|
Popete posted:I definitely plan to pick this up but I'm waiting for the consensus to say when it's good and also a sale. It's good now with the 1.2 beta, honestly, but there are major changes planned soon so I'm waiting a bit before recommending it to my friends.
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/producerjohan/status/1156605488618004486
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Yeah imperator is in a pretty good place now and got better much faster than Stellaris but I think there is some rewriting of history going on for stellaris that tends to happen as time passes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah imperator is in a pretty good place now and got better much faster than Stellaris but I think there is some rewriting of history going on for stellaris that tends to happen as time passes. This is true. Stellaris' launch at the time was considered not a great game but incredibly impressive and ambitious for Paradox, and rightly so. Imperator didn't have that excuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
I loving hated Stellaris on launch and I will probably never revisit it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
I played minimal Stellaris at launch-ish (i think?). Only really got into it when Utopia came out I believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
I did maybe 50-60 hours of launch Stellaris and enjoyed it much, much more in the time immediately after launch than I have with I:R. I don't really remember the zeitgeist of the time with Stellaris as well as some of the other titles, but I started considering it a good game around the time of... the machine empire DLC, I think? And it's only gotten better. I still play it far less than CK/EU/Vic/HOI though. It has maybe half of the playtime of the rest (500ish hours on each of the first four, about 250 on Stellaris). Still only have twenty hours in Imperator, even with the current patch state. I don't feel as butthurt about it as some people did/do about Stellaris though (it was a bad game at launch therefore I will never enjoy it!!!!1), but I still think it's a bad game that I'm perfectly content not touching for another year until they sort it out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 07:43
|
|
|
Humble Bundle's got all the not cosmetic not music DLC for CK2 for 15$ by the by. Never played CK2 so now got something to play until IR is good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
I think part of the issue with Imperator is that while it's clearly a direct sequel to EU: Rome, the different name kinda sold it as something different, instead of just more polished EUR. I have a feeling that has played into some of the backlash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
Anyone got any Phrygia advice? I've found patch 1.2 is quite fun! Horsebanger fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 13:27
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:I loving hated Stellaris on launch and I will probably never revisit it. Flavius Aetass posted:It's good now with the 1.2 beta, honestly, but there are major changes planned soon so I'm waiting a bit before recommending it to my friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Its changed dramatically since launch. How pops are managed, space travel, and a whole bunch of other stuff. I dont know why you hated it but it may be worth checking out sometime. Mostly because after the initial expansion and event chains there was nothing to do but curb stomp the AI in unmatched wars (which it sounds like has changed, so kudos there) and because I am fundamentally uninterested in the setting (which probably isn't going to change).
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Stellaris was a pretty dramatic departure from the norm for Paradox, basically going from "Here's the world, click who you want to play, some places are miles more powerful than others" to "Everyone starts equal* like a standard 4x" and that was always going to be a shock in the short-term, but in the long-term the players who don't want to play that second kind of game will have self-selected themselves out of the group of people who are discussing the game, leaving only those who like what the game is now. * Except for advanced neighbours, fallen empires, the khan's guys etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
I didnt like stellaris because the scifi world they created was really generic and uninteresting. whereas the EU/CK games dont rely on Paradox for worldbuilding nearly as much, for obvious reasons, because they can draw so much from history instead of having to create a whole world from scratch. to me that is bigger than the mechanics. in the EU/CK you can do things like play as an obscure Ottoman count with ambitions to rebuild the Second Bulgarian Empire, or take control of a small German state during the Napoleonic wars, or try to turn Japan into a major colonial power, etc. and that's a fairly unique thing in video games. Whereas space conquest games where you choose between terrans and a bunch of generic alien with the goal of painting the galaxy have been a dime a dozen since the days of ascii gaming, there's nothing particularly special about Stellaris other than some of the realtime mechanics I guess, which for me made it a lot harder to overlook the flaws compared to other Paradox games
Earwicker fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Aug 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:Mostly because after the initial expansion and event chains there was nothing to do but curb stomp the AI in unmatched wars (which it sounds like has changed, so kudos there) and because I am fundamentally uninterested in the setting (which probably isn't going to change). Earwicker posted:I didnt like stellaris because the scifi world they created was really generic and uninteresting. whereas the EU/CK games dont rely on Paradox for worldbuilding nearly as much, for obvious reasons, because they can draw so much from history instead of having to create a whole world from scratch. to me that is bigger than the mechanics. in the EU/CK you can do things like play as an obscure Ottoman count with ambitions to rebuild the Second Bulgarian Empire, or take control of a small German state during the Napoleonic wars, or try to turn Japan into a major colonial power, etc. and that's a fairly unique thing in video games. Whereas space conquest games where you choose between terrans and a bunch of generic alien with the goal of painting the galaxy have been a dime a dozen since the days of ascii gaming, there's nothing particularly special about Stellaris other than some of the realtime mechanics I guess, which for me made it a lot harder to overlook the flaws compared to other Paradox games Thing is, you can sorta fix the setting problem with a couple of hours of work. I built 20 races and forced the game to use them and set the number of races in the game to 20. Now the setting is my setting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Thing is, you can sorta fix the setting problem with a couple of hours of work. I built 20 races and forced the game to use them and set the number of races in the game to 20. Now the setting is my setting. well yes thats true. and with even more hours of work i could learn to code and make my own video games. to me if the player has to put in hours of worldbuilding work in advance in order to make a game's setting interesting its kind of a sign that its a bad game im grateful for the nerds who spent time taking apart the innards of the EU games and putting them back together again to make them more historically accurate or more interesting and i used to play some of those mods back in the day but the generic space conquest setting is in and of itself so uninteresting to me that even that level of loving around seems pointless
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Thing is, you can sorta fix the setting problem with a couple of hours of work. I built 20 races and forced the game to use them and set the number of races in the game to 20. Now the setting is my setting. Yeah I did this too. I take 1-3 factions that made an impact on any given campaign and remake them as custom empires. So my list kinda grows over time and mostly consists of my most hated past enemies or best friends. It’s cool.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Thing is, you can sorta fix the setting problem with a couple of hours of work. I built 20 races and forced the game to use them and set the number of races in the game to 20. Now the setting is my setting. I'm going to spend those couple of hours playing a better game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
You can really tell the state of a game when the thread about it would rather talk about other games. Imperator is in a better place now but I find very few compelling reasons to boot it up instead of EU4 or CK2. Now that I've really put some time into both games it really feels like Imperator tries to split the difference between the two and ends up combining the worst traits of both of them. Really what I think needs to be done with Imperator is a push to give it it's own unique identity that doesn't feel a cheap knockoff of EU4's strategic layer smashed into a half-assed version of CK2's politics
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
AnEdgelord posted:You can really tell the state of a game when the thread about it would rather talk about other games this, very much I was having a blast with Hearts of Iron which, imho, is the "blandest" paradox game in the sense that I am not exactly into this type of wargaming but it has a great merit: it is a game that knows what is about very well. Imperator is certainly a game I would play a lot in a sitting or two, but I don't feel anything fresh or, like, there isn't much novelty in terms of paradox games
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
The two things which are really starting to get to me, having put ten hours into the game, are the pops and characters. You can see the beginnings of some great ideas in these systems, but I:R is a bit too conservative with them. For pops, it’s quite a shallow system at the moment that has some complexity, but maybe not enough to really matter. When I expand into a territory that is not mine culturally or religiously, aside from some negative modifiers, what do I experience? Do I have to fear that they will break off from my polity? Do I worry about integrating them into my culture slowly and how I go about integrating their nobility? Do I use the new conquest as a means to placate current political powers? Are current areas’ pops affected by my new pops? As of the moment, I experience none of that. There’s no interaction between those new pops and the state at large, and no reason to not just integrate these pops as soon as possible. It’s just clicking a button. There’s no narrative there. You won’t learn about displacing people to find land for your soldiers or colonists, for instance. You won’t have the experience of integrating a nobility and later a society into your culture. You won’t have slaves coming back to drive freedmen out of their professions within the empire. The narrative of history is missing. Also missing is the sense that helping characters should matter. Especially if I’m playing as a republic (I.e. the titular power), why should I care about doing good things for my ruler? Why should I care about doing good things for one particular faction or person? More importantly, why should I care about helping a character over the larger state? There’s no tension at all between a ruler who will soon be replaced or even a non-ruler and your state overall. Everyone is expendable, which makes all the choices regarding characters feel hollow. Why should I want to help Gaius Marius when Sulla is a perfectly valid ruler, or vice versa? It’s true as well that characters, because they’re tied down to one polity, are restricted from acting as some of the most interesting men of the period did. Pyrrhus, bouncing between Epirus, Sicily and Southern Italy, is mechanically barred from existence. So too is someone like Alcibiades, his treachery against the Athenians feeling a little hollow in I:R terms. This game yearns for a character, or dynastic driven engine, and we probably won’t see it. It’s a missed opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Do I have to fear that they will break off from my polity? Yes, once you get enough of them in your empire
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 15:41
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:Yes, once you get enough of them in your empire Fair, but I don’t get the same feeling I do from incorporating a new area as I do in CK2 or EU4, and the solution of clicking a few buttons which expend points is somewhat tedious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Edit: whoops, double post. I would reiterate that I don’t hate the game, and I love the setting, but this game needs some love to truly reach its potential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 15:47
|
|
|
I get that they didn't want large portions of the map being completely empty, but I wish they didn't create a bazillion tribal minors who feels identical to each other. Very bland.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Hryme posted:I get that they didn't want large portions of the map being completely empty, but I wish they didn't create a bazillion tribal minors who feels identical to each other. Very bland. That’s how the Romans felt too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2019 10:34
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Humble Bundle's got all the not cosmetic not music DLC for CK2 for 15$ by the by. Never played CK2 so now got something to play until IR is good. No portrait packs though. Can't imagine playing in a world of stock picture generic whites and potato-faced alcoholics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 06:16
|
|
|
Then turn your monitor on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 06:39
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Then turn your monitor on. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 06:48
|
|
|
Argh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Average Bear posted:Then turn your monitor on. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
There's a dev diary expanding on these changes. Looks interesting, but I hope there are some more visceral consequences to starvation than just increased migration speed. I also kind of appreciate that not every low-pop, low-civilization patch of desert is considered a "city" anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
Magissima posted:I also kind of appreciate that not every low-pop, low-civilization patch of desert is considered a "city" anymore. Yeah, I recognize that in many senses it's basically meaningless, but things like this and them having added more types of somewhat-redundant buildings and so on actually have a lot of impact for me. The little things like that add a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Yeah, I recognize that in many senses it's basically meaningless, but things like this and them having added more types of somewhat-redundant buildings and so on actually have a lot of impact for me. The little things like that add a lot. The little thing permits roleplaying and fleshes our the world. If they keep detailing the game like this I’ll definitely give it a second go in a few months!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
I'm less and less optimistic about those changes. It seems like they're turning each patch of land into more unique and harder to manage plot of land. To me it looks not like the typical Paradox model where the system works by itself and you add improvements in specific points, but rather like an end-game 4X where your empire is as effective as attentive you are, so spend more time in pause looking for a good spot to spend your money => get more optimal results. Imperator 1.0 lacked a proper macrobuilder compared to other paradox games where you would just drop a temple in the most effective place (or in CK2 just build the next money/troops/defense building). But now you have an interesting choice between Territory buildings. But you'll probably have 100 territories on start, so what you will do is ignore nuance and drop one of those buildings - any one of them - in the next most populated territory you have. But I can't argue before I've tried it. We'll see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 08:10
|
|
|
Nice, the update with all the Twitter teases Johan has been posting is up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:Nice, the update with all the Twitter teases Johan has been posting is up. does it have proper icons, or everything is still using the same placeholder icon making it impossible to understand what currency you're actually spending?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:does it have proper icons, or everything is still using the same placeholder icon making it impossible to understand what currency you're actually spending? hmm how can you still say there's mana in the game when there's no icons for it? checkmate steambombers
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
I have hundreds of hours in Crusader Kings 2. Is this game the successor to CK2 I've been waiting for? IE: is this a character/lineage focused game, or is it more like EU and Stellaris and focused exclusively on the Macro scale, nation-state stuff? Because I really like the lower-level detailed gameplay and bizarre events that are possible when you're playing as one dude/dudette. You can't die by summoning Cthulhu when you're playing as a Nation-State 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Annath posted:I have hundreds of hours in Crusader Kings 2. It's EU 4.5, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 21:32
|
|