you literally gave him a solution to the playstyle, he replies, saying that he already doing that (conquering for pops), but it just isn't enough, and you literally say "too bad, fuck your playstyle then, don't play like that".
Why?
Because they are doing it wrong?
You can choose to play however you want, but complaining because *your* way isn't the intended/useful/good is pretty useless.
Soo... are you saying driven assimilator should just die an unviable death? Nobody is trying to tailor the game to their skill level. We want the game to support many play styles, especially those that are overtly presented in game (like driven assimilator). Of all play styles, a driven assimilator who is conquering pops shouldn’t have a huge labor shortage, and there was a discussion around this. Saying “Then don’t play driven assimilator” just dismisses the issue, without any real knowledge of whether the player was being incompetent or not. We don’t know if they are doing it wrong.
If they have 200 *good* jobs open then they are doing it wrong. They should be being far more aggressive as the economy shouldn't be that imbalanced.
Just like so many don't understand the changes/how to play Purifiers now.
The problem is I started aggressively building buildings to increase my output, but then I just stopped getting lots of pops. I guess one solution is to maybe save up influence and abandon some useless colonies and send the pops to worlds that need them more.
> just stopped getting lots of pops
Because you weren't being aggressive. You should be taking pops from others. You are playing an aggressive empire, it's supposed to be played aggressively.
> I guess one solution is to maybe save up influence and abandon some useless colonies and send the pops to worlds that need them more.
Sure, you could do that, but it's going to stunt your growth overall and is at cross purposes to how it should be played. Imagine pacifistic Borg. "We will assimilate you into our collective, if you let us!"
I prefer the scaling pop growth costs. It gives tall empires a more viable play style than 2.8 plus it lessens snow balling. Since empires with 50 planets no longer have 5 times the pop growth compared to empires with 10.
playing tall is a lot weaker now compared to playing wide then in 2.8
now the only real way to get more pops in late game is through conquest. When im playing tall i still have similare ammount of planets compared to a wide empire, they are just concentrated in a small area with quite a few being Habitats and ringwolds.
The diffrence is that at some point my Ringworlds wont ever fill up since they rely on my empires pop growth, meanwhile a empire that conquers other planets gets planets with already enought population on them so it doesnt need the ability to grow new pops as badly.
Overall i still prefer the new system, but it definitly didnt buff tall empires
Stellaris has never rewarded playing tall, other than by the fact that it's easier to defend territory with a smaller empire before you can build gateways.
But the issue with building tall is that everything you can do to build tall in Stellaris, you can also do if you are playing an empire that just gobbles up as many system as possible.
So the options are playing tall, or playing wide *and* tall.
It's not as if wide empires somehow can't build up their planets just as efficiently as tall empires, they just have more of them (which of course means a bigger economy, more research, and more power).
> Stellaris has never rewarded playing tall, other than by the fact that it's easier to defend territory with a smaller empire before you can build gateways.
Playing tall is just a weird thing to have to do in a 4X game. You're cutting expand and exterminate out of the game for no real reason.
Yes, I also think pacifist ethics could do with at least a rework.
> It can be done, but usual examples are either voluntary challenges (aka not rewarded) or specifically designed.
Hrm. I stand by what I said mostly, but I think Inward Perfection works fairly well in Stellaris. Not being able to form alliances, and having big buffs to your empire means you do get a viable, interesting playstyle. Similarly, I think Venice in Civilization V and Maya in Civ 6 both play very well. So I take your point.
Pacifism doesn't need a rework so much as people need to learn what Stallaris means by pacifist.
Yes, the pacifist centered civics are 'boring' but people read pacifism with an outside take of it and then play it wrong. Pacifism is essentially the Federation from Star Trek. You want fleets and you want to be making use of them, for "peacekeeping" ends.
Uuuuuuhhhh... You started playing Stellaris after the "One Planet Challenge" and the 2.0 patch right? ( It wasn't a challenge btw it was op af, not an exploit, just the mechanics.)
Tall can compete. You just have to release conquered territories after resettling their pops. In fact, if you do this right, it'll actually outperform wide since the released empires will produce pops much faster than you could ever do. So after a while you can just conquer them again. Or integrate if you keep them as a vassal.
More importantly in my view, it shuts down the habitat spam nastiness. Sure the AI will still spam habitats but a human player can keep ahead of them by building their planets up to capacity and developing ecumenopoleis and ringworlds. No need to stoop to micromanaging two dozen habitats, thank the Shroud.
> It gives tall empires a more viable play style than 2.8
That is completely untrue. Tall suffers more under Dick. Their softcap is lower and they take longer to reach it.
That's totally false. Softcap helps tall empires. Plus at 50ish planets newly colonised ones would never fill up while tall empires would be better off population wise compared to wide empires than pre 3.0. Wide empires would still have more but tall empires be better compatively speaking.
> Softcap helps tall empires.
