Questions Regarding the 4.0 District Design

[DreamCye]

Building structures around districts is an immersive design choice, but limiting the number of building slots to just three doesn't make sense. Why three? And don't tell me it's because the UI can't fit more — if that's the case, then you should be redesigning the UI, not stubbornly sticking to the number three.

Wake up! Your design is stuck! You're obsessing over this number three! It's unfair to other numbers — only three gets this special treatment.

Design decisions should be based on logic and immersion, not on how much content the UI can accommodate.

Right now, it feels absurd that a sci-fi game’s creativity is being constrained by UI limitations.

While it’s reasonable for each district to have its own building slots, it shouldn't be limited to just three.

Is three some kind of sacred number? Why insist on it?

Developers should redesign the UI so that building slots in each district unlock based on its level of development.

For example, if a power generation district reaches level five, it should unlock five building slots for constructing power-related structures, allowing players to build five power plants. Similarly, if a city district reaches level seven, it would grant seven building slots. Players could then allocate these slots according to their needs.

For instance, they could assign one slot to the industrial district and the remaining six to the research district. Alternatively, they might choose to allocate all seven slots to the industrial district and construct no buildings in the research district.

The planet’s carrying capacity would determine the overall limit for the total number of buildings and districts. This design would be far more flexible and intuitive.

 

[DreamCye]

New mechanics are undoubtedly exciting, but upon closer inspection, this system feels fundamentally flawed — even the construction system before 4.0 was questionable. I believe the core issue is that the game has never properly linked building slots with planetary carrying capacity, district quantity, and regional characteristics.

Before 4.0, city districts could unlock building slots, affecting the lower limit of structures a planet could have, but the maximum number of buildings remained fixed. This design choice was baffling and shattered immersion. In the 4.0 test version, the problem has only worsened. The number of building slots is now completely disconnected from planetary size, killing any sense of immersion and eliminating flexibility altogether.

The only explanation I can think of is that the development team is desperately trying to flatten all content into the planetary UI, prioritizing this goal above all else. Meanwhile, logical and immersive design has been relegated to the backseat.

 

[Newbee53]

Developers should redesign the UI so that building slots in each district unlock based on its level of development.

For example, if a power generation district reaches level five, it should unlock five building slots for constructing power-related structures, allowing players to build five power plants. Similarly, if a city district reaches level seven, it would grant seven building slots. Players could then allocate these slots according to their needs.

For instance, they could assign one slot to the industrial district and the remaining six to the research district. Alternatively, they might choose to allocate all seven slots to the industrial district and construct no buildings in the research district.

The planet’s carrying capacity would determine the overall limit for the total number of buildings and districts. This design would be far more flexible and intuitive.

I think this design misses the fundamental point of the design. to prevent you from building every building on every planet. I like this, it makes choices of buildings actually mean something.

So you want no limits on your choice of building placement. And I want the limits inherent in this system. Personally, I'm happy that my desires line up with what the devs want, but some compromise might be valuable. Do you have ideas for increasing building slots without making it so every building can be built?

Personally I like the idea floated in another thread:

All of the combinations that we added in this pass are either one or two zones. However, one of the changes that I've been considering based on feedback is actually removing one City Zone slot from planets, increasing the free Government Zone to have six building slots, and framing them more explicitly as City Specialization. While this is similar mechanically to "forcing" an Urban Zone, it may make the intent of "zones are intended to be your way of picking what special district you want here" more of a real thing.

It keeps things limited but still loosens the constraints on buildings some.

 

[DreamCye]

I think this design misses the fundamental point of the design. to prevent you from building every building on every planet. I like this, it makes choices of buildings actually mean something.

I think this design misses the fundamental point of the design. to prevent you from building every building on every planet. I like this, it makes choices of buildings actually mean something.

So you want no limits on your choice of building placement. And I want the limits inherent in this system. Personally, I'm happy that my desires line up with what the devs want, but some compromise might be valuable. Do you have ideas for increasing building slots without making it so every building can be built?

Personally I like the idea floated in another thread:

It keeps things limited but still loosens the constraints on buildings some.

So you want no limits on your choice of building placement. And I want the limits inherent in this system. Personally, I'm happy that my desires line up with what the devs want, but some compromise might be valuable. Do you have ideas for increasing building slots without making it so every building can be built?

Personally I like the idea floated in another thread:

It keeps things limited but still loosens the constraints on buildings some.

I think the developers’ current design concept is fundamentally sound — city districts having zones, and zones featuring their own unique buildings is a great idea. However, the problem is that they shouldn’t limit zones to just three building slots, nor should they cap the number of zones at three. The developers’ fixation on the number three is baffling.

This number should logically be tied to factors like district development levels and planetary size. Yet, it seems the developers have an unusual fondness for the number three, prioritizing visual appeal over deeper design considerations. It feels like there hasn’t been much profound thought put into this aspect of the design.

 

[DreamCye]

I believe that lifting the building slot restrictions should be a top priority, and the concept of districts should be removed, with specific zones tied to specific buildings. The three districts — power, mining, and food — should be converted into zones. Each zone would have its own development level and a number of locked building slots, which can only be used for constructing specific buildings.

Each time a zone's development level increases, one additional building slot would be unlocked. The planetary capital would act as the initial zone, providing extra building slots that unlock as it upgrades. These slots could be used for constructing general-purpose buildings to manage the planet on a macro level. The number of zones a planet can have would be determined by its carrying capacity, capital level, technology, and traditions.

Designing around zones and their associated buildings can create endless possibilities. As we all know, zones like power, mining, food, factories, and research are common and universal. However, developers could expand on the zone concept to introduce more interesting and specialized zones, such as city zones, commercial zones, entertainment zones, cloning zones, medical zones, psionic zones, religious zones, espionage zones, crime zones, and even hybrid zones (for players who enjoy building everything together, though hybrid zones wouldn’t support advanced buildings).


Players could construct and develop these zones, significantly enhancing the enjoyment of planetary construction while also making the experience more immersive.

 

[Newbee53]

I think the developers’ current design concept is fundamentally sound — city districts having zones, and zones featuring their own unique buildings is a great idea. However, the problem is that they shouldn’t limit zones to just three building slots, nor should they cap the number of zones at three. The developers’ fixation on the number three is baffling.

This number should logically be tied to factors like district development levels and planetary size. Yet, it seems the developers have an unusual fondness for the number three, prioritizing visual appeal over deeper design considerations. It feels like there hasn’t been much profound thought put into this aspect of the design.

why would you think its the number three, rather than it was just the first small number they came up with that seemed to also do what they wanted?

If a major design point was to limit the number of buildings it was possible to build on a planet, some small number of building slots is important. For zones, it might just have been 'two seems too small, four too big. three might work.'

We don't know why they choose the numbers. The question is how do we preserve their apparent intent to limit the number of buildings? Is your only problem the arbitrary nature of the limit? Because if it is, I don't know what to tell you. I personally find the limitations three buildings provide worth the arbitrary nature of the limit.

 

[NorseGod]

I think the developers’ current design concept is fundamentally sound — city districts having zones, and zones featuring their own unique buildings is a great idea. However, the problem is that they shouldn’t limit zones to just three building slots, nor should they cap the number of zones at three. The developers’ fixation on the number three is baffling.

This number should logically be tied to factors like district development levels and planetary size. Yet, it seems the developers have an unusual fondness for the number three, prioritizing visual appeal over deeper design considerations. It feels like there hasn’t been much profound thought put into this aspect of the design.

Perhaps they're just dunking on Valve, who it is clear cannot count to Three.

Honestly, after having my head in this redesign for 4.0, I just decided to roll back to 3.14 just to try it out again, and honestly I'm loving it.

 

[DreamCye]

why would you think its the number three, rather than it was just the first small number they came up with that seemed to also do what they wanted?

If a major design point was to limit the number of buildings it was possible to build on a planet, some small number of building slots is important. For zones, it might just have been 'two seems too small, four too big. three might work.'

We don't know why they choose the numbers. The question is how do we preserve their apparent intent to limit the number of buildings? Is your only problem the arbitrary nature of the limit? Because if it is, I don't know what to tell you. I personally find the limitations three buildings provide worth the arbitrary nature of the limit.

A planet with a carrying capacity of 20 should be able to build 10 zones and 20 buildings, while a planet with a carrying capacity of 10 should be able to build 5 zones and 10 buildings — that’s logical. If you have advanced technology to make better use of land, both zones and buildings could be further expanded.

However, in the current 4.0 design, a planet with a carrying capacity of 30 can only build 6 zones and 20 buildings, while a planet with a carrying capacity of 5 can also build 6 zones and 20 buildings. That’s absurd. It’s a rigid, thoughtless design. The only variable that changes is the development level because the number of buildings and zones is fixed.

Developers could easily break free from this limitation by tying zone and building limits to planetary size and development level. That would be a far more realistic and immersive design. If you want to construct specific buildings in certain zones, simply adjust the zone cap based on planet size. Small planets could have 2 to 3 zones, while larger planets could have 5 to 6, or even up to 10.

But I can’t fathom why there are only 3 zones. Aside from the developers having a peculiar fondness for the number 3, I can’t think of any other reason.

 

[Newbee53]

But I can’t fathom why there are only 3 zones. Aside from the developers having a peculiar fondness for the number 3, I can’t think of any other reason.

because it was an arbitrary number that worked for what they were trying to do? why is this not an acceptable answer to you? Why are you so convinced it wasn't just because they wanted a small number, and three worked?

