|
Just got a new laptop and decided to get back into Stellaris. I never quite got what people were complaining about in terms of slowdown, but having an experienced a game where I seemed to be going at plaid speed I have a better appreciation at just how bad the lag could get if people are used to months and even years just flying by.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
If anything I feel like there needs to be another speed setting between Normal and Fast. In MP normal feels like molasses, while fast is too fast outside of the very early game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 23:59
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
OwlFancier posted:Yes, and more importantly the more shots it takes, the more chances it has to fire. Weird. If this is how it works then they should probably add a weight to the disengagement chance that's determined by the amount of %HP damage taken per shot. Having one hit for 90% of a ship's health be treated the same as taking 90 hits for 90% of the ship's health would make my dumb destroyers last a lot longer. turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
I find it strange that corvettes have the bonus to disengage rather than bigger ships. Just thinking in terms of genre tropes, the little ships should be dying in droves but the big flagship should almost always be getting away to fight another day. I dunno. It's also weird just how many ships are in a fleet in vanilla Stellaris. I really really like how the new horizons mod makes each ship feel powerful and worth the relatively large investment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
There's different ways to handle ship power progression, Stellaris seems to be using some kind of eve online / tracking type system which is very, very weird when considering the rest of the game design, but they really seem to love those mechanics and the combat itself is pretty mediocre but I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. The ship sizes, the big ships being meant to hit big ships, the weird scaling with fights and fleets, it's all very odd. I don't understand what the system is trying to do, or what it does well. But it works and is servicable, and I bet there's much higher priority stuff they're working on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Corvettes and destroyers are just a really weird depiction of reactive armor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:There's different ways to handle ship power progression, Stellaris seems to be using some kind of eve online / tracking type system which is very, very weird when considering the rest of the game design, but they really seem to love those mechanics and the combat itself is pretty mediocre but I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. You generally find the right sort of space junk, or at least serviceable space junk, and you throw it in the general direction of your enemy's space junk. The one with the best ability to throw space junk will probably win in the end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:You generally find the right sort of space junk, or at least serviceable space junk, and you throw it in the general direction of your enemy's space junk. The one with the best ability to throw space junk will probably win in the end. No I mean, is the big ship vs small ship tradeoff supposed to be one that you make in a game? Are they expecting that a corvette style evasion player goes up against a battleship type player? Are they expecting mixed fleets that evolve during the game? Why do they want to implement tracking and stuff like that, why do they want to have a differentiation between small ships and big ships where small ships can engage big ships effectively but not vice versa? Those design decisions presumably have some reasons behind them, I'm just not sure what they felt this system would give them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:Weird. Well I'm not sure exactly but I think it doesn't even start to roll until you're at half health, so if your corvettes can be knocked from half health to zero in one shot, they're never going to disengage  The easiest way to learn this is to try and take out a void cloud with corvettes, and watch them all get absolutely annihilated by a 200% damage lightning gun. To be honest I kind of like it because it gives an interesting tradeoff to large guns, they can't normally hit a corvette, but when they do they kill it fukkin dead as poo poo. It could do with being more transparent though, it's obvious if you know how disengagement actually works, but it doesn't strictly tell you it's roll-to-leave-on-hit-with-low-health. Ham Sandwiches posted:No I mean, is the big ship vs small ship tradeoff supposed to be one that you make in a game? Are they expecting that a corvette style evasion player goes up against a battleship type player? Are they expecting mixed fleets that evolve during the game? Why do they want to implement tracking and stuff like that, why do they want to have a differentiation between small ships and big ships where small ships can engage big ships effectively but not vice versa? Those design decisions presumably have some reasons behind them, I'm just not sure what they felt this system would give them. Big ships do more raw damage than small ships because big guns are more DPS efficient. However big guns can't hit small targets very well, so small ships are good against big ships, but bad against big platforms, because platforms have lots of health and tracking bonus. You can also specifically spec your big ships to hit small ships. Picket all-medium cruisers are extremely effective against corvettes for example. The size upgrade mostly gives you better effectiveness against starbases because their tracking bonus doesn't help any against just massive bricks of hitpoints, and they can't dodge any of the big guns. Small ships beat big ships, big ships beat anti-small big ships, anti-small big ships beat small ships I guess is the RPS. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Big ships are basically heavy artillery for cracking fortresses, yeah. Also battleships at least are built to tank a fuckton of damage so particularly against endgame crises they can be nice to have around. But yeah corvette spam is still really good unless you run into big ships specially kitted out to counter it which the AI is too dumb to do so 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Big ships do more raw damage than small ships because big guns are more DPS efficient. I don't think that's what Ham Sandwiches is asking? They want to know why the system was designed this way- what dynamics were the devs hoping to produce? I think the two basic goals here were: a) they wanted a progression of ever-increasing ship sizes for tech to unlock, but b) they didn't want larger hulls to obsolete smaller ones. e: the former strikes me as the problem child of the two, if there is to be one KOGAHAZAN!! fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure why they chose that design, as in what they hoped the upsides were. In Eve online I understand why they separated the various combat fields, so that players of various skill levels and wealth/ship types could participate at the same time. So if 200 players are piloting 200 ships, you want them to feel they're doing something, even if it's minor. In sword of the stars, the upgraded ships straight up replaced the previous for the most part. Destoyers were ok but cruisers and eventually dreads outperformed them even factoring in CP cost, and the drones and detailed tactical mechanics just made it more viable to have a big ship take out small ships. SOTS 2 even went further with slick stuff like armor in various sections, but of course that game was unplayable. Stellaris seems to have a strange mix of incredibly detailed tactical combat mechanics (fighters, mix of weapon types, arcs, ranges, targeting, slots, ship sections) and very little way to steer battles meaningfully which is odd. Like, they put the framework for a very elaborate system of combat and counterplay, but kneecapped it with an RPS implementation of hulls. Another unfortunate side effect of the ship spam besides the bland combat is that it adds to the many things that contribute to lategame slowdown. Basically: Why Corvettes and Destroyers are treated as an important part of the combat system instead of something you just tech out of like most other things, is something I'm curious about. It's clearly important because the weapons were designed to factor this in, with small ships having the tracking (but not a ton of DPS) and large ships having the DPS (but not enough tracking to hit ships below a certain size). The anti corvette hard counter is a lategame tech and requires an X slot if I recall. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Elman posted:I just started a new game and after declaring my first war I ran into this: I remember the first time I found that asteroid belt. I knew it was too good to be true and had my fleet based there during peace time. The event triggered and I just wiped them out no problem. I wish I wasn't so paranoid in games like this and think everything is too good to be true. It sucks when things aren't a surprise anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Basically: Why Corvettes and Destroyers are treated as an important part of the combat system instead of something you just tech out of like most other things, is something I'm curious about. It's clearly important because the weapons were designed to factor this in, with small ships having the tracking (but not a ton of DPS) and large ships having the DPS (but not enough tracking to hit ships below a certain size). The anti corvette hard counter is a lategame tech and requires an X slot if I recall. Do you mean Arc Emitters? I’m pretty sure they were changed to 0% tracking in 2.0. Not sure what they’re supposed to be good for now, but I think a lot of people in the thread still like them for some reason. Anyway, the computer changes have made cruisers the best lategame corvette counter. Sapient picket computers+max sensors+titan tracking aura gets cruisers to 55 base tracking, which means their neutron launchers have 60 tracking and hit corvettes 70% of the time with two +5 hit aux slots. Precognitive computers have 40 tracking, bringing that up to 80%, as would enigmatic decoders. If you end up getting both, you end up with 90% accuracy against 90% evasion corvettes, which is oretty crazy for a 5 tracking weapon. Even just the 70% without any special tech is really good, especially since I think it’s impossible for a corvette to disengage from a neutron launcher hit. Unless the corvette started the fight at half hull and full shields, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Not until the next update which apparently is introducing a galactic market screen. Ah dope. I like how the resources are more rare now, just finding out who's got what is a huge pain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 08:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1025476704473628672?s=19 A bit baffling, given that xenophile and xenophobe are pretty much the worst ethics anyway. Especially non-fanatic xenophobe, which pisses everyone off just a bit, means all conquered pops will always be slightly annoyed, and is incompatible with egalitarianism as soon as you have an additional race in your empitr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:04
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Just got a new laptop and decided to get back into Stellaris. I never quite got what people were complaining about in terms of slowdown, but having an experienced a game where I seemed to be going at plaid speed I have a better appreciation at just how bad the lag could get if people are used to months and even years just flying by. This game's pace is so weird. Space battles take months, I just did an event where I had to board an enemy ship with my troops and it took 30 days. And yeah, I think it needs a higher game speed but to add that you'd need to add sensible auto-pause options, which the game is really lacking right now. Elman fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
Introduction So I quit my Commodore game, cause it was too easy and started at Admiral, huge map, with more than the default empires, etc, as people suggested. After a rocky start which was caused by only having 2 planets for a long time, even when I had enough space, I managed to conquer enough space and at about 2400 I was at a good place. Then I underestimated a fallen empire (not using a good strategy) and instead of conquering them, I lost some space and got humiliated initially. Then I came back and destroyed a big portion of the fleet and than ended that war. After 10y, I had rebuilt my fleet, had learnt by my mistake and by not underestimating them and using basic tactics, easily conquered them. So at about 2420, I was at a very good place. My only real opponent was a big federation. There was another smaller one, one I could handle though. The Problem Then crisis hit, the one with the artificial intelligence that wants to eradicate everything. That hurt some, cause I was materialist that got cyborg and got full synthetics, but I got no spawn in my space. When I decided to do my due and help out, underestimating them, cause I didn't scout their space first, I lost my 320k fleet, cause I am using the doctrine "no retreat". Still, that is not the real problem, because now I have almost rebuilt my fleet, will be even bigger than 320k and I can go even bigger, if I min/max my starbases more, cause I have way too many energy production and some trading hubs can become anchorages. The Real Problem The real problem is that this crisis made the rest of the independent empires to enter the 2 existing federations and now the big federation has become huge and the other one has become big. So, even after the crisis is defeated. It will be really hard for me. I mean the big federation is gathering its fleets to attack the crisis and they are like 700k in total, so I am afraid that the huge federation will have even more. This 2nd biggest federation want me in, but I don't want to share the universe, I want it all for myself. I believe you understand the feeling  The Question So, I was thinking to be the rear end in a top hat in the universe and instead of helping with the crisis, I could attack the huge federation, in the north, while their fleets are all south, gathering to attack the crisis' 3 hot spots. (The crisis doesn't seem to be developing fast). I have superior tech from defeating the fallen empire and I can do a flash war in the undefended north, utilizing my jump drive tech to completely own 1 of the members of the huge federation. Then turtle back, maybe change my doctrine and hit and run and hold that space. The L-Gate question I have no clue about what is in there. I have none in my space, but if it could give me a good edge, I could maybe try to conquer space with 1. Is it worth it at this point? Can it spell doom if I open it? I am 5/7 insight, should I push for it, or not risk opening it. If some empire has opened it, would I had known? Is there a relative message? Finally, I don't have the crystalline tech that buffs hull and I don't see any other empire using it till now. Since I don't think there are any crystal beings left, is there no way to get it? Only by analyzing some other empire's wreck, if I find one using it? I could use it, cause some rear end in a top hat empire is using enough disruptors. Conclusion What do you think? Your opinion counts. Shall I be that rear end in a top hat? Tell me what you think!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:35
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1025476704473628672?s=19 It's also why I keep pushing for less boot-on-face authoritarianism options. I want to be a benovelent dictator (while not preventing anyone who wants to go full sapovore slave trader from doing so obviously) Splicer fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Given the fleet numbers you're referencing the L-gate will not pose a threat to you or anyone else at this point, so opening that is a fine idea. Attacking your opponents while they're busy elsewhere is similarly a good idea but keep in mind the way war weariness is calculated based on the size and strength of all your opponents put together. Even if you conquer the entirety of one smaller empire in the federation, if you haven't destroyed the federation's fleets or conquered a significant proportion of the federation's planets you're not going to be able to get enough weariness built up on their end to win the war quickly. It will probably come down to who has more industrial production to replace fleets. This brings me to my second point, which is: Never use No Retreat doctrine, ever, under any circumstances, it's terrible. It causes massive casualties in exchange for a minor buff to your firepower. Space combat in 2.0 isn't about winning single engagements, it's about wearing your enemy down slowly over time through multiple engagements until you reach overwhelming numerical superiority. No Retreat ensures that you will always suffer significantly more casualties than your opponent, which means over time against an even-strength enemy you will gradually lose out as they are able to simply repair and return ships to the front while you have to replace your losses. Hit and Run is far better for preserving your resources and the speed buff is extremely useful all around since sublight speed is the vast majority of movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:50
|
|
|
Elman posted:This game's pace is so weird. Space battles take months, I just did an event where I had to board an enemy ship with my troops and it took 30 days. It's not that crazy if you think about how a 'classic' naval battle could take days or even weeks as you chase their dot on the horizon. Then scale that up to the vastness of space where it takes days for your munitions to reach the target assuming they didn't juke it entirely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
I have never played a single game with xenophile 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 11:54
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1025476704473628672?s=19 Most people aren't looking at the meta. I pick it because it's nice and I want to be nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 12:15
|
|
|
Gadzuko posted:Given the fleet numbers you're referencing the L-gate will not pose a threat to you or anyone else at this point, so opening that is a fine idea. Attacking your opponents while they're busy elsewhere is similarly a good idea but keep in mind the way war weariness is calculated based on the size and strength of all your opponents put together. Even if you conquer the entirety of one smaller empire in the federation, if you haven't destroyed the federation's fleets or conquered a significant proportion of the federation's planets you're not going to be able to get enough weariness built up on their end to win the war quickly. It will probably come down to who has more industrial production to replace fleets. Thanks, helpful info EDIT: Not sure about the exact mechanics of war weariness, so I could use a little help. On a certain war, I had 1 fleet of Corvettes and 1 of BS. I won easily, but the fact is that I noticed that I had gathered a lot of weariness due to losing corvettes. Like 1 for every ship. Does that stand true in general, can this be considered a corvette related "weakness"? I've noticed their mineral inefficiency, but not sure about this. What should my fleet composition look like during end game? I used to have only corvettes and BS, now I turned to 20/12/18/1 (corv/des/bs/tit) 4x those fleets, but not sure how it would fare. destroyers are for picket duty with flak cannons, all the rest are dps. So, it seems to me that this "flash war" will not be done in a flash and all I will get is an initial advantage, getting all that space fast and crippling a portion of their manufacturing ability. I will still have to deal with their fleets eventually. As it seems. What about the crisis, it seems to be at a stall, can it start growing fast if left unchallenged? It's the machines waking up to eradicate everything crisis. jerk irl fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Aug 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
Taear posted:Most people aren't looking at the meta. Exactly. I suspect a lot of people play the game more as an interstellar RPG instead of a strategy game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Unless I'm playing some sort of hive mind, 90% of the time I roll xenophile/materialist/egalitarian.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 13:18
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Exactly. I suspect a lot of people play the game more as an interstellar RPG instead of a strategy game. Yea, I basically roleplay my different species. So I do have a xenophobe few and an authoritarian few but I don't pick them because of actual game reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
Considering I hardly ever play until the I win a game, picking whatever is "optimal" every time seems pointless. I'd rather pick something that seems interesting and let that decide how I play the game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 13:50
|
|
|
AG3 posted:Considering I hardly ever play until the I win a game, picking whatever is "optimal" every time seems pointless. I'd rather pick something that seems interesting and let that decide how I play the game. It's what I mostly do too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
I end up just making mass corvette swarms because it's plenty strong, requires minimal thinking, and by skipping the bigger ship techs I also avoid having their related hull techs cluttering my tech rolls (I'll backfill those later). I tried doing combined arms before with a full battleship fleet paired with three full corvette fleets and even then the battleships felt pretty useless, and the lost battleships took forever to replenish as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:19
|
|
|
Sometimes I like to pick egalitarian because their factions are the easiest to please.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Corvette swarms are also great for another reason: corvettes are loving fast. Put another ship in your fleet and it adds up to 30% extra time to get places. More if you want to be optimal and fit not-afterburners. I'd rather have an unoptimal fleet that can get to places in time than have the best fleet ever that's just stuck in transit. That said, once I start properly spamming gateways everywhere, I switch to 100% battleships. Having to replenish ships every minor skirmish gets old quick, and properly fit battleships+titan fleets tear through end-game trash like corvettes can only dream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:37
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/1025476704473628672?s=19 Regular Xenophobe is perfectly compatible with Egalitarian; I love playing my psychic rear end in a top hat birds, who love the Shroud and Freedom, but the Freedom is only for them. For all other races they embrace the urge to purge. Spiritualist/Egalitarian/Xenophobe also gives you very compatible factions that are super easy to keep happy so you can rake in Influence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
Aren't the default humans xenophiles, that probably also explains their numbers some.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:41
|
|
|
Fair enough. I may've interpreted Xenophile as being the annoying person at parties who refuses to get the hint to bugger off, always banging on about how much they love the Uglonauts of Banticon IV, rather than, you know, the good guys. I blame the Blorg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
Kanfy posted:Aren't the default humans xenophiles, that probably also explains their numbers some. Aren't there two default humans, one xenophiles (star trek) and one basically the imperium of man sans the fanatical purifier trait?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 14:57
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:A bit baffling, given that xenophile and xenophobe are pretty much the worst ethics anyway. Especially non-fanatic xenophobe, which pisses everyone off just a bit, means all conquered pops will always be slightly annoyed, and is incompatible with egalitarianism as soon as you have an additional race in your empitr. PittTheElder posted:Regular Xenophobe is perfectly compatible with Egalitarian; I love playing my psychic rear end in a top hat birds, who love the Shroud and Freedom, but the Freedom is only for them. For all other races they embrace the urge to purge. Yeah, the main thing you want xenophobe for is to be able to purge xenos instead of just displacement. But you don’t even have to do that to keep egalitarians happy, egalitarians are fine with species-wide slavery. It’s just caste systems they hate. The reduced outpost influence cost is also very nice early game. And as fanatic xenophobe, with claim cost reduction techs, the ascension perk, and the supremacy tradition you get -80% claim cost, or -90% if you’re also militarist and take the civic. That makes conquest much cheaper, without having to go full purifier. Also, I haven’t tried it, but you could probably not spread your own species around much and instead colonize with conquered residence/caste/resident caste races, and then deal with any faction problems by selectively purging all of their members. Though that would slow down your population growth, of course. And the conquered pops would probably have pretty bad traits, but you could eventually fix that with genetic ascension. You generally don’t benefit much from the AIs liking you anyway. Also, inwards perfection is good, and requires xenophobe. I don’t think it’s a particularly bad ethic. Militarist certainly seems significantly weaker to me, and probably egalitarian. Maybe spiritualist as well, since you either don’t get robots (which I’d consider a very high price to pay) or have faction problems. Agreed on xenophile though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, do you guys do the same when you play HOI4 or EU4? I find that the "pick something and roll with it" style is how I approach Stellaris and CK2, but when I do EU4 it's like my brain switches over to full Win-The-Game mode.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
Corvette swarms are strong but it's annoying having to rebuild so many ships. Yea it's the same price for ten as it is for one battleship but it's more actual time with more shipyards (and they come from all over your space too). Plus it's not as cool as building the big ones. DrSunshine posted:Out of curiosity, do you guys do the same when you play HOI4 or EU4? I find that the "pick something and roll with it" style is how I approach Stellaris and CK2, but when I do EU4 it's like my brain switches over to full Win-The-Game mode. When I first started EU2 I'd just sort of "conquer the world" but as time went on I was more concerned with playing my country to the best it could be. So getting all their cores, seeing their events and trying to get the "best" option from it all, that sort of thing. So I guess I do play Stellaris the same way as I play every other paradox game. CK2 is sort of an exception because there's loads of kingdoms and such to create and I like to do that, going out and becoming king of whatever place that never really existed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 14:57 |
|
|
Yeah I kind of agree that the whole... fleet meta feels way off in Stellaris. I don't know how you'd fix it either. They're trying, but it's still incredibly blobby. That poster who mentioned New Horizons was right; their ships feel better and more meaningful. You can dispatch a cruiser or two to deal with minor threats. They probably also need a patrol mechanic like DW:U has. Responding automatically to hostile ships.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 16:59
|
|
