You shouldn't buy anything until it's on sale; at that point it might be fixed.
-
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.
You shouldn't buy anything until it's on sale; at that point it might be fixed.
I'm on a "let's see" type of plan. For the most part:
- Not buying anything now ... not even playing.
- IF Paradox fixes some of the long-standing issues that are griping me then I'd be happy to return
- If fan reviews are good-or-better then I'll buy anything I haven't already got at full price
- If fan reviews are mixed / so-so then I'll buy anything I don't already have -- but when it's on sale
- If the fan reviews are bad-or-worse then I'll continue not playing or buying.
To be honest I was hoping that at least some of the job-related performance issues would have been addressed or at least mitigated more than what I've been told. It's not really a terribly hard problem to at least mitigate if you know what is causing the problems.
Devil's Advocate: As a company Paradox has to weigh opportunity-cost into their decisions. If they fix the things that are really griping me that means that there may be something else that they can't do instead. If that something else would bring them MORE MONEY than fixing long-standing issues then it's not surprising that Paradox would go for the more-money route.
The takeaway should be:
- If you think Paradox is doing good or better you should keep buying. Support the games that work for you.
- If you think Paradox is not doing a good job then STOP buying and try to let Paradox know WHY.
- If you think Paradox is not doing a good job BUT you buy anyway then you're hurting both yourself AND the people that also think Paradox isn't doing a good job.
TL/DR: We have to give Paradox incentives to do what we think is right. Anything else is telling Paradox to prioritize the WRONG things.
I'm taking the r/PatientGamers approach: if I only buy games on sale, I can afford more games.
What are you even talking about? Paradox is a company not a poor individual and we are its customers, not a welfare office. It's Paradox who must covet us by giving us good products.
If you buy good products and don't buy bad ones, you give the company an incentive to improve the quality of their products.
This. To add to it IF people continue to buy into a poor product the company has no incentive to improve quality.
My biggest concern remains the relative lack of feedback from the team on attempts to tackle performance issues. I recall them dedicating a Dev Diary to the issue last year but that was a year past, and little has changed (if at all).
Now with decreasing Dev Diaries in 2020 (in comparison to say, the older EUIV or Imperator: Rome) it's a slightly worrying precedent.
I love Paradox games, but it's starting to feel like our concerns are falling upon deaf ears.
Now with decreasing Dev Diaries in 2020 (in comparison to say, the older EUIV or Imperator: Rome) it's a slightly worrying precedent.
I love Paradox games, but it's starting to feel like our concerns are falling upon deaf ears.
Megacorp released: 6 Dec, 2018
~1.5 years is enough time to make thing to work and to discover the source of the problem. Brand loyalty have its limits after all.
~1.5 years is enough time to make thing to work and to discover the source of the problem. Brand loyalty have its limits after all.
Had a scan through this thread, checking in to see whether it's worth trying to play it again.
I'm guessing from a few posts the answer is............. no?
And Paradox are getting quieter and quieter about the issue?
Really loved playing it when it worked. Was a fan of Paradox from the CK2 days (even got all the DLC) but since all this (which has left me feeling ripped off) I've sworn off Paradox games now. Can't trust them.
I'm guessing from a few posts the answer is............. no?
And Paradox are getting quieter and quieter about the issue?
Really loved playing it when it worked. Was a fan of Paradox from the CK2 days (even got all the DLC) but since all this (which has left me feeling ripped off) I've sworn off Paradox games now. Can't trust them.
Actually they are not. End of last year they announced in a dev diary that they now have dedicated staff to focus solely on the performance issues. Same for the AI troubles.
But considering how huge these problems are I would not expect a series of tiny buffs at all. What's needed is one huge patch making the game playable. I would expect one to be released with Federations DLC, so my Pitchfork is put aside until then.
But personally I do not think the AI will ever be up to the task again as long as Jobs are a thing, so I'm waiting for another economic redesign or Stellaris 2.
Honestly I mostly consider the AI a lost cause. If performance, additional "micro" help, fixing AEs & Crisis events, etc. I think we'll be lucky.
