Emigration isn't resettlement because at no time does a pop leave the the donor system ever. It is a mechanism to move growth from one colony to potentially other colonies, but will never affect current overpopulation.
- 5
New player to the game - here's my impressions
- Thread starter Flying Scorpion
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Emigration isn't resettlement because at no time does a pop leave the the donor system ever. It is a mechanism to move growth from one colony to potentially other colonies, but will never affect current overpopulation.
1. Because players was mad when sectors was forcely taken from their controll (it was a thing in previous versions).
2. Because AI is breain-dead and leaving anything to it made not only "nothing" but it make economy to colapse.
ALMOST never
Migration isn't ressetlement, nor it was. But yes, pre 2.2 migration could look simmilar to resettlement but it wasnt it, ressetleling pop was increasing pop growth on one planet decreasing it on another, but it looked different. If curent migration would be a separated window next to grow, assemble, and decline, and if all values would stay the same noone would complain about this because everyone would see that pop is moving from place to place. Be aware that modifer of migration is not a % to pop growth, and is applied after all % modifers are applied, when emmigration is higher than growth, pop actually start declining, its most visible when growing species has lots of negative pop growth modifers.
If your pop has 3 base growth, and -75% through planetary decision, they grow 0,75/month. The more overcrowding the higher migration push, and if there is a planet where pop can go, there is a high probability (There are lot of other factors) that emigration became higher than 0,75 and pop will be not growing but declining at rate equal to difference between growth and migration value.
But i never paid much attention to that nor I often use this decision, so it is possible that it was not vanila feature but one of mods, i have to check this, and if anyone found simmilar situation and pop was not declining pls post it here so i can say i was wrong.
You are objectively wrong. Downgrade to 1.9.1 and see for yourself.
- 7
Agree, this is true. I recently played 1.9.1 and one Pop migrated from Earth to another planet. This didn't influence Pop Growth on both planets. But it is a feature I dearly miss. That kind of migration (resettling on their own) should be added back on top of current migration mechanics (which also need fine tuning and fixing (for example ceasing Pop Growth on a planet doesn't transfer all Pop Growth into emigration. It resets Pop Growth to .25 and that gets shoved off to emigration (so you usually have no more than 0.9 emigration on full planets on which you have enabled Pop Growth Controls.))
- 3
Your pop needed some time to shows up on target planet, and at the same time other pops was growing at their rate. Essetialy your migrating pop was growing in addition to planet growing pops. And if it fully grow, it was removing from home planet, where it was declining through this time.
But i understand Your confusion, when just seeing that pop is removed from one place and shows up in another, you can miss the time factor and it can looks like resettlement.
And if you remove the time factor in current game its like resettlement either (growing pop in homeworld grow slower and one less pop shows up in time when on target planet two pops showed up, so essentialy there is one less pop, and on target planet is one more, but it is more visible right now tha pre 2.2).
- 5
I have no interest in discussing your head canon.
We have the source of truth on the matter--the old game version, observe it.
- 4
- 2
It is not my fault that You are trying to twist reality (a gameality?) to fit Your narrative. You are just complaining on specific stuff not even realizing what this thing is. Im trying to explain it to You as simple as i can, but You are neglecting this without a thought.
Just try to think.
If your pop was migrating for 30 months it was declining by 3,33%/month on home planet and growing the same value on the target one. Can we agree on that?
If not, then we have nothing to talk about.
If yes, then how is it different from current migration bonusses applied to growing pops -3 on home planet and +3 on target planet?
Ignore that it is now bonus to growing pop and not second pop growing at the same time because this discussion is not about few pops growing at the same time but about migration and resettlement.
- 5
The feature from 1.9.1 we are talking about is Resettlement (Pops resettle on their own instantly, concurrently to Pop Growth on both planets). That means already grown Pops resettle on their own. That is 1.9.1's migration mechanic. One which we'd like added back in. On top of 2.2+'s migration mechanic in which Pop Growth is shoved around.
- 3
Lol, the irony. This chain of messages leads nowhere, I'm out.
- 1
Okay, but going on with this.
If migrating pops would have their own window next to growing, assembling and declining pops, it would be essentially the same, just differently shown.
- 3
.png){kind=avatar}
Let's ignore how you do not get to decide that! That's absolutely untrue. You cherry-picked something, taking it out of context, ignored everything inconvenient to yourself, to then try and create a strawman you beat up on. This seems to be your general modus operandi. Where you will also drop entire parts of your own argument and never respond to them again when they become inconvenient.
No, it's an entirely different system. They are transferring SOME of the growth over. The growth on the original planet never stops. Pops never leave that planet alleviating overpopulation or any other problems. You're outright admitting it's a different system, but then stomping your foot and going "it's still the same regardless".
"It's the old system but sped up, yet it's something else entirely! Why? Because I say so!". This is your argument from above but in reverse.
I'm rapidly growing convinced he's doing this on purpose. It's the same in other threads he's arguing in. He will even ignore what he himself or others said just a few posts above.
- 2
Okay, im going to ask this again, and without answer im just going to assume You are just trolls, or You are intentionally ignoring anythig that is not fitting Your complainings.
Not because i feel i know better, but because im trying to explain to You my line of though, and when You will understand it You can then tell me where my logic were broken, or agree with me. It is impossible to tell anyone that they are wrong without understanding their point of view.
Not because i feel i know better, but because im trying to explain to You my line of though, and when You will understand it You can then tell me where my logic were broken, or agree with me. It is impossible to tell anyone that they are wrong without understanding their point of view.
- 3
Hey, that’s me! I’m Liggs124.
Yeah, that’s my best summary of the current issues.
EDIT: I think it's worth noting that I actually do think that the devs WILL address these issues. Probably not with the Necroids-associated patch (if there is one), but with the next major DLC. It's been made clear that they are working on micromanagement, and POP growth is something that's been mentioned before by @grekulf that he wants to take a look at. I think the POP growth rework will probably also address the issues with migration too. My bigger concerns is whether the military AI and the crisis AI will ever be fixed... here's hoping though!
Oh boy, it really looks like you are new here.
Let me get this straight. With 2.3, we got a feature called AUTOMATION. Which was SUPPOSED to have the AI handle our micromanagement. Now I think we can all agree the AI is complete garbage in this game, but I will take an AI that manages to handle my planets in a somewhat reasonable way with less efficiency, if it means that I don't quit the game because of micromanagement hell.
Now the issue is, the AI is utter garbage. And so is the automation AI. It will upgrade all your buildings for example, and then this will drain your strategic ressources even though it didn't make sense to upgrade buildings. It will build the wrong districts and the wrong buildings. The automation AI is so bad, you simply cannnot use it.
We all know this. The game also used to have a feature called "sector automation". Instead of a planet level, the AI would build stuff decided to how you setup your sector (minerals/energy/food focus etc). Now this has been killed entirely from the game. For some reason there are still buttons for it, but I think it doesn't actually do anything.
Now 2.3 is LONG ago. And there were 0 improvements to automation, ever. Instead the devs added even more stuff to the game, without fixing the broken foundation.
Oh by the way, did you ever make it to the Endgame Crisis? There are actually a ton of players wo do not because they quit the game out of boredom.
The endgame Crisis is also broken and doesn't actually posess the ability to conquer the galaxy. It conquers maybe 5-10 systems, thats it. Even if you set Crisis strength to x25, you could set it to x1000 with 100 billion fleet power, it still wouldn't conquer the galaxy.
This issue is in the game since 2.2. Thats almost 2 years.
Take my advice, quit the game. The devs have not given any impressions that they are capable, or even willing of fixing the game. You can still reinstall the game should this ever change, but its very unlikely. Spend you time on something else.
- 4
- 1
Maybe I was unclear. These aren't ALL the issues. This is my summary of the MECHANICAL issues in the game. Not just straight up bugs and broken features.
I'm definitely not new here. I've been playing Stellaris since shortly after release. I have 1600 hours in the game, and I've been active on the forums for years. I also haven't actually played Stellaris since March. I've actually posted about the other issues many times elsewhere.
- 3
I'll join in. I hope I can explain this clearly enough to convince you of the contradictory opinion, or at least that my detailed explanation will convince you that I am speaking in good-faith and not trying to antagonize people for fun.
It's interesting to try to explain the key mechanical and thematic difference between growth and emigration in old and new Stellaris. The 2.7.2 system of pop growth and migration does have potential for simplicity and avoiding leaving buildings empty (as there will be no pop decline under most conditions) but there are issues that make it hard to fully replicate what we had before in 1.9.1 migration.
If a pop declines in one place and a pop appears in another then one way of explaining it is that the pop moved, that's a perfectly valid interpretation of the mechanic - but only if the two pops are identical, and the exchange of pops is synchronous (True in 1.9.1, False in 2.7.2), if the two pops differ in any way, or arrive before they leave, then true migration has not happened.
If I leave my house tomorrow (emigrate) and a Blorg moves into a house in another city (immigrate) one week ago - I have not migrated to the new city, the Blorg who occupies the new house is a new person. Different. Distinct. Also clearly not me, or even human. No idea where I've gone. I've disappeared.
The 1.9.1 system could have a Blorg, a Human, and a Fox all migrate from 3 different planets to one planet at the same time. These 3 pops would all leave and arrive at the same moment, with a modifier saying they've recently moved, and be a little happier for a time while they settle in. All those pops that moved keep their species, traits and ethics - they are the same pops that have moved. It makes sense to say that because:
1. 3 Pops physically moved, they left behind holes and filled spots on the new world
2. The 3 pops already existed, to move requires you exist first
3. The 3 pops are the same species they were before the move (moving doesn't genetically modify you)
4. The 3 pops kept all the traits and ethics they had (moving doesn't delete information or make people pacifists, declining a pop deletes pop information)
5. The 3 pops have a "migrated" marker boosting happiness (migrating pops are clearly marked and easy to see).
6. The 3 pops could stop migrating at any time (if conditions change, moving to a different world or staying at home)
7. The 3 pops stopped existing in one location at the same time they started existing at another (no gaps, no existing at 2 places at once)
In 2.7.2 system pops can "move" (emigrate) from the Blorg planet, the Human planet and the Fox planet. All 3 planets lose growth, and if overcrowded they also decline, and a max of 5 points of growth is added to the new planet (some will probably be lost). 3 new pops are generated in due time, the first new pop is created before any have declined. These new pops will be whatever is picked by the pop growing system - e.g. Cockroaches (say it's a tomb world). Now it makes no sense to say that 3 pops have migrated here because:
1. No existing pops have moved
2. The 3 new pops are new
3. The 3 new pops are a new, different species
4. The 3 new pops have new, different ethics and traits
5. The 3 new pops are functionally identical to all other grown pops, they don't have any "migrated" marker
6. The 3 planets could "migrate" 0.9 of a pop, then stop declining before a pop is removed (e.g. build more housing). No pops disappear, 2.7 pops appear elsewhere from emigration. Decline as a mechanic very rarely happens except under extreme conditions.
7. Even when pops are declining, the new pops were created before any pop declines (growth+emigration is faster than decline).
If you compare the 2 systems then obviously 2.7.2 has merits if you removed the bugs. Simple, automatic, no pops actually move. This stops the pop numbers from declining and reducing jobs by ruining buildings by dropping below the building thresholds. But it has bugs, flaws and the 1.9.1 system could fix this with only 1 added check.
Bugs in 2.7.2 Emigration:
1. The cap on emigration deleting growth above 5 (why a cap? why so ridiculously low?)
2. Stopping and starting pop-growth/decline deletes the progress (e.g. employing and unemploying a robotisist resets robotic pop growth, ditto for automatically changing pop templates when it flickers to no pop growing for a month for organic templates, even changing the growing pop deletes a proportion of existing growth and ongoing growth - not sure what happens to the 100,000+ people out of however many individuals that one pop represents)
3. Declare Population Controls is supposed to add "+100 Emigration Push", sadly that has no effect because Emigration push is multiplied by 0 thanks to the −100% Pop Growth, 100x0=0. The -5 Stability is just icing on the cake made of poo. Fix it so that it causes 100% of growth to be added to emigration and for pops to simply not grow on the planet (without setting the value that emigration needs to work to 0). Remove the stability loss. Similar changes are needed for the 3 other decisions, none of which transfer pop growth to other worlds automatically. This design oversight is most of the problem, and encourages manual resettlement to transfer growth from planet-to-planet, forcing manual migration because the migration system is broken.
But the 1.9.1 system of automatic migration could work if one simple, additional check was made (beyond what already has been coded):
1. Do not resettle a pop if moving it would lower the jobs on a planet:
Dropping below a building-slot threshold (every 5 jobs up to 75 jobs by default)
Below the extra merchant threshold (Merchant job per 50 pops)
Below the portal researcher threshold (per 40 pops), (Gas Plant Engineer per 20 pops), (Subterranean Liaison Officer Job per 20 Pops), (Cave Cleaner Job per 20 pops),
Below the Gestalt threshold (Synapse Drone Job per 20 Pops), (Maintenance Drone Job per 20 Pops)
Specifically the 1.9.1 system would work if you code it to not allow pops to migrate if it would reduce the planet below the following pop counts:
5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 100, 120, 140, 150, 160, 180, 200, 220, 240, 250, 260, 280, 300... and so on.
(you can remove the 75 pop threshold for those that have the adaptability tradition that adds 1 free building slot per planet as the last building threshold no longer opens a new build slot. This list of thresholds would only need to be updated when a new feature is added that adds scaling jobs in multiples of anything other than 20 or 50.)
I hope that helps clarify why migration in 1.9.1 is completely different than bonus growth from emigration in 2.7.2. And how the 1.9.1 system could easily be reintroduced.
- 9
- 1
I understand issues You have with this new system, and i agree it is not perfect in any way, tweaks should be done to make it working better, but this applied to growth aswell.
Im not defending new system, what i was saying at the start is that system is enough to have fun with the game, and resettlement is just additional fuction that dont need to be used. Then discussion about resettlement being pre 2.2 migration cames out.
And what I am trying to explain is that resettlement is not pre 2.2 migration, but new migration system is recreation of migration system from pre 2.2.
And your concern (in said matter) is that migratig pop is not the same pop but rather growth bonus... yet it seems You can uterstand my point if migration would have its own window (next to growth, assemble, decline). So why You cant understand it without that window? Just remember that "pop" is not a person, pop is a group of persons in which most of them are from specific specific species that portriet is shown (I know, perhaps it i s not official definition of "pop" but its good explenation on what we see in game). We have to have in mind also that: Now pops can migrate from many and to many planets at the same time, while pre 2.2, each one pop could migrate only from one planet to one another.
Btw. I havnt payed much attention to this, and almost never stoping pop growth. Is it REALLY stopping migrations from that planet? It shouldnt once migration bonus is added after groth bonusses are added and is independent from it, so it should still works. If it is not, Im almost sure it is a bug, and very important one!
- 8
(emphasis mine)
I think this could be the root cause for disagreement. You think a human pop represents a group that is mostly human. I think a human pop represents a group of only human pops. I'll explain my reasoning:
Do Pops represent a census of the population?
Yes.
1. For the history of Stellaris and certainly in the early to mid-game, or as a xenophobic empire: Human pops represent 100% of individuals being human. Whenever there is only 1 species in the empire, 100% human pop portraits means 100% of the population is human.
2. Demographic charts in-game represent the respective populations of each species. i.e. 100% human.
3. All the pop traits, habitability, growth, ethics, events and other mechanics rely on pops being discrete units that must be uniform to be grouped together.
