2.2 & Megacorp Teasers
- Thread starter Mitchz95
- Start date
-
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.
Which doesn't seem that bad. I thought that criminal jobs would be either useless, not producing anything while taking one of your pops, or even negative, taking your resources for no output, though it may have been made through pop cost.
They use resources to make trade value , "good" for you (even if you are probably overpaying that) and good for the crime syndacate .
Moon starting system option
https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1068430995882418177
"In the 2.2 "Le Guin" update, you'll be able to choose a guaranteed starting world on a moon.
"
I assume we'll be getting alot of other options for our systems aswell
"In the 2.2 "Le Guin" update, you'll be able to choose a guaranteed starting world on a moon.
"
I assume we'll be getting alot of other options for our systems aswell
No, they don't other than general pop upkeen which may or may not be affected by their job. Compare with specialists who actually use resources (minerals for alloys, boxes for science) while working.
From what I recall from my dev clash situation, criminals (marginally) reduce trade value and require their regular strata upkeep (F/CG).
Ah for a moment I hoped it's be an option to be on the moon.https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1068430995882418177
"In the 2.2 "Le Guin" update, you'll be able to choose a guaranteed starting world on a moon.
I assume we'll be getting alot of other options for our systems aswell
I hope they add a starting sol system with mars as the habitable planet and earth as barren rock.
So how comes that criminals generate trade value on this screenshot?
Is it a graphical mistake? Or is it a result of crime institualisation of some sort?
So how comes that criminals generate trade value on this screenshot?
Is it a graphical mistake? Or is it a result of crime institualisation of some sort?
If I had to guess? They produce (negative) Trade Value.
So how comes that criminals generate trade value on this screenshot?
Is it a graphical mistake? Or is it a result of crime institualisation of some sort?
This as nothing to do with it , but id suggest they consume yoir trade value to produce trade value for the syndicate
.But since you can have those even without the syndicate , they should at least consume consumers goods .
My guess: Game detects "this pop has a trade yield effect" -> "I should show the trade yield icon here", but fails to recognize that it is a negative yield. Or it tries to use the correct icon, but it can't find it. A pretty generic bug.
If that were the case the trade value would be on the left (where resources consumed are shown) not the right (where resources produced are shown)
Well, maybe it's due to some game rules restrictions.
For example, when there are no resourses for the job, pops can't work on it and become unemployed. But criminals are not intended to leave their jobs so rather than consume trade value for their job they are made to produce negative one. But the same effect can be achieved through pop upkeen modification. I actually hope, that criminals are considered to be a strata, and consume lots of boxes for their upkeen.
that's most likely the case since the screenshot shows Ruler, Specialist, Worker, Criminal
https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1068430995882418177
"In the 2.2 "Le Guin" update, you'll be able to choose a guaranteed starting world on a moon.
I assume we'll be getting alot of other options for our systems aswell
More home system options are good. I still hope that one day we will be able to custom build our home system, maybe together with the origin civic revamp?
I would say a point based system similar to how the ruler designer works in ck2.
Living standards
https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1068483419208933378
Living Standards determine many things in your empire. Your pops will benefit or be hindered by them, depending on their stratum. That impacts their happiness, efficiency, the magnitude of influence on planets' and empire's stability. Comparison with Social Welfare coming next!
And now, the same situation but with "Social Welfare" living standards. Note higher approval and stability, at higher costs and more evened-out political power between various strata (not as even as with Utopian Abundance). Money can't buy happiness, but energy sometimes can.
Living Standards determine many things in your empire. Your pops will benefit or be hindered by them, depending on their stratum. That impacts their happiness, efficiency, the magnitude of influence on planets' and empire's stability. Comparison with Social Welfare coming next!
And now, the same situation but with "Social Welfare" living standards. Note higher approval and stability, at higher costs and more evened-out political power between various strata (not as even as with Utopian Abundance). Money can't buy happiness, but energy sometimes can.
https://twitter.com/StellarisGame/status/1068483419208933378
Living Standards determine many things in your empire. Your pops will benefit or be hindered by them, depending on their stratum. That impacts their happiness, efficiency, the magnitude of influence on planets' and empire's stability. Comparison with Social Welfare coming next!
And now, the same situation but with "Social Welfare" living standards. Note higher approval and stability, at higher costs and more evened-out political power between various strata (not as even as with Utopian Abundance). Money can't buy happiness, but energy sometimes can.
Assuming it's Earth at the start of the game and there's only one factory, then the planet produces around 14 consumer goods per month, with decent conditions pops need around 9 consumer goods in total, plus two researcher jobs which consume 2 each, 11. With social welfare it would be 15, with Shared burden 11 and with Utopian abundance 26 instead, with such big differences increasing living standards wouldn't be so foregone in 2.2.
Last edited: