Small Con Goods Deficits on Utopian Abundance Shouldn't Be Apocalyptic

[Nakkivene]

A scaling penalty would perhaps make sense, but from a mechanical standpoint this is already fine. If UA just downgraded for a while whenever you have shortages, there'd be no reason to run anything else.

Anyway, if you can just get anything you want for free, you'll skip work if that's the difference between getting your golden toilet or not, and complain endlessly on the internet if you didn't.

 

[Star Foth]

The way I'd look at it is this - your people are used to a certain standard, then suddenly crucial goods just aren't there. Maybe that shortage means that some people are missing out on key goods like medication. Then suddenly everyone is worried about shortages and clearing out shops everywhere. It's chaos. On the other hand if you switched to a lower standard then people would have less, but they'd be able to rely on getting what they needed.

I don't know about that one. It's really hard to imagine not finding something you want in a store but still enough to be massively wealthy as causing a perpetual state of panic and hysteria that is magnitudes worse than a government bureaucrat walking in one day and telling them their family of 6 is going to live in a 1 room slum. Even in the case of certain goods going missing the game completely abstracts consumer goods. It's more viable market-wise to produce the more important/profitable goods like medicine as a priority. In the case of space communism, there's no way an advanced society would prioritize producing luxuries over medicines.

That's not what they get that matters but what you've promised them. Just mirror the current rage on forum with "having our trust betrayed by the buggy release" to the consumer goods issue.

I don't think the game should consider the goods to be a promise rather than an allowance. Feels kind of odd that the government has to make an absolute guarantee rather than allowing certain POPs to be more affluent and take more of what they need.

Although I do get what both of you guys are saying. That is one way to see consumer goods as being something that is promised or the shortage as potentially being anything. I just can't imagine the kind of response to a partially unfulfilled utopia promise compared to a guarantee of near-starvation. That and more important/profitable goods would be produced in priority.



Edit:

A scaling penalty would perhaps make sense, but from a mechanical standpoint this is already fine. If UA just downgraded for a while whenever you have shortages, there'd be no reason to run anything else.

Anyway, if you can just get anything you want for free, you'll skip work if that's the difference between getting your golden toilet or not, and complain endlessly on the internet if you didn't.

You'd still want to run UA lower because you'd want to stockpile or sell consumer goods or just have certain POPs that are more easily sated/less important as living lower standards.

 

[sortulv]

Due to government promises, the all toilets are now made of gold. Unfortunately due to an imperial gold shortage, there is a distinct lack of toilets being produced. But, don't worry the President says, the silk factories producing toilet paper is keeping up.

 

[Wolfgang I]

Just buy one consumer good after the debuff hits at the start of a month=problem solved.

 

[Kain2K]

Just buy one consumer good after the debuff hits at the start of a month=problem solved.

That is nothing more than a workaround.
I Agree with Mastikator. A scaling effect makes much more sense. Because, like he said, if 320 POPa consume 320 CG, but you only produce 300 CG, that would mean that only 20 POPs get no goods at all, or 320 POP don't get enough goods. I mean, it is normal for most western societies that several per cent of the whole populace don't have enough money to buy all the goods they need. Show me one country on this planet, where the whole populace goes bonkers because a few people have not enough goods to buy. And also, it doesn't matter, for what consumer goods are an abstraction for. As of yet, no country collapsed, because of a shortage of goods for a few people. If everyone has nothing, that may be different, but certainly not a few, and especially not if that shortage only goes on for a time. I agree, if you have Utopian Abundance and you never reach the promissed quota, than that may be an issue that may warrant a rebellion (worst case). But your empire shouldn't be close to collapse because you miss the quota by 6% for a year, let alone a few months.

 

[Wolfgang I]

That is nothing more than a workaround.
I Agree with Mastikator. A scaling effect makes much more sense. Because, like he said, if 320 POPa consume 320 CG, but you only produce 300 CG, that would mean that only 20 POPs get no goods at all, or 320 POP don't get enough goods. I mean, it is normal for most western societies that several per cent of the whole populace don't have enough money to buy all the goods they need. Show me one country on this planet, where the whole populace goes bonkers because a few people have not enough goods to buy. And also, it doesn't matter, for what consumer goods are an abstraction for. As of yet, no country collapsed, because of a shortage of goods for a few people. If everyone has nothing, that may be different, but certainly not a few, and especially not if that shortage only goes on for a time. I agree, if you have Utopian Abundance and you never reach the promissed quota, than that may be an issue that may warrant a rebellion (worst case). But your empire shouldn't be close to collapse because you miss the quota by 6% for a year, let alone a few months.

Its how the game mechanics work though. Making science, unity and alloys out of nothing is the way to go now if you want to max your income. We are already in micro hell why not go all in. I only tried it in a test game and while going with no minerals is too much of a hassle playing without consumer goods is not that difficult. Even funnier is going negative on nanites because it seems they forgot to add a debuff for that...

 

[Sinister2202]

Utopian Living standards really spoils people.

 

[sortulv]

A big issue here is that the stocks are empty. So you start substituting some goods for others. These are often less effective, and in many cases costs more to produce.
I.e. your labs are running out of test tubes - so they replace them with crystal glasses. The doctors can't find nutrient solutions for cell growth, so they use pre-fabricated dinners instead...
In other words - small shortages get quickly worse.

 

[Derp]

lol at all the corny RP answers

the real answer is that paradox isn't very good at designing for shortages

remember back when food was local, when you could just fill up a planet with mines and slaves because lack of food had no real impact?

 

[sortulv]

lol at all the corny RP answers

the real answer is that paradox isn't very good at designing for shortages

The RP answers serve to explain the design decisions. In many ways any shortage should be really bad - like energy shortage in pre 2.2...

 

[Star Foth]

The RP answers serve to explain the design decisions. In many ways any shortage should be really bad - like energy shortage in pre 2.2...

It's not a true shortage, though

Everything still has ubiquitous amounts of funding and access to industrial resources, though. IRL any space-faring empire would adapt to minor shortages by prioritizing spending. you compared it earlier to producing gold toilets but not being able to produce that many because of a shortage but that is extremely rigid and surreal. If the factories/shops/civil services etc still had access to ubiquitous amounts of resources they'd make cuts where it is necessary and prioritize what they order and still function nominally.

Edit: if anything then some planets would be downgraded to social welfare to even out the budget.

 

[sortulv]

It's not a true shortage, though

Everything still has ubiquitous amounts of funding and access to industrial resources, though. IRL any space-faring empire would adapt to minor shortages by prioritizing spending. you compared it earlier to producing gold toilets but not being able to produce that many because of a shortage but that is extremely rigid and surreal. If the factories/shops/civil services etc still had access to ubiquitous amounts of resources they'd make cuts where it is necessary and prioritize what they order and still function nominally.

Edit: if anything then some planets would be downgraded to social welfare to even out the budget.

It is a true shortage simply because the empire does not chose to prioritize anything. If it did, it would reduce the spending on one or more groups to reduce the spending. Maybe turned of buildings or simply purchasing materials to make up for the shortfall. The whole point of this is that the empire chooses to do none of these. And it does this long enough that the entire stockpile is drained. There are NO more stocks.

 

[Raph]

lol at all the corny RP answers

the real answer is that paradox isn't very good at designing for shortages

remember back when food was local, when you could just fill up a planet with mines and slaves because lack of food had no real impact?

Of course Paradox can design for shortages. Vicky 2 had scaling effects of POP need fulfillment. Each strata had living, everyday and luxury (IIRC) needs that could all be fulfilled at different percentages which in turn gave different buffs/debuffs. It's entirely possible to do and has been done by PDS before. Stellaris is a lot less detailed though so the POP living standards system doesn't in itself provide those nuances and I agree that there ought to be some kind of scaling. Maybe a scaling debuff depending on the percentage of the shortage, but also a pretty severe flat penalty for having a CG decifit at all.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

This also annoys me,

Think there should be a bit of a buffer and maybe a scaling time based debuff for running a deficit, it's like your entire population goes crazy because they couldn't buy new toys for a month.

Heh, kind of like the forums right now

**Budummm tssss**

There is a buffer. Whatever goods you have already stockpiled. If those stockpiles are already depleted, then you really have fucked up.

You'd still want to run UA lower because you'd want to stockpile or sell consumer goods or just have certain POPs that are more easily sated/less important as living lower standards.

Edit: if anything then some planets would be downgraded to social welfare to even out the budget.

Utopian abundance is supposed to represent post scarcity societies such as Star Trek's federation, or Ian Bank's Culture.

You are asking for a stratified egalitarian utopian abundance?.... Uh, what??
The idea that some pops or planets are not deserving of the living standards offered to others completely contradicts the egalitarian focus (and mechanical requirement) of utopian abundance.
Terry Gilliam would be proud of your utopia.

So much of the griping on these forums always comes back to people just wanting to have their cake and eat it.

 

[yerm]

Paradox has scaling/sliding debuffs defined in all their games. It is not mechanically difficult or even remotely new to have a defined penalty and a defined % that it scales toward, or a defined threshold and %s for over and for under it.

They literally do this, in this game, for every planet, with amenities. I see no good reason why something like a consumer good shortage could not have the same effect based on shortfall so that missing 3 goods out of thousands is not penalized the same as missing half.

 

[AlanC9]

What's the use case for this added feature? Running a policy continually with only a fraction of the required CG? Would this ever be a sensible strategy?

Players already aren't punished for going under CG demand since you can fix that instantly at the market. I'd like to see that fixed first -- shortages shouldn't go away unless you have enough in the bank to cover the whole month.

 

[sortulv]

They literally do this, in this game, for every planet, with amenities. I see no good reason why something like a consumer good shortage could not have the same effect based on shortfall so that missing 3 goods out of thousands is not penalized the same as missing half.

Because the amenities are something you have no stockpile of, and no option to buy more of?
If you are missing 3 out of thousands results in needing to buy 3 each month. A larger deficit requires a larger purchase.
Of course - a sensible solution might be having the game shut down all CG consuming goods for any month that you have a shortage.