Once I figured out how to write my own mods. It makes a huge difference to be able to just tweak the numbers on something unbalanced or remove an unwanted mechanic (*cough* habitats *cough*). For the base game: most of my hours are from 2.7/2.8, but I feel that the game got much better at some point between 3.2 (when I took a ~year long break) and 3.6 (when I came back).
When did Stellaris get really good?
- Thread starter Hyomoto
- 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.
I love increasing tech costs, but I hate increasing tradition costs. Traditions feel like they have a certain pacing to them (+1 extra pop when colonising needs to be grabbed before you stop colonising) that breaks down if tradition costs get too high.
As for when Stellaris got really good... Somewhere around when the Custodians started, I'd guess.
- 3
- 1
I compensate for this by 1, my first building is a burocenter, and 2 my first colony (the only guaranteed habitable planet) is a buro world.
- 2
Stellaris is arguably in the best state it's ever been, sure there's some minor annoyances, but overall it's been on an upwards curve since federations.
That update is when bugfixing and performance became a major priority, and the game has pretty consistently improved since then.
They promised to fix their mess, and they delivered.
I still think moving away from tiles was a mistake, but they've easily taken the game to the point where I would say the performance increases of 1.9 aren't worth losing all of the new stuff.
That update is when bugfixing and performance became a major priority, and the game has pretty consistently improved since then.
They promised to fix their mess, and they delivered.
I still think moving away from tiles was a mistake, but they've easily taken the game to the point where I would say the performance increases of 1.9 aren't worth losing all of the new stuff.
- 3
I don't think there's one good answer.
When Stellaris was released, we had few space 4X, especially ones that tried to reinvent the genre. There was Endless Space 1, which had some great qualities (interface, music, empire design) but still a lot of limitations. Stellaris came with dynamic storytelling, dynamic empires (they even used to change names when they changed ethics!), mixing new ideas with already known concepts in exciting ways.
We tend to forget that Stellaris was released with a lot of features that just created something completely new that revived the whole genre. The slaver freedom faction, Fallen Empires, Primitives Civs, FTL types, Tile-based planetary management, ethics and governement systems may look trivial or even obsolete today, but when Stellaris was released it was massive.
It's true that some people did complain about the lack of content and balance at release, but you could already feel the potential. It's quite funny btw, we were a lot to think that factions and planet types were going to be a big deal, but that's not really what happened.
Of course different people started to play at different times, and started to enjoy Stellaris at different times. Personally I have fond memories in most updates. Actually, I was quite disappointed in leviathans and the associated update, but my worst memory is probably the AI empire starvation bug. I can't remember when exactly it happened, but I remember that it happened together with a huge Quality Assurance crisis. Issues like that were starting to pile up, until they finally created the Custodians team.
So if I had to pinpoint when Stellaris became so good, I'd probably say after the creation of the Custodians, simply because it improved the game so much on the long term. But Stellaris just gradually became better along the years.
When Stellaris was released, we had few space 4X, especially ones that tried to reinvent the genre. There was Endless Space 1, which had some great qualities (interface, music, empire design) but still a lot of limitations. Stellaris came with dynamic storytelling, dynamic empires (they even used to change names when they changed ethics!), mixing new ideas with already known concepts in exciting ways.
We tend to forget that Stellaris was released with a lot of features that just created something completely new that revived the whole genre. The slaver freedom faction, Fallen Empires, Primitives Civs, FTL types, Tile-based planetary management, ethics and governement systems may look trivial or even obsolete today, but when Stellaris was released it was massive.
It's true that some people did complain about the lack of content and balance at release, but you could already feel the potential. It's quite funny btw, we were a lot to think that factions and planet types were going to be a big deal, but that's not really what happened.
Of course different people started to play at different times, and started to enjoy Stellaris at different times. Personally I have fond memories in most updates. Actually, I was quite disappointed in leviathans and the associated update, but my worst memory is probably the AI empire starvation bug. I can't remember when exactly it happened, but I remember that it happened together with a huge Quality Assurance crisis. Issues like that were starting to pile up, until they finally created the Custodians team.
So if I had to pinpoint when Stellaris became so good, I'd probably say after the creation of the Custodians, simply because it improved the game so much on the long term. But Stellaris just gradually became better along the years.
