Major Complaints about BETA-V1.5.1 (Feedback) + Solutions

[Kayden_II]

So, I've just played a few Days on a TINY Map to "test", whether Stellaris is in an enjoyable Phase or Not ...

It's NOT - There are a Lot of Bugs, Inconsistencies and unbalanced Stuff, but my major Complaints are ...

1. POPs are immortal !
I know, that a POP represents Millions or Billions of People, but What's the Point of Having "Population Controls", "Migration Controls" and "Colonization Rights" as "Species Rights" in the Case, that Worlds/Habitats have reached their Maximum-Amount of POPs since all POPs are "immortal", so that There's not a single Dynamic anymore ?! ...

Solution: POPs have a Base-Life-Time, so that each single POP dies after a certain Time, so that even on fully-populated Worlds/Habitats, There would be a Possibility (again), that new or other POPs could grow or migrate into free Tiles of these Worlds/Habitats (again) ! ...
It's even a Possibility to get rid of POPs in a "normal" Manner, Which means without Purging, via "Population Controls enabled" or It's even a Possibility to simply replace POPs since (for Example) I haven't figured out (yet), How I could replace my biological POPs for mechanical Ones ! ...
You could even extend this Approach for mechanical POPs ("Base-Function-Time" instead of "Base-Life-Time"), so that I could replace my Robots into Droids into Synthetics, too.

2. Too many Habitats buildable !
I was able to build multiple Habitats at the same Time + I was able to build Habitats on any non-habitable Non-Moon-World + I was able to build Habitats within my Sectors ?! ...
Even on my TINY Map (150 Star-Systems) with my TINY Empire (50 Star-Systems), I was able to build (approximately) 150 Habitats ?! ...
Ok, a "tall" Empire can build Habitats in the Case, that There aren't any habitable Worlds anymore, but isn't It (actually) the actual Thing, that a "tall" Empire can build at the same Time at Least the same Amount or hopefully a superior Amount of Habitats in Comparision to a "wide" One, so that this "tall" Empire is able to be competitive against the "wide" One ? ...
I REALLY HAVE DOUBTS, so that I'm not convinced, that Habitats are the Solution to play a "tall" Empire, so that (for the Sake of the Game-Performance and less Micro-Management-Madness), It makes Sense to consider to restrict the Amount of buildable Habitats ! ...

Solution 01: Since You can't build a Habitat over a habitable World, It makes Sense, that You can't build a One over a tomb or barren World, too since these World-Types are terraformable (later, in the Progress of the Game), therefore "potentially habitable" and therefore - habitable in the long Run ! ...

Solution 02: The Consideration of celestial, but non-habitable Bodies, Which are more special, like Gas-Giants or/and Suns (only) ! ...

3. The Core-System-Cap isn't flexible/adjustable ! ...
This Game has a really strict and patronising Attitude to force the Player to use EXACTLY his/her (current) Core-System-Cap since the Player hasn't any Benefits by remaining below It or since the Player will be punished by exceeding It ! ...
You can even extend this Stuff in Regards of the Micro-Management by calling this first Group of Players - Micro-Haters and this second Group of Ones - Micro-Lovers ! ...
I mean, a Hater can avoid the Civic and the Ascension-Perk, but He/She can't really avoid the Tradition or Techs and What if He/She simply wants to play as a Pacifist ? - It's just like the Same, in Which a Lover is "forced" to chose the Civic, the Ascension-Perk and the pacifistic Ethos ! ...

Solution 01: Since the Player gets the "Inefficient Planet-Management"-Modifier by exceeding his/her current Core-System-Cap, It's fair to get an "Efficient Planet-Management"-Modifier by not reaching It ! ...

Solution 02: The Game uses the current Core-System-Cap as a Base, but has an additional Policy, Which is called "Bureaucratic Efficiency", in Which the Player/AI can decrease/increase his/her/its current Core-System-Base-Cap by getting additional Boosts/negative Modifiers ! ...
Example: A fanatic Militarist/Pacifist has a Base-Cap of 3/7 Core-Systems and both Ones have the Ability to decrease/increase their Caps by getting additional Boosts/negative Modifiers ! ...

4. Scaling in Regards of the Generation of a Galaxy !
Why is the Core-System-Cap still not scaled by the Galaxy-Size ?
Why are the Influence-Maintenance-Costs for Outposts still not scaled by the Amount of habitable Worlds ?

 

[DanaDark]

Cool story bro.

 

[artemis667]

If you want less micromanagement 1) play with a smaller galaxy 2) put more systems in sectors. No one's forcing you to build habitats, they're there for the players who REALLY love building (they exist, believe me). Pick different ascension perks instead.

 

[PaulMClem]

Dead Pops is a sure fire sign of extreme unhappiness.

 

[Pagz]

These are more problems with the base design of Stellaris then 1.5.1 specifically. The habitat thing is applicable to almost all paradox games: going bigger is always better.

 

[Teije]

You may have valid points, but your random Capitalization and odd style make it too much work to read your post. I suggest stating your points more succinctly.

 

[rhaak]

ThiS PoSt Is ReaLly HarD On the EYES!!!

 

[wthree]

These are more problems with the base design of Stellaris then 1.5.1 specifically. The habitat thing is applicable to almost all paradox games: going bigger is always better.

I think Victoria 2 is a probable exception to this (although I haven't played vanilla in years). Conquered territories rarely ever fully integrate, and in many cases can be far more hassle than they are worth. That said, the whole dynamic of V2 is a very different kettle of fish.

 

[Chengar Qordath]

I think Victoria 2 is a probable exception to this (although I haven't played vanilla in years). Conquered territories rarely ever fully integrate, and in many cases can be far more hassle than they are worth. That said, the whole dynamic of V2 is a very different kettle of fish.

Yeah, the Victoria games have always been oddballs. While it would be fun if Stellaris used the POP system from Victoria instead of having a new take on it, that'd probably add massively to the amount of calculations the game needs to make.

 

[jdrou]

your random Capitalization and odd style make it too much work to read your post. I suggest stating your points more succinctly.

I wouldn't say it's random; possibly his native language is German or some other language where all nouns are capitalized. It does make it a bit of extra work to read though.

Population controls are just that, 'controls', not a way to purge. Purging by neutering is the game mechanic for that.

 

[Aurtose]

Habitats are very influence-heavy. If memory serves, they're 200 to build then 30 to colonise. Unless you're a perfectly stable wide empire and there's no more planets in your territory habitats are impractical for anything but tall.

As for core sector systems, going over the cap isn't particularly punishing. A good planet can be worth going over the cap for and equally, early-game, it may be worth staying below cap so that:
A) You can quickly grab a new colony if you find a good planet.
B) You aren't spending as much on armies, buildings, spaceports and (possibly) governors/edicts required to make a colony not suck. Leaving pops unemployed for a long time has a negative event chain associated with it (don't judge, had fast pop growth and migration, colonies filled up fast).

That said, it would be nice to have more dynamic pop movement as you suggested. I don't think that death is the way to do this though. Solution that comes to mind is letting pops migrate into each other to swap positions (using the slowest migration time of the 2 species).

 

[Cortical]

I think Victoria 2 is a probable exception to this (although I haven't played vanilla in years). Conquered territories rarely ever fully integrate, and in many cases can be far more hassle than they are worth. That said, the whole dynamic of V2 is a very different kettle of fish.

I think that hints at one of the main issues with Stellaris. Colonies just develop way too fast. Your first colony rivals your home world in importance within decade or two. And after a hundred years the only thing that makes your home world stand out is that the empire capital complex allows for higher tiered buildings. I think your home world (or home system) should be the industrial and scientific backbone of your empire for much longer, and in turn the first colonies should be much more important than the next few for a long time. That would also make "core systems" much more meaningful.
But I don't think Stellaris will ever go in that direction, and I'm not even sure it could be done all that well via mods.

 

[Mrakvampire]

Absolutely agree - colonies DO actually develop too fast right now - and this is main reason of "snowball effect" of empire power that happens in mid-game.
Something should be definitely tweaked. Reducing pop growth and reducing migration attraction can change this, I guess.

I always felt that ability to basically fill all available slots on planet with pops in just several decades through natural breeding is just silly. How much time would it take for humans to "fill all possible space" on Earth? Another 100-200 years?

 

[wthree]

I think that hints at one of the main issues with Stellaris. Colonies just develop way too fast. Your first colony rivals your home world in importance within decade or two. And after a hundred years the only thing that makes your home world stand out is that the empire capital complex allows for higher tiered buildings. I think your home world (or home system) should be the industrial and scientific backbone of your empire for much longer, and in turn the first colonies should be much more important than the next few for a long time. That would also make "core systems" much more meaningful.
But I don't think Stellaris will ever go in that direction, and I'm not even sure it could be done all that well via mods.

That could potentially be done by massively decreasing growth time, relying far more on migration. Which could in turn lead to situations where your homeworld becomes depopulated from everyone leaving if you expand too quickly. Possibly also increasing building times.

Having low population growth would also be the distinction between tall and wide empires.


Although this is going off on a major tangent, I think a lot of problems (as I see them) with Stellaris could be fixed by tweaking numbers.

You could also massively change the dynamics of war by drastically reducing fleet caps and fleet power, making the biggest difference between a large empire and a small empire being the ability to replenish forces. It also would mean you don't start jumping into the 10s of thousands of fleet power very quickly.

Imagine making it so you get most of your fleet cap from space stations, but they are significantly more expensive. So a wide empire made up of sparsely populated agricultural planets, and a centralized empire of industrial centres might have similar fleet sizes.

I might actually see if I can mod some of this stuff.

 

[Kayden_II]

Population controls are just that, 'controls', not a way to purge.

A "Population Control" is in Principal a "Birth Control", but That doesn't Matter since There's no Death-Rate at All unless You have a War, in Which some POPs could die via Bombing ...
To make POPs "mortal" does not mean, that You would have an efficient Possibility to purge POPs since There would be just a Chance, that all POPs of a Species would eventually die out, Which would be only possible in the Case, that You've permanently enabled the "Population Control" for a very long Time ...
It depends on the "Base-Life-Time" of the POPs, Which I would set (for Example) to 80 Years, Which I've mentioned, is a very inefficient "Possibility" to "purge" POPs ...

To have "immortal" POPs leads to a static Gameplay, in Which You will have no Dynamic anymore, Which means no Breeding/Growing, Migrating or Exchanging of POPs ...

By the Way, to have "mortal" POPs makes even this "Resource" a little Bit more valuable.

 

[Alblaka]

1. POPs are immortal !
POPs have a Base-Life-Time, so that each single POP dies after a certain Time

Pop's are not people, but represent population, which is just a number of living entities. The individual entities behind it die, get born, grow up and die again. this is all represented in the context of 'one pop'.

It's an abstraction that is both satisfactory in terms of realism (1 pop of super-sized fungi colonies with 10 fungi is equal to 1 pop of 5 bajillion ant thingies) and gameplay (since it evidently works).
And your suggested change would likely require major overhauls and rebalances just for the sake of adding dieing pops. Which implies it wouldn't contribute to the gameplay experience whatsoever (and that's not mentioning that it would break realism by defining that populations 'die out' and then get 'regrown').

Since You can't build a Habitat over a habitable World

Interesting. According to dev diary, you were supposed to be able to, since not every 'habitable world' is actually inhabitable by every species.
That said, there's hardly ever a reason to build a 12-size habitat if you can instead settle a >12 size planet.

This Game has a really strict and patronising Attitude to force the Player to use EXACTLY his/her (current) Core-System-Cap since the Player hasn't any Benefits by remaining below It or since the Player will be punished by exceeding It ! ...

It's a mechanic to prevent snowball blobbing.
Currently, players can have larger sector caps then ever before (Pacifism+Civic+Exploration Tradition+Ascension Perk+Early avaible tech), and in multiple games this meant my empire could exploit the advantage of player vs AI micro much more.
This evidently proves that giving the player access to more micro is a bad thing, which implies that sectors (limiting player micro influence) is a good thing.

Yes, it is a 'strict and patronising' attitude and it's fully required until the AI ascends to the same intelligence level of a player.
And, like it or not, that is not happening any time soon.

4. Scaling in Regards of the Generation of a Galaxy !
Why is the Core-System-Cap still not scaled by the Galaxy-Size ?

For the same reasons mentioned above.
Increasing galaxy size is less about giving more systems to the same number of empires, but about giving the same number of systems to more empires.

 

[Kayden_II]

Pop's are not people, but represent population, which is just a number of living entities.

I know, that a POP represents Millions or Billions of People

Aha ...

And your suggested change would likely require major overhauls and rebalances just for the sake of adding dieing pops.

Do You really want to say, that It's a "major Overhaul" to implement a Feature, in Which any POP on any Tile disappears after a certain Time, so that an other One can grow or migrate into or so that You can build a Robot/Droid/Synth instead ?! ...

According to dev diary

Since V1.5 is out and since You have Utopia, I suggest, that You try It yourself.

It's a mechanic to prevent snowball blobbing.
Currently, players can have larger sector caps then ever before (Pacifism+Civic+Exploration Tradition+Ascension Perk+Early avaible tech), and in multiple games this meant my empire could exploit the advantage of player vs AI micro much more.
This evidently proves that giving the player access to more micro is a bad thing, which implies that sectors (limiting player micro influence) is a good thing.

Yes, it is a 'strict and patronising' attitude and it's fully required until the AI ascends to the same intelligence level of a player.
And, like it or not, that is not happening any time soon.

Thank You for just Ignoring the other Half of this Issue, that the Player hasn't any Benefits by remaining below his/her current Core-System-Cap, Which leads directly to the Issue, that the Game has such a strict and patronising Attitude to use EXACTLY the current Core-System-Cap - It's inflexible, not adjustable and therefore - BAD.

Increasing galaxy size is less about giving more systems to the same number of empires, but about giving the same number of systems to more empires.

Sorry, but That's Nonsense.

 

[Slarkon]

I agreed with your post because one or two of the points you made where ok but i not so much sold on the solutions

1. POPs are immortal !
I know, that a POP represents Millions or Billions of People, but What's the Point of Having "Population Controls", "Migration Controls" and "Colonization Rights" as "Species Rights" in the Case, that Worlds/Habitats have reached their Maximum-Amount of POPs since all POPs are "immortal", so that There's not a single Dynamic anymore ?! ...

Solution: POPs have a Base-Life-Time, so that each single POP dies after a certain Time, so that even on fully-populated Worlds/Habitats, There would be a Possibility (again), that new or other POPs could grow or migrate into free Tiles of these Worlds/Habitats (again) ! ...
It's even a Possibility to get rid of POPs in a "normal" Manner, Which means without Purging, via "Population Controls enabled" or It's even a Possibility to simply replace POPs since (for Example) I haven't figured out (yet), How I could replace my biological POPs for mechanical Ones ! ...
You could even extend this Approach for mechanical POPs ("Base-Function-Time" instead of "Base-Life-Time"), so that I could replace my Robots into Droids into Synthetics, too.

Our population keeps getting bigger. We dont drop do 4 billion then go back up. a cities population does not die of old age and then a new generation migrate in. a single pop reps kids, working and retired all in one in my mind

2. Too many Habitats buildable !
I was able to build multiple Habitats at the same Time + I was able to build Habitats on any non-habitable Non-Moon-World + I was able to build Habitats within my Sectors ?! ...
Even on my TINY Map (150 Star-Systems) with my TINY Empire (50 Star-Systems), I was able to build (approximately) 150 Habitats ?! ...
Ok, a "tall" Empire can build Habitats in the Case, that There aren't any habitable Worlds anymore, but isn't It (actually) the actual Thing, that a "tall" Empire can build at the same Time at Least the same Amount or hopefully a superior Amount of Habitats in Comparision to a "wide" One, so that this "tall" Empire is able to be competitive against the "wide" One ? ...
I REALLY HAVE DOUBTS, so that I'm not convinced, that Habitats are the Solution to play a "tall" Empire, so that (for the Sake of the Game-Performance and less Micro-Management-Madness), It makes Sense to consider to restrict the Amount of buildable Habitats ! ...

Solution 01: Since You can't build a Habitat over a habitable World, It makes Sense, that You can't build a One over a tomb or barren World, too since these World-Types are terraformable (later, in the Progress of the Game), therefore "potentially habitable" and therefore - habitable in the long Run ! ...

Solution 02: The Consideration of celestial, but non-habitable Bodies, Which are more special, like Gas-Giants or/and Suns (only) ! ...

ive getting hammered in game, its past 2500 and im only now up to a 40k fleet and i got 5 habs in my home system. some of the AI have 4 or 5 in home systems as well. Playing on a 750 star map i would like to be able to build a hab in any system same as the AI so no i dont want restrictions on habs in any way

I want them to be destructible with a auto -500 purge diplomacy penalty to ALL other races in the galaxy.

the way they are now is i will have to use an INSANE amount of time into garrisoning every one i conquer as well as the planets.

Im playeing as a non interference empire just watching the galaxy go by in my first utopia play through but if i had a grudge against a specific species i would want the option to destroy habs from orbit

3. The Core-System-Cap isn't flexible/adjustable ! ...
This Game has a really strict and patronising Attitude to force the Player to use EXACTLY his/her (current) Core-System-Cap since the Player hasn't any Benefits by remaining below It or since the Player will be punished by exceeding It ! ...
You can even extend this Stuff in Regards of the Micro-Management by calling this first Group of Players - Micro-Haters and this second Group of Ones - Micro-Lovers ! ...
I mean, a Hater can avoid the Civic and the Ascension-Perk, but He/She can't really avoid the Tradition or Techs and What if He/She simply wants to play as a Pacifist ? - It's just like the Same, in Which a Lover is "forced" to chose the Civic, the Ascension-Perk and the pacifistic Ethos ! ...

Solution 01: Since the Player gets the "Inefficient Planet-Management"-Modifier by exceeding his/her current Core-System-Cap, It's fair to get an "Efficient Planet-Management"-Modifier by not reaching It ! ...

Solution 02: The Game uses the current Core-System-Cap as a Base, but has an additional Policy, Which is called "Bureaucratic Efficiency", in Which the Player/AI can decrease/increase his/her/its current Core-System-Base-Cap by getting additional Boosts/negative Modifiers ! ...
Example: A fanatic Militarist/Pacifist has a Base-Cap of 3/7 Core-Systems and both Ones have the Ability to decrease/increase their Caps by getting additional Boosts/negative Modifiers ! ...

i get it but this has been a complaint since 1.0. It changes and they tweak it but its not going anywhere.
if it bothers you that much there is a mod for a 1000 planet or sector limit - go nuts

4. Scaling in Regards of the Generation of a Galaxy !
Why is the Core-System-Cap still not scaled by the Galaxy-Size ?
Why are the Influence-Maintenance-Costs for Outposts still not scaled by the Amount of habitable Worlds ?

no reason to. it would take longer & cost more to colonise/expand into something the bigger it is. making larger galaxies easyeir to expand into negates the point of a larger galaxy

 

[PaulMClem]

ive getting hammered in game, its past 2500 and im only now up to a 40k fleet and i got 5 habs in my home system

Can I just ask how you've managed to play for 300 years and not get curb-stomped i.e. you seem to have a relatively weak fleet compared to time elapsed?

 

[Alblaka]

Do You really want to say, that It's a "major Overhaul" to implement a Feature, in Which any POP on any Tile disappears after a certain Time, so that an other One can grow or migrate into or so that You can build a Robot/Droid/Synth instead ?! ...

The very fact that you don't seem to grasp just how many balance changes 'only adding a feature that removes pop after a time' would draw along, with all adjustements and retesting following those, seems like a kinda good reason to question the viability of your 'easy to implement' suggestion.
Because, let's face it, Pop's are, together with planets, the central core ressource of any empire. Changing that ressource from a slowly growing, into a growing+decaying on, with the decay rate rising linearily with pop size (whilst growth scales linear with planet-count, but anti-linear with pops already on planet) IS a relevantly big change to a fundamental game mechanic.
And, to point out the obvious, would be a completely new step for the genre as whole. Because past those games that distinctively simulate populations down to the last individual (i.e. Tropico or Outpost), and who focus on exactly that feature, 4X, GSG and other PDX titles do NOT go into that direction when simulating population counts, simply because you can already abstract population death rates by their innate ability to grow.

Since V1.5 is out and since You have Utopia, I suggest, that You try It yourself.

Valid point, but at the time of responding, I do not have access to Stellaris (some people do have a job after all) and I figured expressing my surprise and disbelief towards a specific thing seemed more appropriate then saying 'I'll get back to this specific point in 11 hours'.

Thank You for just Ignoring the other Half of this Issue, that the Player hasn't any Benefits by remaining below his/her current Core-System-Cap

Why would he need benefits for staying below his cap?
That's like saying the player should get bonus fleet strength for staying below naval limit. Or cheaper leaders for staying below leader cap.

The cap is a CAP. A limiting factor to prevent stacking a game mechanic to far in a certain actor's favour. In this case, to prevent the player from micro'ing the AI to death, as I elaborated. There's no reason to assume that, per default, not reaching that cap should give any kind of advantage to the player.

And if you want to encourage tall over wide, there are far better ways then doing it this unintuitive (to me) way.

Sorry, but That's Nonsense.

Care to elaborate why?

With the default settings, it clearly appears as if increasing galaxy size increases the amount of default empires in a roughly linear scale.
Therefore it seems reasonable to assume this was intentional design by the developer.
Unless, of course, you have some elaborate reason that might imply otherwise, which is not solely based upon your own preferences and oppinion.