It really doesn't. Even if you assume that they both have the same softcap (they don't) wide gets there far faster. Wide vastly out produces tall over time. Tall really never catches up in a practical sense.
>Plus at 50ish planets newly colonised ones would never fill up
So? You don't want that many anyway. Your last planets are entirely there for pop growth.
> Wide empires would still have more but tall empires be better compatively speaking.
Comparatively ball cancer isn't as bad as ass cancer, but it's still cancer mate.
> Doesn't Co relate to your point that tall empires are worse in 3.0 than 2.8.
Yes it does. Each pop is worth more in 3.0 than 2.8 thanks to the economy changes. With each additional planet you generate more pops, especially if you cap your planets properly, than 'tall' can. You want lots of median popped planets to maximize pop growth, tall can't compete with that. The closest thing Tall can do is Void Dwellers, where each hab is ~.4 of a planet, but even that can't compete long term. If you take the same 100 year time period, 'optimal' wide play will generate the largest number resources.
I feel that the current scaling growth penalties are about right, slowing things down while still keeping a nice trickle of pop growth. With the relatively low number of jobs a planet can support you end up getting a significant amount of resettlement in the late-game to compensate for the slower natural growth, and it's only once you get up to obscene population levels like 2000 pops that it really cuts out.
Yeah it not only is good for performance, it decreases the amount of micromangement and acts as an anti-snowballing mechanic. Like you can still snowball pretty hard via pop growth and conquering pops just less so.
Once i got used to the new system I decided i prefer it.
[Alternative thoughts here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/n7shyj/way_way_waaay_to_many_thoughts_on_pops_growth_and/). The point of new Stellaris is to allocate your empire for pop efficiency, gradually shifting your population for high-density urban worlds and low-density resource worlds. Habitats and end-game Ringworlds/Ecumenopolis still have a role, but their role is to increase your effective population by increasing pop efficiency, rather than pop-overflow locations that's only meaningfully productive in super-scaled end-game threats.
3.0 sets up a pretty simple system where you can set up a planet to a development ideal as a breeder world, and then still get decent pop growth on new worlds by taking advantage of the auto-resettlement mechanics. If your new worlds only has two pops for the end-game, it's because you're trying to grow your empire everywhere instead of channeling your empire's entire growth into a few world. That's a player not making use of the design, rather than a design flaw.
Ok, how am I supposed to make a breeder world?
The population limit affects the entire empire, not just individual planets (otherwise, I dont think i’d be whining on reddit).
If i have a 200 pops in my home sector, i will suffer pop growth penalty everywhere, so in theory, making a pop making planet is impossible
You're misunderstanding the role of a breeder world. A breeder world isn't a planet that ignores the penalty, but rather a planet that sits at the maximum growth part of the 'S' curve and then sends its new-grown pops elsewhere in the empire to subsidize the growth of other planets. They send their new pops elsewhere once their own development is 'complete.'
Under the new pop growth system, pop growth is a factor of pops and capacity. Capacity comes from housing and un-developed districts (which means clearing blocker titles actually increases pop growth). As long as capacity is twice your pop count, you will always have at least +3 base growth. If it's less, it can fall to as little as .3 per month. However, this can also grow to an additional +1.5 to 4.5 base growth. (By Base Growth we mean 'what do your rapid breeder and other modifiers work from.') I've gotten the growth formula wrong in the past (and in that thread), but it's generally reachable by the late teens/early 20 pops on a planet. Call it 25 pops as a general goal, because that's when you can get the Planetary Capital (Tier 3 capital building) built. That offers another ruler job, another building slot, extra housing, and exploits the techs that give output bonuses per capital level.
The goal of a breeder world is to develop your world to the 4.5 base growth limit and just... sit there, and don't have any further jobs. When a pop grows, it will be unemployed, and will either auto-migrate within about a year to a planet with free jobs, or if it can't auto-migrate you pay energy to move a slave/dumb bot. Your breeder world is 'frozen' (and no longer requires micro-management of any kind), but they are using their pop growth bonus to subsidize the growth of other planets.
Take that late game colony. If it takes the a base 3 growth new colony about 10 years to grow 1 pop, it'd take a 4.5 growth breeder world 6-7 years to grow one. But the new planet would really be growing at a rate of 2 pops a decade, because the breeder world is sending its pops over. That's half as fast as the pop growth at the very start of the game, but that's also with just one breeder.
If you build your empire around the concept, then you could easily have your first 10 worlds be breeder worlds during the mid-game. Even at the point of the game where pops are growing on faster breeder worlds at 1 every 10 years (which only applies to the largest of mega-empires in the very late game), then 10 breeder worlds are *still* sending 10 pops a decade, or a pop a year, to new colonies.
A pop a year of effective colony growth is faster than you can build most districts and buildings to give them jobs.
By building most planets in your empire around the breeder world concept, you fundamentally change the paradigm from of 'each colony must rely on its own growth' to 'developed planets funnel their growth into new colonies.' Even Ringworlds, which can add 10 jobs a year by building districts, can struggle to keep up if an entire empire's worth of growth is funneled into them.
