Problem #6 Multiplayer. Where exploiting kills SP depth of gameplay.
New Meta Game breaking strat
- Thread starter redharo
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Problem #6 Multiplayer. Where exploiting kills SP depth of gameplay.
Some permutacion against AI:
You can buy alloys for 1:5. Generator Technican can perform 4.4 from start. YOu can pump it up with traits or civics.
Do not produce alloys, just generate energy and buy big chunk of alloys.
The extra benefit is that you can swich to minerals or goods if map changes and there is no target.
You can buy alloys for 1:5. Generator Technican can perform 4.4 from start. YOu can pump it up with traits or civics.
Do not produce alloys, just generate energy and buy big chunk of alloys.
The extra benefit is that you can swich to minerals or goods if map changes and there is no target.
It was balanced for multiplayer which it kind of is, since a few defensive stations and your starbase given a kinetic module stops it, and on grand admiral this doesn't work.
My guess is Plan B is to quit the game and start over if it doesen't work out as planned... the prototype of an unserious strategy.
Starting capital starports should get a buff IMO. Maybe a modifier that gives some extra survivability?
Early wars for colonies and systems are fine, but it shouldn't be possible to snipe the homeworld so easily IMO.
Early wars for colonies and systems are fine, but it shouldn't be possible to snipe the homeworld so easily IMO.
The problem isn't capital starport being weak. Buffing it is just a bandaid.
The problem is, that before 2.2, your economy could support both expansion/development AND ship construction. Now, after 2.2 you have to chose one of these, and of course ship construction wins hands down.
It's the same like going econ expansion vs. rushes in Starcraft 2. You'll get destroyed everytime.
My suggestion would be just buffing the alloy production so that you can expand/develop planets while still being able to build military ships.
Probably works well on small galaxy maps where the distance to other empires is very small. In highest difficulties the AI can generally get pretty strong fleets early on too so might not always be the best. You can also be close to an advanced AI which would not help you that much either on higher difficulties.
Sure... if you play a highly aggressive empire this is one tactic you can do. When you play MP you generally play on smaller maps and the goal is to eliminate the other players so I understand why it is powerful because allot of players there probably don't expect such strategies.
Someone who expect it can make preparation with good station defenses at choke points with a decent corvette fleet, most likely for allot less alloy investment in general. It also depend in the size of map you play how long it will take to meet someone. I generally play on 1200-1500 star maps so the game develops much slower and there can sometimes be 10-20 years before I even see another empire.
There are many game settings that would make this strategy stronger or weaker for different reasons.
I don't think MP meta make much impact on what is useful in epic enormous SP campaigns. Especially because the goals can vary so widely in those games.
Sure... if you play a highly aggressive empire this is one tactic you can do. When you play MP you generally play on smaller maps and the goal is to eliminate the other players so I understand why it is powerful because allot of players there probably don't expect such strategies.
Someone who expect it can make preparation with good station defenses at choke points with a decent corvette fleet, most likely for allot less alloy investment in general. It also depend in the size of map you play how long it will take to meet someone. I generally play on 1200-1500 star maps so the game develops much slower and there can sometimes be 10-20 years before I even see another empire.
There are many game settings that would make this strategy stronger or weaker for different reasons.
I don't think MP meta make much impact on what is useful in epic enormous SP campaigns. Especially because the goals can vary so widely in those games.
This. It's an Hail Mary play that can cause you to lose a game. I doubt it can work, but even if it does, there are good odds of incompatible neighbors (like finding a hivemind).
I love attention to MP in SP games despite me not playing MP mode. Because MP keeps a game honest and balanced.
Thats funny. As someone who foresaw this problem PRIOR to megacorp launch I did a write a post about how paradox should nerf corvettes for multiplayer three days before launch. It got downvoted as hell from single player heros.
And now we have the extact same situation that corvetting rushing is the way to go in multiplayer
.
Two options:
Nerf the aggressive empire
Buff the defensive empire
As someone who played this game in multiplayer since utopia I can safely say: Paradox will do nothing about it. So just enjoy your corvettes and spam them.
