We read your post. It showed a continuing pattern of total condescension and dismissal of anyone disagreeing with you.
- 1
- 1
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
By altering a previous post doing exactly the same thing in the other direction. Because it was obvious and patent nonsense.
Look I have to say, all this is explaining a lot.
Perhaps you should consider reading the post I made quoting you in the first place.
Don't try to play the victim when you've already done this once in this thread. Here's that one.
You have a repeated record of assuming people who disagree with you are just lying.
- 3
I wasn't accusing you of lying, I was accusing you of operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of the system due to trying to apply old paradigms.
In 3.1 the market ran on energy, and as such was an inefficient place to source resources (outside of certain edge cases like the cheap mineral trick). If you were producing enough excess EC to be regularly trading it meant you were wasting a bunch of space and pops that could have been better spent generating those resources directly. Or you were playing a megacorp who have that as their whole gimmick. Trade policy was the only really efficient way to turn trade into stuff. It was a break glass in case of emergency system.
By decoupling trade from a "real" resource this problem goes away. Trade is something you make just by existing, and not spending it, either by specialising planets or buying stuff from the market, is throwing away possible advantages.
So if you need a little more CG and your CG source is a cg/science planet and you don't want more science then you can just... buy some CG. It's OK to do that now. And even with the inverted trade cost bugs resolved that still very much applies to most situations where you want to tweak your economy, but only a little bit.
I was asking for a screenshot because I figured I'd be able to say "Yeah, spend some of that buckets of trade I see up there". Or, possibly, say "OK you've really screwed up this planet, why did you build it like that, that was never going to work". Or maybe something else. Or maybe I'd see your example and go "Huh, that is a very plausible setup I would have expected to work but you're absolutely right. Welp."
But I couldn't do that without seeing some actual examples of the issues you were running into rather than vague statements that it didn't work and you couldn't do a thing that, if playing the game the way it's designed, you don't need to do anyway.
Do they? Under old system if you designate a planet to produce science and CGs, you build housing to maximize building slots, some industry districts and fill the planet with labs. You made your choice and was steadily shaping up the planet to realize this choice.
Under new system, if you do the same designation, you build 2 zones (on of them twice) and fill the building slots with buildings. Then you just upgrade city district.
I fail to see the fundamental change.
Characterization wise planets in Stellaris are pretty bland and boring, under both systems. Zones don't do anything in this regard.
If by 'mixed planets' being clear you mean 'there is literally only 3 possible zones per planet' then sure, they are pretty clear. You know what would be ever clearer - just one zone. Super clear. Or, hear me out - let's just toss this distracting stuff and have just one resource. I'm being facetious, but Stellaris is a complex game with lots of moving parts. Tossing away systems just so that UI looks clean due to the fact that there isn't anything to show - well, this might be a W for you, but average PDX player likes a bit of complexity. That's why we play this and not other games
If limiting buildings is a factor for you - you can just limit buildings, without zones. Maybe even rework buildings, again without zones. Overall though, for you personally limited = compelling. For others variety = compelling, it is after all the matter of taste.
This is just wild to me. You. Can. Not. Balance. Mixed. Output. Planets. You have single district, if you place unity zone, research zone and industry zone - you upgrade then all at the same time. If anything zone system very much invites players to just make planets mono-output. As for previous system - I wouldn't say it punishes mixed output, rather it encourages specific outputs with Planet Ascension tiers, some special structures like Planetary ring (I don't even have that DLC tho). But that's the issue that zones don't solve. If the core issue was bonus stacking for specific outputs, zones don't do anything to address that.
Civvies have nothing to do with zones. And also they don't work properly, on a account of them not having a defined role in the game yet. So talking about that is a bit of a moot point, and totally missing the point when talking about zones.
I'm not saying old system is ideal. But, as far as I can see, your list don't provide enough arguments for zones are they are right now. And the argument against zones goes not only to them as a system, but also takes into account the dev time required to properly implement it.
- 5
On a thread talking about the beta. And my experiences with the beta.
You were in fact trying to accuse me of lying. That's why you used "hypothetical" to respond to me saying what I found to be a problem. You didn't think, and still don't think, that could possibly be backed by reality - you did not experience it, so it was more convenient for you to assume I was lying about that being a problem than to admit that it IS a problem for anyone.
You didn't say "I think there's a solution to that problem, could you describe it more?"
You said it was a hypothetical problem and demanded screenshots, and contrary to what you might think people DO know what you're doing there. You're accusing them of lying. You know that, which is why instead of going 'my bad' you wrote multiple paragraphs that actually you were only calling me stupid for not understanding the system in the beta.
- 4
So you're calling me a liar?
I have multiple times stated that you are not understanding the system in the beta. I have never called you stupid, nor thought you were.
There was a jerky stinger here that i have removed. I genuinely don't think you're stupid. Or lying. I do find the way you choose to approach some things very frustrating sometimes.
- 1
Just saw this in a thread about 3.99.5 patch. This is great. I have a better idea - let's just have one zone. You pick it when you colonize a planet and can't change it. This would be an interesting, meaningful and impactful choice, right? /s
Jeez. 4.0 is getter closer and closer to IRL...
- 3
- 1
I was responding to:
And I specifically said:
I was not arguing for zones. I was explaining why I like them. Seriously. I was trying to put into words why I enjoy the system as it exists in the beta. Because that was what someone asked for. It was never meant to convince anyone, simply explain and hopefully seek some kind of understanding.
This is important: 'It's about how it feels to play with. Not mechanics.'
I also don't decide what my colonies are going to be right at the beginning, even more now in the beta than before. Instead, I decide what I need at the time and if the planet fits with it, I go with it. Which means I'm probably not building a second zone until I decide that I need something, and this planet will work for building it. Something that might happen much later, or just the next time I build up a decent buffer of civilians.
Maybe I wasn't clear. Yes, planets aren't great.
But zones make it clear--right when you look at that planet--what is going on. No need to count up district numbers vers building numbers to know what is being built on the planet. A quick glance at the zones, and you know exactly what is happening.
Never said it was the only way to do anything.
Well. I'm at a loss to what you mean by balance. Also, I'm not certain what this has to do with what I said either. As an unrelated note, I have no problems with a city district upgrading every city zone on the planet. I don't find this difficult to deal with, and I'm not bother by 'swinging jobs' or the increased costs. It doesn't bother me nor does it reduce my enjoyment.
Best I can try to explain again. Yes. mechanically the push towards mono-planets is still there. But it feels a lot less.
I don't build my planets based on some preset plan. In fact, I've gotten kind of annoyed when I tried to do that. Trying to build a planet as my 'factory world' tends to annoy me because I always--both beta and 3.14--end up wanting to build something else there because I need it and there are free pops to work the jobs. But then in 3.14 I feel like I have to 'unmix' all my mixed planets because the game as a whole seems designed to push you towards the mono-planet designs.
Again, I feel compelled to reiterate. This is not supposed to convince you of anything. I'm not writing this as an argument in favor of Zones. This is why I enjoy zones. I actually like how city districts work, but don't think its necessary and understand many people don't. this isn't supposed to convince you that you should like it. Its to help explain why I like it, because someone asked why, and I felt the need to tell them.
- 2
Sorry, you can't glance at the planetary designation in 3.14?
You can't glance at the production info?
You can't glance at the number of brightly lit and colour coded district boxes? You have to precisely count every little one otherwise you're just totally clueless, are you?
Zones are not needed to quickly identify what a world produces.
Last edited:
- 2
I basically see a lot in the beta that I enjoy, and then Zones being actively detrimental to some of it.
I'll take as an example the trade deficit system. It theoretically should mean you can either specialize, but use trade, or alternatively you can spread out your income of each resource per-planet to avoid needing trade. Or anywhere in the middle - maybe you produce a bit of energy local to each planet for building upkeep, but don't bother for other resources you'd rather centralize.
But then Zones exist. And Zones make that level of fine economic control impossible - the limit of number doesn't help here, but the bigger problem is being unable to build only the one job you want if you're trying to use mixed output. Or prioritize it, which would mostly resolve the issue. The latest update helped, but it didn't fix the problem by any means.
I like most of the update besides Zones, and I like a lot of Zones. I in turn feel compelled to say that I'm not really arguing against you in my previous post, but I AM arguing against implementing Zones in 4.0 rather than trying to polish them more first. There's been enough in this beta to convince me that they CAN be a good addition to the game, but equally that they aren't one now.
- 5
- 2
.png){kind=avatar}
No, this is actually mostly done now. It's only some minor changes left. Beta is all but over. You get to enjoy a new system with more drop down menus and obscure mechanics. Where you can't even see pop growth anymore and have over all less control and impact. And this is better because "it might open design space for the future". Sure no actual plans for anything right now, but they might maybe do something with it, probably not though.
I'd argue zones actually obscure stuff, same as the new UI. Which is more cluttered, give less concise information, etc.
- 1
This is giving me "leader rework" vibes all over again.
Judging from all the feedback, developers could benefit from delaying implementing zones, at least in their current state.
Not that I think that it is a bad concept, but it will need a ton of iteration to improve the previous planet management system, and there are also a plethora of other changes coming with Phoenix that will need fine-tuning as well.
Judging from all the feedback, developers could benefit from delaying implementing zones, at least in their current state.
Not that I think that it is a bad concept, but it will need a ton of iteration to improve the previous planet management system, and there are also a plethora of other changes coming with Phoenix that will need fine-tuning as well.
- 7
Sadly reading their comments they are wed to their design so we are stuck with it. The old someone who cannot be questioned is driving this train. Honestly I am just amazed at how bad the colony UI is and how it isn't improving. At this point just give us a grid up to five rows of ten scaled to planet size and lets just color the blocks. At least then I could at a glance know what I am looking at (parts of the grid would be colored in showing resources and you could choose which ones to build on eliminating them as a resource - the old just cut down the rain forest for a factory model)
- 3
Yeah, it feels like a step back in almost every way. And hearing that they "will work on it over the summer and add stuff to civics/planetary features" feels like not only is this going to be released way ahead of when it should be. They themselves seem to be struggling to come up with a justification for it.
- 5
- 2
There's simply no justification for this change. It doesn't fix any of the problems of the old system. It creates many new ones. And even if I have to repeat myself, the AI can't handle this system. And it won't be able to in five weeks (release).
And if the AI nations can't grow, why am I supposed to play this game? I don't play multiplayer, only single-player against the AI. But if the AI is destroyed by the new system, what's left?
- 4
It also, implicitly, means it will AT BEST be pointless until after summer. Those aren't going to be patches IN the summer.
This is, in my opinion after playing around with it a lot in the beta, an idea that CAN be a good addition. It isn't now, and it won't be 5/5 either. It might be if they do another beta for it after 4.0.
It's an idea that CAN resolve some problems with the 3.14 system, with more work. It doesn't resolve any problem now, and it causes huge problems.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3
Here is my Empire, 22-years into the game. As you can see, I am currently in a Consumer Goods Defecit -6 on both this planet and my empire, and my one Planet has plenty of Unemployed Pops. I have 5 City Districts built, with an Archive and Industrial Zone.
And here's is that exact same planet, after building a 6th City District, a year and a half later. I wanted a month after it was completed, to ensure everything was recalculated. I still have many Unemployed Pops, so all jobs are still being filled. And yet, I am still in a Consumer Goods Defecit of -4 for this planet and Empire.
Because of the Mixed Disricts, building an additional City District only increases my total Consumer Goods Production by a net of 2 CGs. Meaning just to break even, I would need to build 2 more City Districts right away. If I did not have the Pops available to fill all those jobs, we would see the problem of Strata jumping occur, leading to losses in other resources.
Which leaves me the option of spamming Factories to fix this (aka the 3.14 "Problem" they want to fix with Zones), or once again fiddling with my Market Trades for a Defecit that I cannot fix through building Districts.
How is this better than being able to build Industrial or Factory Districts?
- 5