Real reason behind the 5 Core planets?

[RandumDude]

In my opinion there are two ways to solve this problem.

Either keep the limited core planet things but allow us to modify how we want everything that is under a sector OR
Remove the core planet limit but keep sectors how they are now, without the bugs of course.

The game being real time already limits how many core planets you have. You are limited by your skill and mastery of the game. By improving yourself at the game you are rewarded with more control over your empire. I mean okay in SP you can just pause the game for 30 minutes every month to do the necessary things but that's a player choice. And it's SP, no one cares what you do in SP. In MP no one will give you that luxury. So that means that in MP skill and mastery of the game gives you a big advantage, something that honestly is the entire point of playing against someone else.

Sectors should remain a tool in a player's arsenal. Okay, I can't deal with this many planets, I've reached the limits of my skill, so I am going to pay a price which is resources and control, to use this tool so I can continue to expand my empire instead of being stuck at that size.

There is no argument to force sectors over someone. None.
It doesn't prevent you from snowballing, if anything it makes it easier to do so. There is literally no ingame logic for them to be forced. And finally forcing the player to use them removes core parts of the game, core parts of the entire genre from the player.

 

[eddieballgame]

Some simple suggestions, design your race to start with more core planets, or make an adjustment ( to your taste ) in the "defines" file.
Also, something I did for my pleasure, increase the starting tiles on Home Worlds to 25. The beauty of this game is that one can "tweak it" quite a bit. Stellaris is only going to get better.

 

[Dalwin]

In my opinion there are two ways to solve this problem.

Either keep the limited core planet things but allow us to modify how we want everything that is under a sector OR
Remove the core planet limit but keep sectors how they are now, without the bugs of course.

The game being real time already limits how many core planets you have. You are limited by your skill and mastery of the game. By improving yourself at the game you are rewarded with more control over your empire. I mean okay in SP you can just pause the game for 30 minutes every month to do the necessary things but that's a player choice. And it's SP, no one cares what you do in SP. In MP no one will give you that luxury. So that means that in MP skill and mastery of the game gives you a big advantage, something that honestly is the entire point of playing against someone else.

Sectors should remain a tool in a player's arsenal. Okay, I can't deal with this many planets, I've reached the limits of my skill, so I am going to pay a price which is resources and control, to use this tool so I can continue to expand my empire instead of being stuck at that size.

There is no argument to force sectors over someone. None.
It doesn't prevent you from snowballing, if anything it makes it easier to do so. There is literally no ingame logic for them to be forced. And finally forcing the player to use them removes core parts of the game, core parts of the entire genre from the player.

No argument? none? really?

There is no argument that you are willing to accept for it or that you would find valid perhaps. Nothing more than that.

The devs said during streams exactly why they set it up that way. They are actually trying to design their game in the way that they think will be most fun. Than means reducing micro for the players. By all means disagree with this argument, but saying there is none is clearly not right.

The worst part is that all the crying about not wanting to be forced to use sectors amounts to one line of modding code. Anyone who doesn't want them only needs to change one number. Or if that is too hard, you can let someone else change the one number for you and subscribe to their mod.

 

[Von Thoma]

I don't get this whole "ironman" thing. I do not reload a save when I fail, but I see no reason to care about some achievement. That's why I modded it on the first day. But... I have 43 planets right now with few additional coming soon. And governing them all, chosing building etc can be slightly annoying. It's just too much clicking, especially when planetary yield info is located on another screen than sectors with building options...

Choose a planet from the list - click.
See what resources and how many of them it produces.
Select tab for buildings - click.
Select a sector - click.
Select a building to build - click.
Select another planet from the list - click.
Select general info tab to see what and how many it produces - click.
Select building tab - click.
Select sector to build - click.
Select building to build - click.
...

And make such clickfest with all 43 planets.

I am playing on Ironman, and would like to have fewer planets ...
I have now 13 planets to Control direct and 50 planets in sectors, AND ALREADY PRODUCE TOO MUCH, and the storage of the sectors are also full ...
so I am happy not to click through the other 50 planets, I even hate that I have to take care for Spacestations and armies for that other 50 planets ... hope they fix that !

