|
Splicer posted:This but homemade Leviathans. That'd be the logical next step yes. Wafflecopper posted:How's this game coming along? I played at launch and enjoyed the early game but then got bored and shelved it. Worth reinstalling and getting Utopia? I'd say so.
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Splicer posted:This but homemade Leviathans. I think ascension-path specific ground and space military is the logical end point. Custom Bioships for biology masters (we've even got global food now, so food construction costs and food maintenance isn't even a problem anymore), etc. Same for ground troops really, shoggoths and godzillas vs robot armies vs ethereals seems like a logical progression. But that one makes little sense until the ground combat overhaul is being done because we don't know how ground combat is going to look eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Hey wiz is there a way to track whether a scientist researching a technology has a trait for it? I have an idea for a mod that gives a scientist a chance of having a eureka moment if he researches a technology in a group he's got the trait for, awarding extra points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Hey wiz is there a way to track whether a scientist researching a technology has a trait for it? I have an idea for a mod that gives a scientist a chance of having a eureka moment if he researches a technology in a group he's got the trait for, awarding extra points. I think you can check which tech is being researched and what category it is in, but I don't know for sure. Check the modding part of the wiki.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:How's this game coming along? I played at launch and enjoyed the early game but then got bored and shelved it. Worth reinstalling and getting Utopia? Utopia mostly adds stuff to the mid/late game, sounds like that's where you lost interest so I'd say give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Welcome back from your vacation, Wiz! Sorry to dig this up so inelegantly, but it got buried again:Gimmick Account posted:I remember asking this question earlier (it instantly got buried under unrelated replies), but would it be possible to let players selectively deactivate certain species portraits for galaxy generation? I'm always annoyed when I play humans and meet the various Star Trek humanoid aliens that got patched in some time ago, but they WOULD on the other hand make good choices for when I branch off a gene-modded subspecies. That way I could make sure the picture isn't already taken. Could that be implemented without a non-trivial investment of workhours?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
I'm still on vacation, just doing dev diaries and such from home. Selective deactivation of portraits has been suggested, there's an improvement request on it somewhere in our database but I don't really consider it high priority, particularly since it can be modded very easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I'm still on vacation, just doing dev diaries and such from home. Selective deactivation of portraits has been suggested, there's an improvement request on it somewhere in our database but I don't really consider it high priority, particularly since it can be modded very easily. Oh, it can? I thought the only thing currently possible was removing the portraits from circulation entirely - Without being able to use them for genemodding projects. Good to know, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Pretty sure, the author posts it in the comments God drat it, so this is what happened to my fanatic spiritualist space Turtle Empire save. Did you ever figure out a solution to this? I will be super upset if I have to abandon that save, it was going really well and I was just getting to the good part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Language setting people on fire would be a bonus. Yes please bring back Alexis Kennedy please please add new leviathan "The Dawn Machine" tia
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Quorum posted:God drat it, so this is what happened to my fanatic spiritualist space Turtle Empire save. Did you ever figure out a solution to this? I will be super upset if I have to abandon that save, it was going really well and I was just getting to the good part. I tried downloading an older version of the mod from a possibly shifty russian mirror site and I guess that was too old. Guess I'll have to scrap that save  We're not alone though, the mod comments have quite a few people asking for a legacy version of the mod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Thyrork posted:
Can't wait to have invaded planets tag-teamed by giant fuckbots
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 22:35
|
|
Please do not make Stepford Blorgs.
|
Devouring swarms becoming head of the free empires federation seems like a weird overisght to me
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Pocky In My Pocket posted:Devouring swarms becoming head of the free empires federation seems like a weird overisght to me At least it wasn't a horse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
I can't say as I'm super excited about a new expansion feature that pushes me to customize every single robot pop everywhere to match its tile usage, especially on mixed-use planets. The "put the +5% to banana harvesting pop on the banana tile" is one of Stellaris's most tedious micromanagement tasks. Even if the AI could do it on its own, you still have to micromanage not building too many robots for the number of tiles robots can work without huge penalties. This minigame also makes slave xenos (and the xeno slave race trait especially) obnoxious to micromanage, for the same reason. It's made worse by the high costs for force resettling pops; micromanaging interplanetary populations is almost always unaffordable, especially for typically influence-starved authoritarian civs. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I can't say as I'm super excited about a new expansion feature that pushes me to customize every single robot pop everywhere to match its tile usage, especially on mixed-use planets. I mean it'll probably be less annoying with robots since it'll usually be have a tile -> build a robot for it as opposed to have a pop/tile -> find a tile/pop for it, and resettling nonsentient robots is way less of a hassle, but still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
You could just not go for the most optimal build and rest secure in the knowledge that over a hundred years that 5% mineral boost you're not getting won't amount to much. Maybe your empire is laid back and just lets people go where they like and be the kind of person they want to be. If that's a dude who is specialized for mining boosts on a unity tile, then good for him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
As long as sectors are smart enough to build the correct robots for the tiles a lot of the micro hassle would be cut out anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Jesus this game is dense. Finally got around to installing it and trying it...there is a hell of a lot to wrap your head around, coming mostly from Civ V for this type of game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:You could just not go for the most optimal build and rest secure in the knowledge that over a hundred years that 5% mineral boost you're not getting won't amount to much. Maybe your empire is laid back and just lets people go where they like and be the kind of person they want to be. If that's a dude who is specialized for mining boosts on a unity tile, then good for him. I'm not really sure why we would want features that we don't want to engage with. It's not like there's a non-micromanaging reason to build a bunch of specialized robot types.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:You could just not go for the most optimal build and rest secure in the knowledge that over a hundred years that 5% mineral boost you're not getting won't amount to much. Maybe your empire is laid back and just lets people go where they like and be the kind of person they want to be. If that's a dude who is specialized for mining boosts on a unity tile, then good for him. Agreed. I don't see much of a point in min/maxing. If I have a planet geared around a specific resource I'll engineer the pops there to work it better if they have the points, but I'm not terribly concerned about anything more than that. Really, the game is usually more interesting if you go ahead and make suboptimal decisions that would fit your empire's ethics. instantrunoffvote posted:I'm not really sure why we would want features that we don't want to engage with. It's not like there's a non-micromanaging reason to build a bunch of specialized robot types. I am completely fine with Paradox adding features that I, personally, don't care too much about but other people want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
More options isn't bad. Some people are spergs that like to micromanage their tiles. Some people just want to get hassle free income and push their galactic conquest. Both of these people can play and enjoy the same game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Jesus this game is dense. Finally got around to installing it and trying it...there is a hell of a lot to wrap your head around, coming mostly from Civ V for this type of game. Same boat for me. What strikes you as particularly dense about it though? I'm only halfway through one game, so I haven't encountered all the mechanics (there's a window for population genetics where I assume I can change species' traits, so I have that to look forward to) but so far the only thing that's really stood out as difficult to grasp is the ship designer. Well, I know how to work it, I'm just not sure what kind of ship designs I should be having (beyond "most advanced of everything, please") I also don't really understand combat - I'm guessing there's some sort of rock paper scissors going on but at the moment I'm just comparing combat strengths, which mostly worked on the various pirate fleets I was battling until I found one that totally rekt me. Beam weapons are good against shields, I know that much, but I'm gonna need more experience to figure out the rest. I guess I'm lucky the game I'm playing is peaceful. Oh I loving love the faction system though. I wish Civ had that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Beams are actually bad against shields (except for Disruptors that are the dedicated anti-shield weapon). The super TL;DR is that missiles are terrible and should never be used (that might change next patch), kinetics tear up shields, beams tear up armor. The combat takes some getting used to and has some weird things (like missiles being garbage) that need fixing, but it's not really critical to min/max it so as long as you know the basics you should do fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:Same boat for me. What strikes you as particularly dense about it though? Combat has a rock paper scissors approach in the sense that some weapons are good against certain defenses, while worse for others. If you hover over a weapon's slot size icon you can see its stats and damage bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
More options for robots is a welcome addition, it will help them stackup against genemodding in terms of upgrading and specializing your pops so they don't fall behind in the late game. What I do what them to do is find ways to flesh out the planets even more, not by just throwing some lovely combination of modifiers on them but by adding more to the domestic side of the game. Building out and modify/improving my empire is the part 4Xs I enjoy the most but so many games just try and focus on turning things into another shallow tactilol combat simulator. That doesn't mean combat doesn't need work here but that doesn't mean trying to shoehorn tactics into the game is going to magically save it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
quote:Jesus this game is dense. Finally got around to installing it and trying it...there is a hell of a lot to wrap your head around, coming mostly from Civ V for this type of game. It isn't, really. Planet tiles are no different than Civ 5 city tiles, with the difference that planets can't grow infinitely(Even if you had the means to grow the planet-which mods tend to play with-you're capped at a max size of 25). Factions are not a concern. Follow the tiles and you won't go far wrong. Minerals are god, with energy not far behind(Which is no different with Civ 5's Food+Science is god, with Production not far behind). Science is fairly god, still, which is why they tried to keep it in check with penalties based on planets and population. Whether that's something you agree with is up to you. Tech being random can be good or bad depending on what you draw and when. Edicts aren't much of a concern. Happiness is only a concern if you don't have enough of it-the bonus for maximum happy is 'only' 20% per tile. Pop growth both is and isn't as important as Civ 5. It throws around percentages, but the base value is 1 per month. So +15% From 'Rapid Breeders' is a final value of 1.15, for instance. It's not really possible to stack growth very far, unless you go massively into Food, which isn't really possible unless you super-specialise a world.(Agrarian Idyll, anyone?) Even then, the growth boost is based off how many pops are about, so it's very difficult to have massive percentages to growth. There's much less possible with Stellaris's planets as compared to Civ5's cities, simply because the values don't really get super-charged. Your normal buildings go from an output of 2 to about 5 or 6 per building(8 at the capital). So even presuming, as an example, you make a world into a mining hub, the absolute maximum a non-capital planet can give is 24x5=145 minerals before other modifiers or tile bonuses.(24 because the capital building has to be present.) Meanwhile your Cruisers and Battleships potentially cost 1000 to 3000+. Now, one can multiply this by multiple planets. But even so, some things will always be a massive drain.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Are there any mods that let you build the bigger ships like dreadnoughts and titans that you normally can't that don't also change a bunch of extra stuff? I want more expensive boondoggles to spend minerals on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Beams are actually bad against shields (except for Disruptors that are the dedicated anti-shield weapon). The super TL;DR is that missiles are terrible and should never be used (that might change next patch), kinetics tear up shields, beams tear up armor. The combat takes some getting used to and has some weird things (like missiles being garbage) that need fixing, but it's not really critical to min/max it so as long as you know the basics you should do fine. It's weird that missiles are garbage. When the game first game out they were the best weapon for the early game and competitive up until late because of their range advantage. What changed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
LLSix posted:It's weird that missiles are garbage. When the game first game out they were the best weapon for the early game and competitive up until late because of their range advantage. What changed? They're still great early game but travel time, PD weapons and the fact that they just sorta disappear if the ship that fired them or the ship that they were fired at dies means they just aren't that good. Next patch will have them find a new target if their current target is destroyed before impact so they might be worth using again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
LLSix posted:It's weird that missiles are garbage. When the game first game out they were the best weapon for the early game and competitive up until late because of their range advantage. What changed? PD is too good/common, and they overkill horribly.Your entire fleet will dump like 4 salvos onto one corvette , the first 5 missiles will kill it, and the other 275 will disappear into the aether. All the other weapon types don't have that problem, and maybe retargeting will fix it, but right now they're really not worth it past the early game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:Are there any mods that let you build the bigger ships like dreadnoughts and titans that you normally can't that don't also change a bunch of extra stuff? I want more expensive boondoggles to spend minerals on. Here's a mod that just adds new boats, some new effects for them and the technology to use them. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=932869910
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I am completely fine with Paradox adding features that I, personally, don't care too much about but other people want. Killer-of-Lawyers posted:More options isn't bad. Some people are spergs that like to micromanage their tiles. Some people just want to get hassle free income and push their galactic conquest. Both of these people can play and enjoy the same game. this would make sense if we were talking about, say, alternate game modes, but in this context it's utter nonsense. of course more options in a strategy game can be bad! part of the fun of playing a strategy game is deciding "what is the best decision to make in this situation" and you never want the answer to this question to be "do a bunch of soulsucking micro" DatonKallandor posted:As long as sectors are smart enough to build the correct robots for the tiles a lot of the micro hassle would be cut out anyway. lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
instantrunoffvote posted:I'm not really sure why we would want features that we don't want to engage with. It's not like there's a non-micromanaging reason to build a bunch of specialized robot types.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:this would make sense if we were talking about, say, alternate game modes, but in this context it's utter nonsense. of course more options in a strategy game can be bad! over  about the basic genetic engineering is that you can opt out of the micro by just dumping all your points into Enduring, Communal, Rapid Breeders etc. and not really lose out competitively. If the robits have a bunch of similar tile independent options (e.g. "Efficient reactors: Reduce energy upkeep by X") then worst case scenario you'll still be able to avoid engaging with it beyond treating it like a passive upgrade system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The reason I'm just I mean, sure, but that's still a bad situation for the game to be in. like, the best situation is that the micro-heavy options are trap choices, which is also something that is bad to have in a strategy game
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I mean, sure, but that's still a bad situation for the game to be in. like, the best situation is that the micro-heavy options are trap choices, which is also something that is bad to have in a strategy game In single player though whether equivalent-but-mechanically-distinct micro options are a trap option or the best option depends on whether you find the implementation fun or not. It sounds like making a Mining Robit template and a Farming Robit template will be pretty easy, and they can even have different pictures! So that'll probably be pretty fun even if it's not hugely better than ticking "cheap electrics". If I decided to do the synthetic ascension later though then customising all my dudes will probably be a much bigger hassle, so I'd probably just stuff extra power cores into everyone and call it a day. If just stuffing everyone full of fusion cores is actively worse than building Unity Bots and Power Plant Bots and such then we might be hitting territory.I'm not sure if I'm agreeing with you or disagreeing with you. I think I'm just saying things tbh 
Splicer fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:In multiplayer the micro options cost Attention (or Other People's Tolerance For You Pausing To Make Long-rear end Turns) so yeah, in that case equivalent would always trap option. well, "a bunch of different options that all more or less come out to the same thing" is also bad game design, is the thing. don't ask players to make decisions if you don't intend to make those decisions matter having distinct pictures for farming robots and mining robots etc. sounds nice but the way to handle that is to have the pictures change based on the tile the robot is assigned to
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:this would make sense if we were talking about, say, alternate game modes, but in this context it's utter nonsense. of course more options in a strategy game can be bad! I don't really care about min maxing.  I got into Paradox games by reading Wiz's LPs, which weren't concerned about winning nearly as much as producing enjoyable stories.
turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:part of the fun of playing a strategy game is deciding "what is the best decision to make in this situation" and you never want the answer to this question to be "do a bunch of soulsucking micro" this, basically. if the resource players have to expend to get +X% to rubber is Their Patience With This Game's Bullshit, then they're going to do it, then eventually exhaust their patience. That's a problem when Paradox's whole model is long-term interest in their games. I'm not really interested in a Stellaris 1.7 that has $75 worth of DLC dedicated to increasingly baroque tile-matching puzzles. It's not like PDX hasn't addressed this before in Stellaris. 1.0 slavery/purges/collectivism, then the first iteration of caste system slavery: both of those had intensely micro-focused ways of bypassing the faction system by clearing any dissident faction pops by purging/enslaving/relocating them to a slavery tile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 21:13
|
|