Consumer Goods seem like an arbitrary extra step and useless in its own merit

[LeanneKaos]

I've got several solutions:

1) Get rid of it. It's tacked on and serves no other function. Minerals converting to alloys is a great level of depth and complexity because each have their own use outside of the conversion. Consumer Goods has the additional headache of being an upkeep, which in the new version of the game is a headache as Paradox seems to have gone wild with arbitrary empire growth limiters (housing!, amenities!, cohesion!, admin cap!, crime!, upkeep for tier 2 in exotics!, upkeep for pop with CG!). Yes, the game is technically more 'complex,' but it's tediously complex. A big civilization has a lot of upkeep? Okay fine. Does anyone really enjoy checking out sixteen different resources every month to make sure I'm not going out of my limits? Personally I can't stand it.

Before playing Stellaris, I was playing a game called Distant Worlds: Universe on full manual control - and managing fourty different resources (fourty one if you count the currency) in pausable real-time. Sixteen is nothing.

But that aside, getting rid of consumer goods would be a nerf to Gestalt empires since (as someone else mentioned above) one of their advantages is that they don't have to bother with them.

2) Find more uses for Consumer Goods. Why are energy credits traded on the market? Why not consumer goods? Currencies may or may not differ between civilizations and empires, but surely two civilizations trading in consumer goods for primary resources is a basic economic principle. If consumer goods were the standard currency of the market place to be used to invest in other resources, it wouldn't seem too weird and would make an excellent reason to stock up on consumer goods and give them a wide variety in usage.

That would kick the Gestalt empires out of the market entirely, which would be an even *bigger* nerf than the one above.
And you *can* already sell your excess consumer goods on the market, so they are technically traded there.

3) Link Consumer Goods to potential growth. This is an entirely new idea I've had to solve the issue of "Why stockpile food and consumer goods to begin with?" Paradox took a step in the right direction with the new planetary edict that increases growth by spending food, but I feel like the larger your stockpile of food and consumer goods, the greater your population growth should be.

Er... why?
Stockpiles don't spur growth; they're there to be a buffer against future deficits or expenditures, or as investments to be sold when the price is right. *Spending* those stockpiles on decisions, like (in the case of consumer goods) Distributing Luxury Items to boost amenities and immigration pull is a way to spur growth, but just sitting on them shouldn't do anything.

I do have an issue where I spend 85% of my game-play time cycling through populations and re-arranging them to get mild increases in all my yields, rather than being able to max out a planet's population in 2.1.4, re-arrange it once, and then have a fully optimized planet for the rest of the game.

I dropped away from Stellaris after 2.0 because it got boring. That was part of why it got boring. The current system gives me things to be doing between the pewpew stages, which keeps me from getting bored.

 

[MK1980]

consumer goods aren't even new. we've had them before the 2.2 update, too. the only difference now is that they aren't automatically paid from mineral income and require factories (and pops working the factories) to do the conversion. so they just fleshed out an already existing mechanic.

i kinda agree that some systems seem needlessly convoluted, though.
amenities, happiness and stability seems like overkill. that's basically 3 metrics/resources that could be rolled into one without losing much (or anything at all).

strategic resouce upkeep for advanced building is also mostly just a chore. most of those res will be converted from minerals via plants anyway, so simply making it a mineral upkeep and skipping the refinery jobs and plants altogether would serve the same purpose. just a little less clicking (and a few saved building slots, but that could be resolved by rebalancing the job slots for buildings)

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Some streamlining could be done, but Consumer goods serve a valid purpose in creating choices. We have 'how much of my mineral income can I spare for secondary resorces and still develop worlds/systems' leading into 'how much of that can I allocate to alloys vs Consumer goods' into 'is it worth taking pops from other things and loosing buildoing slots/having to manage piracy to get consumer goods from trade' which in turn entangles pop mechanics and building slots and in turn means that basic questions of Mineral and energy income are now linked to state of population productiviity / planetary development / starbase use and location / colony placement.

Thats a linking of the very basic low level stuff and the high level strategic view that is really nive. The weightings and the feedbacks might be better adressed, but the actuall system, and the fact that differing empires can in differing contexts have a range of optimal solutions, is the kind of thing I love.

 

[Agamemnic]

Agree with the OP. It's a time-wasting clickfest. The whole whack-a-mole economics system that has you lurching from one resource shortage to the next is a grind. Even full on building sims like Cities: Skyline aren't this tedious. What next? Instead of minerals to alloys, mineral ore -> refined minerals -> alloy smelt -> alloys -> military or civilian alloys etc etc . Kill me now please

 

[The Boz]

IMO Consumer Goods, Amenities, Habitability, one of these must go.

 

[Vanhal]

amenities, happiness and stability seems like overkill. that's basically 3 metrics/resources that could be rolled into one without losing much (or anything at all).

They actually were one - happiness. People of course complained about simplicity or how easy it was to just forget this and wanted PDX to make it more complicated.

 

[Bearjuden]

I could see pops as having a higher "care/fun" need than now but letting it be split however you like between amenities and consumer goods. They both kind of do the same thing after all, let your pops have stuff that makes them happy. This would work better with more planet modifiers that affect, directly or indirectly, consumer goods and amenities output.

I definitely don't think it should be completely removed, though.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

One way to handle it ( and also to avoid the situation I have where I just skip ameanity buildings asside from Trade) would be to have Ameanities/consumer goods merged to Afluence, where 1 unit consumer goods produces [rebalanced] Ameanites worth of contentment and comfort, which adds another variable, whether to produce more CG, but have them do less, or less CG and more local structures that have them do more.

 

[Piotrzeci]

I think they work very well. Creating consumer goods limits your alloy production not only in a way mineral upkeep for pops would. You need to commit workers and building slots to it. That make a bigger difference for the amount of alloys you can produce, than just straight up feeding people rocks. It's even more important once you switch to a better living standard. It also puts extra limitation once you add Research Labs that need them.

And if you see no difference between paying pops in minerals and in consumer goods, then I guess there is no problem.

 

[AlanC9]

One way to handle it ( and also to avoid the situation I have where I just skip ameanity buildings asside from Trade) would be to have Ameanities/consumer goods merged to Afluence, where 1 unit consumer goods produces [rebalanced] Ameanites worth of contentment and comfort, which adds another variable, whether to produce more CG, but have them do less, or less CG and more local structures that have them do more.

You might be handling that situation wrong. Some folks who looked at the math say that clerks are awful and should never be used at all; city districts should have the clerk slot disabled.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

You might be handling that situation wrong. Some folks who looked at the math say that clerks are awful and should never be used at all; city districts should have the clerk slot disabled.

Eh I dont play on the AI cheats difficulties but if I am playing a 'tall' empire I've never needed energy districts, the average megacorp can out produce a dyson sphere on trade alone, and that is running Consumer benefits, my limiting factor tends to be food not Energy.

This is untested against larger empires because, well because honestly I tend to have craptastic luck for starts and have been more intrestedin exploring the new stuff and waiting on fixes so I could give a machine servitor empire a decent run.

 

[AlanC9]

Well, clerks being the worst way to get the energy you need doesn't mean that they won't give you the energy you need. Just that you could have had that energy and some other stuff too, but on your difficulty you don't need the other stuff.

 

[Serenity84]

I think they work very well. Creating consumer goods limits your alloy production not only in a way mineral upkeep for pops would

This is the most important thing. The difference between a civilian and a military economy. Before you were basically always on a total war footing where your entire economy only existed to support your fleets. No matter the situation. Which was bad on so many levels

 

[Secret Master]

I have never had a single game where happiness, amenities, housing, crime, have ever been an issue or impacted my empire negatively. Even if I ignore it they are all so inconsequential since their bonuses are hard-capped and their malus penalties never seem to show up unless you a purposefully tanking your economy.

I care about all of them. As my recent painful games as MEs and DAs has shown, small problems in most of these categories can sap an empire's strength, even if it's not causing a spiral of death. The question facing me with these items isn't "Are they important?" but "How little of each of things can I get away with?"

