|
Good OP but why did you use this thread title, you monsterKitchner posted:What is the state of the game? Add to OP please Baronjutter posted:I'd just be happy with a title that doesn't make the paradox staff cringe and shed a single tear of regret every time they read it. Thread title took away my ability to feel human, &c
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Gobblecoque posted:The thread title must be good because haha it's triggering the hell out of people. The problem is we already did this joke, I demand original content 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Yes the ship designer and planetary landings / combat feel like features which only exist because they're things that people expect a space 4x game to have. I certainly wouldn't miss these if they were removed, there's nothing fun and compelling about them, they're just something you have to interact with occasionally while playing the 'real' game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:
 but it's literally just a simple optimisation problem you totally ignore except when you unlock new tech. As someone else said planetary tiles are similar but I feel like that has more potential to actually be interesting to work with in future (though there is an annoyingly high level of micromanagement required if you want to be optimal) and in any case removing it would require a total rework of pops while removing the ship designer would only require a few small changes to techs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
Tile blockers being things you actually build directly on top of (giving unique building options, or beneficial modifiers to the base terrain) instead of removing and then building on the empty space is such a good and fairly obvious idea I don't know why I haven't seen anyone suggest it yet. Reasons it's good: Planets feel less homogenous as a whole Individual planets are more distinct from one another Blockers feel like less of a 'gently caress you' because you know that they will pay off and give you bonuses later on Due to the above, blocker removal tech (which I guess would be 'permit building on blocker tile' tech now) is a more attractive choice even if you don't actively need it It's also sci fi as gently caress, I'm basically imagining volcanoes being turned into a SMAC Thermal Borehole and it owns and I want that to be a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'd love it if each planet was more like a tiny civ map. A bunch of terrain types all with their own bonuses and traits and poo poo, and you'd build things on top of those. But have each tile actually represent some sort of specific feature or zone on the planet, not just generic "empty land" with maybe a bonus. Have hills, plains, jungles, forests, deserts, tundra, permafrost. Have the whole thing more like a civ city map and you improve the tiles. Have multiple buildings that do similar things but on different terrain. Build kelp farms on the ocean tile for food vs a farm on grasslands. Stuff like that. So if you know your planets have a lot of ocean, you'll want to jump on those level 3 kelp farms before you bother with the level 3 hydroponic farms. I think it's possible to go too far this way but planetary surfaces need something to make them more meaningful than whatever number of pops you can fit in there.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:My favorite tax system was in Victoria, where a good strategy was to reduce rich taxes to zero, and tax the poor for as much as you could without them physically rebelling The most historically accurate game   Also dang those avian arcologies look pretty.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Sounds accurate though? The joke IIRC is that the guy who developed most of the V2 economy was a "taxes are theft" anacapitalist who somehow made capitalists end up as useless assholes who never do anything which is actually helpful and thus rendered more interventionist government forms into being almost objectively superior.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:Well, I didn't know to what extent it was solved tbh. I knew that Vicky 2 capitalists would do dumb poo poo like build hundreds of cement factories for no reason and figured this is because it's hard to model. If the actual problem is that the director of command economics (i.e. the player) is over-informed then the obvious solution is to remove enough agency from the player that it provides a realistic barrier to just doing whatever you want. Unfortunately most people find this kind of gameplay frustrating as gently caress so it's probably not going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Wiz posted:People typically do not play games to experience frustrating helplessness. Well yeah, but, grognards. I want to feel like the guy making the big decisions and then getting hosed over by my incompetent bureaucracy failing to actually implement what they were supposed to do. Finding the right men for the job is more important than knowing how to do things personally! Are there actually any games that work like this other than maybe some awful board game with like 300 tables you have to compare all your die rolls to?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
The way Civ games' AI works always seemed particularly weird to me, because if you're not going to teach the AI to actually play the game even vaguely competently, and the AI exists only to make the game challenging, then you might as well have the AI play the game by entirely separate rules which produce the desired challenge level for the human player. But no just give the crap AI more numerical bonuses and slap the human player with awful handicaps at higher difficulty levels, sounds good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Fun fact: The EU4 army AI essentially consists of one gigantic evaluation where each AI army asks itself 'which province do I want to be standing in' every single in-game day. It has no concept of strategy, no long-term plan, just a list of provinces ordered from 'most want to stand in' to 'least want to stand in' with dozens upon dozens of weights and special cases that have grown out of endless iterations. This is amazing btw, and I can totally see this in action with regards to some of the AI's decisionmaking. As a totally random aside (since this is the Stellaris thread after all) have you guys discussed much about how the lack of 'terrain' removes a lot of the interesting strategic decisionmaking from fleet combat compared to your other games? Exactly where and when a battle takes place doesn't seem particularly important, unless it's next to a bunch of military bases or something. Before the game came out I was hoping that we'd have more localised terrain-like effects such as radiation fields, nebulae, asteroid belts (and yeah they're not realistic but rule of cool!) etc - which might not necessarily even cover all of a single system - and would give various bonuses or penalties in order to make strategic strongpoints and weak spots.