|
Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. Why complain about most of the mechanics in a game that is built upon those mechanics? :s (not just this thread and discussion right now) I mean sure things could be better, but should we have a d&d ruleset for space combat in stellaris? turn based? cockpit view?? I actually think turn based squadron/fleet combat could be nice for stellaris, it would make designing spaceships more important since you actually would control them on the battlefield. Maybe for Stellaris 2.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
corn in the bible posted:If Vicky 3 is like this idiot describes it, please just don't make Vicky 3 gently caress off
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. The "fill up a bar and get a reward" thing Paradox are going for now (see especially: Unity in Stellaris) would be improved by making the existing currencies used in more circumstances. Instead of many shallow systems, have a few deep systems that interact in many ways. http://www.thegia.com/2013/07/17/civilization-v-brave-new-worlds-buckets-of-adaptation/ Look at Air and Naval experience in HoI4. They are used solely for upgrades to ship/airframe templates. After you start building the ship or aircraft, experience plays no further role. If new functions were added for these currencies, the system would become deeper and more interesting. If instead a new currency was introduced to do things with the Air and Navy system, the game would become shallower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Well yeah okay that makes sense and would be preferable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. Why can't they just remake EU3 again and again with different settings?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. i actually like CK2 right now. ton of content, but i don't think i have to worry about anything that wasn't in the game at release. unlike eu4 where literally every tab has been bloated by dlc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:If you look in the individual threads you will often see people debating a better way to do a thing. I am often a part of it in the EU4 thread and I am kinda sad it seems Paradox devs dont read that thread anymore because the discussions are always constructive and interesting. Eh a lot of the ideas are rather bad for various reasons, which is why I don't think they bother anymore. If they want lovely half baked ideas and incessant whining they can look at their own forums.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Eh a lot of the ideas are rather bad for various reasons, which is why I don't think they bother anymore. If they want lovely half baked ideas and incessant whining they can look at their own forums.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Huh, its funny, I almost said "unless CharlesTheHammer posts" but didnt want to validate you, oh well. You um couldn't validate me, as you are the whinest and most tedious of the bunch champ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You um couldn't validate me, as you are the whinest and most tedious of the bunch champ. To add some content to my post: I like the constructive debates in the Paradox threads because I work in software and often have to do iterative changes or add features to an old system; thinking about doing that to the games I play (that other people post about here) is interesting and a learning experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted: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. Yeah, at this point I feel like I want either: 1.) A slick 'conquest' 4x like MOO, where the empire management is very abstracted and high level, and the focus is more on the tactical combat and conquest. 2.) Something much more sim like and focused on building a ~society~, like Stellaris but with Vicky pops and CKII characters. But I definitely want the game to decide if it's one or the other and push in that direction and not try to be a muddled in-between mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. People complain about stuff because a) nothing is going to ever please everyone and some people will rather things worked a different way, and b) because nothing is perfect, and flawed systems having their flaws exposed to critique is an important part of feedback. Just being able to say "this part of this system isn't good" is constructive criticism, because it gives an insight as to how to approach a system rework, what parts of it to adress and so on. But people have given suggestions before. Forums poster A Buttery Pastry often even goes the extra mile and puts together visuals of what he envisions the UI for his suggestions to look like. For Stellaris specifically, there's constructive conversation on the game's flaws every so often in this thread, and I'm sure in the Stellaris thread as well. Recently I gave my opinions on what kind of changes I would like to see in the ship designer, for instance: YF-23 posted:I think a ship designer can work, but the way it works in Stellaris it feels like there's too much micro, to the point where I'm overwhelmed by choice. Incrimental upgrades also do not feel particularly meaningful, and a lot of good design feels like a counterintuitive mess that's the result of pure number-crunching. So I think the complaining in this thread being devoid of constructive criticism is a mischaracterisation. There's the occasional "this game sucks" low effort post but it usually spurs more fleshed out discussion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:The "fill up a bar and get a reward" thing Paradox are going for now (see especially: Unity in Stellaris) would be improved by making the existing currencies used in more circumstances. Instead of many shallow systems, have a few deep systems that interact in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, at this point I feel like I want either: Personally I'd prefer the latter because there's already enough of the former, but either would be better than the currently awkward situation. Regardless I want the planet management system to be stripped down to a couple of modifiers & planetary stats, with a couple of slots for buildings similar to EU4's province slots (with something other than development to unlock more).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
All this debate but not a single person who wishes for the untenable dream which is EU: Rome 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:All this debate but not a single person who wishes for the untenable dream which is EU: Rome 2 Except Johan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
No but seriously, every time I engage in combat in Stellaris I just am struck by "does this system do anything right?" and I can't find a single good thing about it. It somehow manages to combine the tedious micro of designing crap ships that aren't even really that different (no-one ever uses the unique or different tech you can get because they are almost all universally poo poo) so it's just Embiggered Laser 4 slapped on them with the loss of control that really isn't acceptable after all that crap. And the fact that you then just slam your big piles into their piles is kinda crazy because the system manages to be even more shallow and dumb than CK2, because there at least you have a system that's simple with complexities; while there's a lot of poo poo happening in the background, you can still just get by with "slam bigger mans in other mans". Why the gently caress can't I have ships have different behaviours? Why can't I retreat and maneuver, have stealth, jamming/electronic warfare or other poo poo? why are my ships literally the exact loving same as every other ship in the goddamn galaxy when I'm evil capitalist lizards the good spiritualist elves? That, I think, is the thing that drags Stellaris down the most for me; it is bland as gently caress. They've improved that somewhat with Utopia and maybe robo expansion will do it some more but there really isn't the diversity of play that's found in pretty much any of their other games. I mean, I get its their first game in this way but hot diggidy
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
EU: Crete
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:All this debate but not a single person who wishes for the untenable dream which is EU: Rome 2 Screw that, give me an antiquity game based off CK not EU 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
I really do not like the planet interface in Stellaris, because it is boring and bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:All this debate but not a single person who wishes for the untenable dream which is EU: Rome 2 I'd much rather have that then Vicky 3, but I don't hold out much hope for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:All this debate but not a single person who wishes for the untenable dream which is EU: Rome 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I really do not like the planet interface in Stellaris, because it is boring and bad So many of the features feel vestigial. The planet grid was specifically designed to centre around every building having special adjacency bonuses, but when they realized this wasn't fun and the AI was balls at it, they scrapped it but didn't have time to come up with something new so kept the grid and all we have are capitals and mineral silos that give any sort of bonus. Combat and ship design feels the same way, as if it was intended to be a lot deeper and with meaningful interaction or at least a lot more ship design options but something didn't work out so they pulled everything meaningful out but kept all the fiddly ship design and fleet babysitting poo poo. Ethos and pops feel like maybe they intended slightly more Vicky levels of detail but then scaled it way back but kept all the vestigial parts. Ground combat is so bad and with such an unforgivably terrible interface for troop building and attachments I can't even wrap my head around how it survived to release let alone a year later. It's hard to say if something is "vestigial" or "unfinished" but the terrible planet grids are absolutely a vestigial mess left over from an earlier adjacency-focused system. I wish they'd focus future updates on amputating and replacing the vestigial bits of the game before jamming new types of mana in. Maybe it's all part of a super long-game plan to make stellaris good but it seems a long long way off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I wish they'd focus future updates on amputating and replacing the vestigial bits of the game before jamming new types of mana in. Yep
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Jesus goons, ofc constructive criticism and discussion is good. But there is a difference between good effortposts, and: this sucks, this is bad, all is bad, paradox should do this/that, and often with no regards to the fact that pdx is a company. Example: I would love for all dlc to be rolled into the base game, but how do you motivate that to the customers that bought the dlc? how much money will you lose on potential sales etc. Not saying that everyone is like that, and sure they might be a minority of posters, but sure feels like a lot of goons(in general) like hating on the games they play, instead of doing other things. Also Johan and the gang has explained on these forums multiple times what customers can expect in regards to dlc policy and development etc. They are really good at communicating. tldr: mechanic/theory posts are good when they bring something to the table, or are silly and fun. PdX policy & dlc whining is just dumb. Not trying to attack anyone here, im just being a dumb cranky guy on the web. Ps: Vote with your wallet, (or full communism now).
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I am kinda sad it seems Paradox devs dont read that thread anymore because the discussions are always constructive and interesting. is this really that surprising? this thread used to get tons of posts from them too but these days it's almost never. there are very legitimate criticisms of the games, many of which get glanced on from time to time, but holy poo poo are goons hostile these days and it's turned almost into an echo chamber. I wouldn't read it either it I were one of the devs. also no offense to you; I don't agree with a lot of your suggestions but you do try to be constructive and civil. some other posters on the other hand... it really does piss me off, it's shut off a great channel for feedback and suggestions we used to have. but goons gotta goon I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Jesus goons, ofc constructive criticism and discussion is good. But there is a difference between good effortposts, and: this sucks, this is bad, all is bad, paradox should do this/that, and often with no regards to the fact that pdx is a company. I think you're just trolling at this point, there are lots of constructive criticisms on this very page
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
I don't think this thread is any more or less hostile than it was before, people don't like hearing things they made are bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
The joke is on all of you, from now on every Paradox game will be in space. Victoria 3: An Empire Across the Stars EU: Rome 2: Per Astra ad Imperium Crusader Kings 3: gently caress i dont know something about Dune put more Paradox-y Stellaris 2 is just going to be set on Prehistoric Earth and revolve entirely around cavemen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
I figured we see fewer dev posts because the discussion often veers into "They should gut [major game system] and replace it with something else" which, however good of an idea it might be (looking at you, Stellaris combat), is probably not within the realm of possibility without redesigning the game from the ground up. I'm not saying people shouldn't make those posts, just that it's not terribly surprising that the devs aren't popping in more often to debate the merits of the existing and hypothetical game systems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:I don't think this thread is any more or less hostile than it was before, people don't like hearing things they made are bad The paradox devs are not stupid and I'm sure they are very very aware of what is working and what was a huge design disaster that they're more or less stuck with. But in these days of devs engaging in "social media" everything they say is needs to be filtered at least slightly through a marketing lens because at the end of the day they're running a business and it's way easier to sell a DLC that adds a bunch of stuff vs asking people to buy a DLC that's throwing away a ton of the work already done on the game and re-doing it because it was kinda poo poo. I mean, I'd buy that DLC and say nice things about wiz and cknoor's steaming as they marketed it and post optimistically about how "ok guys I think they fixed stellaris I think wiz has got a good handle on this finally", but if less hours can be invested in a DLC that sells more that's a really bad business move. Ultimately this is why I don't read the stellaris thread anymore and am just sort of waiting for stellaris 2 or what ever. The things I want to change in the game are too big to ever happen and it's pointless to re-hash the same criticisms over and over. They know what's objectively wrong with the game, they have a pretty good handle on what the majority of their player base subjectively thinks is working or not working, and they know what their budget is and how the business works and the things that I think are totally unfixable through tweaks and instead need a total gutting are never ever going to be in the cards. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Jackie D posted:I don't think this thread is any more or less hostile than it was before, people don't like hearing things they made are bad every time i see your avatar i remember RULERS OF NATIONS and it makes me smile
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Zombiepop posted:Well eh what do people want from their pdx games? I mean I see people complain about mana mechanics, pops and bad combat etc. But no one really suggests what they want instead, except something better. Like it or not, this is paradox way of making games, and p much has been since svea rike. My favorite thing about Victoria 2 is that resources in the game drive conflict. Actual province management is minimal; you set your focuses and occasionally build infrastructure. Empire building is the focus, and you conquer or influence areas dynamically based on what you need. I want that in Stellaris. I want a high level empire management game where I tell my planetary governor "you are a research planet" or "you are an industrial planet" or "shore up defenses here" and they go and do the micromanagement for me. Ideally the system is built around this and is simple enough for the AI to run planets as optimally as a player. I want to have dynamic resource demands that encourage me to go and acquire them forcefully or diplomatically. Give me a reason to conquer an area, or a reason to establish a dominion over another faction to secure their resources. Hell, let me trade for those resources so that I have a reason to make an ally, and a cost if we go to war. The planetary tiles and the ground troops were a big mistake in my opinion. In an empire game, there's no reason to drill down to that level of detail. Pops and factions are great, but I'm the emperor, have me manage them on the imperial level. By all means, make them drivers for crises, for resource acquisition, and for other things, but don't make me micro them. I'm also not a fan of the way ships are implemented. It's very micro intensive to build and gather them, and since we don't control the ships directly, the ship designer feels too opaque. It also leads to all or nothing doomstacks slamming into each other with no real supply limits or anything preventing large ship concentrations. The lack of manpower or system defense boats or anything like that aggravates military losses and makes them a headache to rebuild from, if that even ends up being possible. I would honestly prefer generic ship classes over designing ships. Planetary invasion is terrible. Just make it a siege like in other games and abstract ground troops as something that fleets transport in autonomously. Hell, give ships a blockade value and an invasion value to show how good they are at planetary assault. Overall, more macro, less micro. Let me be in charge of the broad strokes of empire building, and let the peons in charge of planets and fleets do the grunt work of implementation. As a bonus, this makes the AI much easier to make competent, as it makes players and the AI manage planets similarly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
My biggest gripe with Stellaris is the lack of historical "narrative" in comparison to previous Paradox titles. In CK2, reconquering Iran in the name of Ahura Mazda gives the player a sense that they've changed history completely, complete with achievements and LPs focusing on such goals. Meanwhile, conquering the Kzkzzl in Stellaris as *HumanEmpire#3* starts to become repetitive without any connection to the societies you're interacting with. Without a fleshed-out backstory like Sword of the Stars or Endless Space, poo poo just seems to all meld together as a single bland whole instead of the "every game a unique galaxy" Paradox is going for, down to the ships and technologies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
PBJ posted:My biggest gripe with Stellaris is the lack of historical "narrative" in comparison to previous Paradox titles. In CK2, reconquering Iran in the name of Ahura Mazda gives the player a sense that they've changed history completely, complete with achievements and LPs focusing on such goals. They were saying early on they had two general design ideas. A "ck2 in space" sort of setting with a pre-made map with richly detail asymetrical nations/races you could play as like in a typical Paradox game, and what we got. I'd kill for a new Emperor of the Fading suns. What kept me going back to Endless Space 2 was how rich the setting was, instead of bucket of random races that all end up feeling the same anyway they hand-crafted a bunch of interesting well developed empires all with a ton of unique gameplay and events/quests. That's the problem with random/procedural everything. On one hand every game is different, on the other hand, every technically different game is the same. After playing the early game of stellaris through a few times you've pretty much seen everything. In Endless Space 2 every empire has a whole branching set of quests and events on top of a ton of universal multi-stage events. It's a real quality vs quantity sort of thing, and a huge matter of taste. In the case of a 4x game I really rather have a few very well crafted but customizable base empires vs infinite sameness. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The paradox devs are not stupid and I'm sure they are very very aware of what is working and what was a huge design disaster that they're more or less stuck with. But in these days of devs engaging in "social media" everything they say is needs to be filtered at least slightly through a marketing lens because at the end of the day they're running a business and it's way easier to sell a DLC that adds a bunch of stuff vs asking people to buy a DLC that's throwing away a ton of the work already done on the game and re-doing it because it was kinda poo poo. I mean, I'd buy that DLC and say nice things about wiz and cknoor's steaming as they marketed it and post optimistically about how "ok guys I think they fixed stellaris I think wiz has got a good handle on this finally", but if less hours can be invested in a DLC that sells more that's a really bad business move. I am a bit disappointed with how Stellaris apparently turned out, I remember being pretty excited for it when it came out. Hopefully it's one of those series where they iteratively improve on the formula each instalment, and I can enjoy Stellaris 2. e: is Endless Space 2 good? I didn't much like the first one as it's so generic. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The paradox devs are not stupid and I'm sure they are very very aware of what is working and what was a huge design disaster that they're more or less stuck with. But in these days of devs engaging in "social media" everything they say is needs to be filtered at least slightly through a marketing lens because at the end of the day they're running a business and it's way easier to sell a DLC that adds a bunch of stuff vs asking people to buy a DLC that's throwing away a ton of the work already done on the game and re-doing it because it was kinda poo poo. I mean, I'd buy that DLC and say nice things about wiz and cknoor's steaming as they marketed it and post optimistically about how "ok guys I think they fixed stellaris I think wiz has got a good handle on this finally", but if less hours can be invested in a DLC that sells more that's a really bad business move. You must have missed the part were DDRJake recently run into Ming tributaries in one of his games and realized it might be broken, 3 months after everyone said it's broken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
I miss ticking sliders every few years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:38 |
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I am a bit disappointed with how Stellaris apparently turned out, I remember being pretty excited for it when it came out. Hopefully it's one of those series where they iteratively improve on the formula each instalment, and I can enjoy Stellaris 2. ES2 is more like Endless Legend in space than a sequel to ES1. So yeah, pretty good. The factions are all really different and cool and they have interesting internal political stuff to keep track of as well. It was a bit buggy on release but is a lot better now. I hope Pdx do make Victoria 3 simply because the game has some of the best and unique game design ideas they've ever come up with and it would be a travesty if they remain locked up in an old dead game that is no longer developed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2017 07:28
|
|
