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
scaterry
Sep 12, 2012
New Pop Growth graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/herqn7gwt9

The fastest way to reach max pop growth is now 23 pops on a 53 planet cap planet. If you want to maximize pop growth given a fixed population, the ideal planet capacity is equal to x^2/(x-13), which is nice enough to remember.

I wonder if the new change to foundries means it's super difficult to rush alloys as a normal empire. The district being split 50/50 on your capital makes it difficult to compete with gestalts.

I want to try a clerk build, any ideas? Although a livestock build seems quite appealing...

scaterry fucked around with this message at 14:00 on May 7, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Truga posted:

how do you have pop growth on planets so high, them moving every 10 months only moves a half??

50% of the pops that wouldn't have moved anyway will move within 12 months when you add a transit hub.

The average time to move is not the time everyone moves by, far from it.

Post with the actual maths incoming.

Truga
May 4, 2014
Lipstick Apathy
yeah but planets grow 1 pop at a time, there's no way you have more than 1 unemployed pop on a planet unless you're doing something really weird

Electro-Boogie Jack
Nov 22, 2006
bagger mcguirk sent me.

Yami Fenrir posted:

I am exactly this person.

I see a red icon, I must fix the red icon.

Although, to be fair, "+10% research output" vs "not having to deal with pop micro as much" seems kind of a bad choice designwise, mechanics vs convenience and all.

Further down in the beta thread one of the devs said they don't want to devalue ethics and govts that interact with unemployment, and I guess that's fair... but maybe a better solution is to find new, better things for these ethics and govts to do.

That said as long as pops still move themselves in a few months personally I'm kinda fine with it.

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

When you introduce a quality of life change that is in line with one of your stated goals (reduce tedious micromanagement) and it accidentally makes some other options less useful, the answer is to improve the other options.

"Making the game not annoying to play" shouldn't be a civic or a starbase building, especially when both of those things are at a premium.

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!
Old: 10% resettlement chance a month. Democracy adds 50% to this, the module adds 100%. (So 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25 with both)
New: 5% base chance. Otherwise the same. (So 0.05, 0.075, 0.1, 0.125 with both)

Calculation of how likely it is a pop will have moved by date X: simple binomial, 1-(1-p)^X (where p is the probability of moving).

Ergo:

After 12 months
Old base 72%
Old Demo 86%
Old module 93%
Old demo+module 97%.
New base 46%
New Demo 60%
New module 72%
New demo + module 80%.

How valuable is the module to a democracy? Previously it moved 11% more pops, but also it moved about 80% of the pops who wouldn't have otherwise moved in this time. Now it moves 20% more pops, but only 50% of the pops that would have moved in this time. So, if your measure of improvement is how fast pops are moving then it's better, if your measure of improvement is how much it reduces your clicking work then it's worse.

What about expected times? The calculations above by Truga are using the incorrect distribution - the actual calculation is (1-p)/p, where p is the probability of moving (expectation of negative binomial distribution, r = 1).

Thus, mean time to move:
Old base: 9 months
Old demo: 5 2/3 months
Old module: 4 months
Old demo + module: 3 months
New base: 19 months
New demo: 12 1/3 months
New module: 9 months
New demo + module: 7 months

So the module is providing 5 1/3 months faster movement on average in the new regime, only 2 2/3 months improvement in the old regime. Unsurprisingly as this is the same measure as "how fast pops are moving" from above it comes to the same conclusion, which is that it's a sort of effectiveness buff.

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

Electro-Boogie Jack posted:

Further down in the beta thread one of the devs said they don't want to devalue ethics and govts that interact with unemployment, and I guess that's fair... but maybe a better solution is to find new, better things for these ethics and govts to do.

That said as long as pops still move themselves in a few months personally I'm kinda fine with it.

I personally see those civics as "taxes", not as actual features. To me they fix things that shouldn't be problems in the first place.

I would take them more often but shared burdens (iirc) is tied to egalitarian and I usually play authoritarian because I prefer the relevant faction. I think the others are similar in that they're tied to specific requirements? I don't remember exactly, but I keep passing them over for some reason.

Jabarto
Apr 7, 2007

I could do with your...assistance.
Yeah this really isn't a "red icon" thing or some commentary on bad living standards. I've used Shared Burdens/Social Welfare in pretty much every game I've ever played and the problem is that they cost too much and provide too little. This was true in the last version, when unemployment was far more prevalent than it is even with the new auto migration change. Lowering the chance is just an odd decision that doesn't have a huge impact on the game either way but looks really bad when you think about why that mechanic was added to begin with.

Truga
May 4, 2014
Lipstick Apathy

welp sorry i get what you meant by "moved pops that wouldn't move" now. i was thinking about multiple pops for some reason

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!
Cule

scaterry
Sep 12, 2012
It's a negative binomial distribution with p = 0.95, right? So the mean is pr/(1-p) = 19 months, the standard deviation is sqrt[pr/(1-p)^2] ~ 19 months. Considering resettling a pop requires 100 energy and 10 influence, that's sorta like employing them as a 5 energy, 0.5 influence job to move somewhere better. With a 10% resettlement chance, it was a 10 energy, 1 influence job, so I think the nerf is justified.

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

scaterry posted:

It's a negative binomial distribution with p = 0.95, right? So the mean is pr/(1-p) = 19 months, the standard deviation is sqrt[pr/(1-p)^2] ~ 19 months. Considering resettling a pop requires 100 energy and 10 influence, that's sorta like employing them as a 5 energy, 0.5 influence job to move somewhere better.

Quite so. The main annoyance with the change tbh is not that it doubles the expected time, it's that it doubles the standard deviation as well.

eg, the amount of months that need to pass to have at least a 99% chance of a pop moving, with all buffs under the old regime: 16.
Under the new regime: 35. It more than doubles.

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

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

I don't really mind the change myself, the current transfer rate without anything buffing it is already in the range of "fast enough that ignoring it doesn't bother me", so having some sort of reason to actually look at transfer rate increasers outside of your obvious big ticket spots is nice. I don't really play with any of the unemployment options, but this also helps make those more attractive. Dunno, just overall not a change that seems like it needs railing about.



scaterry posted:

New Pop Growth graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/herqn7gwt9

The fastest way to reach max pop growth is now 23 pops on a 53 planet cap planet. If you want to maximize pop growth given a fixed population, the ideal planet capacity is equal to x^2/(x-13), which is nice enough to remember.

I wonder if the new change to foundries means it's super difficult to rush alloys as a normal empire. The district being split 50/50 on your capital makes it difficult to compete with gestalts.

I want to try a clerk build, any ideas? Although a livestock build seems quite appealing...

You just set up consumer good sell orders paired with your alloy buy orders, or if you run into a huge mineral glut you could build additional districts and disable the artisans. Maybe do it on your first colony since you can set it to being an alloy world giving you cheaper districts and more output.

Jazerus
May 24, 2011


i think it's a mechanic that will come into play more and more if they choose to go the route of reducing job numbers further as they indicated that they are, and that's not a bad thing imo. the differences in how empires are affected by unemployment based on living standards is an important part of stellaris's presentation of utopic/dystopic societies in the context of those societies approaching post-scarcity; a society that continues enforcing scarcity and that implicitly values its citizens based on their employment will face problems as there are fewer and fewer meaningful things to be done relative to the size of the population, while one under utopian abundance is actually incentivized to cut meaningless work out of society because its citizens will be more productive following their own interests with full material support from society than they would be working as a clerk at the space gas station.

how this is currently implemented is...flawed to be sure. but the core idea is really powerful and directly tackles some of the assumptions made about employment in the real world, and considering how many map gamers appear to derive their understanding of politics from paradox games, i think it's important for the turbo-hitler empires to face problems that other societies don't, because they are turbo-hitlers

cock hero flux
Apr 17, 2011



Electro-Boogie Jack posted:

Further down in the beta thread one of the devs said they don't want to devalue ethics and govts that interact with unemployment, and I guess that's fair... but maybe a better solution is to find new, better things for these ethics and govts to do.

