I have problems with a lot of the same things as you, espionage and war exhaustion for example. But I don't really understand a lot of the solutions you suggest. The planet habitability especially, if you want to colonize every planet as soon as you get it why not play a machine empire, or a species with habitability bonuses? Simplifying and shortening the time it takes to fully exploit your territory would bore me personally, though I'm definitely more interested in the game for its roleplaying elements than trying to win asap. They really have their work cut out for them trying to keep a playerbase with such diverse priorities happy hahaha
@Schmuckubus well I would like to point out that they did nerf machine empire habitability and i used to pick them for the lack of habitable issues. You also still have to develop the planets. But i think sitting there waiting to use the planets you take is more boring. and yeah agree it will be impossible to please everyone.
As a first time watcher I don't necessarily think the game you want meshes well with the game that I want. While some of your gripes I share a lot of your proposals would seem to me to make the game even easier than it is already. When I'm talking "easy" I don't necessarily mean faster -- I mean in terms of the challenge involved. As for Federations with a large fleet they are sometimes powerful enough to be interesting but I've not run into anything the AI does that swarms of disruptor corvettes can't handle easily enough. Forget it once you get BBs with Carriers & missiles everywhere.
Wow tabbed out and it deleted what i said. That's fine that you feel diffrently. I do want to point out though about the game feeling easier. There are difficulty settings for that. You can also challenge yourself in many other ways. The base game and qol does not need to be difficult, frustrating in a way that is not fun. Also the issues i mention were not on a difficult setting at all but because of the issue it turned what should have been a relaxing game into a total bust. Also quality of difficulty matters. There is situations requiring more skill, then there is situations that are simply unfair and imbalanced especially when it comes to the stage of the game that you encounter them. I don't mind losing when my skill is genuinely bad or i made a mistake. But my mistake or skill did not produce a combined fed fleet 5 times larger than my largest fleet at a lower difficulty setting. The other issue i have with feds is were they not trying to fix the power block problem in the first place? Other than that thank you for your comment!
Yes! It is up there for me. I would love to learn what makes the economy tick so i could make guides about it. But without that information i have to guess or go through trail and error. This is why i cannot until this is fixed make a near perfect economy guide other than what i already have. My videos are pretty good but there are still gaps i feel and info that is missing sadly, My proposal would fix that for sure. Atleast, the guides i have still help you guys a great deal regardless.
I dont agree with all your points here but I definitely think the pop job system needs more controls added. I want the ability to add job priorities, select specific/forbid jobs for subspecies. I love specialising my pops but many different little things can screw with it right now. (Machine worlds messing up my cyborgs job priorities so the intelligent cyborgs aren't on the research jobs, just the strong worker machines are etc)
Yeah i mean there is no way everyone is going to agree on all of these but i think we can at least come together on some of them. The job system especially. Look I don't get offended just because someone doesn't play or think exactly as i do. That is ridiculous and unrealistic. Appreciate your comment!
@volairen I also agree with your points about DLC focus, espionage and genetic ascension. I like RP but not at the expense of game mechanics. Espionage is basically useless. Genetic ascension is better after the automodding stuff imo but still in need of love. I'd want to change the way you mod pops to not use all your green research, maybe a simple cost reduction or better yet don't make you choose between research and modding at all.
2. Ehh, morale and the effects it has on war exhaustion does not reflect what you are suggesting even in real life. Take the Iraq war as an example. The U.S., for lack of a better way to put this, styled on them, and yet the population of America grew increasingly sick of perpetual war. Instead, I’d suggest that, instead of reducing war exhaustion on your own side, increase it on the enemy side while having other effects on your own population (e.g., a rapid increase in the support for the isolationist faction assuming some form of democracy). 3. Makes perfect sense as you stated
Habitability cannot change until the slowdown issue gets resolved. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, I’m just saying that this game is literally unplayable in the late-game and more habitable planets, I imagine, would simply make that worse Perhaps set the max at 80% for ideal or 60%for all planets with habitability increasing from 20% up to the max depending on compatibility? Edit: you basically suggested this xD
Though i was in iraq and don't completely agree about war exhaustion, i do agree that at the very least we need more accuracy on what the enemy gets for war exhaustion.
Theres also balance. An AI DE/DS will never accept status quo cause no exhaustion Also by 75/100 intel, you get all info on ships. Where they are, what they have, ect.
With the way war works in Stellaris, I feel like EU4 does it best, with war score that is used to make demands and the way that war score is weighted depends on CB, but I think the game usually does a good job of it. That said, I do think I would augment it, since in EU4, you can't conquer entire empires in one go, and I would still like that to be possible in Stellaris.
I agree, in CK3 which i have videos for, i actually liked the way you achieved victory, i thought it was pretty fair. So it baffles me when paradox has better warfare systems out there but stays with the current one. Also i do believe it is mostly a good thing that you cannot destroy most empires in one go, unless your the appropriate build like a determined exterminator, then it makes zero sense. Also i don't necessarily mean destroy, i mean achieve victory. not a stupid status quo. Status quo should be an option if clearly neither side is more powerful than the other. Not being forced into it even though i whooped their ***.
In my opinion, they could set up espionage so that you simply leave an envoy to spy on a particular aspect or aspects of their country. E.g., they could spy on their technology, slowly granting you progress towards research, or you could spy on their military, giving you info on where they are and what they are equipped with. I also think better planet automation would be nice. This could be done by making pops smarter at moving between worlds (so they'd quickly flock to places with open jobs) or a sort of "unemployment build queue", where you'd tell the planet what to build once it reaches 0 available jobs. You could even just auto-disable buildings/districts that aren't being used at all and drop the upkeep. Distance penalty should *maybe* remain for vassalization or federation invitation, but just about anything else it should definitely be gone. "Is Overlord" and "In Federation" should be heavily reduced or removed. Bro, I literally just destroyed a fallen empire because they looked at me funny, what are you going to do??? Performance could be improved I think by simplifying ships. This would probably be a Stellaris 2 thing, though, since it would be a massive change to the game. I feel that only for specific builds destroyers and cruisers are particularly applicable. It'd be nice if they had their own specific roles they were good at. Galactic Imperium is dumb. Just make a galaxy wide hegemony comprised of purely vassals (or just yourself and one reliable vassal) instead. I think the community could be fixed but the ai needs to vote less dumbly, policies should be optional or purely beneficial as you said (perhaps they are all buffs, but the more that are added the less "cohesion" the community would have, and having an emperor or custodian or council would increase cohesion to help with that?). Kinda dumb that you also can't force a galactic peace without becoming the emperor... Oh and also don't force my ethics to change if I become emperor of the galaxy or get a psionic sovereign. That's dumb. Also dear god the ai is so stupid. I have vassals who I literally give resources to who still have enormous rebellions. Totally loyal, enormous subsidies, instantly dies to rebellion. Machine Age changes to robots were really stupid, like robots are now basically just lithoids with pop assembly. Why can't we have psionic hive minds? What about a hive mind that decides it would rather be a machine intelligence? Why not cybernetic-ascension robots who eventually decide that actually organic material is useful, so they make flesh-bodies or steal those of other creatures to house themselves?
tbh I think it'd be really cool if every federation just acted like a miniature version of the galactic community and if one gets big enough it could proclaim itself as such, therefore allowing new buffs for all members and sub-federations.
i just started getting into stellaris and ended biting the bullet and buying expansion subscription. Honestly i don't know what i would have done without it since it seems every single thing would have been locked behind a paywall.
