|
Does anyone know if Distant Stars is working in multiplayer, it’s definitely enabled for me but it’s not showing up on the host game screen :/ Edit: Asking here because the forums proper and steam are a nightmare on release for finding this kind of information. Sanitary Naptime fucked around with this message at 21:04 on May 22, 2018 |
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:You guys heard of Xenonion? Pages back, but this is a proclick.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. Its great. All those negative reviews are people who couldn't deal with the hyperlane-only changes.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:It's why I skim over posts unless there's pretty pictures... Interesting, I'm running 600 stars (4 arm spiral) and 1.25x hab and 1x primitives and I had 2 same-planet types near-by (1 right next door, the other in the adjacent 'cluster', and 3 more off-biome planets similarly close. I generated a couple more games and each of them had 2 on-biome worlds nearby and 2+ off-biome worlds. What galaxy shape are you using? I guess I could try pushing to 1000 stars and swapping types and maybe try not-ironman to see if I can see what you're doing. Also check to make sure you're not accidentally running life-seeded? edit: generated 3 more at 1000 stars and every one had 2 on-biome along with some off-biomes. 4 generated with ironman and all had 2 on-biome, and off-biome. 4 done at 1.5x hab with similar results. Going to try different shapes now. ZypherIM fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
I haven't played since just after Cherryh dropped and it sounds like they're planning on doing another major shakeup - I saw something about planet tiles maybe going away? Is this story pack a major change patch like Cherryh was, or will that come later? TIL star systems can have more than 2 stars! Thanks, video games. Apparently we've observed up to seven in a system.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. Steam reviews are bad in some ways cause gamers get really upset about tiny changes and make it sound like games are completely unplayable after a change they didn't like
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
I wonder who Yormak is, he seems to have a lot of appendages.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
2.0 is fantastic and revitalized my interest in the game. I've put about as much time post 2.0 as I had previous to it. Salty babymen can't handle change, even for the better, because it's not what they're used to.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Interesting, I'm running 600 stars (4 arm spiral) and 1.25x hab and 1x primitives and I had 2 same-planet types near-by (1 right next door, the other in the adjacent 'cluster', and 3 more off-biome planets similarly close. I generated a couple more games and each of them had 2 on-biome worlds nearby and 2+ off-biome worlds. What galaxy shape are you using? I guess I could try pushing to 1000 stars and swapping types and maybe try not-ironman to see if I can see what you're doing. The only changes to the defaults I made in my planetless start were 12 instead of 8 player empires, and random start locations instead of clustered.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. They slaughtered a diseased sacred cow by killing warp and wormhole ftl drives. People are mad on principle, not because the game is worse.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. So long as you aren't a mono-linguistic mandarin speaker, the game has gotten objectively better by leaps and bounds over the last year.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
Blorange posted:The only changes to the defaults I made in my planetless start were 12 instead of 8 player empires, and random start locations instead of clustered. I have no idea what the defaults are for galaxy shape, I've played for a long time. I generated 15 with 4-arm spiral with no dud starts, 10 elliptical starts with 1 dud, and I'll go test some 2-arm spirals. These were all Empire placement:random as well. Pretty much not seeing the galaxy generation being broken like claimed.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. There's a lot of QoL improvements, but the overall game is kinda poo poo at the moment unless you mod the hell out of it. In particular, get a mod that makes the AI actually competent.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Blorange posted:The only changes to the defaults I made in my planetless start were 12 instead of 8 player empires, and random start locations instead of clustered. To reinforce your point, both of my games did not have any planets of my own biome within 5 jumps(One didn't have one within 9), with 800 systems on a 4 spiral map. One unmodded, one with interface mods.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
The jump range isn't exact in the current setup, since the routing on clusters might make it more than 5 jumps. However I'm up to 29 galaxies out of 30 generated where there were 2 on-biome planets in the starting or adjacent clusters. edit: another 14 done with 1.0 hab on 1000 star 2-arm spirals with no duds. ZypherIM fucked around with this message at 22:02 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
Sultan Tarquin posted:I like how the named star systems now have the correct amount of stars. Alpha Centauri is a proper trinary
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:Bah, it's basically just a binary system with a stellar close neighbor. Proxima Centauri is over three hundred times as far from the other two as Pluto is from the Sun. Which is still spitting distance for space. (Space is rather large.) The distances of Proxima Centauri's weird course around the two stars of Alpha Centauri are 0,204 light years at maximum and fall below 0,1 light years at their closest. That's uncomfortably close for a "stellar close neighbor". Even the blue giants inside the galactic core would make weird faces at this.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:To reinforce your point, both of my games did not have any planets of my own biome within 5 jumps(One didn't have one within 9), with 800 systems on a 4 spiral map. One unmodded, one with interface mods. Yeah, there has to be something going on. Put the game down a while ago to take care of something else, started looking into mods to see if any could help fix this but kept getting mixed results and word that some mods that should be working actually aren't due to other changes in the game, disabled them all and am still toying around with a few things to see what's going on. On my fourth try after disabling all mods I got this:  Still a tropical preference and the closest systems to me (from top to right) are arctic, arid and tomb. There is a exnophobix FE immediately to my south cutting off that part of the spiral arm I'm in. I have to wonder if this is working as intended as the 2.1 update was also supposed to rework strategic resources to make them more rare and valuable - the system off to my right has 5 alone, plus the two other systems that contain the same special ores. In a previous try I also had something like ~17 terraforming candidates around me which is more than I think I've seen in every game I've played added together since terraforming candidates have been introduced. Made up for the extreme lack of planets but not very useful when just starting out. Still sticking with the opinion that galaxy generation is messed up. That, or RNGesus really loving hates me this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
iospace posted:Time for yet another achieve- GRAVITY IS DESIRE
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
I was going to skip this one but it's only like $10?? Cheap.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Yeah, there has to be something going on. Put the game down a while ago to take care of something else, started looking into mods to see if any could help fix this but kept getting mixed results and word that some mods that should be working actually aren't due to other changes in the game, disabled them all and am still toying around with a few things to see what's going on. On my fourth try after disabling all mods I got this: I literally went and generated 44 maps and I had 1 that was a dud (no in-biomes near), and 1 that had only 1 in-biome planet instead of 2. Changing galaxy size/shape/planets didn't have any effect. I guess I didn't try a variety of starting biomes, I was using an artic race so maybe I can go try making some with others and see if maybe there is something there. Currently I'm not seeing your problem of lots of dud starts though. edit: did 10 starts with a tropical biome, no duds. 1 start only had 1 in-biome planet, but several had 3 in-biomes near. ZypherIM fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
did they add this lil guy in this update or did I just miss it earlier.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Psychotic Weasel posted:Yeah, there has to be something going on. Put the game down a while ago to take care of something else, started looking into mods to see if any could help fix this but kept getting mixed results and word that some mods that should be working actually aren't due to other changes in the game, disabled them all and am still toying around with a few things to see what's going on. On my fourth try after disabling all mods I got this: Oh, he hates you. This time around I got a good start in under 10 tries, even with some weird mods (mostly shipsets/portraits though) added in. However, I have spend entire afternoons spend trying to get the perfect start and failing in earlier iterations of the game, so I feel for you
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
DamnDirtyCat posted:Coming back to Stellaris from about a year ago, it looks like a lot has changed. Is it still worth playing? I see a lot of negative reviews popping up, apparently about 2.0 being garbage. There were a few salty people who were mad after 2.0 came out because Paradox streamlined the FTL mechanics to hyperlanes-only, but that mostly died down after a week or two. Most of the recent bad reviews are from Chinese gamers review-bombing the game's steam page because a recent patch removed the (incomplete and unused) Chinese language localization files.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Oh, he hates you. This time around I got a good start in under 10 tries, even with some weird mods (mostly shipsets/portraits though) added in. I've had to get used to a few things. Maybe it's just RNG but I also seem to be having trouble with optimal starts (I eventually stopped caring). I'm not 100% happy with how cluster geography works yet, but that'll probably be a matter of tweaking and getting used to it. The big thing with my game this morning was needing to put more thought and effort into the early exploration segment of the game. Scanning seems to have been slowed down, and low-level anomaly solving has been drastically slowed down. I needed to consciously choose which anomalies I wanted to work on and when, and deploy more science ships than I normally do at the start to keep the pace up. This isn't bad, but it was pretty notable to me.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Is combat still just corvette spam?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Is combat still just corvette spam? Nope.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
I'm up to 64 map generations (variety of sizes/shapes/biome), 2 duds (0 in-biomes), 2 were 1 in-biome near-by. Starts like this one are much more common than dud starts (and I'm generating on 1.0x planets) - 3 in-biomes and 1 out of biome.. Anomaly scanning was noted in the patch notes as being slowed down in exchange for no more fails. I think scanning got slowed down as well, but it isn't too bad. Discovery+Map the stars start is still incredible, and even low mineral races can afford a second science ship pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:Nope. Oh cool when did that change? What did they change? I burned out pretty fast with 2.0 so heavily rewarding 200 corvette fleets and I was seriously ending up with a sore finger from having to click 200 times every time I made a new fleet.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Oh cool when did that change? What did they change? I burned out pretty fast with 2.0 so heavily rewarding 200 corvette fleets and I was seriously ending up with a sore finger from having to click 200 times every time I made a new fleet. Apocalypse is what changed it from corvette span. You know, 2.0
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:Apocalypse is what changed it from corvette span. You know, 2.0 They got rid of the whole nude corvette thing, but last time I played, which was only a couple months ago, anything other than a 100% corvette fleet seemed like an extremely foolish investment.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
Yeah corvette only fleets are still totally viable, and probably give the best bang for your buck. Unless you're facing a fleet that's been specifically designed to counter that strategy, but the AI never does that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
Corvettes are good but there are more efficient options some of the time. It's hard to beat torpedo corvettes but if you're fighting anything with high damage weapons, in a system with disengagement reduction, or, gun corvettes, you probably want something different. I'd say all medium cruisers with tracking stacked are probably a quite good answer to corvettes, and destroyers should work too. Basically I don't think there's really any bad fleet composition right now but corvettes are really fast and versatile so while you won't really suffer for using anything else there's kind of not a lot of reason not to use them, basically? They're not optimal in all circumstances but they're good in the vast majority of them and you start with the technology so... I think maybe big ships would be better if they got extra armour or something by virtue of being big hulls, same as starbases do. Also big guns could perhaps do with being even more damage efficient compared to small ones. Also nerf torpedoes because +100% armour damage negate shield damage is... well it's the best weapon in the game basically why would you use anything else and you can mount it on a corvette. Again the balance isn't bad, all ships work but because everything is competitive and all weapons and ships can reliably fight each other you end up going with the easiest choice, especially the one you can refit from your early fleets. Another option perhaps would be varying power costs for weapons and making ships more power starved especially smaller ones, so autocannons are the cheapest to run but suck vs armour, drivers are the next step up, but laser and especially plasma are really power hungry so if you want to make an armour piercing ship you want bigger ships which can mount bigger, more energy hungry guns. Nerf torps somehow and then if you want to crack stations you need bigger ships with more power hungry weapons. Maybe split guided weapons into light and heavy and give corvettes only a light guided slot and put current torps as heavy guided which you need cruiser or larger ships to mount. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:32 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
IAmTheRad posted:Apocalypse is what changed it from corvette span. You know, 2.0 No 2.0 firmly planted it as corvette spam.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
Do corvettes have a bonus to disengagement? That'd be a pretty big thing if they do.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Conskill posted:Do corvettes have a bonus to disengagement? That'd be a pretty big thing if they do. Yes, enormously. That's their main benefit. I don't know exactly what the numbers are but the smaller the ship the better the disengagement chance. I don't know if it's tied to evasion but it tracks a bit like that. It makes it so that you can "lose" corvettes in a fight but they don't stay gone, you can warp out or win the fight and they come back heavily damaged. The main exception to this is if you fight around a black hole or, if you get hit with massive single strike damage. Because disengagement works by making ships roll to disengage when they get hit at low health. If you never hit low health owing to being one shot, your ships never make disengage checks. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:33
|
|
|
Yeah the new war system and combat system makes disengagement chance the single most important thing for a fleet/ship. Battleships take a very long time to replace and are slow to get to the front, while most of the corvettes you "lost" in the battle actually just ran away and are now instantly back in your fleet, plus new ones can reinforce super quickly. Wars are now about avoiding losses, not winning battles, and corvettes are king at that. All the changes to movement, fleets, and war scores have made corvettes extremely over powered.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
I've had pretty good results with corvettes running a ballistic + missile setup. One armor, one hull, one shield, regenerating aux. My last game though I used largely cruisers with a titan or two and had overall better results; at least as far as replacing things. Even at 200 corvettes most encounters would result in a handful getting murdered. But a similar enough fleet strength with cruisers + titans was doing similar damage with hardly any losses ever. Corvettes are insanely fast though. I had one fleet with a level 10 admiral that rolled all the subspace perks + I had that subspace edict thing from completing Supremacy. I made a special fleet that gave them afterburners and those fuckers could cross the entire 1000 star galaxy from one end to another at absolute stupid speed.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah the new war system and combat system makes disengagement chance the single most important thing for a fleet/ship. Battleships take a very long time to replace and are slow to get to the front, while most of the corvettes you "lost" in the battle actually just ran away and are now instantly back in your fleet, plus new ones can reinforce super quickly. Wars are now about avoiding losses, not winning battles, and corvettes are king at that. This holds true until your opponent tools for -disengage and alpha strikes (giving you maybe 1 roll for disengage) and then suddenly those are all actual losses. edit: it might be a superior strategy versus the AI, but you don't need the bleeding edge best to beat the AI so you shouldn't feel shackled to corvettes.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2018 00:41
|
|