|
hobbesmaster posted:I believe the idea is you can affordably run utopian abundance and get happiness bonuses even on bad planets. That's closer to post-scarcity if anything.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Oligarchic governments can be Turbo Space Capitalists, but Egalitarianism isn't even a requirement I think. Egalitarians just get better faction influence and higher possible living standards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:That's closer to post-scarcity if anything. Well that’s how egalitarians are implemented in game. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Also it's pretty majorly synergistic with prosperity because -20% of 2x population consumer goods cost is twice as good as 1x population, and being able to run utopian abundance is basically the only reason to play egalitarian empires. Egalitarianism is more or less one half of the game's focus on being filthy rich with pacifism for some weird reason being shoehorned into the other half via the faction system. I dunno I was honestly very happy with collectivism/individualism, I thought it made a lot more sense than authoritarianism/egalitarianism which aren't even really opposites, especially as authoritarianism is just annoying to play with and doesn't really give you much in the way of bonuses, it just creates a faction that tries to get you to run your empire badly while all of the other faction generally ask for things that actually play to your strengths. Collectivism/individualism would also work well with hive minds as civics because collectivists could get an ascension path that is to hives as synthetic ascension is to being a machine species. Individualists could get some kind of really committed turbocapitalist ascension where you can spend energy to buy stuff rather than having to build it or you can start hosting pirate bases in your empire which will raid your neighbors or something, maybe an ascension based around mobile empires so everyone who wants to can gently caress off into a hab ship and do their own thing. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Caste system is really good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Caste system is really good. I don't really see what makes it worth the hassle over just maxing happiness or building robots. Not least because authoritarians seem to just be a generally miserable faction and they never cough up any influence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
It's pretty weird that egalitarian societies in Stellaris can support apportioning different standards of living based on species TBH. Also the core mechanic of involuntarily but peacefully genetically altering billions is a little weird. And the half dozen ways of commiting genocide from a menu option. No matter what your ideals it plays like a totalitarian fantasy of pliant peoples.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm still salty about the change from collectivist/individualist to authoritarian/egalitarian, while maintaining egalitarianism as turbo space capitalism. pacifism is now turbo space capitalism though Also is there a console command or save-game edit to change country colours? I have 3 major blocs in the galaxy and they're all red, and I'm red, the entire map is the same colour and it's insane there isn't some system to avoid this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:pacifism is now turbo space capitalism though
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
tooterfish posted:Sounds like someone forgot the 34th Rule of Acquisition. The 35th rule completely counteracts that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
LOL, no it doesn't. You're confusing contradiction with flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
That's because they are both codas to the 9th Rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Rule 45 is rule number 1 in Stellaris: expand or die
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Once you have their money, never give it back? Save editing is a real pain, the compression formatting is super picky. Managed to figure it out with 7-zip and now my map is readable once again!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:
That's every 4X in space though. When I get bored in Moo2, I can just go to Antares. When I get bored in GalCiv2, I can become a space merchant pitting empires against each other while buying their planets in exchange for their forever war. In Stellaris I just . . . wait. And stare at the screen. And research Navy +10 for the nth time. It's deadly boring. And not helped by the fact that all the enemy empires seem to act more-or-less the same. Diplomacy is just something you click through without thinking about it. And since you can't colonize in each other's space, it's not like you have to worry about your differently biomed neighbors occupying a planet near your homeworld that is useless to you but valuable to them. Or even just OK to them but useless to you, creating Space Cuba. The point seems to be blobbing and other 4x games do that a lot better. I haven't even gotten to an endgame crisis (which seem like they could be really cool) because I don't have time to just sit there and wait and wait and wait for hours on end for something to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 06:41
|
|
Shbobdb posted:That's every 4X in space though. Basically. I think one of the worst thing the most recent patch did was move the crises back fifty years. It's not like they were coming too early. By the time they were showing up, I was already into the repeatable techs and just sitting around. Fifty more years of that? Good lord. Stellaris has a bit of an issue with pacing, I think. I think this is absolutely because it is an RTS. Stellaris at times feels like a game that is simultaneously too fast and the player has to predict more than react but it's also ponderously slow at times with vast sections where you just slap the game on Fastest and wait (bombing down fortifications, for example). It's slow in the sense that I might research a shield upgrade and two tiers of weapons and still be like, well, I can't risk a war and so I'll sit around and research more and not really do or accomplish anything. I might research a mineral or energy production boost but it doesn't really result in an immediate leap. And by the time you can get things like Ringworlds or Dyson Spheres, well, it's not like they're going to help that much. I think Stellaris' tech/research stuff is all messed up. I understand why tech isn't king as some have said, but I also find that kind of disheartening from a game that is about the rise and fall of empires. It feels weird that you, say, weaponise antimatter as a Tier-3 missile technology and all it results in is a barely noticeable increase in firepower. Technological breakthroughs can result in huge paradigm shifts. The crossbow, the tank, the machine gun, nuclear weapons. These all resulted in big changes throughout history. What's weird about Stellaris is that, well, there is one technology that can do this: point-defence. Anyone who has gone with missiles early and run into an empire packing PD knows what that's like. But even developing new ship hull sizes doesn't really result in much change. Someone rolling in with some cruisers is generally okay providing you've been keeping up corvette and destroyer production. And, really, the PD thing is only as frustrating as it is because it's like the one bit of Stellaris' whole combat/tech interplay that's basically a hard counter. It's also weird because Stellaris has another thing that undercuts 'tech is king' beyond just making the techs all sort of bland -- it's the salvage mechanic. If someone has a tech advantage, you can pick through the debris and acquire it yourself. You could even maybe set something up that you just research techs faster if, say, you have Open Borders and they have the tech and you've seen it on a ship or planet. If you want to keep your technological lead, well, then you better work at it. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I sure hope the next DLC is about egalitarians and xenophiles because currently that playstyle seems totally unremarkable compared to the boosts the others have gotten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Game has some cool narrative elements but the pacing is like a real-time utopia online and the interface and new player exp is comically horrible. Its addictive so Ill play the current game out to the end (so I can get a space dragon basically) but itll be a relief to see the back of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
At the end of the day sometimes I feel the game is just too balanced. Militarly, there is no game-changer other than when you research a new ship class. MOO2 I knew I couldn't tackle the guardian until Plasma (or Graviton), and being able to MIRV my nuclear missiles or Autoshot my Lasers instead of slapping down the unmodded Merculite or Fusion beams presented interesting tactical choices (or cosmetic, I played it as a dumb teenager so no idea what the most optimal build was). There're very few techs that make me go "gently caress yeah finally got that". Most techs are a cold, marginal, predictable number increase in something or other. Even in EUIV you have those big jumps in military efficiency at specific tech levels, and if you are 2-3 miltech above your enemy, you're gonna stomp them like nothing. Stellaris you feel you are never more than half a tech level above/below your opponent, if that. Still an enjoyable game, and I think the direction taken is the right one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Its loving great for Massive Space Battles, also
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
But even getting a new ship class isn't a huge moment. They're just bigger. It's not like Cruisers allow you to make specialise hulls like sensor jammers or spinal mounts or anything. And corvettes feel like this weird thing that're just kind of there ever since the early-game combat changes were made. Corvettes don't really serve any function and they're immediately made obsolete by destroyers. They're like this tax so you keep up your fleet cap and don't get invaded. Ship design works really well in MOO 2 because there's a whole combat layer. Same thing with SOTS 1. Stellaris combat isn't that deep, even though it tries to be. Problem is, ship design, combat, tech, and all that is all sort of tied together. I don't think Stellaris will scrap the ship designer, I think that'd be a bad move. But it'd sure be nice if it were expanded and it'd be nice if ships were more valuable (like that Star Trek mod that keeps getting brought up).
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
Bottom line, it's like playing D&D and getting a Sword, a Sword +1, a Sword +2 and eventually a Sword +3. As well as a Chainmail +1, then a +2... etc. I would like my Deck of Many Things, my Wand of Wonder and my Portable Hole goddamnit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really see what makes it worth the hassle over just maxing happiness or building robots. Not least because authoritarians seem to just be a generally miserable faction and they never cough up any influence. What kind of Authoritarian empires are you playing? For me that's the faction I consistently have all green issues for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 08:49
|
|
|
I kind of agree with the argument that Stellaris is a bit stale to be honest, even though I keep playing it from time to time. For instance I'm currently playing a feudal empire based build, in which I create vassals out of different chunks of my territory, rather than sectors. Overall though it's still pretty pointless - there's no real feel of diplomacy or reason behind it other than the numbers game. I think Stellaris is too deeply tied to numbers. With CK2 or EUIV the numbers are hidden behind things, Crusader Kings in particular which becomes all about the characters of the time, rather than about expansion. Sure there's still the overall aspect of attempting to blob the world, but the level of depth in CK2 means there's multiple paths toward reaching some sort of grand scale empire. Or if you want you can not play like that at all and still have a great experience. Stellaris doesn't really have that. It's all about increasing numbers in such a way that your numbers are better than the oppositions. Playing the game as a trade empire, merchant elite or megacorporation isn't really an option. Intrigue is non-existent (I presume an upcoming expansion) and diplomacy is really just an affair of peace/war and the occasional trading of minerals/credits/research (which becomes meaningless around mid game). The thing is I'm not entirely sure what else there is. The modern versions of Master of Orion or GalCiv are apparently not that great, Endless Space 2 is focused toward its lore/story line and Distant Worlds - although vast - can also be pretty much a numbers game. I hear Stars in Shadow is pretty good? I suppose if all else fails we can jump back to Master of Orion 2, although it is pretty ancient! It is funny how if I play Stellaris for a bit, I end up usually going back and playing CK2 instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
To an extent, that's an artifact of the Paradox model - new layers are added into their worlds with every expansion, meaning that raw numbers are slowly drowned in a tide of MTTH events and other less visible numbers. The same is happening with Stellaris - it's far more compelling than it was at launch, and it'll continue to improve as time goes on. One thing I'd recommend is new the Hard difficulty level, which is a step down from the old Hard, which is now Very Hard. It keeps the 'these minerals are crucial' feeling from the early game alive for much longer. Doesn't do anything to deal with crises no longer firing until the game is over, mind. That was a weird decision, and one Wiz is baffling stuck on. I blame him getting his rear end handed to him publically by the Scourge...
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 09:25
|
|
WMain00 posted:I kind of agree with the argument that Stellaris is a bit stale to be honest, even though I keep playing it from time to time. For instance I'm currently playing a feudal empire based build, in which I create vassals out of different chunks of my territory, rather than sectors. Overall though it's still pretty pointless - there's no real feel of diplomacy or reason behind it other than the numbers game. TBQH, I do think Stellaris is one of the best space games in recent memory. And, like Aethernet said, it's only been improving since launch.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:He's saying the combat AI* is bad at being fighting wars and thus shouldn't be forced upon the player, as a comparison to the sector AI which is bad at managing planets. He is in no way saying the sector AI is bad at fighting wars. OK, read that way his post makes way more sense! I'm still disagreeing on the sector AI, though. I think it does a good job.  (The combat AI isn't that bad either, I've seen far worse. I think Stellaris' combat AI is suffering from Red Queen Syndrome: Stellaris is a lot more complex then other 4x, and the AI has to deal with this complexity in real time, instead of using more calculation time inbetween turns to find better solutions. This means even though the AI is a lot better then in older games, Stellaris is complex enough to still make it stumble occasionally. If you take this into account, Stellaris' combat AI is actually pretty drat impressive: It's better then the combat AI I've seen in many other 4x-games, even though the underlying tech should make it an order of magnitude harder for the AI to handle.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:05
|
|
|
WMain00 posted:I kind of agree with the argument that Stellaris is a bit stale... Dwesa fucked around with this message at 10:18 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:But even getting a new ship class isn't a huge moment. They're just bigger. It's not like Cruisers allow you to make specialise hulls like sensor jammers or spinal mounts or anything. And corvettes feel like this weird thing that're just kind of there ever since the early-game combat changes were made. Corvettes don't really serve any function and they're immediately made obsolete by destroyers. They're like this tax so you keep up your fleet cap and don't get invaded. Ship design is actually one of my big sticking points as well. While I'm not a big fan of all the extra crap the main mod adds on, NSC is trending the direction I think Stellaris needs to go here. It adds a bunch of new ship classes, which is something that could easily be called feature bloat, but it also manages to make those ship classes pretty distinct and specialized in certain roles, IE Strike Cruisers are somewhat under-armored but are as fast as Corvettes and can have FTL snares, so a fleet of those and some corvettes can be used as interceptors to tag invading fleets in wartime or chase down broken enemies, there are dedicated Carriers, PD is more prevalent so you can have PD boats at all ranges of a fight, Dreadnoughts that exist solely to bring as many Cap-ship killing XL guns into a fight as you can fit, things like that. I think taking ship design in a direction similar to that would be a good start in making things more interesting, because monobuilds are still an issue in this game and there's not enough actual variety in ship types to break the meta up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
You know, with CK2 popping up in discussion like this, I can't help but wonder what the game would be like if it used the levy system from that for ships. Like you'd need to build a spaceport to gain them, but they're built automatically up to the fleet limit provided by the station, at that station in the core systems, but with all the ships of a sector able to be called up in a fleet at that sector's capital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:48
|
|
Psycho Landlord posted:Ship design is actually one of my big sticking points as well. While I'm not a big fan of all the extra crap the main mod adds on, NSC is trending the direction I think Stellaris needs to go here. It adds a bunch of new ship classes, which is something that could easily be called feature bloat, but it also manages to make those ship classes pretty distinct and specialized in certain roles, IE Strike Cruisers are somewhat under-armored but are as fast as Corvettes and can have FTL snares, so a fleet of those and some corvettes can be used as interceptors to tag invading fleets in wartime or chase down broken enemies, there are dedicated Carriers, PD is more prevalent so you can have PD boats at all ranges of a fight, Dreadnoughts that exist solely to bring as many Cap-ship killing XL guns into a fight as you can fit, things like that. I think taking ship design in a direction similar to that would be a good start in making things more interesting, because monobuilds are still an issue in this game and there's not enough actual variety in ship types to break the meta up. I should try that mod. I liked the Rangefinder mod a whole lot. Even just being able to say 'this cruiser will hang back and shoot missiles while this cruiser will go point-blank and brawl' was much better than how the base game currently has it.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:53
|
|
|
Yadoppsi posted:What kind of Authoritarian empires are you playing? For me that's the faction I consistently have all green issues for. I normally play spiritualists who have a lot more and a lot better green modifiers, only downside is no tomb world colonies. But they're much easier to keep much happier, and just generally benefit from stacking lots of temples. Whereas authoritarian empires get pissy if you aren't enslaving someone which I don't see the point in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
I've never played an Authoritarian empire because the others ethos choices are just better. But if they do get a malus from not enslaving, surely that should be recalibrated into a bonus if you're enslaving someone. It's typically better to give bonuses than have players feel they need to remove maluses. Some things, of course, like declaring war as a Pacifist nation, make sense to be a negative.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:07
|
|
|
Perhaps time til crisis could scale with map size? A medium galaxy after 200 years is more stable and set than a huge one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
quote:You know, with CK2 popping up in discussion like this, I can't help but wonder what the game would be like if it used the levy system from that for ships. Like you'd need to build a spaceport to gain them, but they're built automatically up to the fleet limit provided by the station, at that station in the core systems, but with all the ships of a sector able to be called up in a fleet at that sector's capital. One can say there have been experiments in automation, but they haven't gone the whole way, exactly. War Sectors: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1112247932&searchtext=war+sectors Make a sector produce the warships, which rally to your fleet or just hang about protecting an area. Military Faction: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1133982491 Auto-spawned ships(That use your designs) that are directed vaguely via policy(To make it work, he/she dropped the 10-year lock-out of policy change). It occurs to me that the system is set to be 'solved' in terms of efficiency and race traits and ship design. That's inevitable, of course, but somehow that also seems dull. I mean, there's 'keep it simple', there's 'you want to focus on the good bits, like war', but somehow it's just not satisfying. We produce nothing but minerals, energy, and ships. We grow people for the sole purpose of working those mines or labs or power plants. Happiness is all well and good, but it's a resource mod with no events. They've tried to mix it up via refugee policy and escaping purge, but even that doesn't always come to much much of the time. Megastructures and to a lesser extent Gaia Transformation are meant to be these grand projects, but somehow they don't amount to much. There's just something missing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Is there a cheatsheet for how to build my habitats in order to keep parity with unity/research penalties?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
I have no problems with authoritarian being poo poo, its fitting. Spiritualist and Xenophobe can be poo poo as well for all I care 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:Sectors just feel like an expansion limiter with no interesting flavor. To me, it should be one of those things that's modified by government type. A machine consciousness or hive mind shouldn't need sectors. That sounds to me like a REAL good reason to never, ever play Machine Consciousness or Hive Mind. gently caress having to micromanage every single goddamn planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Shadowlyger posted:That sounds to me like a REAL good reason to never, ever play Machine Consciousness or Hive Mind. gently caress having to micromanage every single goddamn planet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Splicer posted:Do you have leviathans? Trade minerals -> energy with the trader enclave. Also put the -10% upkeep on all your robots. I didn't realise that was a thing, lifesaver!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 13:09
|
|
