Stellaris Dev Diary #108 - 2.0 Post-Release Support (part 1)

[Slynx]

The way it works is if two allies have a claim on the same system, whichever party has the highest level of claim will get the system. In the event the claims are at the same level for both parties, the older of the two claims gets priority.

​

ok. if you say so.
for me it's just a crazy concept. because the moment he steals my system he cease to be my ally anymore and became an enemy.
and this will lead to war declaration on him in the next 10 years.

that's probably i'm confused that the game forces me to kill my own allies that probably proved to be useful in a war in the past.

 

[Person012345]

ok. if you say so.
for me it's just a crazy concept. because the moment he steals my system he cease to be my ally anymore and became an enemy.
and this will lead to war declaration on him in the next 10 years.

that's probably i'm confused that the game forces me to kill my own allies that probably proved to be useful in a war in the past.

He didn't "steal your system", you both claimed it and he had the stronger claim. If you wanted it you should have invested into making your claim stronger.

 

[Slynx]

He didn't "steal your system", you both claimed it and he had the stronger claim. If you wanted it you should have invested into making your claim stronger.

apparently we have a bit different view on the matter.
you treat is as "his claim was stronger"
I treat it as "he stole from me. he must be destroyed next"

if we'll remember that most players may play differently...I can definitely accept that we both may have a different view on a situation. but accepting the possibility of your point of view doesn't mean that it stops being crazy\confusing for me.

 

[James Fire]

apparently we have a bit different view on the matter.
you treat is as "his claim was stronger"
I treat it as "he stole from me. he must be destroyed next"

if we'll remember that most players may play differently...I can definitely accept that we both may have a different view on a situation. but accepting the possibility of your point of view doesn't mean that it stops being crazy\confusing for me.

You refusing to learn the mechanics is no excuse.

 

[Slynx]

You refusing to learn the mechanics is no excuse.

refusing to learn what exactly?
there is nothing to learn about. i already know the system: you have X claims over the system. your so-called ally Y claims.
if X > Y you get it.
if Y > X your "ally" get it. you break DP\NAP\FED and declare war on him in 10 years. preferably destroying his entire empire in a process.
if X = Y - who started the war gets the system.
and knowing this it's obvious that you'll start the war only in the case of X>=Y. but there is one thing: your ally can sneakily make a claim over "your" system during the war(especially on the last days of war) and steal said system from you.

so please stop accusing me in refusal to learn. we just have a different view on a situation.

 

[James Fire]

refusing to learn what exactly?
there is nothing to learn about. i already know the system: you have X claims over the system. your so-called ally Y claims.
if X > Y you get it.
if Y > X your "ally" get it. you break DP\NAP\FED and declare war on him in 10 years. preferably destroying his entire empire in a process.
if X = Y - who started the war gets the system.
and knowing this it's obvious that you'll start the war only in the case of X>=Y. but there is one thing: your ally can sneakily make a claim over "your" system during the war(especially on the last days of war) and steal said system from you.

so please stop accusing me in refusal to learn. we just have a different view on a situation.

Is there something wrong with them wanting that system too? Is there really?

 

[Admiral_Obvious]

You refusing to learn the mechanics is no excuse.

It's always an excuse, just not a very valid one.

The whole claim system was made the way it is so the war leaders doesn't just say "all the stuff I want is mine, I won't use any warscore for my allies at all".

How to resolve the issue. Be more influential, or, kill your ally later if it really bugs you.

 

[Slynx]

Is there something wrong with them wanting that system too? Is there really?

probably not. and it's entirely your choice if you'll forgive them for their thievery or not.
though I rarely invite allies in my wars unless I can totally trust them(that means no ai). because since i'm playing machine empires mostly...I can't risk the possibility that they'll try to troll and press the status quo\surrender just for lulz

 

[Person012345]

apparently we have a bit different view on the matter.
you treat is as "his claim was stronger"
I treat it as "he stole from me. he must be destroyed next"

if we'll remember that most players may play differently...I can definitely accept that we both may have a different view on a situation. but accepting the possibility of your point of view doesn't mean that it stops being crazy\confusing for me.

No but the difference is that you're objectively wrong by the game mechanics. He had a stronger claim. If you want to be viewed as having the stronger claim, invest in having the stronger claim. If you want to not do this, and declare on him next, then do that.

