4.0.13: A Trade deficit now causes Job Efficiency and Empire Size issues

[Spore1975]

Anyone know where to assess this patch note? 4.0.13: A Trade deficit now causes Job Efficiency and Empire Size issues

• Some of my planets have Trade Deficits. Like -100 mineral consumption for example. I like this concept of a trade deficit causing negative implications. I can manage to it.
• My empire resource bar across the top has net positive trade, and the hover over details show a trade deficit of -172. At the moment this is covered by net positive empire trade.
• I do not see a metric on any screen or empire detail tab which informs me, for example, "Planet X has a -1.6% efficiency penalty for resource Y". Meaning my +100 alloys is actually +98.4 alloys... or whatever.

 

[RoverStorm]

Anyone know where to assess this patch note? 4.0.13: A Trade deficit now causes Job Efficiency and Empire Size issues

• Some of my planets have Trade Deficits. Like -100 mineral consumption for example. I like this concept of a trade deficit causing negative implications. I can manage to it.
• My empire resource bar across the top has net positive trade, and the hover over details show a trade deficit of -172. At the moment this is covered by net positive empire trade.
• I do not see a metric on any screen or empire detail tab which informs me, for example, "Planet X has a -1.6% efficiency penalty for resource Y". Meaning my +100 alloys is actually +98.4 alloys... or whatever.

"Deficit" is I think a typo.

I believe they mean "shortage" as the bug reports said that "Trade Shortage has no negative consequences".

 

[jedavis]

Uuugh that is not at all what I thought they were doing with trade deficits from the patch notes. I had assumed it related to running an empire-wide negative trade stockpile.

Having a per-planet trade shortage cause problems is ridiculous. Why should 100% of the logistics burden of covering a local shortfall in some resource fall on the importing planet and none of it on the exporting planet? Or any planet in between which might specialize in delivery logistics?

I had assumed you just got charged trade for having a local trade shortfall, at the standard 25% rate for trade costs from a local shortage. The series converges.

 

[RoverStorm]

In Stellaris, a "shortage" is when your empire-wide storage runs out and you are still negative.

It causes a bunch of penalties typically based on the job.

I could also be misunderstanding the patch notes, of course.

 

[jedavis]

In Stellaris, a "shortage" is when your empire-wide storage runs out and you are still negative.

It causes a bunch of penalties typically based on the job.

I could also be misunderstanding the patch notes, of course.

Did they used to be called deficits, before they got turned into situations? Is that part of why I'm confused here?

 

[Spore1975]

Well fudge on a biscuit. We have a few answers here and unfortunately nothing really concrete. Leading candidate is a typo hypothesizing that "deficit" could have meant "shortage". This is plausible. But I still think they meant to add a layer of planetary management micro'ing in order to perhaps squeeze "back" a few lost percentage points of inefficiency on account that your planet is using 200 more minerals than it produces. In real life, it is a factor to consider. "We make widgets, but we don't have enough minerals locally to make them". Sure the game could say "meh, screw it, we calculate on an empire wide scale" but in 4.0 phoenix it seems the are wanting to add more flavor to the typical hyperspeicialization of a planet.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

The beta is available. Why not just... check?

Planet deficit (even a deficit of trade), and there is no efficiency penalty.

But if the stockpile runs empty and you're still burning trade, you get a resource shortage penalty:

 

[Spore1975]

The beta is available. Why not just... check?

I don't know about beta/patch notes really and how to align them. I come home from work and start the game and I see mention somewhere about 4.0.13 and I read them. If that means I need to play Stellaris and Stellaris.B separately to understand something I will pass I assumed the 4.0.13 notes were applied to my game on startup as I saw some kind of update happen today.

 

[XCodes]

But I still think they meant to add a layer of planetary management micro'ing in order to perhaps squeeze "back" a few lost percentage points of inefficiency on account that your planet is using 200 more minerals than it produces.

That's what the trade upkeep is for.

 

[Spore1975]

But if the stockpile runs empty and you're still burning trade, you get a resource shortage penalty:
View attachment 1304378

Ahhhh, now I see what you are saying, I missed this last screen print.