Stellaris MP Experience

[aphrochine]

So this is a general question to the community about how Stellaris is in Multiplayer.

My group rotates through PDS games, and we may try Utopia if it's out before we finish our HOI4 game. So I was looking for some feedback from anyone who's played 2 or 3 full multiplayer games with a group of players.

Are there any glaring Meta issues??
Are the ideologies balanced?? (...or is, for example, Militaristic the only way to go?)
How is the endgame dynamic??
Blobbing an game killer??

I know Utopia will affect some of these issues...but I'm looking for an experienced MP player's opinion on them.

Thanks!

 

[Teyren]

Are there any glaring Meta issues??

There's is a meta, yes, it depends on what the player is setting out to do for the most part. I wouldn't say there's glaring meta issues, and if you are playing with a select group of players instead of public there shouldn't be much of a problem. In public games it is to build up massively off the bat and kill the host as fast as possible before anyone can form alliances to prevent this.

Are the ideologies balanced?? (...or is, for example, Militaristic the only way to go?)

As again, this depends on what you are setting out to do. Pacifists can enter into a lot of Defensive pacts but can't aggressively expand via war, however, this doesn't matter during MP; a militaristic player will know early-game expansion is most important for their own meta.

How is the endgame dynamic??

I only play public matches and can't really say as most games a over mid-game for most players, though you can really see people's meta-game at full throttle in those matches.

Blobbing an game killer??

Yes it is, 8 ships with red lasers are better than 4 ships with blue lasers. Rapid mineral acquisition and military expansion usually curbs anyone trying to go tall before federation tech appears, sometimes before it's too late. Though to be honest, many games ending due to a BB is due to players not forming federations and rather trying to consolidate their own area instead of dealing with a player who's running with the game. If you are playing with a group of players on a IRC you are more likely to stop someone from blobbing out and taking the game with the current game ruining meta, that is, if they don't have help from a second player.

 

[aphrochine]

Thank you for the response!!

Do you have any thoughts/perspectives on if Utopia will impact any of these??

 

[BurlapNapkin]

All that is required for the slave-blob to grow out of control is for good fungi to stand by and do nothing.

Honestly I'm pretty impressed with the diplomacy potential here. There are ethics that give you powerful expansion and mineral generation, but in a game of many non-aligned players standing out as a threat is it's own downside.

It's also impressive that tech does not purely invalidate industrial and numerical advantages, it's cool that players can build huge low-tech horde fleets. On the other side of this, it's fun trying to find ways to use high tech ships to win those fights.

Defensive pacts don't seem super important, which is too bad. I like that pacifists can form them cheaper, but secret/unspoken alliances can easily declare offensive wars to 'defend' another player without spending the influence. It's hard to press the original war when all of your infrastructure is burning and you're being threatened with catastrophic wargoals. Again, diplomacy comes up, and you can see a lot of white-peace and 'treaties' if players are willing to back down from total annihilation until they can build up more.

The 'Stop Atrocities' wargoal against a strong xenophobe or collectivist blob is pretty funny and not completely ineffective, but I've seen some players take the faction trouble and loss of territory/speed bump as a reason to give up entirely.

 

[aphrochine]

Good insights, thank you!