|
canepazzo posted:
Thank loving god.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
quote:Rather than only starting with one type of weapon and no defensive or auxiliary utilities, all empires now start with basic Red Lasers, Mass Drivers, Nuclear Missiles, Deflectors and Armor, as well as a basic aux slot component in the form of Reactor Boosters that was covered in last week's dev diary. That's a neat change. So if the Unbidden have 0 dimensional anchors remaining, why might I not be able to destroy their portal? My ships aren't allowed to target it. What am I doing wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:05
|
|
quote:We have also added a large number of new technologies to the game, both in the form of techs that handle new features (like Wormhole Stabilization and Space Trading) and to improve on existing ones, like a line of techs for each ship hull (Corvette, Destroyer, etc) that improves hull points and construction speed. Additionally, we have changed the general progression of ship components so that each upgrade is now more significant. For example, blue lasers now offer approximately 30% higher damage than red lasers, rather than a mere 10-15% as in the current live build. This should mean that focusing on technology is now an actual valid alternative to simply massing ships, though we still want to avoid the tech-as-only-viable-path-to-victory problem that many 4x games suffer from. Finally, we've also added some new highly advanced 'tier 6' technologies to Fallen Empires that cannot be researched normally and are only attainable by scavenging the wrecks of their ships. Good poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Thank loving god. With the changes to unity/research I wonder if we'll be seeing a pass on planet generation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
The worst part about this cool new poo poo is that now I want to wait until the cool new poo poo is out to play
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
quote:We have also added a large number of new technologies to the game, both in the form of techs that handle new features (like Wormhole Stabilization and Space Trading) So this part is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Wiz posted:For this reason, we have changed the Tech and Unity penalties to no longer be based on pops, but rather purely on the number of owned planets and systems, with each owned system and colonized planet adding to your tech and unity costs, and planets overall having less on an impact on tech costs than before. Unless the tech impact is based on planet size, this still means small planets are useless. Just make it entirely pop based, that way it doesn't matter if you've got 50 pops spread across three planets or ten planets, the impact is the same. It would also make it so that colonizing a new planet doesn't immediately put a huge malus on your research while the planet's pops grow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Cherryh seems sweet, I hope paradox will consider making it open beta at some point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:Unless the tech impact is based on planet size, this still means small planets are useless. Just make it entirely pop based, that way it doesn't matter if you've got 50 pops spread across three planets or ten planets, the impact is the same. It would also make it so that colonizing a new planet doesn't immediately put a huge malus on your research while the planet's pops grow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Shouldn't basic point defence be included in starting tech, otherwise there's no effective counter to basic missiles until you research it. Although since corvettes don't have a PD slot (I think) and will likely evade a lot of missles, I guess there's not much point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:So this part is interesting. I think they've mentioned this at least once before in the Cherryh dev diaries. You'll be able to trade for systems with the AI now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Even though Wiz states in the DD that the intent isn't to invalidate tall empire strategies, I don't see how how the change to how research/unity costs are calculated wouldn't. Tall empires still need comparative mineral/energy income in order to compete, and the only source they will have left for that after the change are tributaries. Rapid tech/policy advancement isn't very useful when the cost of the buildings/ships they unlock outpace the vertical development of mineral and income sources that they enable. I've tried following the one-planet empire strategy, and I already found myself lagging behind the schedule it laid out because I never had enough minerals or energy to build all the specified infrastructure on time. Tl;dr: More potential to develop a planet's mineral/energy output through tech/unity would be nice. It would help tall empires keep up Slashrat fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Are you implying that a player who ignores one of the four exes in "4x" would be at a natural disadvantage in a 4x game? EDIT: Not An Official Dev Statement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:So this part is interesting. Not really, they've already mentioned spaceports get a trading module that probably just gives a minerals or energy boost
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:So this part is interesting. I think we've seen what the trading modules on the spaceports do in one of the streams. It's energy income modules, with spaceport buildings to buff the modules up if I remember it right. I'm also not a fan of reserach and unity getting more expensive based on planets, because planets are not equal. Entirely pop based is what I would prefer. And I don't know how outposts increasing it will work out - that might be really punishing if you have to grab a mediocre system just to expand, but I guess it does mean grabbing a chokepoint just for the chokepoint has a high cost. But hell yeah Fleet Manager. I was worried that if we weren't going to get it now, in the huge game overhaul, we'd never get it. DatonKallandor fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
