|
Well, sapient ship AI is already a thing, so people with that tech being able to apply it to orbital habitats as well (maybe with another tech) wouldn't be a stretch and would indeed be very neat.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Heartcatch posted:Stellaris: Weapons of Mass Colonisation That'd be neat. I also would like more non-humanoid species portraits. I really want one that's just a giant cephalopod, rather than a Cthulhu-ish squid-faced person, for example. More really bizarre and out-there things, and also things that look closer to animals and monsters than people and whatnot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Mondian posted:I sure hope 1.5 brings an "enslave all pops" button to planets. Bit annoying when conquering disgusting xenos hugbox planets full of varied species and having to enslave them all individually. The latest dev diary explained how slavery's going to work in 1.5. For a simple explanation, it's now part of species rights you decide per species; no micromanaging individual pops. The five rights settings are:
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 11:06
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The planet grid is... alright. It works but it's too micro-intensive, especially when you're upgrading a lot of buildings. I also don't like how it makes your planets feel like giant mines/farms rather than places people live. Reworking it is not out of the question but it'd be a pretty huge investment of time. I like the planet grid, though these are good points. I certainly wouldn't want it to go entirely, but improvements would be nice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:It kinda seems like caste system is better in all ways than slavery from a pop happiness and micromanagement reduction perspective. Do you mean better than the current system, or better than the alternatives in that patch? Because for the former, yeah; it basically auto-enslaves all the pops you'd want enslaved anyway. Unless you're RPing something where you're only enslaving certain pops or whatever, it basically does all the work you'd do with slavery, or at least chattel slavery (the "food and minerals" kind) for you. For the latter, I think full-on slavery-for-whole-species is for things like Xenophobic empires and the other types of slavery besides chattel slavery. Also can be combined with things like population control and whatnot, so you can micromanage their population, keep exactly as many livestock slaves around as you need to work every food tile you have, and so on. Go all-out on your totalitarianism and xeno rights abuses. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Jan 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
So, I don't know where this originated from (maybe I just missed it?), but while reading the dev diary thread someone mentioned refugees colonizing available inhabitable worlds as well as fleeing to open empires, and I'm wondering if that's actually a thing that can happen, because if so, that's pretty neat. A new... "Empire" doesn't seem right but "faction" already has a specific term in this game, springing up mid-game, formed from people fleeing tyranny elsewhere, seems like a very good addition to me. Particularly because I like playing good guys, so allying with these groups to protect them and take down their former oppressors is a thing I'd love to pull off in-game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
Kitchner posted:Well it was mentioned in the dev diary refugees may even colonise uncolonised planets, so if we assume this means "if there is no empire to flee to they flee to a habitable planet" then there's only two option really. Either they only colonise planets already within borders, in which case they are part of that empire, or they can colonise a planet totally seperate from an empire in which case it would make sense to be their own entity. Ah, I did miss it then. Alright, thanks. I guess we'll see what it means exactly sooner or later. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
Meanwhile, from Twitter: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/823857962439573504 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/823858618374164481 Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Dwesa posted:At least random bonuses are kinda balanced, I am not sure how would it work if certain planet types/tile blockers would guarantee more energy/minerals/food than the other. Yeah, making certain planet types better in some way (which I heard is/was already something of a thing, what with Lush being biased for wet worlds while Bleak is rare there and more common elsewhere, though I think those chances were still fairly minor) seems like it'd push planet choice into being a strategic thing, rather than just being what you think is cool/fits your species idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
Yeah, the first thing mentioned above is possibly the most important thing to know for a wormhole player and one that really changes the game when you learn it if you didn't know it from the start: You can build your stations outside your territory. You don't need to expand your empire (though obviously you'll want to do that too) to expand your range. Put stations in allied territory. Put them in uninhabited territory. Hell, if you're fighting someone, put them in enemy territory so you can jump to their more important insides and gently caress them up.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/824299930898595840 Looking good. Want to see what the other species get too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Zore posted:I wonder if that's determined by city type or ship type? I'd guess ship type, since all your other orbital and space stations are decided by that- LordMune posted:Ship type. Oh, looks like we got the official answer while I tabbed away in the middle of writing this. Anyway, besides the aesthetics, I find it interesting that the orbital's "landscape" appearance resembles that of a Gaia world and the habitability is 100%. This is really neat, but I assume there are some limitations/drawbacks, since just making your own Gaia worlds everywhere seems too good to be true. It being size 12 isn't spectacular, I suppose. Also wonder what's with the "colonize" right in the middle above the size means. It seems like you'd have people on these from the start, right? Why construct a habitat like that if you aren't planning on having people live on it? Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Also it's an easy way to let you select what pop you want to start the colony with. That makes sense. I didn't think that population would be spontaneously generated, but didn't consider things like this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Yeah, that axis is getting renamed to Authoritarian-Egalitarian and getting appropriate fluff, which fits the mechanics better as well as addressing certain concerns/issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Them requiring an Ascension Perk makes sense. Going to need to put in the effort to get them, though. Being able to make your own (small) Gaia worlds is probably worth it, though. Also, I find it interesting that habitats are the opposite of slavery when it comes to production; good at energy and research, bad at food and minerals. (Which makes sense, considering what they are.) Also are more easily available to non-slaving empires, since they require you to complete at least one Tradition tree to get the perk, and that's easier as someone who, among other things, doesn't use slaves. Kind of disappointed we didn't get a look at other habitat models, though. I really want to see what the remaining five types look like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
Checked Wiz's Twitter, and this is a smaller thing that got missed from earlier today: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/824646924624154624 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/824648593730629632 https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/824648693366321153 A nice little thing, I think. Will make the map look a lot better. Also more colors would be nice too. Also, didn't notice at first, but the above black hole station seems to be an arthropoid station, I think. That's neat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/825031483874168833 This is neat. I wonder how much you can affect things through this; are you still limited to three "points" of ethics, or can you now slide along every axis? If the former, how does it decide what ethics are lost? Unfortunate that embracing one faction apparently displeases all others, even if they aren't personally at odds, though. Hopefully it's not too bad for factions that aren't opposed to what you embrace, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Anticheese posted:I'm a horrible person for this, but I would love to be able to engineer a 'delicious' trait into captured pops. Also, to be able to add negative traits, even if I don't get gene points back for them. I was suggesting this in the Dev Diary thread in response to people suggesting such a trait (would increase food production from them being Livestock and perhaps Processing) and debating whether or not it'd a good idea since making your own species with it would be silly, unless you're role-playing or something. As an option for genetically engineering a captured species, though, it's both appropriate for evil empires and rather horrifying, in a good way. And it'd easily make it a "positive" trait, something people were debating, since you're getting a benefit from it. On a broader topic, I'd like to see more traits/genetic engineering options in general as well. The Ascension Perk path for it seems like it'll be neat, but some more early-game options for it would be nice too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Hey, adding it to your own species basically gives you a free trait point, with the possible unimportant side effect of making any sentient-eating species see conquering you as THE priority target. Well, as a positive trait (i.e. one that costs points) it doesn't make sense to add to your own species, and as-is you can't add negative traits so it'd have to be positive for the genetic engineering scenario. Also adding it to a slave species in your empire is pretty much a pure positive here (boosts their food production, literally the only thing Livestock slaves do), so even if you could add negative traits it wouldn't make sense as one when looking at the mechanics, even if thinking about it a species being tastier is an odd "advantage" for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:It's weird you can't add negative traits tbh; especially if you could add in traits that would make your enslaved aliens more subservient and docile. That's Conformist (at least if you have an ethos that makes your slaves more okay with being slaves) and it's a positive trait, so, it is something you can add. Negative traits would be interesting, but a lot of things that are arguably negative to the species (Conformist or the hypothetical "Tasty" trait to make them more effective as livestock) are good for the player/their empire mechanically, so they're positive. Adding actual negative traits to a species would mostly just be for RP or sadism purposes, unless it got you extra trait points for them as well. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Hiveminded posted:Maybe "tasty" could fall under the extra traits unlocked in the second level of the biological path mentioned in the ascension perk dev diary, what with how apparently popular the idea of inter-sapient cannibalism is among the Stellaris fanbase. Well, for extra food production Agrarian actually works well enough; Livestock slaves can only produce food anyway so that and Conformist are probably all you need on them. That said, a trait that is specifically for modifying sapients into being better food is a delightfully evil option, so if that makes it in in some form as well I certainly wouldn't complain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/826004080795451392 What is it? What does it do? gently caress if I know but it looks awesome and I want one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Maybe a post-apocalypse alternative to cockroaches? What would be the giant animal that's taken over though? Cephalopods. Also, make a portrait that's just a full-on cephalopod creature, like a giant squid or something, rather than a Cthulhu-person, please.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Nielsen posted:Another space station, this one looks like it includes O'Neill cylinders There was also this pretty picture, which Wiz posted earlier but wasn't reposted here. https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/826346839641321472 Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Fresh from Twitter, a peek at other Tradition benefits: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827449726664601600 Interesting. Kind of surprised that taking it doesn't counter the effects expansion has on Tradition costs though, since it's one of the trees that encourages a thing that will raise its own cost. Maybe that will be one of its upgrades along the way. Edit: And immediately after I post this, this happens: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827450306711711748 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827450860246548482 Edit again: And one more for now. Other two coming later apparently: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827452843099557889 Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Feb 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
Demiurge4 posted:The free colony ship should really be one of the first expansion rewards. It is. It's the first perk on the right side of the tree. You can make it your second Tradition purchase, first being unlocking Expansion in the first place. Expansion seems like something to go for early or not at all, really. So many of its benefits are tied to things you'll want to do early on. Only the capstone is particularly useful later. Courier Network in particular you want early (probably as your fourth purchase, after Expansion, Standardized Colony Ships, and Colonization Fever, in that order), since getting a discount on Traditions after buying a lot of Traditions is not that useful. The Bramble posted:Looks like it's triggered whenever someone tries to define the variable "collectivist" So it's getting patched out in 1.5?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Serf posted:It would be cool if you could identify dissident factions in other nations and sent them energy/minerals and spend influence to increase their power. When they break away that would increase their opinion of you and maybe flip some of their ethics to yours. Or maybe you could only support factions that shared one of your ethics. Covertly supporting dissident groups that you don't actually like in your attempts to screw over your enemies, bringing them to power, and then winding up in conflict with them instead because they don't actually like you seems fine to me. Lets you be Space America. Unrelated, the final two Expansion Traditions got posted: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827505140127129600 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827523485832474624 Final one doesn't excite me as much as the others, but hey. You also get the extra core systems from finishing the tree when you take it, so it's still a nice investment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Today's Tradition tree is Prosperity: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827821942883418113 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827824208210173952 Also, tangentially-related: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827822587111731200 Makes sense to me; where every other tree seemed at least somewhat flexible and useful to many people, even if they aren't for everyone (Pacifists may not want Domination, for example, but pretty much anyone else could probably make use of it), Purity, at least based on what we heard about it, sounded like it was Xenophobe-focused.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yeah making traditions work in a way that they're based on playstyle rather than ethics is a really good thing, you could feasibly have 2 empires with identical ethics but very different strengths and weaknesses due to different traditions. Yeah, I like this too. With Purity replaced, nothing is ethos-exclusive(ish; technically you could go Purity on any non-Xenophile but it doesn't seem as appealing). While some might not be good for particular ethics (as before, Domination for Pacifist, or Harmony for Xenophobe, for the two I see), most work for anyone, and even the few that don't are basically only bad for one particular ethos and work with everything else. While Xenophiles will really like Harmony, for example, pretty much any non-Xenophobes will likely wind up with multiple species in their empire, so diversity bonuses aren't bad. And heck, even Xenophobes may benefit from the happiness part of that tree. quote:One change I haven't seen anyone really discuss (possibly it was only mentioned on stream) is how pops, ethics and happiness work now. You no longer get happiness impact directly from having policies that pops dislike based on their ethics, instead your pops' base happiness is based on the happiness of the faction which they belong to. There's also no longer pop modifiers for ethics. What this means is that there's no longer an incentive to annoyingly micromanage it so you have materialist pops doing science etc. - there are still traits which impact tile production but those are determined on a per-species basis and don't change which makes them easier to handle. For a hamonious empire, rather than worrying about avoiding individual angry pops, you want to try and make your factions happy and increase the attractiveness of your happy factions to your pops. Some of this is new to me, hence my not discussing it; I've read the dev diaries but I don't remember seeing some of these things (like pop modifiers for ethics being gone entirely; I was wondering about that, given the one-ethos-only change), and others I just read the discussion on rather than joining in, but on the whole I like what I'm seeing. Though I do wonder, if pop modifiers from ethics are gone, that presumably means that ethos bonuses are all empire-wide now, unless something really changed. There are also ways to change your government's ethics, such as by embracing factions. This has me wondering if you can upgrade/alter your bonuses in-game, and if so, if there's any significant reasons to not push yourself towards the Fanatic versions of whatever you want so you get the larger bonuses there. (I haven't watched the latest stream and stuff yet, and may have missed information elsewhere, so if this has already been addressed, whoops.) Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 12:36 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Shifting to Fanatic Egalitarian would've removed whichever of Pacifist and Xenophile had the lowest attraction from my empire ethics. Ah, okay. I was wondering about how, if the limit of 3 ethics points total remained, how it would decide what you lose on a shift. That makes sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Other Prosperity Traditions: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827969918914142208 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827971990703185921 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827981829273681921 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/827986089147248640 Capitalism, ho. Interesting (and appropriate) that private colony ships got moved here from Individualism; it didn't exactly make sense there and definitely wouldn't have made much sense in Egalitarianism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Ein Sexmonster posted:I'd imagine private colony ships have been reworked with the pop ethics changes. Probably, yeah. Something to make them worth a whole Tradition selection, instead of just a tech. Especially since they're not in the expansion-focused tree, which is interesting now that I think about it. Also, the guy posting what I've been linking confirmed that Energy Grids and Nexuses are renamed Power Hubs, so yeah, people who thought that were right. Edit: Speaking of things moved from techs to traditions, I'm watching the uploaded version of the stream now and federations are under the Diplomacy tree now. That makes sense. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Libluini posted:This is all very interesting and all, but I'm itching to see what Exploration brings to the table. What was said; it's the science tree. Will probably have some unique things, but cheaper stations, faster research speed, and so on are all there too. Speaking of unique things: Harmony reveals, with another previously-an-ethos-tech building being one of them. https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828184101584789504 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828196152554172416 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828205364655095809 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828205905653223425 It's very, well, utopian.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
DatonKallandor posted:It's funny that Harmony also lets you keep some slaves (- unrest). For the Greater Good? From a design perspective, it makes sense, really. They're trying to make all the Tradition trees useful for every ethos, or at least almost every one, depending on how you play, so it being able to help Authoritarians and Xenophobes as well isn't bad as long as it doesn't do it in a way that goes against the game's other goals. Such as theme, which... This actually works here too. Your joke is more or less spot-on; while it might not match the first impression Harmony gives, "everyone accepting their place in life and working towards what's best for the society/empire/whatever as a whole" does work as one interpretation of it. It's not the only way to utilize or interpret the tree, thankfully, but it is one way it can apply. RabidWeasel posted:I think the first game of Banks I'm going to play will be based around trying to generate as much unity as quickly as possible just so I can play with all the new poo poo. Baronjutter posted:Ok I'm liking the happiness boosting stuff and I like how they're trying to make these sort of "ethos neutral". I'm liking it a lot too. One thing I find particularly interesting is them being easier to get for smaller empires; larger ones have more resources and such, but smaller ones get these bonuses and consequently Ascension Perks much faster. It seems like a way to try to make playing smaller, or at least not always rapidly expanding, more viable and powerful, and I hope it works out. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I'm getting more and more curious about what's happening to ethics bonuses. It made sense that the private colony ship was being moved out of egalitarianism as it didn't fit anymore. But my favorite part of pacifism was the paradise dome. Well, my favorite part besides the governments that raise your core systems. Yeah, a lot is changing; having watched the first segment of the stream on the Paradox Extra channel, a lot seems to be balanced around Traditions now. For example, there weren't any near-guaranteed anomalies early on. Even the lowest had failure rates of 25% or so. One of the first two Exploration perks, meanwhile, reduces anomaly failure rate by (I think) 15%, plus another effect. I like it, for the most part. It's definitely going to shake things up and take some getting used to, and older strategies will need to be reworked, possibly significantly, but it seems to be adding a lot to the game as well. Meanwhile, more Harmony: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828322518578655232 https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828327812583022592 This tree seems to have basically everything I want except science stuff. It and Exploration are probably going to be the primary focuses of my friendly science squid empire. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Rumda posted:It does seem like harmony may be too broad. I can't see why you would ever not take it. Wanting the other things more. It has a lot of nice things but it doesn't do everything, and really none of its bonuses help you do things. Leader lifespan improvements make it so you don't replace leaders as often, less ethics divergence and more happiness helps keep problems from arising, but other than high happiness yield modifiers it doesn't really improve your production or give you new things to do and so on. It offers stability, which is nice, but at the same time I don't think Harmony should be anyone's first choice of Tradition tree, based on what I'm seeing here. It's a second or third tree even for the people who want it a lot, I figure. And some people (like those who want other trees's benefits more and have higher unity costs, such as warmongers and people who aren't very, well, harmonious) may just never take it. It being good for anyone doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will take it. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Feb 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Setting aside the happiness debate, we got the last Harmony option: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828347510162862081
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
I was making mine but then stuff happened and I didn't. May still finish them up eventually.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
For those who want to get along with people outside their empire, rather than within it, Diplomacy is an option: https://twitter.com/dmoregard/status/828539904300875776
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
In non-Tradition news, Wiz just posted this: https://twitter.com/Martin_Anward/status/828560016932270081 A look at the psionic path of Ascension, I suppose? Seems interesting. I wonder what it actualyl does mechanically, besides the armies; genetics and robotics work from existing mechanics, but a psionic population (not just bits of tech) is new, unless I've missed a lot since I last played.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2017 12:11
|
|