A long list of QoL improvements

[KingAlamar]

Eeer. what?

How is it spending an extra perk to consolidate the megas into other perks and then shifting the requirements to the megas themselves into the mega engineering TECH?

Everyone gets the tech eventually. and if the megas are locked each behind another perk that means you got to choose what megas you want, rather than getting them all for 1 perk (and thus turning that perk mandatory every single time you play)

Forcing a spesific tree wont work for the simple reasons that there are already more megas than trees (and from experience with mods, adding more trees really overpowers unity pumps) and that you can't really match a mega to each tree, or a tree to each mega.

Well if you need Tech Ascension for the +research mega structure then that's 1
If you need Galactic Force Projection for the +military mega then that's 2
If you need Enigmatic Engineering for the Stellar array that's 3
If you need X for a Dyson Sphere then that's 4
If you need Y for a Matter Compressor then that's 5
If you need Z for a Ringworld then that's 6
...

Specific trees work perfectly fine. If some trees happen to have more than one associated Mega Structure [for flavor] then so be it.

 

[spyker92]

whats the harm in making people decide which mega structures they want and tie it to a certian ascension path?
That goes into balance, but like, thats good for the game?

 

[Frozen Yakman]

Here's a QoL improvement, if you genetically modify all the pops of one type on a planet and you are using population controls to force the growth of that type of pop, it should remain locked to that pop (with gene mods) after the modification.

 

[KingAlamar]

whats the harm in making people decide which mega structures they want and tie it to a certian ascension path?
That goes into balance, but like, thats good for the game?

I would contend just the opposite. I would think the goals for Ascension Perks [APs] should be:

• To have each perk be powerful and to ALTER gameplay after its taken.
• Perks should be empire defining.
• We want a large diversity of perks taken. This means we don't want a decently sized subset of people taking a LOT of the same perks.
• In SP I'm not quite as worried about balance in perks but more concerned about overall diversity of perks taken.

This is why I'd prefer that mega structures [MS] not be gated behind ANY APs. I suspect that a decent subset of SP games have folks building more than a couple of mega structures. This means we have a decent subset of players taking the same larger number of APs than before under the new system. Having more people take more of the same APs isn't preferable in my opinion and outweighs the other concerns. Add to this the fact that personally I see mega structures [MS] as nearly a core part which adds to my desire to have it be a tech unlockable.

Changing Master Builders to a general "build anything better" AP would be interesting IMHO as many wouldn't think of taking Master Builders without Galactic Wonders [and vice-versa]. Then you gate all MS behind the Mega Engineering tech. This way you might increase the number of people taking Master Builders that don't care about using MS. Seeing that the majority of Galactic Wonders taking civs LIKELY also take Master Builders anyway you're still in a net-diversity-gain.

Because Mega Engineering is a quite rare tech maybe you allow gateways / habitats / etc. to increase the chance of it spawning all by itself. Maybe you even have Master Builders allow you to research Mega Engineering ONCE you have met the pre-requisites?? This would reduce what I call the Mega Engineering lottery where I often have to research 35-45 years before I randomly draw Mega Engineering.

IF you decide that you still need to gate MS more than just Master Builders & Mega Engineering -- perhaps for flavor reasons -- then other technologies or traditions seems somewhat more in keeping with flavor concerns. Maybe a workable compromise system MIGHT be:

• Certain APs or Traditions or Tradition trees could unlock a tech that would be key to building some megastructures ... Solar Engineering? [Dyson Sphere?] ... Space Habitats [Habitats and Ring Worlds] ...
• The player during the natural course of play could get some of these initial unlocks that still depend on the later unlock of Mega Engineering though [this gates the time aspect of the unlock in game]
• When they unlock Mega Engineering they likely will have the template to build at least a couple of MS that they'd like. Once Mega Engineering unlocks maybe any MS-related TECH that the player doesn't know yet could also be unlocked. Once the tech is researched [while building the initial wave of MS] the player would still have the opportunity to use the MS they want.

 

[spyker92]

Here's a QoL improvement, if you genetically modify all the pops of one type on a planet and you are using population controls to force the growth of that type of pop, it should remain locked to that pop (with gene mods) after the modification.

Oh thats a good one, i put it on the OP

 

[VerKer]

Compiling a list of minor annoyances in the current beta branch build, which i would not qualify as "bugs" and therefor these hardly find their way into the (unfortunately unorganized) Stellaris bug subforums:

• Admiral leader experience is currently way too low
• Starting screen on game startup shows wrong leader portrait (female instead of male in my last game) while it displays the correct leader name on mouseover
  
• Advanced resoures block you from mining standard resources on the very same rock e.g. zro with alloys, why dont let us build a mining station anyway but only yield the resources we got tech for?
  
• Election of a new leader / ruler (Oligarchy) makes the old one disappear into the void... should rather keep him as a governor as long as he wasnt killed in the election
• Building a science ship / colony ship shows a military icon in the outliner under shipyards

There are some more which currently do not come to my mind, feel free to continue this list, i might edit the 1st post lateron.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

Something that I suspect would be a major QoL issue if people even knew about it: Scientists cannot gain traits if they are researching techs when they level up! Nor do there appear to be any triggered events to give them traits. So if you want your research scientists to ever have more traits than they were recruited with, you need to watch when they are about to level up and move them to a science ship for a few days instead (and if that few days will cross a month, move another scientist into the research slot to avoid the -25%). It's obnoxious.

Link to thread on suggestions forum: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...cientists-to-gain-traits-on-level-up.1148873/

 

[g4borg]

some things i can agree upon, others do not really bother me that much, but overall a nice list of improvements i could live with.

4) Habitats purpose unclear in 2.2.X

i can only agree. altough instead of making optional rails out of everything, i would love to see habitats become more interesting as niche, not just another skin of other mechanics. it is after all one of the few possibilities how to actually make "space different", something i miss in stellaris (as much of what you build has no real options, while nice planet bound 4x games usually get their beauty of how you transform the tiles)

tbh. habitats should be buildable in their current form by everybody, maybe with a few exceptions, hidden behind some side tech, and the perk should only enhance habitats to be truly viable alternatives, e.g. by reducing admin cap usage, increasing their size, etc.

also to be noted, if we talk hardcore scifi, habitats are the most reasonable option to expand the universe actually, and a dyson swarm would be a multitude more efficient than a very unrealistic ringworld e.g.; you could just as well house a whole galaxy of people in a solar system that would use proper habitats.

Complete rework, now replaces some "Administrator" jobs with "Juntas"

imho warrior culture is better like it is. adding more jobs does not make it more believable. this is the typical klingon race after all we are talking about, not a despotic military rulership. it should reflect, that all members of this species have some kind of warrior-esque lifestyle.

Tributaries provide an additional 10% in tribute.

holy moly no way. it is already pretty crippling as it is. you should never forget the greater implications for such changes in multiplayer.
i would agree tho if it gives the user however the ability to keep higher dividents of tributes, if in a tributary aswell, so it would become a useful perk not just if you want to vassalize, but also if you are a tributary / vassal.

but to be honest the whole vassal / tributary diplomacy thing is imho ready for rework, it is by far one of the lowest forms of gameplay elements, that you can basicly integrate a vassal, without the vassal becoming notified, if its a player (as only all other players see that message). it is a disgusting mechanic, and the main reason why people are rather willing to play tributaries. but that is a different issue.

-- Citizen Service -- Issue: Unity gain is too small to be comparable to unity focused empires. Motes are expensive for fortresses. Fleet size is irrelevant if the economy can't support it. Solution: Unity per soldier buffed to 2.

i would rather add extra soldier jobs on this one, provided by the administrative building. (+1/+2/+3/+4...), a small addon that might make it more lucrative.

Efficient Bureaucracy -- Issue: Too weak to be comparable to job creation civics for tall empires. Relatively inconsequential to wide empires as 30 admin is about where 10% tech speed is at. Solution: Buff to +30, making it comparable to the ascension perk.

+30 is way too much imho. it is already a very good pick for some builds. again, never forget pvp.

Issue: Edict cost is largely irrelevant as a modifier in the game.

can't completely agree, as it affects any kind of edict, being influence, energy or unity. but it could be buffed, maybe even through edict duration.

, Gaia's should be comparable to Ecumonopolis or habitat spam. I feel an ideal solution here would be to actually lock Ecumonopolis, habitats and gaia planets behind their own ascension paths.

I am somewhat against moving all these things into rails, and making them different flavors of the same thing. This does not really enhance gameplay at all. There is imho nothing wrong with Gaia being less viable atm. i welcome changes, but not if we put more "boxes" on things. that is just poor taste in game design.
my main issue with gaia is the duration of the terraforming.

the same applies to the discussion about megastructures, and putting them behind techs. exactly because they are locked behind a perk makes the choice harder.