Return to “Games”

Post

Re: Stellaris

#316
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:19 am
About the only thing I like is the addition of starports, but I don't like having to put a starbase in EVERY system. So, essentially you have all the drawbacks of hyperlanes in that you have limited paths, but you have none of the advantages in the faster speed. I know everyone is slower now, but speeding it up could have made the early game less of a bore. Also, the game has basically become one of waiting for your minerals to build up, build a star base, repeat.
Usually it's just stations, honestly. There's a very strict limit on how many actual starports you can have, and I feel it's very constricting, and far too low at the moment. Three bases to start with? That's in insanely strict cap. There simply aren't enough of them - and not even in an "interesting choices" way, because it tends to be fairly obvious which systems you absolutely need to upgrade a station in. They also take too much to upgrade. Defensive platform or colony ship? Not much of a decision there: of course colony ship, as long as you're not under fire and desperate.
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:19 am
I hate hyperlanes, I hated them before and I hate them even more in this iteration because they seem to have slowed down space travel. So, essentially you have all the drawbacks of hyperlanes in that you have limited paths, but you have none of the advantages in the faster speed.
I feel this way too. Previously, I avoided having hyperlanes entirely (and would keep them out of my games) just because it was so easy to get blocked in. I'm somewhat okay with the old warp travel, but hyperlanes are the one I disliked the most. They're slow, and have no advantages. Empires using hyperlanes inevitably lost to those using anything else just because they aren't good. The addition of having to fly through the entire star system to continue is also painfully slow. I understand why they made these changes, but the "why" doesn't justify it, honestly. Instead of providing interesting choices and decisions, they reduced it to "which of these three paths do I take next". Instead of wondering how you'll cope with the FTL methods of other races, it's fairly obvious which directions they'll come from, and trivial to prepare. In essence, they've reduced what used to be a 3D galactic map to a painfully-slow 2D.
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:19 am
I realize I'm in the minority, but I think I'm in the group of players who are so put off by these changes that I will never go back to Stellaris. As I said, I'd be fine if these changes had been made in the sequel. For example, I hate Civ VI, but I'm fine with it because I really like Civ IV and V, which are completed games.
I dislike all the Civ games, honestly, as well as Crusader Kings II, and all those others. The map and surrounding environment altogether had too much control in "defining" your potential actions. There was usually a very clear "optimal" way to do things because of how the map was laid out, and I didn't like that. That's part of why I liked wormholes (interesting tidbit: I didn't enjoy Stellaris nearly as much before I started using wormholes): they open up the galaxy and give you a wide variety of choices about how you're going to expand. Instead of "which lane do I travel down next", it's "which of these dozen stars would be the best place to build an outpost". (That's something else I dislike: building outposts used to matter a lot more due to star layout: you could place outposts to encompass multiple stars, and, if cleverly placed, you could take more stars later when your borders expanded.)


I didn't find myself hating the game, though. I'm still in the process of giving it a chance, I guess. I'm going to wait to see how combat holds up now before I make a decision. And, in waiting to see how combat holds up... I'm also going to wait until they patch the game-breaking bugs. I actually have a good amount of faith that they will, and I'm not worried about that.


Edit because Flakesninja:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 am
so your alternative to breaking the promise of contiously improving and maintaining the game for a minority is to break the promise for a majority and demanding additional 60+bucks for whats essentially a patch?

that sounds vastly more like "testing customer loyalty" than what they actually have done.
I think he's saying "Save the big changes for a Stellaris II, whenever they get around to it", not "Sell Stellaris 2.0 as its own game". I find that completely reasonable, as they'd have time to upgrade and overhaul basically everything over the time it was in development. That's common practice, really. That's basically how Hearts of Iron, Civilization, and all the others work.
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:19 am
you mean the same price you pay for pmuch any other game out there for which you dont get the amount of improvement paradox hands out to everyone for free?
Emphasis mine - "improvement", in this case, is an opinion, not a fact. :P
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Stellaris

