|
Wiz posted:Stellaris is not EU4. One day I will repeat this enough times that it actually gets through. The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Stellaris - Stellaris is not EU4 Please?
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Rakthar posted: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. Sure, I get you. I don't think your feedback is completely unreasonable either. Diplomacy is a bit lackluster, it's just that we're going to have to come up with our own solution, not hamfistedly copy EU4. Really my point is just that one player feeling something shouldn't have a cost because they feel it shouldn't have a cost is kind of a nonstarter as an argument. It may ultimately be the sort of thing you should make a personal mod for if you feel that strongly about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
I mean, people comprehend that CK2 and EU4 are very different games with different emphasis but can't quite grok it for Stellaris. It's baffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Rakthar posted: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 mean you can do that now. Really when you boil EUIV diplomacy right down, it comes down to trying to boost their opinion of you high enough through various means (let's face it we all know what to do too: Royal marriage, influence opinion, offer military access, send gift, and declare the same rivals) to become your ally. Then what you do is do that to everyone who is aligned politically to you (e.g. England goes for Austria, Spain, Portugal if possible) and then use your mega alliance to curb stomp the opposing mega alliance. Well in Stellaris you do the same. You try and get them to like you (1 way research agreement, guarantee Independence, send gift of minerals/energy whatever you have more of, wait until they like you then migration treaty, NAP, Defensive Pact, invite to federation), then you invite them and others aligned with you (based on AI personalities and ethos) to join a federation, and then you run around curb stomping people, which in turn generates threat which creates a big federation against you. The biggest issue with that in my opinion is the same one EUIV suffers from sometimes: If there's a really bad alliance (federation) in your game which blocks your ambitions, you can't do much to break it up. Since Stellaris means no temporary coalitions against fanatical purifiers or whatever, it means a miscalculation early on buggers up your game and stalls it. The other annoying thing is that federations can't merge. Like you have 5 federation builders. Two on your left make a federation, the two on your right make a federation. You get invited to both. There's no way to bring all of them together despite the fact they like each other. In EUIV you just have alliances with them all, meaning you can lead that group to war, whereas if you're in a federation you're in, and if you're out you're out. The reality is though that diplomacy isn't "done" yet, Banks is a huge patch addressing a LOT of mid and late game issues with the game, fleshing out internal politics and adding end game goals to match the end game crisises in terms of awesomeness. These are all issues with diplomacy I noted, but honestly I'm really looking forward to banks and if diplomacy gets even half the overhaul internal politics has had I'll be happy as I really don't feel diplomacy is "bad" it's just a bit easy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Stellaris is not EU4. One day I will repeat this enough times that it actually gets through. Yeah I really wish people understood this. We have pops with political issues and factions, a crisis system, political and social laws, and a growing number of resources we can trade on a global market. Clearly the game is Victoria in space and all expectations should now be directly compared to Victoria.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
This good thing from Ck2, this from HOI4, this from vicky and EU and Dark souls and FTL and Crafting survival.  As much as I would love to have Space CK2 with back stabing, insestuous space brids its not really a 4x thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Really my point is just that one player feeling something shouldn't have a cost because they feel it shouldn't have a cost is kind of a nonstarter as an argument. Yeah I was trying to talk about the diplomatic system in general, starting on that note doesn't seem to have helped. I appreciate the discussion, and had thought about making a mod for that as well 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah I really wish people understood this. We have pops with political issues and factions, a crisis system, political and social laws, and a growing number of resources we can trade on a global market. Clearly the game is Victoria in space and all expectations should now be directly compared to Victoria. I'll be honest: That's a better comparison. It's not a good comparison, but it's a better comparison... at least in terms of where I want to take the game. Not the nitty-gritty production chain stuff, but in that the core of the game should be about your empire, its people and how it is shaped by the decisions you make and the wars you fight rather than primarily being about map painting. I see Stellaris as being about exploration (of the galaxy, of technology, of different societies and their ethics) and story-telling. That is the game's identity and that is where I will focus my efforts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:Yeah I was trying to talk about the diplomatic system in general, starting on that note doesn't seem to have helped. I appreciate the discussion, and had thought about making a mod for that as well Another thing worth noting is that we're making Xenophile the explicitly diplomatic ethic in Banks rather than splitting it up between Pacifist and Xenophile, so you'll be able to get cheap diplomacy without going pacifist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted: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. This is my main complaint, similar to how it gets frustrating in EU when you want to do poo poo with your admin points but have to spend them all on coring and stability hits from random events, but worse because you only have one type of 'do stuff' points unlike in EU. I consider this to be quite different from currencies such as energy and minerals which you can easily actively get more of by conquering or building stuff. I'd like it if internal and external politics used different currencies, plus you could give some kind of diplomatic options for 'unfriendly' empires to use - maybe spending it to increase the chance that someone gives you tribute, or being able to break up other alliances, or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
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. jfc this is so true. i honestly wonder how many people commenting in this thread actually play the game. anyone who thinks free MDPs are a good idea: have you HONESTLY TRIED to crank up the difficulty a bit to where you are not the immediate galactic golden boy and tried to get through the mid game? various sectors in the galaxy already turn into 1910s europe once the neighborhood is talking to each other; at least with the way it is right now you can count on only fighting 2-3 powers at a time. i shudder to think how gridlocked everything would be if everyone was rolling with half a dozen MDPs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Another thing worth noting is that we're making Xenophile the explicitly diplomatic ethic in Banks rather than splitting it up between Pacifist and Xenophile, so you'll be able to get cheap diplomacy without going pacifist. What do you envision the role of Pacifist being, ideally? I know you've said that you feel that it's a game about the decisions you make and the wars you wage, by extension do you feel the Pacifist ethos was a mistake to include or that the name implies more of an ideal than an actual state of affairs? Should it be in the game, and should a peaceful playstyle be supported? Honest question, I'm not really offended either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Get the gently caress out you monster. How are they supposed to snack on lesser species with helmets on? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:What do you envision the role of Pacifist being, ideally? Pacifist should be about maximizing the utility of your systems, building tall, you know... peaceful development. Having a Pacifist ethic in a game where the main activity is/was war was perhaps not the best idea, but I honestly do like it and the fact that it opens up for the existence of isolationist/peaceful empires. It just needs to become more viable as a playstyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
So are we ever going to get a randomize button for ship class names, or should I just keep naming everything after weapons or plant and animal parts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
The Muffinlord posted:So are we ever going to get a randomize button for ship class names, or should I just keep naming everything after weapons or plant and animal parts? I mean, it's not a bad idea? I think it's in our improvements backlog somewhere, but I wouldn't classify it as critical priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
GotLag posted:How are they supposed to snack on lesser species with helmets on? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
It just seems weird that you give us these name lists and don't let us draw from them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
The Muffinlord posted:So are we ever going to get a randomize button for ship class names, or should I just keep naming everything after weapons or plant and animal parts? an Orassi Stellar Yards G-56 "Dog Foot" Corvette. fastest in the galaxy
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Part of the reason the distinctive personalities are so accepted and so clear when it comes to games like CK2 and EU4 is that they've been around a long time at this point and people are really comfortable with them. Stellaris is still pretty young in comparison. After a few expansions people will have clearer expectations. By the way Wiz, I'm really enjoying reading your responses in this thread. It's really interesting to get insights into your thinking about how these systems work, you pretty much never get to hear about design decisions in this much detail for any other game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Pacifist should be about maximizing the utility of your systems, building tall, you know... peaceful development. I mean, to continue the poo poo comparisons, that's like saying "well there's no point having the Aztecs as a playable race in EUIV as they just get murder zoned". I like the fact other empires are pacifist empires, and it does present opportunities for challenges and roleplaying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Zesty Crab Legs posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Games > Stellaris - EU4 in Space, by Wiz Would be much funnier. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:38
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Kitchner posted:I mean, to continue the poo poo comparisons, that's like saying "well there's no point having the Aztecs as a playable race in EUIV as they just get murder zoned". I like the fact other empires are pacifist empires, and it does present opportunities for challenges and roleplaying. Oh sure, but we actually did make playing the Aztecs viable, you know. It's also not quite a great comparison when you're talking one country out of hundreds rather than one ethic choice out of eight. As I said though, I like Pacifist and I have no plans of doing anything to it other than putting more work into making it fun to play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Chalks posted:By the way Wiz, I'm really enjoying reading your responses in this thread. It's really interesting to get insights into your thinking about how these systems work, you pretty much never get to hear about design decisions in this much detail for any other game. yeah it is really refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about tell people 'you have no idea what you're talking about and here's why' when they say something stupid e: this includes me. i have nfi what i am talking about most of the time which is why a substantial number of my posts in this thread relate to nutsack.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:yeah it is really refreshing to see someone who actually knows what they are talking about tell people 'you have no idea what you're talking about and here's why' when they say something stupid Generally speaking, players are good at identifying problems but bad at identifying causes and solutions. As a game designer, you want to understand their experience but draw your own conclusions as to the reasons and solutions for the problems they're having. That doesn't mean every player suggestion for a solution is bad, of course, just that it pays to try and get to the root of things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Oh sure, but we actually did make playing the Aztecs viable, you know. It's also not quite a great comparison when you're talking one country out of hundreds rather than one ethic choice out of eight. As I said though, I like Pacifist and I have no plans of doing anything to it other than putting more work into making it fun to play. I know you're answering like a million different questions, so sorry to repost this, but any comments on making tech more impactful, and introducing tech acquisition during planetary conquest? Majestic posted:Wiz, two questions:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
It would be nice to move towards a Vicky-style crisis model.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Majestic posted:I know you're answering like a million different questions, so sorry to repost this, but any comments on making tech more impactful, and introducing tech acquisition during planetary conquest? The problem with making tech too impactful is that you end up with what happens in virtually every other 4x where the only way to play is to maximize tech because otherwise you die. I think our weapons techs could do to be a little less unimpressive though. Tech looting from planets just seems like it'll reward snowballing with more snowballing, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Oh sure, but we actually did make playing the Aztecs viable, you know. It's also not quite a great comparison when you're talking one country out of hundreds rather than one ethic choice out of eight. As I said though, I like Pacifist and I have no plans of doing anything to it other than putting more work into making it fun to play. I have to say you guys have avoided the trap the HoI team have fallen into with DLC too. The way I see HoI4 is the game wasn't where it should have been, and while there was a sort of inital patch with some things, the first real work done on the game was the DLC which then sold the ability to play as the British empire countries in a more interesting way and added the blitz button which should have been default. If I actually cared about the game other than it being an occasional distraction, I'd be annoyed I HAD to buy a DLC to enjoy the game to the full extent as one of the original "big" countries (AKA Britain and it's empire). Whereas I look at Stellaris and I could genuinely say that if you didn't buy any of the DLC the game would be far better after Banks without ever having to buy the DLC BUT buying the DLC does make the game more awesome, and hence everyone should get it. Azimov and Banks really feel like you guys acknowledging the game wasn't as good as you wanted in many areas, and the free patches are really working on the stuff that should have been better, while the DLC adds on the extra stuff that isn't needed to play the game as described but is cool enriching stuff. That said, I'm still not paying for plants. Sneak new portraits into bigger DLC and bump the price up a bit and I'll probably never notice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:It would be nice to move towards a Vicky-style crisis model. One of the things I absolutely want to get into the game at some point is more of a sense of a galactic community, with a Space UN you could join or not join and with advantages and drawbacks for joining and not joining.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Generally speaking, players are good at identifying problems but bad at identifying causes and solutions. As a game designer, you want to understand their experience but draw your own conclusions as to the reasons and solutions for the problems they're having. That doesn't mean every player suggestion for a solution is bad, of course, just that it pays to try and get to the root of things. i have a similar relationship with clients in my professional life, yeah. i think the saying is that you have to constantly be hearing your customers and clients, but to listen too hard is to listen to madness. at the end of the day, these people are paying you/me/the professionals (whichever term is least presumptuous and douchey here) to come up with solutions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
actually i'm a game dev too. feel free to pm me so we can Talk Shop
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Wiz posted:One of the things I absolutely want to get into the game at some point is more of a sense of a galactic community, with a Space UN you could join or not join and with advantages and drawbacks for joining and not joining. that would be great. I think of the Uplift series of books by David Brin. the carbon-based galactic community in those books has a set of rules, mores that they follow and there are consequences if you don't play ball. there's still war, bad poo poo going down, but there are rules damnit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Poil posted:Rice is boiled with the lid on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBIvYsAWyuU
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The problem with making tech too impactful is that you end up with what happens in virtually every other 4x where the only way to play is to maximize tech because otherwise you die. I think our weapons techs could do to be a little less unimpressive though. Tech looting from planets just seems like it'll reward snowballing with more snowballing, tbh. Yeah, I don't have an easy answer to that. Still, something like the small bonuses you can get from scanning wreckage, but for non combat techs, might be able to be balanced? Given that there are generally less planets than opportunities to destroy fleets, getting 10% of the way towards a factory tech or something for capturing a planet doesn't seem like it would get too out of hand. Weapon tech is the main thing that I think needs work, it just does not feel impactful at the moment. Improving mines, labs and power generation feels much more significant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Personally it's just one of those things I'm expecting you guys to develop more as the game grows. When I think back to when the game was released, and to what it is going to look like after Banks, you'd swear the original release was a beta. In all fairness though, Stellaris is a *very* thankful game to develop content for. With no historical restrictions, we can add content wherever and in basically any form we please. That said, I am making a very conscious effort to avoid some of the problems we had with EU4 and CK2 in terms of what became expansion and what became update content. Major mechanics should be free, extra content/cool poo poo should be paid. Obviously that isn't always a black and white thing, nor does everyone doesn't always 100% agree what falls on which side, but all the same that is what we're aiming for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Pacifist should be about maximizing the utility of your systems, building tall, you know... peaceful development. In 4x games I like to play as a dpilomatic or xenophobic turtle, these could be good ways of looking at what we can give pacifists something to do that's fun for some people. . Be peaceful, focus on tech and internal development, get role playing pleasure out of my empire by extremely ethical and having a superior culture to the violent barbarians around me, still have some fun doing combat when idiots try to attack or fighting "monsters" or other non-empire threats. Then in the end build what ever "wonder" or super project earns the non-conquest victory. Winning the galactic council in moo for instance. Doesn't need to be a "hard win" condition though. Just getting to the point where my personal goals are met and knowing that despite not conquering the galaxy or painting the map my colour, I'm at a point where I'm unstoppable or at least unassailable. As a pacifist in stellaris I'd love to "win" or have "goals" to that let: -Convert a majority of the galaxy to my general ethos -Eliminate "evil" ethos/governments, rally nations to an anti-slavery crusade, or anti-dictatorship or what ever. -Not fight expansionist wars but meddle, sometimes militarily, with other empires in the name of rights or war crimes. -Intervene in wars like UN peacekeepers or try to stop wars simply with a threat. -Have some sort of political or ethical clout where my diplomatic condemnation of certain acts or wars carries some weight, and also earns some rewards in the long run. -Declare certain pre-warp civilizations as off-limits to meddling or invasion -Soft economic power to influence other nations. "don't conquer your small neighbour or our juicy trade treaty will be canceled" Basically be able to meddle, guarantee, and influence not just based on military threat but diplomatic and economic threat. To unite empires or foam coalitions around social/political causes that put pressure on empires that follow certain ethos and pressure them to change. To eventually "convert" so many empires to my peaceful ethos that I feel like I've won a "cultural" or "ethos victory".
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
The Muffinlord posted:It just seems weird that you give us these name lists and don't let us draw from them. You can draw from them by hitting the randomise button in the ship designer / colonisation interface, but if you don't do that it'll pick for you. Or name your planets something like, "Fatstar Prime," rather than the carefully crafted list of animeworlds you'd put in. It's a bit annoying, especially as when the game first came out random names were the default. Wiz, any chance of an option in 1.5 to go back to defaulting to random colony names?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
uber_stoat posted:that would be great. I think of the Uplift series of books by David Brin. the carbon-based galactic community in those books has a set of rules, mores that they follow and there are consequences if you don't play ball. there's still war, bad poo poo going down, but there are rules damnit. Something like that, it would also be really cool to have sort of a space civ ranking system, so the galaxy can share a bunch of different 'tiers' of civs that mostly compete on their own tier. Not really sure how to do that with a galaxy that's quickly out of space to colonize though, so it's more of a wild idea than a future plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
On weapons tech: the game could do with secondary effects on weapons that are more interesting than +/- shields/armour, and some interactions between secondary effects to create more choices. For example, some kind of 'gluon' cannon that reduced enemy ship speed plus aoe torpedos, countered by afterburners, would be positive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:01
|
|