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

[Leon12]

Also, as an aside, is the OP German? You might want to note that English speakers don't capitalise nouns. Doing so looks super bizarre and actually makes your posts harder to read because the unusual choice of orthography makes your "voice" sound like it's changing pitch and tone all the time.

 

[Kayden_II]

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.

So What ? - The Disapperaing of any POP on any Tile is just like the Bombing of any World, in Which You simply kill some POPs - Are there any Problems ? - No ! ...
Hotcode, release and fix/balance/polish It afterwards - Is That a new Thing ? ...

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.

Good Ideas ! ...

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.

The Thing is, that You can even adjust the Amount of Empires at the Start of the Game + in the Progress of the Game, the Amount of Empires will naturally rise and fall + You don't consider Empires, Which are simply in an Overlord-Vassal-/ or Overlord-Protectorate-Relation ...

It's naturally to scale the Core-System-Cap in Regards of the Galaxy-Size ...
In the Past, I would have even considered the Amount of habitable Worlds (Galaxy-Generation), but since You can avoid this Issue via Terraforming, Habitats and (probably) buildable Worlds in a futuristic DLC, You can ignore This.

 

[Alblaka]

So What ? - The Disapperaing of any POP on any Tile is just like the Bombing of any World, in Which You simply kill some POPs - Are there any Problems ? - No !

You seem to be confusing technical possibility with balance implications.
Just because the rare case (how often does a pop get killed by bombing in a day, vs how often are pop's subject to monthly growth in a day?) implicates the engine can handle it, doesn't change a thing about the facts I mentioned earlier, regarding how many balance issues it would bring to make a core ressource, upon which's logarythmic growth the entire game concept bases on, instead grow regressively.

Good Ideas ! ...

So, you're fine with the logic that a single ship should be significantly stronger then the same ship in another empire, solely because the other empire has more instances of that ship.
(And don't even dare to mention 'maybe they have better tech', because that's a completely different factor in first place.)

The Thing is, that You can even adjust the Amount of Empires at the Start of the Game + in the Progress of the Game, the Amount of Empires will naturally rise and fall + You don't consider Empires, Which are simply in an Overlord-Vassal-/ or Overlord-Protectorate-Relation ...

And all those variying numbers are supposedly considered in the default generation sequence, which populates the galaxy based upon number of starting empires, number of habitable worlds (by %), etcetcetc.

Being able to tweak these values because it was a frequently-requested feature does NOT mean anything in context to the developers original intention.
By that logic, you could claim that the developers wants us to always play with 16 ethics, because it's possible to add that with mods, because the devs implemented hooks and functions to mod these features.
From experience as a developer, I can tell you that the decision to make things configurable or moddable, is because too many people disagree with your (developer) vision of the game and the only way to keep them interested is not by forcing them to play 'your rules' but by allowing them to modify the rules to their liking.

It's naturally to scale the Core-System-Cap in Regards of the Galaxy-Size ...

Unless, of course, you have some elaborate reason that might imply otherwise, which is not solely based upon your own preferences and oppinion.

 

[krios41]

2. Too many Habitats buildable !

this is like... a realy stupid complaint to me.
You know what my answer to this was when i saw you wrote that?
"Then don't build so many"

 

[Alblaka]

this is like... a realy stupid complaint to me.
You know what my answer to this was when i saw you wrote that?
"Then don't build so many"

Regardless of the original context (in which we both agree that his complaint appears stupid), I would like to point out that 'then don't use it' is not a valid reason to disagree with a raised issue. If the devs implement a game-breaking planet-killer superweapon, and people complain about it being game-breaking, the devs (nor other users) can't just respond 'then don't use it'. Thus, if he perceives being able to spam Habitats as a concern, it feels like bad manners to me to just say 'then don't build that many'.
Instead we could try elaborating how spamming Habitats gets you nowhere in terms of invested ressources vs science rate vs unity rate vs naval limit vs mineral production, but given his dislike seems to stem from the fact it strikes him as unrealistic to be able to build them anywhere, that would be a wasted effort (as, without intending to sound dismissive, he apparently belongs to the people who put realism and their own perception of valid sci fi over gameplay and developer visions).

 

[krios41]

I would like to point out that 'then don't use it' is not a valid reason to disagree with a raised issue. If the devs implement a game-breaking planet-killer superweapon, and people complain about it being game-breaking, the devs (nor other users) can't just respond 'then don't use it'. Thus, if he perceives being able to spam Habitats as a concern, it feels like bad manners to me to just say 'then don't build that many'.

Yea yea, i wasn't realy trying to provide a solid argument
I was just stating what was going trough my mind, that's all.

 

[Kayden_II]

Just because the rare case (how often does a pop get killed by bombing in a day, vs how often are pop's subject to monthly growth in a day?) implicates the engine can handle it

Good ...

doesn't change a thing about the facts I mentioned earlier, regarding how many balance issues it would bring to make a core ressource, upon which's logarythmic growth the entire game concept bases on, instead grow regressively.

As I said, Let us hotcode + release It - We can balance It afterwards, It's not a new Thing ...
More than That, CK-II (for Example) as an other Paradox-Game can simulate a similar Thing: Characters instead of POPs ...

So, you're fine with the logic that a single ship should be significantly stronger then the same ship in another empire, solely because the other empire has more instances of that ship.

Not really, but It isn't a new Thing, too, that We can find for each **** a far-fetched Explanation ! - It takes just some Ideas or some Sort of a Brainstorming ...

Being able to tweak these values because it was a frequently-requested feature does NOT mean anything in context to the developers original intention.

Yeah, the so called "Intention", I'm done for Now and according to the Ratings, It doesn't make Sense to write Something more ...
Well, bad Luck.

 

[Coyotezcrazy]

1. POPs are immortal !

This is factually incorrect.

While the Pop icons appear to be immortal, since they are indicative of a population, they can be killed. In my recent Fanatical Purifier game, conquered Pops which I used as Forced Labor did eventually die off. It took longer than expected, but coincided nicely with my own population growth, ensuring that the tile resources were continuously harvested. As far as I'm concerned, it's working as intended. If players aren't happy with Pop behavior, I'd suggest modding.

BTW, for those concerned with the OP's use of capitalization, I've encountered two American professions which use capitalization in the same manner. Both technical writers and lawyers use capitalization to call attention and place emphasis in this manner. They do so because documents are often photocopied, which can wash out other emphasis. However, it is a rude violation of internet etiquette. I'd suggest that the OP watch Internet Comment Etiquette to improve things. that will solve everything. And... POST!

 

[Aries666]

Please stop Capitalising every Other word, It makes Your writing More difficult to Read.

 

[Coyotezcrazy]

Yea yea, i wasn't realy trying to provide a solid argument
I was just stating what was going trough my mind, that's all.

That's always a good idea.

 

[AlphaAsh]

@Kayden_II Please don't capitalise every other word. It is making it very difficult to read. Only capitalise the first letter of a new sentence. The way to remember this is, when you type a fullstop/period, that's the end of a sentence and a signal to capitalise the first letter of the next sentence.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Alblaka]

I avoided responding in the hope Kayden's realization he won't find agreement for his revolutionary ideas alone would lead to the thread dieing, but guess someone else had to jump in right then and there...

As I said, Let us hotcode + release It - We can balance It afterwards, It's not a new Thing ...
More than That, CK-II (for Example) as an other Paradox-Game can simulate a similar Thing: Characters instead of POPs ...

I'm honestly worried by the way you make a connection between Stellaris' Pops (abstract ressource unit representing large numbers of individuals, in order to model the growth of population on a planetary level) and CKII's characters (individuals representing actual individuals of a small percentage of the population of a medium part of a single planet, used to modelling inter-character relationships and feudal strife). These two concepts are beyond just being 'far from each other', in any aspect of realism OR mechanic/gameplay.

And especially with the 'let'S just do it and fix it afterwards' I start to get the feeling you don't seem to judge the amount of effort the balancing would require, nor the complete decline in gameplay quality 'just hotcoding' the thing into the game without balance would cause.
I'm half-tempted to actually find a way to mod that mechanic into the game through events, then send you the mod, just to have you see how utterly terrible the idea is.

Yeah, the so called "Intention", I'm done for Now and according to the Ratings, It doesn't make Sense to write Something more ...
Well, bad Luck.

If your only goal was to get people to click 'Agree', then I question your motives for being in this forum. This is a forum about a game, presumably supposed to help improving the game and to increase the fun factor by chatting with other players; not Facebook.

 

[Drowe]

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

Not true, you can build a habitat at a populated world, you just can't build a spaceport if you do and vice versa, if you built a spaceport, you can't build a habitat. If you build a science nexus, you can't have a mining station there as well, since each orbital body only has one slot for a structure to build there.

I don't know what you're complaining about, how many Systems do you want to control directly? It is incredibly easy to get a ridiculous number of core systems quickly Base(3)+F.Pacifist(4)+Efficient Bureaucracy Civic(2)+Non Repeatable Tech(2)+Ascension Perk(5)+Expansion Tradition finished(2)+Repeatable Tech(x), that's 18 Core Systems about 200 years into the game. With repeatable tech you can go quite a bit higher after that. This was the case before Utopia too, and could be modded out, this is possible now too. Only using vanilla you can have up to 72 colonies under your direct control, if you have the time to build ringworlds in every possible system (18*45 years so by the year 3100 you're done counting 90 years to get the needed tech, which may be a bit short but possible)

Pops have never been mortal in Stellaris, unless you're purging the only way to get rid of a Pop is through Migration/Resettlement

 

[S. Dole Melipone]

Based on title, came here expecting to see serious bugs in the hotfix patch, instead it's gameplay suggestion changes!

You know how they say everybody's a comedian? Apparently everbody's a grand strategy game designer too

 

[Slarkon]

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?

first utopia game.
i play with more AI mod so me 51 AI empires and 4FA
cramped early on signed a defence treaty with 1 guy - he got declared on so he set the war goals for the first way and only gave me a pesky liberate
when that war was over (it was 2v2 and the AI had the fleet bonus on hard so i had 1.4K he has 3.8 or something) the war took a while to win. When it was over i found myself boxed in with just 6 systems
Decided on playing tall and not expanding.

as soon as the war was over i guaranteed the independence of the two largest guys naer me (least likely to be attacked and i get the diplomacy bonus - i didn't need the influence for colonising as i couldent anymore)
Then i went to the 7 or 8 empires near me and gave them a gift of a 30 year research agreement + senor link + star charts
big diplomacy bonus so i got some non aggression pacts

With only 7 planets i VERY quickly fell behind in research but because i fell behind and had a smaller fleet the big guy whoes next door whoes indep i had guranteed at the start felt protective and guaranteed my independence (the gift was giving me + 40 from fav trade deal) and the guarantee indep had my trust at 50

btw i had purging allowed/ slavery banned and migration disabled for all but primary species so they had no love for me at the start whats why i gave the gifts once i released i was going to get slapped around.

 

[Slarkon]

Anyway ye i dont like the default max to much free space and the AI is not good at picking the best spots. its too easy to just bang up 2 or 3 choice colonies + 2-4 frontier outposts and done you've blobed a sizable amount of territory
give the AI gifts so they sign non aggression after the initial blob i find it too wasy.
even on other games like Sins and Civ when i make maps i make the maps small and the player count huge.