|
Alas I did actually play it for probably most of that time.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
I'm pretty sure I've had more success playing progress quest than sots 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Jabarto posted:I just noticed that there's a "pirate risk" percentage visible in the government screen, was that always there or is it from one of the betas? There's also a notification (like the no research selected etc stuff) when you hit 50%, 99% sure it was added today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
I wish I could turn off the upgrade available icons for buildings that I don't plan on currently upgrading. Like I often don't want to upgrade mines/farms because they're really inefficient, but I'd like to upgrade other important things. I find myself skipping certain techs often just from wanting less icon clutter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Alas I did actually play it for probably most of that time. But... just.... HOW
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:I wish I could turn off the upgrade available icons for buildings that I don't plan on currently upgrading. Like I often don't want to upgrade mines/farms because they're really inefficient, but I'd like to upgrade other important things. I find myself skipping certain techs often just from wanting less icon clutter. I upgrade everything all the time out of OCD to make the arrows go away. I haven't done the math but which buildings are bad deals to upgrade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:But... just.... Very patiently. Honestly after a bunch of patching it was stable enough to play and I really, really liked the battle system. The main issue with it is that it's painfully difficult to get into fights, and it also has a bunch of useless systems plugged into it for no good reason. Oh and the robots are absurdly OP because they can literally colonise every single planet, even the barren ones. It looks nice and the fights are real fun though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
quote:* Wormholes and Gateways are now taken into consideration when checking if empires are neighbors
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Last night I had 413 Unity income; today after the change to Assist Research unity boost I earn 292 
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I upgrade everything all the time out of OCD to make the arrows go away. I haven't done the math but which buildings are bad deals to upgrade? Well for example farms are +1 output for +.5 upkeep, and most buildings are similar. Building a science lab over the basic lab is +1 research for +.5 upkeep. I can't recall the changes for the second level upgrades off-hand. Upgrading basic buildings is pretty far down on my list. Farms for example pretty much need to be able to replace an existing farm by upgrading the others to be worth it, or if you need more food for other planets. Upgrading science buildings shouldn't happen until you're out of tiles on a planet (even then they're worse than almost any science station). Upgrading mines is just exchanging energy for minerals (.5 energy for 1 mineral each month), so until you've got a bunch of modifiers to production that often isn't worth the cost till later on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Well for example farms are +1 output for +.5 upkeep, and most buildings are similar. Building a science lab over the basic lab is +1 research for +.5 upkeep. I can't recall the changes for the second level upgrades off-hand.  with this nonsense. Dont give lovely advice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Last night I had 413 Unity income; today after the change to Assist Research unity boost I earn 292 To be fair that means you were getting a 41.4% boost to your unity generation. The biggest other options cap at 30% and tend to involve a lot more work (multiple type of planets colonized or federation members). My advice wasn't lovely, you just added on 4+ conditionals to my rule of thumb. I can turn any advice someone has for anything into lovely advice if I do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:So you're telling me that if I have minerals available, energy income to compensate, a pop working a basic Science lab, and the planet is not full yet, I shouldnt upgrade the tile that is getting worked? Is the optimal thing to do instead to save up minerals to upgrade outposts so that you can get the better buildings there? Genuine question. I don't know poo poo. I haven't played a game past the 120 year mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
So finishing up my first couple of weeks of Stellaris and so on. Pretty fun. Apocalypse looks tempting but there's still a lot of content that I havent messed with in all the DLC I already have. The thing I think I miss most from other 4x games is non-shooting ways to mess with neighbours, i.e. espionage, unless I'm missing something big. also where's my rock people!
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:46
|
|
|
Young Hegelian posted:Is the optimal thing to do instead to save up minerals to upgrade outposts so that you can get the better buildings there? There tends not to be one optimal thing to do. It's all about return on investment given a particular context. If you're short on pops/tiles and need energy, go ahead and upgrade that outpost. If you need minerals, upgrade your mines. It's useful to think in net present value terms here: investing now to get a trickle of minerals often beats saving for a larger opportunity later. The utility of minerals remains pretty constant throughout the game, which stands in contrast to the utility of food: upgrading past farm2/3 is often not worth it once you have a large enough surplus to speed pop growth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Upgraded buildings should not cost more upkeep, isn't it supposed to be showing the whole processing getting more productive and efficient, not less?? Paradox games always seem to make tech very expensive while giving very gradual minor improvements. Getting Mines II should be an exciting moment where you race into your planet screens to upgrade because you know it's such a big improvement and a total no-brainer that the upgrade is a good investment. The same with using the latest weapon or latest shield, it should always be absolutely worth it to upgrade asap. Things have gotten better with weapons and such, gone are the days of naked corvettes. Maybe it's just because I always play as some sort of tech-turtle but technology has always felt so underwhelming in stellaris. I've already dealt with the opportunity cost choice by building a gently caress ton of labs, make going from Mines II to Mines III either very cheap or very powerful. Going from a mine making +6 a turn total to +7 a turn total should never cost more than 50-100 minerals, ie the cost of a mining outpost or a new planetary mine. You've paid for your bonus already by investing in your research infrastructure. I so prefer to see upgrade costs for buildings fairly minor amounts of minerals/energy and then all future buildings of that type be built at the new tech level automatically. When you get better lasers you don't need to go build ships with lasers I, pay again to upgrade to lasers II, pay again to get lasers III and so on. You just know how to build better lasers that arne't that much more expensive than the previous. So if a level 1 mine costs, I don't know what it costs, like 40 minerals? Have each tech level increase the cost of the mine by maybe 10 minerals (or nothing at all!) and have a very small upgrade/refit cost for existing mines. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Mar 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:To be fair that means you were getting a 41.4% boost to your unity generation. The biggest other options cap at 30% and tend to involve a lot more work (multiple type of planets colonized or federation members). And the other options stack additively with each other and ruler level and civics and poo poo, they wouldn't actually increase your unity production by the full 30%. And upgrading buildings is pretty low priority early on, yeah. Still, there's edge cases like mines worked by industrious servile slaves where you can get 1.5 (or more) minerals out of it even early on, and 1.5 minerals for 0.5 energy pays back the upgrade cost much faster than 1 mineral for 0.5 energy. Upgrading starports for trading hubs is a good return, for example just upgrading to the basic starbase and building two hubs and an offworld trading company costs 700 minerals for 12 energy income. For comparison, taking a system with 6 2-energy deposits wold cost a total of 640 minerals and some influence. And that's a way above average system. Upgrading to starhold and adding two more hubs is 950 minerals more for another 12 energy, which is still quite decent. And the prosperity tradition that gives more income for hubs, supremacy opener for reduced upgrade cost, and the rare techs that also give discounts all make them even better investments. If you have a use for more energy (and there's a lot of things to use energy on, art monuments, artist and curator deals, clearing blockers is more expensive now...), they're probably better investments than upgrading buildings. Not upgrading power plants though, they don't cost upkeep so it's just 90 minerals (for upgrade to level II, anyway) for probably at least bit more than 1 energy a month. Baronjutter posted:Upgraded buildings should not cost more upkeep, isn't it supposed to be showing the whole processing getting more productive and efficient, not less?? Well it is more efficient, the upkeep:output ratio stays constant but the relative labor cost goes down. And it's more compact. But yes I've always been a bit underwhelmed by the returns of upgrading buildings. And it's weird upgrading power plants has a much better return than upgrading other stuff. And it's so drat slow too, why do I need to build obsolete buildings before I can upgrade them? Why can't I just build the new stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:The utility of minerals remains pretty constant throughout the game, which stands in contrast to the utility of food: upgrading past farm2/3 is often not worth it once you have a large enough surplus to speed pop growth. Disagree, upgrading farms remains worth because you can get rid of your other farms and use the tile for stuff that doesn't suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Re: making scientists useful post map exploration - would be cool to send scientists on missions or something similar instead of relying on just surveying/anomalies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:There tends not to be one optimal thing to do. It's all about return on investment given a particular context. If you're short on pops/tiles and need energy, go ahead and upgrade that outpost. If you need minerals, upgrade your mines. It's useful to think in net present value terms here: investing now to get a trickle of minerals often beats saving for a larger opportunity later. I'm somewhat getting the hang of it. I basically always update mines and science buildings, but there doesn't seem to be much point in upgrading food if I'm at my limit. I don't really understand combat at all, which is a limitation, but I started a new game with the express goal of provoking wars so I can see how to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Space lab exile forever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
ThatBasqueGuy posted:Disagree, upgrading farms remains worth because you can get rid of your other farms and use the tile for stuff that doesn't suck. The problem is you need to upgrade 2+(base food from tile) farms to replace that farm. Then you're also paying .5 energy per farm you upgrade. So it is eventually worth it, but it is a cost.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Upgraded buildings should probably go away and the output of buildings can be reliant entirely on the Planetary Administration building and unlocking the prerequisite techs. Like instead of unlocking Mining Network II you get +1 Minerals from all Mines on worlds with a Planetary Administration. It wouldn't change a lot in the game aside from some clicking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:So you're telling me that if I have minerals available, energy income to compensate, a pop working a basic Science lab, and the planet is not full yet, I shouldnt upgrade the tile that is getting worked? No, that wasn't what he was saying. He's saying that upgrading buildings tends to be fairly cost-inefficient (it is), so if you are still at the stages in the game where upgrading buildings represents a significant expenditure of resources and you don't have enough to do everything you want, that may not be the immediate priority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
It'd take away a pretty big mineral sink.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:It'd take away a pretty big mineral sink. So? That just means bigger fleets, and more wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I like upgrades honestly, my only gripe is the repeated clicking involved, but the mineral investment is good I think, I like things that are costly but make your planets really good in return, a fully upgraded planet is a powerhouse of productivity, but it's a lot more expensive than just expanding to more planets, and that's fair. If anything I wish there were more ways to build up your space tall with investments. More megastructures and the like that buff planets you build them around. Better space mines perhaps, building more tiles onto planets by building orbital habitat rings. Lots of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:No, that wasn't what he was saying. He's saying that upgrading buildings tends to be fairly cost-inefficient (it is), so if you are still at the stages in the game where upgrading buildings represents a significant expenditure of resources and you don't have enough to do everything you want, that may not be the immediate priority.  thats not how I read it at all, but maybe thats the exhaustion speaking.Young Hegelian posted:Is the optimal thing to do instead to save up minerals to upgrade outposts so that you can get the better buildings there? ZypherIM posted:To be fair that means you were getting a 41.4% boost to your unity generation. The biggest other options cap at 30% and tend to involve a lot more work (multiple type of planets colonized or federation members). ZypherIM posted:My advice wasn't lovely, you just added on 4+ conditionals to my rule of thumb. I can turn any advice someone has for anything into lovely advice if I do that. OwlFancier posted:I like upgrades honestly, my only gripe is the repeated clicking involved, but the mineral investment is good I think, I like things that are costly but make your planets really good in return, a fully upgraded planet is a powerhouse of productivity, but it's a lot more expensive than just expanding to more planets, and that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
Not necessarily saying it's bad, but it would be a pretty noticeable change. As far as 'feel' goes, I think it'd also reduce the sense of substance of those technologies. The upgrades aren't thrillingly better by any stretch of the imagination, but it is at least an unlock that lets you go in and improve your empire. If it just silently, instantly upgraded everything...I don't know, it'd certainly make the tech more attractive, but I think it'd further divorce the player from planetary management.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I like upgrades honestly, my only gripe is the repeated clicking involved, but the mineral investment is good I think, I like things that are costly but make your planets really good in return, a fully upgraded planet is a powerhouse of productivity, but it's a lot more expensive than just expanding to more planets, and that's fair. I just had a thought, what if there were empire limited techs tied to your number of core systems? So instead of 1 per empire, you'd have [core systems #] per empire, then you could make them stronger while also buffing the core systems techs. @Muenster, to get 30% from the other ways you need to colonize 6 different biomes or have a federation with 6 members, and that still isn't nearly as big of a boost as you were rocking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This is my thinking - might as well upgrade it unless there is another pressing need. I have always found it odd that planets have a hard cap on population size. Adding population management by having to deal with overpopulation (unrest for having too many people or something) could be tedious, but I wouldnt mind if they tried something. If I wasnt so tired I would totally theorycraft something. Well people are correct in that upgrading early is not always a good idea, you should prefer expanding if possible unless you are deliberately going for a limited number of planets, otherwise you want to spend your minerals on grabbing more worlds and building more basic buildings on tile deposits, it's significantly more efficient and gives you a better base to upgrade later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
I must say, I am a little disappointed that the Cybrex home-ring-world does not have any science boosts I can build an outpost over while I wait for the techs to research rebuilding it. Anyone know what techs will I need?ZypherIM posted:@Muenster, to get 30% from the other ways you need to colonize 6 different biomes or have a federation with 6 members, and that still isn't nearly as big of a boost as you were rocking.  I feel like the change/nerf is particularly strong when it was something you have to dedicate a Scientist per planet to to get the bonus. If they halved it I think it would still be better than the new system but fit into the ratios that you have pointed out much better? OwlFancier posted:Well people are correct in that upgrading early is not always a good idea, you should prefer expanding if possible unless you are deliberately going for a limited number of planets, otherwise you want to spend your minerals on grabbing more worlds and building more basic buildings on tile deposits, it's significantly more efficient and gives you a better base to upgrade later. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Mar 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I must say, I am a little disappointed that the Cybrex home-ring-world does not have any science boosts I can build an outpost over while I wait for the techs to research rebuilding it. Anyone know what techs will I need? Citadels, Zero Point Energy, and either Battleships or Titans, dunno which.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Battleships.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Excellent, thanks guys! I have Battleships but not the other two, so I will have to prioritize them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
I think this new faith in science is still really strong, especially as an early unlock. Later in the game it'll be weaker, but so are some of the other unity gains from some of the other trees (static +1 or +2 is good early but not great later). I think it synergizes really nicely with a fast tech build. I can see some sort of materialist tech rush build that unlocks cyborgs super fast, rolls that into galatic force projection and goes on the warpath. edit: zero point energy gates a bunch of late game poo poo, it should have sparkles on it to denote that you should research it yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:I think this new faith in science is still really strong, especially as an early unlock. Later in the game it'll be weaker, but so are some of the other unity gains from some of the other trees (static +1 or +2 is good early but not great later). I think it synergizes really nicely with a fast tech build. I can see some sort of materialist tech rush build that unlocks cyborgs super fast, rolls that into galatic force projection and goes on the warpath. ZypherIM posted:edit: zero point energy gates a bunch of late game poo poo, it should have sparkles on it to denote that you should research it yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Not necessarily saying it's bad, but it would be a pretty noticeable change. There should be a policy that when toggled on just auto-upgrades all buildings because after a point the mineral cost is a complete non-factor. That way it satisfies both players who don't want to be bothered by it and players for whom clicking the upgrade arrow is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:* Fixed misaligned constructed ringworld segments Note this only applies to the ones you build. All the other spawned ringworlds are still broken as gently caress. The fix is really odd, too. Instead of the four sections' orbital angles being 0, 90, 180, 270, they're now 0, 92.5, 185, 277.5 Maybe circles have 370 degrees in Sweden?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I like upgrades honestly, my only gripe is the repeated clicking involved, but the mineral investment is good I think, I like things that are costly but make your planets really good in return, a fully upgraded planet is a powerhouse of productivity, but it's a lot more expensive than just expanding to more planets, and that's fair. Yeah more resource sinks with diminishing utility not unlike development in EU4. Honestly that would be a better model I think, let us upgrade buildings over and over with static production increases but growing costs. How tech factors in would be lowering the upgrade cost, but at what point it stops being worth it to invest in the planet's production is more up to the player and the situation. When it's going to cost you 1,000 minerals to get another +1 energy out of the planet you're not going to invest, but hey you just got a new power technology and that cost came down to 200 minerals now, 400 for another +1, 800 for another +1 and so on. If you're sitting on a ton of resources but no space to expand you might decide that going "tall" and spending a fortune to increase the research output on your capital is worth it. The upgrade system could even still look the same, yellow upgrade button and a warning on your outliner that upgrades are available if the upgrade is the base level "efficient" upgrade for your tech level, but then keep the upgrade arrow red or blue or some other colour showing that, if you want, you can "over upgrade" the building but for double the cost, and then double the cost again and so on. Maybe you just really want your capital to have the most research production in the empire and are willing to spend a few thousand minerals to get that extra +5 boost you need to make it #1. Maybe you're having such a severe energy shortage that spending 800 minerals for +1 energy is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2018 01:17
|
|