Stellaris is boring and tedious
- Thread starter Lady Lacroix
- 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
What is an active player anyway? Since a few months, I started Stellaris after every new patch to see if something changed (ofc i didn't buy the DLCs). Never played the game for more than 10 minutes since more than a year (for the reasons stated in OP), but Steam will track me as "played today". I can't look it up at work, but it's probably around 50 hours played.
On the other hand, i have about 6 different Installations of Kerbal Space Program and i played thousands of hours (including modding, planet creation, mission reports etc). I think i started it through Steam once or twice, like 4 years ago when i bought it.
I'm pretty sure i'd count as "active" for Stellaris and "inactive" for KSP, eventough what i actually do is the exact opposite of that.
Now i'm not accusing the Devs of dismissing critics, i'm 100% sure they want to make Stellaris the best possible game. I'm a developer myself (not games unfortunately) and i know that it's like their baby, i just happen to disagree with some design decisions. Which is fine, not every game is for everyone, i enjoy another 4X game many others stop playing after just seeing it's UI. But that "we have enough players, therefor the game must be fine"-line is such a slippery slope that leads to no good things: I recommended Paradox games to friends on merit of their name alone. Past tense, because today i often don't recognize the company anymore and that way of thinking plays a big part in that (again i'm not accussing anyone, it's just in my head it comes along as this: "we're good, profits are fine").
On the other hand, i have about 6 different Installations of Kerbal Space Program and i played thousands of hours (including modding, planet creation, mission reports etc). I think i started it through Steam once or twice, like 4 years ago when i bought it.
I'm pretty sure i'd count as "active" for Stellaris and "inactive" for KSP, eventough what i actually do is the exact opposite of that.
Now i'm not accusing the Devs of dismissing critics, i'm 100% sure they want to make Stellaris the best possible game. I'm a developer myself (not games unfortunately) and i know that it's like their baby, i just happen to disagree with some design decisions. Which is fine, not every game is for everyone, i enjoy another 4X game many others stop playing after just seeing it's UI. But that "we have enough players, therefor the game must be fine"-line is such a slippery slope that leads to no good things: I recommended Paradox games to friends on merit of their name alone. Past tense, because today i often don't recognize the company anymore and that way of thinking plays a big part in that (again i'm not accussing anyone, it's just in my head it comes along as this: "we're good, profits are fine").
Fair enough, but if a customer returns time after time with nothing but "personal angst" and only ever bought 1 cup of coffee. Better to kick them the $%^* out as allow your other customers hear the abuse and wonder why you allow it to continue...
Nor is it the "piece of anal waste" some would have you believe either. So there is that as well.
Indeed. Some are "decisions" that folks want reversed or re-engineered and that is very very very unlikely to happen, if even possible at this stage.
Why do some continue to harp on things that have not changed, which by said lack of change to this point would be a clear indicator that it will not, or cannot, be changed to satisfy their request?
Same as a child asking Mom and Dad. "Are we there Yet!?" knowing full well they have not left their Homes garage...
I guess nobody here has stated that the game is what you wrote. On the other hand, the game is surely not fine.
If the numbers (DLCs bought, players on steam) will fall, they could change a lot of things. It's happened so many times in the world of gaming.
Some games have been redone entirely.
Recently I was at the zoo. Past elephants, coatis and flamingos, I suddenly stood directly in front of a monkey cage. That was quite a funny thing. An orang-utan female held up a hazelnut and lamented while the sunlight was shining on her red coat.
"You know what, brothers and sisters?" she explained. "At the beginning I found hazelnuts delicious, but somehow it was always the same taste. boooring!"
Several monkeys nodded to her. Others stated that she could eat a peanut for a change from time to time. One of the little naughty monkeys has even told the orang-utan female that she could also push a nut in her behind from time to time, then it would taste different too.
"You know what?" she said. "These hazelnuts should have chocolate bits and a little vanilla flavor, some cinnamon and a bit salt!" Then the food would not be so boring and tedious."
One of the chimpanzees said, that the salt content should be calculated according to a strict mathematical equation, because that would otherwise be stupid.
Another one from the horde, he has always missed peanut butter and stated this. So these little bastards sat in this corner of the zoo and chattered around, foughting well. Others liked each other, tapped on each others shoulder, both of the same opinion: That chocolate was the most important and argued with those around who wanted more salt.
The zoo's director came his way and said:"You good monkeys from hut 3, we will mix the fodder a little differently soon, honey comes by the way also pure and I have more ideas cause I eat the same hazelnuts! But bear in mind, while disputing, there are a lot more animals in the zoo and it should taste them as good as you."
I went home at some time, probably these little rascals still argue about nothing than themselves.
"You know what, brothers and sisters?" she explained. "At the beginning I found hazelnuts delicious, but somehow it was always the same taste. boooring!"
Several monkeys nodded to her. Others stated that she could eat a peanut for a change from time to time. One of the little naughty monkeys has even told the orang-utan female that she could also push a nut in her behind from time to time, then it would taste different too.
"You know what?" she said. "These hazelnuts should have chocolate bits and a little vanilla flavor, some cinnamon and a bit salt!" Then the food would not be so boring and tedious."
One of the chimpanzees said, that the salt content should be calculated according to a strict mathematical equation, because that would otherwise be stupid.
Another one from the horde, he has always missed peanut butter and stated this. So these little bastards sat in this corner of the zoo and chattered around, foughting well. Others liked each other, tapped on each others shoulder, both of the same opinion: That chocolate was the most important and argued with those around who wanted more salt.
The zoo's director came his way and said:"You good monkeys from hut 3, we will mix the fodder a little differently soon, honey comes by the way also pure and I have more ideas cause I eat the same hazelnuts! But bear in mind, while disputing, there are a lot more animals in the zoo and it should taste them as good as you."
I went home at some time, probably these little rascals still argue about nothing than themselves.
Last edited:
But every player has paid for the game too. Well, most have, but we don't count the others in this.
Indeed. Some are "decisions" that folks want reversed or re-engineered and that is very very very unlikely to happen, if even possible at this stage.
Why do some continue to harp on things that have not changed, which by said lack of change to this point would be a clear indicator that it will not, or cannot, be changed to satisfy their request?
Same as a child asking Mom and Dad. "Are we there Yet!?" knowing full well they have not left their Homes garage...
Is this in some ways related to what I wrote?
Regarding autoexplore, I believe the devs will eventually understand it was a horrible design decision to tech gate this feature and will make it available from game start. Sectors will get a lot of rework - and it is exactly because of players responses and requests that they will.
Here is an example: ascensions were ethos gated until now, the Dev team decided to change direction in 1.8. Why? Because of player complaints.
I also wonder, why are there so many people who decide its their purpose to defend the honor of the devs? I mean, the devs seem to be doing it quite well on their own.
Well, take me for example, I've bought the game and nothing else. How many more people did the same? How much money Paradox lost because of this?
Unless complaining doesnt touch the parts of the gameplay that are important to me (look at some of my less-than-polite reactions to those who complained about PDX decision to increase and regulate crisis difficulty + acted as if their opinion is the only fair and objective point), I don't see a point.
I guess this is true, but it also depends on how far you'd want to go to improve it via mods
Your voice has equal weight to everyone else's then.
I'm casting no aspersions on your arguments. I don't have that much of an opinion one way or the other on the things you've been talking about.
I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument. If the analogy is of animals in a zoo, then paying customers are the animals, not just us forum goers and the more vocal people on Reddit/Steam.
Edit: If you wish to only play the base game then that is your right. Nobody is forcing you to buy a game you don't want to play. The devs' goal is to create content that we will want to buy, so they have the incentive to listen to their customers and judge which ideas would work well within the game.
They also, however, have to keep in mind that different people want different things out of the game. It's been mentioned before that some people want Vicky 2 in space, others want MoO: Stellaris, others want Endless Space, still others want more species packs to bling up their empire. The devs' job is to balance these wants so that the game sells well with all the demographics that they're aiming to please.
Last edited:
There's no flaw in my argument and I'll explain why.
When Blizzard released World of Warcraft the game was very casual unfriendly. Many people started complaining, but the active player base kept raising.
Using the reasoning of some people here, Blizzard shouldn't have changed anything.
But the people in Blizzard said: "Why don't we try to accomodate all the needs of our players, at least the biggest issues" and they reached 10 million active accounts...
Now the game is (too much) casual friendly and they made tons of money...
I don't see why Paradox shouldn't do the same, releasing different type of DLCs targetted to their different kind of players.
I agree. Well, I can only speak for myself, If they released more stuff I like, expanding the things I look for in these kind of games, the game wouldn't change a bit, their "vision" would be safe...
They would gain a buyer though.
I think the point is that we have infinite monkeys typing out suggestions and the devs' are trying to find Shakespeare in amongst it all, despite the fact that some of their customers don't like plays.
- Status