Proposing a small overhaul to planetary management and a few other tweaks.

  • 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.

Marek15

Private
13 Badges
Aug 13, 2018
21
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
After playing a number of games in 2.2 i have come to the conclusion that stellaris in its current state has some annoying quirks, pointless complexity and exploits derived from those.
I have been thinking of a way to make it a little simpler and less annoying without dumbing things down and this is what i came up with.
Feel free to point out the flaws and share your own ideas as well.


1. Unlock building slots by # of city districts rather than pops.
The idea is simple, 1 city district = 1 building slot. This would fix 2 issues at once:
Preventing the exploit of servants and livestock to unlock building slots with minimal or no district at all.
Prevent needless unemployment on specialized planets or ones with too few resource districts to keep them busy.

2. Merge housing and amenities into one.
They have mostly the same penalty and odds are your planet is going to run out amenities before housing.
So by combining them into one simply reduces pointless complexity.

!EDIT: To be more specific, i'm proposing to remove the housing resource and add the penalties from negative housing the penalties from negative amenities.

3. Limit servants and livestock by tying them to ruler and farmer jobs.
The idea is simple, for each active farmer 1 livestock job is created and for each active ruler 1 servant job.
This would limit how many can be used and would turn them into a reasonable efficiency boost rather than the madness they currently are.

4. Planetary features as a bonus to district efficiency rather than as a limit to their number.
Give the first X number of districts a +1 job bonus based on planetary features rather as a hard cap.
This would limit the frustrations from poor luck while at the same time keeping planetary features relevant.
It would also lessen the competitive advantage gestalt empires get from their hive/machine worlds.

5. Combine the sciences into a single resource and create a policy to focus on a specific field.
With specialized labs having been removed in 2.2 paradox has practically already consolidated the sciences into one resource and taken away our ability to specialize in the process.
However by truly combining them into a single resources a new policy can be added to change the allocation to each field.
For example a player focusing on physics could split the science into 50% physics / 25% society / 25% engineering.

6. Rebalance the admin cap, sprawl values and penalties.
Tall empires have gone the way of the dodo with 2.2 as the winning formula to everything is going wide. This almost deserves a separate thread on its own.
With the introduction of the admin cap empires are able to delay the empire size penalties that would have been imposed from the very first outpost prior to 2.2. On top of that the penalties for planets are almost completely proportional to planet size so multiple small planets are just as efficient as one large planet. And if that wasn't enough the tech penalty per system is lower, 0.6% vs 1.0%.
The fix:
Step 1 is to reduce the gap between the highest possible admin cap and its base value.
Step 2 is to increase the the base cost per colony to make large planets more efficient, but not by so much that medium sized planets become worthless.
Step 3 is to increase the tech and unity penalty for going over the cap. Because the admin cap delays the onset of the penalty it is only fair for the penalty to be at least as severe as before 2.2.


Though i have no experience modding stellaris i will at least attempt to turn these ideas into a mod.
 
Last edited:

Derp

nice
69 Badges
Jan 28, 2011
2.041
1.589
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
the only thing i'll agree on is nerfs to servants/livestock

#6 is just straight up bad
 

Typee

Major
91 Badges
Apr 27, 2012
610
564
  • Darkest Hour
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Sword of the Stars
  • Victoria 2
  • Warlock 2: The Exiled
  • Magicka 2
  • Dungeonland
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Surviving Mars
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Prison Architect
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Warlock: Master of the Arcane
  • 500k Club
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines
Why would #6 be bad?
The intent behind that one is to return the tall/balance/wide gameplay styles from before 2.2. Would it not accomplish that goal or is that goal itself undesirable?
There are more important changes that need to happen to make tall viable.
Not least: change the pop growth formula so it's not proportional to the number of planets you own. A shitty 11 size planet producing a many pops as a huge ecumenopolis is ridiculous.
 

Marek15

Private
13 Badges
Aug 13, 2018
21
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
There are more important changes that need to happen to make tall viable.
Not least: change the pop growth formula so it's not proportional to the number of planets you own. A shitty 11 size planet producing a many pops as a huge ecumenopolis is ridiculous.
In 2.1 bio pop growth on a planet was inversely proportional to the number of pops on the planet, taking more time the bigger it grew.
Would a return to such a system make #6 easier to swallow?

