Revert to a previous version: A Stellaris toxicity

[monkeypunch87]

Dear mods and user,

I post it here in the Stellaris general discussion since I think that it is fairly Stellaris specific issue:

I have a negative feeling and a question about this specific topic: Don't you think that the suggestion to revert to a previous version if you don't like a change made by the devs, are rather toxic? I mean, a lot of people here probably have read post like "If you don't like the FTL changes, go back to V1.8" or "You can't handle the economy now? Move back to 2.1". You can see this a lot in all kinds of threads.

If I look at the forum rules about toxicity,

What is toxicity?
In general any post that is overly negative, doesn't contribute to the forum or simply contains foul language and insults is toxic. If your post doesn't contribute and instead serves as a way to stir up more negativity and rage from other users, it's toxic.

I wonder in which way this kind of suggestions are helpful and contribute to the forum? They certainly also stir up rage and negativity, if you have to abandon your money and your purchase of your newest DLC, if you just want to express your dissatisfaction or even if you make suggestions to improve the situation.

 

[Tim_Ward]

"I don't like how migration works in 2.2"
"Go back to 2.1 then"

= not helpful

"I don't like the entire concept of 2.2"
"Go back to 2.1 then"

= helpful

 

[zukodark]

The "revert to a previous version" argument makes a lot of sense when used properly, on people who dislikes a new update in general. Dislike the FTL-changes which a lot of us either enjoyed or accepted, so much that you apparently can no longer enjoy the game? You can indeed go back! Of course criticism is allowed on new features, but it is rarely that reverting features for all of us is the answer. The people who wish against change has their versions, while the bunch who want change can never have updates from the future.

If I had a way to change to a future version of Stellaris, even at the expense of mods, I'd do it.

Of course the reverting argument can also be used wrongly, but I rarely see it used to the point of toxicity.

 

[monkeypunch87]

But both of you didn't touch the topic on abandoning your purchase and also every future update the game may provide. In my opinion a lot of the suggestions to play a previous version go in the direction "Suck it up! Revert to the previous version if you don't like the progress. Leave the discussion!"

It is also a really easy tool to derail a discussion.

 

[Tim_Ward]

But both of you didn't touch the topic on abandoning your purchase and also every future update the game may provide. In my opinion a lot of the suggestions to play a previous version go in the direction "Suck it up! Revert to the previous version if you don't like the progress. Leave the discussion!"

It is also a really easy tool to derail a discussion.

Some times you end up buying things you don't like.

Most people like 2.2, asking Paradox to change it back, or change some of the major feautres just to suit you is kind of selfish.

 

[Onedreamer]

"I don't like how migration works in 2.2"
"Go back to 2.1 then"

= not helpful

"I don't like the entire concept of 2.2"
"Go back to 2.1 then"

= helpful

the point here is that the case with 2.2 is not a matter or preference but that when it was released it was completely broken. It managed to break even pre-existing features that were working for years and it is still in quite a poor state. This considered, the comments that have been shelled out to revert are definitely toxic. Because YES, the only solution to be able to play the game properly is to revert to a previous version, but to sell it as if it's the user that is at fault rather than the completely buggy update is what is toxic.
And spare me with the joke that this is always the case because I've played Stellaris from the beginning and enjoyed any moment and any update of it until Dec the 7th as they have been almost always flawless. I play paradox games from more than 10 years and I can confidently say that this update surpassed in bad quality even the release of HoI3.

 

[dostillevi]

I can agree with some of that criticism, but the reality of versioning on Steam does make it trivially easy to switch game versions. As far as the base game goes, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't have and use the ability to switch back to older versions, after all that was the game they purchased and/or liked. At this point going back to 1.8 would be nearly like playing a completely different game.

The argument you're making against it is basically the same as that we shouldn't be telling someone they should go play a different game because they're not good enough to play this (current version) one. It can also be interpreted as a casual brush off, in that valid criticisms are met with essentially don't like it? don't play it. However, I don't find that I see much of either of these uses on the forums. More generally, I see the suggestion to switch versions come up when a player is wholly unsatisfied with the new version or has criticisms that can't or won't be addressed by the game developers or modders. In the modern age of game development, it's important for people to remember that they pay money for the product as it exists when they purchase it. Future changes may or may not be to their liking, so no one should put money into a game with the expectation that it will become the game they hope, or that future expansions will make it worth it. This mentality can help fend off the bitter taste of not being eligible for new expansions due to being off version, or even returning to a game over an over when it really just isn't that fun anymore. The only thing I wish is that steam had support for mod versioning.

 

[Tim_Ward]

the point here is that the case with 2.2 is not a matter or preference but that when it was released it was completely broken. It managed to break even pre-existing features that were working for years and it is still in quite a poor state. This considered, the comments that have been shelled out to revert are definitely toxic. Because YES, the only solution to be able to play the game properly is to revert to a previous version, but to sell it as if it's the user that is at fault rather than the completely buggy update is what is toxic.

It wasn't "completely broken", except with AI and performance and if you can find someone saying "well go back to 2.1 if you don't like it" about those issues specifically I'll concede the point.

 

[Onedreamer]

It wasn't "completely broken", except with AI and performance and if you can find someone saying "well go back to 2.1 if you don't like it" about those issues specifically I'll concede the point.

It was and is broken. Completely at release, partially now. Almost nothing new was bugless and even features that were working before got broken. Maybe you could understand how little I need your point conceded if you counted the pages in bug reports from the 7th of December. I thought that should have been evidence enough even for the most stubborn fundamentalist.
And I don't talk about AI performance or CPU performance because I know how hard it is to tweak them. I talk about normal gameplay, tons of glaring bugs about core mechanics and the fact that you and many others pretend to ignore of their existance is exactly the king of toxicity that should be banned from forums. If you like the game in the state it is you should go play it rather than come to deny the reality on the face of people who report their issues.

 

[monkeypunch87]

I can agree with some of that criticism, but the reality of versioning on Steam does make it trivially easy to switch game versions. As far as the base game goes, I don't see any reason why people shouldn't have and use the ability to switch back to older versions, after all that was the game they purchased and/or liked. At this point going back to 1.8 would be nearly like playing a completely different game.

But the point is that there is a difference if you switch back to an older version out of your own desire or if somebody random tells you to do it because he doesn't want to handle your criticism or discussion. That is toxic.

 

[dostillevi]

But the point is that there is a difference if you switch back to an older version out of your own desire or if somebody random tells you to do it because he doesn't want to handle your criticism or discussion. That is toxic.

Yes I addressed that in the paragraph immediately following that sentence. I just don't see the toxic version of this happening much at all.

 

[Onedreamer]

it shouldn't happen at all. If someone comes here to voice their opinion, firstly it's because they have a right to comment on their purchase, and secondly they do it obviously in the hope to be heard and that something may change. The answer to switch to another version or game or whatever is in the better of cases rude.
If someone came with a question such as: "hey, the devs changed the game completely, I don't like the changes what can I do now?" then that answer would be legit. In any other case it the answer to change version doesn't contribute to anything and it is only offensive.

 

[Tim_Ward]

It was and is broken. Completely at release, partially now. Almost nothing new was bugless and even features that were working before got broken. Maybe you could understand how little I need your point conceded if you counted the pages in bug reports from the 7th of December. I thought that should have been evidence enough even for the most stubborn fundamentalist.
And I don't talk about AI performance or CPU performance because I know how hard it is to tweak them. I talk about normal gameplay, tons of glaring bugs about core mechanics and the fact that you and many others pretend to ignore of their existance is exactly the king of toxicity that should be banned from forums. If you like the game in the state it is you should go play it rather than come to deny the reality on the face of people who report their issues.

Give examples.

 

[monkeypunch87]

Give examples.

