|
Angrymantium posted:Question for anyone on that topic-is there a point to terraforming to Hive Worlds if your species is aquatic? The Hive World benefits seem to be mostly defensive army based, and the resource output doesn't increase if you're going from an Ocean World to a Hive World. To me the reasons to terraform to a hive world are the extra spawning drone job and the +10% resources from jobs. The +10% bonus from aquatic only applies to basic resources (energy, food, and minerals). The bonus from a hive world applies to everything, which includes alloys, research, and unity. Extra output and some additional pop growth is quite powerful. This is also why machine worlds are so good as they offer these same bonuses. Sadly Gaia worlds do not offer any additional pop growth so they are the weakest of the three "ideal" planets (the happiness is nice but does not make up for this). Ecumenopolises blow everything else out of the water but are only good at a few very specific things, including, notably, making mountains of alloys, while simultaneously being unable to produce basic resources at all. Antillie fucked around with this message at 13:58 on Sep 3, 2022 |
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
Antillie posted:To me the reasons to terraform to a hive world are the extra spawning drone job and the +10% resources from jobs. The +10% bonus from aquatic only applies to basic resources (energy, food, and minerals). The bonus from a hive world also applies to everything, which includes alloys, research, and unity. Extra output and some additional pop growth is quite powerful. This is also why machine worlds are so good as they offer these same bonuses. Sadly Gaia worlds do not offer any additional pop growth so they are the weakest of the three "ideal" planets (the happiness is nice but does not make up for this). Ecumenopolises blow everything else out of the water but are only good at a few very specific things, including, notably, making mountains of alloys, while simultaneously being unable to produce basic resources at all. Oh yeah, I didn't realize Hive World applied the bonus to complex resources, that actually is huge. I do think the progenitor hive is still weaker than other hive mind civics militarily, due to the cap on drone ships severely limiting how many functional fleets they have, but that does make Hive Worlds seem worth the Ascension pick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2022 03:20
|
|
|
Played Toxoids early access at PDXCON. Saw at least two Stellaris content creators so details will probably go out soon. Anyway, Overtuned origin gives access to ‘overtuned’ traits. Essentially each two-cost trait with fleeting stapled on so it costs 1. (e.g. there’s a 1-cost trait with +15% minerals from workers, -10 leader lifespan). Interestingly, it also gives access to the advanced biological traits with -30 leader lifespan. (so a 2-cost fertile with -30 leader lifespan) These traits can be added and removed at the beginning and did I mention you start with gene tailoring? hiveminds eat your heart out lol Knights of the toxic god are a longterm RP civic. Like, it takes ~100 years to reach the end of the origin situation, and every ~12 years you get an event that buffs your knights. You have exactly one building on your starting habitat that produces the new jobs. All the events are written in old english knight speak, I wasn’t very into it. New traits are a 2-cost that gives (37-pop)% growth speed, clamped between 30 and -10, a 1-cost that gives army damage, 30%min habit and -30% max habit, and happiness from species without the trait but -happiness from species with the trait. And a 3-cost that gives +0.02 exotic gases and +50% pop upkeep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
scaterry posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 11:27
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Played Toxoids early access at PDXCON. Saw at least two Stellaris content creators so details will probably go out soon. I'm into all of these, Really the Devs have been on point with this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 12:27
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzRclGxHRM Montu just put up a video about some of the stuff that was talked about at pdxcon, including Combat Rebalancing (spoiler: they're not touching ground combat) and some Ascension changes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 13:21
|
|
|
I am quite excited for these changes. All battleships all the time with exactly two designs is boring as hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 15:08
|
|
|
They plan on making torpedo corvettes their own type of ships which is pretty cool but they have much lower speed and evasion than regular corvettes which doesn't seem what you want in a fragile ship with very short range. But maybe that is so destroyers can shoot them down and feel useful. New plans for ascension perks looks interesting except they're still likely to be stuck behind having to luck into research rolls to get them. For fucks sake that is NOT fun!  Oh, my fanatical spiritualists can finally research psionic theory and as soon as it's done I can pick up mind over matter and instantly pick transcendence as well because I'm working on my FIFTH tradition!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
I got Titan technology before I got psionic theory this game 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
As cool as teachers of the shroud is its kinda sad that psionic ascension is literally trash without it, but then is suddenly competitive with synth ascension with it. And all because it removes a huge chunk of the RNG from the psionic ascension path. RNG is the enemy of balance when dealing with things that only happen once per game as you can't have an average rate of occurrence with only one instance of occurrence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 16:14
|
|
|
Antillie posted:As cool as teachers of the shroud is its kinda sad that psionic ascension is literally trash without it, but then is suddenly competitive with synth ascension with it. And all because it removes a huge chunk of the RNG from the psionic ascension path. RNG is the enemy of balance when dealing with things that only happen once per game as you can't have an average rate of occurrence with only one instance of occurrence. How does teachers remove the RNG?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:How does teachers remove the RNG? IIRC you start with the most basic psi tech with the Teachers origin
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:How does teachers remove the RNG? Improbable Lobster posted:IIRC you start with the most basic psi tech with the Teachers origin Just a research option, but that still guarantees access to it whenever you want to spend the society research.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
All combat rebalances are doomed to failure as long as they continue to try to maintain four basic ship hulls, each with flexible builds, each unlocked sequentially in order of size, while also keeping them all relevant in one fleet. Three is doable, flat replacements are doable, having two ship fleets could be potentially doable (e.g. your fleet is either a corvette+cruiser fleet or destroyer+battleship fleet), having four hulls but each is a fixed design or possesses a non-massable gimmick is doable, capping numbers of each hull type based on fleet capacity is doable, lots of stuff is doable. What they keep trying to do? Not doable.
