The problem with Empire Growth penalty: Your habitability setting

[monkeypunch87]

I still wonder about the different experience with the new Empire growth penalty, because my experience is just great with it. But I stumbled on a difference with some other players, who think that this mechanic is absolutly aweful: We play with different habitability!

I always play with 0.25 to create the feeling that every habitable planet is precious and important. A lot of players do not for all kinds of legitimate reasons. But the problem is the following: I can usually fill my precious planets quite well while the other players complain about empty planets and an end of POP growth. The culprit: The penalty per POP is in both games the same (0.5), but I need a lot less of them.

So, a solution for you now would be the reduction of your habitability setting during game setup.

And the devs should maybe connect the amount of penalty with the habitability slider (higher = lower penalty per POP) to allow better developed planets, but still with a lower endgame amount of POPs, which the penalty provides.

 

[Cymsdale]

I'm generally of the opinion that games should be balanced around the default settings. I'm kind of surprised the developers didn't consider this early on. It does seem way too easy to find planets. And if you are multi-alien empire or have terraforming, the number of potential colonies simply explodes.

 

[sillyrobot]

If you play small galaxies with low habitability, you won't have an opportunity to see the economic walls because the sandbox is so small it'd take until late mid-game / late game to reach them. I play 1,000 5x. I hit the wall around ~2275 - 2300 even before borders have firmed up.
I like big sandboxes. And no, I won't drop down. I tried it. I didn't like it enough to play that game.

 

[Alastor17]

Decent idea, however this mechanic does limit a small empire a lot more then a larger one. So they should have switched focus from a poor solution to just rethinking how the mana interacts with the game. Think Victoria 2, literacy was a huge modifier on you research. A small well educated population could easily out perform a huge population. They need to think more along these lines for balance. Also, if they truely wanted to have smalled pops in the end game. A pop cap shouldn't have been the go to. Just cut everything in half lol. So you only need half the population.

Example: Mining district produces 1 house, 1 miner resources = same as previous. then increase the pop cost from 100 to 150(or 200) since each new pop is more important.

 

[monkeypunch87]

I'm generally of the opinion that games should be balanced around the default settings. I'm kind of surprised the developers didn't consider this early on. It does seem way too easy to find planets. And if you are multi-alien empire or have terraforming, the number of potential colonies simply explodes.

I agree, but I would say, that right now, with 3.01, 0.25 habitability is a better experience regarding POP growths.

 

[monkeypunch87]

If you play small galaxies with low habitability, you won't have an opportunity to see the economic walls because the sandbox is so small it'd take until late mid-game / late game to reach them. I play 1,000 5x. I hit the wall around ~2275 - 2300 even before borders have firmed up.
I like big sandboxes. And no, I won't drop down. I tried it. I didn't like it enough to play that game.

As I said, it would be a solution for now and I proposed a fix for the future.

 

[monkeypunch87]

Decent idea, however this mechanic does limit a small empire a lot more then a larger one. So they should have switched focus from a poor solution to just rethinking how the mana interacts with the game. Think Victoria 2, literacy was a huge modifier on you research. A small well educated population could easily out perform a huge population. They need to think more along these lines for balance. Also, if they truely wanted to have smalled pops in the end game. A pop cap shouldn't have been the go to. Just cut everything in half lol. So you only need half the population.

Example: Mining district produces 1 house, 1 miner resources = same as previous. then increase the pop cost from 100 to 150(or 200) since each new pop is more important.

My dream would be a balance "tall VS wide" like in Civ 5. It is just great. But it isn't what we have with Stellaris, so I propose this.

 

[sillyrobot]

As I said, it would be a solution for now and I proposed a fix for the future.

No. The solution is to do something other than play Stellaris 3.0. As I wrote, I tried smaller less hospitable galaxies. I don't enjoy them. Reading a book, playing a different 4x, -- heck washing dishes is a better experience. So I'll revert to a older version when I decide I want to plat Stellaris and wander off to other games more frequently.

 

[monkeypunch87]

No. The solution is to do something other than play Stellaris 3.0. As I wrote, I tried smaller less hospitable galaxies. I don't enjoy them. Reading a book, playing a different 4x, -- heck washing dishes is a better experience. So I'll revert to a older version when I decide I want to plat Stellaris and wander off to other games more frequently.

Then do that, fine with me. I enjoy 3.01 and I want other people to enjoy it, too. It doesn't mean, the game is in a perfect state right now.

 

[Weyird]

I always play on 0.25 so I was wondering why everyone else was complaining so much about it...

 

[Yourss]

Even with your very small number of planets in a small galaxy, it means that every time you add a pop, the game gets a little less interactive and a little more galaxy observation.

While I think the developers and QA have done a pretty good job of avoiding giant or crashing bugs, I think there is a massive failure on making sure the game fits the most fundamental requirements of being "fun and interactive". Balance, RP, performance all be damned, if a game is boring nobody wants to play it.

 

[blind-oln]

Then do that, fine with me. I enjoy 3.01 and I want other people to enjoy it, too.

I'll try low hospitability. To me it sounds like fun. I feel that there are to many planets to colonize. Especially when you have terraforming. I prefer more personal feeling to my planets. Thanks for sharing your experience.

 

[Bayes]

If you play small galaxies with low habitability, you won't have an opportunity to see the economic walls because the sandbox is so small it'd take until late mid-game / late game to reach them. I play 1,000 5x. I hit the wall around ~2275 - 2300 even before borders have firmed up.
I like big sandboxes. And no, I won't drop down. I tried it. I didn't like it enough to play that game.

You play on 1000 5x? You are fucking crazy man.

 

[Incompetent]

One problem with 0.25x habitables is that it crushes the AI, as the AI doesn't know how to make efficient use of a limited number of building slots. With default numbers of habitables, the AI is still bad, but it takes a bit longer to completely stall out.

If you're also playing on a tiny galaxy, then you're leaving no space for any sort of AI galactic politics. Your own economic development will feel more natural, but you can't really say you're playing a grand strategy game any more.

 

[Madzai]

One problem with 0.25x habitables is that it crushes the AI, as the AI doesn't know how to make efficient use of a limited number of building slots. With default numbers of habitables, the AI is still bad, but it takes a bit longer to completely stall out.

Most of non-standart setting mess with AI. I love to play with slower tech\unity, but it absolutely crush early game AI, and do close to nothing in mid-late game, as there is close to no difference between half a year and one year research time.

 

[sillyrobot]

You play on 1000 5x? You are fucking crazy man.

I like exploration and development. I typically have 100-150 colonies by 2325. Slowness of play doesn't irk me. The 2.2 - 2.8 micro does though.

 

[monkeypunch87]

One problem with 0.25x habitables is that it crushes the AI, as the AI doesn't know how to make efficient use of a limited number of building slots. With default numbers of habitables, the AI is still bad, but it takes a bit longer to completely stall out.

If you're also playing on a tiny galaxy, then you're leaving no space for any sort of AI galactic politics. Your own economic development will feel more natural, but you can't really say you're playing a grand strategy game any more.

In my experience it isn't too bad. The different AI empires differ a lot. There are stronger and weaker builds, some with more planets, some with less, since the planets are usually not distributed equally. An alien empire with 5 planets can be a challange if you only have one or two.

 

[Abberon]

Then do that, fine with me. I enjoy 3.01 and I want other people to enjoy it, too. It doesn't mean, the game is in a perfect state right now.

You could have enjoyed it before. Small galaxies with low habitability prevented a most of the problems the pop growth malus aims to "fix".

Folks who enjoyed building large sprawling Empires, however, can no longer do that without implementing a bunch of really awkward workarounds that ruin immersion and the overall pace of the game. If they even just gave us an option to get rid of the pop growth malus, I'd bet that most people would choose it even if it meant they had to live with micro and performance hell. That's how badly this affects the actual fun playing the game.

 

[monkeypunch87]

You could have enjoyed it before. Small galaxies with low habitability prevented a most of the problems the pop growth malus aims to "fix".

Oh, I did. I never play Stellaris with higher than 0.25 habitability for immersion reasons. And right now, with the at 0.5 per POP fixed penalty, it is the only setting to allow large, galaxy wide sprawling empires without these workarounds.

 

[Andakingu]

I also really resent having to play on .25 planet count, when I'm already limiting myself to small or medium galaxies, with fewer AI opponents, and no pre-warp civs, as I have major problems with performance (both on an older custom rig and brand new top of the line custom rig)

I already feel my playing experience lacks the "grand" part of grand strategy. There is nothing worse than knowing that, I could be playing with all the fun toys, but I'm limited to my stick, for no good reason.