Sector System Is Wet Blanket

[gandhiac]

Please make it optional. If I want to establish a sector I should be able to use that - and vice versa.
For MP simply add a item in galaxy creation what handles this issue like the FTL thing ( free for all or all classic and so on ).
This should not be THAT problem and would cover all opinions.
There is no need to missionary other players if all is optional.

YBAH

 

[ZanatosStrider]

You're also the one who chooses to build any buildings. You choose to do it because it's the optimal choice to play the game. You can choose to not be bothered if you like, but if you do, you're not really engaging with the game much. Some people like to actually engage the game while they're playing it, rather than just use it as a screen saver. But if you're doing that to its fullest extent (or a reasonable fraction thereof) you're fighting the sector system fairly often.

This is actually a very good comment.

A lot of people are missing the point of a game like Stellaris. People like to say the player is the Emperor. The sole-leader of the Empire. Which is true. However, the player is also the system governor. The very fact a player can even build and manage pops on a planet, means the player is a system governor. Emperor's don't concern themselves with such things, with a few exceptions in history. Guess what else the player is. To use the American term, 'Commander of Chief'. Meaning the player also runs the Army and the Navy (no airforce is space). You are also the lead researcher. Choosing exactly how your nation progresses technologically. Even real countries today, don't have the kind of control over their technological growth, as a player does in these kinds of games. Google, Youtube, Facebook all as prime examples of technology and social front runners that the government had no initial sway over (still largely doesn't).

The player is LITERALLY all things in a game like this. Empire building games like Stellaris intentionally place the player in all governmental positions. While it is nice to have a balance in micromanagement, don't forget that micromanage is a core mechanic of games like this. Otherwise, you might as well play an RPG or at least a Command and Conquer styled game. Without micromanagement, this and any game like it, aren't the same. They are hollow shells. As Cruxador said, people like to engage the game. The sector mechanic doesn't efficiently allow this type of gameplay. It just creates frustration.

Don't forget, micromanagement is a core mechanic. Its what largely makes the game the game it is.




Now, more largely on topic, I think the concept of sectors was interesting. It tried to simulate a more realistic approach to how a space empire would be managed. However, its treated more a punishment than a realistic facet. Firstly, putting a limit on core planets is unrealistic. Putting a limit on sectors really really really blows hard. In my current game, I'm already 1 away from my max sector. And the reason why, is because all of my sectors are split up in different parts of my empire. I have two massive sectors currently gobbling up space - but which are not blocked by three AI empires. So they can't grow any bigger now. Plus two small sectors that might not grow. Then I have long-term plans to expand even more, and am seriously groaning over the limit on sectors.

If you look at countries, hell even American states, they are divided into dozens of provinces/Burroughs/counties/etc. Having such a finite limit of sectors is harmful to large-scale galactic ambitions. A player shouldn't be punished if they want to be a big bad empire. The rate at which AI forms alliances and Federations is already a massive hindrance to a single player empire. No need to make a terrible restriction within a player's own empire.

I wish I could think of a better way for sectors to be utilized, but nothing at the moment. I'm sure, once its not very late for me, I'll think of something.

 

[JulienJaden]

I, for one, completely agree with OP: I think the Sector system feels unfinished and like a pretty artificial way to create something that might fracture your empire without enough benefits to earn its place. I much prefer editing my core planet limit to watching the AI fumble everything.

 

[REDDQ]

If you can place buildings in sectors, then the management issue no longer exists because you can do what you want there anyway.

Yeah, but you do not replace AI in developing sectors... you just go "we gonna build a clinic there, do not destroy it, k?". AI still has the rest of a planet to use its "wonderful" skills on.

 

[Tocso]

Loving pretty much everything about the game except the sector system, it was sort of sold as a reduction in micromanagement as your empire grows.

But so far its only annoyed me I don't want to dump my core systems in a Sector but I also want to set my new systems on a proper path before I dump them in a sector.

My main gripes with this mechanic are

• Make up your mind about the system is it a punishment for expanding or helpful tool.
• Add a finalize button so I don't have to spend 25 influence just to see what the effects would be.
• If its not a punishment then let me micromanage when I want along side the AI.
• If it is a punishment allow me to designate a Core sector that i can retain full control over and income from so I can use my "Directly Controlled Planets" limit to set my newly acquired systems on the right path before I am forced to let the AI bungle their management.
• Add Sectors to the "Outliner".
• Make "Strategic Resources" empire wide.
• Make controlling their spaceports easier, as right now i have navigate to the system view and select it.

Again really love everything about the game EXCEPT the sector system, I'm riddled with indecision about how to cripple myself let the AI develop my new colonies at a snails pace or take a 25% hit on resources and let the AI bungle my core planets.

This is a great summary! I've had similar thoughts.

Really love to see that I am not alone, and that a lot of posters have ideas about how to handle this better. Seems like there is absolutely a consensus that sectors need to be improved. The erratic hyper-swapping of pops seems to be just one instance of many AI indecisions in this early build of the game, so here's hoping it gets patched up soon.

In playing the game and reflecting on this issue, I reckon sectors seem to have bugs (aforementioned pop-jumping, for instance), but that the real concern lies with shoddy implementation. The ship 'ownership' issue is a clear example of something that couldn't in a thousand years be intended. I reckon some of this implementation gives rise to the poor AI that sectors exhibit. Such as impossible to build certain buildings, ignoring tile resources, etc.

For us to go ahead and make guesses as to how to implement better, requires us to make certain assumptions about what the design's goals are. Posters have tried to come up with their best interpretations of what those could be. Certainly more or less all of us agree that sectors should
1) remove the burden of micromanaging, and
2) impose heightened risks of ethos divergence.

Some doubt remains whether 'the burden of micromanaging' is a loose t-shirt or a straightjacket. Ie, should we or should we not build some buildings in the sectors? In a broken system, there's no wonder we're seeing cries for help, demanding we should indeed be able to. Unless PDX's sector AI becomes a ton smarter, there's no way we, the players, won't see radically more effective ways to exploit a planet's resources. For the majority of those cries to go away, we definitely need to approach a threshold where AI exploitation is not TOO bad. That's what most are hoping for.

I think some also hope that the governing AI looks at our 'sector policy' and behaves in a way that reflects policy filtering through layers of institutions and leaders. In other words, like a vassal in CK2, only bound much more tightly than in the Dark Ages. There are many arguments against this even being the case (not least of all PDX's own comments, and a governor being unnecessary for a sector to function), but it would add a method to the madness that is sector AI resource exploitation.

I don't think we're entirely sure yet how opaque we want such an administrative vassal's mental process to be, but right now we're only confronted with arbitrary and poor sector AI. If the sectors are more than petri dishes for pops, with an actual leadership element, it's currently impossible to tell for all the arbitrary idiocy that I'm hopeful gets patched very soon. Certainly many CK2'ers would want to see internal affairs modelled in more depth, and sector administration politics would definitely offer that opportunity.


Regardless: lots of thoughtful contributions all around!

 

[Zorromorph]

A lot of people are missing the point of a game like Stellaris.

An ironic comment. I would respectfully suggest that you yourself are missing the point in this particular case. The player as the emperor is not the way I look at it. Neither would I say the player is all roles - if so, you could just dispense with the leaders idea for example. I view the player as the collective will of the beauracratic arm. As such, efficiency should be lost the larger the empire grows. Management of the many is never as efficient as management of the few. The best organizational structures can limit inefficiency, but never get rid of it completely.

I think you are very correct in saying that micromanagement is a core mechanic, but aside from that I think you are taking the concept too far. I think the limit on core planets should grow in a larger empire, but it should be an increasingly small part of the whole. I don't see the issue with the sector limit since it grows with the empire. Possibly not fast enough, that can be balanced, but it does grow.

A game like this should be about micromanagement at first -- but it should grow from micro to macro as the scale increases, remaining manageable throughout the process. It needs more macro tools, not less. There should be a point at which the player turns over exploration(set science vessels to 'explore uncharted systems in this region', select how to handle anomalies, debris, etc. based on failure risk or some other criteria, and so on). In a sufficiently large empire, there should be a way to request X of this ship class, Y of that one, and Z of this to be built and rally at a specific system. The goal should be to keep the workload of the player roughly equal even as his holdings expand. More and more the decisions should become high-level strategic ones. At first systems, then entire swaths of territory should be the focus instead of what each individual pop is doing, though that is definitely a good sphere of influence early in the game.

I'd like to see sectors fixed, and see Stellaris grow more in the micro department for mid and late-game. The sheer scale of a big Stellaris game is such that the player will otherwhise need to micromanage hundreds of planets, various fleets, dozens or more spaceports, goodness knows how many factions ... I like to try to squeeze everything I can out of my territory but everyone has a limit when it comes to that. In my initial test game, it tells me it's 334 planets that I need to control to win via Domination. Something can't be detailed, complex, huge, and at that same time allow for fine-tuned microing the entire way through without it become horribly tedious.

 

[Zorromorph]

you just go "we gonna build a clinic there, do not destroy it, k?". AI still has the rest of a planet to use its "wonderful" skills on.

I can see a place for this approach, but I think there should be a limit on how much of that 'interference' or whatever term you would like that you can do.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I do understand peoples frustration that sectors seem forced and not a neccesity to rule an empire.

I do think that giving the player too much control of planet growth is a bit gamey and their reason to reduce micromanagement is a sound one, but sector mechanic are a bit bare bones and the AI needs to be a bit smarter in how they manage the planets, as in only producing as much food as it need to grow as one example.

