Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Stellaris

#347
I'd rather roleplay an empire in a game with solid mechanics configured to allow and reward the roleplay, than do so in a game where the mechanics are kept deliberately broken so that I could break character at the last moment to win. I hate doomstacks, I'm glad they're gone (or mitigated, at least), and if we're arguing roleplay, doomstacks have a very specific role to... play. If doomstacks are a surefire way to win no matter what, then if I'm roleplaying a peace-loving hippy xenophile and I see things fall apart at the last minute, escaping my fate with a doomstack is unsatisfactory. That's not a consistent roleplay. I can see "to each their own" but the roleplaying argument should at least be consistent.

It would be a better story if I just the game without breaking character. That's the whole point of RImworld's 'storyteller' AIs, by the way.

Anyway, in the next paid expansion they're introducing megacorporations. I welcome the opportunity for more varied roleplay in a well-designed, clearly thought-through mechanic environment, as well as enriching the ways other people can lose.

A game like this doesn't have to be fun only when winning, it should also be fun when you lose in interesting ways. Wouldn't that be a worthy goal to aspire to for any game? Again, Rimworld, arguably a sandbox game. Dwarf Fortress too, for that matter.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#348
It's where CK2 falls down a little.
It'd be nice if there were a way to continue a game, even after you "lose".
Either take over from a bastard branch, or continue as a Baron trying to scavenge enough power to get a county again.
Or the ability to continue play from someone's Court.

Then you could properly follow an entire world through, even if you are in a position where you have lost, you may eventually be able to make a comeback.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Image
qRogue v0.0.9
Post

Re: Stellaris

#349
Silverware wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:04 pm
It's where CK2 falls down a little.
It'd be nice if there were a way to continue a game, even after you "lose".
Either take over from a bastard branch, or continue as a Baron trying to scavenge enough power to get a county again.
Or the ability to continue play from someone's Court.

Then you could properly follow an entire world through, even if you are in a position where you have lost, you may eventually be able to make a comeback.
Couldn't agree more. Families making a comeback was not unheard of, and I'm surprised Paradox hasn't implemented a mechanic to represent that phenomenon.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#350
masseffect7 wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 11:56 am
Silverware wrote:
Wed Oct 31, 2018 3:04 pm
It's where CK2 falls down a little.
It'd be nice if there were a way to continue a game, even after you "lose".
Either take over from a bastard branch, or continue as a Baron trying to scavenge enough power to get a county again.
Or the ability to continue play from someone's Court.

Then you could properly follow an entire world through, even if you are in a position where you have lost, you may eventually be able to make a comeback.
Couldn't agree more. Families making a comeback was not unheard of, and I'm surprised Paradox hasn't implemented a mechanic to represent that phenomenon.
Because it's a "hard" solution to implement in the current system. CK3 may include it.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Image
qRogue v0.0.9
Post

Re: Stellaris

#351
Just started a game again. They have removed the Tiles on the planet, replacing it with a pretty confusing alternative menu. There is no attachment to the planet and its inhabitants. Its only numbers and lists now.
Also the borders of an empire now only grow for every "dominated" system / a system where an outpost ist build. Not really fun anymore...

Looks like changes, just to have changes. Or just to have some streamlining for competitive multiplayer.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#352
Damocles wrote:
Sat Jan 26, 2019 8:21 am
Just started a game again. They have removed the Tiles on the planet, replacing it with a pretty confusing alternative menu. There is no attachment to the planet and its inhabitants. Its only numbers and lists now.
Also the borders of an empire now only grow for every "dominated" system / a system where an outpost ist build. Not really fun anymore...

Looks like changes, just to have changes. Or just to have some streamlining for competitive multiplayer.
Looks like you have missed the entire 2.0 and beyond patch set.

The fixes are to:
  • Give space a landscape, so chokepoints are a thing
  • Make it slower for fleets to move through space, making it easier to avoid enemy fleets
  • Make planets interesting, rather than just the same set of 25 tiles worth of buildings
  • Alter combat to allow a semi-successful war (which kinda is the only time most of the time now)
  • Make planet specialization FAR more incentivized
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Image
qRogue v0.0.9
Post

Re: Stellaris

#353
Maybe on paper the planets allow more options now. I still dont see a reason why this would not have worked with the former tiles system.
Enhancing it, making a separation between the "city" and "landscape" tiles.

The big advantage of the tiles where, that they convey a lot of information and interaction (moving pops, upgrading buildings, clearing space) and allow displaying nice graphics for the species and background art in a compact screen.
Now its a bunch of lists, and dropdowns with information spread all over the place. I dont feel any connection to a planet, and find myself spending almost no time in that part of the game.

The former border of influence allowed more interesting scenarios of capturing systems, by pushing influence and thus the border. Now its a simple "capture the system via war/building outpost" mechanic. Borders now grow very liniar: if the stat filled up, build another adjacent outpost. Almost every empire has the same area covered in the first part of the game.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#354
Damocles wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:19 pm
The former border of influence allowed more interesting scenarios of capturing systems, by pushing influence and thus the border. Now its a simple "capture the system via war/building outpost" mechanic. Borders now grow very liniar: if the stat filled up, build another adjacent outpost. Almost every empire has the same area covered in the first part of the game.
because you previously could push influence without building an outpost?
[/s]
Damocles wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:19 pm
Maybe on paper the planets allow more options now. I still dont see a reason why this would not have worked with the former tiles system.
Enhancing it, making a separation between the "city" and "landscape" tiles.
separation between what?


they are also already working on impvroving the planetary view
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... h.1147916/
Post

Re: Stellaris

#355
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:48 pm

because you previously could push influence without building an outpost?
[/s]
You could take over a system without an outpost build within it, even stealing systems from others, as the border moved, for example by increasing the "border size skill" or whatever that was called.
Now you have to build or take over an outpost within a system to take over the system. A way more simplistic system.

--------

With the separation I refer to the pops having different occupational fields, such as the specialists vs workers.
All of that could be realized in a tile system, separating the countryside from the city infrastructure. Colonization all the time back already allowed that. Way more engaging than just lists.

Image
Post

Re: Stellaris

#356
On the first point: yes you could take over systems without fighting for them. That meant that empires could be sniped by spamming border growth techs and bonuses.
Which is *NOT* a good thing, it meant that, without actually projecting force, you could conquer space from another player, including (potentially) their chokepoint systems. Not 'fair' gameplay by any means.

On the second point, I actually find the list mode of the current system *FAR* more engaging, building worlds now takes planning. You don't just place down the building that matches the tile's generation, you now plan your growth far more carefully, and get far more interesting options for worlds.
Although yes, it does need a visual overhaul to make sure it's clear as to what is happening, and a management overhaul to allow you to shuffle pops around in jobs.
My energy producing robots should not be mining, and my miners should not be researching.
°˖◝(ಠ‸ಠ)◜˖°
Image
qRogue v0.0.9
Post

Re: Stellaris

#357
i found the culture reach mechanic of galactic civilisations 2 quite interesting in fact.
where population produces culture points that flowed out into space and claimed tiles for the empire they belonged to
with cultures fighting over territory just by building art installations
and having planets switch sides because the other side seems more appealing.
Silverware wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:32 pm
On the first point: yes you could take over systems without fighting for them. That meant that empires could be sniped by spamming border growth techs and bonuses.
Which is *NOT* a good thing, it meant that, without actually projecting force, you could conquer space from another player, including (potentially) their chokepoint systems. Not 'fair' gameplay by any means.
the mechanic itself isnt unfair (it can be quite fun as i already described)
what made it shitty in stellaris was that it was very one dimensional.
planets had a fixed influence radius, as had outposts and their effects were very binary with no way to influence it beyond expending major resources on building more outposts.

were it coupled to unity (which kindasorta is representative of cultural development) or influence generation
maybe have even two pressure values, with unity being what the people in the area think (where they feel attached to) and influence being legal/political claims on areas.

with an occasional station spreading legal influence (which can be upgraded/manipulated via military and diplomatic modules) or cultural pressure/propaganda with art installations and broadcasting stations
Post

Re: Stellaris

#359
Silverware wrote:
Mon Jan 28, 2019 4:54 pm
So, basically you are advocating the growth/exchange of culture between different empires?
That'd work, but it'd need to alter how pops migrate a lot, and only work for non-hiveminds.
you dont need pop migration changes directly.
non-physical/-migratory exchange of culture is a thing.
trade, communication, have the occasional artist travel between...

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron