|
The research system isn't too bad when it doesn't give you what you are after because before a game you can just set research costs to .25x normal cost, which I do because it makes for faster games.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
It ain't perfect but I'll take this research system of over like... that ridiculous monstrosity of a tech web in Endless Space that you open up and then immediately feel the urge to close the game when you start reading it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Korgan posted:Nope. Go gently caress up your former ally and seize the dig site Naw. Oh well tho~
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
frogge posted:The research system isn't too bad when it doesn't give you what you are after because before a game you can just set research costs to .25x normal cost, which I do because it makes for faster games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:11
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:Because it’s a sci-fi space game and we want our Capt Kirk. Exactly, I want my President Sheridan, Vladimir Harkonen, or Gaius Baltar. Either upping the ante on them and/or giving them drawbacks gives them more personality and makes them more useful, thereby making you care a bit more when they kick the bucket. Some things from my current game: The president that was recently voted in office is the drat Warfare AI from a ship I found. I still remember the scientist who found the Totally Not Solaris planet. And the scientist I recruited with Archeology excavated most of my digs, and when she died I was bummed and named a sector after her. That kind of thing evokes a mental narrative that I think they should play up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:15
|
|
|
I think they should have them change more when they level up, really give them some distinct character with it. Both good and bad too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Splicer posted: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. Yeah, all of this is very true. Last couple games I've had the combo of the Khan and AEs spawning on the other side of the galaxy from me, with the L-cluster having drakes. It's funny watching the Khan just destroy the AI left and right, but when all of that stuff is going on over there, it's shocking how empty the game feels. Lots of researching cheap techs hoping you'll get the one you actually want, resettling pops because the game won't automate that, and the AI just sits there and waits for you to conquer it. Extending the archaeology system (which is good) and having it drive all sorts of internal conflict in your empire feels really necessary. e: doesn't help that when I finally got the Zroni chain, it's just straight up broken. I'm told I found another Zroni site ~somewhere~ but it doesn't tell me where, and it doesn't show up on the galaxy map, so RIP that I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:40
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Doctor Zero posted:Exactly, I want my President Sheridan, Vladimir Harkonen, or Gaius Baltar. Either upping the ante on them and/or giving them drawbacks gives them more personality and makes them more useful, thereby making you care a bit more when they kick the bucket. Yeah, it'd be kinda neat once there was actually espionage and political intrigue in Stellaris. Your Maniacal scientist heading up research does good stuff up until the day they start working on dangerous tech, and then they either 1) do as what happens now and research it a bit faster or 2) decide to go even farther because they're obsessed and maniacal. Then you actually could have a Gaius Baltar-like figure as the dude that sets in motion the AI rebellion. Or maybe they figure out how to weaponize it to attack other empires (like triggering an AI rebellion in a different empire). Or your butcher general commits (even more) warcrimes and either galactic powers or internal politics gives you a few paths to take like how some fallen empires have a shielded world with an old military leader on it that depends on ethos, traits, whatever. I liked the idea earlier someone else had of leaders, and maybe specifically governors, having a sector tag that influences events that occur within the sector they're governing. But yeah, I'd like it if there were far more, "some good, some bad" traits that leaders could only get while leveling up. Otherwise something like Paranoid or Stubborn is just bad, but what if instead a Stubborn scientist got a failed roll for something and because they're Stubborn, they can choose a new thing where they try again and maybe wind up with a different outcome than all of them? Or a 2nd shot at the original outcomes? Arrested Development could stop growth in that leader, but potentially increase the chance of the, "another working on their team is a shining star (because they had to be to prop up the Arrested Development leader)"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Your empire could contain trillions of souls, why should a small handful of individuals have such undue influence on its story? Because that's how things work in general. There are a hundred million people in America, but for the most part there are like 20 people who exert the vast majority of the influence on America's "story". Why would you expect it to be any different in space? Somehow living on more than one planet magically makes people act in a perfectly rational collectivist manner (even if you don't take collectivist as an ethic)? It also plays into human nature in another way. Humans -- as in the people who are playing Stellaris -- identify, empathize with, and relate to individuals much more easily than they do to groups. Stellaris currently does a pretty poor job of this because leaders don't feel very individual, but there are plenty of examples in other games with leader systems where they really add to the game by giving the player an easier way to relate to the game mechanics. Zurai fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
I finally conceded my micromanagement duties to the sector AI and I'm never going back. I was quitting games because the slog of managing more than 6 or 7 planets was sapping the fun out of playing. Now I just throw them in a sector, make sure they have plenty of seed money, and close the tab on them in the outliner. The AI does a good job of making sure everyone is employed, and OK job on keeping them housed, and in general is definitely "good enough" at exploiting its resources that I can leave them alone. I do wish there was some kind of notice when the AI runs out of minerals and can't do anything, but it's not a big deal. Now i spend my time managing fleets and plotting my expansion. The game is much more enjoyable now. I know this thread has been burned badly by the sector AI in the past, and many of you cannot suffer an unoptimized planet to live, but seriously, give it a shot if you find yourself constantly pausing to sort out your planets instead of conquering the dang galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:It ain't perfect but I'll take this research system of over like... that ridiculous monstrosity of a tech web in Endless Space that you open up and then immediately feel the urge to close the game when you start reading it. Oh god yes. People advocating for a change to research system should realise there is a very real risk that what's implemented instead could be worse in several dreadful ways. That being said, I did like the SOTS wheel-of-trees.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
The Bramble posted:I finally conceded my micromanagement duties to the sector AI and I'm never going back. I was quitting games because the slog of managing more than 6 or 7 planets was sapping the fun out of playing. Now I just throw them in a sector, make sure they have plenty of seed money, and close the tab on them in the outliner. The AI does a good job of making sure everyone is employed, and OK job on keeping them housed, and in general is definitely "good enough" at exploiting its resources that I can leave them alone. I do wish there was some kind of notice when the AI runs out of minerals and can't do anything, but it's not a big deal. I am managing 60+ in my game right now, as rogue servitors  With the cybrex relic 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:e: doesn't help that when I finally got the Zroni chain, it's just straight up broken. I'm told I found another Zroni site ~somewhere~ but it doesn't tell me where, and it doesn't show up on the galaxy map, so RIP that I guess. Ran into the same thing and needed to trigger placement of the next site manually with the console. It mostly worked, though I did end up with two home systems for them at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 18:57
|
|
|
Surprised to hear the hate for the Endless Space techweb, it’s much preferable to Stellaris tech cards for me. At least you can see where you’re going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
Noir89 posted:I am managing 60+ in my game right now, as rogue servitors I'm running a determined exterminator game right now where I have about the same. My sprawl is something ridiculous like 1200+
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Zurai posted:Because that's how things work in general. There are a hundred million people in America, but for the most part there are like 20 people who exert the vast majority of the influence on America's "story". Why would you expect it to be any different in space? Somehow living on more than one planet magically makes people act in a perfectly rational collectivist manner (even if you don't take collectivist as an ethic)? None of this is fact though, it's just one interpretation of the course of history. Also appeals to "human nature" are usually bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
I love the research system. It just feels right to me. But to be honest, I felt the same thing about warp and the devs operated the warp system out with a rusty axe, so what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:15
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Oh god yes. People advocating for a change to research system should realise there is a very real risk that what's implemented instead could be worse in several dreadful ways. That being said, I did like the SOTS wheel-of-trees. 1) Randomness increases per game replayability and prevents optimal paths 2) Low decision paralasys as you only need to pick from 3 to 6 things at once 3) Uncluttered UI I mean it'd be possible to gently caress all this up in a different system, but it's also possible to not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
I had a game where my Empress in an Authoritarian Spiritualist empire was the head of the Egalitarian faction. That was pretty cool and led to sweeping government reform because of course it did, she was the absolute monarch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
there should be more dangerous techs and maniacal scientists should get a huge boost to researching them. Like not just synths being dangerous and at the end of robots, there should be side branches, like using intelligent drones in your mining stations that could decide to go ancient mining drone. Weird experimental drive systems and stuff like that. I'm still surprised morphogenic fields aren't dangerous with the potential for those armies to get outta control. It'd be interesting to see what social technology could be dangerous. One of the blocker techs could be a new way to insanely rapidly speed up the process but cause strange events. Or stuff like artificial moral codes or cutting edge military training techniques could end up starting event chains that may destabilize your factions. Geniuses should get a bonus to rare techs. Rare techs too could give a chance to start event chains.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Splicer posted:The things people have listed as liking about the system are: I think the thing is that I'm less persuaded that research is contributing to the midgame slump than you. Things I think are contributing include: - Poor resource balancing, where the interesting scarcity of the early game gives way to being swamped in resources by the midgame. You can't spend those resources on constant wars because you'll run out of influence very quickly. Humiliation wars are only possible on opponents close to you in strength, and even if you do win rather than getting a status quo you needed that 100 influence to claim their worlds at the start of the war, rather than after it. Declaring a humiliation war should give you influence when you declare it, and hit you with a massive malus for doing so if you take a white peace. - Not enough balance-of-power shifts to produce the conditions for war. In EUIV a war victor will often be low on manpower and suffering overextension penalties, making them a good target. In Stellaris, inevitably a war victor is stronger after a war, as attrition is really not very high. - Little pressure for war as a consequence of both of the above. If I am self sufficient and maxing out my stockpiles I have little reason to go to war. This is where a political/diplomatic revamp comes in: my factions should be agitating for particular diplomatic outcomes, rather than 'have x friends' or 'have y enemies'. It's also why resource refineries were the single worst choice of the 2.2 patch. A research revamp would be good, but diplomacy and resource balance need a pass first, I would argue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I think the thing is that I'm less persuaded that research is contributing to the midgame slump than you. Things I think are contributing include: Yeah, this is very true. There's a definite breakpoint, probably around 150 pops and 8 planets, where you can have specialized and easy to manage planets producing everything you could ever need, and then it's back to the 'Click the Yellow Triangle' game. quote:Declaring a humiliation war should give you influence when you declare it, and hit you with a massive malus for doing so if you take a white peace. This sounds like a terrible idea though. Declaring humiliation only wars are great, but because the surrender malus for the AI is so high it's not uncommon that the war just grinds to a halt somewhere. I don't see that being a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:e: doesn't help that when I finally got the Zroni chain, it's just straight up broken. I'm told I found another Zroni site ~somewhere~ but it doesn't tell me where, and it doesn't show up on the galaxy map, so RIP that I guess. I've had this. It ended up being on in unsurveyed system on the other side of an ally; a science ship caught it from a jump away while auto-exploring. There were some crystals hanging out in the system, so I had plenty of time to get over there and claim it, but boy was it annoying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:This sounds like a terrible idea though. Declaring humiliation only wars are great, but because the surrender malus for the AI is so high it's not uncommon that the war just grinds to a halt somewhere. I don't see that being a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:24
|
|
|
Libluini posted:I love the research system. It just feels right to me. Same, though I enjoyed Wormhole stations more than Warp. But this idea: 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. What would be required to mod this in? Does the command for granting a research option support removing that research option when an agreement is broken? If you presume that options don't go away when an agreement is broken, then there's less motive to keep them active: you could just have the agreement on for a month, get five or ten new guaranteed techs, then break it (thinking the influence spent would be better than the bonus to research speed). fake edit: Complications posted:Depends on if you're Nihlistic Acquisitioning their pops. The AIs start surrendering faster than you can strip a planet of more than a couple after you've stripped them dry once. I've gotten around this by claiming a world of theirs and then just never occupying it with armies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:None of this is fact though, it's just one interpretation of the course of history. Also appeals to "human nature" are usually bullshit. Yeah, OK, if you just want to bury your head in the sand and say "No U!" then there's not much conversation to be had.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:34
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:I think the thing is that I'm less persuaded that research is contributing to the midgame slump than you. Things I think are contributing include: "Lol the boring research system is not boring, you just need to git gud" Naw dude it's boring. The research system affects all the other mechanics in the game, from what ships you can build, to how you can develop your planets, to what edicts / policies are available to you. And it's boring. Going with the Sid Meier mantra of a game being a series of interesting decisions, the problem with the stellaris research system is that it offers no interesting decisions. The techs you choose have basically no impact, you'll get everything eventually, the only variance is what order you may progress in. That's very dull. Paradox understands things like mutually exclusive choices in Hearts of Iron. The mod, star trek new horizons, implements mutually exclusive choices. The stellaris tech tree just sits there as another thing you click through and has a minimal impact on a given playthrough. The reason people bring this one up is it's purely a design issue. There's no art needed to tweak or improve the system, it just needs to mechanically impact other things. EU4 has greatly overhauled things like missions, national ideas, and added ages and age specific bonuses that really improved the progression through the game. Stellaris should probably get around to taking a look at the main progression system in the game like 3 YEARS after release. I've mentioned before that there's been a shocking lack of techs added just like there were previously very few events. And yeah, the "but guys they might make something worse  " argument really doesn't resonate with me first because wtf how are people this risk averse, and secondly you can revert Stellaris to a previous patch just like hyperlanes if you absolutely can't stand whatever new system they make.
Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Jun 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:"Lol the boring research system is not boring, you just need to git gud" You...you literally quoted me saying a research revamp would be good as evidence that I thought the current research is a-okay. Did you write that before randomly clicking quote on a post?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:You...you literally quoted me saying a research revamp would be good as evidence that I thought the current research is a-okay. Did you write that before randomly clicking quote on a post? No I didn't want to do a chain of quotes of your posts on the topic, please try to understand that I'm addressing the core of your argument that it's a low priority item 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Vavrek posted:Clever! I'll remember that for my next NA game, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Complications posted:Just double check that the war you're declaring is conquest if you pull that. I've misclicked once or twice and felt dumb. I don't think this matters, I'm fairly certain all the modifiers to their willingness to surrender are the same either way? Really you want to be extra sure you declare with Animosity for the free 100 influence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind if they just changed the whole concept. Right now research is completely divorced from your empire. Say you get a pool of scientists based on your jobs(and a base one with capitals), the scientists invest in tech pools (either specific techs or branches based on the current scientist traits that unlocks techs that you can spend research mana finishing) based on traits/ethics etc. Give a base pool that allows you invest in specific tech pools that you want in addition to your scientists. That way you can still influence to get whatever specific techs you want but a militarist empire will by default excel in weapons and such. Granted I wouldn't mind seeing the tech tree rebalanced completely too. Military tech and civilian tech being completely seperate just seems a bit divorced from how actual technology works. Researching better power plants for ships should lead to improving energy farming, better guns should lead to better mining, better armor should either come from or lead to better alloy making. The tech tree is kind of boring as is because it's all just standalone small bonuses and chains of slightly better iterations, without any visible connections or way to see how it's influencing your empire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I don't think this matters, I'm fairly certain all the modifiers to their willingness to surrender are the same either way? Really you want to be extra sure you declare with Animosity for the free 100 influence. Then you white peace, keep all the pops you stole, and the AI keeps the world so you can come back to farm it later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:No I didn't want to do a chain of quotes of your posts on the topic, please try to understand that I'm addressing the core of your argument that it's a low priority item Okay, well, to take your argument in good faith, it's important to consider when it's boring. This debate started when someone flagged up how irritating it is when robots don't show up early, as they're a critical early game tech. And a lot of early game techs involve interesting choices: primarily around economy versus military, but cashing out in a variety of ways. Techs become less interesting when you no longer have to choose between the economy and the military, past the midgame when you can have both. Its relative tedium is a side-effect of the resource glut you get at this point. This isn't about gitting gud; resource extraction scales so much that it becomes increasingly hard to spend it all if you're progressing at all. Techs being boring is a side-effect of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Aethernet posted:Okay, well, to take your argument in good faith, it's important to consider when it's boring. This debate started when someone flagged up how irritating it is when robots don't show up early, as they're a critical early game tech. And a lot of early game techs involve interesting choices: primarily around economy versus military, but cashing out in a variety of ways. Sure, and I agree that it's important to consider how the tech system impacts the game. In my opinion, it affects the entire game, from the early game, to the midgame, to the lategame. The three simultaneous branches thing seems to simply involve tripling the player interaction without any meaningful upside to the choices. In the very early game there's some difference between which techs you get, but it's largely RNG driven. So yes, there is *some* variation in the early game but it's not driven by my decisions - my decisions are constrained to the choices available. I'm on board with the RNG aspect, just that in the very early game when the tech variations are more interesting, it constrains the player choice right when they might be able to make interesting choices. In the midgame the RNG provides variety but by then the game has started to settle into the usual routine. Again, using Star Trek New Horizons as a comparison, one of the first tech choices they ask is do you want your ship research to focus on beefy bricks (in the direction of ships of the line / heavy ships) or speedy attack ships (more like gunboats and frigates). Another choice appears later with focusing more on phasers or photon torpedoes. You get a choice on whether you'll be the friendly united federation of planets or bizarro earth and all evil. These decisions offer early player choices and add variety to the playthrough, and the tech upgrades that go with these choices are more meaningful than vanilla stellaris. They also reworked the fleet comps to make individual ships much more meaningful, and that also impacts the tech choices that go into those ships as well as their loadout. Given that this is a mod that managed to make the system more engaging I'd like to see Paradox take a look at Stellaris tech tree and see if they can do something to make it more relevant to the entire playthrough as well as adding variety to the playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
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 think about that with governors a lot- this guy is pretty important, he's in charge of a bunch of planets, but a lot of the time none of the bonuses really mean anything. I'm finding a new gov for my core sector and somehow the only options are three guys who are good at clearing out tile blockers (all the tile blockers were removed centuries ago) and a guy who's good at fighting crime (none of the planets in question have more than 2% crime). I wish govs were more like picking your traits in the species design section- they each have a few qualities, some good and some bad. This one is talented at getting more output from your mid-level jobs, but he's from this species and he has a clear record of favoritism for them, making members of other species less happy on the planets he's governing. He's also starting at level 3, so he costs a lot more than the woman who's at level 1 and belongs to the pro-science faction, which will increase your influence gain from pops of that faction and get you a lot more science output, but if you make some anti-science decisions in events she'll get pissed off and either quit or do a shittier job for a while. Give them some personality and make them interact with your decisions more often, you know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
On the other hand, it's nice not having to worry about leaders like you do in ck2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
binge crotching posted:On the other hand, it's nice not having to worry about leaders like you do in ck2. I guess, but at the current level of interaction it's like there isn't much reason for them to exist. Maybe some people want that, but I'd like to keep them and make them more interesting instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Ham Sandwiches posted:The three simultaneous branches thing seems to simply involve tripling the player interaction without any meaningful upside to the choices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Is the Automatic Population Migration mod supposed to respect disabled jobs? It doesn’t seem like it from some quick testing on my end and I can’t find anything confirming one way or the other. I had my capital set with all remaining jobs disabled, but the mod keeps moving pops there as if the jobs weren’t disabled. I think it’s picking the capital because of 100% habitability, but that doesn’t explain why it is moving unemployed pops to another planet where they will be unemployed, unless it’s ignoring disabled jobs. E: Only other mods are Tiny Outliner and the tiny planets/fleets in outliner mods.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2019 01:03
|
|
