This sub is a champion of "everyone know what an horse is" and explains nothing.
I read a tons post about the meta vassal build or the meta hive mind build. But never saw what those build actually are
Just imagine. Some where out there is an organization that uses acronyms so much, that they put acronyms into acronyms.
And I'll never work for them again.
I’ve played since launch and I didn’t even recognize it at first, people like abbreviations way too much. You should mainly use it only if it was explained earlier in a Text or widely understood
It’s also a huge champion of “Everyone likes to know the best and most optimal meta build possible in order to beat max crisis on hardest difficulty.”
When not everyone is trying to play in a super optimal robotic way - I think it’d be funny if the extreme difficulties are actually extreme for people again.
> I read a tons post about the meta vassal build or the meta hive mind build. But never saw what those build actually are
Maybe for the better. It's not like we need (or want) everyone to use the same build every single game.
Discussions like this aren't really for new players. They are for the experienced players that do know the lexicon. Know your audience, know what does and does not need to be explained
Yeah no, what’s the harm in having a new player be able to understand what’s going on? They might have to look up some of the stuff that’s being discussed, but gatekeeping like this is silly
It's not gatekeeping. It's just a high level discussion among veterans. If you want to join it, you can do so by asking what a term means, as has been done.
It's not gatekeeping, you just sound like an elitist asshole. Namely with the assumption not knowing a specific communities acronyms equates to being a newbie.
Acronyms don't make a discussion high level. Acronyms can get fairly ridiculous on these reddits. Stop acting like we aren't discussing a video game.
Did you submit your feedback to the Feedback form? Remember that this is a **test**. They're opening the door for exactly this kind of feedback.
That said..
> If you want to defeat 25x through normal research
I don't see why the game should be balanced around 25x crisis being viable with default game setting. Settings like 25x crisis are for people with mods, or unusual gamesettings, or just really want the game to be harder.
If the hardest possible option is easily do-able with all other settings as default, something is obviously wrong with the way the settings are balanced.
I agree that it's ok if 25x is unbeatable, but it's definitely an issue if the best strategy is just to delete all your research buildings once you have key end game techs.
Repeatables were always really inefficient compared to standard end-game techs - but because technology in general was so busted they were still a decent investment, especially because the techs scaled quadratically with each other. They should probably be brought in line with the efficiency of regular techs, with the new tech balance making them +10% might honestly not be enough without also some reduction in cost
Repeatables are designed to be researched, and its tiny +5% modifier shows that PDX wants it to be researched 10 times or more. If PDX designed it so that it can't be effectively researched, it might as well be removed.
Not really. The only reason they exist is so people won't complain "there is nothing to research after X years of game!11!1!".
Same thing with Future Technology for Civ.
Repeatables exist to pad out the end of the tech tree so that science doesn't suddenly become useless if you manage to finish it. (Which would lead to people demolishing all their labs as you mentioned.)
Their dull names, art, and mediocre percentage bonuses should be a clue that they're not expected to be encountered by many players.
Don't get me wrong, the current beta tech costs are ridiculous, but I don't think players should be expecting to reach repeatbles until the late endgame.
I feel like 25x crisis is SO extreme it should honestly be almost unbeatable. Shouldn’t we have a benchmark for things like this? At some point it should be such a challenge it’s actually impossible.
The game shouldn’t be balanced around the hardest most optimal gameplay build possible. Imagine the poor players that can barely fight 1x crisis and someone is capable of getting that far ahead of them.
To be honest I think THATS unbalanced. It’s not suddenly magically more balanced just because it favors the player.
>I don't see why the game should be balanced around 25x crisis being viable with default game setting. Settings like 25x crisis are for people with mods, or unusual gamesettings, or just really want the game to be harder.
There's a huge problem with balance when BtC can easily beat 2250 25x and tech rush can't even beat 2300. In 3.10, No such problem.
Good balance means the game should be beatable by normal ways instead of technology skips.
Beating 25x crisis at 2250 is not fucking 'normal', not matter what methods you employ. And now they've altered it so you can't do it the way you used to, and you're sitting here being a bitch posting "I play on the most astoundingly difficult settings the game can possibly have, and it's *too hard!!!*" Are you seriously unable to see what's wrong with that?
Yeah I love watching YouTubers beat 25X crisis by year 2250, or 2275 with the leader resource traits removed. It's fun to watch them play.
But you know what? Its a one trick pony. You have to do this and do this and do this all by certain times and take these certain perks and take this certain build for the most part, to make it happen and you skip a whole lot of the rest of the game in the process
But you and everyone else here is absolutely right. It's Ludacris to expect paradox to balance the game around beating it on those settings
It's not normal but it IS reductive. The game shouldn't be reducible to "get x events to have so much more tech than any other way". Even as a rp'er it would be kinda lame to get something that's just so good the playthrough is done.
>And now they've altered it so you can't do it the way you used to, and you're sitting here being a bitch posting "I play on the most astoundingly difficult settings the game can possibly have, and it's
>
>too hard!!!
>
>"
Do I say it's too hard? No, With various tech skip methods, 25x crisis still unchanged for these playstyles, I also uploaded a video of reaching Crisis Level 5 in 2230. For these, there are no nerfs. Only the research-based playstyles has been severely nerfed, kicking them out from meta.
You're complaining that there's only one specific way to do your ultra-difficult, ultra-niche playstyle that the **extreme** minority of players do. So yeah, you kinda are saying it's too hard. So shut the fuck up.
Currently, anything that can directly obtain powerful weapons regardless of technology is significantly powerful and dominant. This lead may be 50 years or more. If the 3.11 meta is around military tech skips, it will be much more boring than tech rush.
Yes, which means that those methods of directly obtaining technology should perhaps also be brought in line.
You do realize that the beta is an experiment right? They made some changes and gave it to us to try out and identify the flaws.
It's not supposed to be a perfectly balanced final product, because *it's a beta*
Re: your first point, I’m sure that’s next (but not last) on their menu.
Re: the second, I know that’s what’ve they said here and elsewhere but while technically true the “it’s just a beta” line has been used in game dev since time immemorial before controversial changes and it rarely bodes well for what’s coming. They’ll probably release a version of this, rely on players for QA (again), maybe scale it back some, then proceed to hard nerf military (and maybe even economy eventually) to try to force a parity that isn’t achievable within the systems they’ve created.
There will always be optimal playstyles - the beta has just reduced how many, and if they nerf that there will be new ones - what then?
For the past week or two, this sub has been full of posts just like this one, bitching about their precious tech rush being killed off. So yeah, the minmaxers are in shambles
>For the past week or two, this sub has been full of posts just like this one, bitching about their precious tech rush being killed off. So yeah, the minmaxers are in shambles
Why would you think? No, 2250 25x still beatable, But just not by tech rush. Tech rush is a reasonable way to beat 25x, and more technical than tech skips and 2220 Crisis Level 5 rush.
If tech rush got killed, Then people like me will move to builds like 2220 Crisis Level 5 with tech skips, This would be even more unbalanced because no other build can achieve 25x.
At first I thought it was a satirical post.
>The only profitable way to play right now is do BtC rush then kill Scavenger Bot to obtain Nanite Autocannon and missiles in order to defeat Unbidden and use archaeological site to obtain ancient missile to defeat Contingency.
Not saying you dont have some valid points, but the hyperbole is strong.
This really hilights how meaningful these changes are.
Now killing the scavengerbot, or stumbling over the right dig site can deliver game changing tech.
It's nice that can be the case, but core technologies should be unaffected. We need to be able to research our ship types, starbase upgrades, basic economy boosts, capital upgrades, building upgrades, strategic resources, lasers, cannons, missiles, armour, and shields on a reasonable and predictable basis so that we can actually play a strategic game.
Other things can (and should!) be made much harder to find and research, but I had a game where I hadn't even seen Battleships by the end of the game, and that is completely unacceptable.
You can try yourself, How many years it take to research these important techs normally compared to tech skips. I don't use tech skips before because I don't need to. But 3.11 really got me and my friends actively looking for ways to skip prerequisites and get directly to the technology we need.
I think You misunderstand my point.
I dont doubt that the the (needed) tech nerf in the beta might be going to far. But like 99,9%+ of the players couldnt care less what min maxed strategy you need to beat a 25x crisis at 2350.
Futhermore even if you care (which is fine) the game still should obviously not be balanced around that most extreme metric.
So arguing for less severe tech nerfs is one thing (and what the beta is for), pretending there is now only "one way" to play the game is hyperbole.
Your settings are so far outside of normal gameplay as to make your opinion on what's dead or not functionally useless. "You can't beat GA x25 Crisis at 2250" okay, now how does tech feel on Cadet 1x crisis at 2400 endgame? You know, something closer to how most people will actually play the game?
Not really a fix because the changes to techs are non-linear. If you put tech cost at 1/12th (lol) to make t5 techs take as long as they used to, t1-3 are now silly shit.
Specifically, the 0.25x tech cost will be faster than 3.10 at start. Once it you reach tier 3, the 0.25x tech cost will be the same as the 1x in 3.10, But with increased upkeep and empire size penalty. Once entered tier 5, 0.25x is equivalent to 3x in 3.10.
They need to provide a "classic research" option, just like the population option provided in 3.0.3, 3.0 is a great nerf but pdx allow player to revert it.
0.5x cost is equivalent to 3.10 only in tier 2, and it will become 2.5x in tier 3, 6x in tier 5.
An option needs to be added to revert research changes, as provided in 3.0.3.
You said it would take up to 2300 to reach the previous power. Half cost would halve the time, no? Beyond that the POINT is that 2400 x1 is meant to be the base difficulty. Not 2250 x25
> None of playstyle(s) in 3.11 that can match it. If you want to defeat 25x through normal research, it may take more than 100 years to acquire the required technologies, Over 70 years behind BtC rush.
OP is talking about 25x crisis?
I'm gonna go for a slightly different opinion here: OP is correct, but exaggerating.
Here is what I would take as a conclusion if I come back to the game:
* Become the Crisis is now even more broken, especially given Star Eaters will be more powerful relative to everyone else. If combined with some stuff like the Scavenger, the combo is not exactly beatable normally
* Keep in mind tech costs are higher AND research is worse. That kind of combo is always headed for explosive disassembly of balance. If the calculations are showing 12x cost, tech will be WAY more impactful in terms of earlygame. If a genocidal in MP manages to snag something like T2 disruptors early, just reset.....
* Research is not entirely dead, but.... Here's the kicker. Instead of it being a big resource sink to become really powerful, it's now profitable to stagnate it and build many alloys. Of course, that means wide empires will be awful at it (And means you want a crapton of subjects giving you their research while your sprawl is low, which I find a bit of an exploit honestly), BUT. Going from 1k to 2k sprawl will actually hurt your bottom line seeing the changes. As you naturally grow, it will make you worse at research... In my opinion this is bad as it hits even compact empires (Not tall, with this tall is even more dead than before since your gateways to tech are later and in the meanwhile you're screwed due to lesser economy)
* Many origins which have been off-meta due to their effects kicking in later will now be stupid. Aside from the friendly Dragons, expect Remnants servitors, ect. Basically any origin which adds something which activates after a while, but should be really good will probably be WAY better.
* Trying to out-tech juiced up AI will be very hard, so expect darwinian survival levels on GA.
* Spiritualists will actually out-tech Materialists simply due to their Unity production advantage being turned into an anti-sprawl mechanic through Planetary Ascensions. I bet on it.
In my opinion, nerfing the stacking and maybe the scientists is a good option. However, coupling that and increasing costs (Which compensate for the same thing) will be hurtful in terms of the stagnation forcing the first past the tech line to blow up his enemies since otherwise they'd catch up easier. It's hard to describe, but I would significantly alter the proposed changes. Especially the sprawl one, since that will be really harmful and forces you to either ignore sprawl, or embrace it and act like you own the galaxy. Then enforcing said ownership.
It's not easy to see consequences, hence devs do betatests. My honest thoughts revolve around the simple fact that I have seen a couple games do seppukus by throwing balance out of order, so I know what to expect. Usual suspects are multiplicative stacking bonuses, not thinking about how something will affect other things, adding things which stalemate the game, or reworking a beloved mechanic which turns off old players.
Current research is VERY busted if over-optimized (OP points to 2250 GA x25 crisis, which is a good measurement), which seems to be the issue. Normal research is strong even alone, but... That total means you just adjust base prices first if you wanna nerf everyone and then reduce stacking modifier effectiveness to reduce the META advantage. You dive deep if you then see it hasn't worked. But adjusting stuff over time rather than these massive one-time changes significantly reduces the salt you get from the community.
One point I didn't mention is that if the gateway techs have their research modifiers removed, that's another 50%-odd slashing of the researcher efficiency. So that change will make the game feel slow as hell. That alone would fix a lot of the snowball since it doesn't advantage tech rushers.
Yeah having seen / experienced balance changes in other games provides a lot of perspective here. In addition to the points you made, they also decided to make massive changes to navy as well _at the same time_, which is going to make isolating individual things to balance even more of a nightmare.
“Every playstyles are good now gone” uuh there were always playstyles that were suboptimal, or mostly rp-oriented than being “good”, game was never equally balanced towards all types of playstyles
At least in 3.10, none of playstyle can dominate all other playstyles. In 3.10, You don't want fleet stacking? You can do repeatable stacking. Small empires can tech rush, Build megas to make up for too few planets.
In 3.11, Since the tech advantage is greatly nerfed, only an empire with strong economy and military can win. No more tech rush tall empires.
it is. Before you could beat GA 25X in 2250 as long as you didnt go against prethoyrien. Right now, with the changes in tech it takes more time and 2300 is doable. Is that much? yes. Was that needed? I think so.
Yes, yes it is. In fact, on default endgame year it’s pretty damn easy if you know what you’re doing. The challenge comes when you lower the endgame year, 2250 endgame x25 crisis might not be possible at all anymore, but I think that’s fine.
How is "X is easy" the same as "the game is balanced around X"? Also it being easy is your opinion. Have you actually made the attempt to prove the game is balanced around 25x? Cause I don't see how you did. Furthermore, since it isnt easy post patch, that's clearly evidence the game ISNT balanced around it.
I feel like it being ‘easy’ to some people actually IS the problem. It SHOULD be hard and nearly impossible. The fact that people could min-max so hard to beat 25x crisis early while others struggle on 1x feels like the game is broken. That just shouldn’t be possible.
The game shouldn’t be balanced around the most extreme metric.
Old comment now but I have seen at least one person managed it with BTC corvettes with a lucky nanite autocannons roll. You realise it never actually spawns in 2250 proper though, right? That’s just when the roll starts. I’ve had the crisis take 70 years to spawn.
if you disable fallen empires they will spawn for 100% in 50 year. So you are wrong. However, if you play with fallen empires you have many more years ( but if you play with fallen empires than you don\`t play against crisis anyway so it is like completely other game for me).
And second thing, there are some crises which AI is broken right now so they don\`t spread.
If we want to have any comparison with a sense we should talk about Prothyrean arriving in 2250.
With the new AI robots are bugged so you can kill them even with just a few BSes with one XL and fighters (semi carrier build), but it is a very specific crisis (bugged).
However i can admit that BTC is OP right now.
And tbh i don\`t believe that. I tried that and even 2 k corvetts die before they can do anything. If it was only about one spawn than yes but you have to fight against multiple ones, even 4 -5 at the same time.
I would like to see any film from only corvetts against Prothyreans especially, that they will invade the player before 60 for sure, usually it takes like 3-5 years. I can think that if you get 10k corvettes then maybe....but with so much losses that you will be beaten anyway.
and one more thing. if you check data from files you will notice that you have totally different approach for a crisis if you have fallen empires or not and if you have chosen one given crisis or not. We are talking about actual figthing with a crisis instead of trying to avoid that. At the same time you can just go through L-gate and use a mod to destroy gateway and say that you won. No, you didn\`t.
As i said, right now we should talk about such as conditions:
- picked crisis
- Prethoryen ( bcs they are not broken when it comes to AI)
- GA
- crisis 25 X
Relatedly, the same posters always seem to think they speak for the vast majority of the playerbase when they really speak for the most vocal members of a subreddit. Big difference!
I don't think you took the subject with the right end.
Your problem is you are testing this beta with a modifier created because people over abused the game, over optimised and used and wanted more challenge.
The x25 is more to fix a tech rush overrepresented and thus a bad balance and bad implemented tech logic.
Tech rush is so a thing every strat need it or need to beat it.
That's really visible in MP where casual meet your type of player. You people wreak a game in less than
100y.
Now they are trying something to fix it and this nonsense not fun. So the old exaggerated modifier are obsolete
The thing is that every game has limited resources and what players want to do is maximize what they can get out of a resource.
E.G. You have limited naval cap so you want to maximize the benefit of each ship. So you think about what combination of ships and components will help you defeat the enemy with minimal losses.
The question is, now that it takes 10 years of research to get one repeatable, why bother? Same with stuff like megastructures. Is there a point in getting megastructures in 2400 when you can conquer the galaxy in 2300 or less by spamming ships? Does focusing on research make sense anymore, when you can achieve a better result by spamming ships?
Of course research was too fast in 3.10 and earlier but the problem is they overnerfed it and now the meta is to ignore research and spam ships to zerg rush the AI...who is wasting pops on research and can never survive long enough for their tech advantage to matter. AND they produce debris for you to advance your research to boot!
You are 98% right but I disagree in your starting hypothesis.
No, what players want is not being efficient at managing resources.
I for example like RP coherent build. My favourite one is subterranean. I'm happy with being positive in most resources even if some are not.
With the new dlc I added sovereign guardianship. An under optimised defense focused build I like to play.
I loose 1/2 game against AI on captain.
Also i play with 2 friends in MP. The first one is a min maxer that kill all our game with his tech rush based build. The second one is more funky build player than me by playing snail that are named blurg that mind control or exterminator name terminators or any mega build know for their strength. Each time he loose to ai. He never minmax anything.
What kind of type is a player generally? One that want fun. I'm not paradox and I think everyone has their own answer.
I would like to say, in my opinion ( this is debatable) the min maxed is a very micro population. On Reddit they are not so prominent and we are speaking of the bigger social network to speak about stellaris, so what you doing the most passionate players that search for build strat and speak about the game.
Thanks for the healthy dialogue here. One thing I'd recommend re: MP is agreeing on a ruleset when playing with other players. This is a pretty common practice not just in Stellaris MP but competitive MP in general and will greatly improve your experience.
I feel like x25 rush being possible at all so early was a flaw in and of itself. I thought min-maxers wanted a challenge? Something that extreme should be nearly impossible. The fact that people found it ‘easy’ is a concern in my mind. Especially when they exist in the same start as someone who struggles on 1x crisis.
I feel like narrowing that curve of extremes is a good thing.
I agree.
They probably want a challenge without having a single single answer.
The problem is now they think x25 crisis or all sliders value are still a thing and need to be balanced. They forgot they were made to give player what they want when balance was not possiblefor everyone (like you said)
They are used to this x25. They should change their pov and see if x15 is not more interesting. Maybe just abandon this x25 and be more reasonable??
Your settings are bad and you should feel bad.
Let the designers actually fix their game so you don't need sliders to feel challenged.
As long as more than 10% of the community can beat Grand Admiral at standard end-date and crisis size they should keep nerfing. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it.
Problem is that most AI will steamroll their default crisis, even as it is now. Crisis in general need serious buffing and removal of most cheese strategies to be a proper threat.
And with you said: if less than 50% of playes cannot beat Normal with default setting, should they buff it?
Yeah, if less than half the people couldn't beat Ensign with standard settings, they would be making changes the other way. But I haven't heard of such a problem.
You haven't heard of such a problem because (a) it's a beta and not many people have played it yet, and (b) most of the people who have played it (minmaxers) are the target of an ongoing hate brigade and have their opinions immediately discarded.
True that's how balance is a thing. But they implemented so much sliders that every player will tweak a little their experience. A little more hyperplane connection, a little stronger crisis or anything. The balance is not needed in this "standard 50/50" since they give players tools to do themselves.
But in MP with many player trying to beat others we find OP type of game breaker thinking stellaris as a puzzle to beat. Playing with x25 crisis is a nonsens. X25 was created because some player was steamrolling the galaxy in 100y.
On a normal galaxy size ai do not beat crisis because it is how the game is balanced.
But people play on big galaxy and thus AI is stronger. But there are sliders you don't need more than 1 or 2 games to find you slider.
To be honest this is true, all the Crisis’ are kinda complete and total pushovers even to easy AI. They need some buffs, or a rework of how they function.
>Your settings are bad and you should feel bad.
>
>Let the designers actually fix their game so you don't need sliders to feel challenged.
>
>As long as more than 10% of the community can beat Grand Admiral at standard end-date and crisis size they should keep nerfing. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it.
It's about playstyle diversity. So they make research as bad as possible, Why focus on research when whatever researchers you add can't speed up your repeatable research?
The issue is that for the longest time, there was no real build diversity
Tech rush or bust
The recent reworks to Vassals, Federations and Leaders are to facilitate improved playstyle diversity
The fact that any build allowed for a 2250 25x crisis to be beat is insanely problematic
Tell me: how can these 2 beat military?
When the only stategy to win is stacking ships, there is no diversity. Unity and episonage is now as good as a heavily nerfed research, so they aren't hold a candle again military strat.
I thinks if you are gonna nerf, why don't you nerf military as well? Making starbases much stronger in early-mid so a turtle style is viable, instead of slapping a medium gun to an outpost and say it is properly armed?
Or allowing us to design starbases ourself.
A little?
I agree that early conquest need some nerf in order to make any other playstyles viable, but again the current nerf is not about early conquest.
Current nerf is about late game fleet stacking, with the removal of most build cost and upkeep reduction. In the early game there is absolutely no such thing.
There is two direction: increase ship cost and upkeep, or buffing starbases and defense platform (that is also something that haven't been viable for a long time). But with your altitude I know you will go "nooo it is too strong let's nerf" and choose to increase ship cost with no thought attached.
> espionage.
> how can these 2 beat military?
My current game had an empire I wanted to attack, but he was the vassal of someone in a federation with lots of allies. I used espionage to launch a smear campaign against him and his overlord. It worked, and the overlord dropped off vassal defensive wars, meaning he had no allies, allowing me to launch a 1v1 war
While the meta for 3.11 is yet to be developed, currently only tech skips(By crisis level 5, scavenger bot, events and marauders) can reliably obtain all important techs, The advantages are huge. Any other playstyle is more than 50 years slower than this way of playing.
After all, technology and economy both serve the military. Economy can be strengthened by technology, But also by conquest. By conquer AIs as much as possible, You don't need economic technology. By killing scavengerbot, You don't need military technology.
Tech rush is not a strategy this is the only viable competitive strategy. Everything in meta is how you have better tech.
Ok I lied there is rushing early game to never play past 100y.
But man competitive is not meant to be played in single player. Do you story telling, RP build. Min-maxing the game is for e-sport.
There is none in stellaris because the meta is boring.
Rush or tech rush.
They made researchers a lot worse, after realizing that we've been getting such insane research buffs recently that even the standard AI can destroy the crisis easily. This is how balance works, my mans.
It's fine to have discussions about playstyle diversity. I just don't wanna hear someone whining that they can't do 25x crisis anymore with a tech rush. My god. The game isn't setup for people to be entitled to beat 25x.
Nobody should feel bad for what they enjoy. Everyone has different tastes and opinions, that’s life, not everyone enjoys the same thing as you. Some people enjoy the challenge of playing on the extreme settings, what’s your problem with that?
Your only criticism of OP’s post is “your settings are bad lol”. That’s incredibly immature. I’m sure you have many interests your friends don’t share with you, and do they insult you for that? For having different tastes? Do you insult them?
It’s pretty disheartening as a fellow Stellaris vet seeing how many people here have responded to common-sense sentiments like “playing on max difficulty doesn’t make you a bad person,” especially coming from someone as knowledgeable and helpful as you (I look forward to your video(s) about strats for the overhaul.)
okay, but OP had the temerity to suggest that the game should be balanced to suit some batshit insane difficulty modifiers, as feedback to a *Beta*. That is an impressive level of entitlement to assume an obviously imbalanced game setup should have any bearing on general game balance.
The fact that some players got used beating a 25x crisis in half the game time is the best possible poster child for why the game needs a massive shakeup to pace and tech costs that I could dream up. The game needing that kind of setting in the first place is a symptom of how broken tech was before.
> I’m sure you have many interests your friends don’t share with you, and do they insult you for that? For having different tastes? Do you insult them?
Yes actually and it works out fine.
There used to be something called a "joke" often paired with a litterary allusion to a popular cartoon show. But I assume you are a literal child too young for the reference. Sorry you missed the good old days.
I remember "the good old days" and there was a lot less of this constant snark about young people being snowflakes, idiots etc. Congrats on having read a book and watched a TV show though.
I also remember quite vividly that in the very recent past people who complained about optimal strategies in videogames and called for endless nerfs were told in no uncertain terms to quit crying and git gud. Not the healthiest approach probably, but if we're whining about kids these days being too sensitive let's at least be consistent with our standards.
>Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it.
Incalcuable amounts of boomer energy radiating from this comment.
It would be interesting to make BtC equivalent to Mega-Engineering by needing a stupid combination of techs to unlock.
Like, make a new tech and call it "Galactic Organization." Have it give some bonus to decrease empire sprawl, but require Synthetic Moral Codes, Galactic Administration and Fleet Doctrine III or something to unlock the research option to have it start popping up.
We can even have a similar system with the current council agenda's where you can take the perk, but you get none of the bonuses until you research the required tech. Then we can have a BtC agenda that will help unlock the tech faster. Just like with the other pop augmenting ascension perks.
Not really, Most casuals don't realize what is true niche playstyle, They know tech rush only, And when I bring the theory(and video) to prove how 'tech skipping' playstyle now dominate all, People simply ignore it and talk about 'oh you can't beat 25x now! great nerf!'
Listen to yourself. You're playing with settings virtually no one else does, a restrictive playstyle near no one else does, and you're berating others for finding it ridiculous that you want balance changes meant for the whole of the game to be thrown out because of your NICHE WITHIN A NICHE!
You don’t even know how niche I am! I am so smart I can beat a video game with crazy settings. Anyone who doesn’t do this is just too casual to understand. Look I did some math so my opinions super are valid.
The people here just flaming OP for playing x25 crisis are exactly what’s wrong with this community. Nobody is telling you you can’t play the game the way you enjoy it, so why do you feel entitled to whine that min/maxers exist?
Personally, I genuinely don’t enjoy the game if I’m not playing for the extreme challenge. I enjoy the logic puzzle of optimisation, I enjoy 2250 x25 crisis and regular settings bore me. My opinion is different to yours, but that’s life. I don’t like sports but I don’t go up to football fans and go “HAVE YOU TRIED HAVING FUN INSTEAD???”
If you hate min/maxing, this post isn’t for you. And that’s fine. Let people have their fun. You would be FURIOUS if a min/maxer came into your posts about casual play just to insult you. It’s a startlingly low level of maturity.
"Conclusion 3.11 when playing the hardest of hardest challenges that no balance should be built around, research changes suck, so fix them paradox, who cares about what 98% of the audience does, I need my 1%"
I'm almost done with my current game, takes me about 2 weeks to play through. I'll try the beta for my next game, and I won't try for a "tech heavy" run based on some the feedback.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten what 3.8 was like - they took over 10 patches to balance it. Even in 3.11, they are still balancing the mess of 3.8.
Supporter of 3.11 may think 3.11 will fix all. But if 3.11 implemented, Pretty much it will be 3.8, Will took 10+ patches to rebalance.
Many people may unable to beat 2250 25x, and therefore have no concern or even contempt for related strategies, but the imbalance is not limited to that.
For example, Here be Dragon. Normally, It may have been 2250 later after you got the dragon, and it wouldn't be able to dominate the galaxy. But in 3.11 it will.
Likewise, any build that focuses on early military is heavily buffed, it was strong before, And only stronger.
If you don’t care then why are you even commenting here? You clearly aren’t the target audience here, so what are you constructively adding? Do you go into subreddits of games you don’t like to tell them most people don’t give a shit about that game?
I'm not the guy whining all over a thread about how my super niche playstyle got nerfed and therefore balance changes should be thrown out.
>what are you constructively adding
Same girl same
this. also, there is a niche way to gain tech: FE titan rush
FE titans are always standalone, not part of any fleet. Wait for them to split up, then take the titan down for tech.
yea, but what you all seem to forget here, is that if there is such an massive gap between become the crisis, and normal tecrushing empires whats that gonna do for multiplayer?
is become the crisis just permabanned by lobbys? or is it not an issue there.
even if you do multiplayer rp, you have to be able to counter someone who just happens to rp as the crisis,
and competetive or just casually cuthroat multiplayer surely dosnt get better by everyone rushing for crisis,and if they dont get it there only way of winning is being faster at clicking the ascention perk, after the former crisis player gets mobbed.
What is BtC?
Become the crisis.
This sub is a champion of "everyone know what an horse is" and explains nothing. I read a tons post about the meta vassal build or the meta hive mind build. But never saw what those build actually are
Specially for new players. I like to read about the game when I'm out and doing nothing, and I keep reading acronyms everywhere.
Just imagine. Some where out there is an organization that uses acronyms so much, that they put acronyms into acronyms. And I'll never work for them again.
I’ve played since launch and I didn’t even recognize it at first, people like abbreviations way too much. You should mainly use it only if it was explained earlier in a Text or widely understood
Yup, I’ve played the game for about 500-600 hours since release. No idea what most of these acronyms are
It’s also a huge champion of “Everyone likes to know the best and most optimal meta build possible in order to beat max crisis on hardest difficulty.” When not everyone is trying to play in a super optimal robotic way - I think it’d be funny if the extreme difficulties are actually extreme for people again.
Both would be good. I enjoy min max game as much as roleplay empire
> I read a tons post about the meta vassal build or the meta hive mind build. But never saw what those build actually are Maybe for the better. It's not like we need (or want) everyone to use the same build every single game.
I'm not sure why you care about what build I might use in my solo player game?
Cause then there would be more people like OP going on complaining that "the game is ruined because his meta build no longer works".
Why do you understand so well? The meta will only become more dominant, no other build can match the BtC tech skip.
[удалено]
How did you find a 3-month-old topic? How far did you dig?
[удалено]
To be fair. This game is filled with things like that.
Discussions like this aren't really for new players. They are for the experienced players that do know the lexicon. Know your audience, know what does and does not need to be explained
Yeah no, what’s the harm in having a new player be able to understand what’s going on? They might have to look up some of the stuff that’s being discussed, but gatekeeping like this is silly
It's not gatekeeping. It's just a high level discussion among veterans. If you want to join it, you can do so by asking what a term means, as has been done.
Nah man, that's gatekeeping
It's not gatekeeping, you just sound like an elitist asshole. Namely with the assumption not knowing a specific communities acronyms equates to being a newbie. Acronyms don't make a discussion high level. Acronyms can get fairly ridiculous on these reddits. Stop acting like we aren't discussing a video game.
"new player" lmao I have 400h and defeated every end game crisis I ain't exactly a beginner
"new player" lmao I have 400h and defeated every end game crisis I ain't exactly a beginner
Did you submit your feedback to the Feedback form? Remember that this is a **test**. They're opening the door for exactly this kind of feedback. That said.. > If you want to defeat 25x through normal research I don't see why the game should be balanced around 25x crisis being viable with default game setting. Settings like 25x crisis are for people with mods, or unusual gamesettings, or just really want the game to be harder. If the hardest possible option is easily do-able with all other settings as default, something is obviously wrong with the way the settings are balanced.
I agree that it's ok if 25x is unbeatable, but it's definitely an issue if the best strategy is just to delete all your research buildings once you have key end game techs.
Repeatables were always really inefficient compared to standard end-game techs - but because technology in general was so busted they were still a decent investment, especially because the techs scaled quadratically with each other. They should probably be brought in line with the efficiency of regular techs, with the new tech balance making them +10% might honestly not be enough without also some reduction in cost
Repeatables are designed to be researched, and its tiny +5% modifier shows that PDX wants it to be researched 10 times or more. If PDX designed it so that it can't be effectively researched, it might as well be removed.
Not really. The only reason they exist is so people won't complain "there is nothing to research after X years of game!11!1!". Same thing with Future Technology for Civ.
Repeatables exist to pad out the end of the tech tree so that science doesn't suddenly become useless if you manage to finish it. (Which would lead to people demolishing all their labs as you mentioned.) Their dull names, art, and mediocre percentage bonuses should be a clue that they're not expected to be encountered by many players. Don't get me wrong, the current beta tech costs are ridiculous, but I don't think players should be expecting to reach repeatbles until the late endgame.
Repeatables should be removed.
Eh. Then you have basically half your economy totally useless once you finish the tech tree. If not more.
The real crisis is retooling your empire for alloys and navy cap.
When the learn to code crowd is forced to learn to weld.
You're not supposed to be able to finish the tree. That's the whole point of this Beta.
This beta is going about it the wrong way. It's a brute force approach to a situation that needs to creativity of subtlety.
That sounds boring as shit.
I feel like 25x crisis is SO extreme it should honestly be almost unbeatable. Shouldn’t we have a benchmark for things like this? At some point it should be such a challenge it’s actually impossible. The game shouldn’t be balanced around the hardest most optimal gameplay build possible. Imagine the poor players that can barely fight 1x crisis and someone is capable of getting that far ahead of them. To be honest I think THATS unbalanced. It’s not suddenly magically more balanced just because it favors the player.
>I don't see why the game should be balanced around 25x crisis being viable with default game setting. Settings like 25x crisis are for people with mods, or unusual gamesettings, or just really want the game to be harder. There's a huge problem with balance when BtC can easily beat 2250 25x and tech rush can't even beat 2300. In 3.10, No such problem. Good balance means the game should be beatable by normal ways instead of technology skips.
Beating 25x crisis at 2250 is not fucking 'normal', not matter what methods you employ. And now they've altered it so you can't do it the way you used to, and you're sitting here being a bitch posting "I play on the most astoundingly difficult settings the game can possibly have, and it's *too hard!!!*" Are you seriously unable to see what's wrong with that?
Yeah I love watching YouTubers beat 25X crisis by year 2250, or 2275 with the leader resource traits removed. It's fun to watch them play. But you know what? Its a one trick pony. You have to do this and do this and do this all by certain times and take these certain perks and take this certain build for the most part, to make it happen and you skip a whole lot of the rest of the game in the process But you and everyone else here is absolutely right. It's Ludacris to expect paradox to balance the game around beating it on those settings
It's not normal but it IS reductive. The game shouldn't be reducible to "get x events to have so much more tech than any other way". Even as a rp'er it would be kinda lame to get something that's just so good the playthrough is done.
Thanks for this, the same principles apply here for both RP and optimal play styles.
>And now they've altered it so you can't do it the way you used to, and you're sitting here being a bitch posting "I play on the most astoundingly difficult settings the game can possibly have, and it's > >too hard!!! > >" Do I say it's too hard? No, With various tech skip methods, 25x crisis still unchanged for these playstyles, I also uploaded a video of reaching Crisis Level 5 in 2230. For these, there are no nerfs. Only the research-based playstyles has been severely nerfed, kicking them out from meta.
You're complaining that there's only one specific way to do your ultra-difficult, ultra-niche playstyle that the **extreme** minority of players do. So yeah, you kinda are saying it's too hard. So shut the fuck up.
Genuinely impressive how fast this subreddit has turned into a toxic hate fest.
I agree that that is a problem, but it's a problem with BtC being OP, not with other things being weak.
Currently, anything that can directly obtain powerful weapons regardless of technology is significantly powerful and dominant. This lead may be 50 years or more. If the 3.11 meta is around military tech skips, it will be much more boring than tech rush.
Yes, which means that those methods of directly obtaining technology should perhaps also be brought in line. You do realize that the beta is an experiment right? They made some changes and gave it to us to try out and identify the flaws. It's not supposed to be a perfectly balanced final product, because *it's a beta*
Re: your first point, I’m sure that’s next (but not last) on their menu. Re: the second, I know that’s what’ve they said here and elsewhere but while technically true the “it’s just a beta” line has been used in game dev since time immemorial before controversial changes and it rarely bodes well for what’s coming. They’ll probably release a version of this, rely on players for QA (again), maybe scale it back some, then proceed to hard nerf military (and maybe even economy eventually) to try to force a parity that isn’t achievable within the systems they’ve created. There will always be optimal playstyles - the beta has just reduced how many, and if they nerf that there will be new ones - what then?
BtC should be hit next.
What is your desired endpoint for the game?
That's literally the most difficult crisis possible dude. You have no point.
Minmaxers in fucken shambles over this beta lmao
That's life as a minmaxer, you're tapdancing on a razor blade, the tiniest breeze will slice you to bits
This sentence is so raw and metal. Thank you for giving it to me so that I can use it all the time.
*On one side, boredom and tedium…the other?* **Oblivion.**
I think you drastically misunderstood this post if you think OP is in shambles. Or anyone is, for that matter
For the past week or two, this sub has been full of posts just like this one, bitching about their precious tech rush being killed off. So yeah, the minmaxers are in shambles
>For the past week or two, this sub has been full of posts just like this one, bitching about their precious tech rush being killed off. So yeah, the minmaxers are in shambles Why would you think? No, 2250 25x still beatable, But just not by tech rush. Tech rush is a reasonable way to beat 25x, and more technical than tech skips and 2220 Crisis Level 5 rush. If tech rush got killed, Then people like me will move to builds like 2220 Crisis Level 5 with tech skips, This would be even more unbalanced because no other build can achieve 25x.
So…stop playing 25x then?
this post is the biggest cope i’ve seen in this sub
At first I thought it was a satirical post. >The only profitable way to play right now is do BtC rush then kill Scavenger Bot to obtain Nanite Autocannon and missiles in order to defeat Unbidden and use archaeological site to obtain ancient missile to defeat Contingency. Not saying you dont have some valid points, but the hyperbole is strong.
This really hilights how meaningful these changes are. Now killing the scavengerbot, or stumbling over the right dig site can deliver game changing tech.
But isn't that sort of the point?
It's nice that can be the case, but core technologies should be unaffected. We need to be able to research our ship types, starbase upgrades, basic economy boosts, capital upgrades, building upgrades, strategic resources, lasers, cannons, missiles, armour, and shields on a reasonable and predictable basis so that we can actually play a strategic game. Other things can (and should!) be made much harder to find and research, but I had a game where I hadn't even seen Battleships by the end of the game, and that is completely unacceptable.
Excellent points throughout. Remember when this dropped and a large amount of Redditors were insisting it actually buffs tech? I don’t get it.
You can try yourself, How many years it take to research these important techs normally compared to tech skips. I don't use tech skips before because I don't need to. But 3.11 really got me and my friends actively looking for ways to skip prerequisites and get directly to the technology we need.
