I can wait. Crisis in the Kremlin remake is coming out in Apr. 28th.
The balancing still can use work. Since what are Life-seeded supposed to do with their 6 rare resources?
-
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.
The balancing still can use work. Since what are Life-seeded supposed to do with their 6 rare resources?
I'm not a huge fan of how planetary strategic resource mining works in the beta now, removing the effects from rare planetary deposits and making it so strategic resource mines can be build anywhere and give you a flat generation from basic resource jobs. It feels uninteresting and like it overlaps too much with refineries without the assosiated costs of refineries other than a building slot, I hope it's just a temporary stopgap measure before something more fleshed out is implimented.
I do like the rework of refineries though, so they increase the resource upkeep costs of industrial jobs but let them generate strategic resources, that feels like a great way to get rid of refinery spam and incorporate them into regular industrial planets.
I do like the rework of refineries though, so they increase the resource upkeep costs of industrial jobs but let them generate strategic resources, that feels like a great way to get rid of refinery spam and incorporate them into regular industrial planets.
- 5
- 1
The rare resource buildings were pretty obviously a WIP, which is why I reframed from commenting on them in my feedback post.
However perhaps the rare resource extractor buildings aren't meant to be built on any planet, but only on planets with the relevant feature as a means to upgrade production from those features and make them more relevant. Sort of like how Betharian Power Plants can only be built on planets with Betharian Fields.
However perhaps the rare resource extractor buildings aren't meant to be built on any planet, but only on planets with the relevant feature as a means to upgrade production from those features and make them more relevant. Sort of like how Betharian Power Plants can only be built on planets with Betharian Fields.
- 3
Hopefully this is true, otherwise the resources will loose any sense of scarcity they had.
- 2
- 1
This is a good solution the only thing I’d add is that amenities, as a local resource, shouldn’t really have a zone dedicated to them, at least not if zones are going to be this scarce. They become essentially mandatory for most planets and that’s a big problem, since it defeats the point of the system by creating a false dilemma with a correct option and a bunch of traps.
- 5
But that's not what TheFounder was getting on my back about. Talking about a timeframe is still talking about a release date. I don't even think that's been the only mention of it.
Besides, Overlord, Galactic Paragons, AND Machine Age all dropped close to the 8th May in their respective years. It's entirely reasonable and rational to put the evidence together and presume 4.0+it's DLC will follow the same pattern, and given this thread, entirely reasonable for me to suggest that unless the Devs can really make big fixes quite quickly, trying to hit the likely May date might be a problem. And TheFounder can downvote me all he likes, but it doesn't make it not so.
I don't get what is so controversial about this thought.
Last edited:
- 7
- 2
It seems to me that putting out the beta was a really good idea because, already, some pretty severe issues are starting to surface that can now be designed out.
However, unless there has been a HUGE increase in productivity, I don't believe this will be ready to go live in May. Or around May. Or even soon after May. This isn't a criticism necessarily, but if they could work that fast last year's DLC wouldn't have had such low QA due to being too close together (it IS a criticism if they actually could have fixed IE ascension balance, storm mechanics and fauna mechanics, and just... didn't).
Based on what, last year, was too rapid to ensure proper quality, there's just no way this is going to be at an acceptable quality to go live in two months. I would enjoy being surprised, but that would be unprecedented thus far.
- 6
Why would you even think for a second that the mines aren't a bug/test/WIP thing?
I played a bit this weekend and while not everyone will agree with me I personally think that the numbers should go back to 1 instead of 100.
The reason is that there are two different scales that are not clearly delimited. Resource production follow the old scale. 100 pops will produce something like 6 minerals. On the other hand, amenities and housing follow the new scale so you have huge numbers like 6000 available houses or -20000 amenities.
I have no doubt that people will learn those two scales and it won't be that much of a problem but I feel that small numbers are way more readable. Plus gaining 0.01 pop instead of one kinda makes sense as you need 100 pops to man one "complete" job so saying that it's 1 pop feels natural. And 0.01 shows that this single extra pop doesn't change a lot in the economy. In fact I personally found no reason to track that number as precisely in the beta (as a player I mean, it's great that the game does for pop growth purpose).
I feel that the slider will also make more sense : sliding to 4 pops mean you get the base production 4 times. More intuitive than 400.
Going back to the old numbers will be more readable while not changing anything mechanically.
The reason is that there are two different scales that are not clearly delimited. Resource production follow the old scale. 100 pops will produce something like 6 minerals. On the other hand, amenities and housing follow the new scale so you have huge numbers like 6000 available houses or -20000 amenities.
I have no doubt that people will learn those two scales and it won't be that much of a problem but I feel that small numbers are way more readable. Plus gaining 0.01 pop instead of one kinda makes sense as you need 100 pops to man one "complete" job so saying that it's 1 pop feels natural. And 0.01 shows that this single extra pop doesn't change a lot in the economy. In fact I personally found no reason to track that number as precisely in the beta (as a player I mean, it's great that the game does for pop growth purpose).
I feel that the slider will also make more sense : sliding to 4 pops mean you get the base production 4 times. More intuitive than 400.
Going back to the old numbers will be more readable while not changing anything mechanically.
- 6
- 5
- 1
Do you mean the marrauders? Their raiding fleet does seem a bit excessive. No idea why, the script is still based on the year.never mind the mines, worry about the 10k pirate fleets randomly spawning
I haven't seen Pirates at all.
- 1
None of the values for threats have been changed. Which makes sense as it's a beta but with the current issues it does make it hard to progress. I wish I'd turned off midgame crisis for that reason. I'm getting hit by multiple 30k voidworm fleets and have nowhere near the economy to fight them off.
On the plus side my unemployed population grows so quickly it's outpacing their bombardment (though the devastation and spiralling economy are a pain).
Do the colonist jobs on new planets seem useless? They provide amenities and build speed, but I could just build luxury housing to cover all early amenities needs and close the colonist jobs to get the pops working in whatever I want the planet for. Build speed is meaningless because the planet develops much slower than my need for building anything new. Furthermore, there aren't many options for building at all at that stage of planet development. After you build your first zone and add your specialization building, all you do is build more districts.
- 2
I noticed the same thing. And those seem to be high priority too.
I wonder, maybe they should be changed to pop growth?
I could see people in a colonisation scenario reverting high fertility. There is plenty of land to claim, lots of work to do.
The main worry is players keeping the population numbers artificially low/never upgrading, to have a good place to grow population.
Would that really be a problem ? Having rural worlds that "feed" megaworld through migrations feel both realistic and interesting. Having rural worlds that stay that way would be a meaningful choice. This would also have the advantage of not having to concentrate on too many planets as letting some rural worlds underdevelopped would be optimal.
I think this might be a decent compromise.
I know from a programing optimization side of things it's easier to do calculations on whole numbers, but there's probably a world where pops are tracked in the larger scale on the back end but use the smaller scale in the UI and things work out fine.
They never considerd mortality for pop growth. Otherwise the Leader Age traits would have a impact here.
The huge numbers were one of my main complains against the main system. Dealing with 1000 housing or -500 amenities just isn't intuitive and doesn't look great on the UI. Not to mention that these are the values that appear at the start of the game, get to mid or late game and you'll have numbers that are at least 1-2 orders of magnitude larger which will probably bug out the parent interface while being unreadable.
- 1
It may not have been clear but the change would be only cosmetic. Calculations in the background would still be exactly the same. Just the number shown to the player for pops, amenities and housing are divided by 100 even if they are still "normal" in the game.
The goal is readability. 15421 is longer to parse for a human* than 154 and I am not sure the trailing numbers are useful for the player (they could be displayed if you put the cursor on it but having short readable numbers when you only vaguely look at the page should be the norm).
*yes its still a fraction of a second but in a game with a lot of numbers like stellaris, that can matter. 15000 and 150000 are harder to separate at a glance than 150 and 1500
- 1
- 1