Don't forget your torch!
Thanks, well - that's good to hear there's something. Gotta say you're forgiving to consider buying a sequel.
Well, I found one (and knowing the code as it is basicly the same as CK2's - on which I have 4.000 hours) if not the major source of the lag in the endgame:
AI gene modding madness
Original posts one & two.
This is after 252 years, 1000 stars, 30 AI empires, 3 marauder and 5 fallen.
Also the pic's only from A to Human (who I play) which took me the better part of an hour to create...
Also the pic's only from A to Human (who I play) which took me the better part of an hour to create...
I seriously doubt that the devs will do anything about this...
Well, it was mentioned in this thread before: one quick but dirty fix would be to simply disallow the AI to pick Bio-Ascension and to still to allow the player to pick it if they want it.
Yes, this would take away a little of the game`s depth. But on the other hand, at least as of right now, Bio-Ascension is the weakest of the three and forcing the AI to pick either of the stronger two might actually help the AI stay competitive a little longer.
@FacelessOne That picture is both amazing and terrifiying. And one of the reasons why I believe that Stellaris is broken beyond repair. And Yes, I'd be willing to pay for a successor. I love the Genre too much to give up on it.
This happens with final bio-ascension perk. Normally once you spent your trait points you cannot genemod anymore, but that final perk grants the ability to remove good traits. Apparently the AI is programmed to check if there is a genemod project currently researched, if there is something that can be done to alter a current species, and if the answers are 'no' and 'yes', start a genemod project. It did the job before, but when later they introduced the ascension perks, this particular perk allowed an infinite loop. Which obviously needs some love. Certainly not that hard to fix, the AI just needs a rule for that case.
Last performance tests I did were testing what gain can be squeezed out of mods like this. Bio-ascension out, Xenocompatibility out, AI habitats out, and sadly late game the gain is very minimal. For a particular set of game settings, this does not transform a game I have not the patience to play into a game I have the patience to play, far from that. It does remove the menu clutter, not that bad I guess. But the EDAI mod, with its unemployed removal feature among other job related things, was getting an astronomical difference in comparison.
I had never such a mess like @FacelessOne, but that the pops and the general calculation of planets is the most slowing thing in the game is well known for how long? One year? In that time they could have reworked or overhauled the whole popsystem and the way it works, with balaning, growth control and traitcontrol.
The most obvious thing is that pops with the same traits are swapped between jobs dayly. All these kind of controls and checks by the engine are a total waste of resources. Assign a pop to a job and let it sit there until something on the planet changes. Do i really care about that 0.15 more energy when another pop with better traits would do the job? This income is generated monthly, why check jobs dayly? Why cant i set certain pops to certain jobs? Why do my pops in my genemodded empire do not get their traits based on the job they do which i define in the popmenu before (same for machines)? And even with this abnormal often checks the engine does idiotic things like setting slaves to unemployment with good traits while my free pops with social wellfare are assigned with bad traits.
The game is heavily optimizable, because it is software. Take a look other cpu-heavy games like Factorio: With EVERY MAJOR PATCH performance gets adressed. New features arent implemented if they would slow down the game to hard. They rewrite code the way the game calculates things under the hood all the time. These things arent even for the casuals with a normal way to play, this is for megabasebuilders where every % of calculation matters.
PS: Their team has 20 core members, but they know that these things are very important and adress it.
The most obvious thing is that pops with the same traits are swapped between jobs dayly. All these kind of controls and checks by the engine are a total waste of resources. Assign a pop to a job and let it sit there until something on the planet changes. Do i really care about that 0.15 more energy when another pop with better traits would do the job? This income is generated monthly, why check jobs dayly? Why cant i set certain pops to certain jobs? Why do my pops in my genemodded empire do not get their traits based on the job they do which i define in the popmenu before (same for machines)? And even with this abnormal often checks the engine does idiotic things like setting slaves to unemployment with good traits while my free pops with social wellfare are assigned with bad traits.
