|
100 degrees Calcium posted:Can someone give me the n00b breakdown on Diplomacy? I'm not sure I get it. Or maybe I do and it's just not what I expected. Does it basically just come down to identifying contenders for future alliances and starting with promising to defend them? I feel in many situations that I would not be able to fulfill such a promise. You can also give gifts or declare mutual rivals as a way to get a non-aggression pact going. Giving them a research treaty will give trust, too.
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
diplomacy ends up being somewhat binary in that you're either part of the galactic in crowd or you're not. the in crowd tends to be: 1) xenophile (or at least not xenophobe) 2) democratic 3) rich enough to throw around gifts of minerals and strategic resources because who gives a gently caress if you're at least 2 of these you'll be able to get non-aggression pacts with the majority of races. if you can manage an NAP you'll eventually be able to do whatever you want diplomatically, eventually anyway. the trust modifier smooths over a lot. if you're an autocrat and there's a Democratic Crusader near you, they are going to be a huge problem because DC's tend to build coalitions with other democracies and they'll bump you further and further out of orbit until there's a showdown. otherwise government ends up mattering less. the other thing to note is that diplomacy does not really matter if you are one of the top dogs in the galaxy militarily and industrially, so don't sweat it too much. even people on very good terms with you tend to be annoying to trade with. so if you're part of the out crowd don't worry, you just have to be LESS OUT than the other pariahs in the galaxy until you're big enough to punch anyone you want.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
I have seen a "League of rear end in a top hat Empires" form in at least one game, but I think that might be kind of rare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
The two fanatical purifier empires in my quadrant of the galaxy are fighting each other and me and my fed buddies are chilling and laughing and will probably jump on the loser
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
ON a related note a crowded galaxy is super fun. I did 600 systems with 25 or so empires, random starts, three fallen empires...not much space left but it is neat to have so much diplomacy stuff happening around me. My friends are bugs and there is a fallen empire as my scary neighbor and my science ship found a strip of unexplored and unowned space that it is now checking out. Highly recommend a crowded galaxy to everyone it is very fun and engaging even if it cuts the expansion short somewhat. Growing tall seems pretty effective? I have only five systems and I'm stronger than one of the purifier empires with way more space than me and almost equivalent to the other bigger one. Those are the two major powers and I'm solidly on top of the rest of the pile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Libluini, are your portraits overwrites of vanilla ones? I noticed that a few of them look like they're where dlc-bonus species are.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I would be much happier to do diplomacy if it didn't cost influence. In EU4 you get a diplo limit of how many deals you can have before it costs you dip points. Here every deal costs you influence points. I am ok with some way to express political control or areas of influence. The current system feels weird. I also find placing outposts weird. It feels like it should work differently. In short - I would like to be able to make a few treaties with my neighbors to figure out which ones I'll be friendly with and start building up relationships, and which ones I'll fight. Having a cost to diplomacy discourages that. It would be fun to do those kinda meaningless RP treaties without it feeling like it's costing me points I could use for leaders or outposts or colonies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
NAPs don't cost influence I don't think. Only defensive pacts
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:That reminds me, I got alien pets on my homeworld? How does that work Pets so good they're outta this world!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:I would be much happier to do diplomacy if it didn't cost influence. In EU4 you get a diplo limit of how many deals you can have before it costs you dip points. Here every deal costs you influence points. The difference is that in EU4 every country is expected to do diplomacy though. There's no Fanatic Purifiers in EU4. Also, only defensive pacts, guarantees and federations cost influence. NAPs, trading, migration treaties etc don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:NAPs don't cost influence I don't think. Only defensive pacts Here's the main thing I'm trying to say: I would find diplomacy more interesting with some constraint other than influence costs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The difference is that in EU4 every country is expected to do diplomacy though. There's no Fanatic Purifiers in EU4. To me this means that I can have a perfunctory relationship with my neighbors, but if I expect that relationship to grow into anything useful, I have to pay. Which means that really all I'm doing is buying allies with my influence points, assuming our pokemon ethos align. I guess I don't understand why? If interacting with the other races and empires makes the game more interesting, I don't understand discouraging it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:Libluini, are your portraits overwrites of vanilla ones? I noticed that a few of them look like they're where dlc-bonus species are. Are you talking about my mod or about the species I submitted for the Goon Mod? I think some of the Goon Mod submissions could have been dlc-bonus portraits, since I got some from pre-ordering Stellaris. The portraits from my own mod aren't overwrites, I added additional species-classes and sorted them into the relevant species-groups. This way they'll always show up, regardless of how many portraits Stellaris adds in the future. No idea why Stellaris re-orders all portraits to put them in spots in the middle, though. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:To me this means that I can have a perfunctory relationship with my neighbors, but if I expect that relationship to grow into anything useful, I have to pay. Which means that really all I'm doing is buying allies with my influence points, assuming our pokemon ethos align. Ships make the game more interesting. We're still 'discouraging' you from building them by making them cost minerals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Ships make the game more interesting. We're still 'discouraging' you from building them by making them cost minerals. It's much easier to increase your mineral output than your influence output, though. Anything with a per/turn influence cost feels like something you need to be super careful about accepting. Defensive pacts in particular feel very difficult to justify most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
if another empire is willing to get to the point to ally fanatic purifiers, should they really have to jump through another hurdle and pay for the privilege. frontier outposts i understand though
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The difference is that in EU4 every country is expected to do diplomacy though. There's no Fanatic Purifiers in EU4. Every EU4 game has a minimum of one Fanatic Purifier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Ships make the game more interesting. We're still 'discouraging' you from building them by making them cost minerals. Feels kinda reductionist. In EU4 there is no cost to diplomatic deals and it creates a tangle of alliances, guarantees, and pretty cool gameplay. Trade in Stellaris is a great example. Can I set up a trade agreement that benefits the two empires in some way? Not really, I can trade resources. That's a resource exchange, not 'trade between empires', so in EU4 there's much richer interaction possible between pretty backwards human empires (fighting over trade value in a node) on one planet vs aliens in space. And yet you can mess with that entire trade system without it costing you any monarch points (barring events). Similarly, you have a 5 diplo deal limit. You can do whatever diplo deals you want up to that limit, and then go over - kinda like the core planet system in Stellaris, much more flexible than the diplo system Stellaris uses. I think having the player engage with their neighbors is good. Having them look at the traits, look at the ethics, look at the portraits of whatever weird alien poo poo rolled up. If the player has more reasons to interact with other empires, I think that makes them more likely to do so. Diplomacy and inter-empire stuff feels kinda stale in Stellaris, even when compared to EU4 which is a game that exists and has very robust diplomacy. The ship cost in stellaris has never discouraged me from building a ship. The rigid fleet cap has, but that's a post for another time. The influence cost has discouraged me every single time I've gone to mess with diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
My point is that saying 'why put a cost on X if I don't want it to have a cost'' is a completely self-centered argument. You can argue that the diplomacy isn't worth the influence cost (and I'd disagree) but your personal feeling that something should be free only because you personally don't like it having a cost is... not very relevant to the game as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Feels kinda reductionist. In EU4 there is no cost to diplomatic deals and it creates a tangle of alliances, guarantees, and pretty cool gameplay. Not true. You have Diplomatic Relations slots in EU4, and if you go over it costs monarch points.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Wiz posted:My point is that saying 'why put a cost on X if I don't want it to have a cost'' is a completely self-centered argument. You can argue that the diplomacy isn't worth the influence cost (and I'd disagree) but your personal feeling that something you should be free because you don't like it having a cost is... not very relevant to the game as a whole. I think what "discouraged" means is that it has a cost so high you rarely want to use it (which is true with defensive pacts in my experience - certainly compared to how much I'd use defensive alliances in EUIV), not that it has any cost whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
if it makes the game more fun, instead of less fun, well personally i'd be for the more fun thing, in my opinion
