Its not question if they can, more like question if they want.
There are ideas to reduce lategame lag drastically, by simply removing pops from physical existance, yet pdx dont want such solutions, because they want that pops to exist.
- 1
Wish list for future Stellaris titles/expansions
- Thread starter hitchens
- 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.
There are ideas to reduce lategame lag drastically, by simply removing pops from physical existance, yet pdx dont want such solutions, because they want that pops to exist.
I do agree that everything is possible... but as you said will they actually do it... I don't think they will as it would take up too much time. I also think that doing any major changes to mechanics is not possible anymore from a political perspective.
Personally I hope that a Stellaris 2 become an actual GSG and not a GSG/4x hybrid. The main issue I have with most Paradox titles are the propensity to focus on MP. I like these games to be SP focuses first... but that is my opinion and my problem.
Last edited:
- 4
I think they should focus on SP aspect of the game with MP as additional feature (with co-op ability? Like two players controling one empire?). But it is also my opinion.
RolePlayers can play MP very well even if it is not balanced, but this is not competetive play.
- 3
I would agree with this and I like that type of MP as well even in a semi competitive environment with friends. A game being intentionally unbalanced is also more fun to play.
- 2
- 1
For some reason, Paradox balance EU4 based on multiplayer but I dont know if this is the case for Stellaris. In any case they should write single player campaigns for the more interesting empires.
- 1
Here are five of my whishlist points for Stellaris 2:
One vision:
A gameplay concept that covers all phases of a standard game and is fleshed out for at least 3 years, with no major overhauls every year. Here an example of the phases: Exploration > Meeting galactic neighbours > External diplomacy > Adjusting tech needs > Expansion > Border creation > Internal struggle > External pressure > Path to domination (doesn't have to be military).
Less is More:
Less mechanics but they are interconnected and not just detached gimmicks for one expansion. Less civics, traits, etc. but more meaningful: a few +10% are okay, the problem is when 90% of personalisation options are +5% modifiers.
Focus on Singleplayer:
Asymmetric gameplay/empires. Have different empires play differently: ones have strong exploration and get ahead early (but have other weak spots), others are a military power but are very unstable, etc. Internal politics are strongly needed.
Real choices:
When you can get all traditions, there is no real choice. Closing doors/choosing paths is not popular on surveys, because people think they want to be able to do everything, but it is an absolutely key mechanic for emotional engagement and added replay value.
High level Management:
Juggling scientists to get a 10% research bonus with every single path is not fun nor engaging nor does it feel like the usual task of a ruler of a galactic empire. Having no ledger available in the year 2200 to run a galactic empire seems like a massive oversight. Engaging in diplomacy, both external and internal, is the main task of a ruler. For it to be engaging, mechanically the diplomatic system needs layers, nuances and synergies.
One vision:
A gameplay concept that covers all phases of a standard game and is fleshed out for at least 3 years, with no major overhauls every year. Here an example of the phases: Exploration > Meeting galactic neighbours > External diplomacy > Adjusting tech needs > Expansion > Border creation > Internal struggle > External pressure > Path to domination (doesn't have to be military).
Less is More:
Less mechanics but they are interconnected and not just detached gimmicks for one expansion. Less civics, traits, etc. but more meaningful: a few +10% are okay, the problem is when 90% of personalisation options are +5% modifiers.
Focus on Singleplayer:
Asymmetric gameplay/empires. Have different empires play differently: ones have strong exploration and get ahead early (but have other weak spots), others are a military power but are very unstable, etc. Internal politics are strongly needed.
Real choices:
When you can get all traditions, there is no real choice. Closing doors/choosing paths is not popular on surveys, because people think they want to be able to do everything, but it is an absolutely key mechanic for emotional engagement and added replay value.
High level Management:
Juggling scientists to get a 10% research bonus with every single path is not fun nor engaging nor does it feel like the usual task of a ruler of a galactic empire. Having no ledger available in the year 2200 to run a galactic empire seems like a massive oversight. Engaging in diplomacy, both external and internal, is the main task of a ruler. For it to be engaging, mechanically the diplomatic system needs layers, nuances and synergies.
- 1
The whole mission system in EU4 is basically a campaign system for Singleplayer. In mp it is rare that you can get far into the mission tree, because you run into other players.
- 1
- 1
Internal politics that actually amount to something more than having faction giving some influence or not giving it if they don't endorse your rulership. Since I love to play authoritarian regimes, I'd like to use the army and the fleet to suppress the equal rights faction every now and then, instead of having always to conquer my neighbors.
Also I'd like the possibility to flesh out the state ideology and religion, something like the religion of CK3, to make actually empires different from each one beside their founder race when they share a similar ideology.
Another thing I would really like as a game mechanic would be adding more depth to the monarchy, having more possible heirs to select, the occasional popular brother that want to usurp the throne and things that spice a litte up the institution.
The possibility to play a resurgent precursor civilization that wants to put the upstart new species in their place.
The possibility to integrate the Federation members in your empire with peaceful means, of using cultural influence to change the ideology and religion of other states, pretty much waging cultural wars beside the regular ones.
And I like to see implemented a simplified systems for the pops: for example, when a planet has reached the max population, instead of creating more pops on said planet, that have to be resettled manually, the excess population should translate in a faster population growth for that species on colonies, to simulate the migration from overpopulated worlds to new ones, without player involvement every single time. After all, if a species has a free migratory policy, citizens should take advantage of the free land, better jobs and so on if available.
Also I'd like the possibility to flesh out the state ideology and religion, something like the religion of CK3, to make actually empires different from each one beside their founder race when they share a similar ideology.
Another thing I would really like as a game mechanic would be adding more depth to the monarchy, having more possible heirs to select, the occasional popular brother that want to usurp the throne and things that spice a litte up the institution.
The possibility to play a resurgent precursor civilization that wants to put the upstart new species in their place.
The possibility to integrate the Federation members in your empire with peaceful means, of using cultural influence to change the ideology and religion of other states, pretty much waging cultural wars beside the regular ones.
And I like to see implemented a simplified systems for the pops: for example, when a planet has reached the max population, instead of creating more pops on said planet, that have to be resettled manually, the excess population should translate in a faster population growth for that species on colonies, to simulate the migration from overpopulated worlds to new ones, without player involvement every single time. After all, if a species has a free migratory policy, citizens should take advantage of the free land, better jobs and so on if available.
Last edited:
- 1
Yes, the mission system that's true. But overall balance is based on multiplayer.
- 1