Can't at least commercial districts or clinics just be upgraded? Why put strategic resource to EVERY upgrade possible? They are logical for some but for others there is no real need for them.
-
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.
Because it makes it a strategic choice when and where to upgrade rather than just click all the up arrows you see ASAP.
The first upgrade for a Unity building doesn't. And neither do capital upgrades. Also, commercial megaplexes give a Merchant, so they most certainly deserve an upkeep price.
Yeah, exactly, I don't regret pre-2.2 click fest at all. Plus it really makes building upgrade important and thought out (at least in the early game).
I wish there were more buildings that didn't require strategic resources to upgrade. Le Guin is playing havoc with my OCD.
There are no buildings that require dark matter, food, unity or other resources as upkeep. Only gases, motes and crystals. It is not a choise to specialize or not to specialize. I just use one separate planet or building slots for streategic resource. It is a false choice, like "you have choice to build tanks or fight with intantry only"
I feel it's fine the way it is. Upgrading buildings is good when you actually need more space than you have or can get, rather than just because. The system is to allow you to go generalist on planets early on, and then specialize planets with little cost once they're built up. Early on you should be building extra alloy foundries rather than upgrading them, towards the end of a planet's build up you will upgrade what you have and replace others that you aren't going to upgrade with facilities to support your growing population.
Is that really optimal, though? As long as you've got space to do without, you're wasting strategic resources (or work+minerals to create them) just to get more compact buildings.
I think the 'strategic' choices come from deciding when to start upgrading your tier 1 buildings to tier 2, rather than just building more tier 1 buildings. They also place a gate on how soon and how rapidly you can start progressing through the tiers.
There was a post on these forums not long back which looked at the math here: multiple tier 1 buildings are better economically (you get more for less) but come at the expense of other building priorities.
But also, having these upgrade costs just forces you to make different choices throughout a game. You choose to use a spare planet for strategic resources, but there are other solutions to this problem, too. So aside from making your building choices more 'strategic,' costs in general have an impact on your play style and on how any particular game unfolds.
Wasting them? You hardly need any of them at all for any other task. Every other task can be done comfortably on less than 1 per month of each. I'd say their primary purpose now if for upgrading buildings and that's it.
Fair 'nuff. Although you could always sell them for some extra energy credits...
Making strategic resources from scratch is definitely an opportunity cost, though, and I'd argue it's usually not the best one. I don't get why anyone feels compelled to do that unless they just want to see all buildings upgraded "just because" --- and honestly, to cater to that kind of mindset, the best game-design option would be to cut upgrading altogether.
Moreover, if you play multi-player or, more hypothetically, a game where the AI is actually a threat, the location of upgraded buildings and refineries becomes much more important. When a game turns competitive and you can't build and expand with negligible resistance, some otherwise easy choices turn meaningful.
I don't disagree with you at all, but that's not the point I was making. I wish there were more non upgradeable buildings, or just more buildings that don't require strategic resources. Unless i'm playing as hive, I can't fill and completely upgrade a planet without needing strategic resources. I hate having buildings not reaching their peak.
This isn't a criticism of the game mind, just a personal wish from an OCD perspective...
.png){kind=avatar}
where else you will put your resources anyway? 
just get ecumenopolis and forget about any upkeep of spec. res. forever(oh wait !! isn't that means that balance a little bit broke? nahh... ) use other planets just for farming. well except the gases those needed for research... I think it will hange with the time... till then you can use a little mod i made for myself https://www.nexusmods.com/stellaris/mods/28 it needs a little bit more love like +10 energy and minerals for upkeep I may do that on 2.2.5 when the robots may become OP... but as long as Ai get same advantage as you get it's pretty fair
just get ecumenopolis and forget about any upkeep of spec. res. forever(oh wait !! isn't that means that balance a little bit broke? nahh... ) use other planets just for farming. well except the gases those needed for research... I think it will hange with the time... till then you can use a little mod i made for myself https://www.nexusmods.com/stellaris/mods/28 it needs a little bit more love like +10 energy and minerals for upkeep I may do that on 2.2.5 when the robots may become OP... but as long as Ai get same advantage as you get it's pretty fair 
It's about building slot efficiency; a level 3 foundry/factory/lab and a refinery would employ more people than almost any 2 unpgraded buildings (except for commercial zones)
Though, as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it is *not* a financially sound way of spending your minerals. At all. But depending on the availability of building slots (particularly if you are trying to specialize planets for bonuses) it might be the most effective way of using those slots.
Quick math! (I'm going to ignore foundry job upkeep because it's going to be the same for both)
4 x foundry
Upkeep: 4 energy per foundry x 4 = 16 energy (16 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 8 specialists
Building slots: 4 slots (20 population requirement on the planet)
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Chemical Plant
Upkeep: 6 energy (Nano-Plant) + 3 energy (Chemical Plant) + 10 minerals (chemist) = 9 energy, 10 minerals (19 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 9 specialists
Building slots: 2 slots (10 population requirement on the planet)
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Mote Trap
Upkeep: 6 energy (Nano-Plant) + 1 energy (Mote Trap) = 7 energy (7 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 8 specialists + 1 worker
Building slots: 2 slots + 1 special feature slot (10 population requirement on the planet and a special feature)
The cost efficiency of increasing your foundries upgrade levels is not as bad as some would make it, but still is less efficient than just building 4 foundries. However, building 4 foundries does require twice as many population on the planet which you might not have for a small planet at all.
The efficiency of using a natural feature to build an upgraded Nano-Plant is much more efficient than building 4 foundries, so if you have those special features that let you build the super cheap mines who only need a worker job, go for it. After all, beyond a small trickle needed for edicts and ship parts, what else are you going to use that special resource for? Selling? Selling will always be less efficient in my books.
This is also before you get an efficiency upgrade, which reduces resource upkeep by 5%. After this bonus the first two upkeeps become as follows:
4 x foundry = 15.2 trade conversion cost
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Chemical Plant = 6.65 energy + 9.5 minerals - 0.1 motes = 15.15 trade conversion cost
At this point it is actually more efficient to upgrade by a small margin, with the exception of the upkeep on the extra specialist population, so your results may vary. Also, yes, it is minus 0.1 motes, because you now have this in excess of your original amount, and are free to do with it as you please.
There are also multiple bonuses to worker output which would further skew this in favor of the upgrade, as well as bonuses that reduce population upkeep. This math gets complicated fast, but as you see with just a few factors, it's not nearly as inefficient as some people decry.
4 x foundry
Upkeep: 4 energy per foundry x 4 = 16 energy (16 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 8 specialists
Building slots: 4 slots (20 population requirement on the planet)
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Chemical Plant
Upkeep: 6 energy (Nano-Plant) + 3 energy (Chemical Plant) + 10 minerals (chemist) = 9 energy, 10 minerals (19 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 9 specialists
Building slots: 2 slots (10 population requirement on the planet)
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Mote Trap
Upkeep: 6 energy (Nano-Plant) + 1 energy (Mote Trap) = 7 energy (7 trade conversion cost)
Jobs: 8 specialists + 1 worker
Building slots: 2 slots + 1 special feature slot (10 population requirement on the planet and a special feature)
The cost efficiency of increasing your foundries upgrade levels is not as bad as some would make it, but still is less efficient than just building 4 foundries. However, building 4 foundries does require twice as many population on the planet which you might not have for a small planet at all.
The efficiency of using a natural feature to build an upgraded Nano-Plant is much more efficient than building 4 foundries, so if you have those special features that let you build the super cheap mines who only need a worker job, go for it. After all, beyond a small trickle needed for edicts and ship parts, what else are you going to use that special resource for? Selling? Selling will always be less efficient in my books.
This is also before you get an efficiency upgrade, which reduces resource upkeep by 5%. After this bonus the first two upkeeps become as follows:
4 x foundry = 15.2 trade conversion cost
1 x Nano-Plant + 1 x Chemical Plant = 6.65 energy + 9.5 minerals - 0.1 motes = 15.15 trade conversion cost
At this point it is actually more efficient to upgrade by a small margin, with the exception of the upkeep on the extra specialist population, so your results may vary. Also, yes, it is minus 0.1 motes, because you now have this in excess of your original amount, and are free to do with it as you please.
There are also multiple bonuses to worker output which would further skew this in favor of the upgrade, as well as bonuses that reduce population upkeep. This math gets complicated fast, but as you see with just a few factors, it's not nearly as inefficient as some people decry.
Just a reminder you can get +35% from refineries by just keeping stability at 100 and the refinery world modifier, so the amount of minerals spent in strategic resources is less.
Also egalitarian get another 5-10% due to specialist.
Also egalitarian get another 5-10% due to specialist.
Nope, as others point out, there are choices here.
In fact, I might win my current game without ever creating synthetic plants for special resources. Why upgrade a foundry or lab if I can just colonize more plants and put labs there, resettling my POPs when necessary?
It's really a choice with alloys. If you have an ecumenoplis, you don't need the motes to get plenty of production. And nothing stops you from making a second (third? fourth?) one if you are a non-gestalt empire.
If you continuously expand, and you can resettle POPs, you may not need to upgrade buildings at all. And that will save you quite a few minerals in the long run.