|
Ocean homeworld, fan. spiritualist / authoritarian, oligarchy. Always say yes on any horizon signal popups.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
Nevets posted:Always say yes on any horizon signal popups. There are people who don't do this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Bakanogami posted:Is there any indication how long it will be till 1.8 comes out? I'd just started a hive mind game a little bit ago, but these changes are making me want to set it aside and restart anew later. Don't expect it until September. Paradox is effectively on vacation for July (along with everyone else in Sweden), and then my WAG is they'll take August to finalize development on the patch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 23:47
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
So since a lot of people seem hot to trot for "almost no inhabitable planets," has anyone tried playing it in a mode where literally the only other habitable planets are homeworlds, or possibly those two guaranteed nearby freebies?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:There are people who don't do this? I don't really like my space people to suffer through creepy poo poo, so I tend to break it off most of the time. (But one time I created an alternative line of saves to see the storyline through to the end, just to satisfy my curiosity. Otherwise though, I tend to go "nope".)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I don't really like my space people to suffer through creepy poo poo, so I tend to break it off most of the time. What Was Will Be Savescummed, What Will Be Savescummed Was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
I kind of think it might be a little too easy to 'switch off' ethos as needed. Started as pacifist/materialist/egalitarians, pumped out tons of unity, grabbed a bunch of trees and then promoted a science party to instantly be fanatic materialist/egalitarians, swapped out agrarian idyl and had instant access to unrestricted war etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I kind of think it might be a little too easy to 'switch off' ethos as needed. So maybe if there were further restrictions? The factions as it is are based off of your actions so maybe having high popularity with the pacifist faction unlocks their stuff and locks the militarist one?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
In my current run with racist scientist warrior birds (now racist scientist robots  ), the xenophile FE woke up and instantly declared war on the plantoid empire that I had just liberated to create a buffer between me and the spiritualist FE near my southern border. The AE rolled them and annexed all but one of their worlds, giving them a lot of border with the spiritualists. I was all set for the spiritualists to wake up and War in Heaven to trigger, but FE instead just declared war on the xenophiles as they were. They're gone now and and the AE has moved on to finishing off the buffer empire. I figure I'm next and am building up my navy frantically. I guess at least they killed the guys that hate me the most.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
I'm not sure I really understand the point of this game. I'm playing a Xenophile. Playing with the edict (I think it is an edict) that only permits defensive wars. I've created a federation with some like minded neighbors. So now I seem to have been stuck for hour upon hour of play time just sitting there. The galaxy borders are mostly drawn out at this point. Nothing is really changing or moving. No one has declared war against me, so there's not a hell of a lot I can do militarily. Are there no victory conditions in this game other than territory conquering? Are there no means of shifting territory, culture, allegiance, etc. other than through military? The game gives you all these edicts and options to play as a xeno-friendly pacifist, but there seems to be no pragmatic way to actually make progress toward victory (or even anything other than boredom) doing it. I'm used to other games, I guess, where those pacifist options don't exist (so you know you have to fight militarily to win) or if the pacifist options do exist, there are other mechanics and routes to victory (e.g. Civ's culture/science/space race stuff). Stellaris just seems like it holds out peaceful play as an option through its edicts and such, but if you do it, nothing really happens and you have no meaningful way to sway the game through diplomacy or otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm playing a Xenophile. Mistake #1: Xenophile has never been a viable choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm not sure I really understand the point of this game. Form a federation and get everybody in on it. Getting enough of the galaxy part of your federation is one way of winning. Stage liberation wars against anybody that refuses to join.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
kujeger posted:Form a federation and get everybody in on it. Getting enough of the galaxy part of your federation is one way of winning. To stage a liberation war, you have to not have the pacifist/defensive war edict, I assume? So that goes to what I was saying - military is the only way?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm not sure I really understand the point of this game. Pacifist is kinda gimped at the moment since, as you mentioned diplomacy and espionage are anemic at best. This will likely be expanded on in future updates and expansions. But for now, either try and goad the enemy into attacking you, or reroll as a devouring swarm and just consume the galaxy. Most folks play Paradox games as a sandbox/roleplaying game where you make your own victory conditions. In fact, I think Stellaris is one of if not the only Paradox game with victory conditions at all. Hopefully they'll add some kind of "transcendence/technology" victory for those who aren't bent on conquering everyone, but for now, the game is best played with expansion in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
I have never achieved any of Stellaris's victory conditions and I don't intend to ever do so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
I have. The federation condition in multiplayer games. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:I have never achieved any of Stellaris's victory conditions and I don't intend to ever do so. Honestly, I wish we just didn't have them. They add basically nothing to the game and were introduced just because victory conditions is a 4x staple. I guess I could add some sort of 'peaceful' victory for filling out all the tradition trees or researching enough tech, but what would that actually add to a campaign besides the obligatory CONGLATURATION screen for hitting an arbitrary cutoff point? At some point I want to do a proper rework of victory conditions into individual empire goals, but that's not happening anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Have you looked at Distant Worlds? The neat thing there was a bunch of unique victory conditions for every species, on top of the usual land grab stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
The only reason I know what the victory screen looks like is because it was buggy as he'll when the game first came out and you'd see all sorts of weird things. To me, victory in the game (and a lot of similar ones) is when I go 'Okay, I've had enough' then start over. Maybe something like in Distant Worlds where you achieve victory when con control enough of the economy, trade and population and it's clear your victory is just a matter of time. Or build your unique wonders or w/e. It saves you having to go through all the tedious motions of picking off every last opponent and chasing ships all over creation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Have you looked at Distant Worlds? The neat thing there was a bunch of unique victory conditions for every species, on top of the usual land grab stuff. I have Distant Worlds, but I had a difficult time getting my units to respond to enemy incursions intelligently in the game. I really liked the idea of the game, that you do not have to control things on a ship-by-ship basis, but I found it to be very frustrating getting raided by pirates while my fleet sat a system away idly, refusing to move to engage them even though I had broad orders for them to defend the sector.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Have you looked at Distant Worlds? The neat thing there was a bunch of unique victory conditions for every species, on top of the usual land grab stuff. It's not that I don't know how we could rework victory conditions to be better, I just don't consider it a very high priority. I really don't think the game needed victory conditions in the first place, usually what they do is just artificially prolong a game session where the player feels 'done', when the correct thing for a player that feels done to do is to be, well, done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It's not that I don't know how we could rework victory conditions to be better, I just don't consider it a very high priority. I really don't think the game needed victory conditions in the first place, usually what they do is just artificially prolong a game session where the player feels 'done', when the correct thing for a player that feels done to do is to be, well, done. I remember that a decent amount of the criticism about Cities Skylines around release was because people couldn't wrap their heads around a game that didn't have a win condition. People would get a city up and running, with all utilities available and budgets balanced, and then complain that the game was pointless and that there's nothing to do. It's really weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I remember that a decent amount of the criticism about Cities Skylines around release was because people couldn't wrap their heads around a game that didn't have a win condition. People would get a city up and running, with all utilities available and budgets balanced, and then complain that the game was pointless and that there's nothing to do. It's really weird. It hardly hurt the game's sales though, and I don't hear anyone complaining about it nowadays, whereas the half-baked victory conditions in Stellaris are a constant source of complaint. This really is the sort of thing where you should do it right or not at all. I'd take them out if it was worth the backlash over 'cutting content'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
I'm less concerned about the victory conditions than the completely stultifying boredom that exists if you don't play a militarily aggressive game. As I said, maybe it doesn't need victory conditions, but something for xenophiles and pacifists to do to affect the game would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Yeah to be honest it's pretty easy to just ignore the victory conditions and decide for yourself when you're done. Just treat it like any other Paradox game. *edit* I agree that having more avenues to pursue than military expansion would be a benefit to the game though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm less concerned about the victory conditions than the completely stultifying boredom that exists if you don't play a militarily aggressive game. Yeah, this is definitely on a future to-do list. Reworking war and expanding on diplomacy are our biggest two overarching priorities going forward. Just saying that the issue isn't really about victory conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I'm less concerned about the victory conditions than the completely stultifying boredom that exists if you don't play a militarily aggressive game. Start a new game
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah to be honest it's pretty easy to just ignore the victory conditions and decide for yourself when you're done. Just treat it like any other Paradox game. Wiz posted:Yeah, this is definitely on a future to-do list. Reworking war and expanding on diplomacy are our biggest two overarching priorities going forward. Just saying that the issue isn't really about victory conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Wiz posted:It hardly hurt the game's sales though, and I don't hear anyone complaining about it nowadays, whereas the half-baked victory conditions in Stellaris are a constant source of complaint. This really is the sort of thing where you should do it right or not at all. I'd take them out if it was worth the backlash over 'cutting content'. As far as I've been able to tell the new game mode that CO introduced which does introduce win conditions hasn't gained much traction in the community at large. The concept of winning just doesn't seem to fit well in more simulation oriented games, the conditions always end up feeling pretty arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Wiz posted:what would that actually add to a campaign besides the obligatory CONGLATURATION screen for hitting an arbitrary cutoff point? A sense of urgency and a goal to work towards. Stellaris is already very weak on reasons to interact with your neighbors except for taking their poo poo. It suffers from the late game malaise of many city/civ sims where once you reach equilibrium, you're either waiting for interesting things to happen or just getting bored. It's also courteous to the player to have a point where you tell them, "this is as much game as we designed for." Stellaris can involve lots of waiting around for things to happen, especially if you don't play aggressively, so letting people know that yes, they've seen the bulk of what they're going to see, it's over - that's helpful. It would also make the endgame crises a lot more interesting if they were indeed the end of the game, not just another randomly place military power with a death ball. For all of Stellaris's high-concept sci-fi ideas, the idea that history has an ending, in apocalypse or transcendence or escape, isn't present at all. It's doubly baffling because it's a 4X staple, going back to Civ. You can upload your brain to a robot body or capture a sun, but you can't play god.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I remember that a decent amount of the criticism about Cities Skylines around release was because people couldn't wrap their heads around a game that didn't have a win condition. People would get a city up and running, with all utilities available and budgets balanced, and then complain that the game was pointless and that there's nothing to do. It's really weird. This is weird to me, like the game is basically the same thing as Sim City but that also didn't have any victory conditions so...?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This is weird to me, like the game is basically the same thing as Sim City but that also didn't have any victory conditions so...? But Sim City had more "gamey" elements for lack of a better word. Objectives, scenarios, even just events that happen. Cities Skylines is more of a building tool, where you just build a city and that's it. For some people, that's the whole point, for others, they want something more to latch onto.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I'd love to be able to take an "I'm done" save and use it as the seed for a new game set a couple of centuries later. This would be an great idea for most paradox games to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:But Sim City had more "gamey" elements for lack of a better word. Objectives, scenarios, even just events that happen. Cities Skylines is more of a building tool, where you just build a city and that's it. For some people, that's the whole point, for others, they want something more to latch onto. Nobody plays EUIV to get to 1821 and see their final score, they play it to dick around with their country and watch as Irish Mexico becomes the Holy Roman Emperor and converts Europe to Nahuatl. Paradox games are a sandbox that plays out different every single time, and it's about watching/affecting how that goes rather than where it ends. Make your own objectives, you don't need someone to tell you what to do. E: Oh man a New Game+ or whatever where it fast forwards a few centuries and your old empire is now a FE or whatever would be great. Crazycryodude fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:A sense of urgency and a goal to work towards. Stellaris is already very weak on reasons to interact with your neighbors except for taking their poo poo. It suffers from the late game malaise of many city/civ sims where once you reach equilibrium, you're either waiting for interesting things to happen or just getting bored. This is a pretty weird outlook to take for a game like this, though. I've never felt like the appeal of any of the Paradox grand strategy or simulation games has ever been seeing all of the content in the game, but seeing how the game can play itself out differently over time. That kind of game doesn't really suit itself very well to a defined condition for an ending, because having one would force every session to eventually converge towards the same conclusion. I'd much rather have the game keep itself open and dynamic. GunnerJ posted:This is weird to me, like the game is basically the same thing as Sim City but that also didn't have any victory conditions so...? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
No, no I agree about the Paradox games thing, I'm not complaining about those. But I did bounce off Cities Skylines because there's not enough "game" to latch onto there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, no I agree about the Paradox games thing, I'm not complaining about those. But I did bounce off Cities Skylines because there's not enough "game" to latch onto there. The game makes a pretty good traffic simulator, especially if you load it up with mods. I've really enjoyed taking different architectural styles and urban planning methods from around the world and applying them to various landscapes not well suited for transit networks. British row houses now give me a vague sense of dread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:The game makes a pretty good traffic simulator, especially if you load it up with mods. I've really enjoyed taking different architectural styles and urban planning methods from around the world and applying them to various landscapes not well suited for transit networks. British row houses now give me a vague sense of dread. Despite reading a whole bunch of traffic optimization guides, I can't figure it out. It doesn't help that the game locks away highways from the get go, so you can't even extend the highway properly until your city is like 5500 population.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
I will say that having victory conditions is nice for a certain kind of player (me) who is bad at sandboxy things. I always want something to work towards, but I'm really bad at setting my own goals and much prefer it when the game does it for me. I don't really get into open-ended games (Fallout/Skyrim/Cities) for this reason. Maybe give the player the option to turn off the victory conditions (sandbox mode), but definitely don't get rid of victory conditions entirely. I also fully endorse fleshing out victory conditions in some way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 15:36 |
|
|
If you want to play a diplomacy-heavy game my suggestion would be to go Full Feudalism and start vassalizing the hell out of everyone you can. It makes you powerful and it gives you a rabble of cats to herd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 17:56
|
|
