Stellaris

[Martok]

You know when a game gets so big you’re scared/reluctant to even dip a toe in again? 

Yep... that's EU IV for me. 

Both EU4 and CK2 for me.  Paradox titles aren't exactly easy to jump into.  I'm still mildly surprised I managed to get over the hump with Stellaris (even if it is probably their most accessible game). 

[ojsdad]

To me, the secret is learning these games is not being afraid to either restart or go back to an earlier point in the game.  Try to learn a few pieces, go back to a save, and apply what I've learned and at the same time start picking up on other parts of the game. 

[bayonetbrant]

re/start frequently.  get a few turns in, start over, try something different, back up to a previous auto-save, etc etc.

great way to learn and figure it out as you go.

[Martok]

In contrast, there's also the, "Welp, I've already completely screwed the pooch.  Now that I've learned [painful lesson] (too late), let's see just how far I can get before I finally go down in flames" method of learning.   

[thecommandtent]

In contrast, there's also the, "Welp, I've already completely screwed the pooch.  Now that I've learned [painful lesson] (too late), let's see just how far I can get before I finally go down in flames" method of learning. 

I feel called out 

[ojsdad]

In contrast, there's also the, "Welp, I've already completely screwed the pooch.  Now that I've learned [painful lesson] (too late), let's see just how far I can get before I finally go down in flames" method of learning. 

I feel called out 

Nope, that's all of us at some point.

[Martok]

In contrast, there's also the, "Welp, I've already completely screwed the pooch.  Now that I've learned [painful lesson] (too late), let's see just how far I can get before I finally go down in flames" method of learning. 

I feel called out 

Nope, that's all of us at some point.

Ha, definitely.  If I'm calling out anyone, it's myself.   

[Anguille]

The problem i have with most Paradox games is that i find them boring and there are too many artificial limitations. And i did buy all of them since EU1 until EU3 and CK2. I do have also Imperator and Stellaris (obviously). As for now, the only new game from Paradox i will get will be Stellaris 2.

[Martok]

As for now, the only new game from Paradox i will get will be Stellaris 2.

I'm pretty sure that will be the case for me as well. 

[Martok]

Say what you will about Paradox, but they've got some pretty talented writers on staff.  Setting aside all the descriptions for technologies, traditions, etc., plus the flavor text for anomaly & event pop-ups, some of my favorite examples of their work are the diplomatic insults -- some of them are pretty good zingers.   

[Martok]

Dev Diary #215 is up.  It mainly discusses three things: 


1.)  It describes, in broad terms, the team's approach to how they're going to add gameplay elements for the Plantoid and Humanoid species.  Interesting to note that it appears they're possibly going to lump in the Fungoids (a species type that was in the original game) with the Plantoids, give them unique gameplay elements as well. 

2.)  Game balance -- specifically, "Research Booming", where players can essentially outpace other empires due to focusing intensely on research.  Towards that end, it sounds like the "Shattered Ring" origin will be nerfed, as apparently min-max players in particular love to use this origin to get way ahead in the research game. 

3.)  In a hilarious attempt by Daniel Moregård trying not very hard to avoid throwing Martin Anward (Stellaris' previous game director) under the bus, he talks about his dissatisfaction with the mechanics of empire sprawl as it currently works, and the use of "admin cap" to manage it.  Instead, he talks about the possibility of using Unity to manage empire sprawl, and how larger empires might have to "spend" it as a resource to deal with a larger and/or more diverse population. 


This is obviously more of a long-term project that Moregård is working on.  Still, I'll be very curious to see what exactly he comes up with to address this issue.  if he comes up with the right formula, it could be something that allows "playing tall" to be a more viable strategy once more, which would be pretty damn cool. 

[Anguille]

Wonder if they will manage to keep it up with GalCiv4 around the corner. I don't think there's so much more they can improve.

[Martok]

Wonder if they will manage to keep it up with GalCiv4 around the corner.

Indeed.  And let's not forget Distant Worlds 2, either.  Granted, Slitherine doesn't have the same marketing acumen (or resources0 as Paradox, or even Stardock, but I think it's still going to make a bigger splash than its predecessor did. 

My gut feeling is that ultimately, Stellaris will be able to stay ahead of the others, if only because it has Paradox's marketing machine -- and gaming community -- behind it.  So long as Moregård and his team manage to release at least one new expansion a year, I think that will be enough to maintain Stellaris' current hold atop the space 4x sub-genre. 


...I won't be upset if I'm proven wrong, however.   

I don't think there's so much more they can improve.

I can think of quite a bit, myself. 


*  Factions still don't do much.  (There remains much clamoring for a DLC that focuses on internal politics, and possible civil wars.) 

*  Sectors still suck, and badly need a revamp.

*  There are lot of ways in which wars still don't work very well. 

*  Leaders aren't truly meaningful, unlike in Total War or Crusader Kings.  That's something a lot of folks would like to see changed/improved. 

*  Despite the 2.6 update and Federations DLC, there are a lot of ways in which diplomacy still doesn't really work like players wish it did. 

*  Including Federations.  It's clear they still don't really function as how anyone -- players or developers -- really would like. 

*  Although the 3.0 update and the addition of the intel/spy system helped, the mid-game is still rather boring. 

*  Towards that end, The Great Khan needs to be fixed/improved, and more mid-game crises/events added. 

*  More end-game crises would be welcome as well. 

*  Also:  Why do all crises have to be military in nature?  Why can't we have crises like a galaxy-wide plague or nanite storm -- one that requires a certain amount of research points, Unity, etc., that would require multiple empires combining their resources in order to successfully defeat?  Not every problem can be solved at the tip of a laser cannon... 

*  And of course, the AI can always, always stand to be improved.  There remain far too many examples of it doing inexplicably foolish things. 



And these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head.  Doubtless there are many more issues (some more fundamental than others) that could/should be improved upon. 

[Anguille]

Indeed, Paradox has a huge fan base and is, imho, the reason why Master of Orion CtS and Endless Space 2 failed to reach more players in 2016 as a big chunk of the 4x community was waiting for Stellaris (and not everyone is ready to buy multiple 4x games in a single year). Which is a shame because Endless Space 2 and mostly Master of Orion 4 would have benefited from more players and more support.

Still. Stellaris is getting old and older and so does its engine (and no sign of a Stellaris 2 so far). GalCiv4 is fresh and open for inputs by players. Could become the next big thing if well done. GalCiv2 was already the biggest thing when it was new. Stellaris will continue to be popular but may lose it's first place. We'll see.

I have litte hope of improvements for the following aspects. If they haven't managed to do it yet, dont' think they will in future.

*  Sectors still suck, and badly need a revamp. never worked, will never work.

*  There are lot of ways in which wars still don't work very well. not as bad as above but not much hope.

*  Leaders aren't truly meaningful, unlike in Total War or Crusader Kings.  That's something a lot of folks would like to see changed/improved. too much work. Maybe in Stellaris 2.

*  Although the 3.0 update and the addition of the intel/spy system helped, the mid-game is still rather boring.
Don't see how this can be improved. Was boring and will remain boring. Unfortunately.

*  And of course, the AI can always, always stand to be improved.  There remain far too many examples of it doing inexplicably foolish things. I don't have hopes in that aspect. They keep on adding new features and the AI is hopelessly not able to follow.

[Martok]

Still. Stellaris is getting old and older and so does its engine (and no sign of a Stellaris 2 so far). GalCiv4 is fresh and open for inputs by players. Could become the next big thing if well done. GalCiv2 was already the biggest thing when it was new. Stellaris will continue to be popular but may lose it's first place. We'll see.

You may be right, although it should perhaps be mentioned that the landscape was every different when GC2 came out. 

When Galactic Civilizations 2 was released, it was in the midst of a proverbial drought:  After the debacle of MOO3, the 4x genre was pretty much on life support for the remainder of the decade.  Civilization IV and GalCiv2 were the only major titles released during that time period, and so they ended up dominating the "game-space" pretty much by default. 


In contrast, GalCiv4 is being released in what is now (thankfully!) a renewed era for 4x games.  We have significantly more choices now than we did 15+ years ago, and Stardock is going to have to step it up if they truly want their flagship series to stand out.  That means not just introducing new features & mechanics, but also making the game feel "alive", and provide a sense of atmosphere & immersion -- something they've long struggled with.  Granted, not everyone needs that in their games, but many do. 

For all that Stellaris is aging, it retains the advantage of having a strong sense of atmosphere, of being able to generate a sense of story, etc., -- which is important to a lot of people who play it.  I think that if GalCiv4 is truly going to compete with it, then it has to at least come within spitting distance of matching that. 


Also, like I said before, let's not forget Distant Worlds 2.  For all that it won't have the same level of visibility (at least at release), it can definitely match Stellaris for the same level of atmosphere, immersion, and storyline elements.  Depending on how things pan out, I can see DW2 being another sleeper hit that surprises everyone. 

I have litte hope of improvements for the following aspects. If they haven't managed to do it yet, dont' think they will in future.

*  Sectors still suck, and badly need a revamp. never worked, will never work.

*  There are lot of ways in which wars still don't work very well. not as bad as above but not much hope.

*  Leaders aren't truly meaningful, unlike in Total War or Crusader Kings.  That's something a lot of folks would like to see changed/improved. too much work. Maybe in Stellaris 2.

*  Although the 3.0 update and the addition of the intel/spy system helped, the mid-game is still rather boring.
Don't see how this can be improved. Was boring and will remain boring. Unfortunately.

*  And of course, the AI can always, always stand to be improved.  There remain far too many examples of it doing inexplicably foolish things. I don't have hopes in that aspect. They keep on adding new features and the AI is hopelessly not able to follow.

I don't know that any of those things will see improvement, either.  I just automatically included them in my list as I was putting it together, that's all. 

And who knows?  Maybe with this new "Custodian Initiative", we might actually see some of these old issues finally addressed.  I agree it's unlikely, but I also never thought that the Humanoids and Plantoids would get more love, either.