Stellaris has lost its elegance, pacing and tempo

[Brent15]

Like most others, I disagree with the OP. I've only played a couple of games so far and none of them to the end. I really like the changes to pops, the addition of districts and how buildings are unlocked. I never really cared for the old tile system. I like the implementation of "jobs", crime and stability. No complaints on that here - I see tons of potential.

 

[Khan Tengri]

Elegance? What elegance? Oh, intuitive. I guess you mean simple. Minerals and more minerals, then?

The new system requires more attention in early and mid-game, and it allows for more diverse playstyles.

For humans, of course!

For AI...well...Ouch.

 

[methegrate]

Sounds like confirmation bias, for me it all seems random. In my Gecko Megacorp playthough, for instance, only 1 AI out of 8 regular was a "fellow" megacorp, in the Fox campaign, there were democratic Erudite Explorers and friendly xenophile Irenic Dictators right nearby...

Somewhere knocking around the forum is a chart that someone put together on how often different empire types spawn. IIRC, hegemonic imperialists and fanatic slavers are around 40% of all the empires spawned on average.

It’s not entirely confirmation bias. Throw in the other hostile empire types and in any given game at least half the board is ready for war from the get-go.

 

[LWE]

As long as there are some nations you can ally, I'm fine with that. You shouldn't just assume that a mildly discordant empire is necessarily hostile. In my Gecko AAR, for instance, I was able to have quite a good relationship with a slavedriver empire, opening my corporate establishments there (later they got marginalized by Federation Builders... but I had other friends by that time). I also allied an Erudite Explorer Empire despite ethics difference (owning to our mutual enmity with other Erudite Explorers). Friendship owning to mutual enmity is very much possible - sounds fairly grand strategy-ish to me.

 

[psychotic1]

Are there plans to correct the unfun economy in the upcoming patch? A tweaks could salvage the game and make it fun again. I hate seeing Dev Diaries for other features when the 2.2 economy still feels like a late-alpha.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Are there plans to correct the unfun economy in the upcoming patch? A tweaks could salvage the game and make it fun again. I hate seeing Dev Diaries for other features when the 2.2 economy still feels like a late-alpha.

"Correct" it how? You don't seem to have given any specific critisisms in this entire thread.

 

[Marek15]

I agree with the OP, though i'm not sure if it is for the same reasons since they didn't clearly explain the issues they experience.
But i will try to list and explain my grievances with the game in its current state.


1. The increase of essential resources to manage.
I am defining "essential resource" as anything needed for the construction and upkeep of pops, buildings, armies and ships.
In 2.1 you had to deal with up to 3 empire wide resources and just 1 per planet. Food, energy and minerals for your empire and buildings/jobs per planet.
In 2.2 this increased to between 9 and 11 empire wide (depending on ascension perks and tech) and 3 per planet. Food, energy, minerals, consumer goods, alloys, motes, gases, crystals, dark matter, zro and nanites for your empire and housing, jobs and amenities per planet.
This threefold increase requires a lot more work to properly manage. Work that a few (or a lot more) players will not find enjoyable. Work that the AI fails at, more on that later.

2. The additional district and building restrictions add even more management work.
In 2.1 you were not restricted from how many mines, farms or power plants you were able to place. There were deposits that would act as a bonus but nothing would stop you from placing a mine on a food deposit.
Additionally the player could construct as many buildings as there were free tiles available, no need to have X number of pops before you can build your 5th research lab.
In 2.2 you are limited to how many resource districts you can build and how many pops need to be on the planet to build the next building.
This adds a lot of management work to figure out how to optimally make use of certain planets.
On top of that planets require a certain number of pops before a building slot can be unlocked, sometimes leading to the paradoxical situation where you need more unemployed pops to reduce unemployment by unlocking more building slots.
I am aware that you can use servants and livestock to increase you building slots without worrying about unemployment or building a whole bunch of city districts for their +1 clerks, but that can hardly be called an "elegant" way of doing things.

3. The AI is beyond broken.
By now i am sure even the most hardcore paradox fanboy will concede that the AI empires have trouble managing their economies. If you do not, please start a new random game and use the "observe" console command and just watch how the AI handles the new economy.
To summarise: the AI ignores all resource deficits and refuses to build districts/building to balance their economy. It will instead rely on the market to plug those deficits, but not always, especially with strategic resources. Eventually this leads them to run out the resource and get inflicted by a penalty which further destroys their economy.
A deficit in strategic resources is especially devastating since it inflicts a -25% production to ALL jobs. Yes, instead of just disabling all buildings that consume the strategic resource, every single job produces 25% less.
Since motes, gases and crystals are consumed the most for upkeep, the AI can easily receive a -75% penalty leading to a complete economic collapse that the AI cannot get out of.
Because of this AI empires are abysmally weak and end up looking like swiss cheese with planets constantly breaking away.

4. The crutch in the room.
My apologies for that pun but if you did guess it was referring to the galactic market you can pat yourselves on the back.
I do not know if paradox intended it to function as such, but at the end of the day it does. It is a crutch for AI and player empires that cannot properly balance their economy by magically transmuting one resource into another. It props up an economy system that cannot stand on its own legs. It fundamentally has no right to exist.
In addition it is easily exploitable to create infinite energy credits, just create 5 or so monthly buy offers of the same resource and equally many sell offers. Just like the old bug you will sell for a high price and buy for very little, just printing energy credits in the process.
Oh! and it is completely redundant as well. Lets not forget you can directly trade with other empires.

5. The balancing, the snowballing. Madness! sheer madness!
To elaborate: prior to 2.2 you would receive a unity and tech cost penalty for every system and colonized planet in your empire. This was created to prevent empires from snowballing out of control.
However with 2.2 these penalties have been significantly reduced and their onset delayed through the admin capacity allowing wide empires to outpace tall empires in research.
And to make matters worse a repeatable tech exists that increases the admin cap, which in turn decreases the tech penalty and increase research speed, which can repeated until the empire no longer is subjected to any tech penalty!
In my last game i easily managed to get all physics repeatables to rank XX before 2400! Insanity! Lunacy!
This was not even theoretically possible in 2.1 but easily accomplished in 2.2.


Long post but yeah, to say stellaris has lost its "elegance" and "pacing" is one hell of an understatement.

 

[InvisibleBison]

I agree with the OP, though i'm not sure if it is for the same reasons since they didn't clearly explain the issues they experience.
But i will try to list and explain my grievances with the game in its current state.


1. The increase of essential resources to manage.
I am defining "essential resource" as anything needed for the construction and upkeep of pops, buildings, armies and ships.
In 2.1 you had to deal with up to 3 empire wide resources and just 1 per planet. Food, energy and minerals for your empire and buildings/jobs per planet.
In 2.2 this increased to between 9 and 11 empire wide (depending on ascension perks and tech) and 3 per planet. Food, energy, minerals, consumer goods, alloys, motes, gases, crystals, dark matter, zro and nanites for your empire and housing, jobs and amenities per planet.
This threefold increase requires a lot more work to properly manage. Work that a few (or a lot more) players will not find enjoyable. Work that the AI fails at, more on that later.

2. The additional district and building restrictions add even more management work.
In 2.1 you were not restricted from how many mines, farms or power plants you were able to place. There were deposits that would act as a bonus but nothing would stop you from placing a mine on a food deposit.
Additionally the player could construct as many buildings as there were free tiles available, no need to have X number of pops before you can build your 5th research lab.
In 2.2 you are limited to how many resource districts you can build and how many pops need to be on the planet to build the next building.
This adds a lot of management work to figure out how to optimally make use of certain planets.
On top of that planets require a certain number of pops before a building slot can be unlocked, sometimes leading to the paradoxical situation where you need more unemployed pops to reduce unemployment by unlocking more building slots.
I am aware that you can use servants and livestock to increase you building slots without worrying about unemployment or building a whole bunch of city districts for their +1 clerks, but that can hardly be called an "elegant" way of doing things.

3. The AI is beyond broken.
By now i am sure even the most hardcore paradox fanboy will concede that the AI empires have trouble managing their economies. If you do not, please start a new random game and use the "observe" console command and just watch how the AI handles the new economy.
To summarise: the AI ignores all resource deficits and refuses to build districts/building to balance their economy. It will instead rely on the market to plug those deficits, but not always, especially with strategic resources. Eventually this leads them to run out the resource and get inflicted by a penalty which further destroys their economy.
A deficit in strategic resources is especially devastating since it inflicts a -25% production to ALL jobs. Yes, instead of just disabling all buildings that consume the strategic resource, every single job produces 25% less.
Since motes, gases and crystals are consumed the most for upkeep, the AI can easily receive a -75% penalty leading to a complete economic collapse that the AI cannot get out of.
Because of this AI empires are abysmally weak and end up looking like swiss cheese with planets constantly breaking away.

4. The crutch in the room.
My apologies for that pun but if you did guess it was referring to the galactic market you can pat yourselves on the back.
I do not know if paradox intended it to function as such, but at the end of the day it does. It is a crutch for AI and player empires that cannot properly balance their economy by magically transmuting one resource into another. It props up an economy system that cannot stand on its own legs. It fundamentally has no right to exist.
In addition it is easily exploitable to create infinite energy credits, just create 5 or so monthly buy offers of the same resource and equally many sell offers. Just like the old bug you will sell for a high price and buy for very little, just printing energy credits in the process.
Oh! and it is completely redundant as well. Lets not forget you can directly trade with other empires.

5. The balancing, the snowballing. Madness! sheer madness!
To elaborate: prior to 2.2 you would receive a unity and tech cost penalty for every system and colonized planet in your empire. This was created to prevent empires from snowballing out of control.
However with 2.2 these penalties have been significantly reduced and their onset delayed through the admin capacity allowing wide empires to outpace tall empires in research.
And to make matters worse a repeatable tech exists that increases the admin cap, which in turn decreases the tech penalty and increase research speed, which can repeated until the empire no longer is subjected to any tech penalty!
In my last game i easily managed to get all physics repeatables to rank XX before 2400! Insanity! Lunacy!
This was not even theoretically possible in 2.1 but easily accomplished in 2.2.


Long post but yeah, to say stellaris has lost its "elegance" and "pacing" is one hell of an understatement.

1) I don't see how an economy that requires a degree of thought is a bad thing.
2) Again, you seem to be complaining that you have to think about what you're doing while playing the game. Pre-2.2, I would always build the exact same buildings on every planet. Now I have to spend a bit of time deciding what I'm going to do with each planet when I colonize it. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
3) The AI is not very good, but it wasn't that good in 2.1, either. I haven't seen any qualitative shifts in its incompetence in 2.2, only quantitative ones.
4) You're not wrong here. The market is an interesting idea, but not particularly well implemented.
5) Large empires should be more powerful than small ones. Scaling costs on unity and especially tech are dumb, and any mitigation to them is a good thing.
In general, you seem to think that "elegance" means "simplicity", and I don't think that that is the kind of elegance that Stellaris should have.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

5) Large empires should be more powerful than small ones. Scaling costs on unity and especially tech are dumb, and any mitigation to them is a good thing.

I mostly agree with you, but differ on this point. The scaling costs are important in allowing different playstyles and smoothing out progression- snowballing is boring if there's nothing to impede it; if we ever want the non-warfare parts of the game to be engaging, we need more reasons not to just conquer everything in sight.

Admin cap was important though, because it standardized the way that scaling functions. Having a few well-developed planets is the same as having a lot of undeveloped ones.

 

[performer]

No, I do not think that elegance = simplicity. Again: Many of the ideas in 2.2. deepen the game experience. I like the invention of "produced" ressources like alloys and consumer goods. It makes sense to valorize raw metal into alloys - it makes the game much more strategic and implement a need for trading. The trade system has also its strengths. In my opinion, the new ideas will improve Stellaris in the long run.

But the way in which the new economic system is presented in the game is not felicitous at all. The process of planning and mounting districts and buildings is not intuitive - I needed to read many online FAQ's, the wiki and the tooltips (many times!) just to understand it. I do not care about simplicity, but I care about intelligibility and elegance. Even worse, playing 2.2 does no longer feel as if you "build" on a planet - but in a fancy EXCEL sheet.

I was not a fan of the tiles at all, speaking abot pre-2.2. Stellaris. As Invisible Bison said, the player basically used to construct the same buidings on all planets. But the tiles made it a lot easier to encompass a planet and the people workingand living there. I am not saying that Paradox should bring the tiles back ( they won't, anyway). But the visual and inner logic of the new district/building/inhabitation system must improve A LOT.

 

[mammothhunter]

2. The additional district and building restrictions add even more management work.

Isn't that a good thing. I remember early Stellaris games pre utopia where you had nothing to do past 2250-80. Declare on neighbour - take 10 planets - wait 10 years truce - declare on neighbour - rinse - repeat. There could be more things to do in this game. Management mostly hurt people who are trying to conquer a 1000 star galaxy, but even for them Paradox promised to bring automation back.

3. The AI is beyond broken.

I don't think it changed much, its just less able to manage more complex system. Funny though, improving the AI ability to manage it was one of the goals of axing tiles.

4. The crutch in the room.

Consider it expanded leviathans enclaves that the AI is now using for something.

 

[Azhcristokos]

I...very much question the accuracy of using “elegant” to describe pre-2.2 Stellaris, or post-2.2 for that matter. I love the game but it has always been rough around the edges.

 

[performer]

Well, elegance might be the wrong term. But it always impressed me how pre-2.0-Stellaris managed to be qute accessible for people who would never touch EU IV or Victoria II. Not because of the topic but because of the complexity. Up to 2.0, Stellaris kept this strength, besides its flaws. I think this was the reason for its success.

 

[InvisibleBison]

Well, elegance might be the wrong term. But it always impressed me how pre-2.0-Stellaris managed to be qute accessible for people who would never touch EU IV or Victoria II. Not because of the topic but because of the complexity. Up to 2.0, Stellaris kept this strength, besides its flaws. I think this was the reason for its success.

You are aware that the opposite of complexity is simplicity, yes?

 

[Feeblezak]

I agree. I don't care for economy simulators and that's all this game is now. It just so happens to be set in space. Every other aspect is a total joke. Exploration, Diplomacy, Warfare, Politics etc.

I doubt i'll play much in the future until there expansions that improve those aspects.

 

[Marek15]

In general, you seem to think that "elegance" means "simplicity", and I don't think that that is the kind of elegance that Stellaris should have.

With "elegance" i am referring to the depth to complexity ratio. Depth being the meaningful decisions the player can make and complexity being the systems and work the player needs to manage.
In case you are not familiar with the "depth vs complexity" subject here is a video explaining it:

So assuming you are either familiar with the subject or have watched the video, let me present an example of redundant/meaningless complexity.


In 2.2 each planet has 3 stats the player needs to manage which provide either a bonus or penalty depending on whether you have a surplus or a deficit of them:
Stat A: Surplus has no effect. Deficit reduces happiness/stability and generates emigration push.
Stat B: Surplus generates immigration pull. Deficit reduces happiness/stability and generates emigration push.
Stat C: Surplus generates happiness/stability and indirectly generates immigration pull. Deficit reduces happiness/stability and indirectly generated emigration push.

Right away it is clear that avoiding a deficit in any one of them is important as there is nothing to gain from it. No meaningful decision to be made.
In order for a planet to maintain optimal productivity it needs stat A and B to match each other in 1-to-1 ratio, with a surplus in one causing a deficit in the other. Due to this 1-to-1 ratio, if one has a deficit the other will likely as well. No meaningful decision to be made.
Stat C however does offer a meaningful decision since: keeping it as close to net 0 will increase production volume since less resources are allocated to it. However creating a large surplus of stat C increases production efficiency, decreasing the resource consumption per product. The player is given a meaningful choice between production volume and efficiency.
Additionally a surplus in stat C creates indirectly creates a larger immigration pull than a surplus of B does. In fact a surplus in stat B is the least effective method of generating immigration pull.

Conclusion: Because the stat A & B are so inseparably linked, near identical deficit effects as well as a lack of meaningful choices to be made, they might as well be the same thing.
By merging the bonus and penalty of stat B into stat A, stat B can be removed without losing any "depth" and reducing the work that needs to be done by the player.


Lets address the elephant in the room. The reason i refrained from using the names and instead went with stat A, B and C is because of human psychology. Simply giving an integer a name can alter a person's perception of it.
For those still wandering what on earth stat A, B and C are: they are employment, housing and amenities.
Yes, i am indeed suggesting the removal of housing.

Q: What about city districts?
A: They unlock building slots, no more X number of pops to unlock the next slot.

Q: What about livestock and servant? Only housing limited their use!
A: Another mechanism to limit their use can be implemented. Examples: X number of servant jobs per X number of pops (perhaps limited to # of ruler pops). +1 livestock job per farming district or hydroponics. I am sure you are smart enough to think of solutions of your own.

Well, countdown till ad hominem, strawmanning and this community's equivalent of "git gud".

 

[InvisibleBison]

Yes, i am indeed suggesting the removal of housing.

I don't think eliminating housing is a good idea. Deciding whether to sacrifice one of your limited number of resource districts or equally limited building slots for some housing is not a meaningless choice, as evidenced by the fact that there's no one correct answer.

Well, countdown till ad hominem, strawmanning and this community's equivalent of "git gud".

The hypocrisy is strong with this one.

 

[plaugexl]

i cant understand the resistance to change but ever since seeing the first previous of the patch ive known it would add depth, and it has. since its been out i have reinstalled and enjoyed more hours.
i can understand that it does add a degree of complexity that is slightly cumbersome considering the previous state of the game but completely disagree with the pace. the game now has life in the later stages that make it enchantingly realistic. the ever expanding population and governance capacity question is a beautiful expression of how life is ever expanding difficult to manage.

play style from the older game to 2.2.x is a leap

 

[ow592]

My 3rd attempt to play Stellaris with 2.2 ... and still, I do not get into the new system invented with the LeGuin patch. It took a long time to understand the new concepts, but I managed it. Though ... in terms of "game fun", it does not work for me.

I understand your problem.

2.2 need some time to get into it and to find out how to start "good"

In my first 2.2 weekend I didn´t know that building of homing districts is an option and you need to do this. You can expect how my colonies developed

After a while you will learn how to expand accoring to your needs and to min-max this. There are a lot of new concepts in 2.2
You will need some time to learn about dealing with trade and several other things. Enjoy it! 2.2 is a new good game

 

[AlphaAsh]

1. The increase of essential resources to manage.

I like the increase of essential resources to manage.

2. The additional district and building restrictions add even more management work.

I find management of this to be about the same amount of work as it was pre 2.2, but with decisions being somewhat more meaningful. However, I don't like not being able to plan ahead properly, and I don't like leaving building slots empty.

The unlock slot per pops mechanic I think is just lame, and for some reaason you can merrily spam districts until you crash your economy from upkeep. Also pretty lame.

I liked adjacency bonuses.

This adds a lot of management work to figure out how to optimally make use of certain planets.

Not really. React to resource demand, specialise if possible, fill planet, re-specialise once surplus allows. It is somewhat more macro than the old tile micro, but it's the UI and lack of automation that turns it into a chore.

On top of that planets require a certain number of pops before a building slot can be unlocked, sometimes leading to the paradoxical situation where you need more unemployed pops to reduce unemployment by unlocking more building slots.

Indeed. I agree, that's just a messy mechanic.

3. The AI is beyond broken.

It still is.

4. The crutch in the room.
My apologies for that pun but if you did guess it was referring to the galactic market you can pat yourselves on the back.
I do not know if paradox intended it to function as such, but at the end of the day it does. It is a crutch...

Yup. Utterly broken feature. I feel like I'm exploiting every time I use the market for anything.