None of which are enough to call 2.2
None of which are remotely game-breaking, except the AI stuff.
None of which are remotely game-breaking, except the AI stuff.
Revert to a previous version: A Stellaris toxicity
- Thread starter monkeypunch87
- 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.
- Status
I don't know how to respond to that Tim. If by game breaking you mean crashes the game, those reports are out there too.
I think Terraforming should change the districts? You can't keep your 'ice fields' feature if you terraform an arctic world
Admittedly, it should *tell* you what you're going to lose before you hit the button.
Sorry
Sorry, but it is already stated by the devs that it is not working as intended. They even tried to apply a fix in the beta.
I mean, stops you playing the game. If you think "Megacorp vassals of other Megacorps can't build branches in ruler's planets" is so severe that you just can't enjoy the game then I don't know what to say to you.
For example, "Fleets failing to engage in combat" I've actually experienced. Twice. Yeah, it's annoying as hell but you just save the game, close it and restart and you can target the fleet again. Hardly "broken release" territory.
Really? I actually argued before 2.2 that terraforming should do exactly that, otherwise all your planets just end up hemogenised.
That's a shame. Oh well.
I'll probably get over it, though.
I won't, like, start any threads calling the game completely broken and demand they change it back to suit my personal preferences and play style, and fuck anyone else who likes the new way.
I listed a bunch of issues that either effect most players a bit or some players significantly. Right now it's very difficult to play as a Synth, an Egalitarian, or an Authoritarian. Any sort of multi-species migration results in averaged populations across all your worlds, including pops on planets they don't like and in roles they are not good at, all without any way for the player to fix the issue. This impacts slavers, egalitarians, and anyone building robots. I get that you can play the game as it is now, but so many mechanics are broken for so many play-styles that it culminates in a broken (so far) release. The only way you can play right now is if you either A: don't care about the bugs as they occur, or B: aren't efficient enough or playing on a high enough difficulty that the bugs are impacting you.
I also haven't started any such thread and don't intend to do it.
But let us stop here, it is offtopic and you were given your needed examples.
Lot of issues in that list are game breaking for specific play-styles.
Some issues like "Species within an empire will always grow to equal populations, regardless of all settings and traits" are game-breaking for most play-styles, due to pop upkeep costs
And some of them for everyone, like:
- Fleets failing to engage in combat
- Market exploit (fixed in beta, I think)
- 2 out of 3 crisis not working properly (which is roughly 50% of endgame challenges in base game)
- General state of AI, that falls behind even on hardest cheating difficulties after 100 years.
- Stutter every game day, that progressively turns into hundreds of milliseconds long freezes in late-game
- Several fleet/ship upgrade/downgrade exploits to generate infinite resources (Achievement, Ironman and Multiplayer compatible)
Last edited:
yea it makes sense when entire colonization etc change... but when you dont like a single thing like "I dont like robots are not cost efficent" telling them to revert is just stupid
I dislike a lot of the 2.2 changes mainly because of the AI troubles. I hoped that this update would give me back what 2.0 removed. An AI that was a challenge to defeat at least for the first 50 years or so
But it is much worse now.
At least in 2.1 you could play a low micro RP game while the AI kept up until 2300 or so.
However if you call exploits gamebreaking than the games entire economy is gamebreaking.
You can keep an entire empire running by buying one of each resource at the start of the month to keep the debuffs away. Minerals or strategic resources are not actually converted to other things they are only detucted from the stockpile when the month flips over and the stockpiles can't go below 0. As long as you are in the plus when that happens you get the full amount of everything when the month flips over.
Not that you need to do something like that because the ship downgrade exploit is the only exploit you need if you are into playing like that.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...is-2-2-3-1960-ship-downgrade-exploit.1142519/
But it is much worse now.
At least in 2.1 you could play a low micro RP game while the AI kept up until 2300 or so.
However if you call exploits gamebreaking than the games entire economy is gamebreaking.
You can keep an entire empire running by buying one of each resource at the start of the month to keep the debuffs away. Minerals or strategic resources are not actually converted to other things they are only detucted from the stockpile when the month flips over and the stockpiles can't go below 0. As long as you are in the plus when that happens you get the full amount of everything when the month flips over.
Not that you need to do something like that because the ship downgrade exploit is the only exploit you need if you are into playing like that.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...is-2-2-3-1960-ship-downgrade-exploit.1142519/
Yeah. It seems like every change is met with hate around here.
Like, no one hates Stellaris more than Stellaris fans.
I get tired of all the hate people pour onto every update. This game is rad. The deva are rad. The updates are rad.
Like, no one hates Stellaris more than Stellaris fans.
I get tired of all the hate people pour onto every update. This game is rad. The deva are rad. The updates are rad.
While I'm technically with you in that camp, I disagree overall.
The FTL change was (unsurprisingly) met with a lot of criticism. That one's obvious enough, and while I personally didn't dislike it, I do admittedly wonder what it'd be like to play with multiple FTL in the current game.
The economic change was definitely confusing at first. When the dev diaries started coming out, I didn't know how I would be able to manage an economy until I started watching videos. I like it, and prefer it now. But even now I'm still getting used to it (that's unsurprising).
However, to people who wanted a more streamlined game, this turns everything on their head.
Some of these changes are questionable, and some of them are fine, and some of them are great. And while there are a lot of players who prefer the older system, I mostly see complaints with how it was balanced. Those are fair criticisms. And I do think it would help Stellaris if the game was released as an opt-in beta to iron out bugs, and implement suggestions before official release. Since that seems to be how they're doing things now; except it's not opt-in, it's supposed to be official. Mostly finished. But it wasn't and that's the problem (Or, if it was playtested more internally).
Afaik, the devs are taking a break from expansions and doing a quality of life patch next. And that IS a great thing. But that's going to take time. And right now, people just want to play the game.
I should point out that these three bugs predate 2.2; I think they predate 2.0
And this one is apparently the design intent. (OK, the design intent sucks, but that means it isn't a bug.)
And this one is apparently the design intent. (OK, the design intent sucks, but that means it isn't a bug.)
I think a lot of it depends on the context.
I sometimes see "revert to a previous version" used in a toxic way; to dismiss criticism or reports of bugs.
But most of the time i see it used is in response to complaints like "I dont like the FTL changes", "2.1 was better" or, quite frequently, "this is not the game i bought". These are not helpful criticisms, they are not constructive, they dont make suggestions and Paradox is extremely unlikely to ever revert a change they have made to the game. It isnt an especially helpful response to say "just revert the game version", but it is the solution to such a complaint.
Now, if it is used in response to a constructive, thought out suggestion on how to improve and develop a mechanic, then it is toxic.
I sometimes see "revert to a previous version" used in a toxic way; to dismiss criticism or reports of bugs.
But most of the time i see it used is in response to complaints like "I dont like the FTL changes", "2.1 was better" or, quite frequently, "this is not the game i bought". These are not helpful criticisms, they are not constructive, they dont make suggestions and Paradox is extremely unlikely to ever revert a change they have made to the game. It isnt an especially helpful response to say "just revert the game version", but it is the solution to such a complaint.
Now, if it is used in response to a constructive, thought out suggestion on how to improve and develop a mechanic, then it is toxic.
broken?
Like in criminal syndicates being unplayable because you couldn't get to use the whole crime gimmick because they got stamped out asap on any planet they tried setting up on?
Or like some people litterally being unable to reach end crisis years because it lags too much for them? (Thankfully I have not had that issue myself, but I've seen enough comments about it to not pretend that others suffers from it).
They released a broken product. ignoring this and trying to claim otherwise doesn't do any good anywhere.
Like in criminal syndicates being unplayable because you couldn't get to use the whole crime gimmick because they got stamped out asap on any planet they tried setting up on?
Or like some people litterally being unable to reach end crisis years because it lags too much for them? (Thankfully I have not had that issue myself, but I've seen enough comments about it to not pretend that others suffers from it).
They released a broken product. ignoring this and trying to claim otherwise doesn't do any good anywhere.
Understandable, but...
1) Buying a DLC without testing the accompanying update or waiting to see others’ feedback on it is an inherent risk, one I have taken to my regret before. As I myself thus learned, this is a misstep that can easily be avoided.
2) Abandoning future updates is an inherent drawback of reverting to and sticking with a previous version; that is unavoidable. Future updates are also based on the overhauled systems anyways so a player who hates the new systems to their core is unlikely to be thrilled with future patches regardless.
-
I do see some people spitefully toss out the revert argument as a way to shut down criticism, which is rude and silly, but I disagree that saying such is fundamentally toxic.
Last edited:
i kinda agree. its nice the devs provide the opportunity to rollback, but its used left and right to discard peoples arguments instead of addressing them.
if someone says "i dont like x because y" the response is much more often "roll back then there is no x" then it is "i think this about y".
if someone says "i dont like x because y" the response is much more often "roll back then there is no x" then it is "i think this about y".
Hating bugs together is one thing...
Telling the devs to revert concept changes is another.
Yeah, if people want ye old tile system or ye old FTL system, that's when we tell them to revert back to an older update.
Reporting the tons of annoying bugs in the new update? That, I can get behind.
Telling the devs to revert concept changes is another.
Yeah, if people want ye old tile system or ye old FTL system, that's when we tell them to revert back to an older update.
Reporting the tons of annoying bugs in the new update? That, I can get behind.
The rules are not for public discussion or debate. If you have a question regarding them, please feel free to PM, or use the report system and allow the moderators to handle it.
That said, I agree "just revert" isn't helpful in most situations, but that isn't always true. Being able to revert is a pretty big selling point of Paradox games, and it isn't always meant to be permanent.
Please, everyone, keep other users in mind, and try to assume the best intentions in others. If not, please remember to use the report feature.
That said, I agree "just revert" isn't helpful in most situations, but that isn't always true. Being able to revert is a pretty big selling point of Paradox games, and it isn't always meant to be permanent.
Please, everyone, keep other users in mind, and try to assume the best intentions in others. If not, please remember to use the report feature.
Last edited:
- Status