I always avoided war because of that. Though with the pressure from citizens and planets determining territory in really old stellaris, you never needed war to expand.
-
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.
Would have preferred that warp was still an option, it could be nerfed to be really slow, so that it is easy to intercept with hyperlanes and only able to travel to neighbouring systems (acting as if there was max hyper lane density). Essentially it would be more useful during peacetime to go around annoying obstacles like marauders and leviathans
could be a different way of transport. I loved how empires back then was different and i hate how all are now the same.
But yes, that also could do.
- 2
I'll pick the Reanimators civic and bring this thread back to life after almost 2 years. What could be so serious as to warrant such drastic measures? I used the new Shattered Ring decision to remove the Interloper but...
- 4
Literally unplayable.
But also, probably better to just put it in the strange screenshot thread than necro; now we'll get a bunch of people responding to 2 year old posts with "corrections" about things that have changed,.
But also, probably better to just put it in the strange screenshot thread than necro; now we'll get a bunch of people responding to 2 year old posts with "corrections" about things that have changed,.
- 3
- 1
My biggest issue is that stars generate only a few Energy credits. I mean, late game you've got dyson spheres and dyson swarms and all, but why, when I'm running low on energy, can't I build a few more solar pannels around some of my stars for a bit more energy?
On that note, I remain annoyed that Dyson swarms have an energy production based on the star's base output, but spheres don't.
Also that there's (or at least was when I last played) no particular guarantee of a supergiant giving more energy than a red dwarf.
- 3
Materialists could get an Engineering buff, while Spiritualists get a Society buff.
- 2
This is a complete non-sequitur.
Nothing about being a nondualist has anything to do with resource collection or trade.
Dualism is the name for the belief that the soul and body are separate things -- that humans are a "duality" (mind = soul / body = matter) which can't be understood by understanding only one part of those two different things.
well ignore that. in any case, materialism in stellaris has nothing to do with resources and trade but is the belief that everything is material as in matter and energy and nothing beyond that and all that spiritual mumbo jumbo
Materialists are non-dualists. You were talking about materialists. That's how it came up.
The Spiritualist vs. Materialist divide in Stellaris is fairly explicitly a dualist vs. non-dualist one.
"Materialist" does not mean "materialistic" (as in "excessively concerned with material possessions; money-oriented").
Materialist means "a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications".
Stellaris Materialists believe we are meat-robots: nothing exists except the physical world, and consciousness is just the result of chemical processes in the brain. Intelligence is nothing more than an evolutionary adaptation which turned out to be much more successful than other, similarly metabolically expensive adaptations (like having large muscles). This leads to some conclusions like "talk of the Shroud must be baloney" and "a robot-robot that acts exactly the same as the meat-robot it's based on is functionally the same as that meat-robot".
From the materialist ethics descriptions:
Stellaris Spiritualists are dualists: consciousness is special, and more than just the result of physics. This leads to conclusions like "the Shroud's ability to be shaped by the mind is proof of the soul" and "supposedly 'transferring your mind to a new synthetic body' is just committing suicide and leaving a shallow imitation of the individual in your place".
From the Spiritualist ethics descriptions:
- 1
Doesn't that mean that they're both wrong, since according to the game lore souls do exist, and machines also have souls? Also, if that's the case is synthetic ascension actually mass suicide or just transferring their souls/creating new souls on a mass scale?
What restarted this chain was a reply to this post:
Yes, they are both wrong (about something).
Having either Materialist/Spiritualist ethics means your empire has a strong enough opinion about this topic to ignore evidence that contradicts their previous view.
- 2
- 1
No. The game lore does not say there is a soul. The game lore says people think there is a soul, and people think you need one to connect to the shroud. But all we do know for certain is there are psychics, there is the shroud, there is a connection, and you can imprint memories into it.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Spiritualists are wrong because while machines are usually unable to access the Shroud, they can brute-force their entry via Aetherophasic Engine. Also, the ability of Hive Minds to coordinate their actions across the stars effectively implies the possibility that Hive Minds' link to their drones is psionic in nature. Also, Animator of Clay is a Shroud entity that patronises machines, and Warform in particular was granted its blessing.
Materialists are wrong because in game it is evidenced that mind has non-insignificant effect on matter just by existing. Psionic empires can control the effects, and latent psionic empires have enough people to note the effects as an existing phenomena, but rare instances where normal empire has some unscientific events also exist.
Materialists are wrong because in game it is evidenced that mind has non-insignificant effect on matter just by existing. Psionic empires can control the effects, and latent psionic empires have enough people to note the effects as an existing phenomena, but rare instances where normal empire has some unscientific events also exist.
- 1