Stellaris 3.99.7 'Phoenix' Open Beta Release Notes

[Ilab]

Yes, from the moment uncapped devastation was announced in the DD as a consequence of having a storm people said it was not a good idea. Devastation impacts a lot of things on the planet, such as housing, amenities, and job output, and the storms already have built-in modifiers like "X job's upkeep is increased" so it was double-dipping on the penalties.

Cosmic Storms is by far the worst-rated Stellaris DLC released and the only one where people actively recommend those with the expansion pass or subscription disable it. You can argue that people don't understand the mechanics properly, or they undervalue burning limited building slots on storm buildings to negate the storms, or they don't appreciate the ability to bully an AI that can't cope with them, but if you're a company that makes a product and wants to sell more of that product, it's not a bad idea to try and make a poorly-perceived product more appealing. The Custodians have done that with other DLC too.

And this is a valid and solid reason. I agree entirely. If it is something that is causing issues, it should be fixed. I AGREE 200%.

But the issue with the thread (the thread to which you replied to) is that it was about people complaining without understanding it, not: it is bad, but has to be in the game!

In fact, I said that I hated the change as I love the storms, and when I paid for the DLC there was devastation announced there, I liked it. It meant that I had some subterfurge things to do. Now, lets say they remove it. I won't be happy about it. And if you or anyone else comes and says that it is OK because they didn't like it, then my response will be exactly the same. I do like it. If you additionally mention things that are wrong, then I will correct them and state that you are wrong and don't understand the system.

People might get salty or whatever, and the point was never a you have to like it, it was about ME liking it, and someone saying things that are just wrong. It was never about they having to like the storms, nor whether or not everybody should like them. So yes, I agree with your post, but it is not exactly related to the topic we where talking through the thread (again, by thread I mean the one you replied to, not the entire forum thread obviously) so far.

And to close, I even said in a previous comment that the actual solution should be to have a toggle at game settings: Dangerous Storms (or whatever name) If marked, they do devastation as of now, if not, they don't. I am utterly confident that it would not take a huge amount of hours to do it (considering that they just disabled it right now in the beta from a build to another, so it clearly doesn't take a year to do).

And, I am not laying here, if the storms don't cause devastations, then the DLC becomes crap for me. If you take storms the 'risk' part, it stops being a risk-reward mechanic and becomes a just 'reward' one. While some people might like it, some don't. I am sure I am not the only one. And for me at least, we have plenty of +X% output for Y jobs etc. So if it is just for that I don't care about the DLC, the most exciting thing for me was the entire subterfuge of it.

So, again, a toggle, everybody can be happy the way they want.

As a key note btw, this change would make storms even worse (mechanically and thematically, regardless of whether or not you like the devastation I am assuming that is obviously more rich mechanics and thematic wise if they do so) actually as they lose all their 'danger', so they would in fact be even more ignored. The change would make the DLC more boring and empty, for instance, what purpose do the buildings now have, if the storms won't cause devastation. I mean, by everybody's logic so far, if they where so badly interacting with storms and even ignoring them, then now that they wont cause devastation there is even less of a reasons to interact with them. Half the DLC becomes useless and worst. This is, again, regardless of whether someone likes it or not, an objective observation. If the MAIN REASON for half the content goes away, then half the interactions go with it. And, again, you can defend against storms very well, a hunkered down planet ignores 80% of the negative effects on planets and with planetary shields (bonus points with a scientist) you can endure any storm for literal decades, it will be gone before that. So it can be managed. I think that the entire argument about wasting an slot in a building in some places (you dont even need it on each planet'system btw) is extremely similar to someone complaining that penetration weapons should not exist because now they have to waste an slot on hardening, or that missiles/strike craft shouldn't exist because now you need to waste several slots in PD. It is extremely similar if you think about it. In any case, a toggle should please everybody.

EDIT: I just want to say that I am really happy they are making the devastation a slider. It solves it for all sides, besides it seems that it can go from x0 to x5. Yeah, you know, even worse weather everywhere now

 

[Ilab]

Except the DLC had at the start some serious storm-related issues.
2 hours is plenty to experience a year 10 Nexus Storm or the broken fleet movement. Those aren't things "you can learn" how to deal with them. Those were plain out broken. And is the storm fleet movement even fixed?

So, no, that is not "enough evidence".

You are mixing things however. The 10y nexus was bad, yes. And it was also fixed. And yes, the storms movement is fixed.

So while what you said did happen, then by your logic: should we remove absolutely everything in the game that had some bugs on release that made it bad?

I know you know the answer: no.

If we do we lose half the game as all DLC have had issues at launch. Judging the current storms by problems that don't exist anymore is ridiculous.

 

[Troyen]

I mean, I fully expect within a few years they're going to rework storms entirely, but given everything else going into 4.0, removing the devastation was the easiest way to address the biggest complaint about them right now to maybe get people to stop turning the DLC off. (And personally I'd be fine if Nexus storms specifically kept their devastation.)

