Feedback/suggestions regarding economic overhaul from long time player

[Argen Tum]

Hi!

Im a long time player with kids, so I only have time to play one playthrough like once a year... So I have played every version of stellaris from launch, and read every dev diary. So I know a lot about the game, even though I dont get to play it so often. I like to think of myself as in the borderland between casual and hardcore player.

Last I played was after the FTL overhaul and before 2.2.

It is really fun to play, but the new economics system is hard to understand. Suddenly, in my game, after years of stable production and expansion, it all goes haywire, with deficits in everything except minerals. Trying to sell on local market with some success, but its not enough. Turns out I had neglected to invest in consumer goods, because I didn’t know that single building was a must have... And I confused amenities with consumer goods, so had overinvested in city districts. So, I realised my mistake and managed to correct this, but of course got outpaced by other empires.

With all this in mind, to the feedback!

1. On the beta branch, I have not met any glaring bugs, execept the rioting in new colonys bug, which now (supposedly) is fixed. The AI on grand admiral is good enough I guess, other empires are superior and overwhelming, which is good (remember, this is my first game in the new economics system...) I do understand though that those who play the game more and are better at it will outpace the AI.

2. Trade routes are a bit meh. As I suspected them to be. But then, I have started a few treads to get stellaris trade to be more like EU4, as I like it a bit more complex. But, its ok for what it is.

3. Now, to the major point. The planets overhaul. I like it. But it needs tweaking. I can already understand all the threads about too much micro. And I have a few suggestions regarding this. Please see next post. Trying to avoid wall of text here...

Edit: trying to avoid wall of text...

 

[Argen Tum]

Suggestion for planet tweaking:

A. Remove upkeep of districts and buildings, and add that same upkeep to the jobs those buildings generate. Why would an ”empty” district/building draw energy if noone is working there? And it would be easier to see the upkeep in one tooltip instead of two different, in two different places.

B. Remove the possibility to prioritize jobs. Wait, you think. Thats stupid! Well no. (Wait for my next point, as they work in conjunction.) The ability to prioritize is whats creating the need to micro. If you couldn’t, there wouldn’t be any micro. Only the decision which districts/buildings to build would remain, which would be very good. Besides, it would make it easier for the AI to compete.

C. Make the planet smarter. Stop just filling all jobs at once and let the planet think for itself. A bit like a sector. But better. I would like it like this: ALL planets strive to not be in the minus on any resource. So it would allocate jobs from this. For example, lets say a planet have 10 pops. The first would go into miner perhaps. Then you would be in the negative on consumer goods and food (I’m talking locally for that planet of course, completely regardless of your global surplus or deficit). So next pop goes into artisan. And the next into farmer. Now you would not be negative in any resource perhaps, so the next one could go into miner again, and then energy is getting negative, so the next pop goes into technician. (And then the same for all resources). Thus, you would have a planet that is stable, all by itself.

Then, you think, I wouldn’t be able to specialise my planets. Well, on to:

C. Specialising buttons. In planet view, press a ’farming planet’ button, and the first pop would go into farming instead. Then a artisan like above, and a technician. But as soon as the planet does not have any deficiencies it would assign a farmer, thus prioritize them. THEN you would ALSO have buttons to specifiy how big deficiencies you could accept. Like a button for ’no deficiencies’, ’max -5 deficiency in any resource’, ’max -10’ and so on. So lets say you chose ’max -5’ and now you chose ’mining planet’. Then the first pop would go into miner. Then the game would check, do that make any resource (locally) go below -5. No, so next pop also goes into miner as well. Still not -5 in any resource. So next goes into miner again. Now, perhaps, energy hits -5,5. So the next pop becomes technician. And then consumer goods hits -6, so the next pop becomes artisan. Then, no resources is below -5, so the next pop again becomes miner. Point being that you get a planet that is stable at the level of deficiency you can accept.

D. QoL warning messages. Like ”Planet A is set to not have more than -5 deficencies but because of lack of artisans consumer goods is at -7,6. It is recommended to build ... (and then a recommendation of different buildings/districts giving the jobs needed to correct the deficiency.)”

Pros: Significantly less micro. Less confusing for new players. No more: ”I as a new player ”forget” one resource and suddenly find myself in negative spiral that is hard to break.”
Cons: Performance? Perhaps a change as I describe would lead to worse performance? But a planet would only need to check all its pops when you change the focus and/or max accepted deficencies of a planet. When it gets a new pop it can just assign a job using the above formula (and if the proper job is full, give a warning message like under my suggestion D.) Not as easy to minmax for those who like to do that.

Summary: Really nice update now on the newest beta branch. Most fun in stellaris in like, ever. BUT the planets and the resources needs tweaking, and I really, really think my suggestion above would work in a great way.

Edit: spelling.