Or just the player option:
Ask Maeltne/Aea to implement further hosting rules to prevent rushing, like no rush periods. It has happened before in the WSC. Players like myself or other rushers were also sometimes banned from games or forced to play pacifist/ "no" meta builds for balance reasons.
And now we have the extact same situation that corvetting rushing is the way to go in multiplayer
.Two options:
Nerf the aggressive empire
Buff the defensive empire
As someone who played this game in multiplayer since utopia I can safely say: Paradox will do nothing about it. So just enjoy your corvettes and spam them.
Or just the player option:
Ask Maeltne/Aea to implement further hosting rules to prevent rushing, like no rush periods. It has happened before in the WSC. Players like myself or other rushers were also sometimes banned from games or forced to play pacifist/ "no" meta builds for balance reasons.
New game breaking strat: Build a few corvettes and wardec the first person you see. No seriously the AI is that terrible you'll crush them with ease.
Won't work for human-only games of course.
Won't work for human-only games of course.
I don't think the AI not countering an all in rush within the first five years is really a problem with the AI
Besides in the first 5 years it's barely possible for the AI to make bad decisions because a large part of what you're making is just going to be your starting economy.
Besides in the first 5 years it's barely possible for the AI to make bad decisions because a large part of what you're making is just going to be your starting economy.
I don't have the time or energy to play Steallaris MP (or any MP), but having early rush a viable strategy isn't exactly something new or bad, as long as it can be countered. And when that's the case, any competent player knows to either build units of your own or to defend your choke, StarCraft MP taught me that back in like '98. SP is something completely different, there's always been ways to cheese-kill AI in SP. Don't do it if you don't find it fun.
Unfortunately I've had the experience of it being used against me, and even when you know it's likely coming it's still a utter nuisance to deal with as it's not just a few corvettes, but over a thousand fleet powers worth, so the starbase with one gun module can't cope with it, need to drop multiple defensive platforms if you want an alloy efficient deterrent. Only problem then is they just go round and murder the rest of your systems while waiting to find someone else, so you still end up in the same economic position as they are, except they have a fleet and you don't.
The thing is the AI does not play to "win" the game in the sense that you do in competitive MP games. The AI basically role-play since it is weighted to act according to its nature in many ways. The AI are merely trying to survive and don't really care about the winning conditions, those are only for players that wish to use them.
This does of course not mean that the AI shouldn't play as optimally as possible within that framework. But basically the AI don't know of the existence of other empires at the start of the game and as such do not really prepare for it either.
If you as a human player in SP also role-play in the same flavor there is no point in building a large fleet if you don't know of any threats. Anything else does not make much sense.
If you play the game and against the AI with the foreknowledge they are going to spawn close to you and use that to your advantage I would almost consider that cheating in SP... because the AI are simply not trying to "win" in that way.
If they did then the Fallen Empires should wipe you out before you become a threat... game over every time you play. Or the AI should have some hidden aggressive expansion and have all AI form huge federation against the player as soon as they get just slightly bigger than most other AI. Because they know a non AI opponent just are superior tactically and strategically than they are. They should always judge player power as twice as big as what it is or something as a threat.
I'm not sure but this does not sound as a fun game to me when it treats it as a competition... AI versus human basically.
This is why MP and SP strategies often can't compare because in SP you MUST role-play to some degree. The AI are programmed to role-play so will NEVER really play optimally from a sociological perspective.
So, while I appreciate the min/max strategies that work or not work in MP they can't be directly translated into SP... often not at all. For example there are no real diplomacy based on ethics in competitive MP, it is almost pointless to be a Xenophile in competitive multi-player, this trait is simply not balanced for MP. The same could be said for both pacifist and egalitarian since they almost goes against the purpose of MP to eliminate or exterminate the opponent as fast as possible. Almost half the ethics goes away as any form of viable option in that environment.
I think the discussion should be about effective strategies and balance for competitive none role-play MP. Since this group of people playing Stellaris is rather tiny we can't expect Paradox to make any changes without first thinking about the consequences for the majority of players first. With that I don't say that the point raised are bad... to some degree I agree that such strategies perhaps should not be too strong. I'm not sure what kind of maps these MP games are played at, but I think most of the games features are balanced around the bigger maps 600+
This does of course not mean that the AI shouldn't play as optimally as possible within that framework. But basically the AI don't know of the existence of other empires at the start of the game and as such do not really prepare for it either.
If you as a human player in SP also role-play in the same flavor there is no point in building a large fleet if you don't know of any threats. Anything else does not make much sense.
If you play the game and against the AI with the foreknowledge they are going to spawn close to you and use that to your advantage I would almost consider that cheating in SP... because the AI are simply not trying to "win" in that way.
If they did then the Fallen Empires should wipe you out before you become a threat... game over every time you play. Or the AI should have some hidden aggressive expansion and have all AI form huge federation against the player as soon as they get just slightly bigger than most other AI. Because they know a non AI opponent just are superior tactically and strategically than they are. They should always judge player power as twice as big as what it is or something as a threat.
I'm not sure but this does not sound as a fun game to me when it treats it as a competition... AI versus human basically.
This is why MP and SP strategies often can't compare because in SP you MUST role-play to some degree. The AI are programmed to role-play so will NEVER really play optimally from a sociological perspective.
So, while I appreciate the min/max strategies that work or not work in MP they can't be directly translated into SP... often not at all. For example there are no real diplomacy based on ethics in competitive MP, it is almost pointless to be a Xenophile in competitive multi-player, this trait is simply not balanced for MP. The same could be said for both pacifist and egalitarian since they almost goes against the purpose of MP to eliminate or exterminate the opponent as fast as possible. Almost half the ethics goes away as any form of viable option in that environment.
I think the discussion should be about effective strategies and balance for competitive none role-play MP. Since this group of people playing Stellaris is rather tiny we can't expect Paradox to make any changes without first thinking about the consequences for the majority of players first. With that I don't say that the point raised are bad... to some degree I agree that such strategies perhaps should not be too strong. I'm not sure what kind of maps these MP games are played at, but I think most of the games features are balanced around the bigger maps 600+
Thats funny. As someone who foresaw this problem PRIOR to megacorp launch I did a write a post about how paradox should nerf corvettes for multiplayer three days before launch. It got downvoted as hell from single player heros.
And now we have the extact same situation that corvetting rushing is the way to go in multiplayer
Two options:
Nerf the aggressive empire
Buff the defensive empire
As someone who played this game in multiplayer since utopia I can safely say: Paradox will do nothing about it. So just enjoy your corvettes and spam them.
Or just the player option:
Ask Maeltne/Aea to implement further hosting rules to prevent rushing, like no rush periods. It has happened before in the WSC. Players like myself or other rushers were also sometimes banned from games or forced to play pacifist/ "no" meta builds for balance reasons.
This has nothing to do with corvettes per se. They are the only ships you can use and the when fully committing ethos+civic+traditions for the first ten years and forego any economy I actually EXPECT to be worth it. Otherwise complaints would arise that it is underpowered.
It's not like you could not do this later on because of the buffs you get when going full military. Just with Battleships and more to conquer. Or any other ship for that matter.
If you don't have an inhibitor, pump up the base above the one or two planets you might have. Problem solved.
My opinion still is: It's a gambit on higher difficulties with no Plan B despite starting over. Not to mention against human players.
Disagreed. One problem with corvettes is that M slot weapons are less effective against them (circling), and since paradox refuses to give us design over star bases you cannot switch their weaponary to S slots to better counter corvettes, this only works for defensive stations. Also the corvette has unmatched speed which is crucial for any rush effort, they get build very fast and still provide the best mineral to weapon slot ratio in the game.
Missles are King against corvettes. Missles solved all problems I ever had with corvettes.
So I propose to use G-Slot weapons.
missiles are a death sentence in multiplayer, your regular corvette starts with PD, going for missiles is one the worst mistakes you can currently make
Did more than once, works nicely early on. Early PD is not effective enough to shoot down alot of missles especially with a Station around. The fact that missles negate the huge evasion of corvettes - which is the key to their strength - is worth that.