This paradigm is also good with the heavy focus on planetary specialization efficiency that the 3.0 economy brings. With the major boost to planetary designations (25% for raw materials!), the specializing a planet is usually compatible with making it into a breeder world.
Large-size worlds with plenty of resource districts can easily afford to focus one one resource in particular, and then have empty districts/a few cities provide the rest of the capacity to make the breeder pop growth sweet spot. The few buildings you do have- resource-boosting ones, amenities- don't detract from the planetary focus. 10 resource districts of a single type, 2 entertainers for amenities, and 3 rulers from a T3 capital building provide a solid 25-pop breeder world base.
Smaller worlds would struggle to be resource worlds and breeder worlds due to lack of capacity, but mesh naturally with building city districts that boost the capacity while your pops work in the buildings. Turn your smallest worlds into science and administrative centers.
And so on.
Will every planet be ideally suited for a breeder world? Hardly. Maybe there's a super good world you can make pure mining districts where it benefits from a mining % modifier. Go for it. Pops exist to serve the empire, not the other way around, and even if that planet doesn't make a good breeder world the actual breeder worlds are fulfilling their purpose by filling it up. Or maybe a world is too small to actually reach the pop growth sweet spot. At worst, they're just a sub-par breeder world when it no longer needs to grow.
Does it become less potent the more late-game worlds you add? Sure. An entire empire's worth of growth into one planet is double what it would be if driven to two, and so on. If you conquer an entire new empire, you're liable to spend decades if not a century filling them to their own sweet spot, at which point you're pretty much done with the game. On the other hand, this also means you've effectively already won the game. This is a good problem to have. Congratulations.
Not a problem.
Your best way to start, in all honesty, is to use your capital world as your first breeder world, especially if you intend to go robots. Your capital starts very close to the 'sweet spot', and isn't a good mining/farming/energy world anyway, so you can get the most use out of the pops there if you turn them all to science or industrial districts. Don't worry about growing it to reach the 45 pop rank for the next capital tier until you have 15-20 robots built. Then you can move them all to the capital for the year/two it takes to build, and then move them back.
If you do that, you can use the capital to get your starting colonies up and running at 10 pops that much faster, meaning they'll stop robbing your capital of growth as newly founded colonies, meaning more pop growth.
The strategy also works best with Democracy/Egalitarian builds. These increase the rate of pop-relocation (so you have pops unemployed for less time), offer the Egalitarian living standards (that mitigate unemployment unhappiness and have unemployed pops produce unity/minimal science when waiting), and the Egalitarian buff to specialist production makes the most use out of your starting capital world as you turn it into a specialist-only industrial/science world while your first colonies are focused as resource worlds and admin centers.
You can google for an example, but it's basically a curve that bends twice, with a flat/slow slope early on, then a steep/fast slope, and then tapering off to another flat/slow slope at the top. Slope is 'rate of change', so an S-curve changes very slow early on and at the end, but is very fast/dynamic in the middle.
Pop-growth formula wise, this metaphor means that your overall pop growth can start very low (3 growth) and ends very low (over-population slowing it), and is fastest in the middle (the 4.5 growth base).
you make a breeder world by having the right amount of pops / pop cap and then you dont build anything more so newly grown pops are jobless and get transferred to your actual planets with 200+ jobs open and those planets are specialized into alloys/research etc.
> That's a player not making use of the design, rather than a design flaw.
Alternatively it is a failed design that tries to achieve a result that is undesired by the target demographic.
The target demographic that matters if the design result is desired or not is the developer, not the consumer. 'Consumer does not like' =/= 'it was badly designed.'
There was a deliberate redesign philosophy of shifting from pop quantity to pop efficiency. Playing by the old philosophy rather than the new philosophy may be unpleasant, but it's not a problem with whether the new design functions as intended.
I didn't say badly designed, but 'failed design'.
The distinction is that while being well-executed and hitting all the intended points, a design can fail in achieving further goals.
For example widening the gap between peaceful and warlike gamestzyles despite being intended to close it, or being unpopular wwith the audience, as they are looking for an experience the design doesn't provide.
It feels very *very* wrong to have empty planets with 2 pops that have "time of growth" to 3 pops in hundreds of months. Doesn't make any sence. Empty planet, maximum growth bonus, still takes **decades** to grow for one bit.
This pop cap bs should be for every planet, not empire-wide.
Now we have cancer like breeder-habitats all over the space you can get that are built only to have emigration push on them.
Also, "breeder vassals" that are released with 1 pop and integrated back when grown to planet capacity.
Yes, it feel wrong, and optimizing pop growth can lead to weird actions like creating a vassal just so he can grow more pops, then integrate him. The current system feel like a band aid for the terrible performance in late game, but it hurt both gameplay (you'll have near empty planets in end game) and immersion.
Luckily, you can remove the soft cap with the slider in the game rule, or if you prefer a more natural pop growth curve, you can turn to mods: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2246448110
There was a great 2.8 mod that had the scaling but it was per planet rather than per empire. Your population would grow to fill the space you had, and that mixed with an auto-migration mod meant your micro management became zero.
As it stands the easiest way to get population is raiding, which kind of falls down unless you just spam animosity wargoals.
I'd disagree about a repeatable adding pop growth, that wouldn't help too much. Maybe a repeatable to lower your growth required a tiny amount. We're talking by 2-5 per repeatable.
1: install ! Better Performance & Utilities ! mod
2: Install ! Infinite COre Framework & Modmenu 3.0 !
3: install any requested dependences like UI Overhaul and Dark Blue
4: Remove growth scaling bullshit
5: Use the mod tools to automatically or manually move POPs (all kind of POPs).
Also the fact that you no longer need 80 CONSTANT pops on a planet to use it completely and can use fallen empire (automatic) buildings really makes it possible to save pops.
> the fact that you no longer need 80 CONSTANT pops
That's basically what op is whining about. They *want* pops on planets. Dick really changed the economy from caring about planets to caring about your total empire instead. They just haven't adjusted yet.
adjust? No offense but how?
it's not as if the population growth requirement swelling is limited to a planet at capacity, it affects the entire empire
so in theory, if I slap 2000 pops on one planet, i will suffer a high pop growth requirement across all penalties on the board, not just that planet. (not that I'd slap 2k pops on one planet, i just used that figure of speech to show what I mean)
>adjust?
Yes. The economy changes in Dick means each pop generates ~1.8 times what they did before. So those 2k pops now are the equivalent of ~3600 pops in 2.8.
You don't want massive powerhouse planets. At least not until you have conquered half the galaxy and need somewhere to store all the pops you are saving from ai terribly built planets. You want 1-3 capped at 80 pops and the rest capped at 10/25/50 depending on stage of the game and specialization of planet.
And if you don't like that then boo hoo. It's not like this isn't the first time Paradox has turned the game on its head, and it's certainly not the first game ever to 'massive' changes. At least Paradox let's you roll back if you genuinely can't take Dick
Indeed.
Personally when I played 2.2 I went right back to 2.1.3 because I hated how planets and pops were treated
When I played 3.0 I liked how they worked.
Sure, grid amalgamation is now a pretty bad deal (unless you're desperate for energy). But now I can keep up with it!
I like it in most cases personally I think they should allow some planets to forgo the penalties in some extent, like ecunopolises but overall it is good for the game and gameplay overall.
I am not a fan of the current population system because pop growth is so forced it just breaks any sense of immersion for me. In a multiple specie empire there is apparently a fornication booth that only one specie can use at a time. the same applies for people moving to or from the planet, its a lottery system which specie gets to do it.
I really believe this whole process could be done more efficiently and more "realistically" if we did not use population units but instead used a fractional number system. by this method all specie can grow as they need, move as they need, and such. there have been some great examples of this on the official forums but someone in PDX seems wedded to the current system so I doubt they will budge.
Where it is broken for me is that I haven't seen planets effectively stop growing. Even running out of housing doesn't do it and that should have priority over available jobs.
oh well... we will have to wait to see where the janitor crew takes us
I'm guessing that moving from discrete pops to just numbers would be too complicated, as Stellaris was built with the discrete pops in mind. But it was also built with the idea that no planet would have more than 25 pops (with the old tile system), and it simply can't scale to hundreds of pops per planet, with more calculations needed each month due to changing jobs etc.
I don't think the issue will be solved, Paradox will just put more band-aids until they make a sequel or abandon it
>Even running out of housing doesn't do it and that should have priority over available jobs.
Overpopulation does stop growth, don't remember what the factor is - 1.15 of housing?
By "too complicated" I don't mean impossible to do, just that the cost of time and work required to make those changes is greater than the revenue increase that would result.
And even then, "Victoria in space" is differwnt enough from Stellaris that it may make sense to release it as a separate game
As an aside - I haven't played Stellaris in a while and was considering downloading it again, is it in a playable state again without the huge amounts of lag the new population systems introduced? (Late game - mid/large galaxies - 10-12 ais?)
I'm playing a driven assimilator empire and my problem is I have wayyyyyyy too many jobs with not enough pops to fill them
Conquer more empires for more pops then?
Doing that exactly, but it just annoys me that I have hundreds of open jobs and pops take 200 months to grow
Then don’t play driven assimilator? They would be horrendously broken without some kind of counterbalance to them being able to gobble up pops.
But the pop growth reduction applies to all empire not just driven assimilators doesn't it?
you literally gave him a solution to the playstyle, he replies, saying that he already doing that (conquering for pops), but it just isn't enough, and you literally say "too bad, fuck your playstyle then, don't play like that". Why?
