|
Wiz posted:Listening too much your players is a mistake, yes. However, not listening at all to your players is an equally big mistake. It seems that you are advocating the latter extreme, and that's just not gonna happen. Sorry. Nah, I'm just saying that "a majority of players want it to stay in" isn't particularly indicative. I understand why you wouldn't want to remove a major feature after release! I still think the game would be better for it, though.
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
imo space stations could use some fiddling. instead of choosing between what weapons it uses, instead chose between economic and military stations. Economic stations function as is, except the cant build anything larger than a corvette and can only get upgrades that improve planet output. Military stations are focused on building ships and blowing poo poo up and can be upgraded with shield and stuff. Balance it by having high end military stations have even more upkeep than space fortresses also the ability to see fireing ranges on defense stations so i can satiate my hardon for maginot lines IN SPEES by setting up more precise overlapping fields of fire
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
It makes sense to have a ship designer to counter what your enemy has. That's interesting. And it works with the tech card system. You try to avoid people you can't beat, or ally with people who can help you deal with someone else. But the only way to get that info is to get into a fight with your enemy's force that lasts long enough for you to click and see what their general design is. That could easily be force that would cost you the war, or else go in with the vague guide of empire strength and pray. It's no wonder people are looking for something that will be effective in all situations; guess wrong and it's a bad thing, possibly a death sentence. That's a problem. It's a very multiplayer sort of thing. It's not bad, exactly, but where in multi-play you've got to do real diplomacy and be social, against the AI there's not so much you can do. You can perhaps ask a player what another player has. You can't ask the AI such a thing. Understandably, the AI is reluctant to do a share line-of-sight treaty. And if you're planning to conquer them anyway, why butter them up? Some wars can last long enough that the information from a suicide fleet/station can be useful, but many aren't. And that's also assuming you can retool to counter at all. It sort of ties in to the matter that you don't hear of much in the galaxy, even your neighbours, and there's only so much you can do to butter people up. Maybe one of the enclaves can pick up this slack? Maybe it'd be easier than trying for spying. But I'm the idiot who keeps playing Pacifist in a war game, so what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Nah, I'm just saying that "a majority of players want it to stay in" isn't particularly indicative. I understand why you wouldn't want to remove a major feature after release! I still think the game would be better for it, though. Sure, that's fair, and if I were to start over from scratch I'd certainly sit down and think hard about the pros and cons of ship design and what possible alternatives or compromises could be worked out, but for Stellaris as it stands it's a done deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Also mentioning it again but More AI Personalities (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=701432146) really needs to be in the OP. I like this mod in theory but in practice it always ended up overriding the intended personalities of all the custom empires I made. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Bloodly posted:It makes sense to have a ship designer to counter what your enemy has. That's interesting. And it works with the tech card system. You try to avoid people you can't beat, or ally with people who can help you deal with someone else. There will most likely be some sort of improvement (as in adding the systems in place) for espionage some time in the future. In the meantime we all just have to wait until they get 1.5 out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah, combat behaviour and the lack of small slots means that battleships have some inherent limitations that can be exploited. Some people swear by only battleships and destroyers, but the only ships I've heard anyone say you can get by with only using is cruisers, and I'm skeptical that you couldn't wreck an all-cruiser fleet with enough long-range firepower. As far as I know, there isn't even an established meta that is simply always best since 1.3 came out, and that was several months ago now. The reason why people are saying that might be that cruisers don't currently have a strongly defined role, except possibly as an anti-picket ship platform which is rendered slightly irrelevant by missiles being less effective than other options. Being quite good at lots of things makes them decent against over-specialised fleet compositions. I would think about changing their role to smaller, faster battleships used for small raiding or patrol fleets, leaving battleships as the mainstay of the main fleet. Giving them an FTL speed buff (or equivalent for wormholes) when in fleets without battleships could achieve this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I dont see why we should have spaceships in a space game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Thingsnoonesaid.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:I dont see why we should have spaceships in a space game. Agreed, why aren't we sailing around on galleons between the stars?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Agreed, why aren't we sailing around on galleons between the stars? Sailing ships in space would still be space ships! A space game without space ships would be a 4x where you travel around using gates and moving stuff through said gates. This is actually a neat idea: Start with some kind of machine capable of opening rifts, rends or whatever in space, allowing you to send ground troops and other poo poo straight-up from planet to planet. Go from there, see where it ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Make Everything Stargate Again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Also mentioning it again but More AI Personalities (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=701432146) really needs to be in the OP. Three different personalities for the Ottoman Empire. lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Three different personalities for the Ottoman Empire. Harsh. Libluini posted:Sailing ships in space would still be space ships! Space Gallipoli. Not that that's bad, mind you. It's just where it would end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Also feels weird that there is no "City" building so I can turn all my cities into Coruscant. I imagine the UI would be difficult, and I wouldn't guess how the resource gameplay would have to be rebalanced, but from a general RP satisfaction perspective I could not want something like that more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
oddium posted:if i went to someone's house and they told me i had to make furniture out of milk crates if i wanted to sit down, but it's okay because they have something that makes milk-crate couches automatically like yeah i guess i could sit on the milk crate couch and be cool while other people are making impromptu chairs and tables. but i would still ask them why not just get a real couch at that point I think you've been playing minecraft instead of Stellaris and now you're simply confused. It's the only reason I can think of why you think this is any way comparable to the ship designer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Is it better to make separate carrier battleships and artillery battleships or design a combined version?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Supposedly having a carrier core makes spinal mount bows viable because it keeps battleships at extreme range. So there's that, dunno if that helps you decide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Against a player that's designed for versatility, sure. It's still really important when say, fighting an Awakened Empire. It can mean the difference between needing 300k or 500k to beat them. seriously loving this. i can only think that people saying the ship designer isn't helpful have never fought an AE or played on hard/insane AIs. you will almost always be punching above your weight class and proper analysis and counter-design of your opponents is absolutely crucial for operating on those levels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
I just had a super accomplished Admiral die and it made me think that some sort of legacy and monument system would be pretty neat. Find some way to track significant battles won (similar to warscore would work) and then once they die allow a single monument/tomb to be built whose strength is based on how many legacy points they had. It could add happiness and maybe reduce ethics divergence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:seriously loving this. i can only think that people saying the ship designer isn't helpful have never fought an AE or played on hard/insane AIs. you will almost always be punching above your weight class and proper analysis and counter-design of your opponents is absolutely crucial for operating on those levels. Apparently it's a 'simply optimisation problem' or something. I agree; counter-designing isn't necessarily straightforward. That said, there are some balance issues: - Plasma is too good, possibly because shields are too weak. - Lasers are outclassed by plasma almost totally. I would give lasers greater range and reduce that of plasma - making the latter knife-fighting weapons would give them a clear role without making them The Best in most situations. - I would give shields a small buff to regen across the board. - Afterburners could really do with adding more speed. They should be an option for countering long-range weapons, not just something to stick on torpedo corvettes if you have spare energy. - Missiles are, as everyone knows, only worthwhile in the very early game. - Flak is a hard counter to fighters of all kinds. I would tone down its effectiveness somewhat; only a mixed fighter/flak screen should prevent everything getting through. It's rumoured there's a combat logic issue whereby weapons will always be fired against a ship against which they'll do the most damage. This means that a fleet with only shield-piercing weapons will methodically remove the shield from every opposing ship before attacking hull. I'm not sure whether this is true, but it would explain why shield-stripping weapons seem to perform less well than their stats would suggest. If this is true, balance changes should only come after it's fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
I picked up the leviathan dlc on the sale and one of my science ships sailed into a black hole system, which was... occupied... for a lack of a better term.  GunnerJ posted:Supposedly having a carrier core makes spinal mount bows viable because it keeps battleships at extreme range. So there's that, dunno if that helps you decide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Yes but they'll tend to close to shorter ranges so they can fire more of their weapons, meaning they're more vulnerable to being swarmed by smaller ships, tend to lose tracking on the spinal gun more easily in larger fights, especially if said gun has a charge time (which is a thing I think needs to be looked at, as it renders Lances and Emitters kind of terrible in endgame fights), are just generally eclipsed by a pair of large mounts. Carriers, meanwhile, are lacking in decent offensive options already so you want them as far back as possible, and so they'll close to max range and stop if most of their other guns are support oriented. This keeps the carrier safe because not only is it screened by the melee, if you start losing that it's also screened by your combat battleships, and since it has a wider cone of fire it's more likely to get off shots with the energy-based spinal mounts. Test it out, spinal mounts on carriers is actually pretty legit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
I'm sure someone else has asked, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Is there any kind of date or estimate of when 1.5 will drop? Trying to decide if I should wait or pick this up agian now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Range and speed of ships simply doesn't matter enough because we have no control over fights. If having more speed and range meant you could actually kite things, then yeah those would be worthwhile stats to tweak to balance out the different weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
CaptCommy posted:I'm sure someone else has asked, but I couldn't find it anywhere. Is there any kind of date or estimate of when 1.5 will drop? Trying to decide if I should wait or pick this up agian now. They said it would be "a while" before it's released.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
It's not just a patch 1.5 is part of the next major DLC/expansion and they haven't even given it a name yet and barely dug into the whole "paid features" part of it. It also sounds like the last DLC was not nearly as code-heavy as this one, which will most likely address a lot more mechanical flaws and or add in whole new mechanics vs more of a content/balance dlc like leviathans. So might be a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The planet grid is... alright. It works but it's too micro-intensive, especially when you're upgrading a lot of buildings. I also don't like how it makes your planets feel like giant mines/farms rather than places people live. Reworking it is not out of the question but it'd be a pretty huge investment of time. A lot of that "feel" problem could be fixed just by renaming the buildings and possibly redoing the sprites. Mining tiles could be something like "resource extraction zone" with a better name, power plant I-V could be renamed like "fossil fuel extraction zone" "renewable energy farm" "fusion power sector," or something better. Research labs could become research hubs, planetary stock market could instead be renamed financial district, military academy could become "planetary military enclave" or something. Cloning vats could become "biotech district." You know, just rename stuff to give the impression that you're building a lived-in cityscape on a tile instead of a single building. So much of the what the player sees through the planet screen is imagined anyway. Would be pretty dang sweet if these city/region tiles changed their names based on what kind of government you were too. "Governor's palace" versus "Military administration zone" or "planetary energy monopoly" versus "energy distribution nexus"
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Poil posted:Hmmm, but all battleships just hang around in a big blob at the back anyway? Dunno, it's just what someone said in the old thread. The idea is that XL weapons can operate at much longer ranges than they usually do because battleships will close distance to use their L guns, making them more vulnerable than they have to be. With a carrier core, they hang back further than usual. efb in the very next post!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Thanks guys. I'm still confused but slightly less so now. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Range and speed of ships simply doesn't matter enough because we have no control over fights. If having more speed and range meant you could actually kite things, then yeah those would be worthwhile stats to tweak to balance out the different weapons. Range and speed are still important to deal with the whack-a-mole style wars I always seem to end up in. While we're banging on about awful bits of combat, god enemy fleets are annoying. I have to clear them out in order to land my hundred assault armies on every planet and bulk up my warscore, but they keep jumping away and because they're always approaching from the other end of the system, it's a real pain to actually trap them in combat. I swear most of the actual effort I put into this game is trying to guess where they'll jump next and making sure I enter the system near them. In the end, it always devolves into me giving up and dragging some construction ships halfway across the galaxy to build a thick ring of military stations to stick them down for half a minute,
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
"Fine tune your ships to counter your enemy" runs into the problem of not being able to actually know what your enemy is fielding until they're at your doorstep. It is to some degree yet another reason why the game needs more non-war ways to interact with other empires - being able to actually spy on them and learn what their main weapon and/or defense types are would be huge. It would basically justify being able to fine tune your navy. Also yes, ship-mounted FTL jammers would be pretty great.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Sabotage, espionage, and assassinations would definitely add much to the current stale state of diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:"Fine tune your ships to counter your enemy" runs into the problem of not being able to actually know what your enemy is fielding until they're at your doorstep. It is to some degree yet another reason why the game needs more non-war ways to interact with other empires - being able to actually spy on them and learn what their main weapon and/or defense types are would be huge. It would basically justify being able to fine tune your navy. I guess you're supposed to leave your fleet in dock and send in a few suicide corvettes to see how you should retool your ships when you start a war? If the new faction system ends up being influential and good (I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm definitely hoping), then things like assassinations and funding factions in enemy states would be a ton of fun. You could even bee Culture style assholes, secretly funding equal rights movements, and hopefully not accidentally starting a bloody civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Eiba posted:You could even bee Culture style assholes, secretly funding equal rights movements, and hopefully accidentally starting a bloody civil war. Fixed that for you. Sow discontent, integrate new vassals, repeat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
I ended up with over 20 colonizable planets in a single system due to an event chain (Horizon Signal). I think I can now safely say that "no, you really don't want to manage more than around 10 planets."
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Yeah i'd love to see planets with rampant overpopulation where building a colony ship at that point comes with a big happiness bonus. Add ethics divergence because weirdos begin crowding together and get overlooked. Add hive cities that raise the planet cap by like 4-5 and have them produce all resources but require a massive amount of food to function. A hive city is basically every building in 1 tile, its amount of things produced is only limited by population which you must now find a way to feed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:Range and speed of ships simply doesn't matter enough because we have no control over fights. If having more speed and range meant you could actually kite things, then yeah those would be worthwhile stats to tweak to balance out the different weapons. It's weird because the option to give us control is in the files currently. There's code that allows for the tactics ships use to be set. It's just not made available to players since all that's available in vanilla is the usual combat computer types. Automated Ship Behaviors fixes this at least. It lets you set both tactics and the distance they're executed at. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
I want massive mega cities, I want planets unable to support life because they've become a single giant polluted hive world and have to import tons of supplies to stay alive. I want everything from a glittering Coruscant or Trantor to a grim 40k hive world depending on how badly I hosed up my planet and population management.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 20:51 |
|
|
Eiba posted:You could even bee Culture style assholes, secretly funding equal rights movements, and hopefully not accidentally starting a bloody civil war. Er yes, 'not' start a civil war. - ROU Strategic Tea (eccentric)
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2017 08:17
|
|