#317
It's not free. Dev costs are worked into prices. Basic economics, nothing is free. I disagree with the premise that these changes are improvements, they certainly haven't improved the game for many (takes a look at recent Steam reviews, ouch). Also, there were far more tactful ways to solve the issues of FTL. They chose the simplest and most unimaginative way. When you release a game, you should stay on the same basic course. Make improvements to the features you have, add features, fix bugs, etc. This, however, is diverting far from the vision given for the game prior to release, and I most certainly would not have bought it had this been the vision. At the very least I would have refunded it almost immediately. If the devs feet that the FTL is flawed at a base level, take that lesson and apply it to a sequel. Doing this in an update is just not appropriate.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#318
Talvieno wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:33 am
Usually it's just stations, honestly. There's a very strict limit on how many actual starports you can have, and I feel it's very constricting, and far too low at the moment. Three bases to start with? That's in insanely strict cap. There simply aren't enough of them - and not even in an "interesting choices" way, because it tends to be fairly obvious which systems you absolutely need to upgrade a station in. They also take too much to upgrade. Defensive platform or colony ship? Not much of a decision there: of course colony ship, as long as you're not under fire and desperate.
im into solid midgame, avoided basically all "maximum starbases +x" researches and am at 2..9? cap and cant find enough spaces or resources to build them
the cap vanishes very quickly.
Talvieno wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:33 am
what used to be a 3D galactic map to a painfully-slow 2D.
it never was 3D. not even in the slightest

masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:37 am
they certainly haven't improved the game for many (takes a look at recent Steam reviews, ouch)
completely ignoring the larger number of positive reviews in the same time frame?


and to be fair, previously any mid game drive system reduced the galaxy to 3-5 jumps wide.
basically removing the size of the galaxy.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#323
Yeah, because you have one whole month before 2.0 was released where people weren't giving negative reviews. Now the reviews are of 2.0 and many people don't like it. It is about 75% positive over the month, but about 50% since 2.0 came out, which is what this discussion is about.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#324
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:54 am
Yeah, because you have one whole month before 2.0 was released where people weren't giving negative reviews. Now the reviews are of 2.0 and many people don't like it. It is about 75% positive over the month, but about 50% since 2.0 came out, which is what this discussion is about.
no. im just counting the last 4 days since the release of 2.0

theres pmuch exactly 50% more positive reviews than negative ones.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#325
Also, saying people don't like it just because they don't like change is oversimplifying this. While there may be some who feel that way, most of the people I've interacted with liked the previous changes, but hate this one. So if you want to factor the degree of change into your assertion, it would be more accurate.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#326
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:55 am
Also, saying people don't like it just because they don't like change is oversimplifying this. While there may be some who feel that way, most of the people I've interacted with liked the previous changes, but hate this one. So if you want to factor the degree of change into your assertion, it would be more accurate.
yeah, its a very big change. so a whole lot of people dont like it.

it breaks their (preferred) way of playing it, very hard so in this case.
Post

Re: Stellaris

#327
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:54 am
masseffect7 wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:54 am
Yeah, because you have one whole month before 2.0 was released where people weren't giving negative reviews. Now the reviews are of 2.0 and many people don't like it. It is about 75% positive over the month, but about 50% since 2.0 came out, which is what this discussion is about.
no. im just counting the last 4 days since the release of 2.0

theres pmuch exactly 50% more positive reviews than negative ones.
Just comparing top ten reviews, excluding the past week vs only the ones since the update:
Only prior reviews, main review page: 2 negative, 8 positive
Only reviews since the update: 8 negative, 2 positive.

The "quality" reviews (as determined by votes on steam, I suppose) have completely reversed their positions. :P I'd say that's a fair indicator of a strong negative change. I'd trust quality over quantity, honestly.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Stellaris

#328
Talvieno wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:04 am
The "quality" reviews (as determined by votes on steam, I suppose) have completely reversed their positions. :P I'd say that's a fair indicator of a strong negative change. I'd trust quality over quantity, honestly.
so someone who cant put what they dis-/like about it to words is less valid in their dis-/like than someone who can?
Post

Re: Stellaris

#329
If they aren't any less valid as reviews, why is there such a sharp difference between "reviews by quality" and "reviews by quantity"? We're talking a change of 80% positive to 20% positive - that's fairly massive. Only taking the well-written ones into account helps get rid of a lot of the fanboyism, too, and leaves only those that can actually intelligently word what they want to say. It gets rid of reviews like:
dont trust the h8ers, they just mad bcuz theys' suck. G1T G00D R G1T R3KT, M8
The new changes suck, but I'm not going to tell you how because I'm really just jumping on the bandwagon. Thumbs down!
edit: I'm not claiming the votes are any less valid, just the reviews.
Last edited by Talvieno on Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Stellaris

#330
yeah, its a very big change. so a whole lot of people dont like it.

it breaks their (preferred) way of playing it, very hard so in this case.
I don't think it's merely because it changes how people play either, while that is definitely a component. I think the changes go to the core of what people want in a game. Stellaris was always more of a sandbox-strategy hybrid game for me, and now it seems like all of the sandbox elements are gone and it's gone full strategy. I can get a far better strategy experience in any of the other Paradox games I own.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron