They said 'victory conditions' plural. They never said there is only a 'conquere everything' condition.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
They said 'victory conditions' plural. They never said there is only a 'conquere everything' condition.
I just hope they don't fall into making the gameplay itself based around victory types, like the affinity victories in Civilizations: Beyond Earth, or faction quests in Endless Legend. Whether they work in the games is another question, but I think they would ruin Stellaris. I don't want something like a path of quests leading to the discovery of an ancient empire, with a victory at the end. Also, I hate when games make content that is useless to anything other than a victory type, like the spaceship parts and technologies in Civ 5. I know Stellaris is not a 4x game, but they seems to take some inspiration from them.
Really? Cause IIRC correctly in the announcement stream Doomdark said there was only one. Could someone find it please?
i think the game should be just about human expansion (at least initially), its only due to aggressive alien races or player action that seeds of war are sown, which may starts a chain reaction leading to much bigger wars in the time ahead.
and thus if you which, you can try to avoid war altogether, but be valuable with a small empire, or take a risk and start a war with all its problems and cost, for the sake of expansion.
its kind of like EU 4, but without the religious, geopolitical incentives
and thus if you which, you can try to avoid war altogether, but be valuable with a small empire, or take a risk and start a war with all its problems and cost, for the sake of expansion.
its kind of like EU 4, but without the religious, geopolitical incentives
To be honest I don't think that we will see any traditional "victory conditions" in Stellaris. I presume there will be some sort of ending and if you do happen to conquer the entire galaxy the game will ask if you like to end as well, but you could continue... you are bound to fraction that empire sooner or later.
I think that this whole notion there is a need for victory conditions to guide new players seem like a rather weak argument. A player already know what they need to do which is explore and establish their empire.
I could see an ending as some quest or storytelling event, one which a player can choose when to finish. It would have to be something that end that civilization in some way such a transcending their species or something. This would be a story arc you could pursue if you like to but you would not be forced to and it will not effect the AI all that much.
I doubt that these end game events will actually end the game since they have said you can have several of them in one game.
They have also said that technology will be designed in a way that they will never end, but I presume there will be a finite type of technologies with special effects and the rest are just improvements on the existing ones. If you combine this with endless time you could in theory keep playing the same game for a very long time.
You can now choose to end the game by completing the story and transcend or just quit when you like to start a new game, the actual ending is not important to everyone. You can also use the transcendence ending as a measure stick on how fast you can reach it and with how high score at that time if you are a competitive player and this is important to you. The transcendence quest do not require any specific route to solve so you can play your empire in any shape or form to reach it since there will be multiple path to reach it, peacefully or violently.
I could see this as the one "victory condition" which would not detract from the game experience as you experiencing it while playing and there are never any forced rush to reach this condition before anyone else outside of multi player. You obviously don't loose if any AI nation transcends before you, why should you?
I think that this whole notion there is a need for victory conditions to guide new players seem like a rather weak argument. A player already know what they need to do which is explore and establish their empire.
I could see an ending as some quest or storytelling event, one which a player can choose when to finish. It would have to be something that end that civilization in some way such a transcending their species or something. This would be a story arc you could pursue if you like to but you would not be forced to and it will not effect the AI all that much.
I doubt that these end game events will actually end the game since they have said you can have several of them in one game.
They have also said that technology will be designed in a way that they will never end, but I presume there will be a finite type of technologies with special effects and the rest are just improvements on the existing ones. If you combine this with endless time you could in theory keep playing the same game for a very long time.
You can now choose to end the game by completing the story and transcend or just quit when you like to start a new game, the actual ending is not important to everyone. You can also use the transcendence ending as a measure stick on how fast you can reach it and with how high score at that time if you are a competitive player and this is important to you. The transcendence quest do not require any specific route to solve so you can play your empire in any shape or form to reach it since there will be multiple path to reach it, peacefully or violently.
I could see this as the one "victory condition" which would not detract from the game experience as you experiencing it while playing and there are never any forced rush to reach this condition before anyone else outside of multi player. You obviously don't loose if any AI nation transcends before you, why should you?
Last edited:
- 2
I can't remember this sentence. And it wouldn't make sense if they focuse on so many things beside warfare too.
Wasn't it stated somewhere by devs that almost none of CKII's playthroughs end in 1453 (or whatever the enddate is) ? I'm searching for the post but couldn't find it...
Anyway, I never ever finished a CKII/EUIV playthrough, and I don't think I'm the only one... Meaning that, while these games technically have an end date, it isn't really one - people just stop when they feel they've accomplished their goals. I don't see why that couldn't just be the case with Stellaris ?
- 3
It's a legitimate concern, just not one for this thread because that's not a concern about victory conditions. Like at all. It's a concern about AI. And dressing it up to be this huge meaningful thing about how the game clearly should be so open and free so all the people can just create is just ridiculous. If you're worried about the AI, start a thread about the AI.
We've thrown around so many words here and there still really hasn't been any really substantive argument against having victory conditions at all, other than perhaps that they would impact the endless mode in some nebulous and non-obvious ways and so we can't be having that.
If people do generally agree that we should have both modes and we should at least have option victory conditions then why am I still getting so much hate? Like, seriously? Because in truth what I said five pages ago; that we should have both modes; is exactly what everyone else is agreeing with now and yet I'm somehow still very much in the wrong.
- 4
Are you seriously implying that a problem has to be about either AI or victory conditions and cannot overlap at all? It is an AI problem that is heavily intertwined with victory conditions, and one that ceases to exist when there are no victory conditions. There is no reason not to discuss it in this thread.
I think victory conditions are unnecessary, and dressing them up to be this huge meaningful thing about how the game clearly should be so finite and closed so all the people can just see a victory screen is just ridiculous. I mean, I just typed it out, so this has to be your exact argument and it must be completely ridiculous because I said so.
You have read the other posts in this thread, yes? Are you being willfully blind? Oh, right, I forgot. If it has something to do with the AI it is not and can never be in any way related to victory conditions, so we'll just conveniently remove that whole mess from the argument and replace it with "nebulous and non-obvious." In that case, I guess I'll ask where the substantive argument for having victory conditions is, because all I've seen while looking at your history in this thread is that not having them would affect new players in some nebulous and non-obvious way, and we can't be having that.
Hate? What kind of hate do you think you have been getting? I've just gone back through the last several pages looking for it, and the most hostile person I've seen has been you, if we are calling condescension hate now. Downvotes? Downvotes are not hate, they are just people disagreeing with you, which you should probably expect when coming into a thread with a title like this and taking up the opposite position. In fact I would say that this post is probably the most hostile thing addressed to you recently, and I don't mean to attack you specifically but rather this circus of an argument that has gone on for far too long as it seems people are incapable of actually listening to each other. I apologize for the tone of this reply.
- 2
You seem to be acting like you're serious with your post, but you clearly aren't because you've replied to and presumably read several posts as to why the issue of victory conditions is relevant to AI.
Take Civilization V as a prime example of what we don't want. The AI in that game was designed from the ground up with their arbitrary victory conditions in mind, and as such it is fundamentally incompatible with an endless mode. No one here cares about whether or not you check a box saying that the game will show a "You win!" screen when you collect enough iron, or whatever you want the victory condition to be. The argument has always been about AI; you seem to be the only one who thought otherwise.
- 1
In fairness, the original post doesn't mention AI at all. The problem with AI and victory conditions did come up on page 2, however, so this still isn't a new argument.
*bangs head on desk*
AI and victory conditions are not related.
They aren't.
They just aren't.
You add a better AI to civ and it wouldn't matter if it's played with victory conditions or not.
We can have both and both can be good. The AI can be made to work for both.
(emphasis added because this seems to have been ignored ten times in a row so far, so this time I figured something eye catching might help).
I don't know how to be clearer than that. The AI absolutely can be made to work with both modes. So again, why do I still get a flurry of downvotes anytime I open my mouth here? Because you don't think that's possible? You believe strongly that PDS are incompetant and can't make a good game? Or despite the complete lack of logic you still are sticking with the idea that victory conditions will somehow screw up the endless AI in some nebulous way and we can't be having with that regardless of what anyone else might have to say.
When a game developer (or any businessman) puts old fans ahead of new customers they deserve neither.
And no, the effect on new players is not nebulous what so ever. It's concrete and obvious. From a game design stand point we should have a finite game. From a new player experience stand point we should have a finite game. From a learning process and player incentive stand point we should have a finite game. From a business perspective we should have a finite game. And PDS thinks that too. We know we are getting an end now. Presumably they've thought about this to some degree and found the arguments for finality more compelling than the argument of open endedness. Hell, maybe they don't even care about endless at all, which is totally understandable. But whether they care or not they are going to give us a better AI than rushing set victory conditions. Of course they are. Do you play their games? The AI has been better than that for a long time.
