271
Other Games / Re: Stellaris: Paradox Interactive IN SPACE
« on: January 03, 2018, 04:33:31 pm »They are already overhauling a ton of stuff, and your reaction is 'they aren't doing enough'? They kinda have to get an update out at some point.The game has been out - not in development or early access, but actually out - for more than a year and a half. If they've taken this long to address a system that's clearly inadequate, they might as well take the time to do it right instead of replacing a system fit only to be a stopgap placeholder with an incrementally improved stopgap placeholder.
Games are so often under a continuous development state and the definitions of early access and released are so stretched at this point that I'm of the opinion games are not finished anymore, there's just a point where the developers stop working on it. As such, your argument here really doesn't work on me.
Quote
QuoteJust look at how much was opened up by just limiting things to hyperlanes.Are you sure you shouldn't look yourself, instead of being told? Wiz has reasons, yes, but they break down if you examine them while thinking critically and considering what has been done well in other games. There's more justification there than just pulling a feature because he decided it wasn't worth building new UI for a mechanic that very clearly needs help anyway, but it's still pretty damn questionable whether it's a good decision.
I've played games of warp, hyperlane, and wormhole, and of them all, hyperlane provides the most strategic play with fortifying. Other two just boil down into fortify home systems, with wormholes addiing a basic fortify systems with your stations. Hyperlanes, by contrast, allow for you to build up layers of fortifications that you know they actually have to go through and deal with in order to reach your systems, and the switch to require you to go over to the jump point that really could only be done with hyperlanes just allows for these static defenses to be more effective. Sure they could have programmed in something that would make the defense in depth viable for warp and wormhole, but given those were already increasing lag and doing that would increase it much further, the limited paths just make more sense.
Quote
QuoteAnd looking at the other reactions, was there really a point to keeping the old army system as it stood? Hell, this one could potentially be expanded to a greater degree of customization with the potential addition of different fortress paths to provide defensive armies with different focuses, with one type going for quantity provided, another for boosting damage, another for boosting health, and those latter two could be split into specializing in different ways (ie. one expands morale more than health which can be useful for fighting off psi empires) while being a hell of a lot more condensed than it would be on an army screen.Please feel free to explain how these are mutually exclusive with attachments, particularly on assault armies.
Sure they probably could have kept around attachments, but upgrading a building is quite simply easier to find and it would be two clicks for five armies rather than having to perform a ton of clinks on each army to do the same thing that as evidenced most don't focus on. Could be an argument for bringing them back for assault armies, I can admit.
Quote
QuoteIt is stated in the Dev diary that there will be multiple tiers of fortress. If each increases the amount of unity, then why would you not build them instead of autochation monuments? Granted, if you are playing Spiritualist it is slightly more of a tradeoff, but still.It's also stated that they give a small amount. That being the case, why would you prefer them over dedicated unity buildings if you don't need the defense?
If it doesn't give you an equal amount of unity, then its a tradeoff based on whether you want defense or more unity. I don't see any problem with that.
Collateral damage is moist, and I approve wholly, I just don't think it goes nearly far enough but I can fix that with modding (I remember suggesting a long while back how cool it would be for psionics to win with barely any collateral damage, while xenomorphs consumed everyone).
As for how limited it is, I think they initially want to see how things go with this baseline change before they really go nuts with it. I personally await planetside defenses that cause attrition to enemy ships in orbit so long as they have a population on them.
Quote
Armageddon bombing finally does what it says on the tin, I have no idea why the hell they got rid of full bombardment or locked indiscriminate to >5.
From what I can tell, full doesn't prevent the destruction of all the buildings, it just prevents the destruction of the last five populations. Basically consider the difference as being that Armageddon seeks to kill everyone while Indiscriminate misses some people as it focuses on the buildings.
The issue remains that defending a planet is altogether impossible and pointless once the war in the void is lost, I was really hoping that armies would instead have to fight tile to tile, and some planet terrains would actually affect how the campaign unfolded. There isn't really any reason why you'd want to build more Fortresses for non-rp reasons rather than build more industry to construct more ships. Oh wait lol, you get penalized for outnumbering the enemy, nvm. Build more tech instead.
Get enough defensive armies on a planet with an FTL inhibitor, you could lock down an enemy fleet in one system for months to years.
And FFS, the bonus to outnumbered isn't enough to win battles, all it does is get the smaller side able to get a little bit more damage in than before and would help out an empire that gets screwed by the RNG to be able to do something against a larger force.




























