Stellaris Dev Diary #279 / Stellaris Dog Diary #2 - 3.6.1, Holiday Beta, and More

[Idle America]

We've got a "parrot in a space suit" species, I'd love a "dog in a space suit" species. Could name my starting ruler Laika!

Oh my god... what if that was a starting empire? All of the animals launched into space wind up becoming super-intelligent due to space magic, and form their own society!

 

[HFY]

Sorry for asking a serious question in a meme thread, but are the new ascension APs hard-coded to look for 8 Tradition slots instead of looking at the number of remaining slots?

Asking because I'm using a mod which gives more Tradition slots and I delayed taking an ascension AP until they all suddenly became unavailable.

 

[improff]

This got fixed with the latest release of Gigastructures.

It would be nice if those errors didn't crash-to-desktop and PDX can definitely do better in terms of error handling but that one roadblock has been removed.

Yea, it's not so much Gigastructures as much as just ... every other mod that isn't able to dive as deep as that team. It just happens that Giga is big enough to draw attention to the problem.

Nor do I really fault QA or the Stellaris team for not catching this, but it has made 3.6 unplayable for those with large modsets, which is a little bit sad personally, especially as it wasn't really mentioned in 3.6.1, hahaha.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Sorry for asking a serious question in a meme thread, but are the new ascension APs hard-coded to look for 8 Tradition slots instead of looking at the number of remaining slots?

Asking because I'm using a mod which gives more Tradition slots and I delayed taking an ascension AP until they all suddenly became unavailable.

Looks like yes.

        custom_tooltip = {
            fail_text = "requires_free_tradition_tree"
            num_tradition_categories < 7
        }

You'd want that to be something like num_tradition_categories < TRADITION_CATEGORIES_MAX instead, but if it's possible to reference defines I'm not sure how to do it.

 

[Dragatus]

I don't quite see why the check is even necessary. It's not like you can take an ascension perk if you don't have a free slot anyway.

 

[Mcgan]

I don't quite see why the check is even necessary. It's not like you can take an ascension perk if you don't have a free slot anyway.

? The ascension perk slot is unlocked after completing a tradition tree (or researching that one tech), so it would definitely be possible.

 

[HFY]

I don't quite see why the check is even necessary. It's not like you can take an ascension perk if you don't have a free slot anyway.

You can, thanks to the AP from tech being a separate thing.

It's possible to pick an 8th AP when you already have 7 fully committed Traditions.

The check should be for at least one open Tradition slot, but it's hard-coded to "< 7" which is annoying.

 

[grommile]

It's too bad that the open betas are only available for Steam editions of the game; I'd sure like to be able to provide feedback before release, when it's most valuably captured for bugfixes, regressions, etc., instead of afterwards when the focus has already moved on beyond that release of the game.

That, sadly, is something you need to take up with the operators of other software delivery platforms

 

[Lamppost in Winter]

Can we get a doggo portrait in mammalians?

You pitiful inscet.... YOU WILL BOW BEFORE THE GREAT KORGHIS KAHN! SCOURGE OF THE STARS!

 

[fodoto]

pog

 

[Nefezer]

You should at least look at the following Mod (Amazing Space Battles) to know what I'm talking about. It's amazing how all the white sheep come together to kill any black sheep that strays from the herd . If you've never played Stellaris with this Mod, you'll never know why so many of us are so frustrated with the new combat system:

Steam Workshop::Amazing Space Battles

steamcommunity.com

 

[NotAYakk]

The final list of the changes planned for it are still being discussed internally. Changes we’re considering include significant refactoring to AI acceptance, especially those related to loyalty, economy, and subject : overlord relationships, an economic change which caps cost reductions to -90%, updates to how certain leviathans (cough Hrozgar cough) behave in combat, and it’s possible that we will include a major rework to parts of galaxy generation (fixing many issues with static galaxies).

I know it would be a bigger change than a mere cap, but hard caps sort of suck.

Instead of saying "econ modifiers cap at -90%", can you instead change it to "if your econ multiplier is negative, instead of it being 100%+MOD%, it becomes 100%/(100%-MOD%)".

Then boost negative modifiers to compensate; a -25% modifier is "really" a 1-1/(1-.25) = -.33 modifier.

The effect is that more modifiers makes things better, but it can't reach the singularity at -100%. With the hidden boost to each initial modifier, we guarantee that "25% reduced" on something at standard cost is still 25% cheaper; it just stacks differently than mere adding.

Total Modifier	Capped	This Varient	First rescale the -25% to -33%
-25% * 1	-25%	-20%	-25%
-50% = -25% * 2	-50%	-33%	-40%
-75% = -25% * 3	-75%	-43%	-50%
-100% = -25% * 4	-90%	-50%	-57%
-200% = -25% * 8	-90%	-67%	-73%
-300% = -25% * 12	-90%	-75%	-80%

 

[Ruwaard]

You are aware that if you keep posting dog pics we will demand they be added to the game, right?

I'm in favour, provided you add my favourite dog breed, the Boxer, too (I grew up with them and still have one today).