The pop mechanism is quite terrible in 3.0

[Less2]

Also, traits like Communal and Solitary basically don't do anything anymore since those bonuses and penalties don't factor at all in the growth function. If your free housing is ever even close to zero you're already playing wrong so you might as well always take solitary for the free trait point.

Yeah, I was thinking of making a thread about things like this. There are a LOT of choices in the game that are suddenly really awful trap choices now. Like amenities, why does a production bonus matter if you are getting them for free from housing without a pop working? What does a production bonus to energy/food/minerals give you now that edicts give +50%, planet designations +25%, and you can have planets production at +200%? What does a +15% matter at that point?

Resettlement and pop managing is totally broken now. Influence cost is ABSURD. I resettle pop to one planet and soon i watch: half of resettled pop moved somewher else. WTF! Abaddonig planets is a PAIN. Why we have less budling slots?! And the are partialy still depending on pops number by capital bulding!! Why we are forced to play ultra wide??

Have to be a slaver guilds empire and resettle slaves, its no influence. Other empires are indeed pretty fucked if you want to do something like resettle up to 10/40 pops to upgrade a capital.

 

[RaptorCommander]

If you have "breeder planets" that don't have jobs, the pops will migrate to your more populated planets. The logistic curve on purely a planetary basis would do almost nothing to reduce endgame population counts.

In many of my recent playthroughs I've got some developed planets and a number of semi-developed resource planets. The pops that grow on those resource planets move from their rural backwater over to get jobs in the big city, eerily simulating urbanization. (Unemployed pops will almost always move to the planet with the most available jobs.)

I like this urbanization as a mechanic. Prehaps this needs to be expanded on to enable ring worlds etc to fill up mid late game. Prehaps with a planet decision? One that concentrates all growth onto one planet.

 

[npc1054657282]

You gained 4 planets for additional growth spots, mitigating that increase and perhaps offsetting it entirely.

Every empire in the game plays by the same new rules. When everyone is hamstrung, no one is hamstrung.

When everyone is hamstrung, 25x crisis just smiles to you.

 

[npc1054657282]

Yeah yeah hold your breath and keep up your boycott until worm holes and warp drives come back.

I hope so. I'm sorry about paradox delete worm holes and warp drives, though I start to play the game after 2.0.
I thought if I start to play Stellaris before 2.0, I'm sure that certainly will not play the game any more after the worm holes and warp drives being deleted.
I can bear it just because I have not experience the old version.

 

[Mohreb]

I hope so. I'm sorry about paradox delete worm holes and warp drives, though I start to play the game after 2.0.
I thought if I start to play Stellaris before 2.0, I'm sure that certainly will not play the game any more after the worm holes and warp drives being deleted.
I can bear it just because I have not experience the old version.

OFF Topic:
It was not that ironed out, but by removing them, even a hope for them to be ironed out has gone.
Also if i recall correctly, it is forbidden to speak about worm holes and warp drives on this forum except in the thread made for it.
Back to Topic:
Is population growth is dependent on the size of the galaxy, and/or number of habitable planets?
or will a half galaxy empire (100 or 500 systems) aim for the same population numbers no matter what?

 

[npc1054657282]

OFF Topic:
It was not that ironed out, but by removing them, even a hope for them to be ironed out has gone.
Also if i recall correctly, it is forbidden to speak about worm holes and warp drives on this forum except in the thread made for it.
Back to Topic:
Is population growth is dependent on the size of the galaxy, and/or number of habitable planets?
or will a half galaxy empire (100 or 500 systems) aim for the same population numbers no matter what?

The population goal is, only depending on your total empire pop. With 500 empire pop, all of your planets need 350 pop growth points, with 1000 empire pop, all of the planets need 600 pop growth points. Even if you colonize a new planet, with 6 pop growth points per month, then you need almost 9 years for a new pop. No matter the galaxy size and the planet count.
Well, just try to play a game to the end once, you'll hate it. I'm doubting that whether the designers have ever played the game from start to the end once?

 

[The_Sorrowful]

One of reason that dev added empire scale pop cap is to restrict pop farm exploit. However unfortunately for dev, this exploit is possible even on present system.