The game is heavily optimizable, because it is software. Take a look other cpu-heavy games like Factorio: With EVERY MAJOR PATCH performance gets adressed. New features arent implemented if they would slow down the game to hard. They rewrite code the way the game calculates things under the hood all the time. These things arent even for the casuals with a normal way to play, this is for megabasebuilders where every % of calculation matters.
PS: Their team has 20 core members, but they know that these things are very important and adress it.
Yes, I am regularly returning to this thread to read those numerous posts by the developers addressing issues raised by their customers. How did you know?
Its hard to tell what is causing the performance drop on this game. At first i thought it was due to jobs and pops so i changed space deposits to x10, then i set pop base growth to 0. Jobs were eliminated and remplaced with "job". In a small galaxy with minim planets, no marauders, no FE empires, only my empire. First year it took 45-46 seconds to finish, 100 years it took 55-60 seconds to pass a whole year. (No expansion/No survey)
In vanila in the same galaxy it took 1.5 minutes after 20 years... In a huge galaxy with max empires at 20 years it went to 3 minutes per year, at 100 years it went to 6 minutes.
I changed then pops and jobs multiple times but i cant say if it is jobs that are causing the drop, it is pops or are both at the same time. As in later runs i used the survey code and popped crisis but performance didnt drop beyond the 60s/year with pops and jobs disable.
In vanila in the same galaxy it took 1.5 minutes after 20 years... In a huge galaxy with max empires at 20 years it went to 3 minutes per year, at 100 years it went to 6 minutes.
I changed then pops and jobs multiple times but i cant say if it is jobs that are causing the drop, it is pops or are both at the same time. As in later runs i used the survey code and popped crisis but performance didnt drop beyond the 60s/year with pops and jobs disable.
Just read the Q&A that came out today.
There's a lot of additions incoming that will require even more CPU work with the new patch. Reading through the features, there will be many new triggers and other concerns for the AI to waste more CPU resources. What caught my mind especially was the calculation of the diplomatic weight: It counts each pop, and depending on classification it calculates a diplomatic weight based on it's effective happines. OUCH! Yay! Another reason to iterrate over all pops and touch all that data!! And happiness changes all the time somewhere in any empire because the sun just came up. So that will be another major thing to calculate and keep up to date. Of course I have no clue how iit will be done. I would assume on a per colony basis, every time happiness is modified - or once per month?
So there are only 2 ways this can go:
1. They have fixed the performance issues in a stellar manner and they are feeling casualy relaxed in adding even more work to the beast!
2. They have no clue on how to fix performance and they don't care - A random developer in the team receives a feature request and just adds more pain (and calls it a day - job well done, who cares?).
Both cases are scary, because they haven't commmunicated any progress on any fix while they are communicating new pain for the engine. In my book this is Faux pas - a red card by football terms: as a product manager/director or community manager I would have definitely been posting here - Especially since the thread has reached the milestone of 50 pages.
There's a lot of additions incoming that will require even more CPU work with the new patch. Reading through the features, there will be many new triggers and other concerns for the AI to waste more CPU resources. What caught my mind especially was the calculation of the diplomatic weight: It counts each pop, and depending on classification it calculates a diplomatic weight based on it's effective happines. OUCH! Yay! Another reason to iterrate over all pops and touch all that data!! And happiness changes all the time somewhere in any empire because the sun just came up. So that will be another major thing to calculate and keep up to date. Of course I have no clue how iit will be done. I would assume on a per colony basis, every time happiness is modified - or once per month?
So there are only 2 ways this can go:
1. They have fixed the performance issues in a stellar manner and they are feeling casualy relaxed in adding even more work to the beast!
2. They have no clue on how to fix performance and they don't care - A random developer in the team receives a feature request and just adds more pain (and calls it a day - job well done, who cares?).
Both cases are scary, because they haven't commmunicated any progress on any fix while they are communicating new pain for the engine. In my book this is Faux pas - a red card by football terms: as a product manager/director or community manager I would have definitely been posting here - Especially since the thread has reached the milestone of 50 pages.