Why another economy redesign?

[grommile]

Because of designations.

Designations are only part of the story.

Buildings that buff Job X are more cost-effective on a planet with 40 of Job X than a planet with 20 of Job X.

So, it makes more sense to build one planet that makes Alloys and is stacked with Alloy buffs, and one planet that makes Science and is stacked with Science buffs, than to make two planets that each produce a balanced output of Alloys and Science.

 

[Verx90]

This a bit off-topic, but colliding two individual atoms is not really "transforming carbin (lead) into gold" - and as you pointed out yourself, the gold isotope quickly degraded again. If you wanted to do this at scale, unimaginable power would be needed, hence my reference to an actual star and a dyson sphere.

that's why I specified with our current tech, stellaris-sci-fi tech its on another scale , think that a dyson sphere is only 4k EC when completed, this mean that 100 pops produce 1\500 of a star power, a starship uses a reactor that consume 1\4000 - 1\700 of a star in EC. energy is not really a problem.

 

[Haltin]

Strategic resources does not mean there are "few" , and "rare" even on a system scale does not really mean much. Strategic means that a resource has an important use for the state. There is no such thing as something you can't replicate on a material scale, we with our current technology can already transform carbon into gold, the moment you find a resource that has an interesting and worth use, you can just replicate it.

Nitrogen is an important chemical with a wide variety of vital roles across all sorts of industries, but it's not a strategic resource since anyone can mass produce it in whatever quantities they want by simply distilling it from air, and thus there's no chance of "securing nitrogen reserves" playing a role in geopolitics. And the same is true for motes, gases and crystals in Stellaris: slap one of each of the refinery buildings on an industrial world or two and forget about them.

 

[Verx90]

Nitrogen is an important chemical with a wide variety of vital roles across all sorts of industries, but it's not a strategic resource since anyone can mass produce it in whatever quantities they want by simply distilling it from air, and thus there's no chance of "securing nitrogen reserves" playing a role in geopolitics. And the same is true for motes, gases and crystals in Stellaris: slap one of each of the refinery buildings on an industrial world or two and forget about them.

i feel like this is an argument that would go a long way , and is outside the discussion. agree to disagree.

 

[Enero]

Strategic resources does not mean there are "few" , and "rare" even on a system scale does not really mean much. Strategic means that a resource has an important use for the state. There is no such thing as something you can't replicate on a material scale, we with our current technology can already transform carbon into gold, the moment you find a resource that has an interesting and worth use, you can just replicate it.

They were meant to be "rare" - hard to produce.

If you do not understand what you are talking about, I don't see the reason to continue. I'am tired of explaning basic things.

 

[-Marauder-]

To expand on this, performance results this patch are "mixed".

From what I've heard, some people's systems are doing better, some are doing worse. Some people are lagging on the month tick, others have no month tick lag but a persistent lag. Developers seem to be suspecting different hardware is getting different results; they have requested people with especially bad performance to list system specs and provide a save file.

Late game lag still exists, but a lot of "in-the-know" modders kind of expected some late-game lag to remain since two big sources of lag are rendering ships and fleet pathfinding, neither of which got updated this patch.

Yeah, no. Any data shown so far has shown the game runs 25-30% slower and much more early. Any "it feels better now" has been "it just feels that way" without them actually looking into it. So any improvements seem to be entirely placebo so far.

 

[Foxosaur]

Yeah, no. Any data shown so far has shown the game runs 25-30% slower and much more early. Any "it feels better now" has been "it just feels that way" without them actually looking into it. So any improvements seem to be entirely placebo so far.

I will say that that, despite me saying speed is better at end game, I've found that is when you just do nothing. The moment you open a window, it freezes and at times even goes horrible as you watch fleet movements on galaxy view with something open.

I suspect it's a UI frame problem - that when you open a window, e.g. Planetary, it force requests to display the current information, probably with a very specific query to SQLite or some-in memory query / set of pointers and keeps requesting information and locking the game until the fields are updated.

Maybe the real time tick updates to the UI need uncoupling from the RTS aspects of the game (visual) which are by the millisecond. How and if that's likely possible in Clausewitz, I've no idea.

[Edit] I've since had a small musing where I wondered if the (modern equivalent of) direct draw is waiting to redraw the whole surface e.g. whole screen. When in times long forgotten you might have multiple surfaces beyond background and foreground. So you would have a surface for dialog windows that sit on a higher layer than the main screen.

P.S I say this to try and help a game I play a lot of, rather than any interest in a job / attention

 

[T5_k]

As a scientist myself, this one hurts to read. We can most definitely not transform carbon into gold, nor can we transform any other element into another aside from very limited attempts in nuclear fusion test reactors, which fuse two Hydrogen isotopes into Helium; and unless we can safely replicate an entire star we will never be able to turn carbon into gold.

Edit: If we apply hard sci-fi, transforming minerals into rare elements would require a megastructure not unlike a dyson sphere and be a very late game tech.

https://www.home.cern/news/news/physics/alice-detects-conversion-lead-gold-lhc

Actually... but yeah, nowhere near practical amounts

 

[Voidian]

I have not been following Stellaris recently. Coming back after 4.0 was rather disappointing.

What were the reason why they decided to spend ressources on another economy rework? Is there a dev diary you can point me to? The search function wasn't helpful and I don't have time to read through all of them.

Thanks!

They want to (finally) fix the late game lag that made Stellaris unplayable for so many people.

Now we just need to wait for a fix to the late game lag caused by the fix to the late game lag.

 

[Verx90]

Nitrogen is an important chemical with a wide variety of vital roles across all sorts of industries, but it's not a strategic resource since anyone can mass produce it in whatever quantities they want by simply distilling it from air, and thus there's no chance of "securing nitrogen reserves" playing a role in geopolitics. And the same is true for motes, gases and crystals in Stellaris: slap one of each of the refinery buildings on an industrial world or two and forget about them.

I really don't want to keep having this conversation in this discussion.
A strategic resource is something that has an important factor for a nation, it goes from abstracts concept to materials to people. the "rarity" of the resource, has nothing to do with it being a strategic resource or not.

strategic resources by stellaris definition are simply resources that are harder to produce (they require a tech, a building , and consume extra resources to be produced) the rarity of it was never part of the requirement of the resource.

edit: if you considerate our reality strategic resources, all resources in stellaris are strategic resources, from tech, pops, planets, all materials, even civics.

in stellaris there is no such thing as a "rare resource" because there is a market with infinite resources this patch did nothing about it so its like before, the closest thing to "rare" resources are minor artifact and nanomachines, that are not disponible on the market, but are still infinite in their deposits.

agree to disagree.

 

[r3xm0rt1s]

The new zones and districts stuff is terrible... in vanilla. With mods to have 4 zones per main district and 10 buildings per zone we are cooking.

 

[Red Death]

The new zones and districts stuff is terrible... in vanilla. With mods to have 4 zones per main district and 10 buildings per zone we are cooking.

Wow, that sounds like the exact wrong way to go.

I'd prefer more independent Districts, not more linked zones within districts.

 

[Somebody248]

As a scientist myself, this one hurts to read. We can most definitely not transform carbon into gold, nor can we transform any other element into another aside from very limited attempts in nuclear fusion test reactors, which fuse two Hydrogen isotopes into Helium; and unless we can safely replicate an entire star we will never be able to turn carbon into gold.

Edit: If we apply hard sci-fi, transforming minerals into rare elements would require a megastructure not unlike a dyson sphere and be a very late game tech.

We definitely can turn elements into other elements, and have been doing so using nuclear fission and fusion since the 1930s. You don't need a megastructure either, just a proton or neutron beam (which is more practical than it sounds). There's even a whole category of synthetic elements that can only be obtained from fission or fusion, most notably Plutonium.

It's not quite turning carbon into gold, but creating heavier elements is something any stellaris empire could definitely do. Something like using energy districts/reactors to produce volatile motes (whatever those are supposed to be).

Also, stars don't turn carbon into gold. You need a supernova for that, which is why gold is rare.