Stellaris 3.99.7 'Phoenix' Open Beta Release Notes

[Thiend]

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.

You were already given them, and you already refused to answer. Read the post where I asked that you refused to answer.

You're asking for more because you want to nitpick hypotheticals for the specific needed number. The specific needed number does not relate to the problem. The problem is that fine-tuning output is impossible. It literally doesn't matter where the number lies between (-∞, ∞), there is no needed value at which fine-tuning is possible because instead of building 2 research and 3 CG districts, we are building 5 CG AND research districts.

I will not give you detailed hypotheticals for the needed number of each thing to pretend they're "wrong." The problem is that if that number isn't at the ratio Zones provide, there are no options to adjust it.

 

[Critical Ethics]

The problem is that fine-tuning output is impossible. It literally doesn't matter where the number lies between (-∞, ∞), there is no needed value at which fine-tuning is possible because instead of building 2 research and 3 CG districts, we are building 5 CG AND research districts.

...ohhh, ok. I understand why you don't get zones now.

If you play the game for a while you unlock a bunch of buildings. If you have 5 maxed out planets you will have unlocked pretty much all of them. Currently in the game are two output increasers that also increase input costs, an upkeep reducer, an automation building that's busted, a few things that add resources to jobs, and a bunch of empire uniques. If we drop the encheapener (and hypothetical automation building) and a special onto the science zone and the output boosters into the CG zone you drastically boost the CG output while reducing the pop and input requirements of the science zone, while also getting us some fun stuff from the special. This balance is then maintained as you build new districts. That's how you adjust ratios.

I didn't know you didn't know any of that existed.

We've also been promised a building that boosts the per-district jobs provided by a zone, which would further boost the CG zone output.

e: most of my big wall of text was talking about way fancier stuff than that.

 

[Thiend]

...ohhh, ok. I understand why you don't get zones now.

If you play the game for a while you unlock a bunch of buildings. If you have 5 maxed out planets you will have unlocked pretty much all of them. Currently in the game are two output increasers that also increase input costs, an upkeep reducer, an automation building that's busted, a few things that add resources to jobs, and a bunch of empire uniques. If we drop the encheapener (and hypothetical automation building) and a special onto the science zone and the output boosters into the CG zone you drastically boost the CG output while reducing the pop and input requirements of the science zone, while also getting us some fun stuff from the special. This balance is then maintained as you build new districts. That's how you adjust ratios.

I didn't know you didn't know any of that existed.

We've also been promised a building that boosts the jobs provided by a zone, which would further boost the CG zone output.

I know all of that exists. You chose to answer a different question to the one I asked, or you just didn't understand the question.

You're opting for "akshually, you're just stupid" again as an argument.

 

[Critical Ethics]

I know all of that exists. You chose to answer a different question to the one I asked, or you just didn't understand the question.

The original question by @Ilab was what to do if you want your brand new planet to have a ratio of X artisans and Y scientists. That's a non-question, because jobs don't exist to be jobs, they exist to output resources. It's not even a real question in 3.1. The closest question that is a real question is what to do if you want your planet to have a ratio of X CG to Y research, and the answer is to build the zone buildings that give you that ratio (and I don't mean the static +X producers). Your hardline statement in your last post was that it's impossible to build 2 research and 3 cg districts... well, yeah, but that's not a goal in itself. You care about the outputs. So what you're "really" saying is that it's impossible to set up a planet that has a research:cg output of 2:3 per city district built... and that's very easy.

You don't build districts to build districts, you build districts to produce the resources that the jobs the districts provide produce. The end goal is the resources. The districts are a means to the goal of obtaining the jobs for the resources you want. They're way, way down there on the process chain but you keep saying you want to build specific districts like that's a goal in itself.

 

[NorseGod]

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.

Yeah sorry, Covid brain still hits me sometimes.

And I agree, they Zones system is working against their stated goals. Ironically, the easy fix is to just go back to Districts, and instead allow people to pick from a list of multiple district types. And yeah, this is the same idea I've been flogging for weeks, because it's a better solution.

Heck, you can even let planet size affect how many Zones you can add, with planetary features that allow more Zones. They still get to "add more district types" without having a UI cluttered with a dozen district elements, and you still benefit from the granularity of the 3.14 system.

 

[Red Death]

...ohhh, ok. I understand why you don't get zones now.

If you play the game for a while you unlock a bunch of buildings. If you have 5 maxed out planets you will have unlocked pretty much all of them. Currently in the game are two output increasers that also increase input costs, an upkeep reducer, an automation building that's busted, a few things that add resources to jobs, and a bunch of empire uniques. If we drop the encheapener (and hypothetical automation building) and a special onto the science zone and the output boosters into the CG zone you drastically boost the CG output while reducing the pop and input requirements of the science zone, while also getting us some fun stuff from the special. This balance is then maintained as you build new districts. That's how you adjust ratios.

I didn't know you didn't know any of that existed.

We've also been promised a building that boosts the per-district jobs provided by a zone, which would further boost the CG zone output.

e: most of my big wall of text was talking about way fancier stuff than that.

You know very well that's not what fine-tuning means. Don't resort to dishonest arguments.

And by the way the scenario "I want to develop this new planet because my other planets are full. I really only need X more researcher jobs and X times 2 more metallurgists" is a perfectly reasonable scenario. Because jobs do not produce things for free! If you've got minerals to spare for some more alloys, but not the Consumer goods for more than a few researchers, it would be nice if you could actually build just those jobs!

I know, because I do that in 3.14!

 

[Thiend]

The original question by @Ilab was what to do if you want your brand new planet to have a ratio of X artisans and Y scientists. That's a non-question, because jobs don't exist to be jobs, they exist to output resources. It's not even a real question in 3.1. The closest question that is a real question is what to do if you want your planet to have a ratio of X CG to Y scientists, and the answer is to build the zone buildings that give you that ratio (and I don't mean the static +X producers). Your hardline statement in your last post was that it's impossible to build 2 research and 3 cg districts... well, yeah, but that's not a goal in itself. You care about the outputs. So what you're "really" saying is that it's impossible to set up a planet that has a research:cg output of 2:3 per city district built... and that's very easy.

You don't build districts to build districts, you build districts to produce the resources that the jobs the districts provide produce. The end goal is the resources. The districts are a means to the goal of obtaining the jobs for the resources you want. They're way, way down there on the process chain but you keep saying you want to build specific districts like that's a goal in itself.

I never said that. You don't understand the problem. I will therefore restate it.

Zones are designed to allow mixed output. That mixed output is at a fixed ratio that is not necessarily desirable. There is no mechanism to fine-tune the output of Zones.

We need a mechanism to fine-tune output. Currently, the way to do that in the beta is to separate all output by planet, thus restoring the ability to add only the jobs you actually want without losing the entire purpose of Zones (individualized output/throughput boosting buildings).

It is possible for most (all?) jobs to use buildings, however as that costs one out of three total buildings in a Zone it is not a solution to the problem because using those buildings for anything other than job modifiers is counter to the purpose of Zones. If the buildings are used for jobs, and particularly used as the solution to this problem in the circumstances where that will actually work (some, but much less than all), what you have is a specific job district with a build limit of 3 called a building instead. An infinitely superior system compared to that would be specific job districts without a build limit of 3, and called districts.

A preferred solution, because Zones do have some potential upsides, is to fix the problem - they need a way to adjust outputs better.

You keep responding to things that are explicitly not the problem. You've just gone for acting like the problem is that I want to build a specific number of districts. I don't, I want to build a specific number of jobs, which is impossible because I can't build a specific number of districts. That is the change that resulted in the problem, not the problem itself.

 

[Critical Ethics]

I never said that. You don't understand the problem. I will therefore restate it.

Zones are designed to allow mixed output. That mixed output is at a fixed ratio that is not necessarily desirable. There is no mechanism to fine-tune the output of Zones.

The ratio is not fixed. It is a new planet and being set up however they want it set it up. If by "fixed ratio" you mean something other than "fixed ratio" then use different words. If you're setting up a new scenario describe the new scenario. 3.14 is broken because I can only build jobs in pairs, no I refuse to give any examples where this is an actual problem, just trust me, it's awful.

We need a mechanism to fine-tune output.

Of which you have many. Including the ubiquitous "just buy it" due to the trade rework.

Currently, the way to do that in the beta is to separate all output by planet,

Incorrect. You fine tune your output in a mixed planet setup in the beta by putting down the buildings you want to get the ratio you want. In 4.0 there will be additional buildings providing even greater control. If you have multiple planets you can also expand the planet that best meets your needs. Or you can go to the market. What. Matters. Is. The. Resources. Everything else is a route to them.

thus restoring the ability to add only the jobs you actually want without losing the entire purpose of Zones (individualized output/throughput boosting buildings).

Unnecessary, see above.

It is possible for most (all?) jobs to use buildings, however as that costs one out of three total buildings in a Zone it is not a solution to the problem because using those buildings for anything other than job modifiers is counter to the purpose of Zones. If the buildings are used for jobs, and particularly used as the solution to this problem in the circumstances where that will actually work (some, but much less than all), what you have is a specific job district with a build limit of 3 called a building instead. An infinitely superior system compared to that would be specific job districts without a build limit of 3, and called districts.

Correct. The static +job buildings are poison. Kill them. I also didn't in any way mention them in my suggested solution in the previous posts.

A preferred solution, because Zones do have some potential upsides, is to fix the problem - they need a way to adjust outputs better.

They have many ways to adjust their outputs, and the level of fine control you're looking for is, in practice, unnecessary in the 3.99 beta and, indeed, counterproductive to enjoying the game.

You keep responding to things that are explicitly not the problem. You've just gone for acting like the problem is that I want to build a specific number of districts. I don't, I want to build a specific number of jobs,

No you don't, you want a specific amount of resources. You get those resources from jobs. Adjusting the output of the jobs adjusts the resources. So yes, you can set up a planet to have different proportions or resources, which is what you want in the context of the scenario described.

which is impossible because I can't build a specific number of districts. That is the change that resulted in the problem, not the problem itself.

It doesn't need to be possible. You don't care about jobs. You care about resources. You can adjust the resources by adjusting the jobs via the buildings you build in your zones on your shiny new planet. In the 5 planet empire described with the weird problems described one of the other planets is probably set up wrong and needs adjusting. Via zones. If something unusual occurs you can retool a planet easily. Using zones. You can also go to the market until you can expand the appropriate planet or rework an improperly configured planet. The zone rework, the trade rework, civilians, and the import system all work together very well if you use the multitool screwdriver as a multitool screwdriver instead of slamming the end into the top of the screw and complaining that the nails are broken.

 

[Thiend]

The ratio is not fixed. It is a new planet and being set up however they want it set it up. If by "fixed ratio" you mean something other than "fixed ratio" then use different words. If you're setting up a new scenario describe the new scenario. 3.14 is broken because I can only build jobs in pairs, no I refuse to give any examples where this is an actual problem, just trust me, it's awful.

This is not responding to anything I said. You are not addressing my point OR the original point you're referencing, you're picking and choosing to make the weakest possible argument by hybridizing them and then taking a victory lap when the strawman collapses.

I do not need to provide you specific screenshots of why fixed ratios is a problem (something you've just insisted isn't real, then admitted is real) for you to understand what I'm saying, unless you've never played the beta and are incapable of recognizing the problem. I have described repeatedly why and how this is a problem, you either can't understand verbal examples or you choose not to hear them. I am not going to provide you fodder to try to nitpick the specific example again, as you did to someone at the start of this specific discussion.

They have many ways to adjust their outputs, and the level of fine control you're looking for is, in practice, unnecessary in the 3.99 beta and, indeed, counterproductive to enjoying the game.

You are once again flipping your own argument. You started this paragraph with "there are many ways" and then, presumably when you realized you couldn't come up with a single example of one that would address the described problem, insisted that control is actually "unnecessary" and "counterproductive."

No you don't, you want a specific amount of resources. You get those resources from jobs. Adjusting the output of the jobs adjusts the resources. So yes, you can set up a planet to have different proportions or resources, which is what you want in the context of the scenario described.

"I know better what you want than you do!"

Evidently an incorrect assumption, as you're now arguing that when I say jobs (to get resources) are impossible to fine-tune, I actually mean resources. Correct. And it still doesn't matter, because it still isn't possible, because the source of resources is jobs. Jobs are not possible to fine-tune. This means that resources are not possible to fine-tune. I literally said you were doing this, and you did it again. I am not describing that my problem is being unable to fine-tune jobs, I am describing that my problem exists because we are unable to fine-tune jobs. Which we are, hence the problem.

 

[Red Death]

Not meaning to pile onto what Thiend already said, but:

The ratio is not fixed. It is a new planet and being set up however they want it set it up. If by "fixed ratio" you mean something other than "fixed ratio" then use different words.

Yes. Yes it is.

Generously, we could say you have a choice of a very limited selection of ratios. For example with Unity + Research it's 100-0, 50-50 or 0-100.

Of which you have many. Including the ubiquitous "just buy it" due to the trade rework.

The market is a wasteful way to fix structural issues in your economy and it always has been. I don't see how the trade rework changed anything about that. It's also irrelevant for the resources that cannot be traded obviously. It also doesn't help you with the "avoid deficits per planet" minigame.

Incorrect. You fine tune your output in a mixed planet setup in the beta by putting down the buildings you want to get the ratio you want. In 4.0 there will be additional buildings providing even greater control.

There is 0 evidence that this is how things will work out. Even the barely implemented buildings we have in the beta just do things like reduce upkeep or provide bonus. That is making broad, sweeping changes to the planet's economy.

That is not fine tuning!

Correct. The static +job buildings are poison. Kill them. I also didn't in any way mention them in my suggested solution in the previous posts.

I think Thiend might have been confused because the buildings that add about a district's worth of specific jobs are in practise the only current way of somewhat fine-tuning the jobs you get within a planet. (Other than disabling jobs)

 

[Mortimus]

Just some feedback on the current state of the Beta,
- Research still feels a bit on the slow side even after getting used to it and optimising. Researcher output maybe should be pushed up to 8? Can reduce the research institute to +1 instead of +2 to compensate.
- Quite a few buildings still feel quite messy and need some tidying up. The basic resource production buildings should maybe be reverted back to having a planet limit of 1 and giving the resource bonus instead. The current implementation feels a little strange in that any world can essentially be turned into 9+ district size basic resource would using mostly urban districts. It undermines rural districts a bit.
- rare resources from artisans and metallurgists need to be turned down a bit. +2 per metallurgist was quite excessive and resulted in getting 100+ rare resources from a full planet of metalurgists. The numbers need to be turned down to around +0.5 or something similar instead.
-KOTG concescrated habitats don't have anything to compensate for demense orbitals. Maybe limit them to 1 Knitghts Demense Zone or have a the Order's castle give 100 squire jobs per district to keep it being a worse version of the Keep

I personally enjoy the idea of unique zones. It would be cool to see that treatment being extended to more civics, authorities and origins.

 

[Thiend]

I think Thiend might have been confused because the buildings that add about a district's worth of specific jobs are in practise the only current way of somewhat fine-tuning the jobs you get within a planet. (Other than disabling jobs)

Not so much confused, more heading off a bad argument at the pass (if you'll pardon the expression).

I'm aware that isn't an argument someone made this specific time, however it is an argument and I didn't want time wasted on it. It introduces a very small amount of control, but only counter to the overall design and not enough control to fix the problem.

That said, you're correct overall. Fine-tuning and what we have in the beta are not the same.

 

[Kataclyszm]

The ratio is not fixed. It is a new planet and being set up however they want it set it up

I start with an Archive Zone and an Industrial Zone. It means my cities have a ratio of Scientists:Unity:Alloy:CG that is FIXED. If I want to increase my scientists to, say, twice that, but also still keep my current number of Alloy:CG:Unity, I CANNOT DO THAT IN THE BETA BECAUSE THE RATIO IS FIXED.

Of which you have many

We do not.

You fine tune your output in a mixed planet setup in the beta by putting down the buildings you want to get the ratio you want.

Oh yeah, with all... what, six building slots? Yeah, that'll do it.

They have many ways to adjust their outputs, and the level of fine control you're looking for is, in practice, unnecessary in the 3.99 beta and, indeed, counterproductive to enjoying the game.

I cannot even begin to describe the number of ways you're wrong here, and further on.

 

[Critical Ethics]

This is not responding to anything I said. You are not addressing my point OR the original point you're referencing, you're picking and choosing to make the weakest possible argument by hybridizing them and then taking a victory lap when the strawman collapses.

I'm really not. Completely ignoring anything you said, the answer to @Ilab's scenario is what I posted earlier: build a cg zone that focuses on raw output and a science zone that focuses on pop and upkeep efficiency, along with a science zone special building if you've picked one up. Pick up the slack with trade and as the planet grows you'll gain on your CG deficit and also gain science to match the increased sprawl from the new pops and districts.

The rest of the big post I was going to follow up with was pointing out that the scenario contrived implied a significant structural issue with the empire, some likely scenarios, and how fixing them at the source instead of slapping down some random districts on your new planet was significantly easier in a five planet empire using zones, or in the worst case about the same.

If you have a different scenario then... no. I'm done bringing you to the water on this.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Generously, we could say you have a choice of a very limited selection of ratios. For example with Unity + Research it's 100-0, 50-50 or 0-100.

...

Even the barely implemented buildings we have in the beta just do things like reduce upkeep or provide bonus. That is making broad, sweeping changes to the planet's economy.

This is why I keep emphasising resources. If you put down three buildings boosting the outputs of one zone and three buildings reducing the inputs or adding different outputs to the other zone, the ratio of resources changes even if the ratio of jobs doesn't. Jobs are a means to get resources, not a goal in themselves. Adjusting job totals is not the only way to adjust total output.

The market is a wasteful way to fix structural issues in your economy and it always has been. I don't see how the trade rework changed anything about that.

Trade in 3.99 is a resource for shoring up deficits, as a deficit tax on a planetary scale and as the market currency on an empire scale.

What has changed is the market is no longer leaching a real resource. You spend a resource that's generated automatically by pops which you get more of for leaning into building locally efficient messy planets and less of for building mono-resource empire feeders. It's free money and you gotta spend it somewhere or you're throwing away a chunk of your economy for no reason.

It's also irrelevant for the resources that cannot be traded obviously. It also doesn't help you with the "avoid deficits per planet" minigame.

So is the scenario @Ilab put forward. "I need lots of science and not much cg" is a completely different question with a different solution (boosters on the science, upkeep/automation/gas refinery on the cg factory or upkeep/upkeep/gas refinery on a cg/alloy if we ignore the automation building).

My entire point is that "I can't build districts/jobs in a different ratio" is meaningless in isolation. The new system is much more interesting to me because it draws the focus more firmly on total planetary output and the tools to adjust that are more interesting than just slapping down a district of the right colour. This also means solutions are much more contextual. "How do I build two of this district and three of this one" - you can't, but its a pointless question. "How do I meet my empire needs for these resources" is a meaningful but highly contextual question.

That's why I like the new system. It asks big questions with big answers that are easy to implement and play out over the long haul, and short term problems have a dedicated short term problems resource to throw at it until the long term solution kicks in. I like that long term economic planning is more complex than orange mana too small press orange mana district orange mana go up, and "How do I build two of this district and three of this one" as a complete question only works in that, to me, overly simplistic setup.

If that's what @Thiend means by fine control I don't like it. It works against so many other aspects of the system. Aspects I like. Each planet as a customised but imperfect engine interlocking with every other with trade as the grease to smooth the wheels - that's an empire to me. That's my grand stategy's economy.

The beauty of the system is you can go easy scaling messy problems mixed resource planet with buckets of spare grease, or single function orange mana planet with trade as a sometimes food. The system supports both, with less busywork than 3.14 for the second even. But splitting the districts (and those stupid static job buldings) turns the first one into just being two of the second one that happen to share a planet, and that throws all the interesting complex interactions and bespoke solutions right into the trash.

 

[Red Death]

This is why I keep emphasising resources. If you put down three buildings boosting the outputs of one zone and three inputs reducing the inputs or adding different outputs to the other zone, the ratio of resources changes even if the ratio of jobs doesn't. Jobs are a means to get resources, not a goal im themselves.

You are absolutely ignoring the part where I stated that these are big, sweeping shifts to the economy, and not small adjustments/fine-tuning. Yeah, jobs are just a means to an end, as are all those other things. Doesn't change the fact that in 3.14 I can just build a single district or building anywhere I want when I want more of that one resource. In 3.99 that becomes impossible in a non-intuitive way, and I despise that.

Also, you can still do that just fine for minerals/energy/food (and research on habitats, and everything else on an ecumenopolis). It's only advanced resources on regular colonies that have this arbitrary restriction placed on them.

Trade in 3.99 is a resource for shoring up deficits, either automatically on a planetary scale or manually on an empire scale.
What has changed is the market is no longer leaching a real resource. You spend a resource that's generated automatically by pops which you get more of the more you lean into building locally efficient planets and less if you build mono-resource empire feeders. It's free money and you gotta spend it somewhere or you're throwing away a chunk of your economy for no reason.

Of course it is still leaching a real resource! All of those pops producing trade could also be producing literally anything else! And because of conversion prices (among other things, like the efficiency of the jobs themselves), producing resources directly is probably going to be more efficient most of the time than producing trade to convert into other resources.

What I've been doing so far in the betas is producing as little as I need, so that those pops can instead make resources directly. Because that seems like the obvious option for doing things more efficiently.

As a side note here, I might be more accepting this if the auto trading system was better. I know we can set monthly trades, but I would really prefer if instead of max/min price we could set it to buy/sell if we are about to run out/reach the storage cap.

So is the scenario @Ilab put forward. "I need lots of science and not much cg" is a completely different question with a different solution (boosters on the science, upkeep/automation/gas refinery on the cg factory or upkeep/upkeep/gas refinery on a cg/alloy if we ignore the automation building).

Again, the zone buildings (assuming the bad flat job buildings are removed) are probably not going to be useful for fine-tuning. because you will have already built them as soon as a zone is available. And if you're saying you need to switch out buildings in that case, again that is a sweeping change that's just going to switch one imbalance with another imbalance. An that's all assuming the devs get this semi-balanced before release.

My entire point is that "I can't build districts/jobs in a different ratio" is meaningless in isolation.

Meaningless in isolation, but it isn't in isolation. My frustration is with the inability to fine-tune my resource economy unless I have a significant number of colonies with available slots, and even then it's by partially sacrificing the planet-internal balance.

The new system is much more interesting to me because it draws the focus more firmly on total planetary output and the tools to adjust that are more interesting than just slapping down a district of the right colour. This also means solutions are much more contextual.

I absolutely disagree. For the basic resources it's the same as before. For the advanced resources it's more restrictive. I don't find it more interesting, only annoying and unimmersive.

That's why I like the new system. It asks big questions with big answers that are easy to implement and play out over the long haul, and short term problems have a dedicated short term problems resource to throw at it until the long term solution kicks in. I like that long term economic planning is more complex than orange mana too small press orange mana district orange mana go up, and "How do I build two of this district and three of this one" as a complete question only works in that, to me, overly simplistic setup.

It asks pointless questions that only exist because of arbitrary non-believable restrictions on how many different times of production you can have on one entire planet. Individual locations/provinces have more varied economies in all of Europa Universalis, Victoria, Imperator and even Hearts of Iron. Certainly the fact you need more planets to fit everything neatly is more complex. But that doesn't make it deep or interesting.

Would you be in favour of slapping some more zone slots on the city district and merging the rural districts into the city district as well? Because following this design concept, that would be even more complex. It would also remove another "just press arrow of the right colour" mechanic.

If that's what @Thiend means by fine control I don't like it. It works against so many other aspects of the system. Aspects I like. Each planet as a customised but imperfect engine interlocking with every other with trade as the grease to smooth the wheels - that's an empire to me. That's my grand stategy's economy.

That's not an empire, that's a set of planet-sized uniform cities. Are you telling me that on an Earth specialised in administration and trade, I can't find a spot to place a university-city somewhere?

Again, is the existence of the rural districts working against the system? What is "the system" you are talking about here? If it's the rest of the beta features, it's been discussed at length that these work fine, and sometimes better, with the previous version of the planetary building system.

The beauty of the system is you can go easy scaling messy problems mixed resource planet with buckets of spare grease, or single function orange mana planet with trade as a sometimes food. The system supports both, with less busywork than 3.14 for the second even. But splitting the districts (and those stupid static job buldings) turns the first one into just being two of the second one that happen to share a planet, and that throws all the interesting complex interactions and bespoke solutions right into the trash.

You can keep any interesting modifications to the district via zones the same if you split off more districts, just look at how rural districts work. If you're talking about interesting interactions between the two zones within the city district specifically... Yeah that's of no value to me. Interactions within the planets, between districts are far more interesting to me.

For example, something I've found interesting in the beta is the interaction between Mining and Industry. If you have a planet that has almost as much possible mining districts as it has total size, you have a bunch of choices to make. Do you go for a mix of mining/city districts (specialised in alloys f.e.), or do you go for full mining, building industry elsewhere but having to pay the trade tax? Similarly, are you paying trade to import food and energy, or do you sacrifice a few district slots to produce those locally? In any case, you can build enough alloy foundries to use up close to the exact amount of minerals you are producing, regardless of your current technologies. Assuming we get more interesting zones and buildings, that adds another layer of interactions between all the districts on top of this.

