|
The whole of Glavius' AI didn't get made vanilla, they just used a specific portion of it so everything outside the building logic you'd still need the mod for.
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
That nerf to Ecus ia great, as it effectively constrains their special districts with rare resources in the same way e.g. dedicated foundry worlds are. They're still more resource efficient, but finding one at the beginning of the game is no longer a win button. You need to have a solid resource income to make it work.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Did they fix the bug where advanced start AIs will occasionally start with a full fleet of titans? I can't find it in the patch notes anywhere  Other than that, the patch notes look real nice! I especially appreciate the crash fixes on Mac. Holy poo poo those habitability changes look terrifying. 20% habitability planets now have -40% pop growth, -40% resources from jobs, +80% upkeep. That's comparable to like a fully devastated planet in terms of "producing nothing". scaterry fucked around with this message at 17:46 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
scaterry posted:Did they fix the bug where advanced start AIs will occasionally start with a full fleet of titans? I can't find it in the patch notes anywhere Sounds like a major buff to terraforming!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Monofleets are still king, generally the two most popular are all corvette fleets or all battleship + a single titan fleets. I've seen some strats where you swap all corvettes out for all destroyers but I haven't tried it. Thanks for the summary. I take it cruisers are wasted fleet space these days?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I really like the Ecus nerf, and I hate all nerfs.quote:* Rebalanced the Worm-In-Waiting to make it more of a real threat Uh, is there still any reason to actually fight him? Otherwise isn't this basically just "we made an easy choice even easier?"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Trast posted:Thanks for the summary. I take it cruisers are wasted fleet space these days? I'll have cruisers as part of an adjunct fleet if the enemy is using corvettes and destroyers. Chock full of mediums with tracking auxiliaries rips through smaller stuff. However, vs. battleship fleets they just get chewed up. Digital Osmosis posted:Yeah, I really like the Ecus nerf, and I hate all nerfs. iirc, it drops energy credits and physics research on death.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Digital Osmosis posted:Yeah, I really like the Ecus nerf, and I hate all nerfs. There's really not a reason to fight him because the drops you get are poo poo compared to filling up your home system with more habitable planets, but I like the idea of the paradox(  )ical being is now actually strong instead of just being a very weak Dimensional Horror
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Holy poo poo there is so much in those balance notes that applies to my current game and it makes me so incredibly happy to see some of this stuff.quote:* Habitats gain different effects based on the type of celestial body they inhabit. Man, I'm playing a game as a tall megacorp and went voidborne and although I've heard goons talk about it I wanted to see for myself how bad Habitats are and boy they are currently a huge pain in the rear end. It was especially bad once I learned that you couldn't build any of the buildings mentioned above. That'll be a huge buff in and of itself. I basically used the habitats I built as additional trade income/refinery bases and they do *okay* at that but I think these buffs will make them pretty good. quote:* Matter Decompressor Site alloy cost increased from 3000 to 5000, to be consistent with other sites My tall empire is naturally starved for minerals. It got pretty bad. At some points in the game I was using up the vast majority of my absurd trade income to buy minerals. As soon as I was able I built a matter decompressor, which fixed everything and made my economy pretty incredible. The buffs to it are cool and good. Also being able to build more than 1 megastructure at a time is going to be great. quote:* Rogue Servitors start with another Nexus District A few pages back I was complaining about housing issues in a Rogue Servitor game and this pretty much solves that issue. quote:* Inward Perfection empires can no longer form research agreements or commercial pacts This makes sense, but an inward perfection empire is my 2nd biggest trading partner in my current game so this makes me sad because although he won't let me visit his space I've been protecting him all game so he can trade with me  quote:* Added entry to the fleet capacity tooltip explaining how many Titans you can build This is funny only because my buddy and I were just talking about this and how it's a complete mystery unless you look it up on the wiki or something. Ice Fist fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Why is it not June 4 already. Paradox, fix this poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:00
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:There's really not a reason to fight him because the drops you get are poo poo compared to filling up your home system with more habitable planets, but I like the idea of the paradox(
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
Ice Fist posted:This makes sense, but an inward perfection empire is my 2nd biggest trading partner in my current game so this makes me sad because although he won't let me visit his space I've been protecting him all game so he can trade with me Also, the historical states that inward perfection are modeled on absolutely did trade with the outside world, they just did it on a limited scale and with ruthless controls. I'd give them one or two trade treaties and no more. And uh, this is kinda a weird question, but why is there a hardcap on titans anyway? Like if PDX was worried people would just build titan only fleets why not make them take up much more command points, cost more to build, etc.? edit: also, Splicer posted:Maybe it drops a relic now? Passive effect: Not angry, just disappointed. this is perfect
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
the idea is that titans should be fleet centerpieces and not battleship replacements. The hard cap is a backstop for making that the case, since in 4x games resource limitations rarely work out to balance things in that regard. You could probably dump the hard cap if you made titans expensive to maintain in difficult-to-acquire strategic resources, but strategic resources as military limiters also kinda got dumped as a concept. Probably because it would result in the AI (and possibly players) getting stuck unable to rebuild their fleets. The other issue is that if you just make them inefficient in terms of resources or command points they could easily become a noob trap or just not worth it ever, both of which are lame. TheDeadlyShoe fucked around with this message at 19:37 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
quote:################### How is that a balance change  And yeah the habitability nerf is brutal, e.g. without any bonuses, a food district + 2 farmers on a 20% hab world would have a combined upkeep of (assuming decent living standards and standard food policy) 3.6 food, 0.9 consumer goods, 1 energy, and produce... 7.2 food. That's a super thin profit margin, assuming 1 food = 1 energy = 0.5 cgs you get a profit of 0.4 energy per pop. 20% hab planets are only good as incubators in the early game with this change, and lovely ones unless you get them to 10 pops temporarily (not cheap early on) before resettling everyone except one farmer or something (I assumed administrator would be best, but 1.8 unity for 1.8 cgs (and food)... yeah that's not good, you're better off just getting culture workers on high habitability planets). Makes your homeworld's automatic 100% much more important too, which I think I like? Resettling a big chunk of your capital's population to get colonies to 10 pops has always felt weird to me.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
I'm of mixed feelings regarding the hab change. The pop growth, fine. But I liked the rough and tumble mining worlds, where the big problem was that the consumer goods penalties encouraged you not not build any higher strata pops.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Staltran posted:How is that a balance change
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Ugh, looks like the dimension of suffering event is still broken for Spiritualists.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 19:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Splicer posted:Still worth resettling since a) it's actually only 8 or 9 guys and b) early game it's going to be 60%/80% planets anyway. The 20% growth farm planet is going to be hella niche though. 8 or 9 guys is still a lot of energy for the opening stages though, especially if you want to resettle them back to high hab worlds (probably your homeworld, with this change maxing out your homeworld quickly seems pretty strong). Getting alloys for security/aggression instead of food+cgs+alloys for the colony ship and energy for the resettlement is going to look a lot more attractive than in 2.2, where it was often already a strong play. On the other hand you can probably power through the growth penalty by the early mid game... +25% from decision, +10% from policy, +10% from the expansion tradition, +10% from genome mapping... getting 115% growth on a 20% hab instead of 145% on a 80% isn't as bad as 60% vs 90%. e: I really like this actually, constantly colonizing planets as fast as you could until you ran out of space was pretty exhausting. Spreading it out by making most planets a significantly worse investment at the start of the game is good. Staltran fucked around with this message at 20:40 on May 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Staltran posted:8 or 9 guys is still a lot of energy for the opening stages though, especially if you want to resettle them back to high hab worlds (probably your homeworld, with this change maxing out your homeworld quickly seems pretty strong). Getting alloys for security/aggression instead of food+cgs+alloys for the colony ship and energy for the resettlement is going to look a lot more attractive than in 2.2, where it was often already a strong play. Though as per when we were talking about this a couple of months ago I'm wondering how this will interact with one pop at a time growth and it'd be nice if pop growth was less of a god stat and and etc you know how this goes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Oh yeah no it's a good change, I just think resettling your good planets will still be well worth the energy. Especially once you get your robots up and running. Isn’t this a massive kick in the chest to multi species empires since the game soft forces you to have all pops in equal numbers on all worlds? You can’t just have your desert people on the desert planet already but now your ocean species will be forced to live there and have children even though they don’t just hate it but actually are basically dead weight there? Or did they change that part too?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
BlondRobin posted:Isn’t this a massive kick in the chest to multi species empires since the game soft forces you to have all pops in equal numbers on all worlds? You can’t just have your desert people on the desert planet already but now your ocean species will be forced to live there and have children even though they don’t just hate it but actually are basically dead weight there? This is only an issue if you manually put poor hab pops on the world for them to start growing. Population migration takes habitability in to account (since a 20% hab world gets its attractiveness to a migrant multiplied by .2)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
BlondRobin posted:Isn’t this a massive kick in the chest to multi species empires since the game soft forces you to have all pops in equal numbers on all worlds? You can’t just have your desert people on the desert planet already but now your ocean species will be forced to live there and have children even though they don’t just hate it but actually are basically dead weight there?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
SettingSun posted:Oh, I see a little nerf to Ecus in there: the districts take rare resources to build and maintain. That's great news. Dyson spheres were really not worth it. Dedicating 10k alloy really sets you back in the army development period.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Since the rare resource cost of ecumenopoli is per-district, I'm going to feel much less guilty about building them on sub-20 planets. Heck, I might even skip them, the time commitment of building one, and the requirement of an entire ascension perk, might not make it worth over dedicating a building slot to a Nanoforge or Replicomplex. I dunno. The "Low habitability now also reduces pop growth and job output by 0.5% per missing habitability" patch note is interesting. Does that mean the malus only kicks in when the planet habitability falls below the 60% threshold? Or will planets of the same class as your homeworld (80%) automatically get -10% growth and resource output?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Patch notes look amazing. Looking forward to the new DLC!
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder if this will finally made non-adaptive a pick you don't want. Straight -5% growth and productivity is gross.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Hmm I wonder if this will finally made non-adaptive a pick you don't want. Straight -5% growth and productivity is gross. Still synergizes well with life seeded.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
There a list of fun race builds anywhere? I like making my own but populating the galaxy with all kinds of fleshed out folk seems like a rad experience.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Started to play a game after a long absence. Picked determined exterminators machine race. Conquered another race who had robots. Now I have robots that I can’t mod, can’t purge, and best of all, they give me negative consumer goods, which I cannot generate. So these few robots give my machine empire -2 consumer goods, which carries a Malus of 50% to research. Extremely dumb. I found a few threads complaining about this, and a debug solution to kill the pops! Debug console doesn’t work in Ironman though. Seems that it has been this way for 6 months, so maybe i’ll try again when the game is finished? (Just kidding, it will never be finished).
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 06:57
|
|
|
Alamoduh posted:Started to play a game after a long absence. Picked determined exterminators machine race. Conquered another race who had robots. Now I have robots that I can’t mod, can’t purge, and best of all, they give me negative consumer goods, which I cannot generate. So these few robots give my machine empire -2 consumer goods, which carries a Malus of 50% to research.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Complications posted:Don't play Ironman unless you're specifically hunting achievements - the console is too important a tool when the game unexpectedly breaks. Yeah! Also mods make the game so much better, and I don’t know why I even care about achievements!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 07:58
|
|
|
* Picking life seeded will no longer grant neighboring Gaia worlds, but rather a randomized starting planet class BUT MY PATHETICALLY EASY STARTS Oh well
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 10:27
|
|
|
So given the new malus to pop growth and productivity on low-habitability worlds, and absent any larger strategic concerns, what's the minimum habitability % of a planet I should consider when founding a new colony that I want to be a net benefit to my research and economy?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Well any world should still be profitable I think, just exceedingly marginally so.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Is the habitability thing a stealth buff to robots? They're already ridiculously powerful. Like, is there any reason NOT to play a robot empire at this point, from a pure mechanics point of view?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:06
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Is the habitability thing a stealth buff to robots? They're already ridiculously powerful. Yeah but who wants to be a filthy meatbag anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
The Bramble posted:So given the new malus to pop growth and productivity on low-habitability worlds, and absent any larger strategic concerns, what's the minimum habitability % of a planet I should consider when founding a new colony that I want to be a net benefit to my research and economy? Whether or not the numbers actually support this we won't know until we get to actually try it out in game or someone goes all mathhammer on it, but I'm guessing the idea is to encourage you to stay in the yellow zone for your species and leave those 0% - 20% ones alone until you've got Droids or better hab tech.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
More a buff to anything relating to +Habitability. Getting it from 20 to 40 would cut the penalty in half. Adaptive/Extremely Adaptive becomes more valuable. Adaptive/Very Adaptive(10/20%)+Adaptability tree(10%) means live anywhere becomes very much a thing. Get some extra pop growth and...
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Is the habitability thing a stealth buff to robots? They're already ridiculously powerful. You can't make Ecumenopoleis as a gestalt. But yeah it's only going to make them even stronger.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:Is the habitability thing a stealth buff to robots? They're already ridiculously powerful. Devouring swarms / regular hive minds are very effective, I'm not sure why people in this thread seem to be convinced that robots are the most powerful build, the general consensus I run into is that hive minds with their ability to grow pops at ridiculous speeds through massive food surpluses are the most powerful.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2019 17:51
|
|
