Stellaris Dev Diary #185: Announcing Necroids

[Emperica]

I was mentioning some of the things that I've personally been working on. Sorry if it wasn't enough.

No, it was not enough, no way near it.

 

[-Marauder-]

Also since paradox are not the best at gauging the atmosphere here I'll say this plainly:

Most of us would rather puke our balls out through our mouths than read another "wE aRe AlWaYS WoRkINg On PeRfOrMaNcE aNd Ai" post.

4.

Years.

And it's WORSE.

The worst aspect to me is. It was actually getting better. Before 2.2 a lot of stuff was working and quite decently. Then they decided to just blow the entire thing up and redo everything. All their stated reasons for doing this did not only not come about, they often ended up making stuff worse. How one achieves that is beyond me.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

No, it was not enough, no way near it.

This is overly harsh. @Eladrin is one of the few devs now who actually respond here and elsewhere on the Internet, so I have some respect for them to stick their neck out for the community.

But on that note, it would be great if there was some discussion on what is being worked on in this area. Appreciate it's probably work in progress, and there's no dates or definitive answers, but I do really value a game dev that can talk details about their plans for changes, even if they are in the early concept stage. It reassures the player that there is some work going into it and could provide some feedback at the early stage to help flesh it out.

 

[alteration]

The worst aspect to me is. It was actually getting better. Before 2.2 a lot of stuff was working and quite decently. Then they decided to just blow the entire thing up and redo everything. All their stated reasons for doing this did not only not come about, they often ended up making stuff worse. How one achieves that is beyond me.

As I said in other posts, I got a "conspiracy" theory about this. Basically when they start a game, like stellaris, they deploy their best devs to the project. A while after the release, they call these devs on other projects (like CK3 for example) and leave the others to keep the game alive with DLCs.
So the answer to the question: why the hardcoded AI does not get reworked, is very likely AI devs moved on other projects.

In short: They rework all aspects of stellaris -> stellaris AI is not designed to work with these changes and needs massive rework as well, but devs that can do that are reassigned for a very short amount of time on stellaris, enough time to make a quick patch with tape and glue, then move again to other projects.

At least in the company I work for it works like that, makes sense it's the same elsewhere.

 

[shortysean2]

Well this thread went well, was expecting a story pack to be honest. I've not played in a while (pre federations) Is the AI really that broken?

 

[andriy.gerasika]

As I said in other posts, I got a "conspiracy" theory about this. Basically when they start a game, like stellaris, they deploy their best devs to the project. A while after the release, they call these devs on other projects (like CK3 for example) and leave the others to keep the game alive with DLCs.
So the answer to the question: why the hardcoded AI does not get reworked, is very likely AI devs moved on other projects.

In short: They rework all aspects of stellaris -> stellaris AI is not designed to work with these changes and needs massive rework as well, but devs that can do that are reassigned for a very short amount of time on stellaris, enough time to make a quick patch with tape and glue, then move again to other projects.

At least in the company I work for it works like that, makes sense it's the same elsewhere.

Agree 100% -- devs do NOT decide on what they should be working on -- management does. And management won't lift a finger unless their sales plummet

 

[Janx14]

The worst aspect to me is. It was actually getting better. Before 2.2 a lot of stuff was working and quite decently. Then they decided to just blow the entire thing up and redo everything. All their stated reasons for doing this did not only not come about, they often ended up making stuff worse. How one achieves that is beyond me.

I wish they'd just revert to 2.1, upgrade it to 64 bit, and figure out how to make megacorps work with the old system.

 

[alteration]

I wish they'd just revert to 2.1, upgrade it to 64 bit, and figure out how to make megacorps work with the old system.

Yeah, the changes ruined the game. I wanted to play with friends before megacorps, I convinced them to buy the game (was not easy lol) but luckly I tried the expansion, saw how broke it was, and said guys we'll play something else. SAaaad

 

[Coconut_Cookie]

This is overly harsh. @Eladrin is one of the few devs now who actually respond here and elsewhere on the Internet, so I have some respect for them to stick their neck out for the community.

But on that note, it would be great if there was some discussion on what is being worked on in this area. Appreciate it's probably work in progress, and there's no dates or definitive answers, but I do really value a game dev that can talk details about their plans for changes, even if they are in the early concept stage. It reassures the player that there is some work going into it and could provide some feedback at the early stage to help flesh it out.

Exactly, Eladrin can't help it and I very much appreciate any dev response on the forum. There are people responsible for some basic communication though, that could be the lead designer a project lead or someone who is specifically hired for communication. People need to know the long term plan. I get that artists were set to work on cosmetic dlc's but what's the point of those if the rest of the game just doesn't work. Are they even planning to fix anything at some point? We don't know because we really haven't seen any major results or even a plan on how to get there since Megacorp.

 

[Elm0__]

Agree 100% -- devs do NOT decide on what they should be working on -- management does. And management won't lift a finger unless their sales plummet

Exactly, this is just simple business strategy. There is no need to vent that much anger on devs. Management probably knows that AI and some features are kinda broken, but Stellaris isn't considered a flagship project anymore and from strategical point of view is treated as more of a legacy project. They don't feel the need to invest much of focus to it and just go with current strategy of pushing new DLCs. Only some major crisis of sales or bad review could force them to move into "damage control" mode and spend more man-hours into this game.

So if one wants additional effort from Paradox into fixing the game, then he should try to create more external pressure, for example by posting negative reviews on steam highlighting the issues or try to get in touch with some youtubers or game journalists and stir interest in describing the situation.

There is even a chance they are already working on a sequel.

 

[alteration]

Exactly, this is just simple business strategy. There is no need to vent that much anger on devs. Management probably knows that AI and some features are kinda broken, but Stellaris isn't considered a flagship project anymore and from strategical point of view is treated as more of a legacy project. They don't feel the need to invest much of focus to it and just go with current strategy of pushing new DLCs. Only some major crisis of sales or bad review could force them to move into "damage control" mode and spend more man-hours into this game.

So if one wants additional effort from Paradox into fixing the game, then he should try to create more external pressure, for example by posting negative reviews on steam highlighting the issues or try to get in touch with some youtubers or game journalists and stir interest in describing the situation.

Stellaris DLCs actually sell pretty well, if we manage to reach games media, management may order to fix the AI.

 

[Spartakus]

Well this thread went well, was expecting a story pack to be honest. I've not played in a while (pre federations) Is the AI really that broken?

Federation actually quite improved the economic AI to the point where it can support a decent fleet. Unfortunately the same patch completely broke the military AI so that it doesn't know what to do with those fleets.
This is particularly noticeable when you are in a federation but not in control of the federal fleet. Because the button to make the AI follow your fleet no longer works either.

 

[alteration]

Federation actually quite improved the economic AI to the point where it can support a decent fleet. Unfortunately the same patch completely broke the military AI so that it doesn't know what to do with those fleets.
This is particularly noticeable when you are in a federation but not in control of the federal fleet. Because the button to make the AI follow your fleet no longer works either.

I think it was broken before as well, only difference is that without AI able to build fleets, you didn't notice it didn't know how to use them

 

[Athmet]

Old reviews...

Really ? I just checked and last 30 days score is 90% positive out of the 1k reviews made during that period.

Because at some point. The game was actually nearing a pretty decent state. Sure, it had it's flaws but stuff at large was working. Then they decided to take the sledgehammer to it. And completely broke some aspects, while making others much much much worse. Many of these issues haven't been addressed in over a year. And people are, getting fed up.

Could you pin point in time that moment so I can look at the reviews from that point on ?

The AI definitely need more work. They have addressed their plan for it in a DD in May 2020. They did state it will take time. 2.6 got some improvement on the AI but nowhere near what most here are expecting.

With that being said, you got to admit it does not seem to bring much negative reviews in itself.

 

[Spartakus]

I think it was broken before as well, only difference is that without AI able to build fleets, you didn't notice it didn't know how to use them

Nope. Federation fleets definitely worked before. AI following your fleet also worked before. It did not work perfectly, but It was good enough.

 

[KubiG37]

I've been thinking lately about replaying Dead Space, this definitely makes me want to go shoot some Necromorphs

But... extra portraits and ships sets won't fix the game issues, no matter how well made they may be. So, I'd think twice before buying it.

 

[LWE]

I've actually changed my positive Steam review to a negative one, keeping the initial text, but adding a "developers don't fix AI/endgame issues for too long a time, this makes me change the rating" note. Having said this...

The AI definitely need more work. They have addressed their plan for it in a DD in May 2020. They did state it will take time. 2.6 got some improvement on the AI but nowhere near what most here are expecting.

With that being said, you got to admit it does not seem to bring much negative reviews in itself.

I think it's because quite a lot of Stellaris players are too bad at the game to see the badness of the AI. Sullla, a famous Civ4 tester, wrote in his (negative) Civ5 review:

We had a rough number when I was working on Civ4 that something like 80% of all players would never try anything other than Chieftain difficulty. The complex breakdown of the gameplay mechanics that I'm mentioning here are completely irrelevant for the overwhelming majority of the Civ5 playerbase.

Even here in the AAR section, there are people who start their reports with "This will be played at Ensign difficulty level because I am really bad at this game, don't judge me". So even among players dedicated enough to start an AAR, there are people who find difficulties higher than Ensign hard.

Plus, AI and endgame flaws aren't obvious initially, and some people don't change their Steam reviews even if they're disappointed.

Keeping this in mind, these are the reasons why significant and harmful AI issues don't automatically result in a massive wave of negative reviews.

Not really sure about why the issues with Crisis don't receive much attention, either. It's lategame, though, and all 4X/Grand strategies have the issue of people not playing them until the endgame (how many started EU4 games are played up to 1821?). And some of these Ensign players probably have issues defeating it, regardless (I myself lost to a Crisis in one of my AAR's, although it was acting unimmersively bizzare and clearly incompetently - granted, I specificially chose short slow-tech game settings more favorable to it).

 

[Cassilda]

Beside the new setting, what makes the undead different than regular civilization? They start with something like immortal leaders and have armies comprised by space-zombie hordes?

 

[WarriorofLusos]

I'm definitely going to pass, not a single mention of perfomance in the Dev Diaries and just as I expected It was just a waste of time hoping that the programers would break this radio silence. More reasons to think this will be just some abadonware to be milked for more DLC until your Board of Directors greenlight a new standalone Stellaris 3.0 since you know even the version 2.0 didn't go okay.

It boggles my mind how greedy IT IS BECOMING!!!! BETWEEN SPECIES PACK LITHOIDS AND NOW THIS WE HAD ONLY ONE "TRUE" DLC TO SEPARATE IT, FEDERATIONS. WHILST BETWEEN HUMANOIDS AND LITHOIDS WE HAD 4 DLC SEPARATING IT.

I just feel scammed, buying all the DLCs for 4 YEARS and getting a bit of perfomance patch here and there, not worth it...

 

[Vahouth]

Well, the reception for this DLC announcement is about 50-50 and by the looks of it, the dislikes have nothing to do with its content.