[Stellaris] Planetary Tile System removal

[SexDwarf2250]

Regardless of the population (and I'll be thrilled if we keep it), the positioning and the map are still being removed. For those of you saying "this is fine," I strongly disagree: Any time you remove a system that contains a map - terrain, positioning and distance - from a strategy game, it is a step backwards of immense stupidity both for potential and for strategy, no matter how complicated or elegant the spreadsheet management challenge is that they think can replace it.

 

The real kicker is that I seriously doubt anything they're doing truly requires them to also remove the map system instead of just improving on it and expanding it a tiny bit, thus leaving the possibility of using it for tactical planet surface warfare decisions in the future.

[5gun]

20 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Regardless of the population (and I'll be thrilled if we keep it), the positioning and the map are still being removed. For those of you saying "this is fine," I strongly disagree: Any time you remove a system that contains a map - terrain, positioning and distance - from a strategy game, it is a step backwards of immense stupidity both for potential and for strategy, no matter how complicated or elegant the spreadsheet management challenge is that they think can replace it.

 

The real kicker is that I seriously doubt anything they're doing truly requires them to also remove the map system instead of just improving on it and expanding it a tiny bit, thus leaving the possibility of using it for tactical planet surface warfare decisions in the future.

1

there a lot to unpack here... 
"terrain, positioning, and distance..." the is no terrain not really your choices are nothing and bunkers of some kind, there never going to give you a tactical map it is always going to be dice roll versus moral and numbers, this grand strategy game not tactical game after all that what they been building for the last what 20 years?  if anything this steps forward, because I get the feeling we might get siege events based on what is in the districts down the line out of this. I can imagine the fun people will have writing events bases of clearing out milk factory and determining what to be done with based off there ethics. 

"I seriously doubt anything they're doing truly requires them to also remove the map system" how about the multiple game breaking events where a planet can get more than 25 squares? how about the tedium of going through the listed tech for tile blockers? how about the new ability to convert planets into economic planets there going to be adding? how about improving the ability to play the tall game instead of the big game? that just stuff we know now removal would deal with, and this new patch has not even been given realize date yet so we don't know what all they are adding to the game and what really new things they will be adding. 

[SexDwarf2250]

 

1 hour ago, 5gun said:

there a lot to unpack here... 
"terrain, positioning, and distance..." the is no terrain not really your choices are nothing and bunkers of some kind, there never going to give you a tactical map it is always going to be dice roll versus moral and numbers, this grand strategy game not tactical game after all that what they been building for the last what 20 years?  if anything this steps forward, because I get the feeling we might get siege events based on what is in the districts down the line out of this. I can imagine the fun people will have writing events bases of clearing out milk factory and determining what to be done with based off there ethics. 

First of all, there is such a thing as urban terrain. The government quarter is not the suburbs, the fuel refineries, or the military-industrial zone, many of which might have considerable tactical and strategic advantages. Secondly... you're going to claim there is no terrain and in the very next paragraph complain about how "tedious" it is (lol, by the way, do you play Paradox games?) to improve difficult terrain? Really?

 

1 hour ago, 5gun said:

"I seriously doubt anything they're doing truly requires them to also remove the map system" how about the multiple game breaking events where a planet can get more than 25 squares? how about the tedium of going through the listed tech for tile blockers? how about the new ability to convert planets into economic planets there going to be adding? how about improving the ability to play the tall game instead of the big game? that just stuff we know now removal would deal with, and this new patch has not even been given realize date yet so we don't know what all they are adding to the game and what really new things they will be adding. 

How about, oh I don't know, making planets able to have more than 25 squares? (Are you for real? Are you seriously implying this is some sort of hurdle that requires removing maps?) How about integrating tile block removers with other techs, and having them autoclear? How about the map already not stopping you from specializing planets? But more importantly, how about doing all of this and simply keeping the map? I feel like you haven't thought that post through for a single second, just straight up knee-jerk fanboi going on here.

[5gun]

11 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

First of all, there is such a thing as urban terrain. The government quarter is not the suburbs, the fuel refineries, or the military-industrial zone, many of which might have considerable tactical and strategic advantages. Secondly... you're going to claim there is no terrain and in the very next paragraph complain about how "tedious" it is (lol, by the way, do you play Paradox games?) to improve difficult terrain? Really?

 

first 
your right there is differences between suburbs and government quarters... it called districts... aka i'm implying we would be fighting over districts in siege events. keep up with, please. 
secondly, their differences between combat terrains that affect battles and tile blocker thought you could see that, sorry I gave you to much credit. you not fighting in those damn tile blockers you never were going to be fighting in those damn tile blockers, their dead zones and useless. (oh and nice comment because  that what everyone here thinking about you and your arguments)  
 

 

18 minutes ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

How about, oh I don't know, making planets able to have more than 25 squares? (Are you for real? Are you seriously implying this is some sort of hurdle that requires removing maps?) How about integrating tile block removers with other techs, and having them autoclear? How about the map already not stopping you from specializing planets? But more importantly, how about doing all of this and simply keeping the map? I feel like you haven't thought that post through for a single second, just straight up knee-jerk fanboi going on here.

1

without tiles the won't have population cap that arbitrarily dictated t(and yes I am for real because haveing are screen be 50 tile mess could very much slow down the game as the alien AIs, sector Ais will move things around constantly resulting in slow down of the engine which already happens with barely any plants hitting 25.) oh, so you do think tile blockers are tedious time wasters and you just defending them because you think they're somehow going to be useful down the line when they turn combat into a chest game which was never going to happen. siege and combat story events being added to combat like what we see with CK2 are more likely than that. why do they need to keep the map? so we can continue to play this tedious mini-game where we try to get the most out of a planet... and then hand it out to sector ai who will fuck that up when you look away? the only one here who knee-jerking is you and i have thought this though i paid attention for the last few months as this update was being talked about on martin arward twitter . which you should really look threw before you complain anymore. 

[twofiveseven]

The layout of planets has always been secondary to the layout of the galaxy map; that's the important "terrain" that the head of state of a spacefaring civilization should be more concerned with. You don't typically see presidents and kings deliberating over where to put a factory in a city or ordering troops around battlefields, those decisions are what mayors and generals are for. Stellaris's AI typically doesn't make the best decisions in any regard, so you'll see Director General Glubgranesh stop by to play mayor for a week and order the construction of a science lab, which must be pretty huge since it prevents any other kind of work from happening in that entire region of the planet. On the subject of planetary combat, how much real time would you want an invasion minigame to actually take up? More than the few seconds it currently takes to resolve an invasion would be impossibly demanding of attention when the player is potentially ordering multiple fleets around and invading multiple planets simultaneously in Faster speed.

[SexDwarf2250]

7 hours ago, 5gun said:

you not fighting in those damn tile blockers you never were going to be fighting in those damn tile blockers, their dead zones and useless.

Oh, since you can't build a factory complex in a jungle, that must mean that troops could never fight in a jungle? Have you been to earth lately?

 

3 hours ago, twofiveseven said:

The layout of planets has always been secondary to the layout of the galaxy map; that's the important "terrain" that the head of state of a spacefaring civilization should be more concerned with. 

I disagree, your planets and habitats are without any question the single most important thing in space and in the game. Losing everything else won't cost you the game, but losing your last planet will. Anyway, there is by definition no terrain in space. Terrain, terra, earth. The amount of thought that is required for the "galaxy terrain" is incredibly minimal.

 

3 hours ago, twofiveseven said:

Stellaris's AI typically doesn't make the best decisions in any regard, so you'll see Director General Glubgranesh stop by to play mayor for a week and order the construction of a science lab

I don't necessarily disagree. But do you think a good solution is to dumb down the decision making process so the idiot AI can keep up?

 

3 hours ago, twofiveseven said:

which must be pretty huge since it prevents any other kind of work from happening in that entire region of the planet.

Yes, given the scale, it seems obvious that you are in fact building city to nation sized districts, doesn't it?

 

3 hours ago, twofiveseven said:

On the subject of planetary combat, how much real time would you want an invasion minigame to actually take up? More than the few seconds it currently takes to resolve an invasion would be impossibly demanding of attention when the player is potentially ordering multiple fleets around and invading multiple planets simultaneously in Faster speed.

Are you saying it's too bad Paradox has no control over the length of time it takes to fight over what's only the single most important thing in the game, your planets? Your question is also a bit like the question "how much real time would you want playing Paradox games to actually take up?" That depends. Can they stop making them a tedious spreadsheet jerkfest, and make things interesting?

 

3 hours ago, twofiveseven said:

You don't typically see presidents and kings deliberating over where to put a factory in a city or ordering troops around battlefields, those decisions are what mayors and generals are for.

 

I guess you're going to agree with me when I say that we should stop moving fleets, because that's what admirals do, and we should stop designing ships, because that's what engineers do, and we should stop directing research, because that's what scientists do? I mean, considering we're talking about gigantic industrial complexes, are you sure about your premise?

 

 

[Aethernaut1899]

This update is going to open up whole new frontiers in modding, because a lot of the game systems that are hardcoded now, and inaccessible, are going to be scripted and moddable. 

 

It's almost certain to be a very positive development for pervy mods in the not-too-long term, even though of course it's going to disrupt the current mods.

[WAGTS]

Do you want a Victoria 3? This is it!

Most of mods need to be change tremendously

[5gun]

okay... now this guy worries about simplification holds water 

https://nichegamer.com/2018/08/20/ps4-and-xbox-one-ports-confirmed-for-4x-sci-fi-strategy-game-stellaris/

Stellaris: Console Edition...... This end well right guys?

[SexDwarf2250]

2 hours ago, 5gun said:

okay... now this guy worries about simplification holds water 

https://nichegamer.com/2018/08/20/ps4-and-xbox-one-ports-confirmed-for-4x-sci-fi-strategy-game-stellaris/

Stellaris: Console Edition...... This end well right guys?

Great, just when I was starting to calm down since at least it seems we're keeping the pop portraits.

Funny thing? I was talking to a friend about an hour ago and said, "It's fine, they have to dumb down, I mean streamline, so they can crank out the nintendo port."

But it was a joke. Fffffffffuuuuuuu

[5gun]

1 hour ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

Great, just when I was starting to calm down since at least it seems we're keeping the pop portraits.

Funny thing? I was talking to a friend about an hour ago and said, "It's fine, they have to dumb down, I mean streamline, so they can crank out the nintendo port."

But it was a joke. Fffffffffuuuuuuu

apparently, S:CE will be 1.7, not the coming 2.2(i think?) so perhaps they consider the original state of the game more streamlined than what they're building? if they were streamlining the game for Consols it would make more sense to do 2.2... heck from what I believe isn't 1.7 before they got rid of FTL type?

[SexDwarf2250]

My guess is that they started on, or at least started finalizing the port during 1.7.

[nugerumon]

On 8/18/2018 at 10:58 PM, SexDwarf2250 said:

remove a system that contains a map - terrain, positioning and distance - from a strategy game

For me, the "map" in Stellaris was always the galaxy, not the individual planets. Sure, playing StarCraft on every planet would be cool, but it's just not what Stellaris wants to be. In Stellaris, you conquer a galaxy. Planets are padding.

 

Honestly, the new system looks more comlex than the old, where tile bonuses almost dictated where you have to build which building.

I'm more concerned about the new resources; it looks like they are so excited that they can add them, that they didn't think enough about whether they should... ? Unless they are integrated well, that remains to be seen.

One downside of the new system seems to be that the pictures of pops and buildings seem to be quite small. That might make finding suitable sexy images a bit harder. Not everything looks good when scaled down.

 

My only major complaint about Stellaris changes so far is that hyerlanes are the only travel option (with few exceptions that make it even weirder), even though I understand that this indends to make the game more strategic.

[SexDwarf2250]

8 hours ago, nugerumon said:

For me, the "map" in Stellaris was always the galaxy, not the individual planets. Sure, playing StarCraft on every planet would be cool, but it's just not what Stellaris wants to be. In Stellaris, you conquer a galaxy. Planets are padding.

Of course the galaxy is the big picture. But the only thing of any importance whatsoever on the Stellaris map are planets, and no matter how hard you try, vacuum is not a map. I literally just count lines coming out of planets. If it has 3 or more, I look at the next planet. It would be difficult to make anything more simplistic. So are planet maps a part of the larger map system? Yes. Should they be an insignificant part? Not at all, more like the opposite.

 

8 hours ago, nugerumon said:

Honestly, the new system looks more comlex than the old, where tile bonuses almost dictated where you have to build which building.

I'm not necessarily a huge fan of the tile bonus system. I feel like a lot of planetary map potential was wasted, because (besides the lack of a tie-in with combat) it should have been more about the interaction between buildings, and tile bonuses should have been rare (perhaps even one powerful resource per map), so that you have structure build strategies that revolve around one thing on a map and combo choices instead of around every single tile.

 

They also did a pretty good job in HoI 4 of coming up with a land combat system where your AI generals are decent at running things themself when you weren't manually controlling stuff, I thought. I'd probably want something less involved and perhaps a bit more stylized. The combat of KOEI's old Genghis Khan 2 comes to mind, for example. But I digress...

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure there's nothing they can introduce via spreadsheet strategy that wouldn't be more realistic, complex (if desired) and strategic by displaying it with map dimensions. In addition you have the potential of land combat, which can be influenced by underlying terrain (including district structures), adding layers of complexity very easily, even if you leave the strategic component simple. On top of that, a visual representation can enhance the ability to quickly grasp complex relationships, via, for example, adjacencies. 

 

If you really break it down, they're reducing the map data to one dimension instead of two. It is purely *cough* "streamlining."

 

Anyway, I just can't believe anyone who enjoys playing strategy games seriously believes the statement, "Hey you know this zoomed in map about your most important resource ever? You know what would fix all the problems with this map? Let's make it into a spreadsheet with emojis instead!" I bet if each planet had as many hyperlanes as map tiles had sides, they'd think about replacing the galaxy map too, and some people here would think it was the best thing.

 

I seem to recall some podcast where one of the game devs stated the biggest problem they had with their simplistic little maps was that they couldn't figure out how to make them not generate so much lag. lol. So yeah, I'm certain they're not doing this to "improve" the strategy aspect of the system.

 

[Onimonipea]

I have never seen anybody so absolutely nuclear and contemptuous about a change in a paradox game and I've been in the community since EU3.

 

You seem to be very angry about the loss of potential additions to the combat system and the loss of "Strategy". I hate to break it to you dude but there was never going to be any additions to the planetary invasion mechanic. Paradox has never had in depth combat mechanics other than two numbers slapping together and for the foreseeable future never will.

 

We also don't have all the information about the changes yet, there are still three development diaries to go and for all we know they replaced the invasion mechanic with a mechanically different version. Who knows?

5 hours ago, SexDwarf2250 said:

If you really break it down, they're reducing the map data to one dimension instead of two. It is purely *cough* "streamlining."

 

Anyway, I just can't believe anyone who enjoys playing strategy games seriously believes the statement, "Hey you know this zoomed in map about your most important resource ever? You know what would fix all the problems with this map? Let's make it into a spreadsheet with emojis instead!" I bet if each planet had as many hyperlanes as map tiles had sides, they'd think about replacing the galaxy map too, and some people here would think it was the best thing.
 

And lets just take a step back and get off the high horse dude. They already did replace the galaxy map and it allows for a different kind of strategic complexity that the previous system by design couldn't have. For all the talk about "Streamlining" they are just dumping a system that was roughshod and barely allowed for a sense of scale, and replacing it with something that allows for much greater variety. Wiz just tweeted about a new type of job specific for a civic, that already allows for loads of complexity to be added considering there are a shitload of civics. Just because the GUI is undergoing a change doesn't mean the whole system is becoming some shallow parody of itself anymore than getting a console version does.

 

[SexDwarf2250]

3 hours ago, Onimonipea said:

Paradox has never had in depth combat mechanics other than two numbers slapping together and for the foreseeable future never will.

That's pretty cool, dude. I guess I just imagined that HoI has encirclement, terrain effects, night combat, weather effects, supply routes and levels, flanking, morale, troop organization and more. Oh! And they do this on an actual map! Not that I even want anything that complex, mind you.

3 hours ago, Onimonipea said:

There was never going to be any additions to the planetary invasion mechanic.

I hate to break it to you, but people said the same about Civ getting more wargame flavor in it all the way through the first 4 games too. Civ 5 is head and shoulder above the rest now. As long as the framework is there, it is, or was, a possibility.

3 hours ago, Onimonipea said:

For all the talk about "Streamlining" they are just dumping a system that was roughshod and barely allowed for a sense of scale, and replacing it with something that allows for much greater variety. Wiz just tweeted about a new type of job specific for a civic, that already allows for loads of complexity to be added considering there are a shitload of civics.

I'm not saying that the planetary maps did not need some improvement and innovation. In fact, that's practically the point, but it seems they couldn't even fix it from creating lag. It's pretty clear that removing the map isn't their best idea: This is plan B.

 

That being said, are you seriously trying to convince us with your "argument" that you have to scrap a working map system in order to be able to make jobs for civics?

[DarkTeletubby]

Personally I always found the planetary management boring. Wait for a pop to grow, put them on the tile with the best bonus at the time, then build a building that matches that bonus on it. And upgrade it twice. It felt like a half baked idea that just bogged the game down. I much prefer what they are showing where you are making meaningful and most importantly mutually exclusive choices. Having a finite number of "building slots" which are based on planetary infrastructure that you have to ration out, having a distinction between a ecumenopolis with massive population numbers but no specialty, and a mining world with perhaps little pop, but massive mineral output makes things more interesting and strategic in my view. Trying to figure out what your enemy's primary food production world is, or where they gather most of their resources gives you meaningful targets in war, rather than every planet being an 18-24 tile jack of all trades.

[SexDwarf2250]

2 hours ago, DarkTeletubby said:

Personally I always found the planetary management boring. Wait for a pop to grow, put them on the tile with the best bonus at the time, then build a building that matches that bonus on it. And upgrade it twice. It felt like a half baked idea that just bogged the game down. I much prefer what they are showing where you are making meaningful and most importantly mutually exclusive choices. Having a finite number of "building slots" which are based on planetary infrastructure that you have to ration out, having a distinction between a ecumenopolis with massive population numbers but no specialty, and a mining world with perhaps little pop, but massive mineral output makes things more interesting and strategic in my view. Trying to figure out what your enemy's primary food production world is, or where they gather most of their resources gives you meaningful targets in war, rather than every planet being an 18-24 tile jack of all trades.

I don't disagree with any of your individual points, in general. However, there is absolutely nothing that you said which would not also be both true and potentially much better on an actual visual map, instead of a list.

[5gun]

On 8/21/2018 at 11:40 PM, SexDwarf2250 said:

That's pretty cool, dude. I guess I just imagined that HoI has encirclement, terrain effects, night combat, weather effects, supply routes and levels, flanking, morale, troop organization and more. Oh! And they do this on an actual map! Not that I even want anything that complex, mind you.

On 8/21/2018 at 8:27 PM, Onimonipea said:

1

different scale man jesus crist you just asked possibly the dumbest thing when you think about, you ask for every planet to be 100th of hoi game with the universe having 1000 system that would shatter most computers as for "encirclement, terrain effects, night combat, weather effects, supply routes and levels, flanking, morale, troop organization and more" all that is buffs and debuff to dice rolls  or have you not see some soldier hold the maginle line from both sides for over a year.... besides when yink about the fleet combats is where it meant to be focused for stuff like that.

on that topic that really need to implement EU4 fleet machincs with this game it be nice to set a fleet to auto hunt pirates, patrol your borders and maybe blockad 

[SexDwarf2250]

2 hours ago, 5gun said:

different scale man jesus crist you just asked possibly the dumbest thing when you think about, you ask for every planet to be 100th of hoi blah blah I don't pay attention.

Someone said "Paradox has never had in depth combat mechanics"

I listed in depth combat mechanics that Paradox has had. I did not ask for HoI mechanics.

 

You could try to read and comprehend before you call something dumb. I literally said a sentence of two after that I didn't want anything that complex. The irony, right? Jesus Christ.

[darkspleen]

I can't even take this thread seriously anymore.

[SexDwarf2250]

Sorry about your butthole.

[darkspleen]

Haha. Yea, you've basically gone full troll at this point. I've simply stated a different opinion and tried to maintain some level of respect for those who didn't share that same opinion, unlike you apparently. I'll let you in on a little secret: sarcasm and toxicity are not going to convince anyone that you are right. But if you must insist on staying the course then go ahead. Its not like I care if you find that no one else can take you seriously in the future.

[SexDwarf2250]

Why take my response so serious, Mr. McCan't Take This Thread Seriously? And while you are correct that sarcasm and toxicity doesn't convince anyone that you're right, when you have spent a little more time on this earth you may find that being right also doesn't convince anyone that you're right, until they see with their own eyes, assuming they are able to comprehend. So, I guess you can just watch me be as sarcastic and toxic as I please while I express my thoughts.

[Rentetsuken]

Frankly, I'm highly looking forwards to this coming update.  The old system was mind-numbingly tedious, and even mods such as the AlphaMod that gave you a bit more variety in the buildings ultimately meant nothing.  While we are losing the 'adjacency bonuses', they always tended to end up as more trouble than they were worth in my eyes due to the level of time investment required to plan everything out paying off very meager rewards.  Aside from that, the plans very much seem to get away from the aspect that at lowest, roughly 80-90% of your interactions with a planet is merely 'click upgrade building' with linear paths in a vast majority of cases, and those few that weren't would only have it on the first stage past the basic level.  And of that 'upgrade building' there tended to only be one path you could go, ie. follow what resource the tile gave you since that was the most cost effective way.  Only real exception was when you were making a fortress world, and that's merely one where you don't give a damn, and even then that's not really considered a good investment by some of the people on another forum I'm on as they consider it better to invest in your economy to be able to support bigger fleets.