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
Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

QuarkJets posted:

Ok, then we're in agreement; simply looking at how many numbers are involved isn't what matters, what matters is the level of simulated detail. Yes? So would you also agree that adding Drilling to EU4 didn't really alter the degree of abstraction? Because at the end of the day it's just one more modifier on a die roll and didn't really bring the combat any closer to reality?
There are three layers of combat HP and individual ship to ship targeting (possibly individual weapon to ship targeting). Could it be less abstract? Yes. But an "abstract" version would be a flat comparison of fleet power, with armour and shields as fleet upgrades that reduce losses vs kinetics/lasers, beam weapons as positive modifiers vs battleships etc.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


Splicer posted:

There are three layers of combat HP and individual ship to ship targeting (possibly individual weapon to ship targeting). Could it be less abstract? Yes. But an "abstract" version would be a flat comparison of fleet power, with armour and shields as fleet upgrades that reduce losses vs kinetics/lasers, beam weapons as positive modifiers vs battleships etc.

What's your point? We already agree that different degrees of abstraction exist. Having two layers of combat HP would not be less abstract than having three; assigning HP totals to components that could be individually disabled when their health total falls to 0 would be less abstract.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

QuarkJets posted:

What's your point? We already agree that different degrees of abstraction exist.
Reread a few of your posts, you're not arguing what I thought you were arguing. But:

QuarkJets posted:

Having two layers of combat HP would not be less abstract than having three; assigning HP totals to components that could be individually disabled when their health total falls to 0 would be less abstract.
Assuming no other changes, two layers of combat HP is less abstract than three layers of combat HP, or else a very confusing design choice. If you're adding a third layer of combat HP that behaves differently to the other layers so as to model something the other layers do not model, that's decreased abstraction (and increased complexity). If you add a third layer that functions exactly the same as a previous layer so as to model something the other layers do not model, that's a weird choice that has no meaningful gameplay impact but is still a decrease in abstraction (and an increase in complexity). If you have two layers of HP and a bunch of modifiers based on a third, non-HP armour modifier, that's an equivalent level of abstraction. As Zurai said (if you include the context of their next sentence, which you snipped out) increased numbers, and therefore increased complexity, strongly imply decreased abstraction.

That said, it is very possible to design two otherwise equivalent systems with equivalent levels of abstraction but one having a much higher quantity of numbers and complexity. In that case the increased complexity is doing nothing useful. So I guess what I'm arguing is: More numbers/complexity imply either less abstraction OR unnecessary, wasted complexity. So if we're saying that the Stellaris model is more complex but equally abstract as other Paradox games then that begs the question, what is all that extra complexity for?

Splicer fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Dec 30, 2019

Stux
Nov 17, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 6 days!


Splicer posted:

More numbers/complexity imply either less abstraction

this is completely wrong. stellaris combat is abstract because its doing all combat calculation in the background, then it is rendering out what is happening for the 3d visualisation. theres no actual physicality to anything. to go back to my example before, in a game like eve online how a ship can evade damage either completely or partially, is physical. your ship has velocity and so does the other ship, and their turrets have a tracking speed, and these things are all constantly calculated and in flux. if you can keep angular velocity to the other ship above what a turret can track you can avoid being hit. if you are only close to it you might be getting grazed. if you physically bump into an asteroid your velocity drops to 0 and the turret can track you until you can speed up again. its also entirely relative and the other ship can act to attempt to reduce angular velocity which you can then yourself counteract by changing course. similarly with missile calculations, how and if you are damaged by them is dependant on some realtime factors. one is speed, when a missile explodes the explosion has a travel speed as it expands. very small and agile ships can go quick enough to avoid some of the explosion damage. it also depends on your signature radius, larger ships automatically take more damage from a missile as more of the explosion contacts more of the ship. then on top of this there are multiple missile types each with different explosion speeds and sizes specialised towards different ships. there are fast missiles with small explosions but lower base damage which will do more to fight off tiny frigates. on top of that a missile has an actual flight time based on how much fuel it has. the missiles range is its speed against how long it can propel itself for, and that means that a suitably fast ship against a suitably slow missile can simply outrun it until it runs out of fuel. you can purely outspeed it and run it around at point blank range, or you could have a lower top speed but already be at range and be able to get far enough away in time before it can get to you. like its insanely complex, but thats not whats making it non-abstract, its that its modelling these things.

