Removal of tile system

[Rafss]

I had the thought that making planets more unique with things such as wonders, rare tile blockers, events, modifiers, unique buildings, and other uncommon stuff would bring more depth to it as not all micro would be the same.
I always thought that the problem was tile management being too repetitive (besides broken AI), so the fix for this would be adding more variety in some cases, special situations that would break the repetitiveness from time to time. Of course that has a cost, which is creating lots of new content, but I thought it would pretty much pay for itself as everyone would enjoy it.
I'm not against reworks, I just hope they keep that communication with the community and listen to our feedback, even if it's early stuff as it is now, that was a good step, keep up the transparency and I'm sure the situation will improve. If such thing comes without much warning, the community will explode and everyone will be angry and upset. The forum will be a nightmare, and reviews will crash.
I'm no AI expert so I won't comment much on this issue, but if the changes are designed to address this issue, then it should fix it for once, or else all efforts are going to the trash bin.

 

[Calor]

There are plenty of real arguments here, you are the one at fault for not reading the thread.

The prime argument is that tiles make the planet feel like a planet and not a spreadsheet, unlike the new proposal which just looks like a tax return form.

If the new system used a graphical UI with buildings and pops placed on a tile-free, visual map of the planet, no one would complain.

This being said, "don't change my game" is a rock solid argument on its own. People paid money for a product. It's not acceptable for the seller of that product to suddenly take advertised parts of that product back with no compensation.

Isn't that just a UI complaint and not something that even remotly has to do with the game machanic of tiles ?
So you are saying a early concept doesn't look as pretty and therefore the concept is less immersive or am I missing something?
Edit: You did see the disclaimer Placeholder art right?

 

[obolisk0430]

Is there actually any advantage to the tile system ?
As far as I have seen there are 2 groups :
One doesn't like the tile system and would be really happy about another Vic-esque PoP system which seems to be more flexible with it's PoPs and more elegant in management than a tile based system.

While it is admittedly a very early picture, based on the screenshot we've got about what they're looking at moving to, that's not what it's going to be at all. Pops still appear to be large abstract units, so this looks like it would be more along the lines of the way cities work in civilization, if the only thing you could do with pops in civ was assign them to work city buildings, rather than on hexes. The thing is that you don't actually need to remove tiles to use a Victoria style population system, and by keeping the tiles in such a system, you actually allow for the possibility of some interesting stuff, like tracking where on the planet most of the population lives, and how that affects various things.

The other one really adores the Tile system because it is ... busywork? pretty? unique? I mean I haven't read a real argument here so far only a "don't change my game" attitude. If there is a design advantage to the tile system please enlighten me because I don't see it.( And I'd like to )

While I can't speak for others, my main issue is that the problem with tiles is not their existence, but the way they are used by the game, which is to say, the building system and (arguable) the Pop system. Removing tiles is not necessary to fix the problem, nor is it necessary to implement anything people are saying tiles are getting in the way of, like overpopulation.

 

[Lilhelpy]

Honestly, there are tons of ways to make planet feel unique. Add a real map to it with continets and stuff, make more events, give some freedom to local goverment, introduce some degree of planetary culture. So many things can be done without stupid tiles.

If anything, tiles make planets 'less' unique. You just build them all the same, following 2-3 patterns. This is my 'mineral planet 23', and that is my 'energy planet 47'. Hell, I even struggle to give them names sometimes, just because they all are same.

 

[Agent K]

The tile system was an interesting start, but it does have some problems. Hate to see it completely abandoned though. It helps make individual planets feel unique, especially in the early game, and is much better that the MOO style of planet management.

 

[obolisk0430]

Honestly, there are tons of ways to make planet feel unique. Add a real map to it with continets and stuff, make more events, give some freedom to local goverment, introduce some degree of planetary culture. So many things can be done without stupid tiles.

If anything, tiles make planets 'less' unique. You just build them all the same, following 2-3 patterns. This is my 'mineral planet 23', and that is my 'energy planet 47'. Hell, I even struggle to give them names sometimes, just because they all are same.

Again, this isn't because of tiles, it's because of how the game uses tiles. I honestly encourage anyone who thinks that the tile system is just thoroughly unworkable to try out Alphamod.

EDIT: Which is not to say that I disagree with the first part of your post. Yes, there are tons of things that can be added to make planets better. By all means, make more events, give more depth to local government mechanics, give planets culture. But don't remove tiles just because vanilla doesn't use them well.

 

[Mindset]

Honestly, there are tons of ways to make planet feel unique. Add a real map to it with continets and stuff, make more events, give some freedom to local goverment, introduce some degree of planetary culture. So many things can be done without stupid tiles.

If anything, tiles make planets 'less' unique. You just build them all the same, following 2-3 patterns. This is my 'mineral planet 23', and that is my 'energy planet 47'. Hell, I even struggle to give them names sometimes, just because they all are same.

Maybe they could evolve tiles into continents, able to support multiple buildings and pops.
This could also support multiple biome types similar to our own planet, allowing a bit more habitability.

 

[Calor]

While I can't speak for others, my main issue is that the problem with tiles is not their existence, but the way they are used by the game, which is to say, the building system and (arguable) the Pop system. Removing tiles is not necessary to fix the problem, nor is it necessary to implement anything people are saying tiles are getting in the way of, like overpopulation.

But what are tiles adding to gameplay? I mean sure they are not nessecary to remove if you seperate PoPs from tiles and just make the building system tile-based, but what inherent gameplay advantage do they have ? I don't see any to be honest.

 

[Lilhelpy]

Personally, I'm not strictly against tiles. I'ts just
1. AI is too dumb for tiles
2. They add hell of pontless micro.
Time goes, AI is not getting smarter, micro is getting worse.
If spreadsheet with flavour can make it better, I'd vote for it.

 

[Mindset]

But what are tiles adding to gameplay? I mean sure they are not nessecary to remove if you seperate PoPs from tiles and just make the building system tile-based, but what inherent gameplay advantage do they have ? I don't see any to be honest.

Quick drag-drop mechanics?
Sorting pops out in a plane takes up less space than a list.

 

[TheFunMachine]

Is there actually any advantage to the tile system ?

imo, no there isn't. There are plenty of 4x games that do it far better and more interesting then Stellaris' tile system. But those games are not trying to bridge Grand Strategy and 4x. Stellaris' tile system look nice, and is pleasantly distracting until mid game, then it becomes a chore. You don't even interact much with your key planets once you are into the mid game.

But in either case, it is very limited in forwarding the strategy element of the game. Heck, it even limits the role playing aspect because how tedious it is to manage pops on a large scale, as well as multiple subspecies. In my view, none of the arguments for keeping it in lieu of a rework stack up, unless you just flat out don't like change.

I don't hate it, but it is just not that good of a mechanic.

 

[obolisk0430]

Maybe they could evolve tiles into continents, able to support multiple buildings and pops.
This could also support multiple biome types similar to our own planet, allowing a bit more habitability.

Continents seems a bit large, but abstracting pops and buildings, as well as giving different habitability ratings (or something similar) to different parts of the planet definitely seems like a viable option.

But what are tiles adding to gameplay? I mean sure they are not nessecary to remove if you seperate PoPs from tiles and just make the building system tile-based, but what inherent gameplay advantage do they have ? I don't see any to be honest.

The tiles aren't adding to the game because the game uses them poorly. Even something as simple as a more robust set of building options would help the game make significantly better use of the tiles. As far as the Pop situation is concerned, I'm not talking about separating the pops from the tiles, but rather changing how population works. If each tile on a planet has its own level of population, in the same way as counties/provinces from ck2/eu4/vic2 etc... this would massively open up what can be done without needlessly removing tiles. In this situation, what tiles would add is context. If people move from one tile to another, they'd be more likely to move to nearby tiles than far away tiles, for example.
If, as was suggested earlier, planets stop being mono-biome, that adds further depth to the system, as your population won't spread evenly across the planet. It could add more depth to biuldings, since they would no longer need to be abstracted to one building per tile either. And, with more going on in the tiles, you've got more ways to differentiate different types of empires. This is all just off the top of my head.
Summary: tiles feel bad because the game doesn't use them well.

Personally, I'm not strictly against tiles. I'ts just
1. AI is too dumb for tiles
2. They add hell of pontless micro.
Time goes, AI is not getting smarter, micro is getting worse.
If spreadsheet with flavour can make it better, I'd vote for it.

This isn't just directed at you, but I feel like this needs to be said: Just because you don't like micro, or some aspect of the micro, does not mean that the micro, or aspect of the micro, is bad/pointless.

 

[Madzai]

The tile system was an interesting start, but it does have some problems. Hate to see it completely abandoned though. It helps make individual planets feel unique, especially in the early game, and is much better that the MOO style of planet management.

They have problem exactly because they are abandoned. I mean, at the start of the Stellaris, no matter how cool it was as the whole, there were hardly any aspect that wasn't lacking or even straight broken in some part of another. Two years later, a lot was changed\improved, but tiles stayed the same. And people lash on them for being boring\broken\etc. But they are this way exactly because of negligence, not because they are bad as a mechanic.

 

[Calor]

Continents seems a bit large, but abstracting pops and buildings, as well as giving different habitability ratings (or something similar) to different parts of the planet definitely seems like a viable option.


The tiles aren't adding to the game because the game uses them poorly. Even something as simple as a more robust set of building options would help the game make significantly better use of the tiles. As far as the Pop situation is concerned, I'm not talking about separating the pops from the tiles, but rather changing how population works. If each tile on a planet has its own level of population, in the same way as counties/provinces from ck2/eu4/vic2 etc... this would massively open up what can be done without needlessly removing tiles. In this situation, what tiles would add is context. If people move from one tile to another, they'd be more likely to move to nearby tiles than far away tiles, for example.
If, as was suggested earlier, planets stop being mono-biome, that adds further depth to the system, as your population won't spread evenly across the planet. It could add more depth to biuldings, since they would no longer need to be abstracted to one building per tile either. And, with more going on in the tiles, you've got more ways to differentiate different types of empires. This is all just off the top of my head.
Summary: tiles feel bad because the game doesn't use them well.


