The new sector system

[The Founder]

In its current state it completely fails at its job and it all boils down to not being able to create sectors yourself.

That you can not create sectors yourself is a investment into future possible features relating to sectors.
I still remeber the times where Sectos were used as dump for high unrest planets.
Or the single mega sector, to save on Governor cost (even when back then, the only cost was used up leader capacity).
Player defined sectors just give us way to much freedom to work around any future addition to the sector mechanic.

It definitely needs improovement of course. Indeed 2.2.4 just made a minor one, by increasing their range from 2 jumps to 3 jumps from teh sector capitol.
They need to add the ability to move the sector capitol (as long as that does not make the sector invalid) as well as more agressive integration of conquests. Maybe even a way to manually overwrite it to a limited degree (as long as the rules are not broken).

And I agree that the Automation part right now is FUBAR. Give us a way to apply a 25% tax up to a limit, at least.

 

[The Exile]

I don't understand why they don't just switch to a planet AI option.

Sectors worked in theory (if not in practice) before because a mineral/energy/research/general specialization pretty accurately described the economy. I could portion off four planets, say "pump out minerals," and if the system had worked as intended that would probably have done pretty well.

The new system, though, is focused on per-planet specialization. Personally I think it's an enormous improvement over the previous economy. There's still a lot of room to grow, but I think it's immensely more interesting. However you can't tell four planets to all do the same thing, no less assign a "mineral" sector.

Personally, I'd have a planet AI button that lets the player choose from among the various planet specializations. Turn it on, click "Refinery World," or "Forge World" or "Agri World" or whichever you want, and let the computer take it from there (except for direct player intervention of course). For things with multiple options, have the AI try to address needs. I.e. on a Rural World or Refinery World, the AI will prioritize whichever resource you're lowest on.

Maybe keep sectors in for governors? I guess? Although I've never found them all that interesting or useful.

I've been thinking this for a while. I've been especially puzzled by people clamoring for bigger sectors, when the economy overhaul requires your decisions to be at the planetary level -- the more planets in the sector, the less likely I can generalize about what I want them to do. Heck, two planets in the same system could require wildly different builds depending on their available districts, features, etc.

Further, they've already created planetary categories with their own definitions of districts/buildings, just like you said. Why not make those into planetary templates that we can select, as well? I'm sure it's more complicated than it sounds to implement, but it feels like the components are already in place.

There might be an application for sectors still, somehow, with this new economy, though I'm not really sure what it would be. Dispensing with sectors completely, having planetary governors, and reducing micro by selecting a planetary template seems the obvious way to go. (And for those complaining that would be too many governors... just make them cost half as much as other leaders, and/or make the techs that increase admin cap also reduce governor upkeep, etc. That is not really an obstacle to playing super-wide.)

 

[defekt]

Personally, I'd be super-fine with a planet level automation option. The sector governor would do what they do now but, crucially, the automation specialisation option would be per-planet, rather than per-sector, giving the option viability (which it currently doesn't have). No need for a planet governor, but auto-generates sectors would need to be _much_ larger to put an end to the ridiculous Sim Governor (not so) mini-game.

As of right now, sectors are so bad that I just can't bring myself to load the game up anymore. *sniffle*

 

[KampfSaU]

Perhaps it is the better way to disentangle the concepts of "your empire is made up of individual sectors" and "automatic planet development". Having a per-planet decision to automate the construction of buildings and districts should open up much more freedom for the design question of what sectors actually do gameplay-wise.

 

[methegrate]

Perhaps it is the better way to disentangle the concepts of "your empire is made up of individual sectors" and "automatic planet development". Having a per-planet decision to automate the construction of buildings and districts should open up much more freedom for the design question of what sectors actually do gameplay-wise.

This is probably the smartest thing anyone has said about the sector problem.

 

[Sifer2]

This has been discussed a lot since the update. Though it's interesting more an more people are coming to this conclusion as they play the updated version more. On week 1 people were being really defensive of the new system but now more seem to admit the lack of sectors makes late game a real chore to play if you have more than 15 worlds. I would just add that it's not the size of the sectors alone that is the issue. But also that you have to manually send them resources to build with. The sectors need to be both larger, and have small stockpiles of their own so they can build somewhat independently. Once their stockpiles are full they could send you their excess they don't need for building.

 

[The Founder]

The sectors need to be both larger, and have small stockpiles of their own so they can build somewhat independently. Once their stockpiles are full they could send you their excess they don't need for building.

We had that. It was called Sector Tax. People did not like it back then.

 

[Blurb]

We had that. It was called Sector Tax. People did not like it back then.

With good reason.
Firstly, there was no option of 100% tax, and secondly, you didn't get the excess once sector stockpiles were full.
For lack of better words, it was bullshit. Another symptom of Paradox having no idea what they want sectors to be.

 

[methegrate]

Another symptom of Paradox having no idea what they want sectors to be.

Stellaris' development has surprised and confused me from this perspective. It's shockingly clear that they never settled on a clear vision of what they want this game to be.

It launched with game mechanics unfinished (like sectors, which were clearly originally supposed to be a system for internal politicking). Then they handed over the reins to a new project lead who wanted to make an entirely different game. It's a single player game that is tediously built and balanced for multiplayer. It's a game about grand strategy and diplomacy in which the only thing to actually do is fight wars. It's a self-professed game about exploration in which the exploration ends about an hour into play. It's a game about telling stories that's nothing but references to other popular fiction. It has leaders but they don't matter. It has governments but in almost all cases they, too, don't matter. It has different races but they're purely cosmetic.

Over and over again the mechanics feel vestigal, incomplete or (occasionally) even contradictory. Mostly, though, they all just feel isolated. Everything happens in a vacuum. Like someone said "wouldn't it be cool if" and stuck a game mechanic in without ever thinking about how it should interact with the rest of the game.

I feel like this game keeps moving in such fits and starts because it has no coherent vision behind it. Paradox has no clear idea what they want Stellaris to be, and going on 3 years in still hasn't figured it out.

 

[Raguie]

I like the IDEA of the new sector system, but dont work.
How to fix it?

• Change all sector storage to a UNIQUE Energy/Mineral storage;
  • A unique storage will set down the number of clicks to the ground.
  • Maybe create a little system to automatically send a X% of the empire income to the sector storage.

• Fix the AI;
  • If the AI that manage our sectors is the same AI of all empires... ""JUST"" FIX THE AI.

For me, a simple person, this is simple ideas that is easy to put into the game. Maybe that is too simple and i'm missing something?

 

[Less2]

I've been thinking this for a while. I've been especially puzzled by people clamoring for bigger sectors, when the economy overhaul requires your decisions to be at the planetary level -- the more planets in the sector, the less likely I can generalize about what I want them to do. Heck, two planets in the same system could require wildly different builds depending on their available districts, features, etc.

Because in the end the goal of sectors is to reduce micromanagement.Needing to click 50 times to manage 10 sectors is far more interrupting to gameplay compared to needing to click 5 times to manage 1 sector. This is more important than specializing for 10% more resource gain (and everyone has different ideas how to specialize anyway, whatever Paradox codes will never fully satisfy more than a small fraction).

 

[Dorian Ertymexx]

I don't understand why they don't just switch to a planet AI option.

Sectors worked in theory (if not in practice) before because a mineral/energy/research/general specialization pretty accurately described the economy. I could portion off four planets, say "pump out minerals," and if the system had worked as intended that would probably have done pretty well.

The new system, though, is focused on per-planet specialization. Personally I think it's an enormous improvement over the previous economy. There's still a lot of room to grow, but I think it's immensely more interesting. However you can't tell four planets to all do the same thing, no less assign a "mineral" sector.

Personally, I'd have a planet AI button that lets the player choose from among the various planet specializations. Turn it on, click "Refinery World," or "Forge World" or "Agri World" or whichever you want, and let the computer take it from there (except for direct player intervention of course). For things with multiple options, have the AI try to address needs. I.e. on a Rural World or Refinery World, the AI will prioritize whichever resource you're lowest on.

Maybe keep sectors in for governors? I guess? Although I've never found them all that interesting or useful.

You know, this reminds me of how MoO3 did it. They let you assign planets after a number of criteria, (core, new, mining whatnot) and set a build-order after that. It was perhaps overly detailed for Stellaris, but a similar approach could work, and let you assign planets from various sectors to the same AI behaviour.

 

[sillyrobot]

You know, this reminds me of how MoO3 did it. They let you assign planets after a number of criteria, (core, new, mining whatnot) and set a build-order after that. It was perhaps overly detailed for Stellaris, but a similar approach could work, and let you assign planets from various sectors to the same AI behaviour.

I effectively do that now except manually. I have a small catalog of expected colony designs: power world, food world, research world, secondary production world (alloys + CG), refinery world, resort, and ecumenopolis. I add a prefix to the colony name to signal its type and then build districts/buildings to fit that definition whenever there are free pops. Automating that would be a wonderful addition.

 

[Urza1234]

I add a prefix to the colony name to signal its type and then build districts/buildings to fit that definition whenever there are free pops.

Yep, join me in the ~tism my friend. I even name them based on a prioritization progression, for instance I might need to make use of a planet's energy districts in the early game, but then intend to later turn it into a research world, so I prefix it 'R>E'

My only problem with this is that if there is more than 1 world in the system the namelist resets, so I end up with R>E Jamor Prime, and Jamor Prime. Very irritating.

 

[Chthon]

Yep, join me in the ~tism my friend. I even name them based on a prioritization progression, for instance I might need to make use of a planet's energy districts in the early game, but then intend to later turn it into a research world, so I prefix it 'R>E'

My only problem with this is that if there is more than 1 world in the system the namelist resets, so I end up with R>E Jamor Prime, and Jamor Prime. Very irritating.

Am I the only one who names their colonies numerically?
DAAR-1
DAAR-2
etc.

 

[The Founder]

You know, this reminds me of how MoO3 did it. They let you assign planets after a number of criteria, (core, new, mining whatnot) and set a build-order after that. It was perhaps overly detailed for Stellaris, but a similar approach could work, and let you assign planets from various sectors to the same AI behaviour.

This behavior can also be seen in Star Drive 1+2, Civilisations since SMAC, the Endless Series and just about anything else with a Auto Governor.
The level of entity being automated varies a bit (in ES 2 whole Systems kind of work like Civilisation Cities), but the baseline was always there.

The only mistake appears to be that Stellaris tries to automate whole Sectors, rather then specific planets.

I effectively do that now except manually. I have a small catalog of expected colony designs: power world, food world, research world, secondary production world (alloys + CG), refinery world, resort, and ecumenopolis. I add a prefix to the colony name to signal its type and then build districts/buildings to fit that definition whenever there are free pops. Automating that would be a wonderful addition.

No argument about that.

 

[methegrate]

I would also like to know what gameplay purpose sectors are intended to serve going forward. I feel like that will answer a lot of questions re: what should be done with them as a governing tool.

There has to be some reason why the devs kept them in the game. They've gone to a lot of trouble to reform and rework sectors over and over again when it seems like it would have been far easier to just delete the whole thing, call it a failed experiment and switch to per-planet management. (As someone who's still pretty salty about the FTL change, that's clearly not something they're shy about doing.)

I kind of wish they would clarify what that is. It would make it a lot easier to make sense of this whole thing.