Stellaris 3.99.4 'Phoenix' Open Beta Release Notes

[Newbee53]

What do you mean build everything on every slot? I am restricted to 12 slots per planet, but if I have 30 building types (including the various upgrade paths), than I have to choose not to build 18 buildings. That is the choice. I can't have everything on every planet.

In 3.14 I've never been in the position where I have a building I want on every planet and I couldn't do it. So, I don't find 12 completely free slots to be meaningfully limiting. I guess if you are maxing out your building choices than yeah.

So here is what I mean, using an example from in game and remembering that the beta hasn't been updated to DLC content much. With the zone implementation, if you want to be an astral thread lab thing, you need a research zone. this means, you can't spam them across every single argo-plant you own. This I think is good, not only does it allow them to balance the lab up a bit. But it also means you won't have the same buildings on every single planet.

What I'm hearing is, that's something you are removing. and I don't like that you are.

 

[Lorenerd11]

Will Biology/Physics/Engineering labs use their pre-2.2 appearances?

If yes, what does that mean for machine capitals, which used engineering lab images since then?

 

[kreias]

In 3.14 I've never been in the position where I have a building I want on every planet and I couldn't do it. So, I don't find 12 completely free slots to be meaningfully limiting. I guess if you are maxing out your building choices than yeah.

So here is what I mean, using an example from in game and remembering that the beta hasn't been updated to DLC content much. With the zone implementation, if you want to be an astral thread lab thing, you need a research zone. this means, you can't spam them across every single argo-plant you own. This I think is good, not only does it allow them to balance the lab up a bit. But it also means you won't have the same buildings on every single planet.

What I'm hearing is, that's something you are removing. and I don't like that you are.

About the astral thread lab (which apply to other examples), if the other building options are meaningful, than the opportunity cost for spamming astral thread labs will still be high. Can I choose to build it on every planet? Yes, just as I can choose to build a research zone on every planet on the new system so I can put an astral lab on each one. If I am willing to sacrifice other things to have that, than I should be able to do so.

 

[Newbee53]

About the astral thread lab (which apply to other examples), if the other building options are meaningful, than the opportunity cost for spamming astral thread labs will still be high. Can I choose to build it on every planet? Yes, just as I can choose to build a research zone on every planet on the new system so I can put an astral lab on each one. If I am willing to sacrifice other things to have that, than I should be able to do so.

But I've never seen a proposal that convinces me the opportunity costs would be high enough to matter. The old system didn't. None of the others I've seen put forward do either. That's what I've been arguing about this whole time. Buildings don't have a high enough opportunity cost on their own. Especially if they are designed to be buildable more than once per planet.

 

[MadCow94]

Is it possible on the Steam version to have a 2nd install of a game so I can test this alpha without destroying my ability to enjoy the base game?

 

[Falrinn]

Is it possible on the Steam version to have a 2nd install of a game so I can test this alpha without destroying my ability to enjoy the base game?

Weirdly 4.0 has a tiny download size of under 100 MB, so it's pretty easy to swap back and forth without doing anything crazy with the steam files.

 

[kreias]

But I've never seen a proposal that convinces me the opportunity costs would be high enough to matter. The old system didn't. None of the others I've seen put forward do either. That's what I've been arguing about this whole time. Buildings don't have a high enough opportunity cost on their own. Especially if they are designed to be buildable more than once per planet.

Then you either didn't understand exactly what I proposed or you defend something so restrictive that I get bored just reading it - and, in this last case, our tastes are just too different for us to ever reach an agreement. I don't want to feel like I am developing a shopping center instead of a world, and the beta does just that. I don't care that some games like to have the bare minimum of planet management so the player can focus on other, more macro things, but Stellaris wasn't that game, and now I feel like it is been transformed into just that.

 

[Newbee53]

Then you either didn't understand exactly what I proposed or you defend something so restrictive that I get bored just reading it - and, in this last case, our tastes are just too different for us to ever reach an agreement. I don't want to feel like I am developing a shopping center instead of a world, and the beta does just that. I don't care that some games like to have the bare minimum of planet management so the player can focus on other, more macro things, but Stellaris wasn't that game, and now I feel like it is been transformed into just that.

tastes are different for sure, because this feels more like building a planet than a city. Which is what the old system felt like to me. Oh well.

 

[Miuramir]

So here is what I mean, using an example from in game and remembering that the beta hasn't been updated to DLC content much. With the zone implementation, if you want to be an astral thread lab thing, you need a research zone. this means, you can't spam them across every single argo-plant you own. This I think is good, not only does it allow them to balance the lab up a bit. But it also means you won't have the same buildings on every single planet.

What you haven't explained well is why that's a good thing. One would naturally assume that most planets would develop like real places; there would be different areas devoted to different things, bases on what was necessary, convenient, and/or profitable. Try sizing your argument down to continents and see how artificial and weird it sounds. "You've already got major manufacturing centers, energy extraction areas, farming areas, and bureaucratic centers in North America; so there's some mysterious magical force prohibiting us from also building research-focused areas."

I'm not a fan of arbitrary external restrictions that not only don't make internal sense within the game world, but actively contradict the way things work in reality. If you want planets to be more unique, the way to do that is to make more of the *planets* unique, and let the player choose whether to lean into it or not, depending on the way they envision and play their empire.

Wenkwort gives a bonus to unity and research, and a penalty to resource extraction and heavy industry. Most players will choose to develop it primarily to take advantage of it's strengths, but if you're playing some sort of ravenous space barbarians there's nothing preventing you from turning it into a farming world if that's what you need more, or even strip over-developing it into a toxic wasteland if that's your style.

By default, most (large enough) habitable planets are fully capable of being entirely self-sustaining homeworlds prior to FTL; and thus there's no logical in-game reason why you shouldn't be *able* to have a nicely organized, self-sufficient society on any planet. Should there be operational efficiencies from having similar things located together? Sure; if locations that provide jobs also give +X% bonus to that type of job, that will happen naturally; as will the planetary specialization designation. On the flip side, on a typical livable planet should local production generally be cheaper than hauling basic necessities across the gulf between stars? Also yes, and the new trade cost for import shortage reflects that nicely.

Another take here would be to have the habitabilty score affect some things significantly more strongly than others. For instance, it should be significantly easier to grow large amounts of food in the open air on the surface on a planet that is 80% habitability for the occupants than 50% or 20%; but mining, being largely underground in artificial conditions anyway, should be significantly less affected. This mostly affects the early game for a typical empire; but not having people who are accustomed to whatever the local conditions are should be a drawback of limiting one's empire to a limited set of species; and food production should probably be harder-hit than some other sectors of the economy.

Consider that in most science fiction, you see difficult-to-inhabit planets settled for mining purposes far more often than for agricultural purposes; with the occasional exception of rare drugs (which arguably should be considered rare resources in Stellaris). "We settled this lava planet for the rare alloys and mineral wealth" makes a lot more sense and shows up in SF more often than "We settled this lava planet to grow corn and soybeans".

To rephrase, bonuses and penalties from planetary (and other) generalization, specialization, and localization should be Watsonian, within the scope of the game and setting; not Doylist, arbitrary external "magical" forces. Make the planets interesting and varied, and they will be developed accordingly.

 

[Newbee53]

What you haven't explained well is why that's a good thing. One would naturally assume that most planets would develop like real places; there would be different areas devoted to different things, bases on what was necessary, convenient, and/or profitable. Try sizing your argument down to continents and see how artificial and weird it sounds. "You've already got major manufacturing centers, energy extraction areas, farming areas, and bureaucratic centers in North America; so there's some mysterious magical force prohibiting us from also building research-focused areas."

I'm not a fan of arbitrary external restrictions that not only don't make internal sense within the game world, but actively contradict the way things work in reality. If you want planets to be more unique, the way to do that is to make more of the *planets* unique, and let the player choose whether to lean into it or not, depending on the way they envision and play their empire.

Wenkwort gives a bonus to unity and research, and a penalty to resource extraction and heavy industry. Most players will choose to develop it primarily to take advantage of it's strengths, but if you're playing some sort of ravenous space barbarians there's nothing preventing you from turning it into a farming world if that's what you need more, or even strip over-developing it into a toxic wasteland if that's your style.

By default, most (large enough) habitable planets are fully capable of being entirely self-sustaining homeworlds prior to FTL; and thus there's no logical in-game reason why you shouldn't be *able* to have a nicely organized, self-sufficient society on any planet. Should there be operational efficiencies from having similar things located together? Sure; if locations that provide jobs also give +X% bonus to that type of job, that will happen naturally; as will the planetary specialization designation. On the flip side, on a typical livable planet should local production generally be cheaper than hauling basic necessities across the gulf between stars? Also yes, and the new trade cost for import shortage reflects that nicely.

