|
On September 22 2017 01:56 WindWolf wrote:
Another thing I don't understand from that video is how building a frontier-outpost in every system that you want to claim causes the game to get less micro-management compared to now.
Does it automatically build all the stuff in the region to collect the resources. Because that shit was kinda useless busy work. Much like starting out without auto survey.
|
Make Hyperlanes standard.
Warp needs cheap structures (early/mid tech) on Planets you own but will be fast.
Wormhole is mid/lategame, requires expensive(!) but fragile structures only buildable in your territory and works generally the same as it does now.
Would this be that hard?
|
Hard no. But kinda bad IMHO. As i stated before i belive the only FTL method that has HUGE potential for expanding both strategical and tactical depth is hyperlane. Playing with "hyperlane only" is tottaly different game than with warp ON. They should keep it that way while expanding both playstyles as much as they can. Also why would warp need structures? Thats not how it works Lore wise.
|
Never let lore get in teh way of better game design. Space games have this problem that there is no terrain or any interesting features to the map. And if there are, they are easily avoid because space. I would rather hyperlanes be the primary system that everyone uses. Then make worm holes do something else, like allow people to build jump gates across massive distances. That is far better than three different flavors of basically the same thing.
|
Well i disagree. I play either "everything on" or "hyperlanes only" . With everything on warp is superior to everything and still will be with structures unless You tweek numbers heavily. It will just make game more micromanagment heavy.
While in "hyperlane only" You can actualy make terrain important. The hyperlane matrix just needs rework. Some systems could potentially have many hyperlanes making them more important. Some could have long range lanes (like hyperlane in DS9 for example) connecting different parts of galaxy. While some could have only 1 lane. The hyperlane matrix has huge potential for improving the game.
|
Imo replace the jump drive tech with Plansix idea. The game is/would be a lot better without warp/jumpdrive (which is just overcharged warp).
Make them buildings that come at the build time of a large mega-structure and only connect to owned/controlled wormhole buildings. Allow to move your fleet from one WHS to another really fast.
Maybe give them another limiter like a cap based on planet numbers or zone around them that stops you from building another one nearby.
I like the idea of core nodes that have many hyperlanes going away from them to create central points of war. Imo there isn't enough separation between systems in stellaris and actual core sectors (possibly with more pops) sound good to me. Maybe go a step further and lower max pop count the further you go away from home planets, so winners of war have to eat through crap planets first to get the juicy targets. Less snowball and actual applications for 8 pop planets.
|
On September 22 2017 01:53 Cyro wrote:Not as simple as always picking one weapon choice, i've heard great things about all of the previously terrible options so cynical ;0 none wants to talk about the 1.8 changes?
I was playing 1.8 to see if the hard AI isnt that annoying anymore with going over fleetmax. And as usual me ended up against an advanced ai militarist. So played it save, had higher tech and allies, but he had the projectile weapons. So had to research those and refit two weapon levels down to win :D.
Just want to have more tech freedom at the start.
I would like if Warpdrive could be slowed in a large area around a planet with certain structures. Would be a nice defensive measure. Hyperlanes already have the defensive stations. Wormhole stations should just take longer to setup and be exposed on the map when used hehe.
Or just have defensive stations pull in everything that jumps past scanrage :D
|
On September 22 2017 01:53 Cyro wrote:Not as simple as always picking one weapon choice, i've heard great things about all of the previously terrible options so cynical ;0 none wants to talk about the 1.8 changes?
I like most of the changes at least from reading. Food buffed to how it should work, Fleet power explosion nerfed, Core sector governing, I don't need a mod for 0 influence sector management, Biological Ascension buffed, rockets re-targeting, tradition cost flattened, naked corvettes aren't the best unit in the game anymore.
Will have to try out traditions before I can give a verdict, some stuff sounds a really op (+10/12/14... unity per lvl 5/6/7 scientist???wtf??? Materialist Robust+max leader cap empire will easily out-unity spiritualists in midgame).
I'm doubtful about all those %buffs to ship buildspeed instead of -%cost, it's either going to be extremely broken (if you can reach like -80% buildtime) or completely useless. I rarely suddenly have the need to produce huge fleets, I mostly keep close to my fleetcap so unless it allows me to play low supply and warp in a fleet within a month when I get eventually attacked, I don't really see the point. I guess it could help in close wars when you have a bank.
I'm really surprised spiritualists get almost exclusively buffs. Robots felt a bit stronger, but idk.
On September 22 2017 08:23 FeyFey wrote:
Or just have defensive stations pull in everything that jumps past scanrage :D
That's actually a fairly simple and robust solution :O
|
I've played quite a bit the last week or so and I've had a lot of fun, but it is very annoying to always put in ten hours or so into a game and then have it ruined because the AI is so immensely stupid. Half the strategizing for wars is about tricking the AI, or trying to trick your idiotic AI allies into action.
|
If any of you have reached an end-game crisis yet, is the AI any better at dealing with them yet? Because the only time I've seen any AI react to a crisis was an Awakened Empire that awoke before the crisis spawned.
|
United Kingdom20287 Posts
On September 22 2017 23:10 WindWolf wrote:
If any of you have reached an end-game crisis yet, is the AI any better at dealing with them yet? Because the only time I've seen any AI react to a crisis was an Awakened Empire that awoke before the crisis spawned.
Yes, a lot of work went into that for 1.8 (supposedly)
a few of the endgame crisis mentions in patch notes, i've heard it talked about on streams/videos specifically as well tho
- Significant work done to Unbidden and Swarm AI, are now far less prone to get stuck and better able to consume the galaxy
- Major work done to AI empires' ability to cooperate and defend against endgame crises
I'l update when i get there, took my first game pretty slow so far
|
Are there any decent strategy guides out? I generally just try to rush getting all my core planets as fast as possible, get all the mineral production I can and expand my borders with tech. Maybe that is a shitty way to play because I keep losing.
I've noticed that the game is, a lot like many other Paradox games, very much about realizing small windows of time where it is imperative to expand, start wars or tech up in order to gain advantages in the long term. It's harder to get what those windows are in Stellaris for me rather than, say, CK.
|
United Kingdom20287 Posts
On September 23 2017 16:52 Heartland wrote:
Are there any decent strategy guides out? I generally just try to rush getting all my core planets as fast as possible, get all the mineral production I can and expand my borders with tech. Maybe that is a shitty way to play because I keep losing.
I've noticed that the game is, a lot like many other Paradox games, very much about realizing small windows of time where it is imperative to expand, start wars or tech up in order to gain advantages in the long term. It's harder to get what those windows are in Stellaris for me rather than, say, CK.
I find it hard to advise much other that going over what not to do in a particular game, like sometimes people play the same game style as me and they end up with 5x less stuff at X year because of some decisions that were not that obvious to call out without seeing what i would have done in the same position. It's hard to go through a list and ask stuff like "are you actively surveying systems and building mining stations on the resources that show up" when it's mostly automatic gameplay for me but not neccesarily something that a new player would think to do.
Are you talking from 1.8 experience or before? A lot of stuff changed with regards to expansion this patch. Also fighting vs normal AI right?
Early wars are mostly about picking off vulnerable points, that expansion planet that doesn't have a station on it yet etc - there's a window that opens after that when you have a big enough fleet to fight stations effectively.
|
I mostly play vs Hard AI with higher than normal aggression. Of course I build new stations over newly discovered resources. I do sometimes wait, however, and that is part of what I am unsure of, what should be premiered when building eco? Maxing out on pop? Levelling up everything? Going for minerals before trying to build a big fleet?
|
Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy.
|
On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote:
Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy.
Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
|
I've been playing this game for like two months, and I really want to play some multiplayer games. Hit me up, yo.
|
On September 24 2017 03:46 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote:
Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy. Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
If you like Paradox stuff and like space, you'll enjoy it for sure. I've got an easy 300 hours put in and I'm about to return now that a big update launched.
|
@rocket-discussion: Fought rockets vs kinetic a few times since the patch and it seems to be okay as long as PDD isn't on the field. The timing with PD before swarm is out is ridiculous though, expect to deal less than 10% of your normal dps. Especially static rocket defense has absolutely zero impact vs PD.
On September 24 2017 03:46 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2017 02:29 darthfoley wrote:
Is this game worth buying? I like EU4 a lot and space games are sexy. Well, I bought it and all the DLC for like $36, so we shall see
Imo EU has a much stronger gameplay, Stellaris needs some mods to feel refined and each match feels fairly similar to me. Also lots of time I basically do nothing but micro my empire.
It has more of an exploration focus though, and designing ships is still fun. The game isn't bad and definitely addicting, there are just some areas where they went for more simple or more automatized solutions than EU (diplomacy, asynchronous starting positions, anti-snowball), with the result that they work a lot worse.
The devs are fairly active though and listen to the community a lot.
|
United Kingdom20287 Posts
I mostly play vs Hard AI with higher than normal aggression.
Harder AI's have some ridiculous bonus like +50-100% to minerals/energy/fleetcap so it throws most of the normal rules out of the window, it's usually some form of AI abuse into snowballing to be able to deal with that
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
