Stellaris

I actually like the more symetrical start. For me the start of a 4X is always the most fun.

Previous paradox games were far too asymetrical and therefore I didn't like them for multiplayer. We'll see how good the mid to endgame is.
Still see balancing issues regarding the stack of doom problematic.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
ChienAboyeur said:
It is all about conquest. The board provides no material to drag the player into scenarios, it is always the same objective, and ultimately the same paths to victory (whereas the end game is bloated with events to get the player's empire to collapse)

Mods wont change that. Mods will only change the package, not the content.

This said, Stellaris will probably be appraised by players as they usually are driven by imperialistic powermonging. Forming the largest blob possible is their motivation.

Stellaris, that provides nothing else as a content, fits perfectly their tastes.
Click to expand...

The replayability comes from randomization. When you play EU4 or Victoria, you pick a country and you immediately know who are your neighbors, who should be your allies and what should be your immediate conquests. Stellaris replayability comes from not knowing anything. Perhaps your neighbors hate you, perhaps they're willing to like you, perhaps. Also randomized technology means you can't plan on having specific technology paths.
You won't have historical 'scenarios', but each game will be different.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
I was actually just looking at Stellaris in Steam. I was going to hold out for Endless Space 2, but seeing 52,000 people in game......

How's the multiplayer? Can anyone see if there's a lot of multiplayer going on? Can we play 3v3s? co-op? Is it possible to play a match in ~45 minutes?
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,990
Location
Australia
It should be much better than most other 4X games in multiplayer as it is designed with that in mind. Civ5 was hardly playable without houserules. In addition you have almost symetrical starts (like in civ) and not as asymetrical as in Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron.

You can play in Multiplayer with 32 players.
No idea if a lot is going on there.
3v3 will not work directly. Of course you could form an alliance with your 2 buddies and fight all the others. Not sure about the victory conditions.
You will never be able to finish a game within 45 minutes. The game takes, much, much longer.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
Kordanor said:
It should be much better than most other 4X games in multiplayer as it is designed with that in mind. Civ5 was hardly playable without houserules. In addition you have almost symetrical starts (like in civ) and not as asymetrical as in Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron.

You can play in Multiplayer with 32 players.
No idea if a lot is going on there.
3v3 will not work directly. Of course you could form an alliance with your 2 buddies and fight all the others. Not sure about the victory conditions.
You will never be able to finish a game within 45 minutes. The game takes, much, much longer.
Click to expand...

Well, if you play on default size yes, but remember you can pick a small galaxy (I think 200 stars instead of 600?) so in theory you could finish a game in a few hours. But yeah, 45 minutes? that's how long it'll take to just have everybody load up the map and get ready :)
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
The smallest is 150, but still. I mean you can try and play it as rts by always playing on fastest speed and I think it will still take hours. ^^
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to keep an eye on it, see how fast the players drop off, etc.

I think what I really want is Warhammer40k:Dawn of War III. Just 1 year to go! :(

Also, yes, there should be a LOT of DLC if Crusader Kings 2 is anything to go by. It looks reasonably priced at $54 AUD but that could just be a DLC trap.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
2,990
Location
Australia
I haven't read the review, but yeah, it seems like it's somewhat incomplete. It only has two victory conditions: 40% of all territory conquered or everyone killed.
This makes the end a very unsatisfying drag and not much of a choice. In Civ5 it was the diversity of the different ways to end the game which made it an interesting race in the end game.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
My friend is greatly enjoying the game, I have yet to pick it up yet. He says the flavor and everything is there and he's going to have dozens of hours of fun with it until the DLC and patches Paradox inevitably releases makes it even more fun.

He enjoys playing with large galaxies and less empires so it's more an "exploration" game than "being stuck in your small corner" game. You can pretty much set parameters to make it play however you want it seems.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
508
Location
High, high up in the mountains of the southwestern
wolfing said:
The replayability comes from randomization. When you play EU4 or Victoria, you pick a country and you immediately know who are your neighbors, who should be your allies and what should be your immediate conquests. Stellaris replayability comes from not knowing anything. Perhaps your neighbors hate you, perhaps they're willing to like you, perhaps. Also randomized technology means you can't plan on having specific technology paths.
You won't have historical 'scenarios', but each game will be different.
Click to expand...

Randomization does not guarantee the player to do different.
Like sorting out a pile of random chips. In the end, it is always the same: sorting out.

Stellaris could not support a non randomized technological tree as it boils so much about doing the same thing.

In other PGs, starting as the same country only leads to do the same thing when the player aims for global domination.
In the other cases, the dynamic evolution of the board guarantees that the game experiences are different.

Starting out as Brittany in CK2 might mean conquering back the ancestral lands from the Germans to found the celtic empire.
It might mean keep Brittany small and guaranteeing its independance by installing your dynasty in neighbouring kingdoms.
It might mean conquering and forming France, use that powerhouse to carve a kingdom in the holy land, then do a plantagenet by granting independance to France and live on as the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Etc

The board dynamic evolution provides a wealth of scenarios on the fly that the typical PG players are not interested in since they are only interested in global domination.

Kordanor said:
I haven't read the review, but yeah, it seems like it's somewhat incomplete. It only has two victory conditions: 40% of all territory conquered or everyone killed.
This makes the end a very unsatisfying drag and not much of a choice.
Click to expand...

Incomplete? Maybe not. Actually, PG players are mostly interested in the global domination game. They never got in the diversity of the other ways provided in PGs.
In this regard, S is the product that keeps to their tastes. They want global domination and S gives it to them.

S is reduced to the essential.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
ChienAboyeur said:
Starting out as Brittany in CK2 might mean conquering back the ancestral lands from the Germans to found the celtic empire.
It might mean keep Brittany small and guaranteeing its independance by installing your dynasty in neighbouring kingdoms.
It might mean conquering and forming France, use that powerhouse to carve a kingdom in the holy land, then do a plantagenet by granting independance to France and live on as the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Etc

The board dynamic evolution provides a wealth of scenarios on the fly that the typical PG players are not interested in since they are only interested in global domination.
Click to expand...
And in the case of Stellaris, you start one game and are surrounded by enemies so you have to find alliances quick, or you may be lucky and you can expand a lot, or you can see your neighbor is in trouble and attack them. The 'board' you mention is not pre-ordained, it's first setup at start by where the computer puts the starting civilizations, and then randomly putting civilizations that may or may not like you, and then depending on how you and them expand, may enter conflict or not. Every game is totally different.
I've already played 3 games of Stellaris. The first one, I got to medium sized (won a war and vassalized and annexed a civilization), then two neighbors got in an alliance and destroyed me. The second one, a militaristic civilization found me while I was concentrated on exploring/colonizing, they declared war on me and annihilated me. The third game I had 2 neighbors, a friendly and an unfriendly, then two bigger civilizations found me, both unfriendly but farther away, so I attacked and vassalized the closest unfriendly and now the map has me, a friend, my vassal and another friendly (still no allies yet) surrounded by two bigger unfriendly civilizations. It's all random.
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
ChienAboyeur said:
Incomplete? Maybe not. Actually, PG players are mostly interested in the global domination game. They never got in the diversity of the other ways provided in PGs.
In this regard, S is the product that keeps to their tastes. They want global domination and S gives it to them.

S is reduced to the essential.
Click to expand...

Well, the developers themselves stated now that it was taken out as it wasn't finished yet and will be patched back in once balanced.
As stellaris isn't a typical Paradox Game but has big 4X elements I'd also compare it more to other games. And in games like Civ or MOO non-domination victory always played a big role.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
4,699
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom