Playing Void Dwellers is really interesting. Not having to manual all the habitats is a huge improvement and I just can't stop building mineral/cg/alloy/research habitats everywhere. I am the grey goo.
- 3
-
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.
A "University" zone?
At least, this purpose seems like a good fit for what universities do - not just natural and social science research, but also philosophy, theology, history, political sciences, and general development of ideas. Universities are a good example of something that could generate both Research and Unity.
It also always bothered me that there were no educational sites in Stellaris, only research laboratories, which are not just a smaller unit for research but also feels slightly weird for many Society developments ("terms and conditions apply" for different types of civilizations, of course).
Which could be useful for marketing!
- 7
- 2
I kind of always thought that education was something people did before they became pops properly, though I guess a specialist moving from entertainer to medical worker implies they've retrained at a medical facility.
first big thing I'm noticing in this update is that it's harder to get my output of basic resources going. initial food and energy output are too low to really have an effective economy in the first 10 years. yes, it can be managed with trade, but this is going to be a massive difficulty curve for players who are unfamiliar with the new system or the game itself. I had to buy all three of the basic resources off the market in the first five years of my game to not be running a deficit and actually build things, albeit I also got the cultist ships which I assume put an extra burden on my energy needs. this was much easier to deal with in the previous version because trade was much easier to come by, really too easy, but now I feel you've overcorrected with the way trade and resource deficits have been reworked. I can see this leading to an inescapable death spiral for a lot of players and probably even the AI which is already not great at structuring it's economy in the new system. making resource deficits reduce your trade income sounds good on paper, but if that spent trade isn't automatically covering the resource deficit on planets empire wide then all it's really doing is double penalizing the player who has to spend that trade to cover empire wide deficits. I would say have game automatically set up trades, but that would require more balancing, bug testing, and fine tuning and would probably be inconvenient to players who want to min/max their trades. simplest solution is to just boost the initial output for basic resources on origins and civics that aren't designed to be challenging.
as for removing one of the city zones and moving it's building slots into the government zone, could work really well. Red Death's suggestion is probably the best way to go about it. the home world needs be very generalized at game start out of necessity and all the early buildings feel very band aidy.
as for removing one of the city zones and moving it's building slots into the government zone, could work really well. Red Death's suggestion is probably the best way to go about it. the home world needs be very generalized at game start out of necessity and all the early buildings feel very band aidy.
also, why can I not build a temple in unity zones?
- 2
- 1
OK stupid question: how do you change a zone? I couldn't find a clickable so I just assumed it was not implemented yet.
Select the district (so not the zone), a side-bar will pop up on the right side of the screen with all connected zones. Now press the little circular arrows button next to the zone you want to replace.
- 2
Considering that there is not going to be more beta builds released (according to the latest stream) could we get an answer to these three questions:
1. Will we be able to control, per planet, which species grow/assemble there? Previously we could ensure that a certain number of X species existed on planet P by setting Y to grow. If we used Grow Controls then we would stop X from growing everywhere, but instead we don't want X to grow in planet P only. Is this still going to be possible?
2. What is the current consensus on the leader changes? I have seen a decent amount of people push against it (me among them) and I would really like to know if any consideration has been done to this change.
3. Is the build queue going to be made visible in a way that allows to simulate the current behaviour? Later on the game when we have lots of planets it becomes very important to be able to Tab around them and see what is being built where. But in all the Beta builds so far this has not been the case. Any comments on that?
Once more, pls reconsider the Leader changes. We have Auto Pick traits as an option just as we have planet automation and auto design for those who don't want to engage so much with said systems. There is no need to ruin leaders for those who enjoy them, specially considering, being entirely honest, that of all things that Stellaris has, leaders are the less needy. Between fleets, pops, anomalies, research, edicts, truces, situations etc, leaders leveling up is nothing. The 'empty' level ups feel really bad.
1. Will we be able to control, per planet, which species grow/assemble there? Previously we could ensure that a certain number of X species existed on planet P by setting Y to grow. If we used Grow Controls then we would stop X from growing everywhere, but instead we don't want X to grow in planet P only. Is this still going to be possible?
2. What is the current consensus on the leader changes? I have seen a decent amount of people push against it (me among them) and I would really like to know if any consideration has been done to this change.
3. Is the build queue going to be made visible in a way that allows to simulate the current behaviour? Later on the game when we have lots of planets it becomes very important to be able to Tab around them and see what is being built where. But in all the Beta builds so far this has not been the case. Any comments on that?
Once more, pls reconsider the Leader changes. We have Auto Pick traits as an option just as we have planet automation and auto design for those who don't want to engage so much with said systems. There is no need to ruin leaders for those who enjoy them, specially considering, being entirely honest, that of all things that Stellaris has, leaders are the less needy. Between fleets, pops, anomalies, research, edicts, truces, situations etc, leaders leveling up is nothing. The 'empty' level ups feel really bad.
- 6
Tried a MegaCorp ... no Elite jobs? hmm.
They had Administrators (Specialist) instead of Executives or Managers. Could build a Manager building, but even after that there was a shortage of Unity.
The smaller job counts made the early game kinda painful.
Individualist Robots with Auto-Mod sometimes got multiple traits from it at once.
They had Administrators (Specialist) instead of Executives or Managers. Could build a Manager building, but even after that there was a shortage of Unity.
The smaller job counts made the early game kinda painful.
Individualist Robots with Auto-Mod sometimes got multiple traits from it at once.
Anyone else having the issue of factions depopulating? So I get like zero unity production.
- 7
Not a dev but I don't think that will be something we do anymore. It was a feature because we only had single pop growth.
I like them at least. One less notification spam and makes the choices feel a bit more impactful
The queue should definitely be more visible
- 1
Apparently you have never considered the following things:
1. Meat ships use custom components
2. Custom components can be balanced to have less damage then existing XL slots.
3. They could be anywehre from 1/2 to 1/5 the power and cost of a existing XL slot.
Those seem rather important things to consider, before you start insulting people.
Future colonies are fixed, existing ones are not.
So a savegame before it started bugging out works. And any future colony would work.
You made the assumption that they didn't exhaust the design space during internal testing already.
"You never told me you tested X, so clearly I am the only one smart enough to think of it."
Also, discarding and replacing mechanics is how we got 2.0 and 3.0 respectively. You act like they were ever shy about that.
They effectively halved the Job income by havling the jobs, meaning Upkeep is eating me alive.
Energy for Startbases, Mining Stations, Districts.
Unity upkeep for Leaders.
Factions are still broken and only seem to pick up a single pop group, empire wide:
Stellaris - 3.99.4 - Faction/pop assignment is totally wrong, numbers broken
Description 3.99.4 - Faction/pop assignment is totally wrong, numbers broken Game Version 3607 What version do you use? Steam What expansions do you have installed? Plantoids, Humanoids, Synthetic Dawn, Utopia, Leviathans Story Pack...
- 6
- 1
- 1
As someone obsessed with tidy process design, I also consider it an insane engine of industry when a planet is only cranking out godly amounts of consumer goods or whatever but with no external inputs. An easily scalable perpetual motion machine of free* alloys or science or what have you to fuel the engines of my empire. Also if most of my planets will ultimately move to this stage then the planets that have the modifiers or strategic positioning to make an ungodly CG machine the obvious option will stand out more for the resource-devouring, economy-warping monsters** that they are.
My ideal would be that there's a minority of planets where the clear mechanically optimal option is to (eventually) make them as self sufficient as possible, and a minority of planets where the clear mechanically optimal option is to go full Factorio, and a wide spread of planets in between where it might lean one way or the other but overall it's pretty much down to player preference.
And civics and empire types that lean into each, of course.
* outside of the sprawl cost and assorted opportunity costs obviously
** complimentary
Last edited:
- 5
Additionally since they're mutually exclusive with and much less flexible than machine ships you can't just look at them in isolation. It's down to how a fleet of meatships matches up against an equivalent (well designed) fleet of machine ships as a whole.
Also also, as someone who a this stage has been payed money to do pretty much every part of design work including software development, discarding or deleting chunks of existing work is absolutely not the easy option. The sunk cost fallacy is incredibly pervasive and it takes a lot of work to convince yourself and the higher ups to invalidate previous time investment as a bad job.