 

[Person012345]

but there is one thing: your ally can sneakily make a claim over "your" system during the war(especially on the last days of war) and steal said system from you.

In at least one version of the game this isn't true, at least I could not increase my claim strength because an ally also claimed the system. My claim was stronger anyway (because I had spent the effort before the war to make it stronger) but it wouldn't let me increase whilst at war. In any case, they can't do anything you can't do (and if they can it's a bug).

 

[Zyndr]

I would rather see a stacking penalty to reflect WE so eventually you need to make peace or your economy will implode.
I'd also like to see racial variations on WE. (Machines just don't get tired of eradicating biological life.)

Given the disparity between the choice made and what I'd like, I'm glad they're putting in flags and tags for modding.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

As suggested in a thread I made in suggestions, the "offer status quo" button should be a toggle on/off and the side who hasn't toggled it on should have penalties applied once over 100% war exhaustion whilst the side with it on wouldn't take any. These penalties should begin relatively light but quickly ramp up and become completely unmanagable around 180% (rebalancing WE gain to be optimal for wars ending around 130% to 150%), ramping up even further beyond that. Penalties should only be applied after the other side has activated status quo for at least 1 month. If neither side toggles on, they should each take half penalties when they are over 100%.

Yeah, I got the idea from your original thread and I'm definitely on board with this style of solution. It's a soft stop that solves the problem of not disempowering the weaker defender and still incents limited wars that are not to-the-death.

I still think some kind of hard stop is necessary to prevent griefing (if it's such a big deal to people just let it be a toggle option on game start), and I'm fine if the devs want to go a different route with the war system. I just hope that such a mechanism can be modded.

 

[James Fire]

probably not. and it's entirely your choice if you'll forgive them for their thievery or not.
though I rarely invite allies in my wars unless I can totally trust them(that means no ai). because since i'm playing machine empires mostly...I can't risk the possibility that they'll try to troll and press the status quo\surrender just for lulz

Thievery of what? They took the system, fair and square. You're just whining because you weren't expecting that.

 

[Slynx]

No but the difference is that you're objectively wrong by the game mechanics. He had a stronger claim. If you want to be viewed as having the stronger claim, invest in having the stronger claim. If you want to not do this, and declare on him next, then do that.

of course. and he also accept that i'll became his enemy after his actions. I guess it's called "consequences"

In at least one version of the game this isn't true, at least I could not increase my claim strength because an ally also claimed the system. My claim was stronger anyway (because I had spent the effort before the war to make it stronger) but it wouldn't let me increase whilst at war. In any case, they can't do anything you can't do (and if they can it's a bug).

hm.. strange. I had system stolen from me. I remember it because I was a bit of upset that my friend is forcing me to kill him...but he made a choice.
though if it was a bug or a slight miscalculation on either or our sides: then i'm glad.
not sure if it's 2.0.1 or 2.0.2 though. because I've switched to playing as assimilators after that. and they don't have this problem

You're just whining because you weren't expecting that.

it's not whining.
treat it as an algorithm: whoever has the system is my enemy. and don't be mistaken: i'm not against the possibility to steal the system from another. all alliances are temporary thing​

 

[NemoRow]

I think I might have another idea which can capture all of it:
* Introduce negative population growth. Planet with negative population growth equal to let say 2, starts with each pop 'growth' equal to 30, so every 15 month one pop disappear on the planet.
* War sides have 1 random pop taken from their empire every time they capture the enemy system. (Let say there is a system S belonging to empire A fighting the empire B. Empire B takes S and has a pop taken from it. Empire A retakes S and it costs it no pop. Once again empire B takes S and it costs it one more pop)
* WE exhaustion from 0 to 50% gradually mitigates all of the population growth bonuses, so at WE population growth speed is equal to 0% for any empire.
* WE exhaustion from 50% to 100% gradually increases in the negative side, making pops die on every planet every X month.
* After the war ends WE gradually decreases from 50% to 0% within 2 years.

