|
That could be more difficult under the right dice rolls, but the settings are mostly to test the functionality of the build when placed under guaranteed stress (limited territory sandwiched between two aggressive advanced AIs).
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
What it did not tell me it would do is shift all my Civics around, which is a much bigger deal, since I can't shift back into Fanatic Purifier. Paradox please fix. Turns out it did tell me, and I didn't read it. Also I'm greatly unsure of what the right path is. Having that event dump the Fanatic Purifier and Post Apocalyptic civics for me is actually pretty loving great. It sucks giving up Purifier gameplay, but I'm established enough that it doesn't matter so much, and I'm probably not too far away from Colossus tech that would let me go back to waging wars for free. Will suck to lose Armageddon Bombardment though. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Mar 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 07:52
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
dev diary today plz one time
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
This is a bit of an aside here and I'm not even trying to be rude, the number of people recently posting that they can do well against the AI and so it's broken recently, idk. I guess people really enjoy the Paradox gameplay where you have a small portion of the galaxy and you just go speed 5 for most of the game, being able to efficiently conquer stuff somehow makes people feel the game needs nerfs or balance changes. In EU4 lots of people try for world conquests and blobbing, in HOI4 it's often the same same, but in Stellaris it seems different, like people seem to expect to be struggling the whole time? Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:38
|
|
|
I mean, yes? A big part of strategy videogames is to make decisions and get the dopamine hit from seeing evidence that you made the right decisions. If the game doesn't present a challenge, and it doesn't really matter what decisions you make as you'll walk all over the ai easily, then you don't get the pleasure of making the right decisions. While there are players that don't care about that and just treat strategy games as a nation-building bonsai tree (as you evidently do), they are very much in the minority. That's not to say that everyone wants to play on the brutally hardest difficulty. The amount of difficulty needed to provide a pleasing level of challenge varies from player to player.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 13:57
|
|
|
But in Paradox games you aren't typically struggling to expand against the AI, in any of them? You can (and do) that in CK2, EU4, HOI4, but in Stellaris it's a problem that the AI can't stop you from expanding? That's not a thing in any Paradox game I'm aware of, not that I don't get the idea of the AI presenting a challenge but like... generally being able to get big if you choose and typically being more powerful than an equivalent or nearby AI and being able to take them apart in Detail is, to me, pretty standard Paradox gameplay. I guess in EU4 there's lots of tags you blob through and in Stellaris it's more like a few dozen so the fact that you can roll them is less exciting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Believe it or not, EU4 players do pick nations like Aq Qoyunlu and Ryuku, and don't just always start as France or the Ottomans. There's self-selecting difficulty there. The part of EU4 where conquest is effortless (and just takes forever as you siege down a bunch of forts) is the horrible part that nobody actually plays (unless they're aiming for a specific achievement that requires them to push through it). I guess there are some bonsai-style players that stick to strong starting positions and delight in taking apart other nations in detail, but I'd suggest that again, they're a bit of a minority. HOI4 I guess might be an exception, since I could imagine a large contingent of bonsai-style players who really really really want to live out their fantasies of leading the third reich to world domination.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:14
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Believe it or not, EU4 players do pick nations like Aq Qoyunlu and Ryuku, and don't just always start as France or the Ottomans. There's self-selecting difficulty there. The part of EU4 where conquest is effortless (and just takes forever as you siege down a bunch of forts) is the horrible part that nobody actually plays (unless they're aiming for a specific achievement that requires them to push through it). I guess there are some bonsai-style players that stick to strong starting positions and delight in taking apart other nations in detail, but I'd suggest that again, they're a bit of a minority. Right, that's what I'm saying. You start as Ryuku and you try to do a world conquest. So even with the smallest country, the hardest starting position, and really suboptimal ideas, if the player is relatively skilled it's pretty standard that they can take over every single empire including the Ottomans, France, etc. Like within 50 years they'll be the strongest regional power and within 100 they'll be the #1 world power. How far they want to press is up to them but with good play the game doesn't stop you from expanding no matter how dire your starting point. And in Stellaris people post "When I play as space France or Ottomans (optimized builds with great synergistic picks / civics / etc) I'm rolling over my neighbors" which, to me, for paradox games, seems like...  yeah, that's gonna happen
Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 14:24 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Right, that's what I'm saying. You start as Ryuku and you try to do a world conquest. So even with the smallest country, the hardest starting position, and really suboptimal ideas, if the player is relatively skilled it's pretty standard that they can take over every single empire including the Ottomans, France, etc. Like within 50 years they'll be the strongest regional power and within 100 they'll be the #1 world power. How far they want to press is up to them but with good play the game doesn't stop you from expanding no matter how dire your starting point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
You're really over-estimating the number of people who can do Three Mountains without cheating. It is not easy. Even among the people who have successfully done Three Mountains, it usually involves tons of restarts because you get hosed over by random chance or you do things slightly too inefficiently and it snowballs the wrong way. vvv Yeah, I'm over 1000 hours in EU4 with exactly 0 full world conquests under my belt. I've had games where I probably could have pulled it off if I were better at the game and more tolerant of spending 100% of my time at war for a century or more, but I'm not. Zurai fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Right, that's what I'm saying. You start as Ryuku and you try to do a world conquest. So even with the smallest country, the hardest starting position, and really suboptimal ideas, if the player is relatively skilled it's pretty standard that they can take over every single empire including the Ottomans, France, etc. Like within 50 years they'll be the strongest regional power and within 100 they'll be the #1 world power. How far they want to press is up to them but with good play the game doesn't stop you from expanding no matter how dire your starting point. That early phase isn't easy though. Sure a good enough player can still take Ryukyu and become unstoppable eventually, but it's not simple. I have an embarrassing number of hours in EU4 and I've never done a world conquest. efb
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Right, that's what I'm saying. You start as Ryuku and you try to do a world conquest. So even with the smallest country, the hardest starting position, and really suboptimal ideas, if the player is relatively skilled it's pretty standard that they can take over every single empire including the Ottomans, France, etc. Like within 50 years they'll be the strongest regional power and within 100 they'll be the #1 world power. How far they want to press is up to them but with good play the game doesn't stop you from expanding no matter how dire your starting point. So your solution to tougher difficulty is to play suboptimally? Where does it end, do you have to play like a potato and suicide fleets into enemy stations too? Unlike EU4, there's no real starting point variation in Stellaris. Instead there are difficulty levels. Why are you opposed to the hardest difficulty actually providing a challenge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
e: nvm misunderstood
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:With the tiniest powers it may take you 200 to be a strong regional power but after that snowballing can allow you to do a full WC, yes. Are you saying that because it is kind of impossible to do that kind of stuff in Stellaris because of various Stellaris-unique factors? Oh I just found some of the recent posts interesting and I'm trying to get a sense of what level of difficulty people are looking for in a Stellaris playthrough, people were talking about rolling the AI and being superior to empires they encounter. To me Stellaris feels about as difficult as a typical Paradox game in that if you are pushing hard and playing optimally the AI will always lose wars (since you choose them when they favor you) and the long term politicking means you can play power blocks against each other and typically make gains. So I was just wondering do people expect to straight up lose in Stellaris more often than they are now (getting conquered by a stronger neighboring empire that declared), or whether they want to be struggling longer to expand against a neighbor, that sort of thing. I do feel that experienced Paradox players rarely have those issues in their other GS games, but maybe my perception is off on that. Maybe due to the 4x genre folks want all the empires to be competing with them for victory all game and fully viable, and whether this is different than what they expect in other Paradox GS games. Jabor posted:Unlike EU4, there's no real starting point variation in Stellaris. Instead there are difficulty levels. Why are you opposed to the hardest difficulty actually providing a challenge? Not opposed to it providing a challenge at all, was curious what people expect that challenge to look like. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
Gyshall posted:dev diary today plz one time After dev clash.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
I must be the outlier because I suck at this game. I usually play on Commodore and I still have trouble keeping up with the AI and other empires around me. I don't know if I'm building things in the wrong order, choosing the wrong techs, expanding too fast or too slow - no matter what I do, I always feel like I'm lagging behind all the other empires in at least one respect. So to me at least, the difficulty feels right on!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Lucas Archer posted:I must be the outlier because I suck at this game. I usually play on Commodore and I still have trouble keeping up with the AI and other empires around me. I don't know if I'm building things in the wrong order, choosing the wrong techs, expanding too fast or too slow - no matter what I do, I always feel like I'm lagging behind all the other empires in at least one respect. Nah, I'm in the same boat. Even when the AI was supposedly completely broken it was still giving me a great challenge. A lot of posters here are honestly probably too good at this game from playing it too much, there's not much to be done about that other than difficulty mods and the like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:35