- 1
This is one of those things that ... shouldn't surprise me, but my 5x revelation did. Like, I've played with low habitable worlds and reduced pop growth which I enjoy, but didn't really "make or break" the experience. It felt a little more manageable, but the same. I've even played with up to 2.5 tech costs and it's weird how *this* one change suddenly shaped the experience so positively.
I agree with you and maybe it shows why not just *having* these settings is so important, but maybe even some kind of way to know what kind of effect they'll have would be nice.
Yeah, changing the settings makes it blatantly obvious how the game is balanced around the baseline. But simple changes aren't just easy fixes. Because the other stuff still growing like populations makes things weird.
I really wish the base settings were WAY slower, like 3 or 4 times slower.
Leviathans was super fun, utopia was a revolution, while the economy update was the worst thing to have happened; it indeed took the custodians to fix all the "micromess-ment", with a bunch of improvements to AI. My most recent blast was Toxoids, played lots of runs with different Overtuned hive variants. In fact I was inspired to test countless Gestalt empire combinations, machines and hives, until I found out my new favorite: normal machines Resource Consolidation with laboratory/energy district spam (+energy edict).
- 1
The "baseline" IS unbalanced. It's unplayably bad. Playing Stellaris with default settings means you'll spend the vast majority of the game researching repeatable techs while snowballing endlessly past the other empires, and defeat any crisis or awakened empire instantly.
Increasing tech costs doesn't really help, since it throws everything else out of whack.
The correct way to set up a Stellaris game is to change the victory year from 2500 to 2400, and bring the other dates forward roughly proportionally(I prefer 2275/2325/2400). This solves pretty much all issues. The AI remains a challenge for most of the game, you're researching real technologies for most of the game, and fallen empires/midgame/endgame crises are all threatening, both to you and to the AI. Moreover, it gets rid of "endgame lag" problems and curbs the ever-increasing micromanagement. It also makes it much more likely you'll actually finish the game - usually, the game is over as soon as the crisis is defeated.
- 1
Findig the best settings for you is difficult, game settings, civ traits, origin, and then player knowledge, player gamestyle-this includes what He/she considers exploit, cheesy so decides to avoid- all have huge impact on the difficulty and thus the experience. Not to mention luck
I always thought it was good.
Current Stellaris is way better than Day 1 Stellaris, but Day 1 Stellaris was still pretty good.
For one thing, there aren’t many games that fills the space grand strategy niche, so even when Stellaris was in a rough spot, it had the luxury of being basically the only game that does what it does.
I was very happy when they removed the tile system, though. While the current system has its downsides, I felt getting rid of that system was a great step forward. All of their “controversial” decisions have ultimately ended up being good for the game minus some nitpicks about specific numbers. Even the recent fleet rework is better than the old meta, even if I don’t think frigates were a necessary addition.
So yeah, it’s always felt like a good game and I can’t say I’ve ever hated a new addition or the direction the game has taken, even though I think some additions are better/worse than others.
Current Stellaris is way better than Day 1 Stellaris, but Day 1 Stellaris was still pretty good.
For one thing, there aren’t many games that fills the space grand strategy niche, so even when Stellaris was in a rough spot, it had the luxury of being basically the only game that does what it does.
I was very happy when they removed the tile system, though. While the current system has its downsides, I felt getting rid of that system was a great step forward. All of their “controversial” decisions have ultimately ended up being good for the game minus some nitpicks about specific numbers. Even the recent fleet rework is better than the old meta, even if I don’t think frigates were a necessary addition.
So yeah, it’s always felt like a good game and I can’t say I’ve ever hated a new addition or the direction the game has taken, even though I think some additions are better/worse than others.
Totally agreed with OP - I would expand this by saying that generally, I've found that the game massively benefits from slowing down certain things massively.
Back in the early days, I made a mod that decreased all weapon damage to 5%. With battles taking way longer, it was finally possible to pin enemy fleets in place and using smaller fleets in actual strategic fleet movements made sense. In other words: there actually was a front line, and wars would actually feel like a tug-of-war, not like a game of high-speed whack-a-mole. Thematically, it just felt way more like something epic like Wing Commander or Star Wars, because even small fleets served a strategic purpose instead of getting immediately roflstomped.
Back in the early days, I made a mod that decreased all weapon damage to 5%. With battles taking way longer, it was finally possible to pin enemy fleets in place and using smaller fleets in actual strategic fleet movements made sense. In other words: there actually was a front line, and wars would actually feel like a tug-of-war, not like a game of high-speed whack-a-mole. Thematically, it just felt way more like something epic like Wing Commander or Star Wars, because even small fleets served a strategic purpose instead of getting immediately roflstomped.
- 2
But to be honest, i cannot point the time when stellaris get good. It was great from the begining, just needing some small changes. Tho i can point the time when Stellaris stopped being good, it was patch 1.9. And yes, lot of improvements happened since then, and if only core game would not be changed, it would be now perfect or near perfect, at least for me (starting weapons, and weapon system, different ftl types, tiles. All those should stay, but with some improvements from past 1.9).
Utopia.
PS: And then the second time it crossed that border after the 2.0 setback when the AI building system changed to target certain goals which made it a notably better.
PS: And then the second time it crossed that border after the 2.0 setback when the AI building system changed to target certain goals which made it a notably better.
- 1
I definitely agree with people here that the Custodian initiative felt like a major inflection point.
- 2
Makes me wonder if the other Paradox teams are taking notes. I sorta stopped playing them after Stellaris got good so haven't paid attention.
I want to give this a try. What do you increase the mid game and end game dates to?
1.93 was really good. Most of 2.X was broken, tons of stuff didn't work, the AI was garbage, etc... It became really good again after 3.
since it's a 4x increase I tend to increase 200 years in both, sometimes 300
- 1
As a follow-up, I just finished playing against the crisis. I had fun, will probably try to finish out this game still since I feel like I can. This is one the few times I've bothered to play late game. Still, it did brought up some problems in the crisis which might just agree with what @monsterfurby posted.
The crisis spawns and is too powerful. Okay, it stomps all over the universe. Too weak? Gets trounced immediately. The former seems like what the developers intended since you could get the Council together, get a custodian and defense fleet going, focus on the crisis... But this would take years before a galactic response could fully form. In my game these moves were being made but the awakened Empire looked over, saw the crisis, and decided "well, I do have these 650k fleets lying around." Then proceeded to steamroll over the crisis. So I basically got to see both sides: a weak galaxy stomped by the crisis, and then a superior Empire defeat it with no trouble.
It seems like so many systems come alive when the game is slowed down I can see slowing down combat having a similar effect. I mean, fights don't often last long enough for you to reinforce them or allow allied fleets to show up. Even my defense against the contingency was being double over my cap and constantly refreshing ships, but this was to fight individual battles. These systems exist, but because battles tend to be fought in large, decisive actions as one big fleet trawls across enemy lands soaking up stations, many of these systems don't have time to become apparent. This might even help fix ground combat to some degree since orbiting fleets could be harassed, making a ground invasion at least worth considering.
It's kind of off-topic but after reading monster's comment and reflecting on my most recent game (with paragon DLC), I think its Stellaris' pacing that is out of whack and slowing down certain systems really highlights many systems that otherwise don't get proper *time* to show their merits. I don't know if 5% is my answer, but given my 5x revelation I would like to see 5x battle lengths. I think I would also like that.
The crisis spawns and is too powerful. Okay, it stomps all over the universe. Too weak? Gets trounced immediately. The former seems like what the developers intended since you could get the Council together, get a custodian and defense fleet going, focus on the crisis... But this would take years before a galactic response could fully form. In my game these moves were being made but the awakened Empire looked over, saw the crisis, and decided "well, I do have these 650k fleets lying around." Then proceeded to steamroll over the crisis. So I basically got to see both sides: a weak galaxy stomped by the crisis, and then a superior Empire defeat it with no trouble.
It seems like so many systems come alive when the game is slowed down I can see slowing down combat having a similar effect. I mean, fights don't often last long enough for you to reinforce them or allow allied fleets to show up. Even my defense against the contingency was being double over my cap and constantly refreshing ships, but this was to fight individual battles. These systems exist, but because battles tend to be fought in large, decisive actions as one big fleet trawls across enemy lands soaking up stations, many of these systems don't have time to become apparent. This might even help fix ground combat to some degree since orbiting fleets could be harassed, making a ground invasion at least worth considering.
It's kind of off-topic but after reading monster's comment and reflecting on my most recent game (with paragon DLC), I think its Stellaris' pacing that is out of whack and slowing down certain systems really highlights many systems that otherwise don't get proper *time* to show their merits. I don't know if 5% is my answer, but given my 5x revelation I would like to see 5x battle lengths. I think I would also like that.
- 1