Stellaris 3.99.3 'Phoenix' Open Beta Release Notes

[Idle America]

Question: is it currently, or will it be, possible to permanently destroy habitats? Last I checked, hitting it with a planet cracker just leaves it floating as it repairs over time. I want these things obliterated, gone, permanently.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Just wanted to focus a bit on this bit here, as I agree in theory but not in practice.

There are currently six Research Buildings (Ignoring Archaeostudies as that's Empire 1), as it seems Institute has become Planet Limit 1. These are Research Labs (+20% Research, +60 to each Research Job), Research Complexes (-20% Researcher Upkeep), Advanced Research Complexes (+16% Job Efficiency and +600 of each Research Job), Research Institute (+2 Research from each Research Job, at the cost of +1 Consumer Goods Upkeep), and Automation Building (Currently doesn't seem to do anything, but I assume will lower the amount of pops needed to fill up the workspace), and Astral Studies. We need to sacrifice three of these. This is an incredibly simple choice. Research has been, is, and always will be the best thing to get. This is true for most 4X Games, and there's no real way around it. Research Labs, Advanced Research Complexes, and Research Institute are going to boost your Research by a very large margin. Sure this will be at the cost of Consumer Goods, but Consumer Goods are not necessarily difficult to come by, by the time you're getting these buildings. You almost certainly will have a Factory World up and running, and if need be you can have Trade make up any difference you might need. This would net you +660 Reserach Jobs to each category, +20% Research, +16% Job Effeciency, and +2 Research from every Researcher, which you will likely have 1,260+ depending on Planet Size. I could see some cases where maybe you're hurting for Consumer Goods so you take the -20% Upkeep, but you would only do that UNTIL you get your Consumer Goods to where it needs to be so you could go back to getting one of those other buffs to your Research.

This is what I would call a false choice. It's the illusion of choice, without there being much at all. There will always be edge cases where more unorthodox picks are better of course, but those are the small minority. You could argue it just needs "number tweaking", but anything that boosts your Research will almost always come out on top over something simply reducing your Upkeep unless you make the number ridiculous. This will be true for basically every Zone the way 4.0 is currently shaping up. You'll get three Building Slots, identical type buildings (Increasing Output, reducing Upkeep, ect) and you'll likely pick the same choices as you did for the Research equivalent unless you're in a niche situation.

You cut out a bunch of stuff after that that addresses a chunk of your points! But I'll work from there anyway.

1) The Automation buildings do nothing yet but yes I believe the plan is for them to reduce the number of pops needed to fully work a job. What you're describing is what's best when you have a glut of pops and limited land to put them on, but in a situation where space is plentiful but pops are scarce a 20% reduction in pop requirements for a job is a larger bonus than +20% to pop output, and extra researcher jobs are no good to you if you can't fill them. So even if we strip the options down to RL, ARC, RI, and Automation, it comes down to whether you care more about pop efficiency vs land efficiency. If you care more about pop efficiency (and the numbers are built out right) then one of RL, ARC, or RI has to go.

2) Even if this weren't the case, the upkeep reducer unlocks before most of the others. Do you build it now and replace later, not bother to build it, or build it now and leave it be? These are all choices.

3) Even if they all unlocked simultaneously or you've already researched all the buildings, on any planet where you've placed an empire unique or planet feature building you're knocking your free slots down to 2. So you now need to pick the 2 out of the 3 obvious winners that best match the empire unique or planet feature you're exploiting. e: and I'll sling DLC in here too - if astrals do end up being science only then planets optimised for science and planets optimised for astral thread production would be two distinct catagories of planet.

4) Even if all the above weren't factors, your example is specific to science and maybe unity. Reducing CG upkeep isn't that important because there's a lot of ways to streamline the minerals -> cg pipeline, but in CG production you may value getting the most CG per mineral more than you care about getting the most CG per building or per pop. Energy and Food have similar soft caps to CG, and alloys have no cap but definitely care about mineral efficiency as much as they do land use.

and 5) Even if 1) we ignore the automation buildings or are snowed under with pops and 2) we've unlocked all the applicable building techs and 3) we're only talking about boring planets and 4) we're specifically talking about science (and maybe unity) then... that's fine? Good even. If I'm slamming down unnamed science planet number 36 on the way to mop up the prethoryn horde then it being something I can trust to the planet automation to make the obvious choice is not a bad thing. At that point we want the decision making process to scale out. If I'm still needing to think hard about cookie cutter planets at that point in the game, something has gone wrong.

...and even then that's only the standard engame setup for regular empires. If your civics grant you a special science building then there being a "standard" endgame science planet setup will make your civic feel all the more impactful by messing with the tried and true formula.

So while I agree with your point about theory vs practice in theory...

 

[Iadria]

Also, why can't you build temples in Unity zones?

 

[SarahGabriella]

I dont really like the trade logistics for fleet upkeep thing. Would a malevolent empire want their fleets to be funded by trade, which they may not even have, to fund their fleets rather than their treasury from taxes?

 

[Mech_infect]

just a moment with precursors. I thought there would be a choice of precursors for the race, but we choose available precursors in the galaxy as a whole. Okay, stop, but it would be better for roleplaying and building a race to choose a precursor in the race creation window itself, and then let it take into account what is available in the galaxy and what is not. Will this moment still change?

 

[Drokslit]

I played a game all the way to the end-game crisis and the entire time I felt I was floating a ton of resources. I had small bouts of scarcity but they disappeared quickly. I was playing a mechanist origin so a bunch of robots with my organic pops. I'm not sure if the AI wasn't lobotomized I would be more pressured to focus on military and wouldn't be able to max out economy and the numbers would make more sense. As it stands now though, I felt I could too easily get to social welfare and then utopian abundance on all my pops with a full stack of all the other resources including alloys.

I did notice also sometimes some pops were bouncing around jobs quickly, but it was happening intermittently so never was sure what the environment was that caused that.

Zones seem like it'll be impossible to play tall. I always play wide, so its not a big deal for me, but I seriously think the zone/district system will need some tweaking for that kind of play style. I do like the addition of urban and industry zones, that looks like it'll help, but it still seems to encourage wide game play.

Overall I like the changes (ESPECIALLY THE END GAME PERFORMANCE IS MUCH BETTER), but it feels difficult to give good or accurate feedback when it's not clear what works and what doesn't (I went bio ascendancy and I was never 100% sure if the cloning vats worked, it looked like they did... but was never 100% sure... The clinics didnt work, right?).

 

[Anonim97]

It might sounds stupid, but I kinda wish that Zones rather than adding X jobs per development it would remove X basic jobs and add Y jobs in it's place.

Like for example a City Districts gives 1000 housing and XYZ citizens/clerks/laborers/whatever, right? Right now Research Zone gives you +180 researchers in total to add to that. But what if Research Zone would remove that 180 (or more) jobs from that citizen/clerk/whatever pool and give the 180 to researcher?

 

[Imp0815]

Still, while I'll be the first to admit there are balance issues--do you build an industrial zone first, or research--I think its something that with balance can get you pretty far. certainty far enough to start building robots and using them to settle planets. the biggest issue I can see is unity--for leader upkeep--or research. And of course you have to go research, and that might see you fire high level leaders to keep unity upkeep down.

Gai world might be in worse condition, because you want have angulars to give you a rather large cg buffer. I didn't choose that because I was worried they hadn't been given the balance pass 'regular' ocean planets have.

We shall see how this goes into the future. but I think with a little balance this should work out surprisingly well.

You instantly research Planetary Unification for the third zone.
Then, with the third zone, you choose Research.
One Urban, one Industrial, one Research—and in the Urban zone, you build Admin for Unity and replace the basic Admin, as it’s worse than the standard one.

This is well put and is what I was trying to say with my previous comment. There's plenty of buildings that I could see affecting the zones they're in differently and resulting in a different feel. I'm not 100% sold on zones as we're still testing but to me that's the key difference between the three layer system and a two layer one. In two layers a building might affect the output of a particular job but it will be fixed, meaning you'd need to have many more buildings if you want all the effects.

I see another issue with that: if we introduce this layer of Zone = X Buildings, we’ll end up in an intransparent mess over time.
With the content strategy of PDX, we’ll eventually need Reddit-style cheat sheets just to know which zone allows which building. Right now, it’s simple—but imagine we introduce more and more buildings via DLC, and some might not fit into the zones we have. Then what do we do?
Streamline the zones even more so players don’t get confused about which building goes where? Build massive tooltips that show which building will be available in which zone for each one?
It’s just issue after issue with this new system—every time someone points out a positive, two more problems pop up.

Zones seem like it'll be impossible to play tall. I always play wide, so its not a big deal for me, but I seriously think the zone/district system will need some tweaking for that kind of play style. I do like the addition of urban and industry zones, that looks like it'll help, but it still seems to encourage wide game play.

As the city districts and zones provide more jobs—and three zones should be able to provide three different types of job output per planet—you can manage with fewer planets that are more diverse in output in theory.
However, the new zone system and the stacking of zones also seem like a big drawback for tall empires and a benefit for wide ones. But let’s be honest, the debate around whether "Tall vs. Wide" even exists as a concept in Stellaris isn’t really settled.
It mostly depends on what the devs perceive as tall or wide and how they design around that. Maybe it’s just our perception that this new system heavily favors wide playstyles, and there’s no real design intent for tall at all?

 

[Newbee53]

I dont really like the trade logistics for fleet upkeep thing. Would a malevolent empire want their fleets to be funded by trade, which they may not even have, to fund their fleets rather than their treasury from taxes?

A malevolent empire still gets its economic wealth from internal taxation which, still has to be spent on managing logistics.

 

[Critical Ethics]

I see another issue with that: if we introduce this layer of Zone = X Buildings, we’ll end up in an intransparent mess over time.
With the content strategy of PDX, we’ll eventually need Reddit-style cheat sheets just to know which zone allows which building. Right now, it’s simple—but imagine we introduce more and more buildings via DLC, and some might not fit into the zones we have. Then what do we do?
Streamline the zones even more so players don’t get confused about which building goes where? Build massive tooltips that show which building will be available in which zone for each one?
It’s just issue after issue with this new system—every time someone points out a positive, two more problems pop up.

This is something that I've previously referred to as "Fanatic Pessimism".

Firstly, that spreadsheet is going to exist anyway. It's called the wiki.

Secondly, for something like buildings changing function depending on location the key is restraint. The boring, basic, workaday buildings? Yeah, they should be straightforward in their placements and function. If every third building does whacky stuff depending on placement that's not going to work. But for the exceptions? More options is good. Empire uniques, event buildings, planet feature unlocks are fun if they're weird - they're things you plan a planet around, but have no bearing on your day to day. It's fun for civic unlocks to be fiddly for basically the opposite reason - they're empire defining and will be very much on your mind at all times anyway.

Assuming that a fun tool to be pulled out when appropriate is inevitably going to lead to an overly complex mess of interlocking dependencies is a layer of doom and gloom that just... look I don't say this lightly, but you should go outside and touch grass. For your health.

 

[Thiend]

Still think Ascension Theory needs a guaranteed fallback option though.

I'm actually surprised it isn't, because I commented that it should be on the dev diary about them just that and they said it was a good idea.

Perhaps they aren't complete yet.

 

[Newbee53]

I'm actually surprised it isn't, because I commented that it should be on the dev diary about them just that and they said it was a good idea.

Perhaps they aren't complete yet.

I feel like in one of the streams they mentioned that they've been deliberately avoiding the focus stuff for the DLCs, and that when that is added they will be working out which rewards are needed for which DLCs. along with probably adding more reward levels. So, I suspect ascension theory will be added in there. Aren't Ascension perks in a DLC anyway?

 

[Thiend]

I feel like in one of the streams they mentioned that they've been deliberately avoiding the focus stuff for the DLCs, and that when that is added they will be working out which rewards are needed for which DLCs. along with probably adding more reward levels. So, I suspect ascension theory will be added in there. Aren't Ascension perks in a DLC anyway?

Yes, and Ascension Theory is too, so if they said they're leaving DLC stuff for later (this is increasingly seeming like too much to do in a month, but I digress) that explains it.

 

[Imp0815]

This is something that I've previously referred to as "Fanatic Pessimism".

Firstly, that spreadsheet is going to exist anyway. It's called the wiki.

Secondly, for something like buildings changing function depending on location the key is restraint. The boring, basic, workaday buildings? Yeah, they should be straightforward in their placements and function. If every third building does whacky stuff depending on placement that's not going to work. But for the exceptions? More options is good. Empire uniques, event buildings, planet feature unlocks are fun if they're weird - they're things you plan a planet around, but have no bearing on your day to day. It's fun for civic unlocks to be fiddly for basically the opposite reason - they're empire defining and will be very much on your mind at all times anyway.

Assuming that a fun tool to be pulled out when appropriate is inevitably going to lead to an overly complex mess of interlocking dependencies is a layer of doom and gloom that just... look I don't say this lightly, but you should go outside and touch grass. For your health.

It's neat that we found one another—one called the "Fanatic Pessimist," the other I call the "Delusional Optimist". But let us not dissolve into personal attacks—let’s keep this civil.

A wiki is useful for some aspects, but I don’t want to rely on sources outside the game to constantly remind me how things actually work - I'll play PoE for that - I highly doubt we’ll get a convincing and, more importantly, usable UX for the perceived diversity of buildings and zones you’re imagining.

Can you telling me exactly why the features you describe—which, by the way, I’m really in favor of; I had the most fun with the game by using all the Planetary Diversity mods from Gateman and Guilli's Planet Modifiers and Features - Can only exists with the new zones?

 

[Critical Ethics]

It's neat that we found one another—one called the "Fanatic Pessimist," the other I call the "Delusional Optimist". But let us not dissolve into personal attacks—let’s keep this civil.

I have concerns! Many concerns! Pretty much every one of my posts contain at least one "(assuming they don't screw up the numbers)" or similar. My general attitude is "Wow, this has a lot of promise, assuming they don't do any of the half dozen pitfalls I immediately spotted from the description". But I'm in this weird role of forum optimist because I keep responding to posts saying "There is no possible way for this to work and all roads lead to ruin" with extremely straightforward examples of roads that do not. That doesn't mean I'm 100%, absolutely, positively sure that a ruinless road will be followed, I just don't agree with the "I can't see ANYTHING zones are good for or ever could be good for!!!" miseryposting.

A wiki is useful for some aspects, but I don’t want to rely on sources outside the game to constantly remind me how things actually work - I'll play PoE for that - I highly doubt we’ll get a convincing and, more importantly, usable UX for the perceived diversity of buildings and zones you’re imagining.

There's the new in-game databank too.

Can you telling me exactly why the features you describe—which, by the way, I’m really in favor of; I had the most fun with the game by using all the Planetary Diversity mods from Gateman and Guilli's Planet Modifiers and Features - Can only exists with the new zones?

Why on earth would I do that? There are many possible implementations that could do what I described. If you mean tell you exactly why zones would make it easier and give greater design space than the previous planets-and-districts model, I already did that here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=30250405

 

[Iadria]

Why on earth would I do that? There are many possible implementations that could do what I described. If you mean tell you exactly why zones would make it easier and give greater design space than the previous planets-and-districts model, I already did that here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/goto/post?id=30250405

I am fairly pessimistic about zones but I think this is actually a great explanation of the benefits w/r/t the design space; this makes more sense to me than what Eladrin wrote about them (and that's maybe my fault for not following his reasoning to the logical conclusion).

 

[SarahGabriella]

I am fairly pessimistic about zones but I think this is actually a great explanation of the benefits w/r/t the design space; this makes more sense to me than what Eladrin wrote about them (and that's maybe my fault for not following his reasoning to the logical conclusion).

I not convinced this new system is better than what we already have. Tho i will see when its out how its gonna feel.

 

[SarahGabriella]

It's neat that we found one another—one called the "Fanatic Pessimist," the other I call the "Delusional Optimist". But let us not dissolve into personal attacks—let’s keep this civil.

A wiki is useful for some aspects, but I don’t want to rely on sources outside the game to constantly remind me how things actually work - I'll play PoE for that - I highly doubt we’ll get a convincing and, more importantly, usable UX for the perceived diversity of buildings and zones you’re imagining.

Can you telling me exactly why the features you describe—which, by the way, I’m really in favor of; I had the most fun with the game by using all the Planetary Diversity mods from Gateman and Guilli's Planet Modifiers and Features - Can only exists with the new zones?

That wasnt a personal attack, it was a generalized statement and its not wrong. Some folk are overly concerned about development of a project theyre not a part of.

We always got some very intuitive and somewhat easy to understand UI and UX.

Let them cook. It will be fine, balance wise. Question is, will it satisfy players?