"Why don't they just put it in as an option that you can turn on and off?"

[Philthy]

I see this question on dozens of threads from slavery, to tech trades, to religion, to any number of other parts of the game.

I would like us to all agree to stop asking for this. Unless it's a feature that's specifically meant to unbalance the game (like an "easy" or "hard" difficulty such as implemented in EU 4 as AI or Player bonuses) adding options to turn things on and off that would seriously affect gameplay is a bad idea for three main reasons.

1. Ballance
- The developers spend a lot of time trying to make sure that things are relatively balanced for the release. Because the symmetrical starts are being designed for from the beginning, balancing against any binary on/off decision that could seriously alter the game makes it not only hard to keep their mental calculations straight, but also risks opening a can of worms to partially enable features down the road. Especially when certain on/off decisions affect particular builds more than others, this changes the balance of the game in a way that's almost always going to be a negative.

2. Developer time
- Though they code with the might of Thor, the Devs are only human (okay, maybe demi-gods) who have limited time in the day. We all want this game in May. We want it to be good. Adding in the Q/A time to make sure that this on/off choice at the start of game doesn't break something else is not something we should want them to mess with. They're pouring their hearts and souls into the game which brings me to my last point.

3. We have one game
- As many things as we can do with Stellaris, there will always be features, systems, explorations of ideas and strategies that aren't going to happen in the game. The joy of the game is working within limitations and making the stories that come out of those rules and restrictions. Being able to toggle key gameplay features in some cases is essentially asking for entirely different games to cater to your particular wants. Stellaris will not be all things to all people, but it's going to be a darn fine game.

So can we agree to not ask for an on/off option for things?

 

[Alexander Seil]

I gather you don't want the optional DLC, either?

 

[Nyrael]

I gather you don't want the optional DLC, either?

It depends on how optional it is: most DLC features are actually made free and "forced" through the patches for the exact same reasons that the OP mentioned.

Making everything and their grandmas optional is not as simple as way too many people here think it is.

 

[Sarog]

Paid DLC mechanics (as opposed to patch content) are likely to work on an on/off basis anyway. Just on/off in the launcher instead of the options menu.

 

[Arkangilos]

There are a few things making it optional does work for. For example: ship designing. They have implemented the ability to auto-design your ships. Some players think ALL ship design should be auto-designed. In response, I say add a box that before the game starts will grey out the ship design, then everyone is forced to auto design it.

Since auto-design is already a feature, I feel it is a legitimate argument.

 

[Alexander Seil]

It depends on how optional it is: most DLC features are actually made free and "forced" through the patches for the exact same reasons that the OP mentioned.

Making everything and their grandmas optional is not as simple as way too many people here think it is.

My point is not that Paradox should or should not do it. My point is that Paradox already does it.

The problem with many requests for options, however, is that they request anti-features (i.e., "optional" tactical combat) that would necessarily ruin the game experience. The DLC also has the potential to ruin gameplay, but it's usually due to lack of testing and gets fixed pretty quickly.

 

[HandicapdHippo]

I gather you don't want the optional DLC, either?

Considering the problems DLC features can cause when not properly thought out, i.e. retinues in CK2 and how paradox says they should have been part of the patch I would actually prefer as many mechanics where in the patch and the actual paid DLC is more stuff like events.

 

[Fonz]

Paradox should put in an on/off option for on/off options so nobody would complain

Serious note though, people should really understand that coding isn't really as simple as

thingCanDo = true;
If (button clicked){
thingCanDo = false;
}

You can't just mix and match parts like a Lego set. I'm pretty sure when they designed the game they didn't intend for every single mechanic being able to be removed at a whim. The logic is probably interconnected and one thing probably affects 20 million other and anything short of completely revamping the whole code can't make it so I want A and not B. So technically we CAN have on/off options, as long as you're willing to send Paradox a million dollars a month to cover the studio costs and delay the game for another year

 

[Grivies97]

I see this question on dozens of threads from slavery, to tech trades, to religion, to any number of other parts of the game.

I would like us to all agree to stop asking for this. Unless it's a feature that's specifically meant to unbalance the game (like an "easy" or "hard" difficulty such as implemented in EU 4 as AI or Player bonuses) adding options to turn things on and off that would seriously affect gameplay is a bad idea for three main reasons.

1. Ballance
- The developers spend a lot of time trying to make sure that things are relatively balanced for the release. Because the symmetrical starts are being designed for from the beginning, balancing against any binary on/off decision that could seriously alter the game makes it not only hard to keep their mental calculations straight, but also risks opening a can of worms to partially enable features down the road. Especially when certain on/off decisions affect particular builds more than others, this changes the balance of the game in a way that's almost always going to be a negative.

