The State of the Meta

[MrFreake]

@Jorgen_CAB @Jiav please try to stay on topic and civil. Arguement will only result in having the thread close, which benefits nobody.

I posted this "for paradox's consideration", not so you guys could hijack the thread to vent your frustration at each other.

Thanks.

 

[tinculin]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, hence off topic.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

While I see this being a problem, I don't really care. Stellaris is so asymmetrical game it's impossible to both keep balanced for competitive multiplayer and retain its incredible roleplaying value. If you play Stellaris as a game of conquest, then of course every empire should be militarist xenophobic hellhole. That's just the best way to play if your goal is to subjugate all others. There's little that can be done to balance it, and that's the point: it's not some competitive e-sport. If it's played like that, you have to abandon large portion of mechanics because they aren't optimal for military conquest.

Anyways, what happens after this strategy is so widely known everyone uses it? Imagine attacking someone with your corvettes and finding out they've been doing the exactly same thing? I mean, it seems everyone should do this strategy if they're playing in a multiplayer game where goal is to kill everyone else.

I don't really care much, since I never play multiplayer games like that. Stellaris is just better to be played in a more sandbox way where victory is not win condition, but having fun experience for everyone. A bit more like dev clashes.

 

[KingAlamar]

I don't think this is a problem with the game or balance itself that can be "solved", you will just shift the problem elsewhere.

I would suggest using house rules that make these strategies less powerful, perhaps a minimum of 20 -40 year graze period where no one are allowed to attack anyone else for example.

The problem is that there are too many components of Stellaris that don't work when the game are treated as a competition between players with no role-play.

Another thing is randomized empires or restrict the game from certain civics.

The fact that players only choose militaristic empire types clearly show that the simplistic goals of such MP games and also mean that they can't be balanced through normal means.

Just some of my opinions.

I tend to agree. If you have friends that get into RP or at least are happy to follow house rules then that will likely result in a session that's more fun for everyone. It may cripple some early snowballing playstyles but it's an OK trade off if you're playing with friends / people that like to RP / etc.

As for the randomized empires and starting positions I think changes to the map generator to allow for something similar to CIV's "strategic balance" would be in order. Things like guaranteeing your X number of guaranteed starting worlds are within 2 hops, that you have similar mining / research base opportunities locally, and that you get guaranteed "close" strategic resources, you have similar rare planetary features, etc. While this wouldn't be perfect it would be a step in the right direction for those that want that sort of balance.

In general competitive MP terms though [no friends, no house rules, etc.] I'm not sure that I necessarily want things balanced so you couldn't possibly win through an early rush. Maybe you make it harder / more dangerous to do but I wouldn't want it totally eliminated. If this means that competitive MP is imbalanced then so be it.

 

[Bankipriel]

I think capital worlds are too easy to conquer, especially in early game. I suggested elsewhere on the forums the idea of a "capital world defense systems" modifier & buildings. It seems like it would also be a solution to this problem.

I think that home-worlds (and only home-worlds or capitals that have been established for a decent chunk of time) should have a planetary & empire unique defense system that damages enemy fleets in orbit. It should be strong enough to slowly but surely wreck a 20 ship corvette fleet long before said starter corvette fleet can bomb down the planet's ground forces. Forcing a significant ground invasion would help increase the economic burden on an invader by another big (for early game) EC upkeep on the troops. Also, warrior cultures and very strong races would actually have a real military advantage early game. And most importantly, coming up with the EC to support a large defense force would be far easier than the alloys needed for a large invasion fleet.

With enough ships, and a willingness to lose them in orbital engagements against an entrenched home-world, pure naval power should be able to destroy a world.

But conquering a world, controlling it, and taking its resources and populations should require a significant use of ground forces.

 

[MrFreake]

In general competitive MP terms though [no friends, no house rules, etc.] I'm not sure that I necessarily want things balanced so you couldn't possibly win through an early rush. Maybe you make it harder / more dangerous to do but I wouldn't want it totally eliminated. If this means that competitive MP is imbalanced then so be it.

Wow. This is what I said in the OP. Rushing is not the issue, lack of effective counter is the issue.

Thanks for agreeing with my OP, FINALLY

 

[Nakkivene]

I'm not terribly intrested in competitive stellaris MP, but I'd sure like better/cheaper defensive stations. Building massive defensive positions has always been the most fun for me in any strategy game.

 

[serpentskirt]

Cannot you take the harmony tradition for fire rate to fend baddies off? It gives more fire rate, then supremacy one, even to stations.

Or build some kind of mega bomb and blow up your homeworld to spite the attacker?

 

[AlanC9]

While I see this being a problem, I don't really care. Stellaris is so asymmetrical game it's impossible to both keep balanced for competitive multiplayer and retain its incredible roleplaying value. If you play Stellaris as a game of conquest, then of course every empire should be militarist xenophobic hellhole. That's just the best way to play if your goal is to subjugate all others. There's little that can be done to balance it, and that's the point: it's not some competitive e-sport. If it's played like that, you have to abandon large portion of mechanics because they aren't optimal for military conquest.

Hmmm...maybe. is there any game in the genre where an early rush doesn't turn out to be the preferred option? I remember furious debates in the SMAC community back in the day, but I don't remember what the upshot was. (I don't MP, so I didn't much care.)

OTOH, some games are worse than others. Stellaris starting defenses are relatively weak these days.

 

[AlanC9]

Cannot you take the harmony tradition for fire rate to fend baddies off? It gives more fire rate, then supremacy one, even to stations.

That option is three picks in, and the prereq picks are worthless in the early game.

 

[serpentskirt]

That option is three picks in, and the prereq picks are worthless in the early game.

What about picking Life-Seeded and spamming fortresses? Even if your pops are stolen, they are useless on other planets and actually will help to kill the attacker's economy.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Still... balance is good... but not all balance will make good use in all situations.

In SP you don't need perfect balance... AI will sort of Role-Play and so will most people as well in some form. If you play an exterminator you role-play that as well as a pacifist, xenophile.

It is OK for SP to have slightly unbalanced optional play, I would say it is desirable to have it that way.

It is no easier to exterminate everything as it is to force everyone into a giant federation through wars of ideologies if that what you want or play an inward perfectionist empire. In SP they are all more or less equally easy.

My argument is that the problem should be firstly fixed by house rules, not mixing with general game balance to counter such strategies. Not to say the game have its game balance issues, it has. I just don't find competitive MP as a good argument in and of itself.

 

[AlanC9]

What about picking Life-Seeded and spamming fortresses? Even if your pops are stolen, they are useless on other planets and actually will help to kill the attacker's economy.

A poison pill, eh? Interesting.

 

[Matoro_TBS]

What about picking Life-Seeded and spamming fortresses? Even if your pops are stolen, they are useless on other planets and actually will help to kill the attacker's economy.

These sort of "counters" have on flaw: they are basically just as restraining as the this OP tactic to begin with. You're better to just do more foundries and build a lot of corvettes. It's basically a doctrine of mutually assorted destruction. Only way to counter this tactic AND have a meaningful economy is to do exactly the same. Yeah, you could do niche stuff like life-seeded fort world, but that doesn't help you, it just hinders the enemy.

 

[serpentskirt]

A poison pill, eh? Interesting.

Sadly, repugnant is not lowering other species' happiness anymore. But yes, basically making yourself not interesting target.

These sort of "counters" have on flaw: they are basically just as restraining as the this OP tactic to begin with.

Well, that's at least one alternative, which is good, no?

Yeah, you could do niche stuff like life-seeded fort world, but that doesn't help you, it just hinders the enemy.

I had impression the attacker will collapse if he'll not win fast, no?

 

[KingAlamar]

Wow. This is what I said in the OP. Rushing is not the issue, lack of effective counter is the issue.

Thanks for agreeing with my OP, FINALLY

Warning: Personal opinion incoming ... not necessarily what's best for the game in general.

How's this. I agree that rushing isn't necessarily a problem. Perhaps the TYPE of rush is offensive to my personal tastes though.

For me I think Corvettes should be anti-pirate / commerce protection / light commerce raiding fleets and not good for much else. If, in effect, we made it non-viable to use corvettes to destroy [basic] starbases & conquering planets I'd be happy. At least waiting for Destroyer-level-tech before you're effectively eliminated from the game would be nice.

On the other hand I do fully embrace the idea of using early [Corvette] rushes to steal mining outpost output, trade output, etc. Maybe even outright piracy and the theft of civilian vessels would be fine by me.

TLDR: I'd prefer trading "early conquering / pop stealing" with more economic-based attacks. This could make things WORSE but I like the idea of ramping up threat and starting with piracy feels right to me. Once again this is just my opinion on what I'd like -- not necessarily what would make for a better game for the majority of players.

 

[Jiav]

What about picking Life-Seeded and spamming fortresses? Even if your pops are stolen, they are useless on other planets and actually will help to kill the attacker's economy.

One of the rush tactics actually involves picking life seeded as it can host all kinds of species and rushing rapidly gets you a 100 pop world 2015-2020 years into the game. Not to mention you get the 10% bonus production and high stability from it which also increases your alloy production.

Because how slow colonization and pop growth is under 2.2 compared to 2.1.4 colonizing your own worlds takes far too long and is far too expensive now. Simply stealing homeworld pops is much quicker and more effective.

Obviously this doesn't work against robots/hivemind but these you make a tribute out of.

 

[serpentskirt]

One of the rush tactics actually involves picking life seeded

Damn.

How about rushing science ships to establish galactic market ASAP and sell your entire species on slave market?

 

[Nakkivene]

I don't think salting one opponent just so that he doesn't win in a game with 10+ players is what people want to do with their time.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Another problem with countering this tactic is that it is a META gaming issue.

It is always mathematically more likely to succeed with the rushing strategy rather than countering it because the rusher can just pick the weakest link around them, the counter are very passive and locked into one direction.

This make almost any buff to counter this either too strong or inconsequential because there is always someone that will not do it properly and ruin it for everyone else who can do nothing about it.