Strategic Resources post 2.2

[MarKr]

Yes, you're being the mod-does-it jerk.

I'm sorry for having an off-topic question but is this a real thing? Like, every time someone has a wish to change something and someone else replies with "you can use a mod", this person is labeled a "mod-does-it jerk"?

I can understand that if you make a topic, suggesting to implement/change something in the vanilla game then a reply of "use mod" is not what you're after but from a pragmatic point of view, aren't mods what it usually comes down to? If you make a topic like this one, asking for some change of something that you and some others don't like but also some people don't mind it or like it, the chances are it will never make its way to the vanilla (or at least not any time soon). If you take a look at how many posts/suggestions are on this forum and how many of them actually made it to the game, it sort of gives a hint about the chances of this suggestion making it to the vanilla game.

No hard feelings or disrespect intended from my side, just realistically speaking, I think that if you really want to get rid of the rare resource upkeeps, you will need to use some mod.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

But you already do this for energy, minerals and food with relative ease no?

And is it not more taxing to continually have assess and balance your per turn gain when upgrading buildings? A once off payment allows you to just click and forget about it.

More importantly though is the AI. Any method must be something the AI can handle. And we already know the AI can handle once-off costs (since does so quite well with energy, food etc).

Actually no I don't do any of that with ease I'm afraid so we are experiencing things very differently. Also I see the AI with negatives in most resources and no stockpiles to trade away so it's often only alive via cheating/bonuses - I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic about the AI there (I was looking for a "/s").

Anyway, If I have +37, or +81 minerals or energy a month at different stages of the game I couldn't tell you without a calculator how many edicts I could run or how many buildings I could build with that (more than twice as many buildings, but how many buildings per world or how many edicts I don't know without a calculator). I certainly couldn't tell you if adding an alloy plant, education edict, increasing empire sprawl or spending some of my stockpiles would put me in a difficult position 5 years from now.

Dealing with upkeep and net income is actually much easier for me.
Q: Is my income positive? (e.g. of crystals)
A: Yes.
--> You can do more stuff. (run an edict, upgrade a building)
Q: Is it near 0?
A: Yes.
--> Don't do more stuff that uses it. Increase production.
Q: Is it negative?
A: Yes.
--> Increase production of that resource before the stockpile reaches 0. (build a refinery. With a handy countdown timer for some resources like energy, consumer goods etc expressed in months).

Really the exact same things are happening with a large upfront cost or a monthly upkeep. You pay the same amount, you build refineries when you're not producing enough to support things.
My personal preference would be for costs to show both the upkeep per month AND the overall cost over 10 years.

e.g. Show the following:
200 influence research edict. Lasts 10 years.
1.67 influence/month, costs 200 over 10 years.
200 influence research edict. Lasts 15 years.
1.11 influence/month, costs 133.3 over 10 years.
267 influence edict, lasts 17 years.
1.31 influence/month, costs 157.1 over 10 years.

So for every per month upkeep cost, show the total amount over 10 years.
For every upfront cost, show the costs per month for that edict.

I'd prefer if the costs were also deducted per month rather than upfront (I like upkeep). But having the game show me how much I need to be earning/saving to afford the edicts would also help me from having to stockpile ridiculous amounts or not run the edicts out of fear of them turning off at the worst possible time.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

I'm sorry for having an off-topic question but is this a real thing? Like, every time someone has a wish to change something and someone else replies with "you can use a mod", this person is labeled a "mod-does-it jerk"?

I can understand that if you make a topic, suggesting to implement/change something in the vanilla game then a reply of "use mod" is not what you're after but from a pragmatic point of view, aren't mods what it usually comes down to? If you make a topic like this one, asking for some change of something that you and some others don't like but also some people don't mind it or like it, the chances are it will never make its way to the vanilla (or at least not any time soon). If you take a look at how many posts/suggestions are on this forum and how many of them actually made it to the game, it sort of gives a hint about the chances of this suggestion making it to the vanilla game.

No hard feelings or disrespect intended from my side, just realistically speaking, I think that if you really want to get rid of the rare resource upkeeps, you will need to use some mod.

It's jerkiness because it's dismissive.

I'm not sure if you are completely oblivious to this: Quite often, Paradox developers are active users of these forums, and often make changes to the base-game based on player feedback, discussion and interactions.

Pragmatically speaking, saying something on these forums is better than saying nothing. Instead of instantly derailing the discussion with "Just mod your game", an action which, whether I do it or not, is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, discuss the idea being introduced. Or don't.

 

[MarKr]

I know there are people with dev status here on the forum and ofcourse some of the ideas from topics get implemented. But as I sad - there are almost 33 000 threads on this forum, some of them are not feature/change requests but even from those which are feature/change requests only a fraction of them actually makes it to the game - they are usually the things that revolve around game-breaking things or bugs or glitches and even then they really need a lot of people from the player base to point at it or complain about it. It is understandable that the devs cannot implement every little thing that this or that player personally feels should be done differently - but this topic is the same case. There are some people who dislike this upkeep thing and then there are people who don't mind or like it. Since there hasn't been any big wave of people raging over this new mechanic, I doubt that the devs will change it and thus I think that in the end (if you really want to get rid of the upkeep) you will have to use a mod.

So I am not saying that you shouldn't discuss it - it is absolutely fine, and yes, saying something is better than saying nothing, I couldn't agree more. However my point was more like, why call someone a "jerk" for suggesting something that is in the end most likely going to be your only option?

 

[sortulv]

Let me see if I understand the OP correctly: You want the total maintaince cost of buildings to be paid upon construction?
To work similar to edicts, that would mean you would need to rebuild them every 10 years when the original investment had been spent.

That sounds like a LOT of micromanagement to me... Is that really what you want, or do you just want longstanding buildings to be free?

 

[DrFranknfurter]

@MarKr I know it's off topic but personally I really hate the "just mod it" comments although I try not to let them get to me when I read them. They feel off-topic, slightly insulting, dismissive, patronizing and often (but not always!) low-effort posts. I'd much rather people said why the imaginary changes should not be included in the base game and not that those changes could exist as a mod. Yes, you can mod things. The workshop pops up whenever you click the game on steam showing you mod suggestions. Most people should be aware that mods exist and don't need to be reminded of that fact. It rarely adds to discussions unless perhaps you share a link to a mod and your experience with those changes.
e.g.
Post: I think this isn't working/I don't like the following...
Annoying reply: Mod it if you care so much.
Annoying reply: You've heard of mods right?
Annoying reply: I don't want to be a jerk but... mods exist and are a thing you can do. Perhaps you're new and didn't know. If so I forgive you for your ignorance. If you were aware of mods, why are you wasting my time?
Good reply: I've tried the following mod [link] and it was [great/had issues]. It [should/shouldn't] be in the base game.
Good reply: I wouldn't like those changes in the base game because of [reasons]

 

[SpectralShade]

It's jerkiness because it's dismissive.

I'm not sure if you are completely oblivious to this: Quite often, Paradox developers are active users of these forums, and often make changes to the base-game based on player feedback, discussion and interactions.

Pragmatically speaking, saying something on these forums is better than saying nothing. Instead of instantly derailing the discussion with "Just mod your game", an action which, whether I do it or not, is wholly irrelevant to the discussion, discuss the idea being introduced. Or don't.

not to mention that it affects achievements

 

[MarKr]

@DrFranknfurter I understand this and I agree that such posts are patronizing, to some degree insulting and kind of showing-off. But if you take a look at the second post in this thread you'll see that the poster did not have such attitude - he basically said "this mod does what you want, you can try it and see if it really solves the problems you have. Then you'll have practical in-game experience to support this change request which could carry more weight to the devs than arguments based on a theoretical expectations." (more or less). So basically what you said:

Good reply: I've tried the following mod [link] and it was [great/had issues]. It [should/shouldn't] be in the base game.

So if a person suggests trying out mod as a solution or to get more in-game experience to see if the change really has the required impact, why call him a "jerk"?

@SpectralShade This is about personal prefferences. Practically speaking, achievements have no gameplay impact and so they don't improve or degrade you game experience. People ususally use mods that turn aspects of the vanilla game they dislike into something they enjoy more. So mod users choose to "improve" (from their point of view) the gameplay experience at the cost of getting no achievements (which they usually don't care about). Which is fine. If people care for achievements, they need to stick with the vanilla game including the parts they don't like that much, which is also fine.

 

[Razor Feather]

The ai failing to upgrade buildings is I believe just a bug where the devs essentially never told them that was a thing they needed to do, and it has in fact been fixed in 2.2.4, and the ai is able to handle the economy fairly well in that patch.

As for the OPs suggestion that having upgraded buildings take strategic resource upkeep is a problem for the same reason that the old star base module system was, I find that to just not really be the case. Under the old strategic resource system, it was fairly likely that you would have like 2 places making any given strategic resource, and the associated modules would be in 2 starports somewhere in your empire. If the source or the starport got lost or put into a sector, suddenly the buildings werent working and you wouldn't necessarily know why, and there was no stockpile that could be used until production resumed.

With the new system, there are probably a bunch of planets making strategic resources of various types, and a bunch of likely separate planets consuming those resources, as well as ship construction, edicts, and building upgrading which all require some amount of stored strategics. As such, a certain level of production surplus is needed, so any unexpected loses would simply lower that surplus. In that case there is ample time to make a new source somewhere else before its a problem.

Finally, changing from an upkeep to a one time cost for buildings is a pretty major balance change, not just a change in representation. With an upkeep, swapping out one building with another is a fairly low cost thing to do, since most of the expense of the building is ongoing and goes away if its not around any more. If the buildings were all upfront then either the overall amount of resources needed would be way lower, or switching out building types would be hugely expensive. It would also make keeping pops employed in the early-mid game potentially a lot more difficult, since the costs that could be payed over say the next 30 years for a building instead need to be payed right now when there are people who need jobs, and once all of those buildings do get constructed then suddenly refineries no longer have much of any value.

Frankly if you find the need to keep track of strategic resource production so burdensome, simply buying all of the resources you need from the market in monthly deals is very much an option. It's not necessarily optimal, but it does work well enough.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

@MarKr I kinda like the general content of the second post - link to a mod, constructive criticism about how to best argue the point to make the argument more convincing (a little patronizing but true, personal experience or data does make your argument more convincing). So far so good. But if you start with "Look I don't want to be the mod-does-it jerk...but why not try the idea first instead of just plain arguing?" you've introduced an insult (jerk), defined the conversation as an argument right from the first reply and suggested that the other person hasn't gone to enough effort and therefore their opinion is less valid. All quite hostile things in my eyes.

Also the mod in question is for a slightly earlier version of the game so not 2.2.4 (I think it conflicts with the alloy output changes in vanilla). The comparison I'd make is when someone starts a conversation with "I'm not racist but..." and you have to brace yourself for what's coming next, even innocuous comments sound far worse when you begin in a certain way. But of all the "try Mods" posts I've seen recently, that was perhaps one of the nicer ones.

I love mods, but I wouldn't tell someone to go away and do homework (play several games using a suggested mod, possibly taking days or weeks before they can gather enough data/experience) before they're allowed to express an opinion, especially an opinion on the un-modded game and especially an opinion I disagree with. I disagree with the OP and said my reasons already. I'd ask myself: am I only telling them to go away because I disagree with them? Will I use the fact that they've found joy in the mod as ammunition against their proposed changes instead when they come back? Am I saying things in a way that could get them more upset? etc).

I am sorry for going off topic, I just wanted to explain why I haven't been enjoying the "fix it with mods" posts, even those that sound kinda nice at first glance.

 

[FlyingPhoenix]

Let me see if I understand the OP correctly: You want the total maintaince cost of buildings to be paid upon construction?
To work similar to edicts, that would mean you would need to rebuild them every 10 years when the original investment had been spent.

That sounds like a LOT of micromanagement to me... Is that really what you want, or do you just want longstanding buildings to be free?

No, I don't think there should be an ongoing cost. A cost every 10 years is an upkeep cost, just paid as a lump sum rather than on an ongoing basis.

@DrFranknfurter I understand this and I agree that such posts are patronizing, to some degree insulting and kind of showing-off. But if you take a look at the second post in this thread you'll see that the poster did not have such attitude - he basically said "this mod does what you want, you can try it and see if it really solves the problems you have. Then you'll have practical in-game experience to support this change request which could carry more weight to the devs than arguments based on a theoretical expectations." (more or less).

I have been playing Stellaris since 1.0, as well as other games with non-upkeep based economies, so I already have the practical in-game experience that mod would give me. The post is irrelevant to the thread. It's dismissive and patronising and holds no argument discussing the merits or otherwise of the idea.

Here is the post by Wiz (my emphasis) from way back when:

Strategic Resource Rework
An area of the game that we feel didn't really work out as planned is strategic resources. They are at once too rare and too common, too varied and too bland. Most of all, we feel that they are far too fiddly to interact with, requiring you to keep track in your head of which spaceports have which particular modules.

The new system is the old system, and has all of the fiddly implications of the old system.

Finally, the first reply was not:

Good reply: I've tried the following mod [link] and it was [great/had issues]. It [should/shouldn't] be in the base game.

It was:

Here is a mod which does what you want, and I assume you don't have the experience to have a valid opinion until you try this mod.

It's the dismissive and patronising attitude which makes them a jerk.

Frankly if you find the need to keep track of strategic resource production so burdensome, simply buying all of the resources you need from the market in monthly deals is very much an option. It's not necessarily optimal, but it does work well enough.

Too expensive. Yes it's convenient, but it isn't affordable, and so by that criteria it does not work.

 

[LeanneKaos]

No.

1. I think it's bad that the devs can't stick to decisions they've made and justified in the past. Firstly that strategic resources were altered in such a way that the Starports didn't require resource upkeep on modules when access to that resource could be lost because of the issues having to hunt through every starport to find the one missing the resource, and secondly the removal of upfront cost in favour of upkeep cost.

I'm a bit more flexible on that: how I feel about it depends on how I felt about the decision they're backing out of in the first place. And eliminating upkeeps wasn't a decision I was happy about in the first place, so I'm glad to see they rethought it.

2. I think it's bad that the adjustment which occurs requires such a high level of player attention and horrendous levels of micro. This is related to a post I made last year or possibly even the year before about automation. The player makes a decision, but then the implementation of it takes a long time and requires the player to keep interacting with the system being changed because of arbitrary restrictions on how quickly and effectively you can implement any decision you make.

Other threads have been talking about point 2, and I have raised point 1 in this thread.

Personal opinion: the fact that it *does* require so much of my attention is what brought me back to the game after 2.0 drove me out of it. I was playing that one on autopilot because I didn't have to think about anything; everything was either click-and-forget or so funneled through chokepoints that there weren't any real decisions to make.

It sounds like you're asking for a return to that kind of game. Personally, if I feel in the mood for it I've still got MOO3 in my library.

 

[sortulv]

No, I don't think there should be an ongoing cost. A cost every 10 years is an upkeep cost, just paid as a lump sum rather than on an ongoing basis.

You stated you wanted it more like edicts - they are paid every 10 years. But I guess if you take the current upkeep and multiply it by 300, it would serve to last the entire game. Would be fairly expensive startup costs though.
Or did you just feel the buildings are too expensive, and want them to cost less?

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

honestly its a balance problem more than anything. civilian maintenance consumption is the *vast* majority of rare resource consumption. Military usages are practically nonexistent in comparison. And as you ease into late-game, civilian rares maintenance is far greater than any empire can hope to attain through mining; the market for them is essentially dysfunctional because every late game empire should be using more rares than they can mine and synthesis is super cheap for some reason.