• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Stellaris Dev Diary #152 - Summer Experimentation

Hello everyone!

Summer vacations are reaching their end and most of the team is back as of last week. Work has started again and we're really excited for what we have in store for the rest of the year.

While most of us have been away during most of the summer, we’ve also had some people who worked during July. July is a very good time to try out different designs and concepts that we might not otherwise have time to do, and today we thought it might be fun for you to see some of the experiments we ran during that period of hiatus.

Although we learned some useful insights, these experiments didn’t end up being good enough to make a reality.

Industrial Districts
As I have mentioned earlier, I have wanted to find a better solution for how we handle the production of alloys and consumer goods. I often felt like the experience of developing a planet felt better with an Ecumenopolis rather than with a regular planet. I think a lot of it had to do with their unique districts and that it feels better to get the jobs from constructing districts rather than buildings. Not necessarily as an emotion reaction to the choice, but rather that the choice perhaps feels more “pure” or simple.

An experiment I wanted to run was to see if it was possible to add an industrial district that provided Laborer jobs, instead of having buildings for Metallurgists and Artisans. Laborers would produce both alloys and consumer goods but could be shifted towards producing more of either.

This meant we added a 5th district, the Industrial District. By adding another district we also needed to reduce the number of building slots available. Since there would be no more need for buildings that produced alloys and consumer goods, this should still end up being similar.

upload_2019-8-15_12-14-17.png

A Laborer would consume 8 minerals to produce 2 alloys and 4 consumer goods, and that amount could be modified in either direction by passing a Decision. What I wanted was to have an industry that could have a military and civilian output, and where you could adjust the values between these outputs.

Having a laborer job that generates an “industrial output”, which could be translated into either alloys or consumer goods did feel good, but the specific solution we used didn’t feel quite right.

City Districts & Building slots
Another experiment was to see how it felt if city districts unlock building slots instead of pops. This experiment didn’t have a specific problem or issue it was trying to address but rather it was to investigate how that would feel and work. It was interesting but ultimately it felt less fun than the current implementation. It would have needed more time to see if it could be made to work.
upload_2019-8-15_12-15-12.png

This experiment did include increasing the number of jobs you would get for the building, so a research lab would provide 3 jobs instead of 2.

City District Jobs from Buildings
At the same time, we also tried a version where buildings applied jobs to city districts instead of providing jobs by themselves. One upside would be that you’d need less micromanagement to get the jobs, but the downside is that it would also be quite a large upswing in new jobs whenever you built a city district. In the end, it felt like you had less control and understanding of what a planet was specializing in.

Summary
Although these experiments were interesting, they didn’t end up quite where we wanted to, so they never became more than just experiments. We did learn some interesting things though, which we will keep in mind for the future. The industrial districts are still something I want to keep looking into, but we have to find a better solution.

Dev diaries will now be back on a regular schedule, but we will be looking into changing the format a bit this time around. For now, dev diaries will be coming bi-weekly, which means we will be back again in another 2 weeks with a similar topic.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hello, sorry for my english, here are my opinion on what could be done with buildings:

About the Industrial district idea: There is typically three types of buildings that I spam on planets (1 type per planet): Civilian industries, Alloy fundries AND Research facilities. If the two formers get a district of their own, what about adding a research district as well? Or keeping the district system as it is, so base ressources are produced a litttle on every planet (and provide housing), and advanced ones require that extra step from the player + unlocking building slots, this is not a bad system at the moment.

The main problem with it being that the AI cannot restrain itself from upgrading every building and so will tank it's economy regarding rare ressources unless one plays with grand admiral difficulty. One way to deal with that'd be for the AI to wait for having unemployment before upgrading these buildings.

About the rare ressources buildings: Some planets (including FE planets) have rare particularities that gives them the option to build a limited number of different rare ressources collectors. Those building output's should be MUCH more meaningful in my opinion (instead of being exactly the same as regular ones', just saving a few minerals). Given the fact that rare ressources can be made in buildings on any planet, to be interesting the building unlocked by having a deposit should at least have twice their base output (I'd advocate for even more so they get truly strategically important). The deposits of rare ressources are a mechanic with much potential that is totally not used at the moment.

As it stands now the Xenozoo (with its 3 jobs) also seems worse than having another fully upgraded building on its slot, whereas it requires having a rare particularity on the planet to be built (or am I missing something? The happiness bonus it used to give is not mentionned in it's description anymore...). The Betharian building is not bad at the moment, but could be made more powerful also. I feel that rare planet particularities were much more meaningful in the old days with the tiles system, and to me every mechanic that differenciate planets and make them feel more unique and less interchangeable is a good thing!

Also I find the Anti-crime building output quite disproportionate (and to a lesser extent the amenities (services) output of holotheaters, but more because there is plenty of other ways to get services on a planet that cumulate)... It is either I don't need to build one on my worlds, or if I need to build one it will give such a reduction of criminality that I can never upgrade it, have an agreement with the Crime lords, a corrupt governor, a 100+ population, and still have more crime reduction than I'll ever need. I have not understood yet why the AI has ever built THREE of them on some of it's worlds...
 
Last edited:
Buildings in this game are never represented as a single entity.
They are all plural.
Maybe, you should ensure, that your statements support your standpoint, but fine, even in this case, it makes sense, that the size of a world (not this arbitrary limit of 16 for each and everyone) impacts the maximal number of its "buildings" (like its districts) since whether a so called "building" is a (single) massive structure, (which I hadn't really in my mind anyways), or rather a collection of a zillion smaller ones doesn't really make a difference. Anyways, this stuff is all "nitpicking", what matters is, that the implementation of "buildings" has a lot of inconsistencies, especially in comparison to the one with districts.
 
Honestly, I don't really like consumer goods, so I immediately gravitate towards a Gestalt Conciousness nowadays. Consumer goods just feel too simplified, and they're no fun to deal with. It just feels like a nuisance. And this is a shame, because it cancels out many potential empires for me...
 
Honestly, I don't really like consumer goods, so I immediately gravitate towards a Gestalt Conciousness nowadays. Consumer goods just feel too simplified, and they're no fun to deal with. It just feels like a nuisance. And this is a shame, because it cancels out many potential empires for me...
I agree with that sentiment. There is very little to spend CG on, so it does provide very little gameplay value. We already have a pop maintenance currency with food.

The economy in Stellaris is just bad..
 
The economy in Stellaris is just bad.
...in your opinion. Which many people, myself included, don't share.
01. Except the issue with alloys and consumer goods: They play like unnecessary derivatives of minerals (alloys) and minerals + food (consumer goods) since they share pretty much the same functions: If alloys and consumer goods would get "axed" then you wouldn't really "miss" them since minerals and minerals + food could pretty much take over all the "tasks" of alloys and consumer goods without any issues ...

02. More than that, I'm often "forced" to construct more of the common and repeatable factories for alloys and consumer goods, just because I have to (since my fleet (alloys) and a zillion of jobs (consumer goods) need them), so that I don't really have the "freedom" to choose for the more special and colony-unique "buildings" like temples or clinics or even for the more special and repeatable ones like research-labs or theatres or trade-zones or strongholds. ( Remember, even (for example) research-labs need factories for consumer goods BEFORE since the researcher-jobs need consumer goods to function ). If alloys and consumer goods would get "axed" then you would actually get the "freedom" of choice to specialize your colonies (through "buildings") since the "must-have" of your economy (minerals, food and ECs) would be produced via the system of districts ...

And in regards to this dev-diary: These "industrial" districts maybe deal with point 02 (since alloys and consumer goods become a part of the system for districts), but A. it's ****, that there's 1 district for both (alloys and consumer goods) and B. point 01 still remains as a whole ...

POPs have food as a maintenance, sure.
Why can't they have multiple forms of maintenance?
Is the ONLY THING people need to live and be productive food?
No, but the thing is, that food is already a consumer good, which means, that either food has to get "axed" ( in favour for consumer goods ) or ( like I mentioned ), that consumer goods have to get "axed" ( in favour for food + minerals ( minerals in the sense of anything else than food ) ).
 
...in your opinion. Which many people, myself included, don't share.

POPs have food as a maintenance, sure. Why can't they have multiple forms of maintenance? Is the ONLY THING people need to live and be productive food?
In the current set up, the only real difference between food and consumer goods is that one requires only a district to make and the other requires both a building and minerals to make, and they give different penalties if you don't have enough. Add in that amenities and housing also exist to serve as other forms of maintenance, though, and that consumer goods serve no other purpose, it seems as though they exist purely to split your mineral income and limit how much you can put into alloys, and thus, your military.

If, on the other hand, consumer goods were more than just upkeep this might feel less arbitrary.
 
...in your opinion. Which many people, myself included, don't share.

POPs have food as a maintenance, sure. Why can't they have multiple forms of maintenance? Is the ONLY THING people need to live and be productive food?

Personally I think the bigger problem is that most resources in Stellaris just pay maintenance costs, and maintenance costs are inherently uninteresting.

Maintenance is nothing but an optimization game. If your income falls too low, build another district/building/etc. If your income is too high, replace one of those districts/buildings/etc. Anything below net-0 income is a problem and anything above it is a waste, so all maintenance costs have an unambiguous "right" answer.

The only economic resources in Stellaris that aren't mostly or entirely dedicated to paying maintenance are alloys and early-game minerals. (By mid-game you've built most civilian infrastructure, so minerals are mostly just maintaining your other factories.) Not coincidentally, these are also the most interesting resources and the ones that people focus on.

It's not that maintenance costs are necessarily bad, but between food, energy, CG's, strategic resources, minerals and alloys, by the midgame literally only alloys has a realistic use beyond monthly maintenance. All the rest just pay for the infrastructure that supports the foundries.

Edit - If strategic resources were weighted better, this would be different for them. But their ship component costs are so trivial that the only real concern is paying maintenance on civilian buildings.
 
Last edited:
...in your opinion. Which many people, myself included, don't share.

POPs have food as a maintenance, sure. Why can't they have multiple forms of maintenance? Is the ONLY THING people need to live and be productive food?
I don't particularly care how popular the opinion is, or how numerous "many people" are. That in itself isn't an argument at all, an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

The new economy was supposed to improve performance. For all practical purposes, it hasn't achieved one of its fundamental gameplay goals. Therefore it is bad.

Food is the original consumer good (the clue is in the name), so both are redundant resources while the other is represented. It's superfluous.

I also ask - have you even played as a Gestalt in the current build? Guess what there is missing from the economy?

Now the issue I was raising was there was only one transactional currency to spend stuff on, while all the others are simply maintenance currencies. The strongest economy is the one that can maximise the production of that resource while minimising production of everything else, and from there every economy in every game plays the same.

Why not have multiple transactional currencies?
 
Regarding the consumer goods discussion - if they represent the goods (and possibly services, though amenities might be supposed to fill that role) other than food that people spend their money on to live and enjoy their lives, why are consumer goods not the unit of trade? Trade value is this very nebulous and abstract thing which also might be goods and services, since its provided primarily by clerks and merchants, but why abstract it when you can use the literal stuff that is actually bought and sold? It's already there, it just needs to be used properly.
 
If alloys and consumer goods would get "axed" then you wouldn't really "miss" them since minerals and minerals + food could pretty much take over all the "tasks" of alloys and consumer goods without any issues ...
The fact that you have to turn minerals into processed forms to use them for some things ("minerals + minerals") is the entire point! It's what people like!
 
01. Except the issue with alloys and consumer goods: They play like unnecessary derivatives of minerals (alloys) and minerals + food (consumer goods) since they share pretty much the same functions: If alloys and consumer goods would get "axed" then you wouldn't really "miss" them since minerals and minerals + food could pretty much take over all the "tasks" of alloys and consumer goods without any issues ...

02. More than that, I'm often "forced" to construct more of the common and repeatable factories for alloys and consumer goods, just because I have to (since my fleet (alloys) and a zillion of jobs (consumer goods) need them), so that I don't really have the "freedom" to choose for the more special and colony-unique "buildings" like temples or clinics or even for the more special and repeatable ones like research-labs or theatres or trade-zones or strongholds. ( Remember, even (for example) research-labs need factories for consumer goods BEFORE since the researcher-jobs need consumer goods to function ). If alloys and consumer goods would get "axed" then you would actually get the "freedom" of choice to specialize your colonies (through "buildings") since the "must-have" of your economy (minerals, food and ECs) would be produced via the system of districts ...

And in regards to this dev-diary: These "industrial" districts maybe deal with point 02 (since alloys and consumer goods become a part of the system for districts), but A. it's ****, that there's 1 district for both (alloys and consumer goods) and B. point 01 still remains as a whole ...




No, but the thing is, that food is already a consumer good, which means, that either food has to get "axed" ( in favour for consumer goods ) or ( like I mentioned ), that consumer goods have to get "axed" ( in favour for food + minerals ( minerals in the sense of anything else than food ) ).

By this logic we could just have a single resource called resource since they are all just produced and spent they could all be interchangable. If you want to go back to just basics then by all means revert, personally I like the fact that we now have at least the semblance of a production chain.
 
I don't particularly care how popular the opinion is, or how numerous "many people" are. That in itself isn't an argument at all, an appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

The new economy was supposed to improve performance. For all practical purposes, it hasn't achieved one of its fundamental gameplay goals. Therefore it is bad.

Food is the original consumer good (the clue is in the name), so both are redundant resources while the other is represented. It's superfluous.

I also ask - have you even played as a Gestalt in the current build? Guess what there is missing from the economy?

Now the issue I was raising was there was only one transactional currency to spend stuff on, while all the others are simply maintenance currencies. The strongest economy is the one that can maximise the production of that resource while minimising production of everything else, and from there every economy in every game plays the same.

Why not have multiple transactional currencies?

Don't forget that the new economy was also supposed to make the ai more competitive because it doesn't have to take adjacency bonusses into account and juggle it's pops arround on all those tiles anymore. Look how that worked out. I prefer consumer goods to be in the game but it is exactly as you say there is little use for them in the current build. Alloys is the only resource you can never have enough and because of that the most important resource in the game. There need to be more ways to consume consumer goods and possibly some of the other resources to make an economic system that is more fun to play with. In the early game the current system works because you have constant shortages of everything. Because of this opportunity cost is something you have to take into account with every decision you make at that stage. As the game gets going you're only going to have occasional alloy shortages so every choice you make will be one that improves alloy production.
 
Don't forget that the new economy was also supposed to make the ai more competitive because it doesn't have to take adjacency bonusses into account and juggle it's pops arround on all those tiles anymore. Look how that worked out.
The new economy system is demonstrably NOT holding the AI nor performance back.

Performance hits come from a lot of places, but one of them is superfluous checks regarding unemployment. Mods have changed the frequency of those checks and vastly reduced their impact on performance; ergo, the economy doesn't INHERENTLY kill performance.

AI competency has also been vastly improved by mods. The new economy doesn't INHERENTLY kill its competitiveness.

The way consumer goods and alloys work has NOTHING to do with either of those.
 
The fact that you have to turn minerals into processed forms to use them for some things ("minerals + minerals") is the entire point! It's what people like!
Okay, yes, thats the point. It's terribly implemented. CG by any logical sense should be the unit of trade, they're the goods and services you would want/need to trade to begin with. Instead, you have the nebulous trade value and CG is purely used for upkeep of pops and jobs. It doesn't go into improving and expanding your empire as alloys do, it doesn't go into trade like trade value, its just upkeep.

Having it be just upkeep when you already have Food, Amenities, and Housing as pop upkeeps (admittedly housing is also implemented terribly) makes it seem like the design choice was made purely to limit alloy production.

CG should be something more than just upkeep. If alloys are the resource of war, as is indicated by bonuses to their production when militarizing the economy, CG should be the resource of peace, as its bonuses indicate. What is the core of the gameplay while at peace? Trade and internal construction. If ships take alloys to build, empire and trade infrastructure should take CG.
 
Alloys is the only resource you can never have enough and because of that the most important resource in the game. There need to be more ways to consume consumer goods and possibly some of the other resources to make an economic system that is more fun to play with.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think this sums up my entire problem with the economy in a nutshell.
 
Okay, yes, thats the point. It's terribly implemented. CG by any logical sense should be the unit of trade, they're the goods and services you would want/need to trade to begin with. Instead, you have the nebulous trade value and CG is purely used for upkeep of pops and jobs. It doesn't go into improving and expanding your empire as alloys do, it doesn't go into trade like trade value, its just upkeep.

Having it be just upkeep when you already have Food, Amenities, and Housing as pop upkeeps (admittedly housing is also implemented terribly) makes it seem like the design choice was made purely to limit alloy production.

CG should be something more than just upkeep. If alloys are the resource of war, as is indicated by bonuses to their production when militarizing the economy, CG should be the resource of peace, as its bonuses indicate. What is the core of the gameplay while at peace? Trade and internal construction. If ships take alloys to build, empire and trade infrastructure should take CG.

Except civilian and trade infrastructure is ultimately capped. Eventually, frankly pretty early on, you've more or less built everything on the civilian side. Then you're right back to the same problem.

As @Coconut_Cookie alluded to, right now the only thing you always need more of is ships because the military is the only part of the game that actively removes resources. When a ship gets blown up, you need to rebuild it. But when you put down a civilian building or a trading post, with rare exceptions it sticks around pretty much for the rest of the game. So the only resource you always need more of is the one that builds ships.

So trade and internal construction peters out pretty quickly. That's what would need to change. The game would need some sort of diplomatic and/or trade mechanic that also somehow has no upper limit.
 
The new economy system is demonstrably NOT holding the AI nor performance back.

Performance hits come from a lot of places, but one of them is superfluous checks regarding unemployment. Mods have changed the frequency of those checks and vastly reduced their impact on performance; ergo, the economy doesn't INHERENTLY kill performance.

AI competency has also been vastly improved by mods. The new economy doesn't INHERENTLY kill its competitiveness.

The way consumer goods and alloys work has NOTHING to do with either of those.

I'm saying we were sort of promised an improvement of the ai handeling the economy, it was one of the arguments made by the devs to go for the new system. In the old system the ai was constantly building and braking donw older buildings, moving pops from tile to tile and it wasn't using the adjacency bonusses on a competent level. I'm not talking about performance at all, go talk about that in any of the other threads about that.

Economy is always about making choices that involve opportunity costs. (If this isn't the case you could even argue that it doesn't even fit the definition of the word economy.) After the first few decades in the game this choice disappears because you will almost always have enough of everything except alloys. To solve this you could either delete all the pointless resources but that wouldn't be fun. So there need to be new ways of consuming everything you have to the point that opportunity cost will be important again with every economic decision.

Except civilian and trade infrastructure is ultimately capped. Eventually, frankly pretty early on, you've more or less built everything on the civilian side. Then you're right back to the same problem.

As @Coconut_Cookie alluded to, right now the only thing you always need more of is ships because the military is the only part of the game that actively removes resources. When a ship gets blown up, you need to rebuild it. But when you put down a civilian building or a trading post, with rare exceptions it sticks around pretty much for the rest of the game. So the only resource you always need more of is the one that builds ships.

So trade and internal construction peters out pretty quickly. That's what would need to change. The game would need some sort of diplomatic and/or trade mechanic that also somehow has no upper limit.

Exactly, there need to be ways that you can always throw resources at something so you will always need more of everything and are always at risk of having shortages.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.