4. Strong, Weak or indeed any trait gives 100% of the indicated bonus or penalty, this is because 100% of the indicated population have that trait.
Do Pops instead represent the dominant species of highly varied population blocks?
No. (But some things like the current migration mechanics would certainly make far more sense if they did.)
If a pop represented less than 100% of the population matching that pop portrait, then it follows that any trait the portrait has has would also be reduced proportionally:
1. A majority of 51% belonging to a specific portrait match the Strong species indicated. So 51% of the trait Strong applies, vs 100% of the Strong trait for a race with only strong workers in the empire.
2. If instead a pop represents a small minority of pops (11%) controlling the majority of their local region via means like gerrymandering, disenfranchising, citizenship vs civilians, ruling families, rival gangs etc. then the dominant pop shown in the portrait applying their traits to worker production makes no sense at all (as they aren't actually doing any of the work).
Your interpretation of each pop as representing mixed group of several species does not and cannot happen with the current system as it stands and I think it's the main cause of disagreement between yourself and others on the topic... as it's fun to imagine how it could work, what would be the benefits and limitations such a system?
Lets create a new form of pop, an "Empire Representative Species" (or "Sector Representative Species", or even "Planet Representative Species"):
1. Each empire generates an Empire representative species on game start. This is the pop that works all jobs. There is only ever 1 pop type in each empire, individual species no longer fight over jobs.
2. The Empire representative species has all the traits of all species in the empire i.e. at game start it is identical to starting race in all respects. Later, with multiple species it can be both Strong and Weak.
3. The power of each trait is determined in part by the proportion of each species, e.g. 75% Strong, 10% Weak from 75% strong pops, 10% Weak, 15% Normal
4. The strength of each trait is modified by the proportion of species able to perform that job e.g. Ruler pops can apply 100% of the Traditional trait when the only pops that can be rulers are Traditional, despite the rulers making up only 1% of the total population.
5. The representation of each trait is modified by player decisions on a galactic and planetary level, e.g. forcing or encouraging Strong pops to do worker jobs. More control should have a cost (happiness, stability, crime for authoritarians. Upkeep, unity, influence for egalitarians/spiritualists/others), while encouraging normally detrimental things like the weakest working in the army should have some advantages (happiness, unity, government ethics attraction rather than only penalties (the current game))
6. The representation of each trait is modified by encouraging the growth of certain species, e.g. Thrall worlds increase the proportion of slave race traits (strong, proles, worker job traits), conquest dramatically changes overall empire population as would the slave trade.
Positives:
1. Migration makes more sense (sometimes... it's complicated)
2. Performance may be improved (pops aren't fighting over jobs) or maybe it will be worse...
3. Less micromanagement (closing and re-enabling jobs will make no difference to job output)
Negatives:
1. Performance may decrease:
Species numbers/proportions must still be tracked to determine average bonuses
Additional species have been created - Minimum of 1 per empire for Empire level representation, max of 1 per planet for Planet level representation.
Additional calculations added (each trait is now a complex equation rather than a fixed modifier).
Additional bugs may be added (how often these things change or are checked, loops and unintended side-effects of the rework, new UI elements)
2. Pops lose all identity and uniqueness (they're now one big bland mush)
3. Planets lose all identity and uniqueness (they're full of mush)
4. Empires lose all identity and uniqueness (again, full of species mushed together)
5. Lots more nonsensical effects, e.g. capturing a world of weak primitives makes your homeworld worse at mining
6. Developer time cost of the rework.
7. It doesn't actually fix any of the issues with growth and the high value of pops, trait and empire balance or the quirks of migration. (these would need separate interventions, developer time and balancing that could work with the current system instead)
1. Each empire generates an Empire representative species on game start. This is the pop that works all jobs. There is only ever 1 pop type in each empire, individual species no longer fight over jobs.
2. The Empire representative species has all the traits of all species in the empire i.e. at game start it is identical to starting race in all respects. Later, with multiple species it can be both Strong and Weak.
3. The power of each trait is determined in part by the proportion of each species, e.g. 75% Strong, 10% Weak from 75% strong pops, 10% Weak, 15% Normal
4. The strength of each trait is modified by the proportion of species able to perform that job e.g. Ruler pops can apply 100% of the Traditional trait when the only pops that can be rulers are Traditional, despite the rulers making up only 1% of the total population.
5. The representation of each trait is modified by player decisions on a galactic and planetary level, e.g. forcing or encouraging Strong pops to do worker jobs. More control should have a cost (happiness, stability, crime for authoritarians. Upkeep, unity, influence for egalitarians/spiritualists/others), while encouraging normally detrimental things like the weakest working in the army should have some advantages (happiness, unity, government ethics attraction rather than only penalties (the current game))
6. The representation of each trait is modified by encouraging the growth of certain species, e.g. Thrall worlds increase the proportion of slave race traits (strong, proles, worker job traits), conquest dramatically changes overall empire population as would the slave trade.
Positives:
1. Migration makes more sense (sometimes... it's complicated)
2. Performance may be improved (pops aren't fighting over jobs) or maybe it will be worse...
3. Less micromanagement (closing and re-enabling jobs will make no difference to job output)
Negatives:
1. Performance may decrease:
Species numbers/proportions must still be tracked to determine average bonuses
Additional species have been created - Minimum of 1 per empire for Empire level representation, max of 1 per planet for Planet level representation.
Additional calculations added (each trait is now a complex equation rather than a fixed modifier).
Additional bugs may be added (how often these things change or are checked, loops and unintended side-effects of the rework, new UI elements)
2. Pops lose all identity and uniqueness (they're now one big bland mush)
3. Planets lose all identity and uniqueness (they're full of mush)
4. Empires lose all identity and uniqueness (again, full of species mushed together)
5. Lots more nonsensical effects, e.g. capturing a world of weak primitives makes your homeworld worse at mining
6. Developer time cost of the rework.
7. It doesn't actually fix any of the issues with growth and the high value of pops, trait and empire balance or the quirks of migration. (these would need separate interventions, developer time and balancing that could work with the current system instead)
Indeed it is very important. And anyone aware of how the system is supposed to work (which you can easily guess from the immigration value) can spot it the first time they see the decisions in action (usually on AI planets, human players don't use it normally). It's an unfathomably critical issue that was introduced with the emigration system. I would argue that it alone is the main reason why people feel forced to manually resettle or enact the galactic council edict to automatically resettle pops.
Migration numbers are based on growth numbers. 0 Growth = 0 Migration.
If they were independent then it could lead to a population death-spiral, which would look like this:
1. Very large migration pushes (from new colonies for example) could exceed growth, especially if growth is low (lithoids, slow-breeder). Causing decline.
2. Decline ruins buildings and also removes the jobs per 20, 40, 50 pops (as mentioned in my last post).
3. Ruined buildings increase homelessness (worst case, Utopian Communal Housing ruined: -10 housing)
4. Homelessness halts growth and causes decline, increases emigration, reduces stability
5. Ruined buildings also increase unemployment (worst case, Commerce Megaplexes ruined: -11 jobs including an unemployed ruler)
6. Unemployment triggers negative events and also increases emigration.
7. Raised emigration from all those sources increases the rate of decline
8. High unemployment and low housing triggers the AI to enact population controls (making things worse by cutting growth and increasing emigration)
9. Population declines, stabilizes and freezes at a new, much lower level when population has balanced out (i.e. when target planets grow into full colonies emigration stops, but growth does not return unless the decision is cancelled... which may not occur).
Result: A Decimated population and core planets with Ruined buildings that the AI may never fix (due to other, unrelated bugs)
I can only imagine this happened in a test game and so, at some point, someone decided it was safer to link migration to growth directly as a temporary-fix until further work could be done to make a better solution.
Unfortunately this means that Migration cannot happen when growth stops (for any reason). Killing:
1. All 4 Population control decisions
2. Overcrowding migration
3. Migration in general (humans resettle instead)
To fix Migration it must be independent of growth with additional checks:
1. If conditions are normal, migration max = current growth (so you can't lose pops and ruin buildings with early colonies and luxuries distributed, even if you're a slow-breeding lithoid moving away from a harvested tomb-world with lowered habitability)
2. If conditions are very poor (e.g. high overcrowding) migration can exceed current growth causing decline.
3. If growth is reduced by decision, first apply migration values to raw growth, then apply the growth penalty to remaining growth (only those pops that choose to stay get neutered/growth-controlled).
4. Remove the cap on immigration (pop growth should not be lost during emigration without a good reason).
If you want to test it just start a new game, colonize 1 planet and apply pop controls to the homeworld. You will see the emigration push increase while actual emigration decreases. (e.g. a fanatic xenophobe will have -1.6 from emigration before, -0.8 from emigration after enacting controls despite the +100 push given from the decision, as it has less growth to work with).
Players have known about this problem since the start, but comments indicate Developers wanted to tackle the entire pop-growth system at once rather than spend the time fixing bugs and issues with the current implementation first...
I heartily oppose this resource-allocation decision. If something small is broken, don't wait 6 months, or 2 years to fix it while hoping you'll have time to make it perfect later. Fix it the first moment you can, otherwise you'll repeat the exact same problem later when your perfect solution has a bug that needs fixing... but the fix is given a lower priority than a rework of some other system. If you don't fix early and fast, it will never work properly.
- 7
- 1
How do you get this convo so drawn out. The thing is that 1.91 had a system where any new world or habitat later in the game would fill up quickly with pops migrating from your full worlds. In modern stellaris this is absolutely not the case as you need to mash the resettle button a million times every minute.
- 3
- 1
It's baffling, isn't it? People here even ask for more DLCs and/or mechanics while not being able to experience the end game that was available in *vanilla*.
The situation is seriously have "The Emperor's New Clothes" vibes, except "King is naked!" yells have no effect.
Sociology/Psychology students might find this very interesting, possibly at diploma work level.
- 3
@DrFranknfurter
I agree with Your issues, suggestions etc. Im not denying it.
Im also convinced that current system is not perfect and all. Im not arguing with that.
What im saying is that pre 2.2 migration was tweak to fill new version, and is not entirely new system, and pre 2.2 migration was not resettlement in current one.
(As for pop being only 100% species of the portret i will disagree, i have said it is majority, and 100% is also a majority, and also if pop of other species has migrated to human pop growing at this time on planet they could just move to their pop, and dont want to mix with human anymore, byt this is just interpretation, not a fact, we can have different oppinions and this changes nothing)
And really, i had never need or urge to use resettlement (acctualy i had, but it was for faster colony development, and i never felt it is my duty to do this manually nor was this making my game uncomfortable because of this), and i dont feel this system is a basic system that have to be used and thus- makes game unplayable because of micro it causes. Its just a feature that can, but dont have to use.
I agree with Your issues, suggestions etc. Im not denying it.
Im also convinced that current system is not perfect and all. Im not arguing with that.
What im saying is that pre 2.2 migration was tweak to fill new version, and is not entirely new system, and pre 2.2 migration was not resettlement in current one.
(As for pop being only 100% species of the portret i will disagree, i have said it is majority, and 100% is also a majority, and also if pop of other species has migrated to human pop growing at this time on planet they could just move to their pop, and dont want to mix with human anymore, byt this is just interpretation, not a fact, we can have different oppinions and this changes nothing)
And really, i had never need or urge to use resettlement (acctualy i had, but it was for faster colony development, and i never felt it is my duty to do this manually nor was this making my game uncomfortable because of this), and i dont feel this system is a basic system that have to be used and thus- makes game unplayable because of micro it causes. Its just a feature that can, but dont have to use.