RIP agrarian idyll
Would the bonus amenities from farmers not reduce/remove the need for amenities generating buildings and thus require less city districts than an empire without agrarian idyll?
 

Derp

nice
69 Badges
Jan 28, 2011
2.041
1.589
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
Why would #6 be bad?
The intent behind that one is to return the tall/balance/wide gameplay styles from before 2.2. Would it not accomplish that goal or is that goal itself undesirable?
tall as it existed was an abomination
 

Archael90

Field Marshal
18 Badges
Nov 30, 2017
3.157
3.271
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Majesty 2
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
#1 change city district to district, and everything will be ok, and this would help ringworlds to be more productive.
#2 I disagree, bcs this is not the same and cant be mergedyou have to think about both separately and this is good.
#3 Ive never used servants and livestock, so i cant discuss on this, but it seems logicall what you have said.

#4 Agree
#5 Agree

#6 Agree to the point this should be rebalanced, but dissagree with "solutions", i dont have any ideas, but yours dont seems right... and are not very specific.
 

Amorenkaire

Major
84 Badges
Jul 2, 2013
735
1.073
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
#1: This was (Somewhat) what they did in development. There was going to be an infrastructure rating that different districts added, with cities giving more, and building slots were granted per 10 infrastructure. But it was changed because people started making massive city planets with huge buildings and no populous, which felt weird to the dev team. Changing it to this system would also mean you could entirely neglect rural districts on burgeoning colonies, which was part of the intent for them to grow from rural colony worlds into urbanized city worlds later.

#2: No. Amenities is there as a 'tax' upon high population/urban worlds to prevent them from being too efficient (they already are). Ecunopolis are already powerful, imagine if they no longer needed to worry about luxury districts/amenity buildings?

#3: Something like that could work, perhaps. Or a system that pre-sapients, purged pops, life stock, etc, don't count for population totals for building slots.

#4: This was fixed(?) with either the 2.2.2 or 2.2.3 patch - these planetary modifiers now also increase the number of districts if they give an increase to the resource yield. As for machine/hive worlds, that's the point. Its meant to be a way to diversify them from ecunopolises (although why they can use both is weird).

#5: Strong no. There are buildings and special jobs which only give one science (dimensional portal researchers, culture workers, etc), and space sciences vary. A science policy such as from Technology Ascension mod might be good, but simplifying the technology down to one stat only works in the case of lab researchers, and still makes it more difficult to specialize in each research category from their respective technology upgrades.

#6: Tall Empires have NEVER been meta. They could be good (see one planet strategy and science nexus rush strategy), but they would never be able to compete militarily with a wide empire's military, regardless of their technological advantage, and especially if the wide empire declared war on them before they could gain a significant enough advantage in research. At best I can agree with Sprawl's numbers being changed (with the focus upon districts, for example, I think penalty for planets should probably be removed. Which would also make habitats slightly better to boot).
 

Archael90

Field Marshal
18 Badges
Nov 30, 2017
3.157
3.271
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Majesty 2
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
#6: Tall Empires have NEVER been meta. They could be good (see one planet strategy and science nexus rush strategy), but they would never be able to compete militarily with a wide empire's military, regardless of their technological advantage, and especially if the wide empire declared war on them before they could gain a significant enough advantage in research. At best I can agree with Sprawl's numbers being changed (with the focus upon districts, for example, I think penalty for planets should probably be removed. Which would also make habitats slightly better to boot).
wide does not mean big, and tall does not mean small
it changes priority you have in time of growing, where wide empire try to be as big as it can be, consuming the biggest part of the galaxy in short amount of time and tall empire is the one that is trying to develop stable economy rather that WIDE borders. The endgame should be the same for both, but the way how they reach it should be different.
 

Amorenkaire

Major
84 Badges
Jul 2, 2013
735
1.073
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
wide does not mean big, and tall does not mean small
it changes priority you have in time of growing, where wide empire try to be as big as it can be, consuming the biggest part of the galaxy in short amount of time and tall empire is the one that is trying to develop stable economy rather that WIDE borders. The endgame should be the same for both, but the way how they reach it should be different.

That's a rather fine split of definition that doesn't change what I said. Stellaris has, probably from its start, always been more profitable to expand through space and conquer your enemy's planets for yourself, because the massive increase in food and mineral production allows you to build a bigger fleet (on top of the increase to fleet capacity) , which allows you to conquer more faster, which then increases your resources further, and etc.

Tall was always, or mostly, about developing the most you can from a limited amount of space or number of planets (voidborne is meant to be tall for this because, despite it adding a lot of small planets, its adding more economic power from the same area of space). And it has never been able to keep up with going wide in the meta. You can play it and make it work, particularly in a game against AIs, but you were always going to be weaker than playing wide and gobbling up the galaxy. The closest its gotten to being equal was during the one planet strategy days, and even then that relied upon a large chunk of space for space resources and using vassals and tributaries to gain the resources and fleet capacity you don't have.

2.0 allowed Tall Empires to keep up in certain respects (change to star bases giving massive energy production, naval capacity, and etc to make raw space territory less valuable in comparison), but also tweaked values to make the exploits of the OPS almost invalid (adding science and tradition cost from systems, not getting a fraction of your one planet vassal's naval capacity tech and galactic force projection, etc).
 

Marek15

Private
13 Badges
Aug 13, 2018
21
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
#2: No. Amenities is there as a 'tax' upon high population/urban worlds to prevent them from being too efficient (they already are). Ecunopolis are already powerful, imagine if they no longer needed to worry about luxury districts/amenity buildings?
I didn't explain it well but i meant to remove the housing resource rather than amenities and instead add the penalties you would normally get from housing shortage to the amenity shortage.
Basically districts no longer provide housing and negative amenities gives you along the lines -3% pop happiness and 30 points emigration push. For reference the current amenity shortage penalty is -2% happiness and housing shortage is -1% happiness and 30 points emigration push.
Also without this #1 would not make much sense at all.
#3: Something like that could work, perhaps. Or a system that pre-sapients, purged pops, life stock, etc, don't count for population totals for building slots.
They would still offer a ton food and amenities at a minimal housing cost, even if they couldn't contribute to unlocking building slots. Basically any method that limits their total count would fix the issue.
#4: This was fixed(?) with either the 2.2.2 or 2.2.3 patch - these planetary modifiers now also increase the number of districts if they give an increase to the resource yield. As for machine/hive worlds, that's the point. Its meant to be a way to diversify them from ecunopolises (although why they can use both is weird).
Must have been 2.2.3 since my 2.2.2 game still has this issue.
#5: Strong no. There are buildings and special jobs which only give one science (dimensional portal researchers, culture workers, etc), and space sciences vary. A science policy such as from Technology Ascension mod might be good, but simplifying the technology down to one stat only works in the case of lab researchers, and still makes it more difficult to specialize in each research category from their respective technology upgrades.
The player currently has zero options to specialize into any field and the current distribution of science is almost pure RNG. Society research will nearly always be above the rest because of culture worker (or variants of them), but their primary purpose is to produce unity and the society research is just an out of place bonus.
I can see only two elegant ways to fix this issue: A. bring back specialized research labs or B. what i proposed in my original post.
If you see a better solution that i don't please let me know.
#6: Tall Empires have NEVER been meta. They could be good (see one planet strategy and science nexus rush strategy), but they would never be able to compete militarily with a wide empire's military, regardless of their technological advantage, and especially if the wide empire declared war on them before they could gain a significant enough advantage in research. At best I can agree with Sprawl's numbers being changed (with the focus upon districts, for example, I think penalty for planets should probably be removed. Which would also make habitats slightly better to boot).
Tall empires indeed were never the meta, and that's also not what i want. I simply want a return to the balance of 2.1 where wide, balanced and tall empires each had their own advantages and disadvantages, where there was no single winning meta.
In 2.1 tall empires were both the weakest and strongest empire type. They start out being the weakest but around the time of reaching the endgame they would be the first to access megastructures, specifically ringworlds.
This would allow them to boost their economy without losing research speed, or if they decided to forgo the repeatable techs, replace their labs and boost their economy by an insane amount.
The only issues was surviving long enough to reach that point. It is a super risky strategy but also highly rewarding if done well. Easier in singleplayer though, since unlike AI real human beings are smart enough to squash a tall empire before it grows into a serious threat.
 

BlackUmbrellas

Field Marshal
33 Badges
Nov 22, 2016
9.311
3.678
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Prison Architect
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Prison Architect: Psych Ward
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Island Bound
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Crusader Kings II
To elaborate on why these are all garbage: it sounds like you want to drastically simplify and "flatten" large portions of the gameplay, which is the exact opposite of what 2.2 did. I enjoy the complexity it introduced- you want to rip most of it out, and then some.
 

Marek15

Private
13 Badges
Aug 13, 2018
21
0
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
To elaborate on why these are all garbage: it sounds like you want to drastically simplify and "flatten" large portions of the gameplay, which is the exact opposite of what 2.2 did. I enjoy the complexity it introduced- you want to rip most of it out, and then some.
Rather than trying to read my mind i could just tell you what i want.
I want the complexity of stellaris to be in between 2.1 and 2.2. More complexity isn't by definition better and in my personal opinion i feel 2.2 went a little too far. Also the more complex a game becomes the harder it is to balance and certain oversights or inherent quirks become exploitable.
 

Derp

nice
69 Badges
Jan 28, 2011
2.041
1.589
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
wide does not mean big, and tall does not mean small
it changes priority you have in time of growing, where wide empire try to be as big as it can be, consuming the biggest part of the galaxy in short amount of time and tall empire is the one that is trying to develop stable economy rather that WIDE borders. The endgame should be the same for both, but the way how they reach it should be different.
this isn't civ 5. there's almost zero opportunity cost to continued outward expansion in stellaris. in civ 5, building more settlers meant stalling production and growth in your capital or second tier cities. in stellaris it's a paltry sum of resources, in a queue you're not even using most of the time anyways.

tall will never be a thing as long as you can grow at close to 100%, externally and internally, at the same time.
 

Amorenkaire

Major
84 Badges
Jul 2, 2013
735
1.073
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
The current system works because rather than simply making specialized labs, they made specialization research. If you made technology a flat resource that applied to all 3 you loose a lot of balance with the anomaly technology deposits in space, and you'd have a very awkward way to represent how research labs can produce the variant of three research depending on technology and population traits. And that's another thing, how would you neatly show that an engineer trait pop produces more engineering to the engineering research? If you have three separate tracks for the accumulation of research you're pretty much just keeping the same system but making it harder at a glance to tell what it does.

I can agree with tweaking the empire sprawl rates, for example, such as if they decided to remove the planet penalty and instead added a sprawl usage for each sector you have, which would make densely grouped planets and habitats better, for example. And finding some way to tweak the free job pops would be another, but I think the rest either make the system more convoluted, too simple, or too easily exploited.
 

Derp

nice
69 Badges
Jan 28, 2011
2.041
1.589
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • BATTLETECH
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Green Cities
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall - Revelations
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Victoria 2
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • For the Motherland
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
The current system works because rather than simply making specialized labs, they made specialization research. If you made technology a flat resource that applied to all 3 you loose a lot of balance with the anomaly technology deposits in space, and you'd have a very awkward way to represent how research labs can produce the variant of three research depending on technology and population traits. And that's another thing, how would you neatly show that an engineer trait pop produces more engineering to the engineering research? If you have three separate tracks for the accumulation of research you're pretty much just keeping the same system but making it harder at a glance to tell what it does.

I can agree with tweaking the empire sprawl rates, for example, such as if they decided to remove the planet penalty and instead added a sprawl usage for each sector you have, which would make densely grouped planets and habitats better, for example. And finding some way to tweak the free job pops would be another, but I think the rest either make the system more convoluted, too simple, or too easily exploited.
before they base sprawl on sectors they need to find a way to keep your empire from spawning weird little zones where you have like, 6 sectors that consist of one or two systems each
 

Amorenkaire

Major
84 Badges
Jul 2, 2013
735
1.073
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Magicka
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
this isn't civ 5. there's almost zero opportunity cost to continued outward expansion in stellaris. in civ 5, building more settlers meant stalling production and growth in your capital or second tier cities. in stellaris it's a paltry sum of resources, in a queue you're not even using most of the time anyways.

tall will never be a thing as long as you can grow at close to 100%, externally and internally, at the same time.

Stellaris has its own means of sliding between tall and wide play through however, with the fact that there was always a penalty to technology and tradition cost with your size (Sprawl was essentially always there, just being a bit 'hidden' if you didn't pay attention).

There can be an argument that the sprawl mechanics should be tweaked, if the penalty and capacity usage are too linear so that sprawl doesn't act as a sufficient 'deterrent' from wide empires from out classing research and unity production via raw production, which I can certainly agree too. But I think that's about it I think.