Feedback from a few casual players

[Silens]

I've never posted before because I had nothing to complain about and yes, I have purchased all the expansions, etc. I'm not trying to be harsh, but my view after giving the update a chance is that it's is self-absorbed garbage.

The game-play has slowed down to a crawl, planet micro is now the (horrible) focal point when it shouldn't be, and the changes have stunted an already struggling AI in the process. Paradox fans and those who want to be liked will say it's all OK and rationalize, but it sucks, hard.

Tell me, what do you dislike about the new planetary management? That planets can house hundreds of pops? That you aren't done with a planet after a few years? That we have something to do even outside of war? The admittedly bad pop growth /robot assembly system? That the AI manages jobs?

 

[LeonOfOddecca]

Are there really more techs now? I thought those bonus to research techs were just replacements for upgrades to research building techs.

 

[Peerless Girl]

This is a classic example of "I had a knee-jerk reaction, didn't play that long, didn't learn the new systems, and came to complain about it". It's also not "Micro" "Micro" is "click every tile on 15 planets to upgrade every single building".

 

[Moltier]

While many disagree with your assessment, Moltier, I am inclined to agree with you in a general manner.

The game has gotten better, so much is evidently clear...

It is what it is. Just mine/our opinion.
I agree that the game can/could be better with these changes, they just need some balance and fix (and finishing in some cases).
I like that we have alloy, i don't mind the specials for buildings, im even okay with a slower gameplay (as long as its not way too slow).

I had, and still have high hopes for this update.

Also, while i'm at it, thanks for everyones reply!

 

[Rhayn]

Ever since it came out, the gameplay has slowed. With the new economy and slower pop growth, I have more to do during those down times.
When my empire reaches a certain point, I can stick a governor In and let them handle basic production while I focus on war.
With the ai mod from glavius, I've had empires attacking me for the first time in ages. More than that, I had 4 inferior empires actually work together to crush me when I attacked one of them.
For the first time, it wasn't one giant fleet against another. It was a dozen small fleets taking system after system behind my back while I had one huge fleet at the wrong side of the empire..
So, yeah, tldr: I'm enjoying it.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

The game is now significantly more complex. More complex means harder for both new players (barrier for entry) and results in a higher difficulty for existing players. Some people relish the higher difficulty, others feel frustrated by it. I hope we can all agree that reducing the barrier for entry is in the interest of the game even if we disagree on how.

My complexity reducing Suggestions: (this may be hard to code but it's ESSENTIAL)
Building tooltips should show predicted changes (the beta branch helps but not entirely). i.e. what will actually happen when you build a building:
Research lab generates:
+8/8/8/2 research and unity (Tooltip)
+20.8/22.6/22.2/3.4 research and unity (Reality, ~260% more than advertised physics output for example)
Added Costs:
-4 consumer goods (Tooltip)
-4 (building) + pop upkeep -4.36 (2.5 from specialist 0.9 + researcher 1.6, -0.32 from existing worker costs)*2. Total upkeep = -8.36 consumer goods (209% higher)
and finally the loss of production from workers promoted:
-4.36 trade value and -3.8 amenities. (2x Clerks at +1.9, +2.17)

I had to look at the building panel, many existing jobs on another tab, open up google calculator and do some division to accurately put in those figures... e.g. the game tooltip for each clerk says +1 amenity and +2 trade value everywhere, it's only by looking at the entire group of clerks (40) you can see the combined effect of the hidden modifiers on the total (+76, +87)... each pop has the wrong tooltip (+1 +2 not +1.9, +2.17), ... and after that I may have to open and close job slots when a worker is promoted from a farmer instead of a clerk. And pull my hair out when the pop traits aren't correctly taken into account when allocating jobs... or growing pops... or competing for existing jobs etc.

 

[Luharcas]

I really do have a problem with the new system. To me it seems to be complicated just for the sake of being complicated and not really adding anything remotely fun. Maybe it could be, but there are as of now to many "construction sites" left unfinished, feels a bit like driving down a road with pot holes big enough to swallow up you and your car.

