Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Guilliman
Apr 5, 2017

Animal went forth into the future and made worlds in his own image. And it was wild.
Precursors are player only in vanilla and betas.
My mod enables them for the AI and they can beat the player to them (if the player is slow). I also made sure they can only be done once, and only one per empire. So neither the player or an AI can hoard them (unless you conquer..).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

Noir89 posted:

It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population.

Now when that happens, people complain that populations don't stop growing instead. :allears:
I havent seen anything more than what Poil said about that.

Staltran
Jan 3, 2013

Fallen Rib

Splicer posted:

Being egalitarian turns it off :v:

Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness?

Noir89 posted:

It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population.

Now when that happens, people complain that populations don't stop growing instead. :allears:

The problem is that the pressure from having a planet with overpopulation is having to resettle pops, and that's really boring and you have to do it pretty often once you have more than a few planets overpopulated. And if you wait too long to do it you get negative events to force you to deak with it.

prefect
Sep 11, 2001

No one, Woodhouse.
No one.




Dead Man’s Band

Staltran posted:

Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness?


The problem is that the pressure from having a planet with overpopulation is having to resettle pops, and that's really boring and you have to do it pretty often once you have more than a few planets overpopulated. And if you wait too long to do it you get negative events to force you to deak with it.

Citizens ought to be able to find a planet with some available space without requiring the immortal god-emperor to get personally involved. :doom:

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Staltran posted:

Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness?


The problem is that the pressure from having a planet with overpopulation is having to resettle pops, and that's really boring and you have to do it pretty often once you have more than a few planets overpopulated. And if you wait too long to do it you get negative events to force you to deak with it.
Egalitarians don't like population controls, and I think fanatic egalitarian disables them completely. Why building a non-sapient robot with drill hands counts as population control you'll have to take up with Mr. Renown.

Low housing increases emigration pressure if that helps.

e: and pop growth stops entirely at 1.5 times your housing. It'd be neat to have a decision you could turn on that increases emigration pressure for a cost. Colony propaganda or something.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 4, 2019

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

"I want to see what she's in love with."

Demiurge4 posted:

Also, because it’s come up in discord. Mega corps are huge game changer in MP because branch offices can easily shore up weaknesses on the host side of things and be employed as an amazing source of research and alloys for the Corp itself. If you toss a lab down as the first building you’re generating 18 research and around 25 energy right off the bat and forever from there on out. If your partner is hurting for energy credits you can put the building down that gives a merchant instead and now they have a ruler job that produces 10 trade, hugely efficient jobs all round.

Criminal mega corps on the other hand do nothing and are an active detriment and everyone wants to murder you on sight. It sucks. The best case scenario I can see for a criminal Corp in multiplayer is a ransom system where you get paid for not putting a branch down but that breaks down if another Corp exists to take the slot.

I talked about this in the past, but the naval cap building is probably the best first building (second would be the +25% value & merchant building). You get more naval cap than you would from 1 building slot (without upgrading it) and your host gets equivalent of a building slot (they get a soldier job). In comparison, the science building is better than 1 researcher, but worse than 2. After you add in bonuses though, you can often have 1 researcher putting out more than 18 research, so that building slot (without upgrades) quickly becomes worth twice the science branch office. As a non-megacorp player I'm not exactly thrilled by getting 2 clerk jobs either.

Unlike the research job, naval cap gets boosted globally from several sources so the value goes up as you unlock those while a science office stays pretty static. +16 raw cap for your side for every planet with 25 pops is a significant force increase, especially when you get around to making a federation.


Criminal branches require you to probably work something out with your neighbors, but crime lord deals are really good, and there is some potential room for pretty strong setups. I do think that crime dudes need something else, they're so even with normal megacorps in everything but with downsides and you've spent a civic unlocking it. Maybe some sort of bonus to their trade/crime rates based on how much of the target empire they have covered (percentage of pops based)?

Also when offices get closed outside of war you should have the remnants of the office show up with all the nazi gold loot they could haul with them (could base it on planet bonus type, so rural places more likely to get minerals/food/energy and a tech world would have research/trade secrets).

ulmont
Sep 15, 2010

IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

ZypherIM posted:

Criminal branches require you to probably work something out with your neighbors, but crime lord deals are really good, and there is some potential room for pretty strong setups. I do think that crime dudes need something else, they're so even with normal megacorps in everything but with downsides and you've spent a civic unlocking it.