Have you heard about flower war which Aztec empire did? Here is new way in order to operate pop farm on present system:

1. Leave oppenent as 1 planet or give independece to some planets as vassal.
2. Wait untill their the number of pops becomes bigger. Because they are seperated empire, so empire scale penalty that you recieved is not problem for them
3. After these targets riped, wage to pop abduction war and/or just intergrate them


Yeah, this game became aztec simulation. I agree that pop farm exploit sould be restricted, but not this way.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I don't get the hate. I'm ready for massive "respectfully disagrees" because this thread is largely a massive echo chamber, but pops are more productive than they used to be on a per-pop basis. It's far easier to specialize planets now, and you can make planets with nothing but researchers on them right from the start, provided you have other planets to provide whatever resource is your upkeep for the researchers. Once you have more pops and tech than another empire (and early growth is actually stronger than it was before if you min-max properly), you can just go on a conquering spree and you've won the game, the rest is just mopping up other empires.

It doesn't matter if late game you have half as many pops as you would have had in the old patch when the pops are twice as productive. And even if your pop growth is lower than another empire's it is because you already have more pops than they do. That's more alloys, more research, more ships, better ships compared to anyone else. A pop right now is always better than potential future pops, so empires that can maximize their early growth will have a huge advantage over empires that grow slower, even if the first empire's growth tapers off quicker.

Sure you can't snowball as hard by being passive the entire game. But being passive all game was never an optimal way to play, and it still isn't. The game is all about being passive until you have a workable advantage and then exploding out onto the galaxy. The empire-wide growth penalty also isn't really that bad. It takes a lot of pops to become really crippling, and by the point when you're in a position to be crippled completely by the new pop growth clamping you've probably already won the game due to the sheer number of pops in your empire compared to everyone else's.

The angry voices are always the loudest, but I bet there are thousands of people happily playing the update right now and feeling just fine with the new system. I know I am.

 

[npc1054657282]

I don't get the hate. I'm ready for massive "respectfully disagrees" because this thread is largely a massive echo chamber, but pops are more productive than they used to be on a per-pop basis. It's far easier to specialize planets now, and you can make planets with nothing but researchers on them right from the start, provided you have other planets to provide whatever resource is your upkeep for the researchers. Once you have more pops and tech than another empire (and early growth is actually stronger than it was before if you min-max properly), you can just go on a conquering spree and you've won the game, the rest is just mopping up other empires.

It doesn't matter if late game you have half as many pops as you would have had in the old patch when the pops are twice as productive. And even if your pop growth is lower than another empire's it is because you already have more pops than they do. That's more alloys, more research, more ships, better ships compared to anyone else. A pop right now is always better than potential future pops, so empires that can maximize their early growth will have a huge advantage over empires that grow slower, even if the first empire's growth tapers off quicker.

Sure you can't snowball as hard by being passive the entire game. But being passive all game was never an optimal way to play, and it still isn't. The game is all about being passive until you have a workable advantage and then exploding out onto the galaxy. The empire-wide growth penalty also isn't really that bad. It takes a lot of pops to become really crippling, and by the point when you're in a position to be crippled completely by the new pop growth clamping you've probably already won the game due to the sheer number of pops in your empire compared to everyone else's.

The angry voices are always the loudest, but I bet there are thousands of people happily playing the update right now and feeling just fine with the new system. I know I am.

You feel good because you go on a conquering spree, and conquering brings you pop, that's why you can reach the half pop than the last version.
Without conquering, it is difficult for you to move even one step. Your pop is not half but almost 1/5. There is a away to escape it, that is to release a subject empire and then merge it. And I have repeat that this way is illogical.
So, all your game experience is from the war. If you do not like war, you can do nothing.

 

[Guvners]

I don't get the hate. I'm ready for massive "respectfully disagrees" because this thread is largely a massive echo chamber, but pops are more productive than they used to be on a per-pop basis. It's far easier to specialize planets now, and you can make planets with nothing but researchers on them right from the start, provided you have other planets to provide whatever resource is your upkeep for the researchers. Once you have more pops and tech than another empire (and early growth is actually stronger than it was before if you min-max properly), you can just go on a conquering spree and you've won the game, the rest is just mopping up other empires.

It doesn't matter if late game you have half as many pops as you would have had in the old patch when the pops are twice as productive. And even if your pop growth is lower than another empire's it is because you already have more pops than they do. That's more alloys, more research, more ships, better ships compared to anyone else.

Well, I would say that most of the dissatisfaction toward pop mechanism change can be explained by answering a simple question: what turn people on once they get to the mid to late game? What would they aim for once they're done with all the explorations and possibly early wars? For someone who loves a skyrocketing output number, massive fleets, megastructures, or just to fill a ring world/ ecumenpolis or two without war under 2.8, the pop change postpones them if not making it nearly impossible. Additionally, we all know that in the game sooner or later AI empires would become irrelevant, a mere background. Beating them is part of the game that people loves, sure, but it's really just one of these things people loves.

 

[Barradrine]

I don't get the hate. I'm ready for massive "respectfully disagrees" because this thread is largely a massive echo chamber, but pops are more productive than they used to be on a per-pop basis. It's far easier to specialize planets now, and you can make planets with nothing but researchers on them right from the start, provided you have other planets to provide whatever resource is your upkeep for the researchers. Once you have more pops and tech than another empire (and early growth is actually stronger than it was before if you min-max properly), you can just go on a conquering spree and you've won the game, the rest is just mopping up other empires.

It doesn't matter if late game you have half as many pops as you would have had in the old patch when the pops are twice as productive. And even if your pop growth is lower than another empire's it is because you already have more pops than they do. That's more alloys, more research, more ships, better ships compared to anyone else. A pop right now is always better than potential future pops, so empires that can maximize their early growth will have a huge advantage over empires that grow slower, even if the first empire's growth tapers off quicker.

Sure you can't snowball as hard by being passive the entire game. But being passive all game was never an optimal way to play, and it still isn't. The game is all about being passive until you have a workable advantage and then exploding out onto the galaxy. The empire-wide growth penalty also isn't really that bad. It takes a lot of pops to become really crippling, and by the point when you're in a position to be crippled completely by the new pop growth clamping you've probably already won the game due to the sheer number of pops in your empire compared to everyone else's.

The angry voices are always the loudest, but I bet there are thousands of people happily playing the update right now and feeling just fine with the new system. I know I am.

First, pop are not twice productive, thats wrong, especially in Science and alloy, and you do not have 'just' half less pop no, it's 3-4 less pop than before. (it's all depend on how many world you were playing, but me and my friend didn't botter to play with 10 world+20 habitat pass 2300) and since you can't go deaper in tech repetable even the boost production your pop have dissapear compare to old pop that were having 10-15-20+ energy and mineral 5% tech boost. You just have less pop that produce less than before.

It's all depend how you were playing, honestly speaking i see less difference in à 'pvp' online match, but my solo session and my session 'chills' with my friend when we were doing honestly only 'sim city/developpent for like 4 hours is a nightmare, i think 2 of my friend stopped already the game since it'S only about war now because if you'r playing without it after some point it's juste boring, nothing grow in your empire.

 

[Willy Waggler]

there are thousands of people happily playing the update right now and feeling just fine with the new system.

Crusader Kings origin for cheesers. This is fine origin for thousands of people who are fine.
1 April ended, but we are still going strong.

 

[cblue22]

How about an option a when starting a new campaign to enable or disable empire wide pop growth modifier?

 

[Willy Waggler]

The angry voices are always the loudest, but I bet there are thousands of people happily playing the update right now and feeling just fine with the new system. I know I am.

Steam Workshop::Lifting pop restrictions X

steamcommunity.com

Population restriction removal + population assembly / growth negative buff removal v1.3

12,581

Unique Visitors

4,760

Current Subscribers

THIS IS FINE

 

[npc1054657282]

How about an option a when starting a new campaign to enable or disable empire wide pop growth modifier?

It is a minimum demand. If the paradox designers are still insist on being immersed in their silly designs, at least an option is necessary to set the empire penalty coefficient from 0 to 0.5.
In fact while the mechanism itself is artificial and absurd, it also destroys the game playfulness, and has no need to exist.

 

[exi123]

There are ~40k people playing Stellaris rn, there are several mods out there fixing pop growth within two days, never seen something like this with Stellaris before. Would be interesting how many players not even finished a vanilla playthrough and went to mods straight through the first campaign. I did so...

There is also a deep discussion on reddit, this change is very disliked within the community, but i guess many casuals dont play far enough to actually feel whats going on or even know how to use mods or get them.

 

[blahmaster6k]

You feel good because you go on a conquering spree, and conquering brings you pop, that's why you can reach the half pop than the last version.
Without conquering, it is difficult for you to move even one step. Your pop is not half but almost 1/5. There is a away to escape it, that is to release a subject empire and then merge it. And I have repeat that this way is illogical.
So, all your game experience is from the war. If you do not like war, you can do nothing.