A planet with a carrying capacity of 20 should be able to build 10 zones and 20 buildings, while a planet with a carrying capacity of 10 should be able to build 5 zones and 10 buildings — that’s logical. If you have advanced technology to make better use of land, both zones and buildings could be further expanded.

However, in the current 4.0 design, a planet with a carrying capacity of 30 can only build 6 zones and 20 buildings, while a planet with a carrying capacity of 5 can also build 6 zones and 20 buildings. That’s absurd. It’s a rigid, thoughtless design. The only variable that changes is the development level because the number of buildings and zones is fixed.

A 20 size planet can build 20 districts. each district has at least 1 zone, while city districts have up too 4 zones(Government, and 3 wild card. I forget about the government one sometimes.)

Whin you build a city district you are building all the zones choosen for that planet. There, a 20 size planet holds a maximum of 60 zones.

Look, it's always going to be an arbitrary limit. why are planets maxed out at 25 or 30 or 100 size? because that was the limit chosen. I don't understand why this argument seems to be tied to the number 3. I can argue why you shouldn't be able to put every single individual zone possible on the same planet. The devs decided the effort to make that UI. The value gained verse effort put forth wasn't in favor of value.

Or maybe the devs just wanted to put limits on planet development to force more give and take into the planetary management choices.

 

[DreamCye]

because it was an arbitrary number that worked for what they were trying to do? why is this not an acceptable answer to you? Why are you so convinced it wasn't just because they wanted a small number, and three worked?

A 20 size planet can build 20 districts. each district has at least 1 zone, while city districts have up too 4 zones(Government, and 3 wild card. I forget about the government one sometimes.)

Whin you build a city district you are building all the zones choosen for that planet. There, a 20 size planet holds a maximum of 60 zones.

Look, it's always going to be an arbitrary limit. why are planets maxed out at 25 or 30 or 100 size? because that was the limit chosen. I don't understand why this argument seems to be tied to the number 3. I can argue why you shouldn't be able to put every single individual zone possible on the same planet. The devs decided the effort to make that UI. The value gained verse effort put forth wasn't in favor of value.

Or maybe the devs just wanted to put limits on planet development to force more give and take into the planetary management choices.

This isn’t a design compromise — it’s a design flaw. The number of buildings, zones, and districts on a planet should all correspond to its size. In fact, the concepts of zones and districts are somewhat redundant and could easily be unified. The number of districts that can be built should be determined by the developers, as long as the values remain balanced and visually reasonable. At the very least, that’s how it should feel intuitively.

Players enjoy constructing massive numbers of buildings on large planets and carefully managing resources on smaller ones — this gives both resources and technology real meaning. However, in the current system, I can unlock a total of 9 building slots just by giving one development level to power, mining, and food zones. The issue isn’t necessarily about whether the number is 3 or 2; the core problem with the 4.0 design is clear.

Even though it’s a new mechanic, there’s no need to scrap it entirely. Simply linking zones and building slots to development levels and planetary size would make the design much more logical and immersive.

 

[Ryika]

This isn’t a design compromise — it’s a design flaw. The number of buildings, zones, and districts on a planet should all correspond to its size.

Why? The basic design idea of buildings is that they mainly modify district yields, so each building that fulfills this purpose already scales dynamically with planet size by affecting more districts. It's presented as one building, but it essentially represents that specific piece of infrastructure being present in all areas of the planet that are covered in districts of that type.

Of course the design of buildings has loosened up a bit during the beta, but the general idea is still there.

 

[Lorenerd11]

Each zone would have its own development level and a number of locked building slots, which can only be used for constructing specific buildings.

Just… call them districts.

If they use district slots, they are districts. Zones as a concept specifically only exist as attachments to districts.

 

[DreamCye]

Why? The basic design idea of buildings is that they mainly modify district yields, so each building that fulfills this purpose already scales dynamically with planet size by affecting more districts. It's presented as one building, but it essentially represents that specific piece of infrastructure being present in all areas of the planet that are covered in districts of that type.

Of course the design of buildings has loosened up a bit during the beta, but the general idea is still there.

This is an abstract design. If a single building can replace many others, then could population also be simplified to just one unit replacing multiple ones? Why design population with such complex values?

This is about immersion and gameplay experience—a massive planet should be able to support more buildings, as it naturally should. This aligns with player expectations and provides a sense of achievement. Even if planetary planning is largely a matter of macro-level numerical adjustments, the definition of buildings should not be overly abstract. Buildings should highlight the theme of a zone, allowing players to form a concrete mental image of it. They should not merely serve as abstract adjustment concepts.

If I acquire a planet with a carrying capacity of 30, I would naturally be eager to build 30 buildings or balance it by constructing 15 buildings (dividing by 2). Likewise, I could build 7 zones by dividing 30 by 4 and rounding down. This approach feels intuitive—players would genuinely perceive the planet as large, capable of housing so many buildings and zones.

On the other hand, if a player ends up with a small planet with a carrying capacity of 5, they would only be able to construct a single zone and two buildings (following the same formula). Unless they research space compression engineering, improve land utilization, or implement policies to increase population density, they would be stuck with limited development.

That’s why I don’t understand what’s so great about the current 4.0 design. Many players support it, but to me, it feels overly abstract and rigid, with almost no sense of immersion.

 

[Ryika]

This is an abstract design. If a single building can replace many others, then could population also be simplified to just one unit replacing multiple ones? Why design population with such complex values?

I mean, it seems to me like you're kind of arguing against yourself there. Pops ARE abstract and comparatively simple, just like everything else in the game. It's a strategy game that uses mechanics to create interesting strategic and thematic choices, not a simulation that attempts to mimic real life. The abstraction used in the new system is just a somewhat different one from the one used in the old system.

And even then the old system isn't as clean about it. When you build a slave processing plant for example, it affects all slaves on the planet, so it's clearly not localized infrastructure like other buildings could be argued to be, but rather a representation of infrastructure that is distributed across the whole planet.

This is about immersion and gameplay experience—a massive planet should be able to support more buildings, as it naturally should. This aligns with player expectations and provides a sense of achievement. Even if planetary planning is largely a matter of macro-level numerical adjustments, the definition of buildings should not be overly abstract. Buildings should highlight the theme of a zone, allowing players to form a concrete mental image of it. They should not merely serve as abstract adjustment concepts.

If I acquire a planet with a carrying capacity of 30, I would naturally be eager to build 30 buildings or balance it by constructing 15 buildings (dividing by 2). Likewise, I could build 7 zones by dividing 30 by 4 and rounding down. This approach feels intuitive—players would genuinely perceive the planet as large, capable of housing so many buildings and zones.

On the other hand, if a player ends up with a small planet with a carrying capacity of 5, they would only be able to construct a single zone and two buildings (following the same formula). Unless they research space compression engineering, improve land utilization, or implement policies to increase population density, they would be stuck with limited development.

That’s why I don’t understand what’s so great about the current 4.0 design. Many players support it, but to me, it feels overly abstract and rigid, with almost no sense of immersion.

If you don't like it that's fine. I can certainly see where you're coming from as what you're proposing is a more directly visual approach, but you called it a "design flaw" and argued as if your view was some objectively true statement when it really isn't. It's just a design that's different from what you'd prefer to see.

Good news though: The zone system is VERY moddable compared to the old planet system, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see quite a few different approaches to planet infrastructure.

 

[Metallichydra]

I think the main problem is that there are two types of buildings.
One if the type that modifiers the planet/jobs/districts. Think mineral purification plants. They change all miners. These buildings makes sense if there's a limit on building slots.
The other is the one that provides a flat effect. Luxury housing, hydroponic farms. These makes sense for building slots scaling with district count.
Problem is, we have both types.

 

[DreamCye]

I mean, it seems to me like you're kind of arguing against yourself there. Pops ARE abstract and comparatively simple, just like everything else in the game. It's a strategy game that uses mechanics to create interesting strategic and thematic choices, not a simulation that attempts to mimic real life. The abstraction used in the new system is just a somewhat different one from the one used in the old system.

And even then the old system isn't as clean about it. When you build a slave processing plant for example, it affects all slaves on the planet, so it's clearly not localized infrastructure like other buildings could be argued to be, but rather a representation of infrastructure that is distributed across the whole planet.


If you don't like it that's fine. I can certainly see where you're coming from as what you're proposing is a more directly visual approach, but you called it a "design flaw" and argued as if your view was some objectively true statement when it really isn't. It's just a design that's different from what you'd prefer to see.

Good news though: The zone system is VERY moddable compared to the old planet system, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see quite a few different approaches to planet infrastructure.

So why three building slots? The developers eat three pieces of bread every day, wait for Half-Life 3 to release, go home to feed three puppies after work, and count "1, 2, 3" before closing their eyes to sleep. You might think I'm fixating on this number, but what this really means is that the developers are arbitrarily limiting their own creativity—a restriction without rationale, making it hard to believe this isn’t a design flaw.

As a visual designer, when I look at this interface, I immediately recognize that the developers prioritized how much information could fit into the UI as a core concern. The current layout forces three building slots per zone purely for the sake of visual alignment, completely divorced from gameplay considerations. They’ve boxed themselves into this mindset—this is the state of the developers right now.