I came in this thread because I feel strongly that games should not be beholden to the tyranny of their fans and to try and confront this misguided kind of thinking on a reasonably intelligent level to be faced by (not particularly from you, but certainly from others) open hostility and implied insults about my intelligence. But I still think that fans don't know better than developers so I'm sticking with it.
Even before you've played the game you're saying that you want this game to be more like other games you like. And that's why developers shouldn't listen to their fans during development. Because the fans want (in essence) the same things they like over and over. And the 'argument' against victory conditions very much is a case of long term players asking for their interests to be put before anyone elses. It's selfish.
- 1
I think you missed my point, as I was trying to say not that your point was nebulous and non-obvious, but that the opposing point was not. But while I am perfectly willing to accept that your point probably applies to some people, maybe even most people, it is concrete and obvious to you. It is nebulous and alien to me. As a new player, I don't believe I have ever felt anything but disappointment at a score screen, because if I played all the way to the end, the game had already hooked me and forcing an artificial end to the game very much detracts from my experience. I can only argue from this viewpoint because as a new player, I have never been one of the new players you are talking about.
Also, if you have any supporting evidence for these points you just made, I would be interested in seeing it, if you would be so kind. (disclaimer because this is the internet: genuinely interested, not trying to discredit your argument)
I have played other PDS games, yes, but I don't see how that is relevant. The PDS games I have played did not have victory conditions, so the AI worked roughly how I would like it to, even if it is(understandably) not very bright.
Nor should games ignore their existing fans, but yes I agree with this. My question would be why this conversation is still going on, when we(as you say) already know that you are getting what you want.
Correction, I am saying that I want this game to not be like the games I enjoy. I want the option to turn off victory conditions, and not have the game explode due to AI craziness. And no, I have not played the game. If I had, it would be far too late to ask for any changes, would it not?
If anyone was still asking for victory conditions to be outright deleted, you would have a point. Perhaps someone is and I simply missed it. I, at least, merely want to be able to toggle them off and leave whoever enjoys them with their fun, which I don't think is a selfish thing to ask for.
- 2
This was already pretty ridiculous. Now it is just sad. I have tried to stay away from this tack, but it's clear that nothing will get through.
I have not heard a single compelling argument from LostAlone over the course of this thread. Just a lot of repetitive frustration over the fact that people disagree with him and aren't willing to merely nod their heads at his 'concrete and obvious' assertions. Assertions that are so obvious and concrete that they do not actually require any evidence whatsoever. He still claims to speak for 'good game design' when it's already been demonstrated that industry experts disagree with his assumptions. He is saying the same things that people have refuted over and over again, and even if he rejects their refutations, he still seems to think that asserting these things as facts is going to convince people of anything.
He ignores posts, or at least fails to read them, as it took about four posts of me asking him what he meant by 'default' before he finally got indignant at me assuming his position based on the fact that he consistently argues against anyone, even people he apparently agrees with. And it turned out that all this time he was being righteously indignant about an effing checkbox.
We've had to listen to him tell us not only that we are all wrong, but we are being wrong in the wrong thread. He thinks he is the lone voice speaking out for the masses, taking a stand against the 'tyranny of the fans' so that the game can be the way he thinks it ought to be.
Everyone else just wants to preserve the actual integrity of the game. And he has the audacity to pretend that it is everyone else being selfish.
This whole process has been laughably incoherent, which is why I just am not interested in continuing. We have a very small sample size of posts here, and evidently the argument has devolved into LostAlone arguing about how actually super right he is guys. Why don't we all think he's super smart, I mean look how many words he used to say the exact same thing over and over while ignoring everyone else's arguments, requests for clarification, and a concise statement of his position.
All this time we've been arguing with someone who thinks that a checkbox being checked is so frigging important that everyone who might possibly uncheck a checkbox is selfish and tyrannical.
I just don't even see the point of continuing this, until we know more about the actual game. Everything worth saying has been said, in my opinion, so I'm done until we hear from the devs.
I have not heard a single compelling argument from LostAlone over the course of this thread. Just a lot of repetitive frustration over the fact that people disagree with him and aren't willing to merely nod their heads at his 'concrete and obvious' assertions. Assertions that are so obvious and concrete that they do not actually require any evidence whatsoever. He still claims to speak for 'good game design' when it's already been demonstrated that industry experts disagree with his assumptions. He is saying the same things that people have refuted over and over again, and even if he rejects their refutations, he still seems to think that asserting these things as facts is going to convince people of anything.
He ignores posts, or at least fails to read them, as it took about four posts of me asking him what he meant by 'default' before he finally got indignant at me assuming his position based on the fact that he consistently argues against anyone, even people he apparently agrees with. And it turned out that all this time he was being righteously indignant about an effing checkbox.
We've had to listen to him tell us not only that we are all wrong, but we are being wrong in the wrong thread. He thinks he is the lone voice speaking out for the masses, taking a stand against the 'tyranny of the fans' so that the game can be the way he thinks it ought to be.
Everyone else just wants to preserve the actual integrity of the game. And he has the audacity to pretend that it is everyone else being selfish.
This whole process has been laughably incoherent, which is why I just am not interested in continuing. We have a very small sample size of posts here, and evidently the argument has devolved into LostAlone arguing about how actually super right he is guys. Why don't we all think he's super smart, I mean look how many words he used to say the exact same thing over and over while ignoring everyone else's arguments, requests for clarification, and a concise statement of his position.
All this time we've been arguing with someone who thinks that a checkbox being checked is so frigging important that everyone who might possibly uncheck a checkbox is selfish and tyrannical.
I just don't even see the point of continuing this, until we know more about the actual game. Everything worth saying has been said, in my opinion, so I'm done until we hear from the devs.
- 3
- 1
I think a victory condition where you evolve into like such a higher lifeform that you become pure energy would be cool. Then you can basically say "I did it!" and then basically are given God-Mode in the game and can decide if you wanna continue sandboxing or that be that.
- 1
I'm pretty sure this has been suggested before, but I think being able to "ascend" your species and then switch over to another existing faction would be pretty fun, even if the ascension/transcendence thing is rather overdone(IMO.) Maybe a mod could do this.
OK, I've posted 3'ish times asking, basically, "what the hell the argument is about".
In regards to your first and last comments (as I have quoted them) I would find them perfectly apropos if it was a troll or sommink in the argument, but LA has consistently made good points, as have his antagonists like you. But, I really am amazed at the antagonism in this thread, particularly as there is no trolling about. Btw, Harle, I want to emphasize that I am not pointing you or LA as being bad boys.
My basic point, to repeat my prior posts, is that there seems to be much ado about nothing going on here. If you and LA would simply condense your points to essentials and ensure civility there might be some common ground (even if "agree to disagree").
For context, I used to moderate this board and I have been involved in mega-major-flame arguments of utmost seriousness, and I've been involved in interesting bits like this argument where no mod action is required, but is very, very tempted...
To be argumentative, LA's "default" point was perfectly clear to me. OK, I'm an IT dude so the notion of "default" is obvious. But perhaps not to others...? And, iirc, he immediately said what he meant by "default" when challenged.
In regards to your first and last comments (as I have quoted them) I would find them perfectly apropos if it was a troll or sommink in the argument, but LA has consistently made good points, as have his antagonists like you. But, I really am amazed at the antagonism in this thread, particularly as there is no trolling about. Btw, Harle, I want to emphasize that I am not pointing you or LA as being bad boys.
My basic point, to repeat my prior posts, is that there seems to be much ado about nothing going on here. If you and LA would simply condense your points to essentials and ensure civility there might be some common ground (even if "agree to disagree").
For context, I used to moderate this board and I have been involved in mega-major-flame arguments of utmost seriousness, and I've been involved in interesting bits like this argument where no mod action is required, but is very, very tempted...
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1
- 1
That is your opinion, and I respect it, but I disagree.
I also think you are being dishonest about 'knowing what he meant by default.' Feel free to quote me the point at which his position became clear to you, because I have gone over his posts with a fine-toothed comb and responded to most of them, and I was surprised by his position. If I missed something he said, I will own up to it.
If you guessed what he meant, that is one thing, but at no point did he make it clear, despite being asked to do so several times. And that was my point; he was asked, and rather than clarifying, he continued to be combative. My point was not whether one person on the forum guessed correctly. Because I was mistaken about his position, despite having read his posts several times over, each.
So, take that for what you will.
As for the rest, I am frustrated, I am out of patience. You are not, because you haven't been trying to communicate with someone who does not want to communicate for several days. I am not the only one who has had to ask something along the lines of 'have you even been reading these posts?'
Also, I invite you to PM me if you want to talk about attitudes and the like, and we can chat about it there rather than in a public thread.
Last edited:
- Status