Another take here would be to have the habitabilty score affect some things significantly more strongly than others. For instance, it should be significantly easier to grow large amounts of food in the open air on the surface on a planet that is 80% habitability for the occupants than 50% or 20%; but mining, being largely underground in artificial conditions anyway, should be significantly less affected. This mostly affects the early game for a typical empire; but not having people who are accustomed to whatever the local conditions are should be a drawback of limiting one's empire to a limited set of species; and food production should probably be harder-hit than some other sectors of the economy.

Consider that in most science fiction, you see difficult-to-inhabit planets settled for mining purposes far more often than for agricultural purposes; with the occasional exception of rare drugs (which arguably should be considered rare resources in Stellaris). "We settled this lava planet for the rare alloys and mineral wealth" makes a lot more sense and shows up in SF more often than "We settled this lava planet to grow corn and soybeans".

To rephrase, bonuses and penalties from planetary (and other) generalization, specialization, and localization should be Watsonian, within the scope of the game and setting; not Doylist, arbitrary external "magical" forces. Make the planets interesting and varied, and they will be developed accordingly.

It's a good thing, because your choice to build a research zone or not has consequences beyond getting more research.

IF we really want to talk about reality, then sure.

But I'm not a fan of completely open choices with no restrictions. I don't really care if the restrictions are 'magical' but I do care if the restrictions lead to interesting choices. Its more interesting to think 'I'm going to be building research stuff on this planet and not that one' than 'I can build this on any planet I want!'

Its more interesting to say, you have these options right now. Choosing one will eliminate others. than to say, you have these choices now. they will be the same next time you show up here. Also, if I want to change a planet from one thing. I feel like I actually have to change things. not just build different buildings.

And sure, not every decision is this way. But that's also fine because not everything will benefit form that kind of restriction.

Here's my thing, I find decisions to unlock certain builds on certain planets a lot more interesting than just 'let's build this a certain way.'

 

[Everstill]

I've been playing Stellaris since its release in 2016. Over the years, through every major expansion, rework, and overhaul, I've never once felt confused or lost. One of Stellaris’ greatest strengths—especially compared to other Paradox titles—has always been how accessible and intuitive it is to pick up and play. It struck the perfect balance between complexity and clarity, and that’s something I’ve deeply appreciated as a long-term player.


That changed when I tried the 4.0 Beta.


For the first time in almost a decade of playing Stellaris, I genuinely hated the experience. The new UI, in its current state, is—without exaggeration—the worst I’ve encountered in any game I’ve played. I understand it’s unfinished and still in beta, but with a full release slated for next month, I find that extremely concerning.


The new Planetary UI in particular is a massive step backward. It feels inefficient, cluttered, and unintuitive—actively obscuring information that used to be easily accessible. I play on a 4K resolution monitor, and like many others, I rely heavily on UI Overhaul Dynamic just to make the interface usable. Unfortunately, even that can’t salvage the new planetary interface. It’s not just a matter of needing polish—it feels fundamentally flawed in terms of UX design.


This is the first time since 2016 that I’m seriously considering not updating the game. If 4.0 releases in anything close to its current state, I’ll be sticking with an older patch indefinitely. The UI overhaul doesn’t feel like a modernization—it feels like a regression that needs another year (or two) of iteration and testing.


I say this not out of malice, but because I care about the game. I want Stellaris to succeed and continue evolving. But this particular direction feels like it’s abandoning what made the game so enjoyable in the first place.


Please, take more time. Reconsider the direction of the UI changes. Listen to player feedback—especially from veterans who have been with the game since the beginning.

I agree with this sentiment. I play Stellaris since the Tile system days and this is the first time I feel lost and confused with the management tabs.

I spent too much time looking for things and encountering information hidden or hard to get. Cant really understand what is my planet growth and how its doing and what will happen when I develop a city district.

And please, format the planet information order so we finally get them close to their types (like population close to the jobs)

 

[Yutani Wakazashi]

I've been playing Stellaris since its release in 2016. Over the years, through every major expansion, rework, and overhaul, I've never once felt confused or lost. One of Stellaris’ greatest strengths—especially compared to other Paradox titles—has always been how accessible and intuitive it is to pick up and play. It struck the perfect balance between complexity and clarity, and that’s something I’ve deeply appreciated as a long-term player.


That changed when I tried the 4.0 Beta.


For the first time in almost a decade of playing Stellaris, I genuinely hated the experience. The new UI, in its current state, is—without exaggeration—the worst I’ve encountered in any game I’ve played. I understand it’s unfinished and still in beta, but with a full release slated for next month, I find that extremely concerning.


The new Planetary UI in particular is a massive step backward. It feels inefficient, cluttered, and unintuitive—actively obscuring information that used to be easily accessible. I play on a 4K resolution monitor, and like many others, I rely heavily on UI Overhaul Dynamic just to make the interface usable. Unfortunately, even that can’t salvage the new planetary interface. It’s not just a matter of needing polish—it feels fundamentally flawed in terms of UX design.


This is the first time since 2016 that I’m seriously considering not updating the game. If 4.0 releases in anything close to its current state, I’ll be sticking with an older patch indefinitely. The UI overhaul doesn’t feel like a modernization—it feels like a regression that needs another year (or two) of iteration and testing.


I say this not out of malice, but because I care about the game. I want Stellaris to succeed and continue evolving. But this particular direction feels like it’s abandoning what made the game so enjoyable in the first place.


Please, take more time. Reconsider the direction of the UI changes. Listen to player feedback—especially from veterans who have been with the game since the beginning.

This, this right here. I couldn't agree more.

I have played this game nearly as long as you. And I have loved it; Stellaris has become my favorite game to play. It's almost the *only* one I play anymore.

But this open beta has been awful. If there wasn't a firm release date I wouldn't be nearly as worried. But with, barely, a month of useable dev time left and the state the update is in. I am honestly wondering if my time playing this game is going to come to an end. This isn't a beta, it's more like an alpha. It *needs* to have more time to fix what is, for the first time in my Stellaris experience, a truly awful gameplay.

Devs, PLEASE push back the release. You really, really need significantly more time to fix the issues.

 

[ma44]

I assume it's not suppose to work, but virtuality has had some *strange* consequences

(Yes, that is 264,432 pre-beta pop equivalent as a civilian, unfortunately, they seem to be costing tens of thousands of energy as upkeep and they can't be set to be unemployed because that's just how civilians work, even though it generates well over 100k trade, I can't stockpile enough trade to actually buy 50k energy a month to deal with the civilian's pop upkeep)

Just going to leave this here as a checklist of what I noticed about virtuality

- Advanced Server Maintenance tradition "For each Clerk on a planet; +1% resource from virtual pops" doesn't appear to work, clerk's inherent trade bonus per clerk job employed does work as a comparison
- Productivity Simulations tradition "Districts that provide clerks/bureaucrats or researchers" should apply to zones, currently doesn't



Speaking of the UI, why does it have to be incapable of rounding a 4 digit number and showing it without needing to hover over it?

Are unique-ish jobs going to remain neutered? For instance, a temple is limited to 1 a planet now, and that only gives +2 priest jobs. Are we still waiting on a 'priest' zone, biotrophy zone or a stronghold zone to be added? It feels bad to have these jobs be restricted to only 2 jobs now that building slots are far more restrictive and don't make zones provide a different set of jobs per # of districts.

Will trading policies (like the one from mercantile traditions) get a revamp? While it is a nice idea to make traders be able to supply a bigger navy, the consumer goods that traders/clerks demand will now eat into the profits because of planetary deficits, and on top of that, the trade generated goes through a market fee turning itself back into consumer goods, overall nerfing trade strategies in being an alternative to energy production.


Also I haven't seen much discussion about this yet, but being unable to see what modifiers are influencing a pop's output (hovering over the "produces" text of a pop, which unfortunately selects the entire pop group because of the pop rework) is key information that should be displayed to the player and shouldn't be removed because the UI wasn't made to display it; if it can tell me how many alloys are produced after all modifiers, why can't it tell me the modifiers like it did in previous versions?

 

[Longherin]

notes on 3.99.4
1) Still not really shaking off that feeling of waiting for a planet to 'fill'. Reading through the thread shows a reference to older DDs that point to how the old infrastructure system was scrapped because it felt like waiting for a planet to fill. If I'm remembering right. Which, y'know, fine, it's always been waiting for a planet to fill, but it feels more...obvious. Like, instead of waiting on a goal we're just waiting because we gotta wait.
2) The Upgrade District wording for Planets, where there is a total amount of districts that must be distributed among all takers, versus Upgrade District for Habitats, where districts can be filled to the listed cap, makes it feel like Upgrading Planets is bugged. Not due to design elements or whatever, but because reflexively if I see something that says "0/8" and "upgrade" the assumption is that it can go 8/8 with no drawbacks.
(Though this is still pink beta so it might actually be bugged)
3) Given that trade is a resource, and pop migration seems to be more relevant now, can we have a building that costs trade and creates pop migration?
4) It's nice to have the three research buildings back, but I'd love if "here are more researchers of a specific type" and "here are researchers of a specific type AND NOW EVERYONE IS THAT TYPE" are two different things. Alloy and CG Manufacturing specifically stopped doing this, so why are we still doing this?
4.5) In the same vein, now that building slots are valuable, it'd be nice to have "job addition" and "job change" type buildings in more granularity. Make customization more granular, since that seems to be the targeting end goal.
5) Because, at a glance, buildings add jobs, it's a little hard to get used to the idea that if I wanted more researchers I needed to build more city districts. Maybe the tooltip isn't clear enough? Because, compared to the old system, there really isn't a difference (Build City -> Build Research -> Jobs) vs (Build Zone -> Build City -> Jobs). Maybe there just isn't that responsiveness that comes from actively building a 'thing' that gives what we're looking for?
6) It'd be nice to see the total number of pops working jobs for each job layer 'at a glance', that way it feels like a functioning economy rather than something more gamey. I know I have civilians on my homeworld generating trade, but every time I look my immediate response is "where's that coming from?"
7) I have not removed or felt a reason to remove tile blockers. Yay? There really isn't a visual pressure of 'must make space for the growing economy'.

...I guess what it all boils down is that it is very much so like watching the growth of a tree. it's growing, you know it's growing, and it's doing things while it's growing, but man it's hard to tell minute to minute.

 

[Ilab]

I already wrote it on another thread, but I would like to put it here too.

Having played the beta (a little bit), I must say I vastly prefer the old system of districts and buildings only, which I think could be improved instead of discarted. I don't believe Paradox will abandon the new system, but I would like, nevertheless, to give my opinion on the changes the old system could have received.

About the districts, I believe (as others here) that creating more types would have been enough, instead of adding zones. However, it is on the buildings I would like to focus, as I like the immersion they provide to the game. Another person here suggested that buildings could have multiple upgrade paths, like research buildings had in the past, and I agree. Precinct Houses could be upgraded to the current Hall of Judgement, that further decreases crime, or to a more civil-focused court system, that reduces less crime but increases trade generation. Fortresses could be upgraded to a more navy-focused buiding, that further increases naval capacity, or to a more defensive version that makes the planet even more difficult to be invaded. The housing buildings could be upgraded to focus on more housing or more amenities (popular housing vs luxury housing). Even buidings like Psi Corps could follow this rule, like being able to be upgraded to a psionic monastery focused on unity or to a more repressive version focused on crime and stability.

Ethics could also influence this system. Holo-Theaters could, for example, be either upgraded to the more generic Hyper-Entertainment Forums or to an ethos version, like Gladitorial Arenas for militaristic empires or Elysium Parks for pacifistic ones, which could offer less amenities in exchange for increasing ethics attraction. I can think of many other examples that could make planetary management more tailored to each type of empire, which, in my opinion, would increase immersion.

I don't think, however, that all buidings should be planet unique; instead, the upgrade paths that should be unique. Using the reseach buildings as an example, I could have all specialized labs (society, physics and engineering) in a single planet, but, if I decided to build a fourth research building, I would not be able to upgrade it beyond the first level, discoraging its construction without actually prohibiting it.

Other buildings could even be added that serve to synergize with others, like an university buildings chain that increases overall planetary productivity on the first level and can be specialized to further increase engineering, physics or society output from scientists. In this case, if I wanted to specialize a planet on all science, instead of constructing a bunch of the same buildings, I could build a lab and a university for each specialization, consuming 6 buildings slots in total. Or I could focus on a single reseach path and use only 2 building slots.

Anyway, those are just some ideas I have. I admit I am a bit disappointed that the old system will simply be discarted instead of improved.

