Stellaris Dev Diary #210: A post-Nemesis Address

[Lost Toddler]

I prefer higher density galaxies... I would do X3 habitable planets on largest map if my computer allowed... typically do x2 do 400 star maps. that tends to push my computer but not too hard.

Its irrelevant with this patch - you can't populate any of the later ones anyway

 

[rcf31415]

Its irrelevant with this patch - you can't populate any of the later ones anyway

I know... thats why I had the empire wide pop limiter modded out.

 

[baraterek]

Its irrelevant with this patch - you can't populate any of the later ones anyway

You can always "sacrifice" some of the planets which are producing lot of minerals/energy/food where you're already capped or don't need it anymore, reduce some jobs and allow for resettle. For me (even that I'm quite new player) it's nice, that at the end game I need to make a decisions like this, and pops are a "resource" until the end.
Only perfectionists have problem, that they cannot fill all the planets to 100%/
I'm someone who is susceptible to FOMO effect or so, yet I enjoy if empire works as a whole and I don't care that much about each single individual planet. It's not something "normal" for me, because I like min/max and normally I cannot stand that I cannot unlock something or so ... but here it seems that IDC.
Maybe "old guard" just need to change their mindset and open to new mechanics?

 

[Scorpio_Shirica]

I played the beta a lot and the simple fact of the matter is that the empire management part of the game is largely gone past mid game. While I have the production and resources to engage in galaxy wide campaigns of conquest, there is no more building of habitats, ring worlds and planets just for the fun of it. A lot of the fun was just creating my empire, not just balancing numbers and war. At around 2300, it becomes pointless to build new worlds that will hardly ever be utilized and staring at an outline with 20 half empty worlds with nothing going on until the end of the game is just boring. There is some gimmicky stuff I can be doing with making vassals, reintegrating them to farm them for pops to build new worlds into the late game, but that is just silly. It's too much in influence to really create specialized worlds and move pops to them in the late game unless I'm sitting still for decades.

The map painters may have fun with the direction of this update as they'll not have to worry about looking at their planets as they wage wars, but I suspect a lot of the roleplayers, pacifists and non-conquest dominant playstyle folks are going to start leaving stellaris for other games if this is how they want to develop the game going forward. It's disappointing to me since it was my favorite 4X game for a long time, I have almost 3,000 hours in the game and don't really want to recommend it to anyone at the moment.

 

[Cymsdale]

I played the beta a lot and the simple fact of the matter is that the empire management part of the game is largely gone past mid game. While I have the production and resources to engage in galaxy wide campaigns of conquest, there is no more building of habitats, ring worlds and planets just for the fun of it. A lot of the fun was just creating my empire, not just balancing numbers and war. At around 2300, it becomes pointless to build new worlds that will hardly ever be utilized and staring at an outline with 20 half empty worlds with nothing going on until the end of the game is just boring. There is some gimmicky stuff I can be doing with making vassals, reintegrating them to farm them for pops to build new worlds into the late game, but that is just silly. It's too much in influence to really create specialized worlds and move pops to them in the late game unless I'm sitting still for decades.

The map painters may have fun with the direction of this update as they'll not have to worry about looking at their planets as they wage wars, but I suspect a lot of the roleplayers, pacifists and non-conquest dominant playstyle folks are going to start leaving stellaris for other games if this is how they want to develop the game going forward. It's disappointing to me since it was my favorite 4X game for a long time, I have almost 3,000 hours in the game and don't really want to recommend it to anyone at the moment.

After 20 planets, what kind of excitement are you looking for in your non-conquest playthrough when building up a 21st or 22nd or 23rd planet? How would a faster growth rate honestly change anything at this point?

In any case, you made me interested in crunching the numbers from my own pacifist playthrough. It's the year 2370, I've been elected as the perma-custodian for pretty much no reason other than I have the power to vote for anything I want, and I pretty much have nothing to do except wait around and see what crisis I have to solo because every other empire in the galaxy is only at 20% of my tech level.

Interestingly I have 21 planets (so around your 20), as well as 5 habitats. Total population 894 pops. I painstakingly added up all the growth of every planet and hab (for science!) and ended up with 1899.6 per month. Against the 323.5 required for growth that ends up being 5.87 pops per year. Enough to get a new colony or habitat to planetary administration in less than 2 years (not even counting the two free pops you get for building it), not too shabby.

Pops Per Year

www.desmos.com

If I plug P = 34 and z = .25 (I'm running the beta) into my graph, I actually end up eerily close to the 5.832 expected pops per year. P=34 represents same lazy play on my part in filling up a lot of worlds a lot higher than I am "supposed" to. I wasn't sweating making sure they stayed in the optimal S-curve range, just kinda filling up jobs on the worlds where I most needed them at the time.

 

[Scorpio_Shirica]

After 20 planets, what kind of excitement are you looking for in your non-conquest playthrough when building up a 21st or 22nd or 23rd planet? How would a faster growth rate honestly change anything at this point?

In any case, you made me interested in crunching the numbers from my own pacifist playthrough. It's the year 2370, I've been elected as the perma-custodian for pretty much no reason other than I have the power to vote for anything I want, and I pretty much have nothing to do except wait around and see what crisis I have to solo because every other empire in the galaxy is only at 20% of my tech level.

Interestingly I have 21 planets (so around your 20), as well as 5 habitats. Total population 894 pops. I painstakingly added up all the growth of every planet and hab (for science!) and ended up with 1899.6 per month. Against the 323.5 required for growth that ends up being 5.87 pops per year. Enough to get a new colony or habitat to planetary administration in less than 2 years (not even counting the two free pops you get for building it), not too shabby.

Pops Per Year

www.desmos.com

If I plug P = 34 and z = .25 (I'm running the beta) into my graph, I actually end up eerily close to the 5.832 expected pops per year. P=34 represents same lazy play on my part in filling up a lot of worlds a lot higher than I am "supposed" to. I wasn't sweating making sure they stayed in the optimal S-curve range, just kinda filling up jobs on the worlds where I most needed them at the time.

I enjoyed watching the empire grow, building megastructures, zooming in to all the different scenery. I liked looking at the different designs of species ecus, did you know they all had different layouts? And all the cool environmental effects mean that you get new looking scenes depending on where you build your ring worlds or habitat worlds. The random floods of refugees or having to respond to a great khan/ crises in between the building of trade stations and managing planets was all fun to me. A faster growth rate means my new ring worlds or city worlds will continue to thrive and have some impact. It means resort worlds, prison planets and all the new specialized worlds I build continue to grow and have meaning.

5 pops a year across 20 planets. That means 15 of your planets for an entire year have nothing. If you have a city world that needs 30 or 40 jobs, all of them could go to one planet and leave the rest desolate.

If you want to move those 5 to a new world, then that's 50 influence and leaving a bunch of unfilled jobs or empty space at previous planets. Everything just looks barren from an empire sim standpoint.

 

[gnuneo]

After 20 planets, what kind of excitement are you looking for in your non-conquest playthrough when building up a 21st or 22nd or 23rd planet? How would a faster growth rate honestly change anything at this point?

In any case, you made me interested in crunching the numbers from my own pacifist playthrough. It's the year 2370, I've been elected as the perma-custodian for pretty much no reason other than I have the power to vote for anything I want, and I pretty much have nothing to do except wait around and see what crisis I have to solo because every other empire in the galaxy is only at 20% of my tech level.

Interestingly I have 21 planets (so around your 20), as well as 5 habitats. Total population 894 pops. I painstakingly added up all the growth of every planet and hab (for science!) and ended up with 1899.6 per month. Against the 323.5 required for growth that ends up being 5.87 pops per year. Enough to get a new colony or habitat to planetary administration in less than 2 years (not even counting the two free pops you get for building it), not too shabby.

Pops Per Year

www.desmos.com

If I plug P = 34 and z = .25 (I'm running the beta) into my graph, I actually end up eerily close to the 5.832 expected pops per year. P=34 represents same lazy play on my part in filling up a lot of worlds a lot higher than I am "supposed" to. I wasn't sweating making sure they stayed in the optimal S-curve range, just kinda filling up jobs on the worlds where I most needed them at the time.

Cymsdale. So this enforced change suits your gameplay style. Great for you. In fact, you say you don't even notice the difference. Marvellous.

Can you understand this is not true of everyone else, and that the game is for other people too?

And that the changes you don't even notice are impacting and even preventing many of those other people from enjoying the game as they did before this ill-advised enforced change, that could just as easily have been a game-modifier in the creation screen and literally everyone is happy happy happy?