Overall not being able to govern all planets will in the end make AI empires a bit more competitive and it might be a bit unrealistic to control every aspect of an empire in a way a player would do it There are allot of individual wills and personalities out there that will try to shape and form how things are developed, often in a none optimal way.

I think it is perfectly fine if the player concentrate on the military, directing governmental research and the core planets of an empire. I just wish there were more internal political mechanics to interacts with sectors and tie it more fluidly into the influence, edict and policy mechanics. Perhaps sectors would generate their own influence which it can use to make political decisions, they player can then use their influence to set policies and interact using a special internal diplomacy interface.

Currently sectors are just a way to reduce micromanagement and to some this is not fun, I get that, sectors need to have more interesting mechanics to feel meaningful aside the benefit of reducing micromanagement and level the playing field between AI and human players.

 

[REDDQ]

I can see a place for this approach, but I think there should be a limit on how much of that 'interference' or whatever term you would like that you can do.

I think it would limit itself. I have 5 sectors, over 100 tiles each. I am not fancy to take care about all of them but I would like to place happiness boosting buildings on planet needing it or keep AI from destroying the special ones, like "toy factory" (I mean seriously, it produced 15 units, why delete it?).

 

[REDDQ]

I do understand peoples frustration that sectors seem forced and not a neccesity to rule an empire.

I do think that giving the player too much control of planet growth is a bit gamey and their reason to reduce micromanagement is a sound one, but sector mechanic are a bit bare bones and the AI needs to be a bit smarter in how they manage the planets, as in only producing as much food as it need to grow as one example.

Overall not being able to govern all planets will in the end make AI empires a bit more competitive and it might be a bit unrealistic to control every aspect of an empire in a way a player would do it There are allot of individual wills and personalities out there that will try to shape and form how things are developed, often in a none optimal way.

I think it is perfectly fine if the player concentrate on the military, directing governmental research and the core planets of an empire. I just wish there were more internal political mechanics to interacts with sectors and tie it more fluidly into the influence, edict and policy mechanics. Perhaps sectors would generate their own influence which it can use to make political decisions, they player can then use their influence to set policies and interact using a special internal diplomacy interface.

Currently sectors are just a way to reduce micromanagement and to some this is not fun, I get that, sectors need to have more interesting mechanics to feel meaningful aside the benefit of reducing micromanagement and level the playing field between AI and human players.

I personally really like the idea behind them. But they exist in Stellaris in the form which is not very exciting. Maybe in the future sectors will field their own armies and more ambitious governors will try to rebel? But so far, in their pretty basic role, they hardly work properly at all.

 

[Kayden_II]

It seems, that many People uses the Childhood-Illnesses of the Sector-System to force the Devs to abandon It.

 

[CommanderL]

I would like to be able to see each more sectors clearly

when you have over seven sectors it becomes a mess of which ones are which

 

[JtW]

A lot of people are missing the point of a game like Stellaris.

I didn't know there was one correct way to play a game. Much less that you are the guardian of that one true way. Would you like to enlighten us how to not miss the point of other games or does your expertise lie with Stellaris?

 

[Baerschke]

• Add a finalize button so I don't have to spend 25 influence just to see what the effects would be.

On anything else you can be for or against, but that point is verry important i think.

 

[Korashy]

Huh what's this about strategic resources not being empire wide? Almost all my strategic resources are in my sectors and I use them in my core worlds all the time.

 

[Treybor]

I wouldn't mind sectors if only they built somewhat smarter... Right now their builds for planets are destructive and beyond awful...

The AI will never be "optimal" at a players status but as of right now I feel it's doing more harm then good

Also scrolling through sector planets is a chore, we need a ledger... Sectors need influence and should be able to enact edicts... Build planetary capitals and special buildings

 

[Annik0r]

they should allow us to "lock" tiles / buildings, wich then could cost some small value influence (really small!)
so that then the AI will never ever never touch this one until we unlock it.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I wouldn't mind sectors if only they built somewhat smarter... Right now their builds for planets are destructive and beyond awful...

The AI will never be "optimal" at a players status but as of right now I feel it's doing more harm then good

Also scrolling through sector planets is a chore, we need a ledger... Sectors need influence and should be able to enact edicts... Build planetary capitals and special buildings

Yes, but on the flip side the AI players are using the same logic so they are also weaker as an effect. Overall it will make the game more competitive against the AI.

Hopefully they will make the AI better at developing planets with patches, i think we will need to give it some time.

Overall you are not suffering something your AI empires are not also suffering so it is a mutual inefficiency...

 

[-Marauder-]

I don't think it's making the game against the AI more competitive. You're basically taking one of the best advantages human players have away by harmstringing them. It doesn't make the game more challenging or fun, it just makes it quite frustrating. As the way you'd normaly outdo an AI, especially one with added boni across the board is taken away from you at gunpoint.

 

[Maderas]

I was hoping they'd work more like vassal territory in Crusader Kings 2 and would add another layer of depth to playing a gigantic space empire.