Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[gimli]

We shall see.
Note: I don't really like the idea that the (federation) presidency rotates. I'm like 101% certain, that a diplomacy (federations & alliances) centred expansion will be amongst the first 3 expansions and it will vastly enhance the system [elected executives, federation parliaments etc.]

[Cruxador]

I'm like 101% certain, that a diplomacy (federations & alliances) centred expansion will be amongst the first 3 expansions

I'm not. Look at the DLC that was released in 2013 for EU4. I don't imagine we'll be getting any pervasive gameplay changes for a good while after launch.

[Retropunch]

I had expected it to be a lot LOT deeper than that. I was pretty much convinced that Alliances/Federations and all that were going to be a huge cornerstone of the gameplay instead of just two choices.

More than that, I can't imagine how badly alliances will play with the AI. It'll be endless messing around with war goals (they've even stated that!) to satisfy the AI. That'll probably mean just swapping stuff until you eventually get a configuration that they all agree to.

I'm getting less and less enthusiastic with this, as after pretty much every dev diary it gets a little bit less exciting. I'm sure if they give it time and proper expansions, it'll eventually become awesome, but so far it's looking a bit barebones.

[JumpingJack]

I had expected it to be a lot LOT deeper than that. I was pretty much convinced that Alliances/Federations and all that were going to be a huge cornerstone of the gameplay instead of just two choices.
...
I'm getting less and less enthusiastic with this, as after pretty much every dev diary it gets a little bit less exciting. I'm sure if they give it time and proper expansions, it'll eventually become awesome, but so far it's looking a bit barebones.

I've actually liked several of the diaries, but I agree; quite bare-boned. Though, given that this is Paradox, I wasn't expecting much to start off with.

More than that, I can't imagine how badly alliances will play with the AI. It'll be endless messing around with war goals (they've even stated that!) to satisfy the AI. That'll probably mean just swapping stuff until you eventually get a configuration that they all agree to.

To be fair, sometimes that's all actual diplomacy amounts to.

[Wysthric]

I do like Paradox but it does seem like you can get IDK a Sid - Meier game of an AoE line game or something for like £30 in one go and with Paradox you need to spend like £80 to get a great game.

[Cruxador]

I do like Paradox but it does seem like you can get IDK a Sid - Meier game of an AoE line game or something for like £30 in one go and with Paradox you need to spend like £80 to get a great game.

CK2 with all expansions is several times that.

[Retropunch]

I do like Paradox but it does seem like you can get IDK a Sid - Meier game of an AoE line game or something for like £30 in one go and with Paradox you need to spend like £80 to get a great game.

CK2 with all expansions is several times that.

Completely agree. Unfortunately this seems even more bare bones than usual though - I think it's probably because there's no historical element that they need to fulfill so they don't need to reach a sort of minimum to allow for those events to play out.

My main concern is that they've stripped it down too much for it to be a good game in it's own right. Most 4x games have a 'thing' that puts them above the rest of the 4x swamp, but I can't really see this in Stellaris yet. I thought it'd be characters - but then they were dumbed down to nothing, then I thought it MUST be the alliances - but then they seemed no more complex than GalCiv2s.

Still holding out hope though...

[Chiefwaffles]

We'll see.
I'm cautiously hopeful for Stellaris. The amount of content seen so far still looks like a decent amount for any regular game.

[Majestic7]

Stellaris' thing seems to be the late game with dynamic threats and events. This is something most 4X fail in; once you read a certain point the game turns into a grind to achieve the victory screen while you've already won. I hope they can pull it off in a satisfactory manner.

Edit: Paradox had Reddit AMA yesterday. They were asked about release dates for HOI4 and Stellaris; they named no dates but said Stellaris reached beta before HOI4. Valar Hypetis!

[gimli]

I had expected it to be a lot LOT deeper than that. I was pretty much convinced that Alliances/Federations and all that were going to be a huge cornerstone of the gameplay instead of just two choices.

I've actually liked several of the diaries, but I agree; quite bare-boned. Though, given that this is Paradox, I wasn't expecting much to start off with.

It's ok for the v1.0 release, it's a PD game afterall. [Compare vanilla CK2 or EU4 to the latest versions.] They release all of their games with the DLC/expansion model in mind. [..and I say it again...mark my words, the diplo centered expansion will be amongst the first 3.]

Unfortunately this seems even more bare bones than usual though - I think it's probably because there's no historical element that they need to fulfill so they don't need to reach a sort of minimum to allow for those events to play out.

My main concern is that they've stripped it down too much for it to be a good game in it's own right. Most 4x games have a 'thing' that puts them above the rest of the 4x swamp, but I can't really see this in Stellaris yet.

I don't agree, it will be a good 4x space strategy for the 1.0 release, but again:

I do like Paradox but it does seem like you can get IDK a Sid - Meier game of an AoE line game or something for like £30 in one go and with Paradox you need to spend like £80 to get a great game.

CK2 with all expansions is several times that.

Yep, but that is true about all of the PD games IMO. So yeah, it will be good @ release, and it will be one of the best 4x strategies after like 4 expanions.

PS. Other than Galciv 2. & DW:U, I can't name a 4x space strategy which I really enjoyed. [I don't have Galciv 3. btw]

-

Lol @ this screenshot. Cow-class Leviathan.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Cruxador]

..and I say it again...mark my words, the diplo centered expansion will be amongst the first 3.

If you say something a first time, saying it a second without some modification is meaningless. If you do so after people have commented on the initial iteration of the statement without acknowledging that in some way, it's inane.

[gimli]

^

I'm like 101% certain, that a diplomacy (federations & alliances) centred expansion will be amongst the first 3 expansions

I'm not. Look at the DLC that was released in 2013 for EU4. I don't imagine we'll be getting any pervasive gameplay changes for a good while after launch.

Define "for a good while".
CoP,  WoN, RP & AoW was released for EU4 within ~1 year after 1.1
SoI, LoR, TR, ToG, was released for CK2 within ~1 year after 1.02b

It's clear that the rotating presidency is just a placeholder. It begs for improvements [btw take a look at the comments on the PD forum, most of the forumers are demanding something better already - yep, totally unexpected reactions..heh], just like the federation/alliance systems themselves. Expanding & enhancing the various diplo related compoments of the game will make the PD fanbase extremely happy & they will spend their money on an expansion like that [focusing on diplomacy] for sure.

[Cruxador]

Conquest of Paradise added a quite basic feature that should have been in at launch, some minor details, and a gimmick. Wealth of Nations included a suite of small features, albeit with a unifying theme. Art of War is the first one to add mechanics of any substance at all, and they still fit the format of building comparatively small additions into existing systems.
Sword of Islam simply fleshed out an unintended feature that people liked, and charged for it. Legacy of Rome added flavor events and one feature which, while novel, wasn't actually huge in terms of code complexity. What's more, there's been an official statement specifically citing that as something they don't want to do again. The Republic was, and remains, a buggy mess that's more of an argument against major features in the early stage than for it. The Old Gods was a great expansion, but comes after your four expansion cutoff, and is of anomalously high quality for a CK2 expansion and for Paradox expansions in general; it is reasonable to suppose that they won't capture lightning in a bottle like that again.

[Descan]

I'm only gonna respond to one thing there. "pecifically citing that as something they don't want to do again" Not because they don't like retinues or didn't want to expand the gameplay, nothing intrinsic to the retinues. What they "don't want to do again" was to put in such an important system in a DLC, something which by nature is locked behind a wall (granted, most people DO have Retinues now) which means they can't really expand it as they could a base-game feature.

Which either means they'd not put in a system like that again, or in the future a system that intrinsic would be part of the free patch and not DLC-locked content. Either way, that doesn't have anything to do with them releasing DLC within a year of Stellaris.

[redwallzyl]

oh paradox you troll



also

Spoiler (click to show/hide)