When a company makes - and sticks to - a decision this obviously dumb, and cannot explain it properly enough to bring the userbase on board, then either there are ulterior motives not being expressed, or else the company is internally in trouble, hiring someone so foolish as to discard the long loyal fanbase.

Mate, they could make the change that only 150+ planet empires have a chance in the end game, and someone's going to like that. (Well, me for one). Would I be happy having that gamechoice forced upon EVERYONE ELSE, knowing that other people play and enjoy the game differently? No I most certainly wouldn't. I'd feel as guilty as hell, and I wouldn't assume that just because those changes suit ME, that all is hunky dory.

Especially when there is no reason at all why those changes can't be voluntary. See what I mean?

 

[rcf31415]

You can always "sacrifice" some of the planets which are producing lot of minerals/energy/food where you're already capped or don't need it anymore, reduce some jobs and allow for resettle. For me (even that I'm quite new player) it's nice, that at the end game I need to make a decisions like this, and pops are a "resource" until the end.
Only perfectionists have problem, that they cannot fill all the planets to 100%/
I'm someone who is susceptible to FOMO effect or so, yet I enjoy if empire works as a whole and I don't care that much about each single individual planet. It's not something "normal" for me, because I like min/max and normally I cannot stand that I cannot unlock something or so ... but here it seems that IDC.
Maybe "old guard" just need to change their mindset and open to new mechanics?

A lot of us who don't like the empire wide pop growth limitations like most of the new mechanics so it isn't entirely about not being open to new or to change. Do not dismiss our criticism as us just not being "open to something new". Besides I have encountered balancing mechanics before where larger empires are arbitrarily slowed for the sake of balance, most notably CIV 6 where this has been the case since the game launched, and generally think of this as a poor game design choice.

For me at least it is less about not being able to 100% the planets but more that I am slowed down arbitrarily just for getting ahead. Even when I seek out bonuses to speed up my growth rate inevitably mid-late game it will still take longer to get a planet half filled then it did to fully fill my first world. That is just bad progression. If you want balance give larger empires interesting challenges to overcome and not longer progress bars. If you want less late game micromanagement then make a better auto-builder. For better performance I would rather deal with smaller maps/ worse performance then this fix.

 

[tremor3258]

My biggest issue with the 3.0 changes is it specifically removed major features that were significantly hyped from previous DLC (ecunompoli and ring worlds from Megacorp and Utopia, specifically) as playable options in the original way they are structured. This is changing now after outcry but it seriously disinclines me to purchase additional DLC where core game changes don't just affect gameplay, which is weird enough how MUCH Stellaris changes mechanically from version to version, but also removes extra features that were specifically bought over 'here's a space grand strategy game' when it comes to core mechanics.

 

[Designed Ace]

I like most of the new mechanics introduced in 3.0, even if I'm not great at working with all of them yet.

But what I really dislike is twofold, and has been mentioned in various detail in other threads here:

1. The population rework has its benefits, but seriously impedes lots of roleplaying approaches to the game. Even against the AI on non-impressive difficulty levels if you don't micro your pop growth in the only prescribed manner for *at least* the first couple of decades you put yourself at serious disadvantage which you can't mitigate. In past editions optimal play wasn't really required unless you were playing with high-difficulty options (like earlier and/or stronger crises). There isn't much way around it and you can't catch up because populations trend towards the same levels with the same menu of efficiencies.​

​

2. The only way to play with the pop growth system is to game it at the meta level. If you don't know how both the S-curve and population malus work it's unlikely that you will ever be able to play very effectively, no matter what else you do. And being at the meta level makes it, for me, about as satisfying as save-scumming to get a certain outcome-- it's not even playing within the rules of the game, it's cheesing an arbitrary, isolated detail. At the moment I find it hard to approach this game with a mindset other than as a min/maxer.​

These are the things which make me not want to dedicate my limited gaming time to Stellaris-- they cut against my immersion and (perceived) flexibility to play how I want to. Even with the cool new features (such as becoming the crisis, which is awesome!), I feel like I have fewer options in a Stellaris 3.x game rather than more. That is the opposite of what I expect from a paid expansion, and makes me uneasy about the long, DLC-fueled development cycles that Paradox has taken to.

Most of the other things that have rubbed me the wrong way so far are flavor that I wouldn't expect to be major drivers of changes, nor for players who enjoy other playstyles to worry about:

Things like capital upgrades don't, alone, sufficiently capture the "feel" of being a densely populated, economically powerful and important planet for me​

​

The difference between a highly-developed planet and a rimworld backwater should have more character than just how many people the planet could theoretically hold and how many people happen to live on each​

​

When resources flow freely in all directions and only distribution of pops matters, individual planets all feel the same to me (I'd prefer to develop planets which are meaningful and distinct which comprise an empire, rather than develop an empire with largely undifferentiated components)​

​

While I LOVE the new auto-resettlement mechanic, I feel like I have to do a lot of awkward work to get them to settle any way that doesn't reinforce that lack of planetary identity​

I don't want to disparage anyone else's preferred playstyles, nor suggest that people who love the new pop growth system are in some way wrong. But the pop growth changes have imposed an all-but-mandatory mode of play while also being at least a bit awkward. No amount of shifting caps around or changing local curve slopes will do much about that.

 

[gnuneo]

I like most of the new mechanics introduced in 3.0, even if I'm not great at working with all of them yet.

But what I really dislike is twofold, and has been mentioned in various detail in other threads here:

1. The population rework has its benefits, but seriously impedes lots of roleplaying approaches to the game. Even against the AI on non-impressive difficulty levels if you don't micro your pop growth in the only prescribed manner for *at least* the first couple of decades you put yourself at serious disadvantage which you can't mitigate. In past editions optimal play wasn't really required unless you were playing with high-difficulty options (like earlier and/or stronger crises). There isn't much way around it and you can't catch up because populations trend towards the same levels with the same menu of efficiencies.​

​

2. The only way to play with the pop growth system is to game it at the meta level. If you don't know how both the S-curve and population malus work it's unlikely that you will ever be able to play very effectively, no matter what else you do. And being at the meta level makes it, for me, about as satisfying as save-scumming to get a certain outcome-- it's not even playing within the rules of the game, it's cheesing an arbitrary, isolated detail. At the moment I find it hard to approach this game with a mindset other than as a min/maxer.​

These are the things which make me not want to dedicate my limited gaming time to Stellaris-- they cut against my immersion and (perceived) flexibility to play how I want to. Even with the cool new features (such as becoming the crisis, which is awesome!), I feel like I have fewer options in a Stellaris 3.x game rather than more. That is the opposite of what I expect from a paid expansion, and makes me uneasy about the long, DLC-fueled development cycles that Paradox has taken to.

Most of the other things that have rubbed me the wrong way so far are flavor that I wouldn't expect to be major drivers of changes, nor for players who enjoy other playstyles to worry about:

Things like capital upgrades don't, alone, sufficiently capture the "feel" of being a densely populated, economically powerful and important planet for me​

​

The difference between a highly-developed planet and a rimworld backwater should have more character than just how many people the planet could theoretically hold and how many people happen to live on each​

​

When resources flow freely in all directions and only distribution of pops matters, individual planets all feel the same to me (I'd prefer to develop planets which are meaningful and distinct which comprise an empire, rather than develop an empire with largely undifferentiated components)​

​

While I LOVE the new auto-resettlement mechanic, I feel like I have to do a lot of awkward work to get them to settle any way that doesn't reinforce that lack of planetary identity​

I don't want to disparage anyone else's preferred playstyles, nor suggest that people who love the new pop growth system are in some way wrong. But the pop growth changes have imposed an all-but-mandatory mode of play while also being at least a bit awkward. No amount of shifting caps around or changing local curve slopes will do much about that.

Hey, Designed Ace, you'll be pleased to know that - possibly unexpectedly, but definitely pleasantly - PDX devs, planners and execs have listened to all our whinings, complaints, and monetary threats, and have not only taken note, but reacted somewhat positively.

Although your later issues are not addressed, at the very least the silly, no the stupid, no the foolish, no - the economically-suicidal changes to the pop growth mechanics has been properly removed to the game options screen, rather than onforced upon everyone.

"Population Growth

We're continuing to make adjustments to the current population growth systems in the game, and are exploring additional changes. Some of these are longer term initiatives, however, so in the meantime we're currently adding a quality of life feature that many people have been asking for.

Logistic Growth and Growth Required Sliders in Galaxy Configuration

These sliders will allow you to adjust the variables related to the bonus a planet can provide through logistic growth and the amount that pop growth increases per empire pop using sliders in Galaxy Configuration instead of needing to edit defines or use a mod to do so. Please note that these sliders can have major impacts on both performance and balance. Existing saves will use the default values. (Which can themselves be overridden in defines.)"