|
|
|
I'd like to think I am good, but I'm not. I like to do certain things a certain way and I know it wrecks my efficiency. I only got one game in on the current 2.2.6 beta and it was on Commodore - I was behind or on par with the AI until about 2300 at which point my economy took off via mass terraforming, which makes me wonder if I should play on like Grand Admiral with scaling difficulty or something so that I'm not pressed so hard early but will be later on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
CainsDescendant posted:Nah, I'm in the same boat. Even when the AI was supposedly completely broken it was still giving me a great challenge. A lot of posters here are honestly probably too good at this game from playing it too much, there's not much to be done about that other than difficulty mods and the like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Honestly I think the biggest issue is how snowbally things get. If you win just one war, the extra space and pops you get from that will put you significantly ahead of any peaceful ais, and of course you'll be so far ahead of whoever you took that stuff from that you'll be able to go back for more as soon as the truce is up. There's no meaningful consequences for going full warmonger either, the ais aren't going to attack you (since you're so much stronger), so instead they just meekly sit around awaiting their turn on the chopping block. At most they put together a network of defensive pacts, letting you grab even more pops and territory from the diplomatically isolated ais until you're big enough to take on the larger groups.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 15:55
|
|
|
Put in an option for the player to be considered an end game even then, i'd say. Something like shogun 2's realm divide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
I'm definitely poo poo, but this is the only Paradox game I've ever played. I'm just wrapping up my current game on Captain as a spiritualist/militarist/xenophile kingdom and I'll definitely be cranking up the difficulty on my next game. I rolled First League as a precursor again and rushed discovery for it, and Fen Habannis ended up in probably the best location imaginable- literally one jump from from my homeworld, which itself is tucked into a nice safe cluster with a gateway near enough to be almost convenient, but not so close that it's dangerous. Just a crazy blessed start, and I just got Horizon Signal during the current war-in-heaven/preythorin fuckpit too so the ending has proved to be fairly exciting. Gonna go ahead and gun for the giga-engineering achievement while it's convenient.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:04
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Honestly I think the biggest issue is how snowbally things get. If you win just one war, the extra space and pops you get from that will put you significantly ahead of any peaceful ais, and of course you'll be so far ahead of whoever you took that stuff from that you'll be able to go back for more as soon as the truce is up. There wasn't a single real rival to me by that time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
I want a sustained challenge throughout the game where there is meaningful risk of loss. Stellaris actually provides this more than other GS games with the forced difficulty crises sprinkled throughout the game, but is not great at sustaining challenge from AI empires. Human players snowball because the AI is bad at managing its economy. The AI will always be bad at managing its economy because it's a complex beast, in this game more than others. I do think there's more that could be done, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:17
|
|
|
The biggest thing is that stellaris lacks a real coalition thing, so expansion is pretty mindless. A huge part of eu4 wars and stuff is managing how pissed everyone in an area is at you. Suggestion for impactful coalition mechanic: it forms a pseudo federation, and does 2 main things. First off, they're in a defensive pact against anyone attacking a member of the coalition, and then when they attack you they all will declare. Secondly, have a coalition fleet similar to the federation fleet. I'd say to have a few differences there too (especially as it is a temporary fleet): fleet cap for coalition fleet is based on member cap, but doesn't reduce member cap, ship costs are like 50% discounted, at the end of the coalition any new nations created from beating you up get X amount of the fleet and members get Y amount of the fleet. The other meaningful difference I can point to is that taking territory in eu4 is pretty impactful in terms of internal stability. All the various bits that get mad when you add in new unhappy bits that you then smooth over into being (relatively) happy about being part of your nation is a pretty satisfying gameplay loop for me, which stellaris wars lack in a major way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:In EU4 lots of people try for world conquests and blobbing, in HOI4 it's often the same same, but in Stellaris it seems different, like people seem to expect to be struggling the whole time? Stellaris is different because it's a 4X game with symmetrical starts, vs every single other Paradox grand strategy game in which the initial game state is asymmetrical and offers a great variety of self-selecting difficulty options based on the player's chosen starting position, combined with the variety of ways in which the AI nations will end up playing out their regional conflicts. Plus, in those games the AI tends to easily band together against an overaggressive player that doesn't play the diplomacy game correctly and concurrently with conquest, giving pause to the mindless warmongering that Stellaris encourages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:The biggest thing is that stellaris lacks a real coalition thing, so expansion is pretty mindless. A huge part of eu4 wars and stuff is managing how pissed everyone in an area is at you. Suggestion for impactful coalition mechanic: it forms a pseudo federation, and does 2 main things. First off, they're in a defensive pact against anyone attacking a member of the coalition, and then when they attack you they all will declare. Secondly, have a coalition fleet similar to the federation fleet. I'd say to have a few differences there too (especially as it is a temporary fleet): fleet cap for coalition fleet is based on member cap, but doesn't reduce member cap, ship costs are like 50% discounted, at the end of the coalition any new nations created from beating you up get X amount of the fleet and members get Y amount of the fleet. Totally agree with this. The Threat mechanic in Stellaris is nowhere near meaty enough, and the internal consequences of taking territory are basically zero unless you're purging or enslaving. And even then, they're easy to circumvent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
I'm hopeful we'll see something like that (or that has similar effects re: making you think about taking territory in war) when the diplo rework expansion happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:Oh I just found some of the recent posts interesting and I'm trying to get a sense of what level of difficulty people are looking for in a Stellaris playthrough, people were talking about rolling the AI and being superior to empires they encounter. Game starts with a bunch of empires ramping up in power by expanding to new territory and developing existing territory. Many of the non-player empires are equivalent to or stronger than the player. Through smart play and a little luck the player gains territory, resources, alliances etc. Some of the other empires do the same while others become failed states. There are now fewer empires but the fittest are equivalent to or stronger than the player. The player must adapt to exploit the specific strengths and weaknesses of these new, more powerful opponents. Repeat until the player is either dead or facing down the empire that's taking up the other half of the empire or has made friends with everyone just in time for a crisis to show up and flip the table. What the people who are unhappy are saying they are experiencing* is: Game starts with a bunch of empires ramping up in power by expanding to new territory and developing existing territory. Many of the non-player empires are equivalent to or stronger than the player. Through smart play and a little luck the player gains territory, resources, alliances etc. Some other empires do the same but not to the same extent and mostly they just kind of stagnate, leaving you with a contacts screen of pathetics, and nonstandards like fallen empires, raiders, and hopefully a bad boy civic that was too far away to attack earlier and is growing fat on other failed states. * The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of the poster. Splicer fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:The biggest thing is that stellaris lacks a real coalition thing, so expansion is pretty mindless. A huge part of eu4 wars and stuff is managing how pissed everyone in an area is at you. Suggestion for impactful coalition mechanic: it forms a pseudo federation, and does 2 main things. First off, they're in a defensive pact against anyone attacking a member of the coalition, and then when they attack you they all will declare. Secondly, have a coalition fleet similar to the federation fleet. I'd say to have a few differences there too (especially as it is a temporary fleet): fleet cap for coalition fleet is based on member cap, but doesn't reduce member cap, ship costs are like 50% discounted, at the end of the coalition any new nations created from beating you up get X amount of the fleet and members get Y amount of the fleet. Splicer posted:People want to grow in power through smart play and a little luck while encountering challenges commensurate with their new power until they emerge victorious in a final climactic showdown or are defeated in whatever manner they personally find satisfying. In Stellaris this would be:
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
I wanted Sword of the Stars with more bells and whistles. ED: A bit tangentially, but the Dev Clash shows that they are oblivious about their game on so many levels. Conspiratiorist fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
I've often thought that it's something of a mistake for AI empires to try to engage with most of the game in the same manner as players. The system is too complex. Players will always find ways to optimize that the AI cannot. So why bother making the AI engage with those systems, at all? It's hard as hell, programmatically. Don't make them actually spend resources on anything. Give each AI personality certain milestones that they accomplish at some cadence. Expand to a new system every X months. Give them preferred tech paths, and award them with milestones on a cadence (with perhaps random other techs randomly?). Give them fleet at their current tech level at certain times or in certain events. Maybe scale some of this stuff based on the number of systems/territories they control. You could even extend this to planet development. Planets get a template based AI personality and on number of pops there. I'd love to see it go a step further and make alien tech, including planet development, truly alien. That's hard to do in a system where everyone gets everything the same and at approximately the same time. Today, every world (with a few exceptions like hive worlds) is the same. There are some districts, some alloy forges, some entertainment complexes, some whatevers. Always the same. Always interchangeable, for some reason. It doesn't make sense that a race of adorable murder snails should be able to waltz in and work the forges made by sentient space flowers with no loss of efficiency. Early game, taking over an alien planet should be hard. You either need to replace their existing weird poo poo, or force the populace to work for you, or build robots on that planet designed to work that weird poo poo, or something. This challenge should fade over time, through technology or genetic engineering or ascension perks or just having a huge multicultural empire. Can also have lots of cool events around these things! Like oh poo poo, we thought this was a gladiator arena but nope, it was a prison, and the inmates are rioting!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:I think the EU4 Coalition analogue is nearly perfect but I feel like in Stellaris it would need some extra nuance because there are no indemnities that can be paid in Stellaris; wars are always of subjugation or destruction. Essentially what Jabor said - we badly need a diplomacy expansion. Yea, the differences in what you can demand in an eu4 war and stellaris (or every 4x game I've ever played honestly) are staggering. The first time I played it I can't really describe the impact properly, but just the various options are rather impressive. Also it is pretty intuitive about what you'll get, though some stuff is still fiddly to do. The other big difference is that the amount of border area in stellaris is vastly reduced, and people who aren't immediately bordering you have a lot of trouble impacting you in a meaningful way. Some sort of "reinforcing to war ally territory" speed buff or just a straight abstraction ala retreated fleets (ie you can tell a fleet to jump to an ally's homeworld, takes X time that is much reduced compared to flat travel) would go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:00
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Stellaris is different because it's a 4X game with symmetrical starts, vs every single other Paradox grand strategy game in which the initial game state is asymmetrical and offers a great variety of self-selecting difficulty options based on the player's chosen starting position, combined with the variety of ways in which the AI nations will end up playing out their regional conflicts. Need space UN for the mid game and some kind of lend lease or condotierre system Should form right about the time that the market comes online imo Nuclearmonkee fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Mar 28, 2019 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:I've often thought that it's something of a mistake for AI empires to try to engage with most of the game in the same manner as players. The system is too complex. Players will always find ways to optimize that the AI cannot. Conspiratiorist posted:Plus, in those games the AI tends to easily band together against an overaggressive player that doesn't play the diplomacy game correctly and concurrently with conquest, giving pause to the mindless warmongering that Stellaris encourages. Or spawn a new federation player that you can take control of or leave to the AI that has no territory and lives off taxes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:Yea, the differences in what you can demand in an eu4 war and stellaris (or every 4x game I've ever played honestly) are staggering. The first time I played it I can't really describe the impact properly, but just the various options are rather impressive. Also it is pretty intuitive about what you'll get, though some stuff is still fiddly to do. This is what I'm finding most frustrating about war in Stellaris. My empire was recently involved in a conflict with 5 belligerants. Three vs two. There wasn't any way that I could effectively aid my allies, nor could I be like, "Hey AI, can you help me keep the opportunistic rear end in a top hat they invited into the war from eating my spinward boarder?" Instead I had to face the stronger foe alone while my defensive pact carved territory out of the person who started the war. I ended up losing 4 (relatively worthless) border systems, and a lot of alloys trying to defend them. The only thing this has taught me is that I can't play a peaceful diplomatic power, and the next decade is going to be one of unchecked military expansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
ZypherIM posted:The other big difference is that the amount of border area in stellaris is vastly reduced, and people who aren't immediately bordering you have a lot of trouble impacting you in a meaningful way. Some sort of "reinforcing to war ally territory" speed buff or just a straight abstraction ala retreated fleets (ie you can tell a fleet to jump to an ally's homeworld, takes X time that is much reduced compared to flat travel) would go a long way. Warmachine posted:The only thing this has taught me is that I can't play a peaceful diplomatic power, and the next decade is going to be one of unchecked military expansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
You know what would kick rear end? If auto-exploration also made science ships explore wormholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
prefect posted:You know what would kick rear end? If auto-exploration also made science ships explore wormholes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:Wormholes Even activation is gated (lol) behind the tier 3 hyperlanes tech. Why do they make all these toys and but not want us to use them?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2019 17:40
|
|