Stellaris Dev Diary #97 - Tech Progression in Cherryh

[Spaceman78]

Its the modders' "responsibility" (and I use that term in a loose sense, because yes, its a voluntary hobby) to support Paradox's changes, not the other way around. Paradox's responsibility is to make Stellaris work as well as possible and be the best game it can be, per their interpretation of that.

It would be great if more modders could chime in.

However I do agree with BlackUmbrellas statement.

What would happen if we are at Stellaris 5.0 and the developers need to maintain the assets of previous iterations v1-4.9?
I don't think that would be workable.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

In a sense, you're right. That's why we're not supporting the Humanoid shipset - it does not work with the mod as it was designed, therefore we will just ignore it.

Again, you do you buddy.

I'm just saying: this isn't a case of "Paradox broke a mod!", it's a case of "Paradox updated their game and a modder wasn't able to support that change". The onus is on the modder to keep their mod compatible, not the other way around, and seeing it framed otherwise is dishonest and supremely entitled.

 

[RevanIRL]

I don't think this is the thread for this kind of discussion for this. I loved using NSC but seems there is no point in continuing to use the mod if I can't use it on one of the shipsets available that I may grow to like and even more if Paradox decides to add anymore.

 

[Kreldin Foxclaw]

I am asking this question, so I do not know you.
Certainly you are involved in the NSC mod as stated on your signature. So if you say "instruct" does it mean that you are in charge of NSC developers and they listen to you?.

CaptainX3 is the Lead developer of the NSC development team, and original owner and creator of said mod.

Its the modders' "responsibility" (and I use that term in a loose sense, because yes, its a voluntary hobby) to support Paradox's changes, not the other way around. Paradox's responsibility is to make Stellaris work as well as possible and be the best game it can be, per their interpretation of that.

Not to hamstring themselves in order to support mods.

Paradox wouldnt be 'Hamstringing' themselves in order to provide that degree of support. You're right. It is a voluntary hobby. But it's a hobby that helps support the consistant playerbase that Stellaris has. Without mods, a significant number of people wouldnt still be playing Stellaris. A smaller playerbase would hurt uptake on new DLC releases, potentially impacting incomes from those. That could in turn lead to a reduction in the size and quality of those updates and DLC... etc etc.

Paradox chosing to ignore the modders that support their game could very well cause them a number of issues, not to mention cause a slew of bad feeling among the playerbase. does that really seem to be in Paradox best interest to you?

 

[DimeDrol]

Will small and large planets still give the same tech penalty? So, large ones still will be better in terms of science output/penalty ratio?

 

[CaptainX3]

Again, you do you buddy.

I'm just saying: this isn't a case of "Paradox broke a mod!", it's a case of "Paradox updated their game and a modder wasn't able to support that change". The onus is on the modder to keep their mod compatible, not the other way around, and seeing it framed otherwise is dishonest and supremely entitled.

The response probably wouldn't have been the way it was if Paradox hadn't repeatedly stated publicly that they'd support mods and modders while continuously breaking things in each and every update. To us, it feels a little like being lied to. And the NSC dev team is by no means alone in this feeling, it has been discussed at length on our Discord server by a large number of major mod authors.

Regardless, it doesn't matter anyway, since it is obviously not "proper" to ask for continued support of assets that are still IN the game, we'll just skip supporting anything that does not use those assets. Not a big deal, really.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

The response probably wouldn't have been the way it was if Paradox hadn't repeatedly stated publicly that they'd support mods and modders while continuously breaking things in each and every update. To us, it feels a little like being lied to. And the NSC dev team is by no means alone in this feeling, it has been discussed at length on our Discord server by a large number of major mod authors.

Regardless, it doesn't matter anyway, since it is obviously not "proper" to ask for continued support of assets that are still IN the game, we'll just skip supporting anything that does not use those assets. Not a big deal, really.

This is a risk any modder takes when they make content for a frequently-updated game. Code changes. Assets get deprecated. Mods break. I've seen it over and over again.

If you don't have the fortitude to work past that, you chose the wrong game to invest time in. That's your problem, not Paradox's.

 

[Kreldin Foxclaw]

I don't think this is the thread for this kind of discussion for this. I loved using NSC but seems there is no point in continuing to use the mod if I can't use it on one of the shipsets available that I may grow to like and even more if Paradox decides to add anymore.

I can definately understand what you're saying. Personally, I'd rather have NSC than the new humanoid shipset (which, honestly, is already my favourite shipset just on what I've seen), but you're making a valid point. I just hope that we can get some sort of notice or response from the Stellaris team, one way or another.

 

[pekkegnito]

Speaking of tier 6 unique tech. Could you make Enigmatic Fortress into a unique fortress of owner empire, after capturing and tier 6 research? Maybe add exclusive module to it that allows you to unlock more enigmatic tech over time based on random chance, similar to how etherial dragon hatchling/dragon armor work.

This. As of now, the Enigmatic Fortress plays like the proposed 2.0 Space Stations (big badass station, with a constellation of defending fortresses), so making it conquerable would be pretty simple (set it up as an independent faction or micro-empire, and give it the same treatment as the upcoming stations). But please, put it in orbit around the star, rather than system north.

 

[ParasiteX]

Paradox is under no obligation to support outdated features simply for the sake of modders. And I speak as a modder myself.
It has always been on us modders to keep a mod updated. Not the developer of the game.

 

[CaptainX3]

I don't think this is the thread for this kind of discussion for this. I loved using NSC but seems there is no point in continuing to use the mod if I can't use it on one of the shipsets available that I may grow to like and even more if Paradox decides to add anymore.

Very sorry to hear that, but at the moment it is not possible to make the new shipset compatible with NSC, there are literally not enough models to support NSC's ship sections.

This is a risk any modder takes when they make content for a frequently-updated game. Code changes. Assets get deprecated. Mods break. I've seen it over and over again.

If you don't have the fortitude to work past that, you chose the wrong game to invest time in. That's your problem, not Paradox's.

Again, you're correct. I was ready to exit Stellaris modding a year ago when I stopped playing the game. The only reason NSC is still around is because of Crusader, but after this mess, I think he might decide to walk away, and I don't see myself continuing unless the 2.0 overhaul fixes the reasons why I stopped playing.

Mods come and go, it's a reality of gaming. No point in arguing about it on a forum LOL. But you're right, you've given me a lot to think about.

 

[Kreldin Foxclaw]

Paradox is under no obligation to support outdated features simply for the sake of modders. And I speak as a modder myself.
It has always been on us modders to keep a mod updated. Not the developer of the game.

We're not asking them to keep the mod updated for us - Simply to help give us the tools and support we need to not make it an uphill battle. A small amount of effort on their part that can save modders hours or even days of work. As a former modder, Wiz of all people should understand that.

 

[Spaceman78]

Again, you're correct. I was ready to exit Stellaris modding a year ago when I stopped playing the game. The only reason NSC is still around is because of Crusader, but after this mess, I think he might decide to walk away, and I don't see myself continuing unless the 2.0 overhaul fixes the reasons why I stopped playing.

I do not know your reason for dissatisfaction with the game (PM if you wish).

However it is always say for a player to leave the game (kindred soul). Even more so when a modder leaves (who bring extra life and content to a game).

 

[CaptainX3]

I do not know your reason for dissatisfaction with the game (PM if you wish).

However it is always say for a player to leave the game (kindred soul). Even more so when a modder leaves (who bring extra life and content to a game).

Looking at the dev diaries for 2.0, it does appear as if they're addressing a number of the issues I had with the game, but only time will tell for sure. I will definitely try 2.0 and see how it plays.

Regardless, NSC has features in it (a LOT of features) that I did not code and have no knowledge of how they work. If the devs responsible for those features walk away because they feel like they're not supported by Paradox, I'd have to strip NSC way down in order to continue it, which I wouldn't do unless I continued playing the game.

I'm not saying the game is bad by any means, but there are issues I personally don't like about it that I'm sure others love. It's just personal preference. I don't have anything against Paradox as a company either, I still play Cities Skylines all the time. It's just a matter of whether or not I feel any particular game is fun, and right now I don't feel that way about Stellaris, but that could change with 2.0, we'll see.

I've tried to stick around and keep NSC up to date, because it is the most popular gameplay mod for Stellaris, but at some point the frustration of changes messing everything up outweighs the desire to continue modding. I fear this is what is happening with the few NSC devs that are still active.

 

[yavorh55]

I feel like the solution with all starting weapons being available is not quite optimal.