In fact, I'm coming to the conclusion that POP growth is important, but amenities and housing traits/civics might actually be just as important. A recent game as fanatic egalitarian with byzantine bureaucracy and shared burden really illustrated this to me. Despite rampant unemployment and housing shortages on some of my core worlds, I could still afford to sit there and wait for POPs to emigrate to new planets. (Egalitarian, so no resettlement for me.) You'd think my core worlds were dystopian Hell holes, but the POPs there were just fine thanks to traits and civics. I had practically no entertainers (and not that many clerks, either, except on a few designated trade worlds), no precinct houses anywhere, and most importantly, no utopian abundance. Between happy factions, the right traits and civics, and nutritional plenitude, my population was happy to sit in bad housing with no jobs and no holo-theaters and contentedly wait to immigrate to a world with jobs and housing. And all those building slots with no holo-theaters and no precinct houses were replaced by.... alloy production. (And research, because why the Hell not.)

Someone is about to say, "That's why I don't have to pay attention to those things," but they are missing the point. The point is that by tailoring my empire to optimizing these items, I can push production in other ways. The housing shortage was not too big of a problem, because it was not nearly as bad as it would have been without those civics and traits. Without those boosts to housing, my empire would have been in worse shape, or I would have had to convert more districts/buildings to housing. Without bonuses to amenities, more labor would have to have been devoted to stupid stuff like entertainers.

They aren't the only thing to care about, but these things matter.

 

[Slynx]

when I've started playing 2.2 I usually switched trade policy to 0.5energy + 0.5 CG and never even bothered with them (even converted building producing them to a alloy factory). if they are negative - just build a trade building. if they are plenty - throw them on a planet. or better sell on a market.

 

[Eled the Worm Tamer]

Well, clerks being the worst way to get the energy you need doesn't mean that they won't give you the energy you need. Just that you could have had that energy and some other stuff too, but on your difficulty you don't need the other stuff.

Well the thing is, as I preffer simulationist play I shoudn't have to go giving the AI bennies to get an intresting dynamic. If higher difficulty meant a smarter AI? sure but, I'm in to see if I can use the game rules better and tell a story so 'every other civ gets huge bennies you wont' has no place in my play style.

 

[Ryika]

I think the one potential problem with consumer goods from a design perspective is that there's no real "excitement" in them. You need some for expansion, a certain amount as upkeep, and then you can use excess consumer goods for that one decision, but neither of these really give consumer goods a strong "presence".

If you compare that to alloys... You need them to build spaceships, you need them to expand to new systems, and you need them to construct megastructures. All things that are enjoyable, things that are there, physically, in your empire.

I'm not sure whether it's really an actual "problem" in the end, but I feel like giving the resources that you actually have to manufacture yourself a few of those big "Yes!"-moments that alloys already have, is design space that should be explored.

 

[AlanC9]

Agree with the OP. It's a time-wasting clickfest. The whole whack-a-mole economics system that has you lurching from one resource shortage to the next is a grind. Even full on building sims like Cities: Skyline aren't this tedious. What next? Instead of minerals to alloys, mineral ore -> refined minerals -> alloy smelt -> alloys -> military or civilian alloys etc etc . Kill me now please

If you actually have shortages, you're making mistakes.

 

[Urza1234]

I think the one potential problem with consumer goods from a design perspective is that there's no real "excitement" in them. You need some for expansion, a certain amount as upkeep, and then you can use excess consumer goods for that one decision, but neither of these really give consumer goods a strong "presence".

If you compare that to alloys... You need them to build spaceships, you need them to expand to new systems, and you need them to construct megastructures. All things that are enjoyable, things that are there, physically, in your empire.

I'm not sure whether it's really an actual "problem" in the end, but I feel like giving the resources that you actually have to manufacture yourself a few of those big "Yes!"-moments that alloys already have, is design space that should be explored.

Useful and constructive.

 

[AlanC9]

Well the thing is, as I preffer simulationist play I shoudn't have to go giving the AI bennies to get an intresting dynamic. If higher difficulty meant a smarter AI? sure but, I'm in to see if I can use the game rules better and tell a story so 'every other civ gets huge bennies you wont' has no place in my play style.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But it does mean that you don't need to play with anything like efficiency -- as long as you don't drive your economy off the death spiral cliff you'll be fine. And really, anyone who isn't doing MP doesn't need to play the game efficiently. I'm pretty sure that my own egalitarian never-resettle-don't- GAF-about-pop-traits style would get crushed in MP. But since I don't play MP, who cares?