|
I can tell you Warp Drive had it coming I'm eager to get in my first war, which is a new sentiment
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
UltraRed posted:What do I do when I have waaaay too much energy? I passed all I could on the policies screen. What other credit sinks are there? Hire the research boost enclave Hire the unity / artist enclave Buy the fancy artist special buildings Make a trade deal for minerals (giving energy) with a trade enclave Terraform planets
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Taear posted:Sitting paralysed unable to do anything because you're unsure about a 2% change is crazy though. Try, see. Baronjutter made a simple observation of "It would be cool to have the game tell me what the impact of doing this will be instead of me figuring it out" and this poster turned it into some extended rant about how it's important to only care about the right things in this space videogame It's amazing dude perhaps you can get over the idea that people play the game differently than you or something idk thanks for adding to the discussion lmao It shouldn't be a guessing game in terms of how much a planet will help vs hurt science production
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:it's not a guessing game though? the game gives you the exact percentage that's added when you read the tooltip for the number of points needed to research a tech Yes that part is clear, the gain you will get from the planet is not clear, so to compare these two values you need to calculate the gain from the planet....
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:if there's a lot of science the gain is good, if there's not a lot of science the gain will be less good Yeah dude let me compare 2% to "less good" ah yes my CPA has been telling me to aim for "less good" or better investments for my portfolio
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:i think we've found your problem if you're taking your video games as seriously as your irl financial investments I think the problem is that you play videogames by randomly pushing buttons with a dim understanding of what you're doing, which is hilarious to me It's ok if you don't care about it dude, it's just that people want to compare two quantities and only one is obvious, thats pretty much it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
I have a feeling that the unity costs for territory have so skewed the math that you should probably colonize many more planets than previously You're going to end up in the +200% tech / unity cost region just from grabbing terrain so you may as well add +40% from some planets and generate a shitload of resources to offset the costs
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
I get the 2.0 warfare changes, I have some questions about planets / invasions / populations I'm asking about a playthrough where I was materialists / egalitarians / mechanist There's an empire of determined assimilators to the north. If I take one of their planets will their pops start dying off? Do I need to set them to be purged? How long does this process take? Is there any difference between regular hive minds and machine empires in terms of pop death? The other question I had is, the planet would be an arid planet, which is habitable for my dudes. If I want to abandon the planet entirely, does that mean my pops will migrate there while the hive mind pops are dying off? Do I need to turn off resettlement entirely to avoid that happening? What's the "right way" to deal with enemy planets that you don't actually want for this build since you can't release them as vassals (though I thought about picking up the Domination opener to get it) In general how does one deal with conquering unwanted planets for non assimilators / purifiers?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Reposting about conquest and hive minds real quick There's an empire of machine empire assimilators to the north. If I take one of their planets will their pops start dying off? Do I need to set them to be purged? How long does this process take? Is there any difference between regular hive minds and machine empires in terms of pop death?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Gort posted:They die off automatically after a couple of years. You don't have to take any action, and there's no action I'm aware of that'll stop them dying off. Seems to be the same as with organic hive minds. Thanks for clarifying. One last thing. If I end up conquering a hive mind planet that is not habitable for the dudes I'm playing, when the last hive mind pop dies off, does anyone know if the planet gets abandoned? Or does it just stay there with the structures but no pop?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:It gets abandoned. If you know how, you can build a robot and even a partially built robot pop will be enough to hold the planet for you. Otherwise, you'll just lose it. Thanks for the info everyone, much appreciated 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Bedurndurn posted:Sort of. They randomly die surprisingly often and they also like to give themselves a negative trait that gives them -10000% experience gain. There's this element of lameness to this stuff in paradox games I can never quite make my peace with. There feels like there's this resistance to letting the player 'break' any given mechanic, no matter how trivial. Standard playstyle is the usual level a leader -> have them gain xp -> have them die off. So an alternative playstyle is offered - all your leaders can be immortal! How cool! And then the lameness part is that someone decides "Well yeah, but immortal leaders would be too good, so let's make them stop gaining xp, or just randomly die off, and then you still have immortal leaders but it's not too good" I just don't get it, if you don't want immortal leaders don't make immortal leaders, but don't make them immortal* (but still having most of the same functional drawbacks as mortal) leaders
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
I don't get how Civ 5 was able to allocate pops to tiles just fine and you could even pick a focus that would do a decent job of allocating workers to prioritize that thing like food or production or research (it wasn't the best at minmaxing specialists for sure though) Why can't I pick a Mineral / Energy / Science focus for the planet and have the AI come up with a 80-90% efficient pop allocation so that I don't have to? It would make sectors work properly too. Like, whatever logic you need for the AI to math out tile assignments doesn't seem hopelessly complex and other games have it, here's hoping it shows up in Stellaris sometime. "general" to maximize yields, and then a few specialized templates that will get you decent pop distribution favoring that resource.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:
If you're looking at this as "the AI needs to build the planet from scratch and figure out which buildings to put on a tile" as part of the AI process sure. However, I'm talking about "Using the existing buildings and pops and yields, figure out the optimal distribution for X resource" as not too difficult To add buildings to the mix, one could placeholder what buildings you want placed on a planet eventually, just don't potentially have the resources or pop to build yet. So you could "build desired template" for the planet when you settle it where you can ignore tile blockers, buildings, and pops and define how you want buildings built, and the AI will get there. I don't think it's strictly necessary but if you're really concerned about the AI building reasonable buildings, that would do it. Either way, I think it's fine to have a quick and dirty "optimize existing pops for existing structures around a given priority" algorithm instead of the absolutely nothing we have now in terms of assigning pops automatically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I want a way to tell my governors to put the master species on energy/science and all the slaves on minerals/food. Yeah I hit the same snag with robots, they get massive penalties to science / energy so the non robots go there, the robots go on minerals and food, and I click soooo many tiles making this happen please, computer, learn how to allocate the pops for me, I know we have the technology 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Why is there a fleet size cap for fucks sake Stellaris: caps on caps on caps on caps Like just imagine sitting there: "Every ship requires mineral upkeep!" "Every ship requires energy upkeep!" "Every ship requires command points to field" "Every ship requires build time + minerals up front" Hmmm but what if SOMEHOW the players manage to get around it and make a really big empire with a huge rear end navy all spread out...  put a limit on how many ships they can have too. Lol. Fuckem. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Military caps have been in pretty much every paradox game. Of all the highly abstracted systems that serve a gameplay purpose primarily they're some of the least bad. It represents your country's capacity to efficiently support X amount of ships in the field. Like in every paradox game you can of course go over this cap, but you'll pay higher upkeep. You're still paying upkeep on ships, it's not like they're free under the cap. Right I don't think I was being clear, I get the concept of fleet caps, I don't agree with limiting the fleet cap to a max of 1000
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
There's been several bug reports on the pdx forums of that same issue, current theory is that it's because you never got the "you have discovered a gate" event chain
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:it's not undocumented, let's please not import that kind of nonsense from the paradox forums. it's a flat 50% upkeep reduction for all things, fleets, buildings, etc. for the AI that has been present from the beginning. this was once common knowledge but has blown up into a ridiculous controversy. It's not in the defines, and it directly contradicted Wiz's multiple statements that the AI doesn't get piles of resources, which in fact was a nuanced observation that it doesn't get free resources and not that it doesn't get a reduction in resource use, very precise wording And the only way you can figure it out is by doing the testing and noticing that the amt subtracted is less than what is indicated Like that's the definition of not documented, it doesn't tell you anywhere that it's doing something at odds with the rest of the rules of the game and you have to figure it out through testing
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:jesus christ who cares You care because you felt the need to declare that the undocumented AI buff is NOT undocumented It's undocumented and you may be ok with it from a gameplay standpoint but friggin lol at trying to claim it was documented
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Lum_ posted:I missed if we had any discussion of the latest beta patch (tl;dr the tradition bug is fixed) Yeah this patch seems real promising, I wanted to test the new unity costs but they've been in some form of bugged since 2.0 release. I dig the terrain claiming mechanic so hopefully these costs will encourage a bit more land grabbing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Is there really that much Star Trek lore written somewhere or are people just approximating a lot of this stuff? There's a really in depth star trek conversion available here: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=688086068 It's really well done
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 22:24
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:Lol +4 starbases? That seemed super pointless to me as well You can have 7 instead of 3 when you can't afford it you can have 15 instead of 11 when you no longer care gratz all
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:According to a tweet the 1000 naval capacity hard cap is going to be removed next patch. That's really awesome
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So thanks to the new toxicity rules on the paradox forums things have gotten a lot better, you now need to go to reddit and steam for the really bitter tears. Lol the quest to go ever further to find any corner where people are having secret, forbidden thoughts like complaining about stuff they shouldn't, just to endlessly parade it in front of people as if it's representative It's fun to make poo poo up I guess, find the 5 people that don't like something and sit there incensed (or fake incensed) that they would dare think that stuff, just such a weird exercise Did you know 3 people on steam didn't like it? Here's all 3 of their posts, so that you can read the complaints, which you didn't care to read in the first place because its dumb poo poo from idiots, but it's there. It's critical you understand some people are posting dumb reviews or comments, if you play Stellaris, because that makes you a Stakeholder or something  And literally the only response is some variant of: quote:This shouldnt surprise anyone about PDXDS anymore. The internet was a mistake. Such discourse, let's do it every DLC release in every thread, ah wait goons have it covered
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Having played like 50+ hrs of Stellaris since the 2.0 patch, including the latest beta patch update I think Stellaris is officially a really fun game at this point, like Master of Orion levels of fun, or Sword of the Stars level of fun, for real. Like, it's actually really good and I find myself looking forward to playing it. Thanks Wiz and Stellaris team for plugging away for the last 2 years and taking this coal and polishing it into galactic ownage. I'd still like to see a few more in game events (particularly midgame, seems to tail off after exploration) that aren't provided by mods and a bit more planet variety like gullimans mod would provide, on the whole the game is really badass and it's cool that you can mod in the additional stuff that's missing at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
It's amazing how the handful of people that have weird opinions re: stellaris get together and start agreeing with eachother "yeah there should totally be a core, because you cant just increase the number of systems, and i mean - two map levels to switch between, why not three" and each person just keeps agreeing with the previous horrible suggestions, taking the idea into even further and dumber territory I don't know how this "game design pow wow: spitball awful ideas about the galactic core" stuff started or is progressing, but can we like, reconsider
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I haven't had a game crashing bug in a Paradox game for years, they've made huge strides in that regard. But they still do a lot of odd things like implement scaling difficulty but accidentally do it backwards, or implement a bunch of range-related bonuses while forgetting how the range related code works, or making various quests and leviathans and AI behavior 100% broken/impossible. They also still seem very much in "just keep throwing balance changes at the wall and see what sticks" approach to combat and ship design rather than having a cohesive vision for it or correctly identifying the balance issues are much bigger than what weapon does what bonus. The idea of an opt in beta patch is that they can test and iterate on changes without going through the QA process. It obviously follows that will mean changes that haven't been QA tested, like figuring out the scaling but having the values backwards. I really don't get the complaints here - making large scale changes means that balance will swing. The alternative is to like, do nothing, and leave the game stagnating in the state it was at release - which happened for two years. It's great that two years later substantive changes are happening, but if the pace is a bit too fast for you which you seem to be implying, consider not opting into beta patches or waiting until right when the big two year long changes happen to observe "wow this game sure is changing quickly it's a bit of a moving target" I don't get it dude this seems to be like looking on the other side of the "They finally did something" coin and declaring "aha, but it also meant a lot of things changed!!" and yes, that's generally what that means
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:You were replying to Ham Sandwiches, of course what he said was inaccurate. I think they've done a good job since the beginning of trying to iterate on the game, but Wiz was handed a huge pile of poo poo and asked to turn it into something nice and that takes time. if the payback for calling this dude's dumb ideas out is having to deal with the passive aggressive sniping afterward then it's a price I'm willing to pay Utopia introduced some changes, sure, but I felt they were pretty minor in terms of altering the fundamental gameplay. Fixing movement mechanics, changes to fleet size, nerfs to travel time, selecting hyperlanes as the default movement type, introducing forts and starbases, those are substantive changes. Adding habitats on top of a largely broken game was a change, but it didn't feel very substantive from a gameplay standpoint. With 2.0 the changes add up to meaningful fixing stuff that wasn't working for the past 2 years.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Garfu posted:I'm having an issue as a machine with the new patch. I seem to not be receiving any trait points. I should have gotten at least 3 by now with synthetic age and robomodding. Could be one of my mods but I didn't add anything since last game that should affect it. Anyone else? I've done two runs as a machine empire and robo traits were working properly on the beta patch. That's the synthetic dawn hive mind variant, so if you're talking about regular synthetic ascension I haven't checked that one out since 2.0.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
The AI seems to fall behind over time in 2.0.2 and I'm checking out some mods and running some observer games to see what configuration presents a balanced challenge. Playing at captain / commodore is kinda dull since by 2350 most AI empires seems to stall out. Machine empires do better since they don't need to worry about food and don't struggle with farms. Admiral / Grand Admiral is a bit excessive at the start forcing you into specific playstyles, I'm trying scaling out though I suspect the bonuses kick in too slowly. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Apr 1, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Mountaineer posted:AI seems kind of bad on the current patch and is incredibly sluggish about building stuff and developing their empire, though I've never seen it quite that bad. I decided to try an AI mod recently and it's made a huge difference. AI empires actually offer a challenge on moderate difficulty levels with it. Yeah this is what I'm doing for anyone curious the two AI mods are: Glavius Ultimate AI Megamod https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1140543652 Enhanced AI http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=692253918 They work fine together and mess with different stuff so go ahead and use both
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Question, haven't tried it but I am going to assume you can't turn ringworld parts into machine worlds. Is this correct? Yes ringworld sections when settled don't have the terraform button. You get a size 25 gaia world which gives +10% resources but you can't remove the turf on top and turn it into a robo ring 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Fuligin posted:Thanks for all the suggestions, looks like 1.0 and four arms will be my first go of it I've tried all 3 and find that 1.0 and two arms is my sweet spot, you may as well just spawn a run on each setting and zoom out the map. The differences should be pretty clear even with stuff unexplored. For density both .75 and 1.25 are a bit much in those directions, so 1.0 is a safe choice For galaxy type, based on my playstyle and preferences eliptical has not enough chokepoints, 4 arm has too many, and two arm seemed just right for "chunks of territory separated by some chokepoints"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
It's so weird watching habitats get nerfed, then nerfed, now buffed Are you supposed to build a bunch? Are you supposed to ignore them? stay tuned.Paradox has such mixed feelings about megaprojects, I am not sure why they put them in the game if they are absolutely not ok with the player actually leveraging them in a playthrough. Only 1 science nexus or dyson sphere. They get blown up if enemies are in the system. No there's no perks to get around the limit. Additionally, you can only build 1 project at a time. On top of that they take most of the resources in your mineral store. After requiring perks and hundreds of years to research. At best you can speed up the rate they build through ascension perks and policies. Stellaris: The game about exploration and exploitation of space, as imagined by a CPA
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Starbases get rolled really hard in the lategame no matter how you build them. 40k fleet strength with max defense platforms and lategame armor, and they'll melt when facing a decent fleet. It shouldn't be like EU4's level 8 forts because that is a tedious joke to siege down, but I don't quite get the way starbase health scales into the mid and lategame. At the start a starbase can hold out for a bit while reinforcements arrive, past a point, nope.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
Ceebees posted:Everyone always mentions covfefe, but nobody ever comments on the Lando System. Perhaps that's because the Lando system is not some dumb trump meme from last year I have no idea if Heaven's Gate is meant to be a pun or not but it makes me think of the suicide cult with white sneakers every time I see it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:So, I've been away from the game since Utopia and 1.6, I had a good grip on the gameplay back then and played quite a bit but then I was attracted by newer, shinier games and forgot all about Stellaris. The econ has been tightened the gently caress up, instead of swimming in energy and minerals you will be hurting for them much of the game. Even when you have a lot of these resources every ship built will impact your energy and minerals pretty significantly, building to your fleet cap is quite expensive. You can improve your space with Starbases, its a lot like EU4 forts. Unity and Science are no longer trivial resources and Apocalypse added some cool edicts for lategame unity spending. It's a pretty interesting game now with a bunch of choices to make and opportunity costs. War and claims have been much improved, taking territory with outposts is way better. Fleets can follow each other effectively and that makes army transports less of a nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
TorakFade posted:Thanks, sounds good enough to get me started. So game is hyperlane-only and there are the equivalent of EU4 forts, huh? That'll make warfare ... interesting, finally. It's ok in this version, you just right click the combat fleet with the transports, and once the fighting is over and you're in orbit click "land armies" - a lot of the really dumb stuff is automated now. It's probably not worth listing all the differences but invading planets went from "gently caress this I'm not doing it" to "Yeah its fine" Also planets can have FTL inhibitors which is pretty cool from a strategic perspective and armies inflict collateral damage so it's more interesting as well.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:04 |
|
|
ulmont posted:Eh. It also went from "I only ever need to build one gently caress-off ground invasion force and I won't have to worry about it ever again" to "I continually lose an army here or there and have to build them periodically with no fleet manager to help." Yeah there's room for improvement and I hope they make it better in subsequent patches. For me the main takeaway is that post 2.0 I'm willing to fight wars that involve planetary invasions whereas pre 2.0 I would generally get tired of the campaign right around when the first invasion was necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 22:04
|
|