Hi All!
As a short introduction I've been playing like no tomorrow for some years.
Most must know the reactive downvoting phenomenon in steam especially. What many people have brought up here makes perfect sense to me, especially "people don't like big change with 'sense' and don't want to go along "better" game code without resistance." This applies especially when in some sense very broken basic gameplay is slowed down, aka made more boring, nerfed away and spoiled in an aching attempt to balance out the whole to make it flow. Half of the players or more will easily then go complete fun-repellent about the game for a long while in a memetic crash and will irrationally and unthankfully downvote for ONLY putting them through this single emotional rush an dislike. It's like they got a traffic ticket for speeding and now they have to crash their entire car and try to make the insurance company pay for the ticket, too. And hey, they've online friends to do the same.
So I don't know what makes sense anymore. Go ahead, go vegan, I'll eat all the beef that'll fall down in price, freeze the rest and buy my Chinese friend beef as well when he comes to visit. It's still beef, even if they tried to make it always ever beefier.
Now that this is out of the way and i've finally lost my last audience, I've already adjusted to prepare for the new system culturally. I'm not kidding on this one: To provide an awesome and wicked experience Stellaris can have a lot more expanding features to focus on than just the methods of currently highly hypothetical way of travel in the scientific sense, FTL namely. It's just like I remember Wiz outlined in the announcement of the next update, that again, the FTL and gal landscape are an issue that needs to be at this point solved before else. I understand the thing is like moving from hexagons to squares or from squares to hexagons or from hexagons to hyperlanes between provinces or systems, but so what. There has been a problem with lines, squares and hexagons that make the strategic grid hard to explain and see.
It's a good game, when the basic gameplay is complicated as possibly real, but is easy to see, understand, move through and fast and intuitive to control even when there're infinite possible consequences and outcomes. It's a bad game when the advanced gameplay is too complicated understand and relate to, while it only tries to support the infinite basics. In the end, when these two complete aspects merge seemlessly, it's a masterpiece, it's huge, it's beautiful, simple and it's regenerative.
