Stellaris Dev Diary #140 - 2.2.x post-launch patch v2

[EccentricJoe]

will not be buying dlc till current fundamental issues like lag, ai etc... are fixed. better be one hell of a patch

 

[LeanneKaos]

To be fair, is there that much beyond the gist of the first paragraph? The rest showed UI changes and a mention of "new stuff we will be starting soon", which reinforces feelings about the first paragraph, no?

What was the second paragraph in the original statement (before the edit turned it into the third):
"Our focus has been on improving and polishing the content we already have, so there won’t be many new features. We’ve been making improvements from everything from AI to UI to balance."

Note two things in that second paragraph: he said there won't be many new features, and they are making improvements to the AI. And yet, we've got quite a few people reacting like he's said the exact opposite of that.

(There are also some people expressing concerns that the timeframe he gave isn't going to be enough to make a meaningful difference, which is an understandable concern that's at least based on things he actually said.)

 

[Cocco81]

(There are also some people expressing concerns that the timeframe he gave isn't going to be enough to make a meaningful difference, which is an understandable concern that's at least based on things he actually said.)

Although I'm not using any mod on Stellaris, wouldn't it be an option to include, totally or in part, some of the most acclaimed AI overhaul mods and then build up starting from those?
Intellectual property-wise is that ok or would it require permissions, compensation etc?
If it was a viable course of action, it would hasten development a lot, probably

 

[Andrzej I]

(There are also some people expressing concerns that the timeframe he gave isn't going to be enough to make a meaningful difference, which is an understandable concern that's at least based on things he actually said.)

That was my interpretation of it, personally, as an extension of the first paragraph. After all, we're talking a timeframe of a little over a week here.

 

[retep998]

The one change that I really hope to see is a decision to export the production of robots/drones, instead of simply ceasing their production.. For a small energy cost no more than the cost of manually resettling them, all robot assembling capacity is transferred to planets that still produce robots/drones for themselves. That would reduce a huge amount of micromanagement and make machine empires so much more bearable to play when you have over a dozen planets.

 

[Parapluman]

Looking great Grekulf.
Though I do hope the next patch will fix the broken non-extermination purging that has been plaguing stellaris since 2.2.0

 

[Kayden_II]

I've red the statements, but at least for me, they're still not clearly enough formulated:
01. Do they already work on the next DLC ? ...
02. Right after this upcoming and big and "final" post-release-patch, do they work on an or even several other post-release-patche(s) (WITHOUT working on the next DLC) ? ...
03. Right after this upcoming and big and "final" post-release-patch, do they work on the next DLC ?

So, how about, someone is beginning on a large feature planned for the next DLC, while other team members continue to work on bug fixes?

Right now, it's a question of prioritisation aka "New DLC with new features" vs. "completition, fixing and optimisation of the already existing ones" and from my perspective, it's the latter ...
( And yes, I know, that PDS has to make money ) ...

Take this example:

An example of that would be Martin working on the planetary management rework for 2.2, as soon as 2.0 and Apocalypse were done. And you all know that in that time we also managed to release Distant Stars. In fact, we were even showing prototype screenshots at PDX Con to the audience.

After the (initial) release of V2.0 (base-game ("bg") + Apocalypse-DLC), wouldn't it have been a better idea, that the one (Martin aka wiz), who had (probably) coded / contributed a lot / the majority of the stuff of V2.0, would have joined the V2.0-post-support-phase-team instead ? Isn't he the most capable guy to do this ? Wouldn't be the "technical-debts"-problem less serious right now ? Was it really that reasonable to go on and work not only on the next DLC (Distant-Stars), but on the current one (MegaCorp) as well ?

 

[Iosue Yu]

In summary... we simply lack confidence.

5 patches, always something fixed, something broken. And when things get broken, they are major things, like paved planets or triple Precincts. We see so many sloppy codings and really funny logic implementations. Both time, paved planets and triple Precincts, I have discovered both problems the same way just by playing a fresh game for around 10 hours - more or less the time you have for a full-time tester to test it in one working day - and I have opened posts about them within 2 days. And the programming logics for both cases have been discovered within just 15 minutes of studying the codes - and I am not even a good programmer.