And yes I'm aware of the massive opening that I, Zone unofficial head cheerleader, have left people with that last line. It's the weekend, go nuts
Last edited:
- 3
Re: Gaia world starts and other single planet origins: Gaia worlds are supposed to be artificial paradises perfectly catered to your every need. Why not lean into that? Ditch farms districts and instead add food to civilians and other jobs or a bunch of farmer jobs to cities for free or something - you just pluck your lunch off the local sandwich tree after all. Stick a bunch of free amenities somewhere - who needs entertainers when you have paradise outside your door? Then swap the agricultural districts out for unity districts and you're off to the races.
- 7
- 2
- 2
They pop up randomly in your research, and yes, they are massive blockers for the economy. The good thing is, they’re all tier one or two techs, so they roll early and often — but they’re still really valuable techs. And I think more valuable techs is a good thing, as it makes for interesting choices when selecting research.
However, it feels bad to click through colonies and have my options locked by techs I couldn't research yet.
I would suggest any form of solution that removes the impact of tech here — but maybe it would be better psychologically to just not show locked slots until we research the tech, and mark the zone-unlocking techs as “impactful”? We have purple for rare, red for dangerous — maybe we could get yellow for impactful? Like ship techs, starholds, robots, and gene clinics — all the stuff that either unlocks big decisions or gives massive power, like unlocking zones for colonies.
Perhaps it is the planet designations that needs an adjustment to benefit a wider range of jobs.
Feel like that should have been done ever since planetary ascension was added.
Last edited:
- 2
- 1
Then there is the minimum range of Large weapons. not normally a problem, but a lot of small highspeed ships look like they will utterly avoid getting shot at all--once distance is closed--or stealth is used. Stingers look even more vulnerable to torpedo boats and similar ships. Stingers will probably encourage top heavy fleets but can be heavily countered small fast ships.
The most interesting part of the sunk coast arguments--they've put so much effort into zones...--is it usually works better the other way around.
From an outsiders prespective zones have only been around for a year at the longest. But the current building paradime is multiple years old and has been tweaked for all that time. For all we know the sunk coast problem may be the only reasons planetary management hasn't been changed before now.
As outsiders, we can't know why or how the change came around now and not later or earlier. We really should avoid these kinds of accusations.
- 1
I'm not so certain this is a bug, and more an emergent property of Parliamentary System. In my testing, factions scaled off of Civilian's only, which you have in spades at game start but not so much at ten years in the way we're used to utilizing all pops.
It's not all-or-nothing, here. Zones don't have to be totally dropped. They can be put to the side for 4.0's initial release because that specific deadline is very tight.
This would mean:
1. 4.0's release avoids poor review scores/press.
2. Other elements of 4.0 can be assessed on their own terms (this is a big one! 4.0 has a lot of amazing stuff!)
3. Zones get more consideration before being reintroduced.
4. When added, zones release into an already stable environment because things like trade and pop mechanics have settled.
5. When added, if zones still don't play very well, other paid DLCs aren't caught in the crossfire.
6. The initial custodian investment in the idea isn't lost after all. Sunk costs and all that.
If we're utterly married to the concept, it's a good idea stagger the release. One more beta build and a couple of weeks is no time at all.
This would mean:
1. 4.0's release avoids poor review scores/press.
2. Other elements of 4.0 can be assessed on their own terms (this is a big one! 4.0 has a lot of amazing stuff!)
3. Zones get more consideration before being reintroduced.
4. When added, zones release into an already stable environment because things like trade and pop mechanics have settled.
5. When added, if zones still don't play very well, other paid DLCs aren't caught in the crossfire.
6. The initial custodian investment in the idea isn't lost after all. Sunk costs and all that.
If we're utterly married to the concept, it's a good idea stagger the release. One more beta build and a couple of weeks is no time at all.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
Am I the only one that has "trouble" producing base resources?
Maybe it's a balancing issue: one rural district always makes 180 jobs, but a city district makes way more jobs because of zones. Maybe making that rural zones also increase district jobs?
Maybe I just have bad rolls for planetary features, resulting in less mining districts. Or maybe I'm still used to old Stellaris and I'm being too greedy with alloys and research.
Maybe it's a balancing issue: one rural district always makes 180 jobs, but a city district makes way more jobs because of zones. Maybe making that rural zones also increase district jobs?
Maybe I just have bad rolls for planetary features, resulting in less mining districts. Or maybe I'm still used to old Stellaris and I'm being too greedy with alloys and research.