|
Main Paineframe posted:Also a way to force conflict, right? I mean, being boxed in by a Fallen Empire really sucks because that's just a big chunk of the galaxy off-limits till the late-game, but having your expansion blocked by purifiers or exterminators doesn't really seem like a problem since you're going to have to kill them at the first opportunity anyway. Yeah there's a big difference between another comparably advanced empire in the way and a fallen empire or leviathan in the way.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also a way to force conflict, right? I mean, being boxed in by a Fallen Empire really sucks because that's just a big chunk of the galaxy off-limits till the late-game, but having your expansion blocked by purifiers or exterminators doesn't really seem like a problem since you're going to have to kill them at the first opportunity anyway. Fallen Empires also have a forced distance from players, and generally occupy less overall space in Cherryh, so being fully boxed in by one is unlikely (and undesirable).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be possible to change the rules of hyperlane generation in order to fix some of the bottle necking. Right now I believe the game works by generating a minimum number of connections for each star, then removing X% of the longest hyperlanes in the map. Having the generator do more passes that look at the entire flow of the galaxy or something might be pretty useful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I wonder if it would be possible to change the rules of hyperlane generation in order to fix some of the bottle necking. Right now I believe the game works by generating a minimum number of connections for each star, then removing X% of the longest hyperlanes in the map. Having the generator do more passes that look at the entire flow of the galaxy or something might be pretty useful. This is something we're looking into as well, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
Wiz, a Very Important Question: when are you going to start streaming Cherryh playthroughs, and what variant of Blorg will you use this time?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
I got basically boxed in by pirate fleets (and an isolationist Fallen Empire) in my latest UNE game, except for one direction. For the longest while it was just me and the two primitive civs I enlightened (I wound up releasing my first vassal in the hopes they would join a federation, but they initially refused I wound releasing the other, who were still a protectorate, and making them my first Fed buddies). I wound up smashing one of the fleets simply because the Cybrex home system spawned on the other side (and I lost a lot of ships in the process - I'm going to need to rebuild my fleet again for round 2). Well, that and the bastards killed my level 4 Adaptive explorer where he was so close to hitting level 5 and being able to go and chain-research the level 5 projects to complete the event chain. I'm not 100% how federations work, actually - the first bunch turned around and became Federation associates and later joined. Luckily a fairly powerful Theocratic empire (I don't recall what it was specifically) decided to promote its Materialist faction & became a Military Commissariat, and they've now become associate members. They're more powerful than I am, though, and I'm trying to figure out how to bring them on board. They're on the other side of a fairly powerful Hegemonic Imperialist empire, though. I think I'm gradually getting the hang of it! Just in time for Cherryh to change the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Also a way to force conflict, right? I mean, being boxed in by a Fallen Empire really sucks because that's just a big chunk of the galaxy off-limits till the late-game, but having your expansion blocked by purifiers or exterminators doesn't really seem like a problem since you're going to have to kill them at the first opportunity anyway. Depending on the starting conditions and the difficulty setting, it can be functionally impossible to actually beat an exterminator in that kind of situation with the kind of advantage it can leverage, especially if you can't get into contact with other empires to defensive pact with. You probably won't stand a chance if it's at a difficulty above normal once the exterminator gets a planet advantage, even accounting for the AI's poor decision-making in attacking fortified positions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Wiz brings the goods: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/949290130489139201 Tooltip posted:Current Fleet stance is set to Aggressive
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
[quote="“canepazzo”" post="“479946075”"] Wiz brings the goods: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/949290130489139201 [/quote] 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Most of my concerns about transports still being in the game just evaporated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:I know they did, but I think the solution they came up with is much less practical than one they could have made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I would love a Stellaris map in actual 3D, like SOTS, although given the reaction when SOTS came out I suspect very few would join me in that. 3D map is great in concept but I've never seen it work. It just means a lot of annoyance and rotating but adds nothing to the game. They'd have to do something totally new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:3D map is great in concept but I've never seen it work. It just means a lot of annoyance and rotating but adds nothing to the game. They'd have to do something totally new.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:3D map is great in concept but I've never seen it work. It just means a lot of annoyance and rotating but adds nothing to the game. They'd have to do something totally new. It might work in VR, but otherwise the lack of real depth perception just makes it a total mess IME
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Was great in SotS, but SotS being turn based meant if you accidentally pinwheeled the map you had all the time in the world to reorient yourself. Fans added some real 3D-maps to Master of Orion III, which was neat, since the vanilla maps and their flatness always looked slightly off to me. Of course, it was also turn-based. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:This was literally the start of the game. So the nearby empire I ran into was literally 3-4 systems away from my start and due to the fallen empire being the military isolationists if I tried to even get near them they would tell me to go gently caress off. Not a bug, not a problem. Go to war, jump your science ships through the warzone and get back to exploring. Sometimes your neighbors are buttheads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
The Stellaris map is 3D, you can't just rotate the camera around because it would look like a pancake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
^^turn off the TV posted:The Stellaris map is 3D, you can't just rotate the camera around because it would look like a pancake. Thank god on that transport adjustment. Hey, Wiz, can you clarify something about the systems/borders work? The diary says quote:borders are now simply a reflection of system ownership rather than a cause for it to change. In the Cherryh update, who owns a system is almost always based on the owner of the Starbase in said system. But while I might not have OWNERSHIP of a star in my borders, it's still in my borders, yeah? Does having a system already in your borders prevent other civilizations from stealing it? Say you have a line of stars *--*--* and only the outside two have access to other stars. If I own both the outside stars, is another player prevented from building on the middle one? Because I would definitely consider that my territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:^^ I'm pretty sure in that case it is surrounded by your borders rather than within, i.e. not yours. You build the basic starbase to claim it otherwise it's fair game (assuming open borders).
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
That seems dumb and swiss-cheesy. What would make sense and be better, is "You can't just build mining stations on it until you own a starbase, but to build a starbase, it has to be in neutral territory or your borders", and I want to know which of the two is true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:That seems dumb and swiss-cheesy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Re-reading it, it says that not all the bases count toward the cap, so it could just be that you're intended to build little nothing stations as a sort of "Road" for lack of a better term. Thinking on it, that wouldn't be so bad. EDIT Expanding on that, it also says that price is correlated with distance. So how about this, then, if a system is adjacent (in this case, between) two of my systems, is it cheaper than if it's adjacent to only 1, even if it's the same "distance" Veryslightlymad fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Veryslightlymad posted:Re-reading it, it says that not all the bases count toward the cap, so it could just be that you're intended to build little nothing stations as a sort of "Road" for lack of a better term. Thinking on it, that wouldn't be so bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:30
|
|
|
In that case, I'm pretty OK with that, then. It's pretty similar to how a lot of other games would do it, just illustrated differently because you're in space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Is there a good mod to make the font loving readable? The ones I've used tend to cut off what is written partway though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
kujeger posted:It might work in VR, but otherwise the lack of real depth perception just makes it a total mess IME I was thinking VR might be the way to make it work. I played SOTS, it was still pointless. Being turn based it didn't interrupt anything but there was no situation where it mattered at all, just had to move the camera more. Frankly, if it's a game with a galaxy-sized map I don't see the point. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across and only a couple thousand thick. It may as well be 2D on a full galactic scale.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
CassandraSupreme posted:Is there a good mod to make the font loving readable? The ones I've used tend to cut off what is written partway though. Largely depends on why the font isn't readable. Grand Fromage posted:Frankly, if it's a game with a galaxy-sized map I don't see the point. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across and only a couple thousand thick. It may as well be 2D on a full galactic scale. A good illustration of it being pointless is people suggesting that Stellaris implement a 3D map even though the galaxy map is already 3D. It just isn't that easy to tell because it's shaped like an actual galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
The best part about Stellaris and paying attention to stuff like Wiz's updates is getting enough enthusiasm to come back with each update. Paradox really has a great model here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:A good illustration of it being pointless is people suggesting that Stellaris implement a 3D map even though the galaxy map is already 3D. It just isn't that easy to tell because it's shaped like an actual galaxy. Grand Fromage posted:3D map is great in concept but I've never seen it work. It just means a lot of annoyance and rotating but adds nothing to the game. They'd have to do something totally new. Arrange them equidistantly in 3D though and you end up with a kind of football made of tetrahedrons/icosahedrons, and the furthest distance between two points is, like, 12? Fronts are hard to maintain and you're at risk of deep strikes from multiple directions. The difference between near stars and far stars is tiny compared to an equivalently populated 2D map. This is great for SotS, which is a wargame disguised as a 4x. Total war is the aim of the game. It's not so good for a game like Stellaris, especially since the 2.0 changes make it clear they want fronts and no-man's lands and slow attrition to be a much bigger focus. Same as why warp is gone. They're both good for deep strike murdering and a "total freedom of space"-ey feel, but not so good for grand strategy and space opera. Splicer fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
Pretty much my only must-have mod for stellaris flattens the map because gently caress a star being a tiny bit up or down and looking like it should be within borders but not. 3d star maps always sound cool but just make the interface and being able to intuitively see what's going on a nightmare. Unless your game is designed around 3d-space like homeworld please don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
imweasel09 posted:Honestly not really. If your fleet gets trapped and you didn't auto follow a constructor with your fleet you just hit emergency ftl. Yeah, but now your fleet is gone for several months, during which your opponent can run rampant on you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Pretty much my only must-have mod for stellaris flattens the map because gently caress a star being a tiny bit up or down and looking like it should be within borders but not. 3d star maps always sound cool but just make the interface and being able to intuitively see what's going on a nightmare. Unless your game is designed around 3d-space like homeworld please don't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
MOO used warp and still managed to have clear fronts and "terrain" in war because they also had a range system that was based on controlled/allied space rather than just a per-jump limit like in Stellaris. Sure you can go anywhere, but maybe only 2 enemy systems are in range unless you take some of their territory or come up with a new fuel technology. It's rad when you get a fuel breakthrough that allows you to hit your enemy but they can't hit you, or can only attack a single well fortified world. It's rad when you develop faster engines that let you do hit and runs to soften up their defenses before they can react, or let you combine more fleets into a few bigger fleets because now they have more time to react to attacks. I don't know how MOO had such interesting wars, combat, ship design and pretty much no one's been able to recapture that. You were constantly presented with so many meaningful and hard choices. Ok, your ships go way faster than the enemy but they have a bigger fleet, so you go planet to planet bombing them for a turn or two before their fleet can arrive. This can cripple their growth, maybe you're even able to glass a planet or two before they can react. You've gained nothing though because you can't take and hold any of their stuff because their fleet would eventually arrive and re-take it, it's not worth your precious population to invade so you just get in there and gently caress their poo poo up. But despite being an early 90's game the AI could surprise you. While you're doing this hit and run tactic they decide to stop chasing your fleet and reacting to your attacks and instead attack your planets. Can you get back in time? Did you overextend yourself? You invested in missile bases instead of a huge fleet, was that wise, can they defend on their own? They attack a heavily defended planet but your fleet is 1 turn away, they beat your defenses and glass a precious planet but their fleet is 75% destroyed. This is a huge setback but also an opportunity, you can now beat their fleet in a stand up fight. But you just lost an entire world, can you afford the pops to invade their planets? What's your ground combat tech like? Do you try to use as few pops as possible by bombing the planets to nearly nothing them mopping up or do you try to invade cleanly and take their precious infrastructure? In the end you won this war and took their systems but at what cost? Was it a better investment to focus on internal growth? Is the neighbour to your north now at double your population because they didn't just throw away half their population in a brutal ground war? Did your gains upset the galactic community and they now see you as a threat to unite against? Simple game, but so much interesting poo poo going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
I for one believe MOO and MOO2 were sent from the future to ruin the lives of space 4X designers from now until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:That's kind of what I'm getting at. I'd love more games designed around a 3D map because I think 3D maps are cool. They're very different to 2D maps and I'd love if more games were designed to properly take advantage of/account for what fully 3D movement brings to the table. If you just take a 2D game and 3D it though then yeah, it's not going to work. Same with warp or wormholes, it's great if you design the game around it, but if you don't then it's going to be not good. Shadowgyer would have preferred the game to ditch the other two and fully embrace the pros and cons of warp, and I sympathise with that because there's not a lot of warp or 3D space games out there these days because they're so hard to design well for. I don't think warp (or a 3D map) is a good fit for what the designers want the game to be, and I want to play what the designers seem to want the game to be, but I recognise that they could have gone a more warp friendly route by keeping some things they're stripping out and stripping out some things they're enhancing and that some players who would have preferred that instead. So I sympathise with shadowgyer's frustration, despite being personally very happy with the road taken. Actually I just don't like Hyperdrive. I like both Warp and Wormhole, at least up to the point that they feel unbearably slow... which, coincidentally, is right around when you get Jump Drive, which combines the best of both worlds. I dislike Hyperdrive for precisely the reason that the designers seem to like it, in that it is highly restrictive. I understand their reasoning. I just don't agree with it. It is the most boring possible solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
It seems pretty boring from a player choice angle and a lot more interesting from a meaningful decision and game mechanic angle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Back when I was still thought I had the time to learn how to mod Stellaris, one of the things I toyed with was trying to create limited fuel for military ship types (assuming that was even remotely possible) based on a combination of FTL and reactor types. Obviously I never got around to doing so and it probably wasn't even feasible to try and implement, but I was curious what it would do for borders and warfare if it existed. The fuel mechanics in SotS and MoO were really good ideas in terms of creating meaningful territory in wars (though tanker stacking in SotS kind of cheesed it out of existence) and I was thinking it might fix a bunch of the problems people had with Stellaris warfare. I actually have no idea what is and isn't capable of being modded in this game, however, and even if was achievable the AI would need to be hosed with to be able to work within those constraints and that's a whole other can of worms, but it was a fun thought before the 2.0 changes rendered the concept moot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Oh hey this again. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
I'm really curious how good the aggressive troop AI will be. Will it actually eliminate troop ship micro or will it be some fussy thing that works most of the time but 10% of the time suicides all your transports so you still gotta babysit them
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:54 |
|
|
I think that a game with fuel ranges, three dimensional movement and Newtonian physics would be interesting if the game was like, say, Homeworld, where the design and engine were built from the ground up to support those concepts. Stellaris has always seemed like a "space is an ocean" type affair that's also running on an engine that debuted with Europa Universalis 3, a game that is noticeably unspacy. I just don't really know what people are expecting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2018 23:20
|
|