2.2 & Megacorp Teasers

[TGK72]

exactly, but imagine if you were competing in some sort of death tournament, where you rolled for what weapon you'll use. everyone has the same chance to get any given weapon, but then you have to watch a fight where someone is fighting a dude with an assault rifle with a ladle. it's not fair, even though they both had the same chance to get any given weapon.

the point is this system, isn't "fair", and by reducing rng and increasing the base minimum, you make it fairer, and don't have quite the same odds, now their both at least fighting with swords now, even if one is a bit longer.

But since assault rifles are in the equation, that means that even though everyone starts with swords, the fact that an assault rifle can still randomly appear in the hands if one of the combatants then that means that there is still a chance that the crowds going to be seeing an unbalanced matchup, once again creating the same situation as a ladle and an AR The same logic applies here.

No matter what the contestants (races) enter the arena (galaxy) with, as long as there is a chance one of those contestants can end up with a power advantage just due to rng, then there is never a truly *fair* start regardless of what the base weapon is.

Btw, your AR/Ladle analogy is the entire foundation behind the popularity of the whole Battle Royal themed books, movies, and games. You describe the sensation of never knowing what you are going to end up with as unfun or worse, boring to a spectating crowd or the participants themselves when it's the exact opposite.

I'd buy a ticket to see that potential AR/Ladle fight just because of the potential of seeing something amazing, and its no different with Stellaris. Others as well as myself who would prefer this be an option instead of a strict standard simply enjoy the excitement of never knowing what you or your fellow competitors are going to get, then the challenge of making the best with what you've got in the case it's not that great against tough odds or pushing that rare advantage to it's absolute limits. But I understand some don't enjoy the thrill and challenge of uncertainty, hense the need of an option at galaxy creation.

 

[Mitchz95]

Do we know if the starting planets are hard coded? Has someone already modded them out? I know of modders adding in custom neighbor systems.

It's pretty easy to mod out. There are lots of mods that do it, including one of my own.

 

[nunzarius]

I think this whole starting planets discussion should find a new thread to live on...

 

[Riftwalker]

But since assault rifles are in the equation, that means that even though everyone starts with swords, the fact that an assault rifle can still randomly appear in the hands if one of the combatants then that means that there is still a chance that the crowds going to be seeing an unbalanced matchup, once again creating the same situation as a ladle and an AR The same logic applies here.

No matter what the contestants (races) enter the arena (galaxy) with, as long as there is a chance one of those contestants can end up with a power advantage just due to rng, then there is never a truly *fair* start regardless of what the base weapon is.

Btw, your AR/Ladle analogy is the entire foundation behind the popularity of the whole Battle Royal themed books, movies, and games. You describe the sensation of never knowing what you are going to end up with as unfun or worse, boring to a spectating crowd or the participants themselves when it's the exact opposite.

I'd buy a ticket to see that potential AR/Ladle fight just because of the potential of seeing something amazing, and its no different with Stellaris. Others as well as myself who would prefer this be an option instead of a strict standard simply enjoy the excitement of never knowing what you or your fellow competitors are going to get, then the challenge of making the best with what you've got in the case it's not that great against tough odds or pushing that rare advantage to it's absolute limits. But I understand some don't enjoy the thrill and challenge of uncertainty, hense the need of an option at galaxy creation.

1. no, not really, your immediate surrounding planets are always 2, these systems won't gain another planet. on top of that if RNG does give them a whole nother greenie, you still only have to at minimum deal with a sword as your weapon, not a ladle, the situation is still improved. heck, the reverse is true as well, you get a golden start, and don't have to worry about the AI's around you being no challenge making you snowball with no real conflict the whole game.

2. sure, but as mentioned several times, and in founders videos he's linked, you want to control the rubberbanding of the RNG. allowing literally anything to happen can be really unfun. like your homeworld having a modifier, that sets you back decades in the colonization game, etc. the limits you present are still limited, we can go further, but I don't think people want to, potentially, have to start as a single pop on an 8 sized homeworld in a blackhole system with no additional orbital resources, while you spawn inside the borders of a fallen empire, etc.

3. books and movies have plots, if the ladle needs to win, it'll win, in battle royale games, they last 15 minutes, and that's if you do good and win, if you lose, you can immediately go on to the next one. this is potentially hours of your time wasted for no fault of your own.

4. in reality, you and many others will either ask for a refund or know your going to watch a 'crush' match. The romans didn't set christians to the lions to see the christians possibly pull out a victory, but to see them eaten alive. if you want to remove the limit, go mod it, it's easy enough, go to ~\steamapps\common\Stellaris\common\solar_system_initializers\empire_initializers.txt search for

    neighbor_system = {
        distance = { min = 10 max = @distance }       
        initializer = "neighbor_t1"
    }
    neighbor_system = {
        distance = { min = 10 max = @distance }       
        initializer = "neighbor_t1_first_colony"
    }

and remove it, there should be 6 or so.

 

[Jabby]

I'm not sure if spying is next or diplomacy.

Probably both will come together. So the question is really wether its gonna be developing internal or external mechanics. Eg. Faction and government rework vs diplomatic rework

 

[Tamwin5]

In regards to getting Guaranteed special resources on your Gaia planet, I think it's a good idea.

If you look at the actual details of the buildings, each upgrade has a maintenance cost of 1 Volatile mote, and is effectively twice as good(2 motes and three times as good for second upgrades). So until you have between 11 and 22 volatile motes per month, having one building producing volatile motes still be a benefit. I'm not sure if the other resources will be similarity as valuable, but I imagine they will be.

Also, if you really want that building slot later on, you can always disable them.

I could see giving Life seeded a 2 deposit of all three of the basic special resources. I also think that volatile motes appear to be the most useful economically of the three, from what I've seen, so maybe give slightly more of those? Or just be four motes?

 

[TGK72]

1. no, not really, your immediate surrounding planets are always 2, these systems won't gain another planet. on top of that if RNG does give them a whole nother greenie, you still only have to at minimum deal with a sword as your weapon, not a ladle, the situation is still improved. heck, the reverse is true as well, you get a golden start, and don't have to worry about the AI's around you being no challenge making you snowball with no real conflict the whole game.

2. sure, but as mentioned several times, and in founders videos he's linked, you want to control the rubberbanding of the RNG. allowing literally anything to happen can be really unfun. like your homeworld having a modifier, that sets you back decades in the colonization game, etc. the limits you present are still limited, we can go further, but I don't think people want to, potentially, have to start as a single pop on an 8 sized homeworld in a blackhole system with no additional orbital resources, while you spawn inside the borders of a fallen empire, etc.

3. books and movies have plots, if the ladle needs to win, it'll win, in battle royale games, they last 15 minutes, and that's if you do good and win, if you lose, you can immediately go on to the next one. this is potentially hours of your time wasted for no fault of your own.

4. in reality, you and many others will either ask for a refund or know your going to watch a 'crush' match. The romans didn't set christians to the lions to see the christians possibly pull out a victory, but to see them eaten alive. if you want to remove the limit, go mod it, it's easy enough, go to ~\steamapps\common\Stellaris\common\solar_system_initializers\empire_initializers.txt search for

    neighbor_system = {
        distance = { min = 10 max = @distance }    
        initializer = "neighbor_t1"
    }
    neighbor_system = {
        distance = { min = 10 max = @distance }    
        initializer = "neighbor_t1_first_colony"
    }

and remove it, there should be 6 or so.

Just to go ahead and answer that last bit, I already know how to do this. As a matter of fact, not only is it not quite that simple (You also need to do that to two other files in the empire intializers folder and also in a way as to prevent prescripted empires like earth from losing their known neighboring systems like Alpha Centurai and to prevent habital world's from spawning in your local systems altogether.) But I also am the author for what is probably the only active mod that does this on the Steam Workshop.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1369035511

Now with this said, thanks to the fact that I've been playing with the 2 free world's nearby disabled ever since they changed habitability to be a lot less restrictive. I have never, and I repeat, NEVER been presented with an impossible or grossly crippled start due to my mod that wasn't also just as likely to happen with the two free world's that I couldn't work with or get out of.