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Yeah making traditions work in a way that they're based on playstyle rather than ethics is a really good thing, you could feasibly have 2 empires with identical ethics but very different strengths and weaknesses due to different traditions. One change I haven't seen anyone really discuss (possibly it was only mentioned on stream) is how pops, ethics and happiness work now. You no longer get happiness impact directly from having policies that pops dislike based on their ethics, instead your pops' base happiness is based on the happiness of the faction which they belong to. There's also no longer pop modifiers for ethics. What this means is that there's no longer an incentive to annoyingly micromanage it so you have materialist pops doing science etc. - there are still traits which impact tile production but those are determined on a per-species basis and don't change which makes them easier to handle. For a hamonious empire, rather than worrying about avoiding individual angry pops, you want to try and make your factions happy and increase the attractiveness of your happy factions to your pops. Other than determining how happy they are (via their faction) I don't think an individual pop's ethics actually do much in 1.5 which is probably a good thing given how many pops you have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Though I do wonder, if pop modifiers from ethics are gone, that presumably means that ethos bonuses are all empire-wide now, unless something really changed. There are also ways to change your government's ethics, such as by embracing factions. This has me wondering if you can upgrade/alter your bonuses in-game, and if so, if there's any significant reasons to not push yourself towards the Fanatic versions of whatever you want so you get the larger bonuses there. I don't think this was addressed, Wiz did say at one point on stream that he wasn't going to embrace his (very happy and popular) egalitarian faction to gain fanatic egalitarian because he was happy with his ethics, so I assume that you don't get a 'free lunch' and have to abandon an existing ethic or something.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Splicer posted:How does fanaticism work with the new pops? Can a pop be fanatical or does that still count as two dots? I think that pops now have just a single regular ethic but if your government has a fanatic ethic then you'll have twice as much ethic attraction towards that ethic from your government so you'll end up with more pops with that ethic. Also I used the word ethic too many times and it no longer means anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
I foolishly posted on Reddit in an argument over naming the authoritarian-egalitarian axis (this will never end) and predictably - though I didn't see it coming because I'm not a crazy person - got told my line of reasoning was wrong because the opposite of authoritarianism is actually libertarianism. I am so happy that I don't have to interact with these people in the real world.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:
These are new buildings right?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
I think the first game of Banks I'm going to play will be based around trying to generate as much unity as quickly as possible just so I can play with all the new poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Yeah the faction system is completely different and so intrinsically entwined with your government ethics that it seems entirely pointless to try and figure out any particular strategies right now.GlyphGryph posted:with the faction rework i hope they remove that mechanic because it was super dumb It does a good job in making happiness actually useful though, there needs to be some distinction between 'just happy enough' and 'really happy' otherwise you will always want just enough happiness to keep people in line and any extra is kind of useless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Wiz posted:None, we wanted to make the traditions less ethics-specific. There is something else coming for this but we're not ready to talk about it yet.  how the hell do you have so much great poo poo coming at once? This is the most frustrating patch wait ever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Sedisp posted:Dietary terminology used apparently randomly.  Wiz posted:There is no plan to perfectly balance Tall and Wide, we just want options for when you either can't or don't want to expand aggressively. Huh, I had already flagged this combination up as a potentially good combination given the bits of information we've been given. The pacifist ethos bonuses seem strong in and of themselves (core systems and unity) and there's some obvious synergy there being able to quickly build up traditions, some of which themselves generate more unity, and then getting fast access to habitats, though my main concern would be that you wouldn't have good enough mineral generation to actually benefit from that. I think it makes sense that if any playstyle / ethos is going to thrive best as tall it should be the guys who aren't even allowed to declare wars. I'm really hoping that fanatic pacifist feels like a viable choice - the defensive wars only restriction is pretty extreme.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:I think the problem is that while having a "political currency" to spend makes sense (the more I think about it the more I sorta understand how you'd come to the conclusion) it seems like the implementation itself just isn't very fun. Plus, you blend domestic and interstellar politics into the same currency, which ends up feeling a little forced and frustrating when you can't hire a scientist because you're in too many alliances. This is my main complaint, similar to how it gets frustrating in EU when you want to do poo poo with your admin points but have to spend them all on coring and stability hits from random events, but worse because you only have one type of 'do stuff' points unlike in EU. I consider this to be quite different from currencies such as energy and minerals which you can easily actively get more of by conquering or building stuff. I'd like it if internal and external politics used different currencies, plus you could give some kind of diplomatic options for 'unfriendly' empires to use - maybe spending it to increase the chance that someone gives you tribute, or being able to break up other alliances, or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
The music for Stellaris is drat great, there's very few games where I keep the default music on but Stellaris is one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Confession: the first time I played stellaris I set it to hyperlane only and I've never played another way. I've literally never even seen let alone used wormhole or warp in-game. I like to pretend that this is the default setting because wars are kind of bad otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
My utopic democracy is open to all who accept the inevitability of apotheosis into a higher form of being. p.s. I really want to hear more about the various cool things you can do to alter your pops, so far there's turning into robots, super genetic engineering and psionics, am I missing anything?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Basically Stellaris 2.0 "How it was supposed to be released". Actually unironically this. I have to say I was not expecting to just have an entirely new dynamic way of selecting government types dumped on us in this patch, but I'm not gonna complain. I assume that the way it will work is that your exact government is determined by a combination of your ethics, civics, and authority choices. Certainly opens up for a lot more interesting possibilities!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I hope that there's a different hive mind 'type' for each authority setting. Like, a democratic hive mind would be some kind of 'subconscious consensus' thing going on, monarchy would be your classic 'queen alien with mindless drones' situation, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Well, since there's a very hive mind looking icon on the authority selection section, that seems unlikely. How the gently caress did I miss that
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm not sure if you can even do targeted individual purges anymore, it sounds like it's on a species by species level. So you can say to purge all the humans, enslave all the butterbutts, and give the spacebirds space drugs. But you can't say "Hey, single pacifist human pop? Get purged" I mean in lore terms you're probably killing a lot of dudes if you're a nasty Authoritarian empire suppressing a faction. Hey Wiz, a thought I just had; on the new government screen is there a way to see what different governments there are and which selections you need to make in order to qualify for them? That is some minor functionality of the previous screen / system which may have been lost; you could mouse over a particular government, think "this sounds fun" and then tailor your empire to use it. 3 DONG HORSE posted:I honestly can't remember an expansion for any game with this many fixes and new gameplay options. All for supposedly 20* bucks? What a steal! Between Utopia and the awesome as-yet unnamed EU4 DLC it's a good time to be a Paradox fan (unless you don't like being mercilessly teased by fun stuff you can't have yet)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I'm really excited about this huge DLC but war/combat/movement/peace needs just as much of an overhaul. Yeah I do have my reservations about the game's playability in spite of all the fantastic looking new content, based purely on how dull the game's warfare is. The diplomatic game is less problematic IMO but I do think that they are going to be reworked at the same time (war being an extension of diplomacy and all that)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The lack of cool high tech things (namely cloaking like you said) is admittedly a very mild disappointment. The main advantage to better tech is your guns shoot a different color and have bigger numbers attached to them, nothing fundamentally different. I agree but the tech system is intentionally kind of boring to prevent regular 4x syndrome where tech is god and having even a slightly early tech advantage leads to huge amounts of snowballing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I wonder who he thinks owns the works of Shakespeare. It's actually tragic that there are probably people out there who don't understand the concept of public domain and who can't understand that a thing can exist without someone at least claiming to have sole ownership of it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Wait, Custom was the most popular nation in EU4? It's insane to me as well but apparently people like doing their own thing. Custom nations are able to have such brokenly strong ideas even with a small number of points that I don't find it fun without handicapping myself, at which point you might as well play some random interesting historical nation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I have to confess, two things about spiders creep me out: Their faces, and jumping. Counterpoint: jumping spiders are drat adorable Libluini posted:I don't get this guy. Is he trying to be funny? He is just altering stuff owned by Paradox, he can't actually prevent us from copying and altering "his" mods as we please. I even suggest we start doing this out of spite right the gently caress now. He probably came from one of the insane mod communities who take this kind of thing very seriously.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
So I've been on holiday since Utopia hit, what's the new fun / broken builds? I heard that Mechanist is secretly really good due to how ethics attraction works?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:Their AI attitude towards you (indifferent, hostile, etc) should be renamed to be about how hungry they are. So glad I decided to check this thread for the first time in months
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:What we need now to complete the set is a togglable gem in the central region of the screen that does absolutely nothing... The chat gem is probably one of the greatest pieces of UI design in videogame history.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:What is the story of the chat gem? You click it and it very rarely gives a cryptic message! People were obsessed with this back in the day thinking that it would give you better item drops etc. and Blizzard famously said that it was "working as intended". Of course, it didn't actually do anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Lmao look at this dupe believing Jay Wilson. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Psychic robots are v cool so I'll allow it
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2018 16:26
|
|