• 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.
I don't know why I keep buying DLCs lol.. I guess I always kept hoping that my poor AMD APU from 2015 will be able to run this game smoothly one day !! *le sigh... No more though.. I won't be buying anymore.. and I am sure about that this time.. lol...
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
So I knew that the game was in a bad place when the mid/late game rolls in but never really got that far (because I usually lost interest in playing before then, I like to play in small amounts and come back to it later).

Finally decided to do a dedicated playthrough and hoooooo boy, bad place is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Everything takes so friggen long, the AI is a mess, basically what most people have being saying all along.

I'm glad I experienced it for myself, I will NOT be purchasing Paradox products until these issues are resolved. The game is borderline unplayable and to have the audacity to lock achievements behind Ironman in this state, meaning no mods that fix or address the issues that are NOT being fixed by the dev team themselves?

I don't know what's going on over there, but there NEEDS to be more communication from the team. What is the thought process here, what is the plan, IS there a plan?

I personally think it's time to make like an engineer and start on damage control.
 
  • 7
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
to have the audacity to lock achievements behind Ironman in this state,
A) Achievements have always been locked behind Ironman and the Checksum, for every Paradox game. Changing that is probably not a simple "Flick the switch", so they'd be taking time away from actually fixing the game. There is no "audacity".
B) That'd defeat the point of achievements in the first place. If you're allowed to use any combination of mods whatsoever, they're not really achievements. It's just a matter of finding which mod makes it the easiest.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
The audacity comes from the fact that the player is totally reliant on the game being properly programmed, and this game very much is not.

I can understand locking achievements if mods are installed, but NOT behind Ironman.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
The audacity comes from the fact that the player is totally reliant on the game being properly programmed, and this game very much is not.

I can understand locking achievements if mods are installed, but NOT behind Ironman.
Okay, and? That doesn't changethat it most likely is not a simple change they can just make.

Complaints about it also don't even belong in this thread.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Started playing stellaris some weeks ago. The performance is so bad that I have yet to finish any game.
It's year 2453 and an in-game year takes more than 4 minutes. It's so discouraging that I literally don't even care about winning anymore, I just want it to end. It's going to hit some real fun levels of unplayability once the crisis starts.

How long has this issue been around for? I've seen a lot of negativity, is there realistically any hope?
Yes, there's hope I found tweaks which let me play a large galaxy and finish the end game crisis.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The audacity comes from the fact that the player is totally reliant on the game being properly programmed, and this game very much is not.

I can understand locking achievements if mods are installed, but NOT behind Ironman.
Well, I have been bitten by cloud saves with Ironman being reverted back 150 yrs, after I had ground through 20 levels of repeatable tech.

But I can understand that an achievement system would be meaningless with precautionary saves, reverting if say fleets don't arrive at the battle on time due to human error.

I enjoyed Ironman but lost confidence in Steam Cloud saves and support failed to even acknowledge the issue.
 
I am starting to wonder what can we start to post here to finally make the devs notice this thread. Maybe links to shock sites?

I suggest not doing this. :confused:
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I suggest not doing this. :confused:

Then maybe someone finally cares to answer any of concerns made here? We are customers who were conned into buying a defective product.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Quarantine thread. Nothing is accomplished here, this was created to clean up some of the more egregious complaint threads that pop up on the main forum.

It's a neat place for some technical discussion but that's about it.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Still a new player from April (compared to most anyway) - purchased 5 DLC and enjoyed them - to finding that my below min requirement PC (CPU) was handling performance of the game in Med galaxies, 0.25 habitable ridiculously slow at year 2350+ (seconds per day). No more than 9 AI, 2 FE and maybe 1 Marauder.

I never bothered to see a game out apart from the first couple. I also took part in that save game floating around that is in observation mode at late game on a Large or Huge galaxy I think - and found a year took 22 minutes(woe is me).

This game would have been the push I neeeded to upgrade my PC (MMOs and FPS games gone off the boil for me, so arn't important) but as it turned out, everyone in the community was like "don't", atleast for Stellaris a lone, its still crappy at late game. Now I have a work laptop (10th gen i5 entry, budget end), I'm sure I'll feel a difference but by all accounts only to the level that most people are clearly unhappy with.

That all being said, until recent playthroughs I hadn't given a lot of attention to AI and other well documented problems, I had even thought the AI going back and forth between systems was in actual fact a strategic thing but it really isnt. In fact 'gaming' the AI seems easy and it doesnt go for the 'kill button' when it has the chance too. And the bugs with fleet manager.... and what is going on with the auto build buttons? As a new player I was using them, not having any idea what I was doing. But had I realised how buggy they are, I would have left a sour taste in my mouth and a bad impression of what otherwise looks visually polished game. People were telling me in Discord to immediately not use them or that they had no idea what buttons I was talking about. Is that what you want as a new player experience (auto build specifically - it's surely meant to be an initial crutch for new players to use whilst learning a vast game)?

In the end and until the latest dev diary, I had stopped playing Stellaris back in early August. with around 230 hour play time because of everything but mostly performance problems. So I'm hopeful that the latest dev diary and MrFreake responding here is purposely saying "We now have something to tell you and respond with". Without being a prior PDX gamer, I dont have preconceived ideas about PDX to know about other than this forum, so I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. And if it proves fruitful, I will be buying Megacoorp/Federations and even the plantoid pack. (Too frugal to buy the new DLC...)

I don't doubt there are probably hundreds/thousands of players in a similar perspective to mine, so fingers crossed whats coming will make a good impact. :)
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Stefan has a video that looks at performance improvements in 2.8:

Performance improvements are welcome but I'm not sure how significant this will actually be in practice. Will the improvement be bigger on larger galaxies for example? You'd think so since more data, more planets and more empires should mean more opportunities for parallelism but it would depend upon the implementation specifics.

Still feels like it's going to be a long time before we can expect decent performance into the late game on default settings on average hardware.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Well the YT author said 100% increase on bigger maps with 24 empires but 39% in that 'use case'. He didnt go into what that metric is based on though. Im assuming how fast the game plays through in a year basis?

I would imagine the smaller improvement on the Tiny map is more the fact he had a good rig and and the processing required maybe 4x less.

On another point is it a common habit now that people bring the end game crisis year forward to save on performance( pop growth), i know i started too. His is set to 2300 ( or did he force spawn them ? )
 
Everyone pushes the crisis to launch sooner, because:

1. No one is afraid of it. due to bugged status.
2. No one wishes to deal with the late game performance
3. by its default apperance date, with an optimized empire and proper reasearch preperation, it's just a speedbump.

If 2.8 really has proper crisis improvements, then it would be a different story, especialy on G Admiral, with a crisis multiplier.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Read the DD on "2.8 Go Vroom Vroom"

I may be wrong but the way I read it means that

1. "average spec" machines suffer because the they don't have the MHz speed of "higher spec" machines.
2. ALL multi core machines suffer as the game engine/coding is not being properly optimised for use on multi core CPU's
3. This appears to also be the cause of the dreaded OOS msgs.
4. As with earlier comments I think it would probably affect larger universe size games the greatest amount
5. It also implies if Paradox can get this sorted that the more cores the better rather than pure speed would be the way to go!
Since most computers these days- especially 2010- are multi core Nearly All players would be helped

I fervently hope they get this sorted out sooner rather than later, as I am sure it would help all Paradox games not to need an above average machine requirement.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Read the DD on "2.8 Go Vroom Vroom"

I may be wrong but the way I read it means that

1. "average spec" machines suffer because the they don't have the MHz speed of "higher spec" machines.
2. ALL multi core machines suffer as the game engine/coding is not being properly optimised for use on multi core CPU's
3. This appears to also be the cause of the dreaded OOS msgs.
4. As with earlier comments I think it would probably affect larger universe size games the greatest amount
5. It also implies if Paradox can get this sorted that the more cores the better rather than pure speed would be the way to go!
Since most computers these days- especially 2010- are multi core Nearly All players would be helped

I fervently hope they get this sorted out sooner rather than later, as I am sure it would help all Paradox games not to need an above average machine requirement.
You are definitely reading it wrong. I don't even know how you got some of those conclusions from it, and the others directly contradict the patch note.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So, I looked up some old benchmarking I'd done on 2.6 on same hardware:

200 stars, default settings, year 2200 to 2201 (360 days) - got 1.33 days/sec on "normal", 2.48 days/sec on "fast" and 4.8 days/sec on "fastest".
With 1000 stars I got about the same except "fastest" was a bit slower - 4.5 days/sec instead of 4.8. Or to put it in absolute time, 1m20s instead of 1m15s

For reference, this is on my 15" 2018 Macbook Pro. All DLC, no mods.

With 2.8.0 I got 5.9 day/s on fastest with 200 stars and 5.5 days/s on fastest with 1000 starts. So a 20% improvement in 9 months.

It seems I didn't save any benchmark results for saved games in the 2300s but they do feel faster and smoother than what I remember for the ones I tried. Probably more than the 20% I got for the early game.

Going to try playing a game properly from the start to see how I feel about it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It's running well finally for me.

I mean it should work well, I have a good CPU but it didn't run well before. Actually it ran like cr*p before and I got rather irritated but...

Credit where credit is due. At least for me it seems to be running like someone has clearly made an effort to make it run better so I'm very happy.

Hope it works out OK for you guys.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: