Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

[Dev Team] 4.0.4 Patch Released (checksum 6a76)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Stellaris 54041 Bug Reports 37321 Console edition 1311 Suggestions 21660 Tech Support 3202 Multiplayer 392 User Mods 4793 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports)
Show only dev responses
Crazyone said:
View attachment 1291934
Not Being able to tell what the bottom districts are specialised in on a machine world, without having to click on it and see what's been built, seems very unintuitive.

Would also like to add that ammeneties still seem far too low for gestalts. Why cant't the nexus district just provide a few jobs producing ammeneties as with the old versions of the game?
Click to expand...
What's especially strange about it is that I'm pretty sure from looking at the data files that you can pick a piece of text for the district based on the specialization(s)? Maybe the subtitle where it currently says Central Processing? I think the mechanism is there to expose information about the specialization in the planet view and they just didn't wire it up.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Crazyone said:
View attachment 1291934
Not Being able to tell what the bottom districts are specialised in on a machine world, without having to click on it and see what's been built, seems very unintuitive.

Would also like to add that ammeneties still seem far too low for gestalts. Why cant't the nexus district just provide a few jobs producing ammeneties as with the old versions of the game?
Click to expand...
I don't know if you have noticed, but the bottom districts also don't supply any housing, at least last time I checked. Which also means that if you use any specialization that lowers housing, your housing will go down.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Dinges said:
I don't know if you have noticed, but the bottom districts also don't supply any housing, at least last time I checked. Which also means that if you use any specialization that lowers housing, your housing will go down.
Click to expand...
Yeah they're actively terrible; in my current resource consolidation game I think I'm going to demolish/convert them to the main nexus district type (down to one district per slot to get the building slots, maybe Urban spec?) and offload as much raw resource production as possible to other planets (RIP my trade). 1000 minerals and 5 energy/mo upkeep for 300 raw resource jobs and no housing? Hard pass.
 
jedavis said:
What's especially strange about it is that I'm pretty sure from looking at the data files that you can pick a piece of text for the district based on the specialization(s)? Maybe the subtitle where it currently says Central Processing? I think the mechanism is there to expose information about the specialization in the planet view and they just didn't wire it up.
Click to expand...
The information is there, the devs just didn't bother to create a texture for each sub specialization, not even just ploping there a resource icon...
 
Will there be almost daily updates? I say this because if there's another one next week or sooner, I'd rather not start a new game and wait for the update rate to be more stable.
 
I am beyond happy to see the leader changes reverted. If only it had never made it to release instead of having the feedback of several people ignored during the beta. The entire time that was dedicatdd to making the changes to start with, merge the traits and then revert part of it would have been better used in polishing the update so we where not in our current situation.

I would hope that next time is different and feedback does not get ignored for so long and both developer resources can be better used and player satisfaction is better overall.

The leader changes was for me one of the 4 worst things (excluding bugs ofc, as they are bugs and thus not intended, unlike design issues which are) in the update, together with UI/UX issues, genetics split and boring biological ships design (except weaver). Hopefully some of the other issues get some polishing too.

All that said, can't play todsy, so wiol need to check this all out tomorrow. One thung that grabbed my attention was this:
The chance to get the cultist's flagship is now 20% instead of 100%
Click to expand...
I think it goes against previous changes and announcements done. In a previous note you said that the battleship was buffed so that the event was more worthwhile (as a lot of people didn't find the hazzle worth it), but now by lowering the chance to obtain it from 100% to a very low 20% ditches those efforts. Why would anyone want to go through the event if you have only a 1/5 chance of getting the goodies? At least before you always got the ship, it was not extremely powerful, but was granted, now IMO the event is even worse.

I personally don't care much for said event, but I am pointing it out because this seems to go against your initial design, so I am hoping it is just a mistake or something, otherwise this is just, idk, weird? Bad? Either way, at least contradictory.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
GnoSIS said:
The information is there, the devs just didn't bother to create a texture for each sub specialization, not even just ploping there a resource icon...
Click to expand...
I don't know if they didn't bother, it seems a rush job to me. The devs seem competent enough, considering their massive speed in fixing all these problems. I also don't blame QA, considering the first time I played this on release, I would have been quicker to list the things that weren't broken, outdated or horribly communicated. They either were overwhelmed, or they are dead or dying.

I fully blame whoever thought this patch was ready, instead of delaying this with a month or even two.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Ilab said:
I am beyond happy to see the leader changes reverted. If only it had never made it to release instead of having the feedback of several people ignored during the beta. The entire time that was dedicatdd to making the changes to start with, merge the traits and then revert part of it would have been better used in polishing the update so we where not in our current situation.

I would hope that next time is different and feedback does not get ignored for so long and both developer resources can be better used and player satisfaction is better overall.

The leader changes was for me one of the 4 worst things (excluding bugs ofc, as they are bugs and thus not intended, unlike design issues which are) in the update, together with UI/UX issues, genetics split and boring biological ships design (except weaver). Hopefully some of the other issues get some polishing too.

All that said, can't play todsy, so wiol need to check this all out tomorrow. One thung that grabbed my attention was this:

I think it goes against previous changes and announcements done. In a previous note you said that the battleship was buffed so that the event was more worthwhile (as a lot of people didn't find the hazzle worth it), but now by lowering the chance to obtain it from 100% to a very low 20% ditches those efforts. Why would anyone want to go through the event if you have only a 1/5 chance of getting the goodies? At least before you always got the ship, it was not extremely powerful, but was granted, now IMO the event is even worse.

I personally don't care much for said event, but I am pointing it out because this seems to go against your initial design, so I am hoping it is just a mistake or something, otherwise this is just, idk, weird? Bad? Either way, at least contradictory.
Click to expand...
You do understand that the people working on the leader changes were not the same ones who worked on any of the other stuff, for the most part, right?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Kataclyszm said:
See this is blatantly false. If it were otherwise, why have I seen a FE with one - 1 - pop flip-flopping between Precursor and Specialist stratum every month? Clearly that means each every centi-pop is running the 'whose job should I take' calculation.

What an excuse. 'You can't upgrade buildings to tier 2' isn't something that requires a bunch of external users. It shows that they didn't test it in-house.
Click to expand...
If you know so much, then get a job with Paradox, game-making is not a bad paying thing.
 
  • 8
  • 1Like
Reactions:
While we are here, can we get some very needed improvements to the management tab?
-First, I don't find value on having lots of portraits there, wvy do I care the growth for each pop grow? I don't, the dats sgould be by species, not pop groups. Even with one single species, that is a lot of portraits and gets worse and worse the more species you have. This makes whatever information is presentwd there useless, as it becomes impractical to find it by scrolling. The pop growts should be calculated for species, showing only a portrait per species instead of per pop group. I don't think this should be very hard to do either, nust add the values of all group of the same species and show that sum in a single portrait.
-Second,we need to see actual growth somewhereinstead of the change between the previous month and the current one. The current system shows pop quantity changes, this takes into account thungs like migration for example, and doesn't offer a breakdown of sources. That is, we nees to know the amount of growth that is from migrstion, from assembly, natural growth etc. Without this information the user can't do informed decisions on these topics.
-Adding a number, like you did with blockers, to the surface tab for features can help to know, at a glance, which planet has them, reducing the nees to constantly go to the second tab to check it. It is ok for the details to be there, but at least a number saying how many there are should exist in the first tab.

Oberall,I will say it once more, the current planet design (somehow) magaed to make the information that was readily accessible in 3.14 harder/more annoying to find for very little benefit. My mist honest advice is to set both UI side to side and check what should be where in 4.0. I find the planet UI from 3.14 objectively better than the one from 4.0,amd I am not talking about being used to the old one, just accessibility.

And finally, any chance we recover things like:
-controlled growth per species per planet like in 3.14
-ability to decline slaves per planet like in 3.14
 
verybad said:
If you know so much, then get a job with Paradox, game-making is not a bad paying thing.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the best line: "If you can spot a problem in X then go work at Y."

"Waiter, waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you a chef?!"

"Wow, this movie was awful. The acting was so flat." "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you an actor?"
 
  • 6Haha
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Kataclyszm said:
Ah yes, the best line: "If you can spot a problem in X then go work at Y."

"Waiter, waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you a chef?!"

"Wow, this movie was awful. The acting was so flat." "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you an actor?"
Click to expand...
Spot on xD
 
  • 1Haha
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Quick note to add weight to a confirmed bug -
Unable to see user defined ship class names in the ship builder. [Bug report - "UI - No Ship Class Names in Station Build Screen"]
There is no longer a military ship name fetch in the list builder script in starbase_view.gui - i.e.
containerWindowType = {
name = "starbase_view_buildable_ship_list_entry"


Thanks for the quick fixes, already feeling the improvements.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
SarahGabriella said:
You do understand that the people working on the leader changes were not the same ones who worked on any of the other stuff, for the most part, right?
Click to expand...
This if the kind of comments that irk me. So blatantly wrong, like if you even knew what you are talking about. It is mind blowing. Tell me, are you a dev to say this so confidently? Ofc not.

Do you know? No you don't, so first, stop saying nonsense, like if you knew things you don't. IN FACT, it is very likely and reasonable to expect them to be the same people you know? This argument you are saying applies to things like translation, assets design etc, as those are usually not done by the 'programmers'. But this kind of things are the ones that developers do, so it is fairly logical (and most likely correct) to assume that those working in that area are developers that could have worked in something else. We do not know that, might tas well be the same dudes, might not be. But one thing is CERTAIN, whether they where the same or don't, that dev time could have been used somewhere else.

So, instead of being like: "Oh, look I can use this argument I have seen online here" even though it is wrong and makes 0 sense, think about the thing a bit before saying nonsense.

Or, ofc, IF I am wrong, tell me, HOW DO YOU KNOW which people worked on what in this update? Since you are telling me that the people where not the same you clearly do know what you are talking about right? Are you a dev, some other member of paradox staff? No? That is what I thought, stop acting all entitled like you know better, you clearly don't.

And again, it is very likely that the same devs that did the leader changes worked on (or could have worked on, should they had more time) other parts of the release.

The update has not been out for 2 entire days and the change had to be rolled back because it was awful. That time could have been put somewhere else. A simple as that/
 
  • 6Like
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Kataclyszm said:
See this is blatantly false. If it were otherwise, why have I seen a FE with one - 1 - pop flip-flopping between Precursor and Specialist stratum every month?
Click to expand...
Well, since I'm not assuming the worst, that sounds to me like a job priority calculation isn't as stable as it should be, so when it tries to spread an odd number of centipops across an even number of slots, it gets a different answer each month for where the odd pop should go.

Like, if it was treating every centipop as a separate data object, any performance hit from the new pop model would be much worse than it seems to be.
 
Kataclyszm said:
Ah yes, the best line: "If you can spot a problem in X then go work at Y."

"Waiter, waiter, there's a fly in my soup!" "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you a chef?!"

"Wow, this movie was awful. The acting was so flat." "Oh well if you know so much, why aren't you an actor?"
Click to expand...
One plus one equals three in that case. Fact is, you're posting a lot of negatives regarding how the people making these games. It's entirely within your right to do so, but it does get tiresome. Games are not simple projects, and Paradox games are more complex than most. If you don't like their method, then wait for a more stable version and stop crying you don't have to try ever version if you don't want to.
 
  • 9
  • 1Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back