The very few really bad situations I did have were as few and far in-between as the vanilla experience. (I've also done an unhealthy amount of controlled tests as well for both modded and unmodded Stellaris both due to general testing when making the mod and since this is far from the only debate I've had about this subject.)

Also, the bit about only having 2 local planets ever spawning in your local space is wrong. There is a chance for a habital world to spawn in absolutely ANY system that doesn't already spawn one of the neighboring "greenies". You'll know that just by going through the same text files and a few others. The chance of which increases further depending on the associated slider at galaxy creation.

I also don't think a lot of those against it being removed understand that you can still end up with bad rolls with those free planets. Your neighbor can end up with two size 20-25, mineral-rich havens while you're stuck with 2 sqaunt size 8, oasis's with bad modifiers. Effectively giving you a broken club while they get an Ulfberht and shield to match.

The point I've been trying to make through all these posts is that I have yet to find any proof, both from my own experiences and others who've either used my mod or made their own mod, that the games balance is affected to any significant degree when you remove the 2 free worlds, and I've personally made it really easy to see for yourself.

Go download my mod and play a few games with it. I promise there isn't as big of a starting balance issue as so many seems to be so sure exists, and after a few particularly typical games you'll discover just how arbitrary their continued inclusion is. Idk if it's just shell-shock from too many unlucky starts in a row or just a bad understanding of the games own mechanics, but there isn't too many communities I've come across thats been as hostile to the potential of assemetrical starts and the challenges presented by them for what is effectly a pseudo-sandbox style strategy game as this one.

Have you ever thought that the occasional unbalanced start is part of the experience in stellaris? Just because you come across a particularly difficult level in super Mario, Dark souls, or Tetris doesn't mean it's broken or unbalanced, it's just part of the game.

In fact I'd wager that if they never had the 2 free world's nearby to begin with, nobody would have noticed a thing wrong. In the same manner that nobody complains about not having 2 free nearby planets in MoO2 or 2 extra colonists In Civ from the start. If you are truly unhappy with the hand you've been delt at game start, then just make a freaking new one until you are! Geesh

 

[Turnil]

Martin Anward‏ @Martin_Anward
Here's another look at a feature that's currently in early development in the internal @StellarisGame build. For details, you'll have to wait until feature dev diaries return.

 

[Turnil]

Martin Anward‏ @Martin_Anward
Here's another look at a feature that's currently in early development in the internal @StellarisGame build. For details, you'll have to wait until feature dev diaries return.

I hope the slave market will allow us to sell robots and livestock.

 

[PirateJack]

In fact I'd wager that if they never had the 2 free world's nearby to begin with, nobody would have noticed a thing wrong. In the same manner that nobody complains about not having 2 free nearby planets in MoO2 or 2 extra colonists In Civ from the start. If you are truly unhappy with the hand you've been delt at game start, then just make a freaking new one until you are! Geesh

I agree with you for the most part, but the guaranteed habitable worlds wasn't part of the game when it was launched. I think it only came with patch 1.3(?). They were also added because people were complaining about being stuck with no habitable planets to colonise from the start.

I think that's part of the fun, personally, which is why I'm using your mod, but this is yet another issue that people have their own preferences that aren't likely to change. This is exactly why mods exist, so it seems to me that this is a bit of a non-issue.

 

[Oscot]

Given that
A) the Galactic Marketplace is going to take away half of the functions of the Trader Enclaves, and
B) Strat resources are apparently being reworked anyway so XudraGel might not even exist any more,
I wonder if one can expect any new mechanics for the Trader Enclaves instead?

