|
I like Stellaris
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
I don't like Stellaris 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't like Stellaris  On release it was Sengoku-tier with excellent presentation, now it's March of the Eagles-tier with excellent presentation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
I think it's just ok
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
It's ok; I just mostly think that it's a shame that Martin & co are making it more like EUIV rather than CK2 or even its own thing. Now it's just, there. A lotta promise not really realized.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
I would like Stellaris more if it used more than one CPU core.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I don't like Stellaris Can't wait for your fevered "this game is finally good now!!" posts when 1.8 approaches, like for the last major expansions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
There's only been one major expansion and it was pretty good and fixed a lot of my problems with the government and pop systems. My only big problems with Stellaris are that the combat is awful and warfare in general is totally tedious. And unfortunately I'm skeptical that they'll ever fix the latter. There are a lot of cool and interesting things about Stellaris and it is getting better, but it just sucks to actually play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
stellaris isnt even as good as eu4
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
da beeper king BABY posted:There's only been one major expansion and it was pretty good and fixed a lot of my problems with the government and pop systems. My only big problems with Stellaris are that the combat is awful and warfare in general is totally tedious. And unfortunately I'm skeptical that they'll ever fix the latter. There are a lot of cool and interesting things about Stellaris and it is getting better, but it just sucks to actually play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:This and tile management are why I will never ever install it again. They already got $40 out of me when I ignored my mis-givings and bought it anyway... I'm not putting any more time or money into the game while the combat sucks and I have to manage individual pops, especially if I have to manage individual pops on individual tiles where I have to manage individual buildings. Yeah from what I see there's a bunch of cool politics stuff but why play when both the combat and the economy are boring and frustrating
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
For me the pop management is not horrible, but that may only be because if it weren't there you would have nothing to do most of the time. But I don't mind it. At this point I'll probably still buy future expansions once they go on sale. I hope they can at some point try to rework some of the fundamental design decisions that are holding the game back, but that's not really the usual expansion MO. I really wonder how long a life Stellaris will have. It seems to be popular enough if only due to the popular yearning for space 4X's, but I would be disappointed to see PDS resources tied up in it for two or more years longer. I'm at a low point of excitement for Paradox right now. Eu4 is really starting to creak under all the expansion features, ck2 is winding down soon, hoi4 is good but the expansions have been good but underwhelming, and Stellaris continues to disappoint. The sooner they announce Vicky 3 the better imo, even if it's still a couple years away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
I don't like hoi4
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
It's OK It just doesn't have the replayability of the other games to me. Can only fight ww2 so many ways
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
I also like HOI4
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Why do you guys think that Stellaris warfare is so awful
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
A big reason is because they decided to include a ship designer. Ship designers suck! Actually designing ships is mostly pointless busywork, but since the player has the ability to pull all the design levers you've given them, that puts big constraints on what you can do with the combat system. Oh, and then by deciding to model combat accurately in real time, they made it really hard on themselves to achieve any sort of high-level design goals as to how warfare should play out - all they can really do is futz with low-level numbers and hope whatever high-level result emerges is to their liking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Why do you guys think that Stellaris warfare is so awful its stuck in the wierd zone where it has both too much ship building and not enough. It has components, but the ship battles play out more or less the same way and the AI system for ships makes a lot of the weapon choices more or less cosmetic. If it went full on Star Ruler 2 with ship building and let you set behavoirs for individual ship classes it'd work a lot better. Alternately get rid of ship builing entirely and have descrete ship classes that get stat improvements from research. Even better, go late 19th century naval arms race with it so you have a limit to how much you can upgrade an already built ship so your stuck replacing older vessels while trying not to reduce your navy by too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
eu4 isn't as good as ftg
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Jabor posted:A big reason is because they decided to include a ship designer. Ship designers suck! Actually designing ships is mostly pointless busywork, but since the player has the ability to pull all the design levers you've given them, that puts big constraints on what you can do with the combat system. Oh, and then by deciding to model combat accurately in real time, they made it really hard on themselves to achieve any sort of high-level design goals as to how warfare should play out - all they can really do is futz with low-level numbers and hope whatever high-level result emerges is to their liking. Some empires might favor blockading/space superiority, while others are all about quickly assaulting and digging in. These can then be further divided into empires which are more into unstoppable juggernaut kinda fleets, the same but also really into pummeling planets flat, and ones that are really into more flexible raiding fleets, and for assault-militaries, ones that favor quick precision strikes that preserve infrastructure/pops, more indiscriminate assaults, or the infection route of actually making the planet essentially a lost cause for the enemy. All of that would I think give much more character to the different empires than some using lasers and others missiles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Ground combat really shouldn't be in the game. Armies are the worst part of Stellaris warfare.Jabor posted:A big reason is because they decided to include a ship designer. Ship designers suck! Actually designing ships is mostly pointless busywork, but since the player has the ability to pull all the design levers you've given them, that puts big constraints on what you can do with the combat system. Oh, and then by deciding to model combat accurately in real time, they made it really hard on themselves to achieve any sort of high-level design goals as to how warfare should play out - all they can really do is futz with low-level numbers and hope whatever high-level result emerges is to their liking. I think a ship designer can work, but the way it works in Stellaris it feels like there's too much micro, to the point where I'm overwhelmed by choice. Incrimental upgrades also do not feel particularly meaningful, and a lot of good design feels like a counterintuitive mess that's the result of pure number-crunching. Things that I want in a ship designer:
I think a decent way of going on about it would be if you removed/abstracted the individual slot components and focused more on the ship sections. Expand the number of sections in each type of ship a bit and give me 5 or 8 choices for each section, and I think you can get a decent mix-and-match ship design system that neither feels too simplistic nor too complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
stellaris should let me automate the things i dont care about, like distant worlds (or hoi3)
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:stellaris should let me automate the things i dont care about, like distant worlds (or hoi3) Unfortunately the mods to automate things in Stellaris dumpster the CPU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Ground combat really shouldn't be in the game. Armies are the worst part of Stellaris warfare. YF-23 posted:I think a ship designer can work, but the way it works in Stellaris it feels like there's too much micro, to the point where I'm overwhelmed by choice. Incrimental upgrades also do not feel particularly meaningful, and a lot of good design feels like a counterintuitive mess that's the result of pure number-crunching.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I would like Stellaris more if it used more than one CPU core.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Sindai posted:All of Paradox's games already use multiple cores as much as possible. It's very very tricky to multithread things when you have to maintain perfect sync for multiplayer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Sindai posted:All of Paradox's games already use multiple cores as much as possible. It's very very tricky to multithread things when you have to maintain perfect sync for multiplayer. He's trolling Groogy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Why do you guys think that Stellaris warfare is so awful 1.) Strategic Warfare: The base game includes three kinds of FTL travel that a race can use, which is decided at race generation before game start. Each race is restricted to one of these types and cannot use more than one on their ships. This makes strategic warfare a major headache regardless of what type of FTL you are using because your enemy can faff about and gently caress with you whenever and wherever they want, which just leads to frustration. You can build stationary defense stations in systems which act as a magnet for incoming fleets, however these stations are either made out of tissue paper and melt immediately, or prohibitively expensive. 2.) Tactical Warfare: This one needs a list.
Thats all I have the effort to post, really. It goes deeper but eh, not worth my time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 20:20
|
|
The player has zero control of their ships once they "enter combat"
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:He's trolling Groogy Here's a multiplayer game that's actually offloading its work to more than one core:  Saying "but it's hard!" isn't a good excuse to then go ahead and design the game in such a way that it can easily overwhelm even the strongest CPU in regular gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Paradox has been on a bad streak with Stellaris and HoI4
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Yeah from what I see there's a bunch of cool politics stuff but why play when both the combat and the economy are boring and frustrating The politics stuff was underwhelming (at least at release), since most factions are insanely easy to please and the ones that aren't never generated enough unrest to make the player to care about them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
What I wanted: CK2 in Space What would have been great: Victoria 2 in Space What I got: Inferior EUIV in Space It's such a shame too, because there is a genuine joy in parts (everyone loves early-game exploring!) but it just, doesn't stay good...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Counterpoint: Stellaris is extremely cool & good. Evidence in support of the above: I have 768 hours in Stellaris.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Counterpoint: Stellaris is extremely cool & good. I've forwarded this to the authorities so they can give you the proper help you need, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
The game they should've cribbed the combat system from is HOI IV, except make it even more abstracted so there is no ship builder and all I do is plan offensives. No, I have no idea how this would work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Communist Walrus posted:The game they should've cribbed the combat system from is HOI IV, except make it even more abstracted so there is no ship builder and all I do is plan offensives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Counterpoint: Stellaris is extremely cool & good. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
Communist Walrus posted:The game they should've cribbed the combat system from is HOI IV, except make it even more abstracted so there is no ship builder and all I do is plan offensives. yeah. ship builders in space 4xs suck rear end 99% of the time, stellaris included.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Communist Walrus posted:The game they should've cribbed the combat system from is HOI IV, except make it even more abstracted so there is no ship builder and all I do is plan offensives. you assign income to a front which fills it with abstracted ships and armies which then advance to a series of systems you designated as a goal. every unit of income assign a strength value to the abstracted ships and armies with technology improving the amount you get per income/reducing the amount of income needed. Fronts have a slot for one admiral and one general who provide bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:He's trolling Groogy I have become dead inside, I do no longer have enough life in my soul to muster the energy needed to rant about how someone is wrong on the internet anymore. It is a dreadful existence. turn off the TV posted:Here's a multiplayer game that's actually offloading its work to more than one core: There is tons of stuff that is done in parallel. I've already covered the model that we utilize at Paradox before like 10 times and don't feel like covering it again. What you are viewing is not "multiplayer being threaded" or even evidence that those threads are even doing anything since they could just be spinning threads to keep them alive and ready for tasks to do something which is a common thing to do. Either way an FPS and a Grand Strategy have vastly different problems to solve when it comes to parallelism. And on network FPS game usually don't sync delta's like us over network because their game state is usually not too big to actually transfer in a couple of messages like in our games. Most of the time they can sync the entire state of the game every single tick, which is also why you see stuff like in CSGO, Battlefield where tick rate on servers etc are super important. But sorry, don't mean to insult your excellent backseat programming skills. Of course we can put in more effort to offload more work to the other cores, there's a lot running on the single thread that should theoretically have a good "return-of-investment" for parallelization and be capable of being ensured in order of operation so it doesn't cause OOS. (since computers A & B will not be guaranteed that their threads will have equal amount of operation time between themselves even if they do same work because of OS scheduler) And we do have projects in pipeline experimenting how we can do more on several cores. Groogy fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 13:59
|
|
