|
Reads like a buff to robots to me.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Do vassals aquired by war continue to colonize?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
That planet in the screenshot is my nightmare. No matter where you place your starting colony you're losing a minimum of three resources.Main Paineframe posted:make deposits work with other building types rather than just one and make planetary modifiers more common
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That planet in the screenshot is my nightmare. No matter where you place your starting colony you're losing a minimum of three resources. Put it on the +2 physics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Reads like a buff to robots to me. I think it's a bit mixed for happiness-ignoring pops. Obviously at low habitability it's great, but at like 80% or 60% the happiness penalty isn't so bad that it'd be a clear winner. With 60%, you only need more than +20% happiness to start getting a production bonus, whereas with the happiness hard cap you were comparing the bonuses from robots or slaves to pops that couldn't get that bonus productivity in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:New dev diary: Why make a big change to the part of the game that's the least broken? If they want to make planets feel more unique they should introduce more tile blockers that have effects on surrounding tiles, and then change the "clear blockers" technologies into ones that actively make use of the tile blocker. Give us a choice between building a bunch of power plants around a volcano for the geothermal energy bonus (but leaving the volcano tile unusable), or "building over" the volcano with a Deep Core Mine. Let us build unity buildings around the giant cliffs for tourism bonuses, or build a wind farm on top for energy generation. Etc, etc. Let those starting slums on the homeworld give either a population growth boost (with a big tourism malus to encourage pops to move away from the homeworld in the early game), clear them as we do now, or let us "reclaim them" into arcologies with a mid-late game technology. Turn alien pets into a tile blocker and choose between building an export center (for a minor empire-wide happiness bonus) or a xeno-zoo for tourism (once that's working again). Turn the tile blockers into a tactical choice and while I'm sure optimal strategies will emerge it adds a little more nuance to the current "build whatever I'm making the least of right now" midgame. Wiz, the real reason planets feel "same-y" is because by the end game they're completely devoid of features except maybe a +X/-X% bonus to a resource. You either "click button to remove blocker" or "spend money to terraform the world into a parking lot" and that's absolutely going to make your planets feel boring. Making planets that don't suck rare isn't going to help that, I'd rather have to decide to turn that Titanic Life tile into a training camp (with a surrounding food malus to keep them content), a farm (with an occasional rebellion risk), or a nature preserve (with a surrounding science bonus). The current living forests is a perfect example of what we need more of to make planets feel less boring. I'd also love to see some rare "galactic natural wonder" style blockers with maybe 1-2 per "empire spawning cluster." That would do a lot to make planets feel less homogeneous. PoptartsNinja fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Put it on the +2 physics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Then you lose the +1 physics on the left, or place a research building and lose the adjacency bonus. But that's the best trade off you can do assuming you're interested in energy and minerals at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:But that's the best trade off you can do assuming you're interested in energy and minerals at all. Splicer posted:That planet in the screenshot is my nightmare. No matter where you place your starting colony you're losing a minimum of three resources. PoptartsNinja posted:Wiz, the real reason planets feel "same-y" is because by the end game they're completely devoid of features except maybe a +X/-X% bonus to a resource. You either "click button to remove blocker" or "spend money to terraform the world into a parking lot" and that's absolutely going to make your planets feel boring. Making planets that don't suck rare isn't going to help that, I'd rather have to decide to turn that Titanic Life tile into a training camp (with a surrounding food malus to keep them content), a farm (with an occasional rebellion risk), or a nature preserve (with a surrounding science bonus). The current living forests is a perfect example of what we need more of to make planets feel less boring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
I'm aware that planets are kind of boring. I'm not expecting this change to fix that. I'm expecting it to make them more interesting finds during early exploration and fix the problem of empires supply tripling in population when they become able to colonize other climates. The deposit thing is a minor change that's mostly for flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Wiz posted:There's a habitable planets slider if you want more habitable planets. I also don't think you're accounting for the fact that 80% of planets will be colonizable from get-go in terms of border expansion. Sure, but 2/3rds of those planets will be largely non-productive for the first third of the game or so, meaning that they'll largely serve to pad out borders and fleet cap for whoever already has the biggest mineral income to spend on colony ships, as well as things like blocking their neighbors by taking away those species' preferred planet types just to screw them out of potentially productive planets. Colonizing planets is really important in this game. It's one of the four Xs that make this a 4X, and a lot of game elements tie into it. Planet availability in particular has a lot of side effects that drive to the very core of this game, and it seems like an odd place to start "fixing" planets when its basically the one aspect of planets that isn't bad or broken in some way. People don't feel like planets are samey because there's too many of them, they feel samey because the player's objective with every planet is to bulldoze everything currently on the planet to make it a blank slate, and then build whatever the deposits tell you to, at least until later in the game when the free resources from deposits are no longer a significant part of your income. Planet-wide modifiers are fairly rare (but it sure does make a planet feel special when you get a +50% minerals planet), tile blockers exist exclusively as annoyances to tech-gate some tiles, adjacency bonuses are barely used, and in the end every tile on a planet will be exactly the same aside from their deposits, which aren't even shown once you've built on them. And once you've built up a planet, all you can do with it is shuffle around pops, which ranges from "expensive and annoying" to "actively counterproductive" depending on how fancy you try to get with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Spending minerals on colony ships is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
i would like the game to show tile bonuses even if built over them, would be useful for fixing planets conquered from the ai
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Surely this is just gonna make people who pick the planet type with a bonus to minerals steamroll everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Enough bitching, time for fawning.Wiz posted:The deposit thing is a minor change that's mostly for flavor. *I worked out I could probably make an event that wiped all the planets to bedrock and then rebuilt them one by one to my specifications but fuuuck that. quote:Terraforming Interface Improvements quote:We also spent some time cleaning up the Terraforming interface in general, hiding the button for planets where it is never applicable (such as non-Terraforming Candidate barren worlds) and improving the sorting and style of the actual terraforming window. quote:Next week we'll be talking about some significant changes coming in the area of genetic modification. I'm not very good at fawning. Splicer fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Spending minerals on colony ships is dumb. prosperity reigns supreme Tullius posted:Surely this is just gonna make people who pick the planet type with a bonus to minerals steamroll everyone else? Yeah I think the bonus should be split by planet type cause minerals is hands down the best. So it could be like: minerals/eng: continental, alpine, arid energy/phys: ocean, arctic, desert food/soc: tropical, tundra, savannah At least then if you have a bunch of minmax sperglords you will end up with a mix of wet/cold/dry instead of everyone being some flavor of cold. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Tullius posted:Surely this is just gonna make people who pick the planet type with a bonus to minerals steamroll everyone else? Completely unrelated, with Frontier Hospitals/Military Bases doing their thing does anyone bother to build biolabs anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
I'm still personally in favor of the "tear down the whole pop/tile system and rebuild it like Stars in Shadow or Endless Space" approach, to be honest, but I understand why it'll never happen. I agree that something like natural wonders or interactive tile blockers or a billion other things would go a long way towards remedying planets, at least. E: Also, yeah, cold being the mineral climate is gonna mean that the objectively optimal homeworld choice is from the cold group. Making it one of the water availability types instead would at least make min/max spergs diversify across climates a bit. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Completely unrelated, with Frontier Hospitals/Military Bases doing their thing does anyone bother to build biolabs anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Is there any drawback to storing lots of food? Everyone I know keeps it at 200 but do you get a bonus for it? It doesn't show any negatives for setting your food stockpile super high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Surplus food once you're at your stockpile limit adds to pop growth, so in the early game at least I like to leave it at the minimum level to kickstart pop growth. Once you're in the mid/late game, though, definitely up your stockpile limit to buffer against shortages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Yes, but only because a) I don't have those buildings yet or b) I've got a large planet with more than two social research areas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Extra energy means more space mines and robots! Extra food means faster pops to work those planet mines! It sounds like it's only going to be one or two extra per planet so I don't think it's going to be that big of a deal. minerals are the "do a thing" resource and trump all of the others
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Honestly, I think reducing the number of planets is generally a good thing. Course I also wanna reduce the number of ships, and do something with sectors so I have an actual reason to not just have one ginormous "everything else" sector managed by one very energetic governor. Also replacing manually placed planet governors with some sort of non-leader slot eating planet vote/appointment system, crusader kings 2 in space, animal crossing mechanics on the planet scale, and at least two kittens for me personally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
yeah the general idea of reducing the number of planets and making them more important individually is good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Danaru posted:Is there any drawback to storing lots of food? Everyone I know keeps it at 200 but do you get a bonus for it? It doesn't show any negatives for setting your food stockpile super high. I'm pretty sure the only reason to have more than 200 food in your stockpile is if you're worried that a war or some other unfortunate event might cut off or destroy most of your food production, in which case your pops will live off the stockpile until it's depleted and then start starving when the stockpile is empty. Still, that's a pretty unlikely thing to happen, and the ten year delay on policy changes makes it pretty hard to adapt your food policy to your situation anyway. The negative to having a large food stockpile is that you don't get the growth bonus for adding more food to a full stockpile until your stockpile is full, so a higher stockpile cap means you need to wait longer for that bonus to start kicking in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Lttp with Utopia. Expansion seems like the best early Tradition, is there ever a situation I wouldn't want to start with that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
SirPhoebos posted:Lttp with Utopia. Expansion seems like the best early Tradition, is there ever a situation I wouldn't want to start with that? Dunno Lttp, but dipping Prosperity to Private Colony Ships is a really good idea before starting your expansion in seriousness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Dunno Lttp, but dipping Prosperity to Private Colony Ships is a really good idea before starting your expansion in seriousness. Prosperity adoption as first pick is hands down the best because you get big discounts on the initial station spam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
I would just like more unique, specialised planets. I want to think of XYZ system and know that it's a great trade nexus, or some neutral city full of spies who were sent there to watch the other spies, or graveyard of empires where the dregs of civilisations are all piled up on top of each. other. If you want to ingrain that into someone's thinking I guess it would have to be something the player would have to pay attention to... I dunno, maybe through very powerful (and varied) modifiers that you would have to pay attention to to remain competitive? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Prosperity adoption as first pick is hands down the best because you get big discounts on the initial station spam. Yeah, Prosperity -> Colony Ships then straight into Expansion is the optimal route. Halving influence cost on frontier outpost maintenance and making it cheaper to build outposts and colonies away from the empire make it very easy to sweep up a massive amount of territory early into the game. Then build inward after that and you've essentially trivialized the entire game. Edit: I also agree with the above post. I don't mind if planets are rarer but they should have more unique modifiers. You should be extremely excited to see certain kinds of planets (like the +50% minerals one or a good gaia world). It would be really cool if there were all sorts of strategies you could leverage with different kinds of planets too. Like maybe a holy world amplifies psychics or controlling a certain planet gives you access to materials that make better synths, that kind of thing. JuniperCake fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Jun 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:prosperity reigns supreme This sounds like a way better method of doing it than by Wet/Dry/Cold biomes
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
JuniperCake posted:Yeah, Prosperity -> Colony Ships then straight into Expansion is the optimal route. I thought this once then was steamrolled by an awakened empire that the rest of the AIs didn't stand a chance against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:Yeah I think the bonus should be split by planet type cause minerals is hands down the best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Nuramor posted:Do vassals aquired by war continue to colonize? To answer this, no they can't unless the last patch changed it. There is a better vassal mod that allows it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
is it wise to allow my megasector to colonize? i'm playing as a devouring hive so food isn't a concern
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I usually leave it off, you can still colonize planets in a sector manually so you can get the worlds you want and avoid having the AI colonize a size 8 planet with very poor minerals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 22:59
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
misguided rage posted:I usually leave it off, you can still colonize planets in a sector manually so you can get the worlds you want and avoid having the AI colonize a size 8 planet with very poor minerals. I wish you could do something to set aside those tiny planets without colonizing them. Like designate them for training and get +3 eng research or something
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:is it wise to allow my megasector to colonize? i'm playing as a devouring hive so food isn't a concern Probably not, if only because it will run down your Influence pool 30 at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 23:17
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
Vasler posted:Thanks - so I interpret this as destroyers and battleships in one fleet with corvettes and cruisers in another. Is that correct? Just mash them together, they'll sort themselves out in battle. The multiple wormhole stations thing is not something I'd considered, but makes a lot of sense for your "backbone" systems - especially if, like me, you tend to roll your fleet around as three smaller deathballs rather than one big one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2017 23:30
|
|
