|
Looking forward to its announcement in about 8 years.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
We're going to get stellaris 2 before vicky 3 because there's no justice in this big dumb rock
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:From what they were saying shortly after release it sounds like the game was in a rediculous development hell where they were constantly scrapping and reimplementing things because they spent most of their development time trying to jam a grab bag of random "space 4x stuff" on top of a Grand Strategy game only to eventually realise that something had to give when the game was supposed to be released in 6 months. Which is why we have tiles, ground combat and the ship designer but the actual game still kind of sucks; all of this stupid micromanagey poo poo gets in the way of the fun parts. Every impression that I've got of Stellaris is that 99% of its big issues are exactly because of pre-release development misdirection, and I think that playing the game makes that pretty clear. There's a LOT of things which feel like they had the creative process of "ok, we need this feature, let's make this feature" in a vacuum rather than trying to develop a cohesive whole. Land combat meshes badly with space combat, which meshes bad with FTL systems, which mesh bad with galactic geography. I think it's unrealistic to expect these problems to be thoroughly and completely adressed alongside with the other big weakness that stellaris had, that is to say a lack of content, but it's entirely fair and right to expect large-scale reworks of systems to make them work better as the lack of content becomes less of an issue. When Stellaris released a year and a bit ago everyone's complaints were that there's nothing to do after the start. That people are now instead complaining not about that, but about how well the game handles its more fundamental aspects, is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Every impression that I've got of Stellaris is that 99% of its big issues are exactly because of pre-release development misdirection, and I think that playing the game makes that pretty clear. There's a LOT of things which feel like they had the creative process of "ok, we need this feature, let's make this feature" in a vacuum rather than trying to develop a cohesive whole. Land combat meshes badly with space combat, which meshes bad with FTL systems, which mesh bad with galactic geography. Yeah, it really feels like early on they had a meeting and made a wish-list of all the cool 4x features they want they broke into teams to do them without any communication with each other until a month before release. "hey, I made this cool tile based puzzle for managing planets, it's all about optimizing adjacency bonuses. What, the map generation team says there's going to be HUNDREDS of planets?? And the AI guy says it would be way too hard to build an AI to figure out how to plan around all these adjacency bonuses? Well poo poo, ummm I guess gut the adjacency bonus system and just make the AI manage planets beyond a handful but it's way too late to ditch the 5x5 tile system...."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Every impression that I've got of Stellaris is that 99% of its big issues are exactly because of pre-release development misdirection, and I think that playing the game makes that pretty clear. There's a LOT of things which feel like they had the creative process of "ok, we need this feature, let's make this feature" in a vacuum rather than trying to develop a cohesive whole. Land combat meshes badly with space combat, which meshes bad with FTL systems, which mesh bad with galactic geography. I definitely agree it's on the right path though. Hopefully the dev team will remain stable, as Wiz seems to have a clear idea of what he wants to do with this game, and Stellaris desperately needs clarity in vision if it will ever fulfill its own potential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
I enjoy Stellaris way more than reading people whine about Stellaris
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Obfuscation posted:I enjoy Stellaris way more than reading people whine about Stellaris Take a look back at the Stellaris thread pre-release. The game could never live up to a lot of the expectations that most people had of it. You had people assuming it would be the 4X to end all 4X's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
Again, all I wanted from Stellaris was Victoria in space. Pop micro is the worst.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:all I wanted [...] was Victoria [...] Pop micro is the worst. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
The problem Stellaris has is the same problem every Paradox game has; they're collections of systems that work to greater or lesser degrees with each other, combined with a guess as to what element of the game players will latch onto. EU and HOI have each had four iterations to get to the point where the 'soul' of the game matches up with what grips players about those games. CK2 has had a massive amount of expansion work to shift the emphasis of the game onto being a pseudo-rpg. Stellaris is on its first iteration. The problem it has is that nobody can even agree what exactly the core of the game should be, so there's no obvious direction to go in fixing it. e: \/\/ case in point: is Stellaris EU in space? Vicky in space? The problem with the fetishisation of MoO2 is that at core it's a really simple game - cover the map in your colour. Stellaris adds a bunch of systems that are designed to try to hide the fact that it's a game that's about covering the map in your colour (pop management, the diplomacy system) but ultimately they can't hide the fact that there's a point where the player knows that they can 'win' at any point by sweeping the map with their fleet that's better than anyone else's. The game gives you no incentive to aim for the stability those systems need you to achieve in order to be meaningful, so nobody really cares about them. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Aug 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
A stellaris where your pops aren't just tile monkeys but actually functioning demographics of poor, rich, genetically modified and cyborgs would actually be interesting. You can see part of this mindset with how robots will have owner pops in synthetic dawn. This could all work wonderfully with Victoria's pop system and an actually interesting economy of core worlds vs frontier colonies. Paradox should have stuck to what they know and made stellaris a mix of victoria 2 pops and economy, and Master of Orion 3 empire management.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Paradox should have stuck to what they know and made stellaris a mix of victoria 2 pops and economy, and Master of Orion 3 empire management. I don't necessarily disagree with you at all, but this specifically would require that Paradox have people in their employ that themselves understand how Victoria 2 pops work (or don't).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Drone posted:I don't necessarily disagree with you at all, but this specifically would require that Paradox have people in their employ that themselves understand how Victoria 2 pops work (or don't). The devs understand how pops work, it's just the economy that's a black art (much like real life).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
The main problem with fixing Stellaris is that everyone wants different stuff to be fixed. "I hate space 4X games so I'm gonna buy Stellaris and hope Paradox doesn't include anything I hate about them" is not a good basis for a fanbase that can ever be satisfied with your space 4X game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
As long as it doesn't turn out like loving EU4, with the twelve million different tabs and counters you need to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
I figure stellaris will be good once wiz gets his warfare rework through the door. That's the meat of the game and I think he'll get it right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
I see goons in here all the time (I should know, I am one of them!!) clamoring for Victoria 3, and singing praises of "Pops, pops, pops!" But how popular is V2, really? Is it just an obscure or black sheep title of Paradox's that we just happened to love and latch on to, or does the broader Paradox base actually like it as well?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
I wanna say Victoria was always the least popular of the Paradox franchises (though that might have been CK1 instead?), but not by much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
I rarely see Vicky mentioned outside this thread except as a joke, and from what I can tell from the few hours I played it, there's kind of some good reasons for that. The main reason Paradox keeps giving for "Why aren't you making Vicky 3?" appears to be "Because it's not all that popular and we don't think it'll sell well enough."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:I rarely see Vicky mentioned outside this thread except as a joke, and from what I can tell from the few hours I played it, there's kind of some good reasons for that. On the other side of the coin, CK1 was unpopular and didn't sell well. I always thought the reasoning they had for Vicky 3 was that they have no idea how to modernize the game in a way that makes it fun while still pleasing people who want the core Victoria industrial simulator experience. It's a hard set of mechanics to abstract, and they probably don't know of a good way to do it. Valid enough reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Vicky 3 wouldn't be that different from Europa 4. Replace the market insanity with money from resources to make having an empire worthwhile, tie religion/race/politics to pops instead of provinces, ditch the "This regiment is from Cardiff" crap for the manpower system Europa already has, and you have most of the major mechanics in place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
AnoHito posted:The main reason Paradox keeps giving for "Why aren't you making Vicky 3?" appears to be "Because it's not all that popular and we don't think it'll sell well enough." The funny thing about this was that the CEO of Paradox bet his hair that V2 wouldn't make a profit, and lost his bet.  I'm not a big fan of Vicky, although I'm a big fan of the time period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Instead we get V3 that's based off of Stellaris, and there's tile management for every state in your nation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Ubisoft announced Anno 1800 recently, and Battlefield 1 came out last year(?), so I think it's pretty clear that gamers everywhere are clamoring for more industrial revolution and trench warfare simulators. Too bad Paradox missed the Steampunk craze.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Fortuitous Bumble posted:Ubisoft announced Anno 1800 drat, how did I miss that? Glad they haven't completely ditched the series after 2205 kinda fumbled the ball. Wonder if it'll be closer to the 'classic' Anno game play after all the bitching or if there will be any hold over form 2205.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:Vicky 3 wouldn't be that different from Europa 4. Replace the market insanity with money from resources to make having an empire worthwhile, tie religion/race/politics to pops instead of provinces, ditch the "This regiment is from Cardiff" crap for the manpower system Europa already has, and you have most of the major mechanics in place. That's a good reason for them not to make Vicky 3 if it's just "copy an existing game with a new aesthetic." This is an easy way to make Vicky 3 but it's not a good way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
And yet half the Stellaris thread is suggestions from people that they just take features from other games and jam it into Stellaris, as if 25 years of disappointing MOO2 clones haven't taught us that there's more to success than reskinning old poo poo and mashing it back together. The game isn't perfect but I still enjoy it quite a bit and would rather Wiz & Co focus on developing their own ideas on what they want to make of the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
The weird thing about MOO2 clones is that they never actually clone MOO2. There's always realtime 3D combat or some poo poo jammed in there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Gort posted:The weird thing about MOO2 clones is that they never actually clone MOO2. There's always realtime 3D combat or some poo poo jammed in there. The weirdest thing about MoO2 clones is that they're not cloning MoO instead. Each planet was dead simple to manage, and you just told them what you wanted them to work on while the game handled the rest. There was some irritating micro when tech leveled up, but that only happened a few times a game, and just involved moving a couple of sliders around. There was no fiddling with lists of buildings or pop management - just design the ships, build the ships, go blow stuff up, and figure out how much research vs. shipbuilding you wanted as well as where to spend empire money to build up planets and planetary defenses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Gort posted:The weird thing about MOO2 clones is that they never actually clone MOO2. There's always realtime 3D combat or some poo poo jammed in there. Which always pisses me the gently caress off. Like MOO1 was arguably a game about designing spaceships and smashing them together in turn-based combat with a robust strategic layer. gently caress real time combat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
The closest to a MoO 1 clone we got was sword of the stars 1. Which had similarly minimalistic planet management but added an actually good real time tactical combat system. I wish SoTS 2 hadn't gone full hypercomplexity and turned into a dumpster fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:The closest to a MoO 1 clone we got was sword of the stars 1. Which had similarly minimalistic planet management but added an actually good real time tactical combat system. SoTS1 was one of the few good space 4x games. I mean, I couldn't imagine ever finishing a full game on even what it considered a "medium" galaxy, which ended up being hundreds of stars, but it's still really fun on smaller maps today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
part of the appeal of paradox games is their robust internal management. stellaris would really be helped by a vicky 2 style pop system with pops that have resource needs and political opinions - there's a lot of room there for interesting political management if they were to back off from the current pop-tile-management functions of pops and focus on them as a driver of player actions to secure resources as well as a challenge to overcome by molding them politically to be the way you want your society to be through your events and actions. that's really the part of vicky 2 that everyone wants to see in a game again, much of the rest of it is a mess even though the game is still fun
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
I agree that hoping for progress from Vicky 2 is pointless and a waste of time. Dear paradox please ensure than Vicky 3 only deepens the madness that Vicky 1 was.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
What we really want is Ricky 2. Unfortunately Paradox is probably never developing another game, and it will just be endless DLC until the heat death of the universe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Kaza42 posted:SoTS1 was one of the few good space 4x games. I mean, I couldn't imagine ever finishing a full game on even what it considered a "medium" galaxy, which ended up being hundreds of stars, but it's still really fun on smaller maps today. I liked how it had all these different hyperspeed travel methods yet it was still possible to actually catch your enemies, unlike Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Gort posted:Vicky 3 wouldn't be that different from Europa 4. Replace the market insanity with money from resources to make having an empire worthwhile, tie religion/race/politics to pops instead of provinces, ditch the "This regiment is from Cardiff" crap for the manpower system Europa already has, and you have most of the major mechanics in place. If Vicky 3 is like this idiot describes it, please just don't make Vicky 3
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
GrossMurpel posted:I liked how it had all these different hyperspeed travel methods yet it was still possible to actually catch your enemies, unlike Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:The weirdest thing about MoO2 clones is that they're not cloning MoO instead. Each planet was dead simple to manage, and you just told them what you wanted them to work on while the game handled the rest. There was some irritating micro when tech leveled up, but that only happened a few times a game, and just involved moving a couple of sliders around. There was no fiddling with lists of buildings or pop management - just design the ships, build the ships, go blow stuff up, and figure out how much research vs. shipbuilding you wanted as well as where to spend empire money to build up planets and planetary defenses. This a million times. Turning planets into civ style cities with a huge stupid list of buildings with a set optimised order to build them in added pointless busywork. Slider supremacy. Moo is the vastly superior game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:16 |
|
|
Jeoh posted:As long as it doesn't turn out like loving EU4, with the twelve million different tabs and counters you need to keep track of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 18:59
|
|