Stellaris - To Serve Man - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Stellaris - To Serve Man

«‹›641 »

Mazz: Dec 12, 2012; Orion, this is Sperglord Actual.
Come on home.

I don't think we've had a single dev dairy where someone didn't get upset at it so just nod and move on IMO.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 21:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 19:36

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

It's not even the new feature. I've been saying "don't use Syncretic Evolution or Caste System, it's a micromanagement trap" in this thread for as long as I've been posting in it. Genemodding has the same problem.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 21:41

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

turn off the TV posted:

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.

I don't really care about what you don't really care about :shrug:

e: to be very slightly less snarky, if you only care about the roleplaying aspect that's fine but it's bizarre to put that forward as an argument in favour of designing the game mechanics badly

Mazz posted:

I don't think we've had a single dev dairy where someone didn't get upset at it so just nod and move on IMO.

welcome to the stellaris thread, where people talk about paradox interactive's strategy game, stellaris

# ? Jul 22, 2017 21:44

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

I don't really care about what you don't really care about

e: to be very slightly less snarky, if you only care about the roleplaying aspect that's fine but it's bizarre to put that forward as an argument in favour of designing the game mechanics badly

Well, why should anyone give a poo poo that you don't want to micromanage robots?

# ? Jul 22, 2017 21:47

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

turn off the TV posted:

Well, why should anyone give a poo poo that you don't want to micromanage robots?

this is at least a more honest way of phrasing your original dumbass post, yeah

anyway if you have some complaint about a flaw in the game's ability to ~produce enjoyable stories~ I think you would be justifiably annoyed if someone replied with I DON'T CARE ABOUT STORIES SO THAT ASPECT OF THE GAME SHOULD SUCK

# ? Jul 22, 2017 21:52

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

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

I said equivalent, not equal. In my imaginary example above, you can go the micro route and get ~5% more food and metal, or go the "gently caress it, fusion cores" route and consume ~10% less energy. Much like I usually use genetic engineering to go "gently caress it, Venerable/Communal/Fast Breeders for everyone".

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

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

That'd be good. Also good would be an always fun build-a-bot mechanic. What I'm realistically hoping for is a build-a-bot mechanic that's fun when you're in a build-a-bot mood and bypassable when you're not, and for each approach to produce equal amounts of but distinctly different varieties of "win game" tokens. This is how gene modding currently works, as you can build-a-pop yourself a bunch of extra science and energy and minerals and food, or you can dump all your points into venerable + fast breeders + communal and go for quantity over quality. My issue with gene modding as it stands is that I've never been in a build-a-pop mood after the first few times I tried to seriously engage in it because it's currently awful. The changes in the dev diary look like good start to fixing some of my issues.

Cease to Hope posted:

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.

This is almost verbatim something I typed up in an earlier draft. My ideal is obviously "Every mechanic is fun to everybody ever" but I'm fine with "You can choose not to engage with certain mechanics beyond the most basic level, which results in an equally viable and quantitatively different gamestyle".

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:02

Dallan Invictus: Oct 11, 2007; The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes, look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

this is at least a more honest way of phrasing your original dumbass post, yeah

anyway if you have some complaint about a flaw in the game's ability to ~produce enjoyable stories~ I think you would be justifiably annoyed if someone replied with I DON'T CARE ABOUT STORIES SO THAT ASPECT OF THE GAME SHOULD SUCK

I think that a priority, both in the game's design and for the players who have responded to it well, has been "produce enjoyable stories" or, more directly, "let the player do cool stuff". What this has meant is a broad and growing variety of Cool Stuff players can do, but with fiddly UIs attached that make doing said stuff in Mechanically Optimal ways immensely annoying, or alternatively with little mechanical difference between doing Cool Thing A and Cool Thing B. "Roleplayers" don't really care about problem A because at some point they go "gently caress it, modding everybody with universally applicable bonuses is good enough, I don't need to individually tailor everybody to the goddamned tile they're on, but it's cool that I can literally genetically engineer an entire species"

I'm not sure, though, how you can get that kind of breadth of options without compromising the mechanical depth or the usability of those options. So maybe your criticism is actually reading like "I don't care about stories so that aspect should suck" to the people who are objecting to it.

Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jul 22, 2017

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:03

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

this is at least a more honest way of phrasing your original dumbass post, yeah

anyway if you have some complaint about a flaw in the game's ability to ~produce enjoyable stories~ I think you would be justifiably annoyed if someone replied with I DON'T CARE ABOUT STORIES SO THAT ASPECT OF THE GAME SHOULD SUCK

Actually, I think that it's fine if Paradox does things like adding robot customization even though I don't think that I'll ever really get into it. It's not really hurting me if they have features that I don't care about, like win conditions, because I can just ignore them and enjoy the parts of the game that I want to.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:05

Soup du Jour: Sep 8, 2011; I always knew I'd die with a headache.

I find it telling that the people who complain the most about Stellaris tend to be people who have a compulsion to min-max

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:07

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

e: to be very slightly less snarky, if you only care about the roleplaying aspect that's fine but it's bizarre to put that forward as an argument in favour of designing the game mechanics badly

You post in Trad Games. This can not be the first time you've encountered that justification.

Soup du Jour posted:

I find it telling that the people who complain the most about Stellaris tend to be people who have a compulsion to min-max

Oh god no stop

Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Jul 22, 2017

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:08

instantrunoffvote: Jul 23, 2007

Splicer posted:

You post in Trad Games. This can not be the first time you've encountered that justification.

Just because you've heard a bad argument before doesn't make it a good argument.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:14

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Really, if you're autistic enough that you're unable to play a game without being as efficient as possible you should check out the console commands on the wiki, they're pretty hard to beat.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:16

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Splicer posted:

I said equivalent, not equal. In my imaginary example above, you can go the micro route and get ~5% more food and metal, or go the "gently caress it, fusion cores" route and consume ~10% less energy. Much like I usually use genetic engineering to go "gently caress it, Venerable/Communal/Fast Breeders for everyone".

I know. I'm saying if the options are genuinely equivalent, that's still bad, even if they're not strictly speaking *equal*. Your decisions should be meaningful.

Dallan Invictus posted:

I think that a priority, both in the game's design and for the players who have responded to it well, has been "produce enjoyable stories" or, more directly, "let the player do cool stuff". What this has meant is a broad and growing variety of Cool Stuff players can do, but with fiddly UIs attached that make doing said stuff in Mechanically Optimal ways immensely annoying, or alternatively with little mechanical difference between doing Cool Thing A and Cool Thing B.

I'm not sure, though, how you can get that kind of breadth of options without compromising the mechanical depth or the usability of those options. So maybe your criticism is actually reading like "I don't care about stories so that aspect should suck" to the people who are objecting to it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sceptical of the idea that the ability to "produce enjoyable stories" depends on this kind of obnoxious micro stuff, let alone having having mechanically indifferentiable options. In fact it's pretty clearly better from a cool stories perspective to have your choices be significant and to avoid them resulting in tedium hell.

anyway it's nice of you to imagine a slightly more reasonable version of the people I was arguing with but I regret to inform you that they are actually the dumbest motherfuckers alive:

Soup du Jour posted:

I find it telling that the people who complain the most about Stellaris tend to be people who have a compulsion to min-max

turn off the TV posted:

Really, if you're autistic enough that you're unable to play a game without being as efficient as possible you should check out the console commands on the wiki, they're pretty hard to beat.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:18

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

anyway it's nice of you to imagine a slightly more reasonable version of the people I was arguing with but I regret to inform you that they are actually the dumbest motherfuckers alive:

The guy who can't understand the concept of "ignore optional parts of single player games that you don't enjoy" thinks other people are stupid? :thunk:

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:22

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

turn off the TV posted:

Really, if you're autistic enough that you're unable to play a game without being as efficient as possible you should check out the console commands on the wiki, they're pretty hard to beat.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:26

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

instantrunoffvote posted:

Just because you've heard a bad argument before doesn't make it a good argument.

I never said it was a good argument

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

I know. I'm saying if the options are genuinely equivalent, that's still bad, even if they're not strictly speaking *equal*. Your decisions should be meaningful.

I don't see why options being equivalent means your decisions aren't meaningful. I would hope that Cutthroat Politics and Mining Guilds are equivalent, by which I mean equally good picks (taking into account what build you're going for etc. etc.), but choosing one over the other is definitely meaningful.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:42

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

also I know that this is like telling goons 10 years ago not to use homophobic insults but you can talk about those filthy min-maxers you hate so much without going in on autistic people

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:42

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

also I know that this is like telling goons 10 years ago not to use homophobic insults but you can talk about those filthy min-maxers you hate so much without going in on autistic people

Wow it's crazy that when you start insulting people you might have people be rude to you back!

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:44

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Splicer posted:

I don't see why options being equivalent means your decisions aren't meaningful. I would hope that Cutthroat Politics and Mining Guilds are equivalent, by which I mean equally useful, but choosing one over the other is definitely meaningful.

if that's your definition of "equivalent" then just having the non-micro and the heavy micro option be "equivalent" isn't good enough, since there will be lots of situations where choosing the heavy micro option is the right play

turn off the TV posted:

Wow it's crazy that when you start insulting people you might have people be rude to you back!

A++ reading comprehension right here

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 22, 2017

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:45

Soup du Jour: Sep 8, 2011; I always knew I'd die with a headache.

Yeah dude, thinking that being able to give robots 5% boosts to things is fun flavor and not Paradox loving FORCING US TO MICROMANAGE EVEN MORE AND MAKING THIS lovely GAME EVEN SHITTIER makes me the dumb motherfucker and not you. For sure

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:50

Ham Sandwiches: Jul 7, 2000

I would like to take this moment and say that while I get why there's tile micro and faction micro and ship micro and that these belong in multiplayer videogames that are realtime so that people have things to do...

the implementations of these things in Stellaris sure feel boring and tedious and pointless and so I would just ask Paradox to re-examine how to let the player meaningfully shape their empire without so much tedium.

Why are there not options to upgrade buildings without clicks whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

# ? Jul 22, 2017 22:52

Bloodly: Nov 3, 2008; Not as strong as you'd expect.

Sometimes I don't know what I want exactly out of Stellaris.

There's tile and population management!-Pops and planets feel empty, even with factions.
There's cool space battles!-With a lack of real control.
There's diplomacy!-You have little reason to talk rather than fight, even as a pacifist. It's nigh-impossible for certain types to be talked down.
There's terraforming and super-projects!-None are all that great, and take forever to even reach. The most game-changing is Habitats.
There's ethics and customisation!-It's there, but in the end, it doesn't mean much. Civics are similar. The most game-changing is Agrarian Idyll, or possibly the 'have level 4 leaders 'combo of Talented, Meritocracy, and Polytechnic Education'.
There's exploration and events!-Nice while it lasts, but generally doesn't last long.
Mighty Leviathans to test yourself against!-These are cool.

I feel like I'm being unreasonable somehow. I mean, I've put 579 hours in it, so clearly I must have enjoyed it somehow. But does it really count when I've not been playing the base game?

I don't know. I do the stuff, I take my losses, but I don't know exactly what I want.

quote:

Why are there not options to upgrade buildings without clicks whyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Because those 60 minerals might pay for another corvette, which could save you in an early war, so they want you to think about it. This doesn't apply as much later on. I think they might have wanted more 'paths' like the minor one with the Science Labs.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:04

Ham Sandwiches: Jul 7, 2000

Bloodly posted:

Sometimes I don't know what I want exactly out of Stellaris.

There's tile and population management!-Pops and planets feel empty, even with factions.
There's cool space battles!-With a lack of real control.
There's diplomacy!-You have little reason to talk rather than fight, even as a pacifist. It's nigh-impossible for certain types to be talked down.
There's terraforming and super-projects!-None are all that great, and take forever to even reach. The most game-changing is Habitats.
There's ethics and customisation!-It's there, but in the end, it doesn't mean much. Civics are similar. The most game-changing is Agrarian Idyll, or possibly the 'have level 4 leaders 'combo of Talented, Meritocracy, and Polytechnic Education'.
There's exploration and events!-Nice while it lasts, but generally doesn't last long.
Mighty Leviathans to test yourself against!-These are cool.

I agree it's all so empty. You aren't really doing anything of note while the game tells you how cool your story is going, it's like the promise of these mechanics being in the game in 2-3 years (or with Stellaris 2) but as it is now, it feels like a mod of an existing game that has the appearances of what you want but doesn't have the mechanics to support it

quote:

Because those 60 minerals might pay for another corvette, which could save you in an early war, so they want you to think about it. This doesn't apply as much later on. I think they might have wanted more 'paths' like the minor one with the Science Labs.

When I'm capped on energy and minerals and I'm up to planet 3-4 and I gotta go back and click each upgrade and spend the cost and WAIT FOR IT TO FINISH BUILDING I want to stop playing the game. And don't say sectors

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:10

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

Bloodly posted:

Because those 60 minerals might pay for another corvette, which could save you in an early war, so they want you to think about it. This doesn't apply as much later on. I think they might have wanted more 'paths' like the minor one with the Science Labs.

An "Upgrade all" button in the planet view would do nicely.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:11

Ham Sandwiches: Jul 7, 2000

Splicer posted:

An "Upgrade all" button in the planet view would do nicely.

And an "Upgrade to max level" would be great too, where it ques the next level as each one finishes

Power plants 5 loving upgrades per planet, every run every planet ugh

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:13

Libluini: May 18, 2012; I gravitated towards the Greens, eventually even joining the party itself.

The Linke is a party I grudgingly accept exists, but I've learned enough about DDR-history I can't bring myself to trust a party that was once the SED, a party leading the corrupt state apparatus ...; Grimey Drawer

turn off the TV posted:

Actually, I think that it's fine if Paradox does things like adding robot customization even though I don't think that I'll ever really get into it. It's not really hurting me if they have features that I don't care about, like win conditions, because I can just ignore them and enjoy the parts of the game that I want to.

Yeah, that's the way to go. Like I've been mostly ignoring stuff like hiveminds and genemodding, since I always go robots all the way, but it's neat to have around. Hell, even if I hate playing like that, it's still a good way to create some flavorful enemies.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:18

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

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"

turn off the TV posted:

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.

Soup du Jour posted:

Yeah dude, thinking that being able to give robots 5% boosts to things is fun flavor and not Paradox loving FORCING US TO MICROMANAGE EVEN MORE AND MAKING THIS lovely GAME EVEN SHITTIER makes me the dumb motherfucker and not you. For sure

I'll never get tired of the claim that playing or designing games is a linear scale with "giving the tiniest poo poo about the mechanics" and "roleplaying" at opposite ends.

I'm also genuinely curious what amazing stories will be derived from "can put drill bits on robots". And again, I want to put drill bits on robots. My primary concern is:

Splicer posted:

I really like the idea of genemodding, but every time I try to get into it I get annoyed at how fiddly it is. I usually end up just scrapping my red traits and dumping the rest into the generic bonuses. I'm worried this will be another cool looking thing I'll look at wistfully while finding too much effort to actually engage with beyond the most superficial level. I have genuinely high hopes for the templating system + build vs growth aspect of robots making this something I'll use and have fun with but... well, I've been burned before.

And

Splicer posted:

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

If you read that as "Paradox loving FORCING US TO MICROMANAGE EVEN MORE AND MAKING THIS lovely GAME EVEN SHITTIER" then more power to you, you do you.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Jul 22, 2017

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:23

Shooting Blanks: Jun 6, 2007; Real bullets mess up how cool this thing looks.

-Blade

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

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.

Part of the problem seems to be I'm getting unlucky on RNG - out of the 4 games I've started so far just trying to learn the mechanics, I get nailed by a hostile fleet with 600+ power above my own before I even finish exploring my own system. Apparently I keep getting planted next to the equivalent of Montezuma or Askia. Unless that's normal and I need to absolutely rush military from the get go and slow down expansion.

Edit: I take it back, one of those times it was only 300+ power or whatever above me. That one I managed to beat, barely.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:38

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Splicer posted:

I'll never get tired of the claim that playing or designing games is a linear scale with "giving the tiniest poo poo about the mechanics" and "roleplaying" at opposite ends.

I'm also genuinely curious what amazing stories will be derived from "can put drill bits on robots". And again, I want to put drill bits on robots. My primary concern is:
And

I don't think I ever mentioned roleplaying. I just care more about having fun in a single player game than winning because it's a single player game.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:38

Atsushogob: Oct 7, 2008

Ham Sandwiches posted:

And an "Upgrade to max level" would be great too, where it ques the next level as each one finishes

Power plants 5 loving upgrades per planet, every run every planet ugh

If you hold shift when you hit the update button it will queue every upgrade currently possible for that building.

# ? Jul 22, 2017 23:46

Think Thin!: Sep 17, 2006

The new changes sound great!

# ? Jul 23, 2017 00:08

Splicer: Oct 16, 2006; from hell's heart I cast at thee
🧙🐀🧹🌙🪄🐸

turn off the TV posted:

I don't think I ever mentioned roleplaying.

Jeb Bush 2012 never said anything about min-maxing.

turn off the TV posted:

I just care more about having fun in a single player game than winning because it's a single player game.

So do I! I don't terraform planets much because I don't like the idea of destroying the imaginary animals' native habitats, and have started wars because I didn't like how much terraforming my neighbours were doing. I colonise tomb worlds as soon as they hit minimum habitability because I like post-nuclear apocalypse fiction. I don't play slavers because I don't like enslaving my dudes, and generally have "stamp out slavery" as a mental win condition for most games. All of these are terrible strategies that do very bad things to my chances to win, but those are the stories I like to tell and how I have fun in the game. I also want these things to be in the game because other people do enjoy hucking ice asteroids onto desert planets while the enslaved populace watches on in nerve-stapled numbness, and because having the option to do them gives my decision not to do them more meaning.

But if my empire is being stomped on by a neighbouring empire, I want the story behind that to be the moral, tactical, and strategic decisions I made along the way. If I'm giving up advantages because the actual mechanics are not fun, that's going to limit my story potential. If you have fun watching your empire getting its poo poo kicked in primarily because you didn't feel like spending much of the game shuffling pops around on a grid instead of doing the fun stuff, that's great, I'm glad you reached video game enlightenment. I don't though.

e: Also I want to choose whether or not I twist my dudes into warped mockeries of themselves in a rigid caste-based society based on whether or not I want to twist my dudes into warped mockeries of themselves in a rigid caste-based society, not based on whether or not I feel like accelerating my inevitable development of carpel tunnel syndrome.

Atsushogob posted:

If you hold shift when you hit the update button it will queue every upgrade currently possible for that building.

Splicer fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Jul 23, 2017

# ? Jul 23, 2017 00:36

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

I mean you make templates for the robots, so you can just edit your templates whenever you want and use them to upgrade all of the robots of that type on a planet. I'm not seeing how that's going to be a huge step up in micromanagement investment when you already need to individually place every robot.

E: I just reread the dev diary.

Wiz, I think that you guys should just make robot modding unlock the moment you get bots and add some starting 0 point dummy traits that do nothing but designate a robot design, so players could mark their miners as A, farmers as B, etc. That way when players research actual trait points later on they will already have their bots assigned to separate species, which would make upgrading pretty painless.

turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jul 23, 2017

# ? Jul 23, 2017 00:52

Bholder: Feb 26, 2013

What even is the complaint about anymore?

To me a template system sound like something that removes needless micromanagement. You just make a mining droid, an energy robot and a science robot and then just build them to places where you need them. I just cannot see an instance where you might have to customize your robots per planet or even tile.

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:22

turn off the TV: Aug 4, 2010; moderately annoying

Bholder posted:

What even is the complaint about anymore?

To me a template system sound like something that removes needless micromanagement. You just make a mining droid, an energy robot and a science robot and then just build them to places where you need them. I just cannot see an instance where you might have to customize your robots per planet or even tile.

Robot modding needs to be researched after robots, so if you have any already built they would only count as a single species. At least I think so, I've never built robots.

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:24

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Bholder posted:

What even is the complaint about anymore?

To me a template system sound like something that removes needless micromanagement. You just make a mining droid, an energy robot and a science robot and then just build them to places where you need them. I just cannot see an instance where you might have to customize your robots per planet or even tile.

tile management micro is already a serious problem in the game, adding more places where you want to make sure the right pop is on the right tile and that you have the right number of pops of each type will make it worse

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:28

Relevant Tangent: Nov 18, 2016; Tangentially Relevant

Ham Sandwiches posted:

I agree it's all so empty. You aren't really doing anything of note while the game tells you how cool your story is going, it's like the promise of these mechanics being in the game in 2-3 years (or with Stellaris 2) but as it is now, it feels like a mod of an existing game that has the appearances of what you want but doesn't have the mechanics to support it

When I'm capped on energy and minerals and I'm up to planet 3-4 and I gotta go back and click each upgrade and spend the cost and WAIT FOR IT TO FINISH BUILDING I want to stop playing the game. And don't say sectors

Sectors are dumb af but there are mods that get rid of the planet cap.

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:54

The Gardenator: May 4, 2007; Yams Fan

turn off the TV posted:

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

I use the larger more encompasing mod made by the same authors. It includes tech that lets you build new larger military stations and all military stations are able to be built in closer confines. This along with forcing hyperspace only travel makes the game more strategic for me.

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:58

Psycho Landlord: Oct 10, 2012; What are you gonna do, dance with me?

Bholder posted:

What even is the complaint about anymore?

- the Stellaris thread, forever.

Also drat Jeb, you managed to piss off two separate groups of grog-lites over trivial bullshit nobody should care this much about in a 3 hour period. Your dedication impresses me.

Psycho Landlord fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 23, 2017

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 19:36

Relevant Tangent: Nov 18, 2016; Tangentially Relevant

Jeb Bush 2012 posted:

tile management micro is already a serious problem in the game

Your game maybe. I have never resettled a dude. Maybe if I start a despotic hell regime I will.

# ? Jul 23, 2017 01:59

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Stellaris - To Serve Man

«‹›641 »