to compare in stellaris, to evade attacks a ship has an evade stat. the tracking of a turret is a number that is simply used to modify the evasion stat of its target. the entire decision tree for how things hit is a single line formula that uses 4 stats and at no point takes into account anything actually physical within the combat. it is pure stats. even missiles are handled the exact same way. a missile just has a range and if something is within that range it can fire, and assuming no PD it will reach its target. travel time exists purely statistically to denote how many chances there are for PD to roll to hit it. theres no fuel, theres no outrunning it, what determines if it "hits" you is the same evasion calculation as with a turret. if there is PD it runs the same damage calculation against the missiles stats. a ship cannot bump into an asteroid or whatever else and become easier to hit because its stopped moving, because nothing is taking any of that into account, its just rolling stats. you could mod the game so that your corvettes are frozen in place but still have them have 90% evasion. the 3d visualisation is nothing more than a visualisation of the math. its not modelled. its not physical. its abstract. i dont know how to explain this more clearly.

like do you understand that stellaris combat could function as it does currently with a 2d eu4 ui and nothing else? it could even function with nothing more than a print out of how the combat resolved at the end! and do you understand how other games where what is happening is dependant on physical game objects dynamically interacting in real time could not be reduced to that and still function? can we at least get to understanding that?

Stux fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 30, 2019

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Stux posted:

stellaris combat is abstract because its doing all combat calculation in the background, then it is rendering out what is happening for the 3d visualisation. theres no actual physicality to anything.

This isn't what abstraction means, in this context or any other. It doesn't matter whether the calculations are in the background or not, it matters that they are part of the system.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 6 days!


Zurai posted:

This isn't what abstraction means, in this context or any other.

the thing is though check this out: its exactly what it means because its what the word "abstract" means

Guigui
Jan 19, 2010
Winner of January '10 Lux Aeterna "Best 2010 Poster" Award

Geeting back into Stellaris since the le guin update - having fun with a shared burden build... but I am finding that the user interface - namely the font - seems fuzzy and out of focus. I have the game set to my monitors native resolution and I am not using any upscaling or downscaling... Maybe I am just imagining things, but I feel the game was not so out of focus before...

Anyone experience this kind of artifacting?

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Stux posted:

the thing is though check this out: its exactly what it means because its what the word "abstract" means

Merriam Webster posted:

abstract adjective

ab·​stract | \ ab-ˈstrakt , ˈab-ˌstrakt \
Definition of abstract (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: disassociated from any specific instance
an abstract entity
b: difficult to understand : ABSTRUSE
abstract problems
c: insufficiently factual : FORMAL
possessed only an abstract right

(the other three definitions for the adjective form don't apply to this context)

Doesn't look like it to me? 1a definition, the more specific something is, the less abstract it is. Having more numbers more tightly defining background processes makes a simulation less abstract than otherwise.

Farmer Crack-Ass
Jan 2, 2001

~this is me posting irl~


Is there a pop cap on planets or do they eventually just choke as pop grows beyond the capacity to build housing and provide jobs?

Vengarr
Jun 17, 2010

Smashed before noon


Zurai posted:

This isn't what abstraction means, in this context or any other. It doesn't matter whether the calculations are in the background or not, it matters that they are part of the system.

No, that’s exactly what it means. The combat is a series of numbers being run through a formula to simulate an actual battle. It is an abstract representation.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


Zurai posted:

This isn't what abstraction means, in this context or any other.

I think that you're talking past each other. Stux is saying that the combat system is abstract because it is not a physics simulation. It does not run a simulation of kinetic projectiles being shot between N bodies moving around in 3D space; instead it uses representational ideas like simple chance to hit calculations and statically defined damage and health values. This is literally what abstraction means in the context of simulation, including game simulation.

Stux is not saying that it's abstract because the 3D representation is superfluous, but rather the 3D representation is superfluous because the combat is abstract

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



It should be noted here that the 3D animation of fights is an incomplete representation of the system rather than the actual system. I am 99% certain the game only renders a subset of weapon actions. If you watch your hull/armor/shield values on the slower speeds you can see it doesn't match up.

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Is there a pop cap on planets or do they eventually just choke as pop grows beyond the capacity to build housing and provide jobs?

Nah it's unbounded. For 'normal' sorts of populations you are practically limited by housing and jobs, so large regular planets will cap out around 100ish, with Ecumenopoleis comfortably running 200ish.

Where you really see crazy poo poo is with planets where the population is a bunch of Purge victims concentrated together. I've had more than 2000 pops jammed into one planet before.

PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 30, 2019

Stux
Nov 17, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 6 days!


Zurai posted:

(the other three definitions for the adjective form don't apply to this context)

Doesn't look like it to me? 1a definition, the more specific something is, the less abstract it is. Having more numbers more tightly defining background processes makes a simulation less abstract than otherwise.

the only thing better than merriam webstering someone is then not understanding what it is youve just pasted in

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Is there a pop cap on planets or do they eventually just choke as pop grows beyond the capacity to build housing and provide jobs?

There is no pop cap. You can force planets to stop growing/building pops and manually move pops around to where they're needed, which is what most people do I think. You can also change your policies so that unemployed pops are no longer a bad thing.

Pops will also try to move around a little bit on their own, in the form of emigration and migration pressure, but you still have to deal with the downsides of homelessness and unemployment in the meantime. Migration works on a long enough time scale but it's not efficient to rely on it

tuyop
Sep 14, 2006

Every second that we're not growing BASIL is a second wasted


Fun Shoe

So I’m in a federation and there’s a big empire next door. That empire has vassalized an empire (empire A) our federation has association status with.

So, what happens if the federation declares war on the empire that is in charge of the vassal? Do we then “break” our association status agreement with empire A?

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


That said a little bit of overcrowding does not carry much of a penalty and being able to instantly move a bunch of pops into a new colony instantly is very powerful, so I almost always institute space communism and don't restrict any pop growth until the endgame when I am filling out perfectly designed habitats and whatnot

CainsDescendant
Dec 6, 2007

Human nature

Yeah I've found I like keeping my core planets a little overcrowded with some unemployment so that I can move folks around if needed. I think most people don't because gamer ocd forces them to get rid of the red mark in the outliner as soon as it pops up

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


Speaking of pop growth I'm new to the game and have been enjoying it a lot, and have just started struggling with managing a lot of planets at once. Unemployment off and on, that sort of thing.

Is there a way to go "if you need a job, go to my Ringworld en masse" or move multiple pops as once with Resettle instead of having to find the unemployed pops manually? Or is the best I can do set the Ringworlds to the designation where they encourage immigration?

I offloaded much of that with my capital by making it an Ecumenopolis but, of course, that took a decade

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Vengarr posted:

No, that’s exactly what it means. The combat is a series of numbers being run through a formula to simulate an actual battle. It is an abstract representation.

Yes, no poo poo, all combat in everything short of actual live fire real combat where actual real currently-living people are expected to die is abstract. That isn't what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the degree of abstraction.


QuarkJets posted:

Stux is saying that the combat system is abstract because it is not a physics simulation. It does not run a simulation of kinetic projectiles being shot between N bodies moving around in 3D space; instead it uses representational ideas like simple chance to hit calculations and statically defined damage and health values. This is literally what abstraction means in the context of simulation, including game simulation.

Stux is not saying that it's abstract because the 3D representation is superfluous, but rather the 3D representation is superfluous because the combat is abstract

Again, everything in a video game including physics simulations are abstracted. I would never suggest otherwise. That combat is abstract in both Stellaris and EU4 is not debated by any person in this thread. However, the 3D representation of the combat has actually literally no bearing whatsoever on how abstract the combat is. You could receive nothing but a victory or defeat notice with no other details whatsoever and the combat would still be exactly as abstract as the current system. It would be an even worse than the current mess, but it wouldn't be any less abstract a system. The interface to that system would be more abstract, however. Is that what we're getting hung up on?

Serephina
Nov 8, 2005



God, this argument has gotten old. It's been a few days of this, let it rest ffs.

Stux
Nov 17, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 6 days!


Zurai posted:

Yes, no poo poo, all combat in everything short of actual live fire real combat where actual real currently-living people are expected to die is abstract. That isn't what is being discussed. What is being discussed is the degree of abstraction.


Again, everything in a video game including physics simulations are abstracted. I would never suggest otherwise. That combat is abstract in both Stellaris and EU4 is not debated by any person in this thread. However, the 3D representation of the combat has actually literally no bearing whatsoever on how abstract the combat is. You could receive nothing but a victory or defeat notice with no other details whatsoever and the combat would still be exactly as abstract as the current system. It would be an even worse than the current mess, but it wouldn't be any less abstract a system. The interface to that system would be more abstract, however. Is that what we're getting hung up on?

this is just embarrassing now

GunnerJ
Aug 1, 2005

Do you think this is funny?


When is the next dev diary dropping, pretty sure it's the only thing that can release us from this nightmare

Zurai
Feb 13, 2012


Yeah, you know what, my actual point in all this isn't being contested any more and I'm not getting anything but unnecessary stress on my eye-rolling muscles from attempting to discuss things with someone who thinks that insults are a good idea, so I'll bow out.

cock hero flux
Apr 17, 2011





GunnerJ posted:

When is the next dev diary dropping, pretty sure it's the only thing that can release us from this nightmare

the swedes are on extended break, it's going to be ages

hail satan

Stux
Nov 17, 2006
Probation
Can't post for 6 days!


Zurai posted:

Yeah, you know what, my actual point in all this isn't being contested any more and I'm not getting anything but unnecessary stress on my eye-rolling muscles from attempting to discuss things with someone who thinks that insults are a good idea, so I'll bow out.

love to reply to a detailed argument with "no you" and then get dunked on for not being able to read what words mean

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

It's a handshake in progress


Zurai posted:

Again, everything in a video game including physics simulations are abstracted. I would never suggest otherwise. That combat is abstract in both Stellaris and EU4 is not debated by any person in this thread. However, the 3D representation of the combat has actually literally no bearing whatsoever on how abstract the combat is.

The point is that the 3D representation has no bearing on the combat at all.

Zurai posted:

You could receive nothing but a victory or defeat notice with no other details whatsoever and the combat would still be exactly as abstract as the current system. It would be an even worse than the current mess, but it wouldn't be any less abstract a system. The interface to that system would be more abstract, however. Is that what we're getting hung up on?

No. We're not worried about the interface. We're saying that the interface is irrelevant, in fact.

We're saying that there exist multiple degrees of abstraction, and Stellaris is some number of degrees more abstract than a full physics simulation, and that EU4 is also some number of degrees more abstract than a full physics simulation. In fact, if you try to break them down, their combat systems have a similar degree of abstraction when compared to each other. They're not identical, obviously, but a number of clear similarities exist; average damage dealt per day per unit boils down to a simple formula, units automatically retreat when they take sufficient damage, etc. By contrast, range is more abstract in EU4 (artillery firing from the back row is obviously more abstract than what Stellaris does), but many other elements of combat are more similarly abstract, such as modifiers created by system features and starports acting like terrain.

e:

Zurai posted:

Yeah, you know what, my actual point in all this isn't being contested any more and I'm not getting anything but unnecessary stress on my eye-rolling muscles from attempting to discuss things with someone who thinks that insults are a good idea, so I'll bow out.

My original point was that Stellaris and EU4 have comparable levels of combat abstraction. I took your point to be a direct contestation when you said this:

Zurai posted:

This is nowhere even vaguely close to true.

Did your point change from that position at some point? Because that's what I've been consistently posting about. Maybe you misunderstood what "abstraction" means in the context of simulation?

QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Dec 30, 2019

CainsDescendant
Dec 6, 2007

Human nature

Zodack posted:

Speaking of pop growth I'm new to the game and have been enjoying it a lot, and have just started struggling with managing a lot of planets at once. Unemployment off and on, that sort of thing.

Is there a way to go "if you need a job, go to my Ringworld en masse" or move multiple pops as once with Resettle instead of having to find the unemployed pops manually? Or is the best I can do set the Ringworlds to the designation where they encourage immigration?

I offloaded much of that with my capital by making it an Ecumenopolis but, of course, that took a decade

There's a mod for that, Automatic Pop Migration. In vanilla pops will never move on their own.

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

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

CainsDescendant posted:

There's a mod for that, Automatic Pop Migration. In vanilla pops will never move on their own.

I've recently found this mod and now the game is basically unplayable without it for me.

And I don't even usually play wide empires.

Why is something like this not baseline since, IDK, literally forever?

Also shut up about the combat already, there's been enough of a pointless circlejerk as is.

When I see new posts I'd like to read relevant things instead of a few adults going "no u" over and over or whatever it is you're doing.

Yami Fenrir fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 30, 2019

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

Stux posted:

this is completely wrong. stellaris combat is abstract because its doing all combat calculation in the background, then it is rendering out what is happening for the 3d visualisation.
Indeed. Because it is a video game. And that is how videogames work. By this definition all videogames are abstract.
OK so it seems in your opinion that combat is "abstract" if it models weapons as physics objects and "not abstract" if it does not. This is a very binary way of thinking.

Stellaris ground combat is extremely abstract. You have a few units that deal damage to other units with minimal (no?) relative positioning involved at all. I think their stats are just physical damage, physical HP, morale damage, and morale HP. There's also devastation. Still pretty abstract though.

Stellaris space combat is less abstract. Each unit has a position and facing on the battlefield (which I believe is 2d and the 3d stuff is just for fancy visualisation, but I could be wrong), which dictates what weapons are in range of what ships and what so forth. Were you unaware of this? It sounds like you were. This makes it "less abstract" than ground combat. Weapon effects are not modelled as objects and are, as you said, just a die roll, but this is not the be all and end all of whether something is "abstract".

e: in Stellaris space combat positioning and targeting are not really abstracted, but to-hit mechanics are very abstracted.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Dec 30, 2019

ShadowHawk
Jun 25, 2000

The company has no assets of any significant value.


Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

Is there a pop cap on planets or do they eventually just choke as pop grows beyond the capacity to build housing and provide jobs?
Planets will stop growing if you exceed the housing limit by a certain percentage. You're most likely to hit this if you neglect a new colony by not building any housing at all, otherwise you have to be quite in the negative on available housing. I think you can still build robots in that case, though.

There's nothing stopping you from force migrating even more people onto an overcrowded planet, but you'll take further stability penalties. Since stability raises output of everything, it's generally not worth it.


The weirdest gamey exploit with overcrowding/unemployment is to get all the +pop growth due to migration bonuses (diplomacy tree, corvee system, pop trait). Then you overcrowd a few planets such that your pops try to emigrate from there to other planets you own, where you'll get a larger bonus to growth than you lose. The game is literally modelling +50% faster reproduction due to having to travel to another planet. You need to have enough spacious planets to not hit the +5 from migration cap though - the game is also perfectly happy to throw pops into the void by having -6 emigration from one planet and only +5 (max) at another.

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

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

ShadowHawk posted:

Planets will stop growing if you exceed the housing limit by a certain percentage. You're most likely to hit this if you neglect a new colony by not building any housing at all, otherwise you have to be quite in the negative on available housing. I think you can still build robots in that case, though.

There's nothing stopping you from force migrating even more people onto an overcrowded planet, but you'll take further stability penalties. Since stability raises output of everything, it's generally not worth it.


The weirdest gamey exploit with overcrowding/unemployment is to get all the +pop growth due to migration bonuses (diplomacy tree, corvee system, pop trait). Then you overcrowd a few planets such that your pops try to emigrate from there to other planets you own, where you'll get a larger bonus to growth than you lose. The game is literally modelling +50% faster reproduction due to having to travel to another planet. You need to have enough spacious planets to not hit the +5 from migration cap though - the game is also perfectly happy to throw pops into the void by having -6 emigration from one planet and only +5 (max) at another.

This is something I noticed as well - the nomadic/sedentary traits actually just pull/throw pop growth from/into the void, which is kind of funny.

Splicer
Oct 16, 2006

from hell's heart I stab at thee

ShadowHawk posted:

The weirdest gamey exploit with overcrowding/unemployment is to get all the +pop growth due to migration bonuses (diplomacy tree, corvee system, pop trait). Then you overcrowd a few planets such that your pops try to emigrate from there to other planets you own, where you'll get a larger bonus to growth than you lose. The game is literally modelling +50% faster reproduction due to having to travel to another planet.
and if the planet isn't one they like, but you have a different species who does like it, each exported blorg turns into 1.5 humans en route.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 31, 2019

Zodack
Aug 3, 2014


CainsDescendant posted:

There's a mod for that, Automatic Pop Migration. In vanilla pops will never move on their own.

Wait, so Immigaration/Emigration being a stat means... what, from other Empires, I guess?

Also, wrt mods I have Stellaris on GOG and Steam, but all my DLC is on GOG. I noticed save files and custom Empires appear for both, would Steam workshop mods also work that way?

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

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

Zodack posted:

Wait, so Immigaration/Emigration being a stat means... what, from other Empires, I guess?

Also, wrt mods I have Stellaris on GOG and Steam, but all my DLC is on GOG. I noticed save files and custom Empires appear for both, would Steam workshop mods also work that way?

Honestly, I have no idea. There's both immigration within your own empire (What CainsDescendant described), but there's also immigration pull. A lot of those modifiers are planet wide, but some (such as one of the megacorp branch office buildings and a megastructure) are empire wide, which presumably means it affects other empires.

What it actually does?

No bloody clue. I'm fairly sure it's literally never explained properly ingame how cross-empire immigration works. I tried to have an empire based on massive immigration bonuses before, too, and it barely did anything despite having migration treaties with most of the galaxy.

Gadzuko
Feb 14, 2005


Yami Fenrir posted:

Honestly, I have no idea. There's both immigration within your own empire (What CainsDescendant described), but there's also immigration pull. A lot of those modifiers are planet wide, but some (such as one of the megacorp branch office buildings and a megastructure) are empire wide, which presumably means it affects other empires.

What it actually does?

No bloody clue. I'm fairly sure it's literally never explained properly ingame how cross-empire immigration works. I tried to have an empire based on massive immigration bonuses before, too, and it barely did anything despite having migration treaties with most of the galaxy.

I'm fairly sure cross empire migration isn't modeled at all, unless migration treaties provide a growth bonus. There's no such thing as real pop migration any more. You just lose growth from emigration and gain it from immigration, but actual pops don't move from one place to another. As far as I know migration treaties just increase the variety of pops available. The immigration system has been... dare I say... abstracted

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

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

Gadzuko posted:

I'm fairly sure cross empire migration isn't modeled at all, unless migration treaties provide a growth bonus. There's no such thing as real pop migration any more. You just lose growth from emigration and gain it from immigration, but actual pops don't move from one place to another. As far as I know migration treaties just increase the variety of pops available. The immigration system has been... dare I say... abstracted

But then, what are empire wide immgration pull bonuses for? They have to be pulling them from other empires, right?

... this system is so arcane. I almost prefer the old version, as annoying as it was.

Gyshall
Feb 24, 2009

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


Two pages of about Stellaris Combat abstraction and no actual news? Thought for a minute swedish Christmas was over early

DasNeonLicht
Dec 25, 2005

"...and the light is on and burning brightly for the masses."

Fallen Rib

CainsDescendant posted:

There's a mod for that, Automatic Pop Migration. In vanilla pops will never move on their own.

Really? I assumed that if overcrowding gets bad enough, emigration would exceed population growth and give me a negative population growth value.

My core sector worlds just got full and I was hoping this is what would happen. I'm playing a liberal, freedom-of-movement / no-population-controls empire — am I just going to have to deal with unemployement and overcrowding in my capital until the end of the game?

Yami Fenrir
Jan 25, 2015

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

DasNeonLicht posted:

Really? I assumed that if overcrowding gets bad enough, emigration would exceed population growth and give me a negative population growth value.

My core sector worlds just got full and I was hoping this is what would happen. I'm playing a liberal, freedom-of-movement / no-population-controls empire — am I just going to have to deal with unemployement and overcrowding in my capital until the end of the game?

yes.

Enjoy the unemployment benefit events! And the crime! It's not miserable at all.

I like the job system but this one part makes me miserable late game.

This is why I always have resettlement on, even on liberal empires.

It's simply a necessity.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort



Yeah I would love some actual news about the game and I apologize for my role in the derail - I just want the combat to be less of a shitshow. I honestly will probably speak with my wallet about the next DLC just like I did with EU4 because, as I am sure we can all agree, the base game needs serious love, so before I'll spend any money on the game again I'll wait for an announcement that they are going to look into the jank before I spend more more money.

lmao at Stux getting probated after I called him out for being an rear end in a top hat and he decided to continue to be an rear end in a top hat rather than keeping it about the discussion rather than about the posters in the discussion,

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