This is not Planets: Skylines, it's Stellaris. A 4x game. Three of the four "X's" in "4x" are Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate. Dominating the galaxy is the goal of the game. That means conquering the galaxy, either through vassals, federations, or taking everything for yourself. Even pacifists fight liberation wars to conquer other empires. It's intended to fight wars when you play the game. If your gameplan is to sit in a corner doing nothing until the crisis arrives, there are a lot of other games that are better economy management simulators than Stellaris.

 

[Guvners]

This is not Planets: Skylines, it's Stellaris. A 4x game. Three of the four "X's" in "4x" are Expand, Exploit, and Exterminate. Dominating the galaxy is the goal of the game. That means conquering the galaxy, either through vassals, federations, or taking everything for yourself. Even pacifists fight liberation wars to conquer other empires. It's intended to fight wars when you play the game. If your gameplan is to sit in a corner doing nothing until the crisis arrives, there are a lot of other games that are better economy management simulators than Stellaris.

But the whole pop growth function is mostly a system under the whole economic system and barely interact with the warfare system directly. It's a one-way interaction: winning war can bring you more pop, and hence growth, and that's all about it. Even if stellairs has no pop growth mechanism you can still wage war and snowball by taking other's resources, their pops and others. I failed to see why bringing up the topic of warfare would contribute to the discussion of merits and flaws of new pop growth mechanism, unless you are suggesting that warfare composes the majority of gameplay experience.

 

[blahmaster6k]

But the whole pop growth function is mostly a system under the whole economic system and barely interact with the warfare system directly. It's a one-way interaction: winning war can bring you more pop, and hence growth, and that's all about it. Even if stellairs has no pop growth mechanism you can still wage war and snowball by taking other's resources, their pops and others. I failed to see why bringing up the topic of warfare would contribute to the discussion of merits and flaws of new pop growth mechanism, unless you are suggesting that warfare composes the majority of gameplay experience.

I was responding to someone who said that I was only able to enjoy the game because I fought a war and conquered pops. They also implied that an empire that doesn't fight wars should be able to be just as strong as one which conquers other empires. IN my opinion, the pop growth system works fine. You can still get enough pops to do all the things an empire needs to do, even before conquering. This thread has a lot of complaints revolving around the necessity of warfare, and it's prudent to address those complaints. I certainly wasn't the first to bring up the topic.

I've seen people complain that winning wars is now the only (non-exploit) fast way to expand in the lategame as a downside of the new pop growth system. I have also seen people complaining that fighting wars sucks because they screw over your pop growth.

My answer to the first one was that warfare has always been a central point of Stellaris, and that complaining that conquering other empires is better than not conquering other empires entirely misses the point.

My answer to the second is that when you win a war it's like growing 100 extra pops instantly instead of waiting for them to grow, so you still come out far ahead.

 

[Guvners]

I was responding to someone who said that I was only able to enjoy the game because I fought a war and conquered pops. They also implied that an empire that doesn't fight wars should be able to be just as strong as one which conquers other empires. IN my opinion, the pop growth system works fine. You can still get enough pops to do all the things an empire needs to do, even before conquering. This thread has a lot of complaints revolving around the necessity of warfare, and it's prudent to address those complaints. I certainly wasn't the first to bring up the topic.

I've seen people complain that winning wars is now the only (non-exploit) fast way to expand in the lategame as a downside of the new pop growth system. I have also seen people complaining that fighting wars sucks because they screw over your pop growth.

My answer to the first one was that warfare has always been a central point of Stellaris, and that complaining that conquering other empires is better than not conquering other empires entirely misses the point.

My answer to the second is that when you win a war it's like growing 100 extra pops instantly instead of waiting for them to grow, so you still come out far ahead.

Well, as far as I can tell, many complains because in the mid to late game hardly any thing interesting would happen if you do not wage war, or if they do then at a much slower pace, and this has much to do with the new pop growth system---no new pop, no need for new construction or management, and so much less change over output. And before the change over pop growth system it wasn't so; you still get to do a lot to boost economy and build a dozen megastructures after you beat up all the AI empires you want and come up top. There is always the end game crisis, but as it was the late game need not to be just about end game crisis.