The problem is that each race has a defined and strong playstyle when released, which then gets nerfed so its playstyle is just like every other again. I've stopped playing as i got bored. I even went back to the old version where you moved the influence borders, and it was more fun.
Ah influence borders. i vaguely remember that. I agree again your point is why i say nerfing is 99% of the time just bad practice. Nerfing should only be done if the community is screaming for it. Like vassalization for example. But even then it should be a small cautious adjustment with constant contact and feedback with the players. What we are seeing instead is these wide sweeping mega nerfs that make no sense.
2:00 Ive very recently gotten into stellaris and it feels like you need to pay for every single update to the game that ever happened. The worst part to me is when stuff is in the fucking gamefiles already but locked behind a paywall. Like I can look at how a colossus looks when selecting what empire I want to play, but to research and build one I need to visit the cash register again. That shits infuriating.
I personally pick and choose, but like i said or hinted at, charging full price for content that is many years old is not a good look nor do i think it really makes any more money than if you just reduced the price or integrated it into the base game to get more sales from the base game.
Your first argument is strictly why i won't play the game anymore. I've the base game, payed at launch and (IRL stuff yadayada) didn't play for five years, when i came back the amount of money i had to pay to have an updated game was simply too much (i like mods and since they all needs multiples expansions...), i let it go, today i should pay 330 bucks for an 8 years old updated game. It's strictly the same argument my brother have for Dead by Daylight: you must follow the game or left behind.
Yeah i agree. They are shooting themselves in the foot doing things this way. Even an amatuer business man can see that. The sub is ok in certain situations, but the issue with that is that if youve subbed for 10 months thats 100 dollars. You could have just bought the dlc you liked with that.
@@Sunstreaker89 Yeah, you got a point there, well whats worse is that some of the updates arent very good. Something does need to be done about the old content. Like i said they need to just integrate it in the base game, if nothing else to entice new players to purchase the base game. But that is purely a business perspective. Thats the thing even from a CFO ferengi perspective this current dlc system does not make sense. I don't even think it makes them the money that they are looking for.
There are easy ways to get around the paywall through piracy since the files are already in the game. I don't consider it immoral at all considering the pricing
Ok but how else are they gonna continuously develop the game? I never understand this argument where people think they pay $60 once and therefore they are entitled to the following decade of improvements that radically transform the game. Why? You still have the product you paid for when you stopped playing. Just because other people have a more compelling product doesn’t mean you deserve to have one for free
Fair enough I am not here to change your perspective. I know for a fact though that i am not the only person that agrees with these points. I mean maybe there are ways around some of these issues or I am sure some guys are not going to have an issue with some of these things. I mean i do have pictures and some evidence to back up some of these points but not all of them. Thanks for being respectful.
I agree with most of your takes here except the “nerfing” take, the neutron launchers were overpowered before there patch. Yes they had some counters yet even those got krumped by the neutron launchers. The disruptors and nano-swarmer missiles are even more OP with the exception of the artifact cost of the nano-missiles. It makes multiplayer a hassle to deal with as there’s only one way to make sure your empire survives into late game. At lest militarily ofc
Sure, but sad to say my friend, neutron launchers as still stupid af. Also what works in pvp does not necessarily work in pve and vice versa. I had to throw out the "Meta" when it came to computer neutron launcher frigate spam. As for nerfing, that should be an absolute last resort, like when everyone i mean everyone really hates the feature, then and only then should a nerf be applied and it should be a small change like changing the dose on a medication. But i see devs throwing them around like dollar bills over a nightclub dance floor.
I'm going to keep screaming "internal politics" from the rooftops until PDX finally scratches my "CK2 in space" itch. If they do that and tie the existing gameplay mechanics together more then everything else would fall into place (I bought most of the DLC and I'm all for adding it to the base game anyway)
Yeah i did enjoy my runs of crusader kings 3. Too bad that alfred video i poured my heart and soul into didn't do much in the way of numbers. Thank you to anyone by the way who watched that. I think one of the hardest parts of youtubing is having to swallow an L on your work.
Talking about the job fun fact, if u have 2 pops species one can only work workers for some reason my main wouldn't go up to specialist job (was free and open) Had to click around either spamming prioritize or - blocking the worker jobs for him to go up 😒 top problems probably be dlc cost and least for me I hate the neat things are under research ring worlds and basically under rng getting I WANT TO FREELY PICK MY TECH
Yeah I have also noticed some Bizarre behavior like that with jobs as well. There is one i may have mentioned where i would assign a pop and after rubbing my eyes twice confirmed that it disappeared. It simply was not counted after i hit favorites or did something else. I would really like to understand or atleast know the devs reasoning for some of these mechanics. I get the feeling that they want things to LOOK a certain way than actually be enjoyable. As for the tech i partially agree. I actually am not that critical of the technology system, though i will say that it absolutely needs to allow to LOCK technologies that you are practically forced to pass on in favor of another more critical one or really want to pass on to take something better but know if you do not you will never see that tech again most likely. This is particularly aggravating with the strategic resource technologies. I would love to pass on those sometimes for later, but i cannot because anytime i ever have, i never see them again and i suffer.
Ever since the bs Parafux pulled with changing from v1.9 Stellaris to v2.0, where they removed 2 of the 3 travel options, which forced everyone to be on the rails hyperlanes, I've realized they treat their released games as paid alphas. Therefore I haven't bought another one of Parafux's games since.
I disagree with majority of the habitability stuff majorly, like i think the game needs more planet types with diversity of ecosystems that effect habitability in good & bad ways. I think a better solution is more universe settings; we already have a habitable planet amount setting for how many habital planets exist in the universe. So just add more settings control around this, like increasing maximum guaranteed habital planets or add some kind of richness or weighting increase to how likely the planets around you are to be at least medium habitability, so even if you don't increase the amount of habital planets in the universe the ones around you are more likely to be or guaranteed at least medium habitability. Another option is a setting for increasing the amount of terraformable planets, so even if you get unlucky with a three only planet empire from habitability RNG, When terraforming is unlocked you can at least expand your planet amount within owned solar systems. Ultimately i think game settings is a more appropriate solution to your mentioned issues. With any in game feature/mechanical changes, id sooner suggest expanding apon the feature fleshing it out more, you know the typical thing with most of the games problem area's haha 😅.
