|
Captain Oblivious posted:Is it possible to excavate an archaeology site that you don’t directly control? Say, one in a Federation mates space? Nope. Go gently caress up your former ally and seize the dig site
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
Ascension perk prereqs are a common source of frustration with the gacha tech system. Back on 2.2 not pulling anti-gravity engineering could really screw you over by delaying your ecus by decades. Gene tailoring can be really annoying too because of how many tier 1 and 2 society techs there are, some of which have crazy high weight (the second naval cap tech apparently has 600 weight  ). Which is also annoying on its own, do some people actually like having a bunch of blocker techs crowd out techs that would actually be useful early game?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If your position is not worth your time to succinctly summarize then it's also not worth my time to dig out of your post history Both the Sword of the Stars and the MoO3 tech systems would be a huge improvement, and both of them have the same or more RNG than the current one - it's just RNG applied in a much better way. Both lead to more interesting and diverse empires (the MoO3 one less so) than currently, where every empire gets all the techs, all the the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 09:20
|
|
|
I don't mind the current system although I agree it could be more interesting. At the moment it doesn't really allow for that much specialisation, I just take whichever looks most immeadiately useful of the ones rolled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 09:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If your position is not worth your time to succinctly summarize then it's also not worth my time to dig out of your post history Fister Roboto posted:e: like, imagine that your empire is getting curbstomped by another empire because they have better guns than you. Can you tell your engineers to research better armor to compensate? Nope, they want to study building contruction methods right now. Can you tell your physicists to research better guns to match your enemy? Hell no, they want to research wormhole travel. Can you tell your biologists to research population growth, so that when you lose a dozen systems you can spring back a little faster? gently caress no, they want to research -20% to leader costs. Why? gently caress you, that's why. QuarkJets posted:Playing the game as a game is not the same as metagaming. I think that a tech system that the player could easily optimize against (e.g. as one can do in Civilization) are less fun than the Stellaris tech system, which injects variance in a way that makes for more interesting experiences without really making the game more difficult. This also holds true for weapons, shields and armour, economic choices etc. Splicer fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 09:41
|
|
|
Staltran posted:Ascension perk prereqs are a common source of frustration with the gacha tech system. This is the only thing that I find annoying - I wish you could pick them even without the tech but maybe not use them until you get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 11:26
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Well the reason you can't trade techs is because tech trading tends to be ridiculously exploitable. Same reason they don't let you trade territory. They talked about it in one of the early dev diaries, years ago. Since all you're buying is opportunity, you can close another obvious exploit by preventing the AI from giving resources for techs. You can offer resources for tech because if you want to beggar yourself for the opportunity to research gateway construction that's your call, but you can't trick the AI into paying a year's worth of alloys for the chance to research +10% food. The hardest exploit is spying by looking at what's on offer. Limiting tech trades to within research agreements would mean you can only spy on your friends and you're paying for the privilege. You can further limit spying and also cut out tech jumping by limiting visibility to techs you have the prereqs for. You only know your friend has ZPE if you have tier IV energy yourself. Or replace those last two paragraphs with just expanding research agreements so that the intersection of everything your research partner knows and the stuff you meet the prereqs for are always present as research options.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
The current research system is fine and doesn't really require replacement. If I were to change anything, it would be make leader weighting less opaque and to disincentive the hot swapping of researchers in order to game it. Also tech trading is a terrible mechanic and I'm glad that most games are moving beyond it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 11:42
|
|
|
I'd like to see the tech tree be expanded in general so that you don't get into repeatable techs as much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I'd like to see the tech tree be expanded in general so that you don't get into repeatable techs as much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Maybe an influence or unity cost in exchange for a guaranteed tech pick in the tier you're at?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If your position is not worth your time to succinctly summarize then it's also not worth my time to dig out of your post history
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
Splicer posted:I too would like this, but adding more techs to the current system will just exacerbate the existing issues. In a directed system you could have a sufficiently large tech tree that you'd end the game without having researched everything, while still having researched the things you need/want. Spending half the game in repeatables is one of the prices you pay for the tech deck. I think that more ascension perks that unlock specific technologies would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I think that more ascension perks that unlock specific technologies would be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Having a scientist with a specialty (computing, genetics, propulsion, etc) gives techs in that category 25% increased weight for being selected. That sounds like a lot, but when you have at least a dozen available techs with roughly equal weighting, and only 3 or 4 possible choices, the difference is barely noticeable. Thanks a ton. This is really helpful!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:46
|
|
|
AAAAA! Real Muenster posted:People have been suggesting this for ages. poo poo like this is why I wish the new lead on Stellaris could be granted some time to fix some of the janky poo poo before being forced to push out another DLC that breaks the game even further. The tech system is still about infinitely not the biggest issue with the game at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:The tech system is still about infinitely not the biggest issue with the game at the moment. e: it doesn't cause performance issues I suppose?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:55
|
|
|
I like the tech system TBH. It makes all the more options/faster research stuff more valuable so that tall tech focused builds play differently than gobble up the galaxy builds.  edit: Like if you really want to rush ring worlds then fort up in 20 systems or less and get your science on! wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:56
|
|
|
I would be fine with a random tech system if there were much more significant ways to influence which techs you get. Like I said, the increased weight from scientist specialty is barely noticeable, requires gaming the system to be effective, and also hinges on rolling the right scientist in the first place. If I was in charge of redesigning the system, and I had to keep the random aspect, it would look something like this: -First off, just put the dang tech tree in game. There's no reason to obfuscate that from the player. -Also make the factors that change tech weighting be visible. -Increase the base number of tech options from 3 to 5. -Instead of having to hire scientists for their specialty (which reeks of Great Man Theory and doesn't even make sense in gestalt empires), you just manually select an area to focus on. Doing so would double the weight of techs in that area, and also guarantee that at least one tech from that area is always available. Make changing specialty have a small tech resource cost so you can't game the system very easily. -Make it so that you can reshuffle your options, also for a small tech resource cost. -Make it so that you can "pin" a tech to be available after the next shuffle, also for a small tech resource cost. -Only slightly related, but also get rid of leaders entirely because they're boring and add almost nothing to the game. Fister Roboto fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 14:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I like the tech system TBH. It makes all the more options/faster research stuff more valuable so that tall tech focused builds play differently than gobble up the galaxy builds. Going wide researches faster, except the short period of time where the additional colonies are developing compared to someone not expanding. Wide also does taller better, as it has more population growth to centralize and a larger resource base to turn into research, consumer goods and alloys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
Any modder want to whip up some tech tree edicts? I’m just assuming you could make an edict with the goal of “Focus on **insert speciality**”. That gives a massive chance increase to certain fields. Personally, that would solve a huge portion of my tech tree gripes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:Any modder want to whip up some tech tree edicts? I’m just assuming you could make an edict with the goal of “Focus on **insert speciality**”. That gives a massive chance increase to certain fields.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Weighting is entirely determined per tech. You'd need to add the edict as a weighting factor to every affected tech individually. So doable, but a ton of work. My assumption was that there was a modifier (like the leader speciality used) that could be added on top of things. What about just tweaking the leader bonuses by a few factors then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:The tech system is still about infinitely not the biggest issue with the game at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:So doable, but a ton of work. My assumption was that there was a modifier (like the leader speciality used) that could be added on top of things. The leader bonus doesn't directly affect techs either, the extra weighting is all on the tech side. I don't think it would be too hard, since all the tech files are divided by research area. I might try whipping something up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Splicer posted:It touches everything and makes them all that little bit worse. It limits potential fixes for other problems. I dunno I would rather have there be more things to do in the game after the majority of the galaxy is claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:21
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:Going wide researches faster, except the short period of time where the additional colonies are developing compared to someone not expanding. Wide also does taller better, as it has more population growth to centralize and a larger resource base to turn into research, consumer goods and alloys. I guess it depends on what we mean by wide (and I am definitely NOT trying to court a huge derail about that. =P). A build focused on expansion, with civics and ethics appropriate to that, is going to tech slower than one that is all-in on tech, and while it's expanding is going to spend more resources on expansion and defense. Then it consolidates from that and tries to play catch-up. At some point, yeah, you get to a point where you can just slap down 50 research labs then upgrade them but by then you're taking a victory lap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I guess it depends on what we mean by wide (and I am definitely NOT trying to court a huge derail about that. =P). A build focused on expansion, with civics and ethics appropriate to that, is going to tech slower than one that is all-in on tech, and while it's expanding is going to spend more resources on expansion and defense. Then it consolidates from that and tries to play catch-up. I think you have a skewed perspective on exactly when the player constantly expanding zooms past the player who stops expanding after 20 systems. It's not very far into the game, nor does additional territory demand additional resources for defense. Whether at 20 or 500 systems, if you border the same guy, the size of fleet needed for defense is similar. That the expansion focused player can support a much larger fleet does not equate to needing a larger fleet. That the player who stopped expanding has ceded a bunch of territory to an AI who will now build a bigger fleet usually means the smaller Empire needs a larger fleet, but is less able to support it. And this doesn't address conquering, which is by far the most efficient way of increasing your output of research(and pretty much everything else).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:37
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:I dunno I would rather have there be more things to do in the game after the majority of the galaxy is claimed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
Cynic Jester posted:And this doesn't address conquering, which is by far the most efficient way of increasing your output of research(and pretty much everything else). I mean, sometimes the best way to play the local cluster rear end in a top hat is to occasionally crush a small neighbor with a huge fleet of low tech garbage just to scavenge tech off the corpses of their ships. And then let them rebuild and do it again. And again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Splicer posted:And the ability for staggered capper techs would make that considerably easier. I don't know what this is. Is this a revamped diplomacy system?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 15:53
|
|
|
Splicer posted:Or replace those last two paragraphs with just expanding research agreements so that the intersection of everything your research partner knows and the stuff you meet the prereqs for are always present as research options. That would be interesting, and I like that idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Maybe an influence or unity cost in exchange for a guaranteed tech pick in the tier you're at? Suggestion: You can research any technology, but if they're not the drawn cards then the cost is increased by a function of how probable it was to draw it (eg if you're missing out on a tier 1 tech, the amount more it's going to cost is a lot less than if you're forcing battleships super early). As a bonus it also makes the drawing system more transparent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:25
|
|
|
The early game is very self driven. You're presented with a random setup and it's up to you to decide how to make the best of it. You have a lot of choices, and every choice you make opens up new options and closes off others. Choice after choice with immediate feedback and long term consequences. When those choices end due to the galaxy filling up, nothing comparable replaces it. There's no real politics or espionage, war is slow and repetitive, and internal development is unsatisfying. Internal development is unsatisfying because it's heavily influenced by tech. And tech is almost entirely out of your control. It's something that happens to you, not something that you do. The midgame is spent waiting for something cool to happen rather than working toward something cool. War being slow is not an issue, but repetitive is. One reason war is repetitive because everyone has the same tech, and because the weaponry tech that exists is boring. Everyone had the same tech because focused research is impossible, and one reason weaponry tech is boring is because the existing tech system doesn't lend itself well to interesting tech for reasons anyway stated. turn off the TV posted:I don't know what this is. Is this a revamped diplomacy system?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Splicer posted:
Ok but what is a capper tech?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:-Only slightly related, but also get rid of leaders entirely because they're boring and add almost nothing to the game. I like leaders. They add a personal aspect to the game. They should double down on them though and make the benefits bigger even if you they are more expensive or have there always be a trade off to make a decision on. Leaders should make or break things not just give an extra 5% to hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
Doctor Zero posted:I like leaders. They add a personal aspect to the game. They should double down on them though and make the benefits bigger even if you they are more expensive or have there always be a trade off to make a decision on. Leaders should make or break things not just give an extra 5% to hit. I've never felt that way about leaders. They're just a random name and a random bonus to me. I also don't like the idea of them being more impactful. Your empire could contain trillions of souls, why should a small handful of individuals have such undue influence on its story?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
turn off the TV posted:Ok but what is a capper tech?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I've never felt that way about leaders. They're just a random name and a random bonus to me. I also don't like the idea of them being more impactful. Your empire could contain trillions of souls, why should a small handful of individuals have such undue influence on its story? Because it’s a sci-fi space game and we want our Capt Kirk. Empire trait “Shared Burden” now replaces leaders with a randomized symbol signifying a team working together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:13 |
|
|
I think the card system is fine. If anything, I like it better than trees because for many reasons (mainly, tech tree UIs are universally horrible and I get analysis paralysis with so many options when making research decisions, especially when I'm new to the game and don't know the perfectly optimized Golden Path yet). More options to influence the card system would be good though. Does research agreement influence draws or does it only do timing? Also, maybe the inevitable future Space Spies DLC will let me steal technology or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:29
|
|