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I think what "discouraged" means is that it has a cost so high you rarely want to use it (which is true with defensive pacts in my experience - certainly compared to how much I'd use defensive alliances in EUIV), not that it has any cost whatsoever. That was your argument, not his. oddium posted:if it makes the game more fun, instead of less fun, well personally i'd be for the more fun thing, in my opinion It sure is a good thing that everyone has the exact same opinion on what is and isn't fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
nessin posted:Every EU4 game has a minimum of one Fanatic Purifier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Wiz posted:That was your argument, not his. Rakthar posted:The ship cost in stellaris has never discouraged me from building a ship. The rigid fleet cap has, but that's a post for another time. The influence cost has discouraged me every single time I've gone to mess with diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Wiz posted:My point is that saying 'why put a cost on X if I don't want it to have a cost'' is a completely self-centered argument. You can argue that the diplomacy isn't worth the influence cost (and I'd disagree) but your personal feeling that something you should be free because you don't like it having a cost is... not very relevant to the game as a whole. Yeah I'm not stressing about the cost as if it pains me personally to pay the influence. I'm talking about the design in terms of what it encourages the player to do and what it discourages the player to do. I can't speak for all players, but I can speak as to how it affects my decision making. In EU4 I look for allies and pacts at the start of the game. I try to maintain those relationships over time as the trust that we build up is likely to turn into alliances or useful relationships during the campaign. I mess with Diplomacy in 100% of EU4 games. In Stellaris, if I want to do the same thing it will have an Influence cost, which if I recall grows over time. It means that if I don't plan on making defensive alliances or being friendly with my neighbors, I have no reason to touch Diplomacy whatsoever other than checking the diplomatic status of my targets. I rarely mess with Diplomacy in Stellaris, and when I do, I find it kinda boring. I was observing that in one game, the system encourages the player to interact with it, and in the other, there is a cost before you can do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It sure is a good thing that everyone has the exact same opinion on what is and isn't fun. i don't think this is true. for instance i've noticed some game devs have awful ideas on what's fun
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Yeah I'm not stressing about the cost as if it pains me personally to pay the influence. I'm talking about the design in terms of what it encourages the player to do and what it discourages the player to do. I can't speak for all players, but I can speak as to how it affects my decision making. The influence cost does not grow over time. The difference between EU4 and Stellaris that in EU4, *everyone* has a bunch of allies because there's hundreds of nations on the map. Having 3-4 allies is simply way more powerful in Stellaris than it is in EU4. It also simply wouldn't be practical for everyone to have 3 allies when there's like, 8 empires on the map.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The influence cost does not grow over time. The difference between EU4 and Stellaris that in EU4, *everyone* has a bunch of allies because there's hundreds of nations on the map. Having 3-4 allies is simply way more powerful in Stellaris than it is in EU4. It also simply wouldn't be practical for everyone to have 3 allies when there's like, 8 empires on the map. I mean, hordes exist in EU4 and they get full diplomacy, right? Here's a series of questions I think the player needs to be able to answer before signing a deal that costs Influence: How can I quantify the cost of a defensive alliance? How long will I need to maintain this deal? How many influence points do I need to set aside? How much influence income do I realistically need before I can comfortably afford this alliance? Will I need to spend Influence on leaders or edicts anytime soon? Will I be able to afford the outposts I need if I sign this? Will doing this defensive pact help me or hurt me overall? Influence absolute values tend to be pretty low (early game we're talking in the low hundreds), influence gain is usally +4 for me, so I have to give up half my Influence income to sign a single defensive deal, and this means a big opportunity cost with hiring generals or replacing my leader or doing an edict if I have to. I guess I personally was trying to express I don't understand tying hiring leaders, placing outposts, edicts and making diplo deals to the same pool, and that I would feel much more free to conduct Diplomacy if it didn't also affect my ability to run my empire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Hey Wiz, can you add some sort of warning/auto-renewal prompt if a Wormhole Station treaty or whatever it's called is about to expire? It's very aggravating to lose a dozen wormhole stations because you couldn't renew before the end of the month. e:  at the guy on the Paradox forum wondering if Banks/Utopia will be released on 16 Feb, because it's Banks' birthday.