I respect your opinion, but i must say that the building option i believe would be even better than that. You would not even need settings if you could simply just use the planets regardless but would still need to terraform and take other measures to optimize later and make full use of the planet. I stand by the statement that there is just way too much of a chance that you will get planets that are a net loss unless you have mid to late game tech. Also it is an unfair advantage to empires that do get lucky, whats worse when I actually get lucky and get alot of habitables, i feel that dirty feeling like i'm cheating or something or that i did not earn my empire, i just got lucky. Yeah again, building solution would fix that also.
Yeah, I was asking for base game species buff and specifically told them to make war and non war gameplay just buff both to be equal without nerfing. I mean there are games that do that and they are literally gacha games, buffing shouldnt mess with the code more than nerfing because in the future, you will regret nerfing anything. Bad side is if everything played equal, people wouldn't buy new stuffs so theres that sales vanished.
But honestly Stellaris need a lot of rework and refining both past content and new stuffs. They ditch out stuff like fast food and technical debt is gigantic, about bio stuff the devs is focusing on this next, it did appear at the end of dev diary 358 to 360 or sth its just a single line so its easy to miss (I think its on the cutholoid dev diary). I thought it was funny most of new stuffs that people barely love come from the fact existing mechanic is too bad. Like the cosmic storm which is tied with devastation mechanic, but that thing havent got touch since forever (which ironically linked to war rework lol) with only one building is Fortress. I came for sandbox game but war gameplay bore me after sometime, imagine non war (which is the least incentive gameplay, they should change the description to war game because warring is too rewarding and the only thing working right now). Trade busted, diplomacy stomped by AI idiots, Intel ass, Galactic community a joke, fleet power meta...
But the biggest thing everyone should give them in the review, is asked more these type of events to happen more frequently. My gosh its 8 years already wbat the heck is that terrible communication. Make it annual or quarter so players can give feedback just like dev diary 361 again, dont wait until another 8 years for another "361 the vision part 2". Tell them if they want to save their ass sales, make more of this damn communication events if not the community will shoot them enshitification bullets packed with War of three kingdom's review bombing style.
I read everything actually and i think i get you. If they are working on the bio recommendations i had that would be great. they just need to not take 3 years to get to it. What bothered me about their latest post is them saying that their projects for next year were already set. If that's true then thats not cool, they need to clear their schedule and work on this stuff for sure i feel. all the ideas they had they need to throw out and change course if they want to turn things around. We cannot afford another year of filler dlc.
Hey Vol, love your vids. Agree with all your feedback. Quality of life improvements should be the focus. Cosmic storms is all negative, no upside to player experience. Managing economy and planets UI needs work. Get rid of Galactic community....there are no benefits. Invasion mechanics that allow invasions to end abruptly are a pain.
That's great thank you for your support! Yeah there is alot of stuff that has been neglected over the years. Well see if the devs respond to this video. Glad not everyone hates me for calling it out as i see it lol.
Thank you for the vindication my brotha. Sometimes i think they really should have made two seperate games. One RP focused, and one Tactically focused. Or a spin off of the main game where they put the kind of stuff that they have currently in the espionage feature.
See, and i think the fact they are often but not always on sale is what they use as an excuse not to lower it. But it is just that, an excuse, and not a good one.
I second that! Thanks for the comment. Well... Overall it doesn't. countless times we have seen examples in real life of forces who fight to the bitter end, or simply do not stop even when they are experiencing massive attrition. Some forces though are not that extreme and will submit easily if a war gets too hard. I think one of the problems may be actually that they try to make stellaris too much like paradoxes other settings as it is unique it should not borrow unless it makes sense. Especially if there is a better alternative that is more fun.
Thats flattering thank you. Again i am not saying tall is a bad playstyle i am just saying it is not as fun for most builds and it should always be optional.
It's really interesting to me that you consider the Machine Age content to not be RP content. To me that was peak RP content because of how much customization you had with how your empire/species grew, changed, and ascended. It gives my creations the precise flavor and story I want it to have, vs the block of text story content that is more or less the same regardless of what your empire's civics and government are (with some exceptions.) But I understand what you mean by story vs mechanical content. As someone who plays Stellaris single player mostly for RP and story telling, Machine Age level additions provide way more than story packs do. So it seems like something just everyone wants and agrees with to me. Although, I will say that I love the Eternal Throne relic from Astral Planes; it still should have been $10 to $15 instead of $20 though.
Hey man i respect that, and look i'm not saying the wall of text content isnt good sometimes but its like the seasoning of stellaris. not the meat and potatoes. Also though i think actually i agree with you that in a way the different playstyles are like choosing a character in an rpg so in a way yeah that in of itself is a form of rp so with that i can agree 100%. Though it is still different than the kind of RP that i am talking about of course. Tbh also despite my comments i do feel i'm playing a role sometimes with certain builds. For example i have played the dark eldar from time to time from 40k. And there's my thematic build content. Anyway good comment!
The game needs BALANCE. Imho. Each game feels to me like 1 fair fight followed by a diplomatic economic or conquest snowball that makes all trivial. Destabilize empires plz. Make the threat from withing as real as without. make the universe dynamic. This game is already way ahead in this regard but with an extra nudge of chaos I feel that games could be more engaging!
