It creates a massive problem if you don't have enough planets to so specialize.
Ok. When zones add jobs based on cities, +10% jobs on a building is the same as the building adding new jobs per cities. So, +X per city would be the same thing, just a flat number rather than a precent. That's the only difference between what you suggested and what I was rambling about. Assuming we are only talking about this one piece of information of course.
The problem is, that Zone works great for Rural-only planets. So if you make a Mining Colony that's 10 Mining Districts, and 5 Generator Districts, with no city districts at all, the Amenties Zone becomes the best option.
Flat jobs were explicitly added to buildings so that you can manage a single planet if you are life-seeded or something similar. if you remove flat jobs from buildings, then your starting planet is going to have many shortages, and you are going to make general planets impossible again.
Ah, but that assumes amenities stay exactly the way they are, and I got the impression at least a few amenity buildings would be made more general back when the devs agreed the zone had to go. allowing you to dump some in rural planets anyways.
Virtuality should be the least of those because it won't have problems from pops moving to the wrong jobs, it will just HAVE jobs it doesn't need as badly as others.
A fix for that first point would be to have the generic "primitive" buildings in an urban zone early on, so you can make single-planets viable. But just have then provide an amount low-enough that specialization later becomes more viable, I guess.
The devs have responded saying yeah it's a problem and that they're going to do amenities differently.
While I'm clearly not against the current state of things + balance, I can say it happens at times. Especially if you build your home world with cg and research districts and then enter a bad cg deficient. It's not common in my experience that you really need to worry about it too much. But it happens. In my case, I don't mind spending trade in the market for a decade to get my cg out of the negative if that is what is needed. I did that a lot in 3.14 and basically ever since it was possible. so big shrug.
Yeah that's what I was getting at but you ruined my practical demonstration
(j/k). The Trade changes and the planet changes go hand in hand. Trade disconnecting from energy means you're not sacrificing a "real" resource to cover shortfalls. (E: not even shortfalls, you should be buying just because you don't want to wait a month). You're expected to buy stuff, otherwise your trade is mounting up uselessly and you're throwing away utility. If you need more CG and none of your city increasers work then you set up a standing trade on the market. That's how the game works now.
Its partly a balance problem. But I might have done this bad enough thanks to more unity districts on colonies in my first game. Opps.
Like I said before, I was doing this when the trade resource was energy. the only difference now is that I don't enter energy death spirals because I built one to many robot colonies. It's still possible, but energy problems no longer blind side me. Cause I'm not spending it in the market.Yeah that's what I was getting at but you ruined my practical demonstration
That's the point of trade now.
Yup, we're agreeing at each other here. The "you" in my post is the, uh, royal you? Not you yourself. It's going to be a mindset shift for some players. If a player is used to running clockwork economies where dipping into the market means they messed up their economy by overproducing energy instead of the thing they're low on then it's going to be a bit of a mindset shift to realise that no, that's not how it works anymore. You're expected to use the trade burning a hole in your pocket, whether that's starting the game by dropping it on a chunk of minerals to jump start your economy or propping up a shortfall of CG instead of optimising your CG output to exactly match your input.
What an utterly condescending response.
It is theoretically a solution to just increase the per-job disparity between inputs and outputs to favor outputs more. Although, I've also thought of a new "simplest possible solution" option that doesn't require changing the balance between jobs. Your post made me think of it because it made me think of "how do we make this not actually a problem without changing almost anything."
actually a very nice solution. I like it! mainly because I can see myself using it despite not normally wanting to muck around with closing jobs.
Yeah, it's just an upgrade instead of a solution only to the problem. Instead of making you not need to close jobs for this, it makes you not need to close jobs ever.