Look at it from a view point of reasons for tech development - in a book series like The Vorkosigan Saga the explanation for different weapons such as missiles, lasers, kinetics, gravitational weapons and plasma (and other energy based stuff) is that some tech came in and made them either unusable or less effective.

Essentially say you start with basic kinetics. Then armor comes along and you say Well screw that, I'm doing energy. But then shields are invented to counter that. So you say well screw that I'm either developing stronger kinetics or making missiles. Then PD comes along so you go... etc etc etc

That way the early game could be an action-packed race that creates stories! Maybe an enemy comes out at you with tech that is stronger than yours and instead of just going back home, refitting yourself and it going back down to the typical "whose stick is bigger" game, you would have to use the terrain and guerilla tactics to destroy them and salvage their tech to catch up.

Plus, once the "counters" are all on the table you'll be able to choose which to spec into, thus that mid to late game research speccing being after you've had a taste of what's out there and making a smart choice - not making a random choice at the start of the game to spec into one thing and one thing only.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Or any update...last I checked, this was not high on the priority list, or even on the list at all.

Granted, I’ve abandoned Stellaris for this very reason, so I would be elated to find that they are actually going to implement some kind of economy with depth.

Let me put this way: Paradox wants to keep making expansions for Stellaris for at least as long as they have for CK2 and EU4. In order to this, there needs to be Things About Expansions Can be Made. Trade, and espionage, are pretty obvious candidates for an expansion, therefore aren't going to ignore them forever.

We're not going to be in like 2019 and they're sat there in meetings like "Well, we've done war, we've done federations and we've done diplomacy. We've done planet killers, and we've added more crisis, and we've added mid game crisis, and we've added new internal crisis. We've added civil wars, and we've added expansions into new galaxies. What the hell else can we do?"
"What about trade?"
"Nah."

It will happen eventually. I happen to believe that they'll be coming relatively soon. Just not this patch. Maybe the next one or the one after. They seem like the next logical step after the Cherryh reworks, plus they wouldn't put shit like 'Deep Space Black Site' and 'Trading Hub' in the game if they didn't intend to do something with them.

 

[wergy]

MOAR TECHS!
You can never have too many techs to research! \o/

 

[RELee]

Youse guys is alright in my book!

 

[Thorin]

Yes, even more limit on expansion. Tech cost for colonized planets and pop was somewhat acceptable, but tech cost for putting flag on Falkland is one of the stupidest choice made in this update.

 

[Crusader Vanguard]

This is a risk any modder takes when they make content for a frequently-updated game. Code changes. Assets get deprecated. Mods break. I've seen it over and over again.

If you don't have the fortitude to work past that, you chose the wrong game to invest time in. That's your problem, not Paradox's.

What I was trying to do originally before all hell broke loose in this forums, was point out to Paradox that this has been supported in all other shipsets except this new one, and I just wanted to ASK if they would support it. I'm not "demanding" anything from Paradox. How they handle their game is their choice.

Now you might ask "why don't you take the hint that Paradox will not support your request because they didn't include those models in the first place?" That's a valid question. The answer is because Paradox has shown me in recent patches that modders are a bit of an afterthought for certain major changes, or something. The "defines" file issue back in Patch 1.6 "Adams" had mods broken for a week... or when Patch 1.8 came out and THEN Paradox realized that modders depend on being able to access traits for species mods. They had to fix both of these afterwards in a patch, which I would think if they were 100% honest about supporting Modders, this would have been thought of before releasing the patch. Regardless of why these "misses" happened, I am grateful Paradox took the time to correct these issues, although it does leave modders with the feeling that "we will support modders" is a convenience and an afterthought, or a half truth.

Since @Wiz has stated on multiple occasions that if we want something to support mods, all we need do is ask, so I thought I would ask. Personally, I think if you have made all these models already, asking for 2 more or so wouldn't be that big of drain on resources, but I don't know for sure, therefore, if Wiz came on here and told me (or anyone else asking for this) that the artist team that developed this shipset didn't have the resources or don't want to spend the resources making the few extra models, I will accept that call. But given the "misses" (whether they were honest mistakes or Paradox forgot about modders), I thought it was prudent to ask. I just wanted to know officially what the answer was.

If you're going to say you support modders and we can ask but then we get shut down for asking, do you support modders? All I'm doing is asking. It's ultimately Paradox's call, but since modders are suppose to be supported, here is what we ask for, and now I will let Paradox decide how to handle it.