I also like more the current system. It is much cleaner and simpler than the new one, which is important in a game too. At the same time, the new design feels too restrictive and micro heavy in comparison with the old one. As an example, previously you could manage very precisely how many jobs you had of each kind, and thus their upkeeps. Now with how jobs work it is a bit harder (not much harder, but a bit) and the current priority issues make for some death spirals and other nasty events that for an expert player will be nuisances, but for less experienced ones will be straight game issues.

At the same time, I also think that the new system is that, new, perhaps it just needs more polishing.

 

[SarahGabriella]

While some are probably unemployed, civilians produce trade so they can't all be unemployed. An 'influencer' who lives off donations from their followers is employed. Even if they don't have to check that box in the tax/senses or whatever. they'd also produce unity in stellaris. Same could be said for people selling crafts on the internet.

I think its more like them getting social benefits and boosting the economy by using those benefits to buy stuff.

 

[The Founder]

While some are probably unemployed, civilians produce trade so they can't all be unemployed. An 'influencer' who lives off donations from their followers is employed. Even if they don't have to check that box in the tax/senses or whatever. they'd also produce unity in stellaris. Same could be said for people selling crafts on the internet.

For me, Influencers would be the Entertainer or Clerk jobs.

 

[Ilab]

I have played the beta. I didn't think I needed to complain about issues I thought the devs knew about given the known issues. I didn't think the UI changes were final, and the few ones I have that I think were intentional and needed changes people have *already said*. Why repeat it? I didn't accuse you of not playing the beta becasue we disagreed, so I'm just amused this was your reaction.

This basically is "I don't like the new UX flow." Which is an entirely valid complaint.

But scrolling is such a part of modern UX design that you can't really complain about it now being a thing. It's funny.

So, in short, you 'thought' that you didn't have to provide feedback for the beta for which they asked said feedback?
Makes sense to me (it doesn't).

No, you didn't accuse me of not playing the beta, you did accuse me of 'doom saying' and criticized my feedback, and used as backup data things that made no sense. So I was 'amused; at your reaction. See the problem? Not to mention that now your 'backup data' is: I saw some problems but didn't say anything about it because surely the devs know. Well, if they knew why ask for feedback in the first place, or have it that way in the beta? I am pretty damn sure that if they had realized it, then we wouldn't have it as it is right now. Not to mention, that they asked for feedback, and giving feedback is what I am doing.

And, again, it is not an I don't like the new UI, I do not like it, but that is not the problem, I even gave an example of what the problem is, you just don't want to recognize it: Previously I could Tab over my colonies and see what Blockers where being cleared and which things where being built, decisions being 'carried out' etc. Now I need to tab to the colony and then click on the build button to see that information, FOR EACH COLONY, as the build window doesn't even remain open. This is not me not liking it, it is a design issue, we have lost accessibility. Simple as that.

And regarding scrolling, you are right that it is part of modern UIs. What is not part of modern design is 'constant scrolling'. The fact that you insist on this proves that you have no idea of what is being talked about here. There is even a screenshot of it. Do you think it is 'modern design' that I need to scroll down every time I want to add a single trait because the windows is very narrow (even when we have plenty of space available for it being wider) and the traits keep rearranging themselves around? If you think that, then good for you, but it is not good design. In fact, if you read anything about UX design you will notice that moving things around and not having enough space for information content is exactly 2 of the things that are COUNTER ADVISED. So, again, you might like it or not, but a fact is a fact, and that is that hiding information and rearranging interactive components is not a good design choice.

If you think is unnecessary,, well, good for you, but the feedback was not directed at you, and as far as I am aware you are no Dev to say what you are saying. So, essentially, stop saying others that their feedback is this or that, nor to say that 'surely' the devs this or that, because you don't know any of that.

 

[Newbee53]

For me, Influencers would be the Entertainer or Clerk jobs.

except influencers don't need any real infrastructure like entertainers or clerks. Unless they are the super big kind than yes.

I think a better explanation of the influencer types would be 'if you are big enough to need a studio and staff you might have a job simulated by the game' and if you are smaller than that, you are in the civilian category.

In fact, this can be expanded to just about anything. If your family farm is small enough, you are probably a civilian. but if you produce a lot--even still as a family farm--you might suddenly be moved to the farmer job bracket. because you are now affecting the economy more directly. luxury foods are still foods after all.

 

[The Founder]

except influencers don't need any real infrastructure like entertainers or clerks.

Then trying being a influencer without the internet.