One of the main problems is imho the presentation of information, or lack thereof, it is not intuitive and not really informative at all. I find it really hard to get an overview of the workings and effects of some of the new stuff and me sitting there, taking notes on a piece of paper cannot really be the solution. Just take a look at the planet screen for instance, this little box which really seems a bit lost on my screen "real estate". Whoever is responsible for the UI-design should consider finding another job. OK, that's not really a new problem, UI-design was never the strong point of Stellaris, but before this version I could just use 1080P UI overhaul mod and at get rid of all the scroll bars, that were really not needed. I mean, come on, is there anyone out there playing this game on a screen smaller than 1080p? For heavens sake, there is enough space, use f*****g bigger windows!
Now I have the aforementioned tiny little box of planet screen, which obfuscates the information rather than revealing it, while about 80% of screen space goes unused, really? How about at least giving us a ledger with detailed information on our planets, pops, economy etc? This would surely help out with understanding the new economy and safe people from tanking their empire multiple times before they can really get a grasp of how the things interconnect and work. And I won't even start about the other stuff, pacing of the game, balancing issues, etc as they have all been mentioned.

Stellaris has from the start been the more approachable fun sibling of the Paradox Strategy Family, but right about now its more the disfigured mess of a genetic experiment gone bad, that gets hidden away from public in its windowless room ...

And don't get me wrong, with all it's short comings and faults, I really loved this game. Around 1200 hours played according to steam, buying all DLCs, even the species packs, really show that. I tried to love this essentially new game too, but it really feels like seeing your girlfriend after having unneeded and not wanted plastic surgery and the silicone thingies are bolted on her shoulders and her back , instead of the position you would expect and her ass being transplanted to where her face used to be ...

 

[Ramiren]

Tell me, what do you dislike about the new planetary management? That planets can house hundreds of pops? That you aren't done with a planet after a few years? That we have something to do even outside of war? The admittedly bad pop growth /robot assembly system? That the AI manages jobs?

Why does he need to justify his preferences? Christ I'm seeing this kind of stuff all over the forums, new posters like me who were previously silent sign up to express our concerns that Paradox has morphed the game into something we no longer find fun, and we have people like you with a laundry list of previous paradox titles to their name asking us to justify that. Doesn't it make you stop and think that these changes have invoked a response strong enough to make previously silent people sign up to these forums, link all their accounts and start posting in what can only be presumed to be hostile pro-paradox territory? Lots of people played Stellaris because compared to Paradox's other games it was fairly straight forward and wasn't too heavy on micromanagement, that's been stripped away with this update. If this patch decided to dumb Stellaris down even more, and it became something you hated, you could happily retreat to one of Paradox's other titles, instead they've done the opposite and the people who found it just the right level of complexity have nowhere to go, except rolling their game back and accepting they'll never see any more bug fixes or new content, and writing the money they spent on megacorp off as wasted.

Now queue the "respectfully disagree" crew.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

Why does he need to justify his preferences? Christ I'm seeing this kind of stuff all over the forums, new posters like me who were previously silent sign up to express our concerns that Paradox has morphed the game into something we no longer find fun, and we have people like you with a laundry list of previous paradox titles to their name asking us to justify that. Doesn't it make you stop and think that these changes have invoked a response strong enough to make previously silent people sign up to these forums, link all their accounts and start posting in what can only be presumed to be hostile pro-paradox territory? Lots of people played Stellaris because compared to Paradox's other games it was fairly straight forward and wasn't too heavy on micromanagement, that's been stripped away with this update. If this patch decided to dumb Stellaris down even more, and it became something you hated, you could happily retreat to one of Paradox's other titles, instead they've done the opposite and the people who found it just the right level of complexity have nowhere to go, except rolling their game back and accepting they'll never see any more bug fixes or new content, and writing the money they spent on megacorp off as wasted.

Now queue the "respectfully disagree" crew.

It's common decency when arguing/discussing to exchange concrete arguments despite "I don't like it". That's usually what I define as "vomit-posting". A one time post with dissatisfactionary content for both sides and never to be seen again (no offense). Arguments help to understand other people's points of view.

 

[Silens]

Why does he need to justify his preferences? [...]
Now queue the "respectfully disagree" crew.

He doesn't need to, but if he - or anyone else for that matter - wants to criticize certain aspects of the game, then it would help to know what exactly it is that they dislike. A vague 'This whole thing sucks' is, as you can imagine, neither helpful nor constructive.

The devs read nearly every thread, so if you want to have a chance to have something changed in a certain direction, you better be specific about the things you say.

 

[Eldoran]

What i thing to read pit of all the comments is a problem i struggle with myself.

Pre 2.2 we could get a huge excess in every resource and there was hardly any reason to throw the economy off the balance. So it was very static at least after 50 yrs.

Now its quite hard to have an excess in everything and every major decision does influence your economy, so the system is very dynamic now.

But we all have to learn to live with a deficit for example. Pre 2.2 a deficit meant you need to build more x and there was no trade off. Now a deficit means you could build more x but would get less y. Is it worth to have more x and less y or should we live with the satus quo and buy x if needed.

