|
Wiz posted:I know this is going to come as a severe shock, so brace yourself, but not everyone wants the exact same thing out of their gameplay experience as you. what they want is boring and what i want is cool so i feel like i'm in the right here
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
We have 3 weapons systems (guns, lasers, missiles) and 3 defensive systems (evasion, shields, armor) so it seems like we've just got a broken rock/paper/scissors arrangement. They all need to be more distinct and fitting the best tank and damage type for your threats/targets should be what happens in the ship designer, rather than mundane incremental upgrades. My guess is something like this was in the game and was scaled back for all the kiddies who've apparently never played a paradox strategy game and think it's supposed to be about balance
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Yeah, less that the ship designer itself is bad, or that it's a bad idea, and more just that it feels a bit meaningless in the context of everything around it. Is there any likelihood of a significant revamp or expansion to the combat tech tree (or just tech in general)? Having some more exciting things to put into the ships is what we need. Also, more exciting things to build and diplomacise with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
oddium posted:what they want is boring and what i want is cool so i feel like i'm in the right here Well, I think what you want is boring and what I want is cool, so we're at an impasse here. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Wiz posted:If a significant chunk of your playerbase bought a game with a ship designer in it because they wanted to design ships, suddenly taking away the ability to design ships is a terrible, terrible idea, yes. I think "should [game] have [feature]" is something people are strongly inclined to answer "yes" to, regardless of how well the feature actually works in the context of the game. Wiz posted:Oh yeah, I fully understand why people might not like it and I completely see the arguments against its inclusion. I'm just saying that like it or not, it's here to stay. That's why we included the auto-design option. That doesn't actually solve the problems with having a ship designer though
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, I think what you want is boring and what I want is cool, so we're at an impasse here. make some funny posts about it and we'll see where it goes from there
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I think "should [game] have [feature]" is something people are strongly inclined to answer "yes" to, regardless of how well the feature actually works in the context of the game. Listening too much your players is a mistake, yes. However, not listening at all to your players is an equally big mistake. It seems that you are advocating the latter extreme, and that's just not gonna happen. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Delete Stellaris, replace with CK3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Orv posted:Delete Stellaris, replace with vicky3.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Orv posted:Delete Stellaris, replace with Rome 2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
just get a bigger hard drive, idiots 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
oddium posted:make some funny posts about it and we'll see where it goes from there poverty goat posted:We have 3 weapons systems (guns, lasers, missiles) and 3 defensive systems (evasion, shields, armor) so it seems like we've just got a broken rock/paper/scissors arrangement. They all need to be more distinct and fitting the best tank and damage type for your threats/targets should be what happens in the ship designer, rather than mundane incremental upgrades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
The ship designer could really benefit from being slightly more fiddly, in that all of the customization feels a little useless without the ability to put particular ship classes into particular places in the formation. As it is I would never want to make a brawler battleship with, say, autocannons for example because they start at the back, whereas if I could put them at the head of the formation to attract the enemy's attention, do tons of damage, and provide cover for the corvettes to zip in from the middle and unleash their torpedoes... Well, it'd be the best combat system this side of Dominions most likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
That's a fleet designer and yes is desperately needed. Along with autobuilding to refill emptied slots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that what the ship designer really needs is a bunch of loving sliders. Sliders improve every paradox game. vv poo poo you're right how could i miss that
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
kojei posted:I think we can all agree that what the ship designer really needs is a bunch of loving sliders. Sliders improve every paradox game. The real problem is the lack of NATO counters imho.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The real problem is the lack of NATO counters imho. Please no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:The ship designer could really benefit from being slightly more fiddly, in that all of the customization feels a little useless without the ability to put particular ship classes into particular places in the formation. As it is I would never want to make a brawler battleship with, say, autocannons for example because they start at the back, whereas if I could put them at the head of the formation to attract the enemy's attention, do tons of damage, and provide cover for the corvettes to zip in from the middle and unleash their torpedoes... The issue with any sort of totally free system where you can design any ship to be any role is that it pretty much always ends up that the biggest ship is best at every role. That's why we have fixed roles now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The issue with any sort of totally free system where you can design any ship to be any role is that it pretty much always ends up that the biggest ship is best at every role. That's why we have fixed roles now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The real problem is the lack of NATO counters imho. We've got you covered when Death Stars make it in: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:i'm curious if we're not already at this state now given the multitude of options available to battleships Nah, combat behaviour and the lack of small slots means that battleships have some inherent limitations that can be exploited. Some people swear by only battleships and destroyers, but the only ships I've heard anyone say you can get by with only using is cruisers, and I'm skeptical that you couldn't wreck an all-cruiser fleet with enough long-range firepower. As far as I know, there isn't even an established meta that is simply always best since 1.3 came out, and that was several months ago now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
I only just started playing again so it's possible it changed, but once you get over certain fleet sizes and techs, doesn't a range advantage become less meaningful once a combat is locked in? Speaking of, is it a consequence of Clauswitz that combat can't be free roaming, or was that a design choice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Orv posted:I only just started playing again so it's possible it changed, but once you get over certain fleet sizes and techs, doesn't a range advantage become less meaningful once a combat is locked in? Speaking of, is it a consequence of Clauswitz that combat can't be free roaming, or was that a design choice? Range advantage only matters for the first part of combat, but stack enough large weapons and bombers and you'll whittle down the cruisers enough before they even get in range that you'll win anyway. Of course, it's a different story if you let the cruisers FTL in right on top of you but then that's your own fault for using your fleet wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
yeah i'm only thinking end-game techs and 400k fleet blobs where rock paper scissors falls apart due to raw numbers
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:yeah i'm only thinking end-game techs and 400k fleet blobs where rock paper scissors falls apart due to raw numbers Against a player that's designed for versatility, sure. It's still really important when say, fighting an Awakened Empire. It can mean the difference between needing 300k or 500k to beat them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Pretty funny to see people complaining about the ship designer, one of the bits of the game that, while not perfect, certainly isn't bad. To be totally honest I've stopped using it, because I just auto design everything now. This is because I've found its much easier to bring more ships than to squeeze an extra 10% out of the same number of ships by having an optimal design. The fact that people are complaining about a totally optional feature which, if they choose not to use makes no odds to them, particularly against the AI, is bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
i endeavour to go battleship-only to test theories later in this game
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Actual non-hypothetical stuff, is it possible to weaponize guardians against other factions? Well, point them anyway, they're already plenty explodey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Pretty funny to see people complaining about the ship designer, one of the bits of the game that, while not perfect, certainly isn't bad. if i went to someone's house and they told me i had to make furniture out of milk crates if i wanted to sit down, but it's okay because they have something that makes milk-crate couches automatically like yeah i guess i could sit on the milk crate couch and be cool while other people are making impromptu chairs and tables. but i would still ask them why not just get a real couch at that point
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Your analogy privileges are revoked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Stellaris: Terrible analogies used apparently randomly
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Honestly Wiz just needs to take a page from Aurora 4X when it comes to ship design. You can't half rear end this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Honestly Wiz just needs to take a page from Aurora 4X when it comes to ship design. You can't half rear end this stuff. Screw ship design, what we really need to do is recode the game in visual basic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Yeah let's crank the knob so far in the other direction it flies off and kills passers by.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Screw ship design, what we really need to do is recode the game in visual basic. Uh, Assembly? Fuckin' amateur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Screw ship design, what we really need to do is recode the game in visual basic. Wiz posted:The planet grid is... alright. It works but it's too micro-intensive, especially when you're upgrading a lot of buildings. I also don't like how it makes your planets feel like giant mines/farms rather than places people live. Reworking it is not out of the question but it'd be a pretty huge investment of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
I think the real hard hitting question we should be asking is when is the Blorg Summer Bikini Calendar coming out?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The issue with any sort of totally free system where you can design any ship to be any role is that it pretty much always ends up that the biggest ship is best at every role. That's why we have fixed roles now. Counterpoint: Space Empires V. It has exactly this, a free system to design any ship to be any role. And if you only make bigger ships, you will run into one problem after another. For example, you don't want the ships spearheading a warp point assault to be your biggest hull. The totally free system means you can, of course. It will result in glorious explosions, even: Mostly your own ships, though. And swarms of small, cheap ships can totally take down a huge lumbering battleship if you design them right, so wasting tons of resources on battleships isn't always the way to go even in straight-up standard battles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
So if people are getting bored with the game a game with lots of human nations is pretty fun. I have a bunch of mods installed to expand race portraits and name lists and the area immediately around my ringworld starting point is surrounded by squabbling human nations that are slowly being encroached on by a bunch of aliens and the Covenant. I'm slowly building the whole thing up into a human federation and absorbing the ones that aren't willing to play along with the idea of a unified humanity. Like those expansionistic motherfuckers from Asimov's Foundation books.  It makes for an entertaining early game goal. Especially when the game apparently decided to spawn xenophobic alien empires and fanatical purifiers everywhere on a 25% planet habitability map.Also mentioning it again but More AI Personalities (https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=701432146) really needs to be in the OP. It adds way more dimensions to the game. You have everything from races that are actually designed to be insidious opportunists that capitalize on military weakness, to a piratical slaver persona that basically sells off slaves, to an aspiring precursor personality type that want to basically set themselves up as a precursor dominating other races technologically through centuries of political maneuvering, to crazier one off rare personality types like a clearly parasitic race of people puppeteering fungoids that are described as "Frenzied Breeders" and are perfectly happy to put the Blorg to shame in invading people to get "closer" to them. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2017 17:42
|
|
