|
Precursors are player only in vanilla and betas. My mod enables them for the AI and they can beat the player to them (if the player is slow). I also made sure they can only be done once, and only one per empire. So neither the player or an AI can hoard them (unless you conquer..).
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 17:28 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:46 |
|
Noir89 posted:It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 17:45 |
Splicer posted:Being egalitarian turns it off Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness? Noir89 posted:It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population. The problem is that the pressure from having a planet with overpopulation is having to resettle pops, and that's really boring and you have to do it pretty often once you have more than a few planets overpopulated. And if you wait too long to do it you get negative events to force you to deak with it.
|
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 17:51 |
|
Staltran posted:Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness? Citizens ought to be able to find a planet with some available space without requiring the immortal god-emperor to get personally involved.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 17:53 |
|
Staltran posted:Wait, what? Do you just mean that it gives the faction -20% (I think?) happiness? Low housing increases emigration pressure if that helps. e: and pop growth stops entirely at 1.5 times your housing. It'd be neat to have a decision you could turn on that increases emigration pressure for a cost. Colony propaganda or something. Splicer fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 4, 2019 |
# ? Feb 4, 2019 17:54 |
|
Demiurge4 posted:Also, because it’s come up in discord. Mega corps are huge game changer in MP because branch offices can easily shore up weaknesses on the host side of things and be employed as an amazing source of research and alloys for the Corp itself. If you toss a lab down as the first building you’re generating 18 research and around 25 energy right off the bat and forever from there on out. If your partner is hurting for energy credits you can put the building down that gives a merchant instead and now they have a ruler job that produces 10 trade, hugely efficient jobs all round. I talked about this in the past, but the naval cap building is probably the best first building (second would be the +25% value & merchant building). You get more naval cap than you would from 1 building slot (without upgrading it) and your host gets equivalent of a building slot (they get a soldier job). In comparison, the science building is better than 1 researcher, but worse than 2. After you add in bonuses though, you can often have 1 researcher putting out more than 18 research, so that building slot (without upgrades) quickly becomes worth twice the science branch office. As a non-megacorp player I'm not exactly thrilled by getting 2 clerk jobs either. Unlike the research job, naval cap gets boosted globally from several sources so the value goes up as you unlock those while a science office stays pretty static. +16 raw cap for your side for every planet with 25 pops is a significant force increase, especially when you get around to making a federation. Criminal branches require you to probably work something out with your neighbors, but crime lord deals are really good, and there is some potential room for pretty strong setups. I do think that crime dudes need something else, they're so even with normal megacorps in everything but with downsides and you've spent a civic unlocking it. Maybe some sort of bonus to their trade/crime rates based on how much of the target empire they have covered (percentage of pops based)? Also when offices get closed outside of war you should have the remnants of the office show up with all the
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:07 |
|
ZypherIM posted:Criminal branches require you to probably work something out with your neighbors, but crime lord deals are really good, and there is some potential room for pretty strong setups. I do think that crime dudes need something else, they're so even with normal megacorps in everything but with downsides and you've spent a civic unlocking it. Criminal corps are so annoying - in my games without a criminal corp on the map I can basically ignore crime buildings, but you get one loving criminal corp and suddenly every planet needs 2 halls of justice.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:12 |
|
You really don't though? Just make a deal with the syndicate lords and reap all the profits? Or are you some kind of police state??
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:14 |
|
ulmont posted:Criminal corps are so annoying - in my games without a criminal corp on the map I can basically ignore crime buildings, but you get one loving criminal corp and suddenly every planet needs 2 halls of justice. Taking the deal with crime lord and you'll get +10 stability and no negative crime events. It is a planetary decision that you can make if you have 10 crime. Most of the negative aspects of crime really only pop out from the events. This is another reason why gestalts get hosed on deviancy, because they don't have an equivalent option (why can't I ship all deviant drones to an island, and give up 1 district size and 2 job slots or something?)
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:32 |
|
Poil posted:Yeah but there's still ugly symbols in the outliner that makes me check the planet over and over. Too bad I can't just flag it as "don't tell me I don't care about this one" and/or remove it from the outliner completely (with a button to put it back on It would be nice to have outliner filters in general; if you have a large empire, the most time is spent scrolling up and down the outliner every few months to see if any planet needs anything.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:44 |
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:It would be nice to have outliner filters in general; if you have a large empire, the most time is spent scrolling up and down the outliner every few months to see if any planet needs anything. I would also be okay if the different outliner sections were lined up across the top of the screen, like drop-down menus
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:47 |
|
Splicer posted:Egalitarians don't like population controls, and I think fanatic egalitarian disables them completely. No, anyone can enact population controls. Even fanatic egalitarians.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:51 |
|
Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 18:54 |
|
BrandorKP posted:Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 19:02 |
|
ZypherIM posted:Taking the deal with crime lord and you'll get +10 stability and no negative crime events. It is a planetary decision that you can make if you have 10 crime. Most of the negative aspects of crime really only pop out from the events.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 19:02 |
|
2.2.5 when
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 20:48 |
|
Noir89 posted:It's kinda funny reading that since one big complaint you heard often about the tile system was that overpopulation was no issue and there was no preassure from haveing a large population. Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling. It wasn't that overpopulation was no issue it's that planets stopped and reached a point of 'done' after a bunch of micro was done. Managing to turn that into "oh lol but in the space future housing still sucks to obtain" was quite an achievement and here we are to enjoy the fruits of this hard work.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 21:09 |
|
BrandorKP posted:Instead of stop growth edict, auto emigrate all new pops edict would be nice. This is actually what the population controls edict does, at least on the test branch. Rather than halting growth it just applies a huge amount of Emigration pressure, and moves the growth elsewhere. Last time I played a Hive Mind it didn't do that though which was irritating as gently caress.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 21:09 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling. Yeah, it went from "too much micro until you're done" to "too much micro, forever into eternity".
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 21:12 |
|
Gyshall posted:2.2.5 when No dev posts on the official Stellaris fora at all today, which is not a great sign.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 21:22 |
|
Hryme posted:Started my first real game after Le Guin yesterday. After 75 years everyone else is inferior or pathetic except the fallen empires. I assume the AI still needs work as I am no tactical mastermind? make sure to turn OFF the scaling difficulty. when scaling difficulty is OFF thats the only time that the AI seems to be able to keep up, and buildy healthy empires
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 22:40 |
|
ulmont posted:No dev posts on the official Stellaris fora at all today, which is not a great sign.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 22:42 |
|
CoolHandMat posted:make sure to turn OFF the scaling difficulty.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 22:47 |
|
Vengarr posted:Precursors are not, actually. My last game I got screwed out of finding Cybrex Alpha because another empire had beaten me to it. are the Precursor events only one per entire game? ive never done a full multiplayer game, but ive played with 3-4 ppl at a time, and it always seems like we each get our own Precursor event.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 22:48 |
Poil posted:Scaling difficulty could be improved by a slider to set what level it starts at. More sliders! I'd like it if I could start it at admiral and let it scale beyond grand admiral by 2400. Scaling from default to GA really doesn't work at all since the AI is strangled by a terrible early game without its cheat resources, but if you start it right off at GA it's pretty good at murdering the gently caress out of you in the first 20 years or so (now that it doesn't get decision paralysis and can add admirals to fleets).
|
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 22:50 |
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Uhh the one big complaint about the tile system was that the micro loving sucked and that planets would stop growing at 25 and then it was just tile shuffling. There can be more than one big complaint my man, and a quick cursory google search shows several on both SA and other sites complaining about it. It was not criticism on the guy, I just think its funny that it's such a "Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" situation. I prefer the current system and would never wan't to go back to tiles though I would love if move individual pop migration disapear and you could only influence it, but then again I prefer more simulationist games where you just influence things over "macro" games where you do everything yourself and yes I hate the new sector system.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 23:11 |
|
The implementation of scaling difficulty makes nearly no sense, and by any logic I can think of like 5 minutes of talking about it should have exposed the problems and sent it back to the design board. There is a clear issue of "highest difficulty is too strong for some players at the start", and a separate issue of "AI falls off because they don't exploit their planets as well as players". The first one is solved by.. lowering the difficulty level. 'Scaling' seems like it'd solve the second issue, but instead is just a different way to solve the first issue (and is also helpful for players who aren't interested in playing aggressively optimal). When I saw it at first, I thought (as it seems everyone else thinks) that it is an *additional* bonus that ramps up over time, thus solving (or mitigating) the second issue while at the same time allowing someone to lower the difficulty and maybe get a challenge later on. Honestly I think one thing that would probably be best is to have templated worlds for the AI to build towards later on (or re-build into), and maybe fleet comps. Also options for helping out the AI economic issues: drop their growth penalty for colony stage (that the player resettles out of), and maybe give them a free building slot (that the player resettles into).
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 23:15 |
|
Vengarr posted:Performance has gone from "literally unplayable" to "playable on small-medium galaxies depending on hardware". Everything else is still broke. Check back in another month. Will do, thanks.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 23:21 |
|
ZypherIM posted:Honestly I think one thing that would probably be best is to have templated worlds for the AI to build towards later on (or re-build into), and maybe fleet comps. Also options for helping out the AI economic issues: drop their growth penalty for colony stage (that the player resettles out of), and maybe give them a free building slot (that the player resettles into).
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 23:23 |
|
ZypherIM posted:The implementation of scaling difficulty makes nearly no sense, and by any logic I can think of like 5 minutes of talking about it should have exposed the problems and sent it back to the design board.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2019 23:41 |
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The first part sounds good (about templates, though they would have to account for players finding out what those templates are and finding ways to then exploit the AI's behavior (or the 'templates' would be complex sets of if-then statements, but still I think the point stands)). As for the second part - I sure hope they are taking the concept of a growth penalty that should be removed for the AI and requires player micro to avoid/get past back to the drawing board so they can come up with a better system. Though you do have a point that even that new system should be modified for the AI assuming that the player can find ways to expedite the process via human skill/intelligence. I mean, most players have fleet templates they basically use. Grab a decent number, give them to the AI to use, and if players figure out a hard counter either remove that one, or flag it so the AI can go "oh they're trying to counter X fleet with Y, switch to Z". Hell, if you're willing to divorce a bit from "the AI is just a player with bonuses" you could have a difficulty option that gives the AI different bonuses to fleet types that basically force the player to ID what fleet comps are being used and countering them. Then the player has to juggle which AI his fleets are setup to beat, and do a lot of re-tooling (and makes multi-front wars potentially *super* dangerous).
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 00:31 |
|
prefect posted:Citizens ought to be able to find a planet with some available space without requiring the immortal god-emperor to get personally involved. Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount? Maybe an expensive energy credit % edict it might be alright to solve the problem.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 00:46 |
|
ZypherIM posted:I mean, most players have fleet templates they basically use. Grab a decent number, give them to the AI to use, and if players figure out a hard counter either remove that one, or flag it so the AI can go "oh they're trying to counter X fleet with Y, switch to Z". I would be down with the second bit for sure.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 00:59 |
Goffer posted:Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount? I've been playing with a mod that does pretty much this, it gives you a planetary decision with an appropriate monthly energy cost to enable auto pop migration, and it feels pretty good
|
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 01:07 |
|
Goffer posted:Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount? This is how I would like it to be, with different ways to move the population. Like a free society might pay an upkeep to have a increased chance for pops to move, simulating grants and incentives to move, while an authoritarian one force pops to move but it costs upkeep, crime and stability since people generally don't take well to that.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 01:24 |
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:The first part sounds good (about templates, though they would have to account for players finding out what those templates are and finding ways to then exploit the AI's behavior (or the 'templates' would be complex sets of if-then statements, but still I think the point stands)). As for the second part - I sure hope they are taking the concept of a growth penalty that should be removed for the AI and requires player micro to avoid/get past back to the drawing board so they can come up with a better system. Though you do have a point that even that new system should be modified for the AI assuming that the player can find ways to expedite the process via human skill/intelligence. Just make the templates generic all around builds, since that's what many/most players will be using anyway.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 01:37 |
|
Goffer posted:Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount? I will gladly pay 100 energy per pop if they'd sensibly emigrate.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 01:53 |
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Yeah the first part is what I was getting into with the whole "if-then" statements because there could be all sorts of "IF player is using x weapon, THEN build this kind of ship to fill in losses OR upgrade ships to this model". But even that could end up getting gamed by savvy/exploitative players. I guess I was a little unclear now that I look at it. I meant more for ship fleet sizes and ship ratios than the actual weapons. I think the AI already checks the player design for over commitment to a design, but usually people don't have holes in their design by nature. So like when the AI unlocks destroyers it'll aim for fleet sizes of X size with Y corvettes and Z destroyers. Or they might have a switch to 1 complete corvette interdiction fleet and the rest pure destroyers. Then when cruisers are unlocked there are new setups.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 01:58 |
|
Goffer posted:Aren't overpopulated, crime filled, poorly managed hive worlds like, the staple of sci-fi fantasy worlds? Seems a bit of a easy way out to just expect them to move themselves. From a ingame perspective, it costs 100 energy credits to move a pop, is an unemployed homeless pop going to be able to raise and save that amount? The thing I've never gotten about this debate is that this whole thing is what the "emigration push" aspect of the current system - that is, overpop slowing down pop growth and adding to emigration push instead - is supposed to represent, the autonomous movement of pops due to crowding and employment pressures (among other things). Is the problem that the individual pops stick around - that is, that overpopulated planets never stop being overpopulated and leaving alerts in your outliner? Or that the push factors and/or growth penalties are too low so players feel required to using manual resettling to speed it up? Or that the equilibrium point where overpop zeros pop growth entirely is too high? I know that I only ever hit that limit when I introduced a mod that hiked pop growth rates significantly by making them exponential.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 02:04 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 09:46 |
I really do hate the slave selling interface in this game. It's very laggy with horrible drop downs and fiddly bits to click on it. Since it's sorted primarily by pop instead of by planet it's a gigantic pain in the rear end in a top hat to sell your average xenophile planets 25 different species population into slavery. There's also the whole deal where the slave buying menu is a big old unsorted list of pops, usually polluted by bugged out "test" pops that crowd out the top of the menu necessitating more scrolling to even get to the real pops. Should be able to just click a button to automatically put unemployed slaves up for auction along with a way to just click on a planet and sell all of the myriad pops on it with a couple clicks. Dallan Invictus posted:The thing I've never gotten about this debate is that this whole thing is what the "emigration push" aspect of the current system - that is, overpop slowing down pop growth and adding to emigration push instead - is supposed to represent, the autonomous movement of pops due to crowding and employment pressures (among other things). If you let them go overpopulated you are actively penalized by the game in the form of lowered crime/stability and having to still feed/house the useless pops. You are strongly encouraged by game mechanics to fiddle with pop distribution and resettle pops to fix it. I would gladly push a button that subsidizes your unemployed pops moving themselves around to other planets in order to fill available jobs, particularly when you have egalitarians who get pissy if you turn on the resettle button and try to fix it by hand. Would be very cool to be able to slam down districts on a pristine world and watch as pops from everywhere stream in. Make those migration attraction modifiers actually matter. One of the cool things about being a shitlord slaver is that 1) it's very cheap to resettle slaves and 2) you can easily dump slaves onto a thrall world as a temporary holding area without getting hit with crime events or getting asked to hand out consumer goods. Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Feb 5, 2019 |
|
# ? Feb 5, 2019 02:25 |