HINT for all, who haven't found that out: How to Control ALL your planets in an Ironman game, legally
And IF I REALLY WANT TO CONTROL all of the other planets, I take them out from the sector MANAGEMENT for some time, do what I have to do and put it back to the sector ...
IT IS ONLY 25 influence Points , so it is already possible to manage ALL PLANETS YOURSELF

 

[RandumDude]

. They are actually trying to design their game in the way that they think will be most fun. Than means reducing micro for the players.

Well clearly that isn't working as you have a lot of people saying that it's not fun. And why FORCE IT upon the players? Isn't it much more logical to include the tool that reduces micro for the players that want to use said option and allowing the players that find that micro fun to still have fun?

And excuse me but I think if removing a fundamental core mechanic of the game increases fun that means that you have done a horrible job at implementing that fundamental part of the game and that instead of fixing it you just say, nah throw it away during the game. Never mind that you are also removing strategical elements of the game.

Here's how you remove micro. Add an Upgrade all button on the surface tab. Add a remove all blockers button. Bam I just eliminated the entire job of sectors seeing how that's the only things they do right anyway. Except for the blockers part. I mean I built that science lab near all that radioactive waste for the physics bonus, but eh, the sector removes it anyway so yeah. Good thing we aren't allowed to remove stone age reservations, because be sure that sectors would remove those too.

Also it's not that I won't ever change my mind. But so far I have not seen any kind of argument that justifies FORCED sectors after such an arbitrary illogical number of core planets that has no in game explanation at all.

 

[Praetorian44]

I've personally changed the base core planets to 10 and have had a much more enjoyable experience. I can have quite a bit more core planets to manage without the excessive micro that comes with having too many core planets. Of course this doesn't help people who don't want to mod this themselves (though I don't know why people are opposed to modding. Useless achievements I guess?).

 

[Dalwin]

Well clearly that isn't working as you have a lot of people saying that it's not fun. And why FORCE IT upon the players? Isn't it much more logical to include the tool that reduces micro for the players that want to use said option and allowing the players that find that micro fun to still have fun?

And excuse me but I think if removing a fundamental core mechanic of the game increases fun that means that you have done a horrible job at implementing that fundamental part of the game and that instead of fixing it you just say, nah throw it away during the game. Never mind that you are also removing strategical elements of the game.

Here's how you remove micro. Add an Upgrade all button on the surface tab. Add a remove all blockers button. Bam I just eliminated the entire job of sectors seeing how that's the only things they do right anyway. Except for the blockers part. I mean I built that science lab near all that radioactive waste for the physics bonus, but eh, the sector removes it anyway so yeah. Good thing we aren't allowed to remove stone age reservations, because be sure that sectors would remove those too.

Also it's not that I won't ever change my mind. But so far I have not seen any kind of argument that justifies FORCED sectors after such an arbitrary illogical number of core planets that has no in game explanation at all.

Not working? A lot of people? really.

Don't confuse a highly vocal minority with being a lot of people. Also, no one is forcing you. Changing this is like the simplest mod ever.

Make the sectors better. Give us more fine toothed control over them and remove the logic bugs involving slaves and robots etc. Fix the GUI. Do these things are we are fine. The micro addicts can still use a mod.

My question is, did none of you who insist on microing all your planets watch any game play footage before buying? Did it occur to none of you to read some reviews perhaps? This system was not a big secret. They were quite upfront about it all.

But again no one can FORCE you to apply some common sense any more than they can FORCE you to subscribe to a one line mod and be done with it.

 

[RandumDude]

Also, no one is forcing you

Except the core limit mechanic does force me? That limit that I need to mod out to no longer force me to create sectors when I don't want?

There is no logical argument for them to be forced. There's no reason that a group of people shouldn't have fun while another should when you can easily allow everyone to have fun.

I already mod it out. This led me to have much more fun with the game, because it allowed me to use sectors when I felt comfortable with it. It allowed me to still enjoy an important part of the game even during the midgame and lategame. And I think it should be an option in the game. And I have come here, on the forums, to express my opinion and explain why I have that opinion, hopefully so that the developers can see it and consider it.

So I ask you, why do you hate other people having fun? Why are you so against people suggesting an option that would allow them to have fun without affecting you and how you play the game without even addressing their complaints, the reasons they are asking for that option?

 

[Dalwin]

The game does not allow a group of people to have fun?? Do you know what you sound like?

It is as if you expect them to be your personal game designer and make games specifically to your taste. The game features are what they are. As long as they are working properly as intended then it is a matter of whether or not the game is to your taste. It is extremely arrogant to fault them for not allowing you to have fun just because they included some features that you don't personally like. Be grateful they made modding so easy and the design fairly flexible.

 

[Wizzard Rick]

I now have 13 CORE PLANETS and it is too much and boring, so to start with 5 is EVEN TOO MUCH ,
should be reduced to a MAX of 5 so that you only Keep THE BEST

You can keep only one, if you wish. Maximum does not means "you must have up to max".
But I want to build up my planets and only then give them to the sector's governer.
Or have an ability to rebuild sector planets without that 'take-giving" ping-pong.

 

[lemonsquid]

the only reason i can think of why they came up with the core planets idea is to level the playing field between min/maxers and casuals in multiplayer. also it helps the ai cope with human intelligence

 

[Sparhafoc]

Personally, I'd like being able to micromanage each and every planet.

 

[Meatpopsicle]

Main problem with using sectors is the AI doesn't know what it's doing. eg. Only building engineering research labs etc.

 

[kazper]

Except the core limit mechanic does force me? That limit that I need to mod out to no longer force me to create sectors when I don't want?

There is no logical argument for them to be forced. There's no reason that a group of people shouldn't have fun while another should when you can easily allow everyone to have fun.

I already mod it out. This led me to have much more fun with the game, because it allowed me to use sectors when I felt comfortable with it. It allowed me to still enjoy an important part of the game even during the midgame and lategame. And I think it should be an option in the game. And I have come here, on the forums, to express my opinion and explain why I have that opinion, hopefully so that the developers can see it and consider it.

So I ask you, why do you hate other people having fun? Why are you so against people suggesting an option that would allow them to have fun without affecting you and how you play the game without even addressing their complaints, the reasons they are asking for that option?

You write yourself that you are not forced. You can just mod the game and you have - it's a very special definition of "forced" you have...

 

[Ingros]

I think it would be far more interesting to be able to work also on sector planets....isnt it possible to mod that in?

Btw.
I simply assume that in the beginning they (the sectors) should have worked as some kind of vasall empires but somehow they changed it...
Maybe to add it later in a dlc

The planet amount of 5 is probably also connected to the rising number of sectors but i dont know why the number of core planets is not rising automatically also .. but maybe the research is for that

 

[Madzai]

The devs said during streams exactly why they set it up that way. They are actually trying to design their game in the way that they think will be most fun. Than means reducing micro for the players. By all means disagree with this argument, but saying there is none is clearly not right.

But managing those 5 planets require so much micro, that i can manage around 20 planets in GC3 in the same time (and GC3 isn't, or wasn't, as i don't play it anymore, very micro-friendly game). I see a problem there.

 

[kazper]

But managing those 5 planets require so much micro, that i can manage around 20 planets in GC3 in the same time (and GC3 isn't, or wasn't, as i don't play it anymore, very micro-friendly game). I see a problem there.

While I agree there is room for improving the management of planets it's disingenuous to compare two different games on a sub-feature like this. I can make the most micro-friendly planets in 4x if I decided all you could do was adjust tax rate - and you could just set the global one. What things can be done to manage the planet is not comparable between different games.

 

[LeanneKaos]

Leanne, the issue is the only reason it "drags" is because such fundamental things as an auto upgrade feature or "upgrade all buildings of type" are missing. So upgrading each of the 20+ power plants requires you to upgrade each and every one manually all of them requiring a bunch of clicks. Micro isn't the reason, not at all. That could've been cut down way more easy and in ways games such as Gal Civ 2 did long ago.

That looks like it should have been directed at someone else, since I said nothing about 'drags' or micro myself I fully agree that "Micro isn't the reason at all." If it was, the Sector control would have been much more robust.

What I said was that it's meant to be a limit - albeit a soft one, in the sense that you're penalized for going over it, rather than explicitly prevented from going over it. Similar in concept (though different in implementation and implication) to the naval capacity limit. It's a restriction you're supposed to either work with or work around.

And I believe 5 planets was chosen precisely because "it felt a bit light." Just enough to make the average player (by their impression of what the 'average player' is) want more, so that the things which *give* more have some value, but not so few as to make those things "must haves" relative to other options. (Playstyle preferences notwithstanding.)

It's a 4x game, not a grand strategy game.

The official site calls it a Grand Strategy game. Exact wording: "Grand Strategy on a Galactic Scale."

I've never been entirely certain on the specifics of what differentiates between 4X and Grand Strategy; there seems to be a fair bit of crossover, and I keep seeing conflicting ideas of what makes a game one thing or the other. So I can't say for sure which category Stellaris falls under in practice; but from the way it was marketed, I think it's fair to assume they were aiming for "Grand Strategy." They may have made it so it falls closer to 4X, but I suspect that wasn't what they were trying for.

I further suspect that the reason for the core-planet limitation in itself (as opposed to the topic question of 'why the specific number of 5 planets') is because it fits into their vision of "Galactic Grand Strategy." You don't have full control over everything, as you would in a 4X. In all honesty, I think they're trying for the same *general* idea that MOO3 tried for (but missed.) The idea isn't directly about reducing micro, but rather shifting focus to "macro."

Well clearly that isn't working as you have a lot of people saying that it's not fun. And why FORCE IT upon the players?
Isn't it much more logical to include the tool that reduces micro for the players that want to use said option and allowing the players that find that micro fun to still have fun?

If the point of it *was* simply to reduce micro, then yes; that would be more logical. But (unlike the person you originally said that to) I don't think that was the point at all. If it was *really* about reducing micro, they would have actually done far more by using a different planetary model in the first place, or (paradoxically) by giving more specific and fine-tunable control over sector management, making them more effectively "bots" to offload varying degrees of micromanagement to.

I think it has a different purpose entirely - something (at risk of the obvious retorts) closer to what MOO3 tried and failed to do. (Said obvious retorts being the reference to MOO3's failure.)

Also it's not that I won't ever change my mind. But so far I have not seen any kind of argument that justifies FORCED sectors after such an arbitrary illogical number of core planets that has no in game explanation at all.

I do agree that an explicit in-game rationalization of the core limits and sector requirements would definitely be a good thing, if only to settle the argument about what their purpose is.

As for the reason behind the specific number, I suspect (also just speculatively) it was arrived at through trial-and-error: they tried a few arbitrary numbers, and "5" was the one that best hit the effect (enough to work with while still leaving one wanting a bit more) they were aiming for. 4 was too few, and 6 was making the options to get more not interesting enough.

Consider, for example, the Direct Democracy government type. It provides 2 things: a leader-mandate every 5 years that gives you some bonus influence if you hit it (which is meh) and +2 core planets. That bonus to core planets is more valuable as the base limit on core planets goes down, and less valuable as it goes up - to the point of becoming completely worthless when the limit hits whatever value is "enough" for a given player. (Also, worthless from the start if sectors are entirely optional.) This implies that sectored planets are *meant* to be less effective than manually controlled ones; and that the mismanagement issues might very well be "working as intended."

But it would be much more clear if they gave an explicit in-game (and maybe out-of-game) justification for the limit and sectors.

 

[mangalore]

But managing those 5 planets require so much micro, that i can manage around 20 planets in GC3 in the same time (and GC3 isn't, or wasn't, as i don't play it anymore, very micro-friendly game). I see a problem there.

It's boring in Stellaris, it was boring in GC3. It's also not like the mircoing is about some important choice. It's mainly about keeping the queues full so the planets do develop. I'm really not sure what people do all the microing for to begin with. Plop down buildings in queue, assign pops, done. To me the main argument is that it is not really that interesting or complex gameplay to begin with, not from a strategic perspective at least. It's the busywork getting you to the strategic parts that do matter.

But maybe the trouble is I played GC3 as nostalgia before Stellaris came out and I was bored out of my mind with it. I really like the more strategic top layer decision making of the later instead of seeing disjoined fleets crawl over the map over x turns.

 

[Anthropoid]

I've personally changed the base core planets to 10 and have had a much more enjoyable experience. I can have quite a bit more core planets to manage without the excessive micro that comes with having too many core planets. Of course this doesn't help people who don't want to mod this themselves (though I don't know why people are opposed to modding. Useless achievements I guess?).

As of ~2490 in my game I also have 10/10 but I didn't change any of the code. I just played the game and focused on Society research . . .