What happened since Federations? Why are people so unhappy? O_o

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I prefer the new, more involved economy, but it's true that a lot of it is simply an optimization puzzle. Still, current Stellaris with bugs and AI issues fixed would be a fine 4X in its own right.
I don't think there are more important problems with the game now. My answer was referriung to why those problems haven't been fixed yet: because they've been overhauling the problems with the game's core warfare, economy and diplomacy systems, which took priority over the bugs that emerged in the meantime.
It would be a valid point to say 3-4 months after Megacorps released (still no excuse for #TODO), but the grand overhaul was released in the end of 2018 (Federations, while welcome, wasn't really an "overhaul"). Sure, there are people who preferred 1.9.1 even conceptually, and people who think that Stellaris needs to abandon its 4X aspects completely and become this super-involved simulation, but a reason why 1.9.1 looks so good in retrospect because the new problems still persist for too long a time after the overhaul already happened.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Stellaris now is massively different from Stellaris on released. And that's because the devs realised there were fundemental issues with the core systems, not mere bugs.
Which ones ?
You repeat that the dev "had to" make these overhaul due to "fundamental issues".
Which were the "fundamental issues" that had to be fixed and how exactly these overhaul dealt with these ? Because I fail to see these "fundamental issues" that were due to the old design, and even fewer that were actually fixed by the overhaul.
 
  • 13
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It is very easy to remove micromanagement from forced resettlement by simply remove it and replace it with some decision you can enact on some worlds for a price.
Usually the planetary decision Pop Growth Control is supposed to do that; halting growth on the planet and sending the excess growth to Emigration (ergo to other planets).
BUT, the kicker is, and I dearly hope they finally fixes this, because that would help the AI immensely because they LOVE Pop Growth Control on their planets, it does not send the excess growth to Emigration, because it resets the growth to .25 first (or -75%) and THEN sends that to Emigration (which is a maximum of 0.9). That is not what the decision says, and it is extremely harmful and has been in since 2.2.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
For me, 1.9 was just too shallow economically. The one point I will agree with you is that strategic resources were far superior in 1.9x in that they actually were 'strategic resources'. The current system we have with both the market and the ability to manufacture motes, crystals and gas an absolute joke. They are not strategic resources at all.
Oh obviously. They're just bloat, intentional bloat created in a way to make it seem as if the economy has more depth than it really has. You could remove all the new strategic resources, simply increase the mineral costs,

This may be a matter of conflicting preferences. Plenty of people were asking for a more complex economy system. People asked for management of all of their worlds to be left with them, because they hated losing control (there’d be less call for that if the sector AI wasn’t so terrible, but some fans really hate not having direct control over every world). Some people really want that level of granularity. Personally, I’d prefer to turn over control of most of my worlds to a reliable sector AI after a while. But when you get down to it, I find the new economy system much better than the old one.
The "forced to hand over control" of planets, and wanting planets completely REWORKED and turned into a permanent micro-management hell equation doesn't hold up. I hated the old sectors. Because they felt like being forced to play together with your four-year-old cousin, having him get his sticky greasy fingers all over your stuff. That didn't mean I wanted to have planets changed in a way that forces me to constantly babysit them.

Removing old sectors does not in any kind of way shape or form relate to the change they inflicted upon planets. Planets in the past were at a certain point simply done, they were finished. They would simply chug along endlessly without any kind of involvement. The sector Ai oftentimes outright sabotaged this. This is not the case with the new planets, and wanting to get rid of the sector Ai does not mean one wanted the current situation. It simply meant not wanting to have to deal with the sector Ai.

Hell, not even auto-upgrade is really linked to this. That's a feature most games had since let's say the late 90s. And Paradox refuses to include in their games. And no, the new economy system is absurdly bloated, they changed basically nothing but adding a bunch of extra hoops you have to jump through to it. While also forcing you to constantly babysit every single last planet unless you want your Empire to go down in flames.

I don't think there are more important problems with the game now. My answer was referriung to why those problems haven't been fixed yet: because they've been overhauling the problems with the game's core warfare, economy and diplomacy systems, which took priority over the bugs that emerged in the meantime. The warfare and eocnomy overhauls created new issues, but they couldn't divert the resources necessary to deal with them until the core gameplay problems had been dealt with.
Megacorp came out two years ago. Since then nothing was really changed or done. Many of the current problems were introduced back then and have barely been acknowledged. You were initially arguing that they had bigger issues to tackle right now. Ever since people asked for specifics you've been constantly moving the goalpost.

Stellaris now is massively different from Stellaris on released. And that's because the devs realised there were fundemental issues with the core systems, not mere bugs. No amount of tweaking AI was going to fix the warfare system, or make the economy interesting. They had to basically be rebuilt from the ground up. That takes time and manpower.
Warfare hasn't changed beyond being slightly slowed down. Funnily enough, some folks go for a colossus to pretty much get the old warfare back as it becomes tedious eventually. Doomstacks are alive and kicking, the same as they have always been. The economy is just as flat as it was, just with more tacked on bloat that does very little.

And over the last two years since their big overhaul, they pretty much just put out some cosmetic DLCs and minor additions. One might think the game is "finished" from their point of view and almost in maintenance mode.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Usually the planetary decision Pop Growth Control is supposed to do that; halting growth on the planet and sending the excess growth to Emigration (ergo to other planets).
BUT, the kicker is, and I dearly hope they finally fixes this, because that would help the AI immensely because they LOVE Pop Growth Control on their planets, it does not send the excess growth to Emigration, because it resets the growth to .25 first (or -75%) and THEN sends that to Emigration (which is a maximum of 0.9). That is not what the decision says, and it is extremely harmful and has been in since 2.2.
Thing is. That's still micro-management on an every growing scale. You still have to constantly babysit all those planets, enact those decisions, potentially undo them once you resettled some pops, etc. Adding a "price" as if this was some big boon to it is just adding insult to injury IMHO.

GTO meanwhile works to address this problem in a limited fashion. It's a good starting point they should expand upon.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Thing is. That's still micro-management on an every growing scale. You still have to constantly babysit all those planets, enact those decisions, potentially undo them once you resettled some pops, etc. Adding a "price" as if this was some big boon to it is just adding insult to injury IMHO.

GTO meanwhile works to address this problem in a limited fashion. It's a good starting point they should expand upon.
It'd be a nice step to betterment if both mechanics just properly worked in the first place. If not for the player then at least for the AI so they don't fall off a cliff after 2250.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally I don't feel the new planet system is as bad as people say it is in terms of micromanaging compared to the old grid one. The problem lies with pops and when you start microing them, having to resettle them. It doesn't help that the screen for resettling is horrible and needs an overhaul. Unemployed pops at the bottom? What? Why?!

Otherwise if there just were more things that could auto all these things then I don't feel the microing is that bad, especially if the sector AI becomes good enough and given way more options how you want it to build planets, such as making them planet specific specializations not sector wide. But that's the thing... sector AI will likely never be made good nor will they spend time in giving you the tools to pre-build your planets and specialize them.

If the systems atm just gets more attention and fixes, it's not that bad. But it just takes for them to get there, whenever Stellaris is done with new features.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Personally I don't feel the new planet system is as bad as people say it is in terms of micromanaging compared to the old grid one. The problem lies with pops and when you start microing them, having to resettle them. It doesn't help that the screen for resettling is horrible and needs an overhaul. Unemployed pops at the bottom? What? Why?!

Otherwise if there just were more things that could auto all these things then I don't feel the microing is that bad, especially if the sector AI becomes good enough and given way more options how you want it to build planets, such as making them planet specific specializations not sector wide. But that's the thing... sector AI will likely never be made good nor will they spend time in giving you the tools to pre-build your planets and specialize them.

If the systems atm just gets more attention and fixes, it's not that bad. But it just takes for them to get there, whenever Stellaris is done with new features.

Early game, the old system has a fair amount of micro-managing as you had to pick which blocker to clear / which building to build and staff. By mid-game, that starts to drop off. You can afford to walk into your new planet and queue all blocker clearances. Then you can come back and afford to build all the base buildings on the colony. Then you can come back and specialize those buildings as necessary. As a final touch, you toss the colony into a sector and tell the AI it is allowed to upgrade but not alter the building tiles.

You are done. You are not continually pulled back to the colony to build a single building. Upgrades happen on their own. You need not worry about population growth or over-population. Colonies seeking your attention after this point are an exception -- a rare colony event or war front shift.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
If the systems atm just gets more attention and fixes, it's not that bad. But it just takes for them to get there, whenever Stellaris is done with new features.
The whole issue is that exactly same thing could be said about old tile system. And we also could get like a year of Devs time for other things. If new system is "not so bad" compared to old one, at best, it means it's a failure as a rework, regardless of it's possible potential which was wasted on Development stage already (if we compare initial DD about it with end result).
 
  • 12
Reactions:
The whole issue is that exactly same thing could be said about old tile system. And we also could get like a year of Devs time for other things. If new system is "not so bad" compared to old one, at best, it means it's a failure as a rework, regardless of it's possible potential which was wasted on Development stage already (if we compare initial DD about it with end result).

I think the new system is better than the old one, and can be improved upon, whereas the old one was a dead end. It was as good as it was going to get, and that wasn’t good enough.
 
  • 11
  • 5
Reactions:
As a final touch, you toss the colony into a sector and tell the AI it is allowed to upgrade but not alter the building tiles.
If the sector AI worked or you had building templates that would also be the case with the current system. You would only need to engage with the system as much you want. I always assumed that would be the design goal as building algorithms need to exist anyways for enemy empires. Of course they never managed to produce any code that worked properly.
The tile system has less micro management, but that also made it extremely boring. I didn't have any fun with planets beyond the early game. Just build everything right away and/or fill a whole planet with just mines or power plants. Easy, but certainly not good

Either system requires proper automation, which was never delivered. There were also a huge amount of complaints back then about the sector AI not being competent. It's just a bigger issue now that you constantly need to come back to build new things.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the new system is better than the old one,
OK, valid opinion. But is it better to an extent of wasting like a whole year of development being worth it?
and can be improved upon
Not only i'm not seeing it being improved, or even plans to so, again this can be said about old one.
whereas the old one was a dead end.
That's an opinion too, while not only the fixes to old system in a way that it allows all current content to work with it were theorycrafted already (by myself too), Galactic Civilization also wants a word with you about tiles system being a "dead end".
It was as good as it was going to get, and that wasn’t good enough.
Well, new system may be better, but we could guess what else could be better after a whole year of Development time? We'll never knew probably. And not good enough for what? It all depends on direction the game is supposed to take. If they to focus more on politics instead of economy or planets (and IMO focusing on planets so much was already a mistake), maybe old system was good enough. Now we have a rework that's not really doing anything but just being there and no real reworks or improvements in other areas.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
If the sector AI worked or you had building templates that would also be the case with the current system. You would only need to engage with the system as much you want. I always assumed that would be the design goal as building algorithms need to exist anyways for enemy empires. Of course they never managed to produce any code that worked properly.
The tile system has less micro management, but that also made it extremely boring. I didn't have any fun with planets beyond the early game. Just build everything right away and/or fill a whole planet with just mines or power plants. Easy, but certainly not good

Either system requires proper automation, which was never delivered. There were also a huge amount of complaints back then about the sector AI not being competent. It's just a bigger issue now that you constantly need to come back to build new things.

Except for the whole overpopulation thing, possibly. But that is a potentiality rather than the actuality of 1.9. Being forced to continually return is a real problem as the colony count creeps toward 200.

Frankly I don't want to have fun with individual planets in a galaxy-spanning grand strategy game any more than I want to have fun with an individual Roman province.

1.9 sector AI in incapable of handling initial tile placement and maintaining a workable colony through tile replacement -- that why you have as much colony-touching as you do in 1.9 . Otherwise I'd tend to toss most planets into sectors immediately.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
OK, valid opinion. But is it better to an extent of wasting like a whole year of development being worth it?

Not only i'm not seeing it being improved, or even plans to so, again this can be said about old one.

That's an opinion too, while not only the fixes to old system in a way that it allows all current content to work with it were theorycrafted already (by myself too), Galactic Civilization also wants a word with you about tiles system being a "dead end".

Well, new system may be better, but we could guess what else could be better after a whole year of Development time? We'll never knew probably. And not good enough for what? It all depends on direction the game is supposed to take. If they to focus more on politics instead of economy or planets (and IMO focusing on planets so much was already a mistake), maybe old system was good enough. Now we have a rework that's not really doing anything but just being there and no real reworks or improvements in other areas.

The entire point of the overhauls was because the devs didn’t think that another year of development time would solve anything. They tried to fix the core gameplay issues, and failed. After each patch/dlc, the forum was filled with disappointed and angry fans. That’s why I described the problems as fundamental, as dead ends. The devs decided that simply building on the existing systems wasn’t going to work. Maybe they were wrong, maybe they were right, but once they decided to overhaul the core systems, they had to devote a lot of time and manpower to doing so, and that meant less man hours (and little flexibility) to fix the bugs that arose.

Given the patch notes released today, it looks like the completion of Federations has freed up some resources for bug fixing. Now to see if they work...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I played a bit after Federations, thought it was a pretty decent expansion, stopped after a campaign or two to do other stuff. I've been playing CK3 for a while, and decided to poke my head back in here and WHOA. Most recent Dev Diary on what seems to be a fairly innocuous flavor pack has more X's than anything else. What happened? Can someone catch me up as to why people are so mad?
I played a bit after Federations, thought it was a pretty decent expansion, stopped after a campaign or two to do other stuff. I've been playing CK3 for a while, and decided to poke my head back in here and WHOA. Most recent Dev Diary on what seems to be a fairly innocuous flavor pack has more X's than anything else. What happened? Can someone catch me up as to why people are so mad?

It’s got the Paradox logo on it
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Usually the planetary decision Pop Growth Control is supposed to do that; halting growth on the planet and sending the excess growth to Emigration (ergo to other planets).
BUT, the kicker is, and I dearly hope they finally fixes this, because that would help the AI immensely because they LOVE Pop Growth Control on their planets, it does not send the excess growth to Emigration, because it resets the growth to .25 first (or -75%) and THEN sends that to Emigration (which is a maximum of 0.9). That is not what the decision says, and it is extremely harmful and has been in since 2.2.

This is obviously a serious flaw in the mechanic they could easily fix. I also could see a few other types of edicts to force people to move from a planet, things like species controls or simply the government forcibly moving people off the planet to disperse a hostile population among more planets, perhaps if you just conquered a planet for example.

You then also could give some negative traits to these decisions depending on how harmful they are... either to economy or morale or both.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The entire point of the overhauls was because the devs didn’t think that another year of development time would solve anything. They tried to fix the core gameplay issues, and failed. After each patch/dlc, the forum was filled with disappointed and angry fans. That’s why I described the problems as fundamental, as dead ends.
You keep repeating these "they were dead end"/"there were fundamental problems", but you never actually give anything concrete about WHAT were these problems and how the overhaul fixed, or even aimed to fix them.
I already called you out on this :
Which ones ?
You repeat that the dev "had to" make these overhaul due to "fundamental issues".
Which were the "fundamental issues" that had to be fixed and how exactly these overhaul dealt with these ? Because I fail to see these "fundamental issues" that were due to the old design, and even fewer that were actually fixed by the overhaul.
But you simply ignored it and just went ahead with the copy-paste.

Care to actually deal with facts and counter-points, or are you just going to admit you have none and are simply parroting the smoke and mirrors Wiz gave because he wanted to shoehorn chokepoints and had to find a pretext, regardless how factually wrong it was ?
 
  • 9
Reactions:
The overhauls definitely aimed to fix stuff like micro, warfare, balance, and the economy.

The problem is they in most cases made things worse, and given that these overhauls have been in place more or less longer than the original things they were designed to replace have, while still being worse than what they replaced....I think they're more of a dead end than the prior versions were.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The overhauls definitely aimed to fix stuff like micro, warfare, balance, and the economy.

The problem is they in most cases made things worse, and given that these overhauls have been in place more or less longer than the original things they were designed to replace have, while still being worse than what they replaced....I think they're more of a dead end than the prior versions were.
My feeling is that there were several initial mechanics that did have dead ends, but those mechanics were polished and refined until they hit that dead end.

Mechanics were then replaced with new ones that offer a lot more design space and potential depth, but then were not refined to meet their potential.

Warfare revamp had the potential to end the blobfest whack-a-mole crap by adding some value to positioning and raiding, but the AI can’t handle it so we still have the AI blobbing, so only players make use of the added mechanics (if for some reason they can’t just steamroll the AI).

Econ rework added some engaging planetary and economy management to a phase of the game that can drag, as well as adding character to planets. AI can’t handle it, so challenge is out the window and the same AI weakness virtually demands that the player stay heavily engaged well past the point they should be managing individual planets. Resettlement is particularly infuriating not only because automatic resettlement exists locked behind a GC resolution but because the baseline migration mechanic should have handled this.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
I think the military changes are workable if they put the time in. Its a bit unclear why the fleet AI has more trouble than it used to, as its still effectively just the old hyperlanes. Really its the crises that werent designed with hyperlanes in mind still having trouble because enough effort wasnt put into them.

The economy/planetary overhaul I think was honestly too ambitious to be a patch. Since the entire game pretty much sits ontop of planets and the economy, its effectively the same as remaking the game, only without the dev time devoted to producing such.