Onedreamer did it already. Take a look for yourself:
"Maybe you could understand how little I need your point conceded if you counted the pages in bug reports from the 7th of December"

But please, this is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Onedreamer did it already. Take a look for yourself:
"Maybe you could understand how little I need your point conceded if you counted the pages in bug reports from the 7th of December"

But please, this is not the topic of this thread.

He's saying 2.2 is "completely broken", I want to know which specific bugs he finds so severe as to render the game unplayable and, relatedly, who's been saying the solution to them is to revert to 2.1.

 

[monkeypunch87]

He's saying 2.2 is "completely broken", I want to know which specific bugs he finds so severe as to render the game unplayable and, relatedly, who's been saying the solution to them is to revert to 2.1.

Ok, let me give an example than, so we can move on:

World Shaper and Gaia World terraforming. Completly broken if you prefer a Life-Seeded gameplay.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Ok, let me give an example than, so we can move on:

World Shaper and Gaia World terraforming. Completly broken if you prefer a Life-Seeded gameplay.

In what way?

 

[dostillevi]

Tim you can find hundreds of examples in the bug reports forum. Bugs range from War Exhaustion being calculated incorrectly to end came crises not working. There are multiple bugs that will affect most players, and numerous bugs that make specific playstyles and events impossible or not working as intended.

L-Cluster not working properly: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...cluster-outcome-not-working-properly.1135092/
Prethoryn scourge not attacking worlds, and worlds claimed aren't affected by the scourge: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...horyn-scourge-is-dormant-v2-2-3-1960.1142590/

Terraforming planets clears blockers without returning locked districts: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ai-tech-terraforming-bugs-2-2-2-5b48.1143285/
Multiple issues with synthetic ascension:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...rced-build-after-synthetic-evolution.1143343/
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ps-cant-fill-ruler-roles-v2-2-3-1960.1142589/

Fleets failing to engage in combat: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ellaris-invincible-fleet-v2-2-3-1960.1143281/
Immortal leaders dying of old age: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ris-hive-mind-leader-dies-2-2-1-bbf4.1134534/
War exhaustion calculated incorrectly: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...orrectly-not-all-ship-losses-counted.1142792/
Authoritarian faction hates robots: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ude-annoys-the-authoritarian-faction.1143196/ https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...g-ai-servitude-as-slavery-2-2-3-1960.1142776/
Vassal of an enemy has open borders that can't be closed: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...t-close-borders-with-vassal-of-enemy.1142786/
Synthetics have access to and build farms and farming tech when they do not need it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...tellaris-2-2-3-robots-spamming-farms.1142756/
Megacorp vassals of other Megacorps can't build branches in ruler's planets: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-branch-offices-in-overlords-planets.1142616/
AI strategic resource management is so bad that AIs fail to upgrade fleets and buildings when strategic resources are used, causing their economies to stall and fail. Also happens with Fallen Empires, especially when they awake. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...tellaris-2-2-2-awakened-fe-braindead.1140433/

And other issues I'm aware of but didn't see the threads for:
-Species within an empire will always grow to equal populations, regardless of all settings and traits
-AI is unable to manage effective construction on their worlds, often leaving districts and buildings empty while overpopulated
-Pops are not reasonably assigned to jobs, with pops specifically tailored or robomodded for specific roles not able to be assigned to those roles. Makes robo-modding and gene editing next to useless.
-On launch (and possibly still) there's a market exploit allowing infinite resource gain
-Synthetic species playthroughs are unbalanced, with the use of the bioreactor needed for Synths to come close to parity economically.
-AI war strategy is non-existent. AI regularly sends fleets clear across my empire to target minor, unimportant outposts.

 

[monkeypunch87]

In what way?

It destroyes the planetary features and changes the amount of possible districts. It screws your economy.

I'm not sure, but I believe it used to be a problem also with general terraforming, if life-seeded is a too narrow of an example.

 

[Saphire]

Ok, let me give an example than, so we can move on:

World Shaper and Gaia World terraforming. Completly broken if you prefer a Life-Seeded gameplay.

Aren't habitats, econopolises, and ring worlds the same?