Where are the combat changes in the upcoming patch???

[Optimus prime]

Hello,

I must say that i am disappointed with the "combat patch notes". One of the main problems of stellaris is the (only) doomstack tactic and the balance of several parts of the combat in the game. I am hoping since release that these problems will be fixed.
I like the fact that Paradox is working so hard on Stellaris and it shows me that the game was worth to buy, but the main problem still remains after this patch and it will take several months before the next patch and with it the next possibility to solve the problem appears.

1. The only thing that will be changed in this patch are missiles, but without a mechanic of fixing the overshoot problem they will still be useless in late game. Buffing the speed and damage helps in the beginning where small fleets engage each other but not in late game where several 10k fleets attack. Solution: missiles will search for another target after they miss or a better targeting AI that will spread targets more intelligent between all enemy ships.

Then there are other bigger problems:

2. Defense structures are useless in late game. What sense has a fortress of maybe 4k strength against a fleet of 100.000? It can not even destroy one ship before it is destroyed. They can be used as a magnet for fleets but thats it. Why not just remove their min distance they can be placed to each other? It makes no sense to me to have this. Structures cost upkeep and are immobile. No one will spam they and they will not make fleets redundant.

3. Doomstack will still be the only option. It has been discussed in dozens of threads that it is a big problem but nothing in the patch notes addresses this problem. Why? It is nearly a game breaker and should be fixed with high priority. One solution could be to reduce fleet speeds (galactic speed not combat speed) a lot. RIght now u can reach too many stars in a short moment. You can attack for a minute and be back in base for defense in a short moment later. That is unrealistic and makes doom stacks the perfect tactic. One fleet for all because you simply can do it.

4. There is no way to eleminate an orbital fleet. That means that when u have lost all space ports and the enemy is orbiting each planet with just one ship you can have the best economy, there is still no way to come back to the game. Give us orbital cannons or the possibility to build smaller ships on planets directly.

5. (personal wish) Combat speeds in general should last longer the bigger the fights are. This is not the case in stellaris because of blobbing, no weapon clipping and rate of damage vs. HP. Weapons should not increase faster than defense possibilities (shield and armor).

6. More tactical ship designs. I want to set the optimal combat range for each ship class individually. Also it makes no sense for any ship to engage closer than its shortest weapon range. There should also be options for ships to attack at longest weapon range and circle around its target. Instead there is only "engage as fast as possible" and "engage slowly". That makes no sense at all to me..

I hope that a developer will answer to this thread. I love this game and want to play it but everytime I play it in multiplayer the combat feels wrong in so many aspects that it hurts me to see this game suffer from it .

 

[Promethian]

You care a lot about this subject but apparently not enough to follow the devs comments on these things.

To summarize: They are working on it. The Utopia patch has been focused on improving empire mechanics so it will have minimal combat changes.

 

[Optimus prime]

You care a lot about this subject but apparently not enough to follow the devs comments on these things.

To summarize: They are working on it. The Utopia patch has been focused on improving empire mechanics so it will have minimal combat changes.

For me some of these points are bugs and should be fixed asap no matter what focus the patch has.

 

[henzington]

I would argue that number 4 is just poor play if you get to that point. That's is the equivalent of being carpet sieged in eu4 and you probably screwed up well before this point.

 

[Alblaka]

For me some of these points are bugs and should be fixed asap no matter what focus the patch has.

Yeah, but you are not Wiz.

It's a shame tho, because I fully agree that, I personally, would rather have fixed the whole warfare thing before adding new megastructure gimmicks. Especially because the issue was known way before Utopia was going in-depth, meaning they COULD have altered their design-direction to accommodate warfare and focus less on utopian features.

To me, it really comes down to what the next patch (1.6) brings. If they don't bother investing effort into fixing warfare by then, I'll probably stop supporting Stellaris on the assumption that Wiz can't get his priorities straight.

 

[Bankipriel]

I think you touch upon a lot of very valid & significant concerns.

However, to cast aside the upcoming changes as insignificant, misrepresents how incredibly impactful some of them will be upon the state of war in Stellaris.

The two that struck me as most significant are:

1) the blockading of planets will no longer contribute to war-score

2) the modification of war-score contribution by conquered war-goals and empire size.

While I agree with much of your post, and think that what you're bringing up are issues of concern, we actually got a lot of lovin' from the devs. They addressed warfare in huge ways given that this update did not, as you pointed out, deal with updating the combat systems.

Also, given that the devs have stated repeatedly that they are working on a major update for combat and ground-combat in the future, what they've given us in 1.5 really addresses (and imo fixes) several of the largest non-ship-to-ship-combat problems that were ruining warfare in this game.

I haven't actually fired the game up in months, because I couldn't even enjoy the state of game-play in 1.4, so I totally hear you if you feel like the game is still unplayable due to problems with combat.

I wasn't very hopeful about the future of this game, but the devs seem to have reworked core mechanics with this update, and that gives me hope that with patience, we might actually see all of the other large, core-mechanic problems addressed ... eventually.

 

[B3ndolf]

wiz specifically stated that the missile fixes were a bandaid while they work on the underlying problems with them such as overkill since those problems were much more complicated and difficult to resolve.

 

[Kayden_II]

As far as I know, They are concentrating on 1 big Issue in each Major-Patch - V1.5 was the One of Having some Sort of Internal Politics via Factions ...
They are working now on a Bug-Fix-/ and UI-Patch (V1.6) ...

Maybe, V1.7 is the One for Combat or Warfare in General - But, There are other Candidates, like deeper Federation-Stuff, too.

Edit:

2. Defense structures are useless in late game.
Why not just remove their min distance they can be placed to each other?

That's a good One, but You have to terminate all "Aura"-Effects since They would overlap with each Other, Which could end as an Exploit or a too over-powered Defence.

 

[mathers]

Yeah, but you are not Wiz.

It's a shame tho, because I fully agree that, I personally, would rather have fixed the whole warfare thing before adding new megastructure gimmicks. Especially because the issue was known way before Utopia was going in-depth, meaning they COULD have altered their design-direction to accommodate warfare and focus less on utopian features.

To me, it really comes down to what the next patch (1.6) brings. If they don't bother investing effort into fixing warfare by then, I'll probably stop supporting Stellaris on the assumption that Wiz can't get his priorities straight.

I am not sure If whatever perfectly balanced warfare they were adding would make the game more enjoyable. If you want to play tactical warfare go play hoi.
Mid game was boring and utopia appears to be able to fix that. Job well done.

The fact that some weapon like missiles is not balanced? They probably not in real life either.

Maybe only from the openers list doomstack should be adressed by introduction of attrition due to fleet size. Or minimal distance between ships/efficiency changes. In a fleet of 100 ship not all 100 can engage the shame without risk of collision with own, or influencing other own ships by own shields or weapons.

 

[Optimus prime]

As far as I know, They are concentrating on 1 big Issue in each Major-Patch - V1.5 was the One of Having some Sort of Internal Politics via Factions ...
They are working now on a Bug-Fix-/ and UI-Patch (V1.6) ...

Maybe, V1.7 is the One for Combat or Warfare in General - But, There are other Candidates, like deeper Federation-Stuff, too.

Then they should really think about their priority list. All friends i know who play Stellaris are waiting for combat changes like me. Combat is necessary to win in Stellaris and it is one of the core aspects of the game. At least 1/3 of the technologies are for combat.

 

[mathers]

Then they should really think about their priority list. All friends i know who play Stellaris are waiting for combat changes like me. Combat is necessary to win in Stellaris and it is one of the core aspects of the game. At least 1/3 of the technologies are for combat.

What is win?
What is win in EUIV?
What is win in CK?
As you said already 1/3 of tech is combat related. It is too much detail in combat not too few.

 

[Alblaka]

I am not sure If whatever perfectly balanced warfare they were adding would make the game more enjoyable. If you want to play tactical warfare go play hoi.
Mid game was boring and utopia appears to be able to fix that. Job well done.

Do I get this right. You are saying 'if they add a perfect system, it's not going to make the game more enjoyable'?
I... honestly, I'm struggling to even come up with the words to explain how that assumption is THIS contradictionary in itself.

The fact that some weapon like missiles is not balanced? They probably not in real life either.

Alright, so you say it's completely fine to add mechanics to a game that are completely imbalanced, cause struggles for AI and new players not knowing they are imbalanced, simply because 'in real life x isnt powerful either'.
Completely besides the point that we don't have lasers or even space ships in first place, much less any kind of experience in how missiles were to perform in space warfare, and ignoring the fact that realism always comes second to gameplay anyways (People will, ALWAYS enjoy a good game with zero realism over a super-realistic game with zero good gameplay),
how can anyone, ever, say that having a broken mechanic in a game is fine? If we add 'Gun' to Rock/Paper/Scissors and say that Gun always beats everything else, except going Draw with itself, you cannot possibly claim that's fine.


But at least I don't need to be worried that the devs share your oppinion, since Wiz pretty clearly stated he thinks warfare is somewhat broken and needs a rework, but merely decided to priorize Utopia (for the mid-game extension reasons you validly mentioned).

 

[mathers]

Do I get this right. You are saying 'if they add a perfect system, it's not going to make the game more enjoyable'?

My point is: If there is a perfect rock paper scissor between various weapons then they become identical.
In my book it were totally fine that missiles had early game advantage and became gradually worse by endgame. IMHO the early rockets shoudl be strengthened a bit (Probably in alpha damage) and balance would be fine.

Only warfare related pain is doomstack that can be solved by introducing some fleet cap/attrition/efficiency as it is in every pdx game. It is realistic since 100 ship cannot be all 100% efficient when fighting.

If doomstack is fixed then that solves the static defense problem by itself.

 

[Alblaka]

My point is: If there is a perfect rock paper scissor between various weapons then they become identical.

Having identical weapons means they are perfectly balanced.
This doesn't imply having perfectly balanced weapons always means they are identical.

You can, and should, and hopefully will, still have varied weapons to chose from, which have their own advantages and disadvantages and promote certain playstyles or tactics on a macro-level decision layer (aka empire-wide). If that is done proper, and there's no 'always pick X because best' situation (which is currently the clear case with KinArtillery+Plasma+ShieldCapa), you have both balance AND interesting decisions.
Right now, the only reason ever to deviate from the vastly powerful combo afromentioned is if you want to RP and are THAT far ahead it doesn't even matter what kind of garbage you were to design, and still win.

In my book it were totally fine that missiles had early game advantage and became gradually worse by endgame.

You do realize that Missiles had no early-game advantage and a Kinetic corvette fleet of same cost/size will always murder a missile-based fleet?
The only 'early game advantage' missiles have is that they are just bad, not completely useless, before you get access to PD destroyers.

 

[Optimus prime]

What is win?
What is win in EUIV?
What is win in CK?
As you said already 1/3 of tech is combat related. It is too much detail in combat not too few.

So you say that because a huge part of the game contains combat mechanics they shall NOT fix or improve the part of the game because it is already a too big bart of the game???? Really???
You are not really asking what win means in Stellaris, right?

Your arguements are totally strange. Not just the one i quoted but also all the others as Alblaka said.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

For me some of these points are bugs and should be fixed asap no matter what focus the patch has.

Not a one of your six complaints are bugs.

The closest thing to a bug in there is number 1, and that's not really a bug either, it's a change you'd like in the intended design.

 

[General Retreat]

That's a good One, but You have to terminate all "Aura"-Effects since They would overlap with each Other, Which could end as an Exploit or a too over-powered Defence.

Wouldn't actually make a difference. The way the auras are designed, you can only have one positive and one negative effect in place at a time. So as an example, a fortress that debuffs the enemy's shield regen and fire rate would only actually modify the fire rate because that supersedes the shield suppression. The exception to this is minefields which can stack.

But yeah, if you're facing a doomstack, fortresses can be ridiculously useful. Because of their puny combat score, enemy fleets will target them last over any other hostile fleet targets that are nearby, which means the station is free to provide that enormous fire rate gimp through the whole fight and potentially tip the balance.

 

[Optimus prime]

Not a one of your six complaints are bugs.

The closest thing to a bug in there is number 1, and that's not really a bug either, it's a change you'd like in the intended design.

A bug is not just an error in the code. It is a conflict with the design requirement and the actual software.
Because we both dont know the requirements we sure can not 100% tell what are bugs and not.
But for example I suppose, that one requirement is that the best defense structure technology available in the game should be useful for the whole game. If that is not the case it is a bug in the software.

 

[T-Duke]

I couldn't agree more with the op, every point

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

A bug is not just an error in the code. It is a conflict with the design requirement and the actual software.
Because we both dont know the requirements we sure can not 100% tell what are bugs and not.

Well, I actually think I disagree with that definition but if that's the definition you're using.

For me some of these points are bugs and should be fixed asap no matter what focus the patch has.

It makes what you said nonsensical. "For me some of these are bugs" would require that there be separate design requirements for you. There aren't, the developers set the design requirements and you know that because your next sentence is to admit you don't know what the design requirements are and to assume I don't either.

I guess you might have meant "I believe some of these are bugs" but then we get back to you establishing a definition of bug that makes justifying that belief impossible. I guess you don't need to be able to justify your belief to form it, maybe you know in your gut that these are bugs? But I'm afraid that's not going to have any persuasive power with anyone who disagrees with your gut and certainly isn't going to be enough to justify them giving your pet peeves priority.

What you probably meant was something more along the lines of...

Then they should really think about their priority list. All friends i know who play Stellaris are waiting for combat changes like me. Combat is necessary to win in Stellaris and it is one of the core aspects of the game. At least 1/3 of the technologies are for combat.

Which is by far the better argument. If only because it's honest. And in response to this argument, I'm sorry the developers disagreed with you. Better luck next time.