gowb posted:Not really, they've already mentioned spaceports get a trading module that probably just gives a minerals or energy boost "new features" doesn't seem to me equating to a mineral or energy boost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Slashrat posted:Even though Wiz states in the DD that the intent isn't to invalidate tall empire strategies, I don't see how how the change to how research/unity costs are calculated wouldn't. Tall empires still need comparative mineral/energy income in order to compete, and the only source they will have left for that after the change are tributaries. Rapid tech/policy advancement isn't very useful when the cost of the buildings/ships they unlock outpace the vertical development of mineral and income sources that they enable. I think the notion is that they want to change the minmaxed tall build from "one planet and outposts covering a quarter of the systems in the galaxy" into "ten planets in ten systems". A single, fully-developed planet can easily produce more minerals than 15 uninhabited systems; it's just that in the current build, the tech/unity penalties from colonizing a planet aren't outweighed by the tech/unity gained from that planet. Depending on how the new penalties are calculated, I could also see this making habitats useful again. Terraforming too, especially if there are more options for recovering barren/toxic/frozen worlds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:I think they've mentioned this at least once before in the Cherryh dev diaries. You'll be able to trade for systems with the AI now. Finally I can ascend from a mere Hat Baron to a Planet Baron
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
 Oh yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
The change to upgrades being more meaningful is a great change in my eyes, as it too often felt like the first few tiers of ship upgrades didn't really accomplish very much other than making them more expensive for marginally better gains. Liking that. I can't say I'm too keen on the other tech changes though, for the reasons others have given re: planet-based scaling. I'd also apply it to systems, it sounds as though you'll be punished tech-wise for expanding to systems that have few resources, even if you're only doing so to shore up your borders or reach another, more valuable (but more distant) system. I'll reserve judgment until I see how it plays out, as it has been previously stated that there won't be any systems with zero resources anymore, which certainly helps here, but I am somewhat concerned about some really ugly borders. If anything it seems to me that tech costs based on pops+mining stations would make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Aleth posted:
I made a devouring horde Space Orc Empire, so I feel you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Paradox posted:- Hovering over a category in the Traditions screen now works correctly with non-default UI scaling Yes! No more opening up the stellaris wiki to figure out what the alternate tradition tree actually do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:The change to upgrades being more meaningful is a great change in my eyes, as it too often felt like the first few tiers of ship upgrades didn't really accomplish very much other than making them more expensive for marginally better gains. Liking that. I can't say I'm too keen on the other tech changes though, for the reasons others have given re: planet-based scaling. I'd also apply it to systems, it sounds as though you'll be punished tech-wise for expanding to systems that have few resources, even if you're only doing so to shore up your borders or reach another, more valuable (but more distant) system. I'll reserve judgment until I see how it plays out, as it has been previously stated that there won't be any systems with zero resources anymore, which certainly helps here, but I am somewhat concerned about some really ugly borders. If anything it seems to me that tech costs based on pops+mining stations would make more sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Yeah, pops would be the better modifier rather than planets. Dunno why they're going with planets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Most of the other times I've seriously ???d a change like this the other shoe has dropped in a following dev diary though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Yeah, pops would be the better modifier rather than planets. Dunno why they're going with planets. Going with owned planets makes new colonies more of an economic burden, and increases the value of empire modifiers that allow you to grow, resettle or build faster. If you wanted to keep that effect on gameplay, the penalty should be scaled somewhat to the planet size, not pops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Pops yeah, mining stations could net you a weird situation where building a science station slows your science progression. Well I meant mining stations and -not- science stations, but it did seem only fair if pops were going to increase research costs, and they wanted to move us away from over-reliance on space-based resources. Right now it's sounding like every owned system, including ones without planets, is going to increase research costs, which unnerves me a bit. But again, I'll be reserving judgment until it comes out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:I think we've seen what the trading modules on the spaceports do in one of the streams. It's energy income modules, with spaceport buildings to buff the modules up if I remember it right. I actually quite like the changes to research and unity penalties based on planets you control for exactly the same reason you dislike it. Because all planets are not equal, this system actually encourages people to focus on high value territory and avoid low value expansion. If there is a completely dead system with no resources that you need, you won't colonise it unless it unless you need the territory to bridge the gap between your systems. It will mean that unclaimed areas of space will exist throughout the game and empire borders will be much more varied. If you're playing tall, the decision of which systems you will bother to claim will be a pretty complex and interesting one. Maybe you will even end up deconstructing some of your early outposts to decrease your tech costs when you find more valuable systems later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:Yeah, pops would be the better modifier rather than planets. Dunno why they're going with planets. Because large planets should be better than small planets. Small planets only have to be able to outweigh the penalties to be worthwhile. Whether they do that depends on what kind of an empire you're playing, which means colonization is a meaningful choice rather than 'settle every planet because why not'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
I feel like ultimately the only way to make tall empires and broad empires playable and in the same universe is to essentially make it a hard choice between different groups of incentives/penalties. I don't know if that should be a racial characteristic or a policy or a tradition, but it seems like you need something that enforces parity with tall empires getting a lot more bang for the buck in terms of resources and the like, but with very heavy penalties for expansion past a particular point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Because large planets should be better than small planets. I get that, but it does mean that a player will feel penalized for settling a small planet. What if instead both small and large planets are good and you don't have downsides to settling small planets over large ones? Edit: Gulli's planet modifiers does a lot to alleviate this because a small planet with a precursor modifier is still hella good. The base game doesn't really have anything going for small planets because, and I don't mean any offense here, the base game planet modifiers are boring. Demiurge4 fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
I will still colonize everything, absorb the enormous tech/unity penalty, and not care. There is no scaling penalty on minerals or energy and the forge worlds require resources. Science upgrades can be drawn from the wreckage of your enemies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Because large planets should be better than small planets. I prefer trade-offs to no-brainer decisions. Scaling settlement costs based on size could introduce some neat decision points. Short term gains vs long term growth potential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:Unless the tech impact is based on planet size, this still means small planets are useless. Just make it entirely pop based, that way it doesn't matter if you've got 50 pops spread across three planets or ten planets, the impact is the same. It would also make it so that colonizing a new planet doesn't immediately put a huge malus on your research while the planet's pops grow. Yeah I don't at all understand the last paragraph, it makes even less sense than the current system and would seem to encourage even weirder behavior? Like unclaiming random uninhabited systems in your empire to cut your tech costs down? Like clearly I functionally own the system so why does colouring that bit of the map in make everyone a bit stupider? Wiz posted:Because large planets should be better than small planets. Large planets are better than small planets in some ways because you can put planetwide edicts on them and a good modifier on a big planet is very appealing, and it also means you only need to colonize once. Big planets are efficient at housing pops, but I don't particularly see why they need to be improved further, they're already by far the most desirable planets in the game even playing with gulli's modifiers that adds potentially massive bonuses to other worlds. You need a very big bonus to offset just having more tiles especially with unique per-planet buildings taking up space. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
One of the ascension perk mods I use has a perk that increases the minimum size of a planet from 12 to 16. It just fleshes out the grid to 4x4, giving some new space on old worlds. That struck me as a really handy way to deal with the problem, and I was wishing I had it in a game where a half-terraformed grimacing world got turned into a size 7 dingleberry on the rear end-end of my empire. The sector AI colonized it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Gyrotica posted:I feel like ultimately the only way to make tall empires and broad empires playable and in the same universe is to essentially make it a hard choice between different groups of incentives/penalties. That's very definitely in play. I have never gotten all of my traditions unlocked before the Crisis in any playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah I don't at all understand the last paragraph, it makes even less sense than the current system and would seem to encourage even weirder behavior? Like unclaiming random uninhabited systems in your empire to cut your tech costs down? Like clearly I functionally own the system so why does colouring that bit of the map in make everyone a bit stupider? It's not average intelligence. It's less efficient to have your population spread out over more planets. Two schools that each have 500 students cost more to run than one school that has 1000 students.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Dareon posted:One of the ascension perk mods I use has a perk that increases the minimum size of a planet from 12 to 16. It just fleshes out the grid to 4x4, giving some new space on old worlds. That struck me as a really handy way to deal with the problem, and I was wishing I had it in a game where a half-terraformed grimacing world got turned into a size 7 dingleberry on the rear end-end of my empire. The sector AI colonized it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:It's not average intelligence. It's less efficient to have your population spread out over more planets. But, like, what does having a flag in a system have to do with that? Why would number of claimed systems affect your output? Population and population centers I can see an argument for but number of systems is just weird even from a gameplay perspective. I'd also argue that the cost difference for multiple smaller worlds is already there because, well, they actually cost more to colonize... And you have to build infrastructure buildings twice. I don't think we really need to increase the motivator to only colonize huge planets because that's already very much there. Splicer posted:I think that was the original intention of tile blockers. A size 25 planet starts as a size 12ish planet you can tech and spend to twice its size. But even ignoring MoN they never1worked/felt like that in my games. Maybe because they were highlighted in RED the colour of BAD rather than GREY the colour of THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE BUT MAYBE THAT WILL CHANGE. Alphamod does tile blockers really well because they tend to give bonuses to adjacent tiles, so you start out liking them as ways to increase your output per-pop while you're growing and eventually might replace them as you want more space for buildings. There's also extreme versions of stuff like glaciers and mountains and volcanoes that you can't remove but provide even better bonuses and are good spots for some buildings which can only be build adjacent to blockers and thus function like a kind of resource. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But, like, what does having a flag in a system have to do with that? It's not just a bizarrely expensive flag, it's also an abstraction for the various non-colony infrastructure in that system. I.E., space and transport infrastructure - especially now that we're going lanes only, think B5 jumpgates or the like), communications, resource extraction in some cases (especially since apparently totally empty systems are becoming a thing of the past), all of which would need to be upgraded to take advantage of new technology. From a "realism" perspective it still makes sense, from a "gameplay" perspective we kind of have to see how it plays. I can see why it would encourage some people to be really picky about what systems they claim, which can be both good or bad. I think I still prefer the current border projection system in my gut but I'm willing to wait-and-see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:15
|
|