I also wouldn't say they've lost all their negatives. There's a post on reddit about every week where someone is confused why they suddenly have a massive energy deficit and it's because their fleet got caught in a magnetic storm. And there's that one storm that damages your ships while they're in it, so you still have to account for that when making warfare plans. But yes, in a lot of ways they're forgettable - and that's true on live even with the devastation.

(I'd also love as a QoL feature to not have that storm klaxon blare in my headphones for storms more than 1.5 Irelands away from me as they are nowhere near as relevant or urgent as the alert makes them sound.)

 

[Ilab]

That's how zones and buildings interact. You make a science zone, which (even before you build anything in it) means you get a certain amount of scientists per city district. Each new city district also adds scientists. As your colony grows, so does your infrastructure, its just that instead of going city -> unlock slot -> build a science building the "science building" is built into the city itself. That's what I mean by false choices - if I've decided a planet is for scienceing on then I've already decided a planet is for sciencing on, so there's no need for the game to keep asking me "but are you sure you want to add more scientists to this science planet?"

Click button -> get more city, with scientist in. Much smoother, much nicer, for me anyway.

The beta's missing a bunch of them but the intent is that you have 6+ different possible job modifying buildings and you choose the 3 best for your current building setup. The beta starts you off with nothing but a repeatable building that just adds 200 scientist jobs, which is stupid, but if we ignore that building then what happens is you build your science zone, then put in whatever 3 building combo of the following best suits your planet:

-20% upkeep
+16% to bonus workforce (which for the manufactured resources come with increased CG upkeep through the base game mechanics), SR upkeep on building
+2 to each research type/+1 CG upkeep, SR upkeep on building
+XX% to regular workforce (automation building, decreases pops needed to fill a job, it's in the beta but just as a dummy building that does nothing)
+X jobs of one researcher type, -20% upkeep to that researcher type
A bunch of weird buildings you unlock from weird stuff

It's basically a build your own resource booster system.

Amenities are entirely a planet level resource. There's no empire level stockpile. It didn't make sense to keep it as a zone because it was a non-choice - every planet needs locally produced amenities, so the choice is in the what, not the if. Not every planet needs locally produced cg or alloys or unity or research or trade and the excess goes to the empire stockpile, so under or over producing on a particular planet is not the imminent game death that it seems to be being made out to be, and picking the best zones to pair with each other and the best buildings to compliment each other's zones is how you fine tune it. "I'm low on CG so I built another CG producer" isn't a puzzle, it's just busywork.

Planets absolutely solve themselves in 3.1? There's a point where you run out of space to build and space for pops and the planet just becomes a place for pops to emigrate from to other planets. If you've never "solved" a single planet in 3.1 you've never seen the endgame.

E: that last bit was rhetorical flourish, not an accusation.

Which is why I don't like the big bucket system. I don't find them hard choices, just a tedious reinforcement of choices I made some time ago spitting out resources mostly divorced from the context of the planet they're built on. With zones you make two big choices (what are this planet's t2 exports?) each with 3 sub-choices (and how much do I value input efficiency vs per-job output vs per-pop output vs weirder manipulation?). Then you have to work with those choices (or make the big choice to completely restructure a planet), and they're reinforced every time time you grow your infrastructure. Hard choices that stick with no followup false choices - that's zones.

With a little cleanup of the actual building selection that is. Zones will live or die based on building setup and the beta got real dire when the repeatable statics came in.

I just want to chime in and say that while I agree with you in all parts related to zones being more 'confortable' or requireing less baby sitting than the current system, there is a related issue that you are not noticing.

Currently I have 100% control (even if needy or tiresome) over my planets, I know that I have 5 research labs with its 10 researchers producing a total of X and having an upkeep of Y in Z planet.

With zones one problem that shows up is that as you add other zones, and since they scale their jobs from the cities, then you suddenly can end with XX jobs producing YY resource that you don't need or want and having ZZ upkeep that is hurting you. BUT, it can be solved (which some people seem to be struggling a bit with, or at least not talking about it) which is adjust job priorities.

Now, judging by the 2 prior points, then zones are great right? I mean, the only problem they seem to have is 'less control' of the quantity of jobs, as you can handle that with the job sliders. Correct, but then we have the same problem you complained about earlier: which is that with the current system you need to babysit your planets too much. Well, now you will need to, just that instead of being about buildings is going to be about jobs and their sliders on each planet.

The issue with zones is that if I need X and Y resources on a planet for whatever reason, then there is a HUGE issue. For comparison lets use an example. Lets say you are stuck with 6 planets and can't expand no more. 5 of those planets are already full and producing whatever is needed and are OK (well set). The 6th one is new, so you want to build it up, lets say you need more CGs and research as you are lacking behind, comparison of both systems:
-in the current system you can build some industry districts in the 6th planet and a few research labs, the exact ratio can be tailored to your needs. So lets say that by your current demands you need 10 artisans and 4 researchers, that is 5 (or 10, depending on if you set the planet as factory or not) industrial districts and exactly 2 research labs.
-in the new system, you need to either set the zone in which case you won't end with 5 artisans and 4 researchers but the same quantity of both, either overproducing one resource (not a big deal most of the time, unless it spirals on causing a deficit of something else ofc) or overproducing research likely an issue as now you need more artisans, which in turn creates more researchers and so on. With the zones you can't (unless you use the job sliders like previously said) add 1 job without the other, causing severe economic spirals in some cases. If creating an +X jobs building is an option then it is valid, and you probably will have to do it. But then, aren't we in the same spot you said you didn't like? Which is having to babysit planets a lot?