With a past frequency of breaking things like that, how are we supposed to have confidence that ONE NEXT PATCH is going to be perfect and enables us playing, needless to be flawless, a working game?

 

[Princess Stabbity]

Wheeee! I love individual ship upgrades! The all-or-nothing fleet upgrading always used to feel so weird to me. Please give Moah a cookie!

The new effect of Technological Ascendancy looks great too! I loved the perk for how universally useful it was, but it was also so generic when compared to all the others that have received changes since the original implementation. I'm so happy it's becoming a little more unique <3

 

[DeathSheep]

Although I'm not using any mod on Stellaris, wouldn't it be an option to include, totally or in part, some of the most acclaimed AI overhaul mods and then build up starting from those?
Intellectual property-wise is that ok or would it require permissions, compensation etc?
If it was a viable course of action, it would hasten development a lot, probably

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I have spent some time studying about copyright and intellectual property law, and to my understanding, incorporating community mods without contracts and compensation for the mod creators would create an ugly legal mess that Paradox management probably don't want to risk.

 

[KingAlamar]

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I have spent some time studying about copyright and intellectual property law, and to my understanding, incorporating community mods without contracts and compensation for the mod creators would create an ugly legal mess that Paradox management probably don't want to risk.

I tend to agree. If I recall properly some of the major AI mod makers have publically posted that they wave their rights but I understand [in EU and US] that even this isn't enough.

 

[VerKer]

I Am Not A Lawyer, but I have spent some time studying about copyright and intellectual property law, and to my understanding, incorporating community mods without contracts and compensation for the mod creators would create an ugly legal mess that Paradox management probably don't want to risk.

Apart from the legal aspects, this would more or less sound like declaring yourself certifiably insane, if your own development team is completely unable to provide a working, basic AI, while a single modder or their small team easily can do this, even supporting several different versions of the game at once, and without the tools the developer has at hand. Because looking at Glavius AI, that is exactly what has been happening lately. Might be the best idea to fit him with a limited work contract, if he was fancy to, and name a few star systems in the game after him Looking at one or the other mod, one must admit that having the modders work at the basegame from time to time must work wonders...

PS: Not happy that Grekulf said they wont be touching sectors any time soon, because this is a problem that Stellaris suffered from since serveral version numbers, not to say years.

 

[gimox]

It would be nice if the entire next development cycle were focused on bug fixing only. I know, you're a company and of course you need money to sustain all the expenses that you have, so here is an idea: let the artists work on some cosmetics while the rest of the team works on fixing the game. Then release the cosmetic dlc and the people who wants to support the developers will gladly buy that dlc. Like me, for example.
But please, don't release new content on top of an already broken game, because simply it's new content we can't actually play if it stays this way.

 

[KingAlamar]

Apart from the legal aspects, this would more or less sound like declaring yourself certifiably insane, if your own development team is completely unable to provide a working, basic AI, while a single modder or their small team easily can do this, even supporting several different versions of the game at once, and without the tools the developer has at hand.

If the shoe fits ....

I suspect this is less of an issue of "incapable of" as opposed to "not allowed to". As to the exact form this took we don't know:

• Not a large enough ROI to invest in AI
• Launch date not flexible [even to address quality concerns]
• "Not caring"
• Not enough testing so nobody really "caught it"
• Nobody complaining loudly enough internally for the 'bean counters' to make an informed decision
• One of the dozen other reasons I didn't list

Because looking at Glavius AI, that is exactly what has been happening lately. Might be the best idea to fit him with a limited work contract, if he was fancy to, and name a few star systems in the game after him Looking at one or the other mod, one must admit that having the modders work at the basegame from time to time must work wonders...

PS: Not happy that Grekulf said they wont be touching sectors any time soon, because this is a problem that Stellaris suffered from since serveral version numbers, not to say years.

I'd love to hear the REAL reason that 2.2.0 was allowed to ship in the state it did and why we haven't seen more detailed specifics on what will be addressed and when.

 

[Urza1234]

It would be nice if the entire next development cycle were focused on bug fixing only. I know, you're a company and of course you need money to sustain all the expenses that you have, so here is an idea: let the artists work on some cosmetics while the rest of the team works on fixing the game. Then release the cosmetic dlc and the people who wants to support the developers will gladly buy that dlc. Like me, for example.
But please, don't release new content on top of an already broken game, because simply it's new content we can't actually play if it stays this way.

I mean, PDX is literally making headlines in terms of profitability.
If they release more paid DLC on top of a still broken base game it will be difficult to believe that the motivation is anything other than greed.

I'd love to hear the REAL reason that 2.2.0 was allowed to ship in the state it did and why we haven't seen more detailed specifics on what will be addressed and when.

Same reason imo.
The steam winter sales are no joke, and they're an absolutely huge Q4 and Q1 revenue booster. Last year's reports were great, imo they took a calculated risk and released Megacorp unbaked to cash in so that their YoY looked healthy, and didnt anticipate both the level of incompleteness and the backlash.

Its very short-term thinking, but thats not unusual for publicly traded game companies.

What an irony, considering the title and theme of the DLC in question.

 

[AlphaAsh]

I tend to agree. If I recall properly some of the major AI mod makers have publically posted that they wave their rights but I understand [in EU and US] that even this isn't enough.

We don't have any. Part of the agreement with PDX in order to mod the game, is we do not have legal ownership of code or coded assets we produce, and PDX is welcome to them without argument. Most likely they would consult if they were to yoink something, because that's polite and professional.

Art is a more fuzzy area where copyright can be argued, so PDX obviously wouldn't yoink it. Writing (not code) is another fuzzy area - an event line for example, and PDX wouldn't yoink such things either. It is not unknown for a games company to buy or agree to share sales revenue from such content, however.

 

[VerKer]

Its very short-term thinking, but thats not unusual for publicly traded game companies.

Ask yourself, do you let them get away with it? If so, will this "business model" spread to more PDX titels? Several posts or pages above someone wrote he would be a fanboy but vote with his wallet. I concur. If there ever was a time when you had to think twice before buying new content, it is now. And to be honest, the idea given above that a cosmetic, small DLC could raise some funds for another cycle of bug fixing instead of new development seems a decent idea, given this is an option for PDX. At least long term, the Stellaris franchise should benefit a lot from.

On a different subject: Is it only me or why is the new lead Daniel not present in any form? No playthrough videos, no dev diaries, even his twitter looks sparse or shallow to say the least. Not that any comparisons with Martin Anward should be made, but perhaps a little more attention towards the public might do good? Or does it?

 

[AlphaAsh]

II suspect this is less of an issue of "incapable of" as opposed to "not allowed to".

After having been modding the game for 2+ years, I can be certain there are capable AI developers within PDX. However, there have been multiple instances of poor scripting and back-end co-ordination that suggest that those skillsets are often pulled between titles.

I'm ballsy enough to speculate that Wiz did not have time to put the AI in place he really wanted to or is capable of for 2.2 and his skills have been allocated too soon elsewhere. It's a shame, because I do not feel whoever is on scripting is up to the task and/or does not have enough support from the hard-level devs. This means they are throwing what they can into scripting that isn't going to be effective.

I feel that this has happened before as well. Scripting associated to buildings has been consistently fail, and it doesn't help that the 'API' the scripters are working with keeps changing severely every major DLC linked update. I frankly feel sorry for the poor bastard who did the last pass on it. I think it's a mess.

 

[Molikroth]

On a different subject: Is it only me or why is the new lead Daniel not present in any form? No playthrough videos, no dev diaries, even his twitter looks sparse or shallow to say the least. Not that any comparisons with Martin Anward should be made, but perhaps a little more attention towards the public might do good? Or does it?

I mean to be absolutely fair, his job is to manage the development of the game itself rather than promoting it. He's been on a few streams as well before Wiz moved onto another project, but I'd rather he continue his work managing his team rather than worrying about streams and twitter. If he can do both without it affecting the development work? Cool. If not? I'd rather he continue on fixing stuff.

 

[FiddleSticks96]

The one change that I really hope to see is a decision to export the production of robots/drones, instead of simply ceasing their production.. For a small energy cost no more than the cost of manually resettling them, all robot assembling capacity is transferred to planets that still produce robots/drones for themselves. That would reduce a huge amount of micromanagement and make machine empires so much more bearable to play when you have over a dozen planets.

^ This. I need this in my life.