Print

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

[Tiruin]

Tir: Dwelt. That's the word you're looking for.

"Change your empire ethics" Yes please.

Dwelled is a word too! ;~;

It's actually surprisingly refreshing that they changed the terminology. And also interesting that now Stalinism is totally oppositional to Communism.

Stalinism was pretty much a totalitarian dictatorship dressed as communism anyway.

But the ethics here are hard-bound, or at least the general theme over everything.

[Cruxador]

For people wondering when the game will become fun, this upcoming update seems like a good potential benchmark.

[Chiefwaffles]

Eh, Stellaris is still a really fun game in my eyes. It's just nowhere near as fun as it could be, however.
But yeah, updates like the upcoming one are exciting in terms of potential. I've been really wanting some gameplay element other than painting the map, one ceded(/liberated) planet at a time in midgame. Now I just wonder what the expansion content is going to be.

[Majestic7]

Banks will obviously include a DLC dedicated to funny ship names.

[Retropunch]

Very promising indeed - it seems like all very sensible stuff which will help make empire management slightly more interesting whilst at the same time being a bit more natural.

However, they'll need to make sure there are enough supporting mechanisms around it to make it interesting. If it's just 'spend capital to reduce support by x' it'll still be ultimately very shallow.

As I believe Banks might be about espionage, sending a spy in could be an interesting way to guide/disrupt factions

Yeah. Good on paper, but we'll have to see how it manifests.

Notably, I'm concerned about the clustering of various factions/ethos as they relate to various policies. Some are kind of obviously linked, eg Bombardment and War Type on the Mil/Pac axis. But what if those two policies disagree? Are you just stuck in some kind of faction limbo because nobody else likes one but not the other, or are there factions that will appreciate that? And if so, what else do they want/require? Are there going to be "optimal" policy schemes that really make some factions happy, or will any combination have its own benefits?

Agreed - I can imagine it being difficult from a balance stand point - especially if they're one issue parties. I'm hoping they'll give us the tools to deal with them in some way other than just agreeing to their demands. I really hope they add a bit of life to the factions though.

This is part of my general problem with Stellaris - they need to add a bit more character to the different races/factions/leaders. I never feel like my scientists are anything other than a research or anomaly boost. I never feel like the Gloorp I'm speaking too is anything other than a set of ethics. I'm hoping that Banks will expand on that system a bit more, but I'm not too hopeful.

[ZeroGravitas]

Banks will obviously include a DLC dedicated to funny ship names.

i was hoping for a science-ish victory condition relating to Subliming (in the style of EU4 old westernization, with plenty of special projects and building required)

i tried to start a campaign a few days ago. a few decades in. still an incredibly boring game.

[Descan]

I'd love if, at least, the various phenotypes had an impact on gameplay (possibly with an option to shut it off if you just wanna be a pretty butterfly without any gameplay effects, at least for your own race)

I.E. reptilians come cold-blooded and inherently do worse on cold planets and better on warm, or mammals get a small boost to habitability based on temperature, insects get a growth bonus, etc.

[Shadowlord]

And what it those "reptilians" aren't? Take, for example, the Narn of Babylon 5, which look like reptiles but are actually marsupials.

[Sirus]

Or perhaps they are reptiles that live primarily near volcanic vents, or in underground caves.

[Descan]

they're aliens, the fact that we're *already* calling them reptilian is throwing the whole "but they may not be like earth animals!" out the window :v

[Sartain]

they're aliens, the fact that we're *already* calling them reptilian is throwing the whole "but they may not be like earth animals!" out the window :v

Simply calling all the phenotypes "Alien" would have been kinda bland though. And probably more to the point, disorganised

[Culise]

Indeed.  Phenotypes are just a convenient categorizing system so that all the portraits aren't just lumped together into one big mess.  Making them have actual gameplay effects would...ah, be like having cultural_gfx sprites, portraits, and what-have-you in CK or EU have practical gameplay effects.  There's a reason those were separated from the gameplay effects of things like culture and tech groups in the first place.  Things like ectothermy or endothermy would seem to be better suited to traits. 

[Descan]

maybe a better way would be to have AI empires predisposed to certain ethics and traits based on their phenotypes? :V

cuz the whole issue is that they feel bland and interchangeable, right? so instead you get "oh, hey, this empire is reptilian; they're probably gonna have a lot of desert planets" or "hey this is molluscoid, they're probably really good at science" (smart molluscs being a trope in sci fi and all that)

[Retropunch]

maybe a better way would be to have AI empires predisposed to certain ethics and traits based on their phenotypes? :V

cuz the whole issue is that they feel bland and interchangeable, right? so instead you get "oh, hey, this empire is reptilian; they're probably gonna have a lot of desert planets" or "hey this is molluscoid, they're probably really good at science" (smart molluscs being a trope in sci fi and all that)

Yeah I don't think that's a bad idea. It wouldn't have to be that the portrait did anything (you could have very humanoid looking reptiles for instance) but I do think they need to go a lot, lot further in defining a race other than just ethics.

It wouldn't effect the player race, but the AI could be for example a 'collectivist reptile' and try to get a lot of densely populated hot planets as a sort of inbuilt goal - it'd open up things like them trying to trade colder planets for your hot ones and stuff that just doesn't exist right now.

[IronyOwl]

I approve of more nuance, but I think I'm going to reluctantly admit I prefer appearance to be purely cosmetic. For me, figuring out what these fanatically xenophobic collective agrarian tundra-dwelling flying monkeys are like is part of the appeal, and giving them an energy boost or tendency to form federations feels like it's bolting two options together rather than making a previously meaningless option important.