A deficit is not necessaryly sth to worry or sth to fix, its like in real world national economies. You can be autark but its not very smart cause other countries are better in producing x than you, so you should focus on y and sell it and qith the profit you can buy more than enough x.

Thats sth that at first feels wrong cause we learned it otherwise in stellaris and most other 4x games, but its quite interesting and makes the economy really interessting.

But i also liked my economy studies at university so maybe i am not representative

 

[Ramiren]

It's common decency when arguing/discussing to exchange concrete arguments despite "I don't like it". That's usually that I define as "vomit-posting". A one time post with dissatisfactionary content for both sides and never to be seen again (no offense). Arguments help to understand other people's points of view.

He already explained why he doesn't like the changes, and in response he received rhetorical questions asked in bad faith. There's a difference between asking someone why they dislike something, and asking someone why they dislike something after they already explained why, and following it up with a series of positive points masquerading as questions, as if those positives make his negatives vanish.

If you told me you hated cheese, because of the smell or texture, as an adult I'd accept that, I wouldn't respond with "So why do you hate cheese? Do you hate the smooth creamy texture? Do you hate the fact it goes well with crackers, bread and meat? Do you hate it because it's a great source of calcium?"

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

He already explained why he doesn't like the changes, and in response he received rhetorical questions asked in bad faith. There's a difference between asking someone why they dislike something, and asking someone why they dislike something after they already explained why, and following it up with a series of positive points masquerading as questions, as if those positives make his negatives vanish.

If you told me you hated cheese, because of the smell or texture, as an adult I'd accept that, I wouldn't respond with "So why do you hate cheese? Do you hate the smooth creamy texture? Do you hate the fact it goes well with crackers, bread and meat? Do you hate it because it's a great source of calcium?"

Thing is, most of the stuff that is uttered as complaints mostly translates to "I want 2.1 back".
If I voice an opinion in public I do have to accept questions, arguments und opinions that differ from mine. Otherwise I should stay at home and talk only to myself to avoid discussions.

 

[Silens]

He already explained why he doesn't like the changes, and in response he received rhetorical questions asked in bad faith. There's a difference between asking someone why they dislike something, and asking someone why they dislike something after they already explained why, and following it up with a series of positive points masquerading as questions, as if those positives make his negatives vanish.

If you told me you hated cheese, because of the smell or texture, as an adult I'd accept that, I wouldn't respond with "So why do you hate cheese? Do you hate the smooth creamy texture? Do you hate the fact it goes well with crackers, bread and meat? Do you hate it because it's a great source of calcium?"

There are several reasons why the gameplay feels so much slower than before. And while he did name some aspects he disliked, he was still very unspecific about it. So I asked in a polite and positive manner, not 'masquerading' anything. Should I've used your manners to ask him about it?

I honestly was just curious, nothing more. So I don't understand why you're so agitated right now.

 

[Ramiren]

Thing is, most of the stuff that is uttered as complaints mostly translates to "I want 2.1 back".
If I voice an opinion in public I do have to accept questions, arguments und opinions that differ from mine. Otherwise I should stay at home and talk only to myself to avoid discussions.

Well it's arguable that nobody has to accept anything, but ignoring each other isn't going to get us anywhere. If valid counter arguments were made then I'd accept that. But listing a bunch of positives masquerading as questions isn't a counter argument. Like I said, saying I dislike chocolate because it's too sweet and you responding with "So you hate antioxidants?" isn't a counter argument, it's an incredibly bad faith attempt to link a valid personal opinion to an invalid opinion. Disliking chocolate because it's too sweet does not mean you don't think it's a good antioxidant. Just as disliking stellaris because of the new UI/micromanagement/economy/etc doesn't mean you dislike added depth as Silens was implying.

 

[AlknicTeos]

I really love the new pops system. The only thing I want to see fixed sooner than later are the lags 'caused by gateways. And Balance patches will also come.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

Well it's arguable that nobody has to accept anything, but ignoring each other isn't going to get us anywhere. If valid counter arguments were made then I'd accept that. But listing a bunch of positives masquerading as questions isn't a counter argument. Like I said, saying I dislike chocolate because it's too sweet and you responding with "So you hate antioxidants?" isn't a counter argument, it's an incredibly bad faith attempt to link a valid personal opinion to an invalid opinion. Disliking chocolate because it's too sweet does not mean you don't think it's a good antioxidant. Just as disliking stellaris because of the new UI/micromanagement/economy/etc doesn't mean you dislike added depth as Silens was implying.

I agree. But I don't like the examples With the new economy it's all about choices. Energy over Minerals? Or maybe alloys over minerals to build a fleet? Or Minerals to build more buildings and Station? That ja actually meaningful and by no means tedious - in comparison to the previous Versions where I mindlessly clicked through all planets and planets in a sector to slap buildings anywhere I could and clicking "upgrade hundeds of times. You did not have to do it back then, and you still do not have to do it know. You can activate an autobuild like back then per sector.
So I still have my Automation while gaining a more meaningful way to manage my colonies which actually makes my colonies matter, important and somewhat unique.
That's what invalidates an opinion/argument for me. No doubt, opinions are opinions and this difficult to argue about. So in the end, there are opinions I can understand and those I can not (with some special cases where opinions are just invalid based on false facts).

 

[Ramiren]

I agree. But I don't like the examples With the new economy it's all about choices. Energy over Minerals? Or maybe alloys over minerals to build a fleet? Or Minerals to build more buildings and Station? That ja actually meaningful and by no means tedious - in comparison to the previous Versions where I mindlessly clicked through all planets and planets in a sector to slap buildings anywhere I could and clicking "upgrade hundeds of times. You did not have to do it back then, and you still do not have to do it know. You can activate an autobuild like back then per sector.
So I still have my Automation while gaining a more meaningful way to manage my colonies which actually makes my colonies matter, important and somewhat unique.
That's what invalidates an opinion/argument for me. No doubt, opinions are opinions and this difficult to argue about. So in the end, there are opinions I can understand and those I can not (with some special cases where opinions are just invalid based on false facts).

The new economy is all about choices, but you have to bare in mind that choices go hand in hand with complexity. The more choices you add, the more labyrinthine your system becomes and given that Stellaris is one of the most accessible space 4x/grand strategy games out there, every bit of complexity you add is a bar you raise pushing those entry level players out. Some people didn't mind clicking upgrade hundreds of times (you only had to do this if you weren't taking advantage of sector AI, but that's besides the point) because in exchange they received a game that was in comparison fairly easy to pick up and play, that game is now gone, unless they roll back and even then that means they'll never get anything new, they've essentially been told that this game isn't for them any more and have been cast to the wayside.

Looking at the steam reviews backs this up. Other Stellaris expansions have received mixed reviews, but mainly that was down to pricing versus the amount of features or content you got. That wasn't to say the content was bad just that players never felt it was worth the money. Skip forward to Megacorp though and the complaints are very different, yes we still have people complaining about pricing, but most of the negatives surround complexity and new mechanics. Based on those a good third of the playerbase has been cut off and hung out to dry by these new systems. I'm confident that if I could actually play a full game for all the bugs and performance issues, I'd like the new systems, but not to the point where I'm happy to see a solid third of the player base left out to dry.

 

[Hyomoto]

There are issues with the new system but I think the micro arguments are wildly overblown. While it's certainly possible to stare at your planets, I found pretty quickly there's little reason to. I know the "open building slot" sends up brain alarms for some players but planets take time to develop, build a few districts and check back in ten years and maybe add a building and adjust worker placement if needed. If you are obsessively doing this, the question of how much is compulsion versus necessity comes up.

When you have many worlds, it does become more tedious, but only in that you used to just build everything at once for each world and never look at it again. It was always tedious. The sector AI was always supposed to take over this for large empires, the ongoing issue is that the management is unsatisfactory for many players.

That, however, isn't new.

 

[Ramiren]

There are issues with the new system but I think the micro arguments are wildly overblown. While it's certainly possible to stare at your planets, I found pretty quickly there's little reason to. I know the "open building slot" sends up brain alarms for some players but planets take time to develop, build a few districts and check back in ten years and maybe add a building and adjust worker placement if needed. If you are obsessively doing this, the question of how much is compulsion versus necessity comes up.

When you have many worlds, it does become more tedious, but only in that you used to just build everything at once for each world and never look at it again. It was always tedious. The sector AI was always supposed to take over this for large empires, the ongoing issue is that the management is unsatisfactory for many players.

That, however, isn't new.

I think a lot of the micro arguments surrounding planets aren't specifically around construction but the entire system as a whole. Previously, gaining information about which building did what was as simple as clicking on a tile, now you have to look at which buildings have employees, what those employees consume and produce then account for other factors and modifiers. Gaining the information to make informed decisions about your next course of action is just as important as making that course of action, and while you spend far less time upgrading stuff, you spend far more time trying to hunt for information.