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:53
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I'd think it be funner to have more limits. Like NAPS, DefPacs and Guarantees could have a pool or separate limit modified by gov type and techs. So you'd have to look even closer at who'd you really want for what kind of friend. It would help stop the galaxy from forming 2-4 giant sides before even Feds start too. The AI bombards me with NAPS and Defpacs all the time even when they are on the other side of the galaxy, I want to at least tell them "no, stop calling me" without having to insult them or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:I mean, hordes exist in EU4 and they get full diplomacy, right? EU4 has a fixed number of countries and there's lots of them. It is a very different game from Stellaris in some ways. Saying that something works in EU4 and therefore it absolutely will work in Stellaris just isn't true. If diplomacy didn't affect your ability to run your empire, you are essentially taking nearly all cost out of that cost vs benefit analysis. It becomes a no brainer for everyone to defensive pact with everyone else that they don't plan on fighting. It would become nearly impossible to wage offensive wars unless we intentionally made the AI really bad at abusing this system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Clearly we need eu4 numbers of countries then to make diplomacy more interesting 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Jigoku San posted:I'd think it be funner to have more limits. Like NAPS, DefPacs and Guarantees could have a pool or separate limit modified by gov type and techs. So you'd have to look even closer at who'd you really want for what kind of friend. It would help stop the galaxy from forming 2-4 giant sides before even Feds start too. The big issue with this is that what limit makes sense would vary completely based on the size of the galaxy and number of empires involved. That's already an issue in the current system, but in a system with say a 4 cap there'd be no penalty at all for allying half the empires on an 8-empire map. This is also kind of an issue with the current system but less so, since every additional ally is a cost until you get a Federation, which is meant to handle 'bigger' diplomacy. A lot of the issues with Stellaris' diplomacy is really down to the fact that it is a 4x moreso than it is a GSG. A lot of things that make sense in our other games don't necessarily make sense here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Wiz posted:EU4 has a fixed number of countries and there's lots of them. It is a very different game from Stellaris in some ways. Saying that something works in EU4 and therefore it absolutely will work in Stellaris just isn't true. If diplomacy didn't affect your ability to run your empire, you are essentially taking nearly all cost out of that cost vs benefit analysis. It becomes a no brainer for everyone to defensive pact with everyone else that they don't plan on fighting. It would become nearly impossible to wage offensive wars unless we intentionally made the AI really bad at abusing this system. I can't believe we are 60 pages in to the second thread and Wiz still has to explain you can't just go "CKII/EUIV in space" and have it work. For what it's worth, if you assume you're roughly the same size as all your friends and rivals, two defensive pacts basically makes you untouchable. Whereas having England and Spain and Portugal allied against France in the first 5 minutes of EUIV is still a bit of a toss up. If that doesn't demonstrate why you can't copy and paste one system to the next I'm not sure what does. My own bugbear with diplomacy is just the fact that it's a bit binary due to my playstyles. I tend to go full purge the alien (in which case diplomacy isn't a thing which is OK) or you go full star trek and try and form a huge federation and then curb stomp everyone. I've never really seen an appealing playstyle that's sort of inbetween. If you're looking at diplomacy through a lense of "kill people or stop people killing you" though, it works fine and is balanced fine. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
I think the problem is that while having a "political currency" to spend makes sense (the more I think about it the more I sorta understand how you'd come to the conclusion) it seems like the implementation itself just isn't very fun. Plus, you blend domestic and interstellar politics into the same currency, which ends up feeling a little forced and frustrating when you can't hire a scientist because you're in too many alliances.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Clearly we need eu4 numbers of countries then to make diplomacy more interesting Stellaris is not EU4. One day I will repeat this enough times that it actually gets through.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Wiz posted:EU4 has a fixed number of countries and there's lots of them. It is a very different game from Stellaris in some ways. Saying that something works in EU4 and therefore it absolutely will work in Stellaris just isn't true. If diplomacy didn't affect your ability to run your empire, you are essentially taking nearly all cost out of that cost vs benefit analysis. It becomes a no brainer for everyone to defensive pact with everyone else that they don't plan on fighting. It would become nearly impossible to wage offensive wars unless we intentionally made the AI really bad at abusing this system. Well it sounds like this is another scaling issue for Stellaris then. I would love to see some other solution to the diplomatic hell than internal costs - like a freebie slot or something, but if that's how it is then so be it. Having played at release when the entire galaxy was in giant alliances, I have no desire for those hell wars to be the norm in Stellaris, that's for sure. So I guess if stale diplo = able to conquer then ok, I'll settle for conquer. I just want to loving play with the diplomacy and make all kinds of treaties with my alien friends while calling other aliens ugly. I hope the galactic UN stuff finds a way to 'feel' the ethos choices and gameplay impacts and insult my neighbors for being alien weirdos. I have more influence in Star Control 2 over my neighbors than in Stellaris. Dill rats indeed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
I've been playing in Ironman so I can't workout exactly when this happens, but so far every time I've found an Artisan Troupe, at some point I just stop being able to interact with them at all. The diplomacy menu won't open or anything. A bit of searching suggests this would happen if they robbed me, but I never actually hired them or used any of the their features before they went dark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Since Psychic empires are gonna be a thing with the Shroud and all. Is there gonna be a reverse for the xenophobic empires that make them really good at fighting psychic guys? Basically I want inquistors snuffing out the psychic presences on planets or psychic blanks that are unaffected by the powers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:07
|
|