This is interesting, and I think these are exactly the type of choices you were talking about, right? But do you know what splitting up the city district would degrade about this? Absolutely nothing, because I was treating the city district as just an alloys district anyway. Would having mining and alloys be two zones in one district make this situation more interesting?

Now, another possibility for this planet would have been Minerals-->CG-->Research (maybe it also has a research modifier, cool planet!). The interaction between city and rural districts remains mostly the same as the other scenario. Assuming we don't need more unity, that's a Research zone plus Factory or Industry. Depending on final balance numbers, either of this options might exceed the CG concumption of the research by a lot or a little (or in the Industry case, baybe fall short). This will also depend a lot on your currently researched technologies. If you don't need the extra CG's, you can hope that you can use buildings to bring consumption and production closer together (because that's more efficient, right?), and not accidentally tip over in the other direction. Meanwhile, the mineral balance is easier, just build as many mineral districts as you need to support this, or more if you want the minerals.

All splitting the city district up would do to this is let you also balance things out by letting you manage Factory and Research districts independently. You could then have for example have 2-3 times more research than Factory districts, because your empire really doesn't need more CGs, and you are concentrating your Alloy production elsewhere. This would also open the option of swapping one or two of the research districts with a unity district, because you are a spiritualist and would like some priests there, or you have Byzantine Bureaucracy, etc. Do you really think this is less deep and interesting than having the consolidated city district?

Or in other words: All the current city district is doing is making you select two districts out of a list and only allowing you to build the same amount of both of these, instead of letting you build any number of the districts in that list. And I don't think that makes planet building more interesting, because the interactions between the district is what's interesting to me.

 

[Ilab]

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.

I honestly think I would just have preferred that building slots scaled better instead of always being a set number than having zones. However, I do want to point out that they said that one of the reasons for zones (and people seem to not know or forget about it) is that it would allow them to do better things in the future than the ones we currently have now.

I think that last part is important, even if zones are not great now, perhaps they might be in the future. I do however, at least for now, would prefer the current system with scaling building slots.

 

[Ilab]

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.

You are correct in your analysis, but it differs of mine in purpose.

Yes, if you have a bazillion leaders it is more and more annoying. But this can be said of anything, if you have a bazillion planets managing them is annoying as hell, the same with starbases, several ship designs etc. So this point applies everywhere. And yet the solution in those other areas was automation.

You are also correct that all these forms of automations are bad, yup, planet, ship design, auto traits etc. And yet, it was the solution, and I do agree the correct one. Imagine if the solution to planet management would have been instead removing 40% of the buildings so it required less babysitting? Crazy I know. This is what happens with leaders.

Besides, even 108 level ups, distrubuted over time, is nothing compared with all the things Stellaris has. Diplomacy, events, anomalies, archeo sites, battles, special projects etc. So, honestly, those 108 clicks are nothing in the great scheme of things.. Think about it, how much time you wast in leaders compared to planets for example? And in fact, leaders can wait. Someone leveled up but can't/won't pick now? No issue, a special project usually has time for example. Fleets need to maneuver etc.

So if other systems that have the same (even worse to be honest) need for attention could do with automation, then this can too. But automation sucks! I agree, then don't use it. Have less leaders for example, less exp bonuses or just ignore them.

This change has one major problem that most people is missing, this doesn't just affect the ones that don't want the 108 clicks, it affects everyone.

Regarding your other points, again, true. But here is where your analysis goes off (in comparison to mine). For instance you say that with 12+ leaders you don't wait 10 years but one. This is because you are just considering it at the empire level. In an empire with many leaders you will have one pick every now and then. But not exactly like that, as an example, if you hire in groups, then every X years Y leaders level up in groups, not at the exact same time, but close enough that you can wait a while to have several needing action and just do the assignment of traits in batches.

Another things in which your analysis goes off (again, compared to main) is that you are focusing in the leaders at a macro level, but not thinking on them individually. For instance, and going back to the 10y part, you do have to wait for a leader to level up for X years. If that leader has a lvl2 bad trait, then you where with a useless trait for more time than you would in the current system, regardless of wheter or not another leader levels up in that time.

And in fact, it doesn't really matter from a performance (as leaders performance, not game performance) whether or not leaders lvl up every 2 days or 2 decades. In the end what matters is that each leader is useful/good. And with the new system when RNG screws you and offers only bad traits, then you need to wait 2 more years to get a benefit. Not to mention that the leader might die before the next even number and thus the next pick, which makes it even worse. Assuming leaders usually died at around level 8 in your empire for example, mean that in the new system the level 7 might as well not exist as you can't pick at that level, while on the old system it is not a 'dead level'.

And like I said, at the end of the day, like with most things in Stellaris. This is a matter of player engagement. You don't want to engage with a system? Use the related automation, you pay for this with bad automation. It is the way with all other systems.

BUT, if instead you want to engage with the system, then you have more work, but more fun.

And since fun is relative, removing the fun for some to remove tedium for others, is not great. Instead a system that could work for both must be made. And it can!!!

The issue with auto trait is that it picks awful traits right? The solution is simple and actually benefits everyone, both those who like leaders and those who don't. Balance the traits.

If all traits are somewhat balanced (obviously impossible to have 100% balance, but at least make them better) then auto trait is a solution that removes the tedium for those that want it, without masking their leader much worse. This also allows the current enjoyers to keep on with their playstyles.

 

[Red Death]

I honestly think I would just have preferred that building slots scaled better instead of always being a set number than having zones. However, I do want to point out that they said that one of the reasons for zones (and people seem to not know or forget about it) is that it would allow them to do better things in the future than the ones we currently have now.

I think that last part is important, even if zones are not great now, perhaps they might be in the future. I do however, at least for now, would prefer the current system with scaling building slots.

I've come to realize I should say I have 0 issues with zones and the new building system. My only problems are:

1. Having multiple zones on one district. (And even this would not be a problem if not for: )
2. Specifically only having one city district with 2 zones to handle all the non-basic resources.

Everything else is completely fine. Sure there are a lot of unique buildings in the game from various sources now that assume you have a lot of possible building slots. Those will have to be adjusted/replace one by one, but that is doable.

But with these problems in place, I honestly don't care what they can do with these zones in the future, it will never be enough to make up for the annoyance.

 

[Ilab]

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.

Ok, first of. I made an example for a specific problem to show case an specific issue. That should be obvious. But it seems not. Sure, 4 researchers or 10 artisan might not be much. In fact, there are almost no reasons to 'need' researchers, so you might as well not hire those 4 and live with less science. But you are wrong in your comment, utterly. Since you want more 'reallistic' scenarios instead of simple examples to illustrate things, then go with some.

You got vazzalised and made an specialist subject (or vassalized someone and want to lend a hand by giving some stuff). Now you have to pay for X resources (CG, alloys, research, strategic resources, you pick it). Reaching the 'new' quotas in the current system is much more easier than in the new one. Say you need 20 researchers to pay the tax/aid. You see the problem now? Yeah, a 400 hundred empire size nation will need to move things around.

And by the way, it is not about being bad at managing planets, which is also totally fair, not all players play optimally, sometimes people are good but have RP reasons for this or that or whatever. Not to mention that even with good management you can be pushed to a position where these problems occur for a lot of reasons. Something as simple as a leader with Factory focused trait dying can have a sever impact on production. GalCom resolutions changes etc.

You conquered, they have useful infrastructure (mostly form players cuz the AI sucks with this but sometimes it happens). So lets say lots of labs or unity buildings. You don't want to demloish them to rebuild them later, but can't afford them right now. Solution: disable them temporarily until you can afford them. With zones you can't 'disable' a zone, you need to go to the work tab and use the sliders, making it not even worse than the current system.

You can also have a deficit of CGs for example if you rely on trade policies for it and lost a commercial pact with a major economic power, needing now to produce it locally etc.

So, as you can see there are LOTS of reasons and ways why you might need X amount of Y things. I just provided a simple example to keep it simple. I could give you a lot more scenarios where it happens, but as I said, for the sake of simplicity I didn't. So, go ahead and provide a wall of text, I am interested in your points. Though to be honest the fact that you assumed (or more likely pretended) that the above example was just bad player skills (which again are totally valid too) in planet management instead of the literal hundreds of reasons for it, and MOST IMPORTANTLY that it WAS AN EXAMPLE, not a game save, makes me doubt that said wall will convince me of much.

However, I will read it nonetheless, perhaps you have some interesting points. But this previous post has none of that except some 'remarks' and wrong comments that ignore half the game.

Btw, reaching a deficit of X job doesnt necesarily mean being bad at managing planets, an event could have destroyed one for example (such as the atomic bomb one for example) or lost it to another nation etc.