2. Developer time
- Though they code with the might of Thor, the Devs are only human (okay, maybe demi-gods) who have limited time in the day. We all want this game in May. We want it to be good. Adding in the Q/A time to make sure that this on/off choice at the start of game doesn't break something else is not something we should want them to mess with. They're pouring their hearts and souls into the game which brings me to my last point.

3. We have one game
- As many things as we can do with Stellaris, there will always be features, systems, explorations of ideas and strategies that aren't going to happen in the game. The joy of the game is working within limitations and making the stories that come out of those rules and restrictions. Being able to toggle key gameplay features in some cases is essentially asking for entirely different games to cater to your particular wants. Stellaris will not be all things to all people, but it's going to be a darn fine game.

So can we agree to not ask for an on/off option for things?

100% Agree. If all those 'On/Off' Switches would actually make it into the game, I assume that the setup-menue might soon look like this:

 

[EntropyAvatar]

It's interesting to think of what exactly it is that divides a feature that could be optional from one that must be one way for developer-sanity purposes.

I guess that one ripe areas for DLC options is something that already has multiple options in the game: extra ship models, extra technologies, race images, events, disasters, etc.

On the other hand, adding options where there is only one thing in the base game can be more dicey, since the assumption that it only works one way could be built into a lot of parts of the code. So going from one economic system to two would be a huge amount of work. In most games, adding a different FTL mechanism would be a lot of work, but since Stellaris already has three or four, it's not as bad.

 

[Oscot]

So can we agree to not ask for an on/off option for things?

If Stellaris were a rail shooter this would be a legitimate argument.

It isn't.

 

[Texas_Jack]

There are a few things making it optional does work for. For example: ship designing. They have implemented the ability to auto-design your ships. Some players think ALL ship design should be auto-designed. In response, I say add a box that before the game starts will grey out the ship design, then everyone is forced to auto design it.

Since auto-design is already a feature, I feel it is a legitimate argument.

So the game auto designs ships already, and allows you to modify these or make your own. Can't you just not design or modify your own ships? I mean, with the auto generation, you don't need to go in an modify anything, right?

 

[Xerberus]

There are a few things making it optional does work for. For example: ship designing. They have implemented the ability to auto-design your ships. Some players think ALL ship design should be auto-designed. In response, I say add a box that before the game starts will grey out the ship design, then everyone is forced to auto design it.

Since auto-design is already a feature, I feel it is a legitimate argument.

why? it is part of the game and an interesting feature! i highly doubt that wars are gonna be won singlehandedly by someone having slightly different designs. also its like removing the colony management aspect of the game just because some people might be better at optimizing their economy! heck, why not also fully automate research....some people might make smarter decisions...just lol!

 

[Elderotter]

I see this question on dozens of threads from slavery, to tech trades, to religion, to any number of other parts of the game.

I would like us to all agree to stop asking for this. Unless it's a feature that's specifically meant to unbalance the game (like an "easy" or "hard" difficulty such as implemented in EU 4 as AI or Player bonuses) adding options to turn things on and off that would seriously affect gameplay is a bad idea for three main reasons.

1. Ballance
- The developers spend a lot of time trying to make sure that things are relatively balanced for the release. Because the symmetrical starts are being designed for from the beginning, balancing against any binary on/off decision that could seriously alter the game makes it not only hard to keep their mental calculations straight, but also risks opening a can of worms to partially enable features down the road. Especially when certain on/off decisions affect particular builds more than others, this changes the balance of the game in a way that's almost always going to be a negative.

2. Developer time
- Though they code with the might of Thor, the Devs are only human (okay, maybe demi-gods) who have limited time in the day. We all want this game in May. We want it to be good. Adding in the Q/A time to make sure that this on/off choice at the start of game doesn't break something else is not something we should want them to mess with. They're pouring their hearts and souls into the game which brings me to my last point.

3. We have one game
- As many things as we can do with Stellaris, there will always be features, systems, explorations of ideas and strategies that aren't going to happen in the game. The joy of the game is working within limitations and making the stories that come out of those rules and restrictions. Being able to toggle key gameplay features in some cases is essentially asking for entirely different games to cater to your particular wants. Stellaris will not be all things to all people, but it's going to be a darn fine game.

So can we agree to not ask for an on/off option for things?

no

 

[Smiles_]

The only necessary on and off is for the game itself.


Smiles

 

[KonradKurze202]

If Stellaris were a rail shooter this would be a legitimate argument.

It isn't.

Your argument is flawed.

 

[Amor_Fati]

The only necessary on and off is for the game itself.


Smiles

I don't see a reason to turn the game off.

 

[NekomimiMaiden]

I don't see a reason to turn the game off.

So you can update it with new DLC before playing it another 1,000 hours, obviously.