• 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.

Archael90

Field Marshal
18 Badges
Nov 30, 2017
3.452
3.793
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Majesty 2
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
First i would like to ask, what weapons are You using in late game?
If someone said "mixed", or "depend on situation" i truly envy You this. Im doing this only for RPing, but if i have to, or not RP, im using energy weapons, with disruptors, cloud lightning, and arc emmiters especially.
Why? Because few things (Everyone who answered in previous question simmilary should already knows why):
1. Full penetration, which means enemies cannot be prepared for this, and their efforts to upgrade shields/armors are futile.
2. Repetables gives bonus to dmg output for those weapons, but there are no repetables for hull, which means only dmg is worth developing.
3. Repetables redistribution.... Even if i would love to concentrate on anything else, or want mixed weapons on my ships, there are only 4 repetables in physics, and 10 in engineering, which means that propability of developing energy weapon dmg is 100% each time, but developing kinetic dmg is at best 50%, which means energy weapon will be at least 2x better than kinetics/missiles/strikecrafts.
Someone may say that penetrating weapons are very weak, and without repetables they are almost uneffective.
And okay, i may give You that, but still in the endgame there is no better weapons, especially against high armor opponents like crisis, or Awakened empires.
And still, investing in energy weapon is still better. Most energy weapons are extremally weak against shields, so You have to use kinetics or missiles to destroy those shields before energy can destroy ship? Erm... No... (But even so, this would means that kinetics and missiles are just addons to energy), You can use Energy siphon, and Null Void Beam to destroy shields, and those are still energy weapons. More on that, there are some other things that can help - Pulsars are nullifing shields completly, meaning Youe energy weapons are even more powerfull, and starbase/titans have aura that reduce enemy shields by 20% which means You have to deliver only 80% dmg to destroy that shields, starting from 50%, only few repetables makes those weapons 100% effective against shielded opponents without using any addons.

Can we do something with that?
Of course we can!
I mean... Paradox can, and i hope they want to improve game experience for all players...
1. First thing is that fully penetrating weapons should not be a thing at all.
2.Second is weapons types should have their niche that can be achive only with that weampos but not other... so energy weapons generally good against shields, and kinetics good against armor (not other way), missiles with high dmg to everything, but should be able to be easly destroyed by PD. And strikecrafts should be generally good, but easly defeated by other strikecrafts, and PD.
3. Redistribute repetable techs, so in both physics, and engineering would be same amount of techs. You can explain it however You want, like matted compretion for armor bonus is physics, because it is not a new material, but other technology apllied to process of producing those materials. Strikecrafts, and defence platforms bonusses can be unified to two techs (one for strikecraft dmg, and speed, and one for defence platform dmg, and hull), also missiles dmg can be also transfer to physics, and thus we have 6 physics, and 6 engineering repetables.

You can leave this here and game will be much more fun to play, but i have few more suggestions, and i know that there are mods for this but mods are not vanilla game ;)
4. Starting weapons. We should be able to diversify our empires from others and choose our starting weapons, we would be able to research other weapons from research agreements with other empires (for pacifists and xenophiles) and from debries. I personally think that this would be much more fun, if we would have more diversity in game. In galaxy generation settings we should be able to choose one from 3 options:
a) Unlocked start - every empire start with weapons of their choice but can freely research other weapons types.
b) Locked start - Every empire start with weapons of their choice and can research other weapons by debries or research agreements with empires who started with different weapons.
c) Full Lock - Empires start with weapons of their choice but cannot research other weapons (in exception of genocidals empires) this way only powerfull federations would be able to equipped their ships with all weapons.
5. Weapons harvest from critters should be tagged as "Special" weapons that power would be upgraded by society repetables.
6. H, P, G weapon slots should be removed, all weapons should be able to be placed in all spots (S, M, L, without X and T, which would be special), that would allow to make fully specialized ships and fleets.
7. More weapons types. This mod Makes a very great work with this, making 4 main weapons types, and 2 different weapons within each type, and special weapons that are harvest from critters
7a, also ship styles have their own unique bonusses AND... sections :D Some styles have X slots on cruisers, some have H even on corvettes. And you empie can have only one of those ;)

Thanks for listening :D
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
#4 Was how things used to be before I want to say the 2.0 update

however there were...issues with the automatic ship design system

it almost always default to whatever weapon type you chose as a starter (i.e. kinetic, explosive, energy) even if a better option was available
 
#4 Was how things used to be before I want to say the 2.0 update

however there were...issues with the automatic ship design system

it almost always default to whatever weapon type you chose as a starter (i.e. kinetic, explosive, energy) even if a better option was available
And what is wrong with that? You can change this at any time, and this gives AI some uniqness
 
because unless you actively chose to alter your ships weapons they would ALWAYS be on their starting weapon type

and the ai is incredibly dumb (always has been)
Okay, your argument is that auto ship design with specialized weapon start is under-optimal, and AI do not change it?
 
Okay, your argument is that auto ship design with specialized weapon start is under-optimal, and AI do not change it?
Auto Ship design is under-optimal by default, but back then it was more so because the game took whatever weapon type you had/choose for your empire and stuck with it regardless of other (possibly better) options being available [it did upgrade to better versions of your tech...but that was about it]


Now auto ship design is still under-optimal but it at least tends to vary damage [often having a rough even mix of kinetic and energy...but rarely pulling on explosive as far as I have seen]


I can't say much on if the AI changed their ship designs in either case. I didn't even know that was a thing until rather recently so I never checked
 
Auto Ship design is under-optimal by default, but back then it was more so because the game took whatever weapon type you had/choose for your empire and stuck with it regardless of other (possibly better) options being available [it did upgrade to better versions of your tech...but that was about it]


Now auto ship design is still under-optimal but it at least tends to vary damage [often having a rough even mix of kinetic and energy...but rarely pulling on explosive as far as I have seen]


I can't say much on if the AI changed their ship designs in either case. I didn't even know that was a thing until rather recently so I never checked
So either way suto-design is suboptimal, and You have to manually changed designs, so what is the difference?
I can bet devs can do it the way it is now, regardless of weapons You will choose at empire creation.
Either way its not me nor You who should predict what ships designes AI will choose, its for devs.... so... what is wrong? Is it only being worried about something that would not happen, or You just dont like any ways to lock You on something even if you have option to not be locked?
 
also the auto design mixes 100% armor and shield penetration weapons into the mix of whatever it creates which is always a bad thing to do if you dont go with all weapons 100% penetration for armor and shield because any equal tech weapon would be a better choice.
 
also the auto design mixes 100% armor and shield penetration weapons into the mix of whatever it creates which is always a bad thing to do if you dont go with all weapons 100% penetration for armor and shield because any equal tech weapon would be a better choice.
Another argument for points 1-3 ;)
 
3. Redistribute repetable techs, so in both physics, and engineering would be same amount of techs. You can explain it however You want, like matted compretion for armor bonus is physics, because it is not a new material, but other technology apllied to process of producing those materials. Strikecrafts, and defence platforms bonusses can be unified to two techs (one for strikecraft dmg, and speed, and one for defence platform dmg, and hull), also missiles dmg can be also transfer to physics, and thus we have 6 physics, and 6 engineering repetables.
Of course we can alo redistribute those techs in different ways
like physics provides all weapons damage, starbase platforms dmg, energy from jobs and shields, but engineering have all weapons fire rates, platform hull, minerals form jobs and armor.
Or anything else, but the point is to equal physics with engineering (and society if we would get some other weapon types that depends on society research).
 
Refreshing, maybe now more people will answer, maybe devs will see it. Maybe something will change?
 
Refreshing, maybe now more people will answer, maybe devs will see it. Maybe something will change?
That's hard to say
devs I think do read suggestion forums but there comes about a problem, one I heard explained in a discord server

i won't name names of who said this, but it is a rough version of their statement on the subject of suggesting things for stellaris

"Anything you can think of to suggest for Stellaris, the devs have already likely thought of. And then determined it was impossible to add in at all, too difficult to add in due to various issues it would cause with the existing framework, or not be popular enough to warrant the addition."
 
That's hard to say
devs I think do read suggestion forums but there comes about a problem, one I heard explained in a discord server

i won't name names of who said this, but it is a rough version of their statement on the subject of suggesting things for stellaris

"Anything you can think of to suggest for Stellaris, the devs have already likely thought of. And then determined it was impossible to add in at all, too difficult to add in due to various issues it would cause with the existing framework, or not be popular enough to warrant the addition."
Its weird, and little silly statement, especially with words "anything" which is basically impossible. And "not be popular enough" especially with context of patches 1.9 (ftl removals), and 2.2 (economy changes). Also "impossible", and "too difficult" with context that modders could do it.
But I understand they needed any argument to silences angry people demanding their suggestion to be added.
I just would love to know if anyone just though about this, despite if they would add it or not. I hate silence.
 
refreshing, maybe someone would like to see some changes?
 
Its weird, and little silly statement, especially with words "anything" which is basically impossible. And "not be popular enough" especially with context of patches 1.9 (ftl removals), and 2.2 (economy changes). Also "impossible", and "too difficult" with context that modders could do it.
But I understand they needed any argument to silences angry people demanding their suggestion to be added.
I just would love to know if anyone just though about this, despite if they would add it or not. I hate silence.
Ok so let me go back to your first post and from what I know of various mods (or other info), I will try to answer your change suggestions

1) Modders have not touched this that I'm aware of, mainly because while those weapons have their uses, you can often get more damage out of other weapons with repeating tech even with the downsides

2) Modders haven't touched this because weapon combat used to actually be somewhat like this pre patch 2.0. I don't know why Paradox changed it, but clearly they had their reason

3) Not 100% sure what you mean here, but Paradox has tech lain out a specific way that clearly works [and as far as I'm aware has been like this since launch and if it ain't broke, don't fix it]

4) See #2. Effectively pre patch 2.0, you could choose your starting weapon type; lasers, kinetic, explosive. This was changed. and I doubt they'd go back to that after such a long time.

5) Why exactly? I mean most "critter" weapons are already labeled as rare tech. Changing the label and making it specific to a certain kind of research doesn't really make much sense. Each of these already fall under a specific tech tree...so what is the point of moving them all into a different tech tree?

6) No that's actually why those weapon slots exist. To make specialized ships/fleets. Removing those slots and just regulating that tech to fit in any slot would only complicate things.

7) No on so many levels of no. People already play the game in a meta vacuum as it is. By adding on bonuses or unique ship loadouts for each species would just make things worse than they already are. Not to mention that there isn't a default Machine ship set, so they'd be left out to dust until one could be added into the game [mods withstanding].
 
Updating ;)
Any thoughts?
 
Perhaps you should just make more techs and combine some of the old ones? Have a repeateable physics tech that gives you faster shield regen in and out of combat, and combine strike craft techs into one that gives 5% attack speed and 5% damage, simply called "improved strike craft". Change how shields work so that they automatically regenerate in combat, change how armor works so that it is damage reduction again, let's say with a formula like damage = (incoming damage)/[(Base Hull Points + Armor)/Base Hull Points)] to get a nice linear progression in survivability per point of armor. Also add Hull Point repeatable back in.

This way you can have geometric growth for both damage AND survivability.

Another thing one could add is to have evasion and tracking repeatables in the physics tree.

And then there's the option to just remove the nuclear missile line weapons completely; we already have torpedoes and we can divide those between energy and kinetic variants. Just give us faster access to torpedoes for the guided slot and they're back in the game, but will no longer clutter up the repeatable selection.

Also, to give you more control, have a rare tech that further increases our research alternatives by 1, and perhaps add 1 additional research option to technological ascendancy and research grants or something.