One of the problems for me with the the current system is upkeep for unused buildings. There should be upkeep for jobs instead (payrate) which could be increased or decreased by the player. The pops would obviously prioritze higher pays.
Bad Job Priorities
- Thread starter bobucles
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A player can manually deactivate the buildings. But yeah, that should be automatic.
Stop missing the point. It wasn't about having unused building it was about the number of clicks to do simple things.
Last edited:
none of that would be necessary if... you didn't build things that can't be utilized
So according to you, I should visit in when I have three unemployed pops to place a science district. Because otherwise, I will have to always keep some slots closed as enforces will immediately switch to scientists. And then dump a dozen slaves to work as soldiers so the slots are closed. Not that it matters, my race will go to soldier job and I will still have to manually force them to advance to scientists while keeping the number of enforcers up.
I just presented a simplified example with one race, not three races and three more jobs like in my game.
I often float a good number of clerk jobs which fill and empty as pops rebalance. If I ship a dozen to my new habitat, and then prospect and build a new mining district, I want the miner slots filled before the clerks. I don't want them disabled, I just want them lower priority.
My current game I am slaving heavily and have this issue with specialists. I want to be able to shovel some main species to a recent conquest to rule it, which nukes the specialist jobs. In a couple years new pops have been born and I am ready to resettle a few in to replace those specialists, alas, job priority is BS like discussed here.
Drag and drop is ideal but I get that its theoretically complicated. I am willing to wait for like 2.5 to get it. Job priority however is NOT complicated. The buttons are there, and priorities clearly do exist internally already. Make this functional for the players.
Wow this thread is a mess, wish there was an "unhelpful" tag to vote posts.
You can use ctrl and shift modifiers respectively to add/remove 5 jobs or all jobs of a given type. I think this is true for most things in stellaris such as volumes in trading directly with other empires though I'm not sure where this is explained outside maybe the tutorial.
You can use ctrl and shift modifiers respectively to add/remove 5 jobs or all jobs of a given type. I think this is true for most things in stellaris such as volumes in trading directly with other empires though I'm not sure where this is explained outside maybe the tutorial.
Bringing back drag-and-drop would be very stupid. I have no idea why people think it's a good idea.
Weighing jobs against each other with the plus and minus signs is a great idea that should have been how the system worked from the beginning.
Weighing jobs against each other with the plus and minus signs is a great idea that should have been how the system worked from the beginning.
Tell me why it's stupid. How is the job weigh system better than simple drag-and-drop?
It's better because "simple drag-and-drop" adds extremely unnecessary micromanagement. If I control 20 planets directly, I don't want to have to drag and drop every single pop into the right job. This was the point of Le Guin's economy update.
Stop with the "new change bad" mentality. It's like the FTL rework people all over again.
While since we are talking about "unnecessary micromanagement" let me just quote what another person said, because they said it far better then I could. Keep in mind this is a simplified example with one race, as he puts it.
Now I'm not saying we should have only drag-and-drop and have to manually do everyone. Most of it should be automated, but with the option for us to intervene if we deem it necessary.
So, yeah, stop with the "there nothing wrong" mentality.
My approach would be to change the +/- to up/down arrows which reorder the jobs, and display the current priority as a number.
Pressing up would swap positions and numbers with the above job type.
Holding Ctrl would move it all the way to the top.
Holding Shift would make it equal, but with preference, to the job above. Jobs with equal priority would fill up in balance, with the priority job getting the extra pop when the number is odd.
So for the problem example above you would set enforcer to 1.1, scientist to 1.2, and (assuming you want some soldiers before all the scientists jobs are full) soldiers to 1.3. If however you did want the enforcer and scientist jobs to fill up before any soldiers, you'd set soldiers to 2. Beyond that level of control, you'd need to shut down some buildings, but I think that isn't unreasonable given your carelessness in overbuilding in the first place.
I do wonder whether balance should try to keep the total in each job the same, or the proportion of jobs filled the same. Like if there were twice as many jobs of one type then the two types of balance would behave quite differently.
Maybe just simply leaving the current +/- and adding up down to change priority would be sufficient.
Pressing up would swap positions and numbers with the above job type.
Holding Ctrl would move it all the way to the top.
Holding Shift would make it equal, but with preference, to the job above. Jobs with equal priority would fill up in balance, with the priority job getting the extra pop when the number is odd.
So for the problem example above you would set enforcer to 1.1, scientist to 1.2, and (assuming you want some soldiers before all the scientists jobs are full) soldiers to 1.3. If however you did want the enforcer and scientist jobs to fill up before any soldiers, you'd set soldiers to 2. Beyond that level of control, you'd need to shut down some buildings, but I think that isn't unreasonable given your carelessness in overbuilding in the first place.
I do wonder whether balance should try to keep the total in each job the same, or the proportion of jobs filled the same. Like if there were twice as many jobs of one type then the two types of balance would behave quite differently.
Maybe just simply leaving the current +/- and adding up down to change priority would be sufficient.
That's exactly what I'm fucking saying, that job priorities need to be introduced instead of the plus and minus buttons...
I disagree with the idea of manual pop management at all. That degree of direct control is unreasonable and doesn't lead to thoughtful gameplay. You control where people work by controlling zoning and enterprises and using policies and edicts to encourage/discourage behavior. That's an incentive based system that mirrors the real world where governments don't literally tell everyone where to work.
I don't overbuilding and I don't over expand and the result is that my economy is always in the black and my workers are generally where I want them to be. Yeah it was a pain at first but I've gotten used to it. Adjust rather than complain.
I don't overbuilding and I don't over expand and the result is that my economy is always in the black and my workers are generally where I want them to be. Yeah it was a pain at first but I've gotten used to it. Adjust rather than complain.
There aren't enough policies, edicts or incentives to have any meaningful strategic control over how jobs work in my opinion.
I feel a job priority system as suggested originally by the OP could be explained as an abstraction of all of those influences being applied by the local government to get the desired result. I'm on the fence with direct population dragging and dropping into roles within tiers, but it was what I did in 2.1 so I wouldn't be all that bothered seeing it return, if our choice was between the current implementation and that.
I really liked MeowBeep's post with the priority system; since they have also considered how the priority system might work where you want to fill jobs alternately, or don't really want to keep the same job priority indefinitely; eg you may have 2 jobs opened for the enforcer and wish to fill the enforcer roll first, but wish the next 10 or so pops being placed in other jobs.
If you were able to separate the individual jobs and set priorities to this you could get around this, but now I can understand why MeowBeep thought at the end of their post that it might be better to just stick with a simple priority system that the OP was originally suggesting
I didn't say the current system was adequate. I just disagree with some people's requests to be able to drag and drop pops or have too fine-grained control over where they end up. As such I also disagree with your proposal to have priorities for individual job slots. I think planetary or empire-wide priorities or edicts would be better and we don't really have those.There aren't enough policies, edicts or incentives to have any meaningful strategic control over how jobs work in my opinion.
I feel a job priority system as suggested originally by the OP could be explained as an abstraction of all of those influences being applied by the local government to get the desired result. I'm on the fence with direct population dragging and dropping into roles within tiers, but it was what I did in 2.1 so I wouldn't be all that bothered seeing it return, if our choice was between the current implementation and that.
I really liked MeowBeep's post with the priority system; since they have also considered how the priority system might work where you want to fill jobs alternately, or don't really want to keep the same job priority indefinitely; eg you may have 2 jobs opened for the enforcer and wish to fill the enforcer roll first, but wish the next 10 or so pops being placed in other jobs.
If you were able to separate the individual jobs and set priorities to this you could get around this, but now I can understand why MeowBeep thought at the end of their post that it might be better to just stick with a simple priority system that the OP was originally suggesting
Fair enough, you may even convince me that the system you are proposing will be just as effective or even better than the one proposed by the OP.
It does seem (at first look) however that there isn't a lot of difference between setting a planetary edict along the lines of "Focus on mining" as opposed to moving the mining jobs to the highest priority. If we perhaps had an edict that focused on "Mining and Alloy Production" this would be similar to MeowBeep's solution of having 2 jobs of the same priority that alternately fill.
That is kind of what I was getting at with the priority system representing an abstraction of local policies and edicts.
Empire-wide priorities is something I think I would like to see regardless of how jobs are controlled at the planetary level.
The current priority system is really annoying. If you get more pops than you do "priority jobs", you end up with unemployed pops even when there are "non-priority jobs" unfulfilled.
"Drag and drop" would be the simplest in theory, but I have no idea how well the system could adapt to "fixed pops" that the game can't automate until the player removes said "fixed" tag, which means there's just as much micro as before to managing jobs.
Dynamic job priorities that are weighted by monthly budget concerns and the market value of their produced resource would make more sense.
Maybe allow us to set empire-wide priorities that manage artificial weights for resources. Wartime may increase the market value of alloys, but if you're not participating in the war, you may not want more metallurgists.
"Drag and drop" would be the simplest in theory, but I have no idea how well the system could adapt to "fixed pops" that the game can't automate until the player removes said "fixed" tag, which means there's just as much micro as before to managing jobs.
Dynamic job priorities that are weighted by monthly budget concerns and the market value of their produced resource would make more sense.
Maybe allow us to set empire-wide priorities that manage artificial weights for resources. Wartime may increase the market value of alloys, but if you're not participating in the war, you may not want more metallurgists.