Stellaris Dev Diary #211: 3.0.3 Beta Updates

Hi everyone! Thanks for the tremendous participation within the 3.0.3 beta branch and for all of the feedback that you've been providing. For those that are interested in joining the beta, you have to manually opt in to access it. Go to your...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

While I have no clue how to save my existing games from population-economy death (What are "defines"?), at least future games are now playable.

Which is a shame for my bank balance, as the very-much intended sanctions against PDX for this move are now abandoned.

Instead, I look forward to more years of enjoyable Stellaris playthroughs.

Thank you, whoever had the shreds of good and common sense at PDX to push for this change. x

 

[Abiezer]

Having played through several games, I find myself completely at disagreement with many of the posts concerning population growth. It is now far more realistic and balanced, with fewer opportunities to Pop-rush the galaxy. Keep up the good work folks!

 

[Culann]

Having played through several games, I find myself completely at disagreement with many of the posts concerning population growth. It is now far more realistic and balanced, with fewer opportunities to Pop-rush the galaxy. Keep up the good work folks!

I’m in the same boat. I feel like I have backworld planets and an a core sector. I know where I want to spend resources defending and what I’m willing to let go.

I respect other people play differently but they also need to recognize that their issues with what efficiently play means different things to different people as well.

I haven’t had this much fun in a 4X spacesim since MoO2 and Galactic Civ II. I’d actually would go so far and say I’m having *more* fun. In those games and previously in Stellaris I felt I needed to defend everything because all my planets were full and I wanted the resources and or production.

I appreciate that the devs tried to accommodate players who wanted more growth while accommodating players like me who wanted a more realistic space sim.

With a few tweaks to ecumenopoli and ring worlds they might have perfected my preferences. I would also like to say good job and thanks for the feedback and great communication. I’m certainly a satisfied customer.

 

[Abiezer]

I think that, in keeping with the sci-fi origin materials it should only be ecumenopoli that are filled. In Ringworld, even though they are travelling through the ruins of a society, it is the open space that dominates, not the ruins. To that degree I think they have taken a good path with the pop slots, although the lunatic 'breed, breed my beauties' within me wants them overflowing too!

 

[Abberon]

Having played through several games, I find myself completely at disagreement with many of the posts concerning population growth. It is now far more realistic and balanced, with fewer opportunities to Pop-rush the galaxy. Keep up the good work folks!

I always love the posts about "realism", when nothing about it is realistic. If you do the mental gymnastics required, you can rationalize it and convince yourself that it's realistic...but nothing about it actually is.

 

[Abiezer]

I always love the posts about "realism", when nothing about it is realistic. If you do the mental gymnastics required, you can rationalize it and convince yourself that it's realistic...but nothing about it actually is.

Whilst true, there is a need to structure things in a way that has an internal consistency. Otherwise Nemesis simply becomes "Bang. You are all dead. I win."

 

[Heretus]

The empire growth changes is the reason why I will not buy any new expansion nor upgrade from 2.8.

Your solution to the game lag , is to put a cap on population growth , do you actually pay the people that came up with the idea?

 

[Culann]

I always love the posts about "realism", when nothing about it is realistic. If you do the mental gymnastics required, you can rationalize it and convince yourself that it's realistic...but nothing about it actually is.

Think you’re getting hung up on definitions. Most sci-go works are filled with backwater planets. People using the word realism aren’t being literal about it. I also don’t understand the need to be insulting about it either. If you don’t like it cool, no need to to be combative to those who do.

 

[rcf31415]

Having played through several games, I find myself completely at disagreement with many of the posts concerning population growth. It is now far more realistic and balanced, with fewer opportunities to Pop-rush the galaxy. Keep up the good work folks!

How is this more realistic? realistic would be absolute exponential growth (which was never the case) as long as there is capacity for more and even a little bit passed carrying capacity. And realistically carrying capacity would be based on food and amenities and not so much on available space.

What I don't like at least is that even as you pick up bonuses to growth rate growth slows down to the point where growth on a fresh planet is slower than it was on a fresh planet at the beginning of the game without those bonuses. Even with the reduction of the empire penalty you would still hit this point at around the same time in the game just at a higher pop count. That is not good progression.