In the end, zones are easier and more 'confy' to work with, yes. But that is until you find an issue with some resource and then they are MUCH MUCH worse than the current system, requiring you to invest much more time in building certain buildings, changing a zone or adjusting the job sliders.

I believe that a lot of the reasons why these issues have not become so obvious for some is because in the beta it is not as likely for the player to reach said spirals, so a lot of people have been able to see the 'good' side of zones, without having to deal with the 'ugly' one. Either because they played good and didn't had issues or just because they tested things, but in a real game you can and will be put in situations in which managing zones is much worse than the current system. Keep in mind that in the beta the AI is very bad still and we are having plenty of help to test things, but in real games where expansion can get curtailed or a planet be lost, this is a major issue.

And a final note, now playing tall became even harder IMO, for the aforementioned reasons, since exact control of your jobs is harder then playing in a way that essentially specializes in it is harder. Key word being harder, not worst nor impossible. Just a lot more work.

 

[Psykhes]

You are mixing things however. The 10y nexus was bad, yes. And it was also fixed. And yes, the storms movement is fixed.

So while what you said did happen, then by your logic: should we remove absolutely everything in the game that had some bugs on release that made it bad?

That isn't "my logic".

I was simply responding to your statement that
people complaining about Cosmic Storms 2 hours after release = proof that people complained about Cosmic Storms because they did not bother to learn their mechanics

And this statement is false. Because, as said, there were major bugs at release. Which in themselves were plenty of reason to complain about Cosmic Storms only 2 hours after release.
That those bugs are now fixed does not in any way invalidate this. With "this" being that "complaint 2 hours after release" is NOT "proof the complainer did not bother to learn mechanics".

 

[Critical Ethics]

After some come and forth I asked him (because he was obviously playing something different) when was the last time he played a leader build of sorts. His answer? Right after paragon released. Since then he just ignores them he said.

So, yeah, he just jumped on the post to defend something even with data more outdated than my grandmas panties :v

...OK I'm going entirely off your post here but if their argument was purely numbers based (and the argument was made after the change) that makes no sense because the new numbers are about on par with the old numbers, what's being cut down is notification spam. If they were saying they disengaged from a entire section of the game because they couldn't handle the spam then that's relevant info regarding a change intended to cut down on notification spam. If they wanted to say that they couldn't handle the spam but they, consciously or otherwise, felt that that they should argue about number crunch and concrete "facts" rather than "fluffier" things like "it's incredibly distracting so I just turned it off entirely" then that's incredibly common and part of why it's so frustrating getting feedback from users sometimes.

Gonna find out in a bit that it was me arguing with you in a conversation I'd forgotten entirely arent I lol

 

[Ilab]

I mean, I fully expect within a few years they're going to rework storms entirely, but given everything else going into 4.0, removing the devastation was the easiest way to address the biggest complaint about them right now to maybe get people to stop turning the DLC off. (And personally I'd be fine if Nexus storms specifically kept their devastation.)

I also wouldn't say they've lost all their negatives. There's a post on reddit about every week where someone is confused why they suddenly have a massive energy deficit and it's because their fleet got caught in a magnetic storm. And there's that one storm that damages your ships while they're in it, so you still have to account for that when making warfare plans. But yes, in a lot of ways they're forgettable - and that's true on live even with the devastation.

(I'd also love as a QoL feature to not have that storm klaxon blare in my headphones for storms more than 1.5 Irelands away from me as they are nowhere near as relevant or urgent as the alert makes them sound.)

Well, they have not lost ALL, that might be an exaggeration, but would lose the meaningful ones. For instance, that is as simple as moving the ships out of the storm into another base which can open up an attack opportunity in that front, or eat the costs.

Regarding the damage part and the cosmic storms effects in general, to be honest, that is pretty meaningless. 20 damage PER MONTH, is nothing in a fight, and if the ships are docked they do not receive damage at all, so it only affects ships traveling, and again, at a meager 20 dmg per month, not a big deal. Specially considering that you have tech for it. Storms are, like many other things, something that you are supposed to use tech and buildings to deal with. Just how you need tech for everything, you need tech to make storms better for your planets and less dangerous for your fleets.

Storms are only really dangerous for people that don't protect against them, which seems to be a lot of people, but the same can be said of every other system. Neglected ships, get rekt. Low science output? Rekt. Didnt expand and your build is not good for tall play? Rekt. Yet, I don't see that many people complaining about those other things.

Instead most of the complains from storms can be OBJECTIVELY (which means that I am talking not about whether you like them or not, you are free to do as you prefer ofc, but I mean being objective about them) can be summarized as: I don't want to have to deal with storms. Which is fair from a preference perspective, but not from a mechanical perspective. To put some context, is like me saying to remove war because I do not want to deal with it. On my war crimes simulator? Crazy!

You get the drill, a storm is no so different from other systems of the game mechanics wise, it is just that for some reason people don't invest enough on them. And I already have a post on the forums about them with some math, if you are interested to see my point, then check it out. It has information that a lot of people don't seem to understand, like the fact that you don't need storm repellant buildings everywhere (heck, sometimes you don't need a single 1). And I have several saves that I can share with anyone to prove it, I have had 0 buildings for them, and still didn't get hit by more than 1 (the 1st one you cant avoid and actually need to unlock the tech earlier) and no, it is not with storm chasers. So it is possible if you dig in the mechanics.

ACTUALLY I think that the worst think of the DLC is how the mechanics are not that well documented. For instance, a lot of people don't understand exactly of repel works, nor know that storms don't approach eachother if they cana void it, nor that they cans it on a system for a HUGE time (forever actually) without needing to sustain them, soy ou can even quarantine or enclose storms in places. Wheter you do that to keep storms out, to keep them in, or even funnier, to redirect future storms to certain places (again, using the info that storms try not to touch eachother) then you cand o a lot fo fun things. It is not just about +X or -X for storms. As a mechanic they are very interesting, I also believe they could and should be much better mind you, but also think that they are one of the best mechanics the game has. Not to mention that are quite unique in terms of how they work and the idea of risk-reward, but some people only want the reward part

In fact (and this is not directed at you specifically, just something general), I find it somewhat funny that a lot of people is saying that the devastation was complained a lot about (which is true) and it should be fixed. But the same people don't mention anything about other things that also got complained about and nothing was done, like the fact that the storm tech makes storms useless in their tactical role, a single tech (dont even need 100%) is enough to make their damage useless and most of their effects crap.

 

[Ilab]

That isn't "my logic".

I was simply responding to your statement that
people complaining about Cosmic Storms 2 hours after release = proof that people complained about Cosmic Storms because they did not bother to learn their mechanics

And this statement is false. Because, as said, there were major bugs at release. Which in themselves were plenty of reason to complain about Cosmic Storms only 2 hours after release.
That those bugs are now fixed does not in any way invalidate this. With "this" being that "complaint 2 hours after release" is NOT "proof the complainer did not bother to learn mechanics".

Ah, fair. But while some post where about those bugs for instance, some (a lot) where not.

For instance, the nexus storm generated a lot of threads, which was good as it got fixed fast thanks to that. But there where also lots of post about things like: oh no, now I need to waste a building slot to repel storms in my research planet. Funny thing, the repeling buildings give researchers while at that. This is just one of many examples of ppl complaining 2h into the DLC without knowledge of it (not surprising, ppl sometimes complain even before the DLC drops, just from the streams, etc)

And, while your point is fair, it is also flawed by the same logic you are using. Sure, saying that complaining less than 2h is proof that ppl didn't learn the mechanics (which btw the 2h is an exaggeration ofc, I just mean very close to DLC release) saying that because people complained about some glaring issue, it is proof that people did put effort.

In fact, and using that data as an example, most post about the nexus one went something along the lines of:
1. Vent about the storm destroying the run (fair)
2. How the problem was that it ocurred too soon, before something could be done (also fair, but also implying that the issue was the storm appearing too soon more than the devastation itself etc)

So these posts where actually (many of them at least) made by people that did take the time. Which is great! And doesn't contradicts what I said. As I DID NOT say that everybody that complained about anything was some idiot that didn't put effort. That is not at all what I said, which you seem to be implying (consciously or not). My point was that there is a lot of people that don't know the mechanics well, and proof of that is that a lot (again, not all) of people complained about things less than 2h after release (again, the 2h is just a figure of speech). Sure, some people complained with data.

But a lot did without it. And that is what this thread that you replied to is about. If you read the comments before that, some things are just wrong. You don't need advanced knowledge of storms to notice that. For instance, someone said that storms devastation are their only subterfurge interaction, which is wrong, storms can increase upkeep of jobs and ships, disable shields etc (even if tech later ruins the fun for it sadly) nor that you coudl'nt do much about storms devastation, which is also wrong.

So, yes, it is fair what you mention, but since I didn't say it applied to every single person that complained, it doesn't apply to my comment. I mentioned 2 things as proof of it, one being that ppl complained of some things too soon and the other that some people was jut saying things that are plain wrong. So my argument still stands.

