[Wandering Sentinel]

Presumably sectors are meant to serve as administrative districts in your empire with different behaviors later in development. They remind me more of the states added into EUIV than independent nations and seem to serve a similar purpose to them and vassals, especially if you view all society techs as both research into equipment needed to do certain things and the creation/restructuring of the bureaucracy/laws required for to actually put them into action. Once you have too many inhabited systems in your "core sector" the imperial bureaucracy starts to get bogged down and you have one of two options: expand the imperial bureaucracy (research or do something else to get more core systems) or create a lower tier government with its own bureaucratic organization to oversee new conquests/additions. The sector limit could be taken to represent exactly how many sectors your imperial bureaucracy can handle before the information becomes too much to parse, the inbound and outbound communications become too much for your communications network, and your sector governors (who would handle the sector bureaucracy) too numerous to monitor for corruption. I'm more interested in the fact that the sectors seem to only be able to represent sectors in a government that's neither democratic/republic nor authoritarian: while you appoint governors and say what you want them to do in general, authoritarian governments are forced to let the governors and sectors decide how they do it. Likewise, while sectors have a large amount of autonomy, they don't fit in with a democracy or republic since governors are appointed instead of elected.

You could also look at them as something similar to colonial nations in EUIV. You decide who runs them and they're technically part of your nation, but they have a fair degree of autonomy to do whatever they want.

 

[Spycrab3k]

Doubled likelihood of triggering Horizon Signal event chain when a science ship enters a black hole system

Can no longer trigger Horizon Signal by moving a science ship repeatedly into the same black hole system

So I have two questions concerning the Horizons Signal.
One, so how will the Horizon Signal work now? Is there a chance that the Horizons Signal will never occur in the game now?
Two, how will phonics work with the Horizons Signal because during the chain, your species goes though two different changes that qualify it has a new species, so saying that your species is awakened during this chain, will the two new species created though the event also be awakened and able to use phonic ability's?

 

[henzington]

So I have two questions concerning the Horizons Signal.
One, so how will the Horizon Signal work now? Is there a chance that the Horizons Signal will never occur in the game now?
Two, how will phonics work with the Horizons Signal because during the chain, your species goes though two different changes that qualify it has a new species, so saying that your species is awakened during this chain, will the two new species created though the event also be awakened and able to use phonic ability's?

The phrasing of the patch notes makes it seem that you only get the chance to detect the signal one time.

 

[Verx90]

Ah, right. Sorry.



Perhaps. I'm certainly not opposed to sectors as a concept, and as I said, if they were more like EUIV or CK2 vassals (I.e. more autonomous) I'd probably be more ok with not being able to build in them, but as is it just feels silly, especially as you can build space stations etc.. That said, and especially since, as you've said, you can already build on planets by removing and then re-adding them from/to a sector, I still think you should be able to build in them from your own resources (since this would be a streamlining of existing functionality anyway...).

they are not autonomous , they are like regions in my country , they have a limited gain from their tax and they have to comply to state law ; they can only chose how to manage and use the resource in their territory . we are in advanced govern form, they are not vassals of ck2 we are not in medievals time . the concept of decentralized is seen into more pacifist - egalitarian - xenolover ethics , where pop can freely move and you can't declare randoms aggressive wars and this give you more core sector because you can directly control less aspects .

could they make more aspects to the sector ? like having something like sectors law ( there are already some law ) but something like taking 10% of the fleet power those sectors give and build their fleet for whatever reason (asteroids , pirates , random spawn of things) or whatever a region can may want . but you to considerate that there are already factions for sectors , laws , they can already build (defensive) army , and they take a % of resource for them self , and that is already tons of autonomy ( think in EU4 where autonomy is a value that work similar , greater the % , less resource and manpower you receive and is fixed when you give your region to nobility- clerics - guilds faction.)

 

[CraftyApe]

So I really like the patch notes, however:

* Doubled the base time it takes to colonize planets

It's clear from this one line that Paradox either doesn't know that the Stellaris multiplayer meta is and has been dominated by militaristic authoritarians, or that they just don't care. This change will make stellaris multiplayer even more one dimensional, despite everything else in these awesome patch notes. I love everything else in here, but my heart sank when I saw this----mp games will not be any deeper or more interesting than they have been because of this one change. Frankly, they needed to do more to nerf slaver-conqueror empires, not make rushing the obvious choice. Single player will be improved immensely by this patch. Mulitplayer will stay the same or be even worse.

 

[BrokenSky]

It's clear from this one line that Paradox either doesn't know that the Stellaris multiplayer meta is and has been dominated by militaristic authoritarians, or that they just don't care. This change will make stellaris multiplayer even more one dimensional, despite everything else in these awesome patch notes. I love everything else in here, but my heart sank when I saw this----mp games will not be any deeper or more interesting than they have been because of this one change. Frankly, they needed to do more to nerf slaver-conqueror empires, not make rushing the obvious choice. Single player will be improved immensely by this patch. Mulitplayer will stay the same or be even worse.

I get the feeling that In house multiplayer tends to play like a load of people all in singleplayer, but in the same game. That's the feeling I get from EUIV streams and to a lesser extent the fewer stellaris streams we've seen? Not certain though.

 

[Carl_Bar]

I talked about this in the quarantine thread. But quarantine appears to be being ignored ATM so i'll semi-repeat myself here.

As i confirmed in my current game started for that purpose. The AI if told to build a specialised EC sector will pretty much do s good a job as i would, you have to artificially feed it Minerals, but it works just fine. I suspect on that basis the other specialisations are perfectly capable of building idealised worlds too, though i imagine currently they'll build non-ideal to meet EC overhead.

The issue here is that

A) worlds suited for a specific specialisation are often some distance apart, so we can;t put them in the same sector for specialisation. And we don;t get a big enough sector cap to sue one sector per system. (assuming that single system dosen;t have 2 contradictory ideal specialisation worlds in it).

B) you can't tell a sector to build its EC over there at that idal EC specialisation world and then build it's other stuff here so it can get the best benefits for each, (A similar issue applies with science types for that matter).

Let us set specialisation by planet rather than by sector and i bet 90% of the complaint will disappear because the AI can actually do a good job of building specialised systems based on my little test.

 

[CraftyApe]

I get the feeling that In house multiplayer tends to play like a load of people all in singleplayer, but in the same game. That's the feeling I get from EUIV streams and to a lesser extent the fewer stellaris streams we've seen? Not certain though.

It seems clear that none of them have bothered to play pick up multiplayer. I haven't tried it in months but I expect the server list is still broken. I get the impression that the paradox dev team isn't full of starcraft or supcom players so much as civ players and so they don't understand the 'real time' aspect of RTS. They've put that aspect into the game...they just don't seem to understand it. People who min-max (and I have been one off and on) destroy this game. It is so easiliy exploitable. The optimal strategies are so limited (and are all slaver rush builds).

But Paradox seems to not know that.

 

[Carl_Bar]

Also minor question because i'm not sure which interpretation is accurate. How does slavery tolerance work now. Is the attitude of your pops towards enslaved set by your empire ethics now or will non-authoritarian pops in authoritarian empires still get upset, (presumably conquered pops would regardless till integrated and those with opposed ethics would too ofc regardless). Because if the latter then slavery is gonna get really hammered, if the former it gets a huge boost.

 

[Verx90]

So I really like the patch notes, however:



It's clear from this one line that Paradox either doesn't know that the Stellaris multiplayer meta is and has been dominated by militaristic authoritarians, or that they just don't care. This change will make stellaris multiplayer even more one dimensional, despite everything else in these awesome patch notes. I love everything else in here, but my heart sank when I saw this----mp games will not be any deeper or more interesting than they have been because of this one change. Frankly, they needed to do more to nerf slaver-conqueror empires, not make rushing the obvious choice. Single player will be improved immensely by this patch. Mulitplayer will stay the same or be even worse.

i never played competitive mp stellaris . said this .

how come the double time for colonizing buff the militaristic empires , since the only way for them to grown in early game is to colonize anyway?
and after the buff on station and all those nerf on rushes and tall how come this patch would advantage militaristic empires (and is not nerfint them already eneught)?
is competitive mp played only with players? no FE , no endgame crysis ? no federation?
if is so, shouldnt you looking at the fanaticpurifier wiith +33% fire rate and +50% borders ? i don't realy understand how can an increase colonizing time be so pushing to rush when this is actualy a rusher nerf ( double time mean double energy price (-8 energy\month for a year is 96 , 2 years 192 energy and in early game is a pain)





ps. well, considering that into a 1v1 being a pacifist will not help, starcraft is not realy a good comparison isn't it ?

 

[CraftyApe]

i never played competitive mp stellaris . said this .

how come the double time for colonizing buff the militaristic empires , since the only way for them to grown in early game is to colonize anyway?
and after the buff on station and all those nerf on rushes and tall how come this patch would advantage militaristic empires (and is not nerfint them already eneught)?
is competitive mp played only with players? no FE , no endgame crysis ? no federation?
if is so, shouldnt you looking at the fanaticpurifier wiith +33% fire rate and +50% borders ? i don't realy understand how can an increase colonizing time be so pushing to rush when this is actualy a rusher nerf ( double time mean double energy price (-8 energy\month for a year is 96 , 2 years 192 energy and in early game is a pain)

Even in the current build with the station buff, you can still conquer an enemy's capital without colonizing first if they don't bother to build up to their fleetcap while colonizing. Just for reference, here's a general idea of how this build works in its current form:

Fanatic Militarist/Collectivist w/ industrialist, decadent, thrifty, sedentary---Military Junta for the decreased fleet upkeep and the +1 admiral level. Plutocratic Oligarchy can work too but isn't as good.

In game: Enslave all food/mineral pops. Prioritize building mines on your planet and mineral mining stations in your current territory. Starting with the Sol system is a good idea as your more likely to have a few mineral stations in your home system. Once you've done that, build as far past the fleet cap as you can before 2210 or so, and invade your nearest neighbor. With decent actions-per-minute and the average amount of minerals on your home planet/territory you should be able to conquer a player who has not built up to the fleet cap and has their fleet parked next to their station (most of the time people don't. learning to do all of the above at maximum efficiency takes a bit of practice, but after you've got it down you'll win most of your games against non-rushers).

After the station buff, it's become better to get one or two colonies before invading for the fleet cap bump but the above strategy still usually works even without colonies. Now with this new patch, with it taking longer to colonize (because honestly making new worlds protocol free doesn't help since you need the resources to build a colony ship and set up infrastructure takes a bit anyway) and with fanatical purifiers buffing fire rate and borders the ideal rush build will go back to single system build up---->conquest.

You say you haven't played comp multiplayer? Well, take it from me, this meta is ruining the game and this patch isn't doing much to stop it.

 

[stumason]

So, '5-th' patch, and still no ability to via modding, add more spaceport building slots?
For example, for each spaceport lvl, two building slots.

There are mods that do that

 

[Space Chicken]

After the station buff, it's become better to get one or two colonies before invading for the fleet cap bump but the above strategy still usually works even without colonies. Now with this new patch, with it taking longer to colonize (because honestly making new worlds protocol free doesn't help since you need the resources to build a colony ship and set up infrastructure takes a bit anyway) and with fanatical purifiers buffing fire rate and borders the ideal rush build will go back to single system build up---->conquest.

If fanatical purifier takes planet, everyone in there will be purged. Doesn't sound very optimal for rush build as you will be stuck with one productive planet for very long time.

With the station buff defender already has an advantage and we haven't seen 1.5 yet, so defenders may have some new advantages also.

 

[Chaos_TLW]

If fanatical purifier takes planet, everyone in there will be purged. Doesn't sound very optimal for rush build as you will be stuck with one productive planet for very long time.

You can always relocate a few pops there. Should let you keep the world as a new colony for what is quite possibly less than the influence cost of actually establishing a new colony.

 

[Wandering Sentinel]

I assume the only wargoals Fanatic Purifiers will have access to are reconquest of lost worlds and "cleanse," basically if the planet IS conquered the entire population is immediately killed off, no purge timer, no chance to move pops over there through forced relocation, nothing.

 

[Rabiator]

You could also look at them as something similar to colonial nations in EUIV. You decide who runs them and they're technically part of your nation, but they have a fair degree of autonomy to do whatever they want.

The difference is that in EU4 you are NOT FORCED to split off a part of your country just because you have reached a size of more than 5 provinces. However you CAN CHOOSE TO DO SO ... and that is the big difference. In Stellaris you are forced, in EU4 you arent. If one of the two games should have the "sector mechanic" it should be EU4, because it is set in a time where news are spread on horseback instead of instant FTL methods, so limited communication should make nations in EU4 require "sector governors". Obviously you could argue that a province is a sector, BUT I still decide everything for them ... instead of nothing. So to make the comparison complete sectors would be provinces in EU4, where you are not allowed to decide anything anymore ... no building, no setting autonomy ... and the province would keep a part of its income to do NOTHING with it (or something completely stupid).

Oh and vassals are not "part of your country" in EU4.
/rant off

Sectors is a game mechanic which has no logical "necessity" and which should be OPTIONAL but isnt. If the point is to limit the mass expansion of players, then it should be replaced by a certain number of "max planets" ... something similar to the States and Territories of EU4. You could do the same as in EU4: create a vassal from some of your systems and release it.

 

[Verx90]

I assume the only wargoals Fanatic Purifiers will have access to are reconquest of lost worlds and "cleanse," basically if the planet IS conquered the entire population is immediately killed off, no purge timer, no chance to move pops over there through forced relocation, nothing.

without considering the habitability , you must hope for the right neighboring . and i think there is no istant purge if you want actualy the planet , you have to wait for the purge and manage the insurgent ( with refugee escaping from the planet to feed xenolover too)

Even in the current build with the station buff, you can still conquer an enemy's capital without colonizing first if they don't bother to build up to their fleetcap while colonizing. Just for reference, here's a general idea of how this build works in its current form:

Fanatic Militarist/Collectivist w/ industrialist, decadent, thrifty, sedentary---Military Junta for the decreased fleet upkeep and the +1 admiral level. Plutocratic Oligarchy can work too but isn't as good.

In game: Enslave all food/mineral pops. Prioritize building mines on your planet and mineral mining stations in your current territory. Starting with the Sol system is a good idea as your more likely to have a few mineral stations in your home system. Once you've done that, build as far past the fleet cap as you can before 2210 or so, and invade your nearest neighbor. With decent actions-per-minute and the average amount of minerals on your home planet/territory you should be able to conquer a player who has not built up to the fleet cap and has their fleet parked next to their station (most of the time people don't. learning to do all of the above at maximum efficiency takes a bit of practice, but after you've got it down you'll win most of your games against non-rushers).

After the station buff, it's become better to get one or two colonies before invading for the fleet cap bump but the above strategy still usually works even without colonies. Now with this new patch, with it taking longer to colonize (because honestly making new worlds protocol free doesn't help since you need the resources to build a colony ship and set up infrastructure takes a bit anyway) and with fanatical purifiers buffing fire rate and borders the ideal rush build will go back to single system build up---->conquest.

You say you haven't played comp multiplayer? Well, take it from me, this meta is ruining the game and this patch isn't doing much to stop it.

i see many thing that this patch is doing to nerf rusher, and i can see the "meta" of military power , but this is like a zergling rush , poor on energy and if you fail you are dead . i think this work more because of ballistics weapons OP of 1.4 more than anything else , if you meet a neighboring with missile weapon you hit the jackpot , in the time the first missile hit, you already destroyed their fleet , keep at it and just win with battle points . considering having ships cap always up is a must , a player should not be too much hit from this "rush" , and that everyone should focus on build resources.

well, i can just hope the 1.5 will have enough balancing . ( yep, i can't still see how a double time on colonizing would be so heavy , considering that after you take a planet , you have to build n* worth minerals of army to defend it and manage the rebels , and refugee that will feed xenolover )

 

[Wandering Sentinel]

The difference is that in EU4 you are NOT FORCED to split off a part of your country just because you have reached a size of more than 5 provinces. However you CAN CHOOSE TO DO SO ... and that is the big difference. In Stellaris you are forced, in EU4 you arent. If one of the two games should have the "sector mechanic" it should be EU4, because it is set in a time where news are spread on horseback instead of instant FTL methods, so limited communication should make nations in EU4 require "sector governors". Obviously you could argue that a province is a sector, BUT I still decide everything for them ... instead of nothing. So to make the comparison complete sectors would be provinces in EU4, where you are not allowed to decide anything anymore ... no building, no setting autonomy ... and the province would keep a part of its income to do NOTHING with it (or something completely stupid).

Actually, Colonial nations are AUTOMATICALLY formed the moment you have five or more cities in the same colonial region of the Americas, Australia, the Caribbean, and many parts of Africa if you're a European or Asian power (or, presumably, not on the same continent). They can pay a tax that you set, some let you assign governors every few years (choice of keeping the current governor or replacing them based off the wishes of the colonists and if you're feeling generous enough to respect those wishes), they view themselves as part of your nation until independence desire gets too high, and you can make a few minor decisions for them.

Compare that to sectors in Stellaris: they're often formed out of systems near the edge of your space when you can't personally manage all of your planets (either by choice or because you don't want to take the hit from too many core systems), each can have a governor assigned to manage them in your place, you can set a tax rate for them that they will uphold, you can make a few decisions from them (can they colonize, can they replace buildings, can they build robots, build stations, enslave, etc), and they can declare independence and try to break away to form their own nation if they become unhappy for any reason. The interesting thing here is that you choose to only quote me on the Colonial Nations part, which technically differs in only one way. You don't choose when a Colonial Nation is formed from your overseas holdings. Either you let one form or you don't have five cities in the same part of a continent to avoid it, but once you have five cities in the same colonial region, a Colonial Nation DOES form and you don't get to pick and choose what cities it gets. In Stellaris you can choose when to form a sector, where to form it, and what systems are in it.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Finally, I'll leave you with a cryptic little note: There's something special that's been added to the audio for Banks by none other than our Audio Director, Björn Iversen, himself. Keep your eyes peeled for it in the patch notes...

Did we ever find out what this was about?

 

[pieman]

Did we ever find out what this was about?

I was under the impression it was the "* Added game launch option -bajen" thing.