Please DON'T remove automatic Status Quo

[Matt516]

I'm pretty bummed about this change - comes across as listening a vocal minority instead of keeping to the vision.

I know this is just my opinion, but here's the main reasons I prefer automatic status quo:

1. Adds some tension and decision making even when you're handily winning a war. "Do I attack that big station to try and take it before the war ends, or do I spend my last bit of WE on taking an additional planet instead?" With auto status quo removed, that tension is completely gone.
2. It enforces some parity between the player and AI. The AI is still forced to peace out based on arbitrary accumulation of modifiers - this essentially gives the player an additional option over the AI.
3. If you are a larger empire beating a smaller empire into the ground, this lets you steamroll even further because you can just refuse to end the war indefinitely, giving both of you the penalty (which will be more hurtful to the smaller/losing side).

All this change will do IMO is advantage the player over the AI even more because they will be better at managing when to persist with 100% WE. We will be back to the days of players blobbing with minimal effort.

At the very least, the penalties should scale up very fast with time - it should be very, VERY difficult to prolong a war beyond a few extra months.

@Wiz, if you really think the game will be better with this change, go ahead. But please don't assume everyone hates the current system and/or give up some of the vast improvements 2.0 brought to war so quickly.

 

[Tale]

I think the game has enough tension with all the changes. It used to be relaxing past the first 80 years as you ate everything. Now I'm constantly fretting over simple things like fleet cap, energy balance, starbase placement, and fleet pathing.

The idea of scaling penalties past the war exhaustion point is one I'm quite a fan of, though. Particularly if I can abuse it offensively to break some empires up.

 

[Razzlie]

Agreed, WE only needed number tweaks so that exhaustion would build more slowly.

And these penalties aren't harsh enough, they have to scale up the longer you keep going once you hit 100%, perhaps involving further penalties that aren't present at first, i.e. resource income penalties.

 

[ashbery76]

Yeah seems very knee jerk to a small amount of casual players who possibly never played game with thinking required.Lets be honest Stellaris 1.9 was get your mega fast one fleet to conquer the galaxy.

Let us wait a while before we know what real player feedback is about 2.0.

 

[Matt516]

Another problem with the change - if you are a larger empire beating a smaller empire into the ground, this lets you steamroll even further because you can refuse to end the war indefinitely, giving both of you the penalty (which will be more hurtful to the smaller/losing side).

I really do think this will just result in even more roflstomp wars. I've really enjoyed the additional challenge in blobbing that 2.0 has brought. Sad it'll be short lived. :/

 

[Rhel]

While my preferred solution would be a scaling war exhaustion debuff that starts out slowly but gets completely devestating if you keep going I'd rather have the old system than just this new, fairly harmless penalty. So largely agreed with the OP.

 

[D Inqu]

The WE speed certainly needed tweaking, but forced peace should still be a thing. The old 1.0 problems with players just going "no" and waiting for the AI to implode must not come back.

If it's a situation where the AI would accept peace, the player should as well. Maybe instead of making influece just being at 0, make it go negative and auto-peace when it runs out?

 

[Bouchart]

Calling it "status quo" is misleading. I nearly conceded a half dozen systems because I thought it meant Status Quo antebellum.

 

[Tale]

Another problem with the change - if you are a larger empire beating a smaller empire into the ground, this lets you steamroll even further because you can refuse to end the war indefinitely, giving both of you the penalty (which will be more hurtful to the smaller/losing side).

I really do think this will just result in even more roflstomp wars. I've really enjoyed the additional challenge in blobbing that 2.0 has brought. Sad it'll be short lived. :/

I found that, as a larger empire, when I was beating empires into the ground, I got bored of taking their stuff long before my own War Exhaustion set in.

So this will completely ruin those small empires. Because I won't even see WE hit me.

 

[hashinshin]

Agree 100%. Agree 100%. The upcoming changes are the worst thing to happen to Stellaris. This system is so perfect it baffles all rational thinking why they'd consider removing it.

 

[Elfwind]

Another problem with the change - if you are a larger empire beating a smaller empire into the ground, this lets you steamroll even further because you can refuse to end the war indefinitely, giving both of you the penalty (which will be more hurtful to the smaller/losing side).

