Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Psychotic Weasel
Jun 24, 2004

Bang! You're dead.

Randarkman posted:

I think I've heard that said before but never seen anything to actually back it up. The closest thing I've seen to this is the belief that the Western Allies weren't Germany's ultimate enemies in the same way the Soviets were and that they would use this to reach a negotiated settlement. But really there is nothing Germany could offer Britain as an ally in their war as far as I can see. And the appeal of some anti-Communist crusade to support Germany carving out a colonial empire in the East would ring as hollow as it did in real life as even Churchill and other avowed anti-Communists saw Nazism as the greater threat, a threat great enough to ally and provide substantial material and military aid to those very same communists.

Yes there's a number of theories floating around but it seems to be mixed in with a lot of revisionist bullshit these days, but parts of Mien Kampf (which I've not read cover-to-cover) does speak to Hitler believing that Great Britain was somehow important to the natural order of things and (like everything else) had some how been pushed in the wrong direction about Jews. In reality Hitler's books and most of his other writings were the deranged ramblings of a madman bent on power so whether his feelings were sincere or not is open to interpretation.




I like the ship designer they've come up with here. Nothing ground breaking but it does let you quickly piece together some ships based on chassis and module types so you can get back to the game instead of building everything from scratch and dictating the exact position of each conduit. I kinda want to see what other ship themes they have in the game, I've never been a huge fan of the bloby, organic look. I've always favoured a more blocky, utilitarian design (kinda like this).


edit:

DivineCoffeeBinge posted:

~3 months of solid play time.
Do you guys just leave the launcher open while you do other things or something?

Psychotic Weasel fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jan 19, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

V for Vegas
Sep 1, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER

Sindai posted:

Yeah I fully expect that ship design will be reduced to a few simple rules of thumb once people start seriously trying to break it, but we'll see. I'll count it as a win as long as an all-destroyer fleet with fighter bays in every slot (for example) doesn't completely crush the AI/auto designs.

It will probably make some difference in the early game when you only have a few ships and it's still fun to play around with. By mid to late game it will probably become more like EU4 where you just auto-upgrade everything and mass concentration of force is much more important than individually tweaking ship loadout.

zedprime
Jun 9, 2007

yospos

V for Vegas posted:

It will probably make some difference in the early game when you only have a few ships and it's still fun to play around with. By mid to late game it will probably become more like EU4 where you just auto-upgrade everything and mass concentration of force is much more important than individually tweaking ship loadout.
The worrying part is its going more ambitious than EU4, which is maybe limiting but who's simplicity throws at least a few bones about important decisions about splitting armies or early unit type choices. Every other bundle of force that's gone complicated, in CK2, HoI3, Vicky2, HoI2, ends up having maximized, often unintuitive, builds figured out and you just attach the correct materiel or marry in high martial Welshmen into your family and go about your day.

In other words I'm worried the ship designer is going to be about marrying Welshmen again.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

zedprime posted:

The worrying part is its going more ambitious than EU4, which is maybe limiting but who's simplicity throws at least a few bones about important decisions about splitting armies or early unit type choices. Every other bundle of force that's gone complicated, in CK2, HoI3, Vicky2, HoI2, ends up having maximized, often unintuitive, builds figured out and you just attach the correct materiel or marry in high martial Welshmen into your family and go about your day.

In other words I'm worried the ship designer is going to be about marrying Welshmen again.
Whats wrong with marrying Welshmen? Hrm?!? :toughguy: Marrying Welshmen is one of my favorite pass-times in CKII.


Ghost of Mussolini posted:

Some of these Stellaris DDs blow me away, and others make me not want to touch it at all, fearing infection from the space 4x plague that has killed off so many games.
This is exactly how I feel.

Danann
Aug 4, 2013


I guess it was too much to expect Rule the Waves in space with regards to the ship designer. Although I guess implementing events like building ten death stars or lose prestige would be easy enough to implement.

NewMars
Mar 10, 2013

Danann posted:

I guess it was too much to expect Rule the Waves in space with regards to the ship designer. Although I guess implementing events like building ten death stars or lose prestige would be easy enough to implement.

This brings to mind the age-old question: One ten million ton death star, or ten one million ton death stars?

DStecks
Feb 6, 2012

Any feature that prominently gives you an "Eh, let the computer figure it out" button is deeply suspect.

AAAAA! Real Muenster
Jul 12, 2008

My QB is also named Bort

NewMars posted:

This brings to mind the age-old question: One ten million ton death star, or ten one million ton death stars?
The next "Death Star" is actually going to be a bunch of smaller ships that all do that beam-focusing thing into one big beam.

Horsebanger
Jun 25, 2009

Steering wheel! Hey! Steering wheel! Someone tell him to give it to me!

Bort Bortles posted:

The next "Death Star" is actually going to be a bunch of smaller ships that all do that beam-focusing thing into one big beam.

A Species 8472 like fleet would be kind of cool. Overall I'm pretty optimistic for Stellaris with what I've seen so far. The ship design with its three sections is kind of similar to Sword of the Stars which I liked, but it has enough going on to stand on its own.

PleasingFungus
Oct 10, 2012
idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

Kersch posted:

This DD was really losing me until "For those of you who really don’t like to fiddle around with designing your own ships (and we know that you are legion), we have the option to auto-generate new ship designs whenever you research a new technology with something that the game thinks you should use on your ships. This algorithm is very close to what the AI will use."

I'm just glad that the devs have decided to allow players to automate out this new and exciting piece of gameplay before the game has even launched. By following in the great path that led to things like eu3's "auto-send merchants" and "hunt rebels" functions, great game design & overwhelming fun are right around the corner!

DStecks posted:

Any feature that prominently gives you an "Eh, let the computer figure it out" button is deeply suspect.

Randarkman
Jul 18, 2011

V for Vegas posted:

It will probably make some difference in the early game when you only have a few ships and it's still fun to play around with. By mid to late game it will probably become more like EU4 where you just auto-upgrade everything and mass concentration of force is much more important than individually tweaking ship loadout.

Nothing said in that dev diary about it, but it would be kind of nice if the Ship Designer was kind of like we see the division designer from HoI4 (which it already is in some way) and that some compartment slots have to be unlocked using some kind of currency that you earn ingame and edits to existing models require you to spend it as well. That could make it a bit more interesting particularly if ships and compartments don't go ending up obsolete all the time.

e: Also is anyone kind of amused by the all the mod planning going on in the Stellaris forum? I really like "Homo Universalis".

Randarkman fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Jan 19, 2016

Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

The ship design window looks eerily reminiscent of oldschool 4x like Space Empires IV, where you're stacking modules and the only limiter is the total mass your shipyards can handle. I liked Sword of the Stars ship design a lot and I think taking a cue from that would be better, even if actual turret placement doesn't matter (combat is abstracted based on the ships stats).

Linear Zoetrope
Nov 28, 2011

A hero must cook
The thing I'm not liking about the ship designer is that from what I understand there are a few sections you can choose from, and then a boatload of things you can equip on those sections. I think it would be sufficient to just scale back to section choices without the slots. I'm coming around to the opinion that, largely, less is more when it comes to game choices. With 3-5 different choices for each section (let's say) -- or maybe 3-5 sections per hull size increment or whatever -- they can really ensure the different choices are more distinct and meaningful like idea groups in EU4. The current system seems like it has the same problem as MMO/ARPG "talent trees" other ship builders, niche skills in ARPGs etc, which have started disappearing from games for IMO good reasons. The systems that replace them, while less complex on the surface, are easier for both designers and players to keep in their head and thus ensure each one has a meaningful place and thus offer more real choice. Otherwise you just end up with dead end "trap builds" and tedium.

Obviously I haven't played with this system, so for all I know it could be brilliant, but I agree that the presence of an AI builder tool makes this more suspect.

Groogy
Jun 12, 2014

Tanks are kinda wasted on invading the USSR
Since others were bragging about their playtime so do I, though I have my play time spread over 2 games....




Since I got a job at paradox I have a lot less time to actually play the games than I used to have. So have to aim low with my new years resolution is to reach 12 000 hours total of Paradox Games.

Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

Jsor posted:

The thing I'm not liking about the ship designer is that from what I understand there are a few sections you can choose from, and then a boatload of things you can equip on those sections. I think it would be sufficient to just scale back to section choices without the slots. I'm coming around to the opinion that, largely, less is more when it comes to game choices. With 3-5 different choices for each section (let's say) -- or maybe 3-5 sections per hull size increment or whatever -- they can really ensure the different choices are more distinct and meaningful like idea groups in EU4. The current system seems like it has the same problem as MMO/ARPG "talent trees" other ship builders, niche skills in ARPGs etc, which have started disappearing from games for IMO good reasons. The systems that replace them, while less complex on the surface, are easier for both designers and players to keep in their head and thus ensure each one has a meaningful place and thus offer more real choice. Otherwise you just end up with dead end "trap builds" and tedium.

Obviously I haven't played with this system, so for all I know it could be brilliant, but I agree that the presence of an AI builder tool makes this more suspect.

Yeah I feel like limiting slots and forcing specialization, at least a little bit would be worthwhile but I'm not sure if the combat calculations will support it. Ideally I'd want to see a brawling ship forego shields for an extra powerplant so that it can get in close and use beams and energy weapons at close range for maximum effect and compensating for the loss of a shield with extra armor. Long range ships can forego armor for speed and use precision weapons like missiles and rail guns, using a strong shield to mitigate any ordinance that makes its way out there. Trade offs are kind of important to good ship design, but if your ships aren't seeing "real" combat then it's probably hard to simulate. Offhand though it would be cool if fleet compositions had role slots like picket, brawler, point defense etc. etc. and certain ship designs and stats were optimized for those roles in the simulation.

Ofaloaf
Feb 15, 2013



Let's see if I can reach 4000 by Springtime. :toot:

GrossMurpel
Apr 8, 2011

PleasingFungus posted:

I'm just glad that the devs have decided to allow players to automate out this new and exciting piece of gameplay before the game has even launched. By following in the great path that led to things like eu3's "auto-send merchants" and "hunt rebels" functions, great game design & overwhelming fun are right around the corner!

That's what happens when half the people want a ship designer and the other half don't. They can't very well just completely take it out then.

zedprime
Jun 9, 2007

yospos

GrossMurpel posted:

That's what happens when half the people want a ship designer and the other half don't. They can't very well just completely take it out then.
What if, and I'm just spitballing here, what if they made a good ship designer that wasn't machine optimizable with an in game button because your choices are simple but meaningful?

GrossMurpel
Apr 8, 2011

zedprime posted:

What if, and I'm just spitballing here, what if they made a good ship designer that wasn't machine optimizable with an in game button because your choices are simple but meaningful?

Looking at this thread, half the people would still cry about having to do that for each of their ship types.

Mukaikubo
Mar 14, 2006

"You treat her like a lady... and she'll always bring you home."
I can't keep up- we loved Stellaris last month, now we hate it, right?

Kavak
Aug 23, 2009


Mukaikubo posted:

I can't keep up- we loved Stellaris last month, now we hate it, right?

Space 4X is a hell of a drug, and detox is worse.

Tahirovic
Feb 25, 2009
Fun Shoe
There's a lot of people who seem to dislike one aspect of this game that isn't released based one one dev diary or an other. I doubt everyone will ever be happy with every feature.

Overall the game looks very promising and will hopefully be a success.

Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

Look. If Paradox transplants naval combat from Hearts of Iron 4 into space in Stellaris I don't even give a poo poo about the ship designer anymore.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011

DStecks posted:

Any feature that prominently gives you an "Eh, let the computer figure it out" button is deeply suspect.

Stellaris is trying to appeal to people coming from Starcraft and from Aurora. Space 4X is actually a really wide genre and some fans are going to want different things from others. In that context, making parts of the game semi-optional makes a lot of sense - no Starcraft player[1] will be chased off by needing to be so grognardy as to custom-design every ship, and no Aurora player will be turned off by the inflexibility of only having standard ships.

That said, I think it would be better to frame this not as "you should design your own ships but you can automate that away" but as "you start with default ships like the AI uses, but you can customize them to suit your playstyle if you want".

zedprime posted:

What if, and I'm just spitballing here, what if they made a good ship designer that wasn't machine optimizable with an in game button because your choices are simple but meaningful?

Then the Aurora players call it a toy designer and the Starcraft players are still annoyed about having to design like a dozen ships over the course of the game.

[1] - or whatever 4x fits this "using stock units" stereotype.

Psychotic Weasel
Jun 24, 2004

Bang! You're dead.
I'm kinda curious as to what this 'simple yet meaningful' ship designer would like as the one pictured in yesterday's DD looked pretty straightforward while still allowing the player to tailer things to their needs.

And *gasp* there's even a featured to allow me to have the computer just build something for me if I can't be bothered to do it myself at that moment and get on with the game.

Maybe Paradox should stop catering to filthy casuals and get on with their dev diary explaining straits in space?

Wiz
May 16, 2004

Nap Ghost
The ship designer has just the right level of depth for me - there's interesting tradeoffs in power/shields/armor/weapons but you don't have to sit and add every crew waste disposal module.

On the automation, it's usually not a good solution but in this case where there's such a split between people who want to design ships and people who don't, it's really the only sensible one.

YF-23
Feb 17, 2011

My god, it's full of cat!


Ofaloaf posted:



Let's see if I can reach 4000 by Springtime. :toot:

Observer mode games don't count, your play hours are inflated. :colbert:

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Wiz posted:

On the automation, it's usually not a good solution but in this case where there's such a split between people who want to design ships and people who don't, it's really the only sensible one.
Compromise
n.
1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions, leaving both sides equally unhappy.

Gay Horney
Feb 10, 2013

by Reene

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Compromise
n.
1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions, leaving both sides equally unhappy.

Oh shut the gently caress up.

Demiurge4
Aug 10, 2011

Jackson Taus posted:

Stellaris is trying to appeal to people coming from Starcraft and from Aurora. Space 4X is actually a really wide genre and some fans are going to want different things from others. In that context, making parts of the game semi-optional makes a lot of sense - no Starcraft player[1] will be chased off by needing to be so grognardy as to custom-design every ship, and no Aurora player will be turned off by the inflexibility of only having standard ships.

I don't think anyone is trying to appeal to Aurora fans.

Pimpmust
Oct 1, 2008

Psychotic Weasel posted:

I kinda want to see what other ship themes they have in the game, I've never been a huge fan of the bloby, organic look. I've always favoured a more blocky, utilitarian design (kinda like this).


If they can't strut the stripes I want no part of them :colbert:

Psychotic Weasel
Jun 24, 2004

Bang! You're dead.

Pimpmust posted:

If they can't strut the stripes I want no part of them :colbert:



Does dazzle camouflage work in space?

Is that an option we can use when designing our ships?

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

Sharzak posted:

Oh shut the gently caress up.
Are you okay dude?

YF-23
Feb 17, 2011

My god, it's full of cat!


A Buttery Pastry posted:

Compromise
n.
1. A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions, leaving both sides equally unhappy.

How is doing both automation and manual customisation a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy in this case?

Randarkman
Jul 18, 2011

I think people might be getting a bit too worked up about this ship customization stuff.

A Buttery Pastry
Sep 4, 2011

Delicious and Informative!
:3:

YF-23 posted:

How is doing both automation and manual customisation a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy in this case?
Potentially; not enough meat to the customization/too much effort spent on customization which could have been spent on good gameplay.

Really though, it was mostly a comment on how I don't envy them having to juggle vastly different wants and expectations, knowing that some compromises can be deeply unpopular among different target groups for different reasons.

Jackson Taus
Oct 19, 2011

Demiurge4 posted:

I don't think anyone is trying to appeal to Aurora fans.

OK, that might be an oversell, but the point is that there's a wide spread in terms of the level of detail folks want, and in that sort of situation, making some of the details optional is a decent solution.

Pimpmust
Oct 1, 2008

Psychotic Weasel posted:

Does dazzle camouflage work in space?

Is that an option we can use when designing our ships?

+5% camo rating, +150% swag rating

Make it happen, Paradox.

"Dazzle Camo DLC Pack #1 $5"

PleasingFungus
Oct 10, 2012
idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

YF-23 posted:

How is doing both automation and manual customisation a compromise that leaves both sides unhappy in this case?

Well, my concern here is that it'll be [1] a bunch of tedious makework that [2] I nonetheless feel obliged to engage in, because the AI will be just incompetent enough at it that I'll want the advantage from doing it myself. Ref.: other ship design systems in 4Xs, e.g. Galactic Civilizations II.

The fact that they're adding automation shows they've already noticed a very substantial number of players find it unfun; but the nature of automation for any moderately complex system means that a human is going to be better at it anyway.

I haven't played the game; I could be completely wrong! But there are a lot of red flags here. From what Paradox has chosen to show us, it really feels like Stellaris is a kitchen sink sort of game - tossing together all of the "space 4x things", from ship design to planet tiles to whatever, because that's what you've got to have when you're making your very own master of orion clone, right?

PleasingFungus fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jan 19, 2016

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Tahirovic
Feb 25, 2009
Fun Shoe
It will be interesting to see how much of an advantage, if any, you get from designing ships on your own. If the AI is too good at it, why do it yourself? If the AI is too bad, you have to do it manually. Now I wonder what the colours between black and white will be.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply