and some things I really don't. So let's see if I can voice them and provide some constructive feedback.

Rural Districts:

• Zones are really good for rural districts
• Being able to specialise and customise rural districts should make rural-based economies significantly more interesting.
• Different planets potentially having different zone options would make them feel a lot more unique.
• However, having "free" building slots for rural districts might mean that there won't be much visible distinction between "urban planet with a few rural jobs" and "rural planet with a few urban jobs", since you always have slots to build both types of buildings.
  • Potential solution: Add options for amenity production to rural districts. Urban planets can then have a small number of rural districts to cover amenity usage, which should look visually distinct from resource-focused rural districts.

City Districts:

• City districts are where zones fall apart for me.
• You can either make a hyperspecialised planet that only produces one thing, or a generalised planet where everything is produced equally.
• There are too many things that need to be produced by urban districts.
• We cannot choose what jobs we add to a planet when we build a new city district. With developed zones, every district built adds a tonne of new jobs.
• Similarly, if we add a city zone to a developed planet, it immediately generates a flood of jobs for that zone.
• City districts, I would argue, are the main reason people find this system limiting.

More detail on City Districts:

I really feel like we should have more control over city district development. Every city district I build (or upgrade, I suppose) increases the amount of every single job, which isn't great if I only want to increase one - most egregiously, this makes it really difficult to manufacture enough CG to upkeep research on the same planet.

One possible solution is to re-add Industrial districts as a second urban type - perhaps with one zone only, with choices of industrial/forge/factory/refinery/etc., and then reduce the city from four zones to three to compensate. This would fix some of the problems at least, by allowing us to build industry and research/unity/trade districts separately.

Another solution might be to allow us to fine-tune the balance between zones or zone development. Give us an option to, for example, disable further development from a zone - so that further district development will not add more of those particular jobs, and instead add more of the jobs from other zones.

A third option, albeit a poor one, would be to split the city district development so the different zones can be developed independently - maybe a two-tier system of some kind?

In general:

I don't think the 3.99 building system is worse than the 3.14 system. I think it definitely has some clear positives. However, city districts - in my opinion - need a significant improvement to not feel greatly limiting.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

One thing I really like about this patch is the (re)introduction of specialized science labs, but I think that it would be better if, instead of being per planet, these specialized labs would be per district and would only affect the jobs of said district, since that would allow for a much greater level of customization for the player.

Another way you could do this would be specialized research zones, rather than using buildings.

 

[vulcan7200]

Just as a note - we did actually have Urban Zones in the design from the start, they're not a "half measure" reaction to desire for more generic building slots.

I mentioned them in the original dev diary.

That is true, and I probably should have been clearer in my criticisms of what I see happening, as unclear criticisms help no one. Their current implementation of being open to most buildings, not the Zone itself, is what I should have clarified.

Replaced the Early Industry Zone with the Urban Zone. The Urban Zone currently accepts all buildings, limitations will be added in a future update

Limitations will be added in the future. Which means the way they interact with planetary design right now seems to be a way to temporarily solve early game issues the District/Zone/Building Design people were bringing up in the earlier designs. Of course this is all an inference on my end, but it really does feel like there were a lot of pushback on the early game planet design (To the point of unplayability in some cases) and so an altered and more open Urban Zone with less limitations was put in to help.

 

[NorseGod]

The pop system is good. It needs polish - a lot of polish - but the fundamentals are already an improvement on 3.14. Features like the empire timeline are pretty underdeveloped but they're also not that important. As such, the main thing the developers need to get right is the new system of districts, zones, and buildings.

And you know what? There are some things I really like about it, and some things I really don't. So let's see if I can voice them and provide some constructive feedback.

Rural Districts:

• Zones are really good for rural districts
• Being able to specialise and customise rural districts should make rural-based economies significantly more interesting.
• Different planets potentially having different zone options would make them feel a lot more unique.
• However, having "free" building slots for rural districts might mean that there won't be much visible distinction between "urban planet with a few rural jobs" and "rural planet with a few urban jobs", since you always have slots to build both types of buildings.
  • Potential solution: Add options for amenity production to rural districts. Urban planets can then have a small number of rural districts to cover amenity usage, which should look visually distinct from resource-focused rural districts.

City Districts:

• City districts are where zones fall apart for me.
• You can either make a hyperspecialised planet that only produces one thing, or a generalised planet where everything is produced equally.
• There are too many things that need to be produced by urban districts.
• We cannot choose what jobs we add to a planet when we build a new city district. With developed zones, every district built adds a tonne of new jobs.
• Similarly, if we add a city zone to a developed planet, it immediately generates a flood of jobs for that zone.
• City districts, I would argue, are the main reason people find this system limiting.

More detail on City Districts:

I really feel like we should have more control over city district development. Every city district I build (or upgrade, I suppose) increases the amount of every single job, which isn't great if I only want to increase one - most egregiously, this makes it really difficult to manufacture enough CG to upkeep research on the same planet.

One possible solution is to re-add Industrial districts as a second urban type - perhaps with one zone only, with choices of industrial/forge/factory/refinery/etc., and then reduce the city from four zones to three to compensate. This would fix some of the problems at least, by allowing us to build industry and research/unity/trade districts separately.

Another solution might be to allow us to fine-tune the balance between zones or zone development. Give us an option to, for example, disable further development from a zone - so that further district development will not add more of those particular jobs, and instead add more of the jobs from other zones.

A third option, albeit a poor one, would be to split the city district development so the different zones can be developed independently - maybe a two-tier system of some kind?

In general:

I don't think the 3.99 building system is worse than the 3.14 system. I think it definitely has some clear positives. However, city districts - in my opinion - need a significant improvement to not feel greatly limiting.

My biggest issue with the beta is that implementing Zones like this:

Is making Stellaris feel like this again:

But without the benefit of being able to swap buildings around.

I've been trying to figure a way to solve for this, without completely getting rid of Zones entirely. And the best I have come up with is: City Zones shouldn't have Building Slots in them. Instead, I see a system like this:

1) Make all buildings planet-unique to stop duplication spam.

2) Remove the building slots from City Zones, and leave building slots in a generic city space similar to the Government Zone.

3) Now City Zones (and maybe Planet Designation) add Specialist and Elite jobs, adjusted per city district.

4) Any buildings that add generic jobs change from "Add +X jobs" to "Add X% more jobs" (additive, not multiplicative). Example: if each level of Research Building adds 10% more jobs, all three adds 30% more jobs. Really unique buildings can do whatever you want. But you need to have a Zone (or other special way) of creating those jobs for the building to be useful.

5) Make City Districts provide Amenities or Amenity-Jobs by default, enough so City-Only planets cover their amenity needs and more, at least until Unemployment becomes an issue. Cities thematically are where Amenities are provided, and for energy/metal/food heavy planets, there are Amenity Zones and Buldings that will provide these. Mixed city/rural planets can then use someof the open building slots for Amenities, or a Zone if need be.

Going this way, you still get most of the benefits of the Zone system, but you aren't trapping Buildings in the Zone Slots. Instead, you tie those buildings to certain Zones, as they're (usually) the only source of the jobs those buildings modify. But you get rid of the build/demolish/build cycle that's going on now.

Did a mock-up of a version of the UI that could go with this:

What are the problems with this idea? Am I missing something completely?

 

[Skeletr0nKing]

Must say I'm trying the latest build and the pop values now make sense which is leagues above what I was seeing just yesterday.