This will fix many issues:
* Taking large amounts of systems involve high costs on the attacking side in terms of population, which naturally needs to regrow
* Defenders could make attackers pay high costs without facing their main fleets, which can be a model for asymmetrical warfire
* Works for robots too, as robots won't be built on negative build speed. However robots do recover faster from it, as their build speed is faster than usual population growth speed.
* It mirrors population losses during the war
* It gives non-genocidal empires a little edge, as they may have migration treaties, what can give them more time to fight, as pops from migration treaties would take a place of empty space.
* It scales - bigger empires would suffer more damage in absolute values than small ones
* It proportional, as 5 planet empire loosing 5 pops would feel it as much as 30 planets empire loosing 30 pops
* It takes time to recover after the war.
* It adds population loses flavor into the game.
* Empire can be literally exhausted by war to its death.

 

[James Fire]

of course. and he also accept that i'll became his enemy after his actions. I guess it's called "consequences"


hm.. strange. I had system stolen from me. I remember it because I was a bit of upset that my friend is forcing me to kill him...but he made a choice.
though if it was a bug or a slight miscalculation on either or our sides: then i'm glad.
not sure if it's 2.0.1 or 2.0.2 though. because I've switched to playing as assimilators after that. and they don't have this problem

You not being prepared for them claiming the system more than you does not make it stolen from you.

 

[Col. W. T. Philmore]

so that those who truly hate to the idea of ever being forced to peace can at least change it through modding

But if there are only crappy and unplayable changes incoming, and all of them can (and must) be fixed through mods, there are two unnecessary variables in equation - developer, and player's money. )

 

[Slynx]

You not being prepared for them claiming the system more than you does not make it stolen from you.

I think it's pointless discussion. I'm not trying to change your mind. and you will not change mine, because i'm only describing what I think about the situation and how I treat things.
and I treat it as thievery. that's all. for example i'm not telling you to treat it as thievery as well. not at all.

also, just to be clear, if i'll like your system i'll treat it as mine. and even if it'll be your homeworld system i'll treat it as a "system stolen from me". and it'll make you my enemy. it's simple as that.
after all I just need a reason to kill you, because there can be only one winner. and the only way I see "you" surviving this - is by becoming a vassal

 

[Spartan322]

There is something I don't exactly get from those talking about forced peace being abusable? I mean granted that's true if there isn't much effect to the gains post-war, but what if rebellions that are generated from war are significantly stronger in comparison to their originating empire, and if they were successfully conquered they'll steal from the resource production to provide for themselves. (to eventually conquer their systems back) Unless you purify them then you're screwed (given rebellions actually present a challenge instead of being another bland, pointless, and bland mechanic most of the time) and in the case of a type of total war, you could invite everyone to fight the war and that be the only case where war exhaustion for the most part doesn't exist or accumulates so slowly as to not exist.

Also, I don't get what Wiz and PDX were thinking here, first they decide to to do something controversial in the main update alongside adding in things that are kinda arbitrary locks on player volition for what are considered balance reasons and then they revert the change they considered for balance into a meaningless penalty that they revert back from again? If the beta was an attempt to test no forced SQ then it was dumb, short, and didn't actually test anything, it was in a lazy broken state of worthlessness being unbalanced and so people ranted about how bad it was, some claiming the forced SQ would plain be superior and some just getting mad at the fact its terribly done and they took that as if that's the reason forced SQ was needed? Was it to test the community with something that didn't work? That seems awfully one sided for testing. What was the fucking point of the change? I get that PDX and Wiz and all have the power over the game and can do what they want, but if they were just gonna make it obvious they didn't like the idea of removing forced SQ, why was it added to the beta in the first place? If they were just gonna throw it in and expect people not to throw a hissy fit over another fairly large change that wasn't balanced why even bother having it removed? Its almost like they didn't want to try it after implementing it for a week, which I'd have no problem with if they actually told us that and gave good reasoning, but now it just feels like a worthless abandonment for something so frivolous and obscured. I may dislike the forced SQ, but I would like to actually see the arguments of the designers for treating it as bad as they have and explaining to me why they removed it, and why the hell they added it as they did if they were gonna just give up on it within a week or two.

 

[The Boz]

Have you thought about modifying the War Exhaustion "pool"/gain depending on the type of war declared? Something like "I want to take your three border systems that each have two mines total" should generate more WE/have a smaller WE "pool" than "I wish to come to your planet, take it, and eat your face", which is a rather... existential concern.