That would be an uncharitable assessment.
Stellaris
- Thread starter grandad1982
- Start date
That would be an uncharitable assessment.
DaviddesJ
Deity
I see it as, "Games these days should continue to evolve throughout their lifetimes," not, "OMG this game is in beta they shouldn't sell it."
Akka
Moody old mage.
The next major update is looking like a train wreck. They're adding quite a bit of interesting things, but at the cost of gutting the core game.
I'm really, really mad at them. Wiz seems unable to touch a game without ruining it.
I'm really, really mad at them. Wiz seems unable to touch a game without ruining it.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Tons of things, but when it's just "mildly", I either don't bother to post about it, or just do it in passing (and as such isn't remembered a lot).
Akka
Moody old mage.
I would prefer them to change the defense system instead of removing two of the three FTL ones. Especially as hyperlane are just a way to remove the entire concept of "space" to make it, basically, land-based warfare. We already have EU4 and HoI, thanks, I want my space back.
DaviddesJ
Deity
I see a pretty big difference still between the surface of the earth and an arbitrary graph.
If you're going to make defense possible then ultimately you have to constrain movement in much the same way, you have to allow defensible boundaries to protect things behind them. You just get to choose whether to do this in a relatively simple way or an unmanageably complicated way.
Their logic for their changes seems pretty sound to me. The anger being directed at it makes it feel more right. If no one's ranting against you you're probably not being ambitious enough.
If you're going to make defense possible then ultimately you have to constrain movement in much the same way, you have to allow defensible boundaries to protect things behind them. You just get to choose whether to do this in a relatively simple way or an unmanageably complicated way.
Their logic for their changes seems pretty sound to me. The anger being directed at it makes it feel more right. If no one's ranting against you you're probably not being ambitious enough.
Yeah i mean when you think about it space is 3 dimensional (or even 4 dimensional if you include time). So really if you were going to simulate "space" you should have a spherical map that is as deep as it is wide. But you dont, you just get a flat pack map. And because its flat, its too easy to just punch through the front lines and beeline for the core worlds. Because
One other solution they could have considered is allowing the different warp types as they are, but limit their use to within your borders. So when you reach your territory frontier, you switch back to star lanes (unless you grant or get an agreement in place with an empire that you can have wormhole or warp access). That may have been one solution.
One other solution they could have considered is allowing the different warp types as they are, but limit their use to within your borders. So when you reach your territory frontier, you switch back to star lanes (unless you grant or get an agreement in place with an empire that you can have wormhole or warp access). That may have been one solution.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
I actually think it's great to be honest, and hoped for them to change it since the moment they announced that they thought about possibly doing it a year ago or so. The freedom of space is great and all, but the way the FTLs prevent you from defending your empire with anything other than similar-sized fleets the moment spaceports don't do any significant damage anymore, is just so much more negative compared to what you gain.
Will certainly return for a few games once the update is live.
Will certainly return for a few games once the update is live.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Seems you just have the same limitations than Wiz, unable to get out of the land-based paragdim...
Good design would be to find what kind of defense would work in space, not force space to act as if it were ground terrain.
Good design would be to find what kind of defense would work in space, not force space to act as if it were ground terrain.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well yes, that may be the case, especially given that I actually like the "hyperlane-only" sort of system from other space 4x, and have been playing "hyperlane-only" games most of the time anyway, so for me it's not really a loss. It's just building on what I already like with added geometry and more predictable galaxies.
Nonetheless, I thought about alternatives for a while after the idea was first brought into the discussion, but really, everything I could think of basically boils down to "Somehow force the opponent to move into static defenses", which basically renders the idea of the different ftl types useless, at least when it comes to how you interact with other players. Because the only way to force somebody into such static defenses is basically to grab them as they move, prevent them from moving where they want to move, and instead place them in front of your static defenses. The only real alternative to that is to make "static defenses" not "static", but defensive-only, but that too would go against the idea of making locations matter.
I'm open to alternatives of course, but so far I have not seen anything that sounded like a solid idea to me. Haven't read the Stellaris or Steam Forums in months though, but the discussion in the Dev Diary still seems to be dominated by people saying "This is a good trade-off. Sad to see ftls go, but we gain more from it than we lose." - if there were an obvious alternative, I would expect it to be named more often. And what we have now is just terrible.
Nonetheless, I thought about alternatives for a while after the idea was first brought into the discussion, but really, everything I could think of basically boils down to "Somehow force the opponent to move into static defenses", which basically renders the idea of the different ftl types useless, at least when it comes to how you interact with other players. Because the only way to force somebody into such static defenses is basically to grab them as they move, prevent them from moving where they want to move, and instead place them in front of your static defenses. The only real alternative to that is to make "static defenses" not "static", but defensive-only, but that too would go against the idea of making locations matter.
I'm open to alternatives of course, but so far I have not seen anything that sounded like a solid idea to me. Haven't read the Stellaris or Steam Forums in months though, but the discussion in the Dev Diary still seems to be dominated by people saying "This is a good trade-off. Sad to see ftls go, but we gain more from it than we lose." - if there were an obvious alternative, I would expect it to be named more often. And what we have now is just terrible.
Akka
Moody old mage.
See, that's what I mean with "can't get out of the land-based paragdim". You stay in this idea "you need a fortress that can block the way" and "locations matter". That's nonsensical, that's not what space is about, and that's exactly the problem with Wiz.
That's just illustrating how people lacks vision and imagination and will buy any crap the dev claim. The alternative have been given from day one in Paradox's forum, but they have selective stubborness (sectors are so unpopular they have a dedicated quarantine thread, but the dev would rather break what works than fix them, for example ; I wish they had the same kind of stubborness about varied FTL methods).
Alternative are easy and numerous : supply lines and supply limits, system-wide defenses, planet-based weapons and interdiction, movement jammers (not "grab a fleet and bring it in front of the guns", but "slow down any fleet that enters the system", so that the defender has the movement advantage). The only thing about all that which was even TRIED was the movement jammers, and it was mounted on space stations that gets vaporised in two to three seconds. And making said stations relevant was also never attempted.
Basically, Paradox didn't even tried to find another solution than "make it EU warfare in space" and then claimed "we couldn't make it work". No s*** Sherlock, you couldn't make work what you didn't even try to make work ? I'm shocked !
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well, I stay in that mindset because I want to have it. I like static defenses, and I want some form of it. That seems to be true for the large majority of people in the Stellaris Forums.
Sectors are unpopular with a fraction of the community, a minority as far as I can tell.
Maybe, but how's that not again just land-based combat translated into space?
I don't really see how that would avoid current problems.
...run into the same problem that current local defenses run into, that you can just jump to another target (which the AI with its vision cheat would always do just like right now they always jump to that one planet of yours that doesn't have a spaceport)
How would movement penalties help with the "have a fleet that's about as big as that of your opponent or die"-problem?
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
The game is already played on a largely two-dimensional plane. The z-axis, in Stellaris, does not matter. The leap from a two-dimensional plane with no geography to one that has some geography doesn't sound like a huge leap to me.
Good design would be finding out what kind of defense would work in space; you are right about that. The developer, unlike a hypothetical interstellar empire in the real world, has the ability to change the rules of space travel and interstellar geography at a whim. What is a defense against wormhole empires? The answer is "nothing", because the only way to prevent a jump would be to destroy the station, for example.
And warp? If a warp interdictor existed, and could pull ships dropping out of warp in nearby systems into the main system, why couldn't an empire being a chain of these and pull their fleet across the galaxy rapidly?
I personally agree that this is a limiting view of things, but I don't think the developers have figured a way to get around that issue, and so them reverting to a more standard system is probably the only safe be they can make.
Sectors are pretty trash, yeah.
I wouldn't mind supply lines, but given this is Paradox we're talking about, my CPU probably would. System-wide defenses are a neat idea, but doesn't change the issue of being able to just leap around fortified systems, and I don't think everybody wants to fortify every populated system. Planet-based weapons and interdiction would be a terrible design decision because nothing says fun like indestructible weapon platforms.
I honestly don't see that as a problem because I liked EUIV.
On the bright side, people who don't like the changes can just stick to Capek from here on out or wait until the warp mods come along.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
I hope that if they are changing the warping they will consider (via, if it may, a expansion pack) a stellar network system: essentially the moving of civilian ships across system, including cargo ships and tourists. Indeed a mechanic for more civilian stuff would be of intrigue in giving more organic structure and could allow for more scenarios. It would also go very, very well with a spy system cause I want to infiltrate everyone with the same spiced spies just as I infiltrate worlds in industrial to early space age for their annexation into my system. Also could go with a boost to pirates and other hostile neutralities.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,809
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Way more importantly for the game play though, the Dev Diary about how they want to handle doomstacks and general ship design is finally here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-diary-96-doomstacks-and-ship-design.1058152/
Not sure what I think about it, it sounds like it's going to be fun, but at the same time, it sounds very... artificial?
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-diary-96-doomstacks-and-ship-design.1058152/
Not sure what I think about it, it sounds like it's going to be fun, but at the same time, it sounds very... artificial?
Akka
Moody old mage.
The entire patch is "artificial" piled up on itself. I'm very annoyed, as I would like to get some aspects of the patch (which are really needed, like the new peace system) without the others which absolutely destroys the very basis of it (like the disgusting change to FTL system), but it comes as a package...
DaviddesJ
Deity
It's kind of unreasonable to expect a galactic exploration and development game to be "realistic" rather than "artificial". Reality can't support any kind of interesting game; it has to be artificial.
Similar threads