Criminal corps are so annoying - in my games without a criminal corp on the map I can basically ignore crime buildings, but you get one loving criminal corp and suddenly every planet needs 2 halls of justice.

Truga
May 4, 2014
Lipstick Apathy
You really don't though? Just make a deal with the syndicate lords and reap all the profits? Or are you some kind of police state??

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

"I want to see what she's in love with."

ulmont posted:

Criminal corps are so annoying - in my games without a criminal corp on the map I can basically ignore crime buildings, but you get one loving criminal corp and suddenly every planet needs 2 halls of justice.

Taking the deal with crime lord and you'll get +10 stability and no negative crime events. It is a planetary decision that you can make if you have 10 crime. Most of the negative aspects of crime really only pop out from the events.

This is another reason why gestalts get hosed on deviancy, because they don't have an equivalent option (why can't I ship all deviant drones to an island, and give up 1 district size and 2 job slots or something?)

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Poil posted:

Yeah but there's still ugly symbols in the outliner that makes me check the planet over and over. Too bad I can't just flag it as "don't tell me I don't care about this one" and/or remove it from the outliner completely (with a button to put it back on if when I make a mistake with it).

It would be nice to have outliner filters in general; if you have a large empire, the most time is spent scrolling up and down the outliner every few months to see if any planet needs anything.

prefect
Sep 11, 2001

No one, Woodhouse.
No one.




Dead Man’s Band

MrL_JaKiri posted:

It would be nice to have outliner filters in general; if you have a large empire, the most time is spent scrolling up and down the outliner every few months to see if any planet needs anything.

I would also be okay if the different outliner sections were lined up across the top of the screen, like drop-down menus

Fister Roboto
Feb 21, 2008

Splicer posted:

Egalitarians don't like population controls, and I think fanatic egalitarian disables them completely.

No, anyone can enact population controls. Even fanatic egalitarians.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

BrandorKP posted:

Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice.
Or letting whole pops migrate again. The immortal god emperor can move pops around instantly with his divine will but pops cant chose to move on their own? That or immigration/emmigration push/pull needs to contribute more rather than when a new Pop Grows the Immigration push goes up but a new pop starts growing even though there is no housing and jobs and there is a lot of immigration push.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

ZypherIM posted:

Taking the deal with crime lord and you'll get +10 stability and no negative crime events. It is a planetary decision that you can make if you have 10 crime. Most of the negative aspects of crime really only pop out from the events.

This is another reason why gestalts get hosed on deviancy, because they don't have an equivalent option (why can't I ship all deviant drones to an island, and give up 1 district size and 2 job slots or something?)
Spawn Child Empire (reduces growth rate, no deviant drones, choose a planet to spin off into its own tributary hive mind)

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

Had a couple of drinks.
Saw a couple of things.
2.2.5 when

Ham Sandwiches
Jul 7, 2000

Noir89 posted:

It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population.

Now when that happens, people complain that populations don't stop growing instead. :allears:

Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling.

It wasn't that overpopulation was no issue it's that planets stopped and reached a point of 'done' after a bunch of micro was done.

Managing to turn that into "oh lol but in the space future housing still sucks to obtain" was quite an achievement and here we are to enjoy the fruits of this hard work.

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

:geno: Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

BrandorKP posted:

Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice.

This is actually what the population controls edict does, at least on the test branch. Rather than halting growth it just applies a huge amount of Emigration pressure, and moves the growth elsewhere. Last time I played a Hive Mind it didn't do that though which was irritating as gently caress.

Vengarr
Jun 17, 2010

Smashed before noon

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling.

It wasn't that overpopulation was no issue it's that planets stopped and reached a point of 'done' after a bunch of micro was done.

Managing to turn that into "oh lol but in the space future housing still sucks to obtain" was quite an achievement and here we are to enjoy the fruits of this hard work.

Yeah, it went from "too much micro until you're done" to "too much micro, forever into eternity".

ulmont
Sep 15, 2010

IF I EVER MISS VOTING IN AN ELECTION (EVEN AMERICAN IDOL) ,OR HAVE UNPAID PARKING TICKETS, PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FRANCHISE

Gyshall posted:

2.2.5 when

No dev posts on the official Stellaris fora at all today, which is not a great sign.

CoolHandMat
Oct 5, 2017

Hryme posted:

Started my first real game after Le Guin yesterday. After 75 years everyone else is inferior or pathetic except the fallen empires. I assume the AI still needs work as I am no tactical mastermind?

make sure to turn OFF the scaling difficulty.

when scaling difficulty is OFF thats the only time that the AI seems to be able to keep up, and buildy healthy empires

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

ulmont posted:

No dev posts on the official Stellaris fora at all today, which is not a great sign.
Take it for what you will. I think its a good sign that they arent just fixing the current problems but (hopefully) taking a step back and taking a good hard look at some of what they did (probably in crunch time to get the DLC out before xmas) and are intending to do some major overhauls to some of the systems that we all have a problem with and have been chatting about (not saying that they are reading these forums and taking feedback, simply that this thread has discussed some of the issues we have identified and I am hoping that the Stellaris devs have come to some of the same conclusions).

Poil
Mar 17, 2007

CoolHandMat posted:

make sure to turn OFF the scaling difficulty.

when scaling difficulty is OFF thats the only time that the AI seems to be able to keep up, and buildy healthy empires
Scaling difficulty could be improved by a slider to set what level it starts at. :eng101:

CoolHandMat
Oct 5, 2017

Vengarr posted:

Precursors are not, actually. My last game I got screwed out of finding Cybrex Alpha because another empire had beaten me to it.

are the Precursor events only one per entire game? ive never done a full multiplayer game, but ive played with 3-4 ppl at a time, and it always seems like we each get our own Precursor event.

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


Poil posted:

Scaling difficulty could be improved by a slider to set what level it starts at. :eng101:

More sliders!

I'd like it if I could start it at admiral and let it scale beyond grand admiral by 2400. Scaling from default to GA really doesn't work at all since the AI is strangled by a terrible early game without its cheat resources, but if you start it right off at GA it's pretty good at murdering the gently caress out of you in the first 20 years or so (now that it doesn't get decision paralysis and can add admirals to fleets).

Noir89
Oct 9, 2012

I made a dumdum :(

Ham Sandwiches posted:

Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling.

It wasn't that overpopulation was no issue it's that planets stopped and reached a point of 'done' after a bunch of micro was done.

Managing to turn that into "oh lol but in the space future housing still sucks to obtain" was quite an achievement and here we are to enjoy the fruits of this hard work.

There can be more than one big complaint my man, and a quick cursory google search shows several on both SA and other sites complaining about it. It was not criticism on the guy, I just think its funny that it's such a "Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" situation.

I prefer the current system and would never wan't to go back to tiles though I would love if move individual pop migration disapear and you could only influence it, but then again I prefer more simulationist games where you just influence things over "macro" games where you do everything yourself and yes I hate the new sector system. :v:

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

"I want to see what she's in love with."

The implementation of scaling difficulty makes nearly no sense, and by any logic I can think of like 5 minutes of talking about it should have exposed the problems and sent it back to the design board.

There is a clear issue of "highest difficulty is too strong for some players at the start", and a separate issue of "AI falls off because they don't exploit their planets as well as players". The first one is solved by.. lowering the difficulty level. 'Scaling' seems like it'd solve the second issue, but instead is just a different way to solve the first issue (and is also helpful for players who aren't interested in playing aggressively optimal).

When I saw it at first, I thought (as it seems everyone else thinks) that it is an *additional* bonus that ramps up over time, thus solving (or mitigating) the second issue while at the same time allowing someone to lower the difficulty and maybe get a challenge later on.


Honestly I think one thing that would probably be best is to have templated worlds for the AI to build towards later on (or re-build into), and maybe fleet comps. Also options for helping out the AI economic issues: drop their growth penalty for colony stage (that the player resettles out of), and maybe give them a free building slot (that the player resettles into).

Kazzah
Jul 15, 2011

Formerly known as
Krazyface
Hair Elf

Vengarr posted:

Performance has gone from "literally unplayable" to "playable on small-medium galaxies depending on hardware". Everything else is still broke. Check back in another month.

Will do, thanks.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

ZypherIM posted:

Honestly I think one thing that would probably be best is to have templated worlds for the AI to build towards later on (or re-build into), and maybe fleet comps. Also options for helping out the AI economic issues: drop their growth penalty for colony stage (that the player resettles out of), and maybe give them a free building slot (that the player resettles into).
The first part sounds good (about templates, though they would have to account for players finding out what those templates are and finding ways to then exploit the AI's behavior (or the 'templates' would be complex sets of if-then statements, but still I think the point stands)). As for the second part - I sure hope they are taking the concept of a growth penalty that should be removed for the AI and requires player micro to avoid/get past back to the drawing board so they can come up with a better system. Though you do have a point that even that new system should be modified for the AI assuming that the player can find ways to expedite the process via human skill/intelligence.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

ZypherIM posted:

The implementation of scaling difficulty makes nearly no sense, and by any logic I can think of like 5 minutes of talking about it should have exposed the problems and sent it back to the design board.

There is a clear issue of "highest difficulty is too strong for some players at the start", and a separate issue of "AI falls off because they don't exploit their planets as well as players". The first one is solved by.. lowering the difficulty level. 'Scaling' seems like it'd solve the second issue, but instead is just a different way to solve the first issue (and is also helpful for players who aren't interested in playing aggressively optimal).

When I saw it at first, I thought (as it seems everyone else thinks) that it is an *additional* \ that ramps up over time, thus solving (or mitigating) the second issue while at the same time allowing someone to lower the difficulty and maybe get a challenge later on.
This does make a lot more sense. You start on a difficulty and choose X difficulty levels (+15% ai naval capacity, +25% ai resources, and +2% NPC damage/defence per level) to gain over the time to end game.

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

"I want to see what she's in love with."

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

The first part sounds good (about templates, though they would have to account for players finding out what those templates are and finding ways to then exploit the AI's behavior (or the 'templates' would be complex sets of if-then statements, but still I think the point stands)). As for the second part - I sure hope they are taking the concept of a growth penalty that should be removed for the AI and requires player micro to avoid/get past back to the drawing board so they can come up with a better system. Though you do have a point that even that new system should be modified for the AI assuming that the player can find ways to expedite the process via human skill/intelligence.

I mean, most players have fleet templates they basically use. Grab a decent number, give them to the AI to use, and if players figure out a hard counter either remove that one, or flag it so the AI can go "oh they're trying to counter X fleet with Y, switch to Z".

Hell, if you're willing to divorce a bit from "the AI is just a player with bonuses" you could have a difficulty option that gives the AI different bonuses to fleet types that basically force the player to ID what fleet comps are being used and countering them. Then the player has to juggle which AI his fleets are setup to beat, and do a lot of re-tooling (and makes multi-front wars potentially *super* dangerous).

Goffer
Apr 4, 2007
"..."

prefect posted:

Citizens ought to be able to find a planet with some available space without requiring the immortal god-emperor to get personally involved. :doom:

Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount?

Maybe an expensive energy credit % edict it might be alright to solve the problem.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

ZypherIM posted:

I mean, most players have fleet templates they basically use. Grab a decent number, give them to the AI to use, and if players figure out a hard counter either remove that one, or flag it so the AI can go "oh they're trying to counter X fleet with Y, switch to Z".

Hell, if you're willing to divorce a bit from "the AI is just a player with bonuses" you could have a difficulty option that gives the AI different bonuses to fleet types that basically force the player to ID what fleet comps are being used and countering them. Then the player has to juggle which AI his fleets are setup to beat, and do a lot of re-tooling (and makes multi-front wars potentially *super* dangerous).
Yeah the first part is what I was getting into with the whole "if-then" statements because there could be all sorts of "IF player is using x weapon, THEN build this kind of ship to fill in losses OR upgrade ships to this model". But even that could end up getting gamed by savvy/exploitative players.

I would be down with the second bit for sure.

CainsDescendant
Dec 6, 2007

Human nature




Goffer posted:

Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount?

Maybe an expensive energy credit % edict it might be alright to solve the problem.

I've been playing with a mod that does pretty much this, it gives you a planetary decision with an appropriate monthly energy cost to enable auto pop migration, and it feels pretty good

Noir89
Oct 9, 2012

I made a dumdum :(

Goffer posted:

Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount?

Maybe an expensive energy credit % edict it might be alright to solve the problem.

This is how I would like it to be, with different ways to move the population. Like a free society might pay an upkeep to have a increased chance for pops to move, simulating grants and incentives to move, while an authoritarian one force pops to move but it costs upkeep, crime and stability since people generally don't take well to that.

binge crotching
Apr 2, 2010

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

The first part sounds good (about templates, though they would have to account for players finding out what those templates are and finding ways to then exploit the AI's behavior (or the 'templates' would be complex sets of if-then statements, but still I think the point stands)). As for the second part - I sure hope they are taking the concept of a growth penalty that should be removed for the AI and requires player micro to avoid/get past back to the drawing board so they can come up with a better system. Though you do have a point that even that new system should be modified for the AI assuming that the player can find ways to expedite the process via human skill/intelligence.

Just make the templates generic all around builds, since that's what many/most players will be using anyway.

Cynic Jester
Apr 11, 2009

Let's put a simile on that face
A dazzling simile
Twinkling like the night sky

Goffer posted:

Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount?

Maybe an expensive energy credit % edict it might be alright to solve the problem.

I will gladly pay 100 energy per pop if they'd sensibly emigrate.

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

"I want to see what she's in love with."

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

Yeah the first part is what I was getting into with the whole "if-then" statements because there could be all sorts of "IF player is using x weapon, THEN build this kind of ship to fill in losses OR upgrade ships to this model". But even that could end up getting gamed by savvy/exploitative players.

I would be down with the second bit for sure.

I guess I was a little unclear now that I look at it. I meant more for ship fleet sizes and ship ratios than the actual weapons. I think the AI already checks the player design for over commitment to a design, but usually people don't have holes in their design by nature.

So like when the AI unlocks destroyers it'll aim for fleet sizes of X size with Y corvettes and Z destroyers. Or they might have a switch to 1 complete corvette interdiction fleet and the rest pure destroyers. Then when cruisers are unlocked there are new setups.

Dallan Invictus
Oct 11, 2007

The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

Goffer posted:

Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount?

The thing I've never gotten about this debate is that this whole thing is what the "emigration push" aspect of the current system - that is, overpop slowing down pop growth and adding to emigration push instead - is supposed to represent, the autonomous movement of pops due to crowding and employment pressures (among other things).

Is the problem that the individual pops stick around - that is, that overpopulated planets never stop being overpopulated and leaving alerts in your outliner?

Or that the push factors and/or growth penalties are too low so players feel required to using manual resettling to speed it up?

Or that the equilibrium point where overpop zeros pop growth entirely is too high? I know that I only ever hit that limit when I introduced a mod that hiked pop growth rates significantly by making them exponential.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Nuclearmonkee
Jun 10, 2009


I really do hate the slave selling interface in this game. It's very laggy with horrible drop downs and fiddly bits to click on it. Since it's sorted primarily by pop instead of by planet it's a gigantic pain in the rear end in a top hat to sell your average xenophile planets 25 different species population into slavery. There's also the whole deal where the slave buying menu is a big old unsorted list of pops, usually polluted by bugged out "test" pops that crowd out the top of the menu necessitating more scrolling to even get to the real pops.

Should be able to just click a button to automatically put unemployed slaves up for auction along with a way to just click on a planet and sell all of the myriad pops on it with a couple clicks.

Dallan Invictus posted:

The thing I've never gotten about this debate is that this whole thing is what the "emigration push" aspect of the current system - that is, overpop slowing down pop growth and adding to emigration push instead - is supposed to represent, the autonomous movement of pops due to crowding and employment pressures (among other things).

Is the problem that the individual pops stick around - that is, that overpopulated planets never stop being overpopulated and leaving alerts in your outliner?

Or that the push factors and/or growth penalties are too low so players feel required to using manual resettling to speed it up?

Or that the equilibrium point where overpop zeros pop growth entirely is too high? I know that I only ever hit that limit when I introduced a mod that hiked pop growth rates significantly by making them exponential.

If you let them go overpopulated you are actively penalized by the game in the form of lowered crime/stability and having to still feed/house the useless pops. You are strongly encouraged by game mechanics to fiddle with pop distribution and resettle pops to fix it. I would gladly push a button that subsidizes your unemployed pops moving themselves around to other planets in order to fill available jobs, particularly when you have egalitarians who get pissy if you turn on the resettle button and try to fix it by hand. Would be very cool to be able to slam down districts on a pristine world and watch as pops from everywhere stream in. Make those migration attraction modifiers actually matter.

One of the cool things about being a shitlord slaver is that 1) it's very cheap to resettle slaves and 2) you can easily dump slaves onto a thrall world as a temporary holding area without getting hit with crime events or getting asked to hand out consumer goods.

Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Feb 5, 2019

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply