0 Economy exploits are getting more and more out of hand. LEM 3.1 made it WORSE

[fourteenfour]

on the deficit problem, I think it's helpful to look at it in this way.

For clarification "this" means "using deficits in a manner that many would consider abusive, minmaxing, unrealistic, exploitative, or unfair"


Beyond that, all I can say is that I feel the current deficit mechanic is "terribly silly" as it enables empires to make things out of thin air. HoI4, for however much I slag it on the regular, has an excellent deficit mechanic, and something that mirrors that could be useful.

The real issue is that the AI could not deal with any sort of deficit mechanic penalty as it has more than a few issues with managing the economy as it. Making a deficit mechanic more strict will only penalize the AI more. While a player can min/max their economy and have intelligent market interaction the AI is confined by a set of rules that apply nearly the same across the board. If X then do Y and so on. It also likely doesn't think along the lines of I can do X and not do Y because I can do the same with Z+D+L but a player will.

We have far too many examples by well know community contributors where the standard start is deconstructing ships, selling most of the alloys and possibly food and consumer goods if they are used to buy minerals to get that immediate day one build started which tends to be a research building. The AI does not work this way and as such is handicapped day one

Which leads me to my point, Stellaris needs a rework of its economic structure so that it applies similarly to all empires. This means consolidating what it takes to run an empire. It also means rethinking what we start the game wise in the manner of resources.

I would remove Consumer Goods and instead subsume their role into amenities purely by descriptive text. This would greatly simplify the game's economics by removing the one item that does not apply universally. It would also remove that annoying issue where if you don't use this resource and you conquer someone who does you can only sell it while those conquered systems can actually produce it. The old your empire does not use X therefor you can never buy or sell it on the market or galactic market. The market has become a crutch to hide the real problem in that the economic model is seriously broken.

The idea here is to make coding the game simpler while retaining what we all really want which is the strategic and sometimes tactical aspects.

and then...

1. We need to remove the incentive for deconstructing the originally provided ships.
   1. Do not provide the initial three warships at start
   2. Make it extremely inefficient
   3. Reduce how much the local market can absorb or provide
   4. Require some form of society research to unlock the local market
2. We need to provide more starting resources so you are not waiting to build but are immediately deciding what to build.
   1. Start Empires with 500 to 1000 minerals at start
   2. All starts should have at least one planet based mining district
      1. my catalytic converter empire has ZERO! yet I still need minerals to work. I can fix it but the AI might not
3. Simplify the economy such that living by the market is not required.
   1. Remove Consumer Goods, put all empires on the same economic model
   2. Amenities are used to keep a productive workforce.
      1. Deficits affect happiness which reduces non gestalt empires productiveness and such
      2. Gestalts suffer a more direct production deficit as they don't have happiness issues
   3. Market price changes
      1. Food and Minerals should rarely see their cost increase, this will ease pressure on the AI
      2. Manufactured or transformed products should have a much higher purchase cost and lower sale cost
         1. This is alloys, motes, gases, crystals, and such. The idea here is that players will exploit the infinite ability of the market to absorb their sale of these items but the AI does not. The flip side is the player also knows when buying is efficient compared to other means of acquisition and the AI does not

I know the idea of removing consumer goods is an affront to some but it adds nothing to the game that cannot be conceptually assumed to be managed through some creative text for amenities or such. The focus on the economy should be simpler for both the player and the AI consumer goods exists only as a maintenance cost with one side use in building colony ships. They serve no other need. Alloys on the other hand are not only a maintenance item required to run certain buildings but the most common means to expand and protect your empire; yes I know Nemesis has mineral use for ship building.

 

[doomwarrior]

The real issue is that the AI could not deal with any sort of deficit mechanic penalty as it has more than a few issues with managing the economy as it. Making a deficit mechanic more strict will only penalize the AI more. While a player can min/max their economy and have intelligent market interaction the AI is confined by a set of rules that apply nearly the same across the board. If X then do Y and so on. It also likely doesn't think along the lines of I can do X and not do Y because I can do the same with Z+D+L but a player will.

[...]

It certainly would make it easier to deal with the game for the ai and maybe also some players who knows. One could argue consumer goods and amenities could be one and the same. Its at least an interessting proposal.

Anyway the problem with 0 economy exploits and for example the admin cap penalty avoidance by doing excessive micro management are basically just possible because the implementation is so simple.

If for example a shortage of minerals of lets say around 5% of your total production (production 95, required 100, stocked 0) than you can still fulfill 95% of the required minerals. The shortage should take that into account and give you a minor headache. Maybe 5-10% penalty on whatever is connected to those minerals. But if you run a major deficit, you should feel it. It should get increasingly worse the bigger the shortage % is compared to your income. And ofc it should hurt you depending on your empires setup. Machines work differently than hives or regular empires

 

[InvisibleBison]

You are blaming the player for playing the game in an optimal way. If the system is broken, that's on the system whether its an exploit or a bug. Blaming players for playing the game is the definition of toxicity.

I said that I don't think fixing this exploit should be a high priority, and that until that happens you can avoid having any problems by just not using it. How is that blaming anyone for anything?

 

[Te'Ryn Tec]

Min/Maxing and doing this in a game like stellaris seems like so much friggin work. Honestly it sounds exhausting.

 

[Archael90]

As for the AI, i think that AI should not be penalized for deficit. AI is not going for shortages because they "want" but because poor planning, AI is not exploiting anything, and thus - when it could, AI WILL fill those deficits. On the other hand - removing penalties from AI may make it more competetive and looks better.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

I continue to have great faith in PDX as a company that supports its games, and puts in extraordinary effort to fix bugs and release updates, patches, expansions. This is why i play many PDX games (Rome, HOI, CK, Stellaris, EU, and games published by PDX, like Surviving Mars).

However, the specific problem I have with Stellaris is that the game feels like a spreadsheet that has many disparate systems all running independently of each other, and does not translate into an immersive living galaxy map. Internal politics, diplomacy, ethics (culture), unrest, trade, resource distribution, logistics, factions, supply and migration all work in total isolation of the galaxy map.

So instead of playing the game, you end up playing the mechanics. That is the core economic weakness of Stellaris.

 

[Desert_Planet_Dweller]

A commenter on ASpec's video on this had a good idea; if you take the Catalytic Processing civic and have 0 food, your catalytic techs can use minerals, but instead of a 3/1 conversion, it's a 6/1 conversion. Not sure how feasible that is programming-wise, but it seems like a reasonable penalty to me.

 

[Pancakelord]

A commenter on ASpec's video on this had a good idea; if you take the Catalytic Processing civic and have 0 food, your catalytic techs can use minerals, but instead of a 3/1 conversion, it's a 6/1 conversion. Not sure how feasible that is programming-wise, but it seems like a reasonable penalty to me.

What, so something like this?

Vanilla catalytic job, and bio reactor building for ref

Edited catalytic job

This might work for the odd edge case here and there. But, this isnt sustainable long term. Making sure to constantly add these resource modifiers is just going to lead to more bugs building up over time IMO. They really need a hardcoded check of some kind against the game's economic unit categories, or an expanded trigger system for resource deficiencies, rather than the static modifiers currently used.

 

[Desert_Planet_Dweller]

This might work for the odd edge case here and there. But, this isnt sustainable long term. Making sure to constantly add these resource modifiers is just going to lead to more bugs building up over time IMO. They really need a hardcoded check of some kind against the game's economic unit categories, or an expanded trigger system for resource deficiencies, rather than the static modifiers currently used.

Not a modder, but understand enough that I think your code is at least close. I also think you're correct in that input resource shortage conditions like this should ideally be handled in a more consolidated way than in the individual job definitions.

 

[aprogressivist]

Wouldn't simply adding negative numbers solve most zero economy exploits?

 

[Pellaken]

We have far too many examples by well know community contributors where the standard start is deconstructing ships, selling most of the alloys and possibly food and consumer goods if they are used to buy minerals to get that immediate day one build started which tends to be a research building. The AI does not work this way and as such is handicapped day one

Which leads me to my point, Stellaris needs a rework of its economic structure so that it applies similarly to all empires. This means consolidating what it takes to run an empire. It also means rethinking what we start the game wise in the manner of resources.

this upsets me, and I'd like to explain why. Firstly, I'd never heard of this strategy until you outlined it here. I don't really read AARs or watch lets plays. MY first move is to sell 100 food and 50 consumer goods to buy another scientist, and build a science ship. It's actually super rare for me to build science buildings. Your proposed fixes would ruin my playstyle, and why? Because minmaxers are doing something.

People always say that what they do in single player games can't impact others, but it does, and for me, it's always minmaxers (those playing the mechanics instead of playing the game) who are doing things that make my game harder, despite me playing the way the devs intended.

I try to avoid such comments as, for some reason I do not understand, minmaxers enjoy minmaxing. I understand THAT they enjoy it. I do not understand WHY they enjoy it. I also understand the business concerns when it comes to losing customers.

I'm simply frustrated that this (minmaxers vs the rest of us) has to be something that comes up again and again and again, year in, year out, in every single game paradox makes. I'm getting tired of it. I don't have the energy for this.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

this upsets me, and I'd like to explain why. Firstly, I'd never heard of this strategy until you outlined it here. I don't really read AARs or watch lets plays. MY first move is to sell 100 food and 50 consumer goods to buy another scientist, and build a science ship. It's actually super rare for me to build science buildings. Your proposed fixes would ruin my playstyle, and why? Because minmaxers are doing something.

People always say that what they do in single player games can't impact others, but it does, and for me, it's always minmaxers (those playing the mechanics instead of playing the game) who are doing things that make my game harder, despite me playing the way the devs intended.

I try to avoid such comments as, for some reason I do not understand, minmaxers enjoy minmaxing. I understand THAT they enjoy it. I do not understand WHY they enjoy it. I also understand the business concerns when it comes to losing customers.

I'm simply frustrated that this (minmaxers vs the rest of us) has to be something that comes up again and again and again, year in, year out, in every single game paradox makes. I'm getting tired of it. I don't have the energy for this.

i really don't understand what's upsetting you. PDX try to make their games so that they can accommodate all playstyles. it's not as if they're pandering to any one group. they really don't want their games to be spreadsheets.

 

[Colonizor48]

This fixes nothing for Machine Intelligence or Lithoids as they don't run bio pops. Something like this is hillariously broken:
View attachment 757280

-90% catalytic drone output. Thats what i meant.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Wouldn't simply adding negative numbers solve most zero economy exploits?

Simply adding them? No. Why would machine care about having a million negative food?

 

[exi123]

Wouldn't simply adding negative numbers solve most zero economy exploits?

It was mentioned before, deficits should be calculated by the input which is left. If i match 95% of the mineral demand from industry, i get 95% from the capacity. A food shortage of 0.5% isnt really a problem. This would stabilize the economy so well.

 

[currylambchop]

just add the code for bio reactor that makes it stop producing energy when there's a deficit in food to the catalytic processor and change it to stop producing alloys. that's what i did in my bugfix mod

 

[Deshiba]

just add the code for bio reactor that makes it stop producing energy when there's a deficit in food to the catalytic processor and change it to stop producing alloys. that's what i did in my bugfix mod

This still doesn't stop districts though...

 

[Genide]

I think I can say with some confidence that we do, in fact, test our games.

I appreciate the frustation, I really do. But this is not a game breaking bug. It doesn't corrupt your save, destroy your economy or crash the game. You have to "opt in" as it were to using it and are totally free to ignore and play as normal.

That is not to say the issue shouldn't be fixed. It should. But the larger "0 income empire" problem is something that requires a systemic fix. Maybe a serious rework of defecits etc. Which is a much larger project to consider.

When it comes to issues like this, please keep in mind the broader context of the game. Thanks

I really appreciate you coming to give the devs' side of things but I have to disagree with the sentiment that you and a few other people have raised that this exploit doesn't need to be a priority because if players don't want it they can just not use it. In fact I think calling it an "exploit" is perhaps misleading. An exploit implies a player doing something to take advantage of it, but in this case running out of energy or food is what happens if you don't do something. Once you know this exploit exists it's more of an "opt out" than an opt in.

Managing your resource economy is the core of Stellaris' gameplay, and managing your energy is the core of that. It can be hard, especially when things don't go to plan like if you lose a vital energy planet, fall prey to piracy or capture a large region of unprofitable territory. Arguably the most iconic megastructure is the dyson sphere, the whole purpose of which is to supply you with energy. But if you don't play well, if you don't manage your economy, there's basically no consequences. So why bother going to all the trouble of building generator districts, energy mining stations, dyson spheres and the rest? You are rewarded for not playing the game.

The synthetic catalytic processing is even worse. At least there's some purpose to having energy credits (enclave bonuses, buying resources from the market, hiring marauders etc), but for a machine empire food has no other purpose, unless they are trying to in some way integrate organics into their strategy. A machine player with catalytic processing could either build agricultural districts, assign pops as agri-drones, maybe research some technologies and build food processors to increase their efficiency; or they could just not, and use the minerals, and pops, and district slots, and time, and research to do other things with literally no consequence. The only reason for a synthetic catalytic player to actually produce any food is because they don't like seeing their resources be red.

I've got to admit, I only actually learned about this exploit the other day, but from just a bit of looking around it's clear that this has been known about for a very long time, but it doesn't seem like anything's really been done to address it (I mean come on, running out of minerals gives a penalty to robot production. When was the last time we built robots with minerals?!). I know the dev teams have a lot to work on but I, and I think a lot of other people, would really appreciate if finding some sort of a solution to this could be a priority, even if just a stopgap fix like what Doomwarrior has done until a more thorough fix can be implemented.

tl;dr: this actually seems like a really major issue, I think fixing it should be a priority, love the devs, why does a mineral deficit slow robot production?

 

[Mackus]

Stuff like this happens and is difficult to balance because workers don't actually turn resource A into resource B.
Metallurgists don't actually need minerals to make alloys, they just like color red and to have it around for vague sense of accomplishment. That's why with zero minerals they just work slower. And if makes no difference for them if shortage is -5 per month, or -50000 per month, because they're unionized and have mutual sense of class solidarity.

Any future economy rework must to take this weirdness into account. Have minerals actually turn into alloys and consumer goods. So when you're missing 5 minerals per month, your consumer and alloy economies don't collapse overnight, those two or three workers just become idle due to lack of resources.

 

[Archael90]

I really appreciate you coming to give the devs' side of things but I have to disagree with the sentiment that you and a few other people have raised that this exploit doesn't need to be a priority because if players don't want it they can just not use it. In fact I think calling it an "exploit" is perhaps misleading. An exploit implies a player doing something to take advantage of it, but in this case running out of energy or food is what happens if you don't do something. Once you know this exploit exists it's more of an "opt out" than an opt in.

Managing your resource economy is the core of Stellaris' gameplay, and managing your energy is the core of that. It can be hard, especially when things don't go to plan like if you lose a vital energy planet, fall prey to piracy or capture a large region of unprofitable territory. Arguably the most iconic megastructure is the dyson sphere, the whole purpose of which is to supply you with energy. But if you don't play well, if you don't manage your economy, there's basically no consequences. So why bother going to all the trouble of building generator districts, energy mining stations, dyson spheres and the rest? You are rewarded for not playing the game.

The synthetic catalytic processing is even worse. At least there's some purpose to having energy credits (enclave bonuses, buying resources from the market, hiring marauders etc), but for a machine empire food has no other purpose, unless they are trying to in some way integrate organics into their strategy. A machine player with catalytic processing could either build agricultural districts, assign pops as agri-drones, maybe research some technologies and build food processors to increase their efficiency; or they could just not, and use the minerals, and pops, and district slots, and time, and research to do other things with literally no consequence. The only reason for a synthetic catalytic player to actually produce any food is because they don't like seeing their resources be red.

I've got to admit, I only actually learned about this exploit the other day, but from just a bit of looking around it's clear that this has been known about for a very long time, but it doesn't seem like anything's really been done to address it (I mean come on, running out of minerals gives a penalty to robot production. When was the last time we built robots with minerals?!). I know the dev teams have a lot to work on but I, and I think a lot of other people, would really appreciate if finding some sort of a solution to this could be a priority, even if just a stopgap fix like what Doomwarrior has done until a more thorough fix can be implemented.

tl;dr: this actually seems like a really major issue, I think fixing it should be a priority, love the devs, why does a mineral deficit slow robot production?

Mineral deficit slows robót production for 2 reasons:
1. In previous version robots was build with minerals, and this is just remains.
2. Mineral deficit should do something except just slowing Your alloy production. But because robots are made with alloys and alloys are made with minerals, then minerals deficit can slows alloy made robots.

And because of 2. I think that catalitic processing empires should have their robots production slower when food deficit occur.