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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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.
But you are right, rural planets need a way to produce amenities.
If by rural you mean a planet with minimal city districts, you can just plonk down an urban zone and put in medical, gene and cryo clinics and it'll solve any amenity problems a planet will have.
Personally don't think this is how it should be in the long run as having to put down an urban zone everywhere is kinda the same problem as having to place an amenity zone everywhere, difference being that the buildings produce a non scaling amount of jobs.
Still waiting to see how they plan on resolving the amenity issue.
1. No, I already played it and I'm not doing so again just to get you screenshots. I don't find it fun due to the mentioned issue.
2. If you have a solution for the not remotely hypothetical problem, you don't need to see it in action to produce a solution.
The solution depends on the specific scenario. For example, as above, if the problem is you want a bit more CG the solution is (probably, depending on your setup) to convert some excess trade into CG. If you have other scenarios the solution might be different.
The solution depends on the specific scenario. For example, as above, if the problem is you want a bit more CG the solution is (probably, depending on your setup) to convert some excess trade into CG. If you have other scenarios the solution might be different.
That isn't a solution to the described problem. It has almost nothing to do with the described problem except at the most tangential level - "the problem results in economic problems, and you can cover for economic problems with the market." The problem is not that I somehow don't know how to fix economic problems with the market (this would be the condescension I'm referring to). The problem is not the economic instability, that is one of the results of the problem.
That isn't a solution to the described problem. It has almost nothing to do with the described problem except at the most tangential level - "the problem results in economic problems, and you can cover for economic problems with the market." The problem is not that I somehow don't know how to fix economic problems with the market (this would be the condescension I'm referring to). The problem is not the economic instability, that is one of the results of the problem.
It's also not for someone to presumptuously declare what is and is not the "correct" gameplay. Especially if they're not from the studio.
Internal market is and always was a band aid to prevent death spirals. I'd rather the developers not implement sloppy systems that rely on it to even function..
It's also not for someone to pronounce what is and is not "correct" gameplay.
Internal market is and always was a band aid to prevent death spirals. I'd rather the developers not implement sloppy system that rely on it to even function..
I assume trade being the market resource makes the market less of a "break glass if you end up temporarily in a severe deficit" thing, but I haven't done much with it in the beta as of yet so I don't really know.
Still, even if it is improved to that degree, it doesn't relate to the problem. And it's kind of in the same tier as closing jobs, not least because setting up monthly trades duplicates the annoyance of closing jobs where you have to remember to reopen them later. It's one fewer step than that (build, go back and close, go back and reopen later is worse than create trade, cancel trade later) but it's still quite annoying.
That isn't a solution to the described problem. It has almost nothing to do with the described problem except at the most tangential level - "the problem results in economic problems, and you can cover for economic problems with the market." The problem is not that I somehow don't know how to fix economic problems with the market (this would be the condescension I'm referring to). The problem is not the economic instability, that is one of the results of the problem.
Your stated problem is that you want to be able to increase production of a single resource. If that's your root problem, that you're annoyed your can't do that on principle, that would be silly. It'd be like being mad that 3.x doesn't let you use building slots for districts.
If your root problem is due to specific scenarios you've encountered and you're annoyed you couldn't solve them with the hammer you're used to using then yes, the specific scenarios are relevant, because that dictates what tool you should be using instead of or as well as the hammer.
And it might be an amenities situation where the response is "Actually yeah that doesn't work they should change that bit" (but even there the main problem with amenities isn't that you can't scale them independently).
I know that some of you would like to see the zones removed entirely, but it seems to me that the developer's intent is to keep them in place, so perhaps it would be more productive to talk about how they could be made to work so that they provide satisfactory gameplay.
As for me, I have yet to try the beta. Reading from impressions, I was extremely wary initially, but I have become cautiously hopeful after seeing the rapid balance passes and more beta testers warming up to them.
As to how to "solve" zones, I have some ideas (mainly, a new "zone taxonomy"), but I don't think that "player freedom" should be a goal unto itself. Having uncapped basic resource districts on all planets, for example, would indeed give players more freedom, but that would also make the game duller and monotonous. Imposing player restrictions can give birth to hard, interesting choices, or so I believe, and zones could contribute to that.
I assume trade being the market resource makes the market less of a "break glass if you end up temporarily in a severe deficit" thing, but I haven't done much with it in the beta as of yet so I don't really know.
Still, even if it is improved to that degree, it doesn't relate to the problem. And it's kind of in the same tier as closing jobs, not least because setting up monthly trades duplicates the annoyance of closing jobs where you have to remember to reopen them later. It's one fewer step than that (build, go back and close, go back and reopen later is worse than create trade, cancel trade later) but it's still quite annoying.
But the click savings from not micromanaging your per-planet production to the 3.x level are far greater than the increased clicks from the empire level action of using the market. Yeah if you're specifically doing a one or two planet build then "planet level" and "empire level" are basically synonymous, but in a regular game you're going to have three planets pretty darn quick with the market as effectively a highly flexible 4th planet that runs on trade, a resource you generate just by existing. And once you're 5 or 6 planets in you're able to effectively manage your t2/t3 resource economy by picking planets to upgrade based on their net production instead of having to micro at the per-building or per-district level.
As for me, I have yet to try the beta. Reading from impressions, I was extremely weary initially, but I have become cautiously hopeful after seeing the rapid balance passes and more beta testers warming up to them.
As to how to "solve" zones, I have some ideas (mainly, a new "zone taxonomy"), but I don't think that "player freedom" should be a goal unto itself. Having uncapped basic resource districts on all planets, for example, would indeed give players more freedom, but that would also make the game duller and monotonous. Imposing player restrictions can give birth to hard, interesting choices, or so I believe, and zones could contribute to that.
Try it—it’s free and takes 30 minutes or less to experience the issue with the new system. (Not speaking of bugs or unfinished features!)
I think we are too few people here to convince a big change anyway, as it’s clearly polarized: we have a couple of people(around 2) who are adamant it will work in the end, and people like me who are convinced this is a recipe for controversy.
We’ll all see in the end what the majority says when the DLC + update drops in 6 weeks and the Steam reviews are in.
I don’t really want to engage in the "zone experiment" discussion anymore—it’s clear they’re going down the rocky road. I’m starting to repeat myself, this is the fourth or fifth thread pointing out it’s flaws and it’s always the same rebuttals to the same concerns. We’re not moving forward, and the feature is set in stone until it either explodes in the devs’ faces—or it works out, everything gets fixed, and it’s the best thing since Utopia!
Try it—it’s free and takes 30 minutes or less to experience the issue with the new system. (Not speaking of bugs or unfinished features!)
I think we are too few people here to convince a big change anyway, as it’s clearly polarized: we have a couple of people(around 2) who are adamant it will work in the end, and people like me who are convinced this is a recipe for controversy.
We’ll all see in the end what the majority says when the DLC + update drops in 6 weeks and the Steam reviews are in.
I don’t really want to engage in the "zone experiment" discussion anymore—it’s clear they’re going down the rocky road. I’m starting to repeat myself, this is the fourth or fifth thread pointing out it’s flaws and it’s always the same rebuttals to the same concerns. We’re not moving forward, and the feature is set in stone until it either explodes in the devs’ faces—or it works out, everything gets fixed, and it’s the best thing since Utopia!
Yeah it's still so dumb that I build a Habitat and the first people on it are ... 100 Politicians.
Administrators made a bit of sense as someone who RUNS THE THING but Politicians are just absurd in both their current resource output and their current roles.
Pointless. We have issues now that get deflected with "let them fix it" or "it will work out, trust me bro," while the current reality is that these are issues that seem unsolvable—and extrapolated, they depict a "doom and gloom" scenario for the future of planet management.
And as the devs clearly state, "They will allow us in the future to do more stuff" and "this is not an experiment and will go live," we’re clearly out of the loop the moment we say, "This system is not good, please revert or change it."
So what's there to rebut? Aircastles? Hopes and dreams?
At this point, it seems like a waste of energy. I think we can’t do anything anymore, as they seem to ignore our feedback as soon as we say the system isn’t working or looks bad.
I’ve given my feedback and concerns on numerous occasions, and now we can only wait and see if this explodes in their faces or mabye not.
I assume trade being the market resource makes the market less of a "break glass if you end up temporarily in a severe deficit" thing, but I haven't done much with it in the beta as of yet so I don't really know.
I've never really treated the market as an 'in emergency only' resource, so the reservations people have about using to fix minor problems or even major ones doesn't make sense to me.
That's actively insulting. Genuinely so. I have posted extremely long, point by point responses to things you've said and you know it. In a previous thread you have even asked me to basically repeat a previous post I made in response to you in the same thread, I linked to the post, other people responded going "Oh, that makes a lot of sense actually", and then you ran off to another thread to make the same complaints because you know you don't have any actual answers. You've invested yourself into being the harbinger of doom and actually addressing actual responses would get in the way of that.
Your stated problem is that you want to be able to increase production of a single resource. If that's your root problem, that you're annoyed your can't do that on principle, that would be silly. It'd be like being mad that 3.x doesn't let you use building slots for districts.
If your root problem is due to specific scenarios you've encountered and you're annoyed you couldn't solve them with the hammer you're used to using then yes, the specific scenarios are relevant, because that dictates what tool you should be using instead of or as well as the hammer.
It is not producing more of one resource to buy more of it instead.
The game being annoying to fine-tune, yet still possible, is not an "in principle" annoyance, it's an "in fact" annoyance.
Still, pending a few more patches to seeif they do it, I think I've got the solution already. It's easy...ish to implement, doesn't require changing any mechanics to do (like doesn't require actually adding only one job), and improves job management in general (by essentially removing closing and reopening jobs as a thing you ever need to do). We shall see.
The solution depends on the specific scenario. For example, as above, if the problem is you want a bit more CG the solution is (probably, depending on your setup) to convert some excess trade into CG. If you have other scenarios the solution might be different.
One very important thing about Trade I feel I need to stress: Trade is completely broken. Trade consumption from planetary deficits counts as income.
(It was mentioned as a known bug in 3.99.0 dev diary two weeks ago: "Planetary Logistic Upkeep currently pays you Trade if you have surpluses. While it takes money to make money, that’s not exactly what we were going for.")
My test game last night instead of being -705 from deficits was +705 from deficits, so my economy is propped up by +1410 points of bugged trade value (and making planets self-reliant currently hurts your economy rather than helping it).
One AI was sat at 100% devastation, maxed stored trade, no trade production, only income from bugged -270 energy planet deficit creating +77.85 trade.
Bugged trade is giving beta players lots of extra cash all game to fix economic problems with the zones.
In 4.0 Trade will instead be adding to economic problems and death spirals. Bugs need to be fixed urgently.
Balance changes should not be made while the economic numbers are all buggy.
Also the first 3k-6k pops will probably not have all their amenities provided by a single Luxury housing building and the capital building. I've no idea what they're going to do about amenity management but that also needs to be decided and included before amenity balance discussions can take place.
Every time I look at the 3.99.4 planet UI the more I hate it.
Every single number is extremely silly like +90 motes from one building, or +11278 clerk jobs added in 5 days from one zone.
It's awkward to do anything. Zones are supposed to have restricted build options but my Ecumenopolis has 55 options for what to build in the two Government zone slots... so I have to build an Urban zone if I want more slots, or maybe build the relevant zone... but I can't see what a zone will let me build without first building it (obviously it's currently nearly free and nearly instant but that must also be temporary, and it's silly to swap thousands of jobs around in 5 days when it took 30 years to build those district jobs) and I don't want to add 12k clerk jobs just for some extra generic build slots. And are clerks themselves still just placeholders? "Clerks haven’t been annihilated yet, and many non-”core” jobs have not been fully converted into the new system. Traditions and other things that modify Clerks have not yet been updated."
Trying to compare and decide what to build now that every building upgrade has been split into a new building, each with different effects (and broken tooltips). With oddities like Quantum Drilling plants not being allowed in mining districts or Auto-Curating Vaults being unlimited and providing more max research from Bureaucrats than actual researchers.
I hate having glowing + on empty build slots because there's nothing left to build while also having identical looking but completely different and completely overcrowded build slots, or missing that I could build buildings because I haven't unlocked the zone yet. I hate the new UI!
Zones feel wrong to me in ways I cannot fully articulate. It's hard to know what feels wrong because of all the bugs (30% of the ick), what feels wrong because it's been poorly designed and balanced (20%), and lastly what feels wrong because it's just bad (50%). It seems obvious to me that a completely new system rushed out to meet a deadline will not work half as well as the systems we have tried, tested, balanced and polished already over many years.
I hope 4.0 is a success. I don't want 4.0 to kill Stellaris, or take years to polish. I hope changes over the next few weeks win me over. I'm full of doubts.
What do you think production is? This is a game. If you are producing trade and using that to set up a standing order for CG then that's as much producing CG as funneling minerals into an artisan is. From a flavour point of view, the civilians producing that trade are the ones producing the CG and you're using your taxes to buy them from them.
If you have no civilians and are generating no trade then yes, there's no-one to buy CG from, but that's fine because you have no trade to buy it with.
One very important thing about Trade I feel I need to stress: Trade is completely broken. Trade consumption from planetary deficits counts as income.
(It was mentioned as a known bug in 3.99.0 dev diary two weeks ago: "Planetary Logistic Upkeep currently pays you Trade if you have surpluses. While it takes money to make money, that’s not exactly what we were going for.")
My test game last night instead of being -705 from deficits was +705 from deficits, so my economy is propped up by +1410 points of bugged trade value (and making planets self-reliant currently hurts your economy rather than helping it).
One AI was sat at 100% devastation, maxed stored trade, no trade production, only income from bugged -270 energy planet deficit creating +77.85 trade.
Bugged trade is giving beta players lots of extra cash all game to fix economic problems with the zones.
In 4.0 Trade will instead be adding to economic problems and death spirals. Bugs need to be fixed urgently.
Balance changes should not be made while the economic numbers are all buggy.
Fascinating. So to be clear, essentially everyone has massively inflated trade to use to fix problems, especially if they are NOT actually trying to manage their economy in detail anyway?
That would explain a lot. I've been trying to prevent having the logistics deficit, but that means people who are ignoring it (the people who seem to just be specializing, while I've been unable to do so because I wouldn't be able to pay a trade deficit that is apparently currently income) are actually not seeing either end of the problem. They specialize and don't have to fine-tune outputs as much, yet simultaneously aren't suffering the penalty we will in 4.0 for ignoring that and get enough faux income to forcibly fine-tune their economy until it fixes itself.
