Stellaris Dev Diary #192 : Perfectly Balanced, As All Things Should Be...
- Thread starter Eladrin
- Start date
-
Crusader Kings III Available Now!
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
There is probably a synth infiltratior among the PDX stuff that favours robots wherever possible, but they couldn't find out who it is yet.
- 3
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
won't it be more difficult to make progress in the game and get the same amount of resources that we already can get?
(But I love the logistical growth)
Also, how would you figure out the carrying capacity of a planet? Because it couldn't be the amount of housing able to be made when all of the districts, could it?
I do have a suggestion though! You should make it so that the two traits Communal, and solitary have an effect on the planets carrying capacity.
For example, let's say that 50% of the pops have communal which means more of that pop could be on the planet which means more pops in general. So that means that a species with communal or solitary would have a larger effect on the carrying capacity the higher percentage of the populace on that planet the makeup.
(But I love the logistical growth)
Also, how would you figure out the carrying capacity of a planet? Because it couldn't be the amount of housing able to be made when all of the districts, could it?
I do have a suggestion though! You should make it so that the two traits Communal, and solitary have an effect on the planets carrying capacity.
For example, let's say that 50% of the pops have communal which means more of that pop could be on the planet which means more pops in general. So that means that a species with communal or solitary would have a larger effect on the carrying capacity the higher percentage of the populace on that planet the makeup.
- 1
You're right! because materialists would be wanting to build robots, not people. I think that empires besides Materialists and Spiritualists should be able to build organics and robots with no buff or special base ethic based modifier. Along with that, I think that Materialists should have a build speed buff on robots but a debuff to building organics and that spiritualists should have a debuff on building robots and a buff to building organics
- 1
A testament to either how good ME's are, or how weak AP's are.And yet, Machine Empires still lack their own "Ascension" traits.
Though seriously I feel like both Hives and ME's should have the choice of at least 2 paths.
- 5
This makes it even more critical habitats, of Void Dwellers are least, actually have all levels of capitol building
- 1
Personally I wouldn’t mind a smaller number of more powerful, more expensive ships. The Star Trek total conversion mod does this and it’s fun. In the early-mid game you have more of an emotional investments in your ships, and in the late game fleets still feel large without adopting silly looking formations the size of a system.
- 7
- 2
Do these stack?The line of techs is currently:
The higher bonuses are tied to higher tiers of capital buildings, so resource gathering backwaters are less likely to reach maximized production levels than your heavily populated core worlds.
If they are doing what i think they are doing (based on the tech names) what ends up happening is the modifier checks if a planet has a certain level of capital. These types of checks exist with building upgrades already. But they do stack in the sense that having a major capital will pass the check for an upgraded one; it's implicitly a "greater than or equal to" type of check.
That makes it easy to work around for habitats, hives, etc who don't have every level. (The only hive capital upgrade counts as a major capital, even though it comes at pop 40 instead of 80.)
So then as you go from ship shelter->capital->upgraded->major the bonus would be 0>10%>30%>60%.
- 2
@Eladrin - I might suggest making those effects from the techs you revealed multiplicative bonuses to BASE production and upkeep on those techs rather than an additive modifier. Otherwise, given how much production bonuses can be stacked, you'll accidentally and near-universally create situations in which your alloys, research, etc. is produced LESS efficiently (in terms of output per unit resource cost) than without the tech. Sure, you'll get more resources per pop in total, but it will be less efficient in doing so, which conflicts with the flavor of economies of scale (one of your techs' flavor). My suggestion, if adopted, would help avert that problem.
- 9
- 3
With building slots reduced, it does seem strange that to have anything you'd focus a planet's jobs come from buildings. I am not getting why science jobs and the like wouldn't come from districts. They don't necessarily need a special district, but using buildings that modify existing districts to add or change jobs makes a lot of sense and fits in with how other things are working than trying to make some sort of other distinctions. If you're spamming buildings on a planet the way you'd spam districts, then it seems like you've failed to make a clear distinction between the two.
- 9
making science complex give city districts a scientist job would be interesting to say the least
100% agreed. It's easy to get 200%+ to things like science output and others. Which cuts the actual efficiency of these in half, if not more. So you'll be paying 1.6x as much upkeep for a 20-25% increase depending on what jobs we're talking about.
Another way to fix this would be to make them increase the BASE value to which all bonuses are then applied afterward. I.e A Scientist for example would produce 4 as the base output, 4.4 with the first tech, 5.2 with the second, and finally 6.4 with the third. Increasing their production by 60% for a 60% upkeep increase. Then you get all your other techs applied to that. Keeping the upkeep and increase equal.
- 3
- 1
You told that to balance the need for more districts planet's will be 2 districts bigger in average. Did you increase the size of habitats ? Buildings are one thing but habitats are already cramped so if everything is bigger by comparaison it make the problem worse. Maybe make the habitat expantion decision add +3 districts instead of +2 ? EIthe one or both of them (for size 9 or size 10 habitats) ?
- 5
- 1
Changing the base would be clearer, since having different kinds of % increases is going to be confusing.
- 1
I might be taking it a bit too far. But I honestly think this is the way it should be done and I'd even extend that to traits. We already have a precedent in that with mining guilds. It gives a +1 to base production. Giving a small modifier to base production for traits would keep them relevant long term. Not necessarily for erudite/intelligent. But for the ones that increase resources ala thrifty, industrious, etc.
- 3
STOP! COOKIE TIME