Perhaps the missing bit was to put the word 'some' before the word people to make it less generalistic, but stuff that happens. The point is (and was): a lot (not all ofc) of people complaining about storms say things that are plainly wrong, and it can be evidenced in some of the posts here, as well as some of the posts people made when the DLC had just released and there was little or no information on several things (and now adding) as well as bugs. Key addition the bug part, as it is a different issue altogether. But a lot of people are still living in the first day of the DLC's release, in fact I believe that it is even possible that some people might have disabled the DLC during the bug and never reenabled it afterwards (I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case considering what has been seeing here beforem take this beta for example, ppl complaining/defending about things that where in the first beta release and have been fixed, once asked they say something like: oh, i hadn't have time to play the beta yet, or only played the Xst release etc) Not related to the point though.

 

[Ilab]

...OK I'm going entirely off your post here but if their argument was purely numbers based (and the argument was made after the change) that makes no sense because the new numbers are about on par with the old numbers, what's being cut down is notification spam. If they were saying they disengaged from a entire section of the game because they couldn't handle the spam then that's relevant info regarding a change intended to cut down on notification spam. If they wanted to say that they couldn't handle the spam but they, consciously or otherwise, felt that that they should argue about number crunch and concrete "facts" rather than "fluffier" things like "it's incredibly distracting so I just turned it off entirely" then that's incredibly common and part of why it's so frustrating getting feedback from users sometimes.

Gonna find out in a bit that it was me arguing with you in a conversation I'd forgotten entirely arent I lol

Leaving that discussion aside (which was dumb to be honest, as once the point about he not having played since paragons made the entire thing ridiculous), the numbers are not exactly the same.

I have no idea who was honestly, it was about a week or so ago, and on reddit.

Regarding the other points, I agree with the idea, but I think the solution is wrong.

If the issue is notification spam:
-fix notifications. (Which has been done already)

If the issue is them being 'needy':
-use auto trait selection (this is the exact same that people said at some point about planets and ships, and we got auto design and planet automation for it, they didn't remove part of the systems, they added automation to it)

If the issue is (which is not, according to the devs) leaders being OP:
-rework the traits themselves (this would be great anyways as some of them are bad as hell and some are just must picks)

NOTE: There is a TLDR at the end of the post.

Now, the problem is that, even if numbers where the same (which are not, more on that later) leaders feel worse for no reasons. Previously each level felt good, now only some do. We are at the mercy of RNG even more than before (the devs said so themselves, they added +1 trait to help with it, it helps, but the root of the problem still exists). Traits are much less balanced. Leveling is a worst process than before.

Why some of the points above? Well, lets take a simple example, both in the current and new system. In both cases the leader levels up and have bad luck on the first (which means they only had bad traits to pick, bad is not negative, just bad) 2 picks, lets also assume that leveling takes 5y per level (which is not true, each level takes more, but for simplicity), also lets assume they level up to a maximum of lvl 5 before dying.
Current system:
-you hare 'stuck' with your first bad trait 5y, then you lvl up and get your second bad trait, by the time you get to pick your third trait you have been 10y with 1 bad trait (the 1st) and 5y with the second. Now yo finally got a good one! You will be enjoying it from now on until the leader dies. This leader currently has level 3 and has 3 traits, 2 bad and 1 good.
-lets say that the leader levels up again. If it gets another bad trait, then you might as well consider ditching it, as it is almost certain that this leader is not going to be the greatest. If the trait is good, then you can continue and now have 2 bad traits and 2 good ones, having benefited of 1 good trait for 10y already. Keep in mind that since you have 1 good trait, then even if the 3rd time all other traits where bad, you could just upgrade it. You can do this 2 more times. This means that you can 'reroll' your traits by improving a good one right now, wasting only 5y.
-at the end you ended with a level 5 leader that took 25y to level up. It ended with 2 bad traits and either 2 good ones, or an improved one.
New system (same example ofc):
-you pick your first bad trait, now, with the previous system you would endure a bad lvl1 trait from now on, but in this system, this is a lvl2 trait.
-second level up (lvl 2),, you got another bad trait (as in the previous example) so now you have another bad lvl2 trait, where in the previous system you had 2 bad lvl1 traits.
-third level up (lvl4) pick the veterancy.
-that is it, you never got a good trait as the next level up is at 6, but the leader died at 5.

Unfair example you think? Ok, lets improve it in favor of the new system. Lets say they level to 6 instead (to not use an edge case)
Current system:
-you get one more pick, since you either have 2 good traits or 1 improved one, you can either pick a third or further improve one.
-in the end, the leader had any combination of 1-3 traits depending on picks vs upgrades. Good. But thats not all there is, you enjoued your 1st good pick for 15 years, 2nd one for 10y and the last one for 5y before dying.
New system:
-once you reach level 6 you get one pick, lets be nice and make it a good trait. Yay!
-later on, you die (the leader I mean). What happened? Well, that you where stuck with 2 lvl2 bad traits your entire life and once you got a good one (at lvl 6) you died 5y later. Seems good? Ofc.

Unfair still? Ok, I am going to be the absolutely more generous creature there is in this galaxy: all picks where good! (which we both know is not happening xD)
Current system:
-since all picks where good, you had 1 good trait for your entire life, then the 2nd one for your entire life -5y and so on. For instance, at year 15 you had enjoyed the 1st trait for 15y, 2nd one for 10 and third 1 for 5y.
New system:
-at year 15 what do you have? Either a lvl3 trait or 2 lvl2 traits. You might think, wait, it is actually stronger! Nope. You had a level 2 trait for 10y (same as the previous systems is the player decided to upgrade the same trait instead of going for a new one, so no improvement here). But at year 15 you had the same lvl2 trait for 15y (same as the previous system if upgraded, so again, no improvement) and had a 2nd lvl2 trait for 5y. This is an advantage over the previous system, as now you had 2 lvl2 traits at year15 while I can only have a maximum of 1 lvl2 and 1 lvl1 for example. So you technically are one level over me there. Except that you dont pick on odd numbers, meaning that while you have 1 tiny advantage for 5y, I catch up the next level, while you need to wait 10y.

Now now, this is all too complex or boring or seems even? Well, not even close. Remember when we said that each level took 5y for simplicity? That is not the case. Each level takes more, this is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. Why? Lets suppose that leveling from lvl 5 to 6 took 10y, from 6 to 7 takes 15y and from 7 to 8 20y as an example (real numbers vary with traits, ethics etc). Lets assume the leader picks where identical in both scenarios up to level 5, to make the comparison fair and simpler. What is the issue?

The issue is that with the current system I got to enjoy each trait I picked instantly and only had to wait a short time for the next. So in this example at level 5 I picked a trait, if it is good I will enjoy it for the next 10y, if it is bad I get to suffer for the next 10y until I get a chance at another trait. Next lvl up comes 10y later. If it is a good trait, I get to enjoy it now for 15y, ib it is bad, that is 15y enduring it. Next time, if good, those are 20y of benefit, if bad, 20y of suffering.

What about the new system? Glad you asked! In the new system you don't pick at level 5, so you wait 10y of no added benefit. 10y lost, while the current system you would have had enjoyed 10y of a benefit. Now, you might think, well, but in the current system IF I was forced to pick a bad trait, then it is 10y with said bad trait, at least here I get nothing, no good but no bad. Kinda correct, except that at these levels you (if playing correctly) should have done what you do with tech (which is save a guaranteed for a reroll) so if all picks are bad, then you just upgrade the 'less good' trait, the one that is not bad, but the worse of all you have. So voila, 10y of a not-great-not-bad trait, while with the new system you are still at nothing. Bad uh? We haven't finished yet . Level 6 comes! You get a trait, if good, you enjoy it for the next 15y, if bad 15y of suffering. The exact same as the previous system, except with the detail that if it is a bad trait and you can't avoid it, it is a level 2 bad trait for 15y, which in my case might be just a level 1 bad trait. 15y pass, what happens? Well, in the current system, another pick which means 20 more years of benefit (or suffering with another lvl1 bad trait). But in the new system? Either the exact same benefit or pain, as you don't get a pick at lvl 7.

TLDR: Ok, to simplify the huge wall of text.
In the current system you only are 1 level away of fixing the situation, aka: picking a good trait, or being forced into a level 1 bad trait if you are really screwed and didn't save a reroll. It also means that you enjoy your traits immediately and that you have to deal with bad ones for a single level.

In the new system, fixing the situation, aka: picking a good trait, skips some levels. This means that instead of having a chance to fix things by picking a good trait at each level, you now need to wait 2. Also, since traits have will merge lvl1 and lvl2, it means that when you are forced into picking those, then you will be stuck by several levels with them, while in the current system you had the chance to pick again one level away.

The 1st example proves it easily. A leader that had to pick 2 bad traits, in the current system has to endure until lvl3, while in the new one it has to endure to level 4, which is the class selection, which means that in fact you have to endure until level 6 (your next pick), while in the current system you had chances at both 3 and 5 to fix things.

Not to mention that a leader with lets say that by having to wait until level 6, you can't know for sure if the leader is good. Lets say that you ditch leaders with 3 bad traits. In the current system you need only to wait to level 3 for it. But in the new one you can't know until level 6, which is where you actually hit your next pick.

See how many issues? And this is all being generous with times and traits. Honestly, there are more bad traits that great ones in general. There are traits that are okayish, but the good ones are much less. This means that RNG is going to eat us alive. This is a part of something I already explained in another post in the forums and reddit with some other details.

So, no, the changes are not better in terms nor feeling, not in terms of numbers. Most people looked at the leaders and though: well, now I pick slightly more than half the time, but half are twice more powerful. So it is good. No, it is not. Because no one is taking into account the most important thing with leaders: time distribution. Leaders don't level up magically, they have a hiring cost and an upkeep, so not taking into account their effect over time is an error. Most people ignored the time factor entirely, and acted like if leaders time warped from a level to another.

 

[Red Death]

Thinking back again on the comparison between 3.14 and the 3.99 beta:

In a way, 3.14 has research and unity semi-districts: you can produce these resources primarily by repeatable repeatable buildings, and those slots can be obtained from city districts. Really, the only thing that makes them not like districts is the hard cap of building slots per colony. But the point is that you can produce research and unity in any ratio you want, along with minerals, food and energy in any ratio (the only odd one out is the industrial district with its odd switching behaviour).

So again, in a way we've gone from functionally 6 independent districts (one slightly customisable) for 7 main resources to functionally 4 districts (one customisable) for those same 7. Obviously, there's only set ratios you can customise that one district in. Minerals, food and energy you will always be able to scale exactly how much you want, but the other 4 resources always have unintended side effects (unless you're mainly building mono-planets, thus ignoring some of the other systems). There's just no way that's not going to feel artificially limiting.

I think when they were thinking about adding a research and unity district they were on the right track. It's consolidating a bunch of things into one district that was the main mistake with the zone system. And even just splitting it into two again could help alleviate things.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Leaving that discussion aside (which was dumb to be honest, as once the point about he not having played since paragons made the entire thing ridiculous), the numbers are not exactly the same.

I have no idea who was honestly, it was about a week or so ago, and on reddit.

Regarding the other points, I agree with the idea, but I think the solution is wrong.

If the issue is notification spam:
-fix notifications. (Which has been done already)

If the issue is them being 'needy':
-use auto trait selection (this is the exact same that people said at some point about planets and ships, and we got auto design and planet automation for it, they didn't remove part of the systems, they added automation to it)

A basic empire starts at being able to hold 9 leaders and quickly jumps to 12. 108 discrete level up actions seems out of proportion to each individual interaction's game importance, especially when some of them are just "make level ups come even faster", and putting them on auto is effectively disabling part of a dlc. You resolve both issues by increasing the interval between level ups and increasing the impact of individual perks. Fewer interactions and bigger rewards per interaction bring the attention:reward ratio closer in line.

Personally I'd have shunted leader passive boosts to the dead levels since they don't require an interaction, so your leaders would alternate between getting better narrowly vs getting better generally.

In response to the rest of your post:

You have 12+ leaders. You're not waiting 10 years for a new perk you're waiting less than one.
Putting them on auto is giving you random perks so "bad" perks picks are more common. A solution that amplifies the problem is a bad solution.
Why are you picking up so many "bad perks" in the first place? If your issue with the new system is bad perks maybe solve the issue of the game containing "bad perks". If by "bad perks" you mean perks you don't want for a particular build then increasing the base perk pick options to 4 seems to solve your problem with the new system.

 

[VraxianOutreach]

Honestly I feel that swapping the job-improving buildings with flat job-producing ones makes your early building choices a lot less interesting. It gives buildings a bit of an identity crisis within the District-Zone-Building division this rework has been toying with. As it stands, unlocking mineral purification and equivalent jobs is now much less exciting, as all you get out of it is three building slots to use for flat job increases when you probably haven't come near your district cap yet. I feel like keeping the 20% bonus building as an early unlock is kind of vital to making the basic resource zones worth it early on.

 

[Critical Ethics]

For comparison lets use an example. Lets say you are stuck with 6 planets and can't expand no more. 5 of those planets are already full and producing whatever is needed and are OK (well set). The 6th one is new, so you want to build it up, lets say you need more CGs and research as you are lacking behind, comparison of both systems:
-in the current system you can build some industry districts in the 6th planet and a few research labs, the exact ratio can be tailored to your needs. So lets say that by your current demands you need 10 artisans and 4 researchers, that is 5 (or 10, depending on if you set the planet as factory or not) industrial districts and exactly 2 research labs.

Before I post my giant wall of text, I just want to make absolutely sure you want to go with a use case where our hypothetical player is so bad at managing planets that a five planet, approximately 400+ pop empire has somehow reached a deficit of 10 artisansworth of consumer goods. That's enough to support the living standards of 60 utopian abundance or 120 social welfare specialists, even before modifiers. That's, conservatively, 20% of their population living in unexpected poverty, at least 5% of the total landmass of their entire empire that they just kind of forgot to put factories on.

And this empire of nearly half a thousand old money pops also has exactly one other problem, and that is that it needs exactly four more scientists... but not more than that.

Just making sure we're 100% clear on the normal, everyday scenario I'm resolving here.

 

[Thiend]

Before I post my giant wall of text, I just want to make absolutely sure you want to go with a use case where our hypothetical player is so bad at managing planets that a five planet, approximately 400+ pop empire has somehow reached a deficit of 10 artisansworth of consumer goods. That's enough to support the living standards of 60 utopian abundance or 120 social welfare specialists, even before modifiers. That's, conservatively, 20% of their population living in unexpected poverty, at least 5% of the total landmass of their entire empire that they just kind of forgot to put factories on.

And this empire of nearly half a thousand old money pops also has exactly one other problem, and that is that it needs exactly four more scientists... but not more than that.

Just making sure we're 100% clear on the normal, everyday scenario I'm resolving here.

The numbers aren't the problem. Do you have a solution to the problem? Insert whatever numbers you feel are everyday. Find a solution.

How do you fine-tune job numbers in the current system with the quoted example, with one artisan needed? Three? Do you have an answer?

 

[boring_pilot]

Thoughts after 3.997...
One of the big changes that hasn't seen much discussion is the replacement of Energy credits by Trade as the primary currency. This has a number of knock-off effects, the main one being dis-incentive-izing extreme planetary specialization. I see this as a good thing.. One cannot assume that shipping massive amounts of ore,, food, energy, and goods across light years is essentially free. So planets need to be more self-sufficient, or trade credits get drained.
However, planetary management becomes more complex, and then with the new zones/districts,/etc., that complexity becomes magnified. Gameplay becomes heavily weighted towards planetary/resource management. The amount and needed frequency of assessment and cross-checking makes real-time play impossibly hectic, and effectively makes gameplay sloppy or effectively turn-based with frequent halts.
With another resource mouth to feed (in terms of resource-types to manage), adding Trade is just that much more stuff to manage, more like a job. The dramatic sweep of wars, exploration pushes, research pushes crises, etc. (which makes gameplay fun), is now constantly interrupted by resource/population management chores. The more-complex planetary UI setup makes this even worse.
Remembering the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", Paradox should be very circumspect about how the population management game changes affect the play structure. As this "beta" series shows, it is incredibly easy to make changes that make gameplay unpalatable.
Also, it takes a fair amount of time and effort to gain a level of playable skill at this game. When the gameplay mechanics change, these skills have to be modified (which can be part of the fun), but when large amounts of bugs, poor balancing, and trivial fluff accompany the mechanics changes, the fun evaporates. Many of the recent main product updates have been poor values &/ or had mixed appeal. Objectively, the chances of ruining the game are much greater than the chances of improving it.
One hopes the development team can take the time to do it right.

 

[Critical Ethics]

The numbers aren't the problem.

Oh yes they are. It's very, very telling that whenever these "OK but you can't do THIS with zones" scenarios are actually brought up they're insane scenarios dredged from fever dreams with a bunch of caveats to remove the obvious zone based solutions, and also either solvable with zones or caused by people trying to treat zones like districts to begin with or, usually, both.

Do you have a solution to the problem? Insert whatever numbers you feel are everyday. Find a solution.

How do you fine-tune job numbers in the current system with the quoted example, with one artisan needed? Three? Do you have an answer?

I said I had a big wall of text didn't I? I'm waiting for a reply though, because I don't want to be uno reversed for part of it and told "Oh well but that's an unrealistic scenario"

 

[Thiend]

Oh yes they are. It's very, very telling that whenever these "OK but you can't do THIS with zones" they're insane scenarios dredged from fever dreams, and also either solvable with zones or caused by people trying to treat zones like districts to begin with.

I said I had a big wall of text didn't I? I'm waiting for a reply though, because I don't want to be uno reversed for part of it and told "Oh well but that's an unrealistic scenario"

Thank you for confirming that you don't have an answer to the stated problem.

 

[NorseGod]

Thank you for confirming that you don't have an answer to the stated problem.

Yeah, that's the funny thing. There is a solution to this sort of problem, and it's making mono-resource planets again; something that they've made a lot harder to do. If you're short on GCs or Alloys, and want to only make the equivalent of 2 or 4 more jobs worth in 3.14, the answer in 3.99.7 is to have a planet who's City Districts are only Zoned for CGs or Alloys, and building a new District.

If they wanted to make mono-planets used more often, the Zones system makes that a harder change, not an easier one.

 

[Thiend]

Yeah, that's the funny thing. There is a solution to this sort of problem, and it's making mono-resource planets again; something that they've made a lot harder to do. If you're short on GCs or Alloys, and want to only make the equivalent of 2 or 4 more jobs worth in 3.14, the answer in 3.99.7 is to have a planet who's City Districts are only Zoned for CGs or Alloys, and building a new District.

If they wanted to make mono-planets used more often, the Zones system makes that a harder change, not an easier one.

I think you mean less often/mixed planets more often on that last bit.

Their stated goal was to make mixed planets more used and mono less, but it has the opposite effect. Before, they were suboptimal (except the capital before efficiency buildings are available, as the designation impacted all jobs).

Now they're still suboptimal, for the designation even if the efficiency buildings are no longer an obstacle, except that now the only way to manage mixed output is to separate by planet. That's the only way to fine-tune your output. Before, the actual ability to manage mixed jobs was perfectly fine (except Industrial districts, which... worked like Zones do now...), it just wasn't very good. It's still bad, it's just also impossible to manage too now.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Thank you for confirming that you don't have an answer to the stated problem.

Well if you're volunteering... can I get some concrete base CG and research numbers to meet? Because "10 artisans and 4 scientists" doesn't actually mean anything in 3.99. Specialist upkeep and output and pop requirements are highly mutable with zones because that's kind of the entire point of them, and it's how you balance disparate outputs. If we've got 5 completely full planets on a tall empire then you've got all the buildings unlocked and that's a lot of mutability.

And we can't go with 80 CG and 36 total research because that's incredibly trivial to balance due to the lower research in 3.99.7.