That said as long as pops still move themselves in a few months personally I'm kinda fine with it.

or rework things in such a way that having unemployed pops is inevitable and unemployed pops are somehow interesting

Truga
May 4, 2014
Lipstick Apathy
speaking of growth/pops moving, i haven't done a gestalt in 3.x yet. do they auto-move too? and how is growth handled (especially for robots), considering they mostly can't get pops via conquering

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

ZypherIM posted:

I don't really mind the change myself, the current transfer rate without anything buffing it is already in the range of "fast enough that ignoring it doesn't bother me", so having some sort of reason to actually look at transfer rate increasers outside of your obvious big ticket spots is nice. I don't really play with any of the unemployment options, but this also helps make those more attractive. Dunno, just overall not a change that seems like it needs railing about.

Jazerus posted:

i think it's a mechanic that will come into play more and more if they choose to go the route of reducing job numbers further as they indicated that they are, and that's not a bad thing imo.

As the job numbers go down the rate of transfer needs to go up so it's more consistent - possibly even make it a static time to transfer. Why? Because it makes the game a lot more luck based. If someone gets 10% production for, say, 3 years over another player because one of their pops transferred faster that's a big problem for balance.

ZypherIM
Nov 8, 2010

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

MrL_JaKiri posted:

As the job numbers go down the rate of transfer needs to go up so it's more consistent - possibly even make it a static time to transfer. Why? Because it makes the game a lot more luck based. If someone gets 10% production for, say, 3 years over another player because one of their pops transferred faster that's a big problem for balance.

Yea but take this example from my current (non-beta) game: I got the ratchet refugee event which is 4 or 5 pops on a random planet. Since I try to not overbuild I suddenly had 4 unemployed pops, so I started a district (can't remember which one offhand) right away to employ at least some of them. All but 1 of them moved away before I was done building.

Arguments for making it static times or whatever are fine, but IMO stellaris is already not tightly balanced and trying to make it that way isn't going to lead to a better game for the majority of players.

Sloober
Apr 1, 2011

Psycho Landlord posted:

With auto-resettle as high as it was there zero point to civics like shared burdens. The change makes sense imo.

i mean it still reduces your pop consumer good upkeep by 60%

ZypherIM posted:

Yea but take this example from my current (non-beta) game: I got the ratchet refugee event which is 4 or 5 pops on a random planet. Since I try to not overbuild I suddenly had 4 unemployed pops, so I started a district (can't remember which one offhand) right away to employ at least some of them. All but 1 of them moved away before I was done building.

Arguments for making it static times or whatever are fine, but IMO stellaris is already not tightly balanced and trying to make it that way isn't going to lead to a better game for the majority of players.

personally i think district build times are still nuts early on, and also pop demotion time

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

Sloober posted:

i mean it still reduces your pop consumer good upkeep by 60%


personally i think district build times are still nuts early on, and also pop demotion time

I think they're fine except for City Districts. Specifically, concerning Ecumenopolis. To get them at any reasonable timeframe you have to build up the planet WAY before you actually get the perk.

Which is, of course, something you need to realize beforehand, which a new player might not.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸
I would like pop teleports to be a policy decision and that there be advantages and disadvantages to teleporting. lovely example: if too many pops teleport away from a planet due to unemployment your planet gets an "exodus" penalty to stability or happiness. Maybe even pop growth.

Gort
Aug 18, 2003

Good day what ho cup of tea
It is bizarre that a game set in the far future, where all the trends of automation show us that fewer and fewer actual people will be required to perform work, is rooted in some kind of early 1900s values where leaders look desperately for any way to get their people to breed faster to fill the factories

like, with today's technology a single farmer can feed multiple hundreds of people. In Stellaris it's more like every farmer being able to feed two other people.

Gort fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 7, 2021

scaterry
Sep 12, 2012

ZypherIM posted:

You just set up consumer good sell orders paired with your alloy buy orders, or if you run into a huge mineral glut you could build additional districts and disable the artisans. Maybe do it on your first colony since you can set it to being an alloy world giving you cheaper districts and more output.

Hmm, I'm not convinced. If you're rushing alloys you're running a militarized economy, so selling consumer goods is not very effective. Waiting for your first colony is sorta awkward? If only because most rushes will be up and running ten years in.

edit: Alloy Foundries still give +2 metallurgist jobs, so it's all good

Splicer posted:

I would like pop teleports to be a policy decision and that there be advantages and disadvantages to teleporting. lovely example: if too many pops teleport away from a planet due to unemployment your planet gets an "exodus" penalty to stability or happiness. Maybe even pop growth.

I think a policy would be an ideal way to balance it and explain the mechanic, especially details like new colonies not getting resettled until 5 years later. Something like:

a.) auto-resettlement encouraged, some malus
b.) default
c.) auto-resettlement discouraged, some bonus

scaterry fucked around with this message at 16:32 on May 7, 2021

Cease to Hope
Dec 12, 2011

Truga posted:

speaking of growth/pops moving, i haven't done a gestalt in 3.x yet. do they auto-move too? and how is growth handled (especially for robots), considering they mostly can't get pops via conquering

Yes, they migrate, and use migration mods just like everyone else. (There's even a little event explaining why the migration edict from the senate affects them.)

Assuming you're a vanilla or an exterminator machine civ, you can cheerfully steal everyone else's robots, which then work almost exactly like drones. (Only differences: you can't use your robomodding points on them, which seems dumb to me, and non-drone robots won't auto-migrate.) You can (and should) also buy robots from the slave market.

Your growth comes from assembly jobs, which come from your capital and from a robot assembly building. Your conquest strategy will generally be to strip every lovely planet and hab you conquer down to just 3-5 drones working a robot assembly building with police and maintenance jobs turned off, while purging/displacing any leftover bio pops. (Amalgamating bio pops - the slave job - is usually not worth it. Processing - the purge that gives you energy - is fine.) Remember that turning a planet into a machine world kills all the bio pops that aren't cyborgs (although this can be pricy).

You can try and retool the infrastructure of planets you conquer if they seem especially nice in some way. In particular, you can't build Ecumenoplises, but you can definitely make use of them! Also, Research Institutes (the non-gestalt one-per-planet lab booster building) aren't destroyed when you conquer a planet, and stack with your Planetary Supercomputer.

This strategy of putting a pop generator building, the minimum pops needed to work it, and stripping every other building/district and closing every other job is a reasonable way to use any planet as a pop farm for any civ that has pop generator buildings, not just machine empires. It's just the best (I'd say only) way to go wide as non-bio-hybrid robots.

Gort posted:

It is bizarre that a game set in the far future, where all the trends of automation show us that fewer and fewer actual people will be required to perform work, is rooted in some kind of early 1900s values where leaders look desperately for any way to get their people to breed faster to fill the factories

like, with today's technology a single farmer can feed multiple hundreds of people. In Stellaris it's more like every farmer being able to feed two other people.

It feels like the consequence of making stellaris into vicky in space. It was already something in the genre's DNA, inherited from Civ by way of MOO2.

Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 7, 2021

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

As someone who is bad at math, short on sleep, short on free time, and has baby-induced mushbrain, is there anywhere that explains this in plain english about what I need to do on a planet to hit these magic numbers? e.g. on size x have y housing and z jobs then just dont change it

Yami Fenrir posted:

I usually play authoritarian
What species traits and civics do you usually run? Any time I play Authoritarian I get a huge angry Egalitarian faction so I've been trying to move away from it but I generally prefer the authoritarian playstyle to help reduce some of the annoying aspects of the game (not because I'm a turbohitler; I'd rather be playing Egalitarian but there are too many annoying bits of game baggage that come along with it).


Gort posted:

It is bizarre that a game set in the far future, where all the trends of automation show us that fewer and fewer actual people will be required to perform work, is rooted in some kind of early 1900s values where leaders look desperately for any way to get their people to breed faster to fill the factories

like, with today's technology a single farmer can feed multiple hundreds of people. In Stellaris it's more like every farmer being able to feed two other people.
Didnt they increase worker pop output with the recent patch? Someone was posting about how there are fewer workers now. Otherwise yes I totally agree with you.

scaterry
Sep 12, 2012

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

As someone who is bad at math, short on sleep, short on free time, and has baby-induced mushbrain, is there anywhere that explains this in plain english about what I need to do on a planet to hit these magic numbers? e.g. on size x have y housing and z jobs then just dont change it

25 pops, 53 planet capacity. Build the second capital upgrade, remove excess jobs.

Mr. Crow
May 22, 2008

Snap City mayor for life
I wouldn't mind the pop resettlement nerf so much if they removed the influence costs to move pops, it's kind of a drag with the new changes though I already feel like I've been much more restricted on influence since 3.0

Seems like a bad change though, it's still really easy to have dozens of unemployed pops e.g. when you take over a planet or need to repurpose a planet or just don't want to give that species of assholes free movement; so I don't really buy "we want unemployment to be a thing"as an argument.

Mr. Crow fucked around with this message at 16:42 on May 7, 2021

cock hero flux
Apr 17, 2011



Gort posted:

It is bizarre that a game set in the far future, where all the trends of automation show us that fewer and fewer actual people will be required to perform work, is rooted in some kind of early 1900s values where leaders look desperately for any way to get their people to breed faster to fill the factories

like, with today's technology a single farmer can feed multiple hundreds of people. In Stellaris it's more like every farmer being able to feed two other people.

there's an idea for interactions with unemployment: higher levels of tech result in fewer jobs with vastly increased productivity, so your numbers go up but you end up with increasingly large numbers of unemployed pops that you must find something to do with

Horace Kinch
Aug 15, 2007

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

What species traits and civics do you usually run? Any time I play Authoritarian I get a huge angry Egalitarian faction so I've been trying to move away from it but I generally prefer the authoritarian playstyle to help reduce some of the annoying aspects of the game (not because I'm a turbohitler; I'd rather be playing Egalitarian but there are too many annoying bits of game baggage that come along with it).

Whenever I play Authoritarian the first thing I do is use the Information Quarantine edict as soon as I feel I've expanded enough. That usually does the trick.

Dirk the Average
Feb 7, 2012

"This may have been a mistake."
I had been getting into the habit of conquering a planet, disabling the jobs, and then letting the pops migrate off as they get assimilated. If they're going to make the auto-resettlement take forever, can we at least get a button that lets us forcibly auto-migrate pops? I don't want to scroll through my list of planets to figure out which ones have a few job openings, and a button that lets me pay energy and get the pops off of the planet and into a productive job immediately would be very helpful from a micro reduction perspective. As it stands, I'm happier to just raiding bombard pops because they get assigned throughout the empire rather than conquer/resettle just because it's less work on my end.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

scaterry posted:

25 pops, 53 planet capacity. Build the second capital upgrade, remove excess jobs.
Thank you. Is the "53 planet capacity" something I can see in the UI now? I havent noticed it yet but I havent been able to play that much.

And Tyler Too! posted:

Whenever I play Authoritarian the first thing I do is use the Information Quarantine edict as soon as I feel I've expanded enough. That usually does the trick.
This does not work for me. If I go monospecies with Conformists, go One Vision first, run Info Quarantine on cooldown, build Deep Space Black Sites, suppress Egalitarian faction and promote Authoritarian faction, and I forget what else I still end up with my Egalitarian faction consisting of more than 50% of my pops.

edit: Yes, I play unmodded

AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 7, 2021

Tarnop
Nov 25, 2013

Pull me out

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

Thank you. Is the "53 planet capacity" something I can see in the UI now? I havent noticed it yet but I havent been able to play that much.

It's in the tooltip when you mouse over planet size on the planet screen

HelloSailorSign
Jan 27, 2011

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:

What species traits and civics do you usually run? Any time I play Authoritarian I get a huge angry Egalitarian faction so I've been trying to move away from it but I generally prefer the authoritarian playstyle to help reduce some of the annoying aspects of the game (not because I'm a turbohitler; I'd rather be playing Egalitarian but there are too many annoying bits of game baggage that come along with it).

What bothers you about egalitarian runs? Largely the only thing that bothers me these days about democracies are the regular elections. I found you can have all xeno pops on Residence and the egalitarian faction is still largely happy, meaning you can gene mod your main species into good ruler/leader traits and the rest of the xenos into better worker/specialist pops. With shadow council, even influencing the elections isn't that bad at all and, once you get towards mid game, the xenophile +/- egalitarian faction almost always wins so you can somewhat game that system to get a preferred leader in. Then, the auto resettle option made moving pops around not a chore any more, especially with the social welfare/shared burdens/utopian abundance living styles. I can decide to cut down on my planet overabundance by just cutting all the jobs and in a year or so (with a transit hub in the system, which will also slow come new patch but it's still largely fine), everyone's moved off to a different world and the planet goes uninhabited.

Tbf the immediate switching of pops between worlds was rather unrealistic. It'd take my military fleet 300 days to fly there, but it takes the equivalent of millions of pops less than a day to get to a new planet and be productive? Transit hub and taking several months to resettle while still not equal times (looking at you, MOO2 freighter moving of populations) just feels right to me.

I'm only playing an authoritarian run at the moment to become the Empire, then it's back to egalitarian democracies woo

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

Is it I that is insane... or the rest of the world?

AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:


What species traits and civics do you usually run? Any time I play Authoritarian I get a huge angry Egalitarian faction so I've been trying to move away from it but I generally prefer the authoritarian playstyle to help reduce some of the annoying aspects of the game (not because I'm a turbohitler; I'd rather be playing Egalitarian but there are too many annoying bits of game baggage that come along with it).


I usually play with rapid breeder and one 2-point trait like intelligent as well as pop housing. I do usually give my pops full citizenship though. So I probably get an egalitarian faction anyway, they're just not unhappy with me. For civics I usually end up grapping Dip Corps and Mining Guilds.

In general I think it's less traits and more playstyles. I'm a fairly passive player that doesn't conquer much, so I don't have huge influxes of alien pops. Egalitarian is probably better for that.

feller
Jul 5, 2006


I used to also get annoyed with xenophile or egalitarian, but I really like them now and I think democracy is my favorite normal gov type currently (maybe still behind the one that gives an extra edict but very close).

I've still had a couple weird faction issues this patch, but it's a lot better than before and the only one that was a real pain was the voidborne one since 4 unhappy pops on a hab is a big deal early on.

pmchem
Jan 22, 2010


well I'm very happy that the latest 3.0.3 beta at least gives a nod to AI and that there's an AI megathread on the official forums now.

however, the latest 3.0.3 beta is still quite bad AI-wise with most of the same economic issues as 3.0.2. I made a couple bug reports and a megapost in the appropriate official thread.

Aethernet
Jan 28, 2009

This is the Captain...

Our glorious political masters have, in their wisdom, decided to form an alliance with a rag-tag bunch of freedom fighters right when the Federation has us at a tactical disadvantage. Unsurprisingly, this has resulted in the Feds firing on our vessels...

Damn you Huxley!

Grimey Drawer

cock hero flux posted:

there's an idea for interactions with unemployment: higher levels of tech result in fewer jobs with vastly increased productivity, so your numbers go up but you end up with increasingly large numbers of unemployed pops that you must find something to do with

I really like this - the start of the game would be about rapidly breeding as many people as possible to shove into the mines, while the end is about how to manage billions of useless mouths - but I can't see it meshing with any of the game's systems, as you can always throw pops at alloys or energy.

It would make for a big difference in playstyles though - authoritarians would need to practice careful slave husbandry, while egalitarians would have to continuously up consumer goods production.

Leal
Oct 2, 2009
The robots took all the jobs that even the robots are now unemployed!!

Jazerus
May 24, 2011


Aethernet posted:

I really like this - the start of the game would be about rapidly breeding as many people as possible to shove into the mines, while the end is about how to manage billions of useless mouths - but I can't see it meshing with any of the game's systems, as you can always throw pops at alloys or energy.

It would make for a big difference in playstyles though - authoritarians would need to practice careful slave husbandry, while egalitarians would have to continuously up consumer goods production.

a heavily modded game with gigastructures can go in this direction, sort of. once you're snowballing on alloys you start to produce more and more materials through structures instead of pops, and eventually employing people in mineral extraction, energy production, etc. starts to feel pretty inefficient compared to shunting them into specialist jobs, which are generally building-limited and therefore scarcer. unemployment under utopian abundance produces unity and research, which are basically always valuable, and also the logical role that would be left for biological people in a fully automated society

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

feller
Jul 5, 2006


Ideally those megastructures would be staffed so you're moving people out of the mines into nice comfy desk jobs supporting the matter decompressor

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