A Paradox Employee Contacted Me Regarding Current Backlash on Forum

[Serenity84]

The FTL changes weren't really about performances. There may have been some performance issues with wormhole drive (can't remember for sure), but those changes were for gameplay reason. Like fleets not being able to catch each other, easily bypassing defending fleets and directly appearing at someone's homeworld. That may be realistic under some physic models, but it wasn't all that fun.
Being able to pick between different FTL types was nice, but it was always best when everyone used the same type. Mixing didn't work well

Are you using the term "pop" in lieu of species here?

No. Pops of the same species can have different traits (for example gene modding or certain events). So the game doesn't just have to check which species is best at something, but also which pop. And those traits have to be factored into resource calculations, like increasing the output for industrious, thrifty, strong, etc.

Because my solution takes into account different species with different traits living in the same planet. They just have different distributions in the workforce.

I wasn't really referring to your idea. That could work and it's certainly interesting. I was thinking about a better way to handle things within the current framework where you have distinct pops. And it was only a hypothetical about what could be done better with hindsight. With all that is known now I think the cost of each pop having its own traits is just too much. But I seriously doubt there will be another drastic overhaul of the game at this stage

 

[Silyus]

I wasn't really referring to your idea. That could work and it's certainly interesting. I was thinking about a better way to handle things within the current framework where you have distinct pops. And it was only a hypothetical about what could be done better with hindsight. With all that is known now I think the cost of each pop having its own traits is just too much. But I seriously doubt there will be another drastics overhaul of the game at this stage

I tend to agree on the first part. Having to assess each pop individually is mental and it must be almost impossible to optimise. But I don't think it's too late to change it. PDX has shown that it's willing to rework core parts of the game over and over again, and if the pop system is a serious bottleneck to the performance it is worth to be reworked IMHO. If anything this thread (and the discord group) has precisely the purpose of communicating the community ideas to the devs.

On side note, I've seen a lot of comments here and on discord on the line of "how the devs can't possibly know what's wrong in their game when has been years that we kept telling them and also just a cursory observation of a random game can show it". In principle, I tend to agree, many problems are quite easy to spot, and the consistency of our critiques/suggestions only cement this point. However in this instance I'd rather leaning on the utilitarian aspect of this opportunity. We have a CM willing to reach out the community and asking them what's wrong in the game. This is itself so rare in the current gaming industry. If there were ever a time when complaining on the forum had a chance to actually change the game, it is now.

The discord group linked in OP is currently collecting and organising the ideas in a dedicated form where they are argued and voted over. The CM also asked for footage or screenshots (and maybe savefiles) that make specific issues evident. If you have some mayor issues with the game and want to give them a fighting chance to be addressed, please join us there and provide as much material, suggestions and help as possible.

 

[CucumberMuncher]

I've seen a lot of comments here and on discord on the line of "how the devs can't possibly know what's wrong in their game when has been years that we kept telling them and also just a cursory observation of a random game can show it".

wel they do know now lool

 

[Ixal]

The FTL changes weren't really about performances. There may have been some performance issues with wormhole drive (can't remember for sure), but those changes for gameplay reason. Like fleets not being able to catch each other, easily bypassing defending fleets and directly appearing at someone's homeworld. That may be realistic under some physic models, but it wasn't all that fun.
Being able to pick between different FTL types was nice, but it was always best when everyone used the same type. Mixing didn't work well

So how does Sword of the Stars do it where every species has a different form of FTL?

The only problem was wormhole which would have needed some adjustments, but having different ftl types hardly was a unsolvable problem. It only would have required work which PDX was unwilling to do.

 

[fnt]

So how does Sword of the Stars do it where every species has a different form of FTL?

By desinging the whole game around it and using some tricks.

1. Far less stars in a galaxy
2. Far less races in a game
3. No random maps
4. Introducing a range parameter which eliminates most of all calculations.
5. Most FTL methods have no multi system jump calculation, which makes routing unnecessary. (only necessary for Human and Zuul)
6. Far less FTL methods in terms of algorithmns than the game makes believe you (there is no diverence in Liir, Tarkas and Moriggi from a routing standpoint)

 

[Ixal]

By desinging the whole game around it and using some tricks.

1. Far less stars in a galaxy
2. Far less races in a game
3. No random maps
4. Introducing a range parameter which eliminates most of all calculations.
5. Most FTL methods have no multi system jump calculation, which makes routing unnecessary. (only necessary for Human and Zuul)
6. Far less FTL methods in terms of algorithmns than the game makes believe you (there is no diverence in Liir, Tarkas and Moriggi from a routing standpoint)

It does have random maps, Stellaris only had 3 different ftl types, no matter how many races there are which is exactly the number of ftl types Sword of the Stars has when grouping them together and some ftl types in Stellaris also required no routing.

 

[Jernau_]

The FTL changes where good and needed imo.

Atm the worst part of Stellaris by far is the microintensive popsystem that seems to be the reason for all the performance issues as well.

 

[pliznobn]

Ix-nay on the TL-fay iscussion-day.

We don't want to give the mods an excuse to lock this thread.

 

[Ridixo]

An analogy for Pre 2.0 Stellaris vs Post 2.0 Stellaris is probably Old Lego vs New Lego.

• Old Lego actively encouraged creativity and exploring different designs in a free-form way.
• New Lego prioritises self-contained "kits" (often as franchise tie-ins). They still let you make interesting things - often more refined things than just building freeform with blocks - but the overall scope of the product is greatly diminished and now revolves around their new annual releases of kits.
• This change is not unlike what happened to Stellaris with 2.0 and it feels about as good as stepping bare-foot on a Lego brick, too (though Lego never discontinued their old buckets of bricks when they moved to kits...).

You know what? This is one of the best analysis of the game and its state. Haven't think of the game that way, but now i can only realize how right you are

 

[SephirothWS]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the super-broken fleet manager system and how it bugs out when you send reinforce commands and ghost ships end up taking up slots in your fleets and not actually filling your fleets up as they should.

I would love to get some fixes towards this so I wouldn't have to build a dedicated shipyard starbase per fleet and keep all fleets separated to their respective shipyards, and manually queue up ships to reinforce during downtimes between wars.

 

[Hundar]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the super-broken fleet manager system and how it bugs out when you send reinforce commands and ghost ships end up taking up slots in your fleets and not actually filling your fleets up as they should.

I would love to get some fixes towards this so I wouldn't have to build a dedicated shipyard starbase per fleet and keep all fleets separated to their respective shipyards, and manually queue up ships to reinforce during downtimes between wars.

yea that too is a big problem, but at least you can kinda deal with it yourself, but ai, crysises and micro hell? you are the devs mercy

 

[Silyus]

I don't think anyone has mentioned the super-broken fleet manager system and how it bugs out when you send reinforce commands and ghost ships end up taking up slots in your fleets and not actually filling your fleets up as they should.

I would love to get some fixes towards this so I wouldn't have to build a dedicated shipyard starbase per fleet and keep all fleets separated to their respective shipyards, and manually queue up ships to reinforce during downtimes between wars.

Actually I did a few posts back, and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feel the need of a fleet system rework. I've also suggested my solution that (at least partially) would solve a lot of problems with the current system.

 

[Altruist]

In addition to the many constructive suggestions already in this thread:

Micro-Management and Sectors:
Micro-management becomes more important the longer and bigger the game gets and so do sectors.
What about letting the player decide and define sectors? The following tools would be extremely helpful:

1. Player has the ability to form sectors and to add/remove planets.
2. For each sector the player can define a building template which may be
   • as simple as defining what building type should be concentrated upon eg. admin, research etc.
   • or much better allows a full template of buildings and in what order they should be built.
3. An automated sector or planet manager will then work down the template whenever a building slot is free. Optionally the player can choose wether this should be done completly automatic or wether she/he wants to get a message to approve (the latter especially to build up trust that the system is really working as intended).

This way sectors wouldn't be geographically anymore but a way to grand-strategically define economic tasks. At least in the way I am playing that would be an extremely helpful thing.


For a start the above would be already plenty and very helpful. But from that base many other things are possible, too:
# not enough Amenities: enable warning message or automatically build building: [player choice]
# not enough housing: enable warning message or automatically build building: [player choice]
# etc. I guess you get the gist and system

As a general idea, keep it simple at first (gets done faster and less prone to errors) but allow extensions/interface/variables for the future and for modders. For exemple upgrading buildings, while an interesting task to automate, can also easily lead to problems like not enough strategic resources etc., so I would add them only later and after testing (but would keep such possible additional tasks in mind already at the beginning to allow for the necessary variables etc.). Since buildings which should be upgraded already exist, it would be for example possible to show the player some numbers like:

Upgrading one research lab to complexes on each planet in this sector will cost you:​

xxx building price​

xxx maintenance costs​

Confirm Upgrade: Yes​

The player can get access to those templates right from the beginning or you can pair it with a research like "automated production". In any way, I really want to be freed to do all those buildings manually on each planet latest after I have more then 20 planets because at that point I want to concentrate on grand-strategy...

 

[Burn1729]

Proper notification settings like in other PDX titles.

Some want to get rid of the notification spam, others, like me, rely upon it to micro their empire properly.

At the moment the game is totally unplayable for me due to missing notifications on planetary building completion.

 

[CucumberMuncher]

Wana kno why we dont get any needed fixes or overhauls? All of paradox staff are on CK3
Go look at the dummy thicc size of patch 1.1 its like a book.
They know where da money is, its not in stellaris anymore.

 

[ImaTomato]

or much better allows a full template of buildings and in what order they should be built.

Being able to set up custom templates would be great, that way I could just tell the AI which buildings I want and in which order they are supposed to be build if I say that I want a research world.The districts would still be a problem since they vary between worlds but it would be far easier than having to babysit every planet.

Turning auto pop resettlement into a basic feature like it was in pre 2.2 would be great too.

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

Proper notification settings like in other PDX titles.

Some want to get rid of the notification spam, others, like me, rely upon it to micro their empire properly.

At the moment the game is totally unplayable for me due to missing notifications on planetary building completion.

A ledger could also help to keep track of things happening in the galaxy in which your empire isn't involved.

 

[Irushian]

Being able to set up custom templates would be great, that way I could just tell the AI which buildings I want and in which order they are supposed to be build if I say that I want a research world.The districts would still be a problem since they vary between worlds but it would be far easier than having to babysit every planet.

Turning auto pop resettlement into a basic feature like it was in pre 2.2 would be great too.

For organics I can see it being a pain, sure, in that case you'd put down in your template the order of districts and amount so if you placed down 4 city districts then you already know that will support your housing, after 20 mining and if the Planet can't support that it'll auto move on to the next district type in your list.

Design:
4 city
20 mining
20 energy
20 food

Example: Planet has 10 districts, can only support 4 mining, 5 energy and 5 food you'd end up with the 4 city, 4 mining and 2 energy.

If you make it so you can repeat districts in that list you then you could get creative with a pattern.

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

Being able to set up custom templates would be great, that way I could just tell the AI which buildings I want and in which order they are supposed to be build if I say that I want a research world.The districts would still be a problem since they vary between worlds but it would be far easier than having to babysit every planet.

Turning auto pop resettlement into a basic feature like it was in pre 2.2 would be great too.

I really don't think templates will solve anything, it will just move the micro to designing templates. Not all planet are of the same size, type or have the same districts. You would need to make either one complex template that would work for a lot of different planets/habitats or make a couple of them. Even then you would need to pay attention to anything not covered by said templates. Templater were awfull in Moo2 and that game has the same buildings for every planet.

What if the districts would function more like zones in city builders. The building slots would then be divided over the different districts. Then your pops build the buildings themselves. Maybe a planetary decision could further differentiate the division of city district slots. If all the buildings would then have infinite levels they could upgrade you wouldn't really have to do a lot other than decide roughly in what the planet will specialize. If buildings would be infinitely upgradable it would also be possible to slowly over time shift the focus of a planet without making everyone unemployed at some point.

 

[ImaTomato]

You only have to design a few templates(Research,Alloys,Consumer Goods,Admin,Unity) that's not micro and would only take a few minutes at the start of the game.That's far less that what I would spend on actually managing the planets .

Not all planet are of the same size, type or have the same districts.

This is about buildings not districts and almost any planet can sustain enough housing to get all building slots filled and having to make a few expetions for 2 out of 10 planets is still better than having to manage all 10.

I would prefer if they just removed the random amount of resource districts if a planet has space for 20 districts we should be able to build 20 energy or 20 minerals,etc.And if the planet is good for minerals it should have a planet modifer that increases miner output not the ability to build more mining districts.

That way it would be possible to actually specialize a planet into one basic resource instead of having to be lucky and get a planet with a random amount of slots.Having random features like Bountiful Plains or Arid Highlands make no sense to begin with since we can terraform entire worlds or remove mountains.Especially not for energy since we could just build reactors.