 

[Enska]

Given that
A) the Galactic Marketplace is going to take away half of the functions of the Trader Enclaves, and
B) Strat resources are apparently being reworked anyway so XudraGel might not even exist any more,
I wonder if one can expect any new mechanics for the Trader Enclaves instead?

This. It's cool that Utopia and Synthetic dawn content gets some attention. Makes me consider buying them. Now I'm just worried about my little Leviathan.

 

[Kayden_II]

Here's another look at a feature that's currently in early development in the internal @StellarisGame build.

For details, you'll have to wait until feature dev diaries return.

Maybe it's possible, that you're able to select a resource (like the striped EC(s) in the sense of the energy-one) to "sell" them (directly) to an other one (like minerals) ...
I would prefer this (before we would get a "proper" money-system) since if it's only possible to buy resources through EC(s) (in the sense of money aka "credits") then this would "overvalue" them since EC(s) would have 2 functions (as a resource as well as money).

 

[Oscot]

Maybe it's possible, that you're able to select a resource (like the striped EC(s) in the sense of the energy-one) to "sell" them (directly) to an other one (like minerals) ...
I would prefer this (before we would get a "proper" money-system) since if it's only possible to buy resources through EC(s) (in the sense of money aka "credits") then this would "overvalue" them since EC(s) would have 2 functions (as a resource as well as money).

I don't understand why you think
EXCHANGE Minerals FOR Food
is more fair than
EXCHANGE Minerals FOR Energy Credits, then EXCHANGE Energy Credits FOR Food

What exactly is it about this that makes Energy Credits unfairly valuable?
Liquidity cuts both ways, it's the reason people invest in gold and property rather than just dollars

 

[henzington]

Sweet adding slaves as well. I hope certain empires like the democratic crusaders attack slaving empires to try and shut it down.

 

[Madzai]

Given that we can trade Energy credits directly, i'm really curious about how new trade value resource is used.

 

[Turnil]

Given that we can trade Energy credits directly, i'm really curious about how new trade value resource is used.

trade routes?
Will make pirates more fun as well (especially if they are connected to the crime system)

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

Maybe it's possible, that you're able to select a resource (like the striped EC(s) in the sense of the energy-one) to "sell" them (directly) to an other one (like minerals) ...
I would prefer this (before we would get a "proper" money-system) since if it's only possible to buy resources through EC(s) (in the sense of money aka "credits") then this would "overvalue" them since EC(s) would have 2 functions (as a resource as well as money).

Well this is a propper money system. EC are becoming a real currency and have their usefullness. Why would separating them in two parts be better?

 

[Kayden_II]

What exactly is it about this that makes Energy Credits unfairly valuable?

Whether it's the case or not, I've bounded my statement to the condition, that it's only possible to use this market-feature through EC(s) ...

I don't understand why you think
EXCHANGE Minerals FOR Food
is more fair than
EXCHANGE Minerals FOR Energy Credits, then EXCHANGE Energy Credits FOR Food

It's more the thing, that if you forbid the exchange of minerals for food on this market then EC(s) will compete with itself in regards to 2 functions, as a resource (as upkeep for buildings for example) and as money (to exchange a resource (like minerals) with an other one (like food) on this market) ...
This 2. function (as money) would "overvalue" EC(s) since minerals, food, etc. pp would just have the 1. function (as resources).

Edit:

Well this is a propper money system.

Rather like the gold-standard-one, so yeah, it's at least a money-system ...

EC are becoming a real currency and have their usefullness.

Rather a doubled usefulness since as I said, as a resource and as this (upcoming) money / currency ...

Why would separating them in two parts be better?

I don't know enough, how this (upcoming) market-feature will work, so I would wait for that.

 

[Salix]

I don't think you can specialize your Empire from the beginning, as you need to take the planet as they are dealt to you. No Planets with a lot of Energy, probably won't go on a Energy heavy build. This System especially with meaningful Strategic resources, will make interstellergeopolitics more interesting. I wouldn't worry that one resource is more important than other.