This isn't just directed at you, but I feel like this needs to be said: Just because you don't like micro, or some aspect of the micro, does not mean that the micro, or aspect of the micro, is bad/pointless.

Don't you just make a tile into it's own mini Planet then ? And what does differentiate the tiles ? Boni/Mali ? If yes then what makes you not put every PoP onto your "best" tile ? Overpopulation. Then the game turns into an exercise of maths, in which there is a clear break even point you have to memorize and you go through with every single tile accordingly. This is imo a very complicated and unwieldy system that is far surpassed by a simple distribution per planet.
Edit:
@Madzai
But they ARE bad as a mechanic. They are unflexible and prohibitve to multiple design desicions and needlessly complicated. What do they add exept the LEGO feeling of building your planets ?

 

[Lilhelpy]

Just because you don't like micro, or some aspect of the micro, does not mean that the micro, or aspect of the micro, is bad/pointless.

Yeah, it is probably very fun for some people to build up new planets mid game. So many decisions! 'Hmm, so what do I build on that 1 mineral/1 energy tile?' Tons of possibilities there. And it gets especially interesting when you play your 100th game of Stellaris, building your 10000th planet!

 

[Madzai]

Yeah, it is probably very fun for some people to build up new planets mid game. So many decisions! 'Hmm, so what do I build on that 1 mineral/1 energy tile?' Tons of possibilities there. And it gets especially interesting when you play your 100th game of Stellaris, building your 10000th planet!

So, please, enlighten us what other fun decisions you have in Stellaris by mid-game?

But they ARE bad as a mechanic. They are unflexible and prohibitve to multiple design desicions and needlessly complicated. What do they add exept the LEGO feeling of building your planets ?

Yet, it's all possible in GalCiv series, so may be it's not the mechanic itself, but implementation?

 

[Lilhelpy]

So, please, enlighten us what other fun decisions you have in Stellaris by mid-game?

Strategic. Grab key systems, wage wars, those kind of things.

The thing is, when I fill tiles, I already decided how do I fill them. In previous games. It is not really a decision, it is following a pattern. Build this there, that here. Sector governor could do that for me, but, you know, he can't.

 

[Madzai]

Strategic. Grab key systems, wage wars, those kind of things.

The thing is, when I fill tiles, I already decided how do I fill them. In previous games. It is not really a decision, it is following a pattern. Build this there, that here.

The thing is that by mid game a already know that systems to grab and that wars to wage, it's not really the decision, it is following a pattern. Get that system there, put a star base in there. All the same, AI cannot put up a fight, AI can't even properly put a resistance in a choke point, it always follow the same pattern in expanding and attacking.

Sector governor could do that for me, but, you know, he can't.

AI cannot to it for itself, either.

 

[obolisk0430]

Don't you just make a tile into it's own mini Planet then ? And what does differentiate the tiles ? Boni/Mali ? If yes then what makes you not put every PoP onto your "best" tile ? Overpopulation. Then the game turns into an exercise of maths, in which there is a clear break even point you have to memorize and you go through with every single tile accordingly. This is imo a very complicated and unwieldy system that is far surpassed by a simple distribution per planet.

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm saying that if they make that kind of change, the idea of pops as they exist in stellaris should be completely removed. Tiles would simply track how many people live on them. Migration between tiles would be like migration between planets, in that there would be a law to determine whether or not it can happen automatically, and a law to determine whether or not the player can cause it. If any system here is thoroughly broken, it's the way pops are abstracted into massive blocks that you can drag around to anywhere on the planet.

Edit:
@Madzai
But they ARE bad as a mechanic. They are unflexible and prohibitve to multiple design desicions and needlessly complicated. What do they add exept the LEGO feeling of building your planets ?

Tiles are not preventing anything anyone has said they prevent.

Yeah, it is probably very fun for some people to build up new planets mid game. So many decisions! 'Hmm, so what do I build on that 1 mineral/1 energy tile?' Tons of possibilities there. And it gets especially interesting when you play your 100th game of Stellaris, building your 10000th planet!

For the umpteenth time, that's a problem with how tiles are used by the game, not a problem with tiles in and of themselves.

 

[Lilhelpy]

The thing is that by mid game a already know that systems to grab and that wars to wage, it's not really the decision, it is following a pattern. Get that system there, put a star base in there. All the same, AI cannot put up a fight, AI can't even properly put a resistance in a choke point, it always follow the same pattern in expanding and attacking.

Try roleplay Blorg, maybe that will rejuvenate the game for you.