Would it be possible to scrap admin caps and replace them with pop caps?

[Storm]

Instead of admin cap buildings have pop cap building? bad idea?

[GeneralVeers]

Ideally, neither.

When you get right down to it, the "admin cap" is really just a cleverly-disguised version of a very old trick in strategy games: escalating maintenance costs. Well, with the added twist that going over the admin cap slows down your research.

This trick, AND pop caps, are direct attempts to prevent what I like doing in strategy games, which is getting big. I like to be five times as big as any other empire on the map, then declare war on EVERYBODY, and go "alright, ya pansies, show me what ya got". Or going advanced tech and beating the crap out of the empire that's five times bigger than mine.

I get that Paradox wants to "slow down the Big Guy". Screw that. That's for sissies. It isn't a real strategy game unless there's the danger of somebody going "runaway" and becoming a real threat to everybody on the map.

Side note: in most other strategy games I've played, any kind of cap--admin cap, pop cap, high maintenance, whatever--really screws up the single-player game, because most AI's don't know how to deal with the caps.

[Meewec]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

When you get right down to it, the "admin cap" is really just a cleverly-disguised version of a very old trick in strategy games: escalating maintenance costs. Well, with the added twist that going over the admin cap slows down your research.

Admin cap has always existed in stellaris, it just wasn't always a number we could see and manipulate

[PhailRaptor]

Seeing the way the devs were describing their views on population changes, I am honestly confused why they didn't combine it with Admin Cap in the first place. The simple fact is that going over your Admin Cap previously was not really an issue until you got into repeatable techs, and by then you should be able to terraform everything colonizable into your preferred planet type, and any random world you can specialize into a Beuracratic world to give you another ~400+ Admin Cap.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

Ideally, neither.

When you get right down to it, the "admin cap" is really just a cleverly-disguised version of a very old trick in strategy games: escalating maintenance costs. Well, with the added twist that going over the admin cap slows down your research.

This trick, AND pop caps, are direct attempts to prevent what I like doing in strategy games, which is getting big. I like to be five times as big as any other empire on the map, then declare war on EVERYBODY, and go "alright, ya pansies, show me what ya got". Or going advanced tech and beating the crap out of the empire that's five times bigger than mine.

I get that Paradox wants to "slow down the Big Guy". Screw that. That's for sissies. It isn't a real strategy game unless there's the danger of somebody going "runaway" and becoming a real threat to everybody on the map.

Side note: in most other strategy games I've played, any kind of cap--admin cap, pop cap, high maintenance, whatever--really screws up the single-player game, because most AI's don't know how to deal with the caps.

Except admin capacity doesn't prevent you from doing that since a bureaucrat planet will generate hundreds of admin capacity. And everything else is just added production.

[Ryika]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

I get that Paradox wants to "slow down the Big Guy". Screw that. That's for sissies.

It's for anyone who doesn't want rapid, brainless expansion to be the only viable playstyle.

[talemore]

If I understand , you want each administration to increase population while increase the jobs. Like if you build a bunker you get 1 housing + 1 Job

But what will it accomplish?

Surely this could be considered a silo but most of the time this is what houses are supposed to be doing. Housing is supposed to be the factor for how many population you can have on each planet. There are houses for every faction in the game. Some houses are called"drone storage" in case a planet is destroyed you have a population reserve. There are times the game will kill an entire planet because of a dragon you can not kill

[Storm]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από talemore:

If I understand , you want each administration to increase population while increase the jobs. Like if you build a bunker you get 1 housing + 1 Job

But what will it accomplish?

Surely this could be considered a silo but most of the time this is what houses are supposed to be doing. Housing is supposed to be the factor for how many population you can have on each planet. There are houses for every faction in the game. Some houses are called"drone storage" in case a planet is destroyed you have a population reserve. There are times the game will kill an entire planet because of a dragon you can not kill

Basically scrap the admin cap/system.

And replace it with a pop one. Each planet based on it's size gives you a certain amount of pops. For example your home planet is worth 20 without any pop buildings. Each pop building you add/upgrade adds for example 5 pops. So building one of those equals an empire wide pop cap of 25. Growth rates would be normal till that 25 number is hit then it would slow down (stop?) as it goes over that.

The pop cap buildings could be seen as empire infrastructure rather than housing. Housing districts/buildings would be still be needed as that is a planet modifier not empire. And they could still affect growth or whatever.

Obviously the numbers used are just for an example and are not realistic. I would also think the infrastructure buildings don't provide jobs but if for some balancing reason they have to they could.

I just don't see having 2 cap systems as being more useful than tedious for what the devs have in mind.

[Journeyman Prime]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryika:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

I get that Paradox wants to "slow down the Big Guy". Screw that. That's for sissies.

It's for anyone who doesn't want rapid, brainless expansion to be the only viable playstyle.

Except it does the opposite of that. There's only so much blood you can squeeze out of a rock, and only so much economic value you can squeeze out of a single pop.

[Ryika]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MayhemX8:

Except it does the opposite of that. There's only so much blood you can squeeze out of a rock, and only so much economic value you can squeeze out of a single pop.

Guy was talking about the Admin Cap.

[GeneralVeers]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryika:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

I get that Paradox wants to "slow down the Big Guy". Screw that. That's for sissies.

It's for anyone who doesn't want rapid, brainless expansion to be the only viable playstyle.

I've played a whole lot of strategy games. Multiple strategies have been "viable" in almost all of them. Rush tier 1 units. Build tall. Build wide. Go high-tech. Frequently, building tall to get a big economy and THEN RUSHING TIER 1 UNITS has worked surprisingly well. Very few players expect to get completely steamrollered by vast swarms of Zealots when you're at the end game and everybody is building Carriers and Battlecruisers. Oh, and for the record? Players who do get beat up by an end-game Zealot swarm get INCREDIBLY ANGRY. >:)

Rapid brainless expansion SHOULD be a "viable" option in any strategy game. The correct approach is to balance it so it's not the ONLY viable option. The game should have tactical, strategic, or technological options that inflict massive casualties on "rapid brainless expand".

By way of example. The original Master Of Orion. The version written in 1993, not the Steam version. "Fighter swarms" were brutal in the early game. But later on, weapons became available that absolutely destroyed them. So you build your fighter swarm, steamroller a bunch of planets, then somebody comes along with area-effect weapons, completely obliterates your fleet in three rounds, and you're toast. THAT is a great strategy game.

Artificial caps on empire size or army size are the hallmark of a lazy programmer, catering to lazy players. And, let's be honest, we've seen some "lazy" from Paradox recently.

[Elitewrecker PT]

And it is (or was)....
Rapid brainless expansion = tons of economy, but eventually lagging in research
Rapid thoughtful expansion (AKA actually devoting some resources for tech) = always the best way to play because tons of economy AND tech.

[GeneralVeers]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Elitewrecker PT:

Rapid thoughtful expansion (AKA actually devoting some resources for tech) = always the best way to play because tons of economy AND tech.

In a good strategy game, economy vs. tech is a tradeoff; more of one means less of the other. And, in a good strategy game, there's ways you can lose whichever tradeoff you make.

[Ryika]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryika:

It's for anyone who doesn't want rapid, brainless expansion to be the only viable playstyle.

I've played a whole lot of strategy games. Multiple strategies have been "viable" in almost all of them. Rush tier 1 units. Build tall. Build wide. Go high-tech. Frequently, building tall to get a big economy and THEN RUSHING TIER 1 UNITS has worked surprisingly well. Very few players expect to get completely steamrollered by vast swarms of Zealots when you're at the end game and everybody is building Carriers and Battlecruisers. Oh, and for the record? Players who do get beat up by an end-game Zealot swarm get INCREDIBLY ANGRY. >:)

Rapid brainless expansion SHOULD be a "viable" option in any strategy game. The correct approach is to balance it so it's not the ONLY viable option. The game should have tactical, strategic, or technological options that inflict massive casualties on "rapid brainless expand".

By way of example. The original Master Of Orion. The version written in 1993, not the Steam version. "Fighter swarms" were brutal in the early game. But later on, weapons became available that absolutely destroyed them. So you build your fighter swarm, steamroller a bunch of planets, then somebody comes along with area-effect weapons, completely obliterates your fleet in three rounds, and you're toast. THAT is a great strategy game.

Artificial caps on empire size or army size are the hallmark of a lazy programmer, catering to lazy players. And, let's be honest, we've seen some "lazy" from Paradox recently.

Nobody was talking about a hardcap for empire size or army size, the topic was about whether it would make sense to have a "pop cap building", instead of having the current version of an admin cap. The point being, I assume, that OP wants growing pops to be an investment that has higher costs associated with it, similar to right now if you want to increase your technological progress, you cannot just spam 2000 labs, but also need bureaucratic complexes. Presumably, because OP doesn't like the current softcap, and wants to mitigate it somehow.

You then argued that such slow-down effects should not exist, which would inevitably have the effect that it'd be a lot easier to roll out of control through conquest, since these mechanics exist to slow down progress, and essentially make it so rapid expansion is even stronger than it was - leaving other alternatives in the dust.

Maybe you just typed your initial response without actually thinking about the topic and how what you're saying relates to it, but you're essentially arguing for one thing - that different strategies should be viable - while also arguing that the mechanics that make it so different strategies are actually viable should be removed.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από GeneralVeers:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Elitewrecker PT:

Rapid thoughtful expansion (AKA actually devoting some resources for tech) = always the best way to play because tons of economy AND tech.

In a good strategy game, economy vs. tech is a tradeoff; more of one means less of the other. And, in a good strategy game, there's ways you can lose whichever tradeoff you make.

And it is a tradeoff: you are sacrificing some economy for tech. But it pays off better than raw economy. Because just throwing naked corvettes isn't actually a winning strategy.

" there's ways you can lose whichever tradeoff you make."
Don't understand what you mean.

[Sea Base]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από MayhemX8:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ryika:

It's for anyone who doesn't want rapid, brainless expansion to be the only viable playstyle.

Except it does the opposite of that. There's only so much blood you can squeeze out of a rock, and only so much economic value you can squeeze out of a single pop.

Since you can squeeze more than enough out of silly tall to take on GA, hell you could pre 3.0 too, it's a non issue other than forcing some actual skill/knowlage to get some where on GA *if* only pop spamming.