Le Guin broke me.

[alexlock]

First of all i want to say, that i was a huge fan of Stellaris. I fondly remember when it was announced. I made a thread at local forum, hyping people up, telling that why it will be "the thing". Then it was released, and i spent almost a week playing it non-stop. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i really loved concept of grand strategy game made by Paradox. Well, i used to.

When it only came out there were apparent flaws, but i knew how Paradox goes about post-launch support, so i was optimistic and eagerly waited for news. And after each update i played for some time again almost non-stop, each time less and less.

With Le Guin it came to a breaking point. It took me two to three days casually playing to cool down from hype. Maybe it was optimisation, maybe it were holidays, when no news about development were released, leaving me and the game alone to sort out what kind of releationship i have here. It doesn't matter because in the end there was realisation - i have no patience or hope for this game and all that is left is disapointment.

I hoped for engaging political system, i got rigid gameplay that really does not ask me for much and in return does not give much. I mean i get people seeing estates in EU4 as resource pool that you occasionally visit to make some clicks and leave for another 4-5 years, but this is even worse.

I hoped for meaningfull galaxy terrain, after the 2.0 changes to hyperlane only, and all i got was desicion making on the level of "Is this a chokepoint? Y/N".

I hoped for interesting galaxy market, bringing new strategic layer of economic warfare, and all i got was glorified enclave to exchange my resources, but now with exchange rates forming due to obscure activity of other players.

I REALLY wanted this game to become something more, something new and exciting. Two years later it managed to reach dizzying heights of mediocre (thanks for the phrase, Yahtzee).

P.S: To the people, who still have hope - i envy you, really. I really want to be optimistic and hyped about Stellaris, but just can't bring myself to care enough.

 

[Nakkivene]

I don't have hope for the entire 4x genre. It always boils down to endless, pointless, mundane micro with terrible UI design. Stellaris seemed kinda different, but I thought "less micro with Le Guin" wouldn't mean "a hundred times more micro". Even if the AI, warfare, performance, bugs, balance etc. are fixed, it's gameplay will still revolve around constant clicking on everything, and I imagine future iterations will only add more while never bothering with shortcuts, move-all buttons, templates and so on.

 

[Arutar]

I hoped for engaging political system, i got rigid gameplay that really does not ask me for much and in return does not give much. I mean i get people seeing estates in EU4 as resource pool that you occasionally visit to make some clicks and leave for another 4-5 years, but this is even worse.

I hoped for meaningfull galaxy terrain, after the 2.0 changes to hyperlane only, and all i got was desicion making on the level of "Is this a chokepoint? Y/N".

None of this was ever annouced for Le guinn iirc, so I do not see how these make you lose hope now. I mean I personally hoped for better performance...

Assuming bugs and the A.I. gets fixed - can you name another 4x game which comes even close in complexity to Stellaris an delivers on these hopes?

If so, I'd be honestly interested to give it a try.

If not, maybe you should readjust you expectations?

 

[alexlock]

None of this was ever annouced for Le guinn iirc, so I do not see how these make you lose hope now. I mean I personally hoped for better performance...

Yeah, talking about utopia - apocalypse - megacorp. So political system bit was about utopia.

Assuming bugs and the A.I. gets fixed - can you name another 4x game which comes even close in complexity to Stellaris an delivers on these hopes?

If so, I'd be honestly interested to give it a try.

If not, maybe you should readjust you expectations?

Complexity? It's not about complexity, if i wanted it i would go and do my master's degree thesis. That's complex. It's about good and engaging mechanics.
Take for example Aurora 4x - perhaps most complex 4x game set in space. I respect the effort, that author put into it, but it's just unplayble, at least for me.

And i don't think i have baseless expectations. I mean, i don't ask for much, even mechanics from already existing games would be better than current ones (not all of them of course).

For example - i don't like estates in EU4, but at least they give me reason to visit that tab periodically. Victoria 2 had interesting political system, although it too lacked in strategic decisions and was more of a "ascending the staircase" expirience, rather then keeping balance between reactionaries and progressives. Stellaris implementaion of kind of same system does not have any reason to even check it. Since it was introduced in utopia i used it exactly two or three times to get an understanding of how it works, and that's all. And it's not the case of me playing on easy difficulties, where advanced mechanics could be dormant and not provide any challenge or meaningfull choice, because pretty much from the beginning i was playing first on hard, if i remember correctly, than on commodore.

I know Paradox could do better, because i was fan of their games before i even registered on forums and i'm speaking from expirience. I've seen them do better.

You should know the Paradox business model by now. Release a half assed game, get everyone hyped / hooked on it, make the game what it should have been in the first place a few years later, but screw everything over royally in the process. All that customer hype ensures they will have a steady stream of revenue from (lame) DLC's /story packs for the measly cost of a handful of full time employees. The 2.2 Stellaris release should have been what they released as their 1.0 release in the first place. And you call yourself a game company when you cannot even make a decent game engine or AI after 2 years of stumbling around. Have fun with planet management if you are playing a purifier or swarm.

I actually don't have any major gripes with their business model. They could do better on that front for sure, i think longer development times for expansions would profit literally everyone, but all in all it makes pretty good games - take CK2 for example (don't think people would argue about it) and HOI4 (that's more of a shaky ground). EU4 was doing pretty well until recently. It's just Stellaris, that buffles me. It's not dumbing down, because it's still can be hard for new ones and for the long standing fans in some situations.

It... feels rushed out. Every change they made had some potential if it would be worked on more, but they just rushed to the new area of the game to implement new foundation, leaving "only foundations and no housing". I would understand that type of development, if it wasn't yet released or, at least in early alpha. But in product, that was released two years ago?

So it's more of a "distributing development resources" problem for me, than with business model as a whole.

 

[JNF]

When I buy a car, my expectations are that it will start and run. Occasionally it will require repairs. When I buy a computer game my expectations are that I can enjoy it from start to finish with a few bugs that can also be repaired (patched). Stellaris does not meet my expectations. It is a GREAT game concept however the AI, the broken crisis, excessive planetary management and sloppy tool tips/ events are unacceptable 2 years after the friggin launch. This is what grinds my gears. When you spend over 200 bucks on a game (including dlc / storey packs) you expect a semi finished product you can play until victory. MegaCorp is the first DLC I have NOT bought within a week of release. Caravaneers and mega cities/ corporations are not the issue here. At least when my brand new car is broken down three blocks away from the dealership they will give me a courtesy car and / or a ride home.

Ponder this Paradox.

 

[fuinril]

I actually don't have any major gripes with their business model. They could do better on that front for sure, i think longer development times for expansions would profit literally everyone, but all in all it makes pretty good games - take CK2 for example (don't think people would argue about it) and HOI4 (that's more of a shaky ground). EU4 was doing pretty well until recently. It's just Stellaris, that buffles me. It's not dumbing down, because it's still can be hard for new ones and for the long standing fans in some situations.

It... feels rushed out. Every change they made had some potential if it would be worked on more, but they just rushed to the new area of the game to implement new foundation, leaving "only foundations and no housing". I would understand that type of development, if it wasn't yet released or, at least in early alpha. But in product, that was released two years ago?

So it's more of a "distributing development resources" problem for me, than with business model as a whole.

I even bought the majority of CK2 cosmectic DLCs. I'm a huge PDS fan, no doubt about this, but in this case I feel scamed due to an upate unready I could have forgive from an independant in EA. Not from PDS, not from Paradox, not from a 3 years old, 200$ costing game.

 

[Nekozji]

And i don't think i have baseless expectations

It is not unfair to ask that the AI know how to play the game, nor that patches advertised as reducing micromanagement not increase micromanagement.

Other things... not sure Stellaris has ever promised real diplomacy. We all know it desperately needs work/depth, but has it been promised yet? Again though, it would be nice if things... worked. Like federations weren't a noob trap that just pulls you into AI wars you didn't want to be part of, or blocks you from starting a war, or makes it impossible to finish because you haven't captured every single planet.

 

[fuinril]

It is not unfair to ask that the AI know how to play the game, nor that patches advertised as reducing micromanagement not increase micromanagement.

Other things... not sure Stellaris has ever promised real diplomacy. We all know it desperately needs work/depth, but has it been promised yet? Again though, it would be nice if things... worked. Like federations weren't a noob trap that just pulls you into AI wars you didn't want to be part of, or blocks you from starting a war, or makes it impossible to finish because you haven't captured every single planet.

LOL

Sorry mate, I agree, but I just the remembered my only playthrough as a xenophile, federation builder.... Never again !

 

[danfarnsy]

... leaving me and the game alone to sort out what kind of releationship i have here. It doesn't matter because in the end there was realisation - i have no patience or hope for this game and all that is left is disapointment.

You're highlighting a terrifying truth about relationships... with computer games. If this thing is the vehicle for our hopes, etc., then ouch for all of us because, well, it is that vehicle. I suspect your master's thesis is more deserving of your hopes and disappointments.

 

[Leon12]

Honestly, this may sound flippant, but why not just take a break for a while.

First of all so they can fix the AI ( ) and secondly because it kinda just sounds like you're a little burned out. I get that with games sometimes, you can absolutely just overdose on something great and after a few days or weeks you just find yourself getting frustrated, sometimes for no perceptible reason.

I just walk away for a while and come back much later. Sometimes I take a break from a certain game for five or ten days, sometimes six months, and one day I will catch myself theorycrafting and daydreaming about a game that honestly just annoyed and irritated me not that long ago. Then I can dive right back like it's new.

Gotta keep that variety of experiences going man or you get sick of stuff.

 

[Nakkivene]

Assuming bugs and the A.I. gets fixed - can you name another 4x game which comes even close in complexity to Stellaris an delivers on these hopes?

If so, I'd be honestly interested to give it a try.

If not, maybe you should readjust you expectations?

It is rather complicated than complex. You do these figured out things that are fairly tedious to do mechanically, and rarely make meaningful choices. Unmodded Dominions 5, for example, has a ton more complexity, in your build design, strategic and especially tactical senses.

 

[AlanC9]

Other things... not sure Stellaris has ever promised real diplomacy. We all know it desperately needs work/depth, but has it been promised yet? Again though, it would be nice if things... worked. Like federations weren't a noob trap that just pulls you into AI wars you didn't want to be part of, or blocks you from starting a war, or makes it impossible to finish because you haven't captured every single planet.

How do federations get you into any more wars than a defensive pact would? Or make a war harder to finish than an enemy's defensive pact would?

 

[fuinril]

How do federations get you into any more wars than a defensive pact would? Or make a war harder to finish than an enemy's defensive pact would?

On some occurence a federation you're in would declare a war you vote against, or one member would be attacked.... and you're dranw in, wanted or not.

But the true federation trap is not here, but on the fact that the rulership turns and the only responsible for the fleet is the current leader... which wreck the fleet... even in a full out war against a galactic trhreat (like call back the fleet to downgrade it).

Of course, that was before 2.2. Now the leadership is supposed to be stable, and in any case the ai does not know how to upgrade ships or declare war anymore...

 

[AlanC9]

Hmm. I've never seen a federation declare a war except with a unanimous vote. And getting into a war when an ally is attacked is exactly the same way a defensive pact works, as I said.

 

[fuinril]

Hmm. I've never seen a federation declare a war except with a unanimous vote. And getting into a war when an ally is attacked is exactly the same way a defensive pact works, as I said.

I did the last time I try to play as a federation builder (which was a loooong time ago, like in 1.5 or 1.6) and I promised myself I will not try it again until diplomacy rework. Could have changed, but, as I said, the noob federation trap is elsewhere.

 

[strangebloke]

Just... take a break, man. There are other games. Wait until they patch it up, you know they will.

 

[AlanC9]

I did the last time I try to play as a federation builder (which was a loooong time ago, like in 1.5 or 1.6) and I promised myself I will not try it again until diplomacy rework. Could have changed, but, as I said, the noob federation trap is elsewhere.

Actually, it doesn't exist at all anymore. As you said yourself, federation leadership doesn't rotate now.

 

[fuinril]

Actually, it doesn't exist at all anymore. As you said yourself, federation leadership doesn't rotate now.

More importantly, are federations playable now ? Not that it would change anything until the fix that would make the game playable once again, but just to know.

 

[AlanC9]

Well, of the issues you mentioned, two don't exist anymore, and I'm not convinced that being dragged into a war when somebody attacks one of your allies is actually a problem.

I don't know whether that would make them playable for you or not.

 

[fuinril]

Well, of the issues you mentioned, two don't exist anymore, and I'm not convinced that being dragged into a war when somebody attacks one of your allies is actually a problem.

I don't know whether that would make them playable for you or not.

The last one was about AI no sending reinforcement to frontlines, but as it does not do it anymore on normal wars and and it should never be allow to take that decision anymore since the player will be the leader forever I'm nor sure it does count.
Now.... Is there any advantage being in a federation compared ton subjugate the other empires and make them subjects ?