3.3 Unity Open Beta UPDATED Feedback Megathread [EXTENDED TO FEB 7]

[Unseelie]

Just noticed that Govenors give a reduction to sprawl from pops. Well, that's cool!

But also, that really makes me want a Empire Size tooltip that is much more detailed. Is that in the plans? because as Feynvask has pointed out, I'm missing a lot of things here.

 

[Vaperius]

I don't like the undocumented change of "Empire Sprawl" to "Empire Size".

Its not only unnecessary, its going to be extremely confusing if its kept for three reasons.

A) Everyone is already familiar with Empire Sprawl, and it already correctly gives you an idea of what the modifier is.

B) Empire size is already used to refer to how many systems, planets and pops an empire has in the general lexicon of the community.

C) Empire size can be conflated with wide/tall play linguistically and adds to the confusion further.

What I am trying to say is there's very little reason to change the mechanic name, and doing so is unnecessarily confusing.

 

[CptKirby]

Thank you for reverting Citizen Service back. If you intend to change it without unity bonuses again, this thread was an interesting read:

Citizen Service, the Unity Rework and military administrators

I want to raise some concerns about a change mentioned very briefy in Dev Diary #238, and offer a different suggestion. Citizen Service no longer provides +2 unity to soldier jobs. Instead it grants -25% war exhaustion and +2 starting level to...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[smile444]

will you increase sprawl effect on tech or unity? The way it is set wide empire doesn't really feel the diminishing returns before the very late game. It kind of makes sprawl inefficient as a rubber band. Also, will you make sprawl effect on unity equivalent or closer to the effect on tech? As it is now tech is still more useful than unity making the extra cost of unity a bit pointless

 

[OnyxAbussos]

1. The change to Distinguished Admiralty is perfect in terms of flavor and feeling. One of those "Ah, so *that's* what it should have been all along" feelings.

2. The energy cost of Recycling Campaign seems rather excessive. Like unusable. It tends to equate to about a THIRD of my net energy income. The Education campaign has the same cost, but with that one it feels acceptable. Like if that's what's important to you, its gonna take some resources. But for Recycling, I just cant imagine it ever being cost-effective.

3. I LOVE having Unity be the cost of things instead of Influence. Works better and makes better sense and feels better. However. It does make me wonder if we should just ditch Influence. If Reform Government costs Unity, and if those Edicts cost Unity, why do Research Agreements and stuff cost Influence? Shouldn't it all just be Unity? Expansion, claims, treaties... ?

[[EDIT to #3.]] I think what I might really mean is that it might FEEL better if Reform Governmemt used Influence. Just cuz right now, there isnt a whole lot to spend influence on.

 

[Ziggarius]

I don't see mention of fixing Fleet XP gained from Edicts and/or Federations listed in here. When will that be fixed? Going to go test to verify that the bug is still present, and post as necessary in the bug report forum.

EDIT: Verified that this bug still exists. Please fix, tyvm.

 

[HFY]

I'm deleting all my illegal custom empires after removing the shipset mods those custom empires had been using, and I found this UI issue:

Right after one delete, I can't delete the next one.

I have to put focus on another empire and then return to the top empire to delete it.


Oooo, is Technocracy now compatible with Shared Burdens?

*sad trombone noises*

Nope.

What is illegal about Anglers + Remnants? Selecting the two together seemed legal, and none of the text tells me it's prohibited, but apparently it's prohibited:

======


Game mechanics once I actually start playing:

- Ooo, Citizen Service now gives incidental unity again! Nice, now how about Merchant Gui-- OW MY TEETH! Ow, stop kicking my teeth! C'mon, not the face! Ouch! Space gods damn it!

- Seriously what's up with Merchant Guilds getting kicked in the face? This civic lost its exclusive lock (for a regular empire) on Trade League -- which is fine, the Prosperity Tradition change is fine -- but it also lost Unity production in a version where Unity production really matters.

Please put back the incidental Unity production for Merchant Guilds Merchants, make it high enough that I feel like I paid for a boost over what a default Ruler pop produces.


Not sure what's the intent with the new Technocracy. It's available at non-fanatic Materialist which is nice, but the only bonus I feel good about is the +1 research alternative.

Half the time I have multiple techs of the relevant specialty; half the time I have NO techs of the relevant specialty (probably because they can't appear in two draws in a row, so the +% chance to find them crowds them up and then excludes those specific techs in alternation).

The previous bonus of a Science Director was the "free" research, which was "free" because it cost less upkeep in CG. But now Science Directors cost 3 CG upkeep and it's not cheaper anymore. At least it's more research on every colony, but with how Ascension works you don't particularly value bonus research on random colonies. Anyway, I'm not feeling great about Technocracy as-is.


Anyway, nice fix on Citizen Service, now please do the same for Merchant Guilds and Technocracy (which should also become compatible with Shared Burdens).

 

[monatomic]

Since factions are more important now that they produce unity, consider updating the xenophobe factions so that they will accept a federation under certain conditions; consider a leader of a hegemony, a xenophobe+militarist in a martial alliance, or a xenophobe+megacorp in a trade league. I think xenophobes should accept a federation as long as they do not give up too much autonomy.

For example:

The supremacist's "strong alone" will be satisfied as long as

• Separate treaties are allowed
• One of the following:
  • Their empire is the federation president
  • Federation is not a hegemony and centralization is minimal or low

The isolationist's "strong alone" will be satisfied as long as

• Separate treaties are allowed
• War requires a unanimous vote
• One of the following:
  • Their empire is the federation president
  • Federation is not a hegemony and centralization is minimal or low

Both factions would consider the "free migration" law to be a migration treaty and will be upset if that law is set.

 

[Pancakelord]

I mentioned this in the last feedback thread, but please consider buffing some of the early game APs

For example, Imperial prerogative, I'm in the early game still (2240ish) and ive already eclipsed colony sprawl contribution with pop sprawl contribution (most worlds have about 10 pops on them - got lucky trying a pacifist with AI spawns so have a fat land grab going on)

I'd like to see this more closely bound to Authoritarianism (given the name) - maybe also reduce sprawl from authoritarian pops by 15% (30% if you are a fanatic authoritarian).

Can we also talk about AP picks?
This is subjective, but in my experience:

1. I've always (even before the unity rework) picked One vision as my first or second perk.
2. The problem is the second perk - i rarely have anything i really want.
3. And then with the 3rd perk more interesting stuff opens up.

It would be nice to see one AP thats somewhat closely tied to each ethic type, providing more variety (for more choice in that that "1st-2nd" AP pick), buffing them - pacifists in particular could do with this.

• maybe buff the pops themselves based on ethics
  • e.g. pacifist pops, with a "pacifism pop AP" get bonus output and actively produce amenities (be good to your neighbour or something) in a range of like 0.25 per pacifist pop on a planet.
• Or based on government form (with the effects disabling if you change govt types)
  • Like getting bonus fleet cap per vassal as an imperium

 

[PetyaHU]

Hi, In terms of population, would not the system be an easier thing if it was dictated how much of the population could be members of the upper and middle class?
For example: I doubt that a planet would be viable if, it is inhabited by only 2 nobles.
So a new Pop would first check that he has the condition to be a member of the upper class, if he does not, he can check that he is a member of the middle class, if he does not, he will become a worker.

I’ve come across a couple of times where i have several times more specialists than job for them, but i dont have worker on planet, if i use "Resettlement" the relocated pop will also be a specialist, even though he was a worker before.

for example, it could be 1/3/5
if planet dont have 5 worker the system dont let new born pop become specialist, so only with other planet relocated specialist would keep his post.
if planet dont have 3 specialialist the system dont let new born pop become Ruler, so only with other planet relocated Ruler would keep his post.
Smaller planet not good for the ruling class. The Designation would, of course, affect that ratio, like Tech/Forge/Factory World have higher specialist ratio (1/3/3), or like Generator/Mining/Agri World have higher worker ratio (1/3/7)
PS: not everyone can be in "The Upper Ten Thousand"
Sorry my bad english.

 

[Echo Candor One]

• Spiritualists are no longer allowed to take Byzantine Bureaucracy since they don't have Bureaucrats.

I hope this is allowed, but I really liked that spiritualist priests counted as bureaucrats before. A society where priests organize everything and have byzantine processes is both interesting, and a fun nod to the origin of the word byzantine. It was perhaps a touch strong, but as the strength wasn't mentioned, I figured I'd speak up because I liked it a lot.

 

[Dersu_Uzala]

Edict cost still seem way too high. Played as a ME till midgame and couldnt afford to activate a single one because they cost more then half my unity output.

I think the cost should be reduced especially on edicts that already have an upkeep(like capacity subsidies increasing the upkeep of techdrones).

 

[Nicked Name]

Played me some Machine Empire and it is just as broken as i would i expect it from the patch notes.

Prior to the Unity rework, sprawl was completely mitigateable and your were playing objectively wrong if in the midgame or later you would at any point be above your Admin-Cap.
Nowadays you are playing objectively wrong if you don't pick up every sprawl-reduction modifier for pops, your highest sprawl contributor by far. What do machine empires have now? -15% from being a machine empire, -10% harmony, - 10% domination, -20% OTA updates for a whoopin -55% on pop-sprawl-contribution. Mod your pops for efficient bandwith for -59.5% and suddenly you have the best blobber in the entire game. "But +50% colony sprawl impact ..." which nobody cares about.
You want to establish a system with unmitigateable sprawl? Remove every single sprawl-reduction modifier from the game. Every. Single. One. And then go from there.

And could we get some quality of life for leader cycling? You don't even have to steal from the competition, just look at EU4 and allow us to fire leaders directly (for their hiring cost) on the hiring screen. Would save so many moves and clicks.

 

[Lidhuin]

• Police state is fixed. Yay
• Feudal Society is still incredibly overpowered, as anyone who can start out as Imperial can start with that civic and then later reform(20 years later) into whatever civics they actually wanted and save unity doing so (assuming you even want to reform, because the savings on unity upkeep alone is probably the highest ROI of all current civics at least into mid-game)
  • Added benefit for those wanting to play megacorps: Pick imperial prerogative as your first ascension perk, and then reform into a megacorp, having now benefited from the unity & ascension perks
• Megacorps are still fundamentally unplayable due to a combination of +empire size penalty and inability to obtain Imperial Prerogative (which doesn't even show up as an unavailable civic). -50% empire size from colonies is crucial, because wide >>> tall
  • Universal transactions should probably reduce sprawl from branch offices, even though it would make it a required perk pick
• Imperial Prerogative is a must-pick civic at some point in the game to avoid sprawl from colonies
• Tall is not anymore (or less) viable than it was pre 3.3 - some people are describing their tall empires with 30+ systems and 50+ planets, but that's uhm, wide, not tall.
• Pops are still critical, therefore Harmony and Domination are required picks (in order to reduce tech penalty from empire sprawl/size). Supremacy is another required pick. This really limits the actual choices in the tradition tree
• It is nice that empire sprawl is reduced by planetary ascension. It's especially nice it reduces the total and not just the colony portion. However, since empire sprawl is calculated in two steps, this greatly reduces the value of that sprawl reduction:
  • -.5 empire sprawl from colony (this is good as ascension should benefit tall)
  • -.05 empire sprawl per district (so for 20 districts that's -1 empire sprawl, not exactly amazing)
  • -.05% empire sprawl per pop (but for 20 pops, if you've actually done everything you can to reduce empire sprawl from pops less pacifism and democracy, it's actually a 20 * .6 * .05 sprawl reduction, = -.6 empire sprawl. Even for 100 pops, that -6 empire sprawl)
  • So a tall empire gets roughly 83 empire sprawl from a lvl 1 ascended colony (without imperial prerogative) vs 82.5 empire sprawl from a lvl 0 ascended colony (with expansion and imperial prerogative) for a wide empire
    • I.e. wide >>> tall, again
• Power projection is nice, but influence is not as important anymore
  • This buffs xenophobes, imperial and void dwellers in particular
• Early game scientist losses were based on energy credits as a resource, but it's now much more painful to lose an early game scientist.

 

[Chester Nimitz]

I like the beta, and I especially like this new build. My main concerns are mid- and late-game Influence sinks, and maybe Edict costs and the negative-Unity glitch; I'm not sure this new buid addresses those things. Some impressions as I play today's newest version, with the revised Edict screen, sprawl-over-100 changes, etc.:

1. Sprawl seems more sensible to me now, especially with the new 100-sprawl exemption. I'm over my sprawl limit but the penalties are fair. There should be friction in a larger empire. In other 4X games, that comes in the form of higher costs for Settlers or "corruption" or other similar mechanics. The friction in 3.3 beta is significant enough to make one think twice about grabbing worthless systems, but not so harsh as to punish success. And there are still a few mitigation techniques. I do suggest adding a few more mitigation techniques, but I'd make them costly, or impose tradeoffs.

2. The game seems noticeably faster. Well done.

3. I love the idea of the Unity Fund -- but the implementation seems buggy or unbalanced or both. Before this build, the penalties for negative Unity seemed too weak, especially as one acquires more Traditions; I'm not sure today's updateaddresses that. I do hope you keep the core idea, though. I love the mechanic of a use-it-or-lose-it slush fund.

4. I like that Unity has competing uses. Sometimes I actually have to pause and think before spending Unity on a tradition or a leader.

5. It's fine with me that leaders cost Unity, and I like the new, higher (and escalating) costs for Leaders in this new build. (Also, I like that my younger leaders cost more upkeep, so it's no longer a no-brainer to always pick a younger one.) Leaders were too cheap before. Personally I think the game is more interesting if there are fewer leader options, forcing us to choose, rather than letting us shuffle countless times until we find one we like. To me, games are more interesting if they require me to make do with suboptimal resources.

6. It's hard for me to assess whether the AI improvements, apparently to the economy, are having any effect. I'm having a tougher time in my current game, so maybe they are? I hope improvements to AI military tactics are in the works.

7. I need to play this new build more, but I'm guessing the game still needs more mid- and late-game Influence sinks. Maybe more Edicts that cost Influence? Maybe require Influence for big projects, like colonies or megastructures, modeling the political capital that must be spent to invest huge amounts of monetary capital? Maybe more Influence sinks in the Galactic Community? Maybe a planetary improvement or building whose maintenance costs Influence? There would seem to be many possibilities. It's annoying to sit there and watch Influence hit its cap.

All in all, it's a good beta, and this latest patch is another step in the right direction, but plenty of room for improvement too.

 

[Numida]

Imperial authority is garbage:
What was the big idea behind replacing edict funds with extra influence? It's completely useless now: after taking away most viable uses of influence, why would anyone prefer it over any other authority type? Perhaps democracy is equally useless; the others: oligarchy gives extra unity gain, which became ever more viable resource, dictatorship decreases empire size, which influences a lot of things including unity, corporate increases unity gain overall. So why would anyone ever pick imperial authority over those?

 

[Alastor17]

Stellaris Team-

The Unity update has some pros and cons with the current implementation. Largely the update feels like Stellaris which is good. It provides a much needed change to empire sprawl. Wide empires will always out perform tall play, however these updates more or less highlight the disadvantages a large empire would have compared to a smaller one. There are area's where the update feels underdeveloped, or could use a different approach. Since a beta is mostly biased on what needs changing, that will be the focus.

1. Unity cost for Leaders:
Overall, the unity cost for leader recruitment is decent. As been stated by other commenters, there will need to be tweaks on balance for hivemind factions. Though the Unity upkeep cost should be changed over to energy credits. This makes more sense. As you aren't paying your Leaders in hopes and dreams, but actual credits. It would also help with the early science ship issues.

2. Edict upkeep cost/General Unity issues:
This is a big issue for a lot of beta testers. The switch to Unity is a little underdeveloped as traditions are unlocked with Unity thresholds. Combined with the high costs Edicts give very little. To explain, most players will want to save their Unity for traditions. Traditions give your faction permanent buffs that well outweigh what an edict will provide. To help change the current system, traditions should be unlocked based on how much total Unity you have produced not how much you have saved. This slight change will enable Unity as an actual resource you'd want to spend. It would make edicts do able in the current set up, ascending planets an actual thing throughout the game, and solve a lot of the Leader upkeep backlash. As it stands, Unity for a vast amount of a game will be saved for traditions.

3. Consumer goods balance:
Not a huge issue, however one that I thought needed to be brought to the Dev Teams attention. With your Rulers costing extra consumer goods to produce unity, I've found that most of the game you are building an ungodly amount of civilian factories. Even with a faction tailored to consumer goods production/consumption it is still difficult to produce enough to sate your people until the level 2 upgrade. Building a civilian factory building on each planet isn't a bad thing(having half your planets as factory worlds though is a bit much), however it does make Master Craftsmen an S+ civic. Might need some tweaks.

4. Empire sprawl/admin techs:
In the current system admin techs are lackluster as you really won't be spending Unity on edicts. Granted, these are really good on small 3 planet empires, however you won't get far in the game with only that and your constellation of systems to your name. I propose admin techs provide a small boost to admin capacity/population sprawl. Another option would be to introduce "Unity Edicts" each tech will provide an edict that will increase pop production if you meet the requirements.
E.G. "Unity Edict 1: If total colonized planets is 5 or less +5% pop resource production" upkeep XX Unity.
"Unity Edict 2: If total colonized planets is 6 or less +5% pop resource production" upkeep XX Unity.
These edicts should be able to stack. Might be a fun easy way to make smaller empires feel special.

Thanks!

 

[LogicMage]

I'd like to see Reactor boosters get the same treatment that regen tissue did in this beta. A flat +100 power doesn't make sense for my bigger ships. Maybe a +5/10/15% total power would be more useful. I'm glad megastructures no longer cost unity. That being said, the Mega-Shipyard does not allow me to build Dragon Hatclhings, but it can build every other special ship type. Can we make it so that the mega-shipyard can build dragon hatchlings when it is finished.

 

[AnemoneMeer]

Megacorps taking increased penalty from Sprawl feels wrong and especially feels bad with Reanimators as well as the Branch Office building that increases Immigration. Because Pops account for so much of your Sprawl, and Megacorps have some truly impressive amounts of pop generation when making use of their Immigration and zombie pops, it becomes very easy to rack up crippling levels of Sprawl by using these features, without amassing a matching amount of Unity/Science because Zombies are bad for that.

It is simply not flavorful for a Megacorp player to be encouraged to avoid population. Having a massive workforce is one of the defining features of being a megacorp. Walmart. Amazon. Microsoft. All employ titanic numbers of people to do work in a single field, with some associated branching out (Amazon Web Services to go with Amazon Web Sales).

To that end, I think Megacorps shouldn't take as high of a penalty from either Population, or Colonies (Corporate Space Stations ho!) but instead should find themselves with both a significant reduction to their minimum sprawl threshold (Back to 50 perhaps?) and a significant increase to their Sprawl from Systems.

Empire Sprawl From Pops - 25%. Empire Sprawl from Colonies -25%. Empire Sprawl from Systems +200% Empire Sprawl Tolerance -50.

This would encourage Megacorps to be small on the galactic map, while also encouraging extremely high development of what systems they do have. Likewise, not touching District sprawl pushes them towards ecumenopolis building for more efficient districts as well as Mercantile and Prosperity for better use of their city districts and clerks, which are a natural consequence of popspam.

 

[MathyM]

Compared to the previous patch, I still think Edict Funds (which have few, but important sources, such as Imperial Cult civic) are vastly underpowered past the early game. The amount of free Edicts budget you get should scale with your sprawl, so Edicts Fund aren't just something you ignore after the first few years of expansion.