Splicer fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Sep 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
I just wish the auto designed units weren't absolutely useless. I've never enjoyed designing units and it quite often puts me off games that I otherwise want to play (specifically thinking of Endless Space). Stellaris' system is simple enough that I just grin and bear it and either go all energy weapon or kinetic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Rev. Melchisedech Howler posted:I just wish the auto designed units weren't absolutely useless. I've never enjoyed designing units and it quite often puts me off games that I otherwise want to play (specifically thinking of Endless Space). Distant Worlds 2 has that to an annoying degree. I keep coming up with new designs only to find out the auto-designer can make something equivalent, or better. I guess that's still better than my situation in Distant Worlds 1, where I sometimes ended up making fail ships that couldn't make it to the next system without getting stranded in interstellar space... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Splicer posted:All combat rebalances are doomed to failure as long as they continue to try to maintain four basic ship hulls, each with flexible builds, each unlocked sequentially in order of size, while also keeping them all relevant in one fleet. Three is doable, flat replacements are doable, having two ship fleets could be potentially doable (e.g. your fleet is either a corvette+cruiser fleet or destroyer+battleship fleet), having four hulls but each is a fixed design or possesses a non-massable gimmick is doable, capping numbers of each hull type based on fleet capacity is doable, lots of stuff is doable. What they keep trying to do? Not doable. Ah, but have you considered... that they're increasing it to five basic ship hulls?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Just a research option, but that still guarantees access to it whenever you want to spend the society research. Ahh ok. I just grab curators and maniacs and psychics and slot them into society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Ah, but have you considered... that they're increasing it to five basic ship hulls?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Splicer posted:All combat rebalances are doomed to failure as long as they continue to try to maintain four basic ship hulls, each with flexible builds, each unlocked sequentially in order of size, while also keeping them all relevant in one fleet. Three is doable, flat replacements are doable, having two ship fleets could be potentially doable (e.g. your fleet is either a corvette+cruiser fleet or destroyer+battleship fleet), having four hulls but each is a fixed design or possesses a non-massable gimmick is doable, capping numbers of each hull type based on fleet capacity is doable, lots of stuff is doable. What they keep trying to do? Not doable. The non-massable gimmick doesn't work - NSC tries that one. NSC still ends up being a game of making the biggest spammable ship you can with the biggest, longest range guns. Capping hull numbers on fleetcap seems like a way to make people just swing around multiple fleets of the meta ship type, rather than one big fleet filled with the meta ship type. The fixed design bit is a better idea since you can balance a lot easier with fewer variables in play, but Paradox seems to be embracing more customization in units across all its games ranging from CK3's Men at Arms above CK2's retainer system, HoI4's unit design system, and a decent chunk of this seems sourced from Stellaris's success.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
Complications posted:The non-massable gimmick doesn't work - NSC tries that one. NSC still ends up being a game of making the biggest spammable ship you can with the biggest, longest range guns. Capping hull numbers on fleetcap seems like a way to make people just swing around multiple fleets of the meta ship type, rather than one big fleet filled with the meta ship type. The fixed design bit is a better idea since you can balance a lot easier with fewer variables in play, but Paradox seems to be embracing more customization in units across all its games ranging from CK3's Men at Arms above CK2's retainer system, HoI4's unit design system, and a decent chunk of this seems sourced from Stellaris's success. You can just look at other mods - all the “super mods” just keep increasing the size of the largest massable ship until you’re printing planets/moons and building systemcraft. No matter how interesting smaller craft are, alpha strikes make it all irrelevant. then they all die to the blokkats anyway
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can just look at other mods - all the “super mods” just keep increasing the size of the largest massable ship until you’re printing planets/moons and building systemcraft. No matter how interesting smaller craft are, alpha strikes make it all irrelevant. Well yeah, but NSC specifically goes for the non-massable gimmick routine for smaller ships with various buffs to fleetmates and debuffs to enemies in each class and subclass of ship. The super-mods be damned, even fans that can do whatever in their mod they like can't balance the game that way. You'd need to make some very fundamental overhauls in combat mechanics and... well, mods can't do that and Paradox doesn't seem inclined.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
I find it odd that Stellaris naval combat is less detailed than Hearts of Iron 4. In that game (or at least the vanilla version prior to self-designed ships) you have an incentive for mixed fleets by: - Minimum "escort to capital" ratio: when you lose too many small ships the enemy escorts start doing extra damage to your capitals. - Maximum number of best ship type (carriers). Stellaris already has this with Titans. - Cruisers are efficient vs destroyers, battleships are efficient vs cruisers, and destroyers are efficient against battleships (when enough enemy destroyers are killed) - Ships have something to do if left unopposed (raid convoys). In Stellaris there's only bombardment, which is often wholly unnecessary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:I find it odd that Stellaris naval combat is less detailed than Hearts of Iron 4. yeah, as splicer said the problem is they keep trying to rebalance the lovely system that was built up in a series of awkward incremental kludges, while avoiding anything that looks like a major change, instead of removing the whole thing and replacing it with something that actually works well
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 01:13
|
|
|
To be fair the naval game in HoI4 comes down to: 1. Build piles of cheap as poo poo "roach" DDs with a gun and a torp launcher. 2. Build a bunch of "light" heavy cruisers with one medium gun and as many light guns as possible. 3. Whoever has the most wins. All other hulls are useless in naval combat with subs having a place as convoy raiders. Pretty much the same end result as Stellaris. Two hulls with one design each as opposed to one hull with two designs. Unless you are near the coast. Then its: 1. Whoever has the most naval bombers wins because ships are useless against aircraft. Stellaris doesn't really have an equivalent of this. I really like the damage types and weapon tracking mechanics of EVE but I'm not sure introducing that much complexity into Stellaris ship design would be a good idea. Antillie fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Antillie posted:1. Whoever has the most naval bombers wins because ships are useless against aircraft. This sort of gets into one of the problems with balance in paradox games: the players know too much.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
They should just get rid of ship customization entirely. Make the focus on designing fleets instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 06:07
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:They should just get rid of ship customization entirely. Make the focus on designing fleets instead. Or at least let me import my designs since I use the same ones every game.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 06:32
|
|
|
I use the auto designer and pretend that better options don't exist. It's easier to have fun with the game that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 07:23
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:This sort of gets into one of the problems with balance in paradox games: the players know too much. also there's the part where they try to simulate a bunch of complexity of design for ships/troops/weapons/whatev, but once the fighting starts there isn't much for the player to do but wait while two mindless stick-figure leaders resolve the outcome by rolling an absolute fuckload of dice at one another, and victory could be resolved by asking "who brought the most/biggest/most optimized dice?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
The only games where ship designers are good are the incredibly detailed tactical space combat sims. For 4X games like Stellaris the ship designer is a solvable problem that has been solved. Even the rose tinted memories of MoO2 forget that combat in that was also reduced to a number of optimal choices and many components never saw use. Especially if you didn't play with creativity. I think it's too late for Stellaris to remove the ship designer but I don't think a potential sequel should include it. Whenever it happens. Stellaris is one of the rare single player games I know that changes up it's design a lot instead of releasing a new game. A blessing and a curse I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 10:08
|
|
|
I don't think the ship design stuff is that big an issue tbh. They just need to balance the "Obviously Best" options properly. Now Armies, that system just needs to be deleted entirely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
Complications posted:The non-massable gimmick doesn't work - NSC tries that one. NSC still ends up being a game of making the biggest spammable ship you can with the biggest, longest range guns. Capping hull numbers on fleetcap seems like a way to make people just swing around multiple fleets of the meta ship type, rather than one big fleet filled with the meta ship type. The fixed design bit is a better idea since you can balance a lot easier with fewer variables in play, but Paradox seems to be embracing more customization in units across all its games ranging from CK3's Men at Arms above CK2's retainer system, HoI4's unit design system, and a decent chunk of this seems sourced from Stellaris's success. Yami Fenrir posted:I don't think the ship design stuff is that big an issue tbh. They just need to balance the "Obviously Best" options properly. Design goals: 1) Players should want to research new hull types. Starting at the basics, you start the game with corvettes and have to invest research into getting different hulls. This means having access to the later ships need to be better than just sticking with the earlier ships, such as being a bigger bang for your buck, a bigger bang for your cap, or provide utility unavailable to the earlier ships. And that's all fine! Very doable, very easy. Trivial, even. The first two are where we are now basically; battleships > cruisers > destroyers > corvettes, with some very minor RPS going on in niche circumstances pretty much ignorable outside of gimmick enemies or multiplayer. 2) Players should want to keep building all hull types. They want having destroyers and corvettes to be better than having just destroyers. So corvettes have to provide utility to a fleet that's not available to destroyers, cruisers, or battleships. This cant just be something that only corvettes can do or are significantly better at, it needs to be something only corvettes can do or are significantly better at, that complements the rest of the fleet. A near-miss on this is the carrier battle computer; since it increases engagement range having a few in your fleet is useful for "catching" other fleets, but having too many in your fleet lowers your total pewpew. This means splashing a few carrier battleships in your fleet is very cool and good... except the rest of your fleet is also battleships. 3) There are four hull types. 4) Each hull type needs to have multiple possible segment arrangements. 5) Stellaris combat has, like, three combat levers. Let's say we ~somehow~ set it up that you need an even spread of big, small, and large guns, and we say battleships can only mount large guns, cruisers medium, destroyers small, and... hmm. OK. Problem. Well, let's say corvette small, destroyer medium and small. Hmm. Wait. OK, corvette small, destroyer medium, cruiser medium and carriers... hmm. OK. corvette small, destroyer medium, cruiser large and carriers, battleships large and also more bang for your buck than cruisers but no carriers. Well that looks good. Except: 6) Things need to 7) The four hull types are based on size, not role. Battleships are huge! Why can't they be carriers? They should be better carriers! OK let's make only Battleships be carriers and have the big nose-mounted guns, but Cruisers have far more pewpew per navy cap. Don't be silly, battleships are huge! They could have so many guns! Also what role can "really big nose-mounted gun" fulfil in Stellaris that's not "more big bang than the equivalent amount of large guns". OK let's give cruisers auras... yes yes if cruisers can have auras of course you could fit auras on battleships. OK how about this: We introduce an increasingly fiddly series of rock paper scissors mechanics 8) Combat is completely hands off and an utter visual mess so the only way to tell what beats what is to look at the post combat spreadsheet or check the wiki. Oh. 9) Also this is in theory an RP-heavy space opera everything sci-fi grand strategy game. The player needs to be able to dive into combat without getting utterly mooshed because their player made their strategic choices based on "I'm plants and these guns are green". Please stop. 10) There's multiple gun types with different modifiers that all fit into the same interchangeable slots. 11) It needs to be mod friendly *the sound of a single gunshot* Splicer fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 12:40
|
|
|
haha corvettes go bzrrrttt
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 12:57
|
|
|
Danaru posted:haha corvettes go bzrrrttt
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 13:01
|
|
|
Danaru posted:haha corvettes go bzrrrttt Spectacular response. :: Edit:: It's a good effort post outlining the frustrations of the game but dang if it didn't make me chuckle finding it at the end And conveys how long I stick with corvettes once autocannons show up blindidiotgod fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 14:10
|
|
|
Yeah I agree with the whole post, just in case I sounded dismissive. As it is, I generally just corvette spam until I have enough anchorages to host two full fleets, and by then I usually have battleships. As it is there's no reason to interact with like, 60% of the ship mechanics. Auto-design also loving LOVES energy siphons which just feels like a punishment for not designing your own stuff
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
I almost expected the devs to implement a scaling 'fleet diversity' modifier, boosting ship fire rate, and call it a day.
All You Can Eat fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Sep 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
blindidiotgod posted:Spectacular response. My endgame fleets are: 2x missile corvettes 2x oops all battleships 2x titan + battleships 1x crap gifted by mercenaries 1x juggernaut (mostly for field repairs) The corvettes are useful both as a shield for the slower to build battleships, and as a speedy way to flip systems without large defensive fleets. Destroyers and Cruisers only show up thanks to the mercenaries dumping them on me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 16:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:48 |
|
|
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3UJWMmGwRw
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2022 16:35
|
|
