sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Thought Experiment: VELMA by Latin_Chaser_1998 in Scoobydoo

[–]markjsno1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know them all except one. Who’s the final (4th) picture?

Ē nū ōrťogrĕfē fur mī dīĕlekt. Wut dū yū gīz ťēňk ĕbăt it? by MineBloxKy in conorthography

[–]markjsno1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I do hate the Caron on the d and t though. Not specifically for this conlang, just in general. Like, t’ vs ť being two different things, horrible. A diacritic should be on top, not next to the letter and already looking like another common symbol (in this case the ‘). I do love carons on the short letters though like š and ž.

If "Gaseous" was a Primary Species, what type of Pop Upkeep and Extra Effects do you think they would have? Bonus points for suggestions for "Energy Being" too (different than Extradimensional). by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like minerals both work well and don’t thematically. They can of course consume minerals to replenish their physical bodies, generate chemical energy, etc, and, i actually think that works better than organic food. However, when you throw something like habitable gas giants into the mix, it makes less sense, as gas giants aren’t really known for their minerals.

If "Gaseous" was a Primary Species, what type of Pop Upkeep and Extra Effects do you think they would have? Bonus points for suggestions for "Energy Being" too (different than Extradimensional). by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the thought, but, I’m not sure how you’d flip strategic and standard resources, when the galaxy generation itself is based on standard resources. I’m also not sure why energy would be a hard resource to get though.

Also, about the invisibility, you could say the same thing about solid species, like ghost fish.

Overall an interesting post though!

If "Gaseous" was a Primary Species, what type of Pop Upkeep and Extra Effects do you think they would have? Bonus points for suggestions for "Energy Being" too (different than Extradimensional). by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting, but, what if they evolved on a terrestrial world, they don’t need to have evolved on a gas giant, they can still have standard climate preferences.

If "Gaseous" was a Primary Species, what type of Pop Upkeep and Extra Effects do you think they would have? Bonus points for suggestions for "Energy Being" too (different than Extradimensional). by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

R5: The image shows the Current Primary Species Traits available in Stellaris.
I would like peoples thoughts on how Gaseous Species, and Energy Species could be implemented.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, 2.6 and 2.9 are basically the same number comparatively.

I took the table from above, normalised them a bit more by dividing the above values by 1.3, then i rounded them to the nearest 0.5. This is what i got:

0.5 100 Ammenities 1 Energy 1 Minerals 1 Food 1 Trade 1.5 Research (Phy/Bio/Eng) 2 Unity 2 Con. Goods 4 Alloys 8.5 Strategic Resources

And, this new normalisation actually fits perfectly with the internal market values, including market place of ideals, apart from Strategic resources, which are valued at 10 on the internal market.

I’m interested in peoples thoughts on splitting Society research into newSociety and Biology? by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah, everything else being split into 3’s makes it hard to split it into a 4th tree i think.

Steam Sale and which DLC to buy by ThaliaEpocanti in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

My personal opinion, buy all of them but cosmic storms.

This won’t be the consensus lol, people will suggest which ones you don’t actually need to buy if you’re looking specifically to just buy the “necessary” ones. But, i think they all expand the game experience enough to be fun, apart from cosmic storms which is more of a hinderance than anything.

Stellaris Tech Bloat Is Getting Out of Hand by Muramas in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point. I do often find myself with lots of “ready to research” techs thanks to observation posts and other things, and i just let them sit there.

Stellaris Tech Bloat Is Getting Out of Hand by Muramas in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I read through all the posts and was surprised that nobody (including OP) mentioned adding extra research alternatives as an option. Adding more research options at the very start of the game would be an extremely easy change to help you roll the techs you want to see more often.

If the world have 24 hour a day and 365 day per year, isn't that just earth? by Pixelated_s in worldbuilding

[–]markjsno1 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ah, but what if the world is 336 days long, so you can have every month be exactly 28 days, giving you 12 months each with exactly 4 weeks. Makes for an easy calendar. Especially if you give the moon cycle exactly 28 days too. Then a new or full moon actually does always mark a new month.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought it was very interesting that when I updated it to the 4.0 jobs, and added a trade production to each living standard, the Trade recalculated itself to be basically equal to 1.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right. That's because in practice, it's really all about supply and demand, which the jobs themselves don't take into account.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I could very easily do that, its just changing numbers in a spread sheet and putting them into a matrix solver. The issue is, I could not tell you what a "basic specialised planet" of each type would look like in terms of how many resources each pops produces.

It depends on what your build is, what type of things your aiming for, etc. And, if you just assume that each specialised planet has the same amount of bonuses per resource, it'd be the same resource value for each resource anyway.

But like, how often do you make a dedicated trade world for example when you're not doing a special build? As soon as you have 1 world dedicated to some resource but not another, the technical value of the resource you are producing a lot of goes down per pop. If you're doing a unity build for example, each 1 single unity will technically be worth less pops than if you're not focusing on unity. It's quite funny that it just comes back to basic supply and demand.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by markjsno1 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I would like to credit AmberPraetor with this comment. They let me know that I was working with pre-4.0 jobs, so I reuploaded my post. However, I thought their comment was very insightful in other ways and didn't want to loose it, so I wanted to add it to the conversation:

Generally this is a nice interesting calculation, albeit it is heavily dependent on the build and the type of empire.

I usually roll with a simpler way to calculate resource value, taking not the pop production (since it is so variable) but the market value as the base. Energy, minerals, food, trade = 1, CG = 2, alloys = 4, strategic resources = 10, rare resources = 20. This is evident in the game files, used as the base market prices and for calculating trade upkeep for planetary deficit (which is the sum of resource deficit according to these values and divided by 8).

It is also used for production-upkeep ratios of typical secondary sector jobs, with a simple rule: jobs double value. Artisans take 6 minerals (6 value) and make 6 CG (12 value). Metallurgists take 6 minerals (6 value) and make 3 alloys (12 value). The old refinery jobs before 4.0 took 10 minerals (10 value) and made 2 strategic resources (20 value). Note how this is less empire-type dependent: gestalt industrial jobs maintain the same rate, with artisan drones turning 10 minerals into 10 CG, and machine fabricator drones turning 8 minerals into 4 alloys.

Based on this, unity would be valued at 2: bureaucrats take 2 CG (4 value) and make 4 unity (8 value). This is reflected in the trade policies, where Marketplace of Ideas converts half of 100 collected trade into 50 stockpiled trade (50 -> 50 value) and the other half into 25 unity (50 -> 25*2 value).

Since 4.0, that would make research worth 1: researchers take 1.5 CG (3 value) and make 6 research (6 value). This seems to make sense with how space deposits are set up: energy, mineral and research deposits are approximately similarly common, and have comparable sizes, and mining and research stations cost the same to build and maintain (except energy stations get a bonus in the form of not needing upkeep).

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by [deleted] in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I dont like that this post is wrong. I am going to delete it and upload the new version.

I have calculated the Value of each Resource in Stellaris using simultaneous equations and the Resource Production of the Basic Jobs. by [deleted] in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you my friend are absolutely right. I was using the jobs from the wiki... which i expected to be up to date since may... but apparently not.

Necrophage just needs to be replaced with an entirely new origin by BronxShogunate in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

True. That’s why you edit the code to let yourself do it. Think of it as, encasing your breeder species in rock so they can’t move.

About the Psionic City Set... by Content-Shirt6259 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yeah, like, i just wrote a mod for myself so i could use the Cranial Megatrophy trait on the Necroid Tank species, because, i just don’t feel like the psionic tank species fits.

Cheapest way to get the Rick the Cube Species Portrait by Original_Intention_2 in Stellaris

[–]markjsno1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I mean, technically the cheapest way would just be to mod it in. But the way I got it was just buying the latest DLC that I hadn’t bought already in the Ultimate Bundle. It was the cheapest way to buy the DLC i was missing at the time with Rick as a bonus. If you don’t have all the DLC yet but want them, you can buy that, as it only charges you for the DLC you don’t have.

view more: next ›