I really do think this will just result in even more roflstomp wars. I've really enjoyed the additional challenge in blobbing that 2.0 has brought. Sad it'll be short lived. :/

Make it affect small empires less? Kinda like the tech and unity penalty but instead a war exhaustion vulnerability penalty?

 

[Anaeri]

Should only be the aggressor who gets the WE penalty and only if they haven't sent a status quo offer in the last year. Also, not accepting status quo at 100% WE should be an influence hit just like before.

 

[Anaeri]

Agree 100%. Agree 100%. The upcoming changes are the worst thing to happen to Stellaris. This system is so perfect it baffles all rational thinking why they'd consider removing it.

I disagree that they are the worst, there is a bit of awkwardness in that there is no wiggleroom for negotiating because of an arbitrary number, and that the number ticks up a little too fast. I think the penalties will work fine if we accompany it with a similar forced peace/stab hit like mechanic that existed before (so say declining status quo at 100% WE would cause you to lose 100 influence or something, with auto accept if you can't afford it)

 

[RVallant]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but just saying "all people who disagree with my view are casual vocal minorities and paradox are knee-jerking" comes off as a bit immature, just saying.

Just present why you think the changes are bad, and present a solution to it, there's no need to try and belittle an entire playerbase 'vocal minority' or not.

 

[hashinshin]

I disagree that they are the worst, there is a bit of awkwardness in that there is no wiggleroom for negotiating because of an arbitrary number, and that the number ticks up a little too fast. I think the penalties will work fine if we accompany it with a similar forced peace/stab hit like mechanic that existed before (so say declining status quo at 100% WE would cause you to lose 100 influence or something, with auto accept if you can't afford it)

If you bring in overwhelming firepower and take the systems you should NEVER have a problem with war exhaustion.

 

[Matt516]

Just present why you think the changes are bad, and present a solution to it, there's no need to try and belittle an entire playerbase 'vocal minority' or not.

FWIW that was not my intent in the OP and I think i avoided it - that's why I focused on presenting the problems with the change (as I see them) instead.

 

[Lumpy]

As I said in the other thread concerning this issue, I just can't believe it. Why are the devs giving in to the vocal minority, which probably largely hasn't even fully grasped the new system yet? Why not just tweak the existing numbers and see how it goes from that point? This is very disturbing, to say the least. This change is basically rendering the whole concept of WE moot. If I am winning a war, why should I care about a few months or even years of -20% happiness, when ultimately the price is as much as I can possibly gobble up?

The appeal of this new system was that the weaker side in a war was able to fight back when playing their cards right, and prevent their impending demise. Now, it's just back to the stronger guy takes it all. Not impressed, Paradox. That was as unexpected as it is disappointing.

 

[iShurik]

Damn I made a similar thread with similar points. Didn't see this one, when I started writing. However I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one.

 

[Sapa Inca]

I have some concerns with the proposed idea in the last tweet:

1)The penalties should start just after you have 100% WE and refuse a status quo peace made by the enemy, otherwise the weak empires will lose even more hard, they will reach 100% WE faster and the player can just deny every request for peace and this will be abused in mp too.

2) -20% happiness is not enough, this is easily tanked indefinitely by various types of empires. The penalties should start after that you refuse a status quo peace request made by the enemy and should increase overtime beyond -20%.

3) Swarms and exterminators completly ignore happiness penalty and completly compensate the 0 influence gain instantly annexing enemy systems after occupation.
Is really intended that these types of empires can annex a 100-200 system wide empire in one war?

4) There should exist a cooldown for request status quo peaces and refuse one request with 100% of WE should cost influence, so,eventually the status quo peace will occur and the player have the option of bank influence if they have plans of start a long war.

5) If I make claims in all systems of a enemy I can annex the enemy in one war without considerations with their size? Claims dont expire, so, is possible have 200 claims in a huge enemy and completly conquer their empire in one war. This is intended? I read that the idea of design was make multiple wars nevessary for annex wide empires. If this is the case, even the old warscore system was better to slow snowball.

 

[icon41gimp]

This thread, like I imagine much of the testing, focuses just on Conquest CB wars. The system fares relatively well for small scale border skirmish claim wars.

There are a lot of other CBs that are completely neutered within the current system. If every other style of CB is going to require 100% occupation to achieve then it invalidates a huge swath of game play except in extreme roflstomp situations.