The game's balance was thrown into The Worm's blackhole, can we ever expect to get it back?

[Voidian]

I don't hate the update, I think it had some great ideas, and it seems like pops are no longer the real endgame crisis anymore (we should get rid of the arbitrary empire soft-cap on pops btw).

But everything else about the game is a mess right now.

I'm not even talking about the bugs, and there are MANY bugs.

I'm talking about how the AI just lost all the work from months/years of adjustments and it's back to being completely worthless, making every game unfun and pointless.
Powercreeping is off the charts, ascensions just got ridiculous, cosmogenesis was not fixed in previous attempts, the new bioships just trample over any enemy fleets with impunity trivializing the early game, which guarantees as ridiculously easy and boring late game, nothing seems to click anymore, it's all over the place, and there are never any moments where I can feel like I'm having a nice, desperate war against a neighboring alien empire, it's becoming like CK3, where I chose a target, click, take all their land, and that's it, you just trample over anything with extreme ease, extreme boredom.

Can we ever expect stellaris to be fixed again? Will the custodian team have to work double time to redo all the work they had to do in the previous years to fix the game back when it was quite terrible again? Or will these changes just bury this game and it's never going to leave the current state?

 

[RingworldUtopia]

I don't hate the update, I think it had some great ideas, and it seems like pops are no longer the real endgame crisis anymore (we should get rid of the arbitrary empire soft-cap on pops btw).

4.0 shipped with 0 growth required scaling by default by the way, they adjusted it to .25 later. ever since i learned that, i swapped it to zero and have not had any issues.

 

[Voidian]

4.0 shipped with 0 growth required scaling by default by the way, they adjusted it to .25 later. ever since i learned that, i swapped it to zero and have not had any issues.

The problem is if the default is scaling, the the entire game will be designed around that pop growth, all of the traits, bonuses and ascensions are going to be based off the arbitrary cap, playing without it leads to further inevitable balance issues. And it will only get worse as the game keeps developing more content with those settings considered "the norm".

This thing was created as a bandaid solution to pop late game lag, it never had any gameplay purpose and actually harmed the game's balance, making it so people could not fill out ringworlds and ecumenopolis worlds like they used to before the change, for all of it's issues, pop lag isn't one in the 4.0 version of the game, I don't understand why they didn't immediately remove that from the default rules, perhaps even from the game itself, as I can't understand why it would ever be desirable.


Now that pop lag's gone they should do a balance pass on pop growth and tune the numbers taking into account normal pop growth across the board instead.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

The problem is if the default is scaling, the the entire game will be designed around that pop growth, all of the traits, bonuses and ascensions are going to be based off the arbitrary cap, playing without it leads to further inevitable balance issues. And it will only get worse as the game keeps developing more content with those settings considered "the norm".

This thing was created as a bandaid solution to pop late game lag, it never had any gameplay purpose and actually harmed the game's balance, making it so people could not fill out ringworlds and ecumenopolis worlds like they used to before the change, for all of it's issues, pop lag isn't one in the 4.0 version of the game, I don't understand why they didn't immediately remove that from the default rules, perhaps even from the game itself, as I can't understand why it would ever be desirable.


Now that pop lag's gone they should do a balance pass on pop growth and tune the numbers taking into account normal pop growth across the board instead.

i have not found any balance issues with just setting growth required scaling to 0. is there something you have tested and noticed?

 

[Voidian]

i have not found any balance issues with just setting growth required scaling to 0. is there something you have tested and noticed?

Pretty much everything?

If the birth rate/pop assembly bonuses from ascensions like cloning are considered completely broken right now with default settings it just makes the snowballing exponentially worse without them.

If the game was balanced around not using those settings, and instead made games using them imbalanced instead, creating too many/too few pops, the base, real gameplay wouldn't be as affected.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

If the birth rate/pop assembly bonuses from ascensions like cloning are considered completely broken right now with default settings it just makes the snowballing exponentially worse without them.

maybe stop taking the internet's opinion as gospel and test it out for yourself.

 

[hart30]

Its stellaris - after a while ur horizon needle will reach the other end of that wormhole.
Patience is key, like after any major .0 update.

 

[Perimal]

Powercreeping is off the charts, ascensions just got ridiculous, cosmogenesis was not fixed in previous attempts, the new bioships just trample over any enemy fleets

This is my problem exactly. The Devs have thrown balance and the AI out for the sake of insane powercreep and feature bloat. I'm someone who can remember when generating a random empire would give you a good fun game and I want those days back. I just cannot see why the devs would just go and break everything instead of making measured incremental changes AND GETTING THEM RIGHT.

 

[Voidian]

This is my problem exactly. The Devs have thrown balance and the AI out for the sake of insane powercreep and feature bloat. I'm someone who can remember when generating a random empire would give you a good fun game and I want those days back. I just cannot see why the devs would just go and break everything instead of making measured incremental changes AND GETTING THEM RIGHT.

Long gone are the days when having a 10~20% extra productivity, additive, not multiplicative, was "so strong" synthetic ascension was considered "the best".

Now it seems like we're in the realm of multiplying modifiers off each other and going insane with bonuses reaching 500% in some areas.

 

[HFY]

If the game was balanced around not using those settings

The premise of this thread -- started by you -- seemed to be that the game isn't balanced at all.

So I'm curious how you'd fit that thinking into an argument about the game being balanced around one setting or another.

 

[Wolfgang I]

The most efficient min/maxers are beating 25x all crisis with the earliest possible date at this point from what I gathered from reddit posts.
So balance is maybe a wee bit off indeed.

For someone like me who likes some min/maxing but does RP and does not change settings for maximum pop growth I feel like fixing whatever makes the AI do shit after a certain point might be enough for somewhat challenging play between 2250-2300 or so.(assuming non-scaling GA with only advanced start empires).That seems doable. I have never played a game after 1.9 in which AI empires remained challenging after 2300 anyway though.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

The problem is if the default is scaling, the the entire game will be designed around that pop growth, all of the traits, bonuses and ascensions are going to be based off the arbitrary cap, playing without it leads to further inevitable balance issues. And it will only get worse as the game keeps developing more content with those settings considered "the norm".

Yes.

This thing was created as a bandaid solution to pop late game lag, it never had any gameplay purpose and actually harmed the game's balance, making it so people could not fill out ringworlds and ecumenopolis worlds like they used to before the change, for all of it's issues, pop lag isn't one in the 4.0 version of the game, I don't understand why they didn't immediately remove that from the default rules, perhaps even from the game itself, as I can't understand why it would ever be desirable.

No. It has been doing double duty for late game performance and anti-snowballing since it was first introduced.

They didn't immediately remove it because it would make the snowballing problem the game has even worse (so that anyone who gets ahead stays ahead forever, even more than they currently do).

 

[Voidian]

Yes.

No. It has been doing double duty for late game performance and anti-snowballing since it was first introduced.

They didn't immediately remove it because it would make the snowballing problem the game has even worse (so that anyone who gets ahead stays ahead forever, even more than they currently do).

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

The game had far less snowballing issues before this was implemented, nowadays we're seeing Stellaris at possibly it's worst state, and it's been designed around this mechanic.

The clutch became the standard, and now the real gameplay, without this crippling change, is even worse than before.

The sooner we rip out the bandaid and start designing the game around proper rules, instead of arbitrary nonsense, the faster it will heal.
There should never be any consideration or thoughts given to the state of the game balanced around this arbitrary cap that did so much damage to the game before.

 

[Soranya]

Simple Answer:As long as Stellaris is making some money we will see patches.
And as long as we see patches Balance etc. will gradually improve - until the next breaking feature is introduced

 

[Soranya]

Regarding the growth curve.
If Humanity is anything to go by I could imagine a wealth based growth curve.
The wrealthier/better off the population is the slower the growth...

So you could either have ahuge unhappy (and unproductive) populationor a small happy and productive population.

This would counter the Expotential runaway growth singificantly - esp. if unruly pop really are a problem to deal with...

 

[passeris]

Regarding the growth curve.
If Humanity is anything to go by I could imagine a wealth based growth curve.
The wrealthier/better off the population is the slower the growth...

So you could either have ahuge unhappy (and unproductive) populationor a small happy and productive population.

This would counter the Expotential runaway growth singificantly - esp. if unruly pop really are a problem to deal with...

Inverse relationship between pop growth and happiness... That's crazy (but I like it). It would give Authoritarian ethics and slavery a reason to exist, outside of perverse roleplay.

 

[Trigaea]

Regarding the growth curve.
If Humanity is anything to go by I could imagine a wealth based growth curve.
The wrealthier/better off the population is the slower the growth...

So you could either have ahuge unhappy (and unproductive) populationor a small happy and productive population.

This would counter the Expotential runaway growth singificantly - esp. if unruly pop really are a problem to deal with...

Inverse relationship between pop growth and happiness... That's crazy (but I like it). It would give Authoritarian ethics and slavery a reason to exist, outside of perverse roleplay.

Would be interesting for gameplay purposes but only dubiously realistic.

It's broadly true that developed countries have lower total fertility rates than developing ones, but there are a lot of caveats.

Development in and of itself isn't a "cause" for lower total fertility rate: urbanization*, sex education, and access to contraceptives are thought to be the specific causes, not so much specific living conditions or what kind of government somebody lives in.

*The explanation for this is that urbanization shifted children from being an economic asset to the household to an economic burden, which deters couples in developed countries from having children. However, the jury's still out on how significant this is since there have been mixed results on experiments to fully subsidized childcare.

For the relationship between authoritarianism and population growth, the most totalitarian nation on Earth has below replacement replacement fertility rate: North Korea's total fertility rate is 1.79 births per woman, higher than South Korea's at a shockingly low 0.78 births per woman but still below replacement level.

If Stellaris were entirely realistic and based on human demographic patterns, we'd have pre-FTLs breeding like rabbits and all Stellaris empires having stagnant or negative growth rates at game start.

It would be neat for them to experiment around with, though. Something other than "pops go up" has potential.

 

[Terry Bull]

Right now me and my kids are sitting out Stellaris for a while because it's literally unplayable; so I haven't tested the last few batches of micropatches. That said, I concur with OP's position on the matter. We too are wary of the endless influx of things that powercreep everything that was before, with every new DLC released.

Every time it takes us exactly ONE game to find something else that is absolutely busted -- be it nemesis corvettes, an entirely free fleet of voidworm triarchs outclassing everything in the galaxy, bioships, fielding 3000% naval cap nanite swarms without issues, bypassing the colonization cost for wilderness (the only thing keeping colonization in check), ........ it never ends. Every single time a DLC drops we stumble upon something that is even more imbalanced than the last. Regular plain old clankerfleets built with good old alloys in good old shipyards; normal diplomacy, normal planet development with regular population is getting less and less viable.

We don't even go looking for it on the interwebs, we just pick something that looks cool and BOOM! any semblance of balance goes right out of the window. Is "just a normal game of Stellaris" even going to make a comeback, or are we doomed to these whack-a-gimmick bouts?

Sure would be nice if any of this would be address at some point but looks like we're gonna have to give it half a year or so before the damn thing is even playable again. By then another 2 DLCs will have dropped and ain't nobody got time to maybe balance anything am I right?

 

[Drachasor]

, fielding 3000% naval cap nanite swarms without issues,

This one is intended. Nanite ships have no upkeep so you can spam them without limit as long as you have the nanites. Naval cap doesn't matter. Unless you mean something else.

 

[RingworldUtopia]

egular plain old clankerfleets built with good old alloys in good old shipyards; normal diplomacy, normal planet development with regular population is getting less and less viable.

i honestly think you need to recalibrate your expectations to the 4.0 economy. i have done all this in 4.0 and it is very much viable. it's just "as busted" now in the opinion of the internet as a lot of the things you mentioned. which is, in my opinion, balanced. now does that mean the GAME has been powercrept up? maybe. i don't agree, but a lot of people make that argument. i don't actually think there's anything particularly gamebreaking to me except that the AI does not understand the new economy. which is, again, another issue entirely. i don't think the issue is balance. some people make the argument that the whole game is out of wack, that would be inflation, not balance. balance is when something is comparatively out of wack from the rest, not when the whole universe is out of wack to 4.0. and some people say it's the AI not keeping up with the changes, which I agree with. others say it's a combination.