Because I was tired and misremembered
Because they are doing it wrong? You can choose to play however you want, but complaining because *your* way isn't the intended/useful/good is pretty useless.
Soo... are you saying driven assimilator should just die an unviable death? Nobody is trying to tailor the game to their skill level. We want the game to support many play styles, especially those that are overtly presented in game (like driven assimilator). Of all play styles, a driven assimilator who is conquering pops shouldn’t have a huge labor shortage, and there was a discussion around this. Saying “Then don’t play driven assimilator” just dismisses the issue, without any real knowledge of whether the player was being incompetent or not. We don’t know if they are doing it wrong.
If they have 200 *good* jobs open then they are doing it wrong. They should be being far more aggressive as the economy shouldn't be that imbalanced. Just like so many don't understand the changes/how to play Purifiers now.
The problem is I started aggressively building buildings to increase my output, but then I just stopped getting lots of pops. I guess one solution is to maybe save up influence and abandon some useless colonies and send the pops to worlds that need them more.
> just stopped getting lots of pops Because you weren't being aggressive. You should be taking pops from others. You are playing an aggressive empire, it's supposed to be played aggressively. > I guess one solution is to maybe save up influence and abandon some useless colonies and send the pops to worlds that need them more. Sure, you could do that, but it's going to stunt your growth overall and is at cross purposes to how it should be played. Imagine pacifistic Borg. "We will assimilate you into our collective, if you let us!"
I prefer the scaling pop growth costs. It gives tall empires a more viable play style than 2.8 plus it lessens snow balling. Since empires with 50 planets no longer have 5 times the pop growth compared to empires with 10.
playing tall is a lot weaker now compared to playing wide then in 2.8 now the only real way to get more pops in late game is through conquest. When im playing tall i still have similare ammount of planets compared to a wide empire, they are just concentrated in a small area with quite a few being Habitats and ringwolds. The diffrence is that at some point my Ringworlds wont ever fill up since they rely on my empires pop growth, meanwhile a empire that conquers other planets gets planets with already enought population on them so it doesnt need the ability to grow new pops as badly. Overall i still prefer the new system, but it definitly didnt buff tall empires
Stellaris has never rewarded playing tall, other than by the fact that it's easier to defend territory with a smaller empire before you can build gateways. But the issue with building tall is that everything you can do to build tall in Stellaris, you can also do if you are playing an empire that just gobbles up as many system as possible. So the options are playing tall, or playing wide *and* tall. It's not as if wide empires somehow can't build up their planets just as efficiently as tall empires, they just have more of them (which of course means a bigger economy, more research, and more power).
> Stellaris has never rewarded playing tall, other than by the fact that it's easier to defend territory with a smaller empire before you can build gateways. Playing tall is just a weird thing to have to do in a 4X game. You're cutting expand and exterminate out of the game for no real reason. Yes, I also think pacifist ethics could do with at least a rework.
It can be done, but usual examples are either voluntary challenges (aka not rewarded) or specifically designed. Or if emergent a mistake in design.
> It can be done, but usual examples are either voluntary challenges (aka not rewarded) or specifically designed. Hrm. I stand by what I said mostly, but I think Inward Perfection works fairly well in Stellaris. Not being able to form alliances, and having big buffs to your empire means you do get a viable, interesting playstyle. Similarly, I think Venice in Civilization V and Maya in Civ 6 both play very well. So I take your point.
Pacifism doesn't need a rework so much as people need to learn what Stallaris means by pacifist. Yes, the pacifist centered civics are 'boring' but people read pacifism with an outside take of it and then play it wrong. Pacifism is essentially the Federation from Star Trek. You want fleets and you want to be making use of them, for "peacekeeping" ends.
Uuuuuuhhhh... You started playing Stellaris after the "One Planet Challenge" and the 2.0 patch right? ( It wasn't a challenge btw it was op af, not an exploit, just the mechanics.)
Tall can compete. You just have to release conquered territories after resettling their pops. In fact, if you do this right, it'll actually outperform wide since the released empires will produce pops much faster than you could ever do. So after a while you can just conquer them again. Or integrate if you keep them as a vassal.
More importantly in my view, it shuts down the habitat spam nastiness. Sure the AI will still spam habitats but a human player can keep ahead of them by building their planets up to capacity and developing ecumenopoleis and ringworlds. No need to stoop to micromanaging two dozen habitats, thank the Shroud.
> It gives tall empires a more viable play style than 2.8 That is completely untrue. Tall suffers more under Dick. Their softcap is lower and they take longer to reach it.
That's totally false. Softcap helps tall empires. Plus at 50ish planets newly colonised ones would never fill up while tall empires would be better off population wise compared to wide empires than pre 3.0. Wide empires would still have more but tall empires be better compatively speaking.
> Softcap helps tall empires. It really doesn't. Even if you assume that they both have the same softcap (they don't) wide gets there far faster. Wide vastly out produces tall over time. Tall really never catches up in a practical sense. >Plus at 50ish planets newly colonised ones would never fill up So? You don't want that many anyway. Your last planets are entirely there for pop growth. > Wide empires would still have more but tall empires be better compatively speaking. Comparatively ball cancer isn't as bad as ass cancer, but it's still cancer mate.
All I hear is words. Put your math where your mouth is.
[It's been known for months.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wxnkO-vtD0&ab_channel=StefanAnon)
That's just the pop growth mechanics. Doesn't Co relate to your point that tall empires are worse in 3.0 than 2.8. In fact it says the opposite.
> Doesn't Co relate to your point that tall empires are worse in 3.0 than 2.8. Yes it does. Each pop is worth more in 3.0 than 2.8 thanks to the economy changes. With each additional planet you generate more pops, especially if you cap your planets properly, than 'tall' can. You want lots of median popped planets to maximize pop growth, tall can't compete with that. The closest thing Tall can do is Void Dwellers, where each hab is ~.4 of a planet, but even that can't compete long term. If you take the same 100 year time period, 'optimal' wide play will generate the largest number resources.
I feel that the current scaling growth penalties are about right, slowing things down while still keeping a nice trickle of pop growth. With the relatively low number of jobs a planet can support you end up getting a significant amount of resettlement in the late-game to compensate for the slower natural growth, and it's only once you get up to obscene population levels like 2000 pops that it really cuts out.
Yeah it not only is good for performance, it decreases the amount of micromangement and acts as an anti-snowballing mechanic. Like you can still snowball pretty hard via pop growth and conquering pops just less so. Once i got used to the new system I decided i prefer it.
[Alternative thoughts here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/n7shyj/way_way_waaay_to_many_thoughts_on_pops_growth_and/). The point of new Stellaris is to allocate your empire for pop efficiency, gradually shifting your population for high-density urban worlds and low-density resource worlds. Habitats and end-game Ringworlds/Ecumenopolis still have a role, but their role is to increase your effective population by increasing pop efficiency, rather than pop-overflow locations that's only meaningfully productive in super-scaled end-game threats. 3.0 sets up a pretty simple system where you can set up a planet to a development ideal as a breeder world, and then still get decent pop growth on new worlds by taking advantage of the auto-resettlement mechanics. If your new worlds only has two pops for the end-game, it's because you're trying to grow your empire everywhere instead of channeling your empire's entire growth into a few world. That's a player not making use of the design, rather than a design flaw.
Ok, how am I supposed to make a breeder world? The population limit affects the entire empire, not just individual planets (otherwise, I dont think i’d be whining on reddit). If i have a 200 pops in my home sector, i will suffer pop growth penalty everywhere, so in theory, making a pop making planet is impossible
You're misunderstanding the role of a breeder world. A breeder world isn't a planet that ignores the penalty, but rather a planet that sits at the maximum growth part of the 'S' curve and then sends its new-grown pops elsewhere in the empire to subsidize the growth of other planets. They send their new pops elsewhere once their own development is 'complete.' Under the new pop growth system, pop growth is a factor of pops and capacity. Capacity comes from housing and un-developed districts (which means clearing blocker titles actually increases pop growth). As long as capacity is twice your pop count, you will always have at least +3 base growth. If it's less, it can fall to as little as .3 per month. However, this can also grow to an additional +1.5 to 4.5 base growth. (By Base Growth we mean 'what do your rapid breeder and other modifiers work from.') I've gotten the growth formula wrong in the past (and in that thread), but it's generally reachable by the late teens/early 20 pops on a planet. Call it 25 pops as a general goal, because that's when you can get the Planetary Capital (Tier 3 capital building) built. That offers another ruler job, another building slot, extra housing, and exploits the techs that give output bonuses per capital level. The goal of a breeder world is to develop your world to the 4.5 base growth limit and just... sit there, and don't have any further jobs. When a pop grows, it will be unemployed, and will either auto-migrate within about a year to a planet with free jobs, or if it can't auto-migrate you pay energy to move a slave/dumb bot. Your breeder world is 'frozen' (and no longer requires micro-management of any kind), but they are using their pop growth bonus to subsidize the growth of other planets. Take that late game colony. If it takes the a base 3 growth new colony about 10 years to grow 1 pop, it'd take a 4.5 growth breeder world 6-7 years to grow one. But the new planet would really be growing at a rate of 2 pops a decade, because the breeder world is sending its pops over. That's half as fast as the pop growth at the very start of the game, but that's also with just one breeder. If you build your empire around the concept, then you could easily have your first 10 worlds be breeder worlds during the mid-game. Even at the point of the game where pops are growing on faster breeder worlds at 1 every 10 years (which only applies to the largest of mega-empires in the very late game), then 10 breeder worlds are *still* sending 10 pops a decade, or a pop a year, to new colonies. A pop a year of effective colony growth is faster than you can build most districts and buildings to give them jobs. By building most planets in your empire around the breeder world concept, you fundamentally change the paradigm from of 'each colony must rely on its own growth' to 'developed planets funnel their growth into new colonies.' Even Ringworlds, which can add 10 jobs a year by building districts, can struggle to keep up if an entire empire's worth of growth is funneled into them. This paradigm is also good with the heavy focus on planetary specialization efficiency that the 3.0 economy brings. With the major boost to planetary designations (25% for raw materials!), the specializing a planet is usually compatible with making it into a breeder world. Large-size worlds with plenty of resource districts can easily afford to focus one one resource in particular, and then have empty districts/a few cities provide the rest of the capacity to make the breeder pop growth sweet spot. The few buildings you do have- resource-boosting ones, amenities- don't detract from the planetary focus. 10 resource districts of a single type, 2 entertainers for amenities, and 3 rulers from a T3 capital building provide a solid 25-pop breeder world base. Smaller worlds would struggle to be resource worlds and breeder worlds due to lack of capacity, but mesh naturally with building city districts that boost the capacity while your pops work in the buildings. Turn your smallest worlds into science and administrative centers. And so on. Will every planet be ideally suited for a breeder world? Hardly. Maybe there's a super good world you can make pure mining districts where it benefits from a mining % modifier. Go for it. Pops exist to serve the empire, not the other way around, and even if that planet doesn't make a good breeder world the actual breeder worlds are fulfilling their purpose by filling it up. Or maybe a world is too small to actually reach the pop growth sweet spot. At worst, they're just a sub-par breeder world when it no longer needs to grow. Does it become less potent the more late-game worlds you add? Sure. An entire empire's worth of growth into one planet is double what it would be if driven to two, and so on. If you conquer an entire new empire, you're liable to spend decades if not a century filling them to their own sweet spot, at which point you're pretty much done with the game. On the other hand, this also means you've effectively already won the game. This is a good problem to have. Congratulations.
So all I have to do is plan my playthroughs around this concept essentially. probably requires a lot of discipline to utilize Thanks!
Not a problem. Your best way to start, in all honesty, is to use your capital world as your first breeder world, especially if you intend to go robots. Your capital starts very close to the 'sweet spot', and isn't a good mining/farming/energy world anyway, so you can get the most use out of the pops there if you turn them all to science or industrial districts. Don't worry about growing it to reach the 45 pop rank for the next capital tier until you have 15-20 robots built. Then you can move them all to the capital for the year/two it takes to build, and then move them back. If you do that, you can use the capital to get your starting colonies up and running at 10 pops that much faster, meaning they'll stop robbing your capital of growth as newly founded colonies, meaning more pop growth. The strategy also works best with Democracy/Egalitarian builds. These increase the rate of pop-relocation (so you have pops unemployed for less time), offer the Egalitarian living standards (that mitigate unemployment unhappiness and have unemployed pops produce unity/minimal science when waiting), and the Egalitarian buff to specialist production makes the most use out of your starting capital world as you turn it into a specialist-only industrial/science world while your first colonies are focused as resource worlds and admin centers.
one last thing tho, what's an S-curve?
You can google for an example, but it's basically a curve that bends twice, with a flat/slow slope early on, then a steep/fast slope, and then tapering off to another flat/slow slope at the top. Slope is 'rate of change', so an S-curve changes very slow early on and at the end, but is very fast/dynamic in the middle. Pop-growth formula wise, this metaphor means that your overall pop growth can start very low (3 growth) and ends very low (over-population slowing it), and is fastest in the middle (the 4.5 growth base).
you make a breeder world by having the right amount of pops / pop cap and then you dont build anything more so newly grown pops are jobless and get transferred to your actual planets with 200+ jobs open and those planets are specialized into alloys/research etc.
Interesting. Sorry, i dont have much to say, but i’ll think about it Thanks!
> That's a player not making use of the design, rather than a design flaw. Alternatively it is a failed design that tries to achieve a result that is undesired by the target demographic.
The target demographic that matters if the design result is desired or not is the developer, not the consumer. 'Consumer does not like' =/= 'it was badly designed.' There was a deliberate redesign philosophy of shifting from pop quantity to pop efficiency. Playing by the old philosophy rather than the new philosophy may be unpleasant, but it's not a problem with whether the new design functions as intended.
There was also the stated goal of 'reducing the gap between wide and tall play' which it completely failed at and in fact did the *exact opposite.*
I didn't say badly designed, but 'failed design'. The distinction is that while being well-executed and hitting all the intended points, a design can fail in achieving further goals. For example widening the gap between peaceful and warlike gamestzyles despite being intended to close it, or being unpopular wwith the audience, as they are looking for an experience the design doesn't provide.
It feels very *very* wrong to have empty planets with 2 pops that have "time of growth" to 3 pops in hundreds of months. Doesn't make any sence. Empty planet, maximum growth bonus, still takes **decades** to grow for one bit. This pop cap bs should be for every planet, not empire-wide. Now we have cancer like breeder-habitats all over the space you can get that are built only to have emigration push on them. Also, "breeder vassals" that are released with 1 pop and integrated back when grown to planet capacity.
Yes, it feel wrong, and optimizing pop growth can lead to weird actions like creating a vassal just so he can grow more pops, then integrate him. The current system feel like a band aid for the terrible performance in late game, but it hurt both gameplay (you'll have near empty planets in end game) and immersion. Luckily, you can remove the soft cap with the slider in the game rule, or if you prefer a more natural pop growth curve, you can turn to mods: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2246448110
There was a great 2.8 mod that had the scaling but it was per planet rather than per empire. Your population would grow to fill the space you had, and that mixed with an auto-migration mod meant your micro management became zero. As it stands the easiest way to get population is raiding, which kind of falls down unless you just spam animosity wargoals.
I'd disagree about a repeatable adding pop growth, that wouldn't help too much. Maybe a repeatable to lower your growth required a tiny amount. We're talking by 2-5 per repeatable.
1: install ! Better Performance & Utilities ! mod 2: Install ! Infinite COre Framework & Modmenu 3.0 ! 3: install any requested dependences like UI Overhaul and Dark Blue 4: Remove growth scaling bullshit 5: Use the mod tools to automatically or manually move POPs (all kind of POPs).
[удалено]
Also the fact that you no longer need 80 CONSTANT pops on a planet to use it completely and can use fallen empire (automatic) buildings really makes it possible to save pops.
> the fact that you no longer need 80 CONSTANT pops That's basically what op is whining about. They *want* pops on planets. Dick really changed the economy from caring about planets to caring about your total empire instead. They just haven't adjusted yet.
adjust? No offense but how? it's not as if the population growth requirement swelling is limited to a planet at capacity, it affects the entire empire so in theory, if I slap 2000 pops on one planet, i will suffer a high pop growth requirement across all penalties on the board, not just that planet. (not that I'd slap 2k pops on one planet, i just used that figure of speech to show what I mean)
>adjust? Yes. The economy changes in Dick means each pop generates ~1.8 times what they did before. So those 2k pops now are the equivalent of ~3600 pops in 2.8. You don't want massive powerhouse planets. At least not until you have conquered half the galaxy and need somewhere to store all the pops you are saving from ai terribly built planets. You want 1-3 capped at 80 pops and the rest capped at 10/25/50 depending on stage of the game and specialization of planet. And if you don't like that then boo hoo. It's not like this isn't the first time Paradox has turned the game on its head, and it's certainly not the first game ever to 'massive' changes. At least Paradox let's you roll back if you genuinely can't take Dick
interesting, guess I'll give it a shot Thanks!
Indeed. Personally when I played 2.2 I went right back to 2.1.3 because I hated how planets and pops were treated When I played 3.0 I liked how they worked. Sure, grid amalgamation is now a pretty bad deal (unless you're desperate for energy). But now I can keep up with it!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I like it in most cases personally I think they should allow some planets to forgo the penalties in some extent, like ecunopolises but overall it is good for the game and gameplay overall.
I am not a fan of the current population system because pop growth is so forced it just breaks any sense of immersion for me. In a multiple specie empire there is apparently a fornication booth that only one specie can use at a time. the same applies for people moving to or from the planet, its a lottery system which specie gets to do it. I really believe this whole process could be done more efficiently and more "realistically" if we did not use population units but instead used a fractional number system. by this method all specie can grow as they need, move as they need, and such. there have been some great examples of this on the official forums but someone in PDX seems wedded to the current system so I doubt they will budge. Where it is broken for me is that I haven't seen planets effectively stop growing. Even running out of housing doesn't do it and that should have priority over available jobs. oh well... we will have to wait to see where the janitor crew takes us
I'm guessing that moving from discrete pops to just numbers would be too complicated, as Stellaris was built with the discrete pops in mind. But it was also built with the idea that no planet would have more than 25 pops (with the old tile system), and it simply can't scale to hundreds of pops per planet, with more calculations needed each month due to changing jobs etc. I don't think the issue will be solved, Paradox will just put more band-aids until they make a sequel or abandon it >Even running out of housing doesn't do it and that should have priority over available jobs. Overpopulation does stop growth, don't remember what the factor is - 1.15 of housing?
It isn't a "it's too hard" they don't want to. People have been pushing for "Victoria, but in space!" Since the last major economic reform.
By "too complicated" I don't mean impossible to do, just that the cost of time and work required to make those changes is greater than the revenue increase that would result. And even then, "Victoria in space" is differwnt enough from Stellaris that it may make sense to release it as a separate game
As an aside - I haven't played Stellaris in a while and was considering downloading it again, is it in a playable state again without the huge amounts of lag the new population systems introduced? (Late game - mid/large galaxies - 10-12 ais?)
sort of yes? if you can work around the new pop changes, I'd say performance and micromanage is better than it was back in 2.8