Make Meritocracy, Shared Burdens have happiness/stability weighting function like Noxious

[DeanTheDull]

Rebalance recommendation for two civics- Meritocracy, and Shared Burdens- using mechanics/principles being tested in Toxoids to reform these vaguely Egalitarian-aligned civics.

In Toxoids, pop happiness is modified on a planetary basis according to species distribution. Planets with noxious trait provide a bonus to happiness for noxious pops, and malus to non-noxious pops, scaling with the number of the other. In a stratified political weighting systems, this can result in net average happiness gain if the noxious pops are on top as ruler-pops and specialists over unhappy, but politically marginalized, slaves.

The point to identify here is that this is a per-planet calculation that considers planet-specific population distribution. This is key to the suggestion, which focuses on using the calculation of various worker-vs-specialist-vs-ruler jobs as the bonus, and benefit, factor.



This proposal focuses on changing two civics- Meritocracy and Shared Burdens- to reflect different planetary job distribution strategies, and press slightly different playstyles of planetary development. This is intended as a slight but balanced nerf to meritocracy- which is a powerful but unengaging flat bonus to specialists- and slightly buff Shared Burdens- which has an early-game weakness and is relatively modest in gain once rolling.


The Concept:

The premise here is that both civics increase output by providing happiness and stability bonuses as you meet a theme, and possible penalties if you work against it. These themes work in different directions that are mutually exclusive with eachother. Meritocracy's theme is that of a meritorious middle- pops are modified the more pops that are above (Rulers to be aspired to) and below (people to be meritorious over), but losing value if things are too static and flat- while Shared Burdens theme is equity- benefiting planets where everyone is of one class, but providing penalties for the more pops over or under one's strata.



Meritocracy: Something to Strive For, and Strive To Be Above
Thematically, this civic would reflect a middle-class-centric society that has both something to aspire to (ruler/elite positions), but also takes self-validation in having risen above the 'non-meritorious' underclass. The more positions the middle class (specialist tier) has to aspire to, the more committed they are to the system (stability), while the more people they are above in the social ladder (workers), the happier they are.

Meritocracy would work as a specialist-centered pseudo-stratified economy, providing bonuses that scale with the more Ruler jobs there are above the specialist tier- such as 1 stability per ruler-tier pop on a planet- and direct happiness bonuses to specialist pops the more workers that are beneath them, such as 1% happiness per worker. Both of these functions- ruler-pop stability and happiness increases- should provide a happiness and stability bonus on average, boosting specialist output, but not as much as the flat 10%, at least for most of the game.

This civic would be intended to combo with any other civic/origin/build that expects/provides for a must-work worker job, the employment of which is expected for other benefits. IE, Necrophage necrophyte jobs, mortal initiaties, and most signifcantly cllerks.

An explicit advantage/consideration of this dynamic is that it can apply to Residents as a well as citizen pops- providing empires a way to manage/take advantage of Resident status and it's 25% amenity reduction, but -10% happiness penalty. It can also benefit from Robot production (but not citizenship), as robot workers can benefit that middle class.

In the early game, this is intended to be a benefit for the starting homeworld- which starts with a heavily mixed population- but decrease as/when you either move your capital to pure-specialist, or move workers to the colonies to accelerate the 10 growth benchmark. Likewise, the benefit is modest for planets that purely specialize, as 2-ruler pop planets will only have a 2 stability gain. However, when the early game allows mixed specialist/worker planets as you deal with planet shortages, and as robots are built, you see more gradual gains return as above-average specialist happiness and stability provides a positive push.

A dynamic this would directly reward is trade builds who have a Thrifty primary species fulfilling Merchant roles on top, and Thrifty clerks on the bottom. As new species migrate/enter the empire and grow on these low-habitability worlds, leaving these clerks/merchants there makes sense as a way to boost the now better-specialist immigrant pops, who can make effective use of the planet as a specialist production center, somewhere in the middle of the prior species, rewarding the theme of merit.

In the late game, this would be expected to reward very large packed planets, and clerk employment, as the marginal planetary happiness reduction from amenity shortages is offset by not just clerk amenity boosts over the game, but the happiness bonus that can come from the worker pop.

A balance function/pressure of this all is that it does expect/pressure a macro-economic inefficiency of planetary pop allocation. While ruler pop spam will be more rewarding as a way to force stability, the employment of worker pops on specialist worlds is usually not worth it. The exceptions to this would be planets with a lot of robots, jobs you're expected to fill anyway, or slaves.






Shared Burdens: Social Equity
Thematically, this is an inverse of Meritocracy's proposal. Instead of rewarding social stratification, this society prizes social equity (all pops on a planet having the same job strata and living standard). Unlike Meritocracy this civic would actually get penalties from social divides, but also better bonuses from hyper-specialization of planets to being one strata, including a special bonus if ALL employed pops on a planet are the same strata.

In this framing, pops get a bonus for the more pops of their own strata on a planet, but lose the bonus the more pops are beneath them, and get happiness penalties the more pops that are above them, with an exceptionally high penalty between workers and ruler strata. Part of this bonus could be tailored/include something tailored to the strata. Say that Rulers get a +2.5% job Output (and Trade Bonus) modifier, Specialists get a fractional stability bonus, and worker pops get a a fractional building slot (so that you can create more communal housing)- but the premise is that you want very little, if any, social stratification. A planet full of one strata can be exceptionally strong- pure-ruler pops with buildings of nothing but ruler jobs employed as Soviet-style administration/elite city-worlds, hyper-stable specialist centers and factory towns, or worker-centers with lots of communal housing- but mixing and matching strata is actively discouraged.

(A few specific job classes- enforcers and doctors and maybe telepaths- might be exceptions, maybe.)

BUT- and this is part of the bonus- in exchange for 'perfect' planetary specialization and equity, the civic provides for a unique boon in a conditional boon of unity per pop on planets where there is perfect equity, and the happiness per pop basis that Meritocracy got from statification.

This equity-unity is intended to not only justify unemploying Ruler pops almost immediately- so that you can avoid the higher strata happiness penalties on your worker/specialist worlds and make up for the unity elsewhere. while also saving a significant amount of CG on younger colonies- but also to incentivize players using communal housing on worker worlds, making use of the unique building asset and as an amenity-substitute for entertainers. (Shared Burdens may itself need a worker-tier special version of the Medical Worker- Socialized Medical Center or some such- for worker-tier amenity jobs.)

The happiness modifier is intended to be the primary stability mechanism, and be one is more pop-efficient (in theory) than meritocracy, as worlds won't waste their designation bonuses trying to spam rulers or hire clerks. There is a macro-economic inefficiency to this- a strong pressure against robot assembly since worker worlds can't host the robot producers and specialist worlds can't benefit from the robots produced- but this is an appropriate tradeoff for economic central planning.

Economically, this is expected to be a net negative in the very early capital-world phase- too many mixed pops- but a net positive in the colonization phase, once you can offset your capital world's worker pops to the gulags - colonies, which in turn reduces the pressure on the homeworld and allows for the more equitable colony situation. Once you do have it, however, the empire can start spinning up to hyper-equity worlds very quickly, and start becoming a relative unity powerhouse to compensate for the earlier economic slower start. The shared burdens unemployment bonus becomes very relevant to demote rulers (or specialists) quickly, while the auto-resettlement bonus of democracy is very useful in moving newly grown pops to better planets sooner than later.

 

[Sutopia]

This has already been handled by living standards. Besides, meritocracy is not mutually exclusive to shared burden.

 

[Navar]

These are interesting suggestions, but I feel they don't reflect the society they represent. And, as Sutopia said, they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Introducing these mechanics would also make the civics incredibly niche and far less flexible.

A Meritocratic society doesn't necessarily shun the working classes, that feels more in line with nobility.

A Shared Burdens society doesn't necessarily shun the other classes that form their society, it expects them all to be equally treated.

 

[GOLANX]

These are interesting suggestions, but I feel they don't reflect the society they represent. And, as Sutopia said, they're not mutually exclusive concepts. Introducing these mechanics would also make the civics incredibly niche and far less flexible.

As civics I think you can run them at the same time, but as concepts they are very much mutually exclusive. Meritocracy rewards success and punishes failure it has a codified and rigid class divide between winners and losers, you just have the "equal opportunity" to become a winner, but you cant have winners without losers and that is why Meritocracy is a Dystopian concept. Shared Burdens treats everybody equally, there are no winners or losers, its why the living standard makes everything the same for all the strata, there are no classes for all are workers.

A Meritocratic society doesn't necessarily shun the working classes, that feels more in line with nobility.

Oh they do, again you can't have winners without losers, and you can't that them the same, if you pay the worker as much as the specialist then you are not Meritocratic. the reason it sounds in line with Nobility is exactly because it is, Meritocracy was created in a dystopian novel to show a society that just replaced bloodlines with merit tests, it's the exact same system with different criteria for success.

A Shared Burdens society doesn't necessarily shun the other classes that form their society, it expects them all to be equally treated.

Shared Burdens creates a society where there is only 1 class, other classes would be shunned if they still existed, they would be lucky if they were to be shunned actually, the Communist Manifesto very much paints a bloody path to that system. Your job does not dictate your status in society, and society tends to provide equal opportunity as well so you can get a job where you are happy.

 

[Sutopia]

Shared Burdens creates a society where there is only 1 class, other classes would be shunned if they still existed, they would be lucky if they were to be shunned actually, the Communist Manifesto very much paints a bloody path to that system. Your job does not dictate your status in society, and society tends to provide equal opportunity as well so you can get a job where you are happy.

We are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I was really expect something more sarcastic from Shared Burden but oh well.

 

[GOLANX]

We are equal, but some are more equal than others.

I was really expect something more sarcastic from Shared Burden but oh well.

Animal Farm was a commentary on Stalinism which had a 2 class society, Stalin and the other in power had a higher standard of living than the rest which is what the book was commenting on. As Shared Burdens is Fan egalitarian instead of authoritarian I take it as the Utopian vision from Marx of a classless society.

 

[Sutopia]

Animal Farm was a commentary on Stalinism which had a 2 class society, Stalin and the other in power had a higher standard of living than the rest which is what the book was commenting on. As Shared Burdens is Fan egalitarian instead of authoritarian I take it as the Utopian vision from Marx of a classless society.

Well commies have always claimed that they only have one class hence that quote. Egalitarian believes in equality but what IS equality? Should two people earn the same despite one being significantly less productive? The irony of classless society is that you need a superior to enforce such equality which itself cannot be equal.

 

[GOLANX]

Well commies have always claimed that they only have one class hence that quote. Egalitarian believes in equality but what IS equality? Should two people earn the same despite one being significantly less productive? The irony of classless society is that you need a superior to enforce such equality which itself cannot be equal.

Communism is flawed because it is a utopian Ideal, Stellaris represents the success of this utopian system. Also a superior is not necessary to enforce equality the collective body of workers are capable of governing themselves, a superior or employer are not neccesary for a productive workforce, ofc this idea very much challenges the power of the upper class thus they do everything to suppress it.

Meritocracy cannot exist without superiors, Superiority is a reward for superior performers. Neccesarily Meritocracy requires bell curve grading, if everyone gets an A that's great but there are a limited number of jobs for superior performance thusly the curve provides for the limitation, those who succeed move up, those who dont move down even if they would otherwise have all been A students. A society cannot exist on specialist alone it needs workers. As the specialist improve their conditions they do so as well for their progeny creating imbalance in terms of opportunity, those with potential become repressed by their environment creating more permanent upper and lower classes. Simply put while Meritocracy requires equal opportunity, the reward structure it creates is incompatible with equal opportunity.

 

[Calvax]

I think you're missing the point that job type and class are not the same thing. Class, in stellaris terms, refers to how strong ones political power is. In unequal societies certain pops have significantly more political power based on their job, whereas in equal ones a miner has just as much political power as a science director. A shared burden society isn't one where everyone is a miner, it's one where it doesn't matter what you do you're valued equally and seen as part of the whole.

Meritocracy doesn't conflict with that. Meritocracy just means giving people role based on merit. It doesn't say anything about how that role is seen in society or what class it confers. Last point, the game isn't balanced around empires having wildly different numbers of pop in each stratum. It would require a lot of tweaks to make a society of all-workers or all-specialists to work.

 

[DeanTheDull]

These are interesting suggestions, but I feel they don't reflect the society they represent. And, as Sutopia said, they're not mutually exclusive concepts.

The flavor theory is closer to what GOLANX references- a classic conflict between meritocracy as a difference in rewards/station according to ability that over times will diverge equal starts, and equity as a measure of equal result at the end/point of measurement- in which case there is a 0-sum relationship based on more radical (fanatic egalitarian, even) interpretations of what equality implies.

I am openly acknowledging that's not what these civics are currently, but rather a recasting in theme to provide new themes instead due to existing issues.

Introducing these mechanics would also make the civics incredibly niche and far less flexible.

This, I disagree with in two separate ways.

For Meritocracy, the issue is that currently it's far too powerful and flexible, to the degree that it's a blank modifier that's always good, and increasingly powerful as the game goes on and specialist percents rise. It needs a nerf, and in this context it provides scaling bonuses based on planetary macro-employment models that are still a positive, but require work towards to maximize.

For shared burdens, the civic is already incredibly niche and less than flexible, and so needs a buff. Realistically it costs more, not less, CG in the early game, and becomes obsolete when you could afford Utopian Abundance anyway. Buffing it by playing to the communist theme- especially the planned economy that Stellaris plays as- creates a more flexible playstyle than current, which isn't much more than a straight industrial rush in hopes of snowballing.

A Meritocratic society doesn't necessarily shun the working classes, that feels more in line with nobility.

The proposed meritocracy civic doesn't shun the working class, it wants one present, the more the better. What it doesn't want is a lack of working class. This is on the theme of simulating the ability to rise- but also fall back down. The people/pops that rise are happy because their merit is rewarded (with the best jobs that afford the best living standards)

Ideally/hypothetically, I'd love a system where pops better suited for specialist jobs would auto-promote and swap with worker pops. Functionally this would be a habitability and optimization shift over time, but that seemed beyond the scope of the description.

Mechanically, the nobility-themed lines are centered around Ruler pops outweighing the rest, but this recast Meritocracy actually gets more advantgeous the closer specialists are to ruler political power parity. The increase in average happiness matters the more specialists dominate your political weight spectrum. Short of Academic Privelage, this is via egalitarian living standards.

A Shared Burdens society doesn't necessarily shun the other classes that form their society, it expects them all to be equally treated.

In current gameplay design, Shared Burdens is a penalty for worker pops, a minor boon for specialist pops, and a reward for ruler pops. It's functionally a civic that gives the gameplay benefits the more stratified and elitist-job focused your economies are. It 'treats' them all equally for political power purposes, but the structural/economic bias is for an economy that ruthlessly exploits tributaries to get rid of its own worker base, bar maybe robots.

What the proposed civic reformation does- again acknowledging this is a deliberate change of theme- is change the focus to 'equity' in the context of the planned-economy communist theme.

 

[GOLANX]

The flavor theory is closer to what GOLANX references- a classic conflict between meritocracy as a difference in rewards/station according to ability that over times will diverge equal starts, and equity as a measure of equal result at the end/point of measurement- in which case there is a 0-sum relationship based on more radical (fanatic egalitarian, even) interpretations of what equality implies.

I am openly acknowledging that's not what these civics are currently, but rather a recasting in theme to provide new themes instead due to existing issues.



This, I disagree with in two separate ways.

For Meritocracy, the issue is that currently it's far too powerful and flexible, to the degree that it's a blank modifier that's always good, and increasingly powerful as the game goes on and specialist percents rise. It needs a nerf, and in this context it provides scaling bonuses based on planetary macro-employment models that are still a positive, but require work towards to maximize.

For shared burdens, the civic is already incredibly niche and less than flexible, and so needs a buff. Realistically it costs more, not less, CG in the early game, and becomes obsolete when you could afford Utopian Abundance anyway. Buffing it by playing to the communist theme- especially the planned economy that Stellaris plays as- creates a more flexible playstyle than current, which isn't much more than a straight industrial rush in hopes of snowballing.





The proposed meritocracy civic doesn't shun the working class, it wants one present, the more the better. What it doesn't want is a lack of working class. This is on the theme of simulating the ability to rise- but also fall back down. The people/pops that rise are happy because their merit is rewarded (with the best jobs that afford the best living standards)

Ideally/hypothetically, I'd love a system where pops better suited for specialist jobs would auto-promote and swap with worker pops. Functionally this would be a habitability and optimization shift over time, but that seemed beyond the scope of the description.

Mechanically, the nobility-themed lines are centered around Ruler pops outweighing the rest, but this recast Meritocracy actually gets more advantgeous the closer specialists are to ruler political power parity. The increase in average happiness matters the more specialists dominate your political weight spectrum. Short of Academic Privelage, this is via egalitarian living standards.




In current gameplay design, Shared Burdens is a penalty for worker pops, a minor boon for specialist pops, and a reward for ruler pops. It's functionally a civic that gives the gameplay benefits the more stratified and elitist-job focused your economies are. It 'treats' them all equally for political power purposes, but the structural/economic bias is for an economy that ruthlessly exploits tributaries to get rid of its own worker base, bar maybe robots.

What the proposed civic reformation does- again acknowledging this is a deliberate change of theme- is change the focus to 'equity' in the context of the planned-economy communist theme.

I agree with the idea that shared Burdens and Meritocracy should be incompatible, but not much else.

I would allow Meritocracy to unlock Academic Privilege living standards as it's perfect for the Meritocracy theme, but also perhaps have a penalty for worker pops as the Meritocratic society considers them failures. Meritocracy civic also #1 reason I'd love to see promotion time be a thing as Meritocracy would force all pops to start as workers whereas otherwise pops can start at any strata.

As I live in the US I know it aspires to be Meritocratic, those who go to college and do well get a nice job with a fat paycheck and largely we say this is a good thing. But then those who don't go to college and aren't able to find academic success become workers and are treated as garbage. Union is a dirty word here, and you are expected to take any and all abuse because society has deemed you a failure who thus deserves it as punishment for your sins. This is the result of Meritocratic ideals, and ofc the US cannot achieve true Meritocracy because those who grow up in the slums can never have the same opportunity as those who grow up in a gated community. Eh sorry I need to stop rambling on this topic.

The form of Communism Shared Burdens is emulating, isn't the kind that's big on central planning, it's a Utopian Ideal of a society that doesn't need leaders. If I wanted to make Shared Burdens better and stand out more I'd yeet the whole ruler stratum in exchange for buffs to worker pops and a big buff to clerks (+1 Amenities +2 Unity), capital building now provides entertainers, bureocrats, or maybe Culture Workers.