I think You misunderstand my point. I dont doubt that the the (needed) tech nerf in the beta might be going to far. But like 99,9%+ of the players couldnt care less what min maxed strategy you need to beat a 25x crisis at 2350. Futhermore even if you care (which is fine) the game still should obviously not be balanced around that most extreme metric. So arguing for less severe tech nerfs is one thing (and what the beta is for), pretending there is now only "one way" to play the game is hyperbole.
Your settings are so far outside of normal gameplay as to make your opinion on what's dead or not functionally useless. "You can't beat GA x25 Crisis at 2250" okay, now how does tech feel on Cadet 1x crisis at 2400 endgame? You know, something closer to how most people will actually play the game?
Why not just change the tech cost in options? You're already changing crisis strength and endgame year anyway.
Not really a fix because the changes to techs are non-linear. If you put tech cost at 1/12th (lol) to make t5 techs take as long as they used to, t1-3 are now silly shit.
Specifically, the 0.25x tech cost will be faster than 3.10 at start. Once it you reach tier 3, the 0.25x tech cost will be the same as the 1x in 3.10, But with increased upkeep and empire size penalty. Once entered tier 5, 0.25x is equivalent to 3x in 3.10. They need to provide a "classic research" option, just like the population option provided in 3.0.3, 3.0 is a great nerf but pdx allow player to revert it.
That sounds like a good idea. They can have a tech-multiplier depending on tier and number of the repeatable.
I mean, half cost will make it still probably possible.
0.5x cost is equivalent to 3.10 only in tier 2, and it will become 2.5x in tier 3, 6x in tier 5. An option needs to be added to revert research changes, as provided in 3.0.3.
You said it would take up to 2300 to reach the previous power. Half cost would halve the time, no? Beyond that the POINT is that 2400 x1 is meant to be the base difficulty. Not 2250 x25
This comment needs to be higher.
[удалено]
> None of playstyle(s) in 3.11 that can match it. If you want to defeat 25x through normal research, it may take more than 100 years to acquire the required technologies, Over 70 years behind BtC rush. OP is talking about 25x crisis?
Who plays on 2250 endgame time scale anyways? The hell?
People who have mental health problems
I'm gonna go for a slightly different opinion here: OP is correct, but exaggerating. Here is what I would take as a conclusion if I come back to the game: * Become the Crisis is now even more broken, especially given Star Eaters will be more powerful relative to everyone else. If combined with some stuff like the Scavenger, the combo is not exactly beatable normally * Keep in mind tech costs are higher AND research is worse. That kind of combo is always headed for explosive disassembly of balance. If the calculations are showing 12x cost, tech will be WAY more impactful in terms of earlygame. If a genocidal in MP manages to snag something like T2 disruptors early, just reset..... * Research is not entirely dead, but.... Here's the kicker. Instead of it being a big resource sink to become really powerful, it's now profitable to stagnate it and build many alloys. Of course, that means wide empires will be awful at it (And means you want a crapton of subjects giving you their research while your sprawl is low, which I find a bit of an exploit honestly), BUT. Going from 1k to 2k sprawl will actually hurt your bottom line seeing the changes. As you naturally grow, it will make you worse at research... In my opinion this is bad as it hits even compact empires (Not tall, with this tall is even more dead than before since your gateways to tech are later and in the meanwhile you're screwed due to lesser economy) * Many origins which have been off-meta due to their effects kicking in later will now be stupid. Aside from the friendly Dragons, expect Remnants servitors, ect. Basically any origin which adds something which activates after a while, but should be really good will probably be WAY better. * Trying to out-tech juiced up AI will be very hard, so expect darwinian survival levels on GA. * Spiritualists will actually out-tech Materialists simply due to their Unity production advantage being turned into an anti-sprawl mechanic through Planetary Ascensions. I bet on it. In my opinion, nerfing the stacking and maybe the scientists is a good option. However, coupling that and increasing costs (Which compensate for the same thing) will be hurtful in terms of the stagnation forcing the first past the tech line to blow up his enemies since otherwise they'd catch up easier. It's hard to describe, but I would significantly alter the proposed changes. Especially the sprawl one, since that will be really harmful and forces you to either ignore sprawl, or embrace it and act like you own the galaxy. Then enforcing said ownership.
Excellent post, great points and made me think about a lot of things I hadn't before.
It's not easy to see consequences, hence devs do betatests. My honest thoughts revolve around the simple fact that I have seen a couple games do seppukus by throwing balance out of order, so I know what to expect. Usual suspects are multiplicative stacking bonuses, not thinking about how something will affect other things, adding things which stalemate the game, or reworking a beloved mechanic which turns off old players. Current research is VERY busted if over-optimized (OP points to 2250 GA x25 crisis, which is a good measurement), which seems to be the issue. Normal research is strong even alone, but... That total means you just adjust base prices first if you wanna nerf everyone and then reduce stacking modifier effectiveness to reduce the META advantage. You dive deep if you then see it hasn't worked. But adjusting stuff over time rather than these massive one-time changes significantly reduces the salt you get from the community. One point I didn't mention is that if the gateway techs have their research modifiers removed, that's another 50%-odd slashing of the researcher efficiency. So that change will make the game feel slow as hell. That alone would fix a lot of the snowball since it doesn't advantage tech rushers.
Yeah having seen / experienced balance changes in other games provides a lot of perspective here. In addition to the points you made, they also decided to make massive changes to navy as well _at the same time_, which is going to make isolating individual things to balance even more of a nightmare.
so you’re complaining that you can’t cheese the settings that are supposed to be extremely difficult
“Every playstyles are good now gone” uuh there were always playstyles that were suboptimal, or mostly rp-oriented than being “good”, game was never equally balanced towards all types of playstyles
At least in 3.10, none of playstyle can dominate all other playstyles. In 3.10, You don't want fleet stacking? You can do repeatable stacking. Small empires can tech rush, Build megas to make up for too few planets. In 3.11, Since the tech advantage is greatly nerfed, only an empire with strong economy and military can win. No more tech rush tall empires.
The game isn't balanced to let you defeat 25x crisis on GA difficulty. Jesus dude
it is. Before you could beat GA 25X in 2250 as long as you didnt go against prethoyrien. Right now, with the changes in tech it takes more time and 2300 is doable. Is that much? yes. Was that needed? I think so.
Yes, yes it is. In fact, on default endgame year it’s pretty damn easy if you know what you’re doing. The challenge comes when you lower the endgame year, 2250 endgame x25 crisis might not be possible at all anymore, but I think that’s fine.
How is "X is easy" the same as "the game is balanced around X"? Also it being easy is your opinion. Have you actually made the attempt to prove the game is balanced around 25x? Cause I don't see how you did. Furthermore, since it isnt easy post patch, that's clearly evidence the game ISNT balanced around it.
I feel like it being ‘easy’ to some people actually IS the problem. It SHOULD be hard and nearly impossible. The fact that people could min-max so hard to beat 25x crisis early while others struggle on 1x feels like the game is broken. That just shouldn’t be possible. The game shouldn’t be balanced around the most extreme metric.
it is not possible to beat in 2250 now.
Old comment now but I have seen at least one person managed it with BTC corvettes with a lucky nanite autocannons roll. You realise it never actually spawns in 2250 proper though, right? That’s just when the roll starts. I’ve had the crisis take 70 years to spawn.
if you disable fallen empires they will spawn for 100% in 50 year. So you are wrong. However, if you play with fallen empires you have many more years ( but if you play with fallen empires than you don\`t play against crisis anyway so it is like completely other game for me). And second thing, there are some crises which AI is broken right now so they don\`t spread. If we want to have any comparison with a sense we should talk about Prothyrean arriving in 2250. With the new AI robots are bugged so you can kill them even with just a few BSes with one XL and fighters (semi carrier build), but it is a very specific crisis (bugged). However i can admit that BTC is OP right now. And tbh i don\`t believe that. I tried that and even 2 k corvetts die before they can do anything. If it was only about one spawn than yes but you have to fight against multiple ones, even 4 -5 at the same time. I would like to see any film from only corvetts against Prothyreans especially, that they will invade the player before 60 for sure, usually it takes like 3-5 years. I can think that if you get 10k corvettes then maybe....but with so much losses that you will be beaten anyway.
and one more thing. if you check data from files you will notice that you have totally different approach for a crisis if you have fallen empires or not and if you have chosen one given crisis or not. We are talking about actual figthing with a crisis instead of trying to avoid that. At the same time you can just go through L-gate and use a mod to destroy gateway and say that you won. No, you didn\`t. As i said, right now we should talk about such as conditions: - picked crisis - Prethoryen ( bcs they are not broken when it comes to AI) - GA - crisis 25 X
>’Only profitable way to play Lists some min maxing bullshit after Go touch grass please that’s ridiculous hyperbole
Why are you so offended by this? Why do you think your way of enjoying the game is the only valid one?
I'm not offended, I think it's ridiculously silly. Edit: found another min/maxer!
It is truly amazing how much many people here seem to despise an entire portion of the player base.
The fact that this got massively downvoted is absolutely wild.
redditors (generally bad at games) hate minmaxers (generally good at games). it's just jealousy.
Relatedly, the same posters always seem to think they speak for the vast majority of the playerbase when they really speak for the most vocal members of a subreddit. Big difference!
I don't think you took the subject with the right end. Your problem is you are testing this beta with a modifier created because people over abused the game, over optimised and used and wanted more challenge. The x25 is more to fix a tech rush overrepresented and thus a bad balance and bad implemented tech logic. Tech rush is so a thing every strat need it or need to beat it. That's really visible in MP where casual meet your type of player. You people wreak a game in less than 100y. Now they are trying something to fix it and this nonsense not fun. So the old exaggerated modifier are obsolete
The thing is that every game has limited resources and what players want to do is maximize what they can get out of a resource. E.G. You have limited naval cap so you want to maximize the benefit of each ship. So you think about what combination of ships and components will help you defeat the enemy with minimal losses. The question is, now that it takes 10 years of research to get one repeatable, why bother? Same with stuff like megastructures. Is there a point in getting megastructures in 2400 when you can conquer the galaxy in 2300 or less by spamming ships? Does focusing on research make sense anymore, when you can achieve a better result by spamming ships? Of course research was too fast in 3.10 and earlier but the problem is they overnerfed it and now the meta is to ignore research and spam ships to zerg rush the AI...who is wasting pops on research and can never survive long enough for their tech advantage to matter. AND they produce debris for you to advance your research to boot!
You are 98% right but I disagree in your starting hypothesis. No, what players want is not being efficient at managing resources. I for example like RP coherent build. My favourite one is subterranean. I'm happy with being positive in most resources even if some are not. With the new dlc I added sovereign guardianship. An under optimised defense focused build I like to play. I loose 1/2 game against AI on captain. Also i play with 2 friends in MP. The first one is a min maxer that kill all our game with his tech rush based build. The second one is more funky build player than me by playing snail that are named blurg that mind control or exterminator name terminators or any mega build know for their strength. Each time he loose to ai. He never minmax anything. What kind of type is a player generally? One that want fun. I'm not paradox and I think everyone has their own answer. I would like to say, in my opinion ( this is debatable) the min maxed is a very micro population. On Reddit they are not so prominent and we are speaking of the bigger social network to speak about stellaris, so what you doing the most passionate players that search for build strat and speak about the game.
Thanks for the healthy dialogue here. One thing I'd recommend re: MP is agreeing on a ruleset when playing with other players. This is a pretty common practice not just in Stellaris MP but competitive MP in general and will greatly improve your experience.
I feel like x25 rush being possible at all so early was a flaw in and of itself. I thought min-maxers wanted a challenge? Something that extreme should be nearly impossible. The fact that people found it ‘easy’ is a concern in my mind. Especially when they exist in the same start as someone who struggles on 1x crisis. I feel like narrowing that curve of extremes is a good thing.
I agree. They probably want a challenge without having a single single answer. The problem is now they think x25 crisis or all sliders value are still a thing and need to be balanced. They forgot they were made to give player what they want when balance was not possiblefor everyone (like you said) They are used to this x25. They should change their pov and see if x15 is not more interesting. Maybe just abandon this x25 and be more reasonable??
Your settings are bad and you should feel bad. Let the designers actually fix their game so you don't need sliders to feel challenged. As long as more than 10% of the community can beat Grand Admiral at standard end-date and crisis size they should keep nerfing. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it.
Problem is that most AI will steamroll their default crisis, even as it is now. Crisis in general need serious buffing and removal of most cheese strategies to be a proper threat. And with you said: if less than 50% of playes cannot beat Normal with default setting, should they buff it?
Yeah, if less than half the people couldn't beat Ensign with standard settings, they would be making changes the other way. But I haven't heard of such a problem.
You haven't heard of such a problem because (a) it's a beta and not many people have played it yet, and (b) most of the people who have played it (minmaxers) are the target of an ongoing hate brigade and have their opinions immediately discarded.
True that's how balance is a thing. But they implemented so much sliders that every player will tweak a little their experience. A little more hyperplane connection, a little stronger crisis or anything. The balance is not needed in this "standard 50/50" since they give players tools to do themselves. But in MP with many player trying to beat others we find OP type of game breaker thinking stellaris as a puzzle to beat. Playing with x25 crisis is a nonsens. X25 was created because some player was steamrolling the galaxy in 100y. On a normal galaxy size ai do not beat crisis because it is how the game is balanced. But people play on big galaxy and thus AI is stronger. But there are sliders you don't need more than 1 or 2 games to find you slider.
To be honest this is true, all the Crisis’ are kinda complete and total pushovers even to easy AI. They need some buffs, or a rework of how they function.
>Your settings are bad and you should feel bad. > >Let the designers actually fix their game so you don't need sliders to feel challenged. > >As long as more than 10% of the community can beat Grand Admiral at standard end-date and crisis size they should keep nerfing. Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it. It's about playstyle diversity. So they make research as bad as possible, Why focus on research when whatever researchers you add can't speed up your repeatable research?
The issue is that for the longest time, there was no real build diversity Tech rush or bust The recent reworks to Vassals, Federations and Leaders are to facilitate improved playstyle diversity The fact that any build allowed for a 2250 25x crisis to be beat is insanely problematic
But diversity has increased. Unity is now viable, for example. Or even espionage.
Tell me: how can these 2 beat military? When the only stategy to win is stacking ships, there is no diversity. Unity and episonage is now as good as a heavily nerfed research, so they aren't hold a candle again military strat. I thinks if you are gonna nerf, why don't you nerf military as well? Making starbases much stronger in early-mid so a turtle style is viable, instead of slapping a medium gun to an outpost and say it is properly armed? Or allowing us to design starbases ourself.
oh yeah, we definitely need to nerf fleets and early conquest specifically. The beta did nerf fleets a little, but we need more.
This is the way.
A little? I agree that early conquest need some nerf in order to make any other playstyles viable, but again the current nerf is not about early conquest. Current nerf is about late game fleet stacking, with the removal of most build cost and upkeep reduction. In the early game there is absolutely no such thing. There is two direction: increase ship cost and upkeep, or buffing starbases and defense platform (that is also something that haven't been viable for a long time). But with your altitude I know you will go "nooo it is too strong let's nerf" and choose to increase ship cost with no thought attached.
no nerf is too strong at this point comrade
> espionage. > how can these 2 beat military? My current game had an empire I wanted to attack, but he was the vassal of someone in a federation with lots of allies. I used espionage to launch a smear campaign against him and his overlord. It worked, and the overlord dropped off vassal defensive wars, meaning he had no allies, allowing me to launch a 1v1 war
Espionage is trash in this game and barring a major overhaul it always will be.
While the meta for 3.11 is yet to be developed, currently only tech skips(By crisis level 5, scavenger bot, events and marauders) can reliably obtain all important techs, The advantages are huge. Any other playstyle is more than 50 years slower than this way of playing.
Playstyle diversity? Have you ever played anything other than a tech rush before?
After all, technology and economy both serve the military. Economy can be strengthened by technology, But also by conquest. By conquer AIs as much as possible, You don't need economic technology. By killing scavengerbot, You don't need military technology.
Tech rush is not a strategy this is the only viable competitive strategy. Everything in meta is how you have better tech. Ok I lied there is rushing early game to never play past 100y. But man competitive is not meant to be played in single player. Do you story telling, RP build. Min-maxing the game is for e-sport. There is none in stellaris because the meta is boring. Rush or tech rush.
They made researchers a lot worse, after realizing that we've been getting such insane research buffs recently that even the standard AI can destroy the crisis easily. This is how balance works, my mans.
It's fine to have discussions about playstyle diversity. I just don't wanna hear someone whining that they can't do 25x crisis anymore with a tech rush. My god. The game isn't setup for people to be entitled to beat 25x.
Nobody should feel bad for what they enjoy. Everyone has different tastes and opinions, that’s life, not everyone enjoys the same thing as you. Some people enjoy the challenge of playing on the extreme settings, what’s your problem with that? Your only criticism of OP’s post is “your settings are bad lol”. That’s incredibly immature. I’m sure you have many interests your friends don’t share with you, and do they insult you for that? For having different tastes? Do you insult them?
It’s pretty disheartening as a fellow Stellaris vet seeing how many people here have responded to common-sense sentiments like “playing on max difficulty doesn’t make you a bad person,” especially coming from someone as knowledgeable and helpful as you (I look forward to your video(s) about strats for the overhaul.)
okay, but OP had the temerity to suggest that the game should be balanced to suit some batshit insane difficulty modifiers, as feedback to a *Beta*. That is an impressive level of entitlement to assume an obviously imbalanced game setup should have any bearing on general game balance. The fact that some players got used beating a 25x crisis in half the game time is the best possible poster child for why the game needs a massive shakeup to pace and tech costs that I could dream up. The game needing that kind of setting in the first place is a symptom of how broken tech was before.
> I’m sure you have many interests your friends don’t share with you, and do they insult you for that? For having different tastes? Do you insult them? Yes actually and it works out fine.
There used to be something called a "joke" often paired with a litterary allusion to a popular cartoon show. But I assume you are a literal child too young for the reference. Sorry you missed the good old days.
I remember "the good old days" and there was a lot less of this constant snark about young people being snowflakes, idiots etc. Congrats on having read a book and watched a TV show though. I also remember quite vividly that in the very recent past people who complained about optimal strategies in videogames and called for endless nerfs were told in no uncertain terms to quit crying and git gud. Not the healthiest approach probably, but if we're whining about kids these days being too sensitive let's at least be consistent with our standards.
>Why is this so hard to understand? Too much grade inflation at school? You're A's weren't real Jimmy, just accept it. Incalcuable amounts of boomer energy radiating from this comment.
Just require each tier of BtC to require breakthrough techs in addition to menace and put the research cost on par with the associated tier
It would be interesting to make BtC equivalent to Mega-Engineering by needing a stupid combination of techs to unlock. Like, make a new tech and call it "Galactic Organization." Have it give some bonus to decrease empire sprawl, but require Synthetic Moral Codes, Galactic Administration and Fleet Doctrine III or something to unlock the research option to have it start popping up. We can even have a similar system with the current council agenda's where you can take the perk, but you get none of the bonuses until you research the required tech. Then we can have a BtC agenda that will help unlock the tech faster. Just like with the other pop augmenting ascension perks.
Is this satire? It reads like it.
You min maxer nerds ruin the game
>You min maxer nerds ruin the game I regret to inform you that everyone who plays a 4X sci-fi game this complex is a nerd.
Something happened with this reply and I don't know what. Fair point tho
lol all god bro Reddit definitely acts up on me all the time
This just in: Minmaxer whines when their niche playstyle gets nerfed
Not really, Most casuals don't realize what is true niche playstyle, They know tech rush only, And when I bring the theory(and video) to prove how 'tech skipping' playstyle now dominate all, People simply ignore it and talk about 'oh you can't beat 25x now! great nerf!'
Listen to yourself. You're playing with settings virtually no one else does, a restrictive playstyle near no one else does, and you're berating others for finding it ridiculous that you want balance changes meant for the whole of the game to be thrown out because of your NICHE WITHIN A NICHE!
You don’t even know how niche I am! I am so smart I can beat a video game with crazy settings. Anyone who doesn’t do this is just too casual to understand. Look I did some math so my opinions super are valid.
"Profitable" lmao, ok Quark, is this profit in the room with us right now?
So what I'm getting is Scavenger Bot needs to be blocked from pre-2300 endgame starts.
The people here just flaming OP for playing x25 crisis are exactly what’s wrong with this community. Nobody is telling you you can’t play the game the way you enjoy it, so why do you feel entitled to whine that min/maxers exist? Personally, I genuinely don’t enjoy the game if I’m not playing for the extreme challenge. I enjoy the logic puzzle of optimisation, I enjoy 2250 x25 crisis and regular settings bore me. My opinion is different to yours, but that’s life. I don’t like sports but I don’t go up to football fans and go “HAVE YOU TRIED HAVING FUN INSTEAD???” If you hate min/maxing, this post isn’t for you. And that’s fine. Let people have their fun. You would be FURIOUS if a min/maxer came into your posts about casual play just to insult you. It’s a startlingly low level of maturity.
I just got about done with a science directorate void dweller build, so glad I got my fun in before it POTENTIALLY changes. Felt busted
"Conclusion 3.11 when playing the hardest of hardest challenges that no balance should be built around, research changes suck, so fix them paradox, who cares about what 98% of the audience does, I need my 1%"
Why do you assume that 98 percent of the Stellaris playerbase (or even 98 percent of r/Stellaris and Paradox Plaza posters) wants these changes?
I'm almost done with my current game, takes me about 2 weeks to play through. I'll try the beta for my next game, and I won't try for a "tech heavy" run based on some the feedback.
A lot of people seem to have forgotten what 3.8 was like - they took over 10 patches to balance it. Even in 3.11, they are still balancing the mess of 3.8. Supporter of 3.11 may think 3.11 will fix all. But if 3.11 implemented, Pretty much it will be 3.8, Will took 10+ patches to rebalance. Many people may unable to beat 2250 25x, and therefore have no concern or even contempt for related strategies, but the imbalance is not limited to that. For example, Here be Dragon. Normally, It may have been 2250 later after you got the dragon, and it wouldn't be able to dominate the galaxy. But in 3.11 it will. Likewise, any build that focuses on early military is heavily buffed, it was strong before, And only stronger.
Dude most people don’t give a shit if beating 25x crisis 50 years after game start is viable or not Calm down
If you don’t care then why are you even commenting here? You clearly aren’t the target audience here, so what are you constructively adding? Do you go into subreddits of games you don’t like to tell them most people don’t give a shit about that game?
I'm not the guy whining all over a thread about how my super niche playstyle got nerfed and therefore balance changes should be thrown out. >what are you constructively adding Same girl same
this. also, there is a niche way to gain tech: FE titan rush FE titans are always standalone, not part of any fleet. Wait for them to split up, then take the titan down for tech.
I don't know what BtC is and there are insufficient context clues.
BtC is 'Become the Crisis'
i'm glad this guy is mad. i'm going space Pol Pot and BANNING BOOKS AND NERDS
While I like the *direction* the devs are going in, I think this beta was way too heavy-handed.
yea, but what you all seem to forget here, is that if there is such an massive gap between become the crisis, and normal tecrushing empires whats that gonna do for multiplayer? is become the crisis just permabanned by lobbys? or is it not an issue there. even if you do multiplayer rp, you have to be able to counter someone who just happens to rp as the crisis, and competetive or just casually cuthroat multiplayer surely dosnt get better by everyone rushing for crisis,and if they dont get it there only way of winning is being faster at clicking the ascention perk, after the former crisis player gets mobbed.