The pop mechanism is quite terrible in 3.0

[Abberon]

So the new update looks like they're backing off the change and giving people the option to adjust it via sliders.

Regarding the pop cap, I imagine the overwhelming majority of players will just disable it altogether. That's neat.

 

[Cronos988]

So the new update looks like they're backing off the change and giving people the option to adjust it via sliders.

I don't think adding a slider indicates they're backing off. I think it's more likely to dampen the negative feedback on the change, thus making it more likely it stays as the default the game is balanced around.

Perhaps I'm being to pessimistic though.

 

[Pornek]

An added benefit is you can also crank them up to maximum and potentially make the game more difficult.

 

[Enfield_PDX]

I don't think adding a slider indicates they're backing off. I think it's more likely to dampen the negative feedback on the change, thus making it more likely it stays as the default the game is balanced around.

Perhaps I'm being to pessimistic though.

We're not "Backing off" as such, but the whole situation is going to require a more systemic solution. So our current changes and the updates coming with 3.0.3 are the first steps, but it's going to take more work to get where we want to be.

In the meantime, adding the sliders lets you guys control your own experience (at the cost of performance) and keep your Ironman compatibility instead of modding it

 

[Cymsdale]

An added benefit is you can also crank them up to maximum and potentially make the game more difficult.

More difficult... for the AI

 

[Cronos988]

We're not "Backing off" as such, but the whole situation is going to require a more systemic solution. So our current changes and the updates coming with 3.0.3 are the first steps, but it's going to take more work to get where we want to be.

In the meantime, adding the sliders lets you guys control your own experience (at the cost of performance) and keep your Ironman compatibility instead of modding it

Thanks for replying.

It is good to hear you're looking for systemic solutions. I think there have been a number of good posts since 3.0 analysing current mechanics and incentives which I'm hoping will help you figure out a good approach.

 

[Abberon]

We're not "Backing off" as such, but the whole situation is going to require a more systemic solution. So our current changes and the updates coming with 3.0.3 are the first steps, but it's going to take more work to get where we want to be.

In the meantime, adding the sliders lets you guys control your own experience (at the cost of performance) and keep your Ironman compatibility instead of modding it

I think where we want to be is where we have fewer pops because the game economy, the empire types, species, civics and ascension traits are all balanced and built around that smaller overall game population. It's less about slowed/capped growth, and more about tackling the needlessly bloated number of calculations and micromanagement of population.

I guess the added goal was to improve "tall vs wide" balance, but we need a gameplay fix to that, not a systemic hobbling of whatever you're trying to discourage.

 

[Cronos988]

I think where we want to be is where we have fewer pops because the game economy, the empire types, species, civics and ascension traits are all balanced and built around that smaller overall game population. It's less about slowed/capped growth, and more about tackling the needlessly bloated number of calculations and micromanagement of population.

I guess the added goal was to improve "tall vs wide" balance, but we need a gameplay fix to that, not a systemic hobbling of whatever you're trying to discourage.

Exactly. And it's not like a general contraction of the economy requires new systems that need extensive testing. Really just reducing planetary capacity in some way would go a long way to solving both the population and the resources overflow problems.

Then add some exponential scaling to sprawl or influence costs and many of the worst issues are significantly reduced.

Stellaris has a ton of good features and mechanics, they just need to be utilised in a consistent way.

 

[Madzai]

Exactly. And it's not like a general contraction of the economy requires new systems that need extensive testing. Really just reducing planetary capacity in some way would go a long way to solving both the population and the resources overflow problems.

The question still stands, why it wasn't done. Why current system was "playtested for 4 months"(?) according to PDX QA guys if it's flaws very obvious after few hours of playing. Even if people truly "don't want to adapt", what to do with obvious issues with Geocidal, pacifists and other things, like not being able to fill even one ringworld, without depopulating half of the Empire?

 

[Pornek]

More difficult... for the AI

The difficulty isnt the AI the difficulty is presented by early crisis with unreasonable numbers.

 

[gamerk2]

I think where we want to be is where we have fewer pops because the game economy, the empire types, species, civics and ascension traits are all balanced and built around that smaller overall game population. It's less about slowed/capped growth, and more about tackling the needlessly bloated number of calculations and micromanagement of population.

I guess the added goal was to improve "tall vs wide" balance, but we need a gameplay fix to that, not a systemic hobbling of whatever you're trying to discourage.

This.

The problem with the current solution is the devs addressed pop growth without bothering to address the fact the jobs system assumed the same number of pops, leading to you hitting a brick wall in your development. If the aim is less pops, then *everything* needs to be built around it. Or simply put: Another re-work of the entire economic engine.

 

[Abberon]

Yes and my guess is they didn't want to devote the time or resources into another economic rework this late in the game's life cycle.

They'll soon discover that the overwhelming majority of players toggle the pop ceiling to zero (or near zero) and we just move on with a more awkward and less intuitive game than we had before.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I have no problem with total population influencing population growth; that makes more sense than growth per planet. However the population growth rate should be influenced by opportunity, happiness, education, social attitudes, etc.

At present population growth tends, in my opinion / experience, to create more problems than opportunities. How you deploy your population and how they are willing to be deployed should be more about strategic choice and less about containing social problems than it is now.

 

[Abberon]

If growth is influenced by total population, the only thing that makes sense is that it would accelerate as you get bigger with more planets. The pop malus was a nonsense way of addressing the problem but it appears they've acknowledged it was a poor (or at least very unpopular) solution with the sliders. They'll see how many people tune it way down or off altogether and that will tell them everything they need to know.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

*sigh* Another revisit to Stellaris, another flabbergasting disappointment.

Hardest difficulty; every AI pathetic by 80 years in.
Every playthrough delivers precisely the same events; near-zero 'per game' flavour.
Galactic market completely fubar, presumably because the AI is flooding it with its magic pulled-out-of-its-ass resources.
150 years in, half the galaxy under my control, many dozens of planets coupled with terrible UI design leads to a micromanagement grind-a-thon.
No automation or delegation, because the sector AI is completely useless.
Mid-game the economics become completely broken; oodles of money, minerals & food, but devoid of alloys because there's no population to work the factories.
Tech exhausted, unity exhausted.
So.... many.... bugged/broken... events along the way, and obvious UI deficiencies like missing tooltips, hyperlinks, and buttons leading to nowhere (the centre of the galaxy).

This game *still* needs a complete ground-up redesign, with actual thought & testing put into balancing of the game's systems.

 

[Valentin Vattista]

And, now the Colossus, well, seems so inconsiderable. Only one planet for a task, fragile in a task, unique in an empire. Strengthen the Colossus please, it takes a whole ascension perk slot anyway.

The Colossus should be a 'Fully Operational Battlestation' just like its inspiration. I.e., it should on its own be capable to match a contemporary 200 capacity fleet in fleetpower, and have access to several X slots, many Hangars, Point defense slots and dozens of Small to large slots. Pehaps even half a dozen Perdition beams. It's fine if the price is increased accordingly, I don't think anyone would mind to pay up to 20k alloys for a Colossus that could actually do something of note.

 

[sillyrobot]

The Colossus should be a 'Fully Operational Battlestation' just like its inspiration. I.e., it should on its own be capable to match a contemporary 200 capacity fleet in fleetpower, and have access to several X slots, many Hangars, Point defense slots and dozens of Small to large slots. Pehaps even half a dozen Perdition beams. It's fine if the price is increased accordingly, I don't think anyone would mind to pay up to 20k alloys for a Colossus that could actually do something of note.

I don't use the ship; it literally never leaves dock. I take the perk to gain access to a total war casus belli. That is worth a perk all by itself.

 

[Valentin Vattista]

I don't use the ship; it literally never leaves dock. I take the perk to gain access to a total war casus belli. That is worth a perk all by itself.

Well yes, but actually no. I do agree with you that Total war in itself is worth a perk as far as weaker perks go, which is evident by things like galactic force projection, nihilistic acquisition, Grasp the Void etc., all of which are so very bad that they are not worth their perk. But at the same time, all this means is that Total war should/could very well be its own perk. The colossus itself should also be worth actually building. Currently, it just isn't.

 

[Cronos988]

The Colossus should be a 'Fully Operational Battlestation' just like its inspiration. I.e., it should on its own be capable to match a contemporary 200 capacity fleet in fleetpower, and have access to several X slots, many Hangars, Point defense slots and dozens of Small to large slots.

By the time I have a Colossus, I think I'd prefer more flexible ships rather than one huge super ship (the juggernaut has a similar problem where the kind of big engagement where you need it never happens).

It just needs more interesting beams - either variants of the god ray / nanobot disperser or stuff that gives you large deposits of rare resources.

 

[Valentin Vattista]

By the time I have a Colossus, I think I'd prefer more flexible ships rather than one huge super ship (the juggernaut has a similar problem where the kind of big engagement where you need it never happens).

It just needs more interesting beams - either variants of the god ray / nanobot disperser or stuff that gives you large deposits of rare resources.

My suggestion is more about it being able to hold its own and not instantly dissolve as soon as a single corvette catches it off guard and without an accompanying fleet.

Even if the large engagement you would need such a ship for never happens, it's still nice to be able to guarantee that you get to actually blow up planets without fear of your colossus being easily wiped out.