I recently tried GA for the first time, no scaling - I got clapped early and surrendered to a 5x stronger fleet. I thought, gee! I'm conquered! Never happened before!! Now I'll have to play a backwater trying to fight to stay alive, this is interesting! But then I got vassalized to protectorate and given 80% more tech speed so I just ignored my economy and leeched AI chest tech until I built a functional end game fleet and erased everyone. So, higher difficulty didn't give me more meaningful challenge, it kinda just broke the economy of the game... Similar experience in a diplo playthrough where I just traded and vassalized to steal the AIs insane cheat economy. We need a better way to increase difficulty without breaking the game. Maybe add less AI cheats, and instead have more "bad luck" events hamper the player? Just spitballing
Respectfully, this video had many points agreed with and many points I don't agree with What I agreed with: 1. War Mechanics needs a revamp, to join wars, leave wars, and I agree with you about capturing the starbases eliminating the fleet's ability to respawn, and also defeating enemies but stuck in perpetual war, and AI's tactic to drag the war on for as long as possible instead of trying to win the war. 2. Espionage does need a rework, along similar lines that you laid out in the video 3. More big DLC releases like Machine Age What I kinda disagreed with 1. Trade does need to be a priority, as a trade player I do want trade to be improved 2. Driven assimilators need to have war exhaustion, because wars drain resources, even for DAs, they lose fleets and war is a drain on resources; what I do agree with is for DAs to have -30% war exhaustion gain to account for the fact they are a gestalt consciousness 3. Federations fleet is actually okay, I see it as the sum being greater the parts, what I do agree with you on is being able to join federations easily when you have max trust with the members of the federation and especially when you already have association status with them 4. Habitability is fine where it is right now; if you want colonize everything play lithiods or robots
ok good review my friend! I respect what you said here. I agree with point 2 of your disagreed as a decent alternative to just removing war exhaustion. But personally i would still want more than 30% personally. My take on war costing resources is that we already have that at the top so if they are not low than we are not exhausted then. So war exhaustion is redundant in that case, because the borg still do not get tired and would attack ceaselessly until they win or die if they have resources. on 3 and 4 I will have to agree to disagree. I refuse to do a 1, 2, or 3 planet challenge i will just reload the map. Anything we can do to keep from spawning in just to realize the map sucks and restarting and wasting hours of playtime and work is a good thing. As for the fleets I don't get how that's fine. Especially since at that stage of the game there is simply not enough tech that short of a gimmick or an exploit that would get you that kind of fleet power by year 300. if you have a better solution with dealing with a fleet 3 to 4 times the size of your strongest fleet other than "git gud" or a paraphrased version of that sentence, i am all ears. Are there players that can overcome that, sure, but not many. Bottom line Federation fleets are something that should start happening later in the game. The AI should not be allowed to start building them from day 1. I think that is fairly broken my friend, Either way though thanks for the comment and it is nice to hear a different perspective regardless.
That is an option. I just don't like ceilings, and i think other people do not either. TBH sometimes i do when i just want to f&&& around and im not try harding.
2 things 1- I very, very much disagree with your point on habitability, the game is already incredibly easy, we don’t need it to be even more easy, everything else you kinda have a point 2- You have 6 different planets Why are you only making 100 unity? Why are you only making some 400 science?? Why do you only have a 30k fleet??? Why haven’t you researched cloning yet???? Is almost 2300
Theres little to agree with here outside of the entry price being to high for new players. We do share some similar concern for improving certian areas but I think how we would like to see them done are night and day different. By the way you talk you want stellaris to just copy sins of a solar empire and become an RTS instead of a grand strategy. The things that continue to bring me back to the game being the narrative and RP dont seem to be of any interest to you. Im glad I listened to this though as its made me realize I need to give my feedback to the devs to to counter these ideas.
I don't think i ever mentioned sins ever on my channel. Also I do not believe i ever made the statement that Stellaris should be an rts. If anything i would love it to be turn based like heroes of might and magic. If you prefer reading walls of text rather than have new origins and playstyles that are incredibly popular and fun for the entire player base or most of it. Then i guess we will have to declare rivalry lol. In all fairness thanks for the comment. Also if they made the rp more engaging and interactive i would not mind it as much. I actually thought the synth queen interaction was a nice change. She actually talked. Also want to point out that was machine age as well.
@volairen you didn't mention sins, but judging by some of the comments, it sounded like you wanted a more Rts style game than grand strategy. This is the only video that has ever popped up that I've seen of your channel. I think the text and origins go hand in hand as they are both narrative focused to drive the story of your empire further. Speaking of synthetic queen I think they could create more narrative surrounding the crisis events. It's fine to have 1 be a devouring horde but all 3 feels like mass effect 3 endings. They look slightly different but they are the same.
I dunno i usually don't put tile blockers on my maps that are impossible to destroy until i got bored and quit. Though i can't imagine fallen empires would be any different tactic and weapon wise than any other computer intelligence when it comes to frigate spam and other garbage this design destroys. Thanks for the comment though!
I'll add my view to your playing tall vs wide comment. I haven't played stellaris more than 2 hours since the administrative efficiency mechanic was added and that was like 4 years ago. It sucks, it's not fun to be forced to play tall via strong softcaps. I've gone from stellaris dlc whale to not biying anything in half a decade.
Truth. I dealt with the changes but yeah i was not the biggest fan of empire size mechanics. I didnt mention it in the video but punishing players for expanding doesn't seem very fun.
FYI, tech an unity penalties existed long before empire size was a thing. Back pre 2.2, each planet increased tech cost by 5% and each system by 1%.if anything, empire size is a massive buff to wide to the point that tall is effectively dead. There's just wide and tall AND wide now.
And of course i hope they do. We will see what happens. So far they are ignoring me, so i think your winning. To bad for the large amount of their player base that agree with this video. As well as several youtubers we have all watched. But hey you can lead a horse to water buuuuttt...
While I do agree that the games last two years were rough I do not think that the situation is as direkt as you claim it to be. That being said I think that it is time for an internal politics and (yet another) warfare rework!
I agree its not gonna die now but i see stellaris dieing in the next 2 years (guestimate) if thier course isnt altered. I agree about the rework also obviously. Thanks for the comment!
So this is the second possible negative comment on starcraft. I want to be clear i do not think Stellaris should be an rts, quite the opposite. I was merely making an comparison to what makes a game great. Which has nothing to do with the genre. Some common things like universally exciting feature. Great concepts, a multitude of playstyles and ease of use, good ui, good ai, etc. The starcraft franchise has all these in spades. so that is why i used them as an example. That's it.
I have problems with a lot of the same things as you, espionage and war exhaustion for example. But I don't really understand a lot of the solutions you suggest. The planet habitability especially, if you want to colonize every planet as soon as you get it why not play a machine empire, or a species with habitability bonuses? Simplifying and shortening the time it takes to fully exploit your territory would bore me personally, though I'm definitely more interested in the game for its roleplaying elements than trying to win asap. They really have their work cut out for them trying to keep a playerbase with such diverse priorities happy hahaha
@Schmuckubus well I would like to point out that they did nerf machine empire habitability and i used to pick them for the lack of habitable issues. You also still have to develop the planets. But i think sitting there waiting to use the planets you take is more boring. and yeah agree it will be impossible to please everyone.
As a first time watcher I don't necessarily think the game you want meshes well with the game that I want. While some of your gripes I share a lot of your proposals would seem to me to make the game even easier than it is already. When I'm talking "easy" I don't necessarily mean faster -- I mean in terms of the challenge involved. As for Federations with a large fleet they are sometimes powerful enough to be interesting but I've not run into anything the AI does that swarms of disruptor corvettes can't handle easily enough. Forget it once you get BBs with Carriers & missiles everywhere.
Wow tabbed out and it deleted what i said. That's fine that you feel diffrently. I do want to point out though about the game feeling easier. There are difficulty settings for that. You can also challenge yourself in many other ways. The base game and qol does not need to be difficult, frustrating in a way that is not fun. Also the issues i mention were not on a difficult setting at all but because of the issue it turned what should have been a relaxing game into a total bust. Also quality of difficulty matters. There is situations requiring more skill, then there is situations that are simply unfair and imbalanced especially when it comes to the stage of the game that you encounter them. I don't mind losing when my skill is genuinely bad or i made a mistake. But my mistake or skill did not produce a combined fed fleet 5 times larger than my largest fleet at a lower difficulty setting. The other issue i have with feds is were they not trying to fix the power block problem in the first place? Other than that thank you for your comment!
26:18 Right here is my biggest issue, also Ground combat and planetary invasions are lame and need a beauty touch or a ouright rework
Yes! It is up there for me. I would love to learn what makes the economy tick so i could make guides about it. But without that information i have to guess or go through trail and error. This is why i cannot until this is fixed make a near perfect economy guide other than what i already have. My videos are pretty good but there are still gaps i feel and info that is missing sadly, My proposal would fix that for sure. Atleast, the guides i have still help you guys a great deal regardless.
I dont agree with all your points here but I definitely think the pop job system needs more controls added. I want the ability to add job priorities, select specific/forbid jobs for subspecies. I love specialising my pops but many different little things can screw with it right now. (Machine worlds messing up my cyborgs job priorities so the intelligent cyborgs aren't on the research jobs, just the strong worker machines are etc)
Yeah i mean there is no way everyone is going to agree on all of these but i think we can at least come together on some of them. The job system especially. Look I don't get offended just because someone doesn't play or think exactly as i do. That is ridiculous and unrealistic. Appreciate your comment!
@volairen I also agree with your points about DLC focus, espionage and genetic ascension. I like RP but not at the expense of game mechanics. Espionage is basically useless. Genetic ascension is better after the automodding stuff imo but still in need of love. I'd want to change the way you mod pops to not use all your green research, maybe a simple cost reduction or better yet don't make you choose between research and modding at all.
@J4MM1E2 glad you agree. Yeah rp is fine but not if it prevents the main content.
2. Ehh, morale and the effects it has on war exhaustion does not reflect what you are suggesting even in real life. Take the Iraq war as an example. The U.S., for lack of a better way to put this, styled on them, and yet the population of America grew increasingly sick of perpetual war. Instead, I’d suggest that, instead of reducing war exhaustion on your own side, increase it on the enemy side while having other effects on your own population (e.g., a rapid increase in the support for the isolationist faction assuming some form of democracy).
3. Makes perfect sense as you stated
Habitability cannot change until the slowdown issue gets resolved. I’m not saying it shouldn’t, I’m just saying that this game is literally unplayable in the late-game and more habitable planets, I imagine, would simply make that worse
Perhaps set the max at 80% for ideal or 60%for all planets with habitability increasing from 20% up to the max depending on compatibility? Edit: you basically suggested this xD
YES TO SIMPLICITY
Though i was in iraq and don't completely agree about war exhaustion, i do agree that at the very least we need more accuracy on what the enemy gets for war exhaustion.
Theres also balance. An AI DE/DS will never accept status quo cause no exhaustion
Also by 75/100 intel, you get all info on ships. Where they are, what they have, ect.
With the way war works in Stellaris, I feel like EU4 does it best, with war score that is used to make demands and the way that war score is weighted depends on CB, but I think the game usually does a good job of it. That said, I do think I would augment it, since in EU4, you can't conquer entire empires in one go, and I would still like that to be possible in Stellaris.
I agree, in CK3 which i have videos for, i actually liked the way you achieved victory, i thought it was pretty fair. So it baffles me when paradox has better warfare systems out there but stays with the current one. Also i do believe it is mostly a good thing that you cannot destroy most empires in one go, unless your the appropriate build like a determined exterminator, then it makes zero sense. Also i don't necessarily mean destroy, i mean achieve victory. not a stupid status quo. Status quo should be an option if clearly neither side is more powerful than the other. Not being forced into it even though i whooped their ***.
In my opinion, they could set up espionage so that you simply leave an envoy to spy on a particular aspect or aspects of their country. E.g., they could spy on their technology, slowly granting you progress towards research, or you could spy on their military, giving you info on where they are and what they are equipped with.
I also think better planet automation would be nice. This could be done by making pops smarter at moving between worlds (so they'd quickly flock to places with open jobs) or a sort of "unemployment build queue", where you'd tell the planet what to build once it reaches 0 available jobs. You could even just auto-disable buildings/districts that aren't being used at all and drop the upkeep.
Distance penalty should *maybe* remain for vassalization or federation invitation, but just about anything else it should definitely be gone. "Is Overlord" and "In Federation" should be heavily reduced or removed. Bro, I literally just destroyed a fallen empire because they looked at me funny, what are you going to do???
Performance could be improved I think by simplifying ships. This would probably be a Stellaris 2 thing, though, since it would be a massive change to the game.
I feel that only for specific builds destroyers and cruisers are particularly applicable. It'd be nice if they had their own specific roles they were good at.
Galactic Imperium is dumb. Just make a galaxy wide hegemony comprised of purely vassals (or just yourself and one reliable vassal) instead. I think the community could be fixed but the ai needs to vote less dumbly, policies should be optional or purely beneficial as you said (perhaps they are all buffs, but the more that are added the less "cohesion" the community would have, and having an emperor or custodian or council would increase cohesion to help with that?). Kinda dumb that you also can't force a galactic peace without becoming the emperor...
Oh and also don't force my ethics to change if I become emperor of the galaxy or get a psionic sovereign. That's dumb.
Also dear god the ai is so stupid. I have vassals who I literally give resources to who still have enormous rebellions. Totally loyal, enormous subsidies, instantly dies to rebellion.
Machine Age changes to robots were really stupid, like robots are now basically just lithoids with pop assembly.
Why can't we have psionic hive minds? What about a hive mind that decides it would rather be a machine intelligence?
Why not cybernetic-ascension robots who eventually decide that actually organic material is useful, so they make flesh-bodies or steal those of other creatures to house themselves?
tbh I think it'd be really cool if every federation just acted like a miniature version of the galactic community and if one gets big enough it could proclaim itself as such, therefore allowing new buffs for all members and sub-federations.
Very good points. especially about espianage. I would still go for your proposal over the way it is now.
i just started getting into stellaris and ended biting the bullet and buying expansion subscription. Honestly i don't know what i would have done without it since it seems every single thing would have been locked behind a paywall.
Yeah hopefully the team will release some of the old content into the base game.
The problem is that each race has a defined and strong playstyle when released, which then gets nerfed so its playstyle is just like every other again. I've stopped playing as i got bored. I even went back to the old version where you moved the influence borders, and it was more fun.
Ah influence borders. i vaguely remember that. I agree again your point is why i say nerfing is 99% of the time just bad practice. Nerfing should only be done if the community is screaming for it. Like vassalization for example. But even then it should be a small cautious adjustment with constant contact and feedback with the players. What we are seeing instead is these wide sweeping mega nerfs that make no sense.
2:00 Ive very recently gotten into stellaris and it feels like you need to pay for every single update to the game that ever happened. The worst part to me is when stuff is in the fucking gamefiles already but locked behind a paywall. Like I can look at how a colossus looks when selecting what empire I want to play, but to research and build one I need to visit the cash register again. That shits infuriating.
I personally pick and choose, but like i said or hinted at, charging full price for content that is many years old is not a good look nor do i think it really makes any more money than if you just reduced the price or integrated it into the base game to get more sales from the base game.
@@volairen Jokes on them. I know how to code and they made the mistake of allowing modding. Im not gonna buy any DLCs at full price.
Your first argument is strictly why i won't play the game anymore. I've the base game, payed at launch and (IRL stuff yadayada) didn't play for five years, when i came back the amount of money i had to pay to have an updated game was simply too much (i like mods and since they all needs multiples expansions...), i let it go, today i should pay 330 bucks for an 8 years old updated game. It's strictly the same argument my brother have for Dead by Daylight: you must follow the game or left behind.
Yeah i agree. They are shooting themselves in the foot doing things this way. Even an amatuer business man can see that. The sub is ok in certain situations, but the issue with that is that if youve subbed for 10 months thats 100 dollars. You could have just bought the dlc you liked with that.
Want to play a up-to-date paradox game? That'll be $500 thanks.
@@Sunstreaker89 Yeah, you got a point there, well whats worse is that some of the updates arent very good. Something does need to be done about the old content. Like i said they need to just integrate it in the base game, if nothing else to entice new players to purchase the base game. But that is purely a business perspective. Thats the thing even from a CFO ferengi perspective this current dlc system does not make sense. I don't even think it makes them the money that they are looking for.
There are easy ways to get around the paywall through piracy since the files are already in the game. I don't consider it immoral at all considering the pricing
Ok but how else are they gonna continuously develop the game? I never understand this argument where people think they pay $60 once and therefore they are entitled to the following decade of improvements that radically transform the game. Why? You still have the product you paid for when you stopped playing. Just because other people have a more compelling product doesn’t mean you deserve to have one for free
I have to say that I strongly disagree on every point
Fair enough I am not here to change your perspective. I know for a fact though that i am not the only person that agrees with these points. I mean maybe there are ways around some of these issues or I am sure some guys are not going to have an issue with some of these things. I mean i do have pictures and some evidence to back up some of these points but not all of them. Thanks for being respectful.
@@volairen Thank you for being respectful too: I wasn't expecting it, but that makes it all the more appreciated.
@@TreeGameing Sure no problem, even my best friends and i don't agree on everything. I hope we can maybe agree on other things with future videos.
🤔 there was a lot good points, why do u disagree?
Like dlc cost, and war exhaustion?
I agree with most of your takes here except the “nerfing” take, the neutron launchers were overpowered before there patch. Yes they had some counters yet even those got krumped by the neutron launchers.
The disruptors and nano-swarmer missiles are even more OP with the exception of the artifact cost of the nano-missiles. It makes multiplayer a hassle to deal with as there’s only one way to make sure your empire survives into late game. At lest militarily ofc
Sure, but sad to say my friend, neutron launchers as still stupid af. Also what works in pvp does not necessarily work in pve and vice versa. I had to throw out the "Meta" when it came to computer neutron launcher frigate spam. As for nerfing, that should be an absolute last resort, like when everyone i mean everyone really hates the feature, then and only then should a nerf be applied and it should be a small change like changing the dose on a medication. But i see devs throwing them around like dollar bills over a nightclub dance floor.
I'm going to keep screaming "internal politics" from the rooftops until PDX finally scratches my "CK2 in space" itch. If they do that and tie the existing gameplay mechanics together more then everything else would fall into place (I bought most of the DLC and I'm all for adding it to the base game anyway)
Yeah i did enjoy my runs of crusader kings 3. Too bad that alfred video i poured my heart and soul into didn't do much in the way of numbers. Thank you to anyone by the way who watched that. I think one of the hardest parts of youtubing is having to swallow an L on your work.
while i dont agree with everything, this is overall very good critiscim and advice
Thanks man. Like i said tough love but love nevertheless. Would not have made this or put myself out there if i hated stellaris, the devs, or paradox.
Talking about the job fun fact, if u have 2 pops species one can only work workers for some reason my main wouldn't go up to specialist job (was free and open)
Had to click around either spamming prioritize or - blocking the worker jobs for him to go up
😒 top problems probably be dlc cost and least for me I hate the neat things are under research ring worlds and basically under rng getting
I WANT TO FREELY PICK MY TECH
Yeah I have also noticed some Bizarre behavior like that with jobs as well. There is one i may have mentioned where i would assign a pop and after rubbing my eyes twice confirmed that it disappeared. It simply was not counted after i hit favorites or did something else. I would really like to understand or atleast know the devs reasoning for some of these mechanics. I get the feeling that they want things to LOOK a certain way than actually be enjoyable. As for the tech i partially agree. I actually am not that critical of the technology system, though i will say that it absolutely needs to allow to LOCK technologies that you are practically forced to pass on in favor of another more critical one or really want to pass on to take something better but know if you do not you will never see that tech again most likely. This is particularly aggravating with the strategic resource technologies. I would love to pass on those sometimes for later, but i cannot because anytime i ever have, i never see them again and i suffer.
Ever since the bs Parafux pulled with changing from v1.9 Stellaris to v2.0, where they removed 2 of the 3 travel options, which forced everyone to be on the rails hyperlanes, I've realized they treat their released games as paid alphas. Therefore I haven't bought another one of Parafux's games since.
Hey i can't lie they do some scummy stuff but compared to other triple a studios atleast they are trying. I understand what your saying though.
I disagree with majority of the habitability stuff majorly, like i think the game needs more planet types with diversity of ecosystems that effect habitability in good & bad ways.
I think a better solution is more universe settings; we already have a habitable planet amount setting for how many habital planets exist in the universe. So just add more settings control around this, like increasing maximum guaranteed habital planets or add some kind of richness or weighting increase to how likely the planets around you are to be at least medium habitability, so even if you don't increase the amount of habital planets in the universe the ones around you are more likely to be or guaranteed at least medium habitability.
Another option is a setting for increasing the amount of terraformable planets, so even if you get unlucky with a three only planet empire from habitability RNG, When terraforming is unlocked you can at least expand your planet amount within owned solar systems.
Ultimately i think game settings is a more appropriate solution to your mentioned issues. With any in game feature/mechanical changes, id sooner suggest expanding apon the feature fleshing it out more, you know the typical thing with most of the games problem area's haha 😅.
I respect your opinion, but i must say that the building option i believe would be even better than that. You would not even need settings if you could simply just use the planets regardless but would still need to terraform and take other measures to optimize later and make full use of the planet. I stand by the statement that there is just way too much of a chance that you will get planets that are a net loss unless you have mid to late game tech. Also it is an unfair advantage to empires that do get lucky, whats worse when I actually get lucky and get alot of habitables, i feel that dirty feeling like i'm cheating or something or that i did not earn my empire, i just got lucky. Yeah again, building solution would fix that also.
Yeah, I was asking for base game species buff and specifically told them to make war and non war gameplay just buff both to be equal without nerfing. I mean there are games that do that and they are literally gacha games, buffing shouldnt mess with the code more than nerfing because in the future, you will regret nerfing anything. Bad side is if everything played equal, people wouldn't buy new stuffs so theres that sales vanished.
But honestly Stellaris need a lot of rework and refining both past content and new stuffs. They ditch out stuff like fast food and technical debt is gigantic, about bio stuff the devs is focusing on this next, it did appear at the end of dev diary 358 to 360 or sth its just a single line so its easy to miss (I think its on the cutholoid dev diary). I thought it was funny most of new stuffs that people barely love come from the fact existing mechanic is too bad. Like the cosmic storm which is tied with devastation mechanic, but that thing havent got touch since forever (which ironically linked to war rework lol) with only one building is Fortress. I came for sandbox game but war gameplay bore me after sometime, imagine non war (which is the least incentive gameplay, they should change the description to war game because warring is too rewarding and the only thing working right now). Trade busted, diplomacy stomped by AI idiots, Intel ass, Galactic community a joke, fleet power meta...
But the biggest thing everyone should give them in the review, is asked more these type of events to happen more frequently. My gosh its 8 years already wbat the heck is that terrible communication. Make it annual or quarter so players can give feedback just like dev diary 361 again, dont wait until another 8 years for another "361 the vision part 2". Tell them if they want to save their ass sales, make more of this damn communication events if not the community will shoot them enshitification bullets packed with War of three kingdom's review bombing style.
I read everything actually and i think i get you. If they are working on the bio recommendations i had that would be great. they just need to not take 3 years to get to it. What bothered me about their latest post is them saying that their projects for next year were already set. If that's true then thats not cool, they need to clear their schedule and work on this stuff for sure i feel. all the ideas they had they need to throw out and change course if they want to turn things around. We cannot afford another year of filler dlc.
I love playing defense, but the starbase and defense platform mechanics really disappointed me. I do hope they improve this.
I 100% agree. Make defense as strong with bonuses as any fleet.
@volairen honestly, i think paradox needs to take a page from sins in system defense. That was fun.
Hey, asking an honest question here. Do you not like federations?
I do. If i could join them without paying a traditon. And also if federation starts were more balanced.
Hey Vol, love your vids. Agree with all your feedback. Quality of life improvements should be the focus. Cosmic storms is all negative, no upside to player experience. Managing economy and planets UI needs work. Get rid of Galactic community....there are no benefits. Invasion mechanics that allow invasions to end abruptly are a pain.
That's great thank you for your support! Yeah there is alot of stuff that has been neglected over the years. Well see if the devs respond to this video. Glad not everyone hates me for calling it out as i see it lol.
For real. All i wanna know with espionage is military stuff
Thank you for the vindication my brotha. Sometimes i think they really should have made two seperate games. One RP focused, and one Tactically focused. Or a spin off of the main game where they put the kind of stuff that they have currently in the espionage feature.
Yeah I agree, the price is ridiculous for some of these dlcs. I waited for this christmas sale to purchase of lot of them.
See, and i think the fact they are often but not always on sale is what they use as an excuse not to lower it. But it is just that, an excuse, and not a good one.
War exhaustion makes no sense to me
I second that! Thanks for the comment. Well... Overall it doesn't. countless times we have seen examples in real life of forces who fight to the bitter end, or simply do not stop even when they are experiencing massive attrition. Some forces though are not that extreme and will submit easily if a war gets too hard. I think one of the problems may be actually that they try to make stellaris too much like paradoxes other settings as it is unique it should not borrow unless it makes sense. Especially if there is a better alternative that is more fun.
I always play big maps and I always play tall lol, but you've got some points
Thats flattering thank you. Again i am not saying tall is a bad playstyle i am just saying it is not as fun for most builds and it should always be optional.
It's really interesting to me that you consider the Machine Age content to not be RP content. To me that was peak RP content because of how much customization you had with how your empire/species grew, changed, and ascended. It gives my creations the precise flavor and story I want it to have, vs the block of text story content that is more or less the same regardless of what your empire's civics and government are (with some exceptions.) But I understand what you mean by story vs mechanical content. As someone who plays Stellaris single player mostly for RP and story telling, Machine Age level additions provide way more than story packs do. So it seems like something just everyone wants and agrees with to me. Although, I will say that I love the Eternal Throne relic from Astral Planes; it still should have been $10 to $15 instead of $20 though.
Hey man i respect that, and look i'm not saying the wall of text content isnt good sometimes but its like the seasoning of stellaris. not the meat and potatoes. Also though i think actually i agree with you that in a way the different playstyles are like choosing a character in an rpg so in a way yeah that in of itself is a form of rp so with that i can agree 100%. Though it is still different than the kind of RP that i am talking about of course. Tbh also despite my comments i do feel i'm playing a role sometimes with certain builds. For example i have played the dark eldar from time to time from 40k. And there's my thematic build content. Anyway good comment!
@@volairen I understand what you are saying, in other Paradox game I think they call it 'story' or 'narrative' content.
Also should add that said other Paradox games have these peppered where there is a gap in the release schedule and for less than $10.
The game needs BALANCE. Imho. Each game feels to me like 1 fair fight followed by a diplomatic economic or conquest snowball that makes all trivial. Destabilize empires plz. Make the threat from withing as real as without. make the universe dynamic.
This game is already way ahead in this regard but with an extra nudge of chaos I feel that games could be more engaging!
I recently tried GA for the first time, no scaling - I got clapped early and surrendered to a 5x stronger fleet. I thought, gee! I'm conquered! Never happened before!! Now I'll have to play a backwater trying to fight to stay alive, this is interesting! But then I got vassalized to protectorate and given 80% more tech speed so I just ignored my economy and leeched AI chest tech until I built a functional end game fleet and erased everyone. So, higher difficulty didn't give me more meaningful challenge, it kinda just broke the economy of the game... Similar experience in a diplo playthrough where I just traded and vassalized to steal the AIs insane cheat economy. We need a better way to increase difficulty without breaking the game. Maybe add less AI cheats, and instead have more "bad luck" events hamper the player? Just spitballing
though i dont agree 100% you do bring a very valid perspective here.
Respectfully, this video had many points agreed with and many points I don't agree with
What I agreed with:
1. War Mechanics needs a revamp, to join wars, leave wars, and I agree with you about capturing the starbases eliminating the fleet's ability to respawn, and also defeating enemies but stuck in perpetual war, and AI's tactic to drag the war on for as long as possible instead of trying to win the war.
2. Espionage does need a rework, along similar lines that you laid out in the video
3. More big DLC releases like Machine Age
What I kinda disagreed with
1. Trade does need to be a priority, as a trade player I do want trade to be improved
2. Driven assimilators need to have war exhaustion, because wars drain resources, even for DAs, they lose fleets and war is a drain on resources; what I do agree with is for DAs to have -30% war exhaustion gain to account for the fact they are a gestalt consciousness
3. Federations fleet is actually okay, I see it as the sum being greater the parts, what I do agree with you on is being able to join federations easily when you have max trust with the members of the federation and especially when you already have association status with them
4. Habitability is fine where it is right now; if you want colonize everything play lithiods or robots
ok good review my friend! I respect what you said here. I agree with point 2 of your disagreed as a decent alternative to just removing war exhaustion. But personally i would still want more than 30% personally. My take on war costing resources is that we already have that at the top so if they are not low than we are not exhausted then. So war exhaustion is redundant in that case, because the borg still do not get tired and would attack ceaselessly until they win or die if they have resources.
on 3 and 4 I will have to agree to disagree. I refuse to do a 1, 2, or 3 planet challenge i will just reload the map. Anything we can do to keep from spawning in just to realize the map sucks and restarting and wasting hours of playtime and work is a good thing.
As for the fleets I don't get how that's fine. Especially since at that stage of the game there is simply not enough tech that short of a gimmick or an exploit that would get you that kind of fleet power by year 300. if you have a better solution with dealing with a fleet 3 to 4 times the size of your strongest fleet other than "git gud" or a paraphrased version of that sentence, i am all ears. Are there players that can overcome that, sure, but not many. Bottom line Federation fleets are something that should start happening later in the game. The AI should not be allowed to start building them from day 1. I think that is fairly broken my friend, Either way though thanks for the comment and it is nice to hear a different perspective regardless.
Did we Play the Same Game 😱
I dunno did we?
Just play lower difficulty. That's what i do
That is an option. I just don't like ceilings, and i think other people do not either. TBH sometimes i do when i just want to f&&& around and im not try harding.
2 things
1-
I very, very much disagree with your point on habitability, the game is already incredibly easy, we don’t need it to be even more easy, everything else you kinda have a point
2-
You have 6 different planets
Why are you only making 100 unity?
Why are you only making some 400 science??
Why do you only have a 30k fleet???
Why haven’t you researched cloning yet????
Is almost 2300
"Real sci-fi battles". Um, yeah.
Yep...
Theres little to agree with here outside of the entry price being to high for new players. We do share some similar concern for improving certian areas but I think how we would like to see them done are night and day different. By the way you talk you want stellaris to just copy sins of a solar empire and become an RTS instead of a grand strategy. The things that continue to bring me back to the game being the narrative and RP dont seem to be of any interest to you. Im glad I listened to this though as its made me realize I need to give my feedback to the devs to to counter these ideas.
I don't think i ever mentioned sins ever on my channel. Also I do not believe i ever made the statement that Stellaris should be an rts. If anything i would love it to be turn based like heroes of might and magic. If you prefer reading walls of text rather than have new origins and playstyles that are incredibly popular and fun for the entire player base or most of it. Then i guess we will have to declare rivalry lol. In all fairness thanks for the comment. Also if they made the rp more engaging and interactive i would not mind it as much. I actually thought the synth queen interaction was a nice change. She actually talked. Also want to point out that was machine age as well.
@volairen you didn't mention sins, but judging by some of the comments, it sounded like you wanted a more Rts style game than grand strategy. This is the only video that has ever popped up that I've seen of your channel. I think the text and origins go hand in hand as they are both narrative focused to drive the story of your empire further. Speaking of synthetic queen I think they could create more narrative surrounding the crisis events. It's fine to have 1 be a devouring horde but all 3 feels like mass effect 3 endings. They look slightly different but they are the same.
Used to play back in tile days. The site of my pops just staring at me was so off-putting and boring
I dunno i usually don't put tile blockers on my maps that are impossible to destroy until i got bored and quit. Though i can't imagine fallen empires would be any different tactic and weapon wise than any other computer intelligence when it comes to frigate spam and other garbage this design destroys. Thanks for the comment though!
I'll add my view to your playing tall vs wide comment. I haven't played stellaris more than 2 hours since the administrative efficiency mechanic was added and that was like 4 years ago. It sucks, it's not fun to be forced to play tall via strong softcaps.
I've gone from stellaris dlc whale to not biying anything in half a decade.
Truth. I dealt with the changes but yeah i was not the biggest fan of empire size mechanics. I didnt mention it in the video but punishing players for expanding doesn't seem very fun.
@volairen modern paradox likes to punish people for having fun.
FYI, tech an unity penalties existed long before empire size was a thing. Back pre 2.2, each planet increased tech cost by 5% and each system by 1%.if anything, empire size is a massive buff to wide to the point that tall is effectively dead. There's just wide and tall AND wide now.
There are so many things wrong with this video, I hope they don’t listen to you lol
And of course i hope they do. We will see what happens. So far they are ignoring me, so i think your winning. To bad for the large amount of their player base that agree with this video. As well as several youtubers we have all watched. But hey you can lead a horse to water buuuuttt...
75K fleet on year 2300 sounds pathetic tbh. How do you have 10K fleets in 2310?
While I do agree that the games last two years were rough I do not think that the situation is as direkt as you claim it to be.
That being said I think that it is time for an internal politics and (yet another) warfare rework!
I agree its not gonna die now but i see stellaris dieing in the next 2 years (guestimate) if thier course isnt altered. I agree about the rework also obviously. Thanks for the comment!
StarCraft looks horrible.
So this is the second possible negative comment on starcraft. I want to be clear i do not think Stellaris should be an rts, quite the opposite. I was merely making an comparison to what makes a game great. Which has nothing to do with the genre. Some common things like universally exciting feature. Great concepts, a multitude of playstyles and ease of use, good ui, good ai, etc. The starcraft franchise has all these in spades. so that is why i used them as an example. That's it.