4.0 review and thoughts

[ruhrbaron]

Performance:
Better than exected (9700x, 6000MT @32GB, 9700XT) but not as good as i had hoped before the patch went life.
fleets and the planet UI unfortunately remain major sources of lag although planet lag has gone done. 400 old pops planets used to lag quite badly and i had a prison world with 50k pops in my last game (all the civilian were resettled to it) and it was just starting to become slightly noticeable

The Patch:
- played stellaris with and without the expansion and for the first time the vanilla game has scratched an itch that only mods could fullfill before. there are some things id change but i really like the new planet and job system
- i like how iron man isnt a requirement for achievments anymore, i didnt even save scum and got a bunch

The expansion:
- Very fun, although ive not yet messed around with the new authorities
- i wish empires could start using bioships after researching some tech/ unlocking the bio ascenion
- wilderness is really fun

Problems:
- the vanilla UI doesnt look good in 3440x1440 and stellaris doesnt even respect any frame rate limit
- the shipyard allocation is a mess still
- some origins, districts and authorities are still broken (rogue servitor run into a hilarious amount of district and job bugs)



Changes id like to see
- the fallen empire repeatables are the worst, the buildings are super expensive and somehow an advaced empire forgets how to build these. they also crowd out good repeatables
- i strongly dislike how much dlc content is locked behind APs, looking at u utopia and apocalypse, 10AP slots should be the minimum
- 9 traditions would be great to0
- decisions should be situations, looking at you ECUs
- it's very annoying that we cant dismantle starbases and deep space citadels during a total war.
- the megastructure build limit is redundant when alloys should be the only limit
- ring worlds are hilariously underpowered compared to ECUs, they should be stronger
- please add a search bar to the ship designer or let us hide unwanted ship types (looking at u space fauna ships)
- id love to play as a cosmogenesis newcomer (super overpowered start) (but an option to make the galaxy super hostile) (or go for a year 50 25x crisis)
- i'd be cool if planetary rings could be expanded more and had access to research buffing buildings

 

[Red Death]

- i strongly dislike how much dlc content is locked behind APs, looking at u utopia and apocalypse, 10AP slots should be the minimum

No, it's good to have different things to pick each time, and not have the same things available each game.

- 9 traditions would be great to0

No. Same reason.

Choices are good. Having everything removes choice.

 

[ruhrbaron]

No, it's good to have different things to pick each time, and not have the same things available each game.

No. Same reason.

Choices are good. Having everything removes choice.

i literally bought every single dlc and and i'd wager that most players would consider the utopia and apocalypse APs to be mandatory because they gate so much content of the game. doubly annoying bc it is something i paid for. there were also fare fewer traditions around when the limit of 7 was introduced and it'd be nice if the game reflected that. i usually play with mods and i do change the tradition limit, it's more interesting and less arbitrary.

 

[Red Death]

i literally bought every single dlc and and i'd wager that most players would consider the utopia and apocalypse APs to be mandatory because they gate so much content of the game.

Utopia and Apocalypse?

• Nihilistic acquisition (probably not what you mean)
• Voidborne (hopefully not what you mean).
• Master builders (definitely not mandatory)
• Enigmatic engineering (hopefully not what you mean)
• Colossus Project (definitely not mandatory)

• Hive worlds (If you're a Hive mind)
• Galactic Wonders (maybe)
• Ascension Path

The only ones I can kind of agree with are Galactic Wonders and an Ascension (and Hive Worlds if you're a Hive Mind). What's worse is that a lot of the other options there are things not every empire should have. That's the whole point of having a limited number of slots and a larger amount of options!

there were also fare fewer traditions around when the limit of 7 was introduced and it'd be nice if the game reflected that. i usually play with mods and i do change the tradition limit, it's more interesting and less arbitrary.

That does not follow as automatically as you think. The whole point of the tradition system is that you choose from a number of options. The DLCs provide you with more options to choose from. It was never intended for you to have access to more of them in one empire at the same time. The objective was to make empires more varied, not to give all empires more bonuses and making them more powerful. That would just be powercreeping everything else in the game. Terrible game design.

Also, if there's acension perks that seem mandatory that points to two problems:

1. They are too strong relative to other APs.
2. If getting them is not a choice than they should not be APs.

The solutions here could be buffing other AP options, or turning some things into techs that don't take up an AP slot. Just "increasing the number of slots to 10" is the worst possible "solution" to this problem: It still leaves slots dedicated to those options without choice, while making every empire have more of the same other perks, making every empire both more powerful (relative to things like crises) and same-y (compared to each other).

 

[snowy801]

You don't actually make more choices given fewer AP picks. You just take the same ones every time and ignore the rest.

Which means C tier and below APs are simply never picked.

"Choice"

 

[Dr Pippy]

Choices are good. Having everything removes choice.

I don't think the request is to have an infinite number of AP/tradition picks. The question is whether the right number is what we currently have.

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but it's a mathematical fact that as the choices for APs and traditions grow, you only get to pick a smaller fraction of them. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument for adding 1-2 more tradition and AP picks. What's a stronger argument against it?

 

[Nerisande]

No, it's good to have different things to pick each time, and not have the same things available each game.

No. Same reason.

Choices are good. Having everything removes choice.

Ah, yes, we have so much choices. Typical playthrough:
1. First 2 APs are pretty random because the most interesting stuff is gated by having 2+ APs. At this point you actually have some freedom of choice, but it ends on unlocking the 3rd slot.
2. Arcology Project, Ascension Path (if not obtained through origin), Cosmogenesis in any order
3. Master Builders, Galactic Wonders, optional Colossus (actually not so optional because Total War is the best way to obtain pops without waiting 200 years)
4. Literally everything else to fill remaining slots.

But I agree with that we don't need more AP slots. The actual problem is insane and unhealthy competition of mandatory APs for 3rd/4th slot. And the result of this competition is always the same: you will get all the mandatory perks anyway, maybe in different order, but it doesn't matter.

Just make the Arcology Project a regular tech (and also Hive/Machine worlds, don't leave Gestalts unsatisfied) and Ascension Paths require no AP and everything will be fine. I'm not talking about making all mandatory APs free, but only some and only the most mandatory. There will be choice, but not in current fashion when you've ordered a soup in restauraunt, but mad chef decided to sell the spoon apart from the soup to give the customers a "choice".

 

[Thiend]

If I were to respond to this thread (which seems to have become almost entirely about APs) as a whole, I would simply be rephrasing something I posted in another thread a few months ago. So I'm going to quote it instead.

[. . .] increasing the cap isn't the best solution. Balancing perks better is.

I'll take an extreme example. You can take Technological Ascension OR one of the four species paths.

This doesn't result in an opportunity cost. It doesn't result in an interesting choice. It isn't tough to choose. You take the species ascension and move on.

It's a little more complicated than that, but that is essentially the problem. Not all must-haves stand out as much as species ascension, but there are still obviously correct ascension perks to take for any build - how many depends on your empire. For Storm Chasers, especially now internal storms are actually going to be positive, taking Galactic Weather Control is another. So is Voidborne for a habitat start, and so is either Arcology Project, Galactic Wonders or both for any Virtual machines. There are plenty more I won't exhaustively list.

The real number of ascension perks is 7, minus however many are obviously correct for your empire, plus one if you actually roll Ascension Theory before the game ends. It's the same problem I had/have with traditions, in that the real number of choices is not the listed number of choices - at best, you choose 6 traditions because one will be your species ascension. Federations eat another for Psionic empires. The list goes on for both.

Having 8 ascension perks with tough choices and opportunity costs would be great game design, but when you lose generally somewhere between 1 and 5 to must-haves and then after that choose among the pretty-goods, that game design isn't present, and a lot of perks are just never going to be picked. Not because it's tough choices and we couldn't fit it into our 8, but because it's easy choices followed by a lower tier of easy choices followed by no remaining perk slots.

I am not necessarily opposed to adding perk and/or tradition slots, but the actual problem with ascension perks that needs solving is this. Adding more may be an improvement or it may not, but the current number isn't the problem being experienced.

Traditions need similar work, as they were originally designed to be a closed system - there were 7 slots for traditions and 7 possible traditions. You just chose what order to get them in. Having dramatically increased the number of available traditions, there are some I would say are much too mandatory and/or mandatory for certain builds. The top culprits are probably Mercantile for any trade build, Domestication for any fauna build, and Supremacy for almost any build at all. Enmity is the opposite, and like the bottom ~50% of APs will never be picked by anyone playing on an appropriate difficulty who is experienced enough with the game to understand the choices. On top of that, species ascension, while improved by giving it a tradition tree worth of effects to make them each stand out better, effectively reduces the real number of tradition trees you choose between to 6 (excepting any mandatory choices as mentioned above, frequently reducing it further).

I am fairly happy with 8 APs as long as they are well enough balanced to have no mandatory perks to take OR not take. I am also comfortable with 7 tradition slots under the same scenario. Neither one currently actually works that way.

Considering the enormous power creep of each species ascension update, it may be necessary to give them their own dedicated system rather than parisitizing ascension perks and traditions. The most obvious option that occurs to me is to make a third tab (traditions, crisis, and species ascension) and make the species ascension tab unlock after you unlock X ascension perks, where X is whatever seems most appropriate (for instance, right now to imitate the current system it would unlock after unlocking 3 perks).

 

[Critical Ethics]

You don't actually make more choices given fewer AP picks. You just take the same ones every time and ignore the rest.

Which means C tier and below APs are simply never picked.

"Choice"

I don't think the request is to have an infinite number of AP/tradition picks. The question is whether the right number is what we currently have.

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but it's a mathematical fact that as the choices for APs and traditions grow, you only get to pick a smaller fraction of them. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument for adding 1-2 more tradition and AP picks. What's a stronger argument against it?

One of the advantages of gating DLC components behind opportunity cost unlocks is it reduces DLC power creep. If people without megacorp can't build ecus then either owning megacorp makes the game significantly easier, or ecus can't be that good, or some more complex way of making the game harder if you have megacorp, or have gaining access to ecus require giving up access to something equally good. In theory, keeping AP slots to a specific amount allows for the last one but increasing slots based on the number of DLCs owned or the length of the AP list or whatever would still be power creep, just slower. And bumping the base amount to 9 or 10 would require adding more APs to the base game, which means more kruft cluttering up the list if you own enough DLCs.

Ignoring the DLC model issues, keeping stuff like ecus gated behind a starkly limited number of slots means, again in theory, that someone making an empire where ecus or collossi don't fit thematically isn't playing a harder game for the sake of RP. The more slots you have the lower the opportunity cost to taking the "mandatory" slots and the exceptional replacement has to be.

The problem with all of these is consistency. The APs are wildly variable in utility and most APs just aren't as good as, or good substitutes for, the "mandatory" ones. Choice is good, false choice is bad, but the root of the false choice is more complex than not having enough slots.

I'm not even opposed to more slots. 9 would make a very cool boxy shape. But the decision to add more slots shouldn't be based on "Well everyone is going to take Ecus so give them a free slot for that" because that's just giving everyone ecus but with more steps. It's defeatism. I want a game where taking Ecus or whatever is an actual choice, whatever the steps needed for that are.

 

[Critical Ethics]

If I were to respond to this thread (which seems to have become almost entirely about APs) as a whole, I would simply be rephrasing something I posted in another thread a few months ago. So I'm going to quote it instead.

I am not necessarily opposed to adding perk and/or tradition slots, but the actual problem with ascension perks that needs solving is this. Adding more may be an improvement or it may not, but the current number isn't the problem being experienced.

Traditions need similar work, as they were originally designed to be a closed system - there were 7 slots for traditions and 7 possible traditions. You just chose what order to get them in. Having dramatically increased the number of available traditions, there are some I would say are much too mandatory and/or mandatory for certain builds. The top culprits are probably Mercantile for any trade build, Domestication for any fauna build, and Supremacy for almost any build at all. Enmity is the opposite, and like the bottom ~50% of APs will never be picked by anyone playing on an appropriate difficulty who is experienced enough with the game to understand the choices. On top of that, species ascension, while improved by giving it a tradition tree worth of effects to make them each stand out better, effectively reduces the real number of tradition trees you choose between to 6 (excepting any mandatory choices as mentioned above, frequently reducing it further).

I am fairly happy with 8 APs as long as they are well enough balanced to have no mandatory perks to take OR not take. I am also comfortable with 7 tradition slots under the same scenario. Neither one currently actually works that way.

Considering the enormous power creep of each species ascension update, it may be necessary to give them their own dedicated system rather than parisitizing ascension perks and traditions. The most obvious option that occurs to me is to make a third tab (traditions, crisis, and species ascension) and make the species ascension tab unlock after you unlock X ascension perks, where X is whatever seems most appropriate (for instance, right now to imitate the current system it would unlock after unlocking 3 perks).

How I feel about APs or Traditions that are mandatory for certain builds is hugely variable. Mercantile being a mandatory pick for regular empire trade builds is fine given that the majority of regular empires are not trade builds, Mercantile being a mandatory pick for every single Megacorp is a different matter. e: this is me agreeing with you, if that was ambiguous.

Your post and typing up my last post has made me realise what I want is for them to turn the "must have two other APs" system into a more formalised tier system. Get 3 Bronze slots, 3 Silver slots, and 2 Gold slots, with Ascension Theory unlocking a third gold. Do the same for Tradition paths. Double dip into the utility and make the early game rush non-combat perks and traditions all bronze tier but the early game rush violence ones are silver. Add a purple slot for species ascension that you can sidegrade into a silver for an edge case fallback. Make Mercantile a silver slot tradition but Megacorps can take it as bronze. e: could name the purple slot the ascension slot and then rename ascension perks to something more evocative of their current use, like "Signatures" or something.

 

[Red Death]

I don't think the request is to have an infinite number of AP/tradition picks. The question is whether the right number is what we currently have.

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but it's a mathematical fact that as the choices for APs and traditions grow, you only get to pick a smaller fraction of them. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument for adding 1-2 more tradition and AP picks. What's a stronger argument against it?

Fair point, it doesn't immediately mean "infinite options", but I think it is moving in the wrong direction, and not really solving the most important problems.

The DLCs gave us more options, but the limited choices means powercreep from DLCs is more limited, this means existing crises, etc. are less likely to become irrelevant, and it is easier to balance the game for both people that have and don't have certain DLC.

Having to pick a smaller fraction from the total number of available traditions is not a bad thing, it is a good thing: It means empires are more different from one another.

Ah, yes, we have so much choices. Typical playthrough:
1. First 2 APs are pretty random because the most interesting stuff is gated by having 2+ APs. At this point you actually have some freedom of choice, but it ends on unlocking the 3rd slot.
2. Arcology Project, Ascension Path (if not obtained through origin), Cosmogenesis in any order
3. Master Builders, Galactic Wonders, optional Colossus (actually not so optional because Total War is the best way to obtain pops without waiting 200 years)
4. Literally everything else to fill remaining slots.

But I agree with that we don't need more AP slots. The actual problem is insane and unhealthy competition of mandatory APs for 3rd/4th slot. And the result of this competition is always the same: you will get all the mandatory perks anyway, maybe in different order, but it doesn't matter.

Just make the Arcology Project a regular tech (and also Hive/Machine worlds, don't leave Gestalts unsatisfied) and Ascension Paths require no AP and everything will be fine. I'm not talking about making all mandatory APs free, but only some and only the most mandatory. There will be choice, but not in current fashion when you've ordered a soup in restauraunt, but mad chef decided to sell the spoon apart from the soup to give the customers a "choice".

I actually agree with you that the problem here is the APs themselves, not the slots. When APs are as unbalanced as they are now, adding more slots just expands the list of "mandatory" APs. That's why I can't agree with OPs proposal to expand the number of slots. The solution is in altering the APs themselves.

• Arcology Project: Is this really as mandatory in 4.0? Don't have as much experience with it yet, and balance its hard to judge in the game's current state for me.
• Ascension Path: They are honestly too strong for what they cost. They should either be equivalent in power (or at least, close enough) to another AP + Tradition tree, or use a different system.
• Cosmogenesis: Destroy it. Nerf it into the ground. Obliterate it. OK, perhaps don't go that far. But picking this perk should only be a thing if you're planning for a crisis victory, and it should inevitably lead to that. People taking it in "normal" playthroughs should not be a thing. (I think in the beta the devs are making it more likely for you to be declared a crisis as you progress).
• Master Builders: I don't always take this, but it is quite powerful. Could be nerfed a bit so that it still makes you significantly faster at building megastructures, but less than now.
• Galactic Wonders: Considering the general inflation of the economy, are these 3 megastructures really still that important?
• Colossus: I have less problems with this one. At least, not all of my empires (that don't get automatic Total War) have required Total War. For example, my pacifist or subjugating games.

 

[ruhrbaron]

I don't think the request is to have an infinite number of AP/tradition picks. The question is whether the right number is what we currently have.

I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but it's a mathematical fact that as the choices for APs and traditions grow, you only get to pick a smaller fraction of them. I think that's a pretty reasonable argument for adding 1-2 more tradition and AP picks. What's a stronger argument against it?

thank you. i think itd make the single player experience better for most people and allow for more interesting builds. and multiplayer balancing is house rules as always.

Utopia and Apocalypse?

• Nihilistic acquisition (probably not what you mean)
• Voidborne (hopefully not what you mean).
• Master builders (definitely not mandatory)
• Enigmatic engineering (hopefully not what you mean)
• Colossus Project (definitely not mandatory)

• Hive worlds (If you're a Hive mind)
• Galactic Wonders (maybe)
• Ascension Path

The only ones I can kind of agree with are Galactic Wonders and an Ascension (and Hive Worlds if you're a Hive Mind). What's worse is that a lot of the other options there are things not every empire should have. That's the whole point of having a limited number of slots and a larger amount of options!


That does not follow as automatically as you think. The whole point of the tradition system is that you choose from a number of options. The DLCs provide you with more options to choose from. It was never intended for you to have access to more of them in one empire at the same time. The objective was to make empires more varied, not to give all empires more bonuses and making them more powerful. That would just be powercreeping everything else in the game. Terrible game design.

Also, if there's acension perks that seem mandatory that points to two problems:

1. They are too strong relative to other APs.
2. If getting them is not a choice than they should not be APs.

The solutions here could be buffing other AP options, or turning some things into techs that don't take up an AP slot. Just "increasing the number of slots to 10" is the worst possible "solution" to this problem: It still leaves slots dedicated to those options without choice, while making every empire have more of the same other perks, making every empire both more powerful (relative to things like crises) and same-y (compared to each other).

i was thinking about colossus, master builders, galactic wonders and the Ascension. 4 APs out of 8. i dont think megastructure build capacity should be a thing at all. the speed is fine, but the ability to build megastructures should only be limited by the economy and nothing else imho.
Galactic wonders is annoying because i literally play stellaris because of the megastructures and the colossus project is the same deal, let me destroy the worlds. An Ascension is mandatory, but im perfectly fine with it costing a perk. my ascension hot take is that bio/psionics and cyborgs shouldnt necessarily be exclusive.... (there's a bunch of inspiring literature on this) and that stellaris is at its best when it pays homage to the greates of sci-fi. i want the power phantasies.

 

[Red Death]

i was thinking about colossus, master builders, galactic wonders and the Ascension. 4 APs out of 8.

Of those, only the Ascension is really so powerful that it can be considered always mandatory. I think the rest is just personal preference or depends on the empire you are playing.

Galactic wonders is annoying because i literally play stellaris because of the megastructures and the colossus project is the same deal, let me destroy the worlds.

I understand, but you do realise this is just your personal opinion of what you play Stellaris for? That's not necessarily a good thing to base game design decisions on. The Stellaris developers want you to pick some cool things over other cool things, so that you can do something different each game. If you end op picking the same thing each game that is either:

1. A balance problem, so APs need to be rebalanced.
2. Your personal preference where some of those optional things are things you really just like to have all the time. In which case, the answer is to mod the game to unlock them without a slot at all.

I don't think "more slots" is ever the right answer to this question. "More slots" could be the correct answer if the question was "there are not enough slots available to make interesting combinations between them" or "There are not enough choices to be made, it's too shallow".

 

[SS Boss]

The problem with APs/traditions is clearly not the number you can pick, but the fact that you have little to no reason to pick a lot of them.

So the right change here is not adding more slots, but making every AP/tradition an interesting pick for a normal gameplay.

Adding more slots will just make everything feel more the same. 90% of the techs (or even more) are researchable by every empire. They can all build the same megastructures (with rare exceptions), have access to >90% of the same districts and buildings, most of the time they build the same ships, etc.

To keep empires unique they should keep the slots where they are and improve the APs and traditions so all of them could be reasonable picks.