Damn the Consequences and the Fleeting Excellence!

[QuiteRight]

Seems like a bug to me.

Fleeting Excellence overtuned trait acts up when activated, not only causing Damn the Consequences edict upkeep cost to fluctuate constantly, but also goes over the top of the edict fund (despite being less than it's capacity), which is far greater in my case with Statecraft, causing monthly unity loss as a result.

A pity. This is the only build where you can have more than 5 science production per researcher at game start.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

causing monthly unity loss as a result.

If that isn't "damn the consequences", I haven't seen one.
Sounds pretty engaging, tbh - like something I would have to try for myself.

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Sounds pretty engaging, tbh - like something I would have to try for myself.

Be my guess, just make sure to double your food production before activating it.

[Azor]

It's not a bug. It doesn't matter which Overtuned trait you pick, either. The devs decided it was intended because "screw fixing the game, if we can call it a feature we will; nobody picks Overtuned anyway" (they didn't say this, they gave no reasons for making a weak Origin even weaker).

See this bug report
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/stellaris-overtuned-bugs-3-10-e9b6.1621108/#post-29547129)

there's a screenshot of a dev saying it's intended on discord

An Admin for Stellaris' Community Hub also said it's intended, here:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/281990/discussions/0/3975051032848084768/

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by Azor:

Stellaris' Community Hub also said it's intended

Thanks a lot, mate!
Saves me a ton of decision making if I would buy the next season or anything else from'em (No).

[mss73055]

Damn the Consequences ramps steeply when you get extra planets.

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by mss73055:

Damn the Consequences ramps steeply when you get extra planets.

Not the point.

The monthly fluctuation of the edict cost, and unity drain despite being below edict fund capacity occurs regardless.

[RCMidas]

Out of interest, does "edicts_unscaled" result in the same thing for all edicts to which it's applied, or is it merely the absence of "edicts" by itself which causes this? Because if it's the latter, then it's a bug - if it's merely the former, then it's absolutely intended and not a bug.

Not that I expect this to actually reach the complainers. They've already decided that Paradox is a lazy no-good shyster AI-slopping scam company and the rest of us are all paid shills with our lips around their rear end even before we got paid.

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Out of interest, does "edicts_unscaled" result in the same thing for all edicts to which it's applied, or is it merely the absence of "edicts" by itself which causes this? Because if it's the latter, then it's a bug - if it's merely the former, then it's absolutely intended and not a bug.

Whom are you talking to? I'm not the developer to know what "edicts_unscaled" even is.
As a player I see "Damn the Consequences" in edicts list and no disclaimer it drains unity directly, and therefore expect it to follow the WYSIWYG rules. It does not.

Originally posted by RCMidas:

Not that I expect this to actually reach the complainers. They've already decided that Paradox is a lazy no-good shyster AI-slopping scam company and the rest of us are all paid shills with our lips around their rear end even before we got paid.

Passive aggression is perfect way to appease. Paradox is just lazy. For the cost of the product one can expect no less than excellency and consistency that prevents exploits (like instant leaders re-assignment with no need to travel, aka MIA).

Yes, it is a complex game, and some things might fall through the cracks. But they have to be followed up instead of "as intended" rug-sweeping.

Otherwise, well, there's so many things out there for a Player to apply well deserved attention and money...

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

As a player I see "Damn the Consequences" in edicts list and no disclaimer it drains unity directly, and therefore expect it to follow the WYSIWYG rules. It does not.

But it actually does.
If I see "damn the consequences", I expect a reckless decision which doesn't care for the negative outcome and therefore almost invites pretty negative outcomes. And I wouldn't care for them - since: Damn the consequences.
What you see, you don't only get - you deserve it: Careless exploiting leading to disaster.

That's why I'm pretty intrigued by it and I would definitely call it "working as intended".
You don't sh*t on consequences if you're complaining afterwards about consequences - so, this decision just isn't for you and you shouldn't take it, then. But it works perfectly fine in the realms of what it offers: F*ck those consequences!

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

You don't sh*t on consequences if you're complaining afterwards about consequences

You do you with your roleplay, buddy. Whatever rocks your boat.

There's a thing someone's trying to make all people forget about called "informed consent".
Wouldn't be a problem if the description was "unpredictable side-effects are in order".

Otherwise its just malpractice and deception with inevitable karmic repercussions for the perpetrator.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

You do you with your roleplay, buddy.

It isn't about roleplaying - it's about WYSIWYG.
If you see strawberries, buy them and afterwards complain about them tasting like strawberries - I mean, you could call that "not roleplaying"; I would call this a pretty strange behaviour that is nonsensical.
The same goes for this: Why choosing something that tells you in its title that it isn't for you since you don't want to/can't follow up on its logical outcome due to going against what you want to achieve?
You, obviously, care about the consequences.

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

You, obviously, care about the consequences.

There's a difference between accepting the consequences, and surrendering to them.

You, obviously, choose not to understand quitting game is also an option.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

There's a difference between accepting the consequences, and surrendering to them.

Absolutely.
But isn't the assumption that it has to be a bug or a broken mechanic a surrender in itself? Otherwise you wouldn't blame the game but either blame yourself (not needed) or be thrilled about overcoming this pretty big negative outcome to reap the benefits of your own choice (or don't care about the negative outcome at all due to seeing the benefits - short-term or long-term).

[QuiteRight]

Originally posted by SaD-82:

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

There's a difference between accepting the consequences, and surrendering to them.

But isn't the assumption that it has to be a bug or a broken mechanic a surrender in itself?

Leaving the deception is a viable defense, living in it is a surrender.

I'm out.

[SaD-82]

Originally posted by QuiteRight:

Leaving the deception

Since it isn't one, but rather you've just chosen to ignore the consequences of you not caring about the consequences, fleeing from those consequences is the definition of surrender.
Proudly fleeing is still fleeing.
But you do you.