Close-mindedness In The Forums

[Denkt]

Not necessarily true, actually. Losing isn't fun, and yet we always try to maintain the possibility for the player to lose because the potential for loss is what makes victory rewarding.

Losing can be fun as the path that eventually lead to loss could be fun. Like in Victoria 2 you can play intentionally in a bad way for your country and that can be fun because then you may get for example a reactionary goverment.

In Stellaris you can for example forgo any peaceful diplomacy and declare war right away and that can be fun even tought it can lead to loss.

Role playing is an important part of the game, the stellaris stream is all about RP.

 

[BrokenSky]

Not necessarily true, actually. Losing isn't fun, and yet we always try to maintain the possibility for the player to lose because the potential for loss is what makes victory rewarding.

But now I'm just nitpicking. Sorry.

Obviously you haven't played enough dorf fortress

 

[Maizel]

You don't know what "OPPORTUNITY" means or what ?

Yes I do. Do you? Doesn't seem like you do.

Adding tactical combat to a game that is poorly suited for it is the opposite of an opportunity to show of good tactical combat.

 

[John Forseti]

Too small borders from colonies would also be frustrating, though, as one of the major reasons to choose one colony site over another is which systems are nearby and what resources they contain.

Surely that's what those frontier outposts you added are for?

 

[Wizzington]

Losing can be fun as the path that eventually lead to loss could be fun. Like in Victoria 2 you can play intentionally in a bad way for your country and that can be fun because then you may get for example a reactionary goverment.

In Stellaris you can for example forgo any peaceful diplomacy and declare war right away and that can be fun even tought it can lead to loss.

Role playing is an important part of the game, the stellaris stream is all about RP.

It can be, but usually it isn't, at least in the immediate term. If it was, difficult games would be far less niche than they are.

 

[Wizzington]

Surely that's what those frontier outposts you added are for?

Frontier Outposts drain influence, so you can't just spam as many of those as you want, though. Colonies are still important for borders.

 

[Zaku]

The problem is that people like you are affecting everyone who wants to play video games encouraging this model.

And? What's your point? As long as a video game franchise entertains me I'm going to give them money. If they start making games I don't like I'll stop giving them money. It's not a hard concept.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Thanks for engaging with the community like this, Wiz.

 

[Yenzen]

Frontier Outposts drain influence, so you can't just spam as many of those as you want, though. Colonies are still important for borders.

Is it possible to be unable to expand your borders early on due to lack of influence and lack of usable planets for colonization?

 

[BrokenSky]

It can be, but usually it isn't, at least in the immediate term. If it was, difficult games would be far less niche than they are.

Well the thing that's fun about losing is losing slowly; trying to bail the boat out as you slowly sink, and having perhaps some point you reach which affords you a moment's respite before you do it all over again. Actually I think a lot of games are like that really.

 

[Acularius]

Frontier Outposts drain influence, so you can't just spam as many of those as you want, though. Colonies are still important for borders.

I was curious as to what the downside was.
Thanks!
(Or I missed this information being located somewhere else, but now I know)

 

[Ixal]

Thanks for engaging with the community like this, Wiz.

Especially in your free time on a holiday.

 

[Wizzington]

Thanks for engaging with the community like this, Wiz.

No worries, it's rewarding for me too. Even if I get frustrated sometimes because the HOI4 community won't shut up about NATO counters.

 

[CptWilly]

There is a very big difference between "fanboyism" and a developer that has earned the respect and trust of their community. Most of the support I've seen for PDS falls pretty solidly into the latter category, imnsho.

 

[Wizzington]

Is it possible to be unable to expand your borders early on due to lack of influence and lack of usable planets for colonization?

You're pretty much always guaranteed at least one planet of the right type to colonize, and you have enough influence for at least a couple frontier outposts. So unless you have a tightly clustered galaxy and wait far too long with expanding... not really.

 

[Zaku]

No worries, it's rewarding for me too. Even if I get frustrated sometimes because the HOI4 community won't shut up about NATO counters.

Any news if there are SPACE-NATO counters in Stellaris? :Runs away:

 

[Maizel]

No worries, it's rewarding for me too. Even if I get frustrated sometimes because the HOI4 community won't shut up about NATO counters.

Yay, NATO counters!

No little men doing jumping jacks on my map. My WW2 will be serious biznizz.

 

[Darustet]

What does it matter how big a portion agrees? It's not like the forum is representative of the player base (as only a tiny fraction of players hang out here and I bet you that they have different opinions from the general player base), so it's not really information that can be used reliably for polling or anything.

To me it is a simple way to see of how big portion of people in the forums think about the issue/post/idea. And if a post about "the game will bomb if thing X isn't fixed/added" is disagreed by 90% of the few hundered voters, I think that we can be fairly well rest assured that we are not going to see a flood of bad reviews once the game comes out, even if those disagreeing are just by us here in the forums.

You know that the old forum didn't have agree/disagree buttons right? And it was never a clusterfuck of such posts. People that had nothing to add but "agree/disagree" most of the time just didn't post (*), which is exactly right as such comments don't add anything. I don't know about you, but I don't really care who (or how many) agrees with what - what matters to me is the "what", i.e. the ideas and arguments themselves.

(*) There was the occasional "+1" posts but it was perfectly manageable.

I'm glad to hear that such thing hasn't been an issue. I wasn't around here back then.

I care about it, mostly out of curiosity. To me, it is a harmless way to see statistics about people's opinions without the need of creating polls. It doesn't harm the discussion but for those who are interested, can give an idea of how people think about it.

 

[chrisjwmartin]

Borders do scale with pop, just not linearly. I think scaling down the borders of a colony that is in process of being established is a good idea.

I think that resolves that issue, thanks.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Nah, it didn't stretch anyone's suspension of disbelief until it happened to 'them'. Border realism was not the actual cause of that thread.

My impression was that people didn't like it because it seemed arbitrary and unfair, because there's no clear sense of what was actually being represented by the border projection that stops the Blorg colonizing those systems.

When gamers start using words like "magically" and "